Explain this
SJWs control the media duh.
>>71868507
/tv/ BTFO
a) critics are feminists/sjws
b) critics hate the film but are too afraid to give it a negative review out of fear of being labelled sexist
c) critics are bribed by sony to give positive reviews
>>71868507
because everyone who gives it a bad review would be called sexist
>>71868555
Not so fast, cuck.
It's the Citizen Kane of our generation. Against all odds, Paul Feig and Sony cut through the buttmad MRAs and managed to make true cinema. Let's start with the cast. The funniest women in the country were rounded up and put into one film. If that wasn't enough, they're at the top of their game. Simply put, if you aren't laughing your butt off in the theater, you don't understand comedy, or have been so warped by the male-centric "comedy" that the media pushes that you can't recognize when genuinely funny women take the helm and knock it out of the park. The women are not only funny, but also totally kickass and dare I say, epic. They don't need a man to solve their problems. They just go out there and take it. You go ladies! It warms my heart that a generation of young girls will grow up with these heroes and their further adventures in the inevitable sequels after this movie becomes a box office smash. 6/10 it was okay.
>>71868507
Certified Fresh when?
>>71868507
It's funny when you look at the actual reviews and even Vox and the like are giving it a 3/5 which clearly has some inflation given the "consequences" if it wasn't determined to be closer to good.
Seems like a lot of reviewers are inflating their scores to counter the "Internet haters" or whatever.
Seems like people are either going to overstate to knock the negativity, or understate it to counter the positivity. Just a shitshow.
You have to be a genuine retard if you thought it was going to be rotten.
It doesn't even matter if the film itself was absolute garbage because SJW would never admit they were wrong. They will blatantly lie to your face and tell you it was a great movie.
Gas the kikes, war against "geeks" when?
>>71868595
>1000 buttblasted 1/10s without seeing a movie versus the opinion of professional critics
How low are you gonna go to try and make reality fit your views?
I never trust critic scores anyway.
>>71868507
5/10 movie + 10/10 Sony Shilling + 10/10 SJW vomit = 25/10. Enjoy your titflick bitches.
>>71869140
This.
Critics lost me when they shilled hard for TFA. Even ignoring its blatant SJW, Disney pandering it just wasn't that good at all -- yet it has over a 90% on RT.
There was no way that after months of harping on those who dare criticize this film and defending it that they'd admit it was bad and give it the rotten review it deserves.
>>71869258
That's true. I wasn't gonna watch it at all, but I think I will watch a cam rip of the movie just to see how bad it is.
>>71869171
>Professional critics
>Not biased
They are just as bad as the people giving it a 1/10 without seeing it
click top critics you nu male cuck
its at 50%
>>71869223
youre saying this heap of trash is 5/10 to begin with?
are you retarded
>>71869333
Nothing wrong with giving it a 1/10 to balance out the SJWs giving it a 10/10 without even seeing it.
>>71869171
>professional critics
>>71868507
Top critics dislike it tho.
And since it's practically a hate crime to give it a low score, it's probably a really awful movie.
>>71868507
whos got the London Has Fallen screencap where all the NuMales and SJW critics call it Donald Trump: The Movie?
>>71869171
>projection exhibit #1
>>71868526
>>71868584
>>71868594
>>71869090
>>71868814
>>71869333
Not this.
>>71869223
This.
In all honest, as much as I loath this movie on the principle of it being a gimmicky reboot trend that will now inevitably gain traction, the movie probably isn't ""BAD"" on a technical level.
By my standards its probably more like a 4/10 or worse, but a lot of critics write for an ideal normie audience and don't want to imply that such an audience is dumb by stating how lowbrow the movie is.
There's definitely shills, but I couldn't imagine that it would be much over 15-20% or less of the reviews.
>>71868507
It just keeps going up!
Go and give this movie a chance instead of just judging it by the trailers. You have to watch the full feature in order to know how the director wanted the movie to be seen.
>>71869462
stfu shill, no one will see your shit movie
>>71869171
ikr just look at all those who gave it a 1/10.
You wanna talk about biasism? Well this proves how biased people are without even watching the full product.
>>71868633
6/10 pasta.
>>71869492
watch this review. it best describes the movie
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=A5qyoxdu694
>>71869501
tbf, for most movies it balances out, so in a few weeks, that rating might not be far from the truth
>>71869171
>listening to movie critics
>ever
Some of my favourite films have awful ratings from critics and some of the most highly praised films are cinematic dogshit.
>>71869462
Yes, fellow moviegoer. I will definitely watch Ghostbusters™ Ignore all the "manbabies."
>>71869462
IT WAS SUPPOSED TO BE SHIT I'M SO MAD
I read those reviews on RT now.
It sounds like its not good and barely anyone wants to acknowledge it.
Vanity fair has my respect apparently.
12 Things You Can Do To Support The New “Ghostbusters” Movie Against The Haters
>1. Go see the damn movie.
>2. Go see it multiple times if you have the means.
>3. Bring your friends.
>4. Make that theater as rowdy and supportive as a bunch of drunk girls in a bar bathroom, AKA the pinnacle of supportive funtimes.
>5. Rewatch the entire Melissa McCarthy/Paul Feig filmography.
>6. Tweet happy thoughts
>7. Make a hashtag to counteract the hatred.
>8. Remind people that Donald Trump also publicly maligned the women-led Ghostbusters.
>9. Don’t be afraid to mute people.
>10. Get your cosplay on and turn the 2016 Ghostbusters fandom into one to be reckoned with.
>11. Give into the pressures of capitalism and buy the shit out of the merch and tie-in foodstuff.
>12. Lay waste to their childhoods with your joy. Dance through all the male tears.
Friendly reminder that your bitching helped make this possible.
>>71869675
Make what possible?
Nothing has happened.
>>71869439
>the movie probably isn't ""BAD"" on a technical level
Guess you didn't see this.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yOieWN28BlE
The editing/continuity is sloppy as fuck. The dyke's gun changes twice within the sequence.
What's there to explain, go...guy? The new Ghostbusters is a smash hit and the critics LOVE it. You should head down to your local theater and buy a ticket.
>>71869709
Oh god...
I'm getting a headache over this even existing
>UGHGHGHHGHG SHLAP SHAWT
>WATCH OUT FOR THE 33333---DDDDD AXE!
>SLO-MO
>DUAL PISTOLS IN EACH DIRECTION!
Good find on that edit too. It really couldn't be more obvious that they're making this the new transformers franchise with that kind of schlocky action garbage.
80s quipping left with Schwarzenegger
Just watch this. It's the best hour you'll ever spend in your life. It's like the General Relativity of modern leftist analysis.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yGBkJT2L55k
>>71869711
I actually am thinking of doing that. Jokes on you
>>71868507
Media is reluctant to give the movie their worst, and also the movie wasn't as bad as what you had convinced yourself to believe. That's about it.
Have you seen the movie yourself, anon? It'd be dumb if you questioned the quality of the movie without having seen it.
>>71869528
Watch his eyes, you can tell he's lying.
>>71869813
No, it's perfectly natural to question the quality of an phenomenon not yet lived.
It's dumb to still wonder when you already know.
You had half a good post there, and you dropped the ball.
Speaking of film reviews, I was reading Nassim Taleb's book The Black Swan and he writes about how experts, including professions like film critics, are highly susceptible to gravitating towards a consensus instead of being critical. I find it's a reasonable explanation for why scores tend to become so extremely high or low.
It's not fair why must /tv/ ALWAYS get BTFO, why can't /tv/ win just once
Are they right?
>mfw Ghostbusters got a higher score than this
I'm going to kill myself
>>71869171
Irony.
>>71869635
>Get your cosplay on and turn the 2016 Ghostbusters fandom into one to be reckoned with.
hopefully not all the feminists do this, theres not enough material in the world.
>>71869925
good
this shit movie was a borefest and i fell asleep
>>71869977
Not the movie's fault that you have ADHD
>>71869635
>>12. Lay waste to their childhoods with your joy. Dance through all the male tears.
Feminism totally isn't about hating men you guys.
>>71870041
wow, thats pretty rude
attacking me personally just because i disagree with your opinion
>>71869925
Ghostbusters has a 6.7 and Jesse James has a 7.1....
>>71868507
Don't worry it'll still bomb at the box office
>>71869635
>by Sony
>>71870075
Sorry man
So, if this movie is a critical success but a commercial failure, who "wins"?
>>71870113
they'll still act like they win
>>71868595
It's 4.0 now
>>71870113
Whoever wins, we lose.
>>71870113
Us. If it's a complete bomb then they won't bother making any sequels and they will realise that responding to criticism by calling detractors mysoginists is not a good way to sell your movie. So while they won't ever admit they were at fault they'll still know they fucked up.
>>71870113
They already won with it having a good RT score, just like all the retards on here use RT to say how good a film is and strengthen their opinion they will do the same.
>>71869813
i certainly can question the quality without fucking seeing it. it's my money. i'm the consumer. my opinion is the ONLY thing that matters when it involves how i want to spend my money
>>71870113
We "win".
Sony will be hit financially, and will prove that pandering to feminists and creating artificial controversy by poking the hornets nest isn't as profitable in the medium of film as it is on say click-bait blogs. It's good, and a win for movies in general.
It will also show that the detractors of the movie arn't "a small group of sexist manbabies", but the majority of people. While they may continue to deny it, it will become clear to the general public that the people defending/shilling/turning this movie into a political thing were in fact the vocal minority.
So, a double win of sorts.
>>71868507
>scared of being called sexist
>>71870223
The score changes.
The score doesn't make them money.
I really think the case that after the "sexism" controversy critics feel morally obligated to give a positive review to this, lest they want to be called sexist themselves.
If the movie would be critically panned, the blogs would all be headlined with "Are the critics just sexist?"
>>71869896
>time magazine
>definative
I give them enough credit to know how to spell. The whole thing is fake.
Thera are more than 50 critics out there. Sony only lets good ones to get published with throwing in some bad ones for autheticity
>>71870361
It also doesn't help that many "critics" reviewing the film were also writing articles defending the film for months leading up to it's release, and many of them probably went in biased. Hell, even those who didn't probably went easy on the film in order to do as little "admitting they were wrong" as possible in their review.
>SJW liberal bloggers shill for SJW movie
Stop the fucking presses.
The real critics (top critics) are divided down the middle on it and it will tank at box office either way (the only thing that actually matters) because the general public doesn't give a fuck what San Francisco-based bloggers think.
>WAAAAAAAH WOMEN
>>71870657
>WAAAAAAAAAAAH MANBABIES DON'T LIKE A SHITTY MOVIE
Even though I'm right-winged I have more loyalty to shitposting than any political belief so I can't wait for the alt-right response to this mess. Just delicious.
>>71868507
Doesn't mean a thing because projection is still a measly 35 to 40 million with no upside.
>>71868507
>Average score 6.7/10
This is going to look great on IMAX
I'm going to reserve my tickets now online
>>71868507
Explained.
ON one hand, the way the mainstream media pounced on James Rolph just because he said he wasn't interested in this movie already showed how the reaction to this would be. It's a movie that turned into a political stance. It will get good reviews out of principle.
On the other hand, it's a decent summer comedy. It's not nearly as good as the original, and doesn't has nearly as much charm. It's so-so a ghostbusters movie that quite honestly shouldn't really exist.
IMO many critics are simply biased
most recent is positive review is from Buzzfeed that writes articles like this
>https://www.buzzfeed.com/alannabennett/cant-bring-us-down
there was a zero chance that they would give the movie a rotten review no matter how bad it was
or for example, the Time review was written by the same person who wrote this article
>http://time.com/4358061/ghostbusters-paul-feig/
>"The misogynist outrage over the Ghostbusters remake has made it essential viewing"
do you think this person would ever give the movie a negative review?
>>71871607
or check out this review
>http://www.theglobeandmail.com/arts/film/film-reviews/ghostbusters-this-reboot-is-a-revelation-and-it-aint-afraid-of-no-misogynists/article30791253/
>"This reboot is a revelation – and it ain’t afraid of no misogynists"
>"No, it is easy to see what the Ghostbusters furor is really about: angry, bored, women-hating men expending otherwise untapped energy mining their own feelings of social inadequacy in a toxic bid for attention."
>"Well, maybe not so much a mystery as just a dispiriting reminder that misogyny is alive and well on the Internet, where it can metastasize to gross extremes with zero justification."
someone who writes stuff like this would never in a million years give the movie a negative review even if it was complete shit
you're all mysoginistys
/tv/ BTFO
>>71868555
Actually its confirmed /v/edditors
>>71871607
>>71871893
Even Empire's Review reads like a glowing recommendation, a few jibes at the people sony manipulated and a final score of 3/5. Average enough to be fresh. Filled with attacks on sexism and very little real meat on the movie.
>>71869896
FIFY
>>71868507
It is 2016.
>>71869709
hahaha Holy shit, they really do forget about having to actually captures the ghosts.
>>71868507
A lot of pity 3/5 reviews add to the fresh rating
>>71868507
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt1289401/
oh look at this a source. explain this 3.6/10
>>71869258
I felt bad paying money to see TFA. it wasnt worth it. Felt worse paying again when my wife wanted to see it, but she made it better by tearing into its plot holes and hating it.
It's over bros we fucking lost, we fought hard but Ghostbusters is a smash hit
There's nothing else left to do but jump on the feminism bandwaggon like any decent human being did years ago
>>71869462
If the only positive reviews are bringing up the controversy and arguing not to listen, the % is biased to keep it looking good. True reviews will focus on the movie itself and what was delivered.
whatever happened to that pushed back embargo?
>>71869709
This "Final Super Battle" just looks gross. Throwing ghosts into ghosts??! The GB Game answered how they would handle a situation like this. Feig clearly didnt do his reseach on what was put before, probably thought "busting" meant the ghosts literally bust into nothing
>>71876131
>"we"
fuck off reddit
>>71868595
Imdb is even worse than RT
>>71876596
>Imdb is better than RT
FTFY
>>71876625
post your top 10 films of all time
>>71876658
The kinos that BLACKED produces. Don't have any specific order unfortunely.
>>71868507
SJWs will give it good ratings just to be spiteful cows.
>>71868507
Yes my goy ems its a good movie,go give us your money.
>>71876856
Disregard any 10/10 or 1/10 review
>http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
at least someone was honest
>>71876999
and it's from a source that actually matters, too
>>71876999
Anybody who defends this lazy, unfunny sequel is a complete fraud
Guys is it just me or did they disable top critics setting?
>Roepers review
the absolute madman!
"Sticks a cheerful two fingers up at the haters, and then kicks them in the balls for good measure."
What did he mean by this
>>71877949
>What did he mean by this
I dont understand film
Now cross reference the sites/reviewers giving it good reviews with sites/reviewers who were defending the movie to their dying breath on twitter/in articles
>>71868507
remember when everyone made fun dc fans saying Disney pays off reviewers? Really makes you think....
>>71869258
Force awakens was the most mediocre movie Ive ever seen. The % system on RT is very flawed
>>71877104
>S.O.S Fantomes
lerl
>>71877104
whats the sos mean?
>>71878942
sauce ghosts
>>71878423
Disney has nothing to do with Ghostbusters
>>71878423
Sony aint got the money to pay off people that's the sad thing about this whole situation, people are literally doing it FOR FREE.
>>71869171
Anyone can be a reviewer for an aggregating site it's not something special
>>71869258
I paid to see TFA twice, just to make sure I understood the most overhyped mediocrefest of our lifetime. There is literally no plausible justification for all the great reviews it got. I haven't met a single person who's seen the movie and hasn't said "it's a copy of ANH"
>>71868507
>>71869171
>(((professional critics)))
>>71871607
who the hell is the girl in that pic?
>>71877779
Just you
the only review that matters to me
>>71879211
FUCKING A WHITE MALE
>>71879127
I really don't understand all the butt-wiggling about this when its completely invalidated by clicking "top critics."
Hollywood execs know exactly how to play the brain dead liberal SJW crowd and get them all worked up.
wasn't it just a decade ago these SJWs and Feminists were fighting AGAINST corporate greed and hollywood CEOs?
Now liberals are being used by Hollywood to pan their shitty movies... and the liberals have no self awareness that they're being used.
>>71879293
>capitalism is bad
>I love apple and starbucks
I hate liberals so much
>>71880301
it's not even that, that'd be tolerable since yeah ok they still live inside the system, they like x and so on
but to think up of reasons to support a conglomerate and buy merchandising, like they're a maoist think tank PR arm for disney is fucking bizarre.
it's like "i'm a mac, i'm a pc" ad but with a male feminist cuckold vs hitler - but brought to real life, like it's a real thing, a real life battle
>>71869809
Good goyim.
>>71868507
I'd be worried if I was reviewers and RT if this pulls a John Carter.
It'll be harder and harder over the next few years for these critics to justify their ''jobs''
>>71869896
>The Telegraph
>The Guardian
>The Jew York Times
>Time magazine from the same guy that wrote how the new Ghostbusters was great before the movie even came out
>Empire
lel some legbeard made this image thinking it was going to prove a point. I cant stop laughing.
They catch only one ghost, it escapes and kills bill Murray.
>>71881898
guarantee it was a man who resembles his creation
>>71868507
>>71881942
the nu-male beta is nearly as bad as the legbeard these days.
>>71881999
>implying legbeards exist and are not actually a meme made by the rage of neckbeards and projected onto fat feminists who actually had sex
>>71882042
>this is what numales and legbeards actually believe
you have to go back faggot
Same reason Marvel flicks get high ratings.
Memes and retards who cannot leave the computer.
>>71882042
>she typed as her blue hair reflected in the screen
>>71871607
Exactly this.
This movie has become such a political shit fest that there is no way any critic isn't going to go hard into their leanings when talking about the film.
People will either go 10/10 because feminism or -100/10 because fuck the sjw's.
Honestly if wasn't for this shitfest going on about it the movie most likely would be just another mediocre remake that would have been forgotten in a year. But a flame war got started over it and Sony is just fanning those flames to get more people talking about it.
>>71868595
So let me get this straight, tv is bitching the absolute fuck out of this movie, so to justify their own manbaby tears they are going to imdb to spam low 1 star user ratings (some of you I heard even made multiple spam accounts to do so) all to change the overall rating of a movie that I guess people more or less didnt think was absolute shit and recommended it sort of highish?
Are you cucks really THAT petty? Because that is legit sad. Thats something a retard sperg board like pol does.
>Long standing movie critic/internet presence says the movie looks like generic reboot trash and that he won't see it
>Dozens of sights and high profile twitter users call him a sexist monster for days, writing tons of articles comparing him to actual hate groups.
Gee, I wonder why people would review the movie with kid gloves.
Let alone that a lot of the reviews we saw were written by people declaring any dislike of the movie as sexism for months.
>>71869140
>movies I dont like are only ever actually popular or moderately successful because of who I deem as "opposition". I will default to scapegoating them vaguely if their opiniom doesnt align with mine. Its a sjw "agenda" then.
>>71882498
>pretending this movie isn't being shilled by SJW feminazis
lel you have go back faggot
>>71882640
>pretending that muh feels and muh conspiracies are simple explan away solutions so that I can feel comfortable hating a movie I probably never saw.
"If the movie sucks in my head, and it is pandering to what I think is an agenda, well of course I can safely hate it. Thats much easier than having complex thoughts in my head."
>>71882640
Buzzword check:
-shilled
-sjw
-feminazi
Check! Good job lad! Here's your (you) for the day. Enjoy.
>>71868507
>having a consensus just hours after the review embargo lift
>even negative reviews go out of their way to praise the leads
the shilling is real
>>71882877
You have to go back faggot
>>71882982
> he says as a redditor only here because of other redditors
Oh boy
>>71882797
>If the movie sucks in my head,
>>71883009
>this projecting
you should look into killing yourself shill
>>71883018
People liked it...move on with your life. Art is subjective. Nobody actually cares and the cinema isnt collapsing
Wow ticket sales here in the UK have really taken off since the reviews came in
>>71883072
>People liked it.
Who? The movie isn't out yet shill
>>71883073
If the blue is what's vacant, then that's pretty full.
>>71868507
too much of a pussy to say it actually sucks
>>71879267
the skew between top critics and all critics is way higher then any other recent movie, and it's indicative of what way more reviewers are gonna say about it
my thought is that Sony made sure every reviewer or journalist who wrote an article on the new movie talking about how ghostbusters was going to be good and how everyone who hated it were manchildren had a ticket to see it early so they could boost its score up before the movie even came out
when it gets released to any critic we'll see how they react to it
>>71882982
>newfag's first buzzwords
Aw
>>71883052
Prove me wrong
Unless you started posting on /tv/ before 2012 you're here only because they cried on /q/ to get our guard from them removed
>>71883115
m8, did you read the key right at the bottom?
>>71883095
Uh....
It's out in other countries and review sites have already been given screenings of it in the States?
You realize there are other countries, right?
>>71883115
Everywhere there's a little person symbol is a sold seat. All the other ones are empty. The colour is just because the Odeon breaks the cinema up into five different areas because they're pants on head retarded.
>>71883157
So did people buy tickets and then not show up. How does that hurt them.
>literally explains that the proton packs only contain the ghost, just like the originals
>later they straight up kill them
I'm not sure if it's possible for a movie to be objectively shit but plotholes like this are the way to do it
Why is /tv/ acting surprised? Right up until the release the most voiced opinion on what would happen, expressed by everyone from here to youtube, was that reviewers would bend over backwards to sell this movie like the greatest thing ever. If anything I'm pleasently surprised some reviewers are saying "meh". Did you faggots all just forget about the "watch I bet all these spineless faggots will give it perfect 10s" posting?
>>71883240
What are you even talking about? This is the reservations for tomorrow night's 2030 show in a reservation-only cinema.
>>71868507
>Still reviewed better than Warcraft and BVS
What the fuck
>>71869635
We need a new war
78% is horrible a week before it comes out. Real reviews aren't even out yet. It'll drop to rotten.
>>71869635
>The final universal verdict on feminism
Fucked in the head.
>>71870283
So, if the movie is a commercial successor, then it WILL show
>that the detractors of the movie are "a small group of sexist manbabies",
?
>>71883487
I kind of dont want it to go rotten just so I can watch /tv/ sperg out some more
>>71870148
>4.0
Now it's 3.5. This is hilarious.
Nu-Ghostbusters isn't even going to gross its own production budget world wide.
I'm okay with this
>movie gets good reviews despite being full of harmful stereotypes and shitty plot
>sjws eat it up
>I get to watch a movie that actually caters to my tastes like a black woman having to act like a baboon
I am just sick of negative reinforcement used in advertising.
If you don't like this movie/comic book character/TV Show/Game/Writer/Magazine you're a racist sexist bigoted homophobe.
Fuck them all, I've developed a hair trigger mechanism where I automatically hate anything
>>71883573
>Man-babies actually believe this
I can't wait for the numbers to come in and all the rationalizing and conspiracy theories about them to begin. The tears are going to be delicious.
>>71879123
>girl
>>71878942
It's literally S.O.S, the distress message in morse.
>>71883153
>he can't
I thought so. Stick to your home board/site tourist
Is IMDB actually letting people review a film that isn't out yet?
>>71883667
Thats already happening
Thanks James Roolfe, tv was already shit and you made it almost as paranoid as pol
>>71883667
It's tracking at $40 million for its total domestic gross. It cost $150 to make. It's not coming out in China.
>>71868507
Explain this
http://chicago.suntimes.com/entertainment/ghostbusters-reboot-a-horrifying-mess/
>>71883667
Yeah, /tv/ has been obsessed with hating this movie. At this point, I want it to succeed and actually be a decent movie. So many people would cry.
When I was a kid I thought "the liberal" media was one of the dumbest most butthurt conspiracy theories out there. Intelligent and level headed commentary and reporting just naturally seems to have a liberal bias when anything to the left of Bush praising drone is defined as liberal.
But you know what, I was wrong. I didn't see it because it was "on my side", but there is definitely a powerful agenda at play. It's true. All of it.
>>71883794
It is out in other countries and screenings for critics have already happened in the US
explain this too
>>71883811
>cherrypicking
Fuck off?! You know some reviewers hated LORD OF THE FUCKING RINGS right?
>>71883812
Me too. All these shitbaby manpissers are going to finally get theirs. It's going to be delicious. Female James Bond is next!
The movie isn't good, but not bad enough to completely pan it. So instead of dealing with all the accusations of sexism, most reviewers prefer to give it passing grade.
>>71883853
well it took 12 years to make
>>71883811
That is a review saying it's bad.
Let me explain something to you.
When a film has an average score of 78% that does not mean that every review gave it the same score.
An average is the sum of the scores divided by the number of reviews.
>>71883884
Harry Potter already did the same gimmick.
>>71883826
I was a rabid sjw who supported free speech zones before the thing that must not be named happened on /v/ and /pol/.
Seeing Anita on Colbert shifted me hard to the right. There really is a liberal media conspiracy.
>>71883923
Seriously though - wasn't Harry supposed to be a great wizard? He looks like he became a downtrodden civil servant.
>>71883923
Plus it had fantasy and magic and shit, which made it interesting.
>>71883826
Highest rated and most watched news channels and radio personalities are Conservative.
I've been waiting for years for some sperg to actually definitively tell me where this all powerful, Jew powered "liberal media" was hiding, besides CNN and MSNBC...two channels...
>>71870075
your opinion was shit and that was a god-tier movie. kys yourself
>>71883923
If you can't figure out the difference between the two then you're a huge /r/movies pleb
This is a fact, /v/ed
>>71883965
Well all the evil dark wizards either died or defected so he didn't much to do.
>>71883965
High school football star syndrome. He peaked, and after that it was all he had. Probably drinks a pint or two more than he should of butter beer every night after he gets home.
>>71883965
>He looks like he became a downtrodden civil servant.
He did. That's what happens when you heap praise upon kids before they do shit. When Harry first walked into Hogwarts everyone was immediately showering him with praise and telling him what a great wizard he was destined to be. He never felt like he could live up to their expectations, so he didn't apply himself. He basically became the wizard equivalent of a mall cop.
>tomatometer thread
>"it aint /v/" starts playing
>>71884027
He was apparently a revered celebrity the rest of his adult life according to the lore. He literally had carte blanche to do whatever
>>71884075
>revered celebrity
False narrator. He likes to think he's revered when he's drowning his sorrows away. Last year, he hit Ginny out of anger for the first time. After that, he started doing it more often. The drink and resentment for settling with a girl who worshiped him. None of his friends even like him anymore. His son has anxiety issues because of the problems at home.
It's only downhill for 'Arry.
>>71884052
Wizard equivalent of a mall cop? He was left with endless wealth, became wizard Jesus and quite literally saved the entire world from a magic holocaust. The fucker could do anything he wanted, he just wasnt an entitled ass about it
>>71884170
Hard to call the narrator false when it was omniscent, just saying. I suppose to a degree you could argue a meta false narrative...coming from JK herself? But that would require a shit ton of unpacking
>>71868507
>Use useful idiots to get people to watch this filth by claiming misogyny
>???
>profit
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_Smx7G4oLCg
This is a war.
Reminder SW: Episode 1 has a positive rating and The Shining has a shit rating it's possible for reviewers to fuck up, I don't understand why most of you act like complete retards
> Sony pays people to shitpost on /tv/
I really want in on that racket.
>>71883974
NBC, CBS and their affiliates. Disney/ABC and their's.
>>71885037
You think NBC and CBS are liberal? What planet are you on?
Seriously, more people watch Fox (the highest rated and watched network in the US) than any other network...fuck off with these "liberal" conspiracies.
>>71869635
>4. Make that theater as rowdy and supportive as a bunch of drunk girls in a bar bathroom, AKA the pinnacle of supportive funtimes.
Ever seen a women's bar bathroom? Hell yeah it's supportive and even intercultural, if you're talking bacterial cultures. Their definition of FUN nicely overlaps with the definition used by Dwarf Fortress players.
>>71868507
The shilling is real.
If you actually read the reviews, they're all basically "It was the most amazing cinematic experience of my life 6/10"
>>71869896
>Fieg
>definative
Guess they didn't have the TIME to spell-check
>It's almost as if it never mattered that the four main characters were women
No, it doesn't. Most people have said so and had their comments deleted by Sony. The script is still shit.
>catches the spirit of the original film
DOHOHOHOHO.
>>71868507
>"It was alright, I guess"
>fresh review
It's just a dumb movie. None of you have to see it.
How high can it go?
>>71885703
Don't kill me...
But maybe the movie is just alright?
>>71885703
>6.6/10
>79%
Maybe I dont understand Rotten Tomatoes (always used Metacritic)
How is a 6.6/10 considered a 79%?
>>71868507
>implying the original isn't a fucking bore to get through
Yeah, ruined.
>>71868507
>6.7
>>71869462
>6.6
>>71885703
>6.6
Literally "Eeeh, it was alright, I guess": The Movie. Mystery solved.
>>71885937
RT is really misleading because it's the ratio of positive vs. negative reviews. "Positive" is anything 55% or higher, and if the critic does not assign an numerical value to their reviews then RT's staff has to interpret wether the review is positive or negative, essentially turning every review into an upvote or downvote.
>>71883965
this is literally the plot of the sequel play Rowling made this year
Harry is a downtrodden civil servant, he was a bad father and his son's a bit of a dillweed
>>71885937
79% is how many people gave it a fresh review. 6.6 is the average rating of the reviews themselves.
Basically 10 people see a movie. They all think it's OK. It would have 100% "Fresh" rating. On a scale of 1-10, though, they might all give it a 6/10. That would be a 6.0/10 average.
tldr, RT is shit outside of the broadest sense of reviews.
>>71886162
He's not a downtrodden civil servant.
The other points are true though.
>>71883073
>Wow
Don't you have music to compose
>>71883811
> (One indication this story takes place in the same universe occupied by the original Ghostbusters: we catch a glimpse of a bust of the late great Harold Ramis’ Egon Spengler character.)
how and what someone explain this
>>71886421
From what I understand it's just a background prop in a scene that takes place in a university.
>>71884068
>>"it aint /v/" starts playing
>>71869896
> The Guardian
>The New York Times
>Telegraph
((((((( )))))))))
>>71876470
Feig straight up hates men and things men like because he was bullied as a kid and apparently daddy didn't love him. He has outright admitted it.
>>71886162
Is the day saved by strong independent trans womyn?
All of you need to go back to /v/
>>71886359
Actually I've been staring at Cubase all night and getting nowhere. Some days it just doesn't seem to flow - thank fuck it's not my day job.
>/tv/ BTFO super hard once again
>all this pathetic damage control
Why are you fat spergs too stubborn to admit when you're wrong? Go ahead and toss whatever ad hominem you got because you still got rekt and that won't change when the movie comes out.
>>71887170
>>71883073
DELET THIS
Because Sony learned their lesson with Annie and condensed the timeline of information being released about the movie to create the most faux-controversy.
It's simple, the movie is announced and people are like "hey don't reboot this" and then feminists replied with "why because it's all women?". Some people didn't like the fact that it was all women, and it was enough to do a marketing campaign around it. Because of that, marketing with trailers became dirt cheap because if the trailers are bad, you can still get headlines because people calling out the shittyness of the trailer will just be called sexist.
Then comes time for the reviews and now you have people vocally saying the movie will be an abomination. If the movie is even a 5/10, it will exceed expectations and do well which artificially inflates the score.
>>71882403
YOU HAVE TO GO BACK
>>71887170
>saying btfo when its not even out yet
>no reception
>shitposter just sits here shitposting all day long saying BTFOFOOOO!O!O!O!O!O!O!O LULLZZZZ EBIN WINN BRUUUHSSSZZZ!!111 when literally the fucking piece of turd movie isnt even fucking released yet
they have a fucking review embargo in the USA thats why theres no fucking reviews yet
>>71887342
Tell me what I said that was incorrect.
>>71883073
wew
please tell me this is real?
/tv/ is under raid
Sage and report
