"Guardians of the Galaxy" - currently 100% on RT

[RaistlinZ]

25/25 so far. This movie looked a bit silly from the previews but now I'm reconsidering seeing it. :hmm:

 

[Kadarin]

It does look silly... But in a good way.

 

[MontyAC]

I'll catch it when it hits Amazon or Netflix.

 

[TeeJay1952]

Just read the series in CBZ. Andy Dwyer is Star Lord!
I laughed myself silly. (sillyer?)
Should be great.

 

[PliotronX]

Just read the series in CBZ. Andy Dwyer is Star Lord!
I laughed myself silly. (sillyer?)
Should be great.

Wasn't he the teenage boy in Masters of the Universe? Hehe, at first I thought they were making another He-Man movie.

 

[bearxor]

I have been so excited for this movie ever since Chris Pratt was announced. Going to a Thursday night showing.

 

[waggy]

yeah it looks great. i'm going to take my son to it.

 

[Aikouka]

I'm currently debating whether or not to spend less money and see it in a normal (closer) theater (probably $9.50) or splurge the $17.50 ($15.50 + $2 fee) for IMAX 3D. I read on the Wikipedia entry that Gunn said the movie was designed with 3D in mind (it does have a ton of CG, which is far easier to "3D-ize" given you know the depth of everything) and the IMAX transitions were handled personally by him.

 

[CZroe]

And that's what happens when you let Disney take over Marvel. Too bad they had a negative effect on Pixar (mostly because they needed John Lassetter elsewhere to save their non Pixar productions).

 

[Ichinisan]

I'll catch it when it hits Amazon or Netflix.

Some movies really should be experienced in the theater.

 

[mikeymikec]

25/25 so far. This movie looked a bit silly from the previews but now I'm reconsidering seeing it. :hmm:

Wow, 100%. It must be THE BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME

Such a score couldn't possibly either be the result of interested parties throwing the results and/or say some massively over-enthusiastic teens...

 

[Eug]

Wow, 100%. It must be THE BEST MOVIE OF ALL TIME

Such a score couldn't possibly either be the result of interested parties throwing the results and/or say some massively over-enthusiastic teens...

Yeah cuz such teens and interested parties write for Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Guardian, Daily Mirror, and Daily Telegraph.

 

[mikeymikec]

Yeah cuz such teens and interested parties write for Hollywood Reporter, Variety, Guardian, Daily Mirror, and Daily Telegraph.

Though oddly none of those parties (you mentioned) I've checked so far have given it 5/5 stars, only 3 or 4...

 

[Eug]

Though oddly none of those parties (you mentioned) I've checked so far have given it 5/5 stars, only 3 or 4...

Both of your posts in this thread indicate you have absolutely no idea how Rotten Tomatoes works.

Here, I'll explain it to you.

First off, the reviewers cannot be just any random guy off the street. It has to be a reviewer with a real readership. They actually have the criteria for acceptance listed right on their website. Yeah, it can be a blog, but it has to be a well-read blog. You can't just have Joe Schmoe Blog with 1000 readers and get accepted as a reviewer.

If a reviewer gives it a positive review (eg. 3 out of 5 or 5 out of 5), it is considered a positive.
If a reviewer gives it a negative review (eg. 1 out of 5 or 2 out of 5), it is considered a negative.

Then they add up the numbers of positives and negatives and provide a score. 25/25 is excellent for a pre-release movie. Based on that score, I'd expect the score (over 100 reviewers) after the movie is actually released to be over 75% possibly as high as 85% or more, but the range may be something like 70% to 95%. On Rotten Tomatoes, anything 60% or better is considered positive.

If you want an average on the ratings, then go to Metacritic.com where they average them all out and give out a metarating.

Currently on Metacritic.com it's 77, based on the reviews of 12 critics.

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/guardians-of-the-galaxy

 

[Sonikku]

I find it interesting that once they got to 25 reviews with 100% approval and got a written consensus, they stopped screening the movie for critics. I'm guessing they're going to try and keep the flawless 100% rating until opening weekend when they make most of their investment back, when we'll see that rating dip bit by bit.

 

[Ichinisan]

I find it interesting that once they got to 25 reviews with 100% approval and got a written consensus, they stopped screening the movie for critics. I'm guessing they're going to try and keep the flawless 100% rating until opening weekend when they make most of their investment back, when we'll see that rating dip bit by bit.

I read on Wikipedia that it has been released to Dolby theaters since 7/21. How do you stop people from reviewing it when it's already released?

 

[Eug]

Well, in Canada and the US, the official release date is not until August.
The official release date in the UK is July 31.

The July 21 date was just LA. It was also released just in London on July 24. I think they may have had just one theatre in each of those cities, for their premieres. I guess that explains why you have both American and British reviewers, but just 25 of them. It is also in a film fest in Montreal this week though, so we may see that 25 number creep up to say 30 or something.

BTW, if a movie is bad, the studios often will not have any pre-release screenings at all, so there will be no Rotten Tomatoes score. The fact that there are already 25 reviews suggests to me that the studio thinks it's a good movie.

By next weekend, I expect the number to hit well over 100 reviews.

 

[mikeymikec]

Both of your posts in this thread indicate you have absolutely no idea how Rotten Tomatoes works.

Here, I'll explain it to you.

Ok, so RT has a massively over-simplified scoring system possibly combined with the points I originally made

They just need a load of people to give it a score of at least 3/5 (which can be summed up as "average"), for the movie to look good.

 

[Eug]

Ok, so RT has a massively over-simplified scoring system possibly combined with the points I originally made

They just need a load of people to give it a score of at least 3/5 (which can be summed up as "average"), for the movie to look good.

The "points" you made are because you didn't have a clue how it works.

Like I said, if you want a meta-score, you go to metacritic.com. The whole point of Rotten Tomatoes is to tell you the proportion of critics who like the movie, not the meta-score.

 

[mikeymikec]

The "points" you made are because you didn't have a clue how it works.

Fair point and partly true, though you were hardly stepping up immediately to say that a 100% rating on RT is virtually meaningless, which it is unless people are generally aware that 100% on RT does not mean that all reviewers of the movie thought that it was excellent (relatively speaking or otherwise).

It just means that a good impression from RT is exceptionally easy to accomplish.

 

[bearxor]

Big films like this are typically screened for a handful of large publications. Those are the ones that get published a couple of weeks in advance. You'll have to wait until Tuesday/Wednesday for the early screenings for those that don't get a studio pass. It will probably hit 50-60 reviews by Thursday.

I'm expecting 80 reviews by Friday and I'm making tbe bet it stays between 94-96% by the time it's out of the theaters.

Rotten Tomatoes is a gauge as to wether it not a movie is considered good. Meta Critic is for telling you exactly how good or bad it may be.

But even Metacritic has weights they give to certain publications and reviewers over others. So a Metacritic score still isn't a true average of a film's quality.

 

[Eug]

Fair point and partly true, though you were hardly stepping up immediately to say that a 100% rating on RT is virtually meaningless, which it is unless people are generally aware that 100% on RT does not mean that all reviewers of the movie thought that it was excellent (relatively speaking or otherwise).

It just means that a good impression from RT is exceptionally easy to accomplish.

No it isn't. If you knew anything about RT's history, you'd know 25/25 is actually quite difficult to accomplish. 10/10 is easier, but even then that's not exactly easy. Obviously 3/3 would be extremely easy though.

The original post said "currently", and "25/25". That tells us the pre-release buzz is very positive. Expect the final rating to be positive as well.

I'm expecting 80 reviews by Friday and I'm making tbe bet it stays between 94-96% by the time it's out of the theaters.

94-96% after 80 reviews seems very optimistic IMO. That would mean that out of 80 reviews, only 5 are negative.

I get the impression that intentionally cheesy modern movies like this one seems like it might be often get a few more naysayers. So, I'm predicting a score in the 80s, after 80-100 reviews.

 

[lupi]

Marvel announced the GoG 2 will be released in '17.

 

[bearxor]

Five more reviews added, 1 rotten. 97%

 

[Anubis]

I have zero interest in this movie. TBH I don't understand any of the hype for it