Captain Marvel Trailer 3

[dreyga2000]

It is interesting how a movie starring a female character like "Alita Battle Angel" gets such a low score on Rotten Tomatoes even though just about everyone else who saw the movie loved it.
While I can almost guarantee that "Captain Marvel" will be in the high 90s. Has any of the Disney Marvel movies ever got a rotten review. Surely they can't all be perfect.

But I don’t that doesn’t nessarily means that there is some behind the scenes conspiracy. The Marvel Team has spent the last ten years perfecting the blockbuster learning from their mistakes applying that knowledge to future projects. They’ve also gained enough crew that has allowed them to scoop up an all star team of actors and directors. It’s a matter of study and practice that has allowed to appeal to such a broad audience.

[Jokerz79]

Disney spent about 250 million before marketing on that Nutcracker film and Wrinkle in Time combined and they have RT scores of 34% and 43% really if Disney is paying people off or reviewers are afraid of angering Disney and losing perks please explain those films and their scores? Every MCU films so far have been a competent well made entertaining films that know what they are and don't shoot for higher with some pretentious B.S. (Sorry but looking at Zack Snyder) and people respond well to that. Take Ant-Man and Wasp critics went in thinking they'd get a well made fun superhero movie and guess what it's what they got so they judged it appropriately. Only when the films are a mess or shooting above their pay grade do critics pounce as does the movie going audience usually but there exceptions case in point.

I know TLJ is the favorite go too for "proving" the Conspricy I'm a TLJ hater but a lot of that hate comes from fans who have higher expectations and set views of iconic characters like Luke. But to a critic judging TLJ as a film many without fan baggage they had a different experience and a different reaction. Guys like Collider and John Campea kiss Studios butts IMO but they also give bad reviews too it's not all sunshine and rainbows. When judging the "Media Shill Conspricy" look past your person fandom and to the Studios complete offerings of films and TV and ask yourself if you really think critics are giving positive reviews to certain Studios.

[Star_Jammer]

Luke being anything short of an omniscient/omnipotent Force-Wielding god-tier Jedi Master was always going to incense many fanboys.

[Jokerz79]

Luke being anything short of an omniscient/omnipotent Force-Wielding god-tier Jedi Master was always going to incense many fanboys.

Personally for me it was simply Luke even thinking about killing Ben when suspecting him of going to the Dark Side. I know many can justify it but personally I will never accept that and that was the moment Legends officially remained my personal Canon. But no big loss I've been a causal Star Wars fan since AOTC that was the first time I gave up on the Movies.

[Colossus1980]

Disney spent about 250 million before marketing on that Nutcracker film and Wrinkle in Time combined and they have RT scores of 34% and 43% really if Disney is paying people off or reviewers are afraid of angering Disney and losing perks please explain those films and their scores?

THIS.

Unless the conspiracists believe Disney is only paying off reviewers on MCU movies because it's more profitable in the long run. Nutjobs everywhere.

[dreyga2000]

THIS.

Unless the conspiracists believe Disney is only paying off reviewers on MCU movies because it's more profitable in the long run. Nutjobs everywhere.

Don't you know? They let those films bomb to get people off the trail. ***Sarcasm***

[Midvillian1322]

Don't you know? They let those films bomb to get people off the trail. ***Sarcasm***

The fact you had to state that was Sarcasm is telling. Theres peopl who woulda took that serious and that says so much lol.

[Comic-Reader Lad]

Well, as I said before, I'm skeptical that there is a Disney conspiracy in the sense that Disney is paying critics to give glowing reviews, but I do believe there is a fanboy bias among critics in favor of the Marvel movies. Doesn't mean Disney is paying them, but perhaps many critics--especially in the blogger age--grew up as fans of Marvel Comics and feel they have a vested interest in seeing Marvel succeed.

Reading comics since the 70s, I know the "Marvel Zombie" thing is real as far as their comics are concerned. It's not out of the question that Marvel Zombies exist for their movies as well.

I understand that perhaps certain Disney movies get the occasional bad review, but the Marvel movies generally don't, and they are often full of storytelling flaws that don't get harped on.

Again, I'm not saying Marvel movies aren't good, but they're "good for what they are." I haven't seen either Ant-Man/Wasp or Alita: Battle Angel, but for those people who have seen both, is there a real reason why Ant-Man and the Wasp has a Critics' RT of 88%, while Alita has now fallen below the 60% needed for a "fresh" rating?

Alita is now "Rotten" at 59%, but the Audience RT for Alita is 94%. I understand that Venom had a similar disparity, but even those who liked Venom agreed that it wasn't filmmaking excellence. However, Alita is getting praise for all aspects of its filmmaking.

So, again why is Alita, and for that matter, Aquaman (at 65%) rated so much lower than the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies?

To get specific, let's just look at every MCU movie and their RT scores. Looking at the scores, we can see that Alita and Aquaman have each scored WORSE than EVERY SINGLE MCU movie. Putting biases aside, is that really justified?

I don't think Disney is buying critics, but from decades of reading comics and following the industry, I know that Marvel Zombieism is real, and now I'm seeing it carried over to their movies. There's simply no real way, objectively speaking, that Alita and Aquaman are worse movies than every single MCU film. Critics have their own biases just like anyone and they seem to be caught up in the MCU experience to the point where it's clouding their objective judgment. The shared universe conceit is a rising tide that's lifting all boats.

PHASE 1
Iron Man: 93%
Incredible Hulk: 67%
Iron Man 2: 73%
Thor: 77%
Captain America: The First Avenger: 80%
Marvel's The Avengers: 92%


PHASE 2
Iron Man 3: 80%
Thor: The Dark World: 66%
Captain America: The Winter Soldier: 90%
Guardians of the Galaxy: 91%
Avengers: Age of Ultron: 75%
Ant-Man: 82%


PHASE 3
Captain America: Civil War: 91%
Doctor Strange: 89%
Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2: 84%
Spider-Man: Homecoming: 92%
Thor: Ragnarok: 92%
Black Panther: 97%
Avengers: Infinity War: 85%
Ant-Man and the Wasp: 88%
Captain Marvel: to be determined
Avengers: Endgame: to be determined


PHASE 4
Spider-Man: Far from Home: to be determined

[dreyga2000]

A Marvel bias is a pretty reasonable but Aquaman was about Thor 2 level in quality. I liked it but I the only Marvel movies I could put below it were The Dark World and maybe....The Incredible Hulk.

[Jokerz79]

Well, as I said before, I'm skeptical that there is a Disney conspiracy in the sense that Disney is paying critics to give glowing reviews, but I do believe there is a fanboy bias among critics in favor of the Marvel movies. Doesn't mean Disney is paying them, but perhaps many critics--especially in the blogger age--grew up as fans of Marvel Comics and feel they have a vested interest in seeing Marvel succeed.

Reading comics since the 70s, I know the "Marvel Zombie" thing is real as far as their comics are concerned. It's not out of the question that Marvel Zombies exist for their movies as well.

I understand that perhaps certain Disney movies get the occasional bad review, but the Marvel movies generally don't, and they are often full of storytelling flaws that don't get harped on.

Again, I'm not saying Marvel movies aren't good, but they're "good for what they are." I haven't seen either Ant-Man/Wasp or Alita: Battle Angel, but for those people who have seen both, is there a real reason why Ant-Man and the Wasp has a Critics' RT of 88%, while Alita has now fallen below the 60% needed for a "fresh" rating?

Alita is now "Rotten" at 59%, but the Audience RT for Alita is 94%. I understand that Venom had a similar disparity, but even those who liked Venom agreed that it wasn't filmmaking excellence. However, Alita is getting praise for all aspects of its filmmaking.

So, again why is Alita, and for that matter, Aquaman (at 65%) rated so much lower than the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies?

To get specific, let's just look at every MCU movie and their RT scores. Looking at the scores, we can see that Alita and Aquaman have each scored WORSE than EVERY SINGLE MCU movie. Putting biases aside, is that really justified?

I don't think Disney is buying critics, but from decades of reading comics and following the industry, I know that Marvel Zombieism is real, and now I'm seeing it carried over to their movies. There's simply no real way, objectively speaking, that Alita and Aquaman are worse movies than every single MCU film. Critics have their own biases just like anyone and they seem to be caught up in the MCU experience to the point where it's clouding their objective judgment. The shared universe conceit is a rising tide that's lifting all boats.

PHASE 1
Iron Man: 93%
Incredible Hulk: 67%
Iron Man 2: 73%
Thor: 77%
Captain America: The First Avenger: 80%
Marvel's The Avengers: 92%


PHASE 2
Iron Man 3: 80%
Thor: The Dark World: 66%
Captain America: The Winter Soldier: 90%
Guardians of the Galaxy: 91%
Avengers: Age of Ultron: 75%
Ant-Man: 82%


PHASE 3
Captain America: Civil War: 91%
Doctor Strange: 89%
Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2: 84%
Spider-Man: Homecoming: 92%
Thor: Ragnarok: 92%
Black Panther: 97%
Avengers: Infinity War: 85%
Ant-Man and the Wasp: 88%
Captain Marvel: to be determined
Avengers: Endgame: to be determined


PHASE 4
Spider-Man: Far from Home: to be determined

The Marvel Zombie thing goes both ways there are DC Zombies too.

Alita isn't setting the world on fire so one can assume most people who saw Alita for the audience were fans who came out happy and scored accordingly. While critics aren't fans and judging as a film and not as impressed.

As for Aquaman it has the same issues as BvS both films have a decent story and good character development but both also are bloated films throwing everything but the kitchen out there. The difference from BvS is Aquaman is visual stunning and a lot of fun oh and no Martha moment which earns it over double the score than BvS but not too high.

As for the MCU yeah fandom does come into as Marvel Studios have made a large portion of society MCU movie fans and people like to go to the theaters 2 or 3 times a year including critics and see their favorite characters and have a fun time doing it. If Marvel deliveries that people are happy and guess what Marvel does deliveries every time so critics and audiences rate them accordingly. The argument would hold more weight if the audience scored the films low but critics and the audience seem to agree MCU movies are well made fun films it's not that deep to figure out why the high scores.

[Killerbee911]

Well, as I said before, I'm skeptical that there is a Disney conspiracy in the sense that Disney is paying critics to give glowing reviews, but I do believe there is a fanboy bias among critics in favor of the Marvel movies. Doesn't mean Disney is paying them, but perhaps many critics--especially in the blogger age--grew up as fans of Marvel Comics and feel they have a vested interest in seeing Marvel succeed.

Reading comics since the 70s, I know the "Marvel Zombie" thing is real as far as their comics are concerned. It's not out of the question that Marvel Zombies exist for their movies as well.

I understand that perhaps certain Disney movies get the occasional bad review, but the Marvel movies generally don't, and they are often full of storytelling flaws that don't get harped on.

Again, I'm not saying Marvel movies aren't good, but they're "good for what they are." I haven't seen either Ant-Man/Wasp or Alita: Battle Angel, but for those people who have seen both, is there a real reason why Ant-Man and the Wasp has a Critics' RT of 88%, while Alita has now fallen below the 60% needed for a "fresh" rating?

Alita is now "Rotten" at 59%, but the Audience RT for Alita is 94%. I understand that Venom had a similar disparity, but even those who liked Venom agreed that it wasn't filmmaking excellence. However, Alita is getting praise for all aspects of its filmmaking.

So, again why is Alita, and for that matter, Aquaman (at 65%) rated so much lower than the Marvel Cinematic Universe movies?

To get specific, let's just look at every MCU movie and their RT scores. Looking at the scores, we can see that Alita and Aquaman have each scored WORSE than EVERY SINGLE MCU movie. Putting biases aside, is that really justified?

I don't think Disney is buying critics, but from decades of reading comics and following the industry, I know that Marvel Zombieism is real, and now I'm seeing it carried over to their movies. There's simply no real way, objectively speaking, that Alita and Aquaman are worse movies than every single MCU film. Critics have their own biases just like anyone and they seem to be caught up in the MCU experience to the point where it's clouding their objective judgment. The shared universe conceit is a rising tide that's lifting all boats.

PHASE 1
Iron Man: 93%
Incredible Hulk: 67%
Iron Man 2: 73%
Thor: 77%
Captain America: The First Avenger: 80%
Marvel's The Avengers: 92%


PHASE 2
Iron Man 3: 80%
Thor: The Dark World: 66%
Captain America: The Winter Soldier: 90%
Guardians of the Galaxy: 91%
Avengers: Age of Ultron: 75%
Ant-Man: 82%


PHASE 3
Captain America: Civil War: 91%
Doctor Strange: 89%
Guardians of the Galaxy vol. 2: 84%
Spider-Man: Homecoming: 92%
Thor: Ragnarok: 92%
Black Panther: 97%
Avengers: Infinity War: 85%
Ant-Man and the Wasp: 88%
Captain Marvel: to be determined
Avengers: Endgame: to be determined


PHASE 4
Spider-Man: Far from Home: to be determined

Marvel movies have a better chance to be judge on what they are fun action movies rather than artistic masterpieces. It is not fair but it makes sense critics know what they are getting and what makes a good marvel movie.

Other comics movies don't have that they get judge like they are suppose to be masterpieces of film at times. Call it being a zombie maybe I call it 20 films of pattern. Critics know what they are getting, They know what to look for in Marvel movie and having a set tone helps Marvel with critics. If you eat at 20 different hamburger fast food restaurants you learn what good fast food taste like and you are judging hamburgers on that scale. Aquaman and Battle Angel are chicken sandwiches and pizza.Yeah they are fast food but they get judge differently than hamburgers.

Critics with Marvel movies understand what they are judging which is fast food and good fast food. Marvel scores doesn't reflect if they think it gourmet food but great fast food but rotten tomatoes isn't build to reflect that in scoring

[Comic-Reader Lad]

A Marvel bias is a pretty reasonable but Aquaman was about Thor 2 level in quality. I liked it but I the only Marvel movies I could put below it were The Dark World and maybe....The Incredible Hulk.

I really disagree with that. Thor is my favorite Marvel character, and I don't like the first 2 Thor movies. Didn't bother to see Ragnarok as I was not liking what I was seeing with "retoning" the character. Also didn't bother to see GOTG 2 and Ant-Man & Wasp based on how I didn't care for the first installments.

But I've seen most of the MCU movies, and I'd put Aquaman above Iron Man 2, 3, Ant-Man, GOTG, Incredible Hulk, Thor, Thor 2, Age of Ultron, Doctor Strange, and Spider-Man: Homecoming for sure.

The Marvel Zombie thing goes both ways there are DC Zombies too.

Alita isn't setting the world on fire so one can assume most people who saw Alita for the audience were fans who came out happy and scored accordingly. While critics aren't fans and judging as a film and not as impressed.

As for Aquaman it has the same issues as BvS both films have a decent story and good character development but both also are bloated films throwing everything but the kitchen out there. The difference from BvS is Aquaman is visual stunning and a lot of fun oh and no Martha moment which earns it over double the score than BvS but not too high.

As for the MCU yeah fandom does come into as Marvel Studios have made a large portion of society MCU movie fans and people like to go to the theaters 2 or 3 times a year including critics and see their favorite characters and have a fun time doing it. If Marvel deliveries that people are happy and guess what Marvel does deliveries every time so critics and audiences rate them accordingly. The argument would hold more weight if the audience scored the films low but critics and the audience seem to agree MCU movies are well made fun films it's not that deep to figure out why the high scores.

I don't think there are DC Zombies in the critics pool. Certainly not enough to give DC Films the crazy out of whack RT scores that Marvel Movies gets. But it seems you agree that the entirety of the Marvel Cinematic Universe experience carries through from movie to movie, which as I said, has the effect of lifting all boats.

Critics aren't really judging each movie in isolation. As long as each MCU movie hits the common formula points, it will produce the Pavlov's dog response in both critics and audiences and they really won't ponder a particular MCU film too deeply as to whether it's lacking any individual artistic merit.

Marvel movies have a better chance to be judge on what they are fun action movies rather than artistic masterpieces. It is not fair but it makes sense critics know what they are getting and what makes a good marvel movie.

Other comics movies don't have that they get judge like they are suppose to be masterpieces of film at times. Call it being a zombie maybe I call it 20 films of pattern. Critics know what they are getting, They know what to look for in Marvel movie and having a set tone helps Marvel with critics. If you eat at 20 different hamburger fast food restaurants you learn what good fast food taste like and you are judging hamburgers on that scale. Aquaman and Battle Angel are chicken sandwiches and pizza.Yeah they are fast food but they get judge differently than hamburgers.

Critics with Marvel movies understand what they are judging which is fast food and good fast food. Marvel scores doesn't reflect if they think it gourmet food but great fast food but rotten tomatoes isn't build to reflect that in scoring

OK, we're agreeing. Critics are caught up in the MCU experience and that does favors for the individual movies that are "less than." Because Aquaman and Alita were "just" good movies that aren't part of a larger franchise universe, there isn't the same level of hysteria around their release. It does seem that based on the momentum of the franchise, critics and audiences go into each movie primed and ready to like it. Whereas with Aquaman, it was more that they were hoping to like it.

But still, we haven't heard from people who have seen BOTH Alita: Battle Angel and Ant-Man/Wasp.

Was Ant-Man/Wasp a better movie than Alita or not? If not, why do you think the critics thought that it was?

[Jeramas]

The humor of the Dark Knight Trilogy's Alfred has always been noted.

The MCU has had a continuing storyline with evolving characters for 10 years and 20 plus films call it bad or formulaic if you want but it wasn't lazy.

I HATED TLJ but it was a Star Wars film and the return of Luke Skywalker have you lived in a cave for 40 years? That movie was always going to be hyped by simply existing. Black Panther was the first marketed main stream superhero film with a mostly black cast it was going to get hype. Yeah Blade was Marvel and I loved the first two Blade movies but most General Audience members had no clue Blade was a Marvel Character or Superhero back then.

Homecoming was Spider-Man's first solo film in what is right now the biggest film franchise on Earth again it was going to be hyped and Disney only caused it by their success of the of the MCU.

Alfred said somethings that were funny but Dark Knight 's trilogy was the complete opposite of MCU movies. Nolan would have never sunk that low. Early Reviews for the dark knight trilogy are not defined by hilarious jokes.

It is interesting how a movie starring a female character like "Alita Battle Angel" gets such a low score on Rotten Tomatoes even though just about everyone else who saw the movie loved it.
While I can almost guarantee that "Captain Marvel" will be in the high 90s.

It would be beyond difficult to believe captain marvel will be better if captain marvel is the same as the other MCU movies and from the early reviews it is.

[dreyga2000]

Alfred said somethings that were funny but Dark Knight 's trilogy was the complete opposite of MCU movies. Nolan would have never sunk that low. Early Reviews for the dark knight trilogy are not defined by hilarious jokes.

It would be beyond difficult to believe captain marvel will be better if captain marvel is the same as the other MCU movies and from the early reviews it is.

I'm confused do you like marvel movies or do you hate them? I've been getting mixed messages

[Midvillian1322]

I'm confused do you like marvel movies or do you hate them? I've been getting mixed messages

No he thinks every single one is hot garbage and Captain Marvel is o exception. <Insert Biases or Conspiracy theory here>

So I get that people here seem to think it's more likely critics are bias and or paid off rather rhen maybe Marvel movies are just received better by most people then they are to them. But Antman and wasp getting better RT score then Alita doesn't mean critics thinks it better it just means there less to hate and less people think it's bad. And honestly I dont get why Alita keeps getting brought up alot of reviews I've read and from people I know who saw it the action is beautiful but the story is a bunch of cliches and the dialogue is bad. Makes complete sense that audiences are happier with stunning action then critics. Go look at movies like the Transformers franchise the audience vs Critic score gas always varied and the most recent film flip flopped with Critics liking it more then audiences. But prior to bumble bee a 20-40 percent change is normal for Transformers. Really cant say untill I see Alits but if you read the RT reviews alot of the positive audience reviews talk about a hallow narrative and one dimensional characters. Not being taken in strictly by stunning action is kinda what critics do while the rest of us dont care if we have a good time.

Like Joker said alot of it is expectations has alot to do with it aswell. Last couple Fast and furious movies have been doing better with critics and I think that expectations are the cause not actual quality.