CAPTAIN MARVEL starring Brie Larson (3/8/19) 5 5

[Jaydogrules]

2 hours ago, drotto said:

So far an 86%. If you actually read the reviews and critics scores ( as opposed to just the aggregate) it is mediocre and that is what most critics are saying.  So looking like a 3/5 star movie.

 

68 on Metacritic.

Yeah I noticed that too.  Lots of 2.5' out of 4's, 3 out of 5's, B-'s and 6 out of 10's.  Just enough to tip the movie toward an artificially high aggregate.

If I was more of a jaded soul I would say that "critics" are grading this (and other, similar movies of its ilk) with an RT aggregate in mind, and little else. 

-J.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Jaydogrules

[Bosco685]

1 hour ago, bane said:

No, no it wasn't.

But really they are two different films. I like them both. 

You tell 'em!

 

[drotto]

4 minutes ago, Jaydogrules said:

Yeah I noticed that too.  Lots of 2.5' out of 4's, 3 out of 5's, B-'s and 6 out of 10's.  Just enough to tip the movie toward an artificially high aggregate.

If I was more of a jaded soul I would say that "critics" are grading this (and other, similar movies of its ilk) with an RT aggregate in mind, and little else. 

-J.

Yeah the Metacritic aggregate is not being as kind since it break it down to a score on a 100 point scale as opposed to generally positive vs. generally negative as RT does. Seems like the two sites may end up fairly far apart on this one.

 

So far the critics are proving my gut correct, and average to a somewhat above average movie.  Appears to be middle of the pack for a Marvel movie.

[fantastic_four]

7 minutes ago, drotto said:

Yeah the Metacritic aggregate is not being as kind since it break it down to a score on a 100 point scale as opposed to generally positive vs. generally negative as RT does. Seems like the two sites may end up fairly far apart on this one.

No, they're almost identical if you compare apples to apples.  The Rotten Tomatoes average rating is 7.02 out of 10 and Metacritic is 67 out of 100.  Converting them to the same scale of 1 to 100 means they're only 3% apart.  You can't compare the Tomatometer to scoring on the other meta-review sites because it's not calculated like any of the others.

Similar Metacritic comparisons are Ant-Man at 64, Rogue One at 65, or Age of Ultron at 66.  I enjoyed all of those, so I expect I'll enjoy this one.  Probably going to see it now.

Edited March 5, 2019 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

Just another observation.  The top critics are being far harder on this film (on RT) than the other critics. Right now 78 reviews are listed of those 70 are positive and 8 negative.  18 top critics are listed and all 8 of the negative reviews are from the top critics. Makes me wonder what constitutes the elevation to top critic?  Are top critics more accurate? Are top critics more influential for general audiences?

 

As a side note a few of the critics I tend to like are not listed as top critics.

[Bosco685]

4 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

No, they're almost identical if you compare apples to apples.  The Rotten Tomatoes average rating is 7.02 out of 10 and Metacritic is 67 out of 100.  Converting them to the same scale of 1 to 100 means they're only 3% apart.  You can't compare the Tomatometer to scoring on the other meta-review sites because it's not calculated like any of the others.

Similar Metacritic comparisons are Ant-Man at 64, Rogue One at 65, or Age of Ultron at 66.  I enjoyed all of those, so I expect I'll enjoy this one.  Probably going to see it now.

That's actually not a bad 10.0 scale score when compared to other movies over the past few years. I think Thor;Ragnarok was like 6.8/10.0 when all feedback was captured in the end. Spider-Man: Homecoming was like that as well.

Though now that I go back to look, Rotten Tomatoes changed more of its interface. Now the average scores are gone from older movies.

[fantastic_four]

3 minutes ago, drotto said:

Makes me wonder what constitutes the elevation to top critic?  Are top critics more accurate? Are top critics more influential for general audiences?

I don't know if they have specific criteria, but all of the top critics I've seen have been reviewing films for a very long time and often have national notoriety.  All of the ones who write for major national publications or appear on television are top critics.

[drotto]

6 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

No, they're almost identical if you compare apples to apples.  The Rotten Tomatoes average rating is 7.02 out of 10 and Metacritic is 67 out of 100.  Converting them to the same scale of 1 to 100 means they're only 3% apart.

You can't compare the Tomatometer to scoring on the other meta-review sites because it's not calculated like any of the others.

I see you point.  The new interface hides that percentage score under an additional click.  For comparison I looked at the score for Green Book which just won best picture.  It had a 79% on Tomatometer and a 7.26 on average rating.  So CM is beating it on the TM but actually lower on the percentage rating.  Thanks.

[fantastic_four]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Though now that I go back to look, Rotten Tomatoes changed more of its interface. Now the average scores are gone from older movies.

I see them, they're just collapsed and not shown by default now.  You have to click a "more info" button to see them.

[Bosco685]

Just now, fantastic_four said:

I see them, they're just collapsed and not shown by default now.  You have to click a "more info" button to see them.

Interesting. I guess as part of that Captain Marvel audience score bombing this led to such changes. Thanks.

[fantastic_four]

I hate that change.  I hated that the average rating was so small before relative to the dumb tomatometer score, so I hate that they've completely freaking hidden it by default ten times as much.  

[Bosco685]

Ahh. I see what you are saying now of having to drill down to see old results. And those two films actually ended up with a higher critic average.

 

Wow! Homecoming was higher than Ragnarok?!

[kimik]

1 hour ago, Bosco685 said:

From a cultural impact, some will probably see Black Panther as the more critical film.

As a well-crafted story that transcends comic book movies, The Dark Knight is THE film people benchmark against.

The cultural impact depends on where you live. Here in Alberta, there has never really been an issue with African Americans or African immigrants (likely due to the province really only being settled from the 1890s onwards), so the cultural significance was a moot point here. My view on Black Panther was similar to most of my non-comic collecting friends - it was a weaker Marvel movie when you look at it objectively. The story was mediocre and I did not care for most of the actors. The male leads were wooden/flat actors, especially BP and the "look how bad azz I am due to self-mutilation" cousin. If people complain about Brie Larson's emotionless/flat style, they saw the same in BP. The female leads were much stronger and better at their craft (acting).

As I stated before, a First Nations/Indigenous or Asian super hero blockbuster film would carry way more significance here.

[drotto]

2 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

I hate that change.  I hated that the average rating was so small before relative to the dumb tomatometer score, so I hate that they've completely freaking hidden it by default ten times as much.  

Yes, this change was made to elevate the Tomatometer which generally looks more favorable to all movies, and hide the more accurate score.  It is not just beneficial to CM but the studios and really all films.I think it is a disservice to fans.

[fantastic_four]

3 minutes ago, kimik said:

Here in Alberta, there has never really been an issue with African Americans or African immigrants (likely due to the province really only being settled from the 1890s onwards), so the cultural significance was a moot point here.

That all makes sense since you guys outlawed slavery sooner than America and didn't have the same Jim Crow laws that America had for a century after slavery was abolished here in the 1860s.

[Bosco685]

6 minutes ago, kimik said:

The cultural impact depends on where you live. Here in Alberta, there has never really been an issue with African Americans or African immigrants (likely due to the province really only being settled from the 1890s onwards), so the cultural significance was a moot point here. My view on Black Panther was similar to most of my non-comic collecting friends - it was a weaker Marvel movie when you look at it objectively. The story was mediocre and I did not care for most of the actors. The male leads were wooden/flat actors, especially BP and the "look how bad azz I am due to self-mutilation" cousin. If people complain about Brie Larson's emotionless/flat style, they saw the same in BP. The female leads were much stronger and better at their craft (acting).

As I stated before, a First Nations/Indigenous or Asian super hero blockbuster film would carry way more significance here.

Not taking a side either way. I just recognize there will groups based on region or experience that will lean strongly towards Black Panther.

I get what you are saying for your region it wouldn't be as relevant.

[drotto]

1 minute ago, Bosco685 said:

Not taking a side either way. I just recognize there will groups based on region or experience that will lean strongly towards Black Panther.

I get what you are saying for your region it wouldn't be as relevant.

In the US there was a very vocal, full fledged support, and love for Black Panther in the African American community.  It started well before the movie came out, and when the movie also proved to be good it created a magic combination that created a cultural sensation.  This sensation managed transcend race, and was shown in the massive box office.  At this point there does not seem to be that kind of momentum behind CM, in fact WW felt like it had much more momentum in that respect.

[Bosco685]

20 minutes ago, drotto said:

In the US there was a very vocal, full fledged support, and love for Black Panther in the African American community.  It started well before the movie came out, and when the movie also proved to be good it created a magic combination that created a cultural sensation.  This sensation managed transcend race, and was shown in the massive box office.  At this point there does not seem to be that kind of momentum behind CM, in fact WW felt like it had much more momentum in that respect.

To be fair to Captain Marvel (not that you are unfair), comparing to an iconic character like Wonder Woman is a tough hurdle to overcome.

WW had a popular TV show, has been used multiple times in animated production, and her symbol is recognized in many markets. So to have the first-ever live film of a strong, confident female role model like this it is a unique event.

Any MCU fans expecting to have the same reaction JUST BECAUSE would be putting unrealistic pressure on this cast and crew. Better to let this production grow on its own as people learn more of Carol Danvers.

Edited March 5, 2019 by Bosco685

[kimik]

7 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

That all makes sense since you guys outlawed slavery sooner than America and didn't have the same Jim Crow laws that America had for a century after slavery was abolished here in the 1860s.

Possibly, but I would argue it was more due to the fact that Alberta had a population of a whopping 73,022 in 1901, and this was basically comprised of poor European farmer immigrants (both sides of my family came here in the late 1890s and early 1900s from the Ukraine to farm) and cultural refugees. There were also a number of African Americans that had come up from the USA via the Underground Railway and/or a bit later to farm. Since Alberta was essentially a melting pot of poorer immigrants, sparsely populated, and had a harsher climate, different people had to work together to make ends meet (during the 1800s, those with money tended to settle in the larger cities in Eastern Canada or to not stray further west than Winnipeg for a long time, except for Vancouver on the Pacific Coast. The prairies were called the Nortwest Territories until 1905 for a reason  ).

The two groups that faced more racism here were Asian Canadians, especially Chinese (Chinese labour was used to build the rail network in Western Canada in the 1800s) and Japanese (increased in the 1930s/40s due to WW2 and internment camps here in the West), and the First Nations/Indigenous peoples (still a big issue today if you did not grow up in rural Alberta with First Nations/Indigenous neighours like some of us). 

[Gatsby77]

1 hour ago, fantastic_four said:

Any non-spoilery conjecture as to why she's the person Nick Fury texts at the very end of Infinity War?

My guess is Fury knows she's the most powerful superhero Earth has -- a fail-safe for emergencies, like if -- and only if -- the Avengers are defeated.

Put another way, she's clearly playing the role Adam Warlock had in the original story. (Or perhaps the role Adam Warlock /Silver Surfer did).