The only thing it has in common is the mockumentary filming. It’s not a retread, it’s just a similar set up. It stands on its own merits. You don’t have to like it for whatever reason you feel. No product is for everyone. Just don’t pull that tired “Are they going to accuse me of being racist” card. It’s boring and…

Came here to say this.

True or not, it’s never going to be a good look to go on social media and go all in on all the reasons your movie didn’t perform well especially a week after the release.

Yes, I saw the figure in the link. That doesn’t change what I said. Those movies are still some of the top movies. I avoid Star Wars, Fast and the Furious, Transformers, Jurassic World, even some DC movies, because they don’t seem interesting to me. And that’s fine. Their millions of dollars of marketing failed to “mak…

That’s not what they mean

Thor Love and Thunder made $760 million. Ant-Man 3 tanked, but they weren’t the hugest hits in the Marvel roster to begin with. Black Panther 2 made almost $900 million. That doesn’t seem too bad, honestly. 

Please. You can shove it in their faces for sure, but you can’t shove it down their throats. It’s very easy to just ignore these movies (or any big blockbuster franchise or genre in general) if you’re not interested.

What the heck is going on with the last clause? And even just what?

It definitely shoulda been some sort of team-up movie, with people besides the extended Marvel family (or they shoulda saved the Marvel Family stuff for the second movie entirely.) Were there really any MCU solo movie sequels that were truly solo movies? Iron Man, Thor, Captain America, Dr. Strange, even Spider-Man,…

I love all the analyses which leave out the fact that the movie looked bad and was not well-received, whereas the first movie looked good and was well-received. Sometimes it’s that simple! I really liked the first Shazam and saw it in theaters, got turned off by the trailers for the second, more turned off by the…

If it’s good, people will come. It doesn’t matter what the subject is.

FYI: The dudebra (account: dudebra-parody-account) imposter account posting here in this thread is NOT the long-established account user known in the Giz family.

crammed down their throats

lmao ur not intelligent lolol thank you for my biggest laugh of the morning.

Are you suggesting that colons in films titles aren’t clunky?

The thing with Milo is he has nothing interesting to say. He’s just gross - there’s no underlying idea except that Milo would like attention. He shouldn’t speak on college campuses because his presence sends the message that colleges don’t know what substance is. There are far more thoughtful conservative voices that…

This conversation reminds me a lot of Richard Dawkins refusing to debate proponents of creationism or intelligent design. His argument was/is his participation in such an interaction is endorsement that his opponents have a cogent point to argue. Does Milo Yiannopolous have a point to make? No. He’s trying to build…

“self-professed anti-authoritarian, thinks we should let Milo Yiannopoulos speak”

I mean, it’s just one beer hall putsch. We’re really overreacting and making him seem way more important than he really is. Let it slide.

If someone has already proven themselves to be a hate-spewing, rabble-rousing piece of shit, I don’t think we need to let them speak out of some absolutist adherence to the ideals…

The simple answer is that people like Milo are trolls. They’ll say and do anything they think people will find shocking because that’s the shit that gets clicks. You cannot debate them, because all that’s going to do is legitimize something that was never legitimate to start with. It’s like when Bill Nye did that…