Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 | May 5, 2023 | The 9th most profitable film of 2023

[Alexander]

I think Black Adam had 56% or so after first 100-110 reviews. So we'll see what happens now. But realistically Guardians are likely to finish with 350-400 reviews minimum so I'd expect the number to drop by at least 3%.

[Dominic Draper]

1 minute ago, Alexander said:

I think Black Adam had 56% or so after first 100-110 reviews. So we'll see what happens now. But realistically Guardians are likely to finish with 350-400 reviews minimum so I'd expect the number to drop by at least 3%.

Shazam 2 dropped i believe 8% after around 100 reviews. 

[Alexander]

Ant-Man 3 had 53% after 140 reviews or so and finished with 47% / 380 reviews. 74-76% for Guardians seems realistic, I think.

[Legion Again]

So far post endgame we haven’t really seen critics be any harsher towards mcu movies. We’ve simply seen worse mcu movies (as indicated by a variety of robust non critic metrics as well).       
 

SC and NWH are the two with stellar GA response… and the 2 above 90. Total agreement.   Eternals and QM are the only two flat Bs in the entire franchise… and the only two rottenes. Total agreement. WF did well(-but-notSC/NWH-well) with critics, and with non critics. DS2 and L&T were shaky-but-not-as-bad-as-Et/QM with critics, and same with normies.
 

In infinity saga, there was a pretty strong relationship between critic reception and non critic reception for the mcu — unusually strong, for a blockbuster action franchise. So far in multiverse saga we have seen… that unusually strong agreement continue, basically just as strong as it was before.   
 

There may come a time where that relationship diverges notably. Maybe that time will begin with Gotg3, though there is no particular reason to think so just yet. But until such a time, this “why are critics harsher on mcu now” discourse is absurd, since there”s no real indication they are being harsher at all!

Edited April 30, 2023 by Favorite Fearless Legion

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I think one thing that's being overlooked in the critics shift towards the MCU is that it's a perfectly natural progression and what critics are *meant* to do with time. The UNPRECEDENTED becomes The PRECEDENTED and to most critics, and evaluators of art in general, the precedented has less perceived cultural value than the unprecedented. The Endgame finale gave a perfect signifier to everyone, including critics, to shift the former to the latter.

 

Ant Man and the Wasp, Thor 2 and other Infinity Saga Marvel movies that may otherwise be seen as only okay all had the benefit from association with an *unprecedented* franchise, an *unprecedented* cultural shift, and an *unprecedented* ascent of relatively modestly-known products into the cultural zeitgeist via competently made, systemically okay, broadly well acted and very well cast films. Ant Man 3 and Eternals do exactly the same....except that they are now precedented. So the perceived artistic value is naturally lower. And unless they have additional value beyond that they'll get lukewarm responses. 

 

It's the Joker issue. Joker got mediocre critiques because to critics (and in materiality) it is just a bog standard iteration of a well-trodden formula that had been done better by First Reformed and You Were Never Really Here in the 18 months that led up to it. But most of the people that loved Joker hadn't seen First Reformed and You Were Never Really Here and certainly not The King Of Comedy and so *to their eyes* were watching a film as good as The King of Comedy because they were viewing the very precedented as unprecedented and with a character they had an attachment to. And perhaps critics didn't realise/appreciate the impact of doing a very well-precedented narrative but attached to a cultural icon like the Joker instead of an original character...It's just a naturally dynamic of the linear progression of time and more and more precedents being set.

I'd argue Joker is the extreme example of basic rule that there really are impacts beyond an unmediated interaction between critic and work. Not to go on a tangent, but you really can't use Joker as an example of critics merely getting bored with a story because it's self-evidently a much weirder story. 

 

It's a movie that got caught up in an unrelated moral panic over incels which got weirdly inserted into the movie (amplified by misinformation about 2012 shooting in Aurora which inaccurately connected deranged shooter to idealizing a Batman villain). "This movie will inspire violent acts of terrorism" was both self-evidently unhinged and a completely normal thing for people to write.  Heck, moral panic was so successful it got large police departments to issue " no known threat" warnings + promises to station police near movie theaters.  That's deeply _____ing weird and none of it has anything to do with the actual movie. However, all of that clearly primed reviews. 

I'm perfectly willing to grant a version of "it's a poor man's riff on King of Comedy" but it's also just self-evidently not what explained the film's genuinely weirdly low ratings (e.g. it's not worth an 80s metascore, but it's hard to believe it deserved a score in the 50s - the film really is often masterful on a technical level especially in the kinetic final act). 

https://www.vulture.com/2019/10/all-the-joker-controversy-and-threats-explained.html

 

[Valonqar]

3 hours ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

I think one thing that's being overlooked in the critics shift towards the MCU is that it's a perfectly natural progression and what critics are *meant* to do with time.

 

The UNPRECEDENTED becomes The PRECEDENTED and to most critics, and evaluators of art in general, the precedented has less perceived cultural value than the unprecedented.

 

The Endgame finale gave a perfect signifier to everyone, including critics, to shift the former to the latter.

 

 

I think that simpler explanation is that after Endgame very few Marvel things felt special. NWH felt special because it brought back Tobey and Andrew and incorporated them into the story in a charming and organic way rather than gimmicky name check. But even if critics shat on it, boxoffice would be just the same cause audience was hyped and the movie hit in the feels. OTOH, critics really went all out for Ms Marvel in their praise yet audience had no interest in it. They saw previews and went nope. So point being, critics don't move the needle. Hence the dichotomy of being "relevant" when they praise and "irrelevant" when they don't from fandom POV. But the truth is, they are irrelevant for the boxoffice/TV ratings. Always have been. 

 

As for GOTG Vol 3 RT, average is still holding above 7.0 so % won't get rotten. It should stay on certified fresh side but also under Vol 2' 85%. Once it goes below 80%, rebound by 6% is almost impossible. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by Valonqar

[Lucas]

At 103 reviews, MoM had the same amount of rottens as Vol. 3 does, but obviously the latter is sporting a higher average rating.

[Ipickthiswhiterose]

11 minutes ago, Valonqar said:

 

I think that simpler explanation is that after Endgame very few things felt special. 

 

Saying that after Endgame very few things felt special is pretty much the same as my argument - everything feels precedented. 

 

The only thing that felt unprecedented was No Way Home becuase it was bringing back Andrew and Tobey.

 

The rest of your assertion about No Way Home is incredibly generous: to say Andre and Tobey were brought back in 'organic' means that weren't gimmicky is, I would argue, being caught up in the hype and that actually gimmicky is exactly what they were. The film requires Doctor Strange to act completely out of character, a plot contrivance with Wong that is completely cynical, a completely-out-of-nowhere ability to generate portals for an untrained character to make a main plot point, the choice for no reason to stop making portals once the two fan faves have turned up...and all sorts of other deeply un-organic elements. Objectively, it has a hokier plot than anything else this side of Thor 4 and maybe Quantumania.

 

One of the most eye opening things indeed to me is that NWH commits the exact same problems as the rest of the Phase 4 films except nobody cared - critics or audiences - because there was something to feel arbitrarily special about. 

[WittyUsername]

NWH is a pretty messy film the more you think about it, but people didn’t care because it delivered exactly what they were hoping for. It had a novelty to it that made it stand out in a post-Endgame world, and managed to tug on people’s heartstrings in just the right way. Compare that to Quantumania, which is also seen as a messy film, but didn’t have the things NWH had going for it. 
 

As for Joker, I do remember that there were a few negative reviews that accused the movie of being “dangerous” or “irresponsible,” although it would be unfair to say that they comprised the majority of negative reviews. Some of the critics were just genuinely not impressed by it, because they’re familiar with Martin Scorsese’s filmography, and saw the movie as a shallow imitation.  

[PlatnumRoyce]

1 hour ago, Ipickthiswhiterose said:

 a completely-out-of-nowhere ability to generate portals for an untrained character to make a main plot point

To be fair, that's less cynicism, it was an attempt to write around Doctor Strange 2 and No Way Home switching release dates. 

Spoiler

That's supposed to be america chavez's role - https://screenrant.com/spiderman-no-way-home-america-chavez-concept-art/

 

I also think the release schedule changes also impacted the literal description of the core conflict of the film (I'm pretty sure the plan was to have NWH be an "incursion" (or whatever they called it in Doctor Strange) instead of the random "everyone who knows spider-man's name is coming through the portal" dropped in at the last second.  

Yeah, you're right that No Way Home is a big hokey  comic book crossover. It would be interesting to see how much it would have made if it was 15% worse at creating a fun roller coaster ride. 

Edited April 30, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[M37]

11 minutes ago, PlatnumRoyce said:

To be fair, that's less cynicism, it was an attempt to write around Doctor Strange 2 and No Way Home switching release dates. 

  Hide contents

That's supposed to be america chavez's role - https://screenrant.com/spiderman-no-way-home-america-chavez-concept-art/

 

It's very much a hokey comic book crossover that's successfully papering over a lot of holes but I also think the release schedule changes also impacted the literal description of the core conflict of the film (I'm pretty sure the plan was to have NWH be an "incursion" (or whatever they called it in Doctor Strange) instead of the random "everyone who knows spider-man's name is coming through the portal" dropped in at the last second.  

Yeah, you're right that No Way Home is a big goofy comic book crossover. It would be interesting to see how much it would have made if it was 15% worse at creating a fun roller coaster ride. 

I wonder how the perception of the MCU might be different in an alternate universe where the pandemic didn't force a schedule shuffling to happen, disconnect the intended threads? Knowing what we do now of the content, this schedule seems less likely to create a building discontent:

 

 

Without going through all the twists and turns, having NWH swoop in after some of these release and both restore goodwill and also move the broader story forward probably improves the overall perception greatly. Instead, could argue its viewed more as a post-Endgame dessert rather than part of the new phase

[Welcbr12]

19 hours ago, WittyUsername said:

People here have said that superhero fatigue isn’t a problem as long as they make “good movies,” but I think the definition of a good superhero movie from both critics and general moviegoers have become more strict now compared to 10 years ago. The MCU was a very novel concept a decade ago. It accomplished something that was never thought to be possible, and spawned a bunch of imitators. Unfortunately, it’s not new anymore. People feel like they’ve seen everything, so it’s no longer exciting.
 

This is precisely why I’ve maintained that James Gunn’s DCU is going to be fighting an uphill battle. It’s coming at a point where the concept has been played out. 

I totally agree, and anyone who thinks James Gunn will have an easy job at DC is completely mistaken tbh

[Blaze Heatnix]

So, what's the budget for this movie? Previous one had a 200 million budget, and this one seems to be expensive. So, 250 million?

Edited April 30, 2023 by Blaze Heatnix

[TwoMisfits]

7 minutes ago, Blaze Heatnix said:

So, what's the budget for this movie? Previous one had a 200 million budget, and this one seems to be expensive. So, 250 million?

 

$232M-$250M is the rumored production budget.

[Jeight]

1 hour ago, M37 said:

I wonder how the perception of the MCU might be different in an alternate universe where the pandemic didn't force a schedule shuffling to happen, disconnect the intended threads? Knowing what we do now of the content, this schedule seems less likely to create a building discontent:

 

 

Without going through all the twists and turns, having NWH swoop in after some of these release and both restore goodwill and also move the broader story forward probably improves the overall perception greatly. Instead, could argue its viewed more as a post-Endgame dessert rather than part of the new phase

The majority of the projects you posted are well received and didn't destroy any goodwill. If the only metric for an MCU project to generate goodwill is to have a 90% approval in EVERYTHING then the problem isn't with the project.  It's with you

[thajdikt]

2 hours ago, Jeight said:

The majority of the projects you posted are well received and didn't destroy any goodwill. If the only metric for an MCU project to generate goodwill is to have a 90% approval in EVERYTHING then the problem isn't with the project.  It's with you

Come on, even I that loved many of those projects can see that the goodwill has gone to hell. Eternals was the first misstep. It happens, didn´t really did any bad damage. Then you have both MoM and LaT highly anticipated projects that both were disappointments for most. Then WF did well but then you got another one with Ant-Man which also disappointed highly. Not to mention some of the MCU D+ shows also become polarizing for some. Sum that all up you can´t really deny that the goodwill has gone. A movie like Vol 3 should increase with 40M from Vol 2 not decrease which is where it´s going to go.

 

That doesn´t mean that the MCU is dead or anything, but it´s in a bad patch right now and needs to build up goodwill and brand confidence it had before. The box office of Ant-Man 3, the downgrade of OS gross from NWH until Ant-Man 3 and pre-sales for Vol 3 really can´t be disputed. 

[John Marston]

Spider-Man NWH is also so blandly directed. I mean you would think with three Spider-Men on screen you have the opportunity for some interesting and unique action sequences but nope lol. Still enjoy it but of course the nostalgia plays a big part 

[DisposedData]

3 hours ago, Jeight said:

The majority of the projects you posted are well received and didn't destroy any goodwill. If the only metric for an MCU project to generate goodwill is to have a 90% approval in EVERYTHING then the problem isn't with the project.  It's with you

Everything since MoM has had a lukewarm response. 

[PrinceRico]

2 hours ago, DisposedData said:

Everything since MoM has had a lukewarm response. 

WF ??????

[PrinceRico]

If you look at the cinamascore there are only three films out of phase 4 that got an a or A or A+ from Audience. Those 3 films also have a high audience score on RT. They are also the the three best reviewed films of phase for. You can see the critics have MCU fatigue, but it’s also true that the audiences opinions have lined up with theirs for phase 4.

 

Spider Man: No Way Home- A+
WF- A

Shang Chi- A

 

the rest are on the low side.