MrInternetMan's avatar


3.5K Watchers858.1K Page Views1.4K Deviations
  • Canada
  • Deviant for 7 years
  • He / Him
My Bio


Page Views858.1K
Comments Made2.3K
Comments Received234


3.5K Deviants
stormeagle901's avatar
Myrmidon2000's avatar
williamjuane's avatar

Group Member

33 Groups


54 Deviants
Ary0901's avatar
TGTrinity's avatar
AyyaSAP's avatar
Chronorin's avatar
TRoubLETRO's avatar
Ant-Zurser's avatar
minor-alterations's avatar
jovian16's avatar
Nexstat's avatar
SexyTransformation's avatar
SexySuperpowers's avatar
WeLoveShapeshifters's avatar
Kamiko-Zero's avatar
Art--is--Love's avatar
Cute-n-Sexy-Inc's avatar

Group Admin

2 Groups


Yeah, I don't think Justice League has been "Totally redeemed." There's a lot of people who still have issue with it.

"Better than the Whedon version" is basically damning it with faint praise.

....and all the chuds will claim it's staged, or start white-knighting a bunch of other creators they think will "Save" Star Wars from being a billion dollar success.

A world where Kathleen Kennedy fumes impotently at her desk, enraged that Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni are defiantly making The Mandalorian against her will or direction, doing things she never signed off on and undoing ALL of her hard work to twist the Star Wars franchise into her own SJW Feminist fan fiction where women and minorities rule and straight white men are all relegated to villains, and how she lives in fear of the "True" fans who she seeks to keep contained less they prove to the world how powerful they *really* are.

Or a world where Disney Execs look at Carol Danvers scenes in Endgame and become terrified that audiences would be so repulsed by her very presence they'd stay along from the film due to her and her alone, to which they ORDER the filmmakers to shoot two versions of a scene- one with Carol, and one without, just on the off chance that they don't alienate the "True" fans who go to see these films.

Note how most of these theories revolve around straight white men being the "Secret Power" that make or break things, and doing something that isn't catered to them alone is some form of conspiracy to ruin their gender as a whole.

Honestly, I can't really predict *WHAT* Siskel & Ebert would have thought of the MCU, since they were so unpredictable. I err on the side of caution, because I do think they just gave their own opinion and didn't try to follow trends, hence why I think they'd probably be split on them a lot of the time. But it's not like they didn't like "Fun" movies.

Siskel liked Carnosaur and Brain Candy. Ebert liked Tremors, Inframan and Tron. They *both* liked Blade. They were all over the place sometimes.

I could see them disliking Ragnarok. But I could also see them HATING the Thor films UNTIL Ragnarok, and then both of them raving about it.

"Roger, this is where it all comes together. Hemsworth is so alive here it's infectious, and I had a rollicking good time! It was finally like the Thor comics from when we were kids."

"Gene, I couldn't agree more. I laughed, I cried, I *cared* about what was happening. Hemsworth was so dire in all his previous performances as this character, but here we see him finally make the performance work for him and he is *hilarious!* He's got great chemistry with Tom Hidleston who always outshone him as Loki, and they are truly equals here! Just an amazingly good time!"

The problem is that the "Tomatoemeter" is used less about judging a films quality, and more about a certain segment of fandom using it to justify one point of view or another.

If "The Joker" gets a good score on the Tomatoemeter, then that's proof that "The people" like it and that it's super successful, and if "Validates" a particular take on superhero films.

But if Captain Marvel, or Shazam get a good score? That's proof that most critics are paid off, or that the audience is just sheep, and you can't trust a single thing the site says.

Trust me- most "Average" people don't give a damn about what "Rotten Tomatoes" says. At this point, there are so many critics out there, people don't really give a damn one way or another. It's really only if a move gets HORRIBLY panned that people stay away. Even stuff that is "Meh," like Sonic the Hedgehog or something like BoP, still gets a lot of people going to see it, because for the VAST MAJORITY of customers, it's just about having a good time at the movies with your friends and family.

The problem is the dudebros waging some nonsense culture war against the MCU and their "Kiddie" take on films. Or angry basement dwellers who believe Kathleen Kennedy is trying to destroy Star Wars and only the twin force of Jon Favreau and Dave Filoni can save it. Or right wing nutjobs angry that a woman is starring in a superhero film. These are the people who are making these nonsensical arguments about the "Importance" or lack thereof on the "Tomatoemeter."

These dweebs are just looking for facts that support their narrative, and Rotten Tomatoes is just a tool for them. They don't care about what the score is. What they care about is cherry picking the facts so they can continue pushing the notion that "Dark and SERIOUS" superhero films are the way to go, and not the more family friendly Marvel fare. Or pushing the notion that The Last Jedi was a "Cinematic travesty" that "EVERYONE" hated and ruined the entire franchise. If it wasn't Rotten Tomatoes, it'd be something else.

And if Siskey & Ebert were still around, they'd alternately praise them and condemn them whenever it suited them.

(Although that does bring up a thought experiment as to what S&E would have thought of the MCU. I highly enjoyed all the films pretty much save a couple, but I have a suspicion that S&E would have been more mixed on it. While I loved Infinity War and Endgame, I can't help but think that S&E would have either been divided on them, or given both movies a thumbs down. Something to think about).

WandaVision and Falcon and Winter Soldier are really finally doing what comic book movies have never been able to replicate- long form storytelling that allows time for these characters to ruminate and deal with their situation rather than having it all be over and done with after two hours. You get to see longer arcs, which has always been the strength of comics.

And its' funny that at a time when people keep thinking superhero properties should be running out of steam, they just find new ways to innovate.

As for Futurama, I agree- the episodes after their return aren't as strong as they were before. But the same was true of Family Guy. It's kind of hard- and a bit unfair- to have writers be chugging along, finally getting into the groove of writing, and then yank the rug out from under them for several years, and expect them to come back and be able to pick up where they left off like nothing happened. That delay was going to change things no matter what.

Just imagine if The Simpsons was cancelled after season 5, and then came back several years later. I don't think that the series would have kept the same level of quality in the returned series as they had in season 6. The interruptions on these shows unfairly hampered them, which is why I feel some of their quality suffered.

Who are these people?