People claim critics were paid to give good reviews any proof of that?

It is a question not a tantrum.

"The problem with critics is they collaborate, just like lefty journalists. Google JournoList."

That actually makes a lot of sense. I never thought critics were being paid off, but I did see the tendency for them to give good reviews to things that they seemed afraid to give bad review to. I thought that might be because they were afraid of losing first viewer privileges. But it makes far more sense is they are just individuals living in a bubble with other critics. So they just end up going along with their peers and give good reviews to what their peers are giving good reviews to and bad reviews to what their peers give bad reviews to.

I wonder where the ball starts rolling on that though. Which are the ones that are giving good reviews to things like Last Jedi first and starting the trend?

So then by that logic shouldn't every Disney film get good reception?

Your argument sort of falls apart when you look at critical response to the latest film. Why wouldn't Disney pay them to say it's great?

My view is a bit more straightforward. Critics give honest reviews.

The Force Awakens was a very, very, very good movie. It rekindled all that made the original films great, and did so in a well-paced, exciting way. It is eminently rewatchable. The main character is superbly drawn. We learn a lot about her without any pointless exposition. We care about her, and we want to see her succeed even with the odds stacked against her. Even better, the supporting cast is fabulous. I could go on, but it's an excellent sci-fi action film, and a refreshing return to greatness after three failed prequels, so of course critics and audiences alike gave it high marks, and it broke every U.S. box office record imaginable.

The Last Jedi is also a great film. It somehow pissed off a lot of loony activist types, though I'm not sure why. As with its predecessor, there is zero political slant or message to the film. It's a much more tightly-woven story, and in many ways a departure from what Star Wars films are "supposed to be," but it packs a huge emotional punch, and has the most keep-you-guessing plot of any film in the series, replete with twists and turns the audience never sees coming. Again, critics and audiences alike adored it, and while it didn't break the probably-unbreakable-for-a-long-time success of The Force Awakens, it outperformed expectations, and made Disney another boatload of money.

The Rise of Skywalker isn't quite like the other two. It's a rollicking good time, and it answers all the questions put forth by parts 7 and 8, and ends the Star Wars saga in a very satisfying way, but it's also a bit run of the mill. It's not bad by any stretch, it just doesn't have, at least after one viewing, as much power as the previous two films. It's makes sense that to a critic, it isn't something special as were 7 and 8, while to audiences it’s a fun, exciting movie, hence the high audience scores.

Bounding-Comics and Cosmic-Book are conspiracy theory sites, not credible! Any citations?

FBN article is fine. The only difference is 65% is higher and 4 weeks instead of the regular 2. Now that Disney is practically a monopoly, the way to deal with that is anti-trust law.

Just 2 weeks is too much for our local one-screen theatre. They will fill seats for weekends and Tues. Being Xmas it will be 12 days of 28.

You're retarded MovieNerd75, The Wall Street Journal has already written TWO articles on Disney fucking around with perception management, PAYING 'influencers' under the table.

If they weren't doing anything wrong, they wouldn't have been trying to HIDE it.

And, if they're doing that, what won't they do???

You think that they wouldn't cook box office numbers with careers and BILLIONS on the line?

So, what's in this for YOU?

You're the one hiding your profile.

Seriously, what are you hiding?