Posted by HereForOneShot (174 posts) 1 month, 16 days ago

### Poll: Do you think Disney employed any underhanded tactics to ensure positive reviews for each Marvel Cinematic Universe film? (49 votes)

Yes, I believe Disney employed at least one UNDERHANDED tactic to ensure positive reviews for each Marvel Cinematic Universe film 47%
No, not at all 53%

Think about it. There are 22 MCU movies at this point in time (May 2019).

Is it plausible for all 22 movies in a franchise to be each graded positively by the majority of professional movie critics?

## Probability Model

Let's take Rotten Tomatoes for example. Even if we used a probability value of 0.8 (Very optimistic) that a relatively high budget, professionally-made movie gets overall positive reviews from Rotten Tomatoes, this means the probability of MCU movies getting overall positive reviews is 0.8 ^ 22 which is roughly equal to 0.0075. Which I believe is roughly equivalent to odds of 1 to 133, meaning that out of 133 franchises with a maximum of 22 movies each, only 1 franchise can achieve such ratings.

Note: This simple probability model assumes that all directors, writers and actors hired are of roughly equal competence between each movie.

I am not saying that its a conspiracy nor do I believe its one, but I thought this question should be out in the open so people can decide for themselves.

What do you think? Is this way of calculating the probability wrong? Or you have something alternative to talk about/propose? Discuss

#1 Posted by Lone_Wolf_and_Cub (9109 posts) - -

Lmfao

#2 Edited by DiarrheaRegatta (6038 posts) - -

You mean like every big company with money to spend?

Reviewer sweetening with "incentives" has been going on for literally decades. Nothing to be shocked about.

#3 Posted by Yosefscion (499 posts) - -

ROFLMAOROTFBTCSTCNDBFOOTWIFOAGWLLBGWTHROOTSAIAKBAYB

No

#4 Posted by HereForOneShot (174 posts) - -

You mean like every big company with money to spend?

Reviewer sweetening with "incentives" has been going on for literally decades. Nothing to be shocked about.

That is true, but how many 22-movie franchises managed to achieve what the MCU had done? Is there some special action (read: exceptionally underhanded) taken by Disney to ensure such exceptional performance?

#5 Posted by DiarrheaRegatta (6038 posts) - -

@hereforoneshot: As I said- it's been happening for decades. This thread is basically a bunch of words mangled together to state the obvious.

#6 Posted by Essem (355 posts) - -

I dont think there is any money going out for reviews. Its more a case of if "you or who you work for" keeps being negative towards this franchise then we wont invite you or who you work to a press junket or they will deny interviews and other stuff like this which will hurt their business.

So yes i believe there is a bit of "strong-arming" going on. Could you imagine being on the "black list" of Disney. Being denied everything from MCU to Star Wars to Pixar to live action remakes. That would not be good for you if you intend to work in that space.

#7 Posted by Havenless (3211 posts) - -

@hereforoneshot: As I said- it's been happening for decades. This thread is basically a bunch of words mangled together to state the obvious.

Do you have anything to substantiate this at all?

#8 Posted by DiarrheaRegatta (6038 posts) - -

@havenless: The movie industry? The need for good marketing through the trust of established "objective" reviewers to create a greater incentive for a good opening week and a larger profit margin?

Come on. This isn't new news I'm talking about here.

#9 Posted by KillBilly (2382 posts) - -

Considering Disney has taken in around 50% of the entire cinema market's gross profits over the last couple years, I'm sure the people who review movies for a living don't want to get on their bad side.

#10 Posted by ITouchedTheBoat (3428 posts) - -

Ironman 3 has a better R/T score than MoS...so yeah

#11 Posted by IndomitableRegal (16610 posts) - -

#12 Edited by mrmonster (15998 posts) - -

Sign, this again.

But seriously, if Disney could somehow rig the review process, they would do it for all their movies, and given the lackluster reviews for things like A Wrinkle in Time and The Nutcracker and the Four Realms, I think it's safe to say that they don't.

#13 Posted by deactivated-5cd742ec88b57 (48 posts) - -

They just make good movies.

#14 Posted by joshua755 (4084 posts) - -

No not at all sure they want there movies to do good

But they would not go that far I mean hell if that’s the case they would have done that for there live action Dumbo movie or Marry Pop-ins which flop at the box office and both movies was pretty trash and Disney is all about there Live action remakes so I think what you bring up is Flawed and not true at all

#15 Posted by DiarrheaRegatta (6038 posts) - -

@mrmonster: If you used it for something that was objectively not going to do well anyway (basically something with a smaller budget) then of course that's not going to be the case.

However, if, say, you wanted a movie to do really well that couldn't rely on the hype of the thing itself (i.e Infinity War, Avengers, etc) then naturally there may be some mild incentives to have good publicity behind it. Iron Man 2 got really good reviews despite most public opinion being that it wasn't up to a good standard or even bad in some cases.

Obviously big companies want to make certain movies look better so that the hype can be positive, for the most part, which allows for a better gross market sale. The idea that "all of their movies are just good tho!" is a childish view held by people who don't like the facts.

#16 Posted by Stahlflamme (5851 posts) - -

This conspiracy theory again? If you look at the top critic score you will notice that thor 2 and incredible Hulk aren't actually fresh anymore. And as other mentioned Disney has plenty of badly reviewed movies. And why would they let that happen to their live action remakes keeping a positive image of those would be very profitable.

#17 Posted by Supermanthor (21798 posts) - -

Nice try WB

Nice try

#18 Posted by Supermanthor (21798 posts) - -

How about someone proved it to whole world

then we can talk

#19 Posted by Mutant1230 (6820 posts) - -

There's no basis for this irrational conspiracy theory. Is it possible that critics may be biased towards Disney productions in order to keep being invited to screenings and because their brands have largely earned their trust? Possibly, a case can be made for that. Does that make Disney is literally paying critics for good reviews? Absolutely not. Nothing proves such an outlandish accusation.

#20 Posted by Mutant1230 (6820 posts) - -

@mrmonster: If you used it for something that was objectively not going to do well anyway (basically something with a smaller budget) then of course that's not going to be the case.

However, if, say, you wanted a movie to do really well that couldn't rely on the hype of the thing itself (i.e Infinity War, Avengers, etc) then naturally there may be some mild incentives to have good publicity behind it. Iron Man 2 got really good reviews despite most public opinion being that it wasn't up to a good standard or even bad in some cases.

Obviously big companies want to make certain movies look better so that the hype can be positive, for the most part, which allows for a better gross market sale. The idea that "all of their movies are just good tho!" is a childish view held by people who don't like the facts.

Wouldn't it make more sense to generate good reviews for a movie that has the potential to do bad as a last ditch attempt to salvage some lost profits? As opposed to doing it for a movie that's decent/good on its own merits? What's your arguing sounds like the opposite of what a bribing would be used for.

#21 Posted by MICKEY-MOUSE (36910 posts) - -

Yes, but not the way it’s being described here by the typical tin foil hat crowd. Most companies try to keep a friendly relationship with the media.

Sending official Movie/TV Boxes to the press and YouTube Reviewers, Free Tickets, Invites to Meet The Stars Of The Movie, Premiere Invites, even paying for certain press key press members travel to set visits, etc. That’s just smart business practices that all companies employ and non media companies employ similar tactics. There is no conspiracy.

Disney purposely makes certain types of low risk movies that are as inoffensive as possible. Every once and a while they take a huge gamble like with GOTG and Antman and it happens to pay off. Most of their risks are carefully calculated risks. Also they talk to members of the press and YouTube crowd about how they feel about their movies and often bow to certain whims. You see how the Russo’s, Thor Writer, and several other MCU people have hopped into YouTube shows like Screen Junkies? That’s part of good business and helps maintain a friendly relationship. It’s easier to write a positive review if you understand the filmmakers vision and what they are trying to accomplish with the story.

Take off the tin foil hat.

#22 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6735 posts) - -

I think it's a combination of money and influence. Disney is huge and getting on their bad side is how you lose reliability. Let's all be real Disney could crush any reviewer in days, maybe a day if they felt like it. With that being said it's improbable but not impossible, not likely but also a decent chance they're giving different incentives in other ways.

#23 Edited by Glavene (212 posts) - -

Lol, thats funny. No, they just make good movies.

#24 Posted by kgb725 (19578 posts) - -

Disney is paying for skewed numbers on a website owned by a rival company? Nah

#25 Posted by TobyMaguire (835 posts) - -

I think it's a combination of money and influence. Disney is huge and getting on their bad side is how you lose reliability. Let's all be real Disney could crush any reviewer in days, maybe a day if they felt like it. With that being said it's improbable but not impossible, not likely but also a decent chance they're giving different incentives in other ways.

You know critics have union and if Disney discriminates against anyone arbitrary, they will gang up on Disney. They is already an incident where Disney discriminated against Journalist which caused big PR nightmare for Disney.

Disney is big, they can afford flops because there hit movies are super successful. Disney is very big and has lot of business other than movies like theme park, espn, Tv channels.

Also Pirates movies have always gotten mediocre reviews but that never stopped it from box office success.

Online
#26 Posted by Supermanthor (21798 posts) - -

with the Fox deal

Disney is now twice as big

#27 Posted by Hypnos0929 (6735 posts) - -

A union means nothing if you're not backed by said union. If 99% are afraid and you speak out there's no guarantee they'll join you unless you've got cold hard facts, proof, and everyone on your staff is willing to lose their benefits.

Also it was bad press but did it really affect the company as a whole. You can cut off a finger, survive and thrive then get a prosthetic one.

#28 Posted by ReaperTheGrim (1189 posts) - -

No Critics just love the mcu so they give them good ratings regardless

#29 Posted by Galactic_1000 (5851 posts) - -

Captain Marvel proved RT sucks Marvel's a**

#30 Edited by TobyMaguire (835 posts) - -

@hypnos0929 said:

A union means nothing if you're not backed by said union. If 99% are afraid and you speak out there's no guarantee they'll join you unless you've got cold hard facts, proof, and everyone on your staff is willing to lose their benefits.

Also it was bad press but did it really affect the company as a whole. You can cut off a finger, survive and thrive then get a prosthetic one.

They had to stop discriminating against that journalist. Plus you guys have no proof. Jeremy Jahns, Screenjunkies Chris stuckmann has all gave negative review to Captain Marvel. They were all invited to Endgame critics screening.

Jeremy Jahns gave bad review to Guardians of galaxy vol 2 as well

. Plus Wrinkle in Time, Nutcracker were all critically panned. Aladdin and Dark Pheonix are expected to be bad. Dumbo got mixed critics review

Online
#31 Posted by LuminousHydra (1029 posts) - -

Very possible. Just look at actual garbage tier mcu movies like dark world and captain marvel, they shouldn't be rated anywhere that high.

#32 Posted by Gojira2512 (2178 posts) - -

Yes. Captain Marvel is an example.

Online
#33 Posted by Reactor (4422 posts) - -

Ehh, yes and no? Kinda. Idk if I'd call the tactics underhanded for the simple reason that virtually all of the media/entertainment industry is rife with it. Probably the most blatant offenders are ceremonies like the Oscars and Emmys. But because it is an accepted practice that pretty much everyone in the industry does, I can't really say that Disney is at fault for it, and they are far, faaaar from the worst

#34 Posted by Mike_Fowler (5178 posts) - -

No, and I wonder if anyone who actually believes they do can use an argument besides, “those critics/audience like a movie I don’t like”

Online
#35 Posted by Nucleon (3646 posts) - -

Well, yeah. I do believe there's some grease in the industry - any industry. There's a reason why publicity exists: It works. That and general coercion. A person is intelligent but people are basically stupid. The most flagrant exemple was the manipulation of RT in CM's wake.

However, the results of such a campaign would have failed if the product was of a mediocre quality; In all objectivity, it is slightly above average, but what's good is that they obviously put the right people in the right place, and the whole project rolled like a well-oiled machine, with lots of mid-terms ideas that were developped through. They wouldn't have fooled anyone in the long term, when the fanfare have long ceased.

It’s possible.

#37 Edited by TobyMaguire (835 posts) - -

@nucleon said:

Well, yeah. I do believe there's some grease in the industry - any industry. There's a reason why publicity exists: It works. That and general coercion. A person is intelligent but people are basically stupid. The most flagrant exemple was the manipulation of RT in CM's wake.

However, the results of such a campaign would have failed if the product was of a mediocre quality; In all objectivity, it is slightly above average, but what's good is that they obviously put the right people in the right place, and the whole project rolled like a well-oiled machine, with lots of mid-terms ideas that were developped through. They wouldn't have fooled anyone in the long term, when the fanfare have long ceased.

You mean 50000 bad audience reviews Captain Marvel got when movie got released on Thursday. The same no of reviews that Avengers infinity war had which was released a year before.

Online
#38 Edited by Supermanthor (21798 posts) - -

It's all Part of business that we casuals won't gonna understand ever

Now if Bob iger made a CV account here and talks with us on a daily with out knowing us it's him ...... Is a different case

#39 Posted by Nucleon (3646 posts) - -

@tobymaguire: You mean 50000 bad audience reviews Captain Marvel got when movie got released on Thursday. The same no of reviews that Avengers infinity war had which was released a year before.

Yeah, pretty much. =)

But as I wrote, these tactics are more or less effective in the longer term.

#40 Posted by adamTRMM (9364 posts) - -

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout

'But but conspirators!!'

#41 Edited by TobyMaguire (835 posts) - -

https://www.vox.com/culture/2017/11/7/16617394/la-times-disney-media-ban-blackout

'But but conspirators!!'

Yeah, Disney had to back out after backlash from journalists, Critics and media. It is not conspiracy. Disney tried to do that and failed miserably.

Online
#42 Posted by adamTRMM (9364 posts) - -

Failed miserably? lol they sent a message and had absolutely no repercussions from that. They effing own half of the industry, no one can afford making them their enemies at this point.

#43 Edited by Jgames (8214 posts) - -

As much as other company try to. But not to the extend some craze hater think.

#44 Posted by sabracadabra (1627 posts) - -