MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
I like the way the Sanderson Sisters look on the cereal box. Maybe they should have made an animated version of it. This way they can keep cranking them out every couple of years.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Hocus Pocus Sequel Being Developed for Disney+
- Thread starter Dead2009
- Start date
tcool123
Well-Known Member
Honestly, wouldn't be a bad idea for a new Disney+ Original series if the new film is a big success. Could be a prequel series.
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
If it doesn’t have SJP…it’s a no go for MM10
Monopoly Gets the ‘Dune’ Treatment in New, Sand-Hued Board Game Set
From 'Barbie' to 'Yellows' we routonended up the best board games inspired by your favorite shows and movies.
variety.com
LSLS
Well-Known Member
Monopoly Gets the ‘Dune’ Treatment in New, Sand-Hued Board Game Set
From 'Barbie' to 'Yellows' we routonended up the best board games inspired by your favorite shows and movies.
Here's the thing though, nowhere is that mentioned as part of Hocus Pocus 2. And I highly suspect without the new movie that still is a best seller. Which is why I say I don't think how good the movie is really matters too much, people just love the characters and want to see them.
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
Ohhhhh nooooo. First reactions to the movie are great. All the grump haters are going to blow a gasket.
collider.com
'Hocus Pocus 2' Early Reactions Call It Magical, Hilarious, and On Par With Original
Hello Salem, they're back!
collider.com
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
The Non Apologists will decide on their own. You can't really trust these so called "Professional" reviewers nowadays, they can be bought and paid for.
P.S. They gave the first Hocus Pocus 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was even lower than that, before a slew of recent reviews brought the score up.
P.S. They gave the first Hocus Pocus 39% on Rotten Tomatoes. It was even lower than that, before a slew of recent reviews brought the score up.
Last edited:
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
I am sure you have proof that true professional reviewers are being bought and paid for.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
There's been more and more evidence of that.
Rings of Power 84% (audience 39%)
She-Hulk 87% (audience 37%)
Ghostbusters (2016) 73% (audience 49%)
BuddyThomas
Well-Known Member
I wonder if the ones who reviewed the new Pinocchio are bought and paid for.
LSLS
Well-Known Member
I dont think reviewers are bought, but I do think "is the movie fun and keeps you entertained" is about 45th on the list of things they look for. Top of the list would be "Can the fancy words I looked up yesterday describe it?"
That said, I stand by this fan base will love the movie no matter what as long as the sisters are prominent, and I expect it to be as ridiculous and corny and fun as can be
That said, I stand by this fan base will love the movie no matter what as long as the sisters are prominent, and I expect it to be as ridiculous and corny and fun as can be
Last edited:
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
That is not evidence at all.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
I forget what Nerdrotic episode it was, but he showed a critic who admitted to "Playing Ball" with the Studios. And purposely giving Bad Shows and Movies good grades. They've got a I'll scratch your back and you scratch mine mentality.
Last edited:
Then how do you explain all the Disney content that got poor reviews from these alleged false reviewers supposedly in Disney's pocket?
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
4 minutes 55 seconds in
"Every single person that wants to have access to things early. That wants to get access to things so that traffic is drawn to their site will on occasion. Occasionally will play softball. Occasionally has to you know look the other way."
cohost asks what he means.
"In a sense you know I hated a movie, but I won't say that I hated the movie."
Last edited:
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
You can't "just" give great reviews or people will not believe you.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
You got to love the sound of crickets.
Apologists don't like facts, they wince whenever the light of truth falls on their face.
Apologists don't like facts, they wince whenever the light of truth falls on their face.
Prince-1
Well-Known Member
That isn’t the sound of crickets you hear but the sound of laughter at you thinking you proved anything. True journalists who review movies for a living are not being bought and paid for. It is the wannabe podcast losers who want to get in the good graces of Disney and who will do anything to do so.
MickeyMouse10
Well-Known Member
Keep telling this bedtime story to yourself. The people that can actually form their own opinions know the truth.
I don't know whose sound clip was saying you occasionally, *occasionally* have to play...
But they were certainly emphasizing *occasionally*.
And for those bad reviews that are given out, how exactly does that work? Does Disney put out a spreadsheet indicating which content they're allowed to dis?
Sounds a lot like self-censoring. Or conspiratorial nonsense.
And big time journalistic papers don't play that game. They'll print stories about attempts to being manipulated, like the L.A. Times did once. And they immediately got their access back.
I'll admit that the social influencers that Disney wants to use as free advertising are being manipulated. But big city newspapers around the country aren't sore about not being invited to the early Food & Wine menu preview.
RT and Metacritic combine scores from these unmanipulated critics, often weighting their score compared to small time vloggers/websites.
Anything more than that is conspiracy lunacy.
It got good ratings! [That's just proof people being bought by Disney.]
It got bad ratings! [That's just proof of Disney covering their tracks!]
I can tell at this point there is no convincing you since you posit two contradictory things as proof of a conspiracy. This post is for the reasonable people out there.