Thread 213754300

>criticize Rogue One for being derivative and relying on hamfisted references to the original trilogy
>adore The Force Awakens for the exact same reasons

The way they seethed at their own audience calling them out on this was hilarious. Their commentary for R1 is just a continuation of the video they made crying about it.

Every time these frauds review a movie I've actually seen I realize they have no idea what they're talking about.

>>213754433
Yeah like they never watch movies or understand technical aspects or expect any coherence

Just watch stills and make puns

Mike is just a retard and jay is chronically online and his opinions are either regurgitating what other people say about something or being a contrarian

>>213754490
>jay is chronically online
That Superman review was embarrassing, he knew shit that only the biggest losers should know about.

>>213754300 (OP)
Yes. Also:
>They said one movie wasn't funny because of lots of people dying.
>They laugh about lots of people getting killed in another movie.
I guess it's OK for them if it's schlock or giallo.

>>213754300 (OP)
Let's be honest. There is nothing interesting to Rogue One. It's just voyeurism. What did the characters do at that time? There are no original ideas.
TFA just repeats the formula of ANH. But the outcome was unknown at the time and it sets up potentially interesting characters like Rey, Finn and Kylo. That it all went nowhere is not the fault of the movie.

>>213754600
You know in this threads I fell we didn't watched the same movie

Is it the intro scene? To inglorious bastards

>>213754480
The glass shattering moment for me was when they reviewed it follows and Mike was like "I didn't really understand... what happens if the monster kills her? Does it just go away?" When the movie explicitly explains that it goes back up the chain to the previous host, and that exact scenario happens IN THE FILM when the protag passes it to one of the friends just to have it kill them and start hunting her again.

They're either insanely simple-minded or just don't put much effort into what they get paid huge sums of money to do. Maybe both.

>>213754677
They can be entertaining to listen, but are terrible reviewers. They routinely criticize one movie for doing things they praised on other movies, they complain about "plot holes" that are explained directly in the movie, but they simply couldn't follow and worst of all they will try to retroactively pretend to like/dislike movies when internet consensus doesn't match their original take on a movie.

>>213754677
I don't think is an effort problem, Mike tend to phase out if the movie ain't engaging in a sense is a primitive form of criticism

>>213754715
but when mike pulls out his paper to explain how he would turn every movie into a cliche 80s movie tho

>>213754715
They're clearly now slaves to their audience's expectations. They can't really voice any opinion or joke about shit that would go against their funding. So it's just the same repertoire of stale humor applied over and over without it mattering what movie they're reviewing.

Same as that crying moleman reacting to slop trailers. Now he has to fake cry in exuberance for every single trailer that comes out.

Pathetic

>>213754600
>There is nothing interesting to Rogue One. It's just voyeurism

Unironically, what the fuck are you even saying?

"people" that watch youtube reviewers need to kill themselves

>>213754300 (OP)
Same thing with the prequels. Mike is stupid and arrogant enough to claim George Lucas, the man who invented Star Wars, doesn't understand Star Wars. Yet he adored TFA where Rey inexplicably becomes a fully skilled Jedi in seconds despite it being well established that you need training and instruction.

>>213754763
As the audience leaving the tv on for full days, I have heard and will hear every offensive line possible, no amount of rinsing will save it

Is not them is the material

>>213754763
>>213754891
Calm down, clanker.

>>213754300 (OP)
they also adored picard for the same reason.
they just like when the nostalgia bait is aimed at them.
they're emotionally driven which is fine but they then pretended that there was some higher logic behind liking the TFA and disliking rogue one.

Moving away from the plinkett reviews in general seems like a sign to me that even they recognise this.

>>213754947
Is true fleshy

They watch offensive things because things happening in a movie can be bad

>mock nerds who collect toys
>buy and collect props from movies no normal person cares about
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dPq2SziB2QY

>>213754600
This, they had hope that TFA would be return the franchise back to its previous highs and believed it a competent start in the right direction. R1 was a cut and paste, 'remember that', dead end of a movie. Pic mostly unrelated.

>>213754883
Mike is a trekfag and basically hates star wars

>>213754600
so tfa good because you fell for jj's mystery box shtick.

>>213755086
That's obviously not true.

>>213755050
>they had hope that TFA would be return the franchise back to its previous highs and believed it a competent start in the right direction
So basically, what you're trying to say is that they're simply retarded, right?

>>213754300 (OP)
Lol, delusional faggot. Your shit movie is absolute trash. Rogue one might be the worst star wars movie out there and that is saying a lot.

>>213755592
Why is that a retarded assumption? It's logical to assume that literally one of the biggest movies in history would have a competent throughline in mind, it turning out as disastrous as it did was far from the norm

>>213754677
Mike Stoklasa is just old and dumb. Pretty sure he spends most his time looking at his phone than actually watching movies.