The Avengers : Predict how The Avengers rotten tomato score

[Green Day]

What will be The Avengers rotten tomato score

 

[Green Day]

Sorry if this thread already exist. I could not find one in the search box.

 

[warhorse78]

86 to 90. Most of the Avengers and Joss Whedon's popular projects fell into that realm. Mediascore will be in the upper 90's though. I just have this feeling that this movie is going to be very, very good, and those that do dislike it, they'll be grasping for straws.

 

[MessiahDecoy123]

75% critic rating

85% user rating

 

[Juicy J]

Definitely fresh, I'd say low 70's from the critics and a much higher user rating. Mid to high 80s, maybe even in 90s. I definitely see this being a crowd pleaser.

 

[Juha]

71-79

The movie definitely has the potential to do better than 71-79. If the movie has a solid narrative and if the pacing works...well, in that case reaching 71-79 should be a walk in the park. I guess the rating might get bogged down by critics who are starting to get bored with superhero movies. And of course there's always the possibility that the concept of the movie just turns out to be too damn ambitious and the film simply fails to deliver.

On the other hand, critics love all the actors involved(especially RDjr) and many of them are Whedon fanboys. All the solo movies have been well received. Even TIH is sitting at 66% even though that movie was mediocre at best imo. So far, I've liked pretty much everything I've seen and read. I think it's safe to say that the movie is going to be good. The real question is, is it going to be great?

 

[flickchick85]

Rotten Tomatoes: 85%

Metacritic score: 73

I mean, let's face it, A.O. Scott of the NY Times is gonna hate it, since he hates the whole Marvel Studios game plan on principle, and this movie was basically the reason he hated those other ones. So that's one guaranteed rotten review right there. You've gotta assume there are a few other major critics out there on the same wavelength as him, so it won't be universally loved. But the more relaxed critics looking to have a good time (Peter Travers, I'm looking at you) will probably love it unless the movie's far worse than it looks at this point. Ebert gave 3-4 stars to the IM, IM2 & Cap movies, and he likes Joss Whedon's work in general (He threw some brief Buffy praise into his Serenity review), so he'll probably at least like it, and I think the majority of the critics are more like him than Scott.

 

[Chewy]

Ebert's review of Thor where he didn't understand basic plot points in the movie implies he my not like it

 

[flickchick85]

Ebert's review of Thor where he didn't understand basic plot points in the movie implies he my not like it

Heh, good point.

 

[WildcatNC]

Ten MILLION %

 

[Son of Coul]

I'm guessing in the low 80s if it's as good as it looks at this point, and taking into account what we've heard from pre-screeners.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

I'm guessing in the low 80s if it's as good as it looks at this point, and taking into account what we've heard from pre-screeners.

And 94+ if it's even better than it looks. At this point, The Avengers looks to be better than Iron Man in every way, which stands at 94 on RT.

 

[cherokeesam]

And 94+ if it's even better than it looks. At this point, The Avengers looks to be better than Iron Man in every way, which stands at 94 on RT.

From a critic's standpoint, Avengers probably *doesn't* look better than the IM movies. The IM movies get extra credit from critics because of RDJ's acting, all-star supporting casts, and generally intelligent scripting, story elements and theme. To them, Avengers is about aliens invading and lots of stuff going "boom." That's going to turn off a lot of the more highfalutin' types that don't appreciate pure popcorn films.

 

[JB-the-Hunter]

From a critic's standpoint, Avengers probably *doesn't* look better than the IM movies. The IM movies get extra credit from critics because of RDJ's acting, all-star supporting casts, and generally intelligent scripting, story elements and theme. To them, Avengers is about aliens invading and lots of stuff going "boom." That's going to turn off a lot of the more highfalutin' types that don't appreciate pure popcorn films.

I'm pretty sure The Avengers will have those things...

And I don't think The Avengers counts as a "pure popcorn film", nor do I think critics will see it that way... It's being directed by a writer, that should tell you that the story will come before the "popcorn action explosion" stuff

 

[cherokeesam]

I'm pretty sure The Avengers will have those things...

And I don't think The Avengers counts as a "pure popcorn film", nor do I think critics will see it that way... It's being directed by a writer, that should tell you that the story will come before the "popcorn action explosion" stuff

I hope you're right. I'd *love* for Avengers to turn out to have some real depth, but it's kinda hard to fit depth into a 300-million dollar budget with a large ensemble cast competing for face time. Unless you make it a very long epic movie, which I don't think Kevin Feige is capable of.

 

[Green Day]

I am guessing 75% and handful of the Marvel films have finish in the 70-79 range.
I think some of the elements will turn critics off being too much comic book movie. I think there be too much going on in the film as well.

 

[Quasimod0]

Hopefully above 70

 

[Jordanstine]

Remember the "Rotten Tomatoes' Captain America: The First Avenger" fiasco / conspiracy theories back in July?

Rotten Tomatoes (owned by Warner Bros) initially kept putting together all the negative reviews for "Captain America TFA" first, while taking their time to put on the positive reviews. In other words, they basically front-loaded all the negative reviews of CAFTA first.

Not only that, but they would constantly Tweet it to their 600,000 followers that CAFTA was rotten every 2 hours or so!

http://***********/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93459353515986944

@RottenTomatoes

First Captain America review is in! And it's...#rotten. Play nice in there, boys... tmto.es/qGZdLi

http://***********/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93540736389218304

@RottenTomatoes

74 comments on the #rotten Captain America review? No doubt a civilized discourse!

https://***********/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93693001913733120

@RottenTomatoes

Captain America: The First Avenger is currently #rotten. 40% @ 5 reviews. tmto.es/qGZdLi

https://***********/#!/rottentomatoes/status/93744058329075713

@RottenTomatoes

Captain America: The First Avenger up to 54%, still currently #rotten @ 13 reviews. tmto.es/qGZdLi

And while they were doing that, at the same time, they would keep promoting their own WB film "Friends with Benefits" which happened to be released on the same weekend as CAFTA, right after their negative CATFA tweets.

https://***********/#!/RottenTomatoes/status/93729706087677952

@RottenTomatoes


Friends with Benefits is currently #fresh. 60% @ 5 reviews. tmto.es/nitgHs

The funny thing was that when Rotten Tomatoes had CAFTA around 50% rotten, Metacritic.com had CAFTA over 75% positive, at the same time.

This happened with Rotten Tomatoes for a good 2 days until the weekend where people on Twitter were basically re-tweeting what Rotten Tomatoes had said and the general perception was that CAFTA was a rotten film.

It wasn't until late Friday where Rotten Tomatoes finally added more of the positive reviews and CAFTA ended up certified "Fresh", but the initial damage had already been done. 600,000 people who subscribes to Rotten Tomatoes, re-tweets it to their own followers, and bam it's an epidemic with trending topics for that Thursday/Friday being #CaptainAmerica, #Rotten, #Review.

 

[Chewy]

Oh god, not this conspiracy theory crap again

It's embarrassing




Anyway I voted 86-90%.

 

[Quasimod0]

It was sort of unfair that they were posting all the negative ones first though

 

[Spider-Vader]

I think it'll be in the 83-90% range. I'll be shocked if it's anything lower & pleased if it's anything higher.

 

[Dr. Sid Jawtug]

97%

 

[Marvel]

There is something to all that hidden agenda talk but it happens with almost every film. Some studios have guys in their pocket and some guys that hate because it serves a purpose or they simply like a competing movie.


In any case

87% critic rating

user rating ... who cares? Knowing the Nolan Nation anti-vote will be strong we have to filter all that to say the least. The trolling is ALREADY going on at IMDB. I don't get it but it's happening and will happen. Nolanites are threatened by most things Marvel for some strange reason. I'm not trying to start anything but right or wrong, that will play a factor and may spill in to those smaller critic circles that RT uses to compute their score.

 

[Xeno]

I refuse to even speculate about RT because it uses too many so-called critics of the "some weird guy with a website" variety. There are some ridiculous creatures who have somehow become approved critics on that site. Quite a number of them operate websites that have absolutely no traffic or readers, yet RT gives them the same weight as others from legitimate news organizations or popular sites. Many of those people have opinions on film that don't merit consideration, much less inclusion in a ranking system that has become somewhat influential.


As an example, when Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part 2 premiered, it garnered overwhelming critical praise. However, the movie was slammed by several of the people writing for minuscule websites. One of those sites is a mom & pop operation run by a husband and wife team of third-rate hacks. Both of them wrote poor reviews of DH2, and both of those reviews were added to the list as "rotten". Those two have done the exact same thing with other movies, in effect having twice the impact of other reviewers despite the obscurity of their site (its Alexa ranking was back in the millions).


Until and unless RT decides to clean up its act, tighten up the criteria for including critics and stop intentionally skewing scores*, I can't take its ratings seriously. It is far more informative to use the site as an aggregater of reviews so that one can read and evaluate each on individually than to go by its artificial and arbitrary scoring system.


* By "intentionally skewing scores" I mean arbitrarily designating reviews rotten or fresh. There have been instances in which RT has decided to count a review as rotten when it clearly was positive. A 2.5 of 4 can go either way, for example, depending on which editor adds the review to the site. Also, they tweet that movies are rotten or fresh without awaiting a consensus.

 

[Jordanstine]

Oh god, not this conspiracy theory crap again

It's embarrassing

Anyway I voted 86-90%.

That's why it's a "theory".

But it was all of SHH, you guys who was fuming over the fact that Rotten Tomatoes was front-loading all the negative reviews. It was reason enough for me to finally register here at SHH rather than being a lurker to get in the action! t:

The first ever, FIRST ever CATFA review was from Top Critic - Roger Moore of the Greenbay Gazzette and Orlando Sentinel which was published on July 18th (4 days before the release) and it was overwhelmingly positive, in fact the first 6-7 reviews for CATFA came out all positive reviews.

Then here comes Rotten Tomatoes posting all the negative reviews first, and tweeting how rotten it was for 2 days straight. In fact Rotten Tomatoes didn't post Roger Moore's review (again the very first review) until July 20th, a good 2 days later.

So conspiracy theory it is.

Also another reason to just go with METACRITIC.COM