Star Wars Episode VIII The Last Jedi

[bostjan]

Literally every ship in the entire Star Wars universe has had interior gravity.

So then why have a motor to push bombs downward? It seems like a one-or-the-other situation to me. When a ship explodes, the bombs go every direction that is not downward. It seems "cheap," just like a lot of nitpicks about the movie. I usually wouldn't waste too much time on something as insignificant as this, but I happen to be a nerd, so here we go...

https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZMR3.png

So the artificial gravity holds the person in their seat. The bombadier was not in a seat nor anywhere near a seat nor where she was supposed to be situated on the ship. The pilot, though somehow came out of the pilot's seat and wound up displaced onto the floor of the cockpit. Just from a logical standpoint, it doesn't make that much sense, but it's a nitpick, yet, if you try to find an answer by purchasing these visual dictionaries and encyclopediae associated with the films (the above was from the TFA Incredible Cross Sections book), you just get into these really esoteric little factoids and stuff that totally don't support what you see in the films. So long range ships need special force disrupters in order to make the jump to light speed without liquifying the people on board...ok, what about short range ships, like the one depicted? Say that antigravity technology is just cheap enough that every ship has it - that'd be fine, but that's not what these supplimentary books say, they say "The gravitoactive constituents of these devices are subnuclear knots of spacetime made in enormous unmanned power refineries encompassing black holes."

Whatever, it's Star Wars, right?

Well, yeah, but the irritating thing is the wishy-washiness of it all. The gravity works when it's convenient for the storytellers, but then sometimes it doesn't work, like in the infamous scene with Leia. Why wasn't there gravity then? Either have gravity or not. If you have it for some weird scenes, okay, I can ignore it, but then when you do other weird scenes, there is not gravity pulling stuff toward the ship, and that's when I have a problem. "Do or do not." It's a nitpick, I agree, but there were just so many in this film that I felt annoyed by all of them.

The OT has plenty of stuff that's just as goofy, but it all ends up paying off. Everything in Ep IV falls so perfectly and coincidentally into place in the plot so that the Rebels can destroy the Death Star, but it gets pulled off, crippling the Empire. In Ep V, it seems like a logical place the Rebellion would be in following those cirumstances. In Ep VI, the Rebllion completely destroys the Empire, so, end of story. Ep VII seemed to have undone some of the story from Ep VI and now Ep VIII seems to be ignoring a lot of what happened in Ep VII as well as the OT, so the overall feeling I get is that whatever happens in one movie doesn't really affect anything that happens in other movies, and that's definitely not a good place to be in with a franchise with this many films.

 

[synrgy]

Wait.. Where was the gravity in the Leia scene? I'm not sure I understand what you mean, there.

Also, here's the same kind of* bombs being dropped in space in ESB:



*(according to wikis, etc)

 

[myrtorp]

About half way through I was thinking "wtf is this crap?" But the end fight made up for it a bit. It was the worst of the new movies but ok.
I only watch movies at the theatre like 2-3 times a year and every year the price goes up. By this rate I will probably skip the release and get the blue Rey later since im rarely super hyped about catching it as soon as possible.

 

[synrgy]

This is only semi-related (emphasis mine) to the thread, but I thought it was worth sharing:

https://geektyrant.com/news/alec-gu...-he-hated-working-on-star-wars-in-1976-letter

My dear Anne,

I have returned to London this evening for my stint at the studio for the rest of the week. Can't say I'm enjoying the film — new rubbish dialogue reaches me every other day on wages of pink paper — and none of it makes my character clear or even bearable. I just think, thankfully, of the lovely bread, which will help me keep going until next April even if 'Yahoo' collapses in a week.

I must off to studio and work with a dwarf (very sweet, — and he has to wash in a bidet) and your fellow countrymen Mark Hamill and Tennyson (that can't be right) Ford — Ellison (? — No!*) — well, a rangy, languid young man who is probably intelligent and amusing. But Oh, God, God, they make me feel ninety — and treat me as if I was 106.

Love,
Alec

 

[wankerness]

So then why have a motor to push bombs downward? It seems like a one-or-the-other situation to me. When a ship explodes, the bombs go every direction that is not downward. It seems "cheap," just like a lot of nitpicks about the movie. I usually wouldn't waste too much time on something as insignificant as this, but I happen to be a nerd, so here we go...

https://i.stack.imgur.com/pZMR3.png

So the artificial gravity holds the person in their seat. The bombadier was not in a seat nor anywhere near a seat nor where she was supposed to be situated on the ship. The pilot, though somehow came out of the pilot's seat and wound up displaced onto the floor of the cockpit. Just from a logical standpoint, it doesn't make that much sense, but it's a nitpick, yet, if you try to find an answer by purchasing these visual dictionaries and encyclopediae associated with the films (the above was from the TFA Incredible Cross Sections book), you just get into these really esoteric little factoids and stuff that totally don't support what you see in the films. So long range ships need special force disrupters in order to make the jump to light speed without liquifying the people on board...ok, what about short range ships, like the one depicted? Say that antigravity technology is just cheap enough that every ship has it - that'd be fine, but that's not what these supplimentary books say, they say "The gravitoactive constituents of these devices are subnuclear knots of spacetime made in enormous unmanned power refineries encompassing black holes."

Whatever, it's Star Wars, right?

Well, yeah, but the irritating thing is the wishy-washiness of it all. The gravity works when it's convenient for the storytellers, but then sometimes it doesn't work, like in the infamous scene with Leia. Why wasn't there gravity then? Either have gravity or not. If you have it for some weird scenes, okay, I can ignore it, but then when you do other weird scenes, there is not gravity pulling stuff toward the ship, and that's when I have a problem. "Do or do not." It's a nitpick, I agree, but there were just so many in this film that I felt annoyed by all of them.

The OT has plenty of stuff that's just as goofy, but it all ends up paying off. Everything in Ep IV falls so perfectly and coincidentally into place in the plot so that the Rebels can destroy the Death Star, but it gets pulled off, crippling the Empire. In Ep V, it seems like a logical place the Rebellion would be in following those cirumstances. In Ep VI, the Rebllion completely destroys the Empire, so, end of story. Ep VII seemed to have undone some of the story from Ep VI and now Ep VIII seems to be ignoring a lot of what happened in Ep VII as well as the OT, so the overall feeling I get is that whatever happens in one movie doesn't really affect anything that happens in other movies, and that's definitely not a good place to be in with a franchise with this many films.

I am VERY confused as to how you are trying to find holes in this, these are the basic laws of dumb sci-0fi. None of these things seem to contradict anything in, well, every silly sci-fi thing ever (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc)

1) All the ships have artificial gravity inside of them, hence why people can walk around inside of them (in every movie)
2) bombs are going outside of the ship and thus need the kinetic energy of the motors to make them continue to go the desired way once they leave the ship
3) leia was in zero g after the window/wall was destroyed and broke whatever seal they have and thus she was "outside"

 

[StevenC]

This is only semi-related (emphasis mine) to the thread, but I thought it was worth sharing:

https://geektyrant.com/news/alec-gu...-he-hated-working-on-star-wars-in-1976-letter

It's almost like A New Hope won an Oscar for editing because it wasn't a good film before editing out all the crap that made it too long and didn't add anything.

What's your point? That TLJ is as bad as the unreleased version of ANH that everyone acknowledges was bad?

 

[bostjan]

I am VERY confused as to how you are trying to find holes in this, these are the basic laws of dumb sci-0fi. None of these things seem to contradict anything in, well, every silly sci-fi thing ever (Star Wars, Star Trek, etc)

1) All the ships have artificial gravity inside of them, hence why people can walk around inside of them (in every movie)
2) bombs are going outside of the ship and thus need the kinetic energy of the motors to make them continue to go the desired way once they leave the ship
3) leia was in zero g after the window/wall was destroyed and broke whatever seal they have and thus she was "outside"

How is this confusing?

1. I disagree in that I've never seen anyone walking around inside of any of the short-range fighters/bombers in any of the other movies. Especially when you look into the books like the one I cited, which state that the artificial gravity is only supposed to hold the pilot into his or her seat or hold gunners or bombadiers into their turret positions. Assume the book is wrong, and you're back to square one, except for the part where it seemed weird enough in the first place that I had to go look it up in a book.
2. If the gravity inside of the ship pushes everything downward why wouldn't it work on bombs? It's be exactly the same concept as a motor. If the gravity "turns off" after the bombs leave the ship, they won't simply stop moving, since they are already in motion. If there is some law of physics in the film that says that they would, then the motor wouldn't do squat anyway, since the motor would only push the bombs out then no longer be connected the the bombs. If you watch the motion of the bombs, though, they appear to accelerate as if being dropped on Earth, so neither explanation makes consistent sense. I have no problem with there being different laws of motion or whatever in a film, but I only ask that whatever the laws of this fictional universe be, that they be consistent from one scene to the next.
3. So, let me get this straight. Leia is unaffected by the ship's artificial gravity, because she's outside of the ship. The bombs from the bomber in the other scene were still accelerating though, after they left the bomb bay of the bomber...because...? IDK, maybe it's just the limitations of special effects....but then, one thing that still bothers me, is how Leia can open the door that goes directly between the destroyed bridge and the rest of the ship (without an airlock) with a bunch of folks standing not-so-far-away and it didn't cause a blast from decompression that sucked her and the other people nearby straight out back into space. And if there's no vacuum in this universe, then why'd she get sucked out of the ship moments earlier? It's still just plain inconsistent.

I'm not at all alone in my assessment that there are plot holes. I honestly posted my complaints before I read any reviews or watched any youtube critiques of the film, but afterward, I did do both, and there are tons and tons of people with exactly the same gripes as me, and more gripes. The plot is a mess. That's the general consensus. The character of Luke is generally regarded as a mess as well. Really, outside of horrible plot framework, I thought the action was excellent and that the new characters were pretty cool (although a lot of people hated Rose), so I still enjoyed the movie, but I do recognize a lot of problems with it. After watching it, reflecting on it, seeing other reviews that almost all agree with my assessment here, and looking into some things that bothered me a little, I really do think this is going to kind of be the Halloween 3 of the film series, in that it was overall a good movie but just didn't really live up to all of the hype around the franchise in general and was highly inconsistent with the other films. The thing is that a film in an anthology that took a weird turn almost always spells the end of a franchise.

Was it a better movie than, say Ep I? I think so. But even if it was a better standalone film, I think it ripples a lot more in the Star Wars universe to kind of mess things up. Ep I portrayed Yoda and Obi-Wan pretty consistently as younger versions of who they were in the OT. Most of the other characters were new, or, in the case of Anakin, old characters who were obviously completely different back then, as their character arcs were obviously not yet begun. If Anakin had been portrayed in a way that made it impossible to imagine him growing up to become the #1 or #2 bad-guy-character in film, then there would have been a problem. In Ep VIII, Luke is portrayed in a way that I can accept on its own, but which causes me a great deal of confusion when referencing whence he came in Ep VI. I give a pass because we don't really know what happened to him in between, but it still seems like a weird overall character arc, and therefore, probably, the story of how he got where he is would be more interesting than the story I'm watching at the time. I felt the same way about Ep I - the whole time I was watching it, I was just thinking constantly how it did not seem like the most interesting story they could tell. I think having Ep I be what Ep II ended up being, with some flashbacks to how Obi-Wan and Anakin met in a couple of early scenes, would have been a much more interesting story than a bunch of intergalactic trade policies and a time-wasting Gungan subplot, then an awesome battle with an interestingly mysterious bad-guy character who ultimately gets the throw-away treatment. A lot of this parallels with Ep VIII - especially the irrelevant side plot that seems to take up a third of the run time and ends up being essentially useless, and the big baddie being literally cut out of the rest of the story before we get to find out a damn thing.

 

[wankerness]

It's almost like A New Hope won an Oscar for editing because it wasn't a good film before editing out all the crap that made it too long and didn't add anything.

What's your point? That TLJ is as bad as the unreleased version of ANH that everyone acknowledges was bad?

It's almost like A New Hope won an Oscar for editing because it wasn't a good film before editing out all the crap that made it too long and didn't add anything.

What's your point? That TLJ is as bad as the unreleased version of ANH that everyone acknowledges was bad?

Where does an unreleased version come into this? He hated the finished movies! That famous story about him telling the little obsessed kid to never watch it again is kind of funny (poor kid, though).

 

[StevenC]

Where does an unreleased version come into this? He hated the finished movies! That famous story about him telling the little obsessed kid to never watch it again is kind of funny (poor kid, though).

When you talk about the quality of the film in 1976.

 

[wankerness]

How is this confusing?

1. I disagree in that I've never seen anyone walking around inside of any of the short-range fighters/bombers in any of the other movies. Especially when you look into the books like the one I cited, which state that the artificial gravity is only supposed to hold the pilot into his or her seat or hold gunners or bombadiers into their turret positions. Assume the book is wrong, and you're back to square one, except for the part where it seemed weird enough in the first place that I had to go look it up in a book.
2. If the gravity inside of the ship pushes everything downward why wouldn't it work on bombs? It's be exactly the same concept as a motor. If the gravity "turns off" after the bombs leave the ship, they won't simply stop moving, since they are already in motion. If there is some law of physics in the film that says that they would, then the motor wouldn't do squat anyway, since the motor would only push the bombs out then no longer be connected the the bombs. If you watch the motion of the bombs, though, they appear to accelerate as if being dropped on Earth, so neither explanation makes consistent sense. I have no problem with there being different laws of motion or whatever in a film, but I only ask that whatever the laws of this fictional universe be, that they be consistent from one scene to the next.
3. So, let me get this straight. Leia is unaffected by the ship's artificial gravity, because she's outside of the ship. The bombs from the bomber in the other scene were still accelerating though, after they left the bomb bay of the bomber...because...? IDK, maybe it's just the limitations of special effects....but then, one thing that still bothers me, is how Leia can open the door that goes directly between the destroyed bridge and the rest of the ship (without an airlock) with a bunch of folks standing not-so-far-away and it didn't cause a blast from decompression that sucked her and the other people nearby straight out back into space. And if there's no vacuum in this universe, then why'd she get sucked out of the ship moments earlier? It's still just plain inconsistent.

I'm not at all alone in my assessment that there are plot holes. I honestly posted my complaints before I read any reviews or watched any youtube critiques of the film, but afterward, I did do both, and there are tons and tons of people with exactly the same gripes as me, and more gripes. The plot is a mess. That's the general consensus. The character of Luke is generally regarded as a mess as well. Really, outside of horrible plot framework, I thought the action was excellent and that the new characters were pretty cool (although a lot of people hated Rose), so I still enjoyed the movie, but I do recognize a lot of problems with it. After watching it, reflecting on it, seeing other reviews that almost all agree with my assessment here, and looking into some things that bothered me a little, I really do think this is going to kind of be the Halloween 3 of the film series, in that it was overall a good movie but just didn't really live up to all of the hype around the franchise in general and was highly inconsistent with the other films. The thing is that a film in an anthology that took a weird turn almost always spells the end of a franchise.

Was it a better movie than, say Ep I? I think so. But even if it was a better standalone film, I think it ripples a lot more in the Star Wars universe to kind of mess things up. Ep I portrayed Yoda and Obi-Wan pretty consistently as younger versions of who they were in the OT. Most of the other characters were new, or, in the case of Anakin, old characters who were obviously completely different back then, as their character arcs were obviously not yet begun. If Anakin had been portrayed in a way that made it impossible to imagine him growing up to become the #1 or #2 bad-guy-character in film, then there would have been a problem. In Ep VIII, Luke is portrayed in a way that I can accept on its own, but which causes me a great deal of confusion when referencing whence he came in Ep VI. I give a pass because we don't really know what happened to him in between, but it still seems like a weird overall character arc, and therefore, probably, the story of how he got where he is would be more interesting than the story I'm watching at the time. I felt the same way about Ep I - the whole time I was watching it, I was just thinking constantly how it did not seem like the most interesting story they could tell. I think having Ep I be what Ep II ended up being, with some flashbacks to how Obi-Wan and Anakin met in a couple of early scenes, would have been a much more interesting story than a bunch of intergalactic trade policies and a time-wasting Gungan subplot, then an awesome battle with an interestingly mysterious bad-guy character who ultimately gets the throw-away treatment. A lot of this parallels with Ep VIII - especially the irrelevant side plot that seems to take up a third of the run time and ends up being essentially useless, and the big baddie being literally cut out of the rest of the story before we get to find out a damn thing.

1. I...dunno on this one. Did anyone ever drop a wrench or something inside? Probably not if the nerd resources don't have any info. I just assumed they functioned like all the bigger ships since why not.
2. I am not a physicist! If they were pulled towards the floor of this bomber, and there WASN'T a floor, I have no clue what would happen. I'm not a physicist, and likely neither was anyone who worked on that section. Maybe the motors were necessary to make stuff go straight down, maybe they weren't. If you're nitpicking this hard about such an irrelevant detail, then clearly you just hated the scene so much that that was where your mind was going, so that's a dramatic failure on the part of the movie. Either way, though, this reminds me of MST3K's theme song.
3. Leia was unaffected because she wasn't propelled out of the ship via motor? HELL IF I KNOW. It's a movie. None of it made me question anything. It all seemed like regular movie physics to me. I think this kind of crap happened in Star Trek movies. Maybe it didn't. Seemed consistent to me. The airlock thing is the only WTF there, Ill give you that one, though we've never seen how they work in any Star Wars movies as far as I know, so maybe they don't work how they do in the Alien movies and thus don't need all this depressurization cycling with a central chamber, etc. Who knows! It's a dumb fantasy.

Halloween 3 is one of the most entertaining stupid movies of all time. I don't know if this one lives up!

 

[bostjan]

Haha, it's definitely a nitpick. Like I said though, there were a lot of these little nitpicks for me. Nothing really like stood out that much during the scene, you know, but they were enough that I noticed them, and, after more than a dozen things like this got noticed, they just started to get annoying. It's like when you notice a camera or microphone in a shot during a movie - the first time, you might smirk a little, the second time you notice it, you might giggle, but if you notice it happening a lot, you'll start getting annoyed, thinking to yourself "damn, they could afford to hire a guy to check stuff like this?!" and if the movie is honestly really good, who the hell cares? But if the movie starts to drag or something, then the shoddy little stuff starts getting annoying.

For me, TLJ seemed to mostly have these little annoying things early on and then again toward the end, mostly, during the parts where the movie was super entertaining, so it should be easy to ignore them and move on, but that middle part of the movie, blech, between the casino planet and the OJ-style super-slow chase battle and the stupid mutiny stuff, for what felt like an hour of the movie, I was just hopelessly waiting for things to start moving again.

To anyone who loved this movie: cool, glad you enjoyed it. To anyone wondering why I'm hot and cold about it, I think I made my case for explaining why I feel that way. To anyone who hated it: sorry about that... it must suck to have a story you loved for years or more get turned on its head this sort of way.

 

[synrgy]

What's your point? That TLJ is as bad as the unreleased version of ANH that everyone acknowledges was bad?

My purpose was irrespective of TLJ. TLJ had nothing to do with it, as I attempted to qualify in my preface ("only semi-related...").

Points =

• Lucas's dialog was always shit
• They were still changing the original film as they were filming it (in counter to your prior claim that Lucas had 9 episodes all detailed out from the outset)
• The originals weren't nearly as good as our nostalgia gives them credit for.

 

[StevenC]

My purpose was irrespective of TLJ. TLJ had nothing to do with it, as I attempted to qualify in my preface ("only semi-related...").

Points =

• Lucas's dialog was always shit
• They were still changing the original film as they were filming it (in counter to your prior claim that Lucas had 9 episodes all detailed out from the outset)
• The originals weren't nearly as good as our nostalgia gives them credit for.

I mean, if you want to talk about ANH in a vacuum maybe a TLJ thread isn't the place for it.

Counterpoints:

• No one's defending Lucas's dialogue.
• Making changes as you go doesn't preclude having an overarching plan. I didn't say he had 9 films written out from the beginning, but that he had plans for a 9 film saga.
• Again, in a TLJ thread, the only purpose of degrading the original films is to try and lift this one up. Even on its own this is a bad film. Also, ESB is exactly as good as it gets credit for and I haven't claimed ANH to be some untouchable masterpiece, because I don't think it is. In fact I'll go on record as saying ANH is a flawed, but good film that's much better for the existence of ESB.

 

[synrgy]

I get the impression that you might think my posts are entirely directed at you. Some parts are, but most aren't. I bring up flaws in the original trilogy in response to a general, common thread I'm seeing over the 'Net, especially in Disqus comments after related GeekTyrant articles: "The new films don't respect (or aren't as good as, etc) the original trilogy" aka 'they're raping my childhood' or 'they destroyed Luke's character', etc. (To be clear, I know this is not your position, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.)

My stance is similar to yours: That the originals are flawed, but still good, though not necessarily great. I'm just speaking to a general sense I get that 'we' hold the original trilogy up as an impossible standard which even they - if viewed objectively - fail to live up to.

 

[StevenC]

Yeah, that last bit came out more defensive than I meant.

But a large part of making a sequel is acknowledging what came before it. There's a line you have to tread, when making a good sequel, of not being too like the other films and not being to different. Like, all Rogue One had to do was show some Storm Troopers and Death Stars, and not mess up the canon or chronology to much to be an acceptable Star Wars film. As a direct sequel, TFA and TLJ it has to continue the story and make logical decisions with the characters we've already met.

 

[KnightBrolaire]

https://www.gamespot.com/articles/d...471&utm_medium=trueAnthem&utm_source=facebook
so apparently Johnson said that Abrams might retcon the decision to make Rey's parents nobodies. He also says that Kylo saying her parents were nobodies could have been misdirection. I am kind of curious if Abrams will embrace making her parents irrelevant, or if he's going to make em one of the skywalkers or something.

 

[synrgy]

I try to be vague enough to avoid 'spoiler' tags, here, but if anyone feels I cross a line, I'll go back and edit. Just lemme know..

I can only guess:

I think Abrams might have had something in mind when he set up 7, but necessarily gave up 'ownership' of the outcome when he declined to do 8. I also think Johnson consciously/smartly left it open (enough) for whoever made 9: He's right, in that Kylo was well motivated to lie to her in that moment for any number of reasons that all serve the story and moment: Kylo recognizes it's his only shot to turn her, so he tries to use her largest vulnerability point to weaken her resolve. That was my interpretation before Johnson said it in interviews, anyway.

I guess what I mean is, since Johnson left it 'open' (enough), and JJ is a lock for 9 -- and already had a story ready (and approved by Disney) within days of TLJ's release, I'm guessing that JJ's original plan (whatever it was) will still be in effect. 8 only needed to (and did) hold up a few 'bullet points' (Rey's Force usage grows/improves, Finn and Poe each survive new experiences) for JJ's setup to remain effectively intact.

Unfortunately, because it was such a huge part of 7, the issue of Rey's parentage will remain clutch for me in how well 7 will hold-up, retroactively. Presuming we get more than what 8 gave us, I'll remain a fan of 7. If JJ sticks to Kylo's account as factual, that's gonna sour me on 7 quite a bit.

 

[bostjan]

I get the impression that you might think my posts are entirely directed at you. Some parts are, but most aren't. I bring up flaws in the original trilogy in response to a general, common thread I'm seeing over the 'Net, especially in Disqus comments after related GeekTyrant articles: "The new films don't respect (or aren't as good as, etc) the original trilogy" aka 'they're raping my childhood' or 'they destroyed Luke's character', etc. (To be clear, I know this is not your position, and I'm not trying to suggest otherwise.)

My stance is similar to yours: That the originals are flawed, but still good, though not necessarily great. I'm just speaking to a general sense I get that 'we' hold the original trilogy up as an impossible standard which even they - if viewed objectively - fail to live up to.

Not respecting the source material of an adaptation or a sequel, though, is an entirely different issue than being better or worse than the source material.

I love the Lord of the Rings novels, and I really enjoyed the films, because they seemed to be good films, and because they were surprisingly true to the tone of the novels, despite the fact that films rarely if ever are. I think Game of Thrones is a counter example where the show is only sort of true to the source material, but, in many ways, better than the source material, but it still does a swell job representing the characters. Then there were messes like Dexter, that started out with a very dense nihilistic tone and mood with dark complex characters and then the show later on took the characters, tone, and the mood of the show into a totally different direction, and it ended up coming off as a horrible decision.

A lot of SW fans seem to be very upset about the tone and the direction they took the characters in TLJ. That doesn't mean that the OT films were better made, it just means that those fans had their expectations for the series torn apart. I think messing with people's expectations is a cool move, but I noted that the payoff of this was kind of, well, anti-climactic, so I could see why many viewers thought it wasn't great.

Ultimately, how good a film is really just depends on whether people liked it or not. TLJ has a lower IMDB user rating than any of the OT films, and also much lower than TFA. That means people didn't like it as much as those other films. I suppose you can argue why it was better than those or whatever, but it's not going to be an easy argument with that in mind. Add in the fact that most IMDB user scores start out high and then stabilize at a lower number once the film drops out of theaters for a little while. I'll go ahead and predict that this one will stay well above Ep I (TPM) and well below Ep VI (RotJ), though.

 

[synrgy]

The thing about audience scores is that they're inherently flawed: They represent only those who volunteered to share an opinion. Having worked in many variations of 'service' over most of my 20-ish year career, I've learned that pleased customers are silent customers; one generally only hears from customers that have complaints. Sure, we see the occasional 'great job' note, but there's like one of those per every ten thousand 'I'm entitled to special attention, damn it!'

 

[bostjan]

The thing about audience scores is that they're inherently flawed: They represent only those who volunteered to share an opinion. Having worked in many variations of 'service' over most of my 20-ish year career, I've learned that pleased customers are silent customers; one generally only hears from customers that have complaints. Sure, we see the occasional 'great job' note, but there's like one of those per every ten thousand 'I'm entitled to special attention, damn it!'

You have three types of reviewers: A) I LOVE THIS I HAVE TO REVIEW IT!!! B) I HATE THIS I HAVE TO REVIEW IT!!!! and C) I want to provide an honest review of this. Whereas with services and products, you get an overwhelming majority of A and B and very little of C, with media, that's just not really the case. If people are talking about a media thing, such as a book, film, television show, or band, then people want to talk about it. With a film, the first 100 days or so are going to be dominated by A, so we will see, but to write off IMDB ratings as a measure of how much people like a film, categorically?

What would you propose instead of IMDB ratings, my opinion, or your opinion, as a gauge for public opinion of the film?