Guardians of Galaxy Vol 2 reviews

>>91637619
anyone leak the post-credits scenes yet?

Under which hashtags are they posting?

>Mantis and Drax steal the movie.
Sounds great.

Do we have any leaks of this yet? Seems weird that it comes out so soon and nothing has been leaked yet.

4 post credit scenes

https://twitter.com/mikeryan/status/854198271346176000

>>91637619
>>Tearjerker
>>Pratt and Diesel both cried during it
Dead Yondu.

>>91637619
Pros:
>James Gunn is based
>Likable characters
>Made by proper fans
>Has a solid tone
>Good art/costumes/makeup/sets/FX
cons:
>baby groot
>synergy ruins the comic versions by making them shittier alternatives to the film characters

>>91637746
>>James Gunn makes sure he ones up everyone.
Based.

File: 1470634015984.jpg (44KB, 264x412px) Image search: [Google]

44KB, 264x412px

>>91637619

>>91637619
good, whilst the first one was focus-group bullshit this one actually has a chance of being good as long as disney actually gave gunn proper control this time (now that he's associated with a high-performing film)

http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/guardians-galaxy-2-first-reactions-press-screening-994610?utm_source=twitter&utm_source=t.co&utm_medium=referral

I'm getting it's the first one on steroids.Hyped as fuck.

>>91638053
Wtf i hate gotg vol 2 now

>>91637746
Based.

>>91638053
>InSneider

>>91637732
Disney snipers, man. They may have just streamlined it and implanted head-bombs into the whole cast and crew.

>>91638053
Out of 3 DCU films, there isn't one that's even as good as a 2.5 yet. So FUCKING sad. LOL!

>>91638158
>Out of 3 DCU films, there isn't one that's even as good as a 2.5 yet.

All 3 of them are great films.

Better than Guardians of the turd jokes I can tell you that much

>>91637732
>Do we have any leaks of this yet? Seems weird that it comes out so soon and nothing has been leaked yet.
Well the audience are all pro critics who does this for a living. You don't leak when it would hurt your own career. They are all writing their reviews and will publish them on the same day as everyone else.

91638188
At least put a little effort, my dude.

>>91637619
well... people loved the first one, and dr strange too. that didnt hel to get into the billion dollar club.
Same with this one... dont get your panties wet anon, is a dumb movie with a dumb plot "Ill do anything for my friends... that i just met", dont overthink about it.
And the most popular character says a fucking word....

>>91638268

All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian that felt like a threat to the main characters, action scenes that don't look T.V tier and the final battle wasn't meant to be comedic in neither of the films.

While literally all Marvel films after Avengers have been just dumbed down action flicks with stupid quips that break tension.

I will give them that Civil War is easier to follow compared with BvS but maaaan that was a fucking dumbed down movie with tone issues all over the place, no real politics, both character were ''wrong for the right reasons'', way to play it safe, assholes.

Is basically Winter Soldier with a different third act.

Of fucking course that BvS is a better film than that turd, a movie about two heroes clashing with each other based on their ideals and morals with a bad guy pulling the strings and making people not trust the heroes and the heroes not trusting each other while building up future movies in a way that doesn't hijack the film

Like reading a fucking comic, its not perfect but at least is trying to do some shit instead of doing the same film yet again

Just give me a single MCU movie that takes risks plot wise, just one, one that you can say is about the interesting plot and the action and stupid jokes play a second part to it

File: Patrick_&_Spongebob_Laughing.jpg (111KB, 1152x864px) Image search: [Google]

111KB, 1152x864px

>>91638389
>All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian
Didn't even need to read the rest.

>>91638382
>that didnt hel to get into the billion dollar club.
You know we're not making money of this movie, right? Who gives a shit

>>91638437
Don't fed (you)s to dumb shitposters and their companywars, anon.

>>91638429
>>All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian

Marvel hasn't made a single good bad and Gotg2 is the same old shit, Baby Groot kills Ego at the end pressing the button while trying to look cute, fucking embarrasing ''lol they planned that since the movie started??? GREAT WRITTING SO FUNNY''

>>91638462

>>91638437
>Who gives a shit
/tvirgins/

91638462
Doesn't make your dumb statement any more true

>All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian
Double kek.

File: moon girl has it going.jpg (136KB, 820x424px) Image search: [Google]

136KB, 820x424px

>>91637619
I heard that moon girl makes a cameo

I'm just here to laugh at all of you.

File: 1480476220012.gif (2MB, 500x208px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x208px

CAN'T STUN THE GUNN

>>91638462
>Baby Groot kills Ego
is this a joke????

>>91638502
Not possible. Everything Inhuman related is automatically BTFO out of the MCU along with their overlord Ike the Kike.
Even Kamala is projected appear in that shitty New Warriors sitcom.

File: mfw i open this thread.gif (3MB, 500x281px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 500x281px

>>91638389
>two heroes clashing with each other based on their ideals and morals with a bad guy pulling the strings

They fought solely over a kidnapped mom.

Bruce could have been removed from the film entirely and it would have gone exactly the same way. While he was turned against Superman ideologically, he was basically Luthor's B-plan which Luthor chose to play first rather than second, the A-plan being Doomsday.

Luthor manipulating Bruce to turn against Clark makes no sense when the kryptonite was in Luthor's hands, and he neither helped Bruce get it nor anticipated that he would. Before Luthor even knew Bruce was after it, he was manipulating Bruce through the Wayne Enterprises employee.

It's trash.

>>91638522
Just the local retard. Feel free to ignore him.

>>91638499
>Double kek.
Its true.

General Zod was a badass.
Enchantress was hot as fuck and really cool visually, that final battle with Diablo was impressive and I loved the tribal look of his transformation.
Lex Luthor was GREAT and you I don't give a shit if you disagree, if you get over the fact that he is a different take on the character, you can have a lot of fun with Eisenbergs performance, he adds a lot of details to the character and the way he talks, just great to listen to.

Not to mention that the were in the film for more than 5 minutes


And what does Marvel have? a rock

>>91638462
>Baby Groot kills Ego at the end pressing the button while trying to look cute, fucking embarrasing ''lol they planned that since the movie started??? GREAT WRITTING SO FUNNY''

YOU FUCKER!!!

>>91638543
>They fought solely over a kidnapped mom.
Stopped reading beyond this point.

Let me guess, you also think that they stopped fighting because their mom had the same name? idiot.

>>91638462
can ayone confirm this? I want to spoil this TURD YOU DON'T WHAT A REAL TURD IS of a movie to everybody!

91638566
>Enchantress was hot as fuck and really cool visually
>Lex Luthor was GREAT
This is what a "good" villain is for this retard. The funny part is that Zod, the only decent antagonist in the DCEU, only gets a generic "i-i'ts badass!!!".
Stop embarrassing yourself already dude. It's fucking sad.

>fun
>fun
>fun
>fun

jesus

>>91638611
>Let me guess, you also think that they stopped fighting because their mom had the same name?
They literally did.

>>91638624
>>91638583
It's a fucking quip to make fun of the MCU, you fucking retards.

>>91638646
>director no one respects or obeys
>starring Gal Gadot
It was going to be a shitfest no matter what.

File: 0002509864646y4756775.jpg (1MB, 2700x1800px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2700x1800px

>no one actually calling it good
>only calling it "fun"

Ahahahahahahahahhahahaahahahahaha

File: oooo my.gif (3MB, 426x426px) Image search: [Google]

3MB, 426x426px

>>91638640

>fun sucks, I'm only into pain and suffering

/co/ (/tv/) is gonna bitch about this movie for a year because "normies". It's obscenely transparent that some of you fuckmothers are going to take the contrarian stance no matter how dumb and you were always going to no matter what.

>>91638628
Zod would've been better as a robot.

File: America Quirky Rican pepe reac.png (123KB, 785x757px) Image search: [Google]

123KB, 785x757px

>>91638628
>>Lex Luthor was GREAT

I agree.

You are not so bad anon, don't go to the Guardians of the Galaxy premier in 2 weeks

File: 1490499301913.gif (143KB, 545x524px) Image search: [Google]

143KB, 545x524px

So are there any DCEUfags/anti-MCUfags who are actually surprised by this?

>>91637619
>""""""""""""""""""people""""""""""""""""""

>>91638698
>>91638682

i love memes

>>91638692
Surprised by your typical nu-male film "critic" crowd being enamored by quips, colors, and fun? Surprised by another generic Marvel Studios production being given a pass?

'no'

File: marvel dc quality.jpg (161KB, 1000x672px) Image search: [Google]

161KB, 1000x672px

>>91638628
>The funny part is that Zod, the only decent antagonist in the DCEU

Michael Shanon is crazy IRL, he did a great job with the character, you could feel his anger and dissapointment towards the council and his disdain for Clark.

Also that final Battle was great and it didn't look like a tv show

>>91638624
According to a french review the trailers only spoiled the first 15 minutes. And oh boy, Gunn just confirmed there are 5 post credits scenes.

>>91638692
Denial can lead to shock.
For a couple months now fanatics were going "nobody cares bout GotG 2!" because that's the party line and that's what their echo chamber said.

Meanwhile actual audiences watching the trailers lose their shit at baby groot.

File: super laugh.jpg (30KB, 320x303px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 320x303px

>>91638670
>>no one actually calling it good
>>only calling it "fun"
MY SIDES

>>91638729
>5
Damn. I better stay outta the threads.

>>91638712
>Surprised by another generic Marvel Studios production being given a pass?
What's the pass for, exactly?

>>91638462
>t, Baby Groot kills Ego
what?

>>91638502
HOLY SHIT that Moon!

>>91638746
Its fun bro calm the fuck down!

>>91638729
>Gunn just confirmed there are 5 post credits scenes.

you mean 4 stupid jokes and one actual after credits scene?

>>91638053
>Ant-Man is my favourite MCU film
okay then, there are much better MCU movies than Ant-Man though

>>91638757
Is fun bad? If so, why?

>>91637772
>synergy ruins the comic versions by making them shittier alternatives to the film characters
I mean, that already happened years ago and I have a hard time blaming any one involved in the movie for that.

>>91638789
>Is fun bad?
fun is used as a generic praise that doesn't said shit about the film.

You can praise elements of the film without really spoiling it and specially after all the noise about ''muh base Gunn!!!!'' only getting the generic ''fun'' reaction is not a good sign.

at the very least is a shill sign

>>91638611
>DCucks are willfully illiterate

No, I just point out that the ideological conflict was completely one-sided. The closest Clark comes to having a real issue with Bruce is foreshadowed in their meeting at the gala, and in the (admittedly improved over the theatrical cut) Ultimate edition scenes in which he investigates Gotham.

Sadly this goes absolutely nowhere because Clark is given nothing to do for most of the movie. He never actively takes much of a stance against Batman past this point. Part of that is inherent in the whole purpose of the movie, from its opening "MANKIND IS INTRODUCED TO THE SUPERMAN" onwards: a movie about Superman as seen from the ground. Superman (not Clark) has a monolithic public image to be viewed from anywhere on Earth, so anyone can have an opinion on him (if not a correct one). But Batman is just a legend, and Clark doesn't even investigate that legend. We never see the way the world and Clark view Batman because he's kept invisible and unknown. It's impossible to make this a conflict with two ideological sides when one side is so hidden that the other can't even take a stance towards them.

It could have been handled by portraying the "legend" of the Batman that has developed over all the years Bruce has been Batman. That's something you can take a stance towards, but Clark never gets to do this.

So instead Luthor kidnapping Martha is shoehorned in to push Clark towards fighting Bruce, even though this makes no sense, per the previous post:
>>91638543

Clark had no other reason to fight Batman because the one reason he might was cut out of the movie, not followed up on, and replaced by WACKY LEX.

>>91638829
So fun is like "kino"?
Cuz I thought it was like, a descriptor of experience.

File: 1463060461665.png (149KB, 313x313px) Image search: [Google]

149KB, 313x313px

>>91638829
>''fun'' reaction is not a good

Fun IS a good thing you stupid cocksucker

>>91638814
That argument is bullshit tho. It only takes one writer to make everything work again. Though if he's referring to Marvel completely ignoring the DnA run characterizations then he has a point since the movie is the reason Bendis took the book.

>>91638841
>We never see the way the world and Clark view Batman because he's kept invisible and unknown.
We do kind of see how those hostages or whatever were as scared of him as the bad guys were and getting into Clark's head is kind of pointless given how little is in there.

>>91638859
'fun' and 'good' are swapable terms.


You'll never get anyone to realize it, though.

Calling one of these flicks "fun" instead of a true quality declaration is the bubbling up of these shill reviewers latent repressed moral subconscious

>>91638814
>I have a hard time blaming any one involved in the movie for that.

I blame the HACK that's got free reign to do as he pleases in the movie, A.K.A James Gunn.

Is his retarded ass vision

>IP count doesn't go up
>still forcing the 'fun' doesn't mean 'fun' narrative
weeew

>>91638955
So how come when we or they call a movie "bad" that's not a valid quality declaration?

>>91638966
Except Bendis' barely took things from the movie. He did his own shitfest, his own shitty plots and didn't even gave the characters the characterization from the flick, he just hamfisted his quippity-repeat-after-me 'personality' he always does.
The one who ate the movie and kept memeing was Humphries and his Star-Lord run is already forgotten by everyone.

File: this guy rea.gif (791KB, 480x270px) Image search: [Google]

791KB, 480x270px

>>91638978
>they call a movie "bad" that's not a valid quality declaration?
>bad
>not a valid quality declaration

>>91638978
Bad is just a meaningless word without any kind of argumentative weight, anon. People just use it to meme :^)

>>91638978
It is a valid quality declaration, but its just wrong. Duh

>>91639017
>Except Bendis' barely took things from the movie. He did his own shitfest,
that sounds like the movie and jesus fuck Bendis and movie GotG really feel like they belong together

>>91638955
Do you ever listen to yourself?
>the bubbling up of these shill reviewers latent repressed moral subconscious
Say that out loud, maybe to another person who's considered at least moderately intelligent by someone besides yourself, and see what kind of reaction you get.

If everyone in your life thinks you're crazy, it could be because you're crazy.

>>91639053
Found the shill

What'd they get you this time? Tickets to Avatar Land?

>>91639037
You're entitled to your opinion and I won't debate you why you think that. However, I'm glad you agree with the main point that the movie should not be blamed for the horrible quality of the GotG comic after the DnA run ended.

>>91639086

go to bed Zack "the hack" Snyder

>>91638640
>first movie is "fun"
>somehow surprised when the sequel is also "fun"

>>91639112
They should have known already seeming how both MoS and BvS went.

Post credits 3: Rocket notices Groot eating something and hide it from him. "Are you eating a symbiote? Damn thing is gonna kill itself trying to bond with you." Rocket takes it out of his mouth and throws it into the airlock. Camera pans out to show it being jettisoned and reveals that it's venom.

>>91639112
Some people expected them to make the sequel better not funner

>>91638502
It's a edit?
Don't know a shit of moongirl

>>91639195

Come on

Nobody here believes you

we all know Sony is making their standalone Venom box office bomb so there's not a chance they would let Disney use Venom for anything

>>91639104
>I'm glad you agree with the main point that the movie should not be blamed for the horrible quality of the GotG comic
I still blame the movie.

The look of the character was changed to make it look like the movie and that's when the comics started to suck

>>91639196
>Some people expected them to make the sequel better not funner
weeeeeeeeeeeeew lad

Good thing you already saw the movie and not basing your entire opinion of the movie in 5 tweets you read 10 minutes ago.

>>91639264
The movie put the gun in Bendis's hand but he pulled the trigger

File: moon girl and hulk.jpg (528KB, 1988x3056px) Image search: [Google]

528KB, 1988x3056px

>>91639203
its real, the whole comics is like this

>>91639264
Now, you're blaming the look of the characters for the book not being good? Heh.

>>91639280
then the movie is the one to blame, if you give a monkey a gun and the monkey ends up killing someone, who is to blame there?

>>91639281
>4th panel shows the collar of her shirt
>next panel she's in a bikini
Fucking Marvel editors I swear!

>>91639288
no, the look marks the era of meme writting for the comic

before the stupid movie shit the comic was a decnt Sci-fi with thought provoking ideas every once in a while, now is just Big Bang Theory tier

>>91639297
The monkey who was supposed to deliver a decent story, good characterization and instead made a smelly turd and printed it for sale.

>>91639281
Wait, did he undress her between panels?
Is Cholk gonna rape a loli?

>>91639324
Before the movie the fucking book was dead, you hopeless retard. The only reason it was revived is because of the movie.

>>91639337
or, the monkey that didn't took the material seriously and went ''80s references lmao'', which was Hack Gunn

>>91639355
>The only reason it was revived is because of the movie.

Yeah, waste your Shen-long wish to revive a beloved property just to rape it back into the grave

T-thanks Gunn

>>91639195
Sony is making a non MCU Venom movie you fucking idiot. Try harder next time

>>91639364
That argument was already refuted.
>>91639017

>>91638053
Who rates out of 4? What's even the fucking point if you're going to use decimals?

>>91639387
>a beloved property just to rape it back into the grave
Sounds like everything Marvel does, yes. You can blame the movie all you want, but it doesn't change the fact the book would suck regardless considering the timeframe it was released in. In fact, I even dare to say that if not for the movie Star-Lord would be a transexual negro in space or something.

>>91639297
Editorial, i.e. the zookeeper in this stretched metaphor.

The movie isn't blameless but no decision Gunn made with the source material is even within the same scope of awfulness as the decisions to 1) give Benis as much power as he has inside of Marvel, and 2) let him have the Guardians book.

>>91639450
Not to mention the movies are elseworld stories and Marvel loves to shoehorn the popular ones in the main continuity for no reason.

Everything boils down to Marvel comics division being fucking shit.

>>91639430
Ignore him, if you read his other tweets, he's only hating vol2 because "it's no Logan"

>>91639516
There's that too I guess, but still, why a decimal system if you're supposedly rating out of 4 anyways?

>>91639516
>>91639530
His reviews are 5/7 tho'.

>>91639530
>implying kino can be rated in a base 10 system

>>91637772
>>synergy ruins the comic versions by making them shittier alternatives to the film characters

Blame this on the shitty Marvel Comics writers who have no clue what to do with the comic but follow the MCU and the Editors who enable that shit by forced writers to do synergy or overlooking when they fuck up.

Fuckers let Bendis run this long

>>91638012
Well, this is a bit beyond "fun" now, isn't it?
>loved it
>super happy
>emotional profoundness
>kept a smile on my face
Yes, nobody said "good". But that does only say that "good" was not a sufficient description. And I am happy they had more meaningful adjectives to award.
If nobody says it's good, that might mean nobody finds it good, or -which seems more likely- that much goes without saying.
I'll take an "I love it".

some people say the same thing about Rogue One, but in the end I was pretty disappointed with it

>>91638583

Yea, no

http://comicbook.com/marvel/2017/03/25/kurt-russell-sylvester-stallone-future-marvel-movies/

>>91637690
I doubt they will add post-credit scenes till actual release.

File: harold.jpg (56KB, 1280x720px) Image search: [Google]

56KB, 1280x720px

>>91638692
years of falling for kickstarter scams have made me wary of literally everything that comes out ever

>>91639964
It's more because editors like breevort hated the gotg concept (since they didn't think of it) and the people responsible for championing it like Giffen, Schmidt and DnA left the company.

>>91638189
>people are unironically looking forward to Guardians of The Reddit: Reddit Harder edition
>these are the kind of people I share this board with
Really having an existential crisis right now.

>All these critics saying it's funny

Then why has none of the marketing been funny?

>>91640389
Do you judge movies by their marketing.

>ctrl f "DC" 11 results
Oscarlets never disappoint

The CG looks good at the very least, judging from the clip they showed on Kimmel.

>>91640389
>We're bad guys its what we do.

>>91640389
Marketing is done by a completely separate division and are usually terrible. It's why you'll see trailers that are completely different in tone from the film, trailers that obscure or mislead the audience about the plot and genre, and trailers that flatout spoil large chunks of the movie.

>>91640584
If there were good jokes in the movie I'd think they'd at least try to put a few in the trailers.

>People enjoyed it! It's a conspiracy!
I've been on /co/ for a long ass time now and I'm really saddened to see how overrun the place is with hipsters that can only like stuff ironically.

Saddened, but not surprised.

>>91640606
Hey I'd take this more seriously if it was actual film critics saying it's good, and not the same half dozen nerd press junket hacks that say this about every MCU film.

>>91640620
So which film critic are you waiting for to validate your opinion?

>>91640665
Me, personally, I'm waiting for RLM, I have to know if my friends think it's good.

>>91640665
Just anyone who hasn't already bought the t shirt.

>>91640665
It's Armond White. It's always Armond White with these people.

>>91640683
>with these people.
>these people
You mean /tv/

>>91640778
I meant hipster douchebags that need to chew on a big bag of rusty razor blades but if you want to lump those sanctimonous pissnugget hipster faggots into one board, I won't stop you. I'll think it's short-sighted, but I won't stop you.

>>91640606
Ever since MCu took off and /tv/ got interested in the Marvel vs DC shit it came to this.

You love something it's people crying "SHILL!!!" you hate something and they're screeching "BUTTHURT!!" and then someone calls you a cuck.

>>91640584
Case in point: none of the trailers I've seen for Ballerina/Leap! gave me any desire to watch it. Overdone plot in the trailer, bizarre obvious jokes added for the trailer that didn't line up with flaps, the works. But apparently it's actually pretty good (and the dialog syncing up probably due to dub issues as well as dumb jokes for advertising). I recall the original Guardians marketing not being much better either.

>trusting paid Disney reviews
Dumb /co/cksuckers.

Collider says it's fun so it's fun.

I just wanna know who Michael Rosenbaum and Sly Stallion are playing, that's all

>>91641330
YEAH BRO I LOVE WHEN IMPRESSIONABLE JOURNALISTS WHO GET TREATED TO FREE TRIPS BY DISNEY SAY THEY LIKE A DISNEY MOVIE

>>91637697
#notabotIswear

>>91637619
>it's another marvel shilling thread
oy vey

What was Sly's role

File: 1488645498297.png (283KB, 800x835px) Image search: [Google]

283KB, 800x835px

>>91641711
>PEOPLE LIKE THESE GOOD MARVEL MOVIES AND HATE MY SHITTY DC MOVIES!!! THEY MUST BE PAID!!!!!
or maybe it's just a great movie like they all are and you're just a moron

>>91641720
>>91641386
Starhawk

>>91641762
Show me one of these reactions calling it good

>>91638789
Fun is bad according to /tv/ and /v/ shitposters who want to claim they know it all, but actually only want things to fail because their hivemind is set on "Muh new TORtanic".

It's better to report and ignore those company war whores.

File: NXMCXT6.png (27KB, 497x204px) Image search: [Google]

27KB, 497x204px

It's over, GotG2 is shit confirmed

>>91642619
>ALL THESE GLOWING REVIEWS ARE NOT USING THIS SPECIFIC ADJECTIVE, IT'S SHIT, READ BETWEEN THE LINES SHEEP
getting real desperate here, son.

>>91642725
>Jeff Sneider
You're not fooling anyone, Zack.

>>91642725
REMINDER THAT THE REVIEW EMBARGO IS DOWN

ANY OF THESE PEOPLE COULD GIVE A RATING OR CALL IT "great" OR "good" OR "amazing" OR "fantastic" BUT NONE DO

MEANWHILE THE ONE NEGATIVE REACTION SO FAR ACTUALLY GIVES A RATING AND CALLS IT "not as good"

WHAT MOTIVATES THIS BEHAVIOR: THAT THE ONLY ACTUAL REVIEW IS NEGATIVE AND ALL OTHER REACTIONS FROM THESE ADVANCE SCREENING BIG WEBSITE CRITICS ARE "You're gonna laugh so hard!" "You're gonna get so emotional!" "You're gonna have fun!" "You're gonna find so many Easter Eggs!" "You're gonna be so surprised!" AS IF THEYRE TRYING TO GET YOU TO WATCH THE MOVIE INSTEAD OF JUST GIVING THEIR RATING OF RATHER IT WAS GOOD OR NOT

CAN YOU PEOPLE REALLY NOT SEE THROUGH THIS SHILL BULLSHIT

Sequart has been the only website that dared tell the truth about GotG. I will wait until the review GotG2.

>>91643467
*tips tinfoil hat*

File: Chill, dude.jpg (75KB, 499x477px) Image search: [Google]

75KB, 499x477px

>>91643484

>>91643484
Thread will die after this post. The truth is irrefutable. On to the next thread

>>91643484
Fun is everything

That is the sum of the law

File: 1455434347157.jpg (70KB, 322x343px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 322x343px

>>91638566
>Lex Luthor was GREAT

File: 1492268228638.jpg (293KB, 700x1120px) Image search: [Google]

293KB, 700x1120px

>>91643484

>>91638389
MMMM BOYS

File: 1486146574824.png (116KB, 402x398px) Image search: [Google]

116KB, 402x398px

How are Ego and Ayesha as villians?

File: 1457465260664.png (725KB, 978x683px) Image search: [Google]

725KB, 978x683px

>People in /co/ are literally claiming that fun is a buzz word
You really need to rethink your life when your engaging in actions that mirror dead shifty memes that /a/ abandoned years ago.

File: https-%2F%2Fblueprint-api-production.s3.amazonaws.com%2Fuploads%2Fcard%2Fimage%2F397888%2Fd9fdd338-3256-4682-a74d-cf33745d211e.jpg (154KB, 950x534px) Image search: [Google]

154KB, 950x534px

>>91637619
>Disney shill claim they like Disney movie
It ain't winning any award and you know it!

>>91637619
I know the movie is awesome but i only care about ONE DAMN THING. Is this song in the movie?

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

>>91643484
Only the social media embargo is down.No deep dark fantasy reviews until the 24th. Same shit with Civil war and Mr. Doctor.

http://screenrant.com/captain-america-civil-war-reactions/

>>91638389
>3 really well done villains
Even if you count Zod and Faora as two separate villains that's still only two.

>>91644201
it's gonna be so hilarious when GotG2 wins an oscar thanks to Shit Stain opening the door and both Blunder Womyn and Just League us alone sweep the razzies

>>91644265
Hey look! A review! >>91642725

File: gaha.jpg (134KB, 413x395px) Image search: [Google]

134KB, 413x395px

>>91638389
>All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian

When you start with a falsehood like that, you're basically telegraphic to your readers that every point you make from here on will be utterly retarded.

This shitposting is getting stale, when do we get the Rotten scores? That may produce enough butthurt for a couple fun new butthurt pastas about shills.May also incapacitate /tv/ for a couple hours.

>>91638611
>you also think that they stopped fighting because their mom had the same name
They literally did

There are underlying reasons, but it's still fucking stupid

>>91638053
>4 star rating system
For what purpose

>>91637619
>REEE now I have to hate it!

IT'S NOT FAIR SNYDERBROS

>>91637619
Which means that /tv/ will be forced to hate it.

These threads are absolutely packed with autism

>>91643484
This

>>91644785
>when do we get the Rotten scores?
If we end up with a Civil War situation and it's at 100% Fresh for like a week with something like 70 reviews, it won't be for a while

People are rubes

GotG is maximum normie bait....if you're seriously entertained by hipster mcginger, generic stronk womb man, and comic relief 1, 2, and 3 I don't what to say to you other than you're a faggot

Not saying all of the MCU is bad, but Guardians represents everything bad with it put in center stage with all lights glaring on it, the fact that most people probably never knew it was a comic book probably only helped this too as it just looks like a comedy version of Star Wars

>>91647667
You sound like an indian or a bot posting on twitter, is that the intention?

If not, you really seem like you'd be better in >>/tv/

>>91647667
>GotG is maximum normie bait
That means it will make money.

But seriously, if you think your favourite films should have as few people watching it as possible, good for you. But I doubt the studio making the film would want that.

>>91647735
>If not, you really seem like you'd be better in >>/tv/
Ironic, I can't imagine anybody who's actually a comic book fan from the pre-MCU era enjoying GOTG, I would just as likely tell you to go to /tv/ since I've literally never been there

Hence "normie"

>>91647736
>That means it will make money.
Yep, good on them, doesn't mean I have to like it or even that it's objectively good. Is Titanic one of your favorite movies?
>But seriously, if you think your favourite films should have as few people watching it as possible, good for you. But I doubt the studio making the film would want that.
It's not about wanting movies to make less money, it's about the fact that just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it's good

And you know what, somehow I doubt 80% of the GotG fanboys n' gals who exist now were ever fans before they saw the movie, I was never a fan period, so I won't act as if I have some moral upper ground as a "true fan", but yeah I don't know...I personally don't give a fuck if a movie like GotG makes money or not because I don't have a dog in that fight, the franchise means zilch to me, all that matters is that I think the movie is good, I don't

File: 1486820422166.jpg (49KB, 600x578px) Image search: [Google]

49KB, 600x578px

>>91638389
>All 3 of the DC movies had a really well done villian

New clips to soothe over butthurt and company wars.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cksCH2pygLE

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hGMK3DsWDP8

>>91648982
>It's not about wanting movies to make less money, it's about the fact that just because a movie makes money doesn't mean it's good
>And you know what, somehow I doubt 80% of the GotG fanboys n' gals who exist now were ever fans before they saw the movie,
And? If you just want "true fans" to watch GotG films, then Marvel would go bankrupt. In case you don't realise it, "true fans" can't financially support even a 10million dollar film. If you just want true fans to watch the film then you don't get to have a film.

>>91648982
>And you know what, somehow I doubt 80% of the GotG fanboys n' gals who exist now were ever fans before they saw the movie
What does that even have to do with anything? Surely you're not trying to pull some kind of "true nerd" cred?

File: 1415767446356.gif (2MB, 500x213px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 500x213px

>>91649183

>Drax is retarded

>>91649183
96% at least

>>91647736
>But seriously, if you think your favourite films should have as few people watching it as possible, good for you. But I doubt the studio making the film would want that.

Not really. Sometimes I want something that isn't produced in a board room to maximize mass appeal. But there is as much chance of MCU doing that as I have as ordering and getting a medium rare steak at McDonalds.

>>91638389
>Just give me a single MCU movie that takes risks plot wise

That's the one thing I give the DCEU movies, as at least they take risks. They are horrible horrible movies and nearly every risk they took they fucked up, but they did try. Its a nasty trade off. Marvel has formulaic sterile films that try to be as inoffensive as possible to have mass appeal, but the movies are still usually palatable. DC tries to do something different (until SS where they just wanted to copy GotG) but every attempt is worse than the last. They are trying, but the movies they are making aren't worth the 3 fucking hours it takes to watch them.

>>91649183
I wonder if they go through with the romance in this one, I liked that it was subverted in the first because there was no room for it, and it seems like it has even less in this with how packed it is.

>>91649298
The riskiest thing you can do is maintain the status quo

>>91649298
>That's the one thing I give the DCEU movies, as at least they take risks. They are horrible horrible movies and nearly every risk they took they fucked up, but they did try
Well congratulations. Your cheers are surely appreciated. Sadly that doesn't pay for bums on seats.

You can congratulate all you want, but Warner isn't going to take it as a good sign. Your "risky" films are not suppose to have 200 million dollar budgets. If you want arthouse, then get an arthouse budget.

>>91649298
>That's the one thing I give the DCEU movies, as at least they take risks.
Each movie past the abysmal MoS has moved closer and closer to being an MCU movie.

Risk-taking in SS would have meant no Joker/Batman/Harley. Instead they advertised it like a Joker-Harley romance/GotG ripoff.

>BvS
>Risk-taking in any way
I can't even take this idea seriously.

>>91649401
I don't think you know Warner Bros. As well as you think you might

>>91649298
Nothing that has 4 separate marketing buzzwords (Batman, Superman, vs and Justice) in it's title is taking any risks whatsoever.

>>91649266
He's a thesaurus.

>>91649401
All they would have to do is just look at fucking Fox. I knew Deadpool had a tight budget, but it blew my fucking mind that Logan did as well.
If they made a $90mill solo Batman movie, and after that WW, JL would be tracking for +$1bill right now.

>>91649502
Yeah, if you want a studio that actually takes real risks that pay off, look at Fox.

>>91649447
>I don't think you know Warner Bros. As well as you think you might
I don't think you realise the whole point of risk taking and artistic minded films are NOT meant to be profitable. It was even listed in Wikipedia, look it up yourself.

When you give a film 200 million budget, you expect most people to enjoy it. If you intentionally want a niche audience, then budget accordingly. Giving too much money to arthouse projects isn't sane, it is lunacy.

>>91649362
not if it never fucking seems like people will get sick of it

>>91649401
the key would be to have a movie that is even worth watching. I don't like the MCU movies but I see why people do. I have no clue why people like DCEU movies outside of being contrarians or wanting to think they are smarter than everyone else

>>91649411
they are risk averse in that they want Batman in everything, and like I said SS was ripping off GotG

>I can't even take this idea seriously
You don't think having Batman killing several people, killing Superman, and whatever the fuck Lex was were risks? Or having the entire movie be so fucking dark? I'm not saying the entire movie was wholly original and unique, just the things they actually did try to change up didn't work at all

>>91649529
See now you're starting to get it

>>91649502
>If they made a good solo Superman movie, and after that a good follow-up, JL would be tracking for +$1bill right now.
Fix'd

>>91649502
>All they would have to do is just look at fucking Fox. I knew Deadpool had a tight budget, but it blew my fucking mind that Logan did as well.
>If they made a $90mill solo Batman movie, and after that WW, JL would be tracking for +$1bill right now.
Yep. Logan and Deadpool are examples of niche audience films done right. There is no shame in lower budgets. Trying to throw more money where they don't belong doesn't make it better.

>>91649502
Logan had years of lore behind it and such so it wasn't all that surprising, the risk with superhero movies overall at the moment is possible burnout from over-saturation, as that movie was a culmination and finale of 2 iconic characters it worked very well. Rather than teasing movies to come at the end, it was basically a proper "The End." Which seems odd in things like comic books which are meant to be continuous stories.

>>91649579
Man of Steel could stay literally the same and it wouldn't matter, if the Incredible Hulk didn't make people lose interest in Marvel back then, one shit movie must not make that much of a difference.

>>91649488
the story took risks. I wasn't trying to say BvS was like an indie film or something, but it doesn't feel like a carbon copy of any other movie. It's its own pile of shit.

What the fuck else would they call it if they can't use Batman or Superman in the title? I agree the dawn of justice part was stupid, but not that Batman and Superman were in the title. Calling the Avengers the Avengers isn't a marketing scheme, its what it fucking is

>>91649301
The romance was present throughout the first movie too. I imagine they'll get a kiss out of this one.

>>91649555
>You don't think having Batman killing several people,
Every Batman movie evar.
>killing Superman
No one took that seriously for a minute, which is about as long as it took for them to show that he was clearly alive in any case.
>whatever the fuck Lex was
Yeah, having Lex Luthor be Superman's nemesis in 6 of 7 movies, mega-risk taking.

>>91649594
>the risk with superhero movies overall at the moment is possible burnout from over-saturation
This is being said for years now, mostly from Warner fans. And the basis is to justify why DCEU is burning through all the major stories as quickly as possible, because they are afraid of running out of time. Marvel Studios doesn't have that fear.

>>91649626
>if the Incredible Hulk didn't make people lose interest in Marvel back then,
Why would it? Hulk was actually decent. You must be thinking about Thor.

>>91637619
God the green alien bitch is ugly.

>>91640310
The four of them where there.

>>91649663
As much as I like Blonsky and the third act, the rest of the movie was pretty bad.
But yes, Thor is garbage too.

>>91649626
>Man of Steel could stay literally the same and it wouldn't matter, if the Incredible Hulk didn't make people lose interest in Marvel back then,

Robert Downey Jr is what kept people interested in the MCU. WB needs some sort of Robert Downey Jr, instead they are scrabbling with Batman Actor #5 and a Superman who basically IS the Incredible Hulk.

MCU's big challenge comes in the post RDjr phase.

File: deadpool1.jpg (70KB, 436x370px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 436x370px

>>91649722
Fox might finally have it's RDjr.
We'll know by the next film.

I don't know what Sony is gonna do.
I expect more of the DCEU or the more likely reboot to revolve closely around The Joker and Harley, with Batman as the straight-man.

>>91649722
Batman #6, not counting the animated ones.

>>91649795
>I don't know what Sony is gonna do.
Sony is trying to make a Venom film without Spiderman.

Yeah, that's insane. But no one said Sony Pictures was run by sane people.

>>91649594
>the risk with superhero movies overall at the moment is possible burnout from over-saturation
This is something that movie reviewers, comic fans who think they're elitist and /tv/ keep telling themselves so that they hope that someday people will stop talking about them.

File: Luthor.png (1MB, 1024x768px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 1024x768px

>>91649829
I don't count Adam We's television-series movie.

They need to just quit fucking around with "Increasingly Edgy Superman".
The genuine distaste for the character really shows through on the last 3 movies that featured him.

>>91649626
A thing you're forgetting is that Man of Steel wasn't just a 'meh" for huge parts of the audience, but an active disappointment. It's not really the same as Iron Man/Incredible Hulk because that was met with indifference rather than actual, vehement opposition and disappointment.

It's the double edged sword of Superman being *the* character that defined the genre. If you fuck him up, it's not just gonna me something you can sweep under the rug or blame audiences for not "getting".

>>91649795
Deadpool will be almost a separate franchise from the main x-men, he kind of requires an R-rating, even if he is wildly popular. Also as I recall Reynolds and the production team themselves didn't want to be offered a ridiculously huge budget for Deadpool because it's important that he stays almost street level.
And they can incorporate studio politics into his humor and such. Which can be distracting in a main-line franchise movie.

>>91649838
>Sony is trying to make a Venom film without Spiderman.
This has the potential for Catwoman level cat-astrophe. Don't they realize by now that 90's (and yes Venom reached big popularity in the 90's, I know he's actually late 80's) villains are cinematic garbage?

>>91649879
Well, it's along the lines of how all the remakes of old movies and shit are really hit and miss. Beauty and the Beast I guess raked in cash because nostalgia or something. Ghost in the Shell is apparently a flaming mess, though I'm not sure who's to blame for that in particular.

>>91649298
"Do this character more like Batman! Didn't work? Better add actual Batman then! Still didn't work? Fuck. What's our competition doing? Do that, but add in some Batman cameos!"

DCEU isn't taking risks. They're just playing a different safe formula.

>>91649945
GitS was shittily marketed, and studio people vastly overestimated the regard in which it's held by comic and anime fans.
It was a visually well-done anime forever ago. It has always had a dry story and a phenomenally dry cast. This is movie-poison. It wasn't a bad movie, it was just The Matrix without any likeable characters or groundbreaking sfx.

>>91649918
>Deadpool will be almost a separate franchise from the main x-men, he kind of requires an R-rating, even if he is wildly popular.
I think you underestimate the gravitic pull Deadpool's incredible success will have on future X-Men movies.
I think even the Singer die-hards at Fox realize they've played that shit out completely.

>>91649555
>You don't think having Batman killing several people,
As DCEU fans are all too eager to point out, Movie Batman kills a lot. If it's not a departure from formula, it's not a risk, right?
> killing Superman
They killed off a character that got met with failure the last time they tried it. And they couldn't even wait until after the credits to take it back. From a certain Superman wasn't a risk so much as damage control.
> and whatever the fuck Lex was were risks?
Not from a studio executive viewpoint. They went "Hey, Lex Luthor is a nerdy business guy, right? Snyder wants to hire that guy that plays nerdy business guys.."
>Or having the entire movie be so fucking dark?
WB thinks that's all that will sell. Their solution to fixing Green Lantern wasn't "have a space opera actually in space this time." it was "Make the next one darker and grittier like Batman".

Batman is a fucking curse on the entire DC lexicon. Because he's their only unmitigated success, everything has to fit into his mold.

>>91649654
not that his fucking character was nothing like Lex in the previous ones? Wasn't this one of the complaints of the movie?

>>91650087
TDK/TDKR are WB's biggest hits ever.
Of course they are going to try and recapture that money-magic.

>>91650107
Nah, just that it was a shitty, annoying character.
Lex Luthor isn't consistently used in Superman Movies, we've had campy Hack-Man Lex, Nearest-Mexican-equivalent Lex in III, seething hateful Returns Lex...

The problem with spastic BvS Lex is that he's an annoying spaz who simply lacks the screen power to be an adversary for Batman AND Superman.

>>91650107
The complains are actually a little more nuanced than that.
The thing is, Snyder's Lex basically is Hackman's. He doesn't have a "real estate" plan sure, but he's still an over the top campy caricature.
And that's incongruous not only with the entire rest of the movie around the character, but also with the public perception of Lex which has been shifting more towards a charismatic and suave guy since the mid 90s thanks to a combination of the DCAU, Smallville, and even Lois and Clark.

Add to that the fact that Eisenberg was playing the exact same character he always plays and the (shall we say) overly complicated nature of his characterization and motivations, and you end up with a version that very few can actually get into..

>>91650250
Eisenberg's Luthor wasn't grand-campy like Hack-Man, he was an annoying, twitchy little creep.

Even ASM's Harry Osborn was a better Luthor.

>>91650076
No doubt Fox will be tempted, but I think Reynolds has enough pull now to talk them down from doing something stupid. It's not that he won't appear in other movies, but they can't put him as a big co-star or something like RDJ is.

>>91640554
is every line Harley says as cringeworthy?
it wasn't even just the line either, the delivery was awful

>>91649945
Ghost in the Shell isn't just a remake of an old movie, it's an anime live-action adaptation which are all shit besides Speed Racer. Also shitty ass marketing

Eisenburg really should have just played Luthor like his character in Social Network.

>>91650491
Judging from the few videos I've seen of it, yeah all of her lines are shit, and her attempt at that accent is almost as bad as the writing.

>>91650664
He did. It was just dialed up to 11.

Did this turd of a movie really need a sequel

>>91649226
>>91649259
>literally ignoring the part of my post where I addressed those very questions

Drones, shills, this is your mentality
It's so blatantly obvious, and this will be your downfall...enjoy your time in the sun, these movies will be trashed in the future

>>91650491
Women have shit roles in superhero movies.
They get either
A. Exasperated/Frustrated girlfriend (Lois/Vicky/Jane/Pepper/ect)
B. Team's Serious Mom (Gamora/Sif/WW/Widow)

Getting an actual quipping crazy-person is a major step up for them.

>>91650665
>Hasn't watched the thing he's talking about
>Has a concrete opinion on it
Is he /ourguy/, /co/?

>>91650751
>It's so blatantly obvious, and this will be your downfall...enjoy your time in the sun, these movies will be trashed in the future
In the future, you mean like when Snyder would finally let Superman be Superman? A far away future where everything would be so much better than now, and Snyder would be vindicated? DCEU wouldn't last that long.

>>91649918
>Also as I recall Reynolds and the production team themselves didn't want to be offered a ridiculously huge budget for Deadpool because it's important that he stays almost street level.

Probably the biggest reason for keeping the budget low is fewer investors = fewer people trying to pull strings.

The ideal situation is Reynolds makes enough money that he can entirely bankroll future films himself and answer to no one.

>>91650986
It's still surreal that between Deadpool and Logan, FoX-Men's renaissance happened as an accident in spite of the execs.

It really speaks to the condition these studios are in.

>>91650986
There's that too, but also he gets to poke fun at not being able to afford certain things like other x-men, drawback is of course, he can't afford certain things like a big setpiece gunfight. The joke part of course only works because he's Deadpool. I'm not sure even DC could try to pull that off with Mxyzptlk in live action.

>>91644201
4 razzies

>>91650775
Thinking about it, Marvel is getting Carol soon.
So, if they do her by the comic book, she will be an insecure, socially inept militarist hard-ass who hides behind a uniform and blindly believes that figures of authority can make things better.
Which would be the most complex female role in one of these movies so far.
But who wants to see that movie?
Where is my Squirrel Girl?

>>91638189
Define "pro" critic.

You can't fill a single room with "pro" critics.

I define "pro" as works for a major publication. Not "makes pennies a year off of a blog."

>>91638268
reported for being too cool to actually reply to someone. You people who avoid "giving (you)s" are worse than people who troll for (you)s.

>>91652595
>Define "pro" critic.
>You can't fill a single room with "pro" critics.
>I define "pro" as works for a major publication. Not "makes pennies a year off of a blog."
You can deny they are working professionals. But that wouldn't change anything. It validates nothing.

>>91652826
It does.

A professional makes a living off of that profession. If writing reviews doesn't pay your salary you aren't a professional.

Particularly because those people are more likely to give a good review to a movie they are invited to a pre-screening for.

It's why people refer to them as shills. Disney doesn't need to pay Joe Schmoe $10,000 to write a good review. Fly Joe Schmoe to a new city to watch a major studio release a week before it comes out and Joe Schmoe will write whatever he thinks you want to hear.

>>91652948
>A professional makes a living off of that profession. If writing reviews doesn't pay your salary you aren't a professional.
You can try to argue your point all you want, but you haven't explained why you think it matters.

>>91652992
I did in the rest of that post.

A professional does something as a profession.

Where is your refute? You've literally just said "No."

>>91652948
>It's why people refer to them as shills.
The individuals overusing this term in no way qualify as "people".

File: 1377322745363.jpg (60KB, 320x312px) Image search: [Google]

60KB, 320x312px

>>91653222
You don't realize the level of autism you're trying to have a "debate" with.

>>91653278
It's just so frustrating because I put that shit as simply as possible.

>>91637619
Movie company wars seriously ruined /co/ and even made /tv/ worse than it already is, which I didn't think was even possible.

I don't understand why you'd argue over silly movies.

>>91653222
>A professional does something as a profession.
>Where is your refute? You've literally just said "No."
I am not refuting because I am still wondering what was your point. The original question is why the reviewers haven't leaked spoilers. I said it is because they do it for a living.

You say they are not really professional. So are you arguing that they should have leaked spoilers or not?

>>91644293
Why count both of them? they were just fucking average and forgettable respectively and equally mediocre as most Marvel villains.

Zod was just an angry dude obsessed with muh Kryptonian race who was only salvaged by Shannon's acting, there wasn't any depth in the character. The only reason retards think Faora is good is because they are most likely waifufags, she didn't had any personality in the movie.

>>91653500
I'm saying they don't do this for a living and they aren't afraid it will hurt their lives. I'm saying they play by the rules because if you aren't a professional you're easily bought off with premier tickets. You don't leak details about or give a bad review to a movie if you want to go to the premier of a sequel.

You have yet to tell me why "professional" should mean anyone that follows a personal hobby.

>>91653477
because some idiots can't figure out their movies suck and ours are great

>>91653845
>I'm saying they don't do this for a living and they aren't afraid it will hurt their lives. I'm saying they play by the rules because if you aren't a professional you're easily bought off with premier tickets. You don't leak details about or give a bad review to a movie if you want to go to the premier of a sequel.
So wait, are you saying there is no leaks because they are unprofessional, or there is no leaks because they are professional? Or either way there was no leaks anyway so there is no argument?

>>91640675
>RLM
>they Mike and Rich honestly didn't get the plot of Civil War
>yet they all liked Age of Ultron
I love to watch them, but lets not pretend Jay isn't the only one that isn't a pleb.

>>91653907
I've clearly fallen for bait here...

Otherwise anon was right, you're too autistic to confer with. And this is coming from the person sperging over the usage of a word.

I don't give a fuck about your "why no leaks" shit at this point. I've just addressed it.

I'm more concerned with your definition of "pro" and "professional". There is an actual meaning to the word which ISN'T an adjective. And your use of "unprofessional" shows that you clearly don't understand that.

>>91653845
Or they are acting like people who would like to maintain access to press events, so they keep their tweets politely unspecific and respect the embargo.
As is common practice. We haven't got any reviews and we won't get them a minute before the embargo drops at the exact point when Disney wants their praises sung to time word of mouth to spread without risking you to forget the release.

>>91653991
At least with comics.
Mike has some interesting perspectives on some movies, but he wallows in shit movies, so you can't trust his taste.

>>91654067
>Or they are acting like people who would like to maintain access to press events, so they keep their tweets politely unspecific and respect the embargo

Which might as well be paying someone to shill for you if they aren't a professional. Which is why I've been hammering the importance of that word.

Professional movie reviewers (read, write for actual publications) don't operate like fucking vidya sites and vidya publishers.

Professionals are providing professional courtesy because whether the studio allows them to see it or not they will review it. And that review will matter. Bloggers abide by the rules because they want to go to the next premier. Also a good incentive to give a glowing, highly retweeted review.

>>91654050
>I don't give a fuck about your "why no leaks" shit at this point. I've just addressed it.
>I'm more concerned with your definition of "pro" and "professional". There is an actual meaning to the word which ISN'T an adjective. And your use of "unprofessional" shows that you clearly don't understand that.
Your arguments have nothing to do with the topic. By your argument the unprofessional people should have leaked plot details by now to get clicks.

>>91654258
Let me laugh some more at your delusion.

>>91641762
have a shekel for effort. albeit Ike is disappointed in you. not enough conviction. You didn't convince me that this movie is FUN. Do it. Or your mother will starve again because of you anon.

>>91654966
that's what the clips and trailers are for >>91649183

>>91655004
WHAT THE FUCK? You were supposed to convince me! What am I not paying you FOR! Tell me that this movie is FUN. Use the word fun at least 5 times, you idiot

the only review i want is "what % of the film contains Baby Groot"

File: dc fans.png (85KB, 722x496px) Image search: [Google]

85KB, 722x496px

ITT: DCucks and /tvirgins/ getting triggered

You can brag about your makeup Oscar, but the Marvel films will always have what DC films will never have

Positive RT scores

File: its time to stop.png (255KB, 614x650px) Image search: [Google]

255KB, 614x650px

>>91637746

>>91637746
Here's one of them
https://youtu.be/cthjod9awzI

>>91657630
>>91657863
These are as whacky and bad as Suicide Squad's marketing.

File: 1488648299809.jpg (198KB, 954x794px) Image search: [Google]

198KB, 954x794px

>>91644201

So if a DCEU movie gets praised as being "fun" at any point in the future with the Damage Control apologists have to pretend that's acceptable then.

Like how making money didn't prove it was a good movie, because, "y'know, Bayformers made totes of money and just look at those", and "only mindless popcorn gobbling casuals make the MCU successful", but then BvS and Skwad made mad bank and now, "How exactly is the DCEU movies bad when they're making so much money? Checkmate Mouseketeers!".

>>91639203
>>91639281
>>91639312
>>91639346
It's obviously an edit you idiots

>>91641682
>verified accounts
>bots

At least go with shills.

>>91658202
At least their marketing is focused on characters who will figure in the movie longer than 7 minutes.

>>91637711
>Moondragon is Drax and Mantis' kid

Acceptable

i was hoping for spoilers by now


fuck you guys

>>91662783
Starhawk

>>91657863
She will never kick you in the balls.

File: IMG_5754.png (224KB, 748x338px) Image search: [Google]

224KB, 748x338px

FUCK DC

>>91663643
why?

>>91638715
Huh, the DC shot actually does look better. Imagine that.

>>91638715
that airport scene was so bad. You know, mcu movies dont hold up very well at all. Shit looks so dated already