People have really different ways to measure what makes a film good or bad. For example; on the “Rate TFA” thread I posted that I personally felt that TFA was a 6/10, which for me means that it’s a good film with many strong points, but with enough weaknesses to bring it down closer to mediocrity. In the later posts a lot of people gave it similar ratings (5/10, 6/10, etc), but referred to it as a failure, as trash, as a shit film, etc.
Heck in that same thread someone even referred to a Kubrick film as “shit” (I forgot who, and don’t want to use specific names). Which I find kind of weird because I don’t think anything made by filmmakers like that, regardless of whether the film is flawed or not as good as their previous films, can be justifiably called something as damning as “shit.” It has to be pretty lousy, and barely qualify as a movie to be called “shit.” That’s the way I see it anyhow.
Now I get why some people were disappointed by TFA, and some people have brought up some real problems with it, but many arguments here are simply ridiculous.
Maybe this is a slightly accusing thing to say, but I guess it all comes down to how emotionally you judge films.