Were "fan expectations" the problem?

I think more importantly this is RT admitting (again) that trolls play games with the site. Simply put online polls which do nothing to validate the people participating and validating they indeed have seen the film in question really are prone to manipulation. Check out twitter today over this change by RT and trolls are whining that their free speech is being take away. How this works is beyond me. Not being able critique a movie before they have even seen it is taking away their rights. That is sound logic. Of course plenty also blaming this on Disney and Disney going after RT.

 

I don't use Rotten Tomatoes, but from what I understand it's got a pretty binary review system- it's either positive or negative.

Wouldn't this go a long way to help disguising trolls? I mean, if someone wants to give a film a 1/10, it's pretty easy to see that they're incredibly biased against a film. But simply saying they don't like it, and having that be the negative rating they can give, seems reasonable enough.

 

Something I have always said is that it is rather easy to get trolls right now. Like or dislike TLJ it is clear it is not a 0/10 or 1/10 movie. Will even say that it isnt a 10/10 movie. Trolls dont give it a 5/10 score. They go for it and give it a 0 or 1 which brings down a legitimate score for a good movie much more then a shill as we are called giving it a 9 or 10 brings up the average. Dont remember what math or statt class it was I took but on method to get better results was to drop the highest and lowest scores.

 

To be fair.... Rotten Tomatoes is great for aggravating reviews from critics. I've never paid attention to the audience score. People go to the site to see what critics think. It's also worth nothing, that research confirms that critic reviews are almost always in line with audience reactions. There are some exceptions, but that's the reason people care what critics think.

 

I agree. I never pay attention to user scores in any kind of platform because it's filled with extremists who create accounts to either give 1/10 or 10/10 ratings to a movie they like/hate, hence why every superheroe and Star Wars movie start with nearly perfect scores on Imdb but drop drastically once the movie is released. I didn't like TLJ and I respect people who did, I personally give it a 5/10, but all those 1/10 or 10/10 ratings are insane, there's barely any middle ground when it comes to user reviews.

 

A great number of casual movie goers disliked the movie but they are not on forums arguing about it, they just tune out the franchise - as evidenced by Solo's abysmal numbers. Serious fans are just more likely to be more passionate about it. That's why Avengers is going to hit in the neighborhood of $2 billion and E9 won't even break $1 billion (worldwide numbers obviously)

 

To be fair, the RT thing wasn't a way to critique a film before the film is released. It was simply "are you interested in seeing 'X' film? Check yes or no." I don't think that in ANY way is critiquing it.

As for the "outrage" I don't have time for that stuff. I guess I would if I ever had my own YouTube channel, but I don't so... We live in the age of "outrage" where everyone (or seemingly everyone) takes to social media to post their point of view.

I never went there to see what critics think, but that's just me. I personally don't really care what the critics think about a film like a Star Wars film, or a Lord of the Rings film... you know, film sagas that I've either followed for a long time or read the book(s) over and over again. Critics might know film, but they don't know jack about the series, be the series Star Wars or some other one. When it comes to that sort of a film I might check what the audience thinks, but if I wanna see the film I'm going to see the film.

If the film, however, is I don't know, more of lets say an Oscar's award type of film, then I might check what the critics think, but I only do that after I see the film. If the Cohens, or Quentin Tarantino or Martin Scorsese release a film, I'm watching it no matter what the critics think. Perhaps I'm just different..

 

I don't think you're different, a lot of us are that way. I have liked films the critics have panned, and disliked films that they have lauded. And then there's been times where I and the critics are in unison. They are not a barometer (for me) on whether or not I'll like a film. You would hope the technical execution of a movie goes hand and hand with your ability to enjoy it, but it's just not always the case.

 

Sometimes things are reactionary. For example, I gave TLJ a single star (I guess 2 out of 10) when I reviewed it. I gave it the extra half available, because it was visually stunning, but otherwise found the film... well, people know I don't like it, enough said lol. Honestly, on a good day, I'd probably not give it more than a 3. Many will disagree, and that's fine, I have no issue with others liking it, even giving it a 10.

So, by that thinking, a common first reaction to seeing a stunning movie with good to great action sequences would be to give it a 10 out of the gate. I think for most people, that number drops over time, just like if you give a 1 it has no where to go but up. Generally speaking, when people go to RT, it's soon after the movie. So part of the movie has to do with initial reaction. There isn't much analysis. It's basically how did that movie make you feel after viewing it. It most often is not a well thought out analysis of every aspect of film making, story telling, acting, special effects ect... it's a culmination of all those and boils down to emotional reaction.

In that case, I stand by my 1 star (2 out of 10, or 20%) for TLJ. If it makes you feel any better, apparently anything under 2 star doesn't register on RT for purposes of overall rating. So though I put in my input, it didn't count to any final tally (unless that was implemented since TLJ).

 

There are currently 19 pages of reviews for Captain Marvel up that occurred before they made the change. You can read them. Lots and lots of them look like TLJ reviews. Those reviews get reflected in the score once they put the audience score up. Well at least they were in the past we will see if they change this practice as well.

 

We’ll see. I’m not completely convinced that Solo’s underperformance was due to the casual audience dislike of TLJ. Now if Episode IX underperforms, then I’ll be more on board with that idea.

 

I agree as I never understood the fascination with reviews of blockbuster/franchise films, cause it's all a matter of taste (simply because they are sequels/prequels). Heck, I don't think there has been a great SW film since 1980, but I still enjoy many of the films since. But in the same vein, I would understand that many SW fans would have checked out after 1977, or 1983, or 1999, or 2005, or 2015, 2017. My point is that it's tough to review a franchise film cause the masses and general filmgoer look at them differently.

Whereas an original movie that is released (Let's see The Best Picture winner Greenbook) can be reviewed in an objective way because it's new. I would be interested to hear what the critics said about that movie, but I could care less what they think about a SW movie. Maybe some critic just hates SW, so they will never give it a good review no matter what? Maybe the creator loves SW and they are being bias and they will let things slide that they wouldn't for another movie. I feel the same about Comedies as it's really all objective as what you see funny and I see funny maybe 2 different things.

--- Double Post Merged, Feb 27, 2019, Original Post Date: Feb 27, 2019 ---

I knew a few hardcore fans who skipped Solo because of TLJ (my brother, 2 co-workers, to name a few). All 3 of them finally saw it on Netflix and ended up really liking the movie and sort of regret missing it in the theater. I kept telling them last summer that TLJ (Saga) movie is different than Solo (Standalone) movie, and one shouldn't effect the other. If they feel that way than TLJ collateral damage should be with Episode 9 because that continues the narrative.

 

According to Pablo Hidalgo that's what Disney believes or at least their data crunchers believe. The casual movie goer goes to 4 films a year and Solo came out to mixed reviews against heavy competition. Most Star Wars fans went to see it, but the general audience just wasn't that interested.

 

Sorry, but you lost me at Pablo Hidalgo as he is a company man who is going to spin ANYTHING to suit the Lucasfilm narrative.

 

Give us another creditable report then?

 

The general audience wasn't interested in Solo because the general audience didn't like E8. Star Wars used to be the "heavy competition" that other film franchises avoided. Now Star Wars is the series that has to try and meekly find a release window which avoids even mediocre franchises like Deadpool.

Bingo.​

 

I That was true in late 90s to mid 2000s. SW lost that "heavy competition" when George pretty much made it clear that he has no interests on making any new movies after the PT. What great content for SW was out there for the GA to care about between 2005 and 2015? TCW? GA didn't watch that show. No one except for SWs fan cared about the 2 mediocre Force Unleash games.

I willing to venture that Marvel is the new biggest and baddest because person on the block now because Marvel filled the void that SW no longer had. Super hero movies were joke before 2008. The Nolan Trilogy help paved the way that super hero movies don't have to be campy. They can be dark and srious and still make great money. Look that Marvel did between 2008 - 2015. Before 2008 no one even knew who Iron Man was (unless you were into comics). Disney/Marvel took a B-List super hero and turned it into a juggernaut. Between 2008 - 2015 we had Iron Man, Captain America: Winter Solder, Avengers 1 & 2, Guardians of the Galaxy (just naming the heavy hitters of MCU). What did SW do between then? People lost interest of the series and by the time TFA and TLJ came around Marvel was already on equal footing with SW.

Yes SW was at one time the big bad wolf but now that's no longer the case, Marvel took its spot as much as it hurts me to say that. SW lost its steam. TFA was an once in a life time event, so no futue SW movies will make those numbers again. Also Pablo's statement is fairly true. People are going to the movies less than ever right now (there are tons of articles that support this). I personally would only go to the movies maybe 2 to 3 times a year before MoviePass and A-List came around. Solo flopped not because TLJ, it flopped people didn't even know about it due to the lack of marketing. Trust me If it wasn't for MoviePass (at the time), I personally would of only seen IW that year, not because I didn't like Solo or was diapointed in TLJ, I was more vested with Marvel than SW because they set up 10 years of hype and if I had to pick 1 movie to see in 2018 it would of been IW just because I don't have enough disposable income to see 10 movies a year, I rather spend that money on funner activities.

 

How can you say SW is still not the big bad wolf? R1 made a billion dollars from a bunch of no name characters? R1 made a billion dollar simply cause it was SW, not because of Jyn Erso or Cassian. TLJ made over a billion dollars too, as I never heard once from ANYONE before Solo that SW wasn't the big bad wolf of movie world.

We can debate why Solo flopped as there are many reasons, but it's not because SW is suddenly a second rate franchise. And I think we're using the word 'casual' fan loosely when it comes to SW because you are making it sound like they don't know much about the franchise and are just heading off to the movies on a Saturday night. There are diehards like us, then there a 'solid' fans of the franshise (who are not diehards, but they show up every movie) and THAN there are the casual fans. The diehards are a guaranteed 2,3,4+ times they will see it in the theater. The 'solid' fans show up atleast once (usually opening weekend or the 2nd weekend), and than the casual fans see it when word of mouth spreads like they did with TFA. TFA, TPM and ANH all made the most box office of the franchise simply because the casual fans showed up (because they were all event era movies), and that is why you can't just throw around casual meaning the diehards and everyone else.

The diehards didn't all show up for Solo, nor did many of them see it multiple times. The 'solid' fans definitely did not show up for Solo, and the casuals did not show up once the movie bombed. So that narrative of casuals only see 3-4 movies a year is BS when it comes to Solo, as they need to focus on why only a portion of diehards showed up, and why the solid fans didn't either.

 

This is absolutely 100% correct and it's amazing what Marvel did with their B-list of heroes. They sold off the rights to their A-list to other studios so they couldn't make Spider-Man or X-Men or Wolverine or Fantastic Four (hard to imagine there was a time when the FF was considered A-list). Instead they created a cinematic universe machine with heroes most casual fans had no familiarity with.

While Pablo's statement may be true, it is embarrassing how he is trying to act like that was the problem with Solo. He's acting like Solo's box office drop was consistent with the overall drop in theater ticket sales so it's no big deal. I wish that were the case. Solo came in 10th for the year in domestic box office. It couldn't even beat Ant-Man.... and I don't think people realize just how bad Solo did globally. I don't even think it was in the top-25. The Momma Mia sequel did better globally than Solo. I mean, that's downright humiliating. Yet we have people here trying to convince us that Solo's numbers were nothing more than fewer people going to the movies and some bad marketing.

Having said that, I don't think there are any problems that can't be fixed by making good saga movies. Speaking as a big Game of Thrones fan, I sure can't wait to see what the GoT showrunners do with Star Wars. I just think the problem is the people running LFL since Disney took over have been doing an atrocious job. They took the #1 brand in movies and last year struggled just to make the top 10.

 

This seems accurate to me. I recall on this very forum, on the run up to SOLO, that people who disliked TLJ said it was going to get hurt at the box office. People who liked TLJ said the opposite. I literally recall having the conversation about how I was surprised at the availability of tickets and good seats so close to opening, and people claimed repeatedly that it was selling tickets just fine. When I came back from seeing the movie and reporting that the theater was half empty, the counter was that it was "full" where they went.

When it became clear that SOLO was indeed going to bomb by the numbers, then came all of these arguments about why it didn't perform well which included every possible scenario EXCEPT that it was hurt by TLJ

• The audience didn't like the recasting
• This wasn't a story that anyone wanted
• Rumors of problems on set turned fans off
• Star Wars Fatigue
• Movie Competition