MCU/Superhero Discussion Thread

[Cannot think of a name]

Audience scores are more reliable than critic scores...how, exactly? What are they reliably doing? Making you enjoy a movie more or less? What are we measuring that we can call one 'more accurate'? Final box office? Really seems like more of a studio concern. Do you like a movie more or less based on its box office score? Is Ed Wood Burton's worst film because it only made like $6 million compared to Planet of the Apes that made $180 million?

Also, since I've dived way to deep into the pissy fan fucker bitch fest over Captain Marvel trying to pin down exactly what they're so bent out of shape about (and talking with someone on the Marvel team who has made the conniption fit so much sillier), they're already making excuses as to why it's going to be popular despite their little tantrum. Mostly because Avengers.

Some of the 'lolsux' is hilarious. "She's not even popular enough for an MCU movie..." Hahaahaa...welcome to the MCU, also known as 'all the characters that Marvel couldn't sell to anyone else at any price when they needed the money.' Fucking Iron Man wasn't considered a marque enough character when his movie was coming out, and that wasn't some pissy fanboy on the internet saying it, it was The Hollywood Reporter. I gave up looking for the actual article (maybe it was Variety...), but Honest Trailers did a whole bit about it. But now, ten years later and 20 films in, "Pffft, she ain't that great." Dudes. Squirrel Girl got a tv show. It didn't air, but it got made. But now 'she's not popular enough'...as if that hasn't been the MCU this whole time. Like Guardians of the Galaxy was a household name. Clydes.

More reliable in that the average movie goer is going to like the movie or find it enjoyable, compared to the critic score.

There's reliable constant of movies with high Critic score and low audience scores, and vice versa.

This seems like a sloppy kind of comparison measuring a hazy target. Essentially you're saying that 'audiences saying they like a movie is more indicative of them liking a movie' which isn't predictive, it's recording. So the question of what it's reliably doing is still questionable.

I'm not doing the size thing. I would suggest that TLJ and Solo were too close to each other and TLJ being poorly constructed (the clock meant nothing, the c and d stories were inconsequential and muddled the a and b stories, instead of addressing mysteries set up in TFA it took them all and went "nah.") had more to do with it than some dudes upset that they...something. Their complaints here are also a little fucking spotty.

Also, save for the stupid cameo at the end I loved Solo.

Don't disagree with anything here (except the cameo, I dug it). TLJ was a poor movie (for far more reasons than have been stated) and it dragged Solo down with it. It's simply more evident with Solo because people had to actually spend money on TLJ to be let down. I mean I saw it opening day, and I actually dug it the first time I watched it because they actually did a WW2 throwback space battle like the OT's were, and the rest of the movie could do no wrong after that. But the more I thought about it and watched it again, the more the facade fell away. It's easily the poorest of the movies, and that's saying something.

Solo was fantastic, a throwback to what the OT used to be like.

Not that I get a medal for it or anything, but I started out excited about TLJ but as it dragged on I started going, "This...is a bad movie." I went from being emotional at the "A long time ago in a galaxy far far away" to "What the fuck is going on here...this is a bad movie."

Of course I had similar misgivings during Rogue One regarding structure, stakes, and character motivations (she literally goes from 'fuck your war' to 'rebellions are built on hope' in a single scene), and I'm not in the majority there so, what do I know. Regardless, since I saw Star Wars in the theaters when I was six, I'll just keep going.

[Tarsonis]

but if the movie does flop despite current expectations, it'll be par for the course that they blame toxic masculinity in some capacity.

Tbh, given that it would be Marvel's first actual flop, and nothing points to it being a technically troubled or incompetent film... yeah, if it did flop, "toxic masculinity" insofar as extremely online dorks falling for the "anti-SJW" grift to the point of boycotting a cultural product they might have otherwise enjoyed would be a partial explanation.

Although, again, I think it's extremely unlikely that it will flop. I mean, the imbeciles of Return Of Kings, whose whole shtick is unironic toxic masculinity, bragged about actively influencing their readers against TFA and (dubiously) calculated that their coverage caused the film a box office loss of, like, $4 million. Even if true, a repeat of that number with Captain Marvel would be peanuts, given that the lowest grossing film in the MCU was the Edward Norton Hulk one with over $260 million and that was long before the MCU had the firmly established hype of today.

Again I use the word flop haphazardly. When I say it I really mean "underperforms".

[Liriena]

but if the movie does flop despite current expectations, it'll be par for the course that they blame toxic masculinity in some capacity.

Tbh, given that it would be Marvel's first actual flop, and nothing points to it being a technically troubled or incompetent film... yeah, if it did flop, "toxic masculinity" insofar as extremely online dorks falling for the "anti-SJW" grift to the point of boycotting a cultural product they might have otherwise enjoyed would be a partial explanation.

Although, again, I think it's extremely unlikely that it will flop. I mean, the imbeciles of Return Of Kings, whose whole shtick is unironic toxic masculinity, bragged about actively influencing their readers against TFA and (dubiously) calculated that their coverage caused the film a box office loss of, like, $4 million. Even if true, a repeat of that number with Captain Marvel would be peanuts, given that the lowest grossing film in the MCU was the Edward Norton Hulk one with over $260 million and that was long before the MCU had the firmly established hype of today.

Again I use the word flop haphazardly. When I say it I really mean "underperforms".

I know. And I'm sticking with my argument even then.

For Captain Marvel to significantly underperform, waaaaaaaaaaay too many things would have to go wrong, and while I'm sure Youtube grifters will find a way to milk the insane outrage over it for months like they did with TLJ, I don't think they have enough influence to make this movie underperform.

[Tarsonis]

Again I use the word flop haphazardly. When I say it I really mean "underperforms".

I know. And I'm sticking with my argument even then.

For Captain Marvel to significantly underperform, waaaaaaaaaaay too many things would have to go wrong, and while I'm sure Youtube grifters will find a way to milk the insane outrage over it for months like they did with TLJ, I don't think they have enough influence to make this movie underperform.

Probably not. It'll definitely do well Opening Weekend. The real test is how well it does passed that.

[Liriena]

I know. And I'm sticking with my argument even then.

For Captain Marvel to significantly underperform, waaaaaaaaaaay too many things would have to go wrong, and while I'm sure Youtube grifters will find a way to milk the insane outrage over it for months like they did with TLJ, I don't think they have enough influence to make this movie underperform.

Probably not. It'll definitely do well Opening Weekend. The real test is how well it does passed that.

If early reactions were truly reflective of the film, it sounds like it's gonna be an entertaining MCU movie with its own unique style and tone. If that's the case, I'd say it's gonna be at least somewhere in the realm of Guardians of the Galaxy.

[Liriena]

Probably not. It'll definitely do well Opening Weekend. The real test is how well it does passed that.

If early reactions were truly reflective of the film, it sounds like it's gonna be an entertaining MCU movie with its own unique style and tone. If that's the case, I'd say it's gonna be at least somewhere in the realm of Guardians of the Galaxy.

Worst likely case scenario, Thor: The Dark World

[Platypus Bureaucracy]

Here's actually a great article on the divide between critics and audiences:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/ ... 8e010474e6

I love that you claimed the RT score was good, then immediately linked an article that says IMDB is far more reliable.

[Olthar]

Except audience scores are generally more reliable than critic scores.

In my experience, critic scorescare mostly reliable unless it's IGN.

[Cannot think of a name]

Again I use the word flop haphazardly. When I say it I really mean "underperforms".

I know. And I'm sticking with my argument even then.

For Captain Marvel to significantly underperform, waaaaaaaaaaay too many things would have to go wrong, and while I'm sure Youtube grifters will find a way to milk the insane outrage over it for months like they did with TLJ, I don't think they have enough influence to make this movie underperform.

Not to mention 'underperforms' is such a loosely defined term as to be almost meaningless.

[Tarsonis]

Here's actually a great article on the divide between critics and audiences:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/jvchamary/ ... 8e010474e6

I love that you claimed the RT score was good, then immediately linked an article that says IMDB is far more reliable.

You read it? Dude this is NSG we don't read sources.


In all seriousness, IMDB may be more reliable in general than RT, but what you missed is that IMDB is an open source aggregate just like RT. So it doesn't actually undermine my point which wasn't that RT is the most accurate sight of all time, but rather that Audience consensus is generally more reliable than Critic Consensus, in determining movie quality as appreciated by the average viewer.

[The first Galactic Republic]

Two things:

1. TLJ is the 11th highest grossing film of all time.*

*Without adjusting for inflation.
When you adjust for inflation, it actually made less than The Phantom Menace. (Domestically)

2. Captain Marvel ain't gonna flop. It currently is 3rd in pre-sales out of the entire MCU, and early reactions where overwhelmingly positive.

Awesome.

Adjust for inflation and IV still beats them all.

[Tarsonis]

*Without adjusting for inflation.
When you adjust for inflation, it actually made less than The Phantom Menace. (Domestically)



Awesome.

Adjust for inflation and IV still beats them all.

True, but it’s still not better than Empire

[Pasong Tirad]

Please, no more. It's already been over a year. No more The Last Jedi talk. We're all so tired of it. Or at least move it to the Star Wars thread. Please, God, no more of this.

[The first Galactic Republic]

Please, no more. It's already been over a year. No more The Last Jedi talk. We're all so tired of it. Or at least move it to the Star Wars thread. Please, God, no more of this.

TFW

[Liriena]

Gosh, I want to read the RogerEbert.com review of Captain Marvel so bad. This review embargo is killing me almost as much as the wait for the movie's release.

[Alvecia]

I tend to disregard reviews altogether and watch films based on whether or not I'm interested in doing so.

[Forsher]

If by "more reliable" you mean that you generally find an online audience score is more likely to represent your feelings on a film, then fine. That's a matter of your own taste, which you're welcome to. I personally find the opposite.

Then you're an edge case. Online audience scores are word of mouth. Marketers will figuratively kill for good word of mouth... actually, it's literally the premise of the novel this website is advertising.

But if you think that online, self-selecting surveys can be relied upon to accurately reflect the views of the general audience...

Self-selection bias is a form of bias. Sometimes it's a big problem and sometimes it's a limited problem... it's always a big deal for the analyst because it's impossible to tell which (without comparison to a better survey). However, look at the actual logic of self-selection bias. The issue is that you think you're getting population A and instead you're getting population B. But maybe it really is population A.

The thing with online reviews is that they all probably draw from people with a negative experience. It doesn't matter what's being reviewed because this is a generalisable truth; misery really does like company. But reviews are also non-neutral. It's like the Observer Effect but with people. In fact, the alternative take on reviews (as opposed to the "will I like it?" hypothesis used above) is actively trying to affect how people see, understand and therefore feel about the film. In other words, the reviews literally (not figuratively) create the quality of a film just as much as they reflect it (and depending on why someone's writing, probably more so).

So, it's not so much the case that we get population B instead of A but the existence of B's reviews actually makes everyone into B.

well. Critic scores will always reflect what that particular set of critics thought (although that in itself may be a problem). Audience scores reflect only the feelings of those who feel like logging onto the site.

Critics are completely self-selected too. In fact, they're far more obviously not population A since they're generally educated in film schools, English departments at universities and so on... or have done the same studying for funsies... and paid to watch the films. You're basically saying, "That's B not A and therefore this is a problem" whilst also saying, "This is C not A and that's fine because it's C". There's no difference whatsoever but you're acting like there is.

But let's return to that fundamental point about whether or not we've got B and we want A. Well, here's the thing... the people who watch a film self-selected into that. We can talk about the "general audience" all we want but the term is highly problematic and seriously misleading. The general audience isn't watching your movie... the general audience is the pool of people who could potentially watch your film rather than the people likely to watch it.

It's very unlikely to be the case that online ratings do grab the same audience as the film's real one but it's also completely silly to act like it's a massive problem with the idea. Firstly because their reviews shape opinions and expectations (creating the film's quality) and secondly because we're self-selecting out of a pool of people who are relatively similar to start off with. Just like how critics are all relatively similar to each other.

[Forsher]

As for TLJ, nope, the 44% on Rotten Tomatoes is pretty accurate. Most viewers really did hate TLJ and it had nothing to do with ebul SJW's. It just wasn't a very good movie.

Is that why it got an A on CinemaScore?

CinemaScore is more a measure of advertising expectations. Its pool of people experience the movie as created by the film-makers, advertisers and (possibly) critics.

Everyone who watches after the first night does so with word of mouth creating their film too.

I suggest the answer to this apparent discrepancy is what I said about reviews... the people who are motivated to talk about these films are biased to the miserable. Therefore, "most people don't like it" and also "were pretty pleased with it".

I wouldn't be surprised incidentally if CM has a lower CinemaScore than usual. On the other hand, the people who watched it early and wrote about how it was a bit unexpected might be a case of what we're talking about here. That is, they think its choices are unexpected but the conventional audience for the film (what we're calling, for simplicity, the general audience) could well (and probably does) have different expectations.

Wait, why is this incidental? This is an MCU thread, not a Star Wars one. (That being said, Solo is clearly the best Star Wars movie being actually quite good as opposed to entirely meh... The Last Jedi is not noticeably different in any respect to any other Star Wars film.)

[Forsher]

I wouldn't. Cinemascore states their sample pool is about 400 per movie.

The difference between a sample size of 400 and 40,000 is a lot smaller than the difference between 400 and 4 (or, for that matter, 40). In fact, it's almost certainly more than big enough. CinemaScores doesn't do anything complicated with sub-populations.

This seems like a sloppy kind of comparison measuring a hazy target. Essentially you're saying that 'audiences saying they like a movie is more indicative of them liking a movie' which isn't predictive, it's recording. So the question of what it's reliably doing is still questionable.

Um, what?

Yes, it sounds circular but that's what we want. From that Forbes article Tarsonis linked:

When he presented his research to a conference of film critics, they weren't surprised. "The public thinks a critic's job is to see all the movies, and tell them which ones are good," Wallisch explains. "Critics don't agree with that, they think their job is to educate the public on what a good movie is -- and that's where the tension comes from: it's a misunderstanding about the role of the critic."

Johnny wants to watch a movie and Susan's already seen it. Susan's opinion is being used to predict Johnny's... except there are lots of each of them.

I love that you claimed the RT score was good, then immediately linked an article that says IMDB is far more reliable.

You read it? Dude this is NSG we don't read sources.


In all seriousness, IMDB may be more reliable in general than RT, but what you missed is that IMDB is an open source aggregate just like RT. So it doesn't actually undermine my point which wasn't that RT is the most accurate sight of all time, but rather that Audience consensus is generally more reliable than Critic Consensus, in determining movie quality as appreciated by the average viewer.

IMDB is a different site with a different likely audience. In fact, IMDB's usually thought to have the problem of too many positive reviews. But this is a nonsense. Of course there are lots and lots of positive reviews... people don't go to watch (unless they're film critics) movies they don't think they'll like. Also, people are usually accurate judges of what they personally like... which is why CinemaScores is useful since it tells them if their expectations are fair.

(And yes this is consistent with the whole misery likes company thing.)

[HC Eredivisie]

I love that you claimed the RT score was good, then immediately linked an article that says IMDB is far more reliable.

You read it? Dude this is NSG we don't read sources.

We're in A&F though, a civilized forum for civilized people.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

so whats going on with captan marvel? why is there all this drama over that movie?

[Forsher]

so whats going on with captan marvel? why is there all this drama over that movie?

Spelling reformers hate the word captain.

[Vassenor]

so whats going on with captan marvel? why is there all this drama over that movie?

The lead actress insisted on having opinions and not just being a pair of breasts bouncing around on screen.

[The Huskar Social Union]

so whats going on with captan marvel? why is there all this drama over that movie?

Brie Larson said she would like to see more diversity in movie press organisations and review groups and also has some political opinions.

Thus people have went on a tangent saying she hates white men, that white men should not see the movie, that she hates the fandom and a load of other retarded bollocks.


Oh and she doesnt smile thus she cant act.

[The Derpy Democratic Republic Of Herp]

so whats going on with captan marvel? why is there all this drama over that movie?

Brie Larson said she would like to see more diversity in movie press organisations and review groups and also has some political opinions.

Thus people have went on a tangent saying she hates white men, that white men should not see the movie, that she hates the fandom and a load of other retarded bollocks.


Oh and she doesnt smile thus she cant act.

Oh so a bunch of anti SJWs screeching.

So nothing out of the ordinary then. I will be still seeing it.