By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close
crissindahouse on 16 April 2016
Edit Thread
mountaindewslave said:
DevilRising said:
Iron Man 2 was dull, and 3 was just bad. Thor 2 wasn't bad, but what they did with the Dark Elves, making them space aliens with ships and lasers, was just stupid, and the movie itself overall was "meh". Even Avengers 2, after the first one being so good, was kind of a mess, and they made Ultron a very uncompelling villain, which was sad.

So basically I'm banking off the fact that Cap 2 was REALLY good, arguably the best Marvel Universe movie yet, and that these directors know what they're doing, and using that to hold out optimism that they'll also make Cap 3 good. Or perhaps that they'll even get Avengers back on track and both parts of 3 (Hollywood these days lol), will also be good again.

But yes, short version: I am allowing myself to be at least mildly hyped for this, and I hope that it doesn't disappoint.

Avengers 2, Iron Man, Iron Man 3- were all terrible and have strangely highly ratings on RottenTomatoes. They aren't good films objectively in terms of pacing and plot.

The first Avengers, Captain American movies, Iron Man 1, Guardians of the Galaxy- those all are fairly good in terms of pacing and structure

 

if Civil War is anything like Iron Man 3 or Avengers 2 and gets a rating like theirs I would hold your breath, some Marvel movies seem to get ...erhm... strangely high ratings...

for example Iron Man 3 is probably one of the worst superhero movies of all time. The plot is extremely shaky, almost nothing happens (Iron man walks around a lot?), and the twist is awful and ruins something great from the comics. Yet that has almost an 80% positive critical rating on RT. Its just bizarre

 

200M opening weekend is extremely hopeful though

There is nothing strange about it, they just seem to think different than you do.

I mean, they don't even think that different, they found some movies just not as bad as you did. 

First Iron Man which you seem to  like has 

Metascore of 79 and userscore on IMDB of 7.9 

Iron Man 2

Meta 57 userscore 7.0 

Iron Man 3 

Meta 62 and userscore 7.3

So, if anything at all, critics found the quality of Iron Man 2/3 compared to 1 much worse  as half a million "normal" viewers per movie.

Half a million people gave Iron Man 2 and 3 only slightly worse scores as they gave the first one. Largest difference is Iron Man 2 with 9 points less. Critics gave the second and third one 22 and 17 points less as the first one.  

So, critics had a much bigger problem with 2 and 3 as the audience had. I don't see anything crazy and strange about this. Sure, you may think Iron Man 3 wouldn't even deserve a 40 or something but just because critics don't all think like that doesn't mean that they give strange scores. 

The audience gives most of the time higher ratings, sure, but if everyone would find Iron Man 3 that horrible as you do, this movie wouldn't sit on a 7.3. Even the Top 1000 voters on IMDB gave it a 6.6 on average.