That is a fair point: you cannot have viewer reviews for a movie which hasn't even released yet.
Agreed. Because then social media and politics may cloud the actual story.
Social media and politics have clouded the actual story. It might actually be a good movie, but there are a bunch of people that don't want to see it due to its perceived politics. The Want to See score was a way for people to protest Captain Marvel's perceived politics. If people protest against movies using politics to push their movie, then there is the hope that future movies will be judged on the basis of their content rather than their politics. There are many people that haven't seen Solo due to The Last Jedi leaving a bad taste even though Solo is a better movie than The Last Jedi.
Speak for yourself: I happen to think The Last Jedi was the best Star Wars movie since Empire. I didn't see Solo because the trailer didn't excite me and advance reviews from professional critics were terrible.
Doesn't look like Captain Marvel is doing great according to Rotten Tomatoes, but it is currently doing better than the Thor and Captain America origin movies. It is currently sitting at 84% with an average rating of 7/10 while the Top Critics score is at 61% with an average rating of 6.11. It is currently not in the top 10 MCU Movies since that is:
1. Black Panther Tomatometer:97% Audience Score: 79%
2. Iron Man Tomatometer:93% Audience Score: 91%
3. Thor: Ragnarok Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 87%
4. Spiderman: Homecoming Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 88%
5. The Avengers Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 91%
6. Captain America: Civil War Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92%
7. Guardians of the Galaxy Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92%
8. Captain America: Winter Soldier Tomatometer:90% Audience Score: 92%
9. Doctor Strange Tomatometer:89% Audience Score: 86%
10. Ant-Man and the Wasp Tomatometer:88% Audience Score: 77%
Here is the remaining MCU movies with a Tomatometer of 80% or above:
11. Avengers: Infinity War Tomatometer:85% Audience Score: 91%
12. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 Tomatometer:84% Audience Score: 87%
13. Ant-Man Tomatometer:82% Audience Score: 86%
14. Iron Man 3 Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 78%
15. Captain America: The First Avenger Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 74%
Haven't listed the Captain Marvel movie since the Audience hasn't had a chance to watch it.
there are two factors to remember: that 84% is pre-release. it could go up, or it could tank hard once it's in the hands of audiences, but it won't tank far, since Critic Scores are weighted higher than audience at RT, and critics were giving it a positive review overwhelmingly when all we had was a trailer and a controversy (before RT removed 'want to see' scoring the audience trending was downward, somewhere between 23% and 27%.)
Notably the critic scores were impressive with the 2016 Ghostbusters movie too, but it tanked at the box-office, and there have been several instances where critics felt a movie was very good, but audiences did not agree. Considering that Critics traditionally do not like action, Science Fiction, or superhero genres (read some of the reviewers' other reviews of genre movies), there's a viable argument that Critics weight their reviews more on external factors such as real-world political stances or social/cultural activism than on whether a movie is actually any good, particularly with genre films. (thus, why Black Panther got an Oscar nomination, while The Dark Knight didn't. You tell me which movie is more re-watchable with themes and characters that reach across time.)
So the 'Critic Score' being overwhelmingly positive is not much better than asking your Uncle Earl for his recommendation.
Last I checked, The Dark Knight won for Best Supporting Actor, which is better than Black Panther did (it won in a technical category but lost Best Picture to freaking Green Book, which is on the level of Star Wars losing to Annie Hall).
Living Heath Ledger=no Oscar nod. He had to kill himself (Literally). The Academy is heavily biased against specific genres.
(Star Wars only got nominated for technical as well, can you name a movie from 1977 that isn't Star Wars-no using google now, just think of which movies from that year people still talk about, and still love, and still enjoy watching.)
There's a heavy bias against Science Fiction and Fantasy in the Academy. without looking it up, iirc "Reds" got the academy award the same year that Empire Strikes Back hit the theaters, (or was that Ghandi?). so Green Book pulling it over a comic-book movie isn't a big surprise.
I seem to recall Ghandi beating Tron for best costumes. That's how big a sham the Academy Awards are.
> @patrickngo said: > starswordc wrote: » > > starkaos wrote: » > > rattler2 wrote: » > > ryan218 wrote: » > > That is a fair point: you cannot have viewer reviews for a movie which hasn't even released yet. > > > > > Agreed. Because then social media and politics may cloud the actual story. > > > > > Social media and politics have clouded the actual story. It might actually be a good movie, but there are a bunch of people that don't want to see it due to its perceived politics. The Want to See score was a way for people to protest Captain Marvel's perceived politics. If people protest against movies using politics to push their movie, then there is the hope that future movies will be judged on the basis of their content rather than their politics. There are many people that haven't seen Solo due to The Last Jedi leaving a bad taste even though Solo is a better movie than The Last Jedi. > > > > > Speak for yourself: I happen to think The Last Jedi was the best Star Wars movie since Empire. I didn't see Solo because the trailer didn't excite me and advance reviews from professional critics were terrible. patrickngo wrote: » > > starkaos wrote: » > > Doesn't look like Captain Marvel is doing great according to Rotten Tomatoes, but it is currently doing better than the Thor and Captain America origin movies. It is currently sitting at 84% with an average rating of 7/10 while the Top Critics score is at 61% with an average rating of 6.11. It is currently not in the top 10 MCU Movies since that is: > > 1. Black Panther Tomatometer:97% Audience Score: 79% > 2. Iron Man Tomatometer:93% Audience Score: 91% > 3. Thor: Ragnarok Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 87% > 4. Spiderman: Homecoming Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 88% > 5. The Avengers Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 91% > 6. Captain America: Civil War Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92% > 7. Guardians of the Galaxy Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92% > 8. Captain America: Winter Soldier Tomatometer:90% Audience Score: 92% > 9. Doctor Strange Tomatometer:89% Audience Score: 86% > 10. Ant-Man and the Wasp Tomatometer:88% Audience Score: 77% > > Here is the remaining MCU movies with a Tomatometer of 80% or above: > > 11. Avengers: Infinity War Tomatometer:85% Audience Score: 91% > 12. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 Tomatometer:84% Audience Score: 87% > 13. Ant-Man Tomatometer:82% Audience Score: 86% > 14. Iron Man 3 Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 78% > 15. Captain America: The First Avenger Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 74% > > Haven't listed the Captain Marvel movie since the Audience hasn't had a chance to watch it. > > > > > there are two factors to remember: that 84% is pre-release. it could go up, or it could tank hard once it's in the hands of audiences, but it won't tank far, since Critic Scores are weighted higher than audience at RT, and critics were giving it a positive review overwhelmingly when all we had was a trailer and a controversy (before RT removed 'want to see' scoring the audience trending was downward, somewhere between 23% and 27%.) > > Notably the critic scores were impressive with the 2016 Ghostbusters movie too, but it tanked at the box-office, and there have been several instances where critics felt a movie was very good, but audiences did not agree. Considering that Critics traditionally do not like action, Science Fiction, or superhero genres (read some of the reviewers' other reviews of genre movies), there's a viable argument that Critics weight their reviews more on external factors such as real-world political stances or social/cultural activism than on whether a movie is actually any good, particularly with genre films. (thus, why Black Panther got an Oscar nomination, while The Dark Knight didn't. You tell me which movie is more re-watchable with themes and characters that reach across time.) > > So the 'Critic Score' being overwhelmingly positive is not much better than asking your Uncle Earl for his recommendation. > > > > > > Last I checked, The Dark Knight won for Best Supporting Actor, which is better than Black Panther did (it won in a technical category but lost Best Picture to freaking Green Book, which is on the level of Star Wars losing to Annie Hall). > > > > > Living Heath Ledger=no Oscar nod. He had to kill himself (Literally). The Academy is heavily biased against specific genres. > > (Star Wars only got nominated for technical as well, can you name a movie from 1977 that isn't Star Wars-no using google now, just think of which movies from that year people still talk about, and still love, and still enjoy watching.) > > There's a heavy bias against Science Fiction and Fantasy in the Academy. without looking it up, iirc "Reds" got the academy award the same year that Empire Strikes Back hit the theaters, (or was that Ghandi?). so Green Book pulling it over a comic-book movie isn't a big surprise.
The Academy is useless, corrupt, and snobby, filled with self appointed Elitists, its no surprise it gets increasingly bad reviews.
Still it appears Captain Marvel is making tons of cash.
Clearly Doctor Strange has failed since they are not in the 1 path where they succeeded, but in one of the 14,000,604 paths where they failed. Having the villain succeed in his plan to wipe out half of the universe is certainly not a success.
So you know exactly how all those 14 mil+ scenarios play out? How can you claim to know he failed like that if we don't know the full extent of that one instance they actually do win? For all we know... this is exactly what is needed to win. And don't forget there's still the Timestone. Something may be going on with that too.
Have no idea how all those 14 million scenarios played out, but if 14 million scenarios aren't enough, then do 14 billion scenarios. If a win requires wiping out half of the universe, then it is not a win. It is a massive failure.
Isn't it obvious to us, the audience, that we are in the one scenario where he saw the heroes win? It just will take another movie to get us there. Obviously, there is a way to undo the snap in some way.
Star Trek Online Advancement: You start with lowbie gear, you end with Lobi gear.
Have no idea how all those 14 million scenarios played out, but if 14 million scenarios aren't enough, then do 14 billion scenarios. If a win requires wiping out half of the universe, then it is not a win. It is a massive failure.
It's possible that the "win" scenario Doctor Strange saw was the "temporary" dissolution of half the intelligent life in the universe as well as resulting in a situation that would permanently prevent this event from ever happening again. It's possible that, with the ability to see into the future, Strange wanted to not only win, but "make it stick", if that makes sense.
Or it could just be lazy lamp shading designed to keep the audience from asking too many questions about "perma-death" in a comic book universe.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch." "We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Passion and Serenity are one.
I gain power by understanding both.
In the chaos of their battle, I bring order.
I am a shadow, darkness born from light.
The Force is united within me.
I'm not really invested in the politics surrounding Captain Marvel. I do find the shenanigans surrounding Captain Marvel to be fascinating. Rotten Tomatoes has some bizarre impetus to alter the audience opinion before and after the film's release. Rotten Tomatoes is owned by Fandango, a ticket selling company, so that might be part of it. Others claim Rotten Tomatoes are altering opinions and scores because of politics. As a result, the box office numbers are also being scrutinized, and some noticed weirdness there too.
Regardless, it's weirdly entertaining. Far more than the actual movie itself (which, sadly, is the case for most current entertainment media). https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I44PKNHn8XI
This is Just Some Guy, an even-tempered comic critic and reviewer. I enjoy his reviews and his insights into modern comics. In this case, he is simply showing timeline surrounding the Rotten Tomatoes numbers game and points out why the box office numbers are being scrutinized.
So, Rotten Tomatoes did make sweeping changes to it's format because of the negative "want to see" scores on Captain Marvel.
"A representative for Rotten Tomatoes, Dana Benson, said the change to its audience score had been in the works for a while, but that the attacks on “Captain Marvel” prompted them to roll it out earlier than planned."
Further changes will include only allowing "verfied" users the ability to post reviews ("verfied" was described as "buying a ticket through parent company Fandango) and removing "unfair" or "trollish" scores and comments. The removal of "unfair" or "trollish" comments and reviews was first implemented for the audience score of Captain Marvel, where Rotten Tomatoes removed over 50,000 comments and user review scores during the first 24 hours after the movie was in theaters. https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/movies/captain-marvel-brie-larson-rotten-tomatoes.html
Captain Marvel might be a bland movie with mixed review scores, but it somehow manages to provide hours of entertainment, long after you leave the theater.
Well, that's fair IMO. If you let literally anyone post anything regardless of whether it's true or not, your system is a failure. RT doesn't have a lot of options for user verification. Let's face it, people who LIKE the movie would probably not feel the need to repeatedly post reviews about it. But someone who has decided they hate it does have the motivation to post bad reviews, even if they've never actually seen it. That's a problem.
It's part of why most wikis either don't allow anonymous commenting at all or treat anons as suspect. Anonymity gives people freedom from consequence of misbehavior. And on sites like RT, where the number of reviews does matter, it lets them post repeatedly by lying and pretending to be multiple people.
Well, that's fair IMO. If you let literally anyone post anything regardless of whether it's true or not, your system is a failure. RT doesn't have a lot of options for user verification. Let's face it, people who LIKE the movie would probably not feel the need to repeatedly post reviews about it. But someone who has decided they hate it does have the motivation to post bad reviews, even if they've never actually seen it. That's a problem.
It's part of why most wikis either don't allow anonymous commenting at all or treat anons as suspect. Anonymity gives people freedom from consequence of misbehavior. And on sites like RT, where the number of reviews does matter, it lets them post repeatedly by lying and pretending to be multiple people.
They're not the only ones who suffer from false reviews. Other sites that offer reviews for various things tend to have issues as well with "false positives" so to speak. People who feel like bashing for the sake of bashing and just try and skew the results in the direction they want.
Steam doesn't seem to have as much of a problem because it is on an account basis. You can really only do a single review per game. Also... it tells people how many hours you've played that particular game at the top of the review as well, so knowing if its a legit review or just trolling is pretty easy. But there are other sites out there that don't have anything like that and fall victim to mob review tactics. Honestly spamming negative reviews feels a bit like a DDoS attack. You're flooding a product with potentially unwarrented attacks in an effort to influence others to avoid said product.
The whole Rotten Tomato setup is extremely flawed. If 60% of the people give a rating of 50% and over with an average rating of 60%, then it doesn't mean that the movie is good. It just means that it is OK. The tomatometer could be at 95% and still considered to be just an OK movie since it could have an average rating of 60%. So Rotten Tomatoes only considers quantity rather than quality.
At least with the way Metacritic is set up, a video game with a score of 85 is considered to be a good game instead of an OK game with a bunch of people agreeing that it is just OK.
> @starkaos said: > The whole Rotten Tomato setup is extremely flawed. If 60% of the people give a rating of 50% and over with an average rating of 60%, then it doesn't mean that the movie is good. It just means that it is OK. The tomatometer could be at 95% and still considered to be just an OK movie since it could have an average rating of 60%. So Rotten Tomatoes only considers quantity rather than quality. > > At least with the way Metacritic is set up, a video game with a score of 85 is considered to be a good game instead of an OK game with a bunch of people agreeing that it is just OK.
Rotten Tomatoes is a pure garbage site, so I'm not surprised about this.
Still am I the only one who doesn't care about about Captain Marvel movue anymore, profitable, not profitable, good or bad, I've simply lost interest either way.
except, that 'failed' system was working fine for a good number of years without modification, and they were only motivated to up and push the changes for Captain Marvel.
There's a flaw in this reasoning. They had to have been working on the new system for quite some time. I'd guess months of work went into the changes. Thus they started working on it PRIOR to the release of the Captain Marvel film.
Which of course leads one to the conclusion that RT had been considering this option for a long time, and thus did NOT consider the system as it was before "working fine".
except, that 'failed' system was working fine for a good number of years without modification, and they were only motivated to up and push the changes for Captain Marvel.
There's a flaw in this reasoning. They had to have been working on the new system for quite some time. I'd guess months of work went into the changes. Thus they started working on it PRIOR to the release of the Captain Marvel film.
Which of course leads one to the conclusion that RT had been considering this option for a long time, and thus did NOT consider the system as it was before "working fine".
Or they are just using it as an excuse for getting rid of the Want to See feature. After all, it is far easier to delete code than it is to create it since we are very familiar with that in STO. Other changes would take longer to program. It is looking like Rotten Tomatoes is working on verification which would mean people would have to go through Rotten Tomatoes' owner. If someone wants to review a movie on Rotten Tomatoes, then they would have to go to the Fandango website instead of just buying it from the movie theater.
> @starkaos said:
> The whole Rotten Tomato setup is extremely flawed. If 60% of the people give a rating of 50% and over with an average rating of 60%, then it doesn't mean that the movie is good. It just means that it is OK. The tomatometer could be at 95% and still considered to be just an OK movie since it could have an average rating of 60%. So Rotten Tomatoes only considers quantity rather than quality.
>
> At least with the way Metacritic is set up, a video game with a score of 85 is considered to be a good game instead of an OK game with a bunch of people agreeing that it is just OK.
Rotten Tomatoes is a pure garbage site, so I'm not surprised about this.
Still am I the only one who doesn't care about about Captain Marvel movue anymore, profitable, not profitable, good or bad, I've simply lost interest either way.
The controversy's fun to watch and batt around, but I guess I'm in the same boat-I don't actually care that much, I'm kind of already at the point of "Infinity war was the real ending" for me, just because it did end so much, and so many key players won't be coming back after "Endgame", while Endgame might be a re-start, it's kind of just that-a restart. I'm not excited about a 'verse that holds someone as bland as Captain Marvel (the character) as the central figure. (sorry, folks, but there's a reason they haven't been able to make a decent long term series starring Carol Danvers in the comics side-the character's not that interesting. forget Brie Larson, the material she's got just isn't that exciting.)
I guess I should explain that. Danvers has always been a bit boring as a character-she doesn't really have any personality and really never did, just some stereotypes shoveled on out of the 'make a superhero' random number generator-she always read as if she were put together by a gamer-twink for a Champions game and then not properly reviewed by the game-masters before the campaign starts.
That is, of course, MY opinion. I guess someone somewhere thought she was a great character rather than a walking deus ex machina, but...I just don't see it.
To give some perspective;
Scarlet Witch: has had to deal with mental illness and trauma in every incarnation. she fell for a ROBOT for chrissakes, her family in the comics is the definition of dysfunctional, with super-criminal/racist/nutjob Magneto for a father, and a brother whose personality is marred by living in a world of meat-glacier people.
Black Widow: is a badass who can stand up to powered beings while having exactly ZERO superpowers of her own. Kind of a batman situation, but she looks great in a miniskirt, and has had to deal with her own issues surrounding what she did for the Soviet Union as a spy and assassin, as well as being chronically distrusted by virtually everybody who actually knows any of her history.
Tony Stark: Alcoholism, PTSD, Perfectionist obsessive personality, arrogance. the man is a trainwreck outside his armor and he's got a bad ticker.
Spider-Man: can't catch a break. He's street-level, chronically poor and driven by a combination of guilt and idealism.
Thor: has a host of personality defects, split allegiances (that sometimes DO come into conflict), a bit narcissistic even after his humbling, and has problems with his family, including his relationship with his nemesis Loki.
Vision: Is a robot made by a psychotic robot, and he knows it. this is a being that has struggles most would go into catatonia over.
Hawkeye: his power is...gadget arrows. He's got a regular family that can be endangered at any time at all if an enemy learns who they are and where they are, he's also no tougher than a normal man, but stands toe-to-toe with some of the scariest TRIBBLE out there.
Hulk: Anger issues? Issues issues? Being the Hulk has destroyed Dr. Bruce Banner emotionally, professionally and romantically.
the thing that is absent from Carol Danvers is that she has all this power, and no consequences, no inherent personality flaws, nothing that makes her 'mortal' and accessible. and that's just in the comics, I haven't seen the movie yet, but I suspect it's the same thing there-she's good at everything and is exceptionally powerful, but no drawbacks.
which is why her book's never sold well, and her best years were as a passenger in Rogue's head.
Kind of an Ultimate NPC character, rather than a character worthy of a player campaign, especially in the Marvel setting where one of the biggest comparisons was that the heroes in Marvel were powerful-but-flawed, *Unlike DC in the silver age and after.
this is kinda what everyone seems to be missing in the controversy-Brie Larson has all the flaws, but her character has none, and worse, the makers see Brie's flaws as assets.
But let's compare Captain Marvel (Carol Danvers) to another paragon-but this one was done right both in the comics, and the movie; Wonder Woman.
Wonder Woman's 'stranger in a strange land' aspects from the movie, were also present in print from time to time, she misses social cues that someone NOT born in a colony of sapphic warriors would not miss, not to mention having thoughts and ideas that maybe a Klingon would think and have, but rarely a human due to her upbringing in a warrior culture. This works, because it's something the readers and viewers can 'latch on to', makes her more human than demigod, and she LEARNS. (at least until the next crossover crisis reboot).
Gal Godot presented a character that was engaging and well realized, and her assets were really assets-her experience with the military and growing up in what is very nearly the most martial society in present western culture, her accent, her ability to engage fans and interviewers and promote her film, as opposed to an agenda, well, it made a lot of money and a lot of repeat viewers. People liked it, and more than that, she staged things very well for Aquaman's debut movie by showing that the DC(cinematic) U could make a good superhero film that wasn't batman.
Kind of a thing to think about. the handling of the two films pre-release could not be more different, and DC's choice of a core heroine for theirs, versus Marvel's use of what is probably one of the weakest selling and most poorly realized of their line, how the actresses handled their press, the fans, and promotion? couldn't be more different if it were on purpose.
except, that 'failed' system was working fine for a good number of years without modification, and they were only motivated to up and push the changes for Captain Marvel.
There's a flaw in this reasoning. They had to have been working on the new system for quite some time. I'd guess months of work went into the changes. Thus they started working on it PRIOR to the release of the Captain Marvel film.
Which of course leads one to the conclusion that RT had been considering this option for a long time, and thus did NOT consider the system as it was before "working fine".
Or they are just using it as an excuse for getting rid of the Want to See feature. After all, it is far easier to delete code than it is to create it since we are very familiar with that in STO. Other changes would take longer to program. It is looking like Rotten Tomatoes is working on verification which would mean people would have to go through Rotten Tomatoes' owner. If someone wants to review a movie on Rotten Tomatoes, then they would have to go to the Fandango website instead of just buying it from the movie theater.
Adding a login feature to the system is more complex than "deleting code".
except, that 'failed' system was working fine for a good number of years without modification, and they were only motivated to up and push the changes for Captain Marvel.
There's a flaw in this reasoning. They had to have been working on the new system for quite some time. I'd guess months of work went into the changes. Thus they started working on it PRIOR to the release of the Captain Marvel film.
Which of course leads one to the conclusion that RT had been considering this option for a long time, and thus did NOT consider the system as it was before "working fine".
Or they are just using it as an excuse for getting rid of the Want to See feature. After all, it is far easier to delete code than it is to create it since we are very familiar with that in STO. Other changes would take longer to program. It is looking like Rotten Tomatoes is working on verification which would mean people would have to go through Rotten Tomatoes' owner. If someone wants to review a movie on Rotten Tomatoes, then they would have to go to the Fandango website instead of just buying it from the movie theater.
Adding a login feature to the system is more complex than "deleting code".
Which is why I stated that "other changes would take longer to program." I never said that adding a login feature is as simple as deleting code. Most people don't know when a verification system was implemented or if it is even implemented to Rotten Tomatoes, but it will happen.
Attacking the person = you lose. Disproving their argument = you win. A lot of people want to label anyone who doesn't like the movie as sexist/(inset some other "ist" here), but I have yet to hear any of them actually disprove a well reasoned post like the one I quoted in my previous reply.
Comments
I seem to recall Ghandi beating Tron for best costumes. That's how big a sham the Academy Awards are.
> starswordc wrote: »
>
> starkaos wrote: »
>
> rattler2 wrote: »
>
> ryan218 wrote: »
>
> That is a fair point: you cannot have viewer reviews for a movie which hasn't even released yet.
>
>
>
>
> Agreed. Because then social media and politics may cloud the actual story.
>
>
>
>
> Social media and politics have clouded the actual story. It might actually be a good movie, but there are a bunch of people that don't want to see it due to its perceived politics. The Want to See score was a way for people to protest Captain Marvel's perceived politics. If people protest against movies using politics to push their movie, then there is the hope that future movies will be judged on the basis of their content rather than their politics. There are many people that haven't seen Solo due to The Last Jedi leaving a bad taste even though Solo is a better movie than The Last Jedi.
>
>
>
>
> Speak for yourself: I happen to think The Last Jedi was the best Star Wars movie since Empire. I didn't see Solo because the trailer didn't excite me and advance reviews from professional critics were terrible. patrickngo wrote: »
>
> starkaos wrote: »
>
> Doesn't look like Captain Marvel is doing great according to Rotten Tomatoes, but it is currently doing better than the Thor and Captain America origin movies. It is currently sitting at 84% with an average rating of 7/10 while the Top Critics score is at 61% with an average rating of 6.11. It is currently not in the top 10 MCU Movies since that is:
>
> 1. Black Panther Tomatometer:97% Audience Score: 79%
> 2. Iron Man Tomatometer:93% Audience Score: 91%
> 3. Thor: Ragnarok Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 87%
> 4. Spiderman: Homecoming Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 88%
> 5. The Avengers Tomatometer:92% Audience Score: 91%
> 6. Captain America: Civil War Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92%
> 7. Guardians of the Galaxy Tomatometer:91% Audience Score: 92%
> 8. Captain America: Winter Soldier Tomatometer:90% Audience Score: 92%
> 9. Doctor Strange Tomatometer:89% Audience Score: 86%
> 10. Ant-Man and the Wasp Tomatometer:88% Audience Score: 77%
>
> Here is the remaining MCU movies with a Tomatometer of 80% or above:
>
> 11. Avengers: Infinity War Tomatometer:85% Audience Score: 91%
> 12. Guardians of the Galaxy Volume 2 Tomatometer:84% Audience Score: 87%
> 13. Ant-Man Tomatometer:82% Audience Score: 86%
> 14. Iron Man 3 Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 78%
> 15. Captain America: The First Avenger Tomatometer:80% Audience Score: 74%
>
> Haven't listed the Captain Marvel movie since the Audience hasn't had a chance to watch it.
>
>
>
>
> there are two factors to remember: that 84% is pre-release. it could go up, or it could tank hard once it's in the hands of audiences, but it won't tank far, since Critic Scores are weighted higher than audience at RT, and critics were giving it a positive review overwhelmingly when all we had was a trailer and a controversy (before RT removed 'want to see' scoring the audience trending was downward, somewhere between 23% and 27%.)
>
> Notably the critic scores were impressive with the 2016 Ghostbusters movie too, but it tanked at the box-office, and there have been several instances where critics felt a movie was very good, but audiences did not agree. Considering that Critics traditionally do not like action, Science Fiction, or superhero genres (read some of the reviewers' other reviews of genre movies), there's a viable argument that Critics weight their reviews more on external factors such as real-world political stances or social/cultural activism than on whether a movie is actually any good, particularly with genre films. (thus, why Black Panther got an Oscar nomination, while The Dark Knight didn't. You tell me which movie is more re-watchable with themes and characters that reach across time.)
>
> So the 'Critic Score' being overwhelmingly positive is not much better than asking your Uncle Earl for his recommendation.
>
>
>
>
>
> Last I checked, The Dark Knight won for Best Supporting Actor, which is better than Black Panther did (it won in a technical category but lost Best Picture to freaking Green Book, which is on the level of Star Wars losing to Annie Hall).
>
>
>
>
> Living Heath Ledger=no Oscar nod. He had to kill himself (Literally). The Academy is heavily biased against specific genres.
>
> (Star Wars only got nominated for technical as well, can you name a movie from 1977 that isn't Star Wars-no using google now, just think of which movies from that year people still talk about, and still love, and still enjoy watching.)
>
> There's a heavy bias against Science Fiction and Fantasy in the Academy. without looking it up, iirc "Reds" got the academy award the same year that Empire Strikes Back hit the theaters, (or was that Ghandi?). so Green Book pulling it over a comic-book movie isn't a big surprise.
The Academy is useless, corrupt, and snobby, filled with self appointed Elitists, its no surprise it gets increasingly bad reviews.
Still it appears Captain Marvel is making tons of cash.
Isn't it obvious to us, the audience, that we are in the one scenario where he saw the heroes win? It just will take another movie to get us there. Obviously, there is a way to undo the snap in some way.
Or it could just be lazy lamp shading designed to keep the audience from asking too many questions about "perma-death" in a comic book universe.
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Question: why did their clothes dissolve with them, but not objects they were holding?
#LegalizeAwoo
A normie goes "Oh, what's this?"
An otaku goes "UwU, what's this?"
A furry goes "OwO, what's this?"
A werewolf goes "Awoo, what's this?"
"It's nothing personal, I just don't feel like I've gotten to know a person until I've sniffed their crotch."
"We said 'no' to Mr. Curiosity. We're not home. Curiosity is not welcome, it is not to be invited in. Curiosity...is bad. It gets you in trouble, it gets you killed, and more importantly...it makes you poor!"
Regardless, it's weirdly entertaining. Far more than the actual movie itself (which, sadly, is the case for most current entertainment media).
This is Just Some Guy, an even-tempered comic critic and reviewer. I enjoy his reviews and his insights into modern comics. In this case, he is simply showing timeline surrounding the Rotten Tomatoes numbers game and points out why the box office numbers are being scrutinized.
"A representative for Rotten Tomatoes, Dana Benson, said the change to its audience score had been in the works for a while, but that the attacks on “Captain Marvel” prompted them to roll it out earlier than planned."
Further changes will include only allowing "verfied" users the ability to post reviews ("verfied" was described as "buying a ticket through parent company Fandango) and removing "unfair" or "trollish" scores and comments. The removal of "unfair" or "trollish" comments and reviews was first implemented for the audience score of Captain Marvel, where Rotten Tomatoes removed over 50,000 comments and user review scores during the first 24 hours after the movie was in theaters.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/03/13/movies/captain-marvel-brie-larson-rotten-tomatoes.html
Captain Marvel might be a bland movie with mixed review scores, but it somehow manages to provide hours of entertainment, long after you leave the theater.
It's part of why most wikis either don't allow anonymous commenting at all or treat anons as suspect. Anonymity gives people freedom from consequence of misbehavior. And on sites like RT, where the number of reviews does matter, it lets them post repeatedly by lying and pretending to be multiple people.
My character Tsin'xing
They're not the only ones who suffer from false reviews. Other sites that offer reviews for various things tend to have issues as well with "false positives" so to speak. People who feel like bashing for the sake of bashing and just try and skew the results in the direction they want.
Steam doesn't seem to have as much of a problem because it is on an account basis. You can really only do a single review per game. Also... it tells people how many hours you've played that particular game at the top of the review as well, so knowing if its a legit review or just trolling is pretty easy. But there are other sites out there that don't have anything like that and fall victim to mob review tactics. Honestly spamming negative reviews feels a bit like a DDoS attack. You're flooding a product with potentially unwarrented attacks in an effort to influence others to avoid said product.
At least with the way Metacritic is set up, a video game with a score of 85 is considered to be a good game instead of an OK game with a bunch of people agreeing that it is just OK.
> The whole Rotten Tomato setup is extremely flawed. If 60% of the people give a rating of 50% and over with an average rating of 60%, then it doesn't mean that the movie is good. It just means that it is OK. The tomatometer could be at 95% and still considered to be just an OK movie since it could have an average rating of 60%. So Rotten Tomatoes only considers quantity rather than quality.
>
> At least with the way Metacritic is set up, a video game with a score of 85 is considered to be a good game instead of an OK game with a bunch of people agreeing that it is just OK.
Rotten Tomatoes is a pure garbage site, so I'm not surprised about this.
Still am I the only one who doesn't care about about Captain Marvel movue anymore, profitable, not profitable, good or bad, I've simply lost interest either way.
Which of course leads one to the conclusion that RT had been considering this option for a long time, and thus did NOT consider the system as it was before "working fine".
My character Tsin'xing
Or they are just using it as an excuse for getting rid of the Want to See feature. After all, it is far easier to delete code than it is to create it since we are very familiar with that in STO. Other changes would take longer to program. It is looking like Rotten Tomatoes is working on verification which would mean people would have to go through Rotten Tomatoes' owner. If someone wants to review a movie on Rotten Tomatoes, then they would have to go to the Fandango website instead of just buying it from the movie theater.
Fantastic post.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008
My character Tsin'xing
Which is why I stated that "other changes would take longer to program." I never said that adding a login feature is as simple as deleting code. Most people don't know when a verification system was implemented or if it is even implemented to Rotten Tomatoes, but it will happen.
Attacking the person = you lose. Disproving their argument = you win. A lot of people want to label anyone who doesn't like the movie as sexist/(inset some other "ist" here), but I have yet to hear any of them actually disprove a well reasoned post like the one I quoted in my previous reply.
The-Grand-Nagus
Join Date: Sep 2008