"Disney bought their good graces, yes. You know something is wrong when movies from a studio is consistently liked more by critics than the general audience. The latter is supposed to be more forgiving and critics more critical."

It wasn't just a general statement, it was a specific claim about Disney and their movies.  However, as shown, the claim is utterly untrue when it comes to Marvel movies.  When you look at Disney movies in general, there is the same pattern.  With the exception of the two recent Pixar moviews, every Disney movie within basically the last two years either has a higher audience score than reviewer score or a score within about 3 percentage points.  Which means critics are more critical and audiences more forgiving... so the exact opposite of what is being said.

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. 

You seem to imply that the bold exists, and I want to see evidence of it. Also you just took a huge leap with that about MI:GP statement and what you were arguing. Thats like me saying "The airplane gave me peanuts, I will give it a good score, to airplane gave me a steak, I will give it a good score." (Prescreening is peanuts in this example. . .)

I don't think all studios pamper critics like Disney does. The founder of Collider got invited to the red carpet premiere. They should absolutely disclose that to the public when doing their review videos.

Thank you for proving my point - several cases of reviewers' RT being higher than the audience who should be much more forgiving.

And the very fact that 75% of reviewers recommended Iron Man 3 says it. Critics should be much more critical and less forgiving than the general audience. But that's not the case here.

Which is the case for some movies of every movie studio?  Just look up at Warner, you will find "several cases of reviewers' RT being higher than the audience who should be much more forgiving"

And Iron Man 3 with 75% doesn't say anything, just that critics liked it more than you did on average. But since you can't believe it it has to be rigged, right? In no way could critics simply say "well, not a really great movie but still worth to watch it"

Not sure if trolling or doesn't understand how math and statistics work... 

Average user score=79%  Average critic score= 82%.  So no, critics are not preferring marvel's movies better than audiences.

Also... not sure if trolling or doesn't understand what the word consistently means...

"Disney bought their good graces, yes. You know something is wrong when movies from a studio is consistently liked more by critics than the general audience. The latter is supposed to be more forgiving and critics more critical."

Of the 9 movies I gave, 3 of them had a higher review score on RT from critics then audiences. 1/3 of the time is not consistently by any stretch of the imagination.  Consistently technically means always.  Colloquially, it can mean most of the time.  One out of three times is not consistent.  Several times =/= consistently.  If you think my post in any way proved your point you're mathing wrong.

If we go to the metacritic examples that conveniently were ignored, audience scores were higher by an average of 12% points.  The critic score was never higher.  If you look up all the marvel movies (which I'm not going to post here, check it out if you actually care), there is not one instance of audience scores being higher than critic scores.  Now THAT is consistent.

Age of Ultron hit 190 million domestically.  Captain America did 95 million.  So, it depends if the audience sees this as more of an Avengers movie or a Captain America.  They're promoting this one about as heavily as they did AOU from as far as I can tell, and it also has Spider-man and junk.  200 million is far from a given, but it's not all that unrealistic.

It make sense, you'll know when you see the movie :P. At least in the comics, I'm not sure if the movie is good. Let's hope so.