Precisely this.  A Studio will just forego critic screenings if they know they have a turd on their hand, but will screen it early for critics and some fans if they know they have a winner.  Marvel and Disney know they have a winner so you are damn sure they're going to let as many people see it early as they can, knowing full well that their word of mouth will give them good press early on.  

"Pampering" The critics isn't exactly in the same region of bribery.  A press Screening is supposed to get the word out, and anyone who knows anything about human nature knows that if the EXPERIENCE is bad, it will taint a person's perspective.  If Disney sent out tickets and press access but gave everyone a dingy little theater to watch it in, that just looks bad.  

Critics are mostly mature, professional writers, but you can't avoid bad experiences in the cinema. 

Now, ont he flip side, if studios were saying "Give this a good review and we'll sweeten the deal by letting you see more movies and here's a bunch of swag' or "if you give a poor review you'll never be screened for another movie again', that's bribery/blackmail.  

The very fact that critics still have work after a bad review or hundred shows that neither of these things happen, at least not on a widespread scale.  If every critic that gave a bad review was banned from screenings, then we wouldn't have film criticism.  

Marvel and DC after the reviews (just a joke don't take it too seriously )

First rotten was added to RT. Relatively small site it looks like. Average rating was brought down from a 9 to an 8.5

No, they're not all different things - entertainment and gifts can be a form of bribery. Whether I or you think critics are professional or not doesn't matter (though a lot of them are just like you and me and act very unprofessionally). If they were being professionals they wouldn't have watched the movies independently from the studios.

Not really. TFA 's embargo got lifted a couple of days before the release. Also, Marvel has nothing to worry about if by lifting the embargo earlier allows them to control the message.

Mission Impossible: Ghost Protocol. Critics were flows to Dubai for a high profile premiere. Yeah, no conflict of interest at all, right?

Actually there is a pretty big disconnect...

Avengers had a rotten tomatoes score of 92%.  The user score was 91%.  Clearly one percent of the critics were bribed.

Winter Soldier had an 89% rotten tomatoes score.  User score is 92%.  The critics must have been paid to lower the score to avoid suspicion...

Age of Ultron had a 75% score on rotten tomatoes, and an 84% user score.

Iron man 3 is 75% to 75%.

Thor is another epic display of clear bribery.  77% score from critics but a mere 76% from users.

Guardians of the Galaxy:91%(critics)  to 92%.(audience)

Thor Dark World 67% to 79%. (a)

The First Avenger was 79% to 75%(a).  The bias is real!

Incredible Hulk 67% to 71%(a)

When we look at Metacritic, it's even worse.

Winter Soldier 70% Critics and 84% audience(a)

Avengers 69%  79% (a)

Ant Man 64% 8.0 (a)

Guardians of the Galaxy (76%) c 86% (a)

Clearly Disney is engaged in a massive conspiracy to inflate their ratings.

Some people will insist that the world is wrong to make themselves right.

Comic influence in the 80's/90's raised child has given root to videogame and comic book supremacy twenty years later. Movies and film are not far off from findng a home in comic and gaming lore.

If critics let themselves be affected by attending to pre-screenings, a lot of high budget movies would get high reviews, and that's not the case. It's not just Disney which does this pre-screening thing and invite reviewers. Also you can't see a clearly disconnection or bias with critics when the reactions to the movies by critics and general audience alike are very similar...

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/franchise/marvel-cinematic-universe/

Look at the MCU critics score compared to the audience score. They're pretty similar. You can compare it with IMDb scores if you want. 

I've read this whole thread.  It really doesn't matter to me.  I like DC and it's characters more but I found tons of enjoyment in both. Sometimes, Marvel (comics) gave me more enjoyment than DC offerings at the same time. Anyway....

Lawlight (unless I missed something) said that critics are supposed to be more critical but their reviews are often lined up with or sometimes better than the average viewer. He also said that bad movies make money all of the time.

Now, I don't think there's any type of conspiracy or anything. I do, however, think the bar has been raised. We've been spoiled by good/great comic book films so it's going to take more than a decent adaptation and special effects to make audiences cream their pants. 

I'm just commenting because it seems that you guys are responding and reacting to something that (again, unless I missed something) was never said by Law light, anyway. Anyway, I've said my piece. Can't wait to see the film. I've been a huge Capitan America fan since Mark Said wrote him in the 90s. Carry on.