Do you folks really think Disney is paying off reviewers, or is it a meme? How much do you think each reviewer is paid...

Do you folks really think Disney is paying off reviewers, or is it a meme? How much do you think each reviewer is paid? At what point will one of the critics in this sinister canal come forward?

Personally I think it’s more cultural. The complaints fans are levying at Star Wars aren’t the sort of thing that would bother a film critic. For instance:

1. The hyperdrive being weaponised: film studies (the course most film critics have done) does not teach you to be concerned about this kind of internal logic. In fact, melodramas like those by Douglas Sirk, that often have shakey plots, are lionised within the academy due to their emphasis on style.

A critic wouldn’t see the problem with this kind of lore breaking moment. They’d see it as a dramatic moment with an interesting visual. In fact, a film critic is more likely to mock fans for caring about this sort of in universes lore. The same goes for Snoke.

2. Marvel style quips: Film critics see enough art films and prestige dramas each year that I don’t think they expect or want too much seriousness from genre films. I admit, I do find a lack of criticism of this element in TLJ odd, because frankly most of the jokes were just unfunny. But I don’t think it’s the kind of thing that would register that much for non Sup Forums folks, wherein it’s become a bit of a meme

Other urls found in this thread:

arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/disney-abandons-la-times-blacklist-after-backlash-from-film-critics/
twitter.com/AnonBabble

3. Luke: this is the biggest and most obvious point of derparture between film critics and general audiences. If you’re a massive fan of the original trilogy I could see how you’d see Luke’s change of character as an attack. But to film critic folk, why would it even register? It just comes across as a slightly darker, world weary version of Luke to subvert audience expectations. I’m not saying the fans are wrong to be upset, it’s just not the sort of thing that would concern most film studies people.

I’m not saying there’s nothing shady going on here. As Disney becomes more of a media conglomerate there is more danger of critics not wanting to piss off the centralised media empire, and I do think that’s at least partially what’s going on. But I also think this is more organic than a sinister conspiracy. I think there’s a structural difference here in the way film critics and fans view these films.

>How much do you think each reviewer is paid?

an annual pass for the disney theme parks. no free parking though.

So you're saying that critics wouldn't point out the useless filler? Because most of the reviews haven't addressed Finn and Rose's story at all. You don't think critics would notice the gaping plotholes used to keep the movie going, like the silence on the plan? You don't think critics would notice the lack of development in abilities of Rey, which had her going right to being as skilled as Kylo without any training?

So what you're saying is, you don't think critics care about tonal shifts, plot, character development, or pretty much anything but visuals? Well then, they're just shit at their job, aren't they? I admit that's believable.

>How much do you think each reviewer is paid?
One advanced screening so they could get the word out faster, get more clicks, and continue their livelyhood of talking about movies for a living.

Cost-next to fucking nothing.

Many Critics these days are less concerned with having an opinion than having the right one, this is the MTV.com, the Mary Sue, nerdist type critics. They focus on what's trending than having anything of value to say. Critics seemed to be a lot harsher on movies (in a general sense) then (pre 2010s) than now, I mean, look at shit like jurassic world and ghostbusters 2016

Oh they love killing Luke because they get to say how that director/writer did something no one else could do, so "brave and powerful." Just a big hollywood circle jerk.

Critics want to be invited to premieres by Disney. If critics write bad reviews, they won't be invited by Disney anymore. Disney are literally using fear to get good reviews.

Pretty much every review I’ve read did point out some issue with that sub plot, at the very least calling it the weakest element in the movie.


>>So what you're saying is, you don't think critics care about tonal shifts, plot, character development, or pretty much anything but visuals? Well then, they're just shit at their job, aren't they? I admit that's believable.

That is what I’m saying and it’s not hard to understand why if you look at most film studies courses.

Film studies has moved away from analysing the aesthetic values of cinema, and toward only understanding it on a political level. I’ll give you an example. Senses of Cinema is one of the premiere film studies magazines, and it now has a podcast. On the podcast they “review” bladerunner 2049. They give it a negative assessment, but they never discuss the plot line, set design or music. They essentially just criticise its representation of female characters. These people haven’t been taught to understand film aesthetically, only criticise it politically.

But furthermore, I found among film studies folk that plot consistency was rejected, seen as regressive, and that the only thing privileged was visual style. That’s really the only kind of formalism I ever saw championed.

>>One advanced screening so they could get the word out faster, get more clicks, and continue their livelyhood of talking about movies for a living.

Warner bros films also give out advanced screenings

The sad thing is they don't need to. They've already brainwashed the masses into exclusively consuming their brand of shit, and anyone that goes against the narrative will be instantly lynched by the mob.

>paying off reviewers
Disney doesn't need to. You see, the most effective and longest last way to destroy a society is to demoralize it. We see this in the Cold War, with KGB employed manipulators. Once they planted the seeds, the very nature of man would carry away the subversion.

Such is with Disney and Star Wars. The power of the brand is shown in Star Wars. If awful turds like the Prequels and Yuushan Vong did not kill the brand, then Disney can literally make anything and get some money out of it. Moreover, Disney also realized that the critics like certain things and values, so they shove as much of that as possible.

Star Wars was indeed epicenter of modern sci-fi and the hero archetype. Disney doesn't pay off critics, because it gives the critics what they want. The critics were demoralized, and like attracts like. They want more demoralization, more deconstructuion, more subversion. Critics will not bring up flaws in their works, because in their eyes, it is flawless.

Critics rightfully ripped BvS to shit for making no sense and horrible writing though.

Then again, Prometheus did quite well with critics, so who the fuck knows. If there’s anything I can take away from TLJ it’s not to listen to them.

Yup, this guy gets it

I think a lot of reviewers simply are "intellectuals" who don't really care about Star Wars, especially any of the lore beyond the movies.

Most of the problems people see in TLJ are consistency issues with the other movies, so professional critics would most likely just overlook them or not care.

This movie also had some half-assed meta commentary thrown in and critics love that shit because they can use it make themselves look smarter.

it isn't necessarily a cash payment. it's quid pro quo
tickets to EXCLUSIVE premiers, free merch, dinner and limo, etc

It comes down to multiple factors:

1. The critics these days are usually SJW millenial cucks who have grown upon nerd culture and respond fanatically to fan service. More fan service shit = better reviews. It's not so much about storytelling, character development and substance, but rather the artificial emotions they feel.

2. They wanted to be invited back to the premieres. Period. Bad mouthing Disney= punishment.

3. If they bad mouth a film for their newspaper/social media site, and almost everyone else loves it, the editorial board/management will look down upon them as "you're not obviously getting it, and/or this will drive our betacuck numale site visitors away."

4. Nostalgia. It's all nostalgia, and lying to one self that it's good to live up to it.

5. Disney gives away "cool shit" to reviewers, as a means of bribing, so yeah, they are "technically paid off." A bad review will cut this off.

6. SJW shit. The more "progressive" the more "feminist" the more "diverse" the more points it gets. Period. A film that does this is seen as "groundbreaking" in contrast to all the other "white male dominant films".

7. The truth is that these films are good. Now you don't understand what I mean, but I will tell you. They are VERY formulaic. They have perfected the "formula" for every "good" movie out there with their focus group testing, and so when these movies come out with their marvel quips, heroes defeating the bad guys, the cliffhanger, etc; all that cliche shit, it "feels" (artificially mind you) like it's a good movie because it's been made with a perfected formula. But it isn't good, it's manufactured sterile made by committee going by a checklist trash.

All these factors go into why the reviews for these Disney Star Wars movies and other capeshit movies are why they get such high ratings.

If pay off you mean premo merc wine and dining and exclusives then yes.

Yeah but BvS had a lot of things the film crit crowd would hate: victimisation of women, humourlessness, the performances. Also I think the religiosity and self seriousness of its visuals would not work on them. Literally everyone in my film department hated on BVS, but the folk I know who saw TLJ at least liked it

>Do you folks really think Disney is paying off reviewers, or is it a meme? How much do you think each reviewer is paid? At what point will one of the critics in this sinister canal come forward?

We know corporations pay off reviewers in all media.

It's twofold;
Carrot: is actual gifts of free shit, free paid holidays, free shit, monetary incentive.
Stick: lose access, lose pre-screenings, lose interviews, lose sources, get fired.

This is how the pharma lobby treats doctors, it's how the vidya industry treats game journos, it's how it works everywhere. Most often you can't simply hand over a bunch of cash (but that also happens), but rather you treat them lavishly, give them special dinners, events, swag bags, BTS access, early screenings. And all these perks makes the journo "positive" about the company.

It really isn't hard to be a paid shill.

The idea that they send critics checks is stupid.

1. Critics fear backlash from overzealous fans, emotions run high, people are not sane when it comes to how much they love the Star Wars fandoms.

2. What's not stupid is the idea of being blacklisted by the single most powerful media empire in America.

A few years ago if you had said there was collusion between numerous almost exclusively Jewish producers and media outlets to keep the open casting couch exploitation silent you would have been called an anti-semitic poltard, yet here we are.

You honestly don't think a media empire doesn't expertly spin stories to manipulate the public.

Reminder that the Joss Whedon story about him cheating on his wife broke as soon as he left DC.

Leaked Trumped tapes within weeks of the election.

>Warner bros films also give out advanced screenings

Warner Bros also had a review embargo for Justice League up to the release, while TLJ had no such embargo. Meaning one side of them let them get that sweet revenue from people looking for advanced word, the other did not.

Disney is well aware that this is very good for business.

>than having the right one

Absolutely. You also have to consider the role of social media.

Think about this. The way social media works is by building communities founded upon keeping some people 'in' and some 'out'. You don't have to look far to see how partisan politics work on Twitter.

So an industry full of urban 20-40 something college-educated liberal arts majors is going to find a lot of common ground. They are going to be a tight community, and we're going to see that reflected in criticism. That's what RT has done : it's aggregated the opinions of a very particular demographic and made that powerful enough to make or break a film 4 days before release, and no-one tends to think of it that way.

How do I get in on this action?

>Do you folks really think Disney is paying off reviewers,
YES

But that review embargo was a response to th critical lambasting of almost every previous DC film

>>So an industry full of urban 20-40 something college-educated liberal arts majors is going to find a lot of common ground. They are going to be a tight community, and we're going to see that reflected in criticism. That's what RT has done : it's aggregated the opinions of a very particular demographic and made that powerful enough to make or break a film 4 days before release, and no-one tends to think of it that way

Yup exactly. I’m not saying there is no pressure being exerted by Disney for good reviews, but this element of th culture of reviewers leading to homogenised opinions (somewhat out of step with fan response) seems equally significant

Simple give us a good review or you don't get an "exclusive" interview with one of the films stars or invited to advanced screening events so your shitty blogs gets all those internet bucks by being first out the gate.

It something to be said as well, critics are simply useful idiots in this situation. Critics will say one movie is good because X, Y and Z. But then will not apply the same standards to another movie because it doesn't agree with their subverted expectations. Look at the critiques, the specific language used by critics. It is often flowery and excessively showy. Instead of competent wordsmith, it as if the critic skimmed a thesaurus for words. Notice how critics will often just talk about the story or superficial mechanics, never bringing up editing. They may talk about the story, but they do not go into detail the framing of the scenes themselves.

You may see lauding over special effects, but no talk about WHY they're so good. Nothing about how the visuals were created unless there was a gimmick (like Kubo) that the movie was known for. Just superficial and shallow meanderings.

Notice as well, that every critic goes with numbers. Stars and points instead of having a clearly established position. The audience does not want the reasoning as to why, they want the numbers to know if it's good. Yelp proves that the average person cares more about numbers than words.

Disney does not need to pay for reviewers, they already did with the message and quality of the movie. "Ignore the old, let it burn. Only live in the now and fuck the consequences" A most dangerous philosophy to have, one that the critics love. No past, no land, no blood, no hope, no future.

Pretty much nobody in America gets paid off in the suitcase full of hundred dollar bills way. It's more of a soft bribery, giving people access to exclusive social groups and intangible assets is much, much more effective than giving them money. Most people feel bad about being bribed, but nobody feels bad about having a friend who is "kind of a big deal" at Disney.

Thank heavens there is one guy we can always trust to tell the TRUTH.

It really shouldn't surprise people that a bunch of millennial manchildren who went straight from collage to blog posting would all form similar opinions.

Just have enough of a social media to be called "influencer", they'll start sending you free shit. If they see you talking up their product they will send more free shit.

"It's not a bribe ;)"

>the problem lies with liberal academics teaching progressive politics to the new generation

so, basically, Sup Forums was right again

But it's taken for granted. People say "Critics don't have biases!" Well, they theoretically shouldn't but if you think of them as a kind of 'bloc' - through a prism of their demographics, their politics etc - you're probably going to find some commonalities.

Tbf, I don’t think that many would argue that a critic is unbiased. All criticism is biased, and anyone claiming to be an objective spectator is a true idiot

I agree. Do people that hate this movie believe that those of us who liked the movie ... are... lying???? Like, I'm not getting paid. I quite liked the movie. Don't go see it if you don't want to. OR do go see it, but get a movie pass or fucking pirate it. Fucking pirate it. I don't know how to make it clear that I'm not getting paid, and I liked it. If you liked it - SHILL!!! Nah. Fuck that. I liked it.

Now, that being said... all this talk of shills lately has made me wonder... how can you BECOME a paid shill? Because I would gladly fucking do it. DESU it sounds like a sweet gig.

Are they paid? Probably not (maybe a few). The question is; Are they influenced? I think they are. Look at what Disney has done to media companies who give negative reviews of their material. They don't treat them well - and now with Disney potentially having 40% of Hollywood production, reviewers are going to be lenient on their movies.

I think reviewers, for the most part, WANT the movies to be good purely and solely so they can avoid any contention or conflict. They will avoid issues; address them but kind of brush them aside saying "There are these issues BUT.."

My biggest issue, and I feel this should be for everyone, is the score they're giving. It's an average 8.1/10.

8/10 movies should be amazing. 10/10 never happens - 9/10 are masterpieces, 8/10 is really fucking good.

This is not a really fucking good movie. Yes, I can see people "enjoying" this film - but to say 80 percent is amazing, 20 percent is what people should be questioning.

5 is mediocre, 6 is above average, 7 is enjoyable with flaws. THAT's the big issue. The scores TLJ is getting do NOT correlate, objectively or subjectively to the end product. Objectively the movie could be seen as an enjoyable popcorn movie with superficial lures with drastic plot inconsistencies.

We've seen it happen time and time again the last few years - Brexit, the US Election ; we're even seeing it with The Last Jedi - where the RT score is being blamed on Russian spies or whatever because there's a huge, misunderstood gap between the plebs and the cultural elite, and the press scratches their collective noggins completely misreading and misunderstanding the phenomenon in question.

The Last Jedi's polarization falls not a little along the lines of this ongoing culture war.

kys

The Los Angeles times wrote an article detailing Disney's tax breaks in Anaheim. Shortly afterwards, their reporters were banned from screenings of Thor: Ragnarok.

They eventually reversed the ban, though, but it shows how much influence they have.

arstechnica.com/gaming/2017/11/disney-abandons-la-times-blacklist-after-backlash-from-film-critics/

From a stand alone film stand point i give a 7/10. In the larger frame work that is star wars it's a mess that breaks or ignores things established in previous films for the sake of doing it's own thing.

I don't care if a star wars film wants to do it's own thing, that's fine. But don't then try and fit it in with the rest of the main films while running counter to them.

Exactly. I like the lore as much as the next guy, but I can forgive the inconsistencies because TLJ told an excellent story where it mattered.

Why do leftists like sucking Corporate dick so much?
I mean Disney has already nutted and they keep sucking.

>Jewish movie
>Jewish press
Yes

That’s because BvS told it’s story incompetently. Say what you want about TLJ, but it told its story well.

...

I agree with your "bellcurved" model where higher ratings become exponentially harder to attain, but do the people that make ratings or follow them share that view? My gf is pretty normie and she refuses to go see anything under 70%. I have to work to convince her if it's under 80%. It's a grade inflation problem just like at school, once one or two good but not great movies get a 89% seal of approval, audiences start to associate that "meh" feeling they had after the movie with a high B+, and the bar is raised to an unreasonable place.

It doesn't help that the Russians actively sprinkle a little bit of cyber shenanigans into Western controversies to make it look like they're everywhere, and I believe the US election was somewhat different, but to an extent you're right. KGB trolls thrive in the morass of anonymous forum posts, dummy personalities with meme profile pics, and random trolls. They're essentially fighting an internet insurgency against a much larger Western cultural and economic force (measured in terms of relative internet-accessible population), and like any good insurgency, they survive by embedding themselves among a population of right wing people hostile to the equivalent of the "evil empire".

It was a nice hundred posts or so but I knew the soyboys would show up