logo Sign In

The Last Jedi: Official Review and Opinions Thread ** SPOILERS ** — Page 248

Author
Time

Saying that you liked a movie, and why you liked a movie, is defending it?

Author
Time

Jay said:

There’s nothing in that definition that hints at it being a slur of any kind.

It does however give several examples that suggest the word is generally used in the context of a topic a majority thinks is bad. PT apologists makes sense, TLJ doesn’t.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:

Saying that you liked a movie, and why you liked a movie, is defending it?

No, but if you point out why you liked it multiple times over the course of a discussion in an attempt to refute negative criticism, then I’d say you’re defending it, yes.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Jay said:

TV’s Frink said:

Saying that you liked a movie, and why you liked a movie, is defending it?

No, but if you point out why you liked it multiple times over the course of a discussion in an attempt to refute negative criticism, then I’d say you’re defending it, yes.

Most of the analysis I read from those that like the film acknowledge it’s flaws. It’s those contentious areas that get all the airplay (ie" Luke was destroyed by Rian etc)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

Jay said:

There’s nothing in that definition that hints at it being a slur of any kind.

It does however give several examples that suggest the word is generally used in the context of a topic a majority thinks is bad. PT apologists makes sense, TLJ doesn’t.

Depends how you define “majority” in this case:

https://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/star_wars_the_last_jedi

The overwhelming majority of critics think TLJ is good. A slight majority of fans think it’s bad.

I’d also argue the “examples from the internet” in that definition are also examples of how the word has come to be misused over time. I’d prefer examples from classical literature before everyone got online and became generally less thoughtful in their reasoning and their writing, and you could go to “print” without an editor helping you catch mistakes.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

Author
Time

TV’s Frink said:
I’m sorry, I thought I was allowed to like a movie without “apologizing” for it.

I tend to move in circles where “apologist” is a technical term with either a neutral or positive context – not necessarily (or even usually) negative. It refers to someone who’s a defender (rightly OR wrongly) of something that others routinely attack (rightly OR wrongly).

As is well known, TLJ is the most controversial SW movie thus far, quite different from those that have gone before it. And as is generally acknowledged, there’s a healthy portion of SW fans who dislike it (I won’t put a percentage on it; just “healthy portion”). Therefore “apologist” is an apt term for the ones who defend it. My use of the term meant only that; nothing more.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

JawsTDS said:

Why is this the operating assumption of TLJ apologists?

To quote Poe from The Last Jedi: “Shut up.”

That was completely unjustified; and, to quote 3PO, “rather rude.”

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

So no then. Got it.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gothamknight said:

JawsTDS said:

Why is this the operating assumption of TLJ apologists?

To quote Poe from The Last Jedi: “Shut up.”

That was completely unjustified; and, to quote 3PO, “rather rude.”

So was assuming that people who like this movie are apologists.

“That said, there is nothing wrong with mocking prequel lovers and belittling their bad taste.” - Alderaan, 2017

MGGA (Make GOUT Great Again):
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Return-of-the-GOUT-Preservation-and-Restoration/id/55707

Author
Time

Creox said:
Why does Rian owe you an explanation?

Nobody said he does. I’m just pointing out that it’s one of the reasons TLJ is perceived by a great many viewers as a poor follow-up to TFA. It’s analogous to chapters within a single novel that don’t logically progress from prior chapters. It’s not as if the novelist is under some moral obligation to me – but it’s certainly a reason I would negatively evaluate his/her novel.

Part of the reason I liked the movie was that there was no explanation for her powers or where she came from…as of YET.

That’s a fair point. But outside of the film itself, I have a negative impression from RJ’s reported statements to the effect that one of his objectives was to show that “anyone” can access the Force and become a Jedi. Statements like that lend themselves to the probability that there won’t be any explanation for Rey’s power and command.

And by the way, I have zero problem with that theme! It’s just that it doesn’t seem to jive with Rey’s uniqueness. Even in my conception of the OT and PT, I’ve never only associated the Force with bloodlines. I’ve normally thought of it as analogous to the skill-sets of real-world people: certain individuals will excel because they have a particular aptitude for something – but need training to hone that aptitude. Others can also receive training in the same area, despite not having an aptitude for it. If the new SW films made that sort of point, I’d have no problem with it.

Even if there isn’t one forthcoming I am fine with just understanding she came from nowhere.

I would wager that for the average movie or storytelling fan, that doesn’t sit well. If it doesn’t bother you, then by all means, enjoy future instalments! I’m hardly suggesting you’re a loathsome person for that reason. In the context of recent posts to this thread, however, what I object to is a mischaracterization of those who dislike TLJ, as if we don’t like it just because we “didn’t get what we wanted.” We have good storytelling reasons for not liking it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

So no then. Got it.

If you chose not to listen to very easily understood concepts, sure.

Failing that, I think the CinemaScore and IMDb rating will suffice.

Author
Time

Jay said:
I don’t agree with people who think TLJ is a good Star Wars story/movie, but that doesn’t mean they’re making excuses for something they know deep down isn’t good, which I think is what many would call an “apologist” today.

There are contexts in which “apologist”/“apologetics” doesn’t carry that sense. It just presupposes that a given thing has been attacked, and so someone else is defending it. It makes no presumption as to whether the attack OR the defense is, in itself, right or wrong.

I’m accustomed to using the term positively in my own circles, and so I wasn’t making a veiled insult to anyone who likes TLJ.

Author
Time

JawsTDS said:

"That was completely unjustified; and, to quote 3PO, ‘rather rude.’ "

So was assuming that people who like this movie are apologists.

Please read my posts on the use of the term “apologist.” You’re falsely assuming I meant something negative. Since I didn’t, I wasn’t being rude. I could have just as easily used the term “defender,” because that’s what I had in mind.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

So no then. Got it.

If you chose not to listen to very easily understood concepts, sure.

Failing that, I think the CinemaScore and IMDb rating will suffice.

Word.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/12/rotten-tomatoes-the-last-jedi-low-audience-score & https://www.cbr.com/last-jedi-rotten-tomatoes-score-defense/

Found these 2 doing a quick Google search. They were among the top results.

To say that the low audience score for TLJ in RT was hacked by some sort of alt-right group or that it isn’t legit is the same as saying that Disney has payed most critics to give their movies high scores, which isn’t something I believe in, therefore I call both ideas BS.

No need to go full denial mode about most people not liking a movie you like. It just so happens people have different opinions.

And interestingly enough I think that RT is so easily accesible to the casual movie goer that it ends up being one of the most reliable sources for audiences’ scores imo.

PS: I’ve been reading what I wrote over and over before posting and I don’t know how to phrase it better but it just isn’t making any sense to me and I don’t know how to improve it. If anything’s incohesive or incoherent, I’m sorry.

Author
Time

Gothamknight said:

Jay said:
I don’t agree with people who think TLJ is a good Star Wars story/movie, but that doesn’t mean they’re making excuses for something they know deep down isn’t good, which I think is what many would call an “apologist” today.

There are contexts in which “apologist”/“apologetics” doesn’t carry that sense. It just presupposes that a given thing has been attacked, and so someone else is defending it. It makes no presumption as to whether the attack OR the defense is, in itself, right or wrong.

I’m accustomed to using the term positively in my own circles, and so I wasn’t making a veiled insult to anyone who likes TLJ.

Which is pretty much what I said.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

So no then. Got it.

If you chose not to listen to very easily understood concepts, sure.

Failing that, I think the CinemaScore and IMDb rating will suffice.

I understood what you said just fine. It’s just that what you said didn’t answer my question. I asked you for data you considered valid and you provided none. But you provided data this time, so I’ll address it.

IMBD’s less than stellar TLJ rating of 7.4 is hardly a smash hit (do you pat your kids on the back when they get a C?), the MetaCritic score is mostly positive at 85, and audience reviews are split down the middle. Sounds suspiciously like…RT.

CinemaScore polls viewers on opening night, which provides multiple avenues for skewing the results in either direction (limited sample size, not enough time to analyze what they just saw, etc.).

I don’t see anything about these methods that makes them a more reliable or scientific predictor of a film’s quality than RT, especially since what I’m seeing on IMDB backs up what RT says (critics like or love it, audiences seem split but veer into the negative).

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/12/rotten-tomatoes-the-last-jedi-low-audience-score & https://www.cbr.com/last-jedi-rotten-tomatoes-score-defense/

Found these 2 doing a quick Google search. They were among the top results.

To say that the low audience score for TLJ in RT was hacked by some sort of alt-right group or that it isn’t legit is the same as saying that Disney has payed most critics to give their movies high scores, which isn’t something I believe in, therefore I call both ideas BS.

No need to go full denial mode about most people not liking a movie you like. It just so happens people have different opinions.

And interestingly enough I think that RT is so easily accesible to the casual movie goer that it ends up being one of the most reliable sources for audiences’ scores imo.

PS: I’ve been reading what I wrote over and over before posting and I don’t know how to phrase it better but it just isn’t making any sense to me and I don’t know how to improve it. If anything’s incohesive or incoherent, I’m sorry.

I’m going to build a post upvote feature just so I can like this post.

Forum Administrator

MTFBWY…A

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/12/rotten-tomatoes-the-last-jedi-low-audience-score & https://www.cbr.com/last-jedi-rotten-tomatoes-score-defense/

Found these 2 doing a quick Google search. They were among the top results.

To say that the low audience score for TLJ in RT was hacked by some sort of alt-right group or that it isn’t legit is the same as saying that Disney has payed most critics to give their movies high scores, which isn’t something I believe in, therefore I call both ideas BS.

No need to go full denial mode about most people not liking a movie you like. It just so happens people have different opinions.

And interestingly enough I think that RT is so easily accesible to the casual movie goer that it ends up being one of the most reliable sources for audiences’ scores imo.

PS: I’ve been reading what I wrote over and over before posting and I don’t know how to phrase it better but it just isn’t making any sense to me and I don’t know how to improve it. If anything’s incohesive or incoherent, I’m sorry.

I never said it was hacked (nor do I think it was), and obviously RT would deny any claims of weirdness. What I’m arguing is not hard to believe. Even if you put aside the possibility that people made bots, even if you pretend there wasn’t a campaign to give the movie a low score, the simple fact of the matter is that you can’t trust an audience score on a site like RT. Due to its voluntary nature, there is a bias towards people with extreme negative reactions trying to make a statement. When you take a franchise like Star Wars, with a controversial movie like this, that just exacerbates the bias. Then there’s the very high critic score, which only makes people with the opposite opinion want to make their voices heard even more.

All of which is to say, the negative voices are the majority on the RT audience score by 3%. It’s pretty silly to pretend that there’s no possible way that even 4% of that could have been due to the inherent biases in RT’s method of scoring. So to me, when someone says that that’s “proof” that the majority of audiences disliked the movie, I do have to laugh a bit.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that I like the movie. I really don’t care if a majority or minority disagrees with me, that’s not going to change my opinion. I’d be arguing the same thing if the situation were reversed, that being it’s ridiculous to put any stock into an easily gamed score, especially when there’s other scores that paint a different picture.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Collipso said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

http://www.complex.com/pop-culture/2017/12/rotten-tomatoes-the-last-jedi-low-audience-score & https://www.cbr.com/last-jedi-rotten-tomatoes-score-defense/

Found these 2 doing a quick Google search. They were among the top results.

To say that the low audience score for TLJ in RT was hacked by some sort of alt-right group or that it isn’t legit is the same as saying that Disney has payed most critics to give their movies high scores, which isn’t something I believe in, therefore I call both ideas BS.

No need to go full denial mode about most people not liking a movie you like. It just so happens people have different opinions.

And interestingly enough I think that RT is so easily accesible to the casual movie goer that it ends up being one of the most reliable sources for audiences’ scores imo.

PS: I’ve been reading what I wrote over and over before posting and I don’t know how to phrase it better but it just isn’t making any sense to me and I don’t know how to improve it. If anything’s incohesive or incoherent, I’m sorry.

I never said it was hacked, and obviously RT would deny any claims of weirdness. What I’m arguing is not hard to believe. Even if you put aside the possibility that people made bots, even if you pretend there wasn’t a campaign to give the movie a low score, the simple fact of the matter is that you can’t trust an audience score on a site like RT. Due to its voluntary nature, there is a bias towards people with extreme negative reactions trying to make a statement. When you take a franchise like Star Wars, with a controversial movie like this, that just exacerbates the bias. Then there’s the very high critic score, which only makes people with the opposite opinion want to make their voices heard even more.

All of which is to say, the negative voices are the majority on the RT audience score by 3%. It’s pretty sill to pretend that there’s no possible way that even 4% of that could have been due to the inherent biases in RT’s method of scoring. So to me, when someone says that that’s “proof” that the majority of audiences disliked the movie, I do have to laugh a bit.

And it has nothing to do with the fact that I like the movie. I really don’t care if a majority or minority disagrees with me, that’s not going to change my opinion. I’d be arguing the same thing if the situation were reversed, that being it’s ridiculous to put any stock into an easily gamed score, especially when there’s other scores that paint a different picture.

dahmage upvoted this post.

Author
Time

Gothamknight said:

Jay said:
I don’t agree with people who think TLJ is a good Star Wars story/movie, but that doesn’t mean they’re making excuses for something they know deep down isn’t good, which I think is what many would call an “apologist” today.

There are contexts in which “apologist”/“apologetics” doesn’t carry that sense.

Think about your argument in the context of talking about the Original Trilogy. If I were to defend one of the original three, would you still use the term “apologist”?

I don’t think so.

“That said, there is nothing wrong with mocking prequel lovers and belittling their bad taste.” - Alderaan, 2017

MGGA (Make GOUT Great Again):
http://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Return-of-the-GOUT-Preservation-and-Restoration/id/55707

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

Ha, citing the RT audience score unironically, that’s funny.

I’m guessing you have “valid” data that supports your take on things.

Do you? In general I wouldn’t trust an audience score on a site like that. Which is to say nothing about the reports of concentrated bot reviews. Even if you think there’s no way that could have been the case (because it’s so unbelievable) there was still a campaign to lower its score. Plus the simple fact that hardcore fans that got mad are way more likely to rate the movie on RT than the casual fans who vastly outnumber them. When you consider the high cinema score, it’s starts to paint a different picture.

Even if you’re skeptical of these things, it’s not hard to see how the RT score might be slightly biased in one direction. That considered, it’s weird to use it as proof that a majority of fans disliked the film when that score is basically right in the middle, even with that negative volunteer bias.

So yeah, I think it’s pretty silly to take any stock in the RT audience score, and you doing so did legitimately give me a laugh.

So no then. Got it.

If you chose not to listen to very easily understood concepts, sure.

Failing that, I think the CinemaScore and IMDb rating will suffice.

I understood what you said just fine. It’s just that what you said didn’t answer my question. I asked you for data you considered valid and you provided none. But you provided data this time, so I’ll address it.

This guy’s got some data
http://birthmoviesdeath.com/2017/12/20/the-curious-case-of-the-last-jedi-and-its-rotten-tomatoes-audience-score

which isn’t necessarily an endorsement of everything said therein but I don’t feel like doing the research myself. At the very least he provides reason for one to be at least somewhat skeptical of the RT score.

IMBD’s less than stellar TLJ rating of 7.4 is hardly a smash hit (do you pat your kids on the back when they get a C?), the MetaCritic score is mostly positive at 85, and audience reviews are split down the middle. Sounds suspiciously like…RT.

7.4 isn’t a great score, though you’d think if “the majority of people didn’t like it” it’d be quite a bit less than that. Which isn’t to say IMDb is more reliable, just that it’s different than the RT score, which means maybe it’s weird to say one of them is objectively right?

CinemaScore polls viewers on opening night, which provides multiple avenues for skewing the results in either direction (limited sample size, not enough time to analyze what they just saw, etc.).

Same point, weird to discredit one and not the other. I don’t doubt there’s skews there, but why pretend that RT is more trustworthy? At the very least, the CinemaScore skews more to general audiences rather than the kind of hardcore fans who would waste their time writing a review online. And Star Wars has a far greater percentage of casual fans.

Plus, TLJ had the same audience score as TFA and RO. You’d think if the majority hated it it would’ve been even slightly lower, no?

I don’t see anything about these methods that makes them a more reliable or scientific predictor of a film’s quality than RT, especially since what I’m seeing on IMDB backs up what RT says (critics like or love it, audiences seem split but veer into the negative).

I don’t see how IMDb backs that up, a 7.4 is mixed at worst. As I’ve said it’s just ridiculous to put any stock into these audiences scores.

Author
Time

What circles would one travel in where “apologist” is considered a positive? Probably circles I couldn’t understand, right?