Please no, I can't handle another one

Please no, I can't handle another one.

;_;

Other urls found in this thread:

youtube.com/watch?v=mF5DhLDUQb0
twitter.com/NSFWRedditGif

Live RT threads when?

Cant rouse the mouse. Soon.

Who's this guy? Should I care what he has to say?

Who is this faggot and why should I care?

Probably 3-4 days before it's released.

I don't expect anything at all of that movie so it can't dissapoint me, so anything it offers is a winning and if offers nothing then nothing was lost

>SS too.
Now this is how I know Disney is literally paying reviews to shit on other movies.
I loved CW, but even I have to admit this shit can't be coincidental.

According to Google, some guy from a podcast called Box Office Breakdown?

More like suicide WATCH.

What are you even talking about? This guy is not a reviewer.

Seriously who is this guy I could tweet this and have the same merit

>literally paying reviews
Bullshit, there's no conspiracy, man. We live in a world where people are able to figure shit like this out, if it was true, all of us would know by now.

You know what makes more sense? WB have no fucking idea what to do with their DC properties. Which they've shown time and time again.

This is it boys. DCEU ends here. WB scraps everything and the WW movie won't even be released

Nah they'll release it. The SJWs will lose their minds if they cancel WW.

Come on you people, THREE movies in a row are and will get shit on by critics and who knows who else while, "somehow" Disney's Civil War is the only one so far with positive reviews and reception.
Don't you think that has to be at least somewhat suspicious? Conspiracy aside, this shit literally cannot be a coincidence no matter how much you try to deny it.
Disney is doing some foul plays here and no one seems to give a fuck.
The mouse needs to be stopped.

>The SJWs will lose their minds if they cancel WW
>The SJWs will lose their minds if they release WW
DC has always fallen for this trap, and its why they are failing so hard.

last minute reshoots
actors saying it's to put more action or comedy in it
no one knows
dc execs look at the numbers of bvs and civil war
panic mode
probably pumping more money in suicide squad for cgi and possibly marketing (might show more batman in it)

other than the joker and harley no one (general population) knows who the rest of the squad are.
except will smith (which is why he is show without the mask - and briefly wears it in the trailer)

i'm betting they are going to start marketing it as a will smith movie with romantic plot with harley.

>We live in a world where people are able to figure shit like this out
>if it was true, all of us would know by now.
Not even tinfoil hat but wow

There's nothing suspicious about Warners being colossal fuck-ups.

Now if they released a good movie - that would be something to break out the tin foil hats for.

Who the fuck is the guy saying it's shit anyway? Why should I take his word?

>3 bad movies and 1 good movie, by various different conpanies, is a conspiracy

It's not a coincidence, it's just studios not learning. Days of Future Past was a hit with critics and the audience, what did the execs learn from that? People must want more Jennifer Lawrence.

Meanwhile, WB have fucked up everything for the past few years. And I'm not just talking about their DC films, I'm covering WB in general. They've released fuck up, after fuck up, after fuck up. They've been trying to strike big with another franchise after Harry Potter wrapped up, and each and every time they've shown they're idiots

>screencaping your own shitposters tweet and making a thread about it
>thousands of replies
Sup Forums confirmed for worst board.

Consider the following

>MoS and BvS were shit, Snyder's movies always get panned by critics
>Civil War was good, so it got good reviews
>you can't yell Disney conspiracy when Deadpool got great reviews this year

>Now if they released a good movie
Don't say it like Disney has.

Didn't they just announce slight reshoots a few weeks ago after BvS was getting crucified? There's no way all of the post-production work on the new scenes would be finished by now. I doubt even studio executives have seen the finished product, let alone some twink with a movie podcast.

Yeah, people can hack into stuff, leak things important, figure stuff out. That's why we know 9/11 wasn't an inside job, there's no aliens in Roswell, there's no Illuminati, the moon landing wasn't staged, because no one is smart enough to cover it up or do stuff like that.

>Don't you think that has to be at least somewhat suspicious?
Not really? Literally every film Snyder has ever released has been a clusterfuck, yet somehow people were surprised BvS was bad. Singer has made some good films, but has also made some odd choices with the x-men franchise, so if Apocalypse really is terrible I won't be completely surprised. ( That being said, I'm withholding judgement until I actually see it.)
Furthermore, the fact that DC okayed Snyder's script has me question their choices. The poor decisions that have plagued two of their movies could easily taint another film.

I'm sure Disney paid Snyder and Singer a shitload.

Disappointment has only encouraged Warner Bros.
Green Lantern was supposed to launch a DC cinematic universe, but it flopped, which convinced them to try that again two years later.
Man of Steel underperformed, so it got a sequel that was supposed to launch *multiple* franchises.
BvS also underperformed, but not badly enough to justify canning the sequels and spinoffs that had already begun filming.

Can't wait for the Zemo Thunderbolts movie to shit all over this presumed turd.

I mean, it could be that they were shitty movies, I mean, BvS did well the first few days but the steady stream of people coming home and going "It's Shit" killed it by Sunday on it's opening weekend.

Apocalypse is at 21 rotten and 20 fresh reviews, so it's not even a collosal fuckup like BvS.

The score could always go up.

Yeah this.
The press. the media they are free and always report things as truthful as they can with no bias or agendas.

Would we? How?

Alright who do we fucking blame if this ends up true?

I hate this guy's accent, but he sums it up pretty well.

youtube.com/watch?v=mF5DhLDUQb0

There is no conspiracy, stop memeing.

>i-its a Disney conspiracy guys!!
That's why Alice Through the Looking Glass is currently at a 17% RT score.

>A company with a bad track record is bad
>A company with a good track record is good

WOW WHAT A FUCKING MYSTERY

Everyone but WB, of course.

They're literally blameless according to some of these shills. It's more probable that there's a grand Disney conspiracy in place to keep DC down.

>Alice Through the Looking Glass is currently at a 17% RT score.
Huh, I was wondering why I wasn't hearing more about that movie.

Anons arguing about conspiracy theories like a bunch of rejects from /x/ when the dubs of truth have already spoken

I don't think he did. I mean, well, they critically and financially have but a good movie is something subjective to the viewer, isn't it? Unless you're examining themes and all of that, then it becomes objective.

Regardless, Disney has released several good movies. Man of Steel was an alright movie. In fact, I went to see it multiple times. I never got over the neck snap, but I still enjoyed the movie quite a bit. That doesn't suddenly change the fact that BvS is a clusterfuck piece of shit, written by a guy who doesn't care for the mythos.

So far, none of their movies have been objectively good. Or critically. And BvS is just barely a financial success.

Im just wondering if this is a collective fuckup or if theres a single individual that tipped the dominoes

No reviewer has ever been able to dramatically impact the box office of any movie. Any famous, trusted, renowned reviewer has said as much, though some of them certainly wish they could. Reviewers said Transformers was shit, it still made billions. Reviewers said Speed Racer was shit and nobody watched it because nobody liked it anyway. Reviewers said the Pirates of the Caribbean movies were shit and they still made billions. Reviewers said the Sex in the City movies were shit, they still hosed the box office. Reviewers said Bonnie and Clyde was shit, it made millions and suddenly they tripped over themselves to reevaluate it.

Bad reviews never killed a movie. Word of mouth does. Word of mouth killed Man of Steel and it killed B vs S.

>Every time a Marvel movie comes out, I wonder if it will finally be the bad one.

>Every time a DC movie comes out, I wonder if it will finally be the good one.

This guy is right, sums it up perfectly. This image is the only "bias" hurting DC when it comes to public/critical reception, and they only have themselves to blame.

What does anyone actually expect that film to NOT suck?

...

Is this the same guy? I looked him up. Looks vaguely like the Leader. Dat cranium.

Probably the execs, I have a feeling they literally have no idea what to do with their DC properties so that's why they keep fucking up.

Snyder overseeing the entire DCEU probably doesn't help either.

Are you guys actually taking a single tweet from some nobody as gospel?

>A company with a bad track record is bad
>A company with a good track record is good
This^
I dont get whats so hard to understand about this? The WORST MCU movie is still better than pretty much all of Snyders films

...

Why the hell are they releasing that when Civil War is still out? They must know it's shit.

Different audiences

literally who?

...

Seriously. DCfags are just in denial.

but are you surprised given that we're two for two already here

I'll ask the same question I asked before: Are they paying the viewers to shit on DC too? Because despite massive hype of Batman fighting Superman, word of mouth has been pretty sour, and it resulted in huge drops in ticket sales during its run. Only the most loyal fans are defending it, and they're defending it pretty desperately, while everyone else seems to have decided to move forward with the interpretation that it sucks just like so many other Zack Snyder movies.

There's plenty of bad reviews for Civil War. The box office numbers didn't go over BvS the way people presocted. Plus, you're acting like the MCU doesn't have financial or critical failures, which is just not true.

It's time to let go. BvS wasn't that good, and that's that.

That being said, this is a single rumour from an unreliable source. Just wait a one or two months for the initial reviews to start rolling in.

I think they're the same audiences. It's not like little girls are gonna drag their parents to see some grim CGI fest because the main character is a chick.

It's possible that critics are slightly biased towards Marvel, but then so is the audience.

Anecdotal evidence, but all of my normie friends who don't give a shit about comics enjoy the MCU movies more than the WB ones and even most of the Fox ones (except Deadpool, all of them fucking adore Deadpool). Their reasoning? They don't really care for the DC characters and they're more invested in Iron Man/Cap/Thor etc. because there's already been so many movies with them and they give a shit about the characters. Pretty much every time I ask why they loved Civil War I get something like "I loved the movie because I care about the characters and after all this time I feel like I know them. Them fighting was emotional because I'm invested in the characters". The fact that the MCU went on for so long makes the audience (and the critics) more invested in these movies and they're willing to overlook some of the flaws.

From the reviews I've read, the feeling I have is not that they were unfair towards Batman v Superman, which deserved most of the criticism it received, but they're unfair towards the Marvel movies, which certainly aren't as great as they claim. I mean, do you seriously believe that a movie like the Avengers should have an 8/10 average? We're talking about people who are reviewing it as a movie, not as a big screen adaptation of their favorite characters, or as a diversion for the weekend.
I don't feel there's a conspiracy here but just herd mentality by critics which are desperate to stay relevant in this age where most people can easily access to the media and judge by themselves.

You know, fair enough.

Being familiar with a character makes you invested in their character more than one you don't know about.

Oh man I'd love a A SECOND FRESH REVIEW pt. 2 Electric Boogaloo

or could it be, I don't know, that the creatives behind the DCEU are dumbfucks

Both movies have been shit so far, why would the next one be good?

Because that's why Deadpool is succesful right?

It's not possible. SS has such nice premises, which is not possible that it's bad. I call this bullshit.

Welp

It's why Batman is still their best seller. He's had the most movies, the most TV shows, the most cartoons, the most videogames, he's been in the public eye the longest while Supes has declined in popularity. He's the DC brand people trust. Marvel has probably benefited in the long run from losing the movie rights to their two biggest cash cows of Spider-Man and the X-Men. They had to build the MCU from the ground up with characters most people on the street had no idea existed, and turned them into household names. It was a huge gamble, but it has paid off in spades for them. They built their own personal brand up, Disney bought that brand and threw the full might of the Mouse behind it, and now they're claiming back those old properties and seamlessly slotting them into this cinematic universe they've built. They've made B-Listers A-Listers and now they can combine them with established A-Listers, unless the bubble somehow miraculously bursts (like people have been waiting for over a decade now) then they've got a certified money printing machine for at least the next ten years.

Yeah and why The Good Dinosaur is clearly the best Pixar movie and not a critical bomb and a box office failure

>THREE movies in a row by a single director get shit on by critics
>this is a conspiracy

This is why M Night Shamalyansjkanisadnfanananan needs to be hired again. The critics clearly have it out for him

Apparently Disney?

I can't believe we've gotten to the point where fanboys have gone full tinfoil hat

This. Deadpool is the underdog of the situation and considering production costs and revenues is one of the most succeful movie of the year. And the mouse has nothing to do with it.

Look, Hollywood has been trying to get Michael Bay out of the industry for years now. All they ever do is trash his movies, especially the Transformers ones and yet they still keep making billions of dollars. If they can't even get the audiences to listen to them about Michael Bay, I doubt that WB would be any better.

The shit is just shit user.

i hate you

It wasn't a critical bomb though.

>and they're willing to overlook some of the flaws
This is the strength of the MCU. Thor was not truly that great of a movie, but they spent enough time establishing Thor himself that people liked him enough to keep watching. This is beneficial to the larger narrative, as they needed people to care about what happens next to him, and for him to have his character known and engaged with by the viewer, so whoever wrote or directed the Avengers wouldn't have to do that on top of trying to balance all the other characters.

Thor had scenes of him sitting in a diner, eating Pop-Tarts and asking for another cup of coffee in a boisterous way. Compare that to Man of Steel. It would have been nice if in between all the grand, visual poetry, we could have had a time to sit down and say "Hey, what's this Clark Kent guy like, just in his downtime? How is he with his coworkers? Does he have any friends? Maybe he's a bit of a dork. Maybe he's got a Kansas sensibility in terms of music that makes him stick out in Metropolis. We trade that in for scenes of him working odd jobs across the country, never settling down enough to know anyone, or for us to get to know him. The most we know is that he wants to help people, kind of, and has anger issues that cause him to damage people's property instead of confronting them outright.

>Plus, you're acting like the MCU doesn't have financial or critical failures, which is just not true.
Actually technically by all counts it doesn't. Their most unsuccessful and critical worst was Incredible Hulk (which is wrong, clearly this should be Thor 2, not like that's well liked or anything) which was like 7 years ago and even that made a tiny profit and is somehow Fresh

Uh, the box office numbers beat BvS, and with the international box office it's already heading right past it, and it's not likely to crater in week 2 and 3 the way BvS did.

True. My mistake. Still a financial bomb though

Tommorowland was a critical and financial bomb then

There's no reason to take this random guy's word, it's literally on the level of Faraci "scoops"

But Ayer and Will Smith leaving WB to film Bright, and the recent reshoots kind of say something

The MCU literally doesn't have any financial failures in terms of movies.

Actually Thor 2 got the worst critical scores in the MCU. It's also rotten if you click on top critics.

I think that's fair. Thor1/2 are not great movies. However, I'm also not really willing to call them bad movies because Thor himself is entertaining and likable. They're movies I saw once, was entertained for 2 hours, and I never need to see them again. Goodwill can help carry something.

Who are his sources? The movie doesn't come out for months. Not that it's impossible that some people already saw a cut of it, but still.

Reminder that Deadpool has still beat BvS domestically and even internationally, it's only like 100m ahead

If BvS had released like a regular film in different territories instead of all at once on the same day, this would have looked even more embarrassing

Audiences, of course.

I don't want to imply that DC films are any good, but I also won't be blind not to tell that people nowadays don't like "mean-spirited" things and a film about a gang of supervillains and psychopaths loaded with bombs in their brain and set loose to fight the Joker of all people is definitely going to be a major turn-off to modern audiences' delicate feelings. The mouse gives people what they want: comfy, digestible comedic fluff with some pretense of action and drama here and there.

Fuck, Deadpool never even hit China and it was still a bigger success than BvS

Thor is okay, but the movies were carried by Loki for me. That's one example of an actor being so good that the movie doesn't turn into complete shit.

I find it kind of hilarious the amount of people on Sup Forums that think Disney doesn't want its competitors to make good super hero movies. Bad super hero movies lead to audience fatigue. Civil War didn't just have to be a good movie on its own, it had to make up for the disappointment generated by Batman V. Superman.

You see the same thing said in comics. Marvel and DC have stated time and again that when their competitor does well, more people buy more comics from BOTH companies. It's a rising tide of quality that lifts all boats.

and reviews influences word of mouth

OP, it's as if you're implying MoS and BvS were bad. They weren't. They were better than anything the MCU has ever done. It's just the critics and the public that are wrong.

Whoisthisnigger.com

I should have thrown Loki in there as well.

It can to some degree and yet movies that are panned hard still turn into billion dollar franchises.

I just don't get it

Batman v Superman actually took RISKS, it tried to do something different for once and aim a mostly mediocre genre of movies to a higher audience, it tried to achieve something to further the medium and the standard of movies today, and all it gets is nothing but shit left and right.
And here we are, we get another Marvel movie, with the same premise, same characters, same story, same pacing, same cause and effects each and every one of its movies have been having for nearly a decade now, and everyone is praising it like its the next coming of Jesus.

I just want movies to be good, and we had it, but we just turned our backs on it. Why?

...

...