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

[John Marston]

3 hours ago, Valonqar said:

Vol 3 having Vol 2 reception is nothing to scoff at except for anyone who thought it would have Vol 1 reception or better which was never going to happen. Novelty wore off and it isn't an event like Endgame where everyone was so hyped to love it and thus initially felt it was the best entry ( 4-5 years alter, Infinity War aged better and is now considered a superior movie). Vol 3 is meeting realistic expectations. It's not going below them. 

 

It's funny to see goalpost shifting. First some people couldn't wait for glowing RT to boost ticket sales and now that RT is just fine they don't want it mentioned. 

 

@M37

 

 

Well, that's the only flop description that matters - not breaking even/losing money. "but but movie X" comparison won't make a flop not a flop. Flop is flop. 

 

 

 

 

What you just said means that reviews don't move the needle, period. It's just that fans hope unusually strong reviews will help the movie and if a movie opens on the higher side of expectations, they read into it that reviews helped which is confirmation bias. 

 

the reviews look to finish decently below Vol 2. It’s not bad and it looks to be a good film overall but when ticket sales are on the lower side, these aren’t the type of reviews that will really cause any fence sitters to decide to check it out 

Edited April 29, 2023 by John Marston

[WorkingonaName]

Im gonna be sad that this makes less then WF.

[Sckathian]

People would understand RT more if the they were called Mustard Score.

[PrinceRico]

2 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

Im gonna be sad that this makes less than WF.

Not really. Audience really liked Wakanda forever. Especially given the huge hurdle in test that movie went through.

[BadOlCatSylvester]

At least the opening weekend is a lost cause now. Maybe audiences will love it and the word of mouth will at least get it past $300M. But the similarly dour Wakanda Forever had good but not great word of mouth, and proceeded to have mediocre staying power as a result, so it's not a guarantee at all.

[thajdikt]

Just now, BadOlCatSylvester said:

At least the opening weekend is a lost cause now. Maybe audiences will love it and the word of mouth will at least get it past $300M. But the similarly dour Wakanda Forever had good but not great word of mouth, and proceeded to have mediocre staying power as a result, so it's not a guarantee at all.

2,5 multiplier on holdiay inflated Friday is not medicore at all. 

[elzorro]

1 hour 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.

 

 

I know how it works. That's why I said movies should not be judged in comparison to each other. They should be judged if they meet their expectations. Read my entire comment before you write a reply next time. 

[John Marston]

2 hours ago, Welcbr12 said:

But really, some reviews are ridiculous atp hahahaha

 

 

 

neck breaking? Awesome. Hope Gunn brings that to his Superman movie like Snyder did

[ShadowWeegee]

Wakanda Forever’s legs were saved by the December holiday period though. It raked in quite a bit of late money in the second half of December.

 

GOTG3 won’t have the same luxury.  
 

 

[elzorro]

43 minutes ago, John Marston said:

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

Ant Man 2 having an 86% score is just wrong. That movie is only slightly better than ant man 3. I do agree with one comment that said critics used to coddle these movies. Like marvel fans, critics used to "turn their brains off" and not think of them critically, hence the high rt scores. 

[Deep Wang]

49 minutes ago, John Marston said:

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

Saying something like this means that you think too many people "liked it".

 

I feel like maybe you skipped over this 👇

1 hour 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.

 

Spy is another great example that has a 95%!!!  I know that doesn't mean that it's one of the greatest films ever made.  It's just that the overwhelming majority of critics that saw it liked it.  I have to imagine the 95% and 7.3 avg has to be one of the wildest, right?

[grey ghost]

I kind of blame Rotten Tomatoes themselves for people being misinformed. 

 

They kind of hide the average rating.

 

It should be right under the percentage score, big for everyone to see.

 

Then people would see the critics gave Dr Strange a 7.3...

 

 

[Welcbr12]

41 minutes ago, WorkingonaName said:

Im gonna be sad that this makes less then WF.

So you can already be sad now, Guardians will not be touching the 800M (maybe not even in the 750M...)

[Sckathian]

38 minutes ago, BadOlCatSylvester said:

At least the opening weekend is a lost cause now. Maybe audiences will love it and the word of mouth will at least get it past $300M. But the similarly dour Wakanda Forever had good but not great word of mouth, and proceeded to have mediocre staying power as a result, so it's not a guarantee at all.

From the reviews its dark but still action packed. The reason I never saw WF was it seemed it was a door two acts before any action in the third act. Seemed very self indulgent (a lot of MCU seems this way right now).

[WorkingonaName]

WF cured my insomnia  

[elzorro]

16 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

Saying something like this means that you think too many people "liked it".

 

I feel like maybe you skipped over this 👇

 

Spy is another great example that has a 95%!!!  I know that doesn't mean that it's one of the greatest films ever made.  It's just that the overwhelming majority of critics that saw it liked it.  I have to imagine the 95% and 7.3 avg has to be one of the wildest, right?

I think too many people say they "liked" it. Again like one commenter said critics used to be soft on these movies. Give them a fresh rating when they didn't deserve a fresh rating. Hence the inflated rt scores. 

"Spy is another great example that has a 95%!!!  I know that doesn't mean that it's one of the greatest films ever made.  It's just that the overwhelming majority of critics that saw it liked it.  I have to imagine the 95% and 7.3 avg has to be one of the wildest, right?"
 

I have not seen that movie to judge it accurately. All I know is 86% of critics liking ant man 2 is wrong. But, AGAIN(as you people seem to have reading comprehension issues) I said movies should be judged on what they set out to achieve not in comparison to other movies. Is that too hard to understand? I never once claimed rt score = quality of the movie.

[Valonqar]

1 hour ago, John Marston said:

 

the reviews look to finish decently below Vol 2. It’s not bad and it looks to be a good film overall but when ticket sales are on the lower side, these aren’t the type of reviews that will really cause any fence sitters to decide to check it out 

 

I don't think that franchises that have been around for a decade have enough fence-sitters to make a difference. Who wants to see it will see it no matter what, who doesn't won't see it no matter what. Not saying there aren't fence sitters just that their number isn't significant to move the needle.

[PlatnumRoyce]

44 minutes ago, Deep Wang said:

Saying something like this means that you think too many people "liked it".

 

I feel like maybe you skipped over this 👇

 

Spy is another great example that has a 95%!!!  I know that doesn't mean that it's one of the greatest films ever made.  It's just that the overwhelming majority of critics that saw it liked it.  I have to imagine the 95% and 7.3 avg has to be one of the wildest, right?

Isn't OP functionally just saying that "some Marvel movies were massively overrated on release" which isn't really blocked by an appeal to RT definition. 

 

Quote

I have to imagine the 95% and 7.3 avg has to be one of the wildest, right?

Yeah, looks like it. There's a database of RT reviews floating around the internet pre-pandemic. Eyeballing that list after filtering for 95% reviews+, The nearest thing I can see is 2015's "eye in the sky" at 7.6/95%. Dolemite is my Name is a 7.9.

I probably spot checked a dozen or so of the 112 films meeting that filter (excluding documentaries and INT films). There's definitely more complex stuff you could do to get a more substantial result but Spy! looks like a massive outlier. 


https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/eye_in_the_sky

 

 

unrelated tangent: why the heck is "Wallace & Gromit: The Curse of the Were-Rabbit" so high up on multiple review sites? The numbers treat it like a Spider-verse style success which isn't my recollection.

Edited April 29, 2023 by PlatnumRoyce

[The Wild Eric]

2 hours ago, MovieMan89 said:

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. 

Okay

[judestar619]

2 hours ago, Last Man Standing said:

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.

I wouldn't say that, I think overall interest in where the interconnected universe was going (especially as the MCU was the first to do it at such a large scale) plays a factor for both critics and audiences. It's not weird at all that both have become harsher now that the MCU's output is as inconsistent as ever and it's past its peak in terms of marquee event movies.

Edited April 29, 2023 by judestar619