Careercow Robert Chipman / Bob / Moviebob / "Movieblob" - Middle-Aged Consoomer, CWC with a Thesaurus, Ardent Male Feminist and Superior Futurist, the Twice-Fired, the Mario-Worshipper, publicly dismantled by Hot Dog Girl, now a diabetic

How will Bob react to seeing the Mario film?


  • Total voters
    1,451
Status
Not open for further replies.
I know Bob doesn't really care about Harry Potter, compared to a lot of the other consoomer tier franchises he obsesses over. Honestly, I wonder if this is just a convenient excuse for the fat cunt to give himself a day off and not see a movie he didn't want to see anyway, while pretending he's doing so as a brave statement against the evil witch queen of TERF Island to virtue signal to all the dilating trannies on Twitter.

I could actually respect the decision not to review the movie on the grounds the first two are soulless cash grabs. I've only seen the first one (had no interest after that), and while I drool at the concept of a 1920s NYC with a secret magical underworld, the one that shows up in that flick is even more ersatz than the New York New York casino in Las Vegas. Given the reams of ancillary material detailing the non-European wizarding schools that popped up on Rowling's website in advance of the first movie, I think there's a solid critique to be made concerning her general lack of familiarity with anything beyond the borders of the UK, or beyond Western Europe at best. Her understanding of American culture is nonexistent, and I have to imagine the same goes for South American, African, and Asian magical folklore.

But no, easier to join the troon brigade and whine about hurt fee-fees. Man, fuck Bob.
 
I know Bob doesn't really care about Harry Potter, compared to a lot of the other consoomer tier franchises he obsesses over. Honestly, I wonder if this is just a convenient excuse for the fat cunt to give himself a day off and not see a movie he didn't want to see anyway, while pretending he's doing so as a brave statement against the evil witch queen of TERF Island to virtue signal to all the dilating trannies on Twitter.
If your suggestion is that Bob wants extra ass pats for doing literally fucking nothing, I think the answer is a resounding yes.

Keep in mind that any actual critic, if they value their position or believes in art, will review the movie. Sure, in some corner of the review, hidden in the corner of details nobody cares about, they could mention they have views that don't align with the creator of the property - but that's completely unnecessary. In five minutes, I'll find disagreeable view with any person on this planet. Even here, and you guys are awesome.

Can you imagine going on HomeAdvisor and posting a negative review detailing how you won't review Ted's Roofing and Gutters because Ted believes in a flat tax? And expecting the world at large to say, "Yes. Very apt, well done. Visionary observation, poetic in fact."

Praise me, peasants, for not doing my job. You may go back to toiling over the hot oil at Arby's now. Urchin, prepare for me a fairly small amount of roast beef and cheddar sandwiches, fries, potato cakes, fish sandwiches, and a Jamocha shake because I'm feeling delightfully naughty today.
 
If JK had the "right" opinions, Bob would be slobbering all over these movies. The reverse is true for things he does like too.
Honestly I don't think he would. He's also pissy over Pokemon and other late 90s products because they overshadowed Mario and reminded him that he's out of touch.

Brainless Bobby is that petty and pathetic btw. He does not like Pokemon either for exactly this reason.
 
Nothing quasi about the Mafia reference- it’s almost a direct quote from “The Godfather “
I wasn't sure, since I haven't seen all of the Godfather (bits and pieces here and there on TV when it was on), but yeah, that makes sense. Besides, I think Bob has a Mafia fetish. With those mafia glasses he keeps wearing to prevent us seeing his 1000-yard Rooster Stare and trying to look cool, plus he wants to be able to tell politicians etc (and have them LISTEN AND OBEY) what to do with the MAGAnaise Ghoulen. Except, bob would skip the payment for protection threats ("Nice shawp you have heah. Would be a shame if something happened to it, friendo...") and just start trashing a MAGAnaise Ghoul's shop on the regular.
 
I could actually respect the decision not to review the movie on the grounds the first two are soulless cash grabs. I've only seen the first one (had no interest after that), and while I drool at the concept of a 1920s NYC with a secret magical underworld, the one that shows up in that flick is even more ersatz than the New York New York casino in Las Vegas. Given the reams of ancillary material detailing the non-European wizarding schools that popped up on Rowling's website in advance of the first movie, I think there's a solid critique to be made concerning her general lack of familiarity with anything beyond the borders of the UK, or beyond Western Europe at best. Her understanding of American culture is nonexistent, and I have to imagine the same goes for South American, African, and Asian magical folklore.

But no, easier to join the troon brigade and whine about hurt fee-fees. Man, fuck Bob.
That's pretty much why all of /tv/s discussion boil down to: "only asian character; names her Ching Chang; what did she mean by this?"

The HP universe has the same problem as Star Wars in that, despite the vastness of the universe, SW adventures only happen in a desert planet or a Death Star. That's why, despite all the limitless possibilities of the Wizarding World, everything happens in London, the English Country Side, an English Boarding School, etc.

Do you want to make an american harry potter extension? It's going to be closer to horror than adventure: wendigos, the jersey devil, skinwalkers, etc. Hell, make references to HP lovecraft and make vague hints that there are Old Ones lurking around. Or maybe do what Gaiman did with American Gods, have multiple sects and societies living in the US which hate each other with such a passion that the concept of a wizarding USA is insane. You don't even have to make it up too much - the Voodoiene Queens can put on an act and say "we do it for fun, english-boy. If the muggles believe in the Loa, the Loa smiles some more on us"; or have actual demon worshipping witches be living in sisterfuck, OH that tell the protagonist, "what's with your wands, taxes and regulations? we are still praying how we did centuries ago, it's you who lost your way". Spice it up with Chinese sorcerers and their fumanchu shit. Their mythos have a million gods, to them some english, noseless freak wanting to become a lich should not be a surprise, "Is he splitting his soul? how crude, godhood is attained through meditation and losing one's self but sure we can give you something so you can knock the lich down a peg".

Maybe even have (((blood mages))) building golems and selling them to the highest bidder? Why? Because handrubbing.

My point is that Rowling's world is very, very small and narrow. What do wizards want? What do men that can fucking reverse time actually want or need? Why even build a school? What do you need a school for magic for? Prussian style schools are made to contidion kids to the 8 to 5 grind but what does a Wizard need with a 9-5? And why is it that every wizard in every country is just Merlin?

I believe that the biggest issue with Rowling's cosmology is that there is no cost to magic. Sure, you spend time memorizing spells and wand movements but what is the price you're paying? Are you siging a contract with other entities? are you selling your soul? Can you sling spells all day long until your throat is dry? Does your wand gets worn down with each cast? Do you cast from magic points? You can make a scarcity free society with just one mage and one wand and there's never any deeper thought put into it.

To summarize my spergery: it's still a nice read when you're 12 but by the age of 13 you better start reading Dragonlance; and the world is not big enough to make 17 movies out of it.
 
It's really fucking pathetic and telling that Bob calls people who agree with him on Twitter "the family." Even as a Godfather reference, it's just really, really pathetic and LARP-y. It shows exactly where his mind is.

It's even more sad when you realize Bob's "family" would gladly through him under a combine harvester to make themselves look good, and have before.
 
Last edited:
To add to the Catcher in The Rye discourse, I read when I was a freshman in high school and hated it. Holdern Caulfied is a eternally woe-is-me prick who completely lacks self-awareness. Just because he had one sweet moment with his sister does not make him a good person, nor does it make him a good protagonist. The guy who shot John Lennon could've at least chose a book that wasn't nearly as gay as motivation to blow away a Beatle. Bob is a lot like Holden Caulfield because he is also an immature, whining jackass that wierdos idiolize when all he deserves is to be beaten in public.
I agree Caulfield is a shit protagonist, but I can sympathize with the actual "catcher in the rye" metaphor in the last chapter. His desire to preserve childhood innocence before tumbling over a cliff resonates in the current times with people who lament good things of the past being corrupted by modern sensibilities. I think that was part of the reason Chapman shot Lennon as well; killing him while he was still relevant and beloved would preserve his 'magic' as opposed to him growing old and withering away.
 
Went and watched Blobby's Half Blood Prince review and he made the obvious X-Men parallels but overall gave the film and the series a good review.

So yeah if Rowling wasn't a "Terf" he'd probably would be drooling Fantastic Beast with fake praise.

As for the Rowling negatively effecting her franchise and Blobby's assertion that WB should buy it.

One Blobby Rowling has guarded her rights since day one so good luck with WB ever getting the upper hand to buy her out.

Two Rowling views has nothing to do with Fantastic Beast failing. Yes the Harry Potter fanbase has probably the most of Virtual Signaling douches than any other due to it being a lot of white Millennials and Zoomers, but look at the parks the majority ain't walking away because of Rowling.

Fantastic Beast is doing poorly because one they're not that good.

Two: WB being faggots and backing Hurd meant firing Depp and creating a disjointed mess thematically.

Three: The whole idea of the Fantastic Beast series is stupid. Yes do a Prequel series about a minor character barely mentioned or seen? (I've never read Harry Potter and only saw the 1st film when it came out because I was dating a chick who wanted to see it so I have no clue if Newt was mentioned or even seen in the films and books just that he's a minor side character) but that's smart doing films about him (Eyes Rolling).

I'm a Gen-Xer a real one Blobby unlike you and this series is like doing a Goonies film series on Chester Copperpot, who gives a shit.

Guarentee you if they did a film series based off one of the main characters forget Radcliffe he ain't never coming back outside of a camero and no one cares about the Ginger Cunt so get the Heromine girl and have Ron be a house husband and throw in a Harry cameo and trust me it'd make bank even if it was awful.
 
Went and watched Blobby's Half Blood Prince review and he made the obvious X-Men parallels but overall gave the film and the series a good review.

So yeah if Rowling wasn't a "Terf" he'd probably would be drooling Fantastic Beast with fake praise.

As for the Rowling negatively effecting her franchise and Blobby's assertion that WB should buy it.

One Blobby Rowling has guarded her rights since day one so good luck with WB ever getting the upper hand to buy her out.

Two Rowling views has nothing to do with Fantastic Beast failing. Yes the Harry Potter fanbase has probably the most of Virtual Signaling douches than any other due to it being a lot of white Millennials and Zoomers, but look at the parks the majority ain't walking away because of Rowling.

Fantastic Beast is doing poorly because one they're not that good.

Two: WB being faggots and backing Hurd meant firing Depp and creating a disjointed mess thematically.

Three: The whole idea of the Fantastic Beast series is stupid. Yes do a Prequel series about a minor character barely mentioned or seen? (I've never read Harry Potter and only saw the 1st film when it came out because I was dating a chick who wanted to see it so I have no clue if Newt was mentioned or even seen in the films and books just that he's a minor side character) but that's smart doing films about him (Eyes Rolling).

I'm a Gen-Xer a real one Blobby unlike you and this series is like doing a Goonies film series on Chester Copperpot, who gives a shit.

Guarentee you if they did a film series based off one of the main characters forget Radcliffe he ain't never coming back outside of a camero and no one cares about the Ginger Cunt so get the Heromine girl and have Ron be a house husband and throw in a Harry cameo and trust me it'd make bank even if it was awful.
One of my biggest issues with the HP prequel series is the title.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is just a reference to one of the fictional textbooks from the HP series. It's not necessarily a bad title for a prequel side story, a fun little adventure in the HP universe set in a time separate from the main series. The title would catch the eye of fans and entice them to go see it, not because they're dying to find out more about this period of the world's history but just for some lighthearted fun.

The issue is that they then decided to make an entire prequel series out of it, exploring the whole Grindelwald conflict that was also briefly mentioned in the books and (I'm assuming) how that led to Voldemort and the series proper. The focus stopped being on whoever-the-fuck Eddie Redmayne's character was and shifted more to young Dumbledore, but because studios think general audiences are stupid, they continued to call the sequels "Fantastic Beasts: [insert subtitle here]," despite that not really being the point anymore.

I dunno what I would have titled the prequel series myself, but keeping the "Fantastic Beasts" moniker is just silly at this point. Surely they could have come up with something better.
 
To me, the biggest issue with Fantastic Beasts is the same one with the Snyderverse: They're five chapters in one story, rather than five individual movies. Man of Steel and Fantastic Beasts 1 work as stand alone films, but then the second part is disjointed and more there to set up the future films than be a complete experience, leading to the third one needing to take a step back and try to work as a film rather than a chapter. Which the MCU also does, but they always made sure their movies worked on their own... provided you'd seen all the previous ones. Although with Justice League, you could see where Snyder was taking things. Dumbledore I think they told Rowling to take out all the set up and try to wrap things up in case they only wanted the trilogy. It could have been interesting to see the whole story but unfortunately, no one thought "Hey, let's make sure this works without needing to wait a few years before the next one".

As for Bob's review... Okay, I thought James Rolfe did the right thing by not going to see Girlbusters since he knew he wouldn't be able to review it fairly, but in Bob's case, we all know he was just being a lazy piece of shit since he's never reviewed anything fairly in his life.
 
I believe that the biggest issue with Rowling's cosmology is that there is no cost to magic
That's the same with a lot of Marvel stuff. Did ReeRee Williams had to suffer - apart from her teacher telling her she'd be better as a nurse? How about Captain Marvel (Brie Larson version)? These women are born to take up the mantle, and it costs them nothing to wield their power.
 
Went and watched Blobby's Half Blood Prince review and he made the obvious X-Men parallels but overall gave the film and the series a good review.

So yeah if Rowling wasn't a "Terf" he'd probably would be drooling Fantastic Beast with fake praise.

As for the Rowling negatively effecting her franchise and Blobby's assertion that WB should buy it.

One Blobby Rowling has guarded her rights since day one so good luck with WB ever getting the upper hand to buy her out.

Two Rowling views has nothing to do with Fantastic Beast failing. Yes the Harry Potter fanbase has probably the most of Virtual Signaling douches than any other due to it being a lot of white Millennials and Zoomers, but look at the parks the majority ain't walking away because of Rowling.

Fantastic Beast is doing poorly because one they're not that good.

Two: WB being faggots and backing Hurd meant firing Depp and creating a disjointed mess thematically.

Three: The whole idea of the Fantastic Beast series is stupid. Yes do a Prequel series about a minor character barely mentioned or seen? (I've never read Harry Potter and only saw the 1st film when it came out because I was dating a chick who wanted to see it so I have no clue if Newt was mentioned or even seen in the films and books just that he's a minor side character) but that's smart doing films about him (Eyes Rolling).

I'm a Gen-Xer a real one Blobby unlike you and this series is like doing a Goonies film series on Chester Copperpot, who gives a shit.

Guarentee you if they did a film series based off one of the main characters forget Radcliffe he ain't never coming back outside of a camero and no one cares about the Ginger Cunt so get the Heromine girl and have Ron be a house husband and throw in a Harry cameo and trust me it'd make bank even if it was awful.
One of my biggest issues with the HP prequel series is the title.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is just a reference to one of the fictional textbooks from the HP series. It's not necessarily a bad title for a prequel side story, a fun little adventure in the HP universe set in a time separate from the main series. The title would catch the eye of fans and entice them to go see it, not because they're dying to find out more about this period of the world's history but just for some lighthearted fun.

The issue is that they then decided to make an entire prequel series out of it, exploring the whole Grindelwald conflict that was also briefly mentioned in the books and (I'm assuming) how that led to Voldemort and the series proper. The focus stopped being on whoever-the-fuck Eddie Redmayne's character was and shifted more to young Dumbledore, but because studios think general audiences are stupid, they continued to call the sequels "Fantastic Beasts: [insert subtitle here]," despite that not really being the point anymore.

I dunno what I would have titled the prequel series myself, but keeping the "Fantastic Beasts" moniker is just silly at this point. Surely they could have come up with something better.
I never really cared about the series and books growing up, so these movies mean little to me.

That being said, I at least have respect for Daniel Radcliffe for refusing to come back for these movies even if it’s for a paycheck. Dude doesn’t want his character to get the TLJ treatment and suffer for it. Though knowing Hollywood, anything is possible.
 
I never really cared about the series and books growing up, so these movies mean little to me.

That being said, I at least have respect for Daniel Radcliffe for refusing to come back for these movies even if it’s for a paycheck. Dude doesn’t want his character to get the TLJ treatment and suffer for it. Though knowing Hollywood, anything is possible.
Harry’s character went through that treatment in the Cursed Child stage show:
 
Maybe Warner Bros. just stopped sending Bob screeners. Might be another reason he thinks the multi-billion dollar company that gobbled up a smaller media company (Discovery) has gone bankrupt and its assets were dumped at a loss on said smaller media company.
Either that or he thinks they were delusional enough to release Tenet in theaters during the pandemic.
 
One of my biggest issues with the HP prequel series is the title.

Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them is just a reference to one of the fictional textbooks from the HP series. It's not necessarily a bad title for a prequel side story, a fun little adventure in the HP universe set in a time separate from the main series. The title would catch the eye of fans and entice them to go see it, not because they're dying to find out more about this period of the world's history but just for some lighthearted fun.

The issue is that they then decided to make an entire prequel series out of it, exploring the whole Grindelwald conflict that was also briefly mentioned in the books and (I'm assuming) how that led to Voldemort and the series proper. The focus stopped being on whoever-the-fuck Eddie Redmayne's character was and shifted more to young Dumbledore, but because studios think general audiences are stupid, they continued to call the sequels "Fantastic Beasts: [insert subtitle here]," despite that not really being the point anymore.

I dunno what I would have titled the prequel series myself, but keeping the "Fantastic Beasts" moniker is just silly at this point. Surely they could have come up with something better.
Yeah I'd be much more down for the series if it was Eddie Redmayne & his little muggle buddy going on road trip adventures. The arc stuff is just exhausting.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Back