Lurker > Wutobliteration

The critic industry has become more of a vocal pillar of influence for political correctness than it is for actually rating the quality of movies genuinely these days.

And the scariest thing? Almost no one even realizes or cares to admit about it.

TommyG663513 posted...

Yeah there definitely is a bias among RT critics, but I don't think it is nearly as dramatic as you're stating.

Like Black Panther and Wonder Woman definitely weren't the greatest super hero movies ever or necessarily top 5 and maybe not even top 10, but I still enjoyed both films quite a bit.

Critics can only prop up a movie so much. WW84 is at 65% which is by no means a flawless score. Clearly a third of critics didn't like it and wouldn't recommend seeing it.

Black Panther by no means deserve a 96% score. Let's be honest. Critics were only propping up the movie because it's the first ever full black cast on a superhero movie. In fact almost any movie in the past 5-6 years that stars a female/minority/gay lead in an empowerment role is bound to get mostly positive reviews. Another example is Crazy Rich Asians. It's an utter trash drama flick yet somehow it's 90%+ positive just because it stars mostly Asians

The critic industry has become more of a vocal pillar of influence for political correctness than it is for actually rating the quality of movies genuinely these days.

MixedRaceBaby posted...

im sorry women wont have sex with you TC but no need to hate ALL women like this.

i'm sorry you need to make up assumptions about me ad hominem style since you can't defend your precious movie critic overlords

Also does no one find it so forced that the WW movies somehow have to be directed by a female movie director?

As if Captain Marvel wasn't an eye-opener already.

Or Ghostbusters.

Or Ocean's 8.

Or Lucy.

Or even the first WW movie.

I could go on and on about this

I think any observant and sensible movie junkie can agree by now how incredibly biased and politically correct RT movie critics are these days.

and you people still take movie critics seriously.

Just pluck and put any female actress into a lead role about female empowerment. Boom, instant positive reviews from so much liberal-biased critics

Also if not for the liberal-as-s*** film critics, WW wouldn't be getting a 65% on RT right now. It's ridiculous

Everyonedies posted...

Yes, and it's fucked up. Once Christmas weekend is over I expect there will be many articles and reports on what happened.

nah there won't be. Most liberal media only think of rape as men being the perpetuator.

Women? NOPE.

TheoryzC posted...

Aquaman and WW needed none of this since they were origin stories but could use them in the next movies

they should have still added more DCCU references to make audiences aware of the wider universe.

I think what ultimately cemented the MCCU was the number of subsequent Avengers movies produced. The first Avengers movie was like a wakeup call to casual movie-goers to make them realize...'hey, these movies are all connected!'. WB trying to fast forward and do Justice League instead is really a bad move.

Also lastly, I blame the film critics. They just loved dissing on Snyder and they're also very much responsible for each failure of the early DC movies like Man of Steel to Justice Leage

Zikten posted...

oh btw, yea you are right they suck at building their universe. they seem to have abandoned that plan anyway. WW 84 takes place decades before Justice League and BvS, but it retcons some things.

in WW84, Diana learns how to fly, but she doesn't fly in BvS and Justice League. I think they are just saying "fuck it" and doing whatever they feel like now

they removed Snyder, who was the key person building the DCCU and keeping things together. MCCU had that guy (forgot his name) that was equally responsible for the MCCU.
Without Snyder at least serving as producer on WW84 and future DCCU movies, the whole thing is gonna tear itself apart with other directors jumping the gun and adding other canon-breaking s***

Zikten posted...

my brother is close to one. he knows the movie exists but he forgets the name of it and never saw it. He has only seen like 1 of the DCEU movies I think. Man of Steel or maybe BvS. but anyway the other day I was talking to him and he was trying to mention Justice League but couldn't think of the name and he ended up calling something like "Batman League" or something like that. he doesn't really know much about comics outside the movies. I keep telling him Shazam is the best one and for him and my nephew to watch it. but he doesn't believe me

I don't blame him. Or any of them.

DC just made their movies too damn convoluted. Like how the hell do they expect people to follow when you keep changing actors... keep making prequels and sequels across diff parts of the timeline...

Aquaman was set after JL yet it was hardly obvious. WW was set before JL. WW84 again set before JL... And now a Batman movie set in IDK when and with Ben Affleck replaced.

I was asking this person before who planned to watch WW84 if she had watched Batman v Superman. Apparently she didnt even know what that movie was about.

From what I can see, WB has only done an absolutely horrendous job in building their DCCU. The problem is the individual movies like Aquaman and WW were hardly relevant to the wider movies like BvS and Justice League. If they had included camero appearances or made other DC characters involved (eg. Spider-man Homecoming), it would have helped raised audience's awareness of the wider DCCU

and many of these watched the MCU films. Like wtf.

pogo_rabid posted...

"incel" is just being used as code for "white male I don't like" these days.

exactly this. Used to be 'virgin' or 'internet normie' or 'neckbeard', but I guess these grew out of fashion, huh.

Most people aren't virgins, most people use the internets and having a beard is pretty normal these days. Thus they look for new derogative terms to use. It's also pretty sad to see how we have categorised these terms differently. If you just go to wikipedia for example, me using 'SJW' is apparently considered pejorative but using 'incel' is actually a perfectly normal term to label people as even if they don't belong to the real incel community or aren't actually virgins.

'Incel' has become the new trigger-happy term for SJWs to use to label anyone against them we don't have to resort to proper argumentations and reasoning anymore. It's like saying practically anything miniscule negative about females gets you the label now, even if it's some constructive criticism or something not even relevant to the female gender.
like

'hey, that movie scene featuring <said actress> was pretty bad -'
'oh you're an incel.'

'well, that guy is indeed more capable and deserves that promotion over her.'
'oh you're an incel'

'one thing I don't like about her is -'
'oh you're an incel.'

Also, if they're making a Spider-man reboot...obviously they need to do some things differently?

What's the pt if it's the same Parker, same Mary Jane for?

Samurontai posted...

This is true

I just dont like Garfields take on Peter because hes not supposed to be some super confident cool guy, hes supposed to be a socially awkward smart kid

Garfield did play an amazing Spider-Man though, just not a good Peter

Tobey had the worst iteration of them both though, especially the garbage that was SM3

that's not true. Parker in the comics also differs in personality dpending on writer. Yeah, he's an awkward teen in the beginning but like 90% of the comics since is on an adult Parker who's a lot more stuck up, snarky and confident.

ASM also takes place with an older Parker, unlike Tobey's case (which makes more sense because Tobey already looks like a grown ass dude man)

Hippocrates posted...

Tobey movies are only good cuz they're so hammy and funny. Peter in asm is such an asshole and he's not shown to be a genius at all

no Tobey movies were only good because he was the first Spider-man and most people never read the comics s othey had no reference to base and judge Tobey on.

Samurontai posted...

Yeah, and his attitude completely changed in ASM2

Honestly, thats just the main reason I didnt like it. It had horrible pacing, and crammed too much stuff into one movie.

no it doesn't.

what the heck are you on. Explain his character change then.

Garfield is actually more likeable in ASM2 imo. In ASM1 he acted like a snobbish douche toward villians the moment he became Spider-man.

Hippocrates posted...

he was a bad Peter Parker in 1 too. I like the movies but he's an awful peter

HOW exactly??

If you want to talk about accurate to source material, need I remind you
Tobey Macguire's Spiderman is the least accurate one of all

Movie critics are the absolute definition of herd mentality.

I swear, all critics got to do is give a movie a negative score and everyone else on the planet will automatically think it's a bad movie too and make up their own reasons to justify this delusion.

Imagine if critics gave Avengers Endgame a bad score (which will never happen). I betcha the box office will tank by 50% because you guys are blind ass sheep

Samurontai posted...

Because Peter Parker was a bad Peter Parker

funny because critics praised ASM1 for the same Peter Parker?

Case in point... Capt. Civil War. Movie literally just crammed in a new spiderman, black panter, skull dude villian and Baron Zemo who was hardly present throughout most of the movie.

Yet critics think it's the best s*** ever too

Hippocrates posted...

it's pretty hokey and there's so much crammed into it the pacing suffers. also Peter's a douchebag and not a genius

see, same stupid complaint I see with no substance to it.

Tell me agian, WTF is wrong with having more than one villian? You see Avengers movies with so much unnecessary cameo characters crammed inside yet critics think it's the best thing ever.

ASM2 actually managed to develop both Electro and Golbin side-by-side. I don't see any qualms here. Also, the movie is entertaining. Isnt that what matters?

I just watched the movie again and see nothing wrong with it. It's basically another Spider-man 3 attempt with multiple villians (whicvh apparenlty critics hate) but I found it well-made this time.

This is by far the most definitive Spider-man film I've watched. The costume, the characters, the portayal of villians. It's all amazingly done and Garfield acted well in it.

Seriously wtf is people's problem with the movie? Just because it has 'MORE THAN ONE VILLIAN, BNOOHOO, IT'S AUTOMATICALLY BAD!!"??

gamer167 posted...

Whats up with the Series X not getting any attention?

I feel like I dont see posts about it here, I dont see people talking about it on social media, etc.

too long name.

Raid 2 is better overall but Raid 1 had a much more badass final fight scene. That maddog fight in the basement is legendary.

https://www.reddit.com/r/Conservative/comments/kbejfy/trump_files_lawsuit_against_everyone_who_voted/

somehow this thread became the top-voted on the sub lol. And see all the downvotes in the comments

please give credits to the book as the source material.

ModLogic posted...

cyberpunk setting always has a futa or 2. who are the futas in this game?

if you mean lesbian sex, yes, it's all there

you even get to bang that blonde military chick, whatever her name is

these are some next-gen 1st person stuff lol

truth is, everyone just using one another to their own means and end

sad sickening world we live in

Wutobliteration posted...

scratch my back, I scratch yours

correct term is a reciprocity relationship.

scratch my back, I scratch yours

Wutobliteration posted...

tell me of an open world game with better-looking character models then? IN FIRST PERSON??
have you seen RDR2 in first person?

I'll wait, kiddo

EmbraceOfDeath posted...

Those graphics aren't incredible unless you've only ever gamed on consoles before or something. The character models in particular are garbage going from the video you posted.

tell me of an open world game with better-looking character models then? IN FIRST PERSON??
have you seen RDR2 in first person?

the video clips are f***ing hilarious lmao

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z1Vo_RbCD_8
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EfvxEuJzDXw
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oRMJ-UR9_Dk
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gtnehMIdLMM
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=63PQsT7sXfs
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lLlSrkVsjqs

JoeRodonExprien posted...

The difference is Crysis pushed graphical boundaries while Cyberpunk is a just incredibly poorly optimized and looks like an up-rezed Chronicles of Riddick

you gotta be blind if you can't see how incredible the graphics are.

The game is only unoptimised if you're running on old-gen consoles or a trash PC

this is some next-level stuff right here man

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hZp8fXLXgqg

sure, there are bugs and glitches, but it's pretty unavoidable given the enormous scale f the game

the game has set a totally new benchmark of what gaming systems are challenged by now.

oh great, so Captain America will be back as Johnny Storm no?

there's blood in mario?

IXI_Fission_IXI posted...

Utilitarianism is a disgusting way to try and min/max human suffering. Shit isnt a video game.

Utilitarianism is a good way of seeing reality as it is and acting in accordance. There's nothing wrong with it.

I think you are the one watching too many movies if you think acting on good faith or emotions is any better

DuneMan posted...

Was expecting something more like:
* Is there permanent harm involved with the decisions?
* If there is, how does the severity compare?
* If the severity is the same, which choice allows for the most life opportunity afterward?
Something like that...

nah bro. Just flip a coin or toss a dice.

mark your choices on a dice and roll it.

Let the dice decide your choice then.

So whichever you choose, it doesn't matter because it's not your fault. You left the choice up to randomness (aka 'the dice')

this is the only feature I care about

bump.

man the series looks awesome, but too bad I can't find the full series to watch.

Here's one clip of the kamen riders fighting

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UH4cuC9PyNE