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

[redfirebird2008]

It's still not as bad as the Dark Knight Rises fanboys last year. They were sending death threats to reviewers who weren't praising the movie. And coming out with outlandish off the wall comments and theories. Heck one reviewer quit or got fired because of fanboys overreacting to his review to DKR. I am like really, it's just a movie calm down. Thankfully none me of us Marvel/ Iron man fans have gotten that bad.

Go ask Amy Nicholson what she thinks of Avengers fans for their behavior towards her last year.

 

[Liam_H]

I see you resisted using a pun right there.

 

[Chewy]

Go ask Amy Nicholson what she thinks of Avengers fans for their behavior towards her last year.

Yep. It was appalling. And people were posting the same **** here on these boards

 

[Chewy]

I loved the movie. Just as good as the first, but for very different reasons. Solid 8/10. Avengers is still the best Marvel Studios movie.

For all the ballyhooing about the twist I thought it was great and worked perfectly in the movie. Kingsley's performance was brilliant, and Pearce was solid. Don't really know why people were ragging on him.

 

[redfirebird2008]

The only reason we're not seeing it this year is thankfully Rotten Tomatoes finally figured out that it's a bad idea to let their members comment on the reviews. It took the death threats by TDKR fanboys for them to finally figure out this common sense issue. Force the idiots to sign up for each website if they want to comment on an individual review. Letting them comment on every review simply by signing up for RT was pretty stupid. Things are much better now.

 

[ShadowBoxer]

Go ask Amy Nicholson what she thinks of Avengers fans for their behavior towards her last year.

Yea I was here for that and I forgot about it. Both DKR and Avengers fans were bad last year lol.

 

[redfirebird2008]

And honestly, I don't get why Rotten Tomatoes didn't figure this out years ago. Armond White got abused pretty bad for being the first one to give a negative review to Toy Story 3. You know who defended him in that situation? Roger Ebert.

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The stages of a fan to Rotten Tomatoes.

Stage one - Delight. Cheer at early glowing reviews on RT, starts saying things like 'I knew it!' and 'I told ya so!'.

Stage two - Justification. Use said early RT reviews to defend any pre release negativity for the film despite one not having seen it and continue to point toward the percentage meter as proof of their opinons.

Stage three - Defensiveness. Get defensive when more negative RT reviews start to come in, claim people are 'haters' or 'trolls' again in spite of not having seen the film. Will point to past films as an example of something similar happening in spite of their execution.

Stage four - Anger. Go on tangents crying fowl because the RT score has started to plummet, cries of conspiracy start getting floated, the sudden dismissal of RT as being unimportant.

Stage five - Intention. Already deciding before hand that one is going to love the movie regardless of any negativity that has subsequently been brought up in both RT reviews and regular cinema goer feedback.

Stage six - Denial. Usually disguising the fact that the film isn't as good as they hoped by claiming 'it's not meant to be Citizen Kane' or by trying to justify poorly executed story devices simply because they don't want to contribute any negativity to a character they love.

Stage seven - Acceptance. Never happens.

Agreed.

Everybody eventually grows out of that 'validation' phase. If I hadn't, myself, I wouldn't survive as a Carolina Panther fan.

You have my sympathies friend.

 

[Eros]

just Saw it, Best Iron Man and second best MCU movie!! Easily better then last years TDKRS and alot more satisfying then what came before it.

 

[Tony Stark]

OK this thread has officially descended into hell.

Here goes folks:

1.) The movie is certified fresh (and was certified the day the embargo was lifted unlike Spider-man 3 which didn't get a fresh rating until release day)

2.) 77% is a good score and average rating 7/10 is a good score

3.) Warner Brothers does not influence the Tomato meter, the only thing they do is push ads for their movies on Flixster, but they also advertise rival studios as well. They don't do anything about the reviews other than tally them.

4.) Just because you think a reviewer is out of their mind, or disagree with something they wrote, doesn't mean you are living in denial, or trying to push some mass conspiracy against Warner Brothers. Some critics are flat out idiots. There are other very good critics like Peter Travers, who don't like this film.

Everyone happy now? Let's move along.

 

[jmc]

I'd like to see RT integrate with Facebook commenting, at least then that'll prevent the trolls from sending out death threats. A funny thing happens when your actual name is attached to a comment.

 

[Figs]

So you missed the Avengers I see. Because it got just as bad. Actually, possibly a tiny bit worse. It was quite shameful.

Even Samuel L Jackson got into it with a critic.

 

[redfirebird2008]

I'd like to see RT integrate with Facebook commenting, at least then that'll prevent the trolls from sending out death threats. A funny thing happens when your actual name is attached to a comment.

I hate how Facebook is integrated into so many websites. I like RT the way it is now. Should have always been this way (or nonexistent altogether).

 

[DarthSkywalker]

The only reason we're not seeing it this year is thankfully Rotten Tomatoes finally figured out that it's a bad idea to let their members comment on the reviews. It took the death threats by TDKR fanboys for them to finally figure out this common sense issue. Force the idiots to sign up for each website if they want to comment on an individual review. Letting them comment on every review simply by signing up for RT was pretty stupid. Things are much better now.

Took that extreme stupidity to bring about some logic.

And honestly, I don't get why Rotten Tomatoes didn't figure this out years ago. Armond White got abused pretty bad for being the first one to give a negative review to Toy Story 3. You know who defended him in that situation? Roger Ebert.

I loved that man. So many here gave him crap because he didn't dedicate his life to comic book films and for many here, that made his reviews invalid. But he was the man that really expanded my outlook on films and film criticism. He was a real loss.

 

[jmc]

I hate how Facebook is integrated into so many websites. I like RT the way it is now. Should have always been this way (or nonexistent altogether).

I believe we are getting to the stage where people have to take responsibility for the comments on site like that. At the very least it'll weed out anonymous trolls because it means they'll shut the hell up. Either that or remove commenting.

 

[DoomsdayApex]

You have my sympathies friend.

It's okay.

Superb Owl 2014z!!! t:

 

[DarthSkywalker]

OK this thread has officially descended into hell.

Here goes folks:

1.) The movie is certified fresh (and was certified the day the embargo was lifted unlike Spider-man 3 which didn't get a fresh rating until release day)

2.) 77% is a good score and average rating 7/10 is a good score

3.) Warner Brothers does not influence the Tomato meter, the only thing they do is push ads for their movies on Flixster, but they also advertise rival studios as well. They don't do anything about the reviews other than tally them.

4.) Just because you think a reviewer is out of their mind, or disagree with something they wrote, doesn't mean you are living in denial, or trying to push some mass conspiracy against Warner Brothers. Some critics are flat out idiots. There are other very good critics like Peter Travers, who don't like this film.

Everyone happy now? Let's move along.

Wow, so many of jmc's stages in one post.

Even Samuel L Jackson got into it with a critic.

I vaguely remember this. Could you refresh my memory?

 

[dru-zod2501]

how is it possible my theater didn't have a midnight screening?!?~!?!?!

 

[DarthSkywalker]

It's okay.

Superb Owl 2014z!!! t:

Yes, you might very well play in and win the Superb Owl in 2014. But I am not feeling the Super Bowl anytime soon for ya I am afraid.

 

[kay128]

OK this thread has officially descended into hell.

Here goes folks:

1.) The movie is certified fresh (and was certified the day the embargo was lifted unlike Spider-man 3 which didn't get a fresh rating until release day)

2.) 77% is a good score and average rating 7/10 is a good score

3.) Warner Brothers does not influence the Tomato meter, the only thing they do is push ads for their movies on Flixster, but they also advertise rival studios as well. They don't do anything about the reviews other than tally them.

4.) Just because you think a reviewer is out of their mind, or disagree with something they wrote, doesn't mean you are living in denial, or trying to push some mass conspiracy against Warner Brothers. Some critics are flat out idiots. There are other very good critics like Peter Travers, who don't like this film.

Everyone happy now? Let's move along.

Thanks for this - nice summary. Sorry for my ignorance, but just to be clear: when a RT reviewer submits a review, he or she has to "tick a box" which is "fresh" or "rotten"? Also, does RT pull reviews from the web and put them up on their site (that is, the reviewer doesn't need to fill in a review form?)?

 

[Whiskey Tango]

I've only watched Moviebob's review - prolly it's already been posted but whatevs. He liked it, even the "twist" (and oh, man, I'm really getting sick of that word)

3.) Warner Brothers does not influence the Tomato meter,

Please tell me people aren't being this ****ing stupid.

And STOP HARRASSING REVIEWERS WHO GIVE POOR SCORES. ****! REALLY?

It's freaking sad, embarrassing behavior, and we're all lumped into the same category with these neckbeards, whether we like it or not. STAHP!

 

[psylockolussus]

The stages of a fan to Rotten Tomatoes.

Stage one - Delight. Cheer at early glowing reviews on RT, starts saying things like 'I knew it!' and 'I told ya so!'.

Stage two - Justification. Use said early RT reviews to defend any pre release negativity for the film despite one not having seen it and continue to point toward the percentage meter as proof of their opinons.

Stage three - Defensiveness. Get defensive when more negative RT reviews start to come in, claim people are 'haters' or 'trolls' again in spite of not having seen the film. Will point to past films as an example of something similar happening in spite of their execution.

Stage four - Anger. Go on tangents crying fowl because the RT score has started to plummet, cries of conspiracy start getting floated, the sudden dismissal of RT as being unimportant.

Stage five - Intention. Already deciding before hand that one is going to love the movie regardless of any negativity that has subsequently been brought up in both RT reviews and regular cinema goer feedback.

Stage six - Denial. Usually disguising the fact that the film isn't as good as they hoped by claiming 'it's not meant to be Citizen Kane' or by trying to justify poorly executed story devices simply because they don't want to contribute any negativity to a character they love.

Stage seven - Acceptance. Never happens.

Very true! t:

 

[DoomsdayApex]

Even Samuel L Jackson got into it with a critic.

I'm imagining that bewildered/angry SLJ look from Black Snake Moan along with his typical rant voice slamming into that critic.

 

[redfirebird2008]

Either that or remove commenting.

Removal would be the best. You know what's the worst? YouTube comments. I wish there was an option to turn them off on every video we watch, not just on the videos we upload.

 

[Figs]

I vaguely remember this. Could you refresh my memory?

going to make many, many more movies about the Avengers. All should be well.
But every silver lining has a cloud. Yesterday, Samuel L. Jackson — Marvel Studios mascot and highest-grossing actor in movie history — took to Twitter to complain about New York Times movie critic A.O. Scott’s review of Avengers. “#Avengers fans,NY Times critic AO Scott needs a new job! Let’s help him find one! One he can ACTUALLY do!” tweeted Jackson. One of Jackson’s followers tweeted a thoughtful counterargument: “the critic has a right to his opinion. Just because the movie has made a ton of money does not mean it is a good movie.” To which Jackson responded: “Actually, sometimes it DOES!” (Note that Jackson said “sometimes,” so he’s clearly aware that we’re all thinking about Mace Windu.)

http://popwatch.ew.com/2012/05/04/avengers-samuel-l-jackson-twitter-ao-scott/