Board 8 > So...Eternals, eh?

(+) Yeah! (+)

Safer_777 posted...

How can this site verifies if you have seen the movie? What you e mail them your ticket or something?

It doesnt.

---

So anyone in any site can rate anything right? Then again it does make sense. I never rate anything so I don't know.

---

I mean you typically have to have an account with the site at least. But otherwise yeah I believe that is how it works for non-critics scores.

---

Tbh all of the review aggregators are fairly bad about this. Reviews are at their most helpful when you can read and understand an honest reviewer's thoughts. Even for reviews you hate, it's helpful to understand what I like and dislike. The aggregators just obscure all that, and also result in a bunch of pointless nothing reviews being published that are more about getting the website on to the aggregator than an actual reviewer's opinion.

RT actually ends up being the best imo because fresh/rotten has a different purpose from normal reviewing and serves as a quick and dirty watchability rating. But I think the distinction between "critics vs audience" is a distraction. Yeah there's some interesting info to take from it but as Lightning Strikes points out, a lot of details are largely down to the weird quirks of these internet databases and the users on them.

---

Maniac64 posted...

It doesnt.

No, they changed that in 2019 and added a verification system to stop review bombing. You have to show your ticket via Fandango (who own RT). Thats why it now says X verified ratings under the audience score as a default. You can still see the total audience score with a toggle, but it is no longer the default.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/introducing-verified-audience-score/

---

I think Metacritic is better if you go to few movies and only go to great movies and RT is better if it's Friday and you want to go to the movies TBH

---

So you really send your ticket via e mail. So it makes sense. But still you can rate without this so yeah. Okay.

---

tbf my decision to see a movie, at least a new release... I don't think has ever been decided by reviews

but i only really go to supes and dragon ball z anyways so

---

It's rare for reviews to dissuade me from seeing a movie I'm interested in, but anything scoring an 80 or higher on Metacritic becomes a must-see for me (plus anything that sounds even a bit interesting in the 70-79 range). So, I find it more useful for finding things I might overlook due to a lack of advertising.

---

GuessMyUserName posted...

tbf my decision to see a movie, at least a new release... I don't think has ever been decided by reviews

but i only really go to supes and dragon ball z anyways so

Did you see Dragon Ball Evolution in theaters?
---

okay not that one, i pretty much refer to seeing Broly and that's the only non-supe I can remember going to the theatres for in ages

tbf I always thought it was one of those straight to DVD releases... yeah I'm really not a big movie goer

---

CasanovaZelos posted...

It's rare for reviews to dissuade me from seeing a movie I'm interested in, but anything scoring an 80 or higher on Metacritic becomes a must-see for me (plus anything that sounds even a bit interesting in the 70-79 range). So, I find it more useful for finding things I might overlook due to a lack of advertising.

This I think is the power of metacritic

For instance I saw the Green knight because of its metacritic even thought it is polarizing and got a kick out of it. Never would have seen it if I just saw its whatever RT score

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

No, they changed that in 2019 and added a verification system to stop review bombing. You have to show your ticket via Fandango (who own RT). Thats why it now says X verified ratings under the audience score as a default. You can still see the total audience score with a toggle, but it is no longer the default.

https://editorial.rottentomatoes.com/article/introducing-verified-audience-score/

I did not know that. Cool.

---

Out of curiosity, I looked at the score for Venom: Let There Be Carnage, and that is at 61%, 1 point higher than Eternals. After the dreadful reviews the first film got, who would have thought the sequel would score (barely) higher than an MCU film? I'm surprised because I thought the days of any MCU film scoring below the high 70s at a minimum were long gone.

GavsEvans123 posted...

Out of curiosity, I looked at the score for Venom: Let There Be Carnage, and that is at 61%, 1 point higher than Eternals. After the dreadful reviews the first film got, who would have thought the sequel would score (barely) higher than an MCU film? I'm surprised because I thought the days of any MCU film scoring below the high 70s at a minimum were long gone.

Yet on Metacritic, Eternals is at a 55 and Venom: LTBC is at a 48. Even on Rotten Tomatoes, it's a 5.9 average to a 5.5 average. So, a slightly larger group of people liked Venom 2 more, but the people who liked Eternals liked it more.

---

I think rotten tomatoes is often a useful indicator, but in a case like this - there may be valid reasons why the reviews are mixed but that doesn't mean it's a bad movie or you won't like it.

I'm definitely seeing both ends of "it's too much the same " and "it didn't follow the winning formula and sucks". so does this mean they actually did something unique and interesting outside of the standard MCU formula and that caused it to not hit with the reviewers as much, but will still be a hit with most people who love super hero movies and are *looking* for something to shake it up?

Or does it mean it sticks to the formula in the worst ways while doing a bunch of weird shit that doesn't make any sense?

Can't know what it is until people start seeing it. But I don't think the current review trend is at all telling me "this is a bad movie, don't bother".

---

I've been trying to guess what went wrong and I don't think it's going to be a mismatch of director and studio as much as this specific narrative clashing with Zhao's style. The Rider and Nomadland are both intimate portraits of a single person, and her lingering shots of nature reinforce their introspection. She doesn't really have experience with a bigger scale, and I'm wondering why she wasn't paired with a lone hero with reason to brood. She should have been directing the MCU's equivalent to Logan instead of a group venture.

---

I agree, this is extremely different from Zhaos other works beyond just the fact that it is a superhero story. Even in terms of tone and style, she was on Kermode and Mayo talking about taking inspiration from anime and thats an entirely different stylistic realm from Nomadland and The Rider. Its a fairly big shift from her earlier work.

On the other hand, Marvel have films with first time blockbuster directors of significantly lesser stature, and this was a passion project for Zhao (she approached Marvel with this) so sometimes it just doesnt hit even though it should on paper.

---

Lightning Strikes posted...

On the other hand, Marvel have films with first time blockbuster directors of significantly lesser stature,

yeah, james gunn's style is all over guardians of the galaxy and taika waititi's style is all over thor: ragnarok and people love the shit out of those movies, so... seems like it just didn't work in this case. maybe zhao just isn't good at directing an ensemble picture, like casanova said.

but i'll withhold judgment on eternals until i see it!

---

Mr Lasastryke posted...

yeah, james gunn's style is all over guardians of the galaxy and taika waititi's style is all over thor: ragnarok and people love the shit out of those movies, so... seems like it just didn't work in this case. maybe zhao just isn't good at directing an ensemble picture, like casanova said.

but i'll withhold judgment on eternals until i see it!

This pretty much sums up my perception of the issue as well.

---

It just seems so bland

Well I just want to see the audience score. From what I have seen so far Eternals is the only MCU movie that has a Critic Rotten Score and Captain Marvel is the only MCU movie that has a Rotten Audience Score.

---

Audience score for blockbuster movies completely died with Rise of Skywalker. Literally no way to recover from that sitting at an 84%.

Also I didn't realize this had crashed to a 53%, ouch.

---

wooof

---

@UshiromiyaEva You are correct. NO WAY a Star Wars Fan gives Rise an 8.5 out of 10. These have to be paid or something. I have seen only the 9 movies but the 9th one is the worst by far. And the SW fans that know a lot more there is no way that they liked it. No.

---

Glad we agree.

---

i mean, that score doesn't translate to an 8.5/10. it just means 85% of the people who voted thought it was at least passable, which could also mean 5.5/10.

that being said, RoS is a bad movie and it's not passable, so that doesn't make it much better.

---

And Captain Marvels audience score got bombarded by trolls mad about women existing, which is the whole reason that they brought in verification at all.

As for Rise of Skywalker, yes I do believe that 84% of paying audiences who wanted to score it on RT specifically said they enjoyed it the first time they saw it. Thats why audience scores are unreliable as to quality. Furthermore it is also why critics are mecessary.

---

Down to 51 critical but sitting at an 86 audience.

Spite anti-bomb again it seems.

Although most people seeing Eternals day 1 after this reception probably went in with their mind made up anyways, so will likely balance out a bit.

---

lowered expectations can never hurt

well, until expectations are risen with hope

---

Movie beated

Enjoyed it, but its basically just one big lore dump with a few action scenes thrown in.

Those sure were some postcredits though

---

I did not care for it. I kept my expectations low and just tried to enjoy what it had to offer. But even so the pacing and dialogue and exposition just felt clumsy and unpolished. The character moments (such as they were) just largely fell flat. I came out of it wondering if I should be blaming the writer or the director for the bad pacing only to find out it was the same person.

I really wanted it to be better.

Everything with Kumail Nanjiani was fantastic, though. (except of course his bizarre absence from the climax of the movie)

---

I don't know if it was just due to low expectations but holy shit I fucking loved it

---

It is a Marvel movie. There are no bad ones,

---

What.

There are plenty of bad ones.

---

I'd agree with the thought that there are no "bad" ones. There are meh/disappointing ones, but when you have actual bad movies to compare them to, like the majority of DC movies, they're not so bad.

---

I wouldn't give any MCU movie a score lower than 7 (or higher than 9). They're very consistent.
---

There are no MCU movies I'd just outright refuse to rewatch

---

StealThisSheen posted...

I'd agree with the thought that there are no "bad" ones. There are meh/disappointing ones, but when you have actual bad movies to compare them to, like the majority of DC movies, they're not so bad.

Most bad DC is more engaging than Thor 2, come on.

I consider boring worse than bad, though. Nothing is worse than mediocrity. At least let me meme on something.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Most bad DC is more engaging than Thor 2, come on.

Yeah, I don't agree with this in the slightest, so we'll have to agree to disagree. Most bad DC is so bad I never want to watch it again. Thor 2 ain't that.

There are a million things to meme on, I'd rather not waste two hours of watching crap just to meme.

---

UshiromiyaEva posted...

Most bad DC is more engaging than Thor 2, come on.

LMAO no.

My scale for enjoying a movie is like a checkmark.

At the far left is the top of small side of the check, on the absolute worst movies, and you've got the so bad it's good factors. Then it plummets down to the bottom of the check right at mediocrity and slightly below, the movies that aren't offensively bad but just offer NOTHING, they aren't entertainingly bad but they have nothing of any actual value to speak of either. This is my Thor 2...and Ant-Man, but I don't like Paul Rudd in the slightest to begin with. To be fair, this is ALSO where Batman v Superman is, but for different reasons. Some movie can just offend me at my core. After that it's just a normal, linear rise up in quality.

Nothing is worse than a boring movie.

---

Never understood the concept of so bad it's good. No, it's just bad.

Thor 2 is better than people give it credit for anyway!

And that's a totally fair stance! Some people can't sit through Double Down, I get it.

---

Every Loki scene in Thor 2 is great. There's some real nice visuals too.
---

honestly every single time I think of Thor 2 the picture that comes to my head is Thor hammering in those uh metal crutches

I think that's around the point I start waking up from my nap

---

Thor 2 is definitely over-hated. My hot take is that Dr. Strange is the worst Marvel movie but I seem to be the only one of that mindset.

---

At a minimum, Iron Man 2 and Incredible Hulk are worse than Thor 2.

---

Dark World has Loki, which gives it a leg up over actual bad movies.

---

i would agree that there are no bad MCU movies.

that being said, i still need to see black widow.

---