Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

 Manchu wrote:
Funko makes a Vulptex. I suppose all tye crystal is hard to render into plushie form. There are plushie fathiers already, of course. As to why you may not have seen either, TLJ merch hasn't been doing super well apparently.

I hate Funko with a frothing, blood-eyed passion. They are an abomination against all that toys should be.

Cheers for the heads up on the fathier, though!

The problem is that a lot of people, some or a lot of them may actuaaly be proffesionally employed to do this, play right into the hand of this marketing. Or take enjoymment in subtly making other people do this. Take this very thread. as an example. We haven't just been discussing the movie. We've been accusing each other of being a feminazi, alt right trolls, SJWs, mass bribery of critics, etc. Internet hyperbole is not conductive to a reasonable discussion.

TLJ has problems, many of them. But there are a few ways criticism can sound very weird or your correct opinion sounds wrong.

IMHO a list of these ways:
1)You say empire is a near perfect movie and never acknowledge how your critique of the TLJ applies juist as much to that movie. Can be expanded to star wars in general
2) You say the prequels are good worldbuilding. (less in this thread but it was a running theme in the last.)
3) You ignore explanations the movie gives you because you did not like them.
4) There is a fourth one but I can't remember it of the top of my head
5)You're being a total donkey-cave in your way of speaking.

Of course the marketing plays up the lack of #metoo schandals in disney lately. I'd do so too.

So...The TLJ marketing of controversy is like the The Monsters Are Due On Maple Street of the entertainment industry?

How does any critique of TLJ apply equally to ESB?

Bleak tone of failure. Apparant lack of consequence to major loss of bad guys during previous movie.(they only mention the death star once of handedly). are the biggest I can think of right now. Pacing was a big problem throughout the OT. Bland main character (Luke is no less bland than Rey).

These are genuine correct criticisims of TLJ but they were also correct for ESB.

Sorry there are more but my memory is kind of occupied with upcoming exams atm.

This reminds me of every time someone dismisses all BL fiction as "pulp" and insists it's all the same quality: garbage. That is every bit as toxic an attitude as claiming they're all gold. While opinions on what is good and what is bad may vary, it shouldn't be debatable that films can vary in quality, that their flaws can vary in magnitude. And if you truly can't tell the difference in quality between a near-universally beloved film and one that is the Laurel/Yancy of Star Wars, maybe this one time you're the lucky outlier on the sunny side of life.

Just be glad you're not the schmo on the other end of the bell curve who thinks TLJ is terrible and ESB is just as bad.

...I guess I would prefer we just discuss this movie rather than feel the need to tear down the popular girl so that we look not-as-bad in comparison.

 Formosa wrote:
DEVILS ADVOCATE

Again for the stupid people who don’t understand.


The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.

... ...

The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.

The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.

There's a variance but it's not that large.

ESB does not have pacing problems. Like, at all. This is not some matter of personal opinion.

ESB also does not have a bleak tone of failure. It's A plot features wonder and awe at the Force. It's B plot features romance. The movie built its characters and setting up rather than tearing them down, contra TLJ.

Rey was very interesting in TFA because how this nobody could be so powerful was totally intriguing. TLJ's take on the character, or rather, its steadfast refusal to do anything with the character, is not interesting.

I do not think ESB is a bad movie far from it. But it's held to near godlike status these days. It wasn't upon release. In fact, tough I've only heard this from youtubers (I am not that old) ESB's stauts wouldn't become as great as it is untill a few years after RotJ when its' long term effect on hollywood became apparent. This is not something that will or should be applicable to the last jedi tough.

ESB does have a bleak tone. the romance happy ending for instance is in the next movie. And if you don't think ESB tears Luke, Leia, and Han down quite a bit. We're going to have to agree to disagree.

Both ESB and TLJ see the Rebels kicked hard in the teeth and at the end of the film they are retreating, but there are elements of hope too.

Whether you call it bleak or not, it's not their finest hour, but this is only because the good guys need to be thrown down in the second part of the trilogy so they can make a come-back in the third part.

If TLJ is bleaker than ESB, in the sense that the Rebels are in a worse situation, that follows the pattern established in TFA of the new trilogy being a kind of replay of original Star Wars with the amp turned up to 11.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
DEVILS ADVOCATE

Again for the stupid people who don’t understand.


The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.

... ...

The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.

The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.

There's a variance but it's not that large.

Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol

Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity


Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity

IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.

So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.

That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.

 Formosa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
DEVILS ADVOCATE

Again for the stupid people who don’t understand.


The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.

... ...

The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.

The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.

There's a variance but it's not that large.

Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol

Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity


Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity

IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.

So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.

That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.

TBH I haven't looked at metacritic. I didn't actually know it existed, but I'll have a look now when I get a bit of time.

However my calculation of the aggregate of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is correct.

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've had a look at Metacritic. It's not possible to integrate the user score here because it's not based on a 1-10 scale like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I spoke too soon. I see a way to integrate the Metacritic score.

It won't make much difference, though, because it's such a minor site compared to the other two. Only 7K ratings compared to over half a million on the other two sites.

I'll do that when I get home. I've got a spreadsheet setup.

Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.

Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.

I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:

I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.

It doesn't even need to be someone with the same taste as you. As long as they write (or speak) articulately and explain their opinion, you can "calibrate" your preferences against theirs accordingly.

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.

Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.

I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.

I would ignore any film critic full stop as I don't need to be told what and how to like a film. I think I have misjudged only a very few films from the actual trailer - good enough for me.

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:

 Kilkrazy wrote:

 Formosa wrote:
DEVILS ADVOCATE

Again for the stupid people who don’t understand.


The user scores had a large disparity with the Critics scores, ignore rotten tomatoes for a second, even other sites had a large disparity.

... ...

The aggregate user rating for TLJ counting IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is 68%, with over half a million ratings given.

The professional critic rating on IMDB is 85% and the IMDB user rating is 73%.

There's a variance but it's not that large.

Don’t you give me that “aggregate” nonsense lol

Current rotten tomatoes scores: critics 91%,viewers 46%, clear disparity


Metacritic: metascore 85, user score 4.5/10, disparity

IMDb, is as you say, still disparity.

So all 3 of these sites show a very clear disparity between the critics and the viewers, so what happens when you average film goer Google’s it to see if it’s good and worth watching... well... they are deceived either intentially or not.

That is why now more than ever we need independent film reviews and thankfully you tube provides that quite nicely.

TBH I haven't looked at metacritic. I didn't actually know it existed, but I'll have a look now when I get a bit of time.

However my calculation of the aggregate of IMDB and Rotten Tomatoes is correct.

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
I've had a look at Metacritic. It's not possible to integrate the user score here because it's not based on a 1-10 scale like Rotten Tomatoes and IMDB.




Automatically Appended Next Post:
Actually I spoke too soon. I see a way to integrate the Metacritic score.

It won't make much difference, though, because it's such a minor site compared to the other two. Only 7K ratings compared to over half a million on the other two sites.

I'll do that when I get home. I've got a spreadsheet setup.

Cheers mucka

 MonkeyBallistic wrote:
Honestly, Rotten Tomatoes user scores are statistically worthless. A self selecting sample of the kind of people who feel the need to rate things on a Rotten Tomatoes. Hardly your average movie goer.

Aggregate critic scores are worthless too. Some of the great, classic movies have been divisive on release. When half the critics love it and half them hate it, it ends up looking average on an aggregate score.

I’d advise anyone really interested in movies to totally ignore all Rotten Tomatoes ratings, ignore IMDB ratings, ignore all aggregate sites and simply find a couple of good critics who seem to have the same taste in movies that you do.

There is a lot of truth in what you say.

The original argument was that the professional critics rated the film much higher than ordinary users. For whatever the ratings are worth on these different sites, they actually show that this isn't true. The critics rated it higher than users but only by something like 81 to 68.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.

Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.

Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.

And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.

You also have inconsistency with star ratings vs out of 10 ratings vs out of 100 ratings. It usually doesn't align well if you just take a star rating and multiple it by 20 to get an out of 100 rating, but that largely depends on what the spread of rating systems turns out to be.

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.

Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.

Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.

Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.

And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.

The range is 0-10 on Metacritic, 1-10 on IMDB and 1-5 on Rotten Tomatoes.

This may not fit the narrative of Users hated TLJ and Critics are all paid shills as demonstrated by their radically different marks. Those are the marks, though, and that's the factual evidence to measure, otherwise why not just make stuff up?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.

Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.

That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.

I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.

 Mr Morden wrote:

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.

Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.

That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.

I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.

There's another issue with aggregate scoring - organised campaigns, both for and against.

Not lumping anyone on here in with that, it's obvious that there is a genuine 'what is wrong with them?' Hate Mob assembled for TLJ. There's at least one oik admitted to making spambots to dish out low scoring reviews. Then there's the frankly laughable 'I removed all wimmins, because speshul' 'fan' edit.

How many other Sad Oiks did they help deploy to drag a score down?

Is that not more likely behind lower audience appreciation, than Critics being bribed/threatened/cajoled into giving it a good review?

Again, if you didn't like it - fair enough. That's your judgement call. But just look at some of the 'reviews' on RT. They're nothing of the sort. Just a bunch of one line drivel about how 'Star Wars died' etc etc. Other low scoring ones whine on and on about Feminism and politics. Is that someone who genuinely didn't enjoy the movie, or someone with a wider axe to grind that's found an outlet?

 Kilkrazy wrote:

AllSeeingSkink wrote:
I'd say in this day and age the difference between 68 and 81 is quite large because the range over which most people rate stuff is small.

Ideally 50 would be average, but realistically most people wouldn't rate something 50 unless it was compete junk.

Without having spent a lot of time researching it, I'd guess 75 is close to average for folks rating movies, TV shows and games these days.

And whilst I agree people rating exceptionally low can pull an average down, the same is the other way especially on user reviews. You don't have to scroll far through user reviews to find 90-100 given to stuff that clearly doesn't deserve it.

The range is 0-10 on Metacritic, 1-10 on IMDB and 1-5 on Rotten Tomatoes.

This may not fit the narrative of Users hated TLJ and Critics are all paid shills as demonstrated by their radically different marks. Those are the marks, though, and that's the factual evidence to measure, otherwise why not just make stuff up?



Automatically Appended Next Post:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.

Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.

That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.

I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.

Dude there is a big flaw in your explanation

"That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%. "

That just means, according to your metric, that only 46% of RT viewers gave it 70%, but 56% didnt give it that, you need to expand on your explanation.

 Mr Morden wrote:

 Mr Morden wrote:

Look at the average scores given by the 190K users who have scored the film on Rotten Tomatoes.

The overall 46% score is simply the number of scores above 3.5/5 = 7/10. It's not the viewers' score.

Yep 54% thought it was average or worse.

What we've got here is a film which most but not all of the critics like, and most of the audience likes, while a relatively small part of the audience hates it and have given it very low scores.

Or some people love it and gave it really high scores - surely it works both ways. Only 46% of people liked it.

That's based on the measurement that "like" = a score above 3.5/5. which is 7/10, which is 70%.

I know this doesn't fit your narrative that most people disliked the film, but any score above 50% is in the top half of the range. That's just a mathematical fact.

Sorry I dont understand - you are only using the scores above 3.5 to measure if people like a film? How does that work?

only 46% of people rated it better than 3.5? Or am i reading this wrong. / not understanding?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is that not more likely behind lower audience appreciation, than Critics being bribed/threatened/cajoled into giving it a good review?

No one has been 'bribed' or 'cajoled'. However, as a movie critic or 'reviewer'- if you give certain studios' movies a bad review, they will stop providing you with advanced tickets. That 'getting to see/use/open/read it first' is a crucial element of a reviewer's career- it's very difficult to provide a review and compete when you're not one of the people getting it prior to a general public release. You NEED to be able to see it before the general public, otherwise- the general public has already read someone else's review and now the general public is giving their own reviews and you're less useful.

As said, Disney has barred publications from their advanced screenings. Polygon/Kotaku was barred from getting advanced copies of one gaming companies. My friend who reviewed fishing equipment would not get samples of line from one company because he gave them a poor review. And it's not just the individual reviewer- it'll be the entire company that employs the reviewer and the entire company that owns the studio will cut them off. It's a career-ender for any critic or reviewer.

Studios use these critics/reviewers in pre-screenings because it generates hype. What, did you think this was a kind gesture? No, it's because it serves to generate hype for a movie. Because opening weekend is the BIGGEST event for a movie, and after that weekend word of mouth from the average moviegoer diminishes the hype.

So a professional critic that gives a review has to be quite kind with it, otherwise he'll not be sitting in the next advanced showing of the film. And this is Disney we're talking about- the company that owns a good chunk of the blockbusters coming out every year. Worth consideration.

If you think 'they hacked the review sites' is an acceptable explaination to why the ratings were lowered, then I can counter- how do we know that he same wasn't done to make the ratings higher than they actually were? Oh, those Russian Hackers! First the Drumpf is hacked into Presidency, now this!

Is that not coming under threatened/cajoled?

Do you have evidence to support?

And I guess that's why Critics didn't rip into The Lone Ranger. Or John Carter. Or every Pirates film since the third one.

Oh wait....

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is that not coming under threatened/cajoled?

Do you have evidence to support?

And I guess that's why Critics didn't rip into The Lone Ranger. Or John Carter. Or every Pirates film since the third one.

Oh wait....

Uh, those didn't have nearly the budget and have nearly as many careers hanging onto them as Star Wars.

I've as much 'evidence' for a simple fact of the critic profession as you do 'Muh Sexist Rushin Haxxorz'.

Oh, wait- I found the proof for you- actual video of the hacker known as 4chan giving TLJ poor movie reviews: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mSTO26au2z4

Ah ah ah.

All big budget. All Disney. All having poor reviews.

So much for 'scared of the big boys', eh?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Ah ah ah.

All big budget. All Disney. All having poor reviews.

So much for 'scared of the big boys', eh?

In all fairness, not one of those films has as much riding on them as the Star Wars franchise and the video games industry has been doing it for years, so it’s not much of a stretch to wonder if the movie industry is doing or has done the same thing.

Thing is, short of someone whistle blowing or catching them red handed, how can someone prove it beyond a shadow of doubt ?

 Mad Doc Grotsnik wrote:
Is that not coming under threatened/cajoled?

Do you have evidence to support?

And I guess that's why Critics didn't rip into The Lone Ranger. Or John Carter. Or every Pirates film since the third one.

Oh wait....

Yeah. The Lone Ranger cost $250 million to make, according to most estimates. And it probably lost close to $200 million. Plenty of incentive for Disney to engage in shenanigans there.


This discussion shows where we're at as a society. We've become so self-centered and self-sure in our opinions that we invent obviously ridiculous conspiracies to explain why others liked a movie that we didn't. A few more steps and we're in 'Mandela effect' territory, a legitimately breathtaking level of egoism.