riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 14:47:38 GMT -5
Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. Which is my point regarding Rotten Tomatoes and the "professional critics". The majority of these professional critics, in my opinion, happen to be these pro Marvel fanboys who hate anything that isn't Marvel. Just last night I was at work and overheard this man tell his wife after leaving Justice League "There's no way that deserved a 40%. That was actually pretty damn good." Rotten Tomatoes has a lot of power, critics have a lot of power, and if all they're doing is trashing material and having it spread like wildfire then it hurts the movie. We're not talking about Gigli, Bucky Larson, or some other obvious cash grab bad film. We're talking about the Justice League, Batman vs. Superman, and Suicide Squad that was unfairly ripped apart because it wasn't Marvel. Were they perfect films? No. Were there various out of character moments? Absolutely. But were they the worst films in the world? No, they weren't and that's where my problem lies with a lot of these "professional critics" who attempt to be witty, edgy, and are bitter. No one is buying this or will. BvS and Suicide Squad got what they deserved. Did they really deserve it though? Surely we all can agree that we've seen worse for sure. I know I have.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Nov 27, 2017 14:53:49 GMT -5
No one is buying this or will. BvS and Suicide Squad got what they deserved. Did they really deserve it though? Surely we all can agree that we've seen worse for sure. I know I have. Yes, they deserved what they got. Are there worse movies? Sure, but what the f*** kind of qualifier is that? Suicide Squad is the essence of mediocrity and franchise identity crisis with a disgusting amount of studio fingerprints all over it, only saved from being a massive failure due to three of the four main cast. BvS is a flaming pile of pretentious garbage embarrassed to be a superhero movie, so they got a hack director and his hack producer wife to make a poor man's deconstruction that's needlessly dark and obnoxiously, arrogantly dismissive of what makes it's lead characters special. It's not an embarrassing superhero movie, it's an embarrassing waste of two and a half to three plus hours. To summarize, trash.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 15:01:09 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure.
Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously.
Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office.
"Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:06:13 GMT -5
Did they really deserve it though? Surely we all can agree that we've seen worse for sure. I know I have. Yes, they deserved what they got. Are there worse movies? Sure, but what the f*** kind of qualifier is that? Suicide Squad is the essence of mediocrity and franchise identity crisis with a disgusting amount of studio fingerprints all over it, only saved from being a massive failure due to three of the four main cast. BvS is a flaming pile of pretentious garbage embarrassed to be a superhero movie, so they got a hack director and his hack producer wife to make a poor man's deconstruction that's needlessly dark and obnoxiously, arrogantly dismissive of what makes it's lead characters special. It's not an embarrassing superhero movie, it's an embarrassing waste of two and a half to three plus hours. To summarize, trash. From my perspective, I don't view Zack Snyder as a hack. I found 300, Watchmen, Dawn of the Dead, Man of Steel, and Batman vs. Superman to be excellent films and while they weren't perfect. I can appreciate Snyder for attempting to do something different. I truly believe his intentions were good and he set out to make a great film. As I pointed out regarding Man of Steel and Iron Man 3. When fans were pissed about the Mandarin twist in Iron Man 3 and were rightfully calling out Marvel for that, all of a sudden Man of Steel was about how depressing it was, how Superman didn't save anyone, how Zod and Superman caused so much damage, and yet in the Avengers and Age of Ultron we're seeing the same amount of mass destruction, and no one complains about it because it's Marvel. Superman and Zod are fighting causing destruction, Superman kills Zod, and yet people complain. It's a huge double standard that I find completely unwarranted and if we're going to be fair about it in retrospect then Iron Man 3 deserves it far more than Man of Steel. But as I said, because it's DC it gets a bad rep and because it's Marvel where it's more kid/family friendly it gets a pass. I just find it unfair.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 27, 2017 15:06:17 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Yeah, pretty much. Even if there was some secret cabal of people trying to make DC fail due to bad reviews... ignores that Suicide Squad still made a ton of money at the box office, and Wonder Woman was one of the highest rated movies of the year.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:07:44 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Blade Runner 2049 was an excellent film. But I think we can agree there's no way it would've been a huge hit since the first film was and is a cult classic. I don't think anyone was really clamoring for a sequel to Blade Runner. It just happened.
|
|
|
Post by The Heartbreak TWERK on Nov 27, 2017 15:09:24 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Yeah, pretty much. Even if there was some secret cabal of people trying to make DC fail due to bad reviews... ignores that Suicide Squad still made a ton of money at the box office, and Wonder Woman was one of the highest rated movies of the year. Don't let logic and fact get in the way of a good contrarian story.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 15:10:13 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Blade Runner 2049 was an excellent film. But I think we can agree there's no way it would've been a huge hit since the first film was and is a cult classic. I don't think anyone was really clamoring for a sequel to Blade Runner. It just happened. I didn't watch it but they pumped nearly $200MM into that thing - they thought it was going to be big. It crashed and burned. HARD And plenty of people were clamoring for it big time. Just not as many needed to justify a big budget like that.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:13:20 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Yeah, pretty much. Even if there was some secret cabal of people trying to make DC fail due to bad reviews... ignores that Suicide Squad still made a ton of money at the box office, and Wonder Woman was one of the highest rated movies of the year. Wonder Woman was getting trashed left and right during its production. Facebook memes, articles on this site, and YouTube videos literally had those same people that I mentioned calling it a failure, massive rewrites and reshoots, saying the production was a mess, and people posting that stupid Chris Evans laughing meme as well. It's a miracle that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press that it was receiving before it was released.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:14:21 GMT -5
Blade Runner 2049 was an excellent film. But I think we can agree there's no way it would've been a huge hit since the first film was and is a cult classic. I don't think anyone was really clamoring for a sequel to Blade Runner. It just happened. I didn't watch it but they pumped nearly $200MM into that thing - they thought it was going to be big. It crashed and burned. HARD And plenty of people were clamoring for it big time. Just not as many needed to justify a big budget like that. Of course I don't know everyone in the world. But were people really calling for a Blade Runner sequel?
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 15:14:51 GMT -5
I am not saying Marvel is paying off critics. What I am saying is that there are "professional critics" with an agenda and don't want to see anything that isn't Marvel succeed. That's the point I am trying to make. You're still not presenting any evidence that these types exist in sufficient numbers to influence the mass audience. A handful, sure, but hundreds? While we're on the subject, the criteria to be considered for inclusion in Rotten Tomatoes is pretty good at weeding out such types. Critics must maintain a status for a minimum of two years as a critic in one or more of: - A top 100 daily US newspaper - A top 100 weekly US newspaper - A top 100 magazine - A top 10 entertainment-based publication - A national TV outlet in one of the top ten DMAs - A national radio outlet in one of the top five DMAs - A website with a minimum of 500,000 unique visitors per month And all must demonstrate editorial oversight. Furthermore: Rotten Tomatoes bends over backwards to make sure the critics they source are as fair as possible and reserve the right to remove anything they feel may have an agenda. Couple that with the fact that Rotten Tomatoes is owned by the same studio that owns DC if there was some kind of unfair negative agenda against their own movies, Warner Bros. would have the power to remove their reviews from the aggregate score.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 15:18:01 GMT -5
I honestly don't think there's a connection between negative reviews and box office failure. Suicide Squad (which I personally enjoyed as a flawed, but still very cool superhero flick) got destroyed by critics and raked in $745MM world wide. For a movie that had one main character that people actually knew about (Quinn) - that seems like a solid number to me. It made $2MM in its 9th week. It probably did another $100MM in home video sales as well, so critics not liking it didn't hurt it too much in the long run obviously. Now, do I think critics are especially vulnerable to groupthink or writing from a specific bubble? Of course - that's true of any medium though. But I don't think that translates to any measurable effect at the box office. "Critically acclaimed" films bomb all the time and vice versa. Look at Blade Runner 2049. Critics fell all over themselves praising that movie and its barely made its budget back worldwide. People who like the film fall all over themselves making excuses for it (people didn't GET it, audiences are too dumb to appreciate it, it wasn't SUPPOSED to be a big hit..etc etc - the list of excuses is just as silly as superhero movie talk imo), but really what it comes down to is timing. Sometimes audiences are feeling it and sometimes they're not and there's no real way to calculate that. Exactly. At least 60% of the top 50 highest grossing movies of all time are "certified rotten." Critics don't kill box office numbers, plain and simple.
|
|
|
Post by A Platypus Rave is Correct on Nov 27, 2017 15:18:52 GMT -5
Yeah, pretty much. Even if there was some secret cabal of people trying to make DC fail due to bad reviews... ignores that Suicide Squad still made a ton of money at the box office, and Wonder Woman was one of the highest rated movies of the year. Wonder Woman was getting trashed left and right during its production. Facebook memes, articles on this site, and YouTube videos literally had those same people that I mentioned calling it a failure, massive rewrites and reshoots, saying the production was a mess, and people posting that stupid Chris Evans laughing meme as well. It's a miracle that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press that it was receiving before it was released. Doesn't change that when it came out Audiences AND CRITICS loved it.
|
|
|
Post by Feargus McReddit on Nov 27, 2017 15:20:47 GMT -5
Dude, I'm sorry, but you have to understand how sites like Rotten Tomatoes actually work. Thor didn't "get a 90%", JL didn't "get a 40%"; putting it that way makes it sound like critics are saying Thor was an A-level movie, or JL a D-level one. All it does is say what percentage of the reviews were positive. That's it. Many Thor reviews may simply be "it was alright", and something that lukewarm would count toward the 90%. It just so happened that Thor was such an agreeable movie that the vast majority of critics at least felt it was worth an "eh, pretty good". I wasn't blown away by it, but if I was being asked my opinion in a simple "good" or "bad" binary, I'd say it was good. Similarly, JL getting 40% or whatever doesn't mean the reviews were all "4 out of 10", it just means they might've been just as lukewarm as some of the positive Thor reviews, just in the negative direction. Given JL's obvious flaws due to its troubled production, many reviewers not being that into it can't be particularly surprising, but it doesn't mean they all hated it. Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. I'm going to stop your quote right there because you're just ignoring the point HMark said above. Grading does not work that way. When something's been graded, there's usually just one teacher that knows what they're doing and that mark comes from a system established on what gets the best marks and either what is correct and factual or what is written to the standard the person grading the test wants. RT takes an estimate of someone's review, categorises it out of 10 and then puts that with all the other grades to make a bigger percentage of all the other reviews. The grade you see is NOT, and this needs to be repeated again NOT, what each individual critic thought of the film. It's an estimate. It's a flawed estimate because, as it has been shown, people take THAT part of the process seriously and what's been said. I know of critics that liked the film. I know of more critics that DIDN'T like the film. Those are going to make up a bigger degree of the overall percentage no matter their actual more indepth thoughts. Some of those critics might not even like the other Marvel movies. You'd have to read all the reviews and figure it out yourself instead of, honestly, throwing out contrived conspiracy theories. And I'm the guy that would give away my little brother for a damn good Green Lantern movie.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:25:11 GMT -5
Wonder Woman was getting trashed left and right during its production. Facebook memes, articles on this site, and YouTube videos literally had those same people that I mentioned calling it a failure, massive rewrites and reshoots, saying the production was a mess, and people posting that stupid Chris Evans laughing meme as well. It's a miracle that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press that it was receiving before it was released. Doesn't change that when it came out Audiences AND CRITICS loved it. You're right, it did great and critics did love it. Still doesn't change that it was being absolutely eviscerated during its pre-production and post production. The fact that it overcame an obvious agenda from whomever was a miracle honestly.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Nov 27, 2017 15:26:43 GMT -5
I didn't watch it but they pumped nearly $200MM into that thing - they thought it was going to be big. It crashed and burned. HARD And plenty of people were clamoring for it big time. Just not as many needed to justify a big budget like that. Of course I don't know everyone in the world. But were people really calling for a Blade Runner sequel? When the director and lead actor were announced, people were losing their shit over it (in a good way). I think the studios were banking on the director's previous success combined with critical love and the iconic nature of the original to make it a hit. It just didn't pan out.
|
|
|
Post by Mighty Attack Tribble on Nov 27, 2017 15:30:03 GMT -5
Wonder Woman was getting trashed left and right during its production. Facebook memes, articles on this site, and YouTube videos literally had those same people that I mentioned calling it a failure, massive rewrites and reshoots, saying the production was a mess, and people posting that stupid Chris Evans laughing meme as well. It's a miracle that Wonder Woman overcame the bad press that it was receiving before it was released. That's not agenda or bad press, though. Wonder Woman did have a troubled production and did have studio meddling. Those are facts, and they were reported on. The negativity came from the established pattern at that point. BVS and Suicide Squad both had troubled productions also, and both had studio meddling. Both turned out to be unmitigated disasters, so why at that point should people have expected Wonder Woman to be any different? When it was released critics loved it, naysayers had to eat some crow, and everybody was happy. Justice League again followed the same pattern of troubled production and studio meddling, but the real damage was done by BVS. As much as fanboys drooled over it, it turned off a lot of the casual audience, and those are the people who haven't come back.
|
|
riseofsetian1981
King Koopa
"I met him fifteen years ago. I was told there was nothing left."
Posts: 10,323
|
Post by riseofsetian1981 on Nov 27, 2017 15:31:02 GMT -5
Okay, I'll put it like this. Say I wrote a paper that is to be graded by the elite professors and the highest score I could receive is 100%. I receive the paper back after it's been graded and it's a 95% result. Does that mean my paper sucked? Does that mean the majority of the elite professors hated it? No, I still received a very high grade and it was highly regarded amongst those who found it to be a well written and researched analysis. I'm going to stop your quote right there because you're just ignoring the point HMark said above. Grading does not work that way. When something's been graded, there's usually just one teacher that knows what they're doing and that mark comes from a system established on what gets the best marks and either what is correct and factual or what is written to the standard the person grading the test wants. RT takes an estimate of someone's review, categorises it out of 10 and then puts that with all the other grades to make a bigger percentage of all the other reviews. The grade you see is NOT, and this needs to be repeated again NOT, what each individual critic thought of the film. It's an estimate. It's a flawed estimate because, as it has been shown, people take THAT part of the process seriously and what's been said. I know of critics that liked the film. I know of more critics that DIDN'T like the film. Those are going to make up a bigger degree of the overall percentage no matter their actual more indepth thoughts. Some of those critics might not even like the other Marvel movies. You'd have to read all the reviews and figure it out yourself instead of, honestly, throwing out contrived conspiracy theories. And I'm the guy that would give away my little brother for a damn good Green Lantern movie. Once again, if scores don't matter as you put it. Why are they continually thrown around then? Get Out received a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes and I saw where it said 87% liked it. Okay, why is the 99% so focused on then? Scores don't matter right? You look on the Get Out DVD cover and it says "Certified Fresh on Rotten Tomatoes". People look it up and they see 99%. People look up Justice League and see 35% or 40%. People obviously are looking at the scores and are allowing critics to make up their minds for them. As I said, I am not saying that there's this massive conspiracy. Please don't put words in my mouth. I am simply saying that there's an obvious bias and agenda amongst certain professional critics. I honestly do believe that there are a lot of critics who are simply pro-Marvel, whether or not they're being paid by them is not for me to say. But they're trashing a product by simply over exaggerating the flaws, intentionally misleading, and with the power of the Internet it spreads a lot of faster and easier obviously.
|
|
|
Post by Kevin Hamilton on Nov 27, 2017 15:31:51 GMT -5
Wasn't it that since Superman died, that allowed Steppenwolf to return? The lack of a hero of that strength and magnitude caused fear and left a huge opening to attack. You're right thematically that that's why. It just felt way too quick and 'oh ok he's back'. If JL had been two movies like originally planned, it probably wouldn't have felt as rushed. Also, I think it's a wash with how he was brought back in the books vs the movie. Don't see either as inherently silly. Though in the comics the reasoning was a)The Eradicator took his body to preserve Kryptonian culture and bring him back & actually convinced itself it was him and b)he came back over a period of about a year. During that time, you saw the despair of the world, the pretenders etc. Thematically it wasn't significantly different from the movie; just timeframe/what we saw on-screen. They made an attempt to voice the hope gone etc; it's just that it fell a bit flat given we didn't actually see it play out AND in the last movie he was in, half the world was against him. Neither is thematically any MORE silly, it was just a lil rushed movie wise
|
|
|
Post by BayleyTiffyCodyCenaJudyHopps on Nov 27, 2017 15:34:38 GMT -5
I mean it's not like the MCU hasn't had it's share of cinematic turd offerings that got critical roasting for being shit (Oh hai Inhumans!) God, Inhumans was sooooooo bad. The heroes are trying to maintain a bad social order, the villain was boring, the costumes looked like butt...
|
|