Brandeezy
Superstar
Lmao guess he hasn't seen all the articles hailing that dude from Supergirl as the definite Live-Action Superman now.
Official DOCTOR STRANGE Thread | Multiverse fukkery incoming
- Thread starter Erik Killmonger
- Start date
Lmao guess he hasn't seen all the articles hailing that dude from Supergirl as the definite Live-Action Superman now.
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Shut your whiny little bytch mouth. I said it was 'cool, I guess' and I stand by that. You can bold every "buzz word" in my post but maybe you should highlight the parts where I literally say I only mention certain things because I know other people take issue in them, not because I did.
Fact is that nothing that the movie does is "bad". It's just that like Ant-Man before it, or even GotG which I know other people love to pretend is "good", it doesn't particularly do much to stand out either. So most of the movie is just there, another factory product of the Marvel line. If you love that you're probably gonna love this, if you hate that you're probably gonna hate this and if you've become largely indifferent about it like I have but can't really hate on it either, you're probably gonna be like:
It was cool I guess.
And if you thought I wasn't gonna mention WB/DC to trigger all of the furious usuals than you should know better.
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
They don't, Rotten Tomatoes decides whether a review is considered Fresh or Rotten. Some critics have spoken out about the sometimes arbitrary way in which RT decides this.
To calculate a Tomatometer percentage, the site rounds up reviews by critics who have been approved based on set criteria. According to a rep for the site, critics designate whether their reviews are considered positive (fresh) or negative (rotten), and in cases where it's more difficult to tell, the Rotten Tomatoes editorial staff reaches out to critics for clarification.
Sorry, But You're Probably Reading Rotten Tomatoes Wrong
TheGodling
Los Ingobernables de Sala de Cine
Maybe they changed it then because in the past there have been critics who said they basically just send the review to RT and they picked whether it was Fresh or Rotten.
When their ratings are insinuating that Dr. Strange is one of the best movies this year then it's a problem and ain't a whole lot an MTV claiming we're the ones doing it wrong will do to change that.
Their main problem for me is they're owned by a ticketing service who's best interest is always to inflate/promote ratings so people want to see movies regardless of if they're terrible or not AND they include reviews from people from the dusty corners of the internet who shouldn't be anywhere near a "legitimate" review site.
I stopped using RT as a reason to judge movies a year or two ago and I don't think it's unreasonable for some folks to say Marvel/Disney has them in their pockets or is doing something shady with a 98% approval rating out the gate. Civil War was the same and I thought it was meh and full of plotholes.
KravenMorehead™
Barrel Brothers.®
Damn it's this week? Ain't that some shyt 
That would be quite amazing for Disney to have an NBC/Warner Bros. company in their pocket
That's why I also added doing something shady. It could be quid pro quo or they have an army of low key paid reviewers. It's not unheard of before. Sony got caught making up fake reviewers before created by one of their PR folks so it's not like it'd be some impossible scenario for a studio to go try.
They must have told the reviewers to chill with the Alice in Wonderland sequel so it wouldn't seem too obvious. Diabolical!
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
They aren't doing anything shady. They just are good at what they do strategy wise.
- They just have good trade marketing (they treat critics who are already favorable to the brand to premiere tickets/swag/insider info)
- They let those critics see the movies weeks sometimes an entire month beforehand.
- These critics already favorable to them give them mostly positive reviews.
- The remaining critics after that see the favorable review ratings before they see the movie.
- Peer pressure, not wanting to be an outlier, going along with the crowd etc. maybe subconsciously effects the remaining critics who are then more likely to continue the narrative.
YakSpiller
Veteran
So have any of are far-east brethren "viewed" this yet?
How long until its bootleg.
How long until its bootleg.
Good job being purposely obtuse. Don't pretend like there aren't reviewers in the bag for certain studios/companies or like it's some wild conspiracy that they're all above board.
That's essentially pay for play. It's in the best interest of those favorable critics to continuously give good reviews for early access/information. I pointed out Sony so I don't think it's out of the realm of possibility that they're all trying to do the same on some level. I just said that's why I stopped trusting reviews and think it's a fair argument for people who think movie critics are in the bag.
This ain't a 98% movie. Just like Civil War ain't a 90% movie. The Marvel films that I think earned their high ratings are Winter Soldier, GOTG, the first Iron Man, and I think the reviews for the first Capt movie should've been higher.
AnonymityX1000
Veteran
Warner Bros. gave away a ton a of shyt to critics for BvS and it didn't help their reviews so not exactly pay for play.
Why isn't it a 98% or CW not a 90% cause of your singular differing opinion? It doesn't work that way.
Over 200 professional critics make up that score but you disagree therefore all their opinions are null and void. Get over yourself. lol