The Movie Thread

[TrippyHippy]

What score would you give it, Headless, if you don't mind me asking?

[Bedrockbrendan]

Who pays attention to the audience ratings on RT? There's a reason the ratings on RT are taken more seriosuly than imdb for instance. I could care less what the lowest common denominator internet opinion on a film is. That's like using Youtube comments to arrive at an opinion.

And film critics have long recognized certain films as 'critic proof.' The terrible Transformer movies are a prime example. As a horror and genre fan one gets to know which critics are biased against genre films and those who aren't, if Kermode at the BBC or Turan at the LA Times give a horror film a good review it means something to me. But it is clear the internet 'backlash' against the new SW is in RL tiny in effect as the films are making more money than God.

We are trying to figure out what audiences think about the movie and discussing if there is a larger gap than unusual between the critical and audience consensus. The RT scores have been part of the discussion, because the gap there is bigger. So it seems relevant to discuss here.

On critics and lowest common denominators. I just consider myself a regular filmgoer and I find I am usually more in line with the audience scores than the critic scores. With a handful of exceptions, I don't pay much attention to what critics say about a film.

[Headless]

What score would you give it, Headless, if you don't mind me asking?

Hard to say.  With spoiling anything I did find it drug a bit at the begainning. It showed its studio, maybe too much, there was a gag or two straight out of 'Guardians of the Galaxy.'  They were ok in Thor, I don't think they belonged in star wars.  

Critic score should have been in the low 80s. Audience score should have been low 70s.  Or maybe flip them.  I did say I know they measure different tho us but I'm still not sure what exactly those things are.

[TrippyHippy]

So if the Critics' score ought to have been low 80s, and the audience score a low 70s, then a mean of somewhere around the mid 70s?

For me, I'd have rated it about the same as that. So there you go.

[Headless]

I did say I think the critics and audience score measure different things right.  

I think that would be like taking an average of temperature and rain fall.  You will get a number, but I don't know that it makes sense.

[TrippyHippy]

I did say I think the critics and audience score measure different things right.  

I think that would be like taking an average of temperature and rain fall.  You will get a number, but I don't know that it makes sense.

I'm just taking an aggregate.

[Voros]

We are trying to figure out what audiences think about the movie and discussing if there is a larger gap than unusual between the critical and audience consensus. The RT scores have been part of the discussion, because the gap there is bigger. So it seems relevant to discuss here.

On critics and lowest common denominators. I just consider myself a regular filmgoer and I find I am usually more in line with the audience scores than the critic scores. With a handful of exceptions, I don't pay much attention to what critics say about a film.

There has been a concerted campaign by some pathetic fools to drive down the RT audience score for the new SW film so it can hardly be taken as representative of the actual audience reaction. And in fact the audience score on such sites has zero validity as a tracking of audience reaction as it is a completely random, self-selecting sample.

I don't decide whether to see a film or not based on any star or percentage system, audience or critic. I use RT to read actual reviews, usually by critics I've gotten to know by reading them regularly. By getting to know a good critic I'll be swayed into spending time on a film based how well they argue the case for or against a film. I've read many negative reviews but due to reading between the lines seen that the film would still be of interest to me.

I know it is fashionable to dismiss film critics but I don't buy it, I've learned about more good films from critics than any other method and that includes genres like horror, Japanese or Korean genre films B-films,, etc. The idea that all critics are opposed to genre films just doesn't stand up, from Gavin Smith to Kim Newman many of them are experts on certain genres. There are a handful of amateur critics out there on blogs and specialist websites who are just as good as the pros but they are rarely posting to RT or imdb which tend to be full of misinformed, illiterate babblers.

[Bedrockbrendan]

I know it is fashionable to dismiss film critics but I don't buy it, I've learned about more good films from critics than any other method and that includes genres like horror, Japanese or Korean genre films B-films,, etc. The idea that all critics are opposed to genre films just doesn't stand up, from Gavin Smith to Kim Newman many of them are experts on certain genres. There are a handful of amateur critics out there on blogs and specialist websites who are just as good as the pros but they are rarely posting to RT or imdb which tend to be full of misinformed, illiterate babblers.

First, if you like critics, that is fine. I am not opposed to them. I just have my reservations and my own take on these things. What follows isn't meant to be hostile. I am just trying to give you a sense of where I am coming from.

I never said all critics are opposed to genre films, so not sure where that is coming from. But I generally find I am more with the audience than with critics, so I take critical reviews with a grain of salt. Increasingly I find myself just not looking for the same kinds of movies as many critics. So there are a handful who I pay attention to (not because they are critics and better than other views, but because as individual reviewers they give me the information I want and are good at conveying their experience of watching the movie). If you find heeding certain critics gets you more bang for your buck when you decide what to watch, more power to you. I wouldn't dismiss critical consensus or audience reactions out of hand (and in this case I agree, it is way to early to know what the audience numbers mean because we are still in the edit and flame war stage of a highly anticipated new release---same thing happens with Doctor Who episodes when they first come out, though on a much smaller scale). I just wouldn't give it undo weight either. Ultimately, what matters to me is how I feel when I am there watching the movie. My goal when I talk about films and when I review them, is to not be snooty about it. So I avoid the snooty critics. Critics that are snooty, and there are many (I can't stand New Yorker film review for instance), are a big turn off to me as a movie fan. There are also a lot of critics who, in my opinion, are more interested in their brand as a critic than in what they actually thought of a film. And with the proliferation of online reviews by people who are just as informed as critics who happen to write for major papers or platforms, I have found myself going less and less to the big critics. Some of these people, like the Silver Spleen, in my opinion, are way better than the more established genre critics (granted though, he has a background in film). So while I think there is value to be extracted from critics, I think it is helpful to be wary of them because so many times, I have had a critic describe a movie in certain terms, then when I go to see it myself, I find myself having almost the opposite experience that they were painting. Or I've just read reviews that are earnest, but the reviewer clearly is interested in stuff I have no interest in. A good example of this is how well reviewed The Assassin (2015) was. A lot of top critics liked that movie. I was bored to tears watching it. That is fine. People have different expectations of movies.

We probably just have very different tastes in things, which is fine. I didn't go to film school or study literature. I don't find critical analysis particularly interesting. I don't tend to read my movies through that sort of a lens. My measure of a good movie is very simple: how did the movie make me feel? Did I find myself thinking it about it a lot after? Do I want to go back and watch it again? The more I answer in the affirmative to those questions, the better I think a movie is.

[Ratman_tf]

So the reviewers and spoilers I've heard make me not so hopeful for Last Jedi. It sounds like a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?

[Bedrockbrendan]

And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?

I have heard this complaint and I don't understand why this bothers people. Unless it is executed in a particularly stupid way, I feel like a reveal that she has force powers (which has been hinted at since Empire) would be a fitting conclusion for her story (given that Carrie Fischer passed away before the final film).

Hoping to get a chance to see this today or tomorrow.

[Ratman_tf]

I have heard this complaint and I don't understand why this bothers people.

It just sounds odd as fuck. We don't see anyone actually fly, even the powerful Jedi/Sith, in the previous films. Hey, maybe in the new continuity, Jedi can do anything they want. *shrug*

Unless it is executed in a particularly stupid way, I feel like a reveal that she has force powers (which has been hinted at since Empire) would be a fitting conclusion for her story (given that Carrie Fischer passed away before the final film).

That's the trick, isn't it?

[Headless]

It is weird.  Flying ain't the half of it, no her force powers have nothing to do with Carrie Fisher dieing.

I would say more but plenty of people haven't seen it yet.  I don't know why I'm holding back, it seems those that haven't seen it yet are the most active on this thread.

[Voros]

First, if you like critics, that is fine. I am not opposed to them. I just have my reservations and my own take on these things. What follows isn't meant to be hostile. I am just trying to give you a sense of where I am coming from.

I never said all critics are opposed to genre films, so not sure where that is coming from. But I generally find I am more with the audience than with critics, so I take critical reviews with a grain of salt. Increasingly I find myself just not looking for the same kinds of movies as many critics. So there are a handful who I pay attention to (not because they are critics and better than other views, but because as individual reviewers they give me the information I want and are good at conveying their experience of watching the movie)..

No offense taken, we're just debating movies after all! I do think critics have historically been biased against genre films, horror in particular, but feel that has changed over the years. It sounds like you’re looking for much the same in a film writer as I do, I prefer a conversational style that communicates intelligently what a critic liked or disliked in a film. Some of the more academic critics can be excellent though, David Bordwell writes very well about the art of editing in HK action films for instance.

I like all kinds of films, from trashy B-films to slow-as-fuck arthouse films so I read a pretty wide variety of critics and websites. It helps find the gems out there, particularly in a genre like horror where a lot of films are produced but it is hard to find the better modern films. I don’t have the time to waste watching mediocre films these days.

I agree that there are some excellent genre-specific review sites on genres like horror, martial arts and B-films that are just as good as the ‘mainstream’ critics.

[Voros]

So the reviewers and spoilers I've heard make me not so hopeful for Last Jedi. It sounds like a hodgepodge of half-baked ideas. And Leia can fly? What the fuck is up with that?

She doesn't fly. The Force has often been portrayed as a form of telekinesis so she uses the Force to move in zero gravity. That it is being critized shows the imagination failure and nit picking of so many SW 'fans.'

[Bedrockbrendan]

It just sounds odd as fuck. We don't see anyone actually fly, even the powerful Jedi/Sith, in the previous films. Hey, maybe in the new continuity, Jedi can do anything they want. *shrug*

Personally, I am not bothered when they amp up some of this stuff. If you look at the prequels (and to a degree in the original trilogy), people are clearly leaping, doing multiple flips and performing feats that would be in line with something like Lightness Kung fu in wuxia movies. When they brought more of that wuxia vibe to the prequels, that felt like a good fit to me. But even without grabbing from wuxia, I feel like force telekenisis can easily explain someone flying (I never got big into expanded universe, but had friends that were super into it and I recall one of them mentioning the force being used to fly in some of the books). Even without that, I think if they want to add other Jedi paths, particularly with a character like Leia who doesn't seem to have formal Jedi training but is force sensitive, it would help expand the Star Wars universe in a cool way. I can imagine some kind of Jedi-like meditation technique where one learns how to levitate or fly, but maybe not how to fight. I think I would like some explanation though. I find it helpful to understand if the film is operating with some kind of physics in mind (even if the physics are totally fictional) or if they are just making it up as they go.

That's the trick, isn't it?

Absolutely. Like I said, I haven't seen it. And this scene could totally be done wrong (and I can imagine how a scene like this might be done poorly). I just don't think 'she can fly' is bad on its own.