This getting mixed reviews = Final nail in the coffin for MCU - Deadpool & Wolverine (2024) Discussion

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 4 months ago

What!!! Lol reviews are mostly positive and the box office opening is tracking at huge numbers, this post will age badly.

reply

[–] pumpspunk (170) 4 months ago

it is getting pretty mediocre reviews, though. has a 54 rating on metacritic. 42% of reviews are mixed, 11% are negative. those are pretty weak numbers. the last thor movie had a higher metacritic rating (57).

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 4 months ago

81% rotten tomatoes, that's very good

reply

[–] pumpspunk (170) 4 months ago

it's ok. on the higher side of middling. that's a function of how rt calculates its score, in how it lumps really positive ratings in with wan, so-so but passing ratings to get you to a rt score.

i think the metacritic avg or the top critics avg score is more useful.

right now the rt top critic % is 64, & the average rating is 6/10.

which is ok. it's not a disaster. no one's calling it madame web. but they're not glowing numbers either.

reply

[–] Techto (1295) 4 months ago

the last thor movie had a higher metacritic rating

Ouch.

reply

[–] Headspace928377 (609) 4 months ago

54 on Metacritic is not positive lol

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 4 months ago

to say though that this is the final nail in the coffin for MCU is absolutely embarrassingly laughable , do you not feel a bit stupid saying that lol

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 3 months ago

MCU SUCKS. it's become one big stupid comedy and this movie just sinks it further. Complete stupid film. Just because Deadpool fannerds are rating it high or went out to see it doesn't mean the general audience likes this silly shit. MCU ilhas a few nails left and thats it. 😂

Silly crap like this is why I stopped reading comics. With Thor Love and thunder, She Hulk and now this pile of steaming shit. ....The MCU is just about done. They have destroyed the Tone that was set with Iron man.

reply

[–] furiousstyles (4391) 3 months ago

Lol you couldn't be more wrong with this statement - The MCU is just about done, Deadpool and Wolverine was a huge smash critically and financially , it was wonderfully entertaining, granted there have been a few movies and shows of late that have been below par, but then there has been some smash hits like Dr Strange, Scarlett Witch, Shang Chi, and the future looks great with Fantastic 4, Avengers and X Men, cheer up :)

reply

[–] Galactus03 (4373) 3 months ago

Dude no one doubted that it would make money. But it was nerds like you that just had to see Jackman play (a lesser version) Wolverine again. It's the only reason you went. I unfortunately was dragged by a friend and he kept saying. It's not what you think. BS it wasn't. It was stupid and childish. I'm tired of this Green Acres type of Comedy in the MCU. I love Green Acres but it's brand of comedy doesnt belong here.

Thankfully Hugh is done with this shit.

reply

[–] Ratman (138) 4 months ago

I'll wait to judge it myself. Will likely be the last MCU thing I will ever watch anyway.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 months ago

Why the last one? The upcoming Fantastic Four film intrigues me, and I have to believe those two Avengers films will be solid. The others I'm less sold on, but then I've been pleasantly surprised before by Marvel films I expected wouldn't be very good.

reply

[–] BKB (9880) 4 months ago

DEADPOOL was basically a one hit wonder when it came to the juvenile jokes in the movie, but after awhile, the same break down the 4th Wall jokes grow tiresome

reply

[–] spage (40) 4 months ago

Quite frankly, stupid posts like yours get tiresome.

reply

[–] BKB (9880) 4 months ago

Cry harder 🤔

reply

[–] spage (40) 4 months ago

Try harder getting less upset with my post.

reply

[–] BKB (9880) 4 months ago

Why would I care about your post much less this movie which will be on Streaming in probably 2 weeks??

reply

[–] spage (40) 4 months ago

Why? Because you have replied twice already, I've got you in the palm of my hand and you know it.

reply

[–] BKB (9880) 4 months ago

You have my Big Dick in the palm of your hand Gen Z

reply

[–] spage (40) 4 months ago

It only looks big because I have small hands.

Which generation is Gen Z? I can't be bothered to Google it, help us out...

reply

[–] LanceDance (1298) 4 months ago

I’m surprised there’s still people that take critic reviews seriously.

More often than not, the user score is the only one that matters.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 months ago

I find the user score to be the least useful of all. Even if it weren't easily manipulated, it still doesn't tell me anything of value. At least the opinions of critics are coming from people with some level of knowledge about film. There may be some whose opinions aren't particularly valuable, but overall the opinion of 100 critics is going to tell me a lot more about a film than that of 100 random people, or 1 random guy who rated the film 100 times.

reply

[–] LanceDance (1298) 4 months ago

Critics these days don’t know about movies anymore than regular audiences do. Anyone can review a movie, you don’t need a degree for that. Most important of all, audiences are less likely to shill over a movie than a critic or YouTube content creator.

reply

[–] pumpspunk (170) 4 months ago

metacritic does a good job on that front - they only aggregate scores from professional critics from reputable papers & sites - you don't get any of those youtube armchair critics on that site. that's one of the reasons i think it's much more useful than rotten tomatoes.

you can get an approximation of that by using the 'top critics' option on rt.

reply

[–] asom (6824) 4 months ago

The problem:
if 100 critics rate the movie "positive" and "mediocre IS positive" that would make the RT 100%. For a rather mediocre movie.

And the critics are easier manipulated and paid, I would rather trust a honest opinion of some ignorant dumb fuck than the opinion of a paid shill.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

>There may be some whose opinions aren't particularly valuable, but overall the opinion of 100 critics is going to tell me a lot more about a film than that of 100 random people, or 1 random guy who rated the film 100 times.

It's more 100 critics vs. 60,000 users.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 months ago

But the results are shown as a percentage, so it's the same thing. My point is that when you limit responses to a small pool of professionals, you at least know what you're getting. When the pool is open to anyone, and savvy people can hop in thousands of times, the resulting percentage has minimal value.

I don't always agree with individual critics, but I do find that the aggregate critical score tends to better mirror a film's quality than does the audience score. There are exceptions to that, no doubt, which is why one must pay attention and make up one's own mind, but as a general rule it holds true far more often than not.

reply

[–] pumpspunk (170) 4 months ago

if you want a true audience response, i think the only really trustworthy outlet is cinemascore, who actually poll people as they leave theatres.

that said, rotten tomatoes only allows movie ratings from people who've verified that they've bought a ticket now, don't they?

so at least you can be fairly certain that, if there's an audience rating, they've seen the movie.

you can't say that about tv shows, mind you.

personally, if i want to get a feel for audience response, i just go to letterboxd. it has a wide range of users, but it isn't polluted the way i think imdb is with people who are committed to moving the rating of a movie.

& i use metacritic to get a feel for the critic response. i think the metacritic rating is more useful generally than rt scores - though the rt top critic average rating is pretty similar to the metacritic number generally.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 months ago

I agree that Cinemascore is the most accurate fan rating system. It's not perfect, but the best we have.

Rotten Tomatoes will let anyone rate a film. For awhile they had a way to link to a couple major theater chain's web pages where you could verify you bought a ticket, but only if you bought one online from a major chain. If you did verify it, your review got marked as verified, but that's all. Anyone can still rate a film as many times as they have accounts.

Letterboxd is also a good way to gauge the overall response to a film, though most people aren't on Letterboxd, and haven't even heard of it, so you're seeing results from a very narrow demographic. It's a bit like looking to Reddit to get a sense of the political pulse of the country, though not as drastic.

For me at least, I'm not terribly interested in what movie-watchers think, as my tastes rarely mirror the mainstream. I like reading what critics say, because they bring a depth of knowledge and experience to their opinions that is lacking in a fan rating. Even critics with whom I regularly disagree are helpful in choosing what to watch, as I learn where my opinions differ and where they don't.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

>For me at least, I'm not terribly interested in what movie-watchers think, as my tastes rarely mirror the mainstream. I like reading what critics say, because they bring a depth of knowledge and experience to their opinions that is lacking in a fan rating. Even critics with whom I regularly disagree are helpful in choosing what to watch, as I learn where my opinions differ and where they don't.

Note that in TV, most critics will ignore most non-US TV, meaning you will have to pre-judge if a TV show is worth it by the wider audience reputation.

TV critics have a massive Anglobrain.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 4 months ago

Critics thought that She-Hulk and Ms. Marvel were excellent.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 4 months ago

She-Hulk rates 79% fresh with critics. Ms. Marvel 98%. Those both seem like fair ratings to me. The Ms. Marvel show is great. She-Hulk is a little less my speed, but I can appreciate it for what it is, a light-hearted legal sitcom that happens to feature a She-Hulk.

I haven't watched all of the Disney+ Marvel shows, but the one I like least is Secret Invasion. I just checked RT and see Secret Invasion rates rotten, at 52%. I can't disagree. I didn't enjoy it much at all.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Neither of those shows, Ms. Marvel or She-Hulk have decent fan reputations at all.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 3 months ago

Ms. Marvel is widely considered good. She-Hulk is more of a polarizing, love it or hate it show. That said, the discussion is about the utility of critics' opinions, not the opinions of fans.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

Ms. Marvel has a 6.2 on IMDB. She-Hulk is even worse.

Critics and fans diverge on a reasonable amount these days

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 3 months ago

A film or show's IMDB rating tells you nothing. It's perhaps the most useless way to determine the quality of a film.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

I disagree. IMDB is very useful for me in isolating out shows with serious issues.

It stopped me wasting time with Resident Evil, Cowboy Bebop (live-action), Goodbye Earth and Invasion. Low IMDB ratings are generally a big red flag.

Look at all the highly-rated stuff on there that gets good IMDB ratings - some of it, much of it is acclaimed.

reply

[–] FilmBuff (7234) 3 months ago

I see the IMDB rating as a meaningless number, skewed by bots and boycotters, and people with an agenda, and even at it's best but a ranking by the masses. To put it bluntly, the majority of people are stupid. Mean though that sounds, it's the inarguable truth, so why would I want to know a rating that, at best, has been created from the votes of mostly stupid people, and is more realistically the votes of mostly stupid people combined with votes by bots/people with an agenda? What possible good will that do me?

With critics, you at least know exactly who is rating the film, and you get their reasons for the rating. You can then make your own determination as to what to watch based on that information.

reply

[–] Skavau (15993) 3 months ago

>I see the IMDB rating as a meaningless number, skewed by bots and boycotters, and people with an agenda, and even at it's best but a ranking by the masses.

So you can't look at the rating of Breaking Bad and compare that with the rating of Resident Evil (Netflix) on IMDB and make any conclusions whatsoever?

>To put it bluntly, the majority of people are stupid. Mean though that sounds, it's the inarguable truth, so why would I want to know a rating that, at best, has been created from the votes of mostly stupid people, and is more realistically the votes of mostly stupid people combined with votes by bots/people with an agenda? What possible good will that do me?

So why has it been very useful for me in finding good new shows?

>With critics, you at least know exactly who is rating the film, and you get their reasons for the rating. You can then make your own determination as to what to watch based on that information.

I'll also note that critics mostly ignore non-US content. So there are literally no useful options for people interested in international content to ascertain its general reputation.

reply

[–] Creamofdacrop884 (1684) 4 months ago

Reviews aren't bad, they just aren't as great as I think many were hoping. It has 81% on Rotten Tomatoes with an average score of 7/10. Sounds like it's a good time, just not going to reinvent the MCU as many were hoping.

Either way, this movie will critic proof for the most part and I think unless it was panned by both critics and audiences these reviews won't have an effect on it's performance.

reply

[–] Techto (1295) 4 months ago

Either way, this movie will critic proof...

These days, I think it’s more a question of whether people go to see it in the theater or wait for it to come out on streaming.

reply

[–] Creamofdacrop884 (1684) 4 months ago

Based on tracking, people are going to the theater for this one.

reply

[–] Techto (1295) 4 months ago

Yes, I think it’s only a question of whether it will exceed varying degrees of high expectations.

reply

[–] pumpspunk (170) 4 months ago

it's definitely going to do a lot of business. but if it's not a real crowd-pleaser, it might not stab & swear it's way to a billion the way a lot of people were assuming it would.

word of mouth is a real thing. & critical reception means something too. there are marginal people like me who, if the critic response was through the roof, would be trying to scrounge up a ticket for this weekend instead of thinking 'eh, i can wait...' those marginal people are the difference between a reasonably big hit & shoot the moon success.

reply

[–] Techto (1295) 4 months ago

I like Jackman as Wolverine but the trailers for this film left me cold, so I will wait for it to stream.

reply

[–] Creamofdacrop884 (1684) 4 months ago

I think the big question right now is if it hits a billion or not.

reply

[–] TandyMan (11096) 4 months ago

I'm liking the tone of the reviews. Sounds more like a farewell to what was than saving anything. Not even trying to be a real movie, just an excuse to have one last romp with all our old friends.

reply

[–] ILJtheFirst (2104) 4 months ago

They probably should've made another Guardians of the Galaxy instead of this.

reply

[–] Kowalski (75523) 4 months ago

This getting mixed reviews = Final nail in the coffin for MCU
posted a day ago by Headspace928377 (144)
26 replies | jump to latest
It's over. This was suppose to be the movie to save the MCU and Disney blew it.

😂😂😂😂😂😂

reply