Iron Man 3 Official Iron Man 3 rate/review thread. - Part 1

[DarthSkywalker]

Okay, so that means I can be critical of your further opinion of my original opinion (which I thought came off kind of d-bagish.) And then you could have an opinion on my second opinion and so on and so forth. We could go about this all day long but it's pointless. I was just stating my observations of the reviews included in RT and how I perceived them. Nothing about my original observation/opinion was desperate or trying to rationalize.

That is what you are doing. Your observation has nothing to do with the reviews or the writer's themselves. Your observation is strictly based around how to rationalize why they didn't give Iron Man 3 a glowing review. As so as you brought up the phrase "indie movies" It was obvious where you were going. It completely ignores that these types of movies have gotten near unanimous glowing reviews in the past.

 

[kay128]

RT is owned by Warner Bros, so there may be something in that.

But it's a film that can divide audiences if you watch it with expectations, and it's not the kind of film that is "reviewer proof".

I loved it.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

RT is owned by Warner Bros, so there may be something in that.

But it's a film that can divide audiences if you watch it with expectations, and it's not the kind of film that is "reviewer proof".

I loved it.

And this is what I am talking about.

 

[ThePhantasm]

RT is owned by Warner Bros, so there may be something in that.

 

[jmc]

RT is owned by Warner Bros, so there may be something in that.

Oh god, not this crap again.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Now you are showing off.

 

[Liam_H]

Spoiler

The hole in Tony's chest

Spoiler

Are you sure he was referring to that? Cause I've been trying to think of what he had meant.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Oh god, not this crap again.

You know, it is the reason The Avengers didn't get a perfect 100%.

 

[rashad]

RT is owned by Warner Bros, so there may be something in that.

No there isn't.

 

[Liam_H]

You know, it is the reason The Avengers didn't get a perfect 100%.

No its the reason TA is lower than the TDK meaning its not as good as the latter. Which comes from WB so it all makes sense. Plus TDK is 1% higher, talk about fudging numbers.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

No its the reason TA is lower than the TDK meaning its not as good as the latter. Which comes from WB so it all makes sense. Plus TDK is 1% higher, talk about fudging numbers.

Dastardly. Do you think everyone at Warner Bros. has a curly mustache?

 

[Liam_H]

Dastardly. Do you think everyone at Warner Bros. has a curly mustache?

Along with a top hat and a monocle.

 

[Dr. Sid Jawtug]

No there isn't.

Actually that site has been known for taking mixed reviews and making then rotten to skew scores. The same mixed reviews are listed as fresh for WB titles. It's not a conspiracy it's just business that's why I could care less about a RT %.

 

[Liam_H]

Actually that site has been known for taking mixed reviews and making then rotten to skew scores. The same mixed reviews are listed as fresh for WB titles. It's not a conspiracy it's just business that's why I could care less about a RT %.

You do realize its the reviewer who determines fresh/rotten right? So a borderline score of 2.5/4 could go either way.

 

[Webfoot Hero]

Actually that site has been known for taking mixed reviews and making then rotten to skew scores. The same mixed reviews are listed as fresh for WB titles. It's not a conspiracy it's just business that's why I could care less about a RT %.

I've never particularly cared for them either. Main thing I like is being able to find a whole bunch of reviews and their links without having to do a whole lot of searching for them.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

Along with a top hat and a monocle.

"maniacal laugh"

 

[rashad]

You do realize its the reviewer who determines fresh/rotten right? So a borderline score of 2.5/4 could go either way.

You are correct sir.

 

[Son of Coul]

The main movie that made me feel differently about the RT score, which I often use as a general gauge for movies, was actually James Gunn's Super, a movie that I was surprised many top critics didn't seem to understand at all. It's amazing when the vast majority of professional film critics can't figure out a movie because it doesn't choose to identify itself as a single genre.

If a movie I'm anticipating is getting bad reviews it makes me nervous of course, but I feel more open-minded about going in and seeing what little things I'm sure I could get out of it that others may not.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

You do realize its the reviewer who determines fresh/rotten right? So a borderline score of 2.5/4 could go either way.

Stop with this use of fact. It ruins the attempts at rationalization.

I remember trying to explain to people that a score of 2.5/4 has always been a bad score from Roger Ebert. Poor kids kept on trying to convincing me I was wrong using percentages.

The main movie that made me feel differently about the RT score, which I often use as a general gauge for movies, was actually James Gunn's Super, a movie that I was surprised many top critics didn't seem to understand at all. It's amazing when the vast majority of professional film critics can't figure out a movie because it doesn't choose to identify itself as a single genre.

If a movie I'm anticipating is getting bad reviews it makes me nervous of course, but I feel more open-minded about going in and seeing what little things I'm sure I could get out of it that others may not.

All that matters at the end of the day is how you feel about the film. If you really want to see something, never let RT or any review change that.

 

[TheAQU4M4N]

Any confirmation of a second post scene?

 

[psylockolussus]

A high Rotten Tomatoes rating is still important. We wouldn't even discuss Rotten Tomatoes if its just some website who compiles reviews from a lot of movie critics.

I'm very surprised how this movie went from 93% to 78%.

 

[jmc]

You know, it is the reason The Avengers didn't get a perfect 100%.

I remember this crap with Captain America. The tin foil hat brigade was out in force that day. Seriously, some films just fluctuate, the last Twilight film was sitting in the 80% range early on before it started getting hammered. TDRK started really poorly (relative to Nolan's other films) and eventually crawled its way to 87%. IM3 started really strong, now it's getting whacked for 6, I guess WB doesn't want it getting too popular right now given Man of Steel is a mere 2 months away so now's the time to 'release the kraken!' on it as it were.

 

[Broseph44]

Honestly dunno why scores from websites or reviews matter. Did you personally enjoy the movie? If you did then awesome, if you didn't then cool. Why does it matter what a site scores it? Why does this big people to no end?

 

[kay128]

Just had a look at some of the reviews from top critics.

The Washington Post one is classified rotten and is 2/4 - it could either way. It does have some positive things to say about the movie.

The Rolling Stone one is 2.5/4 - last time I checked, that's a pass. Again, it has positive things to say.

So, those rotten and fresh scores can be fudged pretty easily.

 

[Tony Stark]

If you are allowed to critical about RT, how am I not allowed to be critical of that reaction?

You are just proving my point. IM3 is not your child. It needs no protection. People feel differently. But to rag on people for their opinion or to attempt to rationalize it just comes off as desperate and petty.

No you, accused people of being arrogant, and the only one I see being arrogant now is you. You are associating people who say one critical thing, with people who are trying to be mass conspiracy theorists.

I'm not protecting anything, IM3 got positive reviews, so did IM2 which you blasted and pretty much told people who liked it that it was a mess an they were wrong. So again I ask who is being arrogant?