Sign In

The Last Jedi: Official Review and Opinions Thread ** SPOILERS ** — Page 249

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DominicCobb said:

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.

IMDB has star ratings and user reviews. 7.4 is the star rating. They don’t provide an average for user review scores that I can see, but read a few pages and the general direction should be pretty clear.

I’m not getting into a line-by-line quote battle because I find them exhausting, but I never said RT was more reliable than the others. My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense. And bringing up the bot thing as if some anti-SJW script kiddie hacked the RT voting system by flooding it with negative reviews has no basis in reality.

TV’s Frink said:

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

I think the point is that it’s not supposed to be positive or negative. At some point, someone misused it, that connotation worked its way into the popular culture, and now being an apologist in internet circles means you defend things that you know deep down don’t have a good defense.

The word “literally” is another great example of something that people misused to the point that it lost its meaning.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I never said the bot thing was an anti-SJW conspiracy, nor did I say that it even happened, just that it plausibly could have. Using bots is not “hacking,” and wouldn’t even be that hard to do. When I say bots I mostly mean people making a ton of socks accounts, which isn’t something that anyone in their right mind should think is a possibility far divorced from reality. The potential of someone making a script that’d do the work for them logically follows, though again I’m not saying it definitely happened (honestly the bot thing was pretty clearly beside my point).

Anyway, I’ve pretty much grown bored of this discussion. If you had just said that a significant portion of fans disliked the movie and cited the RT score, I wouldn’t have batted an eye. But to say that the majority of fans disliked it, as if that were a fact, and to point to the RT score as proof, well that was a statement too ridiculous not to respond to.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

I never said the bot thing was an anti-SJW conspiracy, nor did I say that it even happened, just that it plausibly could have. Using bots is not “hacking,” and wouldn’t even be that hard to do. When I say bots I mostly mean people making a ton of socks accounts, which isn’t something that anyone in their right mind should think is a possibility far divorced from reality. The potential of someone making a script that’d do the work for them logically follows, though again I’m not saying it definitely happened (honestly the bot thing was pretty clearly beside my point).

Then why bring it up at all other than to obscure the lack of logic in the argument? “Hacking” doesn’t just mean breaking into a computer or network or writing malicious code; social engineering is a form of hacking. Using bots to overwhelm a system and subvert its intended purpose qualifies as hacking even though it works within the confines of the system. And bots aren’t people with sock accounts; bots work independently, which is what makes them bots. Words mean things.

I think you’re intentionally blurring meanings because your argument that RT is an invalid source for audience opinion was based on your opinion (you admitted yourself you couldn’t bother to research it) and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. At worst, it’s no more faulty than any other audience metric.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

Jay said:

My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense.

But it makes perfect sense. If you measure the same thing with different methods and none of the results agree, it’s perfectly logical to assume that any or all of the methods are flawed.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I never said the bot thing was an anti-SJW conspiracy, nor did I say that it even happened, just that it plausibly could have. Using bots is not “hacking,” and wouldn’t even be that hard to do. When I say bots I mostly mean people making a ton of socks accounts, which isn’t something that anyone in their right mind should think is a possibility far divorced from reality. The potential of someone making a script that’d do the work for them logically follows, though again I’m not saying it definitely happened (honestly the bot thing was pretty clearly beside my point).

Then why bring it up at all other than to obscure the lack of logic in the argument? “Hacking” doesn’t just mean breaking into a computer or network or writing malicious code; social engineering is a form of hacking. Using bots to overwhelm a system and subvert its intended purpose qualifies as hacking even though it works within the confines of the system. And bots aren’t people with sock accounts; bots work independently, which is what makes them bots. Words mean things.

I bring it up because it’s one of many factors that should be considered. Also, each time I brought it up I was saying “even if you don’t believe in the bots,” which is to say it’s obvious that you don’t believe people who say bots were made, so I’m acknowledging that and moving on to the other points.

What I meant by my definition is that I lump them together. Non-sock bots are still a part of that factor, as I stated if you paid attention to what I posted.

I think you’re intentionally blurring meanings because your argument that RT is an invalid source for audience opinion was based on your opinion (you admitted yourself you couldn’t bother to research it) and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. At worst, it’s no more faulty than any other audience metric.

It seems to me like you’re just latching on to the bot thing (which I barely talked about) because you have no good counterargument to my actual point. Cool man, well done.

Author
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

Jay said:

My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense.

But it makes perfect sense. If you measure the same thing with different methods and none of the results agree, it’s perfectly logical to assume that any or all of the methods are flawed.

No, it doesn’t make sense. He said RT is flawed and he pointed to other sources he considers more definitive to support his argument. I’m the one who posited that they’re all likely flawed in some way.

And we’re not measuring the same thing. While there’s almost certainly some crossover in the samples, CinemaScore’s audience isn’t IMDB’s and isn’t RT’s.

DominicCobb said:

Jay said:

DominicCobb said:

I never said the bot thing was an anti-SJW conspiracy, nor did I say that it even happened, just that it plausibly could have. Using bots is not “hacking,” and wouldn’t even be that hard to do. When I say bots I mostly mean people making a ton of socks accounts, which isn’t something that anyone in their right mind should think is a possibility far divorced from reality. The potential of someone making a script that’d do the work for them logically follows, though again I’m not saying it definitely happened (honestly the bot thing was pretty clearly beside my point).

Then why bring it up at all other than to obscure the lack of logic in the argument? “Hacking” doesn’t just mean breaking into a computer or network or writing malicious code; social engineering is a form of hacking. Using bots to overwhelm a system and subvert its intended purpose qualifies as hacking even though it works within the confines of the system. And bots aren’t people with sock accounts; bots work independently, which is what makes them bots. Words mean things.

I bring it up because it’s one of many factors that should be considered. Also, each time I brought it up I was saying “even if you don’t believe in the bots,” which is to say it’s obvious that you don’t believe people who say bots were made, so I’m acknowledging that and moving on to the other points.

What I meant by my definition is that I lump them together. Non-sock bots are still a part of that factor, as I stated if you paid attention to what I posted.

I think you’re intentionally blurring meanings because your argument that RT is an invalid source for audience opinion was based on your opinion (you admitted yourself you couldn’t bother to research it) and doesn’t hold up to scrutiny. At worst, it’s no more faulty than any other audience metric.

It seems to me like you’re just latching on to the bot thing (which I barely talked about) because you have no good counterargument to my actual point. Cool man, well done.

I pointed out where I think your logic is flawed beyond the bot subject and won’t repeat myself. You scoffed at RT based solely on your impressions of it, only presented alternative data when pressed, used your own definitions for words (that’s not how definitions work), and you’re grasping at straws to salvage your argument.

RT is just as valid as the other scores you mentioned based on what we know to be true about them. Unless you can provide real evidence or data to the contrary, I’m not sure why you’re still debating other than the fact that you like the movie and want to believe most other people agree with you, which is perfectly natural, but not reasonable.

I don’t care how other people feel about TLJ and their opinion doesn’t affect my own. I just work with the data I have and don’t invent theories why it may or may not agree with my own opinions.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

All my argument has ever been is

A) Audience scores are always fallible, in general
B) There are many factors that point to RT audience scores in particular being biased towards negative
and C) That the RT audience score for the movie is only 3% points below even.

Put those altogether, and it is down right absurd to imagine that the RT audience score is proof that the majority of the audience disliked the movie.

The fact that I like the movie has nothing to do with it. If you had simply said that a significant portion of the audience didn’t like the movie, I wouldn’t have said anything, because that is obvious. What isn’t as obvious is the veracity of the RT audience score, so you treating it as gospel legitimately gave me a laugh.

I’ve made this more than abundantly clear in each of my posts, but I guess somehow it is still confusing to you, so I apologize. Hope it’s clear now.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Jay said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Jay said:

My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense.

But it makes perfect sense. If you measure the same thing with different methods and none of the results agree, it’s perfectly logical to assume that any or all of the methods are flawed.

No, it doesn’t make sense. He said RT is flawed and he pointed to other sources he considers more definitive to support his argument. I’m the one who posited that they’re all likely flawed in some way.

The way I understood it, he used these other scores to point out that there are disagreements. And because of these disagreements, RT shouldn’t be seen as definite prove that most people dislike or hate the movie.

And we’re not measuring the same thing. While there’s almost certainly some crossover in the samples, CinemaScore’s audience isn’t IMDB’s and isn’t RT’s.

All of these sites try to measure how a movie was received by the audience as a whole. Sure, they use different samples, but they certainly claim to reflect an overall opinion and that’s also how they are used in discussions. The different methods are how the score is calculated and related to the bigger population. And a free-for-all approach without much regulations, like RT and IMDB, is definitely biased by simply taking the average of all scores without compensating for differences between users and regular audiences. This doesn’t mean a more controlled poll has no bias at all, but there certainly is a difference between bias and heavy bias.

Ceci n’est pas une signature.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Frank your Majesty said:

Jay said:

Frank your Majesty said:

Jay said:

My point was that using other questionable scoring methods to call RT into question doesn’t make logical sense.

But it makes perfect sense. If you measure the same thing with different methods and none of the results agree, it’s perfectly logical to assume that any or all of the methods are flawed.

No, it doesn’t make sense. He said RT is flawed and he pointed to other sources he considers more definitive to support his argument. I’m the one who posited that they’re all likely flawed in some way.

The way I understood it, he used these other scores to point out that there are disagreements. And because of these disagreements, RT shouldn’t be seen as definite prove that most people dislike or hate the movie.

Yup, you got it exactly right, probably because you weren’t putting words into my mouth like “more definitive.”

Which isn’t to say I think RT isn’t less definitive (it’s up for debate), just that whether one is more or less definitive is completely beside the point.

And we’re not measuring the same thing. While there’s almost certainly some crossover in the samples, CinemaScore’s audience isn’t IMDB’s and isn’t RT’s.

All of these sites try to measure how a movie was received by the audience as a whole. Sure, they use different samples, but they certainly claim to reflect an overall opinion and that’s also how they are used in discussions. The different methods are how the score is calculated and related to the bigger population. And a free-for-all approach without much regulations, like RT and IMDB, is definitely biased by simply taking the average of all scores without compensating for differences between users and regular audiences. This doesn’t mean a more controlled poll has no bias at all, but there certainly is a difference between bias and heavy bias.

Exactly. That they’re “not measuring the same thing” is precisely the problem because they say they actually are. You can’t say that RT is accurately measuring all audiences when they’re clearly just measuring the audience members who took the time to sign up and rate the movie, which is by no means a representative sample.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

All my argument has ever been is

A) Audience scores are always fallible, in general
B) There are many factors that point to RT audience scores in particular being biased towards negative
and C) That the RT audience score for the movie is only 3% points below even.

Put those altogether, and it is down right absurd to imagine that the RT audience score is proof that the majority of the audience disliked the movie.

The fact that I like the movie has nothing to do with it. If you had simply said that a significant portion of the audience didn’t like the movie, I wouldn’t have said anything, because that is obvious. What isn’t as obvious is the veracity of the RT audience score, so you treating it as gospel legitimately gave me a laugh.

I’ve made this more than abundantly clear in each of my posts, but I guess somehow it is still confusing to you, so I apologize. Hope it’s clear now.

I didn’t say it was gospel. I used it as an example.

I’m not confused by your rash argument, but thanks for clarifying anyway.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

TFA and R1 got positive audience reception on RT.

The Person in Question

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You only have to look around places like facebook to see how the RT audience scores have been manipulated. Campaigns were started before the film even come out to give it negative reviews. Not just star wars pages either. 99% of the time, RT was the place they aimed for. After the film came out it got even worse. The amount of posts i had to delete on my page where people had posted links to these type of campaigns was astounding. They even added getting people to upvote the prequels on RT to make TLJ score look even worse. Just check out the ROTS reviews and see just how many new ones have suddenly appeared since TLJ.

There’s a real dark side to the Star Wars fandom and it came out in force after TLJ. The amount of the so called reviews and the negative comments/ attacks on social media that point their hatred for it towards the fact that there is more diversity, more women taking the lead roles, Disney is pandering to the SJW’s etc is disgusting.

ANH:REVISITED
ESB:REVISITED

DONATIONS TOWARDS MATERIALS FOR THE REVISITED SAGA

Author
Time
 (Edited)

adywan said:

You only have to look around places like facebook to see how the RT audience scores have been manipulated. Campaigns were started before the film even come out to give it negative reviews. Not just star wars pages either. 99% of the time, RT was the place they aimed for. After the film came out it got even worse. The amount of posts i had to delete on my page where people had posted links to these type of campaigns was astounding. They even added getting people to upvote the prequels on RT to make TLJ score look even worse. Just check out the ROTS reviews and see just how many new ones have suddenly appeared since TLJ.

There’s a real dark side to the Star Wars fandom and it came out in force after TLJ. The amount of the so called reviews and the negative comments/ attacks on social media that point their hatred for it towards the fact that there is more diversity, more women taking the lead roles, Disney is pandering to the SJW’s etc is disgusting. I’ve had it with the fandom.

I’m sure these elements exist, but saying these elements were able to significantly affect audience scores, is an assumption. Like those with unreasonable hatred for this movie, there are also those that would have loved this movie, no matter what, and gave this film 10/10 before even seeing it. What’s the affect of those people on the scores?

Either way I think there’s empirical evidence this has been a very divisive movie. Polls among fans at the TFN board point to 10-15% of fans consider TLJ the best Star Wars film, while 30% consider it the worst. It’s imdb score of 7.4, which is above average, is the worst since AOTC. So, while I personally believe the general audience give TLJ an above average score, the fan base seems to be roughly split down the middle.

I think this is one of those movies, where people generally don’t agree about the movie’s percieved quality for their own valid reasons. It’s become the poster child for why people’s opinions can’t generally be forced into a single average movie score.

This is why I’m so glad sites like these exist, where people are free to passionately express their opinions. I think we’ve seen some great arguments from all sides.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

This is why I’m so glad sites like these exist, where people are free to passionately express their opinions. I think we’ve seen some great arguments from all sides.

It’s been a lively discussion and I wouldn’t have it any other way 👍

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Perhaps it is even simpler than bots and hacking, maybe it is just human nature.

For example, when BvS or Suicide Squad were trashed on RT, people who likewise thought those movies were garbage had no issue with the score and felt the scores were justified, but a few die hard fans cried foul with the rating system. Now the situation is reversed, a film that you (whoever you may be) like has received a low RT rating so it must be the work of a treacherous conspiracy to bring down Star Wars and therefore the score cannot possibly be accurate.

The rating system is only right when it is in agreement with how you feel about a particular film…after all how can your opinion possibly be wrong (just ask my wife😀, she’s never wrong). It is truly subjective. But the bigger question is, Who the hell cares? Why should it bother anyone how any site or system rates a movie? If you like it, great, enjoy your film; if you don’t, great, don’t watch it…and everyone lived happily ever after.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Gothamknight said:

(2) The “it’s just a kids’ fantasy” argument presupposes that we should accept lower storytelling standards for kids’ stories. Which makes zero sense.

(3) Why should Star Wars be viewed as necessarily /or/ only for kids, or considered only from a kid’s point of view? This presupposes that science-fantasy is only a child’s genre, and/or that Star Wars as a franchise can’t or shouldn’t mature in its storytelling. Yet for some reason the TLJ apologists have no problem with its obvious adult themes. The themes themselves are entirely valid; its the execution that was sorely lacking, and in fact unjustifiable.

TLJ Apologists eh?! This “presupposes” (your fave word) that the majority opinion is that it’s a bad film. Given the fantastic review scores and amazing box office results from repeat viewings, this makes zero sense and is in fact unjustifiable. Lol.

Author
Time

Matt.F said:

Gothamknight said:

(2) The “it’s just a kids’ fantasy” argument presupposes that we should accept lower storytelling standards for kids’ stories. Which makes zero sense.

(3) Why should Star Wars be viewed as necessarily /or/ only for kids, or considered only from a kid’s point of view? This presupposes that science-fantasy is only a child’s genre, and/or that Star Wars as a franchise can’t or shouldn’t mature in its storytelling. Yet for some reason the TLJ apologists have no problem with its obvious adult themes. The themes themselves are entirely valid; its the execution that was sorely lacking, and in fact unjustifiable.

TLJ Apologists eh?! This “presupposes” (your fave word) that the majority opinion is that it’s a bad film. Given the fantastic review scores and amazing box office results from repeat viewings, this makes zero sense and is in fact unjustifiable. Lol.

Please read the 10 or so posts regarding the word “apologist” and how it’s only a negative term if you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

originaltrilogy.com Administrator

The things you pwn end up pwning you.

Author
Time

The Empire Strikes Back received mixed reviews initially when it was released. Over time it’s now regarded as one of the better entries of the saga. I think it will be the same with The Last Jedi.

Author
Time

Jay said:

Matt.F said:

Gothamknight said:

(2) The “it’s just a kids’ fantasy” argument presupposes that we should accept lower storytelling standards for kids’ stories. Which makes zero sense.

(3) Why should Star Wars be viewed as necessarily /or/ only for kids, or considered only from a kid’s point of view? This presupposes that science-fantasy is only a child’s genre, and/or that Star Wars as a franchise can’t or shouldn’t mature in its storytelling. Yet for some reason the TLJ apologists have no problem with its obvious adult themes. The themes themselves are entirely valid; its the execution that was sorely lacking, and in fact unjustifiable.

TLJ Apologists eh?! This “presupposes” (your fave word) that the majority opinion is that it’s a bad film. Given the fantastic review scores and amazing box office results from repeat viewings, this makes zero sense and is in fact unjustifiable. Lol.

Please read the 10 or so posts regarding the word “apologist” and how it’s only a negative term if you don’t understand the meaning of the word.

Lol, I hope this is a joke!

"An apologist is a person who argues in favor of something unpopular. … Apologists tend to be seen in a negative light, as defensive people who make excuses. The word apologist comes from the Greek word apologia, meaning speaking in defense. “an enthusiastic apologist for fascism in the 1920s”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rodneyfaile said:

The Empire Strikes Back received mixed reviews initially when it was released. Over time it’s now regarded as one of the better entries of the saga. I think it will be the same with The Last Jedi.

It already is regarded as one of the better entries in the saga. Metacritic has it as 85% positive from critics…

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-viii---the-last-jedi

I think its also a fair point that ‘time’ may allow opinions to shift, particularly as it is a middle film of a yet unfinished trilogy. The weird ‘Mary Sue’ reactionary stuff that Adywan just alluded to will also hopefully become a relic of the past, and let us hope that in ten years from now people will be more accepting of diversity and female leads.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Matt.F said:

rodneyfaile said:

The Empire Strikes Back received mixed reviews initially when it was released. Over time it’s now regarded as one of the better entries of the saga. I think it will be the same with The Last Jedi.

It already is regarded as one of the better entries in the saga. Metacritic has it as 85% positive from critics…

http://www.metacritic.com/movie/star-wars-episode-viii---the-last-jedi

I think its also a fair point that ‘time’ may allow opinions to shift, particularly as it is a middle film of a yet unfinished trilogy. The weird ‘Mary Sue’ reactionary stuff that Adywan just alluded to will also hopefully become a relic of the past, and let us hope that in ten years from now people will be more accepting of diversity and female leads.

There appears to be some disparity between the rating given by critics, the general audience, and fans. I don’t think that observation is in dispute. So, while critics have generally praised the film, the reception among the general audience and especially fans appears to be more mixed. The imdb score of 7.4 would place the film in 7th place in relation to the nine films that have been released. Reception among fans, as indicated by various audience polls on the TFN boards, show the film is either near the top or bottom of the rankings.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Quick show of hands, who here actually has a Rotten Tomatoes account? I’m genuinely curious about how many people are active on the site, because neither I nor anyone in my social circle has ever reviewed anything there. I suspect that active RT users may be too niche a group to really be representative of audiences overall.

FWIW, Letterboxed (which is the only place I personally ever rate anything) has TLJ with an average score of 3.7 out of 5 stars, with 4 stars being the most popular response by almost twice as much as any of the other responses (I gave it a 4.5).

Author
Time

joefavs said:

Quick show of hands, who here actually has a Rotten Tomatoes account? I’m genuinely curious about how many people are active on the site, because neither I nor anyone in my social circle has ever reviewed anything there. I suspect that active RT users may be too niche a group to really be representative of audiences overall.

FWIW, Letterboxed (which is the only place I personally ever rate anything) has TLJ with an average score of 3.7 out of 5 stars, with 4 stars being the most popular response by almost twice as much as any of the other responses (I gave it a 4.5).

The 3.7/5 score is in perfect agreement with the 7.4/10 score on imdb. The amazon score is now at 3.5/5 stars.

Author
Time

Okay rather than making another quote pyramid I will just say that yes I believe TLJ fans to be the majority. Or at least those whole liked it plus the viewers who thought it was average at best. The RT score has clearly been meddled with. However even if you don’t consider this the case their own score system is broken. Look at the average user review score = 3/5. Which equates to 60% which equates to fresh by their own rules. Hmmmm.

Meanwhile a site like IMDB which has no media value or current fashionable brand recognition has a pretty reasonable score above 70% after all the fuss died down. And this is even with the 1/10 member reviews that are at the bottom of the page being upvoted. Meanwhile home video sales on the likes of Amazon are selling out quickly. Maybe it’s supply and demand you say. But maybe this “polarizing” movie is no such thing and there’s just a vocal minority. You decide.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

Okay rather than making another quote pyramid I will just say that yes I believe TLJ fans to be the majority. Or at least those whole liked it plus the viewers who thought it was average at best. The RT score has clearly been meddled with. However even if you don’t consider this the case their own score system is broken. Look at the average user review score = 3/5. Which equates to 60% which equates to fresh by their own rules. Hmmmm.

Meanwhile a site like IMDB which has no media value or current fashionable brand recognition has a pretty reasonable score above 70% after all the fuss died down. And this is even with the 1/10 member reviews that are at the bottom of the page being upvoted. Meanwhile home video sales on the likes of Amazon are selling out quickly. Maybe it’s supply and demand you say. But maybe this “polarizing” movie is no such thing and there’s just a vocal minority. You decide.

I think it’s a little more complicated, as the disparity is not among the general audience, who seem to view TLJ as an above average blockbuster, something I actually agree with, but among Star Wars fans, where opinion seems split roughly down the middle. TLJ appears to be a polarizing film among fans. My personal gripes with TLJ have mostly been from the perspective as a fan of the franchise. However, in a general sense, I consider TLJ to be an entertaining film.