DominicCobb

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.

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.

Hal 9000 said:

Looks like we have a problem with the “third lesson” deleted scene. Rey running across the landscape is clearly a temp effect and looks very unconvincing. Also, the final shot of the scene features a totally motionless ocean with no waves.

I’m betting someone around here could tackle the second of these, and perhaps that would be good enough to make it usable.

My thought on the first issue is that you could add some blur to hide the unfinished effects and make it sort of like the force dash in TPM. Of course I say this without any certainty that this could be feasibly achieved.

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.

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.

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

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

DominicCobb said:

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Jeebus said:

Pop is clearly not correct because that word is already taken.

so is the word ‘soda’:

Looks like a milkshake to me.

You’ve never had an [ice cream] soda? 😮

Oh, ice cream soda. Don’t know why you’d remove half of the name when describing it. That’d be like saying this is a banana

CHEWBAKAspelledwrong said:

Jeebus said:

Pop is clearly not correct because that word is already taken.

so is the word ‘soda’:

Looks like a milkshake to me.

Yup. You wouldn’t call us OT apologists.

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t think it’s ignorance.

You think people call it “pop” on purpose?

moviefreakedmind said:

Tyrphanax said:

Yeah might as well just stay ill.

The therapist isn’t going to help so you might as well keep your time and money.

At least you’re consistent in your ignorance.

Handman said:

Doesn’t do anything of worth except track the Resistance through hyperspace and then run them down and ultimately destroy half of their escaping transports?

It’s not clear that Hux did anything to influence those events. If the tracking tech was there anyway, anyone could have done it. The Resistance would have escaped had it not been for DJ anyway. I’m not convinced Hux played an important role there besides being a figurehead. With a re-edit, Hux would know this and crave more power, the tension is there in a few scenes but I don’t think they went as far as they could have. The point is, sure, Hux did things, but Hux as a character isn’t all that much.

Seems weird to me to say he’s incompetent when he basically only makes two mistakes throughout the film (underestimating Poe/missing his trolling and not realizing soon enough that Holdo was going to ram into the Supremacy) and otherwise leads a largely successful campaign against the Resistance (in fact, were it not for Kylo, he might’ve managed to wipe them out, perhaps he made a third mistake in not trying to kill him soon enough).

Anyway, my point was that it’s still not clear what any of that has to do with “gender equalizing.”

Not so much that, but what I was saying before, the spark that created these edits was the perception that the guys aren’t very capable. They go about trying to fix this perception in a sexist way by making the females weak when all I’m saying is you cut a bit of Hux being a doofus and there you go.

Being the butt of jokes doesn’t make someone incapable. Maybe if every guy in the movie was the butt of jokes I’d get it, but I still don’t understand why changing a single character would change anything about that perception.

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

My point is…how would that small, unrelated thing shut down all criticism?

I thought the criticism was Disney has some kind of social agenda to not have any competent white male characters. At least, that’s the reason this edit exists.

I think the question is why would changing Hux fix that. He’s not the only white male in the film and he’s also not that incompetent (just the butt of a couple jokes).

It’s very hard to take him seriously, especially with that opening joke and with Snoke dragging him across the floor in front of his subordinates. No one seems to respect him and he doesn’t really do anything of worth, so just cutting a bit of that would make him that much stronger of a character, and perhaps even make the threat of him operating a coup against Kylo real.

Do you know what thread you are in.

I was just answering Dom’s question. I’m not that good with jokes.

This thread is a joke and I’m not sure why there’s any serious discussion in it.

On second thought, this is a good point.

Handman said:

DominicCobb said:

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

My point is…how would that small, unrelated thing shut down all criticism?

I thought the criticism was Disney has some kind of social agenda to not have any competent white male characters. At least, that’s the reason this edit exists.

I think the question is why would changing Hux fix that. He’s not the only white male in the film and he’s also not that incompetent (just the butt of a couple jokes).

It’s very hard to take him seriously, especially with that opening joke and with Snoke dragging him across the floor in front of his subordinates. No one seems to respect him and he doesn’t really do anything of worth, so just cutting a bit of that would make him that much stronger of a character, and perhaps even make the threat of him operating a coup against Kylo real.

Doesn’t do anything of worth except track the Resistance through hyperspace and then run them down and ultimately destroy half of their escaping transports?

Anyway, my point was that it’s still not clear what any of that has to do with “gender equalizing.”

moviefreakedmind said:

Because they’re pretentious and they’re expensive. I’m guessing.

Not all.

Tyrphanax said:

moviefreakedmind said:

The right-wing response to the Parkland survivors’ demand for gun-control has done more to expose how evil the right wing is than any exposé liberals have ever done.

Yeah it certainly doesn’t help the discussion to be bashing children who survived a tragedy, even if you disagree with them.

Fixed.

Handman said:

No shrinks for me.

Why not?

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

My point is…how would that small, unrelated thing shut down all criticism?

I thought the criticism was Disney has some kind of social agenda to not have any competent white male characters. At least, that’s the reason this edit exists.

I think the question is why would changing Hux fix that. He’s not the only white male in the film and he’s also not that incompetent (just the butt of a couple jokes).

Handman said:

TV’s Frink said:

Handman said:

I think the only edit you need to make to shut down any of these criticisms is to make General Hux a little less of a comic buffoon and more of an actual threat.

What.

I can’t say anything about the Last Jedi without you or Dom getting at me.

Not true! You’re wrong!

Gothamknight said:

DominicCobb said:
I think a big part of it must be the expectations thing. As evidenced by GothamKnight’s post, if you were expecting something after TFA and didn’t get exactly that, there might be a disconnect for you personally, even if in reality the two films actually fit very well together.

😒

Why is this the operating assumption of TLJ apologists? It’s not that I or other critics were expecting particular answers or resolutions. It’s that we were expecting . . . answers or resolves, or even just new information, of any kind, as long it was a plausible, natural progression from TFA.

So for example, let’s say I was speculating, like many, that Rey was a Skywalker. It’s not that I was disappointed, much less upset, that she wasn’t a Skywalker; that didn’t have to be the explanation for Rey’s Force-prowess. The problem is that TLJ provided no explanation for it; therefore it provided no natural or logical progression from TFA.

I get tired of the apologists arguing that critics are whining about “not getting what they wanted” in terms of specific plot developments. We just wanted . . . plot developments.

Ha, “apologist,” that’s funny (amongst other things).

pleasehello said:

ChainsawAsh said:

Why the fuck would you want to please MRA’s?

Valid question. Also, why the fuck would you want to please SJW’s?

Invalid question.

I mean, they are similar sentiments. I mainly just meant there was more to the explanation than “Luke being a jerk.”

Yeah look better is tricky when your lens choices are so minimal.

TK-422 said:

It’s really interesting to see just how much The Last Jedi changed in the editing room, some of the deleted scenes feel like they’re from a different film, many with setups and payoffs purely contained to the deleted scenes themselves (Finn going to “Where he belongs”). Obviously this happens with every movie, but considering how much deleted stuff we’re seeing from TLJ (20 minutes!), as well as the extensive documentary, it’s a super fascinating look into the production of the film, and makes me appreciate the final product even more.

Yeah I like that Rian seems to be a bit more open to discussing the process. It’s interesting to hear how much was restructured in post, in my opinion it’s one of the film’s greatest assets and something I admired while it was in theaters, and it’s a little surprising to find out some of this was initially very different, as the structure seems very meticulous to a point where I assumed it was like that from the start.

It’s definitely a step up from the prequels where the film will just at points cut back and forth with no rhyme or reason (looking right at you, AOTC).

ChainsawAsh said:

Exactly. That’s why several of them were cut - because they no longer fit with the structure of the film as it was shaped in the edit bay.

Rian insists that the caretaker scene was cut because Luke was too much of a jerk in it, and he thought it was better to go from Luke and Rey starting to understand each other into the hand touching scene rather than them being at each other’s throats at the time, but I think the restructuring was another big reason for that scene being lost, too.

That’s not quite what he said in the commentary though, it wasn’t that Luke was a jerk it was more about wanting to see Luke and Rey make some progress whereas the caretaker scene happens right after Rey declares that she won’t fail him. So it was more like changing it up so that every scene didn’t end with Luke being a disappointment, and which made they fact that she leaves hurt even more.

Not sure if restructuring played into it so much as pacing.

Handman said:

Sabrina (1954) and Sabrina (1995). I don’t understand why there’s a remake.

Should I watch it? Was considering it (just saw the original recently).