Weaponizing the haters

I really do not think that there is much to merit from this guy...even though he did a ton of research most likely for his paper, I really do not think things like "bots" and all really meant much in the bigger scheme of things...now I am not saying that they were completely not there, (they probably were to a degree) but they couldnt have made such a drastic impact to brush off all of the criticism.

 

No one is saying brush off all the criticism.
And they clearly did have an impact as the study found.

Roughly 50% of the negative interactions directed at Rian Johnson were from bots or politically aimed accounts.
That's significant to understanding the level of criticism and what is and isn't fair criticism.

 

I must say that it definitely depends on the critic you're more fond of reading or listening to... I tend to follow the advice of those who have proven to have a taste similar to mine. Mark Kermode would be the film critic I trust the most. He's knowledgeable and values any sort of film. He's also very funny when he dislikes a movie, without ever being disrespectful.

 

And I’m glad you can relate to someone that is a movie critic.

Along with movie critics, music critics to me are also of no use to me. Being a huge Rush fan, critics have always given Rush bad reviews. From 1974 till the 2000’s. Especially in the 70’s the reviews were horrendous. But I still loved them. In fact their career lasted over 40 years and they are one of the most influential bands of all time. So critics aren’t always right. But they do have a role in society and in the arts. If you can relate to a critic/critics, good for you. There’s nothing wrong with that. Just like to me, there’s nothing wrong with not caring about what critics think.

--- Double Post Merged, Oct 22, 2018, Original Post Date: Oct 22, 2018 ---

The paper is about 29 pages. His research was only on the people who contacted RJ through Twitter about the movie tlj. It was just a snapshot of the larger issue. The paper has been peer reviewed, so the accuracy should be 99.9%.
Not all Star Wars fans use Twitter. And not all people who dislikeed the movie tried to express their displeasure directly at RJ. The headlines in the newspapers are misleading. The people that published this article in the numerous newspapers didn’t read the whole paper.

 

There is so much truth to this statement. As much as I love the OT and ST and liked the PT, it is definitely time for new stories. It is why I am looking forward to see what Benioff and Weiss are going to give us as well as Rian’s New trilogy. You are so right that people are so invested in the Skywalker saga that people’s expectations and wants are so varied that many are unhappy. New stories will give us a fresh start. As happy as I was for the ST bringing back are old heroes, I now wonder if it was a mistake as I view the current divide in the fan base. I wonder if things would be different if the old guard was never a part of the ST

 

I'm going to play devil advocate here, so I don't want to think my post is attacking you. I keep hearing we need new stories, something fresh, something different.....why don't you look for a new franchise that is original? Star Wars is Star Wars, as it's filled with Lightsabers, The Force, Spaceships, Aliens, and those elements will always be there past the Skywalker Saga. Can the D&B Trilogy have a lightsaber fight, as that isn't something new? Can it have a space battle, as that isn't something new? Can it have aliens, as the Skywalker Saga is populated with aliens? Can they goto a Desert planet, Ice Planet, Forrest Planet? My point is how new can something be in a GFFA without using those type of elements. And if D&B don't use those elements, then is it really SW?

I guess my point is that if you want something new, why aren't you gravitating to a new franchise instead of a 40 years old established franchise? I love The Terminator Franchise, but I moved on after Salvation as it comes to a point where it is what it is. The basics of Terminator are no different then the basics of Star Wars, as there is a certain formula that made it successful. I don't keep yearning for The Terminator Franchise to go in a bold/fresh direction, as I just moved on and looked for something new. I never saw Terminator Genysis cause it doesn't appeal to me anymore.

The reason I stay with SW is specifically cause it sticks with the formula, yet tries to be something different. Solo and Rogue One are perfect examples where they gave us some fresh/new characters, but it still ties into the OT story that we all grew up with and love. Guys like Lucas, Spielberg and Cameron must laugh at this generation of directors as none of them can come up with anything fresh as they are all building their resumes after someone elses work. Lucas created Star Wars, Cameron created The Terminator, Lucas/Spielberg created Indiana Jones, Zemeckis created Back to the Future. Thats honestly what we need in this era of blockbusters instead of worrying about totally redoing a 40 year old successful franchise.

 

I'll devil's advocate right back:
Star Wars was inherently new by it's blend of using old stories and methods but with a new paint job told in a way they hadn't been told in a long time.
For all their faults, the PT was about being new and different. It took risks in telling stories, it's just unfortunate most didn't pay off.

Denying new ideas or growth is antithetical to Star Wars. Star Wars has a core set of tropes and ideas but it still requires new stories to be told or else you end up with Star Trek and no one gives a blast about Star Trek except Trekkies. Maybe that's what people want. Star Wars strictly for those who pass a litmus test of what Star Wars is or should be. Otherwise GEEET OUT!

 

What exactly, dare I ask, made you believe that "new stories" means getting rid of "Lightsabers, The Force, Spaceships, Aliens"? Because, by defition, new Star Wars stories means all of that minus the Skywalkers. KOTOR was fresh and new, but still Star Wars.

 

My point was that all I keep hearing is something new, something original, etc. There are still going to be lightsaber fights, using the Force, Spaceship battles and Aliens, so how new and original is that really? Now if you saying you want a story without the Skywalkers from a totally different time period (as you mentioned KOTOR), then that is something different, but it is not original.

Now I would agree that setting a story in a different time period that doesn't contain any Skywalker blood is different, and is new (from a certain POV), but it's still the same basic elements they are using that has functioned through the franchise for 40 years? So essentially you just want the same thing, but with new characters and a new time period?

 

Seems like you are mixing up original setting and original story/characters. Setting is what makes something part of Star Wars and thus it has to be same. Characters and their stories - that's what has to be new.
Now, as for true originality. First of all, the story structures stopped being original sometime between Ancient Egypt and Ancient Greece. Star Wars setting and characters are barely truly original as well.

 

OK, now I get what you want as that is more helpful. I kept hearing original, original, new, new from so many fans and I honestly thought they wanted to do away with Lightsabers, The Force, and Spaceships, and that goes to my original point that it wouldn't feel like SW. You just want new characters and a different story (but everything else stays), which is totally fine with me.

In saying that, it is something I don't want because the OT still resonates with me and the expanding story is what keeps me interested (but we'll agree to disagree). It would be like doing a new set of Harry Potter movies without Harry Potter and the main cast. Yes, it's different, but those characters and that particular story is resonated with people. But I get what you are saying now.

 

In all fairness, the way I see it, it’s that this is another case where bias - from each side
of the spectrum - play a huge part.

To me, this study is as revolutionary as the discovery of hot water.
Which is a joke we use in my country to say, it didn’t discover anything new.

Why?

Because fortunately, rational people do not address not only hate...
but even a fair criticism directly to a movie director.
It’s... rough. Honestly.

They may complain on LF Facebook page.
To the company. On YouTube in the comments section of a video, on RT, wherever they want.
They may come in places like this forum.
Or they may not use internet at all.

That is not to say I don’t see the difference between a critique and
some nasty words that don’t add nothing worth to the debate even in those other platforms.

But it’s still a totally different situation.

Why do I have to tweet directly to RJ “I hate your movie” even tho I do hate it?
I don’t feel that need... because I am not a troll.

If I feel that need.. then I am a troll by definition without any need of a study to prove it
or of an international conspirancy to explain it.
Sad people exist.

As fans exist. People that engage directly famous people to say “ good job”
Well done. Congratulations.
Thank you for Reylo in our case.

In short... if you tweet directly to a famouse man/woman you’re most likely a fan or a troll.
Is the reasul 50%/50%? Sorry, but I can’t be surprised... if the sample are the tweets directly addressed to RJ.
Especially in this political climate.

Because let’s face it: I don’t see in the study any evidence but only a subjective assumption
that bots and russian bots played a part (is he a specialist in tracking where the incriminated
profiles originate? I don’t think so. Nor I think he has access to those data. Nor I think
real russian bots are so incopentent to leave tracks that may lead to their location/identification
given that nowadays any USA or European nerd/hacker and sw fan can hide his/her tacks easily)

But really... beside that... I think it’s preatty obvious that this movie has become something
that on one hand is defended with politcs to dismiss legit arguments, on the other criticized using arguments
that have to do with politics because for some weird reasons people who do that
believe that may validate even further their arguments.

That doesn’t tell anything about how much fans, or the GA liked it or disliked it.

It tells a lot about the political climate... in USA.

 

I feel like you didn't understand my post, so I'm very unsure why you would chose mine to reply of all of them.

 

You’re absolutely right. I actually agree quite a lot with that post.
I just took the wrong one... I’ll try to edit it.