Why do people keep saying that cinema is dead when 2017 has been

hard to be a god came out in 2014.
2014 best year.

>>86505470
BRRRRRRRTTTT
>look mommy i made a new thread!

Because overall the amount of movies that are on the other end of quality is up, and overall the market's size is down.

File: 1497622977928.jpg (130KB, 720x1122px) Image search: [Google]

130KB, 720x1122px

>objectively

KYS

Why do plebs that think they have taste love 2007 so much?

>any of those movies better than NCFOM

kill yourself and reddit tomatoes

>Get Out 99%
can they at least pretend they're not doing this solely for racial reasons?

Did Sneed open the store in 2007 if so OP you're wrog.

TWBB, NCFOM, JJ, and Zodiac are each better than any movie from this year.

>>86505673
what's wrong with giving a racial movie high ratings for racial reasons?

>>86505673
how the fuck can that movie get a 99% for the love of god

sjws still dont realize they made trump president

>>86505470
God damn you have shit taste. Anyone that likes Get Out Logan and Baby Driver is a fucking phony.

Did you hear me you fucks Logan is a 1/10 piece of shit

Order of the Phoenix alone is better than the entire botton list.

Orrrr RT is just fluffing up their scores now?

99%? seriously? A Movie thats 99% good better leave me in a state of crippling emotional catharsis from how much its changed my life.

>baby driver 94%

This movie is seriously a 3/5 and thats being generous, theres no character development its basically a watered down 'Drive' with less visual flare and more 'retro' style and music.

>>86505470
>5 solid films vs 1.5 solid films
get out of here jabrony

File: um6ijro.jpg (660KB, 3192x2124px) Image search: [Google]

660KB, 3192x2124px

>>86506292
>there's no character development

>objectively

I just realized the Zodiac poster looks like a chest with abs.

>>86505554
>>86506354
Do you actually believe there's no such thing as objectivity when it comes to judging the quality of art?

>>86505470
Movieratings are never accurate before 5-10 years have passed. RT is probably the worst rating site, simply because it's popular.

>>86506292
99% on RT just means 99% of reviews were above 6/10

File: poor little white boy.webm (643KB, 620x706px) Image search: [Google]

643KB, 620x706px

>>86506176
>I voted for a rapist because people like a movie I don't.

https://youtu.be/gnXBeQwmmrc

File: 1501509188208.jpg (46KB, 540x720px) Image search: [Google]

46KB, 540x720px

>people don't understand RT's rating system

>>86506501
>being this much of a numale fag

>>86505470
>CIA in the No Country for Old Men Poster
Well played

>>86506292
Oh look, someone else that has no idea how RT works.

What movie will you guys be most upset over when it gets erased? Probably King Kong for me

>>86505470
Rotten tomatoes is a completely garbage metric these days. Scores have been getting more and more inflated and with so many films advertising their RT rating it's hard to believe that no money is changing hands.

And if you read their "top critic" reviews you will find that anywhere between 30-60% say things like "this is the movie we need right now" before drawing a half-baked political comparison to the film which is usually purely conjecture.

That said, 2017 has been a pretty damn good year for film so far. This has been one of the best summer seasons in recent memory.

>>86506665
>>86506514

Rotten Tomato purposely uses misleading statistics. When you say something is 99% you are saying the proportion being used is 99 out of a 100, or that at least is how any person would understand it.


Thats like having "99% pure drinking water" but its actually just "99% of the samples had 60% or higher purification"

File: 1502980288164.png (4MB, 2500x2005px) Image search: [Google]

4MB, 2500x2005px

>>86506665
>>86506514
the average rating for those 2017 films are still better than the average rating for those 2007 you autist

notice how the 'LOL PPL DUNNO HOW RT WORKS' sperg stops talking when he got BTFO

>>86505470
so let say at in 2027 movies will get 108% or 102% ?