The Avengers Gets First Rotten Review

[chadachada123]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[viranimus]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[chadachada123]

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

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

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

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

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

 

[samaugsch]

How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

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

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

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

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

 

[Robert Ewing]

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

 

[Pipotchi]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[xaszatm]

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Giftfromme]

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

 

[irishda]

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

 

[Shoggoth2588]

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

 

[DeadFOAM]

How is 3/5 a negative?

That's over half.

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

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

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

 

[Andothul]

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

 

[Something Amyss]

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

 

[Something Amyss]

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

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

Agreed, it is.

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

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

So I'm with you on this.

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

 

[Marter]

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

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

 

[lacktheknack]

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

All complaints about it are invalid.

 

[Doclector]

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

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

DESTROY THE BLASPHEMER!

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

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

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