Civil War Civil War Rotten Tomatoes Thread

[Ms. Marvel]

True but I just wanted to say that the people who give it a 10 without seeing it are pretty ridiculous as well.

 

[JC00]

@TheVision That's not how it works. If someone said they hated TDK I wouldn't automatically think they have an agenda. If a group of people loved Italian food but one person said they didn't, you wouldn't accuse them of having an agenda. Being in the minority =/= agenda.

While there will probably be negative reviews that aren't agenda driven, but so far the two negative reviews out there scream agenda driven. You got one guy who setup shop on IMDB with "I'm the guy who gave the rotten review" and now this other one comes from someone who doesn't like the genre. Which does make people a little suspicious of future negative reviews because the only two negative reviews out there have been agenda driven.

 

[JC00]

Visualiza: Im not saying that there wont be some people who genuinely dislike it but the fact its getting a great reception and theres only a few critics that say they didnt like it makes it seem like they have an agenda.

Ya any negative review that comes out I'm going to be reading just so see if there is an agenda in the review. Because we are at what? 100 reviews in and the only 2 negative were clearly agenda driven

If it was at 90/10 at this point and the other 8 reviews were just critics that genuinely were meh on the movie then I wouldn't be a little suspicious. But we are at 98/2 and the 2 negative reviews were "Stop making these movies, I hate the genre" and "I'm the guy that gave the rotten review, please notice me"

 

[Ms. Marvel]

If someone doesn't like the genre it's highly likely to be because they haven't found a film within the genre that makes them think otherwise. Their opinion shouldn't be invalidated.

 

[JOE]

Yeah but there are still those people that gave it a 10/10 before seeing it.

Exactly, it's idiotic. At least with Rotten Tomatoes they're reputable critics. No matter what people say the site is credible. That's why there's a RT thread and there isn't an IMDB one.

 

[TheVision]

MCU makes movies that everyone can enjoy if they arent haters of action movies.

How many people could sit in a theater and watch Iron Man and walk out totally hating it? Doesnt seem like many unless theyre a bit twisted.

Im not saying people arent allowed to dislike a movie but it depends on what their reasons are. If its "I dont like super hero movies" thats not good enough for me to take them seriously

 

[JOE]

Yeah but thats ridiculous. MCU makes movies that everyone can enjoy if they arent haters of action movies.

How many people could sit in a theater and watch Iron Man and walk out totally hating it? Doesnt seem like many unless theyre a bit twisted.

Biased doesn't even BEGIN to describe this post lol.

Some people just didn't like the movie, and that's okay. Some people won't like this movie, and that's okay. Some people didn't like Spider-Man 2 or the Dark Knight. We're all still alive, the world didn't end. 94% of the critics did enjoy those movies and that's what matters.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Yeah but thats ridiculous. MCU makes movies that everyone can enjoy if they arent haters of action movies.

How many people could sit in a theater and watch Iron Man and walk out totally hating it? Doesnt seem like many unless theyre a bit twisted.

That's not fair. People have different ideas when it comes to enjoyment. They may not like the character of IM, the plot, the villain, the action (which imo is nothing to rave about - although I do love the film as a whole), the supporting characters, etc. We are unique and shouldn't be belittled just because we don't enjoy the same things the majority do.

 

[TheVision]

If their BS didnt affect the ratings of the film on RT I wouldnt be discussing this. People understand that biased reviews can affect the RT score right? Thats my point here. There are people who hate the genre and would give it a bad rating without seeing it. Theres twisted mofos online as we've witnessed.

If you take their side, thats up to you.

 

[JC00]

If someone doesn't like the genre it's highly likely to be because they haven't found a film within the genre that makes them think otherwise. Their opinion shouldn't be invalidated.

Oh I absolutely invalidate their opinion when they write "they need to stop making these movies" type reviews. If a person is writing those kind of reviews then they need to stop reviewing the genre

 

[TheVision]

^^ Exactly my point

 

[Mjölnir]

If their BS didnt affect the ratings of the film on RT I wouldnt be discussing this. People understand that biased reviews can affect the RT score right? Thats my point here. There are people who hate the genre and would give it a bad rating without seeing it. Theres twisted mofos online as we've witnessed.

If you take their side, thats up to you.

Of course biased reviews affect the score. Biased reviews include positive ones as well though.

In the end the RT score isn't that important. It can have some effect on the BO, but money should mean very little to fans as we get none of it, and the quality of the movie is entirely subjective and decided individually.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

There are no sides.

We are talking about reviews for a movie about fictional characters. There's no war here. And so what if there are negative reviews bringing a film down? You want to go around banning reviewers who you think have an agenda from posting on RT? Well ok then, but the burden of proof is on you.

 

[Ms. Marvel]

Of course biased reviews affect the score. Biased reviews include positive ones as well though.

In the end the RT score isn't that important. It can have some effect on the BO, but money should mean very little to fans as we get none of it, and the quality of the movie is entirely subjective and decided individually.

Exactly I have seen reviewers constantly giving SH movies good reviews no matter what. The film could be disliked by the majority and they'd still like it. We don't accuse them of having agendas....And we shouldn't.

 

[JOE]

CBMs aren't going anywhere. Not when this many people are paying to see them. Expect them around for a VERY LONG TIME. After Civil War Marvel is going to cross 10B gross in 8 years. That's disgusting...

 

[TheVision]

I think the final score will show how good the film is overall. Just look out for scamsters of any kind with this film because they are out there.

 

[Mjölnir]

I think the movie will show me how good it is. On Wednesday in fact. Can't wait!

 

[JOE]

Can't believe I'm still 13 days out... I might fly to the other side of the world to see it early.

 

[Joeyjojo72]

You are no different than the people claiming that Disney is paying RT critics to give their movies positive reviews.

Well one (Disney bribing critics) is a conspiracy theory and the other is just the assumption that a handful of the 300 plus critics on RT will independently decide to write a bad review mostly for reasons unrelated to the quality of the film. One is crazy and unfounded, the other is rather cynical but plausible if not probable.

My whole thing is its not worth getting riled up over.

 

[JC00]

One is crazy and unfounded, the other is rather cynical but plausible if not probable.

Well so far in this instance they are more than probable. I just don't know how anyone could argue that someone writes a bad review enters it into RT and then starts a thread on IMDB titled "I'm the guy who gave the rotten review" and then the other negative reviewer gives a "comic book movies should stop being made, I hate them" comment aren't agenda drive reviews.

When a negative review comes in where the critic states their opinion of why they didn't like the movie and doesn't go seek attention for it or makes a "I wish the cbm genre would die" comment then I will take it as a valid non-agenda driven review.

 

[TheVision]

But also now that CW is getting a ton of positive reviews you kinda automatically feel skeptical about the negative ones. Like: Ok what exactly is that 1 person seeing that the other 200 arent?

 

[JOE]

But also now that CW is getting a ton of positive reviews you kinda automatically feel skeptical about the negative ones. Like: Ok what exactly is that 1 person seeing that the other 200 arent?

You mean 30 lol. As far as Rotten Tomatoes stands currently.

 

[JC00]

But also now that CW is getting a ton of positive reviews you kinda automatically feel skeptical about the negative ones. Like: Ok what exactly is that 1 person seeing that the other 200 arent?

Well unless they make their agenda clear I will give them the benefit of the doubt. But as for the only 2 negative reviews out there, their agenda was clear and i'm not sure how anyone can argue those reviews weren't agenda driven.

Plus really let the agenda driven negative reviews come in. IMO at worst the Positive to Negative RT ratio on this is going to be 15 to 1 (same as TDK), if it gets the same number of reviews on RT as BvS (320) it would mean 21 rotten reviews. Right now on RT it is sitting at 30 to 1 and overall it is at 50 to 1.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

So if CW gets 350 reviews...

It would need fewer than 18 negatives to hit 95% and fewer than 35 negatives to hit 90%.

The former is doable. The latter is a lock imo.

 

[Iceman]

Which is the 2nd negative (after Fairbanks)?