The Avengers Gets First Rotten Review

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT
 

JackandTom:
http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2012-04-marvels-the-avengers

This reviewer gave The Avengers a 3/5 (which is apparently bad according to Rotten Tomatoes' system...?), compares the work of Joss Whedon on The Avengers to Michael Bay, and calls Nick Fury Nick Frost. So yeah.... the fans over at Rotten Tomatoes aren't happy. I can't say I disagree though, it is a poorly written review. But, at the end of the day, if she doesn't like it its her opinion, right? What do you guys think of the review? Anyone seen the advanced screenings and agree? Or disagree? I also think its weird how Rotten Tomatoes counts 3/5 as rotten but whatever, that's a different matter.

I dont like or really trust rotten tomatoes, too many cooks in the kitchen. The critics usually review a movie theyll know they will like or one they expect to hate and I feel it shouldnt be done this way. Also theyll review a movie thats about something they dont care about, in this case perhaps she doesnt care for superheroes, this could be considered good or bad but I dont really like to see a movie get downed because someone isnt interested on a concept. But again different perspectives.....so? whatever, I try no to go there anymore as it always pisses me off.
Like when avatar got great reviews(its very mediocre in my opinion)

Hazy992:
If she didn't like it then fair enough, and I can't form an opinion yet cause I havent seen it, but one thing that annoyed me was how she said 'the movie doesn't have enough character development!' Uhh, so? It's not supposed to, that's what the other movies were for. They were made so you could actually learn about the characters so when The Avengers movie comes around, there's no need for backstories and you can get straight to the action. The Avengers is just a sequel to those movies anyway.

It's still rather important for, well pretty much every movie, that the characters evolve in some manner (Really, at filmschool, it's one of the most basic things you can learn. First lesson basically starts with "always have your characters develop in one way or another (of course you don't have to, but it is a recommended guideline)).
'Sides, just cause the other movies set up the backstory, that don't mean that The Avengers cant develop the characters further (though i guess I could see how hard it'd be, since there are like.. What? 5, 6 main characters?)

How dare she. She gave a critical opinion like she was paid to do.

Have her lynched.

My God...who cares? It still hasn't been released in America yet so I expect a lot more rotten reviews. Armond White to the rescue!

Trivun:

Mortai Gravesend:

Trivun:

Seriously? An F? I went to a grammar school and we considered 60% to be a C (basically, a minimal pass), 70% B (average), and 80% an A with 90% a special A-star (or A*). And this was a school where they expected the very best from everyone.

Maybe a D actually with F being right below that. I usually just think anything below 70% is anathema as 70% is a C. At least per the standard system. Can change due to grading curves or in certain classes.

Meh, fair enough. That being said, you're in the USA and I'm in the UK anyway. I was lucky to get into a good school and do well in my studies, since the education system over here is just a pile of absolute crap anyway... :P

Completely off topic but Grammar schools are part of the reason why education is going to hell in the UK (and I speak as someone that went to a sixth form at a Grammar school) By only taking the smart kids they leave the remainder for the public sector. Its easy to be a highly performing school when you only have bright kids in it.

Not having a go at you by the way, as you said a Grammar school is usually the best school in is area so they generally set you up pretty well. The problem is only going to increase in the future under the current government as well. I'm just glad I dont want any kids

On topic it is a stupid review but it wont be the last

JackandTom:
http://www.boxofficemagazine.com/reviews/2012-04-marvels-the-avengers

This reviewer gave The Avengers a 3/5 (which is apparently bad according to Rotten Tomatoes' system...?), compares the work of Joss Whedon on The Avengers to Michael Bay, and calls Nick Fury Nick Frost. So yeah.... the fans over at Rotten Tomatoes aren't happy. I can't say I disagree though, it is a poorly written review. But, at the end of the day, if she doesn't like it its her opinion, right? What do you guys think of the review? Anyone seen the advanced screenings and agree? Or disagree? I also think its weird how Rotten Tomatoes counts 3/5 as rotten but whatever, that's a different matter.

Hey, consider yourself lucky that it wasn't a troll review.

Katawa Shoujo was basically universally praised by everyone that played it, and the people that didn't like it still gave it a 7 or 8 out of 10 because it was, well, objectively good.

Then a 2/10 score appears in Gamespot. Reading her "review" was one of the most blood-boiling pieces of trollbait that I've ever laid eyes on.

The thing about movie reviews (and game reviews, too) is that a lot of times the reviewers will let their own preferences seep into the review itself. I hate sports games, but if I was supposed to review one, I would try to put myself in the mind of a sports fan and give it a score based on THOSE qualities, no matter how much I detest those games. Seems this reviewer doesn't like action movies that much, eh?

The Unworthy Gentleman:

If I got 60% that would be a C. I'd get a U (English A-level equivalent of an F) if I got less than less than 40%. Your test system is botched as fuck dude. That said, our grade depends on the overall performance curve so there's a decent spread of fuck ups and smart people, regardless of how well you actually do.

Yes Im sorry, but to me, I see that as being much worse and more illogical. Basically that sort of grading structure puts 50% or better as passable. Really in what area of life do you want someone who was only able to complete or comprehend half of what they were taught? When I went to school, a C Started at 75, but they lowered it because the general population is in fact (despite what this generation wants to convince you of) getting dumber. 75 makes more sense, Being able to comprehend 3/4ths of what you have been taught as being passable is much more reassuring than 50%

On topic: I would rather watch flies fuck than to watch the Avengers. Joss Whedon in my estimation is a grossly overhyped hack. And the film property is owned by a company built on Nazi love and torturing children and homosexuals. So, Yeah, 2 major reasons This film will not take in any money from me.

However, Honestly I could have predicted that the film would been mediocre to bad (think I have several times actually) Theres too many faces, not enough screen time, and in a world that adores gritty realism, how are you going to combine A god, A Science experiment gone wrong, A science experiment gone right and an arrogant billionaire in a tin can and make it even remotely feasible,cohesive or even logical.

Anyway, its Joss Whedon. And just like everything he does, you will either love it or loathe it. And after Iron man, Hulk, Captain america, Thor, you either had every intention of seeing this or not long before production had started.

Pipotchi:

Completely off topic but Grammar schools are part of the reason why education is going to hell in the UK (and I speak as someone that went to a sixth form at a Grammar school) By only taking the smart kids they leave the remainder for the public sector. Its easy to be a highly performing school when you only have bright kids in it.

Not having a go at you by the way, as you said a Grammar school is usually the best school in is area so they generally set you up pretty well. The problem is only going to increase in the future under the current government as well. I'm just glad I dont want any kids

On topic it is a stupid review but it wont be the last

I WISH that I could have been segregated from my peers when I was younger. High school was basically a waste of time for me, and I faced no challenge at all, because the majority of kids in my school were druggies that will go nowhere in life no matter what kind of encouragement you try to throw there way.

I oppose dragging down the intelligent kids by sticking them with the idiots, especially since, at least in the US, we're in desperate need of science-oriented people if we want to stay ahead technologically.

The Unworthy Gentleman:

Mortai Gravesend:

DarkRyter:
How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

Well if I got 60% on a test that would be considered an F.

If I got 60% that would be a C. I'd get a U (English A-level equivalent of an F) if I got less than less than 40%. Your test system is botched as fuck dude. That said, our grade depends on the overall performance curve so there's a decent spread of fuck ups and smart people, regardless of how well you actually do.

OT: Not news worthy in the slightest. It would be a bit more newsworthy if it never got a negative review but how likely is that to ever happen? How about we accept what she's said with as much as we care to and move on, not worth getting your knickers in a twist.

You think that's bad? In my high school, anything below 70% was an F.

Lots of people won't like it, namely hipsters.

chadachada123:

Pipotchi:

Completely off topic but Grammar schools are part of the reason why education is going to hell in the UK (and I speak as someone that went to a sixth form at a Grammar school) By only taking the smart kids they leave the remainder for the public sector. Its easy to be a highly performing school when you only have bright kids in it.

Not having a go at you by the way, as you said a Grammar school is usually the best school in is area so they generally set you up pretty well. The problem is only going to increase in the future under the current government as well. I'm just glad I dont want any kids

On topic it is a stupid review but it wont be the last

I WISH that I could have been segregated from my peers when I was younger. High school was basically a waste of time for me, and I faced no challenge at all, because the majority of kids in my school were druggies that will go nowhere in life no matter what kind of encouragement you try to throw there way.

I oppose dragging down the intelligent kids by sticking them with the idiots, especially since, at least in the US, we're in desperate need of science-oriented people if we want to stay ahead technologically.

Ah but which came first, are certain schools rubbish because they are full of lazy mushheads or does having a crappy school turn its pupils into said mushheads. The truth lies somewhere in the middle most likely.

Farming out the kids that look to be be bright at age eleven is not going to increase the overall number of smart people overall, there has to be a complete overhaul of the school system.

Again sorry for the topic hijack, maybe this is worthy of its own topic?

viranimus:

The Unworthy Gentleman:

If I got 60% that would be a C. I'd get a U (English A-level equivalent of an F) if I got less than less than 40%. Your test system is botched as fuck dude. That said, our grade depends on the overall performance curve so there's a decent spread of fuck ups and smart people, regardless of how well you actually do.

Yes Im sorry, but to me, I see that as being much worse and more illogical. Basically that sort of grading structure puts 50% or better as passable. Really in what area of life do you want someone who was only able to complete or comprehend half of what they were taught? When I went to school, a C Started at 75, but they lowered it because the general population is in fact (despite what this generation wants to convince you of) getting dumber. 75 makes more sense, Being able to comprehend 3/4ths of what you have been taught as being passable is much more reassuring than 50%

Since apparently I like to derail threads, I fill the need to challenge your statement. I have had schooling in the USA, and some of my teachers put the F at 70% while others put it at 40%. The classes where the F was higher, the tests were designed so that people could get an A or B if the paid attention in class since a could half of the test were questions a two-year old could answer. I never really liked this method because the tests felt like a waste of time.

For the 40% Pass/Fail. The reason it was designed like that was because the tests were EXTREMELY hard. Those tests were designed to push your understanding of the subject and there were hardly any "easy" answers. So I would argue that the latter system uses a different measurement than "retaining 75% of what is taught."

Note: I don't mean to insult the previous form of testing and am not trying to insult you personally, just relating my experiences.

On-Topic(ho rah!): Really? 3/5 is bad? It seems that many people are setting themselves up for disappointment.

I love how the review has 147 comments. When The Dark Knight got its first negative review, there were at least 500 comments on it, most of them telling the reviewer to never review again, their taste was shit, and that they should kill themselves LOL.

This movie is going to leave people divided, and invariably draw comparisons to Michael Bay. It's not hard to see why. Whedon and Marvel are trying to make the films act like comic books; long, tied in sequences that require a lot of commitment in order to truly understand characters and plots. As a stand-alone piece, Avengers is basically just going to be a Michael Bay movie: lots of explosions, one liners, and zero character development.

3/5 isn't a bad score...Geeze, what happened to score systems? Maybe they were just flawed from the beginning. Anyway, there are likely going to be a lot of other negative reviews and harsh critiques before all is said and done. What matters is how much money it brings in and based on what I've seen so far (toys, games, books, etc) Avengers will have to be a Green Lantern sized bomb to truly fail.

Mortai Gravesend:

DarkRyter:
How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

Well if I got 60% on a test that would be considered an F.

Edit: I'd get a D. 59% and less is an F. My mistake. Not a large one, but I dislike spreading misinformation.

Really? Wow, at my old high school a 69 was an F, we had no D grade. That mentality has stuck with me to this day.

Ive found that movies over 60% on rotten tomatoes are usually worth seeing so this is not that bad.

Mortai Gravesend:

I just logged back on to find 2 people had quoted me taking me at my word after I'd realized I was wrong to the first person I was talking to XP

To be fair, it varies by school system from state to state it seems. People look at me funny when I say a 90 was an A-, because to them it was a B+ or just a B. My mom was convinced that I'd failed a class because I scraped through with a 62, and she thought 65 was the cutoff for a D because that was the way her school had done it.

So I wasn't going to bust your hump anyway. Just amused that you managed to edit it in time. ;)

re. My point was kind of that over 50% isn't necessarily what people are shooting for, or should be shooting for.

But 3/5 does seem decent. Not spectacular, but decent enough to watch. But maybe just on TV >__>

Well, yeah. It's not what they're shooting for, but as far as a bad review goes, this number is pretty mild.

Granted, I'm really pulling for this to not suck.

DeadFOAM:

Mortai Gravesend:

DarkRyter:
How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

Well if I got 60% on a test that would be considered an F.

Edit: I'd get a D. 59% and less is an F. My mistake. Not a large one, but I dislike spreading misinformation.

Really? Wow, at my old high school a 69 was an F, we had no D grade. That mentality has stuck with me to this day.

Well I'm not in high school, I'm in university. And it's a tad more flexible, but a D grade does exist.

But personally I view less than a C as a failure for me. And a C makes me unhappy anyway.

Zachary Amaranth:

Mortai Gravesend:

I just logged back on to find 2 people had quoted me taking me at my word after I'd realized I was wrong to the first person I was talking to XP

To be fair, it varies by school system from state to state it seems. People look at me funny when I say a 90 was an A-, because to them it was a B+ or just a B. My mom was convinced that I'd failed a class because I scraped through with a 62, and she thought 65 was the cutoff for a D because that was the way her school had done it.

So I wasn't going to bust your hump anyway. Just amused that you managed to edit it in time. ;)

True, it does vary. I'm surprised by the amount of replies that comment has generated though XD

re. My point was kind of that over 50% isn't necessarily what people are shooting for, or should be shooting for.

But 3/5 does seem decent. Not spectacular, but decent enough to watch. But maybe just on TV >__>

Well, yeah. It's not what they're shooting for, but as far as a bad review goes, this number is pretty mild.

Granted, I'm really pulling for this to not suck.

Agreed, it is.

Personally I'll just go see it anyway and see what I think myself. If I get it in my head I plan to see something I'll probably just go ahead and do it regardless of what the reviews say.

Mortai Gravesend:

True, it does vary. I'm surprised by the amount of replies that comment has generated though XD

Yeah. It's actually kind of cool, really.

Agreed, it is.

Personally I'll just go see it anyway and see what I think myself. If I get it in my head I plan to see something I'll probably just go ahead and do it regardless of what the reviews say.

I like aggregate sites because they can give a broad spectrum of opinions and criticism. But I was going to watch the Avengers anyway, so it's not going to influence me. Even if they all said it sucked, I've been waiting years for this.

So I'm with you on this.

This review WAS kinda stupid, though. No catching you up? The last three or four movies as homework? This is EXACTLY what it was building to. Still, I've never sweated the bad reviews. I like Dynasty Warriors and think Kingdoms of Amalur is more fun that the better rated Skyrim. It's okay to not like what I like.

kman123:
My God...who cares? It still hasn't been released in America yet so I expect a lot more rotten reviews. Armond White to the rescue!

Armond White's reviews no longer get put on Rotten Tomatoes. So unless you actually go seek it out -- and he really has no incentive to review The Avengers anyway -- you won't be seeing it.

24 Fresh ratings, one Rotten rating. Which was still 3/5.

All complaints about it are invalid.

Zachary Amaranth:

Mortai Gravesend:

True, it does vary. I'm surprised by the amount of replies that comment has generated though XD

Yeah. It's actually kind of cool, really.

Agreed. I'm surprised, but it's interesting to see what kind of replies it got.

Agreed, it is.

Personally I'll just go see it anyway and see what I think myself. If I get it in my head I plan to see something I'll probably just go ahead and do it regardless of what the reviews say.

I like aggregate sites because they can give a broad spectrum of opinions and criticism. But I was going to watch the Avengers anyway, so it's not going to influence me. Even if they all said it sucked, I've been waiting years for this.

So I'm with you on this.

This review WAS kinda stupid, though. No catching you up? The last three or four movies as homework? This is EXACTLY what it was building to. Still, I've never sweated the bad reviews. I like Dynasty Warriors and think Kingdoms of Amalur is more fun that the better rated Skyrim. It's okay to not like what I like.

Heh, yeah. This movie is pretty much meant for people who saw all the others. It isn't really a standalone and I don't see a problem with that. Might as well complain that The Return of the King makes no sense without watching the previous two. Not quite the same, but close enough I think. Movies that require others for context aren't something new, this one's just somewhat different.

Alas, I didn't get Kingdoms of Amalur. I might try it though. Was tempted to.

Well, maybe it was overhyped to the point where it couldn't possibl-

JackandTom:
compares the work of Joss Whedon on The Avengers to Michael Bay.

DESTROY THE BLASPHEMER!

Yeah...I'll wait for more reviews before I pass judgement, particularly from empire magazine, who I usually feel I can trust.

Now, if you excuse me, I have a gorram no good heretic to destroy...

Oh, and by the way, I agree with the point people have bought up about the other movies developing the characters. Usually, you shouldn't HAVE to see the previous films for a follow up to make sense, but we have seven main characters here. To develop them all to the level that they really should be in one film and then carry on with the rest of the plot would be ridiculous.

viranimus:
Yes Im sorry, but to me, I see that as being much worse and more illogical. Basically that sort of grading structure puts 50% or better as passable. Really in what area of life do you want someone who was only able to complete or comprehend half of what they were taught? When I went to school, a C Started at 75, but they lowered it because the general population is in fact (despite what this generation wants to convince you of) getting dumber. 75 makes more sense, Being able to comprehend 3/4ths of what you have been taught as being passable is much more reassuring than 50%

A-Levels aren't marked based solely on knowledge though, at least mine aren't. For my history course you need to know what you're talking about to get an E (lowest grade) and you need to be able to write a convincing essay with absolutely no narrative. There's indicative content that we need to cover for all areas of grades then we have to hit the essay writing abilities to get anything worth putting into UCAS. Aside from the marking system we have to do a massive jump from GCSEs to essentially university level syllabus. If you do biology at A-level you've essentially completed part of the course for university because it's just repeated. To ask any student for 75% of a university course straight after winging their GCSEs (which is entirely possible, most of my grades were Bs without revision) would be madness, especially when the only purpose is to prove you're capable of going to uni, I imagine an American test is entirely knowledge based and not quite as difficult as an A-level but I couldn't know that without trying both out. Look at me trying to validate myself, I feel like I'm 14 again.

Giftfromme:
I love how the review has 147 comments. When The Dark Knight got its first negative review, there were at least 500 comments on it, most of them telling the reviewer to never review again, their taste was shit, and that they should kill themselves LOL.

I still fondly remember "THIS REVIEWER HAS NO CREDIBILITY AND SHOULD DIE!!"

Sorry for being slightly off topic, but I'd just like to complain a bit.
It seems like they're only releasing it in 3D (in theaters) in my country, how shitty is that.

viranimus:

The Unworthy Gentleman:

If I got 60% that would be a C. I'd get a U (English A-level equivalent of an F) if I got less than less than 40%. Your test system is botched as fuck dude. That said, our grade depends on the overall performance curve so there's a decent spread of fuck ups and smart people, regardless of how well you actually do.

Yes Im sorry, but to me, I see that as being much worse and more illogical. Basically that sort of grading structure puts 50% or better as passable. Really in what area of life do you want someone who was only able to complete or comprehend half of what they were taught? When I went to school, a C Started at 75, but they lowered it because the general population is in fact (despite what this generation wants to convince you of) getting dumber. 75 makes more sense, Being able to comprehend 3/4ths of what you have been taught as being passable is much more reassuring than 50%

Because in Ireland the UK test are completely different. Also just because it is done one way somewhere it doesn't have to be done all ways everywhere as there are different standards for different countries. As what is a 75% in one American school could only be a 55% in an Irish school. Still the same grade though.

OT: That is not something I would ever call a negative review.

I love all of this talk on the number grade being positive or negative by equating it to grades in school. Really? Is this really a conversation worth having? Read the review. It's fairly positive. There we go. Mystery solved. You're welcome. One more small sentence. Okay I'm done.

Woodsey:

Mortai Gravesend:

DarkRyter:
How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

Well if I got 60% on a test that would be considered an F.

... Well that explains people's aversion to anything with less than an 8/10 or so.

OT: Oh well. Read a review earlier which said it was great; if she's calling Nick Fury Nick Frost then she obviously has little interest in it.

I am now imagining Nick Frost and Simon Pegg's next movie and IT IS GLORIOUS!

Fuck rottentomatoes.

I admit a very small part of me that thrives entirely on schadenfreude wants the Avengers to be terrible if only to teach MovieBob a lesson in complacency.

Mortai Gravesend:

Heh, yeah. This movie is pretty much meant for people who saw all the others. It isn't really a standalone and I don't see a problem with that. Might as well complain that The Return of the King makes no sense without watching the previous two. Not quite the same, but close enough I think. Movies that require others for context aren't something new, this one's just somewhat different.

Alas, I didn't get Kingdoms of Amalur. I might try it though. Was tempted to.

Star Wars may be the better parallel, since it's still technically "epic," but it's also sort of a B-movie deal. Closest sort of thing I can come to a comic book movie. I mean, without context, Jedi seems a bit flat.

Technically, any trilogy will work. This isn't a trilogy per se, but the same rules of build up should apply.

Personally, I feel a bit insulted by how much TV shows recap at the beginning of episodes. It started with crucial info or stuff from way back, but now it's "Hey guys, we know you have the attention span of a goldfish, so here's the last four seasons in a nutshell."

Not everything needs a recap. Not everything needs to be absolutely casual friendly. And I think this is one of them. I can't imagine people going into this movie not having watched the other Marvel movies. At least not in a significant number.

A tangent, but the Simpsons parodied this sort of stuff like, fifteen years ago. It's funny how it's sort of come true.

Looking at the 96% on rotten tomatoes, I don't think it's worth taking issue with her review. Not that I would, I'm approaching the film with a healthy dose of Skepticism.

 Pages PREV 1 2 3 NEXT

Reply to Thread

This thread is locked