I'm not basing my opinion on box office takes. I'm basing it on critical reviews, trailers, and most of all, the movies I have gone to see myself this summer. There has been nothing I've seen since Civil War I have enjoyed and as such, I'm more picky about what I pay to see.

I'd guess it has more to do with the movies sucking.

Why don't we examine your behavior? You don't bother replying to arguments you have no response for and instead personally attack people's motivations based on whatever aspect of their posts you want to hone in on. You're honestly everything that is wrong with internet discussions, someone who adds nothing useful and…

So I suppose you went ahead and dug up my posts from the shooting a few years ago to make a claim like that?

No it isn't. I'm not going to pretend to know what it would feel like to
have a family member or loved one taken in a tragedy like this. The
only point I was trying to make was some victims, in fact the majority
from what I know, chose not to sue. And if I was in the same position, I wouldn't either.

Big Night is awesome - still a lot of fun to watch. Also was a big Monk fan.

I absolutely hate it when people try to put words in my mouth and then use it to make their point. I didn't say anything about Cinemark being "amazing." I just believe that they, like any person or corporation, deserves to be treated fairly. I don't think it was ever fair to hold a movie theater responsible for a…

No it isn't - read any legal analysis of this and it basically is a move by Cinemark to try to stop the plantiffs from appealing and forcing them to spend even more money defending themselves. I guarantee Cinemark wants this to go away and I would guess they tried to end this before it got out to the public.

Yes, I do find this greedy. If a family member of mine got shot at a Starbucks, I wouldn't sue Starbucks. The only reason someone would claim a corporation was responsible for an attack like this would be because they knew the corporation had money that the actual defendant didn't.

Isn't it amazing that there are people who don't understand that not filing a stupid-ass lawsuit and forcing a business to spend 700k to defend itself was also an option?

LOL…an avatar of someone or something which isn't you apparently makes you less anonymous now online.

Yea…they should pay 700k to defend themselves against a stupid lawsuit that should have never gotten filed because…because why?

It is not the responsibility of every business to protect you from a nut job with a gun.

Exactly. I can already see below people are blanket outraged by something they haven't bothered to think fully through. They seem to think the theater is unfairly punishing these people when the theater is the one that has been unfairly punished to begin with by getting sued for failing to prevent something no one…

For what reason? Explain to me why this theater chain deserved to get sued for millions and why they deserved to have to spend 700k to defend themselves? Were their employees, most likely many of whom were in high school or college, supposed to frisk every moviegoer? Should they have had a metal detector?

I feel like this article is meant to draw ire towards the theater when they've done nothing wrong here. It was ridiculous they got sued in the first place - do we really want to live in a world where we have to go through metal detectors to go see a movie because one whack-job murdered a bunch of people? I sure as…

But…but…it's summer?

Having grown up on the Tintin books (my dad actually grew up reading them and passed them on to me) it was disappointing to see the story change so drastically for the movie adaption. I'll stick to the animated series that captured the series perfectly.

I follow Netflix MCU shows pretty closely as I'm interested in them and I don't think Netflix has ever themselves said this would be released sooner than Fall of 2016. They announced the release date itself just a while ago.

I'm a huge Roald Dahl fan - I wish his auto-biography Boy got a movie adaption.