The Funny Maths Thread.. which sometimes contains mildly amusing pictures

33% isn't that bad - well it is bad, but not that bad - movie critics tend to be brutal. 60% from RT is what you'd expect from a reasonably good film. The general consensus is that it would be alright if it was done by Dreamworks or one of the other copycat animation companies, but because it's Pixar, people expect something more.

It's like Valve or Blizzard. You expect their products to be great, so of course when they create a sequel it's gotta be bangin'.

I never thought Cars was bad, I thought it didn't have as much substance as the other pixar films, but 33% was really staggering and shocking.

Edit: Bringing some humor to keep this thread train goin...

5366.jpg
 
Last edited:
33% isn't that bad - well it is bad, but not that bad - movie critics tend to be brutal. 60% from RT is what you'd expect from a reasonably good film. The general consensus is that it would be alright if it was done by Dreamworks or one of the other copycat animation companies, but because it's Pixar, people expect something more.

I have also noticed the chances of liking the original car movie is increased significantly if you actually like, you know, regular cars. People like us watch a movie talking about driving becoming nothing but point a to b and not about enjoyment and find it touching. A normal person probably thinks it's retarded.
 
I never thought of cars as "story driven" (lul driven, you see what i did there) for me pixar movies are hugely about how far they're taking cgi, Tangled is a typical story but the FX are hugely amazing, and then cars has... cars, win-win for me, personally nothing beats Monsters inc and Finding Nemo for the best cgi movies of the last decade
 
I'm thinking it was an lolsprings/lolpushrod joke.
 
I want to know which jackoff reviewer didn't give Toy Story 3 a perfect rating. That movie is goddamn incredible, and heartbreaking, and poignant.

I'll give you all three:

*Armond White, who, in addition to praising films others largely denounce (and vice versa) for the sake of being a contrarian, has a huge mad-on for Pixar (He believes their popularity is due to capitalist brainwashing, and that they are ruining animation). He panned it for: promoting consumer culture and excessive product placement; (what?) exploring themes Transformers 2 already did, but in a more boring manner; (what?) that no-one could relate to the plot; (WHAT?!) that everyone who enjoyed were simply "non-thinking;" (WHAT?!) and that Hamm was a villain. (AAAARRRRGGGGFFFFGARBL!)
*Cole Smithy, who considers it far too intense for it's G rating. (Then again, he's Chris-Chan's half-brother, so there may be some nasty family issues and emotional baggage involved.)
*Jeremy Hailman, who was the third guy to pan it.
 
Last edited:
^ I vote we tie Armond White to a pole in the middle of the town square and force him to watch Gigli on repeat.
 
<shrug>
 
I thnk it's a big lebowski joke
 
Oh, NOW I see it.
 
Actually I would think that death would be a welcome respite to gigli.

Its more along the lines of waterboarding.
 
http://img14.imageshack.**/img14/3852/ykcl.jpg
http://img88.imageshack.**/img88/3487/starsz.jpg
 
Last edited:
Top