>Disney doesn't get bad revie-

necessary sacrifices to use as decoy

You can only cover up so much.

>>87351249
This.

>Trusting Lindelof.

>>87351249
>>87351860
They made a 190 million dollar movie to purposefully get bad reviews just to throw off a fringe group of people who believe Disney is paying off reviewers? Were you retards dropped on the head as children?

>>87351889
He's a great CB, fuck off

The cunny was too perfect for RT.

>>87351889
>There were very explicit references to Walt's involvement in Plus Ultra [the secret society that creates Tomorrowland], and on the DVD you'll see a scene in Blast From the Past where they say explicitly that Walt was a member, and Casey even says, “Like the Tomorrowland in Disneyland?” That prompts them to explain that the theme park was actually a cover for the real Tomorrowland. But, aside from the fact that those scenes are pure exposition that can make you feel like you're sitting through a history lesson, it felt like we were inside a Disney movie and every time we saw Disney get mentioned in it, it was a wink to the audience. Like a meta self-aware thing that took you out.

They built their entire ARG campaign and lore around "Secret Disney History" and all this "Walt's Brand of Futurism" stuff is the core of their movie, but god forbid they actually fucking do anything with it besides the Small World bit

>>87351190
>what are The Lone Ranger (31%) and John Carter (51%)?

>>87352041
They made a movie and it got bad reviews, so they decided to keep them to use as a decoy.

>>87351190
ironically this was the only good movie they've made in decades

>>87352919
The Lone Ranger was actually very good in my opinion. I did not see John Carter.

Tomorrowland was terrible, unless you like being low-key lectured the whole time you're watching a movie.

>>87351190
Notice how closely the critics and audience scores match. The greater the difference, the more likely it is that "critics" are either critiquing a work through the filter of their own politics or they're getting "paid" in one form or another.

On Disney's part, you can predict how hard they'll push a product and schmooze the critics based entirely off how marketable they view an IP is in terms of merchandising. Another huge factor in the equation is how invested they are in that property. They paid somewhere upward of a combined total of 8 billion dollars for Star Wars and Marvel. Compared to that, IPs like the Lone Ranger and John Carter are a drop in the bucket, and in-house IPs like Tomorrowland aren't even a blip on their radar.

>>87354055
I feel like it's warranted when the future people seem to be most eager for these days is a zombie apocalypse or Mad Max shit.

Nobody wants a jetpack anymore.

>>87352919
They started paying off critics after John Carter
And they aren't going to bother bribing critics on properties that didn't cost them a billion dollars to get (marvel , Star Wars)

>>87354257
>They started paying off critics after John Carter
Then how come Pirates 5 was panned and underperformed?

File: jetpack.webm (2MB, 854x470px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 854x470px

>>87354204
>Nobody wants a jetpack anymore.

Yeah, I'll pass.

>>87354257
Look at the logic you're applying here.

They spend several hundred million on tron, john carter, and tomorrowland, and those fail because they're horrid movies. So their immediate reaction is to go and drop 8 billion on marvel and lucasarts and then spend just as much money bribing critics as they will to make and market the movies, which, by your reckoning, are also all terrible.

and then they make more money with a horrid remake an original IP.

>>87351249
This. Rudimentary Jewish tricks.

I'm really sad that this was Brad Bird. He's a champ and deserves better than this.

>>87354204
Has to do with how all promises of THE FUTURE have boiled down to bullshit.

>>87354358
This doesn't stop being great.

>>87354532
The credits are kinda funny. The first cards have DAMON LINDELOF'S name as big as possible, so as to prevent all confusion as to who was responsible for the pile of shit you just watched.

>>87354055
>I did not see John Carter.

It's actually pretty good. It's got flaws but still quite entertaining and worth a watch.

>>87354888
It really isn't. The only way you could think it was good is if you had never seen any other movie.

>>87354594
Well that's something. I remember reading that Brad Bird was originally gonna be first or second pick to direct Force Awakens. I dunno how that would have turned out, but I like how much he cares about his work.

File: IMG_20170905_111911.png (2MB, 1786x1002px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1786x1002px

>>87352828
>Plus Ultra

>>87354340
That's in-house. They don't care.

>>87354952
in comparison to CapeShit its good

>>87355115
John Carter is capeshit in space. It's no different than Guardians of the Galaxy.

>>87354474
Tron/John Carter/Bone Ranger were all solid 6/10 adventure movies (all of them were too long though) and significantly better made and have more artistic value than any Nu-Star Wars and Marvel Movie.
There is literally no way a sentient human watches John Carter and gives it a failing grade and then watches (lets say) Civil War and gives it an A+
Disney knows they can't let that crap flop.

>>87355115
No, it really isn't. As john carter somehow manages to be aggressively derivative and unimaginative despite being the first attempt to adapt Edgar Rice Burroughs "TARZAN GOES TO MARS" series.

>>87355194
jfc

>>87355194
>solid 6/10

...

>>87355218
Because John Carter's been stripmined for ideas by ever single sci-fi franchise that's come since.

>>87355622
Hence >>87354952

>>87352041
They lied about the budget, dumbass. It was money laundering scheme

>90+ minutes of finding out what the hell the movie is about
>movie ends with brown people leading the way for the future
BRAVO DISNEY

>>87355622
They could have made a movie with big red titties and dudes hanging dong, but they sanitized it.

>>87355115
There's a tremendous difference. John Carter didn't come as part of a 4 billion dollar transaction.

>>87355273
On an unweighted scale, something free of hyperbolic praise where the only things worth consuming are "9 out of 10 stars!" That shit gets on my nerves so bad. Those sort of ratings should only accompany undertakings that revolutionize the medium from either a technical or an artistic perspective.