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

[TMP]

If a james gunn guardians movie is getting these kinds of reviews, I can only imagine how low the next two mcu movies go… hopefully thunderbolts is a surprise, given that the crew worked on Beef.

[PrinceRico]

So I’m guessing pre-sales didn’t increase drastically after reviews came out, so what’s left to save this movie?

[Jeight]

25 minutes ago, Last Man Standing said:

I don't think they're ruthless now, they just stopped coddling them as they did before for some reason. Do you remember the endless "Disney pays off reviewers" memes we used to get? They didn't come from nowhere, people could tell there was something off with the reviews the MCU was getting.

There was nothing off with the reviews. Anyone who believes that professional critics can be bribed by studios doesnt have a single functioning brain cell.

 

They are just tired abd the novelty of the genre has worn off. I love carbonara. The first day i can rate it a 9/10. The same the 15th straight day. By the 30th, th eexact recipe that i rated 9/10 will be a 6/10. The quality hasnt changed much, my appetite has

[Dragoncaine]

If Gunn makes an earnest, buoyant, inspiring Superman movie with the current CBM fatigue, it could be the best reviewed of any of these in a minute.

[elzorro]

22 minutes ago, Favorite Fearless Legion said:

There wasn’t “something off” with them, lol. They had consistently high scores because they were consistently solidly put together and enjoyable. Some people’s s inability to grasp such a basic situation is baffling.  

Some of the movies definitely didn't deserve the scores they got(Black Panther, Ant Man 2). The thing is people will see movies that are actually great and then see they've got a lower rt score than some generic marvel movie. No Country for Old Men has the same score as Spiderman: No Way Home. But movies shouldn't be judged in comparison to each other (unless ranking them); rather, they should be evaluated based on whether they achieved what they set out to achieve.

Edited April 29, 2023 by elzorro
added word

[MovieMan89]

Yeah that average rating is rough for so early on. Really wanted this movie to succeed, esp with 2 being one of the MCUs greatest gems. But I just can’t see it with the current state of MCU and these kind of reviews.
 

When was the last MCU movie to get 70s tomatometer and 7 or lower avg rating and actually get good WOM? Again, that’s not a good RT showing at all for this franchise, just look at the data. I think a little higher than AM3 OW unfortunately is gonna be about right. 

[nevermore]

8 minutes ago, PrinceRico said:

So I’m guessing pre-sales didn’t increase drastically after reviews came out, so what’s left to save this movie?

I don't think reviews can drastically change that unless they are terrible or amazing. Vol 3's reviews are good, but not outstanding.

[Last Man Standing]

9 minutes ago, Jeight said:

There was nothing off with the reviews. Anyone who believes that professional critics can be bribed by studios doesnt have a single functioning brain cell.

 

They are just tired abd the novelty of the genre has worn off. I love carbonara. The first day i can rate it a 9/10. The same the 15th straight day. By the 30th, th eexact recipe that i rated 9/10 will be a 6/10. The quality hasnt changed much, my appetite has

People didn't actually believe Disney were bribing reviewers, they were memeing because there was an obvious difference between the reviews the MCU got, and the reviews other action cgi spectacle movies of similar quality from other franchises got. The idea that reviewers who have seen countless movies gave MCU movies an inflated score because of "novelty" is about as nonsensical as the idea that Disney paid off reviewers.

Edited April 29, 2023 by Last Man Standing

[Ohana]

9 minutes ago, Dragoncaine said:

If Gunn makes an earnest, buoyant, inspiring Superman movie with the current CBM fatigue, it could be the best reviewed of any of these in a minute.

He'll need nothing less than a miracle to achieve that.

[GOGODanca]

I don't think critics are being any harsher, they've been in lockstep with audience reception, these recent movies just haven't been as good as pre phase 4

[MovieMan89]

12 hours ago, Eric Foreman said:

Only 12 out of 31 MCU movies have 90% or higher reviews on RT. That’s less than 40%. So cool it with all this hyperbole, alright?

Wow, I didn’t think it was as high as 40% over 90. Dang, that’s impressive. Regardless, I do know that anything sub 80 automatically puts it the “worst reviewed” MCU tier. Especially sub 75. Pretty much just Thor movies and Eternals/AM3/Hulk down there. 
 

Also exclusively referring to tomatometer for the purposes of how the GA perceive critical reception, which is my whole point here. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by MovieMan89

[Lucas]

15 minutes ago, Dragoncaine said:

If Gunn makes an earnest, buoyant, inspiring Superman movie with the current CBM fatigue, it could be the best reviewed of any of these in a minute.

I think he's gonna be able to do it

[thajdikt]

Guys I´m begging you guys to learn how RT works before complaining about it. First of all just because you personally think something is wrong that doesn´t mean that it is. 

 

The % is not a measure of quality, it´s a % of how many liked the movie. 

 

No Country For Old Men and NWH may have the same the % but No Country For Old Men avg rating is 8.8 while NWH is 7.9 Aka critics think NWH isn´t even close to that level.

 

Some of you guys moaning about Ant-Man 2. Ant-Man has a 7.0/10 rating. It´s % is at high 86% because it´s low stakes simple film with not much ambition. Easier to like and to digest. Hell Vol 3 has a stronger avg rating even now at 79%. The Batman has a lower % than Ant-Man 2 but the avg rating is way higher. RT is fine, people just don´t know how to use it.

 

 

[MovieMan89]

7 minutes ago, Last Man Standing said:

People didn't actually believe Disney were bribing reviewers, they were memeing because there was an obvious difference between the reviews the MCU got, and the reviews other action cgi spectacle movies of similar quality from other franchises got. The idea that reviewers who have seen countless movies gave MCU movies an inflated score because of "novelty" is about as nonsensical as the idea that Disney paid off reviewers.

Let’s not get carried away. MCU got a lot of really great critical reception yes, but the same can be said about the audience reception. When the vast majority of people like a movie, it’s probably just because people like a movie. Highly doubt real bribery was happening there. 

[thajdikt]

4 minutes ago, GOGODanca said:

I don't think critics are being any harsher, they've been in lockstep with audience reception, these recent movies just haven't been as good as pre phase 4

Yup Eternals and Ant-Man both got historical low CS for MCU with B, only movies with that. Both also only rotten MCU movies.

[M37]

20 minutes ago, PrinceRico said:

So I’m guessing pre-sales didn’t increase drastically after reviews came out, so what’s left to save this movie?

 

To be fair, too early to make a judgment on review/pre-sale effect, but it seems to have found it’s level, for better or worse 

[AMC Theaters Enjoyer]

5 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Guys I´m begging you guys to learn how RT works before complaining about it. First of all just because you personally think something is wrong that doesn´t mean that it is. 

 

The % is not a measure of quality, it´s a % of how many liked the movie. 

 

No Country For Old Men and NWH may have the same the % but No Country For Old Men avg rating is 8.8 while NWH is 7.9 Aka critics think NWH isn´t even close to that level.

 

Some of you guys moaning about Ant-Man 2. Ant-Man has a 7.0/10 rating. It´s % is at high 86% because it´s low stakes simple film with not much ambition. Easier to like and to digest. Hell Vol 3 has a stronger avg rating even now at 79%. The Batman has a lower % than Ant-Man 2 but the avg rating is way higher. RT is fine, people just don´t know how to use it.

 

 

 

"Three things in life are certain: Death, taxes, and people misunderstanding Rotten Tomatoes." - Benjamin Franklin

Edited April 29, 2023 by AMC Theaters Enjoyer

[MovieMan89]

10 minutes ago, thajdikt said:

Guys I´m begging you guys to learn how RT works before complaining about it. First of all just because you personally think something is wrong that doesn´t mean that it is. 

 

The % is not a measure of quality, it´s a % of how many liked the movie. 

 

No Country For Old Men and NWH may have the same the % but No Country For Old Men avg rating is 8.8 while NWH is 7.9 Aka critics think NWH isn´t even close to that level.

 

Some of you guys moaning about Ant-Man 2. Ant-Man has a 7.0/10 rating. It´s % is at high 86% because it´s low stakes simple film with not much ambition. Easier to like and to digest. Hell Vol 3 has a stronger avg rating even now at 79%. The Batman has a lower % than Ant-Man 2 but the avg rating is way higher. RT is fine, people just don´t know how to use it.

 

 

The problem is asking the GA to understand how RT works. Believe me, people who aren’t box office and movie geeks like us have zero comprehension of the avg rating. They just look at the tomato meter to inform their decision in this day of streaming and ultra expensive movie tickets.
 

Where the avg rating comes in handy is for those of us who do know how RT works to be able to better predict where a movie’s tomatometer is heading early on like this. And yeah, first AM movies had exceptionally high tomatometer vs avg ratings, which was a huge coup for them as far as influencing the GA. GotG3 doesn’t look to be that fortunate. 

Edited April 29, 2023 by MovieMan89

[cax16]

..

Edited April 29, 2023 by cax16

[John Marston]

Critics definitely went easy on some Marvel films. Movies like Doctor Strange and Ant Man 2 have ridiculously high RT scores and movies like Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 have no business being fresh