Rate it whatever the fuck you want.

Start with 5.
That's the middle point between 1 and 10.
Was it average? then it's a 5.
Was it better than that? then it's 6, 7, 8, 9, or 10.
Was it worse than that? then it's 4, 3, 2 or 1

I know this simple, logical post is going to infuriate, confuse, and frighten americans who think that 7 = average because you were all raised via the "common core" method.

>>224147692
*In regards to 10/10.
10 does not imply perfection.
10 implies the peak of its genre, at the time of release.

>>224147184
I either like it or I dont. I dont give it a number

>>224147184
In both cases you stand against the crowd and call the bad movie good and the good movie shit. Just be able to argue your points.

File: 54656.jpg (31 KB, 387x258)

31 KB JPG

>>224147184
90% of the time?

>>224147704
No. You’re exactly why I can never trust user reviews.

>>224147184
>>224147692
1 star- bad
2 stars- mediocre
3 stars- good movie
4 stars- great movie
5 stars- amazing perfect film, rare
no half stars, make up your mind

>>224148215
no half stars means you are removing options from yourself

File: 1753337100084.png (38 KB, 1166x968)

38 KB PNG

Trying to rate things with stars ruined my movie-watching experience.

I just click the heart or don't click the heart.

You need to watch a movie at the very least twice to give an actual rating of it
If you didn't like it better the second time around, then it's below an 8

Enjoy a good Pinot and then switch to a merlot. Instead of comparing the 2 directly think about how the merlot tastes pretty good to yo.

>>224147184
If time flies by while watching, even when it's a 3 hour movie, then it's good.
If you're bored and constantly checking how much time is left, then it's bad.

>>224149357
What about when you're enjoying it a lot and are checking how much time is left because you're worried that it's almost over?

>>224147692
curve artists are the worst. a 5 doesn't mean average that's not how real human being use a 1 to 10 scale. a 5 is bad. you leave a 5/10 star review for a product or restaurant that means it was bad not average.

>I can't tell if a movie is bad
>btw I think 1 in 10 movies are bad

>>224147184
that thomas violence faggot sits on twitter all day for over a decade. pathetic

>>224147184
I'm in the same boat but I also can look at a movie objectively and say it's bad but I liked it. Acting, effects, set design, these are all things anyone with braincells can separate from "i had a good time".

>>224149392
And what about if you're not enjoying it, but you're also not checking how much time is left because you can't tell time?

>>224147184
A bad movie that you like is just a good movie, anon. Stop being a mental slave to faggots on the Internet.

>>224147692
It’s less about “common core” and more being raised by women who wanna say everyone is special and great.

>>224147184
It's all personal taste anyway.
5 - Examples of why I love films
4 - Great movies
3 - Good, decent movies. No major flaws, but no wow factor either
2 - Bad, but some enjoyable moments.
1 - I've rated very few films a 1. These are movies I'd never want to watch again.

>>224147184
movies are 1s or 0s, unless your job is rating movies there is no need to go beyond that

>>224147184
You have to force yourself to watch bad movies to truly understand what good movies are. If you only ever watch good movies you won't know something is awful.

>>224147184
Ignore ratings and try to understand why a film works or doesn't work for you. In a lot of instances that people claim they like a 'bad movie,' sometimes it's because of nostalgia or a good watching experience (like seeing it in a theater with a very responsive audience), and other times it's because that film has a quality that isn't easily identifiable. The latter means you need to broaden your net, and realize that your criticisms are reductive.

>>224147184
here's the system I use
>1 - 3 = unwatchable
>3 - 5 = Barely watchable, but with some novel or interesting aspects
>5 - 7 = Mediocre, some bad aspects, but watchable
>7 - 8 = Good to great, potentially rewatchable
>8 - 9 = Great to nearly perfect
>9 - 10 = Transcendental
for reference, the following:
The Forbidden Room got a 2/10
Titane got a 3.5/10
The Greasy Strangler, a 6.5/10
Rosemary's Baby received a 7.5/10
and Amadeus earned a 9/10

>>224147184
every movie i watch is usually 7 at worst, if it's something i won't like i can usually tell that before watching so i don't watch it

>>224149665
Your rating system is retarded. Is a 3 unwatchable or barely watchable? Why not just use 6 points instead of 10?

>>224147184
There is no objectively good or objectively bad movie. What a retarded tweet.

>>224149706
There is no objectively retarded tweets.

>>224147692
Was it average at what? Personal enjoyment? Substance? Finish the sentence.

>>224149699
I like the number ten better, I have ten fingers. do you have 6 fingers or something?
and a 3 could be either an unwatchable "film" that i managed to make it all the way through or a barely watchable film that I refused to finish.
let me know if you want to know how I ranked any other movies.
and thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, even if your response was rather uninspired (I would rate it a 4 on my similar 4chan-post rating scale)

>>224149736
it's no use replying to curve autists they simply don't understand things on a human scale.

>>224149736
>and a 3 could be either an unwatchable "film" that i managed to make it all the way through or a barely watchable film that I refused to finish.
Exactly, it's arbitrary. Thanks for proving my point.
>let me know if you want to know how I ranked any other movies.
No, I don't care about the opinions of a retard.
>and thanks for taking the time to reply to my post, even if your response was rather uninspired (I would rate it a 4 on my similar 4chan-post rating scale)
It was inspired by a curiously dumb post.
>I like the number ten better, I have ten fingers. do you have 6 fingers or something?
I like 100 better. Here's my rating system.
1-96 = Garbage
97 = Okay I guess
98 = Also garbage
99 = My favorite movie
100 = Full blown AIDS
>>224149753
I understand that many humans are stupid, but am always curious what junk is floating around in their empty heads.

>>224147184
Someone needs to show this fag The Room.

>>224148357
No quarter stars means you are removing options from yourself.

>>224149786
I'm sorry you were abused by your father

Rating are kind of silly, but here's my system:
5 - one of the best films i've seen
4.5 - near masterpiece
4 - great
3.5 - very good
3 - good, closer to lukewarm
2.5 - fair, i liked some of it
2 - fair, I didn't like it
1.5 - bad
1 - almost hated everything about it, but maybe there's an actor or something that i liked
0.5 - pure hatred and contempt

>>224147184
Post the one where he says he's on SSRIs.

>>224149879
If it made me smarter than you, why apologize? I'm sorry you weren't.

>>224149897
are you sure that was the effect?

My system is simple. I ask myself after the movie “would I want to watch this again?” If the answer is yes, it is a good movie. If the answer is no it is a bad movie.

>>224150098
plenty of good movies are not rewatchable
better to ask, if I could watch this again *for the first time* would I want to?

File: IMG_8820.png (272 KB, 2759x2401)

272 KB PNG

>>224147692
>>224147184
If your ratings aren’t following a normal distribution I don’t trust you to rate anything.

>>224148215
i give your post 3.14159265359 stars

File: Extraordinary.Attorney.Mi(...).png (1.81 MB, 1920x1080)

1.81 MB PNG

>>224150118
autism
curve autism
that's not how real people rate things try going outside

>>224150116
>plenty of good movies are not rewatchable
Disagree. Any good movie I’d want to rewatch. But that may be because of what I personally tend to like about film. Thinks like retarded plot twists/subverting of expectations do little for me. So there are no elements that are completely lost on a second watch that would be there on the first.

>>224147704
>10 implies the peak of its genre, at the time of release.
This is why so many top movie lists are crap now. It's all filled with recency bias

When I did movie reviews I talked about the parts that some might like and the parts that some might hate and what it made me feel about it. Never gave a number, that's basically admitting that you can't give an actual opinion.

Michael Bay movies for most part are very good for certain audience and they're often better films than the competitors on that field.

>>224150167
for me, there are so many movies out there to watch that I would only rewatch a movie if it had some alternative reading that I didn't realize or it is some nostalgic tradition. possibly also if it was extremely good and I was showing it to someone else.

i rate my movies in decimals
because a 5.5 movie is just not as good as a 6.4 movie, even though they're technically both a 6/10

>>224150396
yes, allows for a total ordering

File: thumbsupkid.gif (1.08 MB, 320x240)

1.08 MB GIF

>>224147244
FPBP

>>224147184
I always rate movies based on how I felt about them, and only for my own personal statistics. When I rate movie high I will know in the future this is a movie I can watch again. I don't care if it fits the consensus or if I have to defend my rating. I rated several good movies low because I didn't like how they ended, so I will never want to re-watch them again.

File: IMG_4864.jpg (21 KB, 1317x308)

21 KB JPG

>>224150424

This is my curve. Yes it’s a little high but keep in mind if I’m watching anything that’s tracking below 2 stars I’m switching it off without leaving a rating, which skews the average a lot higher

>>224150977
whats your most controversial rating?
>>224151006
what's your least controversial rating?

>>224147184
1-Awful
2-Bad
3-Okay
4-Good
5-Great

>>224151037
give us some 5ers

File: wheat.png (31 KB, 400x313)

31 KB PNG

>>224147692
>americans who think that 7 = average
Damn you nailed it for me. To answer OP's question, I tend to give 7s to most objectively good films that I didn't like, but also bad movies that I did enjoy. Most of my ratings are probably 7, and that for whatever reason is what I see as average. 8 is pretty good, 9 is great, and >>224147704 also nailed 10. Nothing is perfect, but a few things manage to check every box, like Back to the Future, which is a 10, and they're maybe my most rare rating.
Something has to seriously anger me to get a 1,2, or 3. I only use those out of spite and disgust.

>>224147184
There is no subjectivity. Only objectivity. And people are either right or wrong.

>>224147184
Do they go blank after eating sth, or reading a book, or seeing an opposite /same sex? Life is endless judging so you can develop a taste

>>224149357
Some movies are bad but they are very compelling.
I think how compelling a movie to watch is an important factor but it isn't the only factor

Many movies have scenes that are hard to watch, many movies demand that I pause them to think about what I just witnessed and process that before continuing on it was that powerful. None of these are compelling but it doesn't make them bad.

>>224150118
I am not watching student films or something anon.
It isn't often I see truly bad movies, as in horribly incompetent.

Can't really think of anything that I thought would seriously be worth watching that was genuinely like a 1 or 2 out of 10.

If all the food you eat is food out of a dumpster, its pretty reasonable to rate it all 1/10. You aren't going to say its a 5/10 because its as good as all the other food you have eaten for years, you know that better food exists, you have had better food, and you know everything you are eating is garbage.
If you watch stuff that people put a lot of effort into and genuinely tried to make something good as well as had the funds for it, then its not that likely its going to be a 1/10 or they wouldn't have even put it out.

>>224151024
>whats your most controversial rating?
Good question. It's hard to name one as most controversial, so I'll use the most recent one. I've watched Cube, and despite knowing it's a good movie I rated it low because I hated that the best and most competent person dies right in the end. It makes the entire movie feel pointless.

>>224147184
I usually just rate movies I watch based on the director.
Like, if it's a Nolan film, I usually give it a 10 which is a good system imo.
For example, I found Oppenheimer really boring but it is a really good film.

>>224151407
I just rate it high if its got a broad that I can beat it to. Nothin like a little bit of eye candy to make a talkie worth my time

>>224147184
>"When you ask a friend if Hellboy is any good, you're not asking if it's any good compared to Mystic River, you're asking if it's any good compared to The Punisher. And my answer would be, on a scale of one to four, if Superman is four, then Hellboy is three and The Punisher is two. In the same way, if American Beauty gets four stars, then The United States of Leland clocks in at about two."

Ebert had plenty of bad takes, but I agree with this general approach to film criticism.

File: GzL9R-pa4AAFwfG.jpg (292 KB, 1366x2048)

292 KB JPG

>>224147692
>Start with 5.
>That's the middle point between 1 and 10.

>>224149357
>If you're bored and constantly checking how much time is left, then it's bad.
this. And if you actually shelve the movie and come back another day to continue watching it, it's worse.

File: 1711272833710329.jpg (92 KB, 1170x1400)

92 KB JPG

>arrogant douche confused why everyone doesn't think like him and automatically assumes they are inferior

Many such cases

>>224152012
If it has Iron Man in it, it's an automatic 10 from me.

>>224147184
Ratings are meant for others, not for yourself
Do you recommend watching it? Rate ot highly. Do you not recommend it? Give it a lower rating

File: michael ironside general (...).png (1.62 MB, 1920x1080)

1.62 MB PNG

highlander 2 is fucking kino and only drooling retards who like star wars(bootleg star trek but for niggerfaggots and children) will say its not good. remember /tv/, "ashes to ashes, dust to dust. *grabs my crotch* you better take it out ans use it, or else it will rust."

>>224152176
He's right though. Most of the time people only seem to vote 1 or 10 anyway. Except cowardly Americans who give everything 7 because they don't want to upset any blacks or Jews.

>>224147184
You rate it according to how much YOU like it. Thats the whole point. You give your subjective rating. Its not a bad movie to you, if you like it. Dont overcomplicate this.
>objectively good movie
doesnt exist. If you dislike a movie, other people like, YOU still rate it badly

>>224149403
You are a retard. 5 is literally average

>>224152176
Really depends if 0 is a rating or not

>>224152525
ok leave a 5/10 review for your average uber ride or restaurant visit, see how well that works out for you.

>>224147184
Numerical ratings are for retards. Nobody cares that much and nobody can agree what the number stands for anyway. The only meaningful rating is thumbs up or down/ would recommend, would not recommend

>>224147184
That's why I like Letterboxd's system, I use the stars to indicate what I think the quality is, and the 'like' button to indicate whether I liked it or not.

>>224152503
The middle point between 1 and 10 is 5.5 not 5 though.
It isn't a 0-10 scale, its a 1-10 scale.
That is what anon was pointing out, or at least I assume.

Not to mention the retard who said the average is 5, when its 5.5 as well.
>simple
>logical
>can't do basic maths

>>224152541
I wouldnt review an average restaurant in the first place, because whats the point. But if it was perfectly average, then it would literally be a 5. If you randomly decide in your head, that for you, 7 is in the middle, then the whole scale is fucked up and meaningless. Why have 6 numbers for bad and only 3 for good? Thats retarded. You are retarded. I dont care how many normalfaggots are too braindead to also not understand this

When you have movies like Tom cruise in them, you cant lose!

>>224152656
Only a turbo sperg would use decimals. Nobody cares that much about your rating

>>224152656
>It isn't a 0-10 scale
Why? There is always the possibility of a movie earning a 0

>>224152743
>"I am not the sperg!!"
>"it is actually you"
Are you, the guy trying to argue for and quantify his rating system, actually trying to insist that you are not incredibly fucking autistic for thinking that?
Get some fucking perspective on your life.

I am not a sperg for being able to do maths.
You are a fucking retard because you care for a rating system AND can't do basic maths, it means you care and are obsessed with it but can't do basic fundamentals.

>>224152763
Yeah I rate stuff from 0-10, its what most people do, a 0 is obviously going to be very rare, but possible.
But the retard specified 1-10 and then demonstrated his inability to apply basic logic and maths while trying to suggest others couldn't despite the fact that everything he said doesn't apply to 1-10 but 0-10.

If he didn't specify 1-10 explicitly, then we would just reasonably assume he was doing 0-10

>>224152445
star wars is bootleg kurosawa and flash gordon not star trek

>>224152784
You are a sperg for thinking anybody would care about you giving a movie a 7.1 or a 7.2. Whats the meaningful difference here? How do you even decide that specific number? Honestly even 10 different ratings are already pushing it

>>224152854
Ah so you are illiterate

>>224150118
i would normally agree but you need to account for pre-filtering movies based on trailers.

>>224152869
Well thats ironic. But how much? 9/10 irony, that you tell someone he is illiterate. No, actually it is closer to a 9.13278/10!

>>224150130
>real people
the opinion of real people like you is worth shit and needs to be filtered out to clean up the dataset though

>>224150118
That doesnt make sense, since people tend to watch more good or at least above average movies than bad ones

>>224152539
>american education strikes again

File: 1780707519755408.webm (2.52 MB, 1920x1080)

2.52 MB WEBM

>>224152901
you sure do think highly of yourself while being a sperg on the social outcast website hand wringing about movie rating systems

>>224152656
even on a 0 to 10 scale the middle point between 1 and 10 would not shift

>>224152743
if you dont use decimals there is no middle point between 1 and 10 and the original statement is still retarded

File: 1746737179052730.webm (2.93 MB, 1920x804)

2.93 MB WEBM

>>224147184

>>224152922
yes. i have met real people and they're absolutely fucking retarded, just like (You)

File: 1546162797654.jpg (45 KB, 746x541)

45 KB JPG

This is me, but for music.
I either like the song or don't.
It either sounds fine or sounds off.

Listening to people talk about the technically of music I feel like a hylic among pneumatics
>"Yea, the third harmony seemed warped during the interinuendo part of the repose when the octave of the first order collided with the upper bass frequencies, what did you think anon?"
>I liked when the song went "beep,boop, beep, beep, boop" during the chorus

File: 1767241006580599.jpg (226 KB, 923x600)

226 KB JPG

>>224147692
I don't rate. I just mark as "seen".

>>224152936
what is the most common "area of expertise" for women like this? I want to use AI to learn some deep lore about it so I can mansplain to them and drive them ballistic

>>224152911
nice try, saar

>>224153117
They mostly have a bullshit office job (women daycare). Just explain how the wage gap isnt real

Most people only care about 3 different ratings

>its shit, dont waste your time
>its alright, you can watch it but wont miss out if you dont
>its good, watch it

Everything else is just autism from people who take themselves way too seriously

>>224147184
>objectively good movie
No such thing.

>10/10 rated episode of cartoon show

does that mean 10 for a cartoon show or 10 universally?

File: 1675099941023161.jpg (658 KB, 3840x2400)

658 KB JPG

For me it's like this with acting.

Is Robin Williams' overemotional overacting good acting? Is Kristen Stewart's acting good at all? Is John Wayne in The Searchers good acting? Is Bruce Willis being Bruce Willis bad? Is there really anything wrong with Vanilla Ice's performance in Cool As Ice (1991)? Is plain emoting good or bad acting? I'm not sure.

>>224147692
>5.
>That's the middle point between 1 and 10.
lmao. It's weird that it's what all 1 to 10 rating systems imply though. They could fix it by adding a 0, so why not?

>>224147184
I envy this guy. 99% of the time i watch a movie and think 'i didn't have any fun watching a movie'

File: 11063.jpg (46 KB, 599x416)

46 KB JPG

>retards who don't know calculus arguing about math.
Fuck you, Spiderman thread, now.

>>224152541
Uber is a different logic though, it's 5 if everything went well and 4 if there was a minor problem, it's about tracking negative things. With movies you do default to 5-6 for mid.

>>224150118
>nooo every distribution has to be normal!!!
No. And how do you even fit an infinite distribution in a limited ratings range you Stats 101-taking doofus?

>>224147184
This is like 90% of people and they are allowed to vote.

>>224149403
I hate people like you.

>>224152541
This is why ratings for restaurants and Uber and shit don't function properly. If you give anything less than 5 stars and the service was good, you're just being a dick.

>>224150118
This is true, however my ratings are skewed towards 3/5 stars because I am not choosing the movies I watch at random, thus there's a selection bias that pushes the average forward.

I'm a bit of an autistic faggot so I try to review movies using a pre-established framework with 3 variables: the aesthetic experience (i.e. how the audio-visual content makes me feel), the writing (what does this movie want to say) and the significance the movie has within the medium as a whole (such as an innovative approach to film making). The interplay between these variables is what elevates a good movie into a great one. After these considerations I use the heart to identify which movies I consider based, and my ratings are:
0.5 - an insult to movie making
1 - basically unwatchable
1.5 - pretty bad but can make it to the end
2 - below average
2.5 - average (Drive, Ocean's Eleven)
3 - above average
3.5 - great
4 - fantastic, left a longstanding impression
4.5 - a masterpiece
5 - part of my top 10

>>224153875
Yeah but it still works in the sense that it tells you how solid the restaurant is. If you see a 4.1 star restaurant it's probably got some issues.

>>224153958
I wouldn't rate a mcdonalds experience 5/5 on any scale, though I get exactly what I expect when I go there and don't ask for more

>>224147184
This is almost how I feel about videogames and why I think vidya journalism and discourse is a fucking joke.
>umm, is that an empty street with no collectibles or sidequests that only exists to flesh out the world and make it feel more immersive? wow, that's 5 points off the score
>wow wow wow, this linear first person shooter that plays like every other first person shooter with stupidly long cutscenes and derivative writing that clearly came from a failed hollywood screenwriter is EPIC as fuck. 92%! The only reason it isn't higher is because the class system for online multiplayer didn't reward me with powerups that would give me advantage for putting 200 hours into it

But with films it's a bit different. I enjoyed watching the new Resident Evil. I enjoyed watching One Battle After Another.
But OBAA had me sitting in awe just loving it and savouring the moment. Where RE was just a pleasant watch.
And then the new Ali Gi movie made me laugh. But it also made me cringe and wonder why I was wasting 90 minutes of my life watching it.
>inb4 chud seething over obaa

>>224150118
>i pick movies to watch completely randomly

>>224153989
Yeah, so if your McDonald's delivery is fine you'll give it a 5, and if your order is fucked up like the cheese of your cheeseburger is half hanging outside you'll give it a 3, so it because a rating not about quality but about how solid the restaurant is, like how it lived up to your expectations, regardless of how low they were to begin with.

>>224147945
Americans have been buckbroken to never look at anything as a binary. They can never say “always” or “never” because someone will clap back and give a contrary example.

>>224153267
>the middle point between 1 and 10 depends on numbers outside of the interval [1,10]
an indian probably wouldnt have made that mistake. but a 21st century american? well...

File: fsryv9g8.jpg (357 KB, 1920x1372)

357 KB JPG

>>224153303
Guys, I want to work in an office. I mean already do, but I run the business, I hate my job because of how stressful it is. I want to be a meaningless cog in a giant machine where my responsibilities are so inconsequential that I can devote hours of the day making stupid fucking TikToks, wearing stupid fucking "business casual" outfits, doing stupid dances while carrying absurdly sized drink containers, and yet still be paid enough that I can pay for shitty over-priced coffee multiple times a day.

File: imdbRatings.png (15 KB, 609x387)

15 KB PNG

>>224152525
>You are a retard. 5 is literally average
Irony off the charts. The average is the average.

>>224150118
>>224147692
You are kings amongst insects, and never let the rabble tell you otherwise

>>224154541
The grass is always greener anon. Having someone looming over you and criticizing your every move, to the extent that if you give them the ick randomly they can decide to go on a crusade to get you fired really sucks and is super psychotic. Hasn't happened to me but it's at least on the plate for any office worker. Also having a ton of free time to fuck around but having to stay at the office really sucks ass. It's the illusion of getting paid to do nothing, because you can't really enjoy yourself and get to invested into something non work related so you end up just indulging in pointless time waster shit. Eventually the luster of that kind stuff fades and you feel like your life is just slipping away for nothing. It literally drains your soul. I did it for 4 years and genuinely got to the point where I was considering if killing myself would even matter at all compared to what I was doing. I got over it though by leaving my field entirely but don't think trading your current lot is worthwhile at all. Stay in charge and try to grow your business so you can eventually hire someone else to run shit for you and you can just vacation and relax more often than not in a meaningful way

>>224154161
That’s just a byproduct of them being uneducated and not understanding the difference between opinions and facts.

>>224154628
that graph is bullshit because movies peaked in 1999

>>224154796
>Stay in charge and try to grow your business
I'd like to, and I am trying, but I'm in a dying industry. If I'm lucky I can get some solid work with enough time off in the next few months and I can get some training in another field then I can move industries. I've also really been tempted to try and find nightwork driving an asphalt roller. If I didn't have such insane allergies I'd try to get council work driving a lawnmower.

>>224154541
Offices no longer have cute white girls. Offices are now filled with ugly and lazy jeets and it’s one of the most insufferable and demoralizing places you can work at.

you only need four ratings:
really good
good
okay
bad
if you use more than 4 ratings you're autistic

>>224147184
>I like the movie
Good movie

>I didn't like the movie
Bad movie


That's all.

you can literally just say "it's a bad movie but I like it."

>>224150167
I've rewatched Shrek 1 about 50 times but I'd never call it a perfect movie.

>>224154967
if you can't articulate why it's good beyond "i liked it" or "it was fun" then you dont get to call it good.

Fun is not a measure of quality. A retard will have fun with his own feces, does that make his shit the best toy?

>>224154628
lel, reminds me of retards who think the world's average IQ must be 100 (it's actually 87).

>>224155073
maybe in your house

>>224155025
>I fucked you're mom and like it
Good sneed

>I fucked you're mom and didn't like it
Bad sneed

File: 1781463770947576.jpg (13 KB, 387x516)

13 KB JPG

Objective numerical ratings are one of the worst things to happen to film, just like music and Anthony Fantano Pitchfork bullshit.

>>224154893
That's only in the big companies. Many smaller companies still hire people based on qualifications, intelligence and personality and then throw some cute white girls in.

>>224149392
I do this one some. The movie gets to a point where I want so much more but am afraid it will end.

File: file.png (301 KB, 640x454)

301 KB PNG

>>224155083

File: thor gorr.jpg (90 KB, 790x690)

90 KB JPG

There are people like that except they have a miserable time instead of a fun time. They have their own community. It's called /tv/.

>>224150118
More like a chi-squared curve

>>224147184
the secret to /tv/ is to hate everything