Okay hold the FUCK on for a second, how the FUCK does Ghostbusters have such a huge disparity between "all reviews" and "top critics" like if this isn't proof enough that people are BEING PAID OFF then I dont know what is.
Can someone post a movie that has similar rating disparity?
Because the top reviews work for major papers and have an inkling of credibility to maintain. The rest of the critics are just bloggers with personal agendas.
>>71863124
/thread
>>71863025
>top critics maymay
hi goobergot
>>71863223
why do you keep posting this movie and this movie only?
>>71863025
Because the embargo was just dropped
Wait for more publications to publish their reviews. It's not even 50 right now.
>>71863232
>it's one person
how to spot the shill
>>71863223
IM NOT GGAMERGATE
IM /tv/ NOT EVERYONE WHO HATES FEMINISM IS THEMM
>>71863280
who are you quoting?
>>71863223
>only six reviews
>>71863025
>marvelously cast
Says it all.
>>71863025
nice try
>>71863430
It went back down to 50.
>>71863430
>the percent that wants to see it dropped
LEL
>>71863223
Is that even relevant though? That movie is pretty infamous for having a shitty release and critics hated it because it wasn't E.T. Thats nothing like this at all, where we apparently have a bunch of reviewers who love the movie to death and then some with credibility that did not like it.
>>71863451
I JUST screenshotted this now. Nope the 50% was hours ago. I screenshotted a second image which was 60% which was 2 hours ago and now it is 64% (I over-writed the 60% image so I can't show it)
>>71863025
Well, look at the reviews that are giving this good favorable reviews. All of them have a strong feminist, pro-identity politics agenda. That's just how BAD the far left has gotten in the modern day western world.
It's just like I predicated. It was a shitty movie that was made worse by being wrapped in some putrid identity politic agenda.
>>71863465
it only dropped by 1% kek.
This was taken couple hours ago
>>71863478
It's 50% my dude.
>>71863478
now it's a 7 fresh, 7 rotten
>>71863430
The "marvelously cast" line is really all you need to see to know what's up with these reviews. The casting wasn't outstanding. It wasn't the fucking holocaust, but it wasn't outstanding, but they're needlessly pushing back in the other direction.
>>71863507
Fresh: 7
Rotten: 4
That's what it is now
>>71863506
nope still 64%
>>71863505
And reviews just hit a few hours ago, and the movie doesn't come out till the end of the week in the USA.
Fucking kek
>>71863520
watch this review. I think this guy does the best job
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5qyoxdu694
I have NO IDEA why he hates all the cameos though.
Still: my main problem is not the women nor if the movie is funny (as most are saying it is). My problem is the cartoony ghosts and that it doesn't look scary at all.
>>71863565
I just keep arriving at the question as to why this needed to be using the Ghostbusters IP, because it really didn't do anything for the series or IP. If anything the IP did a lot of work for an otherwise just generic comedy movie.
>>71863223
Lol you're trying too hard. Critics never reflect real people.
>>71863669
ATOMIC
>>71863669
QFT
>>71863280
>>71863306
OP's pic only has 14 reviews, retard.
Do you think that's a marvelous sample size, even comparatively?
>>71863913
>its not bad
>omg tv btfo back to b XD
Make up your fucking mind
>>71863913
The Thing had only 6 reviews, that's what i was replying about, not Ghostbusters.
How embarrassing for you.
>/tv/ has threads all week about the excitement of the review embargo dropping and this movie getting torn to bits
>the embargo ends and it turns out to get middling to above average reviews
>/tv/ declares the reviews never mattered and are fake
>>71863852
>on a warm summer evening
>assumed he meant to Titanic in Ghostbusters 2
>it was from a positive review of Speed 2
REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE
>>71864138
Just wait for the UK to start reacting to it as it airs this morning. Then we'll see if these "critics" were just shilling.
I mean hell, just looking at their reviews at face value they all say the movie is merely ok or severely lacking in things like timing, plot, and cartoonish effects. Yet they then give it a thumbs up because "screw misogynists" or something. It's pretty ridiculous.
>>71864138
if dubs fuck off and die in ur sleep pupper
>needing a movie having good or bad reviews to tell you it's shit
Some buttfucking strained-asshole faggot complained about Dune, not because of any technical issues, but because Baron Harkonnen had pustules and acted deviant and the critic took it to mean that the movie was shitting on homosexuals and the pustules represented AIDS/HIV.
Most "Top Critics" are retards.
This movie will be shit just as surely as every other remake released in the past 10 years.
>>71864138
>>71864138
>expecting anything more from a board full of rejects and capeshit """'man babies"""" from /v/
the movie is probably going to be shit though since the first two are purely a meme to praise anyways
>>71863298
>I don't know how meme arrows work
>>71864247
>quoting yourself
Well played Reddit, however
Anything from the flick filosopher?
How people still trust RT after reading her, I will never understand
>>71863961
I know what you were replying about, shitecunt.
What's embarrassing is that you think 14 reviews is good to base a consensus off of but no, 6 is WAY too low.
Try once we have 40 and get back to me.
>>71863223
>muh boogeyman
Angry white boys BTFO
>>71864303
>reddit meme
>reddit meme celeb
n1ce try, i shill for reddit82
>>71864337
>it'll be 90+ like spy and bridesmaids!
>s...six isn't e...e..enough for co..consensus
>>71864138
>that final thread leading up to 10 am pst
>THIS FLICK IS FUCKIGN DONE
>>71864406
Babbymen goobergabbagabbagers mad that fieg made another masturpiece
Men hairy neck no like and cry tv look very bad and mad now
>>71864138
/tv/ is notorious for hating RT scores
example: BvS, X-Men: Apocalypse
>>71863430
>based Hemsworth
>>71864455
stop talking like a caveman.
Grace Randolph the greatest reviewer of capeshit and nerdmovies on the youtube says the movie is awesome and greatest movie of the year so far
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BpWBklUnvyA
I think it just means the top critics aren't really giving it brownie points for being "progressive" as more trendy critics these days do.
Mylack ofdubs says this movie will bomb, regardless of the critics
no high revenue business wants SJWs endlessly pestering them for being honest
>>71863223
Nice shop, faggot
I find it convenient that RT has reached a consensus with fewer than 40 reviews counted, when usually they only reach a consensus on a film with 100+ reviews counted
>>71864520
Just talking like a feminist m8
>>71864881
lmao
/tv/ is cranky that Ghostbusters isn't shit so they can't have their schadenfreude
this is hilarious
>>71865029
>it fag it'll score like bridesmaids and spy
L O FUCKING L
>>71865029
It's shit to anyone who cared about ghostbusters before this
Feig really should have called this movie Ghostmaids. At least then people would know what kind of "comedy" they were getting into before watching it.
>>71865029
its just been delayed for a week. this will flop. Paul Feig's highest grossing film was Bridesmaids with $289m and this isn't going to beat that by any stretch. Ghostbusters also has a budget of $180m
>>71865029
>Believing a bunch of wannabee critics who made a stand that the movie has to be good because a bunch of misogynists don't like it.
Wait until more reviews come out and THEN wait until audiences have had a chance to see the movie. It'll probably have a decent opening but that will be it.
>>71865029
>Ghostbusters isn't shit
Yeah it is
>>71863124
/thread
>>71864209
What about the rest of Europe?
We know Sweden is the only cuck-country where feminists actually give a fuck, but then again, they have their own problems right now.
>>71865029
>Ghostbusters isn't shit
but it is
>>71863025
They're not paid off
They've created a climate where saying the movie is bad is a sexist comment
>>71864480
BvS:Uncut was actually good.
It was a nice change of pace from the Marvel drivel we've seen a million times before.
>>71864881
teebeeeitch baby men deserve it
>>71865432
>BvS: Uncut was actually good
it went from being 1/10 to 2/10.
>>71865116
>Ghostbusters also has a budget of $180m
Yeah, production costs were about $130-150 million. But look at all the money they've spent trying to salvage this trainwreck. Paying off critics, booking guest appearances on all the talk shows, the money they spent creating Cisbusters merchandise that no one wants and is on clearance before the movie's even out, creating sockpuppet critics to shill for the movie.
This movie's costs must be astronomical by now.
At least with Fantastic Flop Fox didn't further compound the failure by spending billions in a desperate and pathetic attempt to salvage a turd, to turn the backlash against the critics. They didn't sell shit merchandise that nobody wanted. True, a lot of that may have been down to the fact that Marvel owns Fantastic Four merchandising rights, but at the end of the day it worked out for the better as they weren't spending tons of money trying to market an unmarketable film.
>>71865395
>UK 11 July 2016
>Ireland 11 July 2016
>Argentina 14 July 2016
>Australia 14 July 2016
>Brazil 14 July 2016
>Chile 14 July 2016
>Netherlands 14 July 2016
>Philippines 14 July 2016
>Portugal 14 July 2016
>Singapore 14 July 2016
>Thailand 14 July 2016
>Canada 15 July 2016
>Poland 15 July 2016
>USA 15 July 2016
>Vietnam 15 July 2016
>Croatia 16 July 2016 (Pula Film Festival)
>Hong Kong 21 July 2016
>Israel 21 July 2016
>Finland 22 July 2016
>Norway 22 July 2016
>Belgium 27 July 2016
>Sweden 27 July 2016
Looks like Sweden will be a bit late to the party. German, Spain, and France don't get it till August though.
>>71865419
>They're not paid off
http://furiousfanboys.com/2016/07/sony-may-produced-positive-ghostbusters-review-youtube/
>>71863025
>so much for judging a movie before seeing
>>71865553
Full damage-control mode from Sony.
We usually get movies much earlier than N.America here.
When did all the TORtanic fags migrate to /tv/?
>>71865553
I live in Sweden and it seems like they will only show it in the 3 big cities, aka shitholes
>>71863223
This movie was shit and I honesty don't understand why /tv/ likes it so much
>>71865712
It is a practical effects master piece.
Also
>Comfy
>>71865744
I guess the effects weren't awful but comfy is a buzzword. It was boring as fuck
>>71863025
http://archive.is/17zMd
The word "good goy" gets thrown around a lot these days but god damn.
>>71865778
Do you get bored easily?
>dad calls me up
>Wow anon there is a new Ghostbusters, wanna see it with me?
>I dunno it looks pretty bad...
>I see... guess modern films are much better with all their explosions and car chases and now films like Ghostbusters are boring... Sorry for asking, I'll just go alone...
Fucking hell
>>71863025
>>71863025
Whats the true rating
>>71865821
jesus dude, spend time with your fucking dad, if the film's bad you can both laugh at it afterwards
>>71865821
This better be a made up story, maggot.
>>71863025
>Trying this hard to make it look like it got a lower score than it did
Why even bother? Why do you care?
>>71865810
Bored isn't the right word, but it just felt like nothing really happened. The excitement level had a very small peak but it was mostly just the same constant level of thrill which was minimal
>>71865821
>no singles policy
>he gets thrown out
>forced to eat his crab legs alone
way to go, faggot. leave your dad alone doing that
>>71865592
Why the fuck does it always have to be 1 or 10? For fuck sake people, there are other numbers there too.
>>71865849
>>71865866
Why should I be nice to the prick that cheated on my mother?
>>71865849
My dad once started watching game of thrones after he saw me watching it and then when he tried to talk to me about it I told him I don't watch that show.
>>71865912
>>no singles policy
wtf is that ? You can be forbidden to watch a movie if you are alone ?
>>71865821
Tell your dad it's complete garbage and ask him to go with you to see Independence Day instead.
You both loved it when it came out, remember?
>>71865929
because you came from his balls and in most likely case have inherited the same shit genes that led him to cheat on your mother so you have plenty to learn from him on how to not fuck your own life over
one day you'll grow up and realise that forgiving and letting go is the only way to deal with peoples shit
>>71865931
You're a shitty son and an even shittier tripfag.
>>71864455
Tried watching this, 70% of it wasn't funny, the other 30% would have been funny if they didn't drag it out
>>71865962
Part meme, part meme magic.
>>71866010
Free will exists. Bad decisions aren't entirely genetic.
Nobody consents to being born or even asks for it. People have kids because they want to fulfil their biological drives, not so they can have a life form indebted to them.
Anon is right for cucking his dad, for cucking his mum.
>>71865553
>Croatia 16 July 2016 (Pula Film Festival)
Well thats going to be the worst Pula Film Festrivan in a while...
>>71866060
Don't worry mate it's Izvankonkurencije
Out of competition:
Ice Age: Collision Course, Mike Thurmeier and Galen T. Chu, USA
Independence Day: Resurgence, Roland Emmerich, USA
Ghostbusters, Paul Feig, USA
Planet Single, Mitja Okorn, Poland
>>71866010
If it was his mom that cheated on his dad you wouldn't be singing the same tune.
>>71866105
no because I presume he's male
so he learns from his father
if anon was a girl and his mother cheated it would be the same thing
I don't know about paid off...
It's just that there's an ideology out there right now informed by cultural studies, critical theory and identity politics that says we need to be supportive of more 'minorities' represented in the arts - and lowering the standards if need be, because more diversity is the most important thing.
Which goes hand-in-hand with 'popism', which informs and is informed by the diversity-in-arts/entertainment cause. It's basically the idea that pop / 'inauthentic' music is good (sure, a lot can be...), and this has increasingly become a politicized idea... a common argument being that the music teenage girls and gay men listen should be treated as seriously as the music 'straight white guys' listen to. We've all heard this a lot now.
Which are... I mean, my favorite artists are probably women, without my even feeling compelled to be more inclusive though... it's just how it turns out. The problem though, is possibly lowering artistic standards for the sake of the political argument. There are a lot of critics and online commentators and personalities who are happy to lower the bar - in film, in music - to support 'the cause'.
Personally, for me, art and aesthetics are the 'cause'... everything else is secondary. And if a woman stars in an actually good film, cool. If my favorite musical artists are currently black (a good handful are), sure, why not.
But man, fuck people who think they need to overrate shit art or entertainment for the sake of some political agenda. You're not doing anyone a favor lowering the standard of quality.
I really hate bringing politics into art and entertainment, honestly.
>>71866051
>Free will exists
Seeing how they used all your rage as a strong marketing tool really makes me chuckle because I don't give a fuck about a childrens comedy and you fucked it up while it is your whole world right now.
>Numeric rating system
https://youtu.be/V90vdClMs3U
>>71864359
Well yes, that is basically the premise of The Thing
>>71866168
A) This is not art, neither is most pop music. It is a product, engineered to appeal to a certain social class.
B) If you craft your movie to appear to a wide range of normal people and women/children in genereal you will get a huge response
C) If a small minority bashes your movie intensely it is just free marketing to you which will appeal to your chosen audience.
It is not about the quality or politics or art. It is about marketing and it worked out great up until now. The review score or actual film is irrelevant as long as you draw in enough people with the false MRA/SJW dichotomy.
>>71863124
>credibility
Sure...
>>71866322
I said art/entertainment.
But I think entertainment should be made better too. The original Ghostbusters movie was really good..
>>71866391
This is exactly my point. Critics are all beholden to an ideology at this point that puts the socio-political first.
>>71865712
What is it like having such shit taste?
>>71865931
Wew, ice cold. Why?
>>71865926
Because people think they're special and that their opinion counts, so they are compelled to vote what they think will make the most impact on the final score, yet don't understand that sites like imdb actually have an algorithm to account for this trend in voting that literally makes voters like this count less towards the final score.
>>71866142
>>71865592
The film is out you pleb, and the amount of votes there is realistic anyway because people will have already seen it before wide release.
>>71865931
why does everyone on this board treat their dads like shit?
>reviewers are only paid off when their opinion doesn't support mine
Oh boy it's just like /v/!
>>71865874
This would only be a bad thing if the director intended nonstop or frequent thrills. Carpenter wanted it to be a suspenseful slow burn where the viewer would know that things could go from normal to extreme danger at a moment's notice. He utilized the actors, enclosed atmosphere, and some brilliant and sparingly used special effects to this effect, and it's clear he accomplished exactly what he set out to do.
It felt, in a way, like an old fashioned murder mystery.
>>71868080
Every person here is an irredeemable piece of shit.
They wouldn't be here otherwise.
>>71865432
Found the shill
>>71865522
I wish I could share your optimism. It earned no points from me.
I love this outcome. It's confusing all the haters because it's not fitting any of their narratives. It was either paid reviewers or the movie bombing. They didn't consider that the movie would just be ok and get a fair rating. No, because that would contradict their theory that Sony was controlled by cultural Marxist feminists who are trying to destroy western civilization or something.
>>71868553
the movie is garbage, it's gonna bomb and no amount of left wing ideologues, that are pretending to be objective critics, will save it.
>>71868553
>fair rating
see >>71866391
Fuck off, shill.
>>71863025
but it is top critics who get paid off
>>71868835
screencapped this
>>71864228
Most american critics are retards
Fixed that for you
We still don't have a ill need for SJW and PC culture here in europe, althought it is coming slowly.
Stop importing your cancer america please, just KYS
>>71869150
Europe literally invented liberalism and pc culture you retarded ape
>>71866168
I'd agree with this. People are content to dilute the quality and encourage long term decline just for a perceived short term success.
>>71864138
>>71864138
I consider myself a feminist, sorry to invade your safe space.
But it's pretty obvious to see which reviews are legitimate and which ones are paid advertising.
>>71869180
But as usual America adopted its own retarded form of it and ran it into the fucking ground.
See the American adaption of anything
We've reached the point where almost every piece of media has become some sort of battle in the culture war. People are willing to overlook a work's flaws if it agrees with them politically.
>>71864535
She's kind of negative about it in the last few minutes.
>>71869441
Agreed, it's getting a bit out of hand.
The entirety of the oscars this year was just "the roast of white america"
I'm fucking sick of it, and I don't consider myself a racist at all.
>>71865926
You don't pull your punches in a war.
>91 from Drew Mcweeny
>DREW MCWEENY
You can't make this shit up.
RIP /tv/
You got owned by feminists.
>>71869794
we'll be back once the weekend figures are in.
I'm still white and make more money than bitches, so ha ha, I win anyway!
>>71869805
We will not let our work go to waste. It will make billions.
>>71863025
>Caring about RT scores
>Not reading a small number of reviewers whom you trust and whose tastes and opinions generally line up with yours
You're an idiot to expect this movie to get a lot of bad reviews anyway. Not because of paid shills, but because most people don't want to be that guy who everyone thinks they're misogynist because they didn't like Ghostbusters. Also most film critics are fags who studied English/Film at college and probably don't want to not like this movie because of ideological reasons.
The real metric will be the profit it makes, which I hope is fuck all.
Middle America still ain't gonna come out of their trailers for this shit.
It'll flop here and outright bomb in Asia.
>>71870015
It's banned in China
So, if this movie is a critical success but a commercial failure, who "wins"?
Will Sony try it again if it fails?
>>71869833
>Culture Wars
>Female Ghostbusters are the final arbiters of truth and justice in a massive political debate
Did these people never realize that they're not in middle school anymore?
>>71869833
Is that supposed to be a joke?
>>71869604
I'm just tired of people celebrating unimpressive pieces of media.
Those MOTHERFUCKIN' SHILLS!!!!
They can't keep getting away with it!!
fuck them all!!!
>>71863025
Shhh quiet goy and go watch the new ghostbusters
>>71865790
Good lord!
>>71866168
>>71869212
Fucking this man.
fuck off gamergate
>>71869355
Don Kaye nailed it.
It's all Amy Pascal's doing.
This just shows that rotten tomatoes is flawed and biased yet again. The majority of BvS reviews were mediocre, yet the counted all of them towards the negative. The majority of reviews for this are mediocre too and they're counting them positive. This year has been a shitty year for movies, but it has proven that you really can not trust most "critics" these days.
I've always been neutral towards the woman ghostbusters, I was even neutral after the casting. The trailer made it look like completely mediocre pandering drek; comparable to movies like Pixels. It's not clever, it has no soul, it's just a cheap cash in on levels.
Lets be real too, Sony had to know backlash was coming. They've played it smart though and played the gamergate card where a legitimate issue is ignored because of MUH MISOGYNY. The neckbeards who were throwing a hissy about women from the start really didn't make things better either. In the end it's all irrelevant, its just a bit sickening that things can be completely ruined by critics who has a proven bias.
>All reviews average: 6.6
>79% fresh
>Top reviews average: 6.4
>50% fresh
>>71863223
>goobergot
hey ladies, those manchildren and their boogeyman amirite?
hahahha XD
>>71864138
You kissless autistic virgins poisoned the well with your fucking hiking about the perceived feminism in the movie six months out. Now normie critics will give it the benefit of the doubt to be on the Right Side of History and to not be associated with you retards. You overplayed your hand.
None of this should be remotely surprising.
>>71863025
uh-oh
>>71863223
>its real
>critics dont just not like it, they shit on it in every way
>http://www.nytimes.com/movie/review?res=9801E6DA103BF936A15755C0A964948260&partner=Rotten%2520Tomatoes
>"looks as if it aspired to be the quintessential moron movie of the 80's"
>" It qualifies only as instant junk. "
whaat
the fuck
That lonely island movie has similar reviews and bombed, so things don't look well for SNL movies
http://www.vanityfair.com/hollywood/2016/07/ghostbusters-review
>There’s been so much furor over this Ghostbusters reboot since it was announced, almost completely focused on the fact that all the leads are played by women. (And, indeed, the characters they play are women too.)
This movie is so cis-centric!
>>71869355
>Fun oozes from almost every frame
Holy shit, could this guy come up with a more fake-sounding review if he even tried?
>>71872308
Yeah The Thing was universally panned by critics and the public alike, then something happened and it was recognized for the truly awesome film it was.
>"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""funnny"""""""""""""""""""""""""""""""
what did she mean by this?
get over it pissbabies. we win, you lose.
>>71869833
Are people fucking crazy?
What does it say about feminism that the fucking Ghostbusters reboot is this important to the cause?
>>71869833
Holy fucking shit.
Women are still being stoned in parts of the world.
First-world feminism does have legitimate causes but this is fucking insane. How she has managed to not suffocate with her head so far up her own ass is beyond me.
>>71863565
>I have NO IDEA why he hates all the cameos though.
Wasn't Bill Murray threatened with being sued if he didn't make a cameo appearance? Maybe that soured him to the idea.
>it's a /tv/ gets BTFO episode
>>71863025
They don't need to be paid off, it would be career suicide not to endorse the movie if you're a smaller critic. They're doing it as a career move.
>>71870165
>So, if this movie is a critical success but a commercial failure, who "wins"?
Depends on if there's a sequel or not
>Most of the real reviews basically say that this movie would have been better if it wasn't Ghostbusters
Seems like both sides were right in their own way
>>71874645
THIS
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BwD2GgWKIrs
>>71863025
>paid off
They don't have to.
When it comes to feminism, they do it for free.
>>71873527
>Girls Rule
>Picture shows one man towering above all the women
>>71874645
Do you have proof that this why they're doing it?
>>71863025
Didnt the same happen to Revenge of the Sith?
Plenty of critics said that it was "darker and edgy" and alot better
>>71863025
It's less them being paid off and more them being aware of the controversy and taking a very obvious stance on the subject via their rating. It's a "take that patriarchy!" type deal.
Kinda want to see this movie now, looks like a funny movie. :)
>>71874777
Honestly, with movies that are "too important to fail", I don't expect an accurate consensus on whether it was good or not to be reached until one or two years after it's released.
>>71863025
And remove all the fake top critics like Buzzfeed and AVclub and the rating drops to about 10%.
Movie is garbage only getting high ratings for the "agenda" it professes. Just read Richard Roeper's review and that's all you need.
Anyone else think it's just being given good reviews to spite people who said it looks awful?
>>71874767
>write articles defending the movie from the 'sexist backlash'
>mention the 'sexist backlash' in the review
>praise the 'message' of a movie
>people who have criticised the movie have been swarmed with accusations of misogyny/personal attacks
just a coincidence I guess
>>71874917
You mean it is Pure Coincidence?
>>71874838
I figure its alot like with magazines and sites who review video-games
If they slam like a new game that is "the biggest of the year" i doubt they are gonna have a good relationship with the developer and given chances to play their games early and such
So i mean its kinda a symbiotic relationship, they need eachoter
>>71874789
Take that atheists!
Isnt this borderline interfering with the first amendment? Which I know thats parroted a lot these days but its really unsettling how far SONY has gone to push this movie
>>71874624
its /v/
/tv/ doesn't hate gurls
>>71863094
>>71875001
Corporations are people too :^)
>>71874789
If it weren't for the controversy most of these critics wouldn't have rated so high or even seen it.
In a round about way them pissing off Ghostbuster nerds paid off.
>>71875043
I legitimately found it depressing once I heard Snyder screwed the pooch
>>71875080
>Let's make a nostalgia cash grab
>Let's piss off nostalgic fans
Yeah, not sold on that being smart.
>>71863025
Nobody is being paid off mongo.They are all just brainwashed agenda pushers.
>>71864138
I hope so.
>>71874917
Do you have proof?
>>71874663
That's what people say about most remakes nowadays. That should convince hollywood to stop doing this shit, but they keep on making this crap.
>>71863025
>All positive reviews are women
YOU CAN'T MAKE THIS SHIT UP
>>71875001
Nah, not at all. People are free to give their honest opinion on the movie, they just aren't free from the consequences of doing so (whether that's being put on Sony's shit list or being called misogynists).
>>71875080
That was their intention from the beginning. They realized how well it worked for video games and used the "sexist backlash" as their marketing campaign to get the entire network of status-signaling bloggers to do all the heavy lifting for them. It's brilliant, honestly. They barely had to do anything at all, the entire system is already set up in just such a way as to work flawlessly with minimal input.
>>71875195
I had a guy reply to me on Facebook with "Herr Jurassic Park" and he mentioned another movie but I can't remember it.
Either way Jurassic Park is a continuation not a remake.
Why don't you subhuman redditors spend this much time watching/discussing real cinema? Does the idea of getting out of entry level imdbcore make you insecure or something?
>>71875141
They're not looking for people who are nostalgic about Ghostbusters, they're looking for people who haven't even seen the original or don't really care about it and want to see a summer flick they can turn their brain off to. Ghostbusters fans were never the intended audience, they were the vehicle to bring the reboot to its new and less critical audience.
>>71875330
Its an odd soft reboot where the first movie happened yet 2 and 3 did not, so I guess you can forgive the confusion people have. Perhaps my biggest gripe was not utilizing "the park is open" angle more.
>>71875311
So what you're saying is...THEY PLAYED US LIKE A DAMN FIDDLE!
GIVE IT BACK THIS ISN'T RIGHT THAT WAS OURS!
>>71875182
http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/ghostbusters-this-reboot-is-a-revelation-and-it-aint-afraid-of-no-misogynists/article30791253/
yeah
>>71875442
I need a Punished Ivan Reitman image now.
>>71873661
W-we still have anime and video games...
>>71864758
Try better next time
based Roper
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
He ignores this mass hysteria pc bullshit.
>>71875622
>He ignores this mass hysteria pc bullshit.
Then why can't you, redditor?
>>71875562
Even Japan is effected by whiny SJWs.
They have started to appease these cunts via censorship in US releases.
>>71875567
What does that next tab beside rt say
>>71875622
His review bascially points out that everybody started to "scream" about after the first trailer came out
Unfunny jokes, bad acting and just dumb characthers
But really the movie is worse than that if Roper is to be belived, the special effects are shitty, directing is subpar and bascially its not worth your money
>>71866391
> new york times
> girls rules, women are funny, get over it
> new-york
> times
What dark worlds does the USA are leading us into. I want to get off this ride
>>71868080
I don't.
I make him see new movies and he old one
I watched lardid di biciclette with him
Based dad
>>71869180
I don't think so my friend we showed titties on screen at every fucking occasion there is.
There is actually no apparent form of social justice in college in western europe and none in easter, the only retarded country in europe is the UK wich is coincidentally the ones the most affected by US culture
And even if we did see this >>71869396
>>71863298
Are you quoting to me?
>>71876315
He's quoting whoever the shill is.
I have never seen such a defense force this large for a shitty movie
>Helen O'Hara - GQ Magazine
>This feels far more fresh than it has any right to do, simply because it's casually feminist
Wow what a totally unbiased review. It's clear your desire to push an agenda hasn't played in to your critique at all
>>71870249
Middle school never ends.
>>71875182
Did you miss the James Rolfe fiasco?
>>71876347
i don't see anybody else here.
>>71876376
One word: capekino
Why can't we just admit this is a mysandrist movie but also a good movie.
The Birth of a Nation was racist but also a work of art. Triumph of the Will was an ode to nationalist totalitarism but also a work of art.
Most agree on that. Why can't we agree on the fact that the regressive left, as hateful and despicable as it is, can also create with talent.
Let's look at this logically.
>People openly coming out and saying they aren't even going to see your movie because they think it will be that bad
>You have two options:
>A) Double down, call them all misogynists and throw your bottle out of the pram
>B) Pay off critics to give it a good review because they are the only ones that can convince people otherwise
Which do you choose.If you chose both, you are correct.
>>71873527
Rule what? Like 99% or worlds political power and financial wealth is in white males hands.
>>71876755
Since this movie got swept up into the intensifying cultural warfare of theCURRENT YEARmy gut tells me this movie's actual score will be what it ends up at minus 20%.
The discounted toy section was more interesting than any scores posted.
>>71877627
I think the movie's score is going to fall. Let's consider the base demographics:
>hardcore fans of the 1984 movie
Will hate the new cast/rebooting.
>people who grew up with foind memories of ghostbusters
Are most likely in their forties or fifties, relative to the population they are a small chunk compared to 12-39 year olds.
>younger than 12
Finding dory and Secret life of pets provide competition
>12-18 year olds
Not that connected to ghostbusters, other films compete (the new Bourne movie is due out soon for instance)
>18-24, 25-39 year olds
The original movie came out in 1984, 32 years ago, that puts the very tail end of this population on age range for having seen the original movie in theaters.
The discounted toys are telling, it says: KIDS ARE NOT INTERESTED IN THIS MOVIE. And you have to drag around the kids all summer since you have no school to occupy them. You are much more likely to take them to the movie they want to see.
>>71863025
>
>>71866391
At this point, the movie could be all the trailer footage then Melissa Mcarthy's character farting for 2 minutes followed by an hour of blaring white noise and they would give it a 10/10 because they don't want to eat crow after all the hype they gave it.
>>71863223
>>71872308
>>71871072
>>71865712
>>71864758
>>71864359
>>71863669
>>71863476
>>71863306
>>71863285
>>71863232
>2000s and beyond: Aggregator scores are most effective and accurate for films released in the 2000s and beyond. This is because more reviews are available online and as a result contemporary critical reception is more clearly defined. Prior to the 2000s, Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic did not exist, and reviews were typically not online. Sources besides Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic should be sought out for films released before the 2000s; reports of critical consensus will likely exist in print sources. E.g., Alien, released in 1979, has a score of 97% on Rotten Tomatoes, but the critical reception at the time of release was mixed.
t. wikishitia
>>71877327
>white males hands
Please. 99% of whites are stupid goys. The 1% is multiracial, and if it has any characteristic race, it's jewish.
>"the reviews will be good because nobody is allowed to criticise the Matriarchy!"
>a bunch of reviewers give critical or only weakly positive reviews
>"Why are critics so paid off??"
You guys are fucking pathetic.
>>71870970
>caring about '''''''top''''''' critics
You know to where you must return.
Why did it take Ghostbusters for you faggots to realize this?
We warned you when they tried to bury BvS.
>>71879210
>saying this while living in a white founded nation using 9% white inventions to talk about a white art form motion pictures and film both done first by whites.
>>71879493
>90%*
I'm assuming bulldyke ghostbusters is going to flop. But then again, remember ~2010 when we all were talking about how much of a flop ABATAP was going to be and how it would never make back its 500 million dollar budget?
Why does the top critics thing claim that five of seventeen top critic reviews are 'rotten' when it's actually nine when you count them? I'm confused.
>>71879260
>IMDB
>>71879446
Are you aware of the irony? Sony's rivals are paying people en masse to bury this movie, just look at /tv/.
>>71865821
>not recommending another movie for your dad
come on anon
>>71879389
t. sony intern
>>71868108
Except in videogames industry there has been TONS of proofs that some reviewers has been paid off, and thus NO ONE trust in them
>>71880028
I certainly believe at least some of the shitstorm has been paid for by Sony's rivals.
It's not that critics are being "paid off" many of the critics are leftists with a progressive agenda who want this movie to succeed just to shut up the goobergater muh soggy knee boogeymen
Has there ever been a proven case of critics being paid off by studios or producers?
