Star Wars: The Last Jedi release thread (spoilers)

[ray245]

I'll try not to bring it up when its not relevant, but I can see at least a couple scenarios I've run into where it would be, even if no one posting here is a member of that particular ideology.

1. If people are unwittingly repeating Alt. Reich-ist rhetoric (As I've said before, they're good at dominating the discourse, and co-opting other peoples' ideas/sub-cultures). For example, you'll see lots of people who don't carry Tiki torches and Swastikas, and probably don't even like Donald Trump, casually repeating stuff about "SJWs" (a slur with connotations of a Left-wing campaign to oppress and persecute whites/men/conservatives). Or suggesting that (insert character here) was just cast for political reasons, without really presenting any evidence for why they believe that to be the case (though we don't get that one much on this board).

I hardly see it in this thread. Is accusing Rey of being a Mary-Sue an alt-right argument? Where do you draw the line between the "alt-right" and non-"alt-right" arguments? It has become just as problematic of a term as "SJW".

2. When discussing weather the level of criticism directed towards TLJ is indicative of the film's quality, or of an overall negative audience response. In that case, the presence of ulterior motives behind some of that criticism is relevant, especially since the most obnoxious voices tend to dominate the debate, even if they're not the majority.

I promise you, if I think that a specific person is motivated by Alt. Reich sympathies, I shan't hesitate to state so very directly. If I am not stating so directly, then I am not accusing anyone here.

How big of a role do you want to give to the "alt-right" in shaping criticism towards the new SW movies? Because as much as the "alt-right" types were against TFA, they failed to make any significant impact in regards to overall audience reception online back in 2015. Why are people more against TLJ than TFA, despite the "alt-right" arguments being effectively the same for both movies?

It's comforting to blame the criticism and the negative response on the "alt-right", but doing so will be to grant such groups far more influence than what they really have. The "alt-right" issue is being overblown by defenders of TLJ in my opinion. Their opinions should have no relevance in any discussion on TLJ. Don't make them more influential than what they really are.

[The Romulan Republic]

I hardly see it in this thread. Is accusing Rey of being a Mary-Sue an alt-right argument?

Not in and of itself, no.

Its insulting, and in my opinion not justified by evidence. Its arguably sexist, for a broad definition of sexism. But obviously not fascist.

Where do you draw the line between the "alt-right" and non-"alt-right" arguments?

The difficulty in parsing out the propaganda is one of the problems with our current political discourse. Sometimes its obvious- other times less so. And part of the Alt. Reich strategy is to try to drive wedges in the opposition, and set moderates and progressives at each others' throats.

It has become just as problematic of a term as "SJW".

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but I must fight an impulse to either cringe or rage whenever I see anyone using anything that smacks of the "both sides" argument. No, I don't think that criticism of the so-called "alt-right" is equally problematic compared to the way that "SJW" has been used to smear progressives.

How big of a role do you want to give to the "alt-right" in shaping criticism towards the new SW movies? Because as much as the "alt-right" types were against TFA, they failed to make any significant impact in regards to overall audience reception online back in 2015. Why are people more against TLJ than TFA, despite the "alt-right" arguments being effectively the same for both movies?

Some of the animosity towards TLJ is no doubt due to politics, and a lot of that is from the Right. But you're right, that's unlike to have been more a factor for TLJ than for TFA.

I think that TLJ's specific problems with some viewers mostly come down to the fact that it is to some extent a deconstruction/reconstruction of Star Wars, which deliberately (too much so, at times) goes out of its way to manipulate and subvert audience expectations.

I think that, for the most part, its not a bad film in its own right. But its questionable how well some aspects of it fit with the rest of the franchise. And it puts itself in the difficult spot of being a movie which has a lot of stuff only fans will get, but which goes out of its way to go against those same fans' expectations.

I think that for a lot of fans, if they give it a second chance once they've gotten over the rather jarring sense of discontinuity, they might find a lot to appreciate. At least I did. But unfortunately, a lot of people never get past the jarring sense of discontinuity, and the disappointed expectations, and just write it off. Disappointment becomes anger, anger becomes hatred, and you know the rest.

As I said when I first saw it, I get why people would love this film. And I get why people would hate it. Some of the criticisms of it are frankly ludicrous, or misrepresentative. But I'm not surprised or shocked that its divisive among fans.

It's comforting to blame the criticism and the negative response on the "alt-right", but doing so will be to grant such groups far more influence than what they really have. The "alt-right" issue is being overblown by defenders of TLJ in my opinion. Their opinions should have no relevance in any discussion on TLJ. Don't make them more influential than what they really are.

I would not call the idea that neo-fascists in all but name (and sometimes in name) can wield a significant influence on our culture "comforting". If anyone finds that possibility more reassuring than that notion that some people just didn't like the same movie as them, they need to sort out their priorities.

I would say that its a fine line between giving them too much power, and ignoring the power that they do have, though. One might say that part of the reason that they have as much influence as they do is because the threat was not, and to some extent still is not, taken seriously. But again, this is moving into a much larger topic than TLJ, even if such political issues do effect all aspects of society and the media to some extent.

[ray245]

Not in and of itself, no.

Its insulting, and in my opinion not justified by evidence. Its arguably sexist, for a broad definition of sexism. But obviously not fascist.

But sexism is one of the main aspect of the "alt-right".

The difficulty in parsing out the propaganda is one of the problems with our current political discourse. Sometimes its obvious- other times less so. And part of the Alt. Reich strategy is to try to drive wedges in the opposition, and set moderates and progressives at each others' throats.

This has nothing to do with the topic of this thread, but I must fight an impulse to either cringe or rage whenever I see anyone using anything that smacks of the "both sides" argument. No, I don't think that criticism of the so-called "alt-right" is equally problematic compared to the way that "SJW" has been used to smear progressives.

But it has become a way to poison debate even in this regard. Personal attacks are made because people think they are being grouped together with the alt-right.

Some of the animosity towards TLJ is no doubt due to politics, and a lot of that is from the Right. But you're right, that's unlike to have been more a factor for TLJ than for TFA.

I think that TLJ's specific problems with some viewers mostly come down to the fact that it is to some extent a deconstruction/reconstruction of Star Wars, which deliberately (too much so, at times) goes out of its way to manipulate and subvert audience expectations.

I think that, for the most part, its not a bad film in its own right. But its questionable how well some aspects of it fit with the rest of the franchise. And it puts itself in the difficult spot of being a movie which has a lot of stuff only fans will get, but which goes out of its way to go against those same fans' expectations.

I think that for a lot of fans, if they give it a second chance once they've gotten over the rather jarring sense of discontinuity, they might find a lot to appreciate. At least I did. But unfortunately, a lot of people never get past the jarring sense of discontinuity, and the disappointed expectations, and just write it off. Disappointment becomes anger, anger becomes hatred, and you know the rest.

As I said when I first saw it, I get why people would love this film. And I get why people would hate it. Some of the criticisms of it are frankly ludicrous, or misrepresentative. But I'm not surprised or shocked that its divisive among fans.

So why bring the alt-right into this discussion? It does nothing but side-track the discussion and poison the well.

I would not call the idea that neo-fascists in all but name (and sometimes in name) can wield a significant influence on our culture "comforting". If anyone finds that possibility more reassuring than that notion that some people just didn't like the same movie as them, they need to sort out their priorities.

I would say that its a fine line between giving them too much power, and ignoring the power that they do have, though. One might say that part of the reason that they have as much influence as they do is because the threat was not, and to some extent still is not, taken seriously. But again, this is moving into a much larger topic than TLJ, even if such political issues do effect all aspects of society and the media to some extent.

Again, this meant bringing alt-right into TLJ is essentially off-topic, as you yourself said so.

[Patroklos]

I bring it up here because some (not all, some) of the attacks that have been made against TLJ are reminiscent of Alt. Reich narratives (though not so much on this site as some other places). Not always by people who are politically extremist in general, either- one of the nasty things about the Alt. Reich is that it tends to be very good at hijacking other peoples' subcultures to its agenda, and getting people who normally know better to repeat its narrative.

Hitler drank water. Was also a vegetarian. He liked art too. What subset of Berkley citizens are just like Hitler? OH MY GOD BERKLEY IS OVERRUN BY HITLERS!!! And that's THREE objective things in common, not just subjectively hating on TLJ which is apparently your only required qualification to apply the same logic in this thread. This is what you are doing here TRR.

This alt-right crap suspiciously only comes up when you are encountered with someone's idea you don't like and can't argue against convincingly, yet can draw superficial line between. It doesn't matter that there is no similarity between the arguments being made in support of the criticisms you find this superficial link between, you trot them out anyway. You only seem to care about the result of an argument, not how or why a poster got there. That's suspiciously convenient.

So we got it TRR, in some insignificant corners of the internet some alt-right types hate TLJ for specifically alt-right reasons (though they can also hate it for other reasons...). Noted. I think we have all agreed now nobody IN THIS THREAD has made any arguments predicated on those alt-right reasons. So there is no reason for you to ever mention it again unless you can point to this situation changing.

And for the record TRR was not the first one to do this thread. That was Vympel.

Also, Russkies as a racial slur? Get the fuck out. Maybe technically, but you know damn well that classification of an insult means something specific in magnitude. This is how we know you are disingenuously using the alt-right thing, because you just tried to do the same damn thing in a far more overt way.

[GuppyShark]

I thought I'd made the argument way back that we should discount the alt Reich from being a meaningful influence on audience and popular reception because they are the 'rusted on' component of haters: You can count on them to hate everything with a female lead, a diverse cast, etc etc.

So when TFA comes out to popular acclaim, Rogue One comes out to popular acclaim, suddenly it's the alt Reich's fault that TLJ bombed in China, that TLJ had a record second weekend drop, that TLJ had an awful audience score?

If the alt Reich has no foothold here, and they already hated a lot of successful and well received films, why are we still talking about them? They cannot be statistically significant.

[Vympel]

Moderator mdoe:

I cannot think of anything less relevant to a discussion of TLJ than stuff about Russian hacking (and everyone here should know my views on that particular hysteria). Please keep the discussion on the actual thread topic, and not anyone's political views. Also, discussions of any poster's perceived behavior in other threads is not relevant. Do not pursue vendettas across threads.

Normal discussion mode:

I thought I'd made the argument way back that we should discount the alt Reich from being a meaningful influence on audience and popular reception because they are the 'rusted on' component of haters: You can count on them to hate everything with a female lead, a diverse cast, etc etc.

So when TFA comes out to popular acclaim, Rogue One comes out to popular acclaim, suddenly it's the alt Reich's fault that TLJ bombed in China, that TLJ had a record second weekend drop, that TLJ had an awful audience score?

If the alt Reich has no foothold here, and they already hated a lot of successful and well received films, why are we still talking about them? They cannot be statistically significant.

People were making the same "but it didn't make as much money in China!" when they were trying to convince everyone that TFA had a popularity problem, too. The idea that China is some sort of arbiter of global popularity is ridiculous. Star Wars has always been a distinctly Western series that makes its money in the English speaking world. No one in China gives much of a shit about Star Wars.

More relevantly, it's weird how some people can't just not like the movie, they have to act like most people don't like it, for reasons I can't fathom, and for which there is no real evidence.

[Civil War Man]

More relevantly, it's weird how some people can't just not like the movie, they have to act like most people don't like it, for reasons I can't fathom, and for which there is no real evidence.

It's about as weird as people who can't just like the movie, but have to act like most people loved it and that all criticism of it is just sour grapes from entitled fanboys who don't like that the movie conflicted with their headcanon.

As for evidence, as much as the sites are misused by people who mistake the scoring for a measure of quality as opposed to how well something is received, review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic at least gives us some useful data points, since the question is whether people liked the movie.

So, for a quick comparison, on Rotten Tomatoes as of this posting The Force Awakens has 226,269 user reviews, with 88% of them saying the movie was good, and an average user rating of 4.3 out of 5. The Last Jedi has 182,941 user reviews, with only 48% of them positive, and an average user rating of 3 out of 5. On Metacritic, TFA has a user score of 6.8, with 6834 reviews with a breakdown of 4509 positive, 957 mixed, and 1368 negative, while TLJ has a user score of 4.5, with 6445 reviews with a breakdown of 2413 positive, 883 mixed, and 3149 negative.

Now, we can probably reasonably assume that most people who saw The Last Jedi probably also saw The Force Awakens, so there should at least be a decent amount of overlap between the users who reviewed one and the users who reviewed the other. Also, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the decrease in the number of total reviews between the two movies is likely due to an indeterminate number of people who panned TFA not bothering to see TLJ, though there really isn't any way of finding out how many without tracking down each individual user who reviewed the former but not the latter.

Obviously, these scores can't be assumed to be representative of the population as a whole, since they are self-selecting survey. But that also cuts both ways, since someone who absolutely adores the movie can be just as motivated to write a review as someone who despised it. It's far from conclusive, but the noticeable difference in user ratings between the two movies on review aggregators is decent evidence that TLJ was a divisive movie, and was not as well-received by audiences as its predecessor.

[jollyreaper]

Not in and of itself, no.

Its insulting, and in my opinion not justified by evidence. Its arguably sexist, for a broad definition of sexism. But obviously not fascist.

How can it be sexist if nobody is making a sexist argument? If someone says "there's no way she could be this good at so many things because her background wouldn't allow for it," there's not a sexist bit in there. If someone says "she couldn't be good at it because she's a girl," that's sexist.

Based on your standard, any argument about Sisko being poorly written is because of latent racism. (Personally I found the show's overall writing to be poor in the beginning so every character suffered and later a general improvement saw everyone benefit.) Any argument about Janeway is again fraught with the risk of being labeled a latent misogynist. Meanwhile nobody is going to label me a man-hater if I make critiques of Kirk's command style.

There *is* a critique to be made about socially conscious casting leading to weaker characters but it's a failure of good intentions. Because there's self-awareness of the character being a first and role model and ground-breaking, the writers give them special treatment and a sainted status that prevents them from coming across as real human beings. So the argument put forward here is don't put the character on a pedestal, allow them to have flaws and be just as human as your conventional white, male characters -- because we want these characters to succeed and be real. This is emphatically not the same as the racist argument that they should not be there in the first place.

As a corollary to the failure of good intentions, my wife had a conversation with this woman who was going on about all her hardships of growing up poor, a broken family, health problems, rape and violence and she's like "But I know my problems must not have been like what you went through being black." Really? It's a skin color, not a disease! I mean it's an improvement over open racism but by pushing too hard the other way it shoots past acceptance all the way to patronizing.

[Coop D'etat]

It's about as weird as people who can't just like the movie, but have to act like most people loved it and that all criticism of it is just sour grapes from entitled fanboys who don't like that the movie conflicted with their headcanon.

As for evidence, as much as the sites are misused by people who mistake the scoring for a measure of quality as opposed to how well something is received, review aggregators like Rotten Tomatoes and Metacritic at least gives us some useful data points, since the question is whether people liked the movie.

So, for a quick comparison, on Rotten Tomatoes as of this posting The Force Awakens has 226,269 user reviews, with 88% of them saying the movie was good, and an average user rating of 4.3 out of 5. The Last Jedi has 182,941 user reviews, with only 48% of them positive, and an average user rating of 3 out of 5. On Metacritic, TFA has a user score of 6.8, with 6834 reviews with a breakdown of 4509 positive, 957 mixed, and 1368 negative, while TLJ has a user score of 4.5, with 6445 reviews with a breakdown of 2413 positive, 883 mixed, and 3149 negative.

Now, we can probably reasonably assume that most people who saw The Last Jedi probably also saw The Force Awakens, so there should at least be a decent amount of overlap between the users who reviewed one and the users who reviewed the other. Also, it's reasonable to assume that at least some of the decrease in the number of total reviews between the two movies is likely due to an indeterminate number of people who panned TFA not bothering to see TLJ, though there really isn't any way of finding out how many without tracking down each individual user who reviewed the former but not the latter.

Obviously, these scores can't be assumed to be representative of the population as a whole, since they are self-selecting survey. But that also cuts both ways, since someone who absolutely adores the movie can be just as motivated to write a review as someone who despised it. It's far from conclusive, but the noticeable difference in user ratings between the two movies on review aggregators is decent evidence that TLJ was a divisive movie, and was not as well-received by audiences as its predecessor.

I question your premises here. Anyone with any experience in internet polls will notice that angry internet denizens tend to be a particularly tech saavy bunch with way too much time on their hands and are inclined to skew polls in favour of their opinions. Regardless of how little their opinions reflect those of the wider population.

For anything that generated mass internet controversy like TLJ did (rather than RL controversy), I'd consider those numbers too be just about worthless due to deliberate poll skewing and massively unreprestentative sample size.

[Crazedwraith]

Not in and of itself, no.

Its insulting, and in my opinion not justified by evidence. Its arguably sexist, for a broad definition of sexism. But obviously not fascist.

How can it be sexist if nobody is making a sexist argument? If someone says "there's no way she could be this good at so many things because her background wouldn't allow for it," there's not a sexist bit in there. If someone says "she couldn't be good at it because she's a girl," that's sexist.

The underlying point as I understand it. Is not 'that argument is inherently sexist' but you wouldn't be making that argument if they weren't a women.' Ie) a male protagonist with exactly the same background wouldn't be questioned the same way.

This argument is usually bolstered by comparisons to Luke and Anakin.

Now I think this argument relies too much on guessing people's internal psychology and the assumption that the only difference between Luke and Rey is their sexes.

[Vendetta]

People were making the same "but it didn't make as much money in China!" when they were trying to convince everyone that TFA had a popularity problem, too. The idea that China is some sort of arbiter of global popularity is ridiculous. Star Wars has always been a distinctly Western series that makes its money in the English speaking world. No one in China gives much of a shit about Star Wars.

Yeah, it's important to remember that the original movies weren't released in China until actually quite recently. The first releases there were the prequels.

So China doesn't have the cultural history of Star Wars fandom, it's just another movie to them and all the aspects that call back to other movies are talking about things they didn't grow up with or give a shit about.

[ray245]

People were making the same "but it didn't make as much money in China!" when they were trying to convince everyone that TFA had a popularity problem, too. The idea that China is some sort of arbiter of global popularity is ridiculous. Star Wars has always been a distinctly Western series that makes its money in the English speaking world. No one in China gives much of a shit about Star Wars.

Yeah, it's important to remember that the original movies weren't released in China until actually quite recently. The first releases there were the prequels.

So China doesn't have the cultural history of Star Wars fandom, it's just another movie to them and all the aspects that call back to other movies are talking about things they didn't grow up with or give a shit about.

The problem is by the standards of recent Hollywood movie released in China, TLJ massively underperformed. Audience who may not follow the story usually can still enjoy the spectacle. This isn't the case for TLJ in China.

[Civil War Man]

I question your premises here. Anyone with any experience in internet polls will notice that angry internet denizens tend to be a particularly tech saavy bunch with way too much time on their hands and are inclined to skew polls in favour of their opinions. Regardless of how little their opinions reflect those of the wider population.

For anything that generated mass internet controversy like TLJ did (rather than RL controversy), I'd consider those numbers too be just about worthless due to deliberate poll skewing and massively unreprestentative sample size.

Except that did not happen with The Force Awakens. You are simply declaring poll skewing and using it to dismiss mixed audience reviews of The Last Jedi out of hand. Assuming that it was all due to angry entitled internet nerds throwing temper tantrums hinges on a lot of really outlandish assumptions.

For both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi has fewer total reviews than The Force Awakens, about 400 fewer for Metacritic and over 40,000 fewer for Rotten Tomatoes. Also for both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi got lower audience scores. Typically when you see cases of deliberate poll skewing, you see a massive increase in the number of reviews, because you need those extra reviews to push the average against the consensus and in the direction you want.

My conclusion, based on that data, is that a large number of users on those sites liked TFA but did not like TLJ, which is evidence that TLJ was more divisive and not as well received as TFA. The lower number of total reviews can be attributed partially to people who panned TFA deciding not to see the sequel, and partially to people not writing a review because they did not feel as strongly about TLJ, positively or negatively, than they did about TFA. That second part, if anything, should actually be just as concerning to the studio, if not more so, because it represents a potential loss of enthusiasm, which should be troubling for those invested in the long-term health of the franchise.

In order for your "deliberate poll skewing" argument to make any sense, then you have to either argue that TFA's positive reviews on the same sites have equally little basis in reality, in which case there's no point in collecting data on audience reactions to movies, or that tens of thousands of people who liked TFA enough to leave a review also liked the sequel but could not be bothered to leave a review for it because reasons.

[The Romulan Republic]

I think there are three main factors behind the animosity towards TLJ:

1. The usual knee-jerk fan hostility to anything that is different, or doesn't fit those fans' personal expectations. To be fair, TLJ kind of set itself up for this by deliberately playing with and subverting fan expectations so much.

2. Legitimate grips about thin plotting or possible continuity errors or what have you. Personally, I don't feel that these rise to the level of ruining the film, but they may for some people.

3. Political opposition, including Alt. Reich stuff. This is probably not greater than it was for TFA, no- but its a part of the overall score. However, they also probably have a disproportionate effect on the discussion, because trolls are good at monopolizing attention.

[The Romulan Republic]

Not in and of itself, no.

Its insulting, and in my opinion not justified by evidence. Its arguably sexist, for a broad definition of sexism. But obviously not fascist.

How can it be sexist if nobody is making a sexist argument? If someone says "there's no way she could be this good at so many things because her background wouldn't allow for it," there's not a sexist bit in there. If someone says "she couldn't be good at it because she's a girl," that's sexist.

The underlying point as I understand it. Is not 'that argument is inherently sexist' but you wouldn't be making that argument if they weren't a women.' Ie) a male protagonist with exactly the same background wouldn't be questioned the same way.

This argument is usually bolstered by comparisons to Luke and Anakin.

Now I think this argument relies too much on guessing people's internal psychology and the assumption that the only difference between Luke and Rey is their sexes.

Not the only difference between them, no- but I do think that Luke (and Anakin) gets a pass, sometimes, on specific points where Rey does not.

Granted, that could be due to other factors. For example, I think that Luke, at least, will always be treated more generously than Rey by many older fans, because he's part of the beloved OT.

Aside from that, you've basically summed it up, though I'd add a couple of other points:

1. "Mary Sue" is a term which was originally used for (and is still predominantly used for?) criticizing female characters specifically. So it comes across as a gender-based attack to some, even if it is not intended as such.

2. The term as originally defined isn't really applicable to Rey, at least in my opinion. "Mary Sue" (to the extent that it even has a consistent definition) doesn't just mean "badly-written character", nor does it mean "character who's abilities strain suspension of disbelief". It refers, as I understand it, either to an author self-insert/wish fulfillment character, or to a character who warps the whole story around them. I am not aware of any evidence that the former applies to Rey, though I guess you'd have to ask JJ Abrams if he secretly dreams of being a female Jedi. And while some would argue that the latter applies to Rey, I think that (particularly after TLJ), she fails often enough for it not to really apply. Which is why I posted that list a while back of all the things Rey failed at.

Yes, Rey is very very good at flying and using the Force. But I think that sometimes, people who think that she's "too perfect" focus on her physical abilities and ignore far more important character weaknesses and failed objectives. It is notable that Rey in TLJ fails (or at best succeeds only with the help of others) at every major objective she has.

[The Romulan Republic]

Too late to edit but:

Okay, I guess Rey succeeds at embracing/understanding her role as a Jedi, and rejecting the Dark Side. I guess. Its not really addressed in detail at the end of the film, so we'll have to see if that self-doubt carries over to the next one.

However, she fails at:

-Convincing Luke to come help (that was more Yoda's visit, I think). Instead she ends up dueling him in frustration and drawing a lightsaber on him, then leaving to walk into an obvious trap. Which leads us to...

-Fails at redeeming Kylo Ren. Instead, she gets suckered into a trap by Snoke, which if not for Holdo's sacrifice and pure luck, would have left her (and presumably the Jedi Order and Resistance) dead.

-Fails pathetically at trying to kill Snoke, in probably the most one-sided "duel" between Force users in any of the films to date.

-Fails repeatedly throughout the film in her efforts to find her family/her place in the universe. Alienates Luke (who if Kylo is to be believed, she had latched onto as a possible surrogate father). Fails to persuade Kylo to join her, and refuses to join him after this. Fails to uncover her parents' identity, and then is told that they were a couple of dead drunks who sold her into slavery.

That... does not sound like a Mary Sue. A classic Mary Sue would have been trained by Luke (or else ended up being the one to teach Luke a lesson), would have redeemed Kylo (and probably ended up sleeping with him in the process), and would have had some Super Special family history.

[Coop D'etat]

I question your premises here. Anyone with any experience in internet polls will notice that angry internet denizens tend to be a particularly tech saavy bunch with way too much time on their hands and are inclined to skew polls in favour of their opinions. Regardless of how little their opinions reflect those of the wider population.

For anything that generated mass internet controversy like TLJ did (rather than RL controversy), I'd consider those numbers too be just about worthless due to deliberate poll skewing and massively unreprestentative sample size.

Except that did not happen with The Force Awakens. You are simply declaring poll skewing and using it to dismiss mixed audience reviews of The Last Jedi out of hand. Assuming that it was all due to angry entitled internet nerds throwing temper tantrums hinges on a lot of really outlandish assumptions.

For both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi has fewer total reviews than The Force Awakens, about 400 fewer for Metacritic and over 40,000 fewer for Rotten Tomatoes. Also for both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi got lower audience scores. Typically when you see cases of deliberate poll skewing, you see a massive increase in the number of reviews, because you need those extra reviews to push the average against the consensus and in the direction you want.

My conclusion, based on that data, is that a large number of users on those sites liked TFA but did not like TLJ, which is evidence that TLJ was more divisive and not as well received as TFA. The lower number of total reviews can be attributed partially to people who panned TFA deciding not to see the sequel, and partially to people not writing a review because they did not feel as strongly about TLJ, positively or negatively, than they did about TFA. That second part, if anything, should actually be just as concerning to the studio, if not more so, because it represents a potential loss of enthusiasm, which should be troubling for those invested in the long-term health of the franchise.

In order for your "deliberate poll skewing" argument to make any sense, then you have to either argue that TFA's positive reviews on the same sites have equally little basis in reality, in which case there's no point in collecting data on audience reactions to movies, or that tens of thousands of people who liked TFA enough to leave a review also liked the sequel but could not be bothered to leave a review for it because reasons.

I would go with there is little point in collecting data on audience reactions by means of internet polling, for the same reason there's very little reason to draw any conclusions from internet polling. Internet polling is notoriously bad, particularly when some segment of people who are loud on the internet (of which there are many flavours) get riled up about something. I wouldn't take any grand conclusions from any of the other movies polling well either.

This isn't an argument about whether your conclusions are ultimately correct or not. I'm just saying your methodology to arrive at your conclusions are deeply suspect here.

[Vendetta]

Rotten Tomatoes has actually said there's considerable evidence of disruptive reviews in its user reviews from TLJ (identified by people who register just to review that one thing and never review anything else ever, it has a much higher incidence of that behaviour than other films.

Then there was that guy on facebook claiming credit for organising it and trying to organise doing the same to Black Panther (Facebook closed the user group).

So there's considerable evidence of a concerted effort to tank its user score.


That said, user reviews on the internet are the single least useful collection of words since Donald Trump got a twitter account, drive by opinions from people you don't know, will never see again, and who have literally nothing staked on the giving of their opinion are not a substitute for people whose tastes you actually know.

Like you might not agree with professional critics but they at least have something to lose by shilling or axe grinding (their reputation and job) and if they're an individual like Mark Kermode or Roger Ebert you can also identify where their tastes overlap or differ from yours so even if you don't agree with them the body of reviews they have produced makes their opinion valuable because you can draw conclusions about your own reaction based on it.

[Civil War Man]

I would go with there is little point in collecting data on audience reactions by means of internet polling, for the same reason there's very little reason to draw any conclusions from internet polling. Internet polling is notoriously bad, particularly when some segment of people who are loud on the internet (of which there are many flavours) get riled up about something. I wouldn't take any grand conclusions from any of the other movies polling well either.

This isn't an argument about whether your conclusions are ultimately correct or not. I'm just saying your methodology to arrive at your conclusions are deeply suspect here.

So, using the user reviews on a review aggregator site to draw a conclusion about the relative popularity of two movies among the users on the same review aggregator site, and pointing out that the relative decrease in popularity raises the possibility that one movie is less popular than the other, is flawed methodology? Do you think it is inappropriate to make any estimations regarding the popularity of a movie if we don't have the surveys being conducted by the likes of Gallup or Ipsos?

Rotten Tomatoes has actually said there's considerable evidence of disruptive reviews in its user reviews from TLJ (identified by people who register just to review that one thing and never review anything else ever, it has a much higher incidence of that behaviour than other films.

If that's the case, then either Rotten Tomatoes has removed the suspect reviews, or almost no other users on the site except for the trolls have bothered to write a review for it, because as I've mentioned, it has over 40,000 fewer total reviews than TFA. If it's the former, then the talk of poll skewing is a red herring. If it's the latter, then we are seeing a considerable drop in enthusiasm from the site's user base, since that would mean there are apparently tens of thousands of people who were super excited to write a review for TFA but couldn't be bothered to spent a couple minutes doing the same for TLJ.

Like you might not agree with professional critics but they at least have something to lose by shilling or axe grinding (their reputation and job) and if they're an individual like Mark Kermode or Roger Ebert you can also identify where their tastes overlap or differ from yours so even if you don't agree with them the body of reviews they have produced makes their opinion valuable because you can draw conclusions about your own reaction based on it.

I've already drawn my own conclusion based on seeing it. I consider it a generally below-average Star Wars movie. A far cry from the Original Trilogy, but still better than the likes of Attack of the Clones. My sister thought it was great, and my mother started out liking it, but has slowly grown less charitable towards it over time as she's considered various inconsistencies and how it fits in the larger franchise narrative. We all have different opinions about it, because people have different tastes.

My whole point was that there are a lot of people who don't like it, based on a large number of people saying that they don't like it. But a lot of people in this thread seem to be on a crusade to declare that all opinions contrary to their own are invalid because they don't like the conclusions. That includes the haters who can't accept that there are people who like it, and that includes people like you and Vympel who immediately dismiss anything that suggests the movie was not universally beloved as nothing but sour grapes from internet malcontents.

[The Romulan Republic]

Rotten Tomatoes has actually said there's considerable evidence of disruptive reviews in its user reviews from TLJ (identified by people who register just to review that one thing and never review anything else ever, it has a much higher incidence of that behaviour than other films.

Then there was that guy on facebook claiming credit for organising it and trying to organise doing the same to Black Panther (Facebook closed the user group).

So there's considerable evidence of a concerted effort to tank its user score.

Link? Not that I doubt what you're saying, but it might be good to have a source to cite for future reference.

Also, if it is the same people targeting both Black Panther and TLJ, that by itself pretty much eliminates the possibility that its just Star Wars fans pissed over TLJ. The choice of targets (a film with a black lead, and one with black and female leads, in film franchises that have until recently had only white male leads) strongly suggests a political campaign motivated by bigotry.

[The Romulan Republic]

On an unrelated note: It occurs to me that, as pathetic a person as Kylo ultimately is (because he has all the emotional volatility of a Sith without any of the self-discipline of the more competent Sith), its actually rather refreshing to see a Star Wars villain who's first impulse on seeing the hero walk out to challenge him one on one is not "Meet them in single combat" but "Open fire on them with every gun we have while I sit safely in my command post."

Frankly, if Palpatine had shown that level of pragmatism at the end, he wouldn't have ended up tumbling down the Death Star's reactor shaft.

[Batman]

Palpatine was looking to turn Luke and have him replace Vader. Kinda hard to do if you gun him town the moment you have him. Would it have been on hindsight 'Yeah, not gonna turn this guy, better get rid of him' smarter? Absolutely. But Palpatine wanted Luke as his new Vader and didn't know it wouldn't work. Kylo knew there was no fucking way Luke would join him.

[The Romulan Republic]

Palpatine was looking to turn Luke and have him replace Vader. Kinda hard to do if you gun him town the moment you have him. Would it have been on hindsight 'Yeah, not gonna turn this guy, better get rid of him' smarter? Absolutely. But Palpatine wanted Luke as his new Vader and didn't know it wouldn't work. Kylo knew there was no fucking way Luke would join him.

Yeah, I know why he did it, but it still involved a great deal of complacency. He assumed he could turn Luke. He assumed Vader would stay loyal to him while he tortured Vader's son in front of him after just making it clear that Vader was disposable. He assumed nobody in that room could harm him. He was willing to deliberately handicap the performance of his own Starfleet in a critical battle to try to turn Luke, and told his guards to leave the room (Snoke didn't do that, you'll observe).

Nor was this flaw absent in Palpatine earlier in his career. He used himself as bait on the Invisible Hand, and again when he personally confronted four skilled Jedi duelists.

There's no way around it- Palpatine's main flaw as a villainous mastermind is extreme arrogance, something Luke correctly identified as his weakness.

I mean, I'm not saying that Kylo's more capable than Palpatine overall, because he's not, in either Force skill or political/leadership ability (especially the latter). I just find that moment rather refreshingly pragmatic. And I think it gives Kylo some interesting depth that, even though he's an ultimately pathetic deconstruction of a Sith (and possibly commentary on the kinds of insecure, angry losers who join extremist movements in real life), he's still allowed some moments of genuine competency.

One gets the feeling that he could be a great Dark Lord (or maybe could have been a great Jedi, once), if not for his crippling resentments and insecurities.

Edit: The other big one is him turning on Snoke successfully, of course. The only successful apprentice betrayal out of all the Dark Siders in the films to date.

[Batman]

I'll happily agree Palpatine's scheme involved a lot of 'I totally have this' arrogance, I was just pointing out that within that scheme just gunning down Luke wasn't really an option.

[Vympel]

Except that did not happen with The Force Awakens. You are simply declaring poll skewing and using it to dismiss mixed audience reviews of The Last Jedi out of hand. Assuming that it was all due to angry entitled internet nerds throwing temper tantrums hinges on a lot of really outlandish assumptions.

For both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi has fewer total reviews than The Force Awakens, about 400 fewer for Metacritic and over 40,000 fewer for Rotten Tomatoes. Also for both Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes, The Last Jedi got lower audience scores. Typically when you see cases of deliberate poll skewing, you see a massive increase in the number of reviews, because you need those extra reviews to push the average against the consensus and in the direction you want.

My conclusion, based on that data, is that a large number of users on those sites liked TFA but did not like TLJ, which is evidence that TLJ was more divisive and not as well received as TFA. The lower number of total reviews can be attributed partially to people who panned TFA deciding not to see the sequel, and partially to people not writing a review because they did not feel as strongly about TLJ, positively or negatively, than they did about TFA. That second part, if anything, should actually be just as concerning to the studio, if not more so, because it represents a potential loss of enthusiasm, which should be troubling for those invested in the long-term health of the franchise.

In order for your "deliberate poll skewing" argument to make any sense, then you have to either argue that TFA's positive reviews on the same sites have equally little basis in reality, in which case there's no point in collecting data on audience reactions to movies, or that tens of thousands of people who liked TFA enough to leave a review also liked the sequel but could not be bothered to leave a review for it because reasons.

The really obvious flaw in this "number of TFA vs number of TLJ RT audience reviews" comparison is that TFA is a 2 year old film, while TLJ is a 2 month old film.

I don't doubt that TLJ is a more 'divisive' film than TFA, but that's not a bad thing, nor does it mean it is objectively an unpopular movie.