ITT: We talk about shills

>>82376728
I have fresh critic on the plateau for all the hungry angry fanboys: >>82375790

>>82376782
To be clear, I'm actually excited to see GotG2. But seriously, there's no defending a "professional" from TIME saying, at one point in her career, that an 11-time Oscar winner is 1/4th the movie of Guardians.

Apparently shills don't care.

Please go back to /v/

>>82378337
Talking about a /tv/ reviewer, comparing /tv/ material to /cotv/ material.

>Go back to /v/

kys

/capeshit/ when? Gtfo my board nerds

>>82376890
Winning Oscars doesn't make a movie good. Titanic has aged like milk.

>>82378629
>Winning Oscars doesn't make a movie good
This. GotG2 is objective trash and maybe 4 times WORSE than titanic though

>titanic
>good

I love a lot of what James Cameron has done. But I would really like the 3 fucking hours I spent watching titanic back. I would probably watch GotG 2 six times consecutively rather than having to watch Titanic.

It's called the Disney Circle:
>Disney spends more in marketing than the other 4 biggest studios combined because they make the money back with toys
>part of this money goes to online marketing (banners, pop ups and the like)
>internet reviewers make money out of internet ads
>if they get in the wrong side of Disney, they can lose thausands of dollars every year
>every disney shits out is praised
>disney makes bigger and bigger movies with bigger and bigger marketing budgets
>that's more and more power over internet reviewers
This is the road to monopoly, luckily critics are losing credibility fast