Ghostbusters has received a unanimous positive reception by all relevant critics and is on its way to be one of the highest grossing films of 2016.
So now that /tv/ has been
BTFO
T
F
O
Will you apologize for being sexist ciscum privelaged males?
>pic related, it's you guys
>>71915753
>all relevant critics
>mfw
I kind of thought this might happen because some of Feig's last few movies have all been pretty well received by critics. But still, it seemed impossible for this movie to be good just looking at the concept of it and seeing the trailers. Almost everyone wants to hate this movie. I didn't think it could get more than a 60% at the absolute maximum, but somehow it has a 77% positive (6.6 / 10)
I mean I still don't want to go see it, but I'm only a little surprised at its higher-than-expected rating
>>71916085
That's how I felt about Creed, but Creed was actually a movie I kind of wanted to see
>>71916085
>'m only a little surprised at its higher-than-expected rating
So you thought it would get a lower rating because it's a female led cast and a film meant to inspire millions of girls around the world?
You're a fucking cuck.
>>71915753
blow me
>>71916205
Creed was mostly fine. The few reviews that actually talk about the new Ghostbusters as a film (instead of "i liked it suk it white males xDD" shit) say it's atrocious
>>71916085
Wow so you thought this movie would get a lower rating because it's a female led cast.
>>71916205
>>71916502
And you thought Creed would get a lower rating because it's a movie about a nigger.
You guys are clearly mysogynistic racists.
>>71915753
Niggers and kikes won
Good job shekelstein
Good job
>>71916666
Boohoo
>basement dwelling neet with cheeto stained fingers has poor perspective of reality
>>71917430
>nigger learned to type just to shitpost me a reply
go and maybe they'll accept you for animal testing
>>71915753
>relevant critics
Internet critics like it.
Print critics don't. Tell me who's more relevant?
>>71915988
The only critic I want to hear from
How do you get qualified to be on rotten tomatoes you just have to have a blog or get hired by click bait sites right?
>>71916502
You know if a bunch of fucking losers hadn't dedicated their time to obsessing over this movie and trying to make it fail via dislike bombing and twitter trolling there wouldn't be nearly as much of the "haha fuck you guys" content in the reviews.
>>71917806
This. /tv/ is both the beginning and end of it all. /tv/ should just have ignored it.
>>71917805
From what I can see it's pretty arbitrary.
"Top critics" need to either be part of a major publication or a large part of the film review industry.Metacritic is better because averaging scores makes more sense than just "did you like it yes or no?"
>>71918003
This, we all played into their hands instead of letting it breeze by while also sending a message to Hollywood.
Sure, the leftist bloggers-turned-critics loved it, but the movie is still going to flop. Secret Life of Pets has the kids and girlfriend movie market covered, and no straight male really wants to see gurllll power ghostbusters
>>71918106
>>71918003
>we all played into their hands
/tv/ largely did ignore it.
If you saw the threads when the cast was first announced people simply commented that it was another cash grab by sony and moved on.
It was all the reddit fucks who bombarded the (admittedly bad) trailer with dislikes and came here campaigning against it.
Once the production/marketing team got a whiff of the fart of controversy they took it upon themselves to fill a salad bowl with diarrhea and call anyone who disliked the trailer a sexist.
Pretty much guaranteeing lots of people would avoid bad reviews.
This probably could have been avoided but don't pretend it lived and died on /tv/
>>71918163
I'd much rather see Pets than Ghostbusters because Hannibal Burgers is in it
>>71918246
Hannibal lector?
I can only guess people are inflating their reviews because of all the misogynistic outrage. I thought Spy was great, and I love Kristen Wiig, but Ghostbusters was jaw-droppingly awful.
