Rewatching the Last Jedi

[Travel]

What Rotten Tomatoes scandal? I do think there are some cases of conflict of interest, but by the logic you are giving, every movie ever made would have great reviews. 

[megacycle]

Rotten tomatoes has been caught messing with the scores by removing audience reviews or just locking numbers, they don't do this with every film but they do it with some films.

Every movie studio has connections but some have more connections than others, Disney being a prime example. Disney has more money and more power than most of the competition. Sony, Illumination, DreamWorks just cannot compete with Disney/Marvel/Fox/Lucas Films. All they care about is making money but they won't waste money trying to bribe critics for every film. They know when to take an L when something has been tarnished... but if they can they will do something.

it's like seeing that random five star review on a bad product on amazon... you know it's a bot making that review, because every other review gives the product one star.

[Travel]

The thing I've seen with Rotten Tomatoes has been a countermeasure to vote and grade brigading. The other things I've known about at random, I can't they're right. Either way, I think Rotten Tomatoes is exactly one of those things that hasn't helped films or their criticism of them. And well, I'll say that Disney and Soros handed me a very, very nice paycheck for my comments on this thread. 😉

[Blah!?]

Shame they forgot to buy better critic reviews for The Rise of Skywalker.

[megacycle]

They aren't going to waste money on a lost cause, they did that with the last jedi and look at that audience score, this time around they went with bots to boost the audience score on rise of skywalker... because a new film shouldn't have a locked audience score of 86... it hasn't moved in three weeks, which is unusual for a new film. That score tends to fluctuate not stay perfectly still... I can understand if it is an older film where a few reviews won't effect the audience score but here we have a new film which should be fluctuating but it's not... something seems off to me.

[megacycle]

8 hours ago, Travel said:

The thing I've seen with Rotten Tomatoes has been a countermeasure to vote and grade brigading. The other things I've known about at random, I can't they're right. Either way, I think Rotten Tomatoes is exactly one of those things that hasn't helped films or their criticism of them. And well, I'll say that Disney and Soros handed me a very, very nice paycheck for my comments on this thread. 😉

If you like the movie good for you... just don't pretend it's a perfect masterpiece, because it is not. It was designed to be divisive and to take what was known about the universe, toss it in a dumpster, and set it on fire.

They ruined a lot of characters... this is my opinion, and a lot of people share my opinion, the last jedi was a franchise killer for many people. They didn't bother wasting money on critics this time around because this new movie was going to be bad and they knew it. So now they are getting bots to keep that audience score up or paying rotten tomatoes to lock the number at 86, which is weird. New movies tend to fluctuate in a up or down pattern.

If you all truly believe these big corporations do not have the power to influence reviewers and critics... well you all are very naive.

[Travel]

Rotten Tomatoes isn't the end-all, be-all of film criticism or audience reception. Particularly on the latter, it's not exactly reliable exactly because of the vote brigading which is something that RT has been fighting against. Meanwhile, if you look at sites like IMDB, the movie has a rating of 6.9 right now. The Last Jedi isn't a perfect masterpiece, but I'm not a believer in perfect masterpieces anyway. In all of film history, there's only like three or maybe five films I'd consider perfect or at least absolutely close to perfection. I'm close enough to the film industry and people in it to know whether I'm being naive or not. 

[black_mage]

5 hours ago, megacycle said:

If you like the movie good for you... just don't pretend it's a perfect masterpiece, because it is not. It was designed to be divisive and to take what was known about the universe, toss it in a dumpster, and set it on fire.

But isn't it subjective which movie is a masterpiece and which isn't? I sure hope that's the case at least. My opinion is that if a movie is divisive it's usually a good thing actually. If you try to please everyone and predict what people would like, you usually end with something boring. Which, I think the new trilogy kind of is. I think the main problem with the movies for me is that the new characters aren't that interesting.. Maybe, I'm not sure, I think it's also the writing. I just didn't particularly love or hate any of the new Star Wars movies, they were just okay. I don't know if my mind will change with re-viewing, I've only watched each once.

[megacycle]

5 hours ago, black_mage said:

But isn't it subjective which movie is a masterpiece and which isn't? I sure hope that's the case at least. My opinion is that if a movie is divisive it's usually a good thing actually. If you try to please everyone and predict what people would like, you usually end with something boring. Which, I think the new trilogy kind of is. I think the main problem with the movies for me is that the new characters aren't that interesting.. Maybe, I'm not sure, I think it's also the writing. I just didn't particularly love or hate any of the new Star Wars movies, they were just okay. I don't know if my mind will change with re-viewing, I've only watched each once.

Movies need to be interesting... they can only be interesting if they tell a good story, this movie didn't really have a good story to tell... it doesn't have any interesting characters... it also made the returning characters feel out of character. Luke is portrayed as a bitter old man... a person who has given up hope. The same person that believed there was light still within Vader (A person who has slaughtered so many people, young and old.) but now he has given up on everything. He's just going to sit around on a rock and let his friends and family perish, didn't try to rekindle the light within his nephew or fight to protect his friends and family.

The only reason this trilogy exists is to breathe new life into an old franchise for money... and it fails at every turn. I feel like if they let the team behind most of the marvel movies work on these movies... they would've been better. Instead we got this dumpster fire!

I give this film a one out of five... the effects are nice but the jokes feel out of place and the characters are bland and boring, they also missed an opportunity with the returning cast and didn't add anything new or memorable to the franchise. It would've gotten a two from me but they ruined Luke's character.

[megacycle]

9 hours ago, Travel said:

 I'm close enough to the film industry and people in it to know whether I'm being naive or not. 

Again... if you truly believe these movie studios have no influence over movie critics... you're being naive.

[Travel]

I really wouldn't have wanted Marvel or anyone like them to do anything with Star Wars. 

[megacycle]

2 hours ago, Travel said:

I really wouldn't have wanted Marvel or anyone like them to do anything with Star Wars. 

You can tell they were trying to emulate them with the jokes they tried to add in, when watching that review video and one other I was reminded of the your mom joke at the start. It felt very Marvel-esque. They also know how to tie movies together to make one larger, over-arcing story, unlike the current LucasFilm.

[Travel]

Star Wars has always been funny. I couldn't care less about shared universes, especially ones that can't follow a character's journey to supposedly avoid contradiction and then ends up contradicting itself anyway. 

[Heathcliff]

8 hours ago, megacycle said:

Again... if you truly believe these movie studios have no influence over movie critics... you're being naive.

I'm sure they have some influence over some critics... but I think this conspiracy theory is heading into tinfoil-hat territory.

Take this example: the main critic I follow at the moment is Mark Kermode on Radio 5. He gave Last Jedi a good review, and almost all the Transformers movies a terrible review. So, perhaps you believe the studios bribed him to give TLJ a nice review - so why not do it with Transformers?

The thing is, the Transformers movies could be called "critic-proof". All the critics say a Transformers movie is shit, but loads of people will go and see it anyway because it's Transformers. So great reviews are not so important to them. Sure, they don't want bad reviews, but the point is they don't need good reviews to make people see the film.

The thing is - Star Wars is the same. Fans may have bitched about it afterwards but you can bet every Star Wars fan went to see TLJ, just because it was Star Wars. So what on earth would be the point of the studio spending loads of money to influence the reviews? Critics absolutely panned Episode I: The Phantom Menace (because it was mostly crap) but loads of people went to see it all the same.

So, I don't think this conspiracy theory makes any sense.

 

[megacycle]

8 hours ago, Heathcliff said:

The thing is - Star Wars is the same. Fans may have bitched about it afterwards but you can bet every Star Wars fan went to see TLJ, just because it was Star Wars. So what on earth would be the point of the studio spending loads of money to influence the reviews? Critics absolutely panned Episode I: The Phantom Menace (because it was mostly crap) but loads of people went to see it all the same.

People went to see the force awakens, and it wasn't a load of dog s***! People went to see the last jedi because it had Luke Skywalker... And a lot of people didn't like it... the merch isn't selling... I work retail and we had a huge display for star wars merch... and none of it sold until it got reduced, twice. It didn't start moving until it hit 75% off. This is true at other retailers... the product just didn't sell until they dropped the price by a drastic amount.

As for the critic comment... your critic isn't being bought by everybody... just a few... or are heavily biased towards certain writers or directors or studios like Disney and Disney subsidiaries. A critic on Disney's payroll isn't going to say the nicest things about the competition but they aren't going to be blatant about it either, they spin it. They got called out on the last jedi, they aren't going to do the same thing twice with the rise of skywalker.

Rey is a Mary Sue but I doubt critics would call her character that... maybe now they would, I don't know. She's a character with no flaws and is over powered... being able to use the force with little to no issues unlike other characters who had to go through a training regimen... either as a young child or on a swamp planet with Yoda. She can do it because she's Rey!

[megacycle]

11 hours ago, Travel said:

Star Wars has always been funny. I couldn't care less about shared universes, especially ones that can't follow a character's journey to supposedly avoid contradiction and then ends up contradicting itself anyway. 

The original trilogy wasn't really a comedy... the humor was kept to a minimum. The prequels tried to inject comedy into the movies with Jar Jar and it backfired... hence the lack of Jar Jar in the later films. The humor they used in the last jedi felt out of place, like it belongs in a marvel movie not a star wars movie. It would've been more coherent had they just hired some directors and writers who had experience working with the marvel universe. It couldn't be any worse than what we got.

[Travel]

Critics might not call her a Mary Sue because: 

1. They don't agree with you. I sure hope that through all this you're remember that this is just your opinion and you're not an arbiter of who's right and who's wrong. 

2. They have a wider vocabulary and knowledge of films and tropes to work with. If someone presented the term "Mary Sue" as part of a serious analysis of a film in an academic setting,  they'd be laughed out of the room. 

[megacycle]

Ah yes... subverting our expectations... a complicated way to say it's unpredictable, critics.

Also just because the youtube critics disagree with the real critics, it doesn't make their review of the film invalid. It just makes their review different. More believable, I mean they aren't going to lose their jobs for calling a movie or product garbage, since they usually don't have any affiliation with the movie studio or product distributor/creator. Unlike real critics. No beating around the bush... just a blunt and sometimes humorous review of a movie or product.

[Travel]

A lot of folks on YouTube love to say incendiary garbage because it will get them clicks, and therefore make them able to monetize their videos. So if certain conspiracy theories are true, maybe there isn't that big of a difference anyway. 

[Heathcliff]

18 hours ago, megacycle said:

People went to see the force awakens, and it wasn't a load of dog s***! People went to see the last jedi because it had Luke Skywalker... And a lot of people didn't like it... the merch isn't selling... I work retail and we had a huge display for star wars merch... and none of it sold until it got reduced, twice. It didn't start moving until it hit 75% off. This is true at other retailers... the product just didn't sell until they dropped the price by a drastic amount.

As for the critic comment... your critic isn't being bought by everybody... just a few... or are heavily biased towards certain writers or directors or studios like Disney and Disney subsidiaries. A critic on Disney's payroll isn't going to say the nicest things about the competition but they aren't going to be blatant about it either, they spin it. They got called out on the last jedi, they aren't going to do the same thing twice with the rise of skywalker.

Rey is a Mary Sue but I doubt critics would call her character that... maybe now they would, I don't know. She's a character with no flaws and is over powered... being able to use the force with little to no issues unlike other characters who had to go through a training regimen... either as a young child or on a swamp planet with Yoda. She can do it because she's Rey!

I don't doubt your claim that the merch isn't selling. I was only talking about the idea that some critics had been paid or influenced to write good reviews. The only purpose of that would be to get people to see the movie - not really to do with merchandise.

Presumably people would only buy merch after they'd seen the film, and if it is as bad as you say the merch wouldn't sell as well. So maybe you could say that poor merchandise sales is proof it's a bad movie - but personally I don't think that makes much sense. I loved the fight with Snoke's red guard but I'm a 37 year old man, and not going to go and buy action figures of them (actually writing that makes me want one .)

Poor merch sales probably have something to do with the hardcore fan reaction, and perhaps because this is a bit less of a kid's movie than some others. I think "Luke Skywalker is a great hero who saves the day" is an easier concept for kids to get than "Luke Skywalker is a conflicted, flawed man who cannot live up to the legend around him". Maybe you're right, and this theme does not belong in a Star Wars movie. But I for one am now clearer in my opinion, I'm really glad this got made.

[Heathcliff]

18 hours ago, Travel said:

2. They have a wider vocabulary and knowledge of films and tropes to work with. If someone presented the term "Mary Sue" as part of a serious analysis of a film in an academic setting,  they'd be laughed out of the room. 

This, unfortunately, is true I think. I understand what you mean by that @megacycle, and it could be a legitimate criticism, but the term "Mary Sue" came from fanfiction (Star Trek fanfiction as far as I know) and a professional film or literary critic wouldn't use it.

I'll admit, that is one problem I have with episodes 7 and 8 (haven't seen 9 yet, I probably will at some point). Kylo has been trained by Luke, then by Snoke. Rey has never been trained or used a lightsaber, but can beat him in a fight. That's silly, right? Well, we could come up with some justifications if we want:

- Kylo is wounded, physically by Chewbacca's shot, and mentally by killing his father

- Rey already has trained herself to fight with a staff, she is used to weapon-based combat

- The force is so abnormally strong with Rey she is somehow a "natural" at lightsaber combat (seemingly the explanation the film takes and hence the accusations of "Mary Sue-ism")

I could say that Rey winning the fight makes no sense - but actually, I don't care. Star Wars is space fantasy, the Force is like magic. Fantasy usually means we just accept the rules of the world if they make a good story.

I remember thinking at the end of Harry Potter, why doesn't Voldemort just pick up a pebble, make it into another horcrux and throw it into the middle of the sea? Harry will never find it then - but of course, as readers we don't care about this, because we just follow the good story we are given.

You could also say Luke is something of a Mary Sue in the original trilogy. Little boy Anakin is told he is "too old to begin the training" in Phantom Menace, when he looks about 6 years old. Luke, as an adult man, trains briefly with Obi Wan, and more with Yoda - then after one loss, can beat Vader, supposedly the most powerful Jedi of his generation. You can say Vader held back because he didn't want to kill his son - maybe Kylo held back because he sensed a bond with Rey?

What lovely films these are that there is so much to talk about.

[Bondi]

Mary Sue, while I am aware of it's meaning, but at the same time, a lot of times it just seems like a catch-all insult against characters that people don't like. It's an accusation that no one ever  wants leveled against their character, but it might not actually mean much of anything anymore other than "I think that's a bad character." Saying she's overpowered, saying she's dull and bland, those are subjective terms, but at least they mean something.

Fantasy, by it's very definition, doesn't have to adhere to real-world physics or scientific laws. Each work of fantasy still needs a set of well-established rules and it needs to adhere to those rules to maintain a sense of internal consistency. Obviously, no work is free from plot holes. Some inconsistencies are really damaging to the integrity of the work, while others are really minor and easier to overlook. You could take real-world historic events and asked "Well, why didn't he just do it this way?" It's sometimes a lot easier to see obvious solutions in hindsight than in the moment.

On the other hand, the 6 movies done by Lucas never really got too in-depth with what Jedi training actually entailed, other than people are supposed to start really young and then the few shots of it we see in the movies. In Empire Strikes Back, all Yoda does with Luke is troll him a bit, ride on his back while Luke runs around the swampy cave, have Luke move rocks with his mind, and then face an illusion of Vader that turns out to be himself. We see even less of Anakin's training in the prequels, aside from him being Obiwan's padwan and going on missions and errands with him. The movie says you need to train during your entire childhood to have mastery over the force, but Luke got along just fine with the Force by Return of the Jedi, and Anakin didn't have much trouble either. Still, sure, Rey could've used sometraining. Some of Heathcliff's possible explanations are good ones, and it could've been a combination of them, such as she has had some combat training, even if it wasn't with the force, Kylo Ren is exhausted and in a bad mental place after having killed Han Solo. It's not something that occurred to me while watching the Force Awakens so it's not a huge deal to me, though I can understand why it might bother other people.  

[megacycle]

4 hours ago, Heathcliff said:

This, unfortunately, is true I think. I understand what you mean by that @megacycle, and it could be a legitimate criticism, but the term "Mary Sue" came from fanfiction (Star Trek fanfiction as far as I know) and a professional film or literary critic wouldn't use it.

I'll admit, that is one problem I have with episodes 7 and 8 (haven't seen 9 yet, I probably will at some point). Kylo has been trained by Luke, then by Snoke. Rey has never been trained or used a lightsaber, but can beat him in a fight. That's silly, right? Well, we could come up with some justifications if we want:

- Kylo is wounded, physically by Chewbacca's shot, and mentally by killing his father

- Rey already has trained herself to fight with a staff, she is used to weapon-based combat

- The force is so abnormally strong with Rey she is somehow a "natural" at lightsaber combat (seemingly the explanation the film takes and hence the accusations of "Mary Sue-ism")

I could say that Rey winning the fight makes no sense - but actually, I don't care. Star Wars is space fantasy, the Force is like magic. Fantasy usually means we just accept the rules of the world if they make a good story.

I remember thinking at the end of Harry Potter, why doesn't Voldemort just pick up a pebble, make it into another horcrux and throw it into the middle of the sea? Harry will never find it then - but of course, as readers we don't care about this, because we just follow the good story we are given.

You could also say Luke is something of a Mary Sue in the original trilogy. Little boy Anakin is told he is "too old to begin the training" in Phantom Menace, when he looks about 6 years old. Luke, as an adult man, trains briefly with Obi Wan, and more with Yoda - then after one loss, can beat Vader, supposedly the most powerful Jedi of his generation. You can say Vader held back because he didn't want to kill his son - maybe Kylo held back because he sensed a bond with Rey?

What lovely films these are that there is so much to talk about.

https://youtu.be/JN8Qm5o0oSY

I don't consider Luke to be a Mary Sue because we don't see him dominate any fights in the first or second film. In Empire Strikes Back he lost a lot and found out something shocking, that Vader is his father.

This video dives pretty deep into what a Mary Sue really is and compares Rey to Luke, to see the differences in their character. They could have done a lot more with Rey and Finn and I'm disappointed by the outcome of these films. I did find enjoyment from the first film of this new trilogy, even if it borrowed a lot from a new hope.

In the end we got what we got. I'm not happy with it but I'm still a fan... I'm just more a fan of Lucas era star wars and not Disney era star wars.

[megacycle]

21 hours ago, Travel said:

A lot of folks on YouTube love to say incendiary garbage because it will get them clicks, and therefore make them able to monetize their videos. So if certain conspiracy theories are true, maybe there isn't that big of a difference anyway. 

Both parties are trying to make money... Dropping the conspiracy angle and moving to the movie review angle, most reviewers don't hate what they did to Luke. (Some do and I do.) Most just pick apart story elements like the cringe worthy jokes that don't fit the serious scene or Leia being able to survive in space or the casino side story being a waste that ruins immersion. The force just feels so OP when compared to the prequels, when the Jedi were at their strongest, same for the sith. Some complain about that.