Captain Marvel, DC or MCU?
POSTED BY: JEWELSTAITEFAN
UPDATED: Friday, November 15, 2019 06:17
VIEWED: 17522
PAGE 9 of 16
Critic Rating for Captain Marvel falls overnight to 79% after 54,000 user reviews were deleted and spam bots giving the same review have pushed the Audience Score to 51% (18,747 user reviews) from a low of 31% (with 58,000+ reviews before the purge).
https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/captain_marvel/
If you click on "More Info" under the ratings scores at Rotten Tomatoes, you can filter only "Top Critics", which removes garbage tier website critic reviews and only leaves reviews from Legacy Media (43 reviewers, vs 329 reviewers). This lowers the Critic score to 65%, which matches Metacritic's current score of 65 (with 52 reviewers).
https://www.metacritic.com/movie/captain-marvel?ref=hp
Current user score at Metacritic stands at 2.8 out of 10, with 312 positive reviews, 148 mixed reviews, and 1,170 negative reviews.
IMDB current rank is 6.8 out of 10, with 62,054 reviews.
https://www.imdb.com/title/tt4154664/ratings?ref_=tt_ov_rt
Compared to other superhero movies, there is a ridiculous amount of 1 and 10 star ratings for this movie. We all know that it's no 10-star Citizen Kane, although there are 12,756 people who disagree (20.6% of the reviews). We also know that it couldn't possibly be worse than Leprechaun in the Hood either, so it deserves more than 1 star, which nearly 9,677 gave it (15.6% of reviews).
I'd say it's probably a good assumption to make that about 1/3 of the people voting here are fringe wackadoos from either side, so if you remove all 10 star and 1 star reviews you're left with 39,621 people out of 62,054.
So... how do we get the results for that?
Quote:
How do you average survey results?
In order to correctly calculate the average overall response to each question, we need to:
Multiply the number of individuals selecting each rating by the corresponding rating value (1 – 5)
Add the results of those calculations together.
Divide that result by the total number of responses to the question.
Okay... So we removed all 10's and 1's and all of the users who voted either of those numbers and were left with a total of 39,621.
10 = 0 x 10 = 0
9 = 5,632 x 9 = 50,688
8 = 11,026 x 8 = 88,208
7 = 11,057 x 7 = 77,399
6 = 5,222 x 6 = 31,322
5 = 2,313 x 5 = 11,565
4 = 1,434 x 4 = 5,736
3 = 1,242 x 3 = 3,726
2 = 1,695 x 2 = 3,390
1 = 0 x 1 = 0
Total pts: 272,034
/
Total counted users: 39,621
NEW Legit(?) score: 6.8
...
Huh... lol.
What did we learn here kiddies?
That's right! Repeat after me...
There's enough fringe wackadoos on either side to cancel each other out.
Sounds about right when you look at how crappy 24 hour news networks nightly ratings are and compare it to all the flibberdigibbits posting about what the talking heads on their side told them to think the previous night.
So you've got 68 for users on IMDB with either metric, 65 from legitimate critics on both Rotten Tomatoes Top Critics and Metacritic. 27 from users on Metacritic and 51 from users on Rotten Tomatoes, currently.
Though I'm really tempted to take all 5 of those ratings, combine them, then divide them by 5 to come up with a score of (55/F) for Captain Marvel, I won't do that because I'd be opening myself up to having to do that math and research for countless other movies we've brought up here as well. (Feel free if you'd like to though).
As we can see from the lists above, Comic Book movies seem to have some unique position these days in the Sci-Fi sector of movies. Though unless extremely agenda driven with reviews giving them Oscar caliber status (see: Black Panther), they generally still tend to fare more favorably than other non-"Universe" Sci-Fi/Fantasy properties that aren't owned by Disney or Warner Bros.
All that being said, what do you think? Does Captain Marvel deserve a 65 rating that critics currently give it?
That 65 certainly puts it on the low end of comic book movies, and b
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Carol Danvers had $20M Thursday, and $40M Friday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Certainly not on pace to match initial estimates of a $180 Million first weekend take, but probably going to beat the pared back expectations of as little as $80 Million after Brie couldn't keep her mouth shut.
I wonder how much Rotten Tomatoes meddling helped with the box office score for the first weekend, and if it will hurt RT in the long term.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Do you believe SJWs are not gullible dolt lemmings who do what they are told?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Certainly not on pace to match initial estimates of a $180 Million first weekend take, but probably going to beat the pared back expectations of as little as $80 Million after Brie couldn't keep her mouth shut.
I wonder how much Rotten Tomatoes meddling helped with the box office score for the first weekend, and if it will hurt RT in the long term.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Do you believe SJWs are not gullible dolt lemmings who do what they are told?
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
Certainly not on pace to match initial estimates of a $180 Million first weekend take, but probably going to beat the pared back expectations of as little as $80 Million after Brie couldn't keep her mouth shut.
I wonder how much Rotten Tomatoes meddling helped with the box office score for the first weekend, and if it will hurt RT in the long term.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Why would you say that? That's exactly what they are.
What I'm saying is that SJW's don't actually enjoy any of the media they're attempting to destroy. They are incapable of having any fun and their goal is to make sure that everybody else is just as miserable as they are.
If this movie does even reasonably well, it's because the media successfully hid all the bullshit around it long enough from the normies to get their big opening weekend.
Either way, I suspect that there will be a huge dropoff in the money it makes after this weekend, and a lot of fans will feel betrayed if they walk out believing that after 10 years of watching MCU movies they're trying to shoehorn in Carl Manvers to be the Deus Ex Machina.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Generally speaking, potential Pilots are assessed regarding their flying aptitude.
Originally posted by 6IXSTRINGJACK:
I've never been up in the air in a hot air balloon. I know absolutely nothing about it.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
Not so hot, you get helicopters. Rotary wing.
Better, you get cargo planes, like C-130, C-5, etc. Fixed wings.
Better, you get assigned to Bombers. Fixed wings, but more finesse than cargo.
The best, you get assigned Fighter Jets to Pilot. Categorized as Fixed wing, but can be Delta wing (extended for subsonic flight and landing, tucked in for supersonic flight in Interceptor mode).
Fighter Jets do mid-air combat against other aircraft, dogfights. If Bombers or Cargo birds have air-to-air weaponry, it is really only defensive.
In Top Gun, it was all about Dog-Fighting. In the F-14 Tomcat Delta wing fighter.
In Dog-Fighting, it is all about the superior performance of the bird and Pilot. The Pilot who can pull tighter Gs in a turn can prevent the enemy behind from achieving Missile-Lock on him, and also can achieve Missile-Lock on the enemy when pursuing. The Pilot with the better performance is usually the winner and lives for another fight. The second-best performance of the 2 combatants will lose, ending their flight, usually their plane, and often their life.
So the ability to pull Gs is critical. Pulling Gs drains blood from your head, making thought more difficult, but also taking away your vision. Fighter pilots maintain fitness regiments to keep their cardiovascular system adequately supporting their mission, to achieve higher Gs. Most Fighter birds in the world in the 1980s could pull more G's with the airframe uncompromised than the humans in the cockpit could withstand without Loss-of-Consciousness.
Men and women. The center of gravity for human males is in the chest, the torso. The center of gravity for human females is in the hips. This is physiology, despite feminist claims that men and wymmin are exactly the same.
For men, the brain is about a foot above the heart, and the center of blood pool. For women, the brain is also about a foot above the heart (pump), but more like 2-3 feet from the center of blood pool, which is where the heart is accustomed to pumping the majority of the blood. This is a distinct disadvantage in the skills, abilities, performance of a Fighter Pilot, for women compared to men.
In a contest where one wins and lives, and the 2nd place combatant dies. In the 1980s, guess how many Air Wings in the World had female Fighter Pilots. In the 1990s, guess how many Nations in the World had Female Fighter Pilots. So every single enemy combatant of the female Fighter Pilot would be a male, requiring less effort to achieve superior performance and defeat the female.
SJWs should petition to have combat be an equal opportunity experience, as I'm sure all Agressor Nations would comply.
Also, for every female filling a Fighter Pilot Seat, another male is not filling that Seat. If you were staffing your Combat Unit for War, would you logically select the lesser capable individuals, so that your Unit and all its assets will lose? Instead of selecting all of the most capable, the most competent combatants available?
So, is "Elite Female Fighter Pilots" a joke? Let along an entire Squadron of them?
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Estimated $53M Saturday.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Carol Danvers had $20M Thursday, and $40M Friday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
I didn't know any of that. Sounds sound.
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
SJWs should petition to have combat be an equal opportunity experience, as I'm sure all Agressor Nations would comply.
That made me chuckle.
Quote:
Also, for every female filling a Fighter Pilot Seat, another male is not filling that Seat. If you were staffing your Combat Unit for War, would you logically select the lesser capable individuals, so that your Unit and all its assets will lose? Instead of selecting all of the most capable, the most competent combatants available?
So, is "Elite Female Fighter Pilots" a joke? Let along an entire Squadron of them?
Well, that's just the thing man. The way things have been going, if they don't turn around, I could definately see legal pushes for equal representation of female fighter pilots, even if everything you said about center of gravity was the absolute truth.
If that is, truly, cold hard science... They're just going to say that was the Patriarchy that designed the planes and demand that an entire new line of fighter jets be made to work for women. Maybe they'll even paint them pink and then bitch that they cost twice as much to make as the men's version does.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
$153M over the weekend domestically. Has anyone here even seen the movie? Just curious. I didn't, was busy seeing Alita a second time, and then family stuff - kept me busy over the weekend.
SGG
Quote:
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:Quote:Estimated $53M Saturday.
Originally posted by JEWELSTAITEFAN:
Carol Danvers had $20M Thursday, and $40M Friday.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Nick Fury wears an eye patch because of the cat.
Do Right, Be Right. :)
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME