'Captain Marvel' Review Bombers Have Dropped Rotten Tomatoes Audience Rating To Lowest Among MCU Movies (comicbook.com)

An anonymous reader shares a report: The fake Rotten Tomatoes review onslaught continues for Captain Marvel, giving the film the lowest-rating of all Marvel Cinematic Universe movies on the site nearly two weeks ahead of its release. As of this writing, Captain Marvel now has a 28% Audience Rating, a whopping 18 points below the next lowest MCU flick -- 2008's The Incredible Hulk. Starting earlier this week, a certain section of the internet -- for whatever reason -- decided to start filing fake negative reviews in an attempt to purposefully lower the film's Audience Rating.

Comments

Completely FALSE

[ChodaBoyUSA]

These are NOT reviews! This is the Audience "WANT TO SEE" rating, which is completely different. People NOT wanting to see a film, is NOT review bombing. STOP LYING!

Re:Completely FALSE

[ITRambo]

I have no idea why you're being called a Troll. Your comment is 100% factual. The figure represents "Want to see" comments. There is not audience score yet as the movie hasn't been released. I believe it will do okay, like The Last Jedi,. but probably not as well as other Marvel movies unless the story is far more awesome than the previews make it look.

Re:Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

Indeed, but that's a distraction from the issue here. Sites like RT that allow user ratings are easily gamed and apparently there is nothing we can do about it. No-one has managed to filter this kind of thing, the best tools we have are manual intervention or disabling user ratings.

Ironically it almost always backfires. Brands caught on to that when Nike's commercial resulted in immolated trainers but added billions to the company's share price. The backlash to the backlash tends to result in a big net positive.

I'm sure Captain Marvel will do well at the box office, especially now it's generated this type of controversy.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Anubis IV]

Sure, but early off-the-record comments from reviewers for this one have actually been surprisingly positive. I was honestly expecting it to detract from the lead-up to Endgame and I questioned the wisdom in introducing a game-changing character this close to the climax of the story they've been telling for the last decade. By all indications, however, it sounds like the bet may pay off. In a quick roundup I read last week, most of the off-the-record reviewers were saying that it's increased their anticipation and the buildup leading to Endgame, even more so than where things left off at the end of Infinity War last year. That was not at all what I was expecting.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Anubis IV]

My wife and I have started playing the "guess the RT scores" game after watching movies for the first time. We'll try to guess the critic and audience scores and see who can get closest. After I went to an early screening of Alita: Battle Angel on the Tuesday before its full release, I was disappointed (but not surprised) to find out that the Audience Score wasn't yet available since the film hadn't yet had its full release. To say the least, the notion that Captain Marvel's Audience Score would be posted weeks in advance of its release is a bit absurd.

Re: Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

This kind of outrage will help the movie, not hurt it.

Look at Nike. Did the ad with Colin Kaepernick, outrage, videos of people burning their trainers... And Nike's value increased by six billion dollars. The best part is that most people who boycott brands end up buying them again anyway.

What would have been a 24 hour news event at best turned into a days, even weeks long saga due to the outrage and the counter-outrage.

Now everyone is getting in on this new form of viral marketing, e.g. Gillette with their recent toxic masculinity ad. Marvel presumably didn't even plan this, and are now enjoying masses of free publicity and interest generated by the people who think they are sinking the movie.

Re:Completely FALSE

[grep -v '.*' *]

These are NOT reviews! STOP LYING!

Be quiet, you'll mess up the narrative. We're a victim, always a victim, somebody's out to get us.

Brie Larson: "I don't need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn't work about A Wrinkle in Time," said Larson. "It wasn't made for him."

So I guess your new flick wasn't made for me, either. I haven't logged anything with RT; I don't care WHAT they think. They're another site I completely ignore. (Earlier someone called me a Nazi for ignoring Huffington Post and Arianna -- I guess this makes me a DOUBLE Nazi. Cool, do I get an award I can hang in my garage next to my Confederate Flag? (That's sarcasm if you can't tell -- I don't have a garage.)

Re: Completely FALSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Just like it worked for Ghostbusters 2016.

LOL

Re: Completely FALSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Reviewers who get invited to early private screening are almost always overly positive. They want to keep being invited to those things to maintain their "status". Studios don't invite people who might be critical. Same thing happened with The Last Jedi.

Re: Completely FALSE

[lgw]

Look at Nike. Did the ad with Colin Kaepernick, outrage, videos of people burning their trainers... And Nike's value increased by six billion dollars.

Nike knows their audience. Colin Kaepernick is popular with the sort of people who buy Nike. They market well to their niche.

That same message doesn't "play well in the suburbs". Boring mainstream culture is not a fan, and football overall has suffered diminished audiences. Gillette's ad was a mistake IMO, because it's the boring mainstream culture that buys most razors, but since people almost never switch household brands as an adult, they may be gambling that it will play well to teens and not hurt mainstream sales.

Same message, two different demographic groups, two different results.

Re:Completely FALSE

[lgw]

Sites like RT that allow user ratings are easily gamed and apparently there is nothing we can do about it. No-one has managed to filter this kind of thing, the best tools we have are manual intervention or disabling user ratings.

Sure there is, and you're doing it right now. You pretend that the honest expression of mass opinion is fake, because you disagree with it. No more cognitive dissonance to trouble your enclosed world view. Problem solved.

I'm sure Captain Marvel will do well at the box office

It will do well or poorly based on whether it's an entertaining film. Nothing more. It didn't need any special marketing, as everyone already knows what a Marvel movie is.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Ogive17]

Do other movies coming out around the same time have a similar number of votes?

It appears as if this movie is being specifically targeted with down votes.

Personally I'm indifferent to the movie as I have never seen a marvel movie in the theater. Seems odd that so many people would visit a website to specifically vote they are not interested. I totally ignore things that do not interest me.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Ogive17]

Typically... missed that auto correct.

Re: Completely FALSE

[RedK]

It appears as if this movie is being specifically targeted with down votes.

It's almost as if Brie Larson made an OOPSIE and people are reacting to it... and then being labeled "trolls" for daring having an opinion that's different than the accepted narrative...

https://movieweb.com/captain-marvel-brie-larson-inclusion-controversy/

Where have we seen that before uh ... ? This is typical 2016+ damage control. Says something dumb. Get called out. Walk it back but at the same time paint anyone you displeased as "Russian" or "Troll" or "Gamergater" or any other pejorative term you can think of to make it seem like all the backlash was illegitimate.

Re: Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

You think Nike are a niche brand?

Re:Completely FALSE

[Anubis IV]

What's an "incel"? OED has no clue.

Also, are you actually defending Ghostbusters and The Last Jedi? I haven't seen the former, but by all accounts it was rather poor. I did see the latter, however, and it ranks down there with the prequels in my book. Between the opening credit crawl that tossed out everything established in the immediately prior film, the warp attack and the palace fight scene that sacrificed any semblance maintaining a coherent universe for the sake of stuff that looks cool, the third of the movie wasted on the casino, the Mary Poppins moment for Leia, the wasted opportunity to have real consequences by either sacrificing Finn to the laser or having Rose's choice to save him result in the loss of everyone else, and all of the purposeful middle fingers given to the fans (e.g. Luke's portrayal that made no sense to even Mark Hamill, Snoke's demise, Rey's parents, etc.), it was a bad movie. Not the worst in the series, but certainly not a good one. Mind you, I was looking forward to see it going in, since the director was saying all the right things to tick the checkboxes I was looking for. After The Force Awakens, which was basically just a giant push of the reset button on the universe, I was looking forward to moving things forward in a new and exciting direction. He just failed to deliver.

That said, I'm really looking forward to Captain Marvel. We already have tickets for a Friday showing and I'm eager to see it, albeit, with a bit of apprehension that they may not knock it out of the park and that it'll leave me less excited as the MCU heads to its climax. We'll see.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Iamthecheese]

Professional reviewers are no longer a decent predictor of how well a movie will do. Just having "diversity" is enough to earn 5/10 stars before the real review begins and lack of "diversity" will cost any film 3 stars out of the gate. Audiences, on the other hand, demand an entertaining experience. There are many recent movies that have bombed with high professional critic scores.

Re:Completely FALSE

[mark-t]

What Ms. Larson fails to grasp is that even if she feels like she doesn't need a "40 year old white dude" telling her what didn't work about the film, that person has every right to say what he thinks, and she has precisely zero authority to prohibit such an expression.

The producer of the film, by way... is a white dude. He's about a decade past 40 though.... does that mean he gets a pass?

Re: Completely FALSE

[lgw]

Most adults don't wear brightly colored sports shoes as normal daily footwear. The boring mainstream mostly wears either shoes more appropriate for the office, or work boots.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Anubis IV]

Agreed, but there's a big difference between official reviews and off-the-cuff remarks. I'd expect the latter to speak more to how they themselves enjoyed it as a watcher.

I'm not arguing that this is a great predictor either way. I'm just saying that I've seen some positive indications, which was honestly more than I was expecting. Whether they bear out in practice remains to be seen, and I certainly wouldn't bet on it either way.

Re:Completely FALSE

[LordAba]

The backlash to the backlash tends to result in a big net positive.

It's working for Gilette! Battlefield V certain is flying off the shelves! The crappy movies that were controversial certainly blew box office expectations!

But keep cherry picking

Re: Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

One of the challenges Nike faces is that older people keep buying them. They could end up like denim jeans, associated with middle aged men. That's why the current fashion is skinny jeans, that older guys don't buy.

Nike is a major global brand.

Re:Completely FALSE

[lgw]

Weak excuses for bad films.

reactions that based on some reactionary ideology that's far from uncommon online (The Force Awakens sucks because a lady with latent Force powers beat up a couple of guys with a space stick).

You know, I'm not sure anyone actually believed that. I think it's entirely a contrived excuse, or so oversimplified as to be wrong.

TFA sucked because it was an uninspired reboot. It added nothing new, and the characters were weak and bland, and their successes unearned. Finn was the only character with any sort of arc (and it was sabotaged by the next film). It played well to the crowd that sees every Transformers film, but that's not the fanbase that buys the merch that is the real money in the franchise.

Re: Completely FALSE

[lgw]

"Major global brand" and "niche audience" are compatible. Fashion is a niche, as most clothes are bought for practical reasons, but it's a very profitable one. But I can totally see the point of an ad that deliberately offends older buyers, if that's hurting their brand.

Re:Completely FALSE

[pseudofrog]

If you don't believe Stefan Molyneux and folks of his ilk were chiefly upset about TFA because they felt it was feminist propaganda, I'm not sure what to tell you. You don't have to go full "SJW" to recognize that responses like the one to Captain Marvel are, in large part, due to a somewhat small but loud group of (occasionally self-proclaimed) reactionaries.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Quirkz]

I questioned the wisdom in introducing a game-changing character this close to the climax of the story they've been telling for the last decade.

That's my biggest concern. They just whittled down the cast to the mostly original Avengers, and I'd like to see those six do most of the heavy lifting. Some sort of Deus Ex Captaina would be really unsatisfying.

Outside of that, I have no opinion. I know almost nothing about Captain Marvel, but the same was true of Iron Man or Dr. Strange back in the day, and it didn't keep me from enjoying those movies. I like Brie Larsen, too, so I'll happily go see the movie. Depending on what it's like, my girls (still kind of young) might actually enjoy that one more than most. It's only the risk of how she's carried over into Avengers Endgame that worries me.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Luckyo]

Please don't mix social democrats in SJW insanity. They're desperately trying to take over social democratic parties in many Scandinavian countries today, and they're more abhorrent to most of us in that camp than they are to you.

To you, they're just ideological opponents. To us, they're people who are trying to subvert our core message of empowering and managing capitalism to fund wide scale social programs available to everyone regardless of their sex and race to its polar opposite: socializing capital and forcibly redistributing the wealth based on sex and racial stereotypes they hold.

Re: Completely FALSE

[lgw]

We changed razors, mostly because Gillette is too expensive these days for the decreasingly quality that they've also been putting out. Dollar Shave Club and others put out a better bang for the buck product and don't waste money on trying to get political.

I switched to electric, but I started months before the ads. It's just hard for people to switch once they get used to something.

Re: Completely FALSE

[lgw]

FYI, people with feet are not really a niche market, your attempts to typify nike shoes does not really match up with reality

Yes, most people buy shoes. No, most shoes sold are not colorful sports shoes, which is where Nike is the dominant brand. This being Slashdot I have to add: women often own many pairs of shoes, more than the uninitiated can understand, but mostly not "sneakers". And most men have to wear something else to work.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Luckyo]

The "middle aged men" is the older millenials like myself at this point. The people with highest spending potential in their lifetime right now, because enough of us are on some kind of a career track, and have enough income to start spending, and aren't yet locking everything done to prepare for retirement yet. Nor are only entering work force and have no extra spending potential at all as the youngsters do.

Most of the guys my age who were playing the same sport with me back in student days are still playing. It's our way to stay in shape and maintain social networking/get away from the significant other after getting families. I used to wear nikes for my indoor sports hobby for a long time for example. Funnily enough, I dropped them a few years ago specifically because I couldn't find a pair of black indoor nikes that would fit me. Spent a year searching for a new type of indoor sports shoe that would fit my foot comfortably. Ended up on new mid range pumas. Didn't have anything to do with the ad. Had everything to do with the fact that for some weird reason, they decided to not sell same type of shoe I used for almost a decade in black any more, and that's simply my style.

We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right. And there's quite a lot of marketing toward us. At least toward me that I can see, in everything from sports publications to various sports forums I frequent.

I find it quite amusing personally that some companies decided to market to younger generation instead. Those are the smallest generations in relation to older generations of all time demographic have been recorded in many Western countries. Our birth rates are in the toilet. But it's still a market, and if they want it, it's theirs to have. I'll stick to any company that makes shoes that fit my foot well, have good shock absorber gel, and are black. And a few years ago when I was looking for a pair to replace my last nikes, of the type I wore for a decade because that type fit my foot almost perfectly, none were to be found in black. And so they lost me as a customer to puma.

Re:Completely FALSE

[XxtraLarGe]

If you don't believe Stefan Molyneux and folks of his ilk were chiefly upset about TFA because they felt it was feminist propaganda, I'm not sure what to tell you.

Maybe it's a lot of people reacting to this. I can't find the original quote, but this was from some random website:

Now, as you may have heard, Brie Larson recently said she wants to make the movie's press tour a little more inclusive so it's not just middle-aged white guys. In other words, the actress wants more women and people of colour in attendance. But her remarks have been taken out of context, and some fans believe that she's saying she doesn't want them to see the movie.

I remember reading the original quote, thinking it was a bit hostile toward white males. I think the text above waters it down a bit. I'll probably go see Captain Marvel, since it's part of the larger picture, and because I'm not thin skinned. One of the privileges of being a White Cisgendered Male, I guess.

Re:Completely FALSE

[amicusNYCL]

Why are you assuming this is necessarily being gamed? Why can't it be accurate? Maybe people are finally realizing that there are plenty of compelling stories which could be set in reality which deserve to be told instead of the 37th installment of People With Superpowers In CGI(tm).

Re: Completely FALSE

[Luckyo]

What is typically referred to as "middle age" starts when your metabolism starts to slow down to a significant extent, with biology behind the ageing process changing your drive to one seeking stability. This tends to change lifestyle, as people finish settling down and generally become stable. Hence the stereotypical middle aged person that tends to be boring.

For most people, that starts in late 30s, early 40s at the latest. It would take a very strange lifestyle to become a stereotypical middle aged person as late as 50. Perhaps a kind of life that modern feminist would imagine people have. Like most things that particular group believes about other people, that is false. Something they tend to find out when they try to have children around 40, and discover that they are already middle aged, with biology no longer compatible with that phase in life for most people.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Millennium]

What's an "incel"? OED has no clue.

incel - 1. n. [archaic] A person with a disability which renders him or her physically unable to engage in sex, but which does not impact libido.

2. n. A person, usually male, whose immature behavior pushes women away, yet blames his inability to get a date on society in general. See also basement-dweller, creepy, manchild.

Re:Completely FALSE

[thegarbz]

People NOT wanting to see a film, is NOT review bombing. STOP LYING!

What is the lie? The difference between a review or a "want to see"? It's a distinction without a difference. Or maybe you think they are lying about bombing? In which case I suggest you check just how many people have given a "want to see" rating to Captain Marvel, vs any other film coming up including far bigger blockbusters, bigger expected hits, bigger expected flops.

Then come and explain to me how a relatively minor comic hero manages to get 4x the interest of the biggest expected blockbuster of the year, and 70x the interest of most "want to see" ratings.

Re:Completely FALSE

[thegarbz]

We're a victim, always a victim, somebody's out to get us.

To be clear are you implying that the film is not being "want to see" bombed? Maybe have a look at how many ratings this movie is getting vs any other movie on Rotten Tomatoes and then come back and tell me if you still think someone's not out to get them.

Since you're probably busy I'll give you a spoiler: Captain Marvel currently has 70x more "want to see ratings" than most movies coming out this year, 40x more than all other super hero movies coming out this year with the exception of this years biggest expected blockbuster: Avengers Endgame. ... It's only 4x more than that, and significantly the Avengers game is 98% positive.

Odds are, they are really out to get them.

Re:Completely FALSE

[JudgeFurious]

Exactly. CM is going to make some money regardless of what RT has to say about who wants to see this because of sheer inertia. Hell I even want to see it eventually. My biggest issue with it about bringing it out so close to Endgame and introducing a character halfway through the epic end of the first 10 years of the MCU story all "deus ex machina" style when you're making what many expect to be the Iron Man/Captain America send-off story. CM should have been introduced almost two years ago (but if I'm not mistaken Marvel's deal with Sony to get Spider-Man into the MCU films bumped it or something like that) and if that wasn't possible then it should have come after Endgame as the next big thing. It's got a clunky release date in relation to the bigger, more interesting Avengers based stuff going on right now. They got away with Ant-Man & The Wasp back in the fall but then it steered mostly away from the Infinity War/Endgame stuff except for the post-credits scene.

Re:Completely FALSE

[ranton]

There is little to no correlation between trolls trying to adjust the rating of a movie and that movie's eventual success or failure. Black Panther had the same problem to a slightly lesser extent and it was a massive hit. It is easy for troll-like behavior to make a certain opinion seem common even when they are a very small but vocal group.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

I don't know if "want to see" counts as a review, but it certainly counts as a downvote for reasons other than the quality of a movie (or interest therein in this case.)

People shoot their mouths off politically, and get harmed by lemming attacks. This is the name of the game today, regardless of "side".

Re: Completely FALSE

[JudgeFurious]

No, it doesn't really appear that way at all. It appears that a movie in the MCU has the lion's share of the attention. Perfectly expected. Have you noticed the rather large pile of dollars the Mouse sits on thanks to the MCU? Something like $17 billion of them (give or take)? The movie is anticipated (for better or worse) by a larger group of people than any of those other movies and so more people are going to want to state their opinion on it. How do you know they went there just to vote that they're not interested? Maybe they vote on a lot of movies and just aren't interested in this one for some reason. It's at least possible isn't it? Eventually Marvel was going to release something that the world didn't go crazy over. There is a precedent here. The Incredible Hulk was a dud and so was Thor: The Dark World. The good news for Marvel is that their failures generally don't come in large numbers and they tend to make more money with their duds than most studios get out of their smaller hits.

Re:Completely FALSE

[AHuxley]

People should be able to see the movies they want.
To talk about creativity, art, actors, politics and movie scripts.
Why should the internet need "manual intervention or disabling user ratings" for consumers thoughts, comments, reviews and opinions?
People notice quality movies they enjoy, want to see.

Brands, think tanks, NGO's should have get to step in with "manual intervention or disabling user ratings" to try and support a brand.

Re:Completely FALSE

[tbannist]

Sure there is, and you're doing it right now. You pretend that the honest expression of mass opinion is fake, because you disagree with it.

From my point of view, you're pretending what is obviously a co-ordinated effort to game the system is honest opinion, simply because you agree with it.

No more cognitive dissonance to trouble your enclosed world view. Problem solved.

That criticism applies equally well to you.

The thing that makes me distrust the "don't want to view" rating is the anomalously high number of responses. I don't know whether the indications are honest or fake, but it probably doesn't matter because I sincerely doubt the sampling is representative. If someone is actively encouraging people who don't want to see Captain Marvel, for whatever reason, to register that vote on Rotten Tomatoes, then they are manipulating the results.

Re:Completely FALSE

[amicusNYCL]

Again, maybe it's a group of people tired of comic book movies trying to make their voice heard. I guarantee there are a lot of us out there.

Why would someone who wants to see the movie go to some site to say they actually don't? What do they get out of that? I'm sure they actually don't want to see the movie, that sounds reasonable.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Anonymous Coward]

Even a 40 year old white dude like myself can tell when a movie is poorly directed, poorly edited, and the lead could use some more acting coaching.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Cederic]

What "sort of people" do you mean?

I think it's very clear that he meant "people that buy Nike branded products".

Own your repugnant views.

What's repugnant about acknowledging that Nike products are bought by people that buy Nike products? You're confusing me.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Cederic]

We're the guys who'll drop 200EUR on a pair indoors sports shoes and not even blink, because we know how much it sucks to get blisters because shoe doesn't fit quite right

I've never had a blister from playing indoor sports and I've never spent (even adjusted for inflation) 100EUR on sports shoes, let alone twice that.

But I'm from an older generation, that knows to buy shoes that fit right and that also knows that shoe fit is orthogonal with price.

As indeed you've found out, by spending less on a perfectly good shoe. Fucking amazing that.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Cederic]

because it was "racist against white people."

Did people really think that? I thought it was a reasonably good film and although there was a clear use of skin colour within the story it didn't feel racist at all.

Re: Completely FALSE

[scottrocket]

Middle age starts at around 50. Maybe the early gen Xers.

Middle-age starts at 70. Late boomers & Gen X'ers are still young spudlings.

Re: Completely FALSE

[sarren1901]

Only if you live to 95+...That's about 18 years past the average life expectancy. Sure people are living longer but I'd still say middle age is about 40, so really 35-60 is middle aged.

Re:Completely FALSE

[mark-t]

Saying that she doesn't need someone else telling her X is basically suggesting that the person doesn't have any right to say X.

Re: Completely FALSE

[poity]

4chan threads which asked people to review bomb Captain Marvel have been met largely with replies of "not your personal army" and accusations that the OP is a journalist looking to manufacture evidence for a narrative. It's all in the public archives. Anyone can google "/pol/ archives" or "/tv/ archives" and see for themselves.

Re:Completely FALSE

[mark-t]

Generally speaking, when someone says "I don't need X telling me Y", they are suggesting that X has no business expressing Y in the first place. It is exacerbated by the fact that she quite specifically defines X to be a subset of white males, which technically makes the remark both sexist and racist. It treats one aspect of sex or race as being worthy of less respect in a particular matter than another, which is marginalisation of that demographic. If that's not what Ms Larson meant, then I think she better clarify what she intended, because that's sure as hell how it looks to a whole lot of people.

Re: Completely FALSE

[harlequinn]

The wikipedia entry says 40 to 60, or 45 to 65, depending on the authority.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Middle age mathematically starts at about 28 years and lasts to about 57 (the middle third of your life if you die at 85).

Re:Completely FALSE

[mark-t]

Your argument reminds me of this

34. Success Immunity, or "They must be doing something right!"

We often hear this when a successful individual or organization is justly criticized for unethical habits, routines, tendencies or policies, and defenders recoil at the suggestion that a successful formula might be altered in any way. Thus have cruel hazing traditions by winning football coaches received official passes from greedy university presidents, and careless and risky management practices been ignored by voters, as long as an elected leader's policies haven't imploded yet. Success immunity is related to #10, the King's Pass, but it is even more illogical: it assumes that the wrongful and irresponsible aspects of an individual's or organization's conduct must somehow be part of a magic recipe for success, rather than a serious flaw in that recipe that can and should be removed. "The chef puts a roach in his soup? Well, it's delicious! He must be doing something right!" I'm sure he is, but that something isn't the roach. This rationalization embodies the popular and over-used conservative mantra, "If it ain't broke, don't fix it." The problems with that cliche are 1) things that aren't broken can still be improved, 2) things that are broken will often keep working until they fall apart and someone is hurt, and 3) "not broken" is a long way from "the best it can be." "They must be doing something right!" carries this illogic to the point of absurdity by asserting that what clearly is broken should still not be fixed, because the individual or organization continues to be successful in spite of it, on the Bizarro World theory that the perceived success could somehow be a result of it. Like many rationalizations on this list, Success Immunity twists common sense to avoid admitting that obviously unethical conduct is what it is: wrong.

Re:Completely FALSE

[rtb61]

It's like you have never used IMDB, by far the majority of real world fake reviews are one off, 10 out of 10, by far the majority (sometimes they do two the other 1 out of 10 for the opposition, one person one hundred accounts or more).

As long as a person makes one review and posts it, then it is not a fake review, their reasons are entirely their own and they are entitled to them, their review, their opinion, their reasons, NOT FAKE.

Youtubers wonder about their reviews, why they get thumbed down for negative reviews because you silly fuckers, PR agencies pay people with hundreds of accounts to hunt you down and thumb you down and of course the products you gave a negative, they have employees who can also, well, review bomb you.

Am I going to see that silly flick in the cinema, no bloody way. Mostly because the lead carried on like a real pork chop (this is controlled, they are muppets and do what they are told to do, do you need any more proof then all those females so called stars who sucked Wienstein's 'er' audition rod and complained about it afterwards but not at the time).

Why, they evaluated the movie after it was finished, it tested bad and they could not recut it enough to fix it, so they decided to go political and try to trick gullible women into seeing a shitty movie by screaming FEMINISM, you fail as a women if you do not see this movie, blah, blah, blah.

When they talk about anything but the movie, then you have a crap movie, just the way it is.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Kyr Arvin]

You pretend that the honest expression of mass opinion is fake

But it's not an honest expression of mass opinion. I mean, often it can be, but it's more an expression of people who wanted to leave an opinion. That's different from an accurate reflection of mass opinion, again because its opt-in system can be gained by people with a vested interest. Those can be people working for movie companies who want to alter perceptions, or it can people who haven't seen the movie but have been offended by an actor or some aspect of production and want to torpedo the movie out of spite.

The only accurate survey of what mass opinion actually is would be random polling, not a system where people volunteer an opinion on a movie. Volunteerism on websites has historically been easily gamed, and it's only very recently that such sites have been given any credence at all.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Luckyo]

And then, you actually read what I typed and realised that I never made the claim you so triumphantly debunked.

Re: Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

Well 40 would be born in 1979, 45 would be 1974. That's a bit early to be a millennial.

Gen X is usually thought of as mid 1960s to early 1980s. It's all a bit vague.

Re: Completely FALSE

[AmiMoJo]

On the contrary, films that fail to invite critics to early screenings make the headlines for just that reason, and it's generally accepted that the only reason it ever happens is because the movie is so terrible they judge that to be less bad than the actual reviews.

Lack of pre-release reviews is a massive red flag for any movie. Often theatres won't even carry it because they know it's going to be really, really bad.

Re:Completely FALSE

[thegarbz]

Success immunity is a thing, but that didn't bear out in my post. Specifically success immunity would be me pointing to the positive vs negative aspects of the metric, in defense that it could not be right. Instead the point isn't the positive, it's the unlikelyness that there are 44000 people (70x higher than normal) that actually give a shit.

So my argument should have reminded you of this:

Occam's razor
Occam's razor (or Ockham's razor) is a principle from philosophy. Suppose there exist two explanations for an occurrence. In this case the one that requires the least speculation is usually better. Another way of saying it is that the more assumptions you have to make, the more unlikely an explanation. Occam's razor applies especially in the philosophy of science, but also more generally.

Re: Completely FALSE

[Luckyo]

I'm guessing you're a Swede, where this process is largely finished, or a Norwegian where SJW wings are winning. I'm a Finn, and SDP is still largely managed by the "manage the capitalism" union people who stand in the same line with industrialists on essentially all issues of capitalism. They understand that without successful companies, people don't get to stay employed in good jobs.

Subversion by the SJW-wingers was attempted via the feminist infiltration tactic in the past, when the former head of the party tried to pull this conversion. She was pretty much the opposite of the current leader, who's the life long union leader, she was a school teacher. The industry where the intersectional insanity is largely coming from, poisoning the society. She left the party disgraced, because she basically lost a large chunk of people who support the party because of its pro-union, pro-capitalism management policies, as she tried to roll them back and replace them with SJW slogans. Funnily enough, they appear to have went for PS, our variant of Swedish SD, and the SDP crashed into opposition, showing the party core and mainstream just how awful SJW policies are for the party, while PS got into the government. Which basically showed everyone in the party in a very concrete, in-your-face way where embracing SJWs leads to.

The fight continues however, as these people are not the types to give up trying to subvert various state and political structures to attack their ideological enemies. The "you woman hating, migrant hating racist, sexist..." style attacks keep going within the party to this day. It's a fight for the soul of the party for the lack of better word, which is why I told the initial poster that while these people are just ideological enemies to people on the right wing of politics, they're far worse to those on the moderate left. They're the people who pretend to be a part of moderate left on the surface, while pushing for complete reversal of left wing policies that we built our states on the first place.

Denmark to my understanding is even better off than us. There the immigration issue of sitting on the same landmass as Germany inoculated people against SJW narratives in social democratic circles even more rapidly, as SJW-wing finds it very hard to let go of "not liking mass migrants is racism" arguments. Essentially, it has massive internal problems of its own.

Re: Completely FALSE

[JudgeFurious]

Understood. I was only suggesting that Marvel can make a movie that doesn't entirely work. It doesn't happen often and they're very good at what they do but it's not out of the question. You're right that Incredible Hulk didn't have the kind of inertia that everything they make these days has. It did come during the great 2008 summer of comic book movies breaking out like crazy though and it was a month off of Iron Man which had a created a tiny bit of its own hype. I remember that year there were 5-6 comic book movies that hit the screen as big tent poles. Incredible Hulk was a surprising disappointment.

Re:Completely FALSE

[TimothyHollins]

Dude, you can't just leave a goddamn open parenthesis on Slashdot. My programming autism is spiking and I need to lie down now. Thanks a bunch.

Re: Completely FALSE

[squiggleslash]

Middle age mathematically starts at about 28 years and lasts to about 57 (the middle third of your life if you die at 85).

It's not about the mathematical mid-point of your life, it's about you transitioning from the first part of your life to old age.

To put it this way: you grow up, have babies, look after them, and then they leave the house. That period is considered young adulthood. The period that follows, where you're too old for children (OK, men can still technically conceive, but that doesn't make it a good idea), but not elderly, is considered middle aged.

It's fairly easy to put an age range on it because there are legal and physiological age ranges defining both the end of young adulthood (women's menopause), and the start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc, defined that way because it's at the tail end of when employers are likely to find the average person useful.)

Re:Completely FALSE

[amicusNYCL]

You can express all of that on the Rotten Tomatoes website when you indicate whether or not you plan to see the movie? It's not just a selection of "I plan to see it" or "I don't plan to see it?"

Re:Completely FALSE

[amicusNYCL]

I do not plan to see the movie. In fact, I know I'm not going to, there's no reason for me to. So I would indicate on their site that I'm not going to do it. I have no idea about the characters or plot or anything else, I'm just sick of comic book movies that require impossible things and extensive CGI in order to make sense. I don't give a shit whose hands are glowing this time and what shiny thing they're looking for and which costume can violate the laws of thermodynamics to suddenly appear. But if I make that selection, you're going to connect my vote with some discussion on some other site and try to say that my vote doesn't matter because these other people have their own grievances about the movie and that this film is, in fact, universally loved and everyone who says otherwise was probably paid to vote that way?

Come on, no one else is falling for it.

A lot of people don't like comic book movies because it's the current lazy-as-shit way to get a bunch of people to pay money to watch special effects for an hour and a half. We deserve better. There are plenty of compelling stories out there.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Kyr Arvin]

What is the lie? The difference between a review or a "want to see"? It's a distinction without a difference.

Whoa, those are two very different things. "want to see" is not a review, it's nothing close to a review, it doesn't even imply a review of the content. Poor reviews of Ghostbusters(2016) before it came out? That's BS, those were certainly fraudulent reviews. But a question that specifically asks "do you want to see this movie?" That's not a review, because one can have many reasons to want to see a movie or not want to see a movie. Tom Cruise has had that problem for the last decade; plenty of people don't want to patronize any of his movies because they have strong objections to the Church of Scientology. That doesn't mean they're objectively bad movies (Some of the Mission Impossible movies are excellent, and I personally really liked Oblivion). You can have non-quality reasons to not want to see a movie.

If an actor or actress has given you a reason to have a visceral dislike of him/her, sometimes you can't separate that dislike to sit back, tune out, and just go where the movie wants to take you.

Brie Larsen, unfortunately, has said some offensive things that have plenty of people saying "holy shit, what a judgmental bitch." People who have heard about those comments suddenly, in large numbers, have a reason to dislike her and not be too thrilled to see anything that she's in. "Want to see" is not some objective "this movie is going to be good" metric. Again, there can be plenty of non-movie reasons why people would no longer be thrilled to check it out. Captain Marvel might be a fantastic movie, and people who haven't heard her off-screen comments will likely be charmed and enjoy themselves thoroughly, assuming the actual movie is, well, good. Which we don't really know yet.

I'm going to watch it and try for an open mind; I think I do a decent job compartmentalizing my personal dislike for an actor, which is why I really enjoy Cruise's performances while detesting his private/public life. This is just one reason why I try to ignore as much as possible, public statements/interviews/etc of celebrities. Just like Brie Larsen doesn't give a shit about what I think because of my age, gender, and skin color, I don't really care about any of her opinions either. I only want to know what happens on screen.

Re:Completely FALSE

[Can'tNot]

I have no idea why you're being called a Troll.

It's the "STOP LYING." A lie is not the same thing as saying something which is untrue, the parent is claiming that that the article is trying to deceive people but the parent gives no reason for that belief. It's not a trivial accusation to make, especially without giving any sort of justification for it at all.

It could just be a mistake, it could just be an over-generalization of the term "review bombing"... there are a lot of alternative possibilities. Also, "stop" lying? "Stop"? Like this a recurring thing? Does comicbook.com have some terrible reputation that I don't know about? Or is this a personal vendetta or something? That's just weird.

Re: Completely FALSE

[harlequinn]

Thanks...
I did I link the wiki that already says what you are retelling...

Biological markers, like "the end of young adulthood (women's menopause)", combined with sociological markers like "start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc," aren't the best measure. Menopause starts on average at 51 years old for women in the US. The average retirement age for people in the US is 60 years old. So women would have a 9 year "middle age" period. Men wouldn't even have a middle age. They would have young adulthood leading straight into old age at 60 (active adult males have fertility for ages as you already alluded to).

My point about the mathematical measure is that you can divide your life into young, middle, and old by thirds. That's all. A simple fact for people to digest when looking at the provided definitions from the wiki.

Lastly, the wiki simply points to other people's arbitrary definitions. Anyone can define it anyway they like. There is no rule in life that says you can't make up your own definition....

Young adulthood is the period of life when you could play computer games all day and hang with your mates.
No so young adulthood is the period of life when you have to work all day and no longer have time to play computer games, instead building a massive library of Steam games that you'll play, one day, and always having to put off hanging out with your mates
Middle age is the period of life... etc., etc. you get the picture.

Re: Completely FALSE

[harlequinn]

Indeed it is a bit vague. There is no official definition and people disagree on what any definition should be.

Why not just use the years for the period that one is writing about?
E.g. "people born from 1991 to 2006", etc. And if the years can't be narrowed down, then maybe the author should reevaluate what they are trying to express...

Re: Completely FALSE

[squiggleslash]

Biological markers, like "the end of young adulthood (women's menopause)", combined with sociological markers like "start of old age (retirement ages for pensions, etc," aren't the best measure.

They are, however, the measure.

Menopause starts on average at 51 years old for women in the US

On average, possibly, that's why the start of middle age is considered soft. But the point is that generally around the mid-forties it's harder to conceive and many women have already hit the biological brick wall at that point.

The average retirement age for people in the US is 60 years old.

That seems improbable to me, as the majority of people won't get access to their retirement benefits for another five years. Additionally there's a hell of a lot of people who retired long after 65.

My point about the mathematical measure is that you can divide your life into young, middle, and old by thirds. That's all. A simple fact for people to digest when looking at the provided definitions from the wiki.

You can. But... what is the point? You talk about major events that affect lifestyles as being "not the best measure", but instead suggest something completely unrelated to how life is lived such as splitting a lifetime into equal portions is meaningful in some way.

Meaningful to whom? I mean, why would you do that? Why three? Why break it up at all? We don't talk about middle age because we're interested in the passage of time, we talk about it because it's a phase of life, and it would be an extraordinary mathematical coincidence if the phases of life just happened to line up with average-adult-life-expentence/3.

To talk of middle age the way you're doing is to divorce not merely the term from its meaning, but from the reason the term exists in the first place.

Lastly, the wiki simply points to other people's arbitrary definitions. Anyone can define it anyway they like. There is no rule in life that says you can't make up your own definition....

Actually, yeah there is. If you start using phrases that are in common use with your own definitions, then people won't understand what you're talking about, and you'll be babbling incoherently without adding knowledge.

If we were to talk about the history of the PC, and I said "It's a shame the PC died sometime around 1992, it was a great thing, and nobody has ever successfully brought it back", you'd be pretty pissed off at me if it turned out I was using the word PC to describe "Computers made by Commodore".

So yeah, you have to at least try to use the same definitions everyone else is doing in normal life. In your case, bizarrely you're the one creating an arbitrary definition, while calling everyone else's arbitrary, when in fact they're using the phrase correctly. Yes, there's some fuzziness there, but that's not because the term is bad, it's because it's difficult to pin down exact dates that describe that middle phase of life.

Re: Completely FALSE

[harlequinn]

They are, however, the measure.

Yes, and...?

On average, possibly, that's why the start of middle age is considered soft. But the point is that generally around the mid-forties it's harder to conceive and many women have already hit the biological brick wall at that point.

No. The definitions provided by the wiki are either 40 or 45 for the start (they are two separate definitions). You are welcome to consider it a soft start though - but the provided definitions don't have a soft start.

That seems improbable to me, as the majority of people won't get access to their retirement benefits for another five years. Additionally there's a hell of a lot of people who retired long after 65.

Well, I guess you have access to google and can disprove it in about 5 seconds.

You can. But... what is the point? You talk about major events that affect lifestyles as being "not the best measure", but instead suggest something completely unrelated to how life is lived such as splitting a lifetime into equal portions is meaningful in some way.

Meaningful to whom? I mean, why would you do that? Why three? Why break it up at all? We don't talk about middle age because we're interested in the passage of time, we talk about it because it's a phase of life, and it would be an extraordinary mathematical coincidence if the phases of life just happened to line up with average-adult-life-expentence/3.

I told you the point. So you can see when the mathematical start of the middle third of your life is. Some people who use mathematics every day (like me), tend to quantify things with numbers. It doesn't "mean" anything other than what it is. You are reading waaaaaay too much into it. A lot of us are in fact interested in the passage of time. Again, it's an arbitrary "phase of life" when you include so many variables that aren't related and don't apply to everyone. To make that clear, menopause is a phase of life, so is puberty, but when you start with a biological phase of life like these, then chuck in some sociological factors as an end point, then you have an arbitrarily defined "phase of life". Arbitrary phases will differ a lot from decade to decade and country to country (which is fine of course).

To talk of middle age the way you're doing is to divorce not merely the term from its meaning, but from the reason the term exists in the first place.

How am I talking of it? I'm being critical of the markers used but that doesn't divorce the term from it's meaning. I'm having a bit of fun examining the term.

Actually, yeah there is. If you start using phrases that are in common use with your own definitions, then people won't understand what you're talking about, and you'll be babbling incoherently without adding knowledge.

If we were to talk about the history of the PC, and I said "It's a shame the PC died sometime around 1992, it was a great thing, and nobody has ever successfully brought it back", you'd be pretty pissed off at me if it turned out I was using the word PC to describe "Computers made by Commodore".

So yeah, you have to at least try to use the same definitions everyone else is doing in normal life. In your case, bizarrely you're the one creating an arbitrary definition, while calling everyone else's arbitrary, when in fact they're using the phrase correctly. Yes, there's some fuzziness there, but that's not because the term is bad, it's because it's difficult to pin down exact dates that describe that middle phase of life.

Yeah, nah. There is not a rule. You inadvertently proved this (of course). You can make up any definition you like. I thought it was obvious (silly me - should have specified) that to use the new definition you must tell your audience of your definition (like I did in my example). So you just redefined PC and

Re:Completely FALSE

[wisnoskij]

Well everything is a review. These are just reviews of the trailers.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

It's not reviews, it's audience interest. It's literally asking "Are you interested in this movie?" and most people said no. It's not a review of the movie. This is fake news.

Reivews? What reviews?

[Noishkel]

I'll point out that no one is posting review on this movie yet, they're merely posting weather or not they want to see the movie.

And that reality really does show exactly what's wrong with sites like Comicbook.com. They're more interested in pushing a narrative than anything else.

Get woke go broke

[Anonymous Coward]

Pushing identity politics agendas really just ends up alienating markets. There's so many great movies with female leads that did really well without ever having to push the "straight white male bad!" narrative that Larson tried, and then went into damage control mode after pressure from Disney.

Alien
Wonder Woman
Terminator
X Files
Hunger Games
Resident Evil
Rogue One
Mad Max: Fury Road
Avatar
Fifth Element
Annihilation
etc..

Re:Get woke go broke

[Citizen of Earth]

White Man Bad!

Re:Get woke go broke

[Opportunist]

You know what these movies have in common? A story. A plot. Not the same, of course, but they ACTUALLY HAVE ONE.

More and more of those "female agenda" movies don't. They have a female lead. That has to do. And you better like it or you're one misogynist asshole. Can't say or even write anything bad about this train wreck of a movie with a script that fits on a coaster because else we send the backlash of outrage down onto you.

This is not empowering. These movies are not sending a strong statement of strong, female role models. You cannot force role models onto people. Especially if the alleged role models are bland, stereotypical and generally uninteresting to the point where nobody cares about them. To consider someone a role model, I first and foremost have to care about her or him. You're not accomplishing this with movies that are forgotten before the last movie stops showing them.

Re:Movie reviews

[ITRambo]

Go to Rotten Tomatoes to see what it actually is. The movie hasn't been released. So, these are "Want to see" votes, that all upcoming movies show. Once released actual audience scores will be shown. It should do okay, if well written and produced.

For whatever reason?

[Anonymous Coward]

"a certain section of the internet -- for whatever reason -- decided to start filing fake negative reviews in an attempt to purposefully lower the film's Audience Rating."

I don't think it takes too much imagination to see why a 'certain section of the internet" is filing false negative reviews. Here's a hint, they're probably mostly male and don't want a Marvel movie with a female lead to threaten their fragile world view of what a lead can be.

Re:For whatever reason?

[tempo36]

Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"

Re:For whatever reason?

[atrex]

It probably also has something to do with the off-hand comments made by Brie Larson that caused the twitter trolls to have an aneurysm a week or two ago.

Re:For whatever reason?

[Cederic]

I still suspect much of the hate is from, as the OP said "a certain immature troll section of the internet" reacting to a female lead.

I've heard no hatred on that count. I did hear some mutterings about a white woman playing a black woman's role, and I've heard a fuck of a lot of bitching about the marketing and publicity for the film going on about 'men are hating this because misogyny'.

If the publicity had focussed on 'awesome story, great effects, stupendous acting and a really fun time' then people would be ticking the "I want to watch this" option on Rotten Tomatoes, irrespective of the female lead.

I mean, shit, Wonder Woman was well marketed, well received and thoroughly supported by the general public and the people into comic books. Female superheroes are popular, female leads in films are established and popular, this is all manufactured outrage to boost publicity and potentially deflect from a sub-par film.

Re:For whatever reason?

[Opportunist]

It's probably more that they don't want yet another movie where "look, it's a female lead. A FEMALE!!!111!!" is the main plot. Instead of, you know, a REAL plot.

Re:For whatever reason?

[mjwx]

Captain Marvel was caught in a explosion in 1969. In 1977 it was revealed that Carol Danvers inherited his powers to become Ms Marvel. So folks have had since 1977 to deal with this. It's not like Marvel suddenly looked at the Trump administration and MAGA folks and said, "Let's take away their cherished male superhero!"

Get out of here with your facts and reasons good sir... I said get out.

How many white male superheros are there in the MCU... Spiderman, Iron Man, Thor, Ant Man... That is just off the top of my head. You get one female lead that isn't overly sexualised and all the repressed incels lose their shit over it. Its not like they actually replaced a male lead with a female one.

What I want to know is if the movie is any good. MCU has been quite lacklustre of late. I usually wait for them to be released on In-Flight Entertainment systems. If there is one place I want to switch my brain off it's compressed into an economy class seat at 38,000 ft over the Atlantic and the MCU are good switch your brain off movies..

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Strong women scare the hell out of insecure little boys.

Article not really accurate?

[jareth-0205]

It's the "want to see" rating that's low, not the review. Not that that matters, seems obvious that there's a concerted effort to try to damage the film going on, but would be nice not to give a "well, actually" out to distract the issue.

Still, if ever there you need evidence of the pathetic weakling manbabies that inhabit the internet, here's another one. Marvel make one film with a black cast, or one film with a female lead, and they lose their fucking minds. "Quick, suppress anything that isn't exclusively aimed at me!" The film isn't released yet, there are no reviews and we know very little. Marvel have a great track record, so if you have enjoyed their past films the only reason for railing so hard against this is sexism. Sorry, it is actually pathetic.

Re:Article not really accurate?

[Actually, I do RTFA]

I'm not aware of any real backlash around Black Panther. Probably because, absent the ensemble movies (Avengers: X), it made by far the most money. It made $125MM more than Iron Man 3 (which rounded out his personal arc) and $250MM more than Civil War (which I counted as a non-ensemble movie because of its title, even though it was). No other Marvel movie came within half a billion dollars.

I mean, the most backlash I recall is that some people (who still went to see it) said it wasn't as good as they thought it would be.

The difference between Black Panther and Captain Marvel is pretty big from a marketing point of view. It was hard to avoid the BP marketing before it dropped, and the Captain Marvel ads have been really non-existent by comparison. Heck, even by comparison to non-Marvel movies. Also, they did the beeper thing as opposed to having her show up at all in the Avengers movie (whereas BP got introduced before his movie).

Even the posters are trying to avoid being interesting. It's like they're going with the "We're Marvel, there's a movie coming out, see it if you want to but we're not going toreally tell you what it's about" strategy. Which may work for them. Like Guardians, there's no real thing to hang your hat on if you don't know comics, and Guardians did pretty well. Although they had Groot and RR in previews, and Chris Pratt on talk shows; this time they seem to be banking on With a huge hint of "if you don't see it, you'll be confused when we come back from the cliffhanger from our biggest movie ever with the sequel in 3 months".

Re:Article not really accurate?

[kaatochacha]

Or they just don't want to see it. Captain Marvel isn't exactly a core marvel character. Or they're burned out on Marvel films. I haven't seen the last few released, and was loved them when they first arrived.
Not everything is a social screed.
If I choose a potato for dinner instead of rice, It's not because I hate Asians.

Re:Article not really accurate?

[jareth-0205]

Not everything is a social screed.

I agree completely, but this... call me cynical, but...

There are 10s of thousands of people who have gone on a site to register their *disinterest* in a film that they can't know anything about. Who does that? Disinterest is just that, don't care. This is just negative caring. If I don't care about a film i don't go around telling people.

Re:Article not really accurate?

[LordAba]

Question: if the movie was about the Black Widow, do you think people would complain? Why or why not?

Re:Article not really accurate?

[Kokuyo]

Playing devil's advocate I'll assume you completely missed how the actress has been playing the oppressed victim card and how half the marketing seems to revolve around how much white males suck.

Good for you. Personally, I just don't want to give these people my money...

Re:Article not really accurate?

[UnpossibleJim]

I was having this discussion in where I work (which happens to be a small lab which is all males) and that's the movie we all want to see. We can't figure out why ScarJo hasn't been given a Black Widow movie yet, unless she just doesn't want one. She has her own projects, gets paid ridiculous amounts for being Black Widow in the other franchises, and doesn't have to launch anything as she isn't "The Face" of anything as a side character. She does some press work, but not the heavy lifting...... She seems like she may be the sharpest one in the whole franchise, as her character does more crossovers than anyone else, has more lines than Nick Fury (who is the only other side character that crosses as many films, besides Iron Man... but no solo films) and has as much freedom to do any projects as she wants as she doesn't have to represent a main character, so she is more easily written out. Smart move, business wise....... Though, I'd love a Black Widow film if it were done right, I won't lie.

There aren't any reviews yet

[alvinrod]

Why is this being called review bombing, when no one has reviewed the film yet? If you go to the Rotten Tomatoes page linked in the summary, they indicate that there aren't any reviews ("Tomatometer Not Available...") and the 28% (29% when I'm viewing the page) is for "Want To See".

If people are running bots to tank the results, who really cares since it doesn't affect anything. I rarely use Rotten Tomatoes to determine if I should see a film or not based on critic reviews. I wasn't even aware that this audience interest thing even existed up until now. I can't imagine anyone actually basing their decision of whether or not to see a movie based on a number on the internet that only expresses whether or not other people claim that they are interested.

I have a feeling this is going to have a Streisand like effect and blow up in the face of the people complaining about it. When a group of people are acting like jackasses on the internet, it's better to just ignore them. Giving them attention only validates their behavior and makes them do it even more. Once you feed a troll, they know that they've got you pissed off. I'm not familiar with the website comicbook.com or the author of this article, but I already think they're a plonker for getting the basics wrong.

Re:Fake?

[Guspaz]

The movie isn't out yet, none of the people voting know if the product is good or bad.

Because it stars a female?

[Anonymous Coward]

There's a certain population of nerdly males on the Internet, you see them in places like 4chan and even here on Slashdot too for example in the comments for The Last Jedi, that cannot handle when a nerdly topic doesn't cater directly to their white straight male egos. The kind of people that fear the "SJW" boogeyman. They go apeshit.

I'm a nerdy straight white male myself, but I'm not so selfish that I insist no one else should be allowed to enjoy nerdly things.

Not sure if it's an Asperger's thing or conservatism, but these people are not all there.

Re:Because it stars a female?

[Anonymous Coward]

Don't bring mental illness into it, that's extremely problematic. It's clear that the issue here is incels and their toxic masculinity, they feel threatened by strong women and they lash out in whatever petty ways they can, because they resent women for not wanting to have sex with them and consider them intruders in their male fantasies about superheroes.

Re:Because it stars a female?

[LordAba]

There have been plenty of beloved female characters in the past. What you mean by "strong" is "the actress is actively pushing my ideology". And you wonder why people shy away.

Re:Because it stars a female?

[junglee_iitk]

So you went out to fight patriarchy and found 14-year-old nerds who can't get laid, and you think they are the reason why Wonder Woman bombed so bad on the big screen, making measly $821 million as the highest grossing superhero origin movie.

My GOD what hateful creatures! Sexist pigs! Won't the world be a better place if they just killed themselves! Right?

Re:Because it stars a female?

[david_thornley]

The ASD people I know seem to have no problem with strong women.

Re:Because it stars a female?

[Opportunist]

Rey would have sucked just as much as a guy. Whether Mary Sue or Marty Stu, a bland character with zero room for development is uninteresting.

Re:Movie reviews (But not really)

[Chas]

No. They're not bombing reviews.
Because the movie isn't out yet. So RT isn't accepting reviews for the film's Tomatometer score yet.

What is being affected is the "Want to see" score (currently at 29% and falling).
This is where the person marks whether or not they are interested in seeing the film.

Thanks!

[demon driver]

This is a new low for Slashdot...

These aren't REVIEWS. Please stop saying that

[sbrown123]

These are "do you plan to see the movie" responses. Actual public movie reviews are only available AFTER the movie is released in theaters. Boring as hell movie trailers and sexist marketing hurt this movie. I imagine this movie will still do well but it will cast a shadow on future Marvel movies (similar to what Last Jedi did to the Solo movie). Someone at Disney needs fired for this mess.

Re: Movie reviews

[Austerity Empowers]

This should not be modded down, it is actually the truth. I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.

Stay classy DC fans

[Comboman]

Starting earlier this week, a certain section of the internet -- for whatever reason -- decided to start filing fake negative reviews in an attempt to purposefully lower the film's Audience Rating.

The reason apparently is a toxic mixture of misogyny and fanboyism.

Shazam!'s Zachary Levi hits out at trolls attacking Captain Marvel and Brie Larson

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[tempo36]

Please tell me how Ms Marvel is shitting on the beloved character you grew up with. Since...well...Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977.

No, no, really...tell us how that's affected you.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[Cro Magnon]

I'm a lot more familiar with Ms Marvel, then I am with the Kree captain. She IS the one I grew up with, excluding the Big Red Cheese from the Direct Competition of course.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[penandpaper]

Don't care. Not affected. Not interested. Just like others on RT. :)

I have developed a warning sense of media I won't like based on the way people "defend" it. If defenders shit on others or are aggressive against those who have criticisms. I move along.

Thanks for the warning. Moving along. Good luck with your movie.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[Stormwatch]

That's Ms. Marvel, right. Captain Marvel is Mar-Vell of the Kree. That's the only one that matters.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[Tyler Durden]

So the post you are reacting to, the one that is answering to a "critique" that begins with "Grow a brain, you arrogant shit," the one that simply asks how it honestly affects them to inspire such a hostile reaction, that is what you see as an aggressive defense shitting on someone else?

Stunning.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[penandpaper]

This thread started with claims of misogyny and fanboyism. Quite insulting and aggressive.
An AC made a comment whose point was "a good movie will do well. SJW shitting on fans doesn't help". Was equally insulting and aggressive. (What exactly are you expecting from an AC? )
GP defends claims of misogyny with "Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977." With an aggressive "No, no, really...tell us how that's affected you.".
I don't care if Captain Marvel was a women in 1977. I don't care if it has affected me. That doesn't make me interested in watching the movie that is being defended by insults (OP) and aggression (GP). Two are throwing shit and a third says "You should like this and believe this shit because I defend shit!". No thanks.

You read this thread and think only the AC is aggressive and insulting? Everyone is a critic.

Nearly every thread in this topic has insults of incel or misogyny or SJW blah blah blah. I got to the end of reading most comments and decided to reply to this one because I can.

simply asks how it honestly affects them to inspire such a hostile reaction,

Quite the loaded portrayal. Why would you give such a hostile reaction when I simple asked when you will stop cheating on your wife. Or when you will you stop murdering children.

Stunning.

Stunning and brave. Meatbag.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[CrimsonAvenger]

Please tell me how Ms Marvel is shitting on the beloved character you grew up with. Since...well...Ms Marvel was introduced in 1977.

I graduated from High School in 1977, you ignorant clod.

That said, while I have a preference for the alien Captain Marvel of my youth, I've got nothing against the woman they replaced the Kree with.

Other than ditching the Skrull storylines, of course. Always entertaining to watch the aliens blowing each other up....

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[Stolovaya]

She didn't say that directly, but that's the feeling that came from her words. Additionally, repeat her phrases, but substitute any other group out for "white men" and see if the same message would fly. Hint: it wouldn't.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[Tyler Durden]

This thread started with claims of misogyny and fanboyism. Quite insulting and aggressive.

The claims of misogyny and fanboyism were based on evidence of posts by people trashing a movie they have not yet seen. If you follow the links further it tells the tale of one Star Wars actress who was forced off of social media due to racist/sexist remarks. If a cop pulls someone over for speeding due to evidence is he being insulting and aggressive or merely doing his job?

Nearly every thread in this topic has insults of incel or misogyny or SJW blah blah blah. I got to the end of reading most comments and decided to reply to this one because I can.

That's funny, most of the posts I see are shrilling proclaiming the terrors of the SJWs. Care to take a count? I guess I assumed the post you'd choose to reply to would be the one you'd find objectionable enough to argue against. *shrug*

Stunning and brave. Meatbag.

Brave? Seriously? I've talked shit on slashdot from time-to-time too (obviously) but I never once confused it for being brave.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[penandpaper]

You can find evidence of anything you look for on social media. So what? Does that mean it is acceptable to attack fans when a bad film fails? Does that mean the reason why bad movies fail is because you can find anything you look for on social media? Does that mean every fan is responsible for anything bad on social media? Does that mean we should read this article as truth that people "not interested" in this movie are stalking the digital allleys waiting for a poor millionaire to attack and abuse their poor delicate psyche?

A millionaire was being insulted? Oh the humanity!!! What ever will they do with their millions of dollars.

"brave"
Oh wow I made a South Park reference. Not everything has to be so serious. I thought the "meatbag" was enough to convey I was heartily having fun but it seems that you have your unisex panties in a wad.

Re:Stay classy DC fans

[tempo36]

Hey, if you've been pissed that Mar-Vel died in 1977 and harbored that feeling for 40 years, I got no problems with that. If that's what you grew up with, I get it. That's at least consistent and I can get behind that...I'm still partial to the Spider Man story lines that occurred in the late 90s when I was finishing high school rather than...whatever the heck happened after 2001.

My issue is people who seem to think that Carol Danvers as Marvel is some kind of recent rewriting of long standing history.

You want to see immature trolls...

[SuperKendall]

So just how well do you think Blank Panther would have fared with "immature trolls" if they had cast Matthew McConaughey as the lead?

Or maybe, just maybe, fans of specific characters just don't like to see large deviations from source material without good reason.

I never read Captain Marvel so I have no strong feelings about it myself, apart from the trailers making the movie appear a bit generic - I'm sure I'll rent it at some point though (like I have for pretty much every marvel movie). To me the thematically competing Shazam seems more fun.

Maybe they could give fans what they want by giving Captain Marvel a "Crying Game" reveal at the end...

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[SuiteSisterMary]

Similarly, I'm curious about why the Internet was up in arms about ScarJo playing the Major in GitS, but nobody is saying a peep about the similarly non-Japanese Rosa Salazar playing Alita.

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[SuperKendall]

That sir is a really interesting point. I didn't think much about either case, but you are right that in terms of consistency people should just be upset by one as the other.

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[im_thatoneguy]

Lol yes. With a name like Captain Marvel, it's realllly important to not change anything lest it is mistaken for just some generic superhero. /s

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[SuperKendall]

Black Panther is about the costume color, not skin color... so it would be totality cool with everyone being played by, say, the same actress as Captian Marvel...

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[drinkypoo]

I'm still just mildly annoyed (though not upset) that they're making an Alita movie at all. Why? What's wrong with Anime? However, I'm not angry enough to write long rants about it, or to go try to bomb sites with votes, only to write a short comment about it.

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[Stormy Dragon]

So just how well do you think Blank Panther would have fared with "immature trolls"

They actually did try to do the same thing to Black Panther that they're trying to do to Captain Marvel now. They just failed.

https://www.bleedingcool.com/2...

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[Deathlok's Bear]

Because of the very obvious answer:
Even in the original manga, Alita was not Japanese.

You could have a better argument about the change from Daisuke Ido -> Dyson Ido.

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[Cederic]

Claiming the film was a triumph for diversity when most of the cast had the same skin colour was offensive.
Claiming that Africa would all be like Wakanda if it wasn't for the evil colonialists was offensive.
Claiming the film was 10/10 must see best film ever is still fucking offensive.

It was ok, a bit much CGI but it's a superhero movie and pretty generic in that regard so shrug.

Re:You want to see immature trolls...

[Rande]

Alita isn't Japanese? She's from Mars. And the city she was dropped down into isn't in Japan? She could be any nationality and it would be fine.

Whereas Major Kusanagi in GitS is a Japanese person living in Japan in a Japanese shell.

Re:GB for Girls

[Anonymous Coward]

The original Captain Marvel was a white man

You don't get to call others hypersentitive when others are being triggered about Danvers picking up the Ms. Marvel/Captain Marvel mantle fucking decades ago.

Is it possible...

[Voyager529]

I mean, maybe it is some sort of smear campaign...but...is it possible that it isn't?

I never followed the comic books. Captain Marvel has never been in any of the previous Marvel movies. For that matter, she has never even been mentioned, aside from the post credit sequence of Infinity War. "Who is this new person that's been sitting around during all the other world-ending things that took place over the past decade?", I ask myself? Meanwhile, Infinity War set up a massive cliffhanger. Chris Evans alluded to Captain America dying in Endgame. We know Captain Marvel isn't going to be the solution to that story line, and the Captain Marvel movie probably won't even make it to Blu-Ray before Endgame is released.

So, is it possible - just possible - that there *is* a reduced desire to see CM simply because of the shadow between the two Infinity War films? I'm just saying that not everything ever is related to Russian bots and sexism.

Re:Movie reviews

[Layzej]

42,343 user ratings for Captain marvel vs 139 for Wonder Park, 114 for Triple Frontier, 58 for The Kid, or 43 for I'm Not Here. Seems like a coordinated effort by Culture Warriors fighting the good fight against the first.

What's especially ironic

[Solandri]

Is that TFA is complaining that the audience is bombing the rating for a movie, on a site whose name is a reference to audience members throwing tomatoes at actors in a poor performance.

Re:What's especially ironic

[mcl630]

A movie nobody has actually seen. How do they know it's poor?

Re:Movie reviews

[Oswald McWeany]

It should do okay, if well written and produced.

It's a Marvel show, neither of those things matter. All that matters is how good the CGI is- that's all the majority of people who watch the film are going to go see. The writing and producing is backstage to that. Helps if they have a few pretty women in it too.

Hmmmm...

[Ferretman]

Looks pretty good to me, actually.

Ferret

Brie Larson's activism

[Anonymous Coward]

https://boundingintocomics.com/2019/02/05/brie-larson-captain-marvel-is-my-form-of-activism

The movie was the biggest and best opportunity I could have ever asked for. It was, like, my superpower. This could be my form of activism: doing a film that can play all over the world and be in more places than I can be physically.”

Larson does get back to her idea of turning Captain Marvel into an opportunity to push her activism. “Inclusion has to be a choice; it’s not happening naturally. You really have to fight for it.”

I just wanna see an entertaining super-hero comic-book flick, not some preachy vehicle for Larson's "activism". Apparently many people feel the same. It's not all about you and your politics, Brie.

Re:Brie Larson's activism

[R3d M3rcury]

I dunno. From everything I’ve heard about the story, it sounds pretty good. I’ll definitely go see it.

Actors play roles but they are not that person. Watch actors discuss their characters and they refer to them in the third person. So I don’t really care what Kurt Russel’s views on immigration are or Dennis Hopper’s views on income inequality. If they’re playing an interesting character in an interesting movie, I’all go see it.

Re:Brie Larson's activism

[zlives]

roger that, heck i am lucky if i remember the actor's name in 98% of the shows and movies i watch. and i certainly don't give a rats ass about thier politics. if some one wants to play politics then their option is to create art that represents that and then I can choose to either see it or not.

FTA
"Larson will push the activism during her global press tour for Captain Marvel, describing that she “has pledged to spotlight other women behind the scenes, insisting on gender and racial parity in the press and wearing mostly female designers.”"

and i will not be watching the press tour, not just hers but any other actors as well. she wants to go out on her own dime and say something or better yet affect some change by her actions and not spotlight interviews promoting her movie... more power to her.

Re:Brie Larson's activism

[sabbede]

But since the movie isn't about her politics (so far as any of us know), who cares?

Worse, by launching an SJW stupidity campaign against the movie, the idiots who cared enough to be involved only call positive attention to her nonsense.

Re:GB for Girls

[Anonymous Coward]

Carol Danvers has more recently taken the title Captain Marvel but her character under the title of Ms Marvel has been part of the Marvel universe for years.

Re:GB for Girls

[H_Fisher]

Perhaps, in our hyper sensitive, over victimized culture, people are tired of changes made solely in the name of "equality".

But the second comic book iteration of Captain Marvel was a different woman, Monica Rambeau. She first appeared in 1982 and held the Captain Marvel title 'til 1996, appearing again in other forms. (Source: http://comicbookdb.com/charact...)

I'm no fan of change for change's sake, but let's not pretend that the character has always been a white guy. I've got no reason to complain about Carol Danvers as Captain Marvel, and I'm looking forward to at least seeing the movie when it comes out, before I judge it too harshly.

and soon the dmca will be used to take down bad

[Joe_Dragon]

and soon the dmca will be used to take down bad ones.

Re:GB for Girls

[djshaffer]

There have been 7 Captain Marvel's, of which 3 have been female. It seems that only one, Carol Danvers, is human (or at least began as human).

Is this just an attempt to drum up controversy?

[rsilvergun]

There's no background, just a link to the page. And as another poster pointed out it's not reviews, it's the "Want to See" rating.

It's possible somebody is using bots or just plain organizing a movement against the film for some reason or another (I can't imagine what, sure it's a female lead but so what? It's not like Supergirl gets this treatment or that the gender swapped Batman or something).

Without context this looks like more click bait meant to exploit the ongoing SJW debate on the Internet. It shouldn't have been greenlit. It's an obnoxious attempt to get more folks clicking /. links for one more ad impression. Shame on you /. editors.

Re:Is this just an attempt to drum up controversy?

[UnknowingFool]

From what I remember about Ghostbusters, there was a lot of intense online hate for the film much of which was focused it was a mostly female cast. For me the movie was mediocre. It wasn’t as good as the original but better than the sequel. Reading some of the user reviews, some people made it seem like it destroyed their childhoods because it had a female cast.

Re:Is this just an attempt to drum up controversy?

[thegarbz]

And as another poster pointed out it's not reviews, it's the "Want to See" rating.

A distinction without a difference. Point is if you look at the stats either Captain Marvel is 70x more interesting to opine about than all other blockbusters coming out this year (avengers excepted), or there is still a coordinated effort to make it look bad.

Re:Is this just an attempt to drum up controversy?

[david_thornley]

I liked the 2016 Ghostbusters. It was funny, which is all a Ghostbusters movie has ever aimed for.

Re:Is this just an attempt to drum up controversy?

[UnknowingFool]

Except that there wasn't. It was mostly fake. . .And it sort of worked - a lot of people remember the movie not as a bad movie (and it is) but as a movie that was attacked by online misogynists. It didn't work in driving ticket sales, but it definitely worked in driving the narrative for why the movie flopped. .

You can look at the comments/review on the Rotten Tomatoes today that shows the exact opposite. Plenty of people still hating on the movie in Feb 2019 because it was a female cast. Just go on Rotten Tomatoes today. You can go back and see the same thing. The movie was mediocre for me. I think you just need a reason to hate the movie.

Re: Movie reviews

[Dunbal]

NO! We can put out infinite numbers of cartoon based superhero stories all with essentially the same plotline and people will line up to see them forever! It has to be bombers! No wait... it could be.... RUSSIAN bombers!!!

Re:Movie reviews (But not really)

[Anonymous Coward]

And are they actually bombing it? Because if so, Rotten Tomatoes should be able to detect this and adjust for it.

If a whole lot of people simply don't want to see it, I would expect that people with a vested interest in the movie doing well would cry "bomb!" in hopes of motivating people to see it anyway.

Bah ... losers ...

[Anonymous Coward]

Whiny loser incels on a rant about white mail privilege and how they feel their tiny penises are holding them back.

I'm afraid I have little tolerance or patience for the indignant straight white males who feel the world is stacked against them -- and I say this as a straight white male.

Deal with it, and stop blaming everyone else for your problems.

Re:GB for Girls

[dhasenan]

It is indeed unfortunate that white men are only represented in leading roles in Marvel films via Steve Rogers, Bruce Banner, Tony Stark, Peter Parker, Thor, Wade Wilson, Eddie Brock, Frank Castle, Stephen Strange, Peter Quill, and Scott Lang. Equality is nice and all, but the Marvel Cinematic Universe has only had fifteen movies starring white men, three with ensemble casts, one with a black man as lead, one with both a man and a woman in title roles, and zero with leading women. Isn't that enough? Shouldn't women be happy as supporting characters and, 5% of the time, secondary protagonists?

It's also terrible that the film writers chose to stick with the 2012 canon of Ms Marvel taking on the role of Captain Marvel, becoming the first -- sorry, the... fourth? female Captain Marvel, a role that had previously been exclusively reserved for men since the character's inception in 1967 -- whoops, the Monica Rambeau storyline from 1982 to 1993 -- sorry, the Phylla-Vell era Captain Marvel's end and replacement in 2007. This is unprecedented revisionism just for the sake of views. Male roles should remain male roles.

Re:GB for Girls

[tempo36]

Seriously...like the late 70s. People who think this is some sort of gender swap in the name of equality are showing just how comic book clueless they actually are.

Re:Movie reviews

[lgw]

some juvenile Fedora wearing basement dwellers no doubt have a problem with female leads

Bad movie after bad movie has gone to this excuse, but it's largely bullshit. Yes, there's some tiny group like that. No, they don't matter. That's not why people didn't like the sad Ghostbusters reboot, That's not why people didn't like The Last Jedi.

A large subsection of the comic-book movie crowd are apparently intimidated by leading ladies.

A non-zero subsection, but there's no reason to believe it's "large", except as a worn-out excuse for a bad movie. No, moviegoers don't hate women. Comic books especially have always led entertainment when it comes to diversity, and comic book fans have never had a problem with that.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Oh, but these are the interested people, the ones interested in posting a biased and sexist agenda.

Re:GB for Girls

[jareth-0205]

Perhaps, in our hyper sensitive, over victimized culture, people are tired of changes made solely in the name of "equality". The original Captain Marvel was a white man,,, we certainly can't have another successful movie featuring a white male, we need to change things up a bit. . Like "Ghost Busters for girls" (Ghostbusters 2016) or Ocean's 8 - the sound of flopping can still resounds.

Go count the number of Marvel movies with a white male protagonist, and count the number with the main protagonist being either not white, or not a man, and then come back and tell me how victimised you are. There is a whole world of other interesting perspectives and stories that you are frightened of for some reason.

Fuck my life, do you not want to see any films with different sorts of people in them? Why would you pretend that there are no women Captain Marvels in the comics, do you think it helps your victim-status?

It'll Help

[ZipXap]

If you are going to see a Marvel movie then we can already establish that you like bad movies.

Oh Lord

[rsilvergun]

I read a bit of that. Apparently people are confusing DC's Captain Marvel (Shazaam) and Marvel's Captain Marvel and think that somehow they made Captain Marvel a women in the Captain Marvel movie....

It reminds me of the folks who were surprised that Emperor Palpatine and Chancellor Palpatine were the same person. I can't even... I mean...

And for the record, Captain Marvel's been a woman since 1982. Not that it even matters. It goes back and forth because the name "Captain Marvel" was picked because, well, Marvel Comics. Jeez, comic book fans these days.

And I pointed this out elsewhere but I'm guessing this is all just fake controversy to get clicks for ad revenue. Both sides of the SJW debate seem to be exploiting it for quick cash.

Re:Oh Lord

[CronoCloud]

Monica Rambeau is actually the SECOND female Captain Marvel, Carol Danvers (the character played by Brie Larson) is the first in 1977. Monica took on the name (but not the powers, her powers are different) when Carol got her powers permanently absorbed by Rogue of the Mystique-led Brotherhood of Evil Mutants. Soon after that Rogue joined the X-men.

Re:Oh Lord

[Cro Magnon]

Carol didn't call herself "Captain" then, so technically the above poster is correct.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.

Not true. Captain Marvel is a relatively well known superhero name. Unfortunately for Marvel, the well-known Captain Marvel is in DC's stable, along with the rest of the Marvel family. (They've been promoting Captain Marvel more recently as Shazam, however that's not his name; Shazam is the wizard who granted Captain Marvel his powers.)

Marvel's Captain Marvel, on the other hand? A relative unknown. I had been peripherally aware that Marvel had someone by that name in their hero pantheon, but until recently I thought he was male.

Re:Never trust review aggregator scores

[lgw]

That's the power of democracy. It's not rule by assholes who imagine they're smarter than everyone else. That's why it's the least bad system that's ever been tried.

Re:Movie reviews

[magusxxx]

"...some juvenile Fedora wearing basement dwellers no doubt have a problem with female leads..."

But enough about the tv execs who canceled Agent Carter.

Get offa my lawn

[cellocgw]

If Captain Marvel doesn't invoke the special word "Shazam" to function, it ain't Captain Marvel. Poo on all the subsequent pretenders.

Re:Get offa my lawn

[Pfhorrest]

There is also a Shazam movie coming out soon. And nowadays, his superhero name really is Shazam, despite the TVtrope title to the contrary.

Having a DC character named "Captain Marvel" was always a bad idea.

Re:Reivews? What reviews?

[CrimsonAvenger]

they're merely posting weather

Posting weather? Like, "rain likely on Wednesday"?

Re: Movie reviews

[Jason Levine]

Honestly, most people outside of comics fans didn't know who Iron Man was either prior to his movie. He was considered a minor hero that Marvel was trotting out to test the waters for a big movie release. They expected Iron Man to barely make a profit and just act as set up for future blockbusters. Instead, it was a huge success and now Tony Stark is a household name.

Re:Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

It's almost like people have actually heard of Captain Marvel.

Re: Movie reviews

[Cro Magnon]

Most of the people who have heard of Captain Marvel probably think "Shazam".

Re: Movie reviews

[laird]

Really, you're whole take is to argue terminology. In this case incorrectly, since they're literally labeled "Captain Marvel Reviews / Audience" on the site.

Look for yourself: https://www.rottentomatoes.com... .

Stop saying this is fake news.

[magusxxx]

There were many negative reviews posted which were retroactively removed after the events of Avengers: End Game.

Just wait a few months and we'll all see how it was done.

Re: Movie reviews

[Tom]

That and the fact that... I mean... Marvel Comics introduces a character named Captain Marvel. It's hard to grasp proper words to describe what my intuitive reaction to that is, but it's not exactly "omg, I have to go and watch that".

Batman, Superman - they are household names. Thor and Loki are familiar enough that on a lazy day you'll be like "let's check what these two are up to". I didn't know about Guardians of the Galaxy before (not a comic fan), but the name is enticing. But "Captain Marvel"? Without lots of advertisement, which at least over here in Europe I haven't seen yet, I don't even know why I should care.

Re:Movie reviews

[es330td]

A large subsection of the comic-book movie crowd are apparently intimidated by leading ladies.

The problem isn't leading ladies but plausibility. Women in general are not physiologically strong. An exceptional female is at the level of a merely above average male. Superman is supernaturally strong, but he also looks like he works out. The same is true of Captain America. Much is made visually of his musculature. Same with Black Panther. Each of these presents an image that strong men have bodies that appear to have enlarged muscles. There is a mental disconnect between the visual of a woman physically dominating men and the same happening in reality. The reality is that in a fight with Natasha Romanov a tank would take her first punch on his raised forearms, grapple her to the ground and beat the $#%^ out of her. I think this is a large part of the appeal of a hero like Katniss Everdeen. She is smart, focused and skilled in the use of weapons. This is a believable female hero.

The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film. Our brains are telling us "Something just isn't right here..."

Re:I don't

[JaredOfEuropa]

The book is supposed to be high literature to some (it isn’t, though I did enjoy reading it). But I’ll doubt you will find many people - even amongst the more staunch Rand fans - who enjoyed that trilogy train wreck. But perhaps you confused Atlas Shrugged with the Fountainhead, another Rand book turned into a (much better) movie.

It is the worst Marvel movie though...

[bblb]

Saw this Saturday, it's a fun movie and doesn't suck but it's pretty bad as far as what we've come to expect. Aside from the social justice pandering, which is pretty prevalent, the special effects are much less realistic and sort of cartoonish. Captain Marvel is, visually, the worst looking superhero... I was hoping for something more vision'esque in terms of CGI but she kinda looks more like a low budget SciFi channel movie character. The 90's setting is terrifically nostalgic, the movie itself is engaging enough and decently fun to watch... but it definitely falls short of the other movies by a good margin, and the excessive sjw pandering only makes it worse. If Avengers was a 9, Captain Marvel is a 6.

Re:It is the worst Marvel movie though...

[bosef1]

One of the persistent comments on this article is that the movie hasn't been released yet. I assume you did see the movie before the release date (4 Mar for the Hollywood premiere), but would you be willing to identify how you saw the movie early? Were you part of a test screening audience, or do you have a friend in the industry, or something more awesome?

Re:It is the worst Marvel movie though...

[bblb]

Nothing too awesome... a friend of a friend was involved with the movie, they invited a few people to a screening and I was lucky enough to be someone's +1.

Is the reason really 'Female Lead = Bad'?

[Kiralan]

It may simply be there is little interest in a minor character as lead in a movie. I never really followed that character as a kid, in any of the revisions, genders and revivals. Same with the DC character Martian Manhunter. He/She was just not interesting enough to spend my dollars on a separate comic/storyline.

Re:Is the reason really 'Female Lead = Bad'?

[UnknowingFool]

You could say that about Guardians of the Galaxy as they were not exactly popular for me. The problem for Marvel is the way the storyline is set up, they need an overpowered character can beat Thanos and there are few of them. Phoenix is one of them but rights are with another studio. They hinted at Adam Warlock in Guardians 2. There were talks of Squirrel Girl as a movie but I don’t know that is in development.

Re:For whatever reason

[PopeRatzo]

Well if you want to put it that way, women do have a penis, it's just a very small penis and called a clit.

This has been another edition of Sex Education from Anonymous Cowards. Join us tomorrow for a special report, Pee is Stored in the Balls.

Yes, as already stated, by me

[SuperKendall]

So you have no idea what you're talking about then.

That is correct, and also what I stated plainly to be the case...

The second biggest change in her story is the name of her alien cat.

Ok, NOW I am pissed also. You do NOT mess with cat names. INTERNET RAGE ON.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

"Women in general are not physiologically strong. .... The reality is ... "

Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a misogynist, you know this is a movie about a comic book superhero, right?

Dear RT trolls

[rickb928]

Posting fake, disingenuous, deliberately bad reviews will not lower ticket prices.

Please reconsider your tactics.

Sincerely,

PLU

Re: Movie reviews

[Brett Buck]

The inevitable confusion with Captain Marvel (Billy Batson saying Shazam!, now tih DC) does it no favors, either. A lot more people have heard about him than Carol Danvers.

Re:Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Wait a minute... you mean a movie that is one of the most hyped episodes in one of the most successful movie series of all time might be generating more activity that "Wonder Park"?

Surely there must be some evil plot afoot!

SJW?

[colonslash]

You can view the actual reasons.

There are a number of them giving Brie Larson's rant on the diversity of movie critics as their reason:

> I do not need a 40-year-old white dude to tell me what didn’t work for him about ‘A Wrinkle In Time.'

Re:SJW?

[Stolovaya]

^ This. And this isn't being called out nearly enough. Brie Larson specifically called out white men; she doesn't want to hear from them. She specifically mentioned reviewers, but people are taking it to mean "I want to see less white men (in regards to my movie)". Why would I give money towards someone as blatantly sexist and racist as she is?

But it's funny. All the people in this thread moaning about incels and such, if Larson made comments like these about any other group, they'd be furious. No, it's hip and socially acceptable to demean white men today, and this is just another example of that narrative. And when this racism and sexism is called out, it usually just leads to doubling down ("can't be racist against white people", etc.).

I can't say that's the sole reason that the "want to see" score is so low. I would mostly attribute it to that. I'm sure there are a few incels. But there have been lots of leading women in sci-fi/fantasy movies (see all the examples that have been posted in this thread), so that seems unlikely.

So, again, it's not about a woman in a leading role. It's about racist and sexist comments made by Brie Larson.

Re:SJW?

[sabbede]

So, the same as some SJW's overreaction to some stupid thing someone said? Two wrongs making... tens of thousands of meaningless comments?

I can't think of a single instance where an actors personal beliefs affected my desire to see something they were in. And I certainly can't think of any stupid thing an actor has said that made me lose my mind and act like some brain dead 20y/o SJW.

Re:SJW?

[sabbede]

So, tens of thousands of people on the right acting just like left-wing SJWs for the same sorts of stupid reasons?

I can't wrap my head around the idea of not seeing a movie I would otherwise want to just because an actor in it said something stupid. Who cares? She didn't write the movie, she's just in it pretending to be someone else. This is just like the SJW BS around Ender's Game, except somehow even dumber.

Re:SJW?

[Stolovaya]

So, the same as some SJW's overreaction to some stupid thing someone said? Two wrongs making... tens of thousands of meaningless comments?

That's up to you. Many people are voting to not support someone that has sexist and racist views. You are free to support anyone that is racist or sexist; to many people, knowing that taint is behind the movie is a huge turn-off.

Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.

I can't think of a single instance where an actors personal beliefs affected my desire to see something they were in. And I certainly can't think of any stupid thing an actor has said that made me lose my mind and act like some brain dead 20y/o SJW.

That's your value system, and that's fine. Lots of people separate the artist and their work, and lots of people don't, and tons of variations in between. Artists and their work being separated or not is not an SJW thing. There is no "correct" answer to which way of thinking people should follow.

Re:SJW?

[sabbede]

So, punish the thousands of other people involved in the movie because you don't like an opinion voiced by one person, who isn't even involved in a creative role?

And you hit the "Well you might not be outraged by this trivial nonsense, but I am because I'm morally superior to you", SJW attitude perfectly.

Re:SJW?

[Stolovaya]

So, punish the thousands of other people involved in the movie because you don't like an opinion voiced by one person, who isn't even involved in a creative role?

No one is obligated to see this movie. Regardless of whoever worked on this movie, they are not entitled to mine or anyone else's money. I'm against racism and sexism, and I will do my best to avoid works where those sort of values are celebrated. There are nuances around this (what exactly was said, what was done, the attitude involved), but I'm cool with not seeing Captain Marvel because of this.

And you hit the "Well you might not be outraged by this trivial nonsense, but I am because I'm morally superior to you", SJW attitude perfectly.

Sexism and racism may be meaningless to you, but it's not for a lot of people.

Also, nope. I'm not saying that no one should be allowed to see this (which is an SJW thing). Anyone is free to see it, free of judgement from me. I will judge people on cheering on Brie Larson's comments, but that's it as far as the movie. Not exactly an SJW attitude.

What do film critics say?

[sinequonon]

Well if the film critics generally respond positively, this makes me just want to go see it and give a big raspberry to the misogynists out there. I rarely go to the theater any more because of the adverts, but the 'Captain Marvel' trailers at least make it look pretty good.

Re:Movie reviews

[t0rkm3]

Indeed... as a married man with a couple of kids. One boy, one girl.

I've had a lifetime of comicbook reading and viewing. I have my tastes, my wife and kids have theirs. None of us are excited about Captain Marvel. To me, she's overpowered and boring (I also dislike superman.) To my wife, the SJW narrative seems wedged into the story (at least some of the trailer bants.)

To my kids? If it's Marvel and Thor, Iron Man, Black Widow, Gamora, Groot or Captain America aren't present... then meh. They also liked the Valkyrie, but my daughter didn't approve of her drinking problem. :D

Re: "Strong women scare the hell out of..."

[Killall -9 Bash]

Feminists have a fucked up idea of what "strong" is. Asshole is asshole. We don't like male assholes either.

Re:Movie reviews

[fortythirteen]

40k+ for a Marvel movie, compared to four movies I've never heard of? That looks like some seriously cherry-picked data manufactured for outrage.

Avengers Endgame has over 10k with a 98% "want to see" score, and that doesn't even come out for 2 months. The last Avengers movie has 52k.

Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[Rick Schumann]

Does anyone actually pay any attention to 'reviews' before they go see a movie? Or do they watch previews and make up their own mind?

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[radarskiy]

The point of Rotten Tomatoes is that it 1) aggregates multiple sources 2) from both professional reviews and regular movie goers. There are interesting differences between which movies are critical darlings and which are fun to watch,

However, in this case the the audience score should be completely set aside, since the movie is not released yet so those ratings are almost all guaranteed to be bogus.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[thegarbz]

I go to Rotten Tomatoes. Who in their right mind watches a preview? If I want the only interesting plot points of a movie spoiled I'd just watch the previews and skip seeing the movie altogether.

Seriously do NOT watch previews if you're interested in enjoying a movie. **spoiler ahead**

**spoiler ahead**
Oh look Henry Cavil's character was just introduced to team up with Tom Cruise, what an amazing team they would make if we didn't know that Henry Cavil plays the bad guy thanks to the preview showing him fucking shooting at and punching Tom Cruise.

I purposely tried to get to the cinema late to skip the spoilers section but FUCK I screwed up that time.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[Rick Schumann]

Yeah sure I'll just listen to what a bunch of complete strangers on the Internet have to say rather than making up my own mind, LOL, not for what seeing a movie in a theatre costs these days I won't.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[Rick Schumann]

FFS it's just a movie not a lifestyle or dissertation research for a Doctorate why would I go to all that trouble? I go to movies to be entertained and NOT think for a couple hours not turn it into homework. I could care less about 'critics', again I'll make up my own mind not have someone else make it up for me.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[thegarbz]

Yeah sure I'll just listen to what a bunch of complete strangers on the Internet have to say rather than making up my own mind

Those weren't the two options presented. The two options presented were:
1. Listen to complete strangers on the internet.
2. Watch a presentation from a marketing team spoil the major plot elements of a movie with a deep voice overlay and (as recently shown) presenting something completely unlike the final movie.

Given that choice you presented I'll pick the random people on the internet. The great thing about sites like Rotten Tomatoes is they aggregate reviews. That doesn't mean they are right, but it's always worth listening to people if for no other reason than to find out what makes the masses tick.

Personally I take option 3: Listen to complete strangers on the internet, then completely ignore what they say when I see the movie regardless.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[mjwx]

Does anyone actually pay any attention to 'reviews' before they go see a movie? Or do they watch previews and make up their own mind?

I usually wait to see what my friends think.

People who do review bombing usually lack friends.

Professional reviewers can be paid to lie. Amateur reviewers don't even need to be paid to lie. I'm familiar with my friends tastes and expectations, so I have a reasonable baseline to compare it to.

Re:Does anyone actually care about rottentomatoes?

[Stan42]

Is there a way to add the "Thank You " meme from the office in here ? Anyway... thank you !

Re: Movie reviews

[Killall -9 Bash]

It's not an acronym, it's a portmanteau. "Involuntarily celibate". It's pretty funny that left-tards like to use this word so much, considering that it's origins are in MGTOW infighting (as in "you're not a real MGTOW, you're an incel!")

Re:Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

I hate the go to excuse for bad products as much as the next person but let's be honest about a couple of things...

1. The comic book industry, video game industry, and geek culture in general does have a gender equality issue. Nothing truly oppressive but from Women in Refrigerators, to Gamergate, to numerous other examples there is an issue here. The fact that the backlash to it is often overblown and reactionary doesn't mean the issue doesn't exist.

2. The Ghostbusters reboot was not good I agree but the Last Jedi was fine. It wasn't high art but none of the Star Wars franchise are. The place you see the anti-actress backlash was not so much in whether people liked it or not but it the vehemence they unloaded on the Rey and Rose characters in expressing their dislike. Again not truly oppressive stuff but definitely indicative of immature fan bases suffering from the inability to interact with women on equal footing. It is possible to express your dislike with out yelling, name calling, and threatening people....yes even on the interwebs. =)

Re:I don't

[Killall -9 Bash]

Who is John Galt? John Galt is Nikola Tesla, and he didn't get screwed by communism, he got screwed by capitalism.

Not that I want to cheer-lead for either economic system... but Rand had met Tesla.... She knew better, and used his likeness to push her political bullshit anyway.

Badly written book, and I couldn't get through the 50 page monologue at the end.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Fair enough. But even within super hero fan circles, Captain Marvel (generally) isn't really well known/liked.

Most people I know know her for getting her Powers drained by Rogue and that's why Rogue can do all the stuff she can do.

Meanwhile MCU fans have been requesting a Black Widow movie since forever. Many are now looking forward to Storm, Rogue, etc... And we get... Captain Marvel. At the last minute, to help with Thanos. And they want big time Feminist points for it too. It sounds remarkably stupid to a lot of people.

Re:GB for Girls

[CronoCloud]

You're forgetting that Monica Rambeau used the name for a while, during the time that Danvers was either de-powered or Binary.

Re:Movie reviews

[zerocommazero]

Personally, I didnt care about the female-only cast and just figured it wasn't targeted to me. I rented it for my daughters (then 11 & 13) and we (my wife too) watched it on a Saturday night. Let me tell you, you know its a bad sign when your kids ask YOU if its "bed time, yet" on a Saturday night. We all were bored and turned it off about 2/3rds through it. The dialogue was so bad and the jokes just fell flat. It was like watching an episode of Gilmore Girls (my daughters got into this show for a bit) where you realize after hearing the banter that no one in real life actually talks like this and ultimately its just off-putting.

Re: Movie reviews

[CohibaVancouver]

True, Anonymous Coward.

I'm GenX - Age 52 in less than a month. In the comics I read as a kid, Captain Marvel was always a DC Property - That's how I know the name.

Billy Batson says "SHAZAM!" and turns into Captain Marvel:

https://static.comicvine.com/u...

I'm still keen to see the Marvel movie, though. It looks fun.

Re:GB for Girls

[CronoCloud]

Umm, Carol Danvers first became Captain Marvel in 1977. The Kree guy was Mar-Vell. (called Captain Marvel by humans). Carol got zapped by the Kree Psyche Magnetron. She later, in 80's got her powers permanently absorbed by Rogue. later, she became Binary. Can't remember when she lost her Binary powers and became Captain Marvel again.

"Ms. Marvel" is Sharon Ventura, who later became a "She-Thing"

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually, the original label is incorrect. These aren't reviews or at least what people would generally call reviews. They indicate interest to see. Exactly what was said.

Re:Movie reviews

[suutar]

so this prerelease movie with a reportedly "obscure" title character has 4 times the votes as the prerelease movie that's a sequel to a very very well known franchise. Somehow that seems improbable.

Re:I don't

[JaredOfEuropa]

Badly written book, and I couldn't get through the 50 page monologue at the end.

The book has its issues (those monologues are certainly part of that), but I still enjoyed the story. And I was interested in some of the ideas behind it; when and where I was growing up it was extremely unlikely to come across such ideas - not just the full on libertarian ones but also her more mainstream notions - in books, on TV or in class. So while I never bought into Rand's philosophy, I daresay her books have influenced some of my views.

To amplify the point

[Okian Warrior]

No, moviegoers don't hate women. Comic books especially have always led entertainment when it comes to diversity, and comic book fans have never had a problem with that.

To amplify the point, no one had a problem with Ripley gunning down Aliens - it was an awesome movie and perhaps one of the best SF movies of all time.

No one has a problem with Black Widow tricking Loki into revealing his plans, or largely holding her own against the Winter Soldier. I saw both of those and was impressed at how female characters in Marvel movies are *not* useless. Including Maria Hill gunning down the attacker on the helicarrier bridge. (Also of note: no one cares that Nick Fury is played by a black man, it's extremely well done.)

There's an interesting article(*) on Breitbart that sums up the current situation: a) Hollywood engages in hatred towards half the country, and b) this wouldn't be a problem if the movies were any good. As it turns out they're not any good, and this is just us hating you back.

From the article:

Yes, we’ve been insulted, and we’re sick of it. But I can overlook a lot of insults if you give me something worthy of praise. Maria Callas insulted a lot of people, but we still wanted to hear her sing. Can we say the same about the films nominated for Best Picture?

A specific instance cited in the article is Spike Lee's "BlackkKlansman" (nominated best picture this round) compared to "Giant" (1957). Spike Lee's movie casts whites as evil while doling out liberal doses of shame and humiliation, while at the end of "Giant" the audience is visibly rooting for Rock Hudson fighting with a racist diner owner.

Same message, good (versus bad) delivery.

Maybe this is why movie attendance is low, and oscars attendance is really low: the movies are crap, we're sick of the insults, and we don't like being brow-beaten with your social justice message.

(*) Yes, it's from Breitbart, get over it. It's an insightful article that largely describes the problem, and attacking the source is not the same as discussing the content.

Re:To amplify the point

[lgw]

Also of note: no one cares that Nick Fury is played by a black man, it's extremely well done.

Fun fact: that incarnation of Nick Fury always looked like Sam Jackson in the comics, years before the Marvel movies. It was so blatant that he had his lawyers contact Marvel about using his likeness, and they settled on a deal where he'd get first refusal on any movie role.

The character was Samuel L. Jackson before Samuel L. Jackson even knew it existed.

Re:To amplify the point

[nwf]

Interesting. I never read the comics, but Samuel L. Jackson is perfect for that role. I really liked his character in everything he's played it.

And, to say on topic, I'll likely either see or purchase Captain Marvel. It looks interesting to me.

Re:To amplify the point

[lgw]

I'm giving Captain Marvel a miss, simply because it's "bland superhero". No hook there for me. The only superhero movies I'm looking forward to are the next Avengers, just to wrap up my interest in Marvel movies, and Shazam (also known as Captain Marvel) because it looks very silly, and I love superhero comedy.

Re: Movie reviews

[jythie]

If fans were not interested in a movie, wouldn't they just not comment on it?

This is from the Studio. False Flag

[supercell]

I have watched this closely. There have been numerous very recently stories about how men are bashing this movie etc. Yet, as far as I can tell no one has or can bash this movie. Having followed film releases, a similar strategy seems to emerge. The studios get a pre-relase feed back, realize the film is going to bomb and purposely find a group to blame the poor showing on. So they are false flagging basement dwelling men as the reason this film will do poorly. They already know it's audience pre-screening is bad, so they are going to find something to blame other than themselves.

Re:Negative sentimnent for Captain Marvel is actua

[LordAba]

Exactly... Scarlett in a Black Widow movie wouldn't get this amount of bad press, and she would just as strong a character if not stronger.

There have been black super hero leads in the past. There have been female super hero leads in the past. It's just when people say "oh... the white boys are afraid of a strong XXX lead" they mean an actress who is pushing their agenda. It has nothing to do with the character being played.

Re:GB for Girls

[CronoCloud]

say "could expect" because often attempts are made to wash a character into something it's not. I suspect that this is an attempt to make a macho male character then replace "him" with a girl and declare the project complete.

Carol Danvers first became Captain Marvel in 1977, exposed to energies from the Kree Psyche-magnetron device.

Several other women have used that name in the Marvel universe. When Carol became depowered after an encounter with Rogue of the X-Men, Monica Rambeau (who currently goes by "Photon" IIRC....doublechecks...ah "Spectrum") took the name.

Sharon Ventura (given powers by Karl Malus in that UCWF storyline) was known as Ms. Marvel.

Then there's Kamala Khan (part Inhuman), who uses the Ms. Marvel alias currently.

The original Kree fellow was really named Mar-Vell.

Sad but not surprising...

[b12arr0]

I personally don't care about reviews. It's always made me laugh a little. "Yes, I want to know what other think about said movie, game, etc. so I can determine if it's going to be enjoyable to me." I've watched movies or played games that absolutely bombed the review sites but I absolutely loved them. If I solely relied on reviews before I played a video game or watched a movie, I'd have far more time for cleaning the house, doing dishes, mowing the yard, etc. :)

I've personally started avoiding reviews for movies I haven't watched or games I haven't played. If I talk to a friend who's played/watch said product, I'll listen and find out what they truly loved/hated about it but review sites... pass until I try it for myself.

When I read this article, it made me sad that there are people out there like this. They seem to get some relief by trashing a product. It doesn't matter if the product is any good or has value to another person. There's too many comic book movies, lets trash this movie. This game wasn't made on my preferred video game console, let's trash it. It's just sad to see.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

sound like a misogynist

What is the misogyny? Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men? This is the problem with pushing so hard on ideology that you disregard reality.

Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter. Would have been great. I would have agreed. No issue.

But no, you had to go with "facts are misogyny" because some reason in this day and age it's sexist to state a simple physiological verifiable fact about humans. There is a reason why trans women in sports is an issue now. Because idiots like you think ideology trumps reality. Fallon Fox gives her opponents a concussion, an orbital bone fracture, and seven staples to the head in the 1st round because of the benefits of growing up male. We had sex segregated sports for a reason.

Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.

Re: Movie reviews

[fortfive]

IDK, man, Daredevil has been pretty good, and season 3 here the best of the lot. I haven't seen it, but a lot of people, including, apparently, eminem (whose opinion counts more than ours because he's famous), say that the Punisher was mighty good.

Re: Movie reviews

[fortfive]

But, like, isn't the M in MCU for "Marvel," and surely that's pretty important? I don't know anything about either marvel, I only just learned in this thread that Shazam was not the name of the character who utters the phrase (I can take the heat for not being a comic book guy).

Link to the actual reviews

[rundgong]

Since a lot of people are claiming it's just the interest meter, and no reviews. It's actually both.
Here is a link to the actual Audience Reviews.
https://www.rottentomatoes.com...
At present time around 400 audience reviews have been submitted. The written reviews seem mixed but more positive than the interest meter suggests.

Um... isn't this the exact opposite of that

[rsilvergun]

Female lead, not an ensemble cast. Smaller scale story. Seems to me like they're trying to change up the formula.

That said, yeah, a female lead was bound to bring some bad elements out of the woodwork, and there's an entire anti-SJW outrage machine on YouTube and Twitter that exists to make money from those bad elements and the manufactured controversy they create. Worse, the left wing responds to them instead of just ignoring them until they go away.

Where there's smoke there's fire, especially if some joker with a flame thrower and a case of Molotovs is around and about. Ignore it though and they fires'll go out on their own and the only thing that'll get burnt is that joker's own home.

Re: Um... isn't this the exact opposite of that

[phantomfive]

My feeling from the advertising is that they are trying to figure out a way to get women interested in superhero movies. Similar thing with the first Thor, but a different approach. Thor was eye candy, captain marvel will have drama elements (like slapping an old woman in the face on a train).

Re:Um... isn't this the exact opposite of that

[Opportunist]

especially if some joker with a flame thrower and a case of Molotovs is around and about.

You see, I'm a guy of simple taste. I enjoy dynamite, and gunpowder, and gasoline! And do you know what they all have in common? They're cheap.

Western values under attack

[Socguy]

If anyone has been paying attention to what's been happening in the world of weaponized trolling, this should surprise no one. Paid foreign actors who are looking to sew discord (in largely western society) are taking up both sides of many issues (social and political) they think can be blown up into a polarizing argument. They spam away on social media, youtube, twitter etc. Along they way they hope to drag as many folks as possible into the never ending argument quagmire. By dividing a population and causing internal turmoil, they create space for their political overlords to operate with less outside scrutiny.

Don't play their games. Next time you think you should argue with some idiot on the internet save your energy for things that actually matter.

Re:Western values under attack

[iggymanz]

the funny thing is that people like you take this stuff seriously; it's just a crappy movie about a series of hero/heroine even most comic book viewer don't give a shit about

Re:Western values under attack

[AbRASiON]

Please read this guy's post, he's making some very good points.

Just replace the foreign actor section with "smart marketing folk and western pay per click outrage peddlers"

The claims this stuff is "the Russians" is some of the wildest nonsense I've ever heard.

Re: Movie reviews

[CronoCloud]

Marvel's Captain Marvel, on the other hand? A relative unknown. I had been peripherally aware that Marvel had someone by that name in their hero pantheon, but until recently I thought he was male.

Hand in your Nerd card. Carol Danvers became Captain Marvel (well Ms. Marvel), when she got zapped by the Kree Psyche Magnetron in 1977. The Kree "Captain Mar-Vell"... well he died, Carol then adopted his name to honor his memory.

Monica Rambeau (currently Spectrum) also used the name when Carol got depowered by Rogue just before she joined the X-Men.

All of that happened decades ago.

Sharon Ventura (altered human who got her powers during the Things UCWF storyline) and Kamala Khan (Inhuman ancestry, Inhumans are a Human derived species who are Kree experiments) have also used the name Ms. Marvel

Re: Movie reviews

[ShieldW0lf]

He was male. And he had a romantic interest named Ms. Marvel. Then they renamed her Captain Marvel. But it was really about keeping ownership of the name, which was passed around between DC and Marvel. You could look it up, but it's not really worth your time. All I care about is, YouTube has been shoving it down my throat and it's really making me hate the brand and the actress who plays the character, who I'd never heard of prior to this, but who appears to be a real sexist, racist, bigoted cunt. Identity politics, aka bigotry, seems to be everywhere you look these days.

I heard two women on the bus talking and one said to the other "I'm not a feminist, but I do think they've done a lot for women.", and all I heard was "I'm not a member of the KKK, but I do think they've done a lot for white people."

That pretty much encapsulates why people are so pissed off, in my opinion.

Re: Movie reviews

[gweihir]

Well, I am not actually interested in any "superhero" stuff. Comes with being an adult, this stuff is for children. That we have lots and lots of children in adult bodies does not change that.

Re:Movie reviews

[krotscheck]

That's 42,343 people who are going to watch the movie just so they can complain about it online.

Re:Movie reviews

[ganjadude]

never heard of any of those other ones. but everyone know marvel

Wow...

[aicrules]

I'm so impressed by the ability of someone (many someones?) to waste their time doing this and then someone else to make a story out of it. And for me for making a comment on it. Wooo

Re:Movie reviews

[fortythirteen]

Not a prerelease movie that has gotten a lot of "culture war" press. I'm not surprised that a lot of people would go out of their way to say they're weren't interested in it.

Re: Movie reviews

[farble1670]

I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.

Who knew people might lose interest after 37 superhero movies over the last 5 years?

Re: Movie reviews

[farble1670]

Whooooosh.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

No... I had to go with simply pointing out the *fact* that any comparison of women to men and which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic, and it is why I brought up the point. This can happen regardless of any intent or lack thereof.

I started by disclaiming that it might be the case that this was not intended... but then again, I don't know the poster and maybe it was. I thought that the possibility was high enough that it was worth pointing out in passing, but I was willing to give them the benefit of the doubt and quickly move past it to focus on the main point which was that any notion of what we think the real world is like has no bearing on what happens in a movie about a comic book superhero.

And yet, you chose to spend the majority of your reply ignoring what should have clearly been my main point and instead focus on my use of a single word that for some inexplicable reason seems to offend you.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

Feminists *have* done a lot for women. Women once could not vote. Maybe you don't like today's brand of feminist, but I really don't see why you would compare feminists to an organization who's famous for murdering black people for being black.

I think a good argument can be made that modern feminists have gone too far. But you know what else is too far? Equating them to the KKK. Are you really trying to combat hysterical overreaction, with even more hysterical overreaction?

Re: Movie reviews

[chispito]

Honestly, most people outside of comics fans didn't know who Iron Man was either prior to his movie. He was considered a minor hero that Marvel was trotting out to test the waters for a big movie release. They expected Iron Man to barely make a profit and just act as set up for future blockbusters. Instead, it was a huge success and now Tony Stark is a household name.

It is a decent comparison. Guardians of the Galaxy were an even less known property and have become huge due to the films. I think that's a better comparison. Iron Man at least had his own cartoon in the 90s.

Re:Movie reviews

[stonecypher]

> What is the misogyny? Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men?

Carol Danvers is a Kree hybrid with superpowers and a supersuit

You sound like an idiot trying to cling to human realism here

Re: Movie reviews

[tysonedwards]

I am genuinely not interested to see it until I can rent it or watch it on a streaming service, and even then if the reviews are positive. I use Trakt to keep track of stuff that I'd like to see as I find something that looks interesting and throw it onto a calendar for In Theaters (rarely see), Released for Purchase (depends on reviews), or Released for Rent (if I am interested, but the reviews are on the fence) Added for Streaming (usually try regardless of reviews). I *WILL* flag something as "want to see" and "not want to see" because it will remind me of the things I care about, as well as help build a profile of those sorts of movies and tv shows that I have expressed interest in in the past and either give me more helpful recommendations (History, Biography, Science Fiction, Romantic Comedy, Drama) or remove recommendations that I'm definitely not interested in (such as Sports, Music, Children's, Holiday, or Jump-Scare Horror). There are a ton of other things in the middle that bubble up if they are in the Released for Streaming category and rated over 80%.

So... There can be people who are genuinely not interested in a film (any film, not just this one) and use said want to see ratings for a productive purpose, even though it does not represent how you choose to use it. Further, just because someone does not wish to pay to see a film while it's in the theaters does not mean they won't have a passing casual interest to see it when they don't need to make a day out of it or spend $30 on it so I can keep it as a piece of memorabilia when I'd happily wait 3-6 months to watch it for $2.

And, yes, I know that I am likely in the minority with how I use the service (and a paid frontend for it at that).

Re: Movie reviews

[mcl630]

That would be all well and good if this was about the over-abundance of superhero movies. In reality, the "review bombs" are from misogynists who can't fathom the idea of a female superhero, much less a female superhero played by an actress who opinions of her own and isn't afraid to express them.

Re:Nope, incels just detected.

[halivar]

Then you need to explain why those same incels forgot to hate all over the provided list of very excellent movies (except Avatar. Space Fern Gully was bad, IMHO; and didn't it have straight white male lead, anyway?).

Seems like you're trolling

[Crashmarik]

114 for Triple Frontier, 58 for The Kid, or 43 for I'm Not Here. Seems like a coordinated effort by Culture Warriors fighting the good fight against the first.

Lets see I have been hearing about Captain Marvel since last year, Triple Frontier, The Kid and I am not here, never before you mentioned them.

Captain Marvel is a major theatrical release. Turns out triple frontier is a netflix streamer https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/.... Given that's your lead I'm going to go with you're not posting in good faith and you're a troll

Re: Movie reviews

[mcl630]

and the actress who plays the character, who I'd never heard of prior to this, but who appears to be a real sexist, racist, bigoted cunt.

Do you normally become this angry about the opinions of people you've never heard of?

Re:Movie reviews

[Oswald McWeany]

A large subsection of the comic-book movie crowd are apparently intimidated by leading ladies.

The problem isn't leading ladies but plausibility. Women in general are not physiologically strong. An exceptional female is at the level of a merely above

average male. Superman is supernaturally strong, but he also looks like he works out. The same is true of Captain America. Much is made visually of his musculature. Same with Black Panther. Each of these presents an image that strong men have bodies that appear to have enlarged muscles.

So you have a problem with skinny spiderman too then? No one ever complains about Spiderman looking scrawny; that it "isn't realistic". In reality none of it is realistic. Super Man's muscles aren't big enough to do half the miracles he performs.

There is a reason Super Man is buff and Wonder Woman is feminine... it's all eye-candy. Not about realism. Nothing about comic-books is about realism- it's about the fantastical and magical.

Re:Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

So you are watching a movie where people in costumes are flying and throwing cars at eachother with fire coming out out their eyes and hair, and your brain is telling you "something isn't right" because the cars the women are throwing are the same size as the cars that the men are throwing?

The entire premise of these movies that that shit is not going to be like how it is normally. Maybe these sorts of movies are not for you.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

which says that women are less capable than men in some aspect can *SOUND* misogynistic

You only quoted "Women in general are not physiologically strong" on what "sounded misogynistic". I am sorry if reality "sounds" misogynistic to you.

It sounds like you are backpedaling and also changing the wording. Never was it mentioned that "women are less capable". The only claim was that women, in general, are not as physiologically as strong as men. There was some visual opinion suffixed to that fact. Neither of those things are misogynistic in any way. I kind of agree, a Barbie figure woman fighting hand to hand against an Arnold Schwarzenegger figure and winning is... not visually appealing to me. Everything sounds misogynistic to feminists, who cares what they think? Do you care what a creationist thinks in science class? You sound like you want to weasel in the talking point of misogyny and ascribe it to the idea " Women in general are not physiologically strong". Meanwhile, in reality.

Re: Movie reviews

[artemis67]

Spider-Man has always been Marvel's most popular character since the 60's.

But Marvel Studios has done such an incredible job with their franchise movies that Iron Man makes a cameo in their first Spider-Man movie to give him support.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

What you are failing to distinguish is the difference between whether something was intended to be derogatory towards women and whether it might SOUND like it is being derogatory towards women.

You obviously can't go around factually stating that men and women in general are actually of equal physical strength, but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to support it, without realizing that it's got some non-zero chance of coming across as sexist, even if that wasn't the intent.

Re:Movie reviews

[mcl630]

some juvenile Fedora wearing basement dwellers no doubt have a problem with female leads

Bad movie after bad movie has gone to this excuse, but it's largely bullshit. Yes, there's some tiny group like that. No, they don't matter. That's not why people didn't like the sad Ghostbusters reboot, That's not why people didn't like The Last Jedi.

A large subsection of the comic-book movie crowd are apparently intimidated by leading ladies.

A non-zero subsection, but there's no reason to believe it's "large", except as a worn-out excuse for a bad movie. No, moviegoers don't hate women. Comic books especially have always led entertainment when it comes to diversity, and comic book fans have never had a problem with that.

Yes, the Ghostbusters reboot and Last Jedi were bad.

How do you/they know Captain Marvel is also bad? Nobody has seen it yet.

A little history...

[artemis67]

Captain Marvel was created by Fawcett Comics over a year and a half after Superman was created by DC Comics. The character did so well that he was outselling Superman in the 40's.

DC Comics filed suit against Fawcett, claiming that Captain Marvel was a rip-off of Superman. DC prevailed in court in 1953, and Fawcett was forced to retire Captain Marvel permanently.

In the late 60's, Marvel Comics acquired the rights to the name "Captain Marvel," and created a superhero that was completely different from both the original Captain Marvel and Superman. Thus, they couldn't be sued by DC.

In 1972, as comic books were surging in popularity, DC was looking for new properties to publish and licensed the Captain Marvel characters from Fawcett. But when they tried to publish the comic book as "The Original Captain Marvel," Marvel Comics sent DC a cease-and-desist letter. Thus DC had to retitle the comic book, "Shazam!"

In order to retain their trademark, Marvel must publish a Captain Marvel title at least once every two years.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

Assume much? Maybe a lot of women don't want to see it.

And maybe I'm the Queen of England.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Well, nobody here in Europe was or is especially keen for a "Captain America" - which, if you don't know him, sounds like the drunken super hero character of Southpark's Randy Marsh. But the films, stupid as they were, did reasonably well over here.

Re:Never trust review aggregator scores

[radarskiy]

But in this case we know we're only getting the assholes' view because good-faith audience reviewers are not rating movies that are not released yet and which they could not possibly have seen.

Re: Movie reviews

[radarskiy]

"Most of the people who have heard of Captain Marvel probably think "Shazam".

The superhero of Shazam hasn't been called Captain Marvel since 1953. You will have to some data to support this claim.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

Funny how you can't name a movie from after the campaigns began in earnest. Review-bombing actually did start slightly before Wonder Woman, but it didn't really pick up steam until mid-to-late 2017. Wonder Woman slid under the bar without too much damage, but did in fact pick up some hate, which you conveniently forget.

Re:GB for Girls

[UnknowingFool]

I suspect that the OP didn’t know that Captain Marvel is a female role as the title has been passed to multiple characters from what I know. I suppose the poster may have been equally vocal about Green Lantern or Spider-Man being African American too.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

go around saying that one is inferior

Literally, no one but you said that. If you want to interpret that basic physiological difference as "superiority" then that is on you buddy. Men and women are different. Stating those differences isn't talking about "inferiority" nor does it "sound" misogynistic except to religious nut bag modern feminists.

but neither should one go around saying that one is inferior to the other in even that single respect, regardless of any scientific data they might have to
support it,

but neither should one go around saying .. any scientific data they might have ..., without realizing that it's ... coming across as sexist,

Don't say scientific facts because someone will call you a sexist. My Good Gravy on Tuesday, if that doesn't explain so much wrong with our society right now I don't know what does. This is why I think feminism today is like a bad religion. "Deny science. I have agenda's to push!"

You are the one that created this "misogynist" conversation by shitting on a uncontroversial fact and smearing it with "well it sounds misogynistic. You are the one that conflated a fact to superiority/inferiority and capability. Instead of addressing the actual argument made we go off on a tirade of what "sounds" what and intent on uncontroversial things. It's a waste of time.

Re: Movie reviews

[thegarbz]

I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either...

That's called observer bias. While I understand people are being fatigued and that Captain Marvel isn't exactly Iron Man, the odds of the audience interest score *actually* being as low as 28% given the interest in the Avengers, and the teaser that she has something to do with Avengers: Endgame would likely put that number in the 70-80% even with the people who don't like the Marvel movies.

It's like saying a large portion of a stadium would walk out on a currently tied football match 10 minutes before the match is over.

At this point there'll be enough people seeing it just because they want to make it to the end of the Avengers story.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

Russian-bot-like typing detected

Re:Movie reviews

[JudgeFurious]

I find it curious that there could be that many people with an interest in crapping on this movie. I'd like to suggest an alternative theory. We're approaching 11 years into the Marvel Cinematic Universe. We've seen something like 20 films so far and a fair number of them have been origin stories. The trailers for CM have been pretty paint by numbers superhero stuff and it's just not all that interesting. The big selling point has been (over and over again) that she is a) "a woman" and b) incredibly, unbelievably powerful. Both are true but she's not come across as all that interesting or different. I think fatigue is setting in a bit on this one and that is being fanned by the fact that its release date was put in a thankless spot. I'm an MCU fan. I'm an "ass will be in the seat" kind of raised on comic books "manchild" if you will. I saw part one of the Avengers vs. Thanos two-part epic last year like everyone else and now I've got interest in one thing and one thing only where the MCU is concerned. Avengers: Endgame. Putting CM in the middle of that was a bad idea. Even adding CM to Endgame was a bit on the questionable side. This is the conclusion of a big story that started in 2008 and adding someone halfway through the last story and then having that character be integral to the way that ending happens is not a good choice from a storytelling point of view. At least not in my opinion. I think that has a lot to do with it.

And I think these are BOTH good examples...

[gosand]

of how impressive the majority of the Marvel movies have been.

I am not a comic nerd, but I knew who Iron Man was. To be honest, I wasn't all that interested in seeing it when it came out, I caught it on DVD (Netflix). Needless to say, I was pretty blown away by how much I liked it. Then along comes Guardians of the Galaxy. I thought it was the beginning of the end of the Marvel movies when I saw the trailer for it. I thought they had scraped the bottom of the barrel. I didn't even see it until the 2nd movie came out on DVD, and because the reviews were good, we watched them both. Again - very surprised at how much I like them. Same with the Deadpool movies, and with Punisher on Netflix. Marvel keeps surprising me with how good they can make these movies/shows, with just the right amount of action and humor. Maybe it's because I don't really know anything about those characters is what makes it good for me, there is nothing for them to spoil.

I'll watch Captain Marvel when it comes out on DVD regardless of reviews.
I watched Aquaman with my wife because of Jason Momoa, so we're watching Captain Marvel because of Brie Larson. It's called compromising.

Re: Movie reviews

[thegarbz]

It has to be bombers!

This is something we can check. Let's see. Open up any upcoming movie and let's see how many people gave an audience intention rating. Let's keep it interesting and limit it to major blockbusters:

Frozen 2: 1161 ratings
Wonder Woman 1984: 423 ratings
Lion King: 747 ratings
Spiderman Far from Home: 941 ratings
John Wick 3: 680 ratings

I think I'm missing something really big. .... It was cartoon based too.. Oh that's right:
Avengers Endgame: 10236 ratings. Holy shit that is one of the highest and most interested movies with the biggest hype ever, and it's completely positive!!!!

I'm sure no one is more interested in any other movie than the ones listed.
Captain Marvel: 44735 ratings.

Now I challenge you to find forty-four thousand seven hundred and thirty five people who know about the movie and further more give enough of a fuck to jump online to let someone else known they don't want to see it.

My friend Occam's Razor would like to introduce you to the Russian troll farm. Yours to be had for a only a few rubels.

Wow, this is stupid.

[sabbede]

Someone says something someone else doesn't like, so they try and destroy a project the first person was involved in, just because they were involved.

At least there's something Right and Left have in common - the loudest, most outraged members are the stupidest and most destructive.

Here's a helpful tip for everyone: Ignore everything an actor says when they aren't acting. It'll save you time, stress, and aggravation; leaving you a happier person who is able to enjoy TV and movies at will.

Re:Fake?

[mcl630]

So why does Avengers Endgame have a 98% want to see rating?

Re:Movie reviews

[gosand]

The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film. Our brains are telling us "Something just isn't right here..."

I think your brain is telling you that you prefer dominant muscled men in spandex suits over women, and you're lashing out because you just can't come to terms with that in a reasonable way.

Personally I enjoyed watching Wonder Woman dominate all of her foes, and am looking forward to Captain Marvel as well.

"Want to See" rating but close enough

[darth_borehd]

The point is that it is being bombarded by trolls or bots to appear more negative than what it actually is.

Re:Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

I'm not going to speak for anyone else, but it's not the simple stating of a fact that is misogynist. But it was not just a stated fact. There was also an implication.

The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist]. Which maybe would not be so weird except that exceptional men (and women) are already accepted as reality in this universe. Which is apparently fine as long as the rules of exceptional men and women perfectly correlate to how the average man and average woman compare.

I'm not even saying it's misogynist to wonder why a superhero with more apparent muscle mass is not stronger than one with less, but it's pretty weird to be so fixated on that in regards to men and women, to the exclusion of everything else.

Re: Movie reviews

[Cro Magnon]

The comic wasn't called Captain Marvel. The character was, at least in my day (60s 70s maybe 80s)

Re:Not reviews not bombing

[mcl630]

Brie Larson said she doesn't want white males seeing her movie

Nope, she didn't say that.

or coming to her press conferences

Again, she didn't say that.

and said if they do she will purposely ignore them.

She's free to ignore whomever she pleases, just as you are.

Don't believe the lies.

Don't spread the lies.

Re: Movie reviews

[Dunbal]

Russian troll farm.

QED.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

There is a difference between "pro white people" and "being good for white people". I don't think anything the KKK did was good for white people in general. They killed black people. That doesn't help white people in general. They managed to keep some terrible white people out of jail. But that doesn't benefit all white people, in fact it is also very harmful to white people to have horrible white people in society.

Feminists are "pro women". They have actually have done good things for women in general, and for humanity in general. Women are better off if women can vote. And I would argue men are also better off if women can vote, in the sense that everyone is better off in a free and fair society.

Also, if your only criteria for comparing a group to the KKK is that they help one group at the expense of another, then the NFL is like the KKK because they want tax money to build their stadiums. Farmers are like the KKK because they want exclusive water rights. Almost every single political lobby is like the KKK because they benefit one group at the expense of everyone else. What a fucking dumb way to look at the world.

Re:Movie reviews

[david_thornley]

Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men? This is the problem with pushing so hard on ideology that you disregard reality.

And we all go to see the Marvel superhero movies for the realism. Right.

The comment didn't sound misogynist because it was false. It sounded misogynist because it's irrelevant. Sure, women are generally smaller and weaker than men. That's completely not relevant to a superhero movie. If you're at all concerned with "plausibility", you're making a big mistake going to any MCU movie.

Re: Movie reviews

[mcl630]

The movie is shit, people said they aren't interested.

Nobody has seen the movie... how do you know it's shit?

Why must everything have an agenda with you newfags?

I don't know what a "newfag" is, but *I* don't think everything has an agenda. *This* has an agenda, it's quite obvious. Nobody goes to RT and downvotes every movie they don't want to see. They only go to RT to downvote a movie when they have an agenda.

Why does this matter?

[King_TJ]

Is there really a sizeable number of people out there who decide to go see a movie, or pass on it, simply based on Rotten Tomatoes taking what amounts to a poll before the film is even out, asking who is interested in it??

Maybe someone is rigging things with bots downvoting it. Maybe not.

What I *do* predict is that this movie won't do as well as some recent superhero films have done, simply because it lacks as broad an appeal. There was a pretty HUGE number of people familiar with superheroes like Superman, Batman or Spiderman, even if they never read a single comic book. By doing an above-average job with some of those movies, they managed to reel in a lot of people to learn more about OTHER superheroes they'd heard of in passing, at least, like Iron Man or Thor. But recently, Hollywood hasn't had a whole lot to offer people BESIDES superhero filcks! If you like these types of action, make-believe movies, you're pretty short on alternatives to go see. They got a lot of mileage out of Wonder Woman because females finally got represented, and Black Panther for the African American contingent. But we're down to films like Aquaman, that women (or gay men) attended primarily to oogle the star's body, and others that have just "sequel-ed out", like the X-Men franchise.

Now, obviously, a lot of Slashdot readers are in the category of more hard-core comic fans, so most of this doesn't apply here. If you're even an occasional comic shop visitor, you're going to have your own reasons to want to see pretty much any of these movies that come along. Plus, you probably care more about smaller plot twists that fly right over the heads of 80% of the paying audience.

But speaking for the theater "take" on the whole? Yeah, I can't see Capt. Marvel being way up there.

Re: "Strong women scare the hell out of..."

[david_thornley]

And misogynists have no problem with overgeneralizing females anyway, and think "feminist" is a real term of opprobrium. The feminists I know have sound ideas about what "strong" is. Hint: It's possible to be a strong woman without being bitchy.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Sorry but you are a fucking moron.

In the end it was the suffrists that gave the suffragettes the votes.

After they had murdered several people, burnt several buildings, and went on a pointless hostile temper tantrum.

MOST WOMEN at the time didnt want the vote, actually, because they feared that it would come with registration for the draft, as it did for men

The fact that we still have no women in the draft should tell you something about equality. Instead, however, you seem to have drunken koolaid and forgone any personal education in place of being indoctrinated by nutjobs

That makes you a weak ignorant bitch. Sorry it just does.

Re:Movie reviews

[tbannist]

Yeah, no.

People are going out of their way in very suspiciously large numbers to vote no on it, so it really does look a troll operation. Whether it's Gamergate, 4chan, or Russian trolls, it doesn't really matter. It's obviously a co-ordinated mod bomb.

There's no conspiracy, sabotage, or misogyny

[bjdevil66]

Occam's Razor applies here: We don't give a damn about Captain Marvel's origin story right now. We went through one of the biggest cliff hangers in movie history (Infinity War's ending), and we want the sequel ASAP. This movie feels like that the Captain Marvel is in the way and stalling.

Re: Movie reviews

[Anonymous Coward]

Ah, the comment we were all waiting for, the one that proves that the original story really does have a point, and negates everyone's comments about it just being that people aren't that bothered.

You can even visualise the frothing at the mouth over the gall that a woman could attempt to play a superhero...

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

Dude, sit down. You're doing this all wrong, and it only makes you look dumber.

Look; you want to know why I always open with "incel"? Because it's not an insult or a slur of any kind. It's the community's preferred name for itself. They even name their biggest communities after it; look at /r/incel or its successor /r/braincels for examples of this. They do have terms they consider slurs: "creepy", for example, or "manchild", and it's true that I use those freely as well. But "incel"? Not insulting at all. They wear it as a badge of honor.

That's why you start with it. Draw them in first, then hit them with the insults. You've got it all backwards; you're ending with it like some kind of deathstroke when it's nothing of the sort.

God. Seriously. The quality of basement-dwellers on Slashdot has seriously nosedived over the last decade. You literally have to tell them how to do their own trolling nowadays.

How to make a great movie

[AHuxley]

Have a great script.
Find great actors who are charismatic and photogenic.
Nice locations.
A budget for special effects.
Ensure the plot works for the type of movie getting promoted.
What to make a political movie? See it as a political movie.
Want to make sci fi? Make sure the movie actually is about sci fi.
Sports movie? Athletes would be a good plot given the sale of a "sports" plot.
Academics? Some plot that is proficient and professional.
Great movies and TV series are welcomed and promoted by fans and people new to a brand.
Quality sells. Skill and ability sells. The ability to follow decades of plot is what fans expect.
Want something new and very political? Create that new series, plot, movie and see how it sells as a new concept.
Got decades of quality storytelling that people like and accept? Don't change it up for politics. A totally political plot will remove everything people enjoy.

Fans notice. People doing reviews notice. The trailer looks political and very different to an accepted decades of plot.
The internet will talk about political changes and then people can write their own thoughts on decades of plot.

Re: Movie reviews

[Impy the Impiuos Imp]

well he died, Carol then adopted his name to honor his memory.

Carol adopted his name to earn more money than some new generic characted. (And it didn'w work.)

Re: Movie reviews

[Nidi62]

First of all there are plenty of people out there that find heavier women to be attractive. Secondly, why would you feel the need to inform any woman of your level of sexual attraction towards them unsolicited?

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

There was also an implication.

The implication?

The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].

What? Women, in general, are not as physically strong. There is nothing implied about the plausibility of the exception. I don't understand why you would make that kind of leap in logic. Why would you ever describe an individual based on group averages? Are you forbidden from making general statements of a group because an individual may not be described by that generality?

Which is apparently fine as long as the rules of exceptional men and women perfectly correlate to how the average man and average woman compare.

That is retarded.

I'm not even saying it's misogynist to wonder why a superhero with more apparent muscle mass is not stronger than one with less, but it's pretty weird to be so fixated on that in regards to men and women, to the exclusion of everything else.

I think you missed the point of my comment. If mark-t had said something akin to, "it's dumb to apply visualistic realism in a superhero movie because any deviation of reality and our unconscious expectations are understood by the audience through the plot and characters", I would have no problem. But he went for "that sounds sexist... You know its a movie, right?". That is an insulting statement that shits on reality and shits on the possible conversation. There is no conversation. There is only insult to facts and audiences.

I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about "mental disconnect between the visual of a woman physically dominating men". I don't know why it is there but I have rolled my eyes a number of times watching something where it becomes overly obvious. Barbie fighting Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't something I find visually appealing. It's can be too jarring when the extremes are juxtaposed together. The plot can explain it but I will still roll my eyes. Why? I don't know. But thinking that it could be because of a generality in reality is not misogynistic.

For example, I enjoyed that in the Expanse Roberta Bobbie W. Draper a Martian Marine Gunnery Sergeant had some meat on her bones and she wasn't a stick with tits. It could have been explained by technology or some other plot device, like any comic book movie, but I was still pleasantly surprised and found my self enjoying her character more when her figure wasn't so contradictory to the situation. I would have still enjoyed the show had she been shown as a stick but a lot of small things make a good movie great.

Re: Movie reviews

[SirSlud]

You have emotional problems. Everyone around you can see it but you.

Can you point to a movie that had that narrative?

[rsilvergun]

I can't think of one. Last Jedi didn't rage on CIS males, it just kinda sucked. And you just listed a ton of movies that are the opposite of the point you're making.

I suppose you could dig up some independent movies written by/for radical feminists. But they're the left wing equivalent of Atlas Shrugged. Garbage written by and for the faithful that nobody really pays any attention to past high school when they grow out of their "rebellious" phase.

So barring that, what is a single mainstream movie that has even a side message of "straight white male bad"? While you're at it please explain why you feel that way (or link to a post/YouTube video that encapsulates your reasons).

Mod parent up

[rsilvergun]

this is just a distraction from economics. They buy you off with phony social issues while rob you blind.

Re: Movie reviews

[Koreantoast]

This should not be modded down, it is actually the truth. I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.

Versus what, Guardians of the Galaxy which was almost completely unknown prior to the release of their first movie?

Re: Completely True

[thomst]

lgw selectively quoted pseudofrog thusly:

reactions that based on some reactionary ideology that's far from uncommon online (The Force Awakens sucks because a lady with latent Force powers beat up a couple of guys with a space stick).

He then responded to that assertion by opining:

You know, I'm not sure anyone actually believed that. I think it's entirely a contrived excuse, or so oversimplified as to be wrong.

No. No, it's really not.

While The Last Jedi was still in theaters, some unemployed basement-dweller spent considerable effort to create a de-feminized fanedit of the movie.

If you're still determined to defend your thesis, you might first want to visit the Reddit discussion page about what has come to be known as the Chauvinist Cut. Or you could "treat" yourself to mundanemike's fawning SJWs lose their mind over THE LAST JEDI: THE DE-FEMINIZED FANEDIT review of the CC (the Youtube version is the same video he posted to the Daily Caller website, btw). Be sure to at least read the commments that other incels have posted praising his review's "takedown" of SJWs.

I could cite a Godzillion examples of similar foaming, reactionary rants about the original movie, the Chauvinist Cut, and the campaign to downvote it on Rotten Tomatoes, but all you really need as evidence is Bleedingcool's 2017 story about the Facebook troll who claimed to have written a bot he used to massively downvote The Last Jedi on RT to understand that your skepticism is baseless.

Not to mention naive ...

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny.You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.

Sure, women are generally smaller and weaker than men. That's completely not relevant to a superhero movie

Wow you agree with me.

we all go to see the Marvel superhero movies for the realism. Right.

And we all read the /. comments to ignore what was said.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

An under handed insulting claim of sexism is still an insulting claim of sexism.

Drop the sexist mantra and make an actual point.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

I see the bomb squad has showed up.

Hi there! You'll find the review menu right under this post. Just remember, once you vote, you can no longer post to tell me what a poopyheaded jerkface Chad I am for being a big bullying meanie to the poor oppressed manchildren. And if you have given in to the screeching rage already, well, that's why you don't see the menu. Too bad, so sad, no good boy points for you.

Have fun, and remember: no one wants you around, and it's all your fault.

Re: Movie reviews

[renegade600]

This should not be modded down, it is actually the truth. I don't think I can blame people for not being interested in Captain Marvel either... it's not a superhero name most people are familiar with.

Neither was the black panther and look what it did.

Re: Movie reviews

[Stolovaya]

None of those movies had the lead come out and say that they wanted to hear from fewer white males. I think that's one of the key indicators.

Re: Movie reviews

[zzyzx]

There are multiple Marvel Captain Marvels and the first one was male. So you're not completely wrong there.

But I was way into the Marvel Family (Fawcett/DC) and know little about this one other than the whole thing is confusing.

Re: Movie reviews

[JudgeFurious]

I donâ(TM)t agree that itâ(TM)s obvious at all. Marvel movies are the biggest events in cinema today and they draw a big crowd. How many people commented on Black Panther? Infinity War?

Buying a copy of this soon as possible

[Jzanu]

These hate campaigns are counter productive. I was sci-fi fan when it was still niche, although I have never liked comics. Now this Captain Marvel adds to the list of movies I must purchase on blu-ray, joining the list with Black Panther and the entire new Star Wars trilogy + stories.

Re:Movie reviews

[Layzej]

About 44,000 of the votes were submitted in the last 2 weeks. Prior to that it had a 90% rating.

Re:Can you point to a movie that had that narrativ

[ffkom]

I think you completely misunderstood what the comment you replied to intended to say. The commenter did not suggest that any movie he listed (or did not list) conveys some anti-male message. He suggested that the listed movies had female main characters and were successful, without making a fuss about the gender of a main character. And that making a fuss about the gender of a movie character before release may lower many people's interest in watching them, if only because there are now several example of "opposite-gender-remakes" (like Ghost Busters or Ocean's 8) that are just shitty movies, with "oh let's try to tell the same story with inverted genders" as their only idea being just way too little to make remake interesting. (And yes, there are also way to many remakes that are unrelated to gender-ado.)

Re:Can you point to a movie that had that narrativ

[Anonymous Coward]

a, single? mainstream movie? with the message "STRAIGHT WHITE MALE BAD?"

The ghostbusters clusterfuck.

Now can we have the grownup discussion?

Star Trek Destiny, is a social justice warrior clusterfuck of awful. for the majority of the plot the only straight white male on cast is the bad guy.

the Charmed remake? is a social justice warrior Clusterfuck of awful. the literal plot of the opener is "white man bad" I'm not even being sardonic, it's LITERALLY the plot.

the current, fortunately early-aborted Dr Who, is a social justice warrior clusterfuck of awful that the show may never recover from.

The injection of identity politics into media is a plague on human society.

I understood it just fine thank you

[rsilvergun]

Pushing identity politics agendas really just ends up alienating markets.

Doesn't get much clearer than that. He's saying that identity politics hurt a movies performance. It's not hard to read into that either. He means left wing, SJW identity politics. I say that because the entire push against identity politics comes from the right (which is frustrating, given that the right has been using identity politics in the form of the Southern Strategy to win elections for over 70 years).

I'd still like some examples of movies that have alienated markets with identity politics. He listed what are counter examples because, well, it's easy to find those. It's not so hard to find actual movies ruined by identity politics. Even Ghostbusters wasn't political. It was an attempt to hit a broad female audience with female comedy.

Yes, chicks have their own forms of comedy, and no, I don't find it funny, being a dude. Go dig up that Rosie O'donnel buddy cop movie they made a few years back for a good example of it. That wasn't political, that was marketing.

What I'm trying to do is snap folks out of this anti-SJW fever. It's the new Southern Strategy. A new trick for the right wing to use to distract us all from worsening economics. You're not unhappy because you're wages dropped 1.5% every year for the last 20 years. It's those feminazis forcing unnatural gender roles and ruining movies/tv/video games. The videos pushing that narrative on YouTube have millions of views. True, a lot of that is down to the right wing media engine supporting them (Sargon of Aakad, one of the big ones in that field, has had a ton of help and consulting services from various right wing think tanks, he didn't get all those subbies himself, he had help).

If we let this shit go on then it won't matter that racism, homophobia and religious bigotry are winding down. The 1%ers will find another group for us to fight with while they take all the money and run. I'm fucking sick of it. Enough already. Wake. The. Fuck. Up. For the Love of God, Stop falling for the same stupid tricks again and again.

Re:I understood it just fine thank you

[ezdiy]

> 1984 (gender, race) war is peace freedom is slavery

No shit. The thing I always wondered about, is the (hysterical) left on in the scam? The two sides just seem to ping pong hysteria at each other, a spiral of clickbait titles. The right wing with flavor of they took our jerb populism, and left with smugness of a champagne socialist.
Both caricatures seem so common they're not caricatures anymore, and more like redefinition of what left/right is supposed to be now.

Are polar politics just two 1984 countries now? And even if not, is the perception of that being the case a source of universal alienation about politics? Isn't this why a lot of people identify with south park quasi-centrism, even if thats worst outcome, given that it is least likely to enact actual political change in either direction?

If it is just Green and Blue teams of a Byzantine chariot race, who is the emperor. And most important question of all, where is my goddamn Green on Blue secret gay lover porn.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

I did not make a claim that the OP was intending to be sexist. I said, quite explicitly, assuming that the poster did *NOT* intend to sound misogynist...

I merely acknowledged the concept because I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less. Why in the hell does the fact that I happened to mention it at all seem to bother you so much?

And hell, it wasn't even the point of my original comment... I gave you the benefit of the doubt as well, assuming you didn't follow what I was getting at, and weren't actually trying to drag me off topic, but hey... you did.

Kudos.

Re: Movie reviews

[tbannist]

So far, there are about 4.5 times as many votes on Captain Marvel as Infinity War: Endgame, which considering Captain Marvel is a lower profile movie, is an unexpected result. For Black Panther. I found the last version of the Black Panther page on the Wayback Machine from before it's release, and it shows 26 intention ratings. Not 260, not 2600, just 26.

See what I mean? Captain Marvel's numbers are anomalous.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

*sigh* I always knew incels were immature, but you're the first one I've met who actually regressed to pre-literacy. I thought you were an urban legend.

Ahem. Let's try this again.

Incel no bad word. No hurt people feelings. Say first not last. Then people read you. Hurt them more.

Re:While everyone else is whining about terminolog

[Cederic]

No matter how many sockpuppet accounts they use to try to make themselves appear like the majority

Having read through so many comments in this discussion and seen so many ACs wrongly state

a lot of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero have begun brigading the voting

I can only say that you've overloaded my irony meter.

You appear to have a very strange and worrying inability to gather, assess and understand information. The only people claiming that there's this large mass of people who can't stand the idea of a female superhero are the ones deriding that mythical group.

Modern feminists haven't gone too far

[rsilvergun]

there's a small, vocal minority of crazies like there is in every group. There's also a small group of grifters, again, like there is in any group.

A powerful media engine is amplifying the voices of both these groups for their own end. As near as I can tell with racism and homophobia winding down folks are looking for a new kind of identity politics to replace The Southern Strategy. Anti-SJWism is that new politic. It's the thing you use to distract the voters from economic issues long enough to get their vote every 2 years.

Hollywood does _not_ engage in hatred

[rsilvergun]

to anybody. Your money spends the same as everyone else's.

That said, movies today suck because they're not made for you. They're made for the Chinese first, then for American women (because they tend to make the purchasing decisions in this country) and for American men last. You don't bring enough dollars to get movies made for exclusively you.

It doesn't help that the 80s were a period before focus groups and international box offices that everybody looks back on wistfully. Yeah, Raiders of the Lost Ark and the original Star Wars were better movies than anything we've got today. The studios pretty much let them get made though. They shrugged off flops. They don't do that anymore. The last real flop was "Mars Needs Moms" and it made national news when it didn't make it's money back.

Re: Movie reviews

[TomBauserman]

That didn't take long. Was wondering how long it would take for one of you to show up. Long live the MRA.

Re: Movie reviews

[TomBauserman]

We've got the 2nd mra of the evening. The two of you can start a club or something.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

More like the Russians were still ironing the bugs out of their movie-review bots, amirite?

Re: Movie reviews

[Flentil]

I'm Gen-X also, and when I was a teenager, Captain Marvel was a black woman and part of the X-Men at the same time as Rogue, who's main superpowers at the time were stolen from the previous Captain Marvel, Carol Danvers (this movie), who had taken over the role from the original Captain Marvel, a man. So, three Captain Marvels, a white man, a white woman, and finally a black woman. I don't know if another person took over later in the 90's but I wouldn't be surprised.

Re:I don't

[bingoUV]

So many actors thought they were Atlases, and just "shrugged" ?

Re: Movie reviews

[circusboy]

Captain Marvel (referring to the black woman version) was a member of the Avengers, never the X-Men. though carol danvers hung out with the X-Men when the first Brood story occurred. that's when she turned into Binary and gained a bunch of the other powers. this was about the time when Rogue had joined the X-Men unbeknownst to Carol and was on the receiving end of a pretty serious punch...

the original male Captain Marvel famously died of cancer in one of the first marvel graphic novels.

Hail Mary (Sue)

[Felix Da Rat]

I'm not interested in this movie for a couple of reasons, but foremost - it's introducing an over-powered character late in the series as a deus ex machina to defeat Thanos.

Marvel's 'Captain Marvel' (not mine - can't wait for the REAL Captain Marvel - Shazam!) is being introduced to late in the story arc to be anything more than a spoiler for Infinity Wars - End Game. We've spent years watching and getting to know all of the other characters. Watching them lose at the end of Infinity War was the set up to have them bind together, push harder then ever before, and triumph over the loss.

Introducing a 'god like' character at this point makes it look like they couldn't win, and that robs the entire story of it's hope and inspiration. It takes the message of working together, building something better from the parts, and replaces it with a message of 'greater powers exist'. I find it unpalatable, and an unfitting end to a story ~15 years in the telling. If you'd wanted Carol Danvers in the story, she should have been added before Dr. Stange. Highlight that there are 'greater powers' than what the Avengers know, and let her circle back in. But this introduction is the wrong time.

The ending of GotG (after the dance off) was the Guardians coming together as a team to win. That was the lesson, and it's a good one - especially after 'Civil War' - seeing everyone come together to face the bigger problem when things are darkest. It is a very relevant story.

Tony Stark needs to end Thanos to conclude the story with where it started (Iron Man). I'd prefer Steve Rogers do it, but Iron Man came first.

Re: Movie reviews

[Evtim]

That's not true and you know it.

The industry told Gene R. that ST would be banned by conservative states and they'd be buried in hate mail because Uhura. Never happened.

Seems like the people are better than what marketing departments believe.

Such things have happened more than once. Fight club is another example.

Yet another - David Goggins was told by the first publishing house he approached that "there are only so many blacks in USA, who will buy a book about abused, insecure, fat black kid who became the toughest man in the world. David has more than 400 000 followers and very few are black.
Again, the marketeers ascribed racism where there was none...

Re: Movie reviews

[ArunHoulton]

How dumb are journalist? I mean they are really really stupid! I have read 20 articles that say people are review bombing and that means trolling of course because you cant have an opinion. You really can't tell the difference between interest in and review? Man your dense!

Re: Movie reviews

[Tom]

Totally. We celebrate Hitlers birthday and Mao. No, wait that was somewhere else I think. Also we still live in cottages and farm cheese.

Rotten Tomatoes TOOK Down the Score!!

[supercell]

Update RT took down the score! https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Re:Rotten Tomatoes TOOK Down the Score!!

[RuiFRibeiro]

Rotten Tomatoes took down the *negative* score, which was pretty lame of them, and makes me think where more they are lying.
They only display: 16K want to see....How about the other 50K-60K, where are they....? Shady
As for the title of thread, those are not *fake* reviews. They are more a political statement we want guys films for guys films back, and not films as a political statement of whatever "repressed" demographic that is on vogue to portray.

Re: Movie reviews

[c6gunner]

Now that's how you make an insightful comment! Well done.

It's a bit of a double edged sword though. Captain Marvel still has a 28% positive rating. 28% of 44,735 is 12,525 which means that just the positive ratings are still higher than the total ratings of all of the other movies you listed. And prior to the recent precipitous drop, the rating was up in the 95%+ range.

Conclusion: given that Captain Marvel is a relatively unknown character, the ratings were likely being "bombed" by the opposite site at the outset, which led to a backlash. Now they're complaining because they're losing at their own game.

Re: Movie reviews

[c6gunner]

I did not make a claim that the OP was intending to be sexist. I said, quite explicitly, assuming that the poster did *NOT* intend to sound misogynist...

Right. I assume that you didn't intend to sound like a clueless cunt?

Re: Completely True

[AmiMoJo]

"De-feminized" is a misnomer, they went out of their way to simply remove female characters and make the male ones much more boring and predictably macho.

Basically Kylo becomes a murderous psycopath with no personality, all the women are either removed or weak and have most of their dialogue cut, and Luke dies pathetically with the first shot. Even fan favourite badass Phasma dies in one hit from Finn, with the justification given in the readme being "women are naturally weaker than men".

It's total shit. The male characters are reduced to lame disposable soldiers, little more than cannon fodder, so it's not pro-men or whatever the fuck it's supposed to do.

BTW, Rian Johnson appears to have secured a further trilogy of films. Yep, total failure.

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

To be honest, "Captain Marvel" sounds more like a publisher's self promotion. I mean, would you want to watch a movie about a superhero called "The Amazing DC"?

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Why, is Captain Marvel a woman now?

(Genuinely asking, I don't care enough about comic book movies to know)

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Especially when they become pretty much interchangeable. Back when I was young and actually took an interest in comic books, superheroes had their fitting counterparts in the villains. To think Batman would be pitted against Lex Luther was as silly as thinking Superman would hunt the Joker. And not only because Bruce Wayne has striking similarities in Lex Luther when you think about it.

Today, that distinction doesn't exist anymore. Any superhero can pretty much replace any other, take a plot for Spiderman and thrust Thor in and it's just gonna work just as well.

All people still care about is the ridiculous bickering about this or that character having the wrong gender. But to be honest, that's at least entertaining. The movies, they ain't.

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Maybe, just maybe, people are sick of movies becoming more and more an agenda vehicle and a tool to "send a message" instead of telling a fucking STORY.

And to stop the "but how would you know it's just a feminism flick and doesn't have a story when you haven't seen it": Extrapolation from previous experiences. Every single goddamn movie where the makers had that urge to cram a female lead in for no other reason than having a female lead sucked. Not because of the female lead, but because the movie revolved around the "look, we are so progressive, we have a female as the lead character!" instead of actually telling a STORY.

Remember Alien? Remember Ripley? There you have a strong female character with everything an action character needs and without the overarching need to tell the audience every other second that she's a woman and that she can do it. And guess what, the movies were awesome!

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

The other option is that superhero fans are a vocal bunch and don't want yet another feminism vehicle instead of a superhero movie. If you dress up an agenda piece as something else, you don't turn it into something else, and I guess people are catching on.

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

It could be that Black Panther is a pretty obscure name, even for comic book enthusiasts (and not really being one anymore, I can't even say that I have any idea who or what that's supposed to be). Captain Marvel is something even I know, despite him/her/whatever not even making it across the pond in any measurable way.

It would maybe be more interesting to see the "intention" numbers for better known superheroes.

Re: Movie reviews

[aliquis]

Letting socialist decide anything is inhumane and treason.

Re: Movie reviews

[stealth_finger]

Yeah, hence the total rejection of Wonder Woman, Terminator, Aliens, etc.

Yeah and alita is just getting panned...

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

You mean after the superbowl trailer aired? The time when pretty much all of the US and a sizable portion of the rest of the world learned about this movie's existence?

Re: Movie reviews

[thegarbz]

None of those movies had the lead come out and say that they wanted to hear from fewer white males. I think that's one of the key indicators.

So what you're saying is someone nerd raged and organised a campaign to review bomb Rotten Tomato's want to see metric? Because while your logic sounds perfectly fine it would be played out if the movie resulted in a cool 1000 negative reviews. Shattering the record of the metric 4 times over points to a campaign, not genuine interest (or disinterest) in the movie. There's been plenty of SJW fuckwits who have tried to ruin their respective movies, and it has never resulted in moving the dial on the number of people giving their opinion on Rotten Tomatoes.

False and ridiculous news

[jbssm]

Rotten Tomatoes *doesn't* allow for reviews before opening night of films. These aren't "fake reviews", this is a stat on Rotten Tomatoes that measures the interest in seeing (as seeing in the future) the film in question.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

People were pissed about Ripley? Where? When? I honestly don't know a single person who thought that her being female was bad. The worst I have heard from someone was that he was surprised a woman could pull it off.

Most people didn't give a fuck about what gender the lead has. The movie was good, the alien was awesome, the effects were, well, effective and the suspense was there. Mostly because you had an investment in the character and you were interested in her survival.

I think this mostly stems from the fact that back then nobody felt the urge to use every other scene to showcase that she is actually a woman and that she can do it. What also helped was that she did have her weak spots that made her human and relateable. That's what's missing today. Instead we get bland and uninteresting Mary-Sues like Rey and movies that dump the story to pretend they're progressive because "look, we have a FEMALE lead!" is more important than telling a compelling story that makes you interested in the characters and their problems.

Re: Movie reviews

[thegarbz]

Are you sure that is the correct sequence? Fans do exist, and I wouldn't be surprised if a large portion of those 12k were fans clawing back against the reviewbomb (which I guess can be a reviewbomb in its own right) when the story dropped.

7 days ago reviews were up in the 80% range but total numbers were around 3-4k (according to a Reddit discussion I saw, since RT doesn't show historical trends). If you said it was 95% before then it would point to perfectly normal responses on this metric. My own guess (and it is just a guess) is that comic nerds are clawing back against the negative attack.

There's usually little incentive to positive review bomb a movie like this on the onset. The difference between 10 reviewers and 10000 doesn't change the percentage on Rotten Tomatoes. Also the internet tends to get angry not happy, and let's face it, given how Larsen has run her mouth in the past few weeks there is a lot on the internet to be angry about :)

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

The GB Backlash was not necessarily "new=bad", it wasn't even the all-female lead cast. The backlash, I think, can be traced down to two separate issues that again come down to one formula: It didn't deliver to expectations.

First, Sony originally (stupidly) billed it as a sequel, not a reboot. This was changed soon, but fans of the old series were already hyped over a sequel. When they backpedaled, they did so with too little effort, probably to keep the hype rolling but ignoring that the hype was for a fundamentally different movie.

The second is Paul Feig as director. Don't get me wrong, I think Feig is a good director, I have seen some of his movies he did before and they are awesome. Hilarious. Watch Bridesmaids and Spy. But, and this is the problem, Feig's humor is based on parody, situational comedy, character comedy and slapstick. All very good things if delivered well (and usually he knows how to do it), but the problem is that GB was a horror comedy. And it took the horror element pretty serious. Feig can't deliver that. His humor is mostly dependent on ridicule and innuendo. Both ruin any serious aspect a movie could possibly have.

So people went into the movie expecting a horror comedy and maybe even something of a sequel/continuation of the old movies. What they got was a sitcom version of GB. Had it been billed as a GB spoof, it would have received praises, because it would certainly work as such. I'm serious. Go and watch GB2016 with the idea that you're watching a parody.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Yeah, that makes a lot more sense. A lot of misogynist basement dwellers religiously follow a magazine aimed at women with a focus on health, beauty, and fashion topics. Though I'm still waiting for the "how do I get my neckbeard softer, washing or beard oil?" comparison.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

It was less the political correctness, more that Sony hyped it as a sequel originally which was later only very quietly retracted. When the movie trailers came out and people were told that not only the former stars would only make cameo appearances but, worse, as completely different characters that had nothing to do with their old characters and that they were basically eliminated from GB history because it's a reboot now and, well, screw your memories, that was when people started to complain.

This would have gone down much easier if the three remaining actors had played their old selves, maybe as three old geezers yakking away how women could never do it only to be proven wrong. I'm fairly sure that would have worked with most of the old fans, even.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Extrapolation from past experience?

Ponder which reboots or sequels you know where the male hero was replaced by a female hero. Now ponder the good vs. bad ratio.

Re: Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

It's more that little boys can say "Look, look what I can do!" themselves, they don't need movie heroes for that.

Re: Movie reviews

[JudgeFurious]

The day before Black Panther was released it had 40,095 intentions to see and was sitting at 94% according to this. https://web.archive.org/web/20...

Re: Movie reviews

[c6gunner]

No, I'm not sure that it's the correct sequence; it's just a guess. Your "comic nerds clawing back" guess is possible too; just seems anecdotally unlikely to me given the rarity of Captain Marvel fans out there. I know quite a few comic book nerds and none of them cared much about this movie even prior to all the hubub about the star being a raging cunt. I doubt that there's a silent legion of fans out there which was just waiting to come to the film's defense.

Whatever the case, it's pretty clear there's a lot of fuckery going on, and the "urmaghurd sexism" excuse is going to come out any time a female-led movie receives anything but glowing praise. Which is absurd given the incredible success of Wonder Woman less than 2 years ago, but it's par for the course these days.

Re: Movie reviews

[radarskiy]

"The comic wasn't called Captain Marvel. The character was"

I did not claim otherwise.

"at least in my day (60s 70s maybe 80s)"

There were no new books with the Shazam Captain Marvel character published between 1953 and 1972, by which time the Marvel Comics Captain Marvel was in print thus all the DC books were under the name Shazam,

No one sufficiently versed in the subject to remember the history of the name is going to be expecting a Marvel Studios movie to be about a character from DC comics.

Re: Movie reviews

[tbannist]

That's after the premiere which, was January 29th, and the last number available before the premiere was 26. I didn't notice the general release was two weeks later, though. Good work.

Re: Movie reviews

[mark-t]

And what's your point, exactly? If you're going to assume that and move forward from that point, why did you stop there? Or do you just like taking opportunities to paraphrase Hanlon's razor?

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

I don't honestly know what the OP's intent was... and I frankly couldn't care less.

Pushing the underhanded sexist mantra was the point of your insulting comment and not having a dialogue? Color me shocked. I would have never guessed you were trying to act like a complete boob. -.-

Drop the sexist mantra. Read his comment again. And maybe you won't sound like a complete boob.

Re: Movie reviews

[CohibaVancouver]

I'm Gen-X also, and when I was a teenager, Captain Marvel was a black woman

I guess part of my "bias" about the name also comes from watching "Shazam!" on TV on Saturday mornings in the '70s, and hearing that narration over and over again...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

Narrator : In time of dire need, young Billy has been granted the power by the immortals to summon awesome forces at the utterance of a single word!

Billy Batson : SHAZAM!

Narrator : A word which transforms him, in a flash, into the mightiest of mortal beings, Captain Marvel!

Re: Movie reviews

[Stolovaya]

Someone may have organized something somewhere. I haven't seen anything that said "go out and give bad/negative reviews for Captain Marvel", but I'm sure someone has. Most of the articles/videos I've seen have mostly just reported on Brie Larson continuing to put her foot in her mouth. When someone makes sexist and racist comments, are people supposed to stay silent? People are voicing their opinions.

You're basically taking the stance that so many companies are these days. Companies like eBay and Netflix want to sanitize reviews so that people can't leave negative remarks or feedback. You can't leave negative reviews on eBay anymore. Netflix no longer has their star-rating system. And while it seems you can still give a negative review on Rotten Tomatoes, they're moving down the same path with the changes they've made.

Regressives review bomb for (usually) different reasons. Sometimes it's when someone makes a bigoted remark, but more often it's something far less benign. They are free to not consume that media, just like people are free to not see Captain Marvel.

Shattering the record of the metric 4 times over points to a campaign, not genuine interest (or disinterest) in the movie.

That's the way things work today. A piece of media is no longer just a piece of media. The people involved (like Brie Larson) around it have massive influence, and people are more conscientious about where their dollars go. In terms of SJWs, I think there's a bit of difference between not wanting to support someone that makes sexist and racist comments, and then someone who makes something where the women have big breasts. You may have some people that want the movie changed, but this seems way more related to Brie Larson's comments rather than any actual content of the movie.

If something happened like Quentin Tarantino came out and said he wants to hear fewer women's voices, I would expect a similar reaction.

They're not

[rsilvergun]

there's very, very few of the "hysterical" left. The right wing media engine amplifies their voices to crazy degrees. If you got the same with the right wing whack jobs you'd be shitting bricks right now. And lets not forget those folks have _real_ power. The Evangelicals get to set all kinds of public policy in exchange for voting for trickle down economics. Anti-abortion and anti-birth control laws are just the tip of that ice berg.

No, it's not two 1984 countries. It's folks fighting for the working class (Bernie, Liz Warren, AOC) and folks fighting to take everything you have and usher in the next dark age. I know that sounds extreme, and it is. These are the same folks that orchestrated the response to 9/11 (not the thing itself mind you) and have gotten us into 8 wars and counting.

Guys like Dick Cheney and the schmuck who runs Haliburton & Blackhawk are your enemies. The billionaire class that's brought wealth inequality to pre-Great depression levels are your opponents. Not the fat chick who runs the woman's study dept at your local community college. She's got no power. Those guys decide who lives and dies.

Re:They're not

[ezdiy]

>These are the same folks that orchestrated the response to 9/11 (not the thing itself mind you) and have gotten us into 8 wars and counting.
What I had *specifically* in mind is alt-right man children on one side with breitbart, and "alt-left" radical chic jezebel/huffpost/vice rags on another. Neither can be taken seriously as they give off strong vibe of clickbait circus meant precisely as a distraction from the broken bipartisan machine. Sure that Trump is obvious, but the way Bernie got sidelined by DNC for bullshit reason like "being too manly, too white" is equal skeleton, worse, if it didnt happen, Trump wouldn't happen either.

Meanwhile, we get gender/race baiting on the left sans juvenile bigotry on the right instead. That is the left/right wing people online *seem* to actually identify with.

As for war hawks who sell stuff to milinduplex, that seems entirely orthogonal to social politics spectrum of the US to me. US sought to aggresively liberate regardless of whom was in the office or representative majority. The only difference seems to be *slight* bias when it comes to painting targets. Neocons seem to like enemies of israel a bit more, fight communism, drill oil etc under guise of patriotism because thats what their voter base likes to hear. And so we get vietnam, iraq, afghanistan...

Whereas neoliberals are more likely to serve highest bidders with more subtle scopes of objective, often coastal big finance. But only as long it can be dressed with high moral ground as an export of liberal democracy - kuwait, balkan, syria, libya, egypt, as they need to cater to the large body of latte sipping - and utterly naive - student voter base.

I'm slightly for liberals in the US, on account of their background level of enacting positive change for ghetto minorities as a matter of populism, still the same shtick they did originally for the Irish vote back in the day. Now just painted brown-black. But as for the rest - they ain't saints, not by a long shot.

Re: Movie reviews

[j-beda]

None of those movies had the lead come out and say that they wanted to hear from fewer white males. I think that's one of the key indicators.

So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?

Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?

Re: Movie reviews

[Stolovaya]

So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?

Probably depends on what those actors say. Also, more people are being careful what they say so as not to enrage the PC mob.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?

Try that sentence again but replace it with any other group. All this says to me is your opinion means nothing, based on bigoted logic.

Re: Movie reviews

[j-beda]

So I guess movies with controversial actors often get on order of forty four thousand ratings before their release?

Probably depends on what those actors say. Also, more people are being careful what they say so as not to enrage the PC mob.

Funny, that doesn't seem to be the case. Or is it just when white males get offended? Is that demographic particularly sensitive?

Try that sentence again but replace it with any other group. All this says to me is your opinion means nothing, based on bigoted logic.

I haven't dug into the rottentomato numbers, but you seem to be into it, so clearly you can show me a few other similar large response when "any other group" is offended similarly.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros.

But hey, forgive me for not overlooking that a comment that literally says that one sex cannot do X as well as the other is going to have a chance of appearing to be discriminatory, even if that wasn't the intent.

And like I said, I was and still am entirely willing to look past it... I merely wanted to point it out before I made my point because while I could easily assume it was accidental, I couldn't just as easily simply ignore what it looked like to me.

It seems, however, that nobody is willing to look past the no less perfectly obvious possibility that the mere fact I raised the point wasn't directly intended to offend anybody.

I said what I thought... if that offended people I'm sorry for that, but that wasn't the intent of the comment. This is just me, and it's how I communicate.

Honestly, I can't believe how often I've had to invoke Hanlon's razor lately...

Re: Movie reviews

[Stolovaya]

You'll have to show me which movies had the lead actor saying, "I want to hear from fewer (insert racial or gendered group of choice)".

Re: Movie reviews

[thegarbz]

People are voicing their opinions.

Through a barely used metric by a factor of 70x more than normal? If what you said is true we'd have seen this played over and over again. Captain Marvel is not the first movie to be mired in controversy, it is merely the latest.

The other thing you're missing here is the vocal minority. A person will generally bitch and moan, but people generally just don't care. Even thought the main actor shat her bed I find it highly unlikely that you'll get 44000 people to rage about it in one place, much less a pointless metric that disappears on release date from a website.

You're basically taking the stance that so many companies are these days. Companies like eBay and Netflix want to sanitize reviews so that people can't leave negative remarks or feedback.

I'm doing nothing of the sort. People should keep doing whatever the hell blows their whistle. I'm simply pointing out the obvious: The figures presented aren't a reflection of 44000's actual opinion.

And while it seems you can still give a negative review on Rotten Tomatoes, they're moving down the same path with the changes they've made.

Explain this to me please. I've seen nothing of the sort.

That's the way things work today.

Yes it is. No one is disputing the cause of the "review bomb". That is pretty much clear.

Re: Movie reviews

[elrous0]

Yeah, Ms. Marvel took over the role in 2012.

Re: Movie reviews

[elrous0]

When I was a kid Captain Marvel usually referred to DC's character (now better know as Shazam). Marvel's Captain Marvel was a dude who died of cancer or something. And Marvel's version never was very popular (not the original dude, nor the long line of female Captain Marvels who followed), though they keep desperately trying to make him/her a thing.

Re: Movie reviews

[elrous0]

Ms. Marvel promoted herself to Captain in 2012. No one asked her to, no one particularly cared, and (still) no one reads her comics. She's that character that Marvel keeps trying desperately (over and over again) to make a thing, but can't. And giving her a butch haircut and uglying her up sure as shit didn't help the situation. She's the character that no one outside of the Marvel writer's room has ever given a flying fuck about. But don't tell them that, or they'll call you a sexist.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

>No, the point of my comment was to address the fact that any perception of reality has no bearing on a work about superheros.
You should have said that instead of: "you sound sexist. It's a movie you know, right? ".

>chance of appearing to be discriminatory
in as much that it appears offensive to flat earthers to say the earth is round
in as much that it appears offensive to creationist to say the earth is billions of years old
in as much that it appears offensive to antivaxxers to say vaccines don't cause autism.

are you getting the pattern?

>while I could easily assume it was accidental,
Did you read and understand dudes comment or just knee jerk "omg it looks sooo sexist.... like did you like see how he like said that like men and women like are like different like? you know it's like a movie, right?" Personally, I think he brings up an interesting point for cinema (that thing that is mostly visual stimuli) and perhaps why some movies just seem off when they do things (stick man beats mountain of muscle because plot).

Re: Movie reviews

[j-beda]

You'll have to show me which movies had the lead actor saying, "I want to hear from fewer (insert racial or gendered group of choice)".

Good point - it is hard to get exact parallels. I suppose anti-semetic rants aren't quite the same thing. I guess Mel Gibson did not actually say he didn't want to hear from Jews for example.

I still find it hard to image that more than 40,000 individuals were so incensed that they actually went out of their way to post a rating. It seems much more likely that a few hundred outraged "fans" took the time make multiple posts.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

You should have said that instead of: "you sound sexist. It's a movie you know, right? ".

You are ascribing words to me that I did not say. I said that I was assuming that the writer was *NOT* trying to sound sexist. How people are choosing to read into things beyond what I literally wrote is invoking strawmen.

Re: Movie reviews

[Stolovaya]

Passion of the Christ is a good example. Though I can't specifically remember a lot around it, I do remember Gibson's remarks, and I can't imagine the Jewish community was really happy with it. But it's hard to say. The audiences that have heard and how they respond to Brie Larson's comments probably don't have a significant crossover with the audiences that heard and how they respond to Mel Gibon's comments. I imagine PotC had an older, less tech-savvy audience. But it's just a guess.

40k does seem like a high a number, but it is Marvel so there's a lot of press around it. Difficult to say. Was it just a few people making multiple posts? Possible. But also possible that a lot of them were people just not happy with Brie Larson's comments.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a retard, perhaps you should not make underhanded insulting claims of sexism.

Re:Movie reviews

[es330td]

I am aware that this is a fantasy tale. That said, superheroes that count on strength look like circus strongmen. Mr. Incredible is this idea taken to an extreme. Male superheroes and villians that don't rely on strength don't *look* strong, think Professor Xavier, Magneto, Lex Luthor, Hawkeye and Cyclops. How a character is visualized is an indicator of their superpower. You will not see a strong superhero that looks like Steve Erkul. Even though given supernatural powers there is no reason Steve Erkul couldn't be strong, our subconscious mind screams bullsh*t. We just won't accept it. .

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

Had you, in fact, been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded, you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken, nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

I just explained how it is not the same, which you either just ignored or didn't understand. I used the right to vote as a singular concrete example of something that did not *only* benefit women. It doesn't mean it is the only victory won by feminists, and it doesn't mean that everything every feminist does is progress.

Feminists have fought for women's equality. That's not to say that everything every feminist has fought for in the name of feminism has been helpful in advancing equality, but that's not a fair benchmark. There were no widespread lynchings of men by feminists, or efforts of jury nullification for convicting murderers of men by feminist jurors.

Nobody in the KKK has fought for equality in the name of the KKK, in fact it's the opposite.

These ideologies could not be more obviously different in quality and quantity to all but the dumbest most brainwashed people in society.

Re:Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].

That can not be an implication (something that was implied), because it was explicitly stated.

What? Women, in general, are not as physically strong. There is nothing implied about the plausibility of the exception. I don't understand why you would make that kind of leap in logic.

I didn;t make a logical leap. The OP described this type of exception as being "implausible"

Are you forbidden from making general statements of a group because an individual may not be described by that generality?

I am sure I did not in any way indicate that any kind of speech should be forbidden. Criticism is not the same as censorship.

think you missed the point of my comment.

I don't think I missed the point of your comment. I just focused on helping you to understand how es330td's comment could be interpreted as misogynist. Mark-t didn't go to any effort to explain why he thought it was mysoginist, and I agree it was pretty dismissive, but I could see how *I* thought it could be misogynist.

I think there is an interesting conversation to be had about "mental disconnect between the visual of a woman physically dominating men". I don't know why it is there but I have rolled my eyes a number of times watching something where it becomes overly obvious. Barbie fighting Arnold Schwarzenegger isn't something I find visually appealing. It's can be too jarring when the extremes are juxtaposed together. The plot can explain it but I will still roll my eyes. Why? I don't know. But thinking that it could be because of a generality in reality is not misogynistic.

There are lots of movies and things about movies I don't find appealing. It's ok to find anything you want to be unappealing. It's even ok to be a misogynist. This is America. I don't want to see a movie with a 90lbs human girl beating the shit out of a 250lbs MMA fighter either. I like realism in movies more than most people. I just find it very suspicious that in a movie with hundreds of unrealisitic things, the one thing that bothers someone is that a super hero woman could be as physically strong as a super hero man. I think there is something deeper happening there.

For example, I enjoyed that in the Expanse Roberta Bobbie W. Draper a Martian Marine Gunnery Sergeant had some meat on her bones and she wasn't a stick with tits. It could have been explained by technology or some other plot device, like any comic book movie, but I was still pleasantly surprised and found my self enjoying her character more when her figure wasn't so contradictory to the situation. I would have still enjoyed the show had she been shown as a stick but a lot of small things make a good movie great.

I loved the expanse. I loved how realistic it was (for a sci fi show). I loved how the ships spent so much energy accelerationg and deccelerating. I loved how the non-earthers where disabled from growing up with a lack of gravity. I loved the weird accents people had that sounded blends of lots of different current accents. I loved how they had to produce gravity by centripetal force, or mag boots, rather than just turning on the artificial gravity machine. I loved how it made our solar system feel bigger than the universe of most other sci fi shows. I even loved how there were still mormons trying to find their own planets.

And yes, I appreciated how Draper was a little chunkier in selling the fact that she can kick some ass.

Every movie/show has a realism threshold beyond which the audience is expected to suspend their disbelief. It's a spectrum with documentaries on one extreme, and cartoons and super hero movies on the other, and the expanse somewhere in between.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

Anonymous cowards don't deserve legitimate responses. Sorry they just don't.

Re: Movie reviews

[ShieldW0lf]

Show me a feminist who fought for equality in family court.

I'll wait.

Show me a feminist who opposed affirmative action hired and demanded equal opportunity for men and women, whites and blacks, yellows and reds with no favoritism for anyone.

Take as long as you need.

Show me a feminist who is just as concerned when men die as when women die and demands we do something about the crisis of male deaths that dwarf female deaths.

Show me a feminist who is outraged that
millionaire Jussie Smollett attemped to inspire violence and hate against people who have never done anything to harm him.

Show me a feminist who sees Jussie as a symbol of the #MeToo movement and criticizes it.

Show me a feminist who cares about little boys doing poorly in school.

Show me a feminist who cares about fathers taking their own lives because their children were taken from them by a system that treats them as if their love of their own children was meaningless.

Fuck feminists. They are an evil hate group who should be spat on by decent men and women when they walk the streets. They should be branded with a big fat F on their forehead and denied employment and denied medicine and denied food.

Kill them all.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

The implication was that women in general are not as physically strong, [therefore it is implausible that exceptional women could exist].

That can not be an implication (something that was implied), because it was explicitly stated.

Do you normally respond to yourself?

The OP described this type of exception as being "implausible"

No, he gave an observation that could explain why people don't like some movies. His last sentence highlights his entire point; "The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film. Our brains are telling us "Something just isn't right here..."". He observed something in reality and uses that to explain why some movies just miss the mark. He didn't make any implication about an exception to a generality implicitly or explicitly. He is using reality to explain why modern movies seem more like propaganda (pushing an agenda at an expense). Agree, or disagree. W/e When talking about movies (you know that thing that is mostly visual) it has logic to conclude that deviations for realistic visual representations can be seen as "something just isn't right here". You can explain it away with plot but is that enough? Maybe it is something that filmmakers need to recognize for films to be more successful. Dismissing that whole line of logic as "look misogynist" is as retarded as a flat earther dismissing a solar eclipse.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

> been genuinely willing to move past how I may have sounded
I am if you are willing to acknowledge that it was an underhanded insulting claim of sexism.

>you would not have used the claim of such a presumption of ignorance as pretense to refocus upon how the comment has been taken
you either sound like a retard (therefore you are a retard) or you should think just like me (you used an underhanded insulting claim of sexism) and I can just dismiss everything you said. Using your logic of course. I am not being insulting or underhanded through dismissive slights. You are just trying to refocus how my comment can been taken as calling you retarded. When clearly I am not saying you are retarded. I am just saying someone could interpret what you said as retarded (therefore making you retarded).

> nor further make a claim that itself assumes that there was still actually any malicious or insulting intent.
Of course. Because a retard does not have to have the point addressed in a serious manner. Why would I entertain your opinion when you are a retard and it can be smugly dismissed? We all know that ad hominem is perfectly acceptable when the character I attack is of course a retard.

You know it was just an underhanded insulting claim of sexism, right? I am of course not assuming you intended to sound like a retard.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

Yeah I saw red pill too. Try to have some original thoughts.

Re:Movie reviews

[mark-t]

I am if you are willing to acknowledge that it was an underhanded insulting claim of sexism.

I am willing to acknowledge that is apparently how it came across, and have already apologized for that, but I genuinely did not mean it to be.

Somehow, however, I doubt you can say the same about suggesting that I did not mean to sound like a retard to not be deliberately insulting. Particularly since you continued to suggest that your assessment of what I apparently sounded like to you has any bearing whatsoever on reality.

You clearly are familiar with the ad-hominem fallacy, yet continue to employ it. I can only conclude that you want to see just how long I'll continue to reply.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

>I am willing to acknowledge that is apparently how it came across, and have already apologized for that, but I genuinely did not mean it to be.

fair enough.

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

How lucky for me, then, that I've been happily married for longer than you've likely been alive. I don't need to get anyone else to sleep with me.

Also, um, "poetry"? Huh?

I mean, if you want
Poems written to mock you
Then I guess I could

Re:Movie reviews

[Oswald McWeany]

Personally, I didnt care about the female-only cast and just figured it wasn't targeted to me.

That was mainly my reaction too. I was excited about the movie when it was first announced, but when the clips and trailers finally appeared, I realized this show wasn't for me so didn't watch it.

I think more people should do that- if a film doesn't look appealing to them- or doesn't look like it was supposed to appeal to them- just don't watch it!

Re: Movie reviews

[Millennium]

Brie Larson? Misandrist? I suppose it's possible, but this would be the first I've heard of it. I've known a couple of actual misandrists, and I can't say I've seen any similarities to Brie Larson.

I admit to not being an aficionado of Captain Marvel, but I've also seen no indications of Carol Danvers being more of a Mary Sue than any other superhero. Heck; the original Mar-Vell seems to fit the trope more closely, which would make Danvers an improvement.

Re:I don't

[es330td]

So while I never bought into Rand's philosophy

Rand's philosophy is difficult to buy into because it is incomplete. It has a substantial amount of good ideas that are not wrong but they are lacking. I corresponded with Nathaniel Branden, one of her top followers, about this and he helped me to work Objectivism into a more coherent world view. I wish I still had his emails as he is now deceased.

Re:Movie reviews

[jythie]

It faded over time, but when the movie first came out and for a few years after that people were upset, that the movie was pandering to women and only they might enjoy it, that it was going to hurt masculinity, that it was feminism gone too far, etc. The love for the movie built up over the decades since, but late 70s early 80s not so much. This was right at the beginning of the 'culture war' and the 'moral majority' gaining prominence, and putting a woman in a masculine sci-fi action role was pretty unheard of.

It is one of the reasons I can never take this modern outrage seriously.... every time you have a female lead people go 'oh, those old movies everyone loves now did it fine, but THIS time it is pandering because that is the only reason they didn't use a man!'. 40 years of this crap and the argument has stayed pretty much the same.

Re:Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

Do you normally respond to yourself?

Not normally no. I am not sure what happened. My best guess is that I misread something while in a hurry.

The OP described this type of exception as being "implausible"

No, he gave an observation that could explain why people don't like some movies.

Those 2 things are not mutually exclusive

His last sentence highlights his entire point; "The SJW culture is trying to tell us that men and women are equal and Hollywood is trying to confirm through film.

I actually don't disagree with this statement in general, just it's specific application to super hero movies.

. He observed something in reality and uses that to explain why some movies just miss the mark. He didn't make any implication about an exception to a generality implicitly or explicitly.

I am not suggesting that he made an exception. I'm criticizing the implication that he *didn't* seem to acknowledge the plausibility of an exceptional case in a movie filled with exceptional cases.

He is using reality to explain why modern movies seem more like propaganda (pushing an agenda at an expense).

Like I said before, I don;t disagree that this is done in general, I just find this accusation to be misplaced in super hero movies where so many rules of realism are already violated.

Dismissing that whole line of logic as "look misogynist" is as retarded as a flat earther dismissing a solar eclipse.

I am not dismissing this line of logic as simply "look misogynist", and I don't think it is fair to do that. I am trying to explain as best as I can why I think this line of reasoning could be reasonable in general but misogynist in this specific application.

Let me see if I can better explain what I am trying to convey with an analogy.

Example 1: A white cop arrests a black man for jaywalking. The black man says the white cop is racist. Maybe he is, maybe he isn't. The cop says "I'm not racist, I'm just arresting a person for breaking the law". I think it is fair to give the cop the benefit of the doubt.

Example 2: 100 people are jaywalking in front of a white cop, but the cop only arrests the single black person that jaywalks. The cops provides the same explanation "I'm not racist, I'm just arresting a person for breaking the law". It's still the case that we don't know if the cop is racist, but now I am less inclined to give the cop the benefit of the doubt.

Yes arresting black people for committing crimes is not racist. And it is completely fair to point that out. I am saying that this defense is not sufficient for example 2.

I'm not saying that mark-t is a misogynist. I'm saying that he ignored all the other violations of realism in super hero movies, and the only one that bother him is the one about female super heroes being as physically strong as male super heroes.

I accept that there are other explanations for this selective outrage (i.e. the desire to counter SJW agenda, etc), but there is also reason to be suspicious of misogyny.

Just like the cop who arrests only the 1 black person for jaywalking, may have a legitimate (non-racism) reason for that, but it clearly has the appearance of racism, and I don't think it is an unreasonable allegation.

Re:Movie reviews

[squiggleslash]

Are you saying that women in general are physiologically as strong or stronger as men?

Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?

I thought the GP made it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part. On the other hand, you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Well, back then movies had a plot. What's the redeeming feature of today's movies?

Re: Movie reviews

[DavisGilbert]

Okay, I will respond again not anonymously. The article was factually wrong they were not giving reviews of the movie they were commenting on why they were not interested in seeing the movie. Rotten tomatoes disabled the want to see vs donâ(TM)t want to see percentage. A lot of people got upset for various reasons from how the main actress acted to the way that the movie seems to be pushing an ideological message. A lot of people are tired of this, especially after the way that people pushing ideological messages in other movies like the all female ghostbusters and the new starwars moviesmade bad movies, then when called out on the movies not being up to the fanâ(TM)s standards the companies and the actresses started attacking the fans. Saying he fans donâ(TM)t like what they are doing because they donâ(TM)t like strong female characters.... Then you have movies like Wonder Woman, and Battle Angel Alita come out that comepletely destroys that narrative, not even counting all the classic movies that have strong female leads that came out during the time that the original movies came out of starwars and ghostbusters, like aliens, terminator, Jurassic Park, just to name a few. Those are Iconic strong female characters, who are well writte. Just like Battle Angel Alita and Diana Prince.

Re: Movie reviews

[DavisGilbert]

Except that is wrong, look at how the movie Wonder Woman did. That was a great movie, with a great actress playing a well thought out character, that has a very well written heroâ(TM)s journey. So no it is not that people donâ(TM)t want a female super hero that are just not happy with how this one is being done. In the same way that the Hollywood narrative people hating on the new starwars movie is because people hate the idea of a female lead, when it is not that it is the female lead and the other characters in the movie were not well written, not presented in such a way that made the majority of the fans happy. People donâ(TM)t want 1 dimensional characters, they donâ(TM)t want Mary Sues or Gary stues. But that is what a lot of movies are trying to push on us. Then you have good movies and character development like in Battle Angel Alita. Where the characters while rushed in places feels more real, where the characters have a lot of depth and emotions. Even the opening pre movie publicity stunts are night and day. Captain marvel says we want to limit cos white men at our screening and bring in the crippled black woman. While Battle Angel Alita works with some prosthetic limbs companies and make some prosthetic limbs for some lucky people and bring them to the premiere with their new Battle Angel Alita inspired prosthetic limbs. One claims to be a champion for social justice, the other one doesnâ(TM)t claim to champion anything, but instead shows their beliefs by their actions.

Re: Movie reviews

[DavisGilbert]

Frankly you are probably right about them not caring about us. But you know what if they are not going to produce a movie Iâ(TM)m interested in, or if they are going to shit on their customers base, then I will just sit back and not give them my money.

Re: Movie reviews

[DavisGilbert]

Strong female leads, letâ(TM)s see, Diana prince from Wonder Woman, Alita from Battle Angel Alita, those are two fairly recent movies with great female leads that are written well that do not put down others just to try and make the women seem better than the other people.

Re:Movie reviews

[penandpaper]

Sure, it may be about a comic book superhero but stating a simple fact is not misogyny. You could have said that fact is irrelevant to the movie because of Comic Book superhero and therefore human physiology doesn't matter.

Are you seriously saying female superheroes cannot be physiologically as strong or stronger than normal men?

Should I take it that you fail at reading comprehension? Are you an idiot? Or both? Help me help you. I can hold your hand if you like.

"Women in general are not physiologically strong. .... The reality is ... "

Assuming you didn't deliberately intend to sound like a misogynist

What is the misogyny?

it pretty clear we're talking superheroes here, so it's hard for me to believe you missed that part.

If you think I missed something you can answer my question. What is the misogyny in es330td comment that was quoted by mark-t?

Women are, in general, not as physiologically strong as men. That is irrelevant to a movie about a comic book superhero but that is still a fact.

you do seriously appear to be arguing that fictional entities given amazing powers cannot possibly be stronger than normal human unmodified men if they possess vaginas.

I am really struggling to not see you as an idiot with defunct reading comprehension. But I am willing to help you cross this bridge. I have experience helping special needs.

Re:Movie reviews

[mcl630]

Extrapolation from past experience?

Ponder which reboots or sequels you know where the male hero was replaced by a female hero. Now ponder the good vs. bad ratio.

This is neither a reboot nor a sequel, and Carol Danvers was always a woman.

Re: Movie reviews

[TsuruchiBrian]

I don't know what this has to do with anything I've said. I was just pointing out how ridiculous it is to compare feminists to the KKK. There are lot's of organizations and ideologies that I disagree with that I do not equate to the KKK or other groups primarily known for murder.

Re:Movie reviews

[Opportunist]

Ok, so it's no sequel but a part of a series of superhero movies. Anyway. Can you name a movie, please?

Re:GB for Girls

[tempo36]

I'm sorry, I must have missed the part where the ownership and character rights for Marvel had anything to do with this present discussion. I thought we were talking about the gender of Captain/Ms Marvel and how ANGRY the internet is that she's been female for going on 40 years.

This discussion has absolutely nothing to do with Shazam...if anyone thinks that Marvel Comics has stolen Shazam (previously known as Captain Marvel) and rewritten him as a female, then they're not even in the ballpark.

Re:GB for Girls

[tempo36]

Ah...so you're too lazy to actually look up the history of the subject you're pissed off about, and then you're going to take umbridge when someone points out that you have no idea what you're talking about because you can't be bothered to actually learn about it. Got it.

Re: Movie reviews

[aliquis]

You should have your skin ripped off.

Yeah just a question about when they will try to steal that too.
We're already their subjects, the slaves, why not literally take our bodies too.