Fired up my neurons

Fired up my neurons.

Other urls found in this thread:

youtu.be/aBb0hyuIfYQ
twitter.com/SFWRedditVideos

Actual critics are raging faggots.

you can get a idea if something is worth thinking about watching simply by audience reviews

>STD has less discrepancy between critics and audience scores
Discovery confirmed better show. How will Seth ever recover?

>you can get a idea if something is worth thinking about watching simply by audience reviews

if you're a mouthbreather yes

audience scores are always positive unless there's something remotely challenging involved, not any different from cinemascore ratings.

STD was a shitshow. Rotten Tomatoes needs to be investigated for their unfair and monopolistic practices.

I have never once gave a shit about what any critic said. I don't need anyone to tell me what good, I can make that decision on my own thank you.

The audience is completely right on this one. Maybe for the wrong reasons, but still right.

every other TV show gets a 90%

blame tv critics for having even lower standards than movie critics

RT lost any remaining credibility when they started selling their logo to studios to be included in trailers. The moment you take money from the things you are reviewing is the moment you are disqualified from being an impartial reviewer.

What about Armond White's reviews?

you have deluded yourself... I can't find it in myself to pretend to like STD and you will be stuck with a stinking failure of a show that stole the Star Trek Franchise. enjoy your depression

Truly a wonder to ponder.

Where do I start off if I want to get into Star Trek?

...

Reminder that Orshilles have been working overtime trying to downvote STD at every opportunity. It's amazing it got 65% in audience scores after the campaign against it had it at 45% before anyone had even watched it.

Watch Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan film. Maybe watch the episode "Space Seed" before that.

>After destroying the prelapsarian world in Noah, indie director Darren Aronofsky has returned to his formula. In his sensationalized allegory Mother! Aronofsky sends a nameless woman (Jennifer Lawrence) through a gauntlet of masochistic paranoia, blames modern male chauvinism, and then demolishes Millennial society.

>By casting Jennifer Lawrence as a put-upon hausfrau whose husband (Javier Bardem, playing Man) subjects her to endless impositions and disrespect, Aronofsky hopes to match the surprise box-office success of Black Swan (his rip-off of Roman Polanski’s Repulsion). It’s possible to read pro-choice madness in the film’s pregnancy subplot — in which Lawrence suffers the most horrendous postpartum depression since Polanski’s Rosemary’s Baby.

>Aronofsky longs to be thought of as an artiste like Polanski, so Mother! includes cynical sentiments about male indifference (far less subtly than Polanski did). But an obsessive filmmaker doesn’t necessarily rise above schlockmeister status. Aronofsky’s mania for various tribulations never finds a higher meaning, and his emphasis on female discomfort (Lawrence looks zombified, both clueless and hypersensitive) makes him the perfect filmmaker for the Hillary Clinton era. When Woman (as the script names Lawrence’s character) apologizes for objecting to Man’s rowdy houseguests and embarks on a cleaning-up spree, she begs, “I don’t want to interrupt, I’ll get started on the apocalypse.” The line could well have come from Hillary Clinton’s recent campy memoir, What Happened.

>As soon as Lawrence speaks that apology, you know the next plot turn will be an even more nihilistic, dystopian catastrophe.

What's his point here? I legitimately don't get it.

lol, this guy not happy

>Voting doesn't count if people I don't like vote

>The story takes place in the middle of Woman’s renovation of a deluxe mansion, a premise recalling that underrated, slapstick-perfect ’80s comedy The Money Pit. But it quickly devolves into a Get Out bound to please pink-hatted feminists. This pointlessness seems designed for recapping — the strict reciting of plot that satisfies the spoiler-alert generation that cannot think through allegory or perplexity (such as Woman’s nightmare of hordes brandishing quasi-religious ashes on their foreheads).

>It’s Aronofsky’s off-kilter sense of proportion that makes his movies laughable. Woman’s marital slights turn into the nuisance of more and more uninvited houseguests (starting with Ed Harris and Michelle Pfeiffer as a creepy married couple), and then global calamity invades. Because Woman’s character never develops, it’s impossible to relate these surreal events to whatever concerns are in her psyche. Woman’s discombobulated personality displays only a couple of felt moments: her first response to death, then pregnancy (wackily out of order, then endlessly repetitive).

>Aronofsky’s protagonists seem to play out some personal neurosis: “I stink,” Man says after working outdoors; Woman smiles, saying, “I like it.” Not to mention Aronofsky’s own martyr complex. Lawrence and Bardem are not sexy here, just unappealing. Lawrence’s rapport with director David O. Russell lent her performances a charming immediacy (Silver Linings Playbook, American Hustle, Joy) as Russell worked through his issues toward sanity; Aronofsky doesn’t. His eccentric filmmaking represents a culture that values the opposite of sanity. As Man, the self-obsessed writer, Bardem comes up with the film’s moral: “Now there is nothing left, just a vast and silent darkness.” Aronofsky puts that insight on an ugly, cacophonous loop.

Armond White confirms: Orville is the better trek show.

Well it's a good thing RT does not write reviews then eh?

I love how you conveniently ignored all the CBS shills and fans who rated it 10. Just be happy they got enough negative votes removed to move it up to 65%

It's going to be Hilary Supporters all over again with these CBS shills

How much is Fox paying you? Serious question.

Are you retarded?

>Rotten Tomatoes staff first collect online reviews from writers who are certified members of various writing guilds or film critic associations. To be accepted as a critic on the website, a critic's original reviews must garner a specific number of "likes" from users. Those classified as "Top Critics" generally write for major newspapers. The staff determine for each review whether it is positive ("fresh", marked by a small icon of a red tomato) or negative ("rotten", marked by a small icon of a green splattered tomato). (Staff assessment is needed as some reviews are qualitative rather than numeric in ranking.)

RT may as well write the reviews because they subjectively give them a good or bad rating.

>Campaign against it

Anyone with a brain can see the only paid campaign is pro-STD. There is so campaign for Orville, just fans expressing their opinions.

are you implying the orville is good?

I've said this before, but the Orville is about a 3/5 show, I have no idea why it's being rated so poorly.
I haven't watched Discovery, and based on what I've read, it sounds like absolute shit progressive pandering.
Am I wrong in my assumption of the show?

Yeah Fox with all its billions are the true fans and anyone who dares to like STD from smaller CBS are just the faceless corporate stooges. Nice try shill.

If Fox was shilling there would be more positive critic reviews. It's the true trek fans who support Orville.

The reason that Orville got terrible reviews is because it's a terrible show.

why

Because it's cheaper and less obvious to buy off anonymous fan reviews and viral marketers. Which I'm sure you know very well, Fox shill.

$0
How much is CBS paying you?

$0
How much is Fox paying you?

great argument. How much is Steban Bolynu paying you?

$0
How much is IMDB paying you to make these threads?

Orville has a 7.5 on IMDB
More importantly, how much is Warner Brothers paying you to derail these threads?

Mother is Definition of arty farty

>What's his point here? I legitimately don't get it.
He never has a "point". He just writes paragraphs about random shit as abstrusely as possible, then jams them all onto a page in no particular order.

Fucking jews

Here's a 10/10 review (a REAL one):

youtu.be/aBb0hyuIfYQ