STAR WARS : Episode VIII December 15, 2017 4 4

[Chip Cataldo]

1 hour ago, NewWorldOrder said:

hahahahahha

That made my morning!

I loved seeing you guys freak out.

 

NO I have NOT seen the movie yet.

 

However I am really hoping for a Darth Vader force ghost!

 Something you said was correct, you know. 

[jsilverjanet]

[fantastic_four]

Does anyone know how the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes average rating scores differ?  I thought that both scores are theoretically calculated in a similar way--by taking a critic's score, converting it to a more standard scale of 10 points, and averaging all critic scores together--but I just realized they do differ significantly sometimes, as is evident in the scores below for all of the main Star Wars films:

• Episode IV - RT 8.6, Metacritic 92
• Episode V - RT 8.9, Metacritic 81
• Episode VI - RT 7.2, Metacritic 53
• Episode I - RT 6.0, Metacritic 51
• Episode II - RT 6.7, Metacritic 54
• Episode III - RT 7.3, Metacritic 68
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VIII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 86

 Just for comparison Metacritic's highest-rated superhero film is The Dark Knight and that only got an 82, so an 86 is an exceptionally high score for them to give to Last Jedi.  Looking at those scores, I agree more with the Rotten Tomatoes average rating because Empire Strikes Back is the best film and RT reflects that, whereas Metacritic has the original film as best by a wide margin of 11 points over Empire.  Having said that, there's certainly a case to be made that Episode IV broke such new ground that it's a more significant film overall, a fact reflected by the fact that it's the first sci-fi film to ever get nominated for an Oscar whereas Episode V wasn't nominated at all.  

Is the difference in how they compute the scores, or is the difference in the critics they choose to include in their scoring?  

Edited December 14, 2017 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

5 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Does anyone know how the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes average rating scores differ?  I thought that both scores are theoretically calculated in a similar way--by taking a critic's score, converting it to a more standard scale of 10 points, and averaging all critic scores together--but I just realized they do differ significantly sometimes, as is evident in the scores below for all of the main Star Wars films:

• Episode IV - RT 8.6, Metacritic 92
• Episode V - RT 8.9, Metacritic 81
• Episode VI - RT 7.2, Metacritic 53
• Episode I - RT 6.0, Metacritic 51
• Episode II - RT 6.7, Metacritic 54
• Episode III - RT 7.3, Metacritic 68
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VIII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 86

 Just for comparison Metacritic's highest-rated superhero film is The Dark Knight and that only got an 82, so an 86 is an exceptionally high score for them to give to Last Jedi.  Looking at those scores, I agree more with the Rotten Tomatoes average rating because Empire Strikes Back is the best film and RT reflects that, whereas Metacritic has the original film as best by a wide margin of 11 points over Empire.  Having said that, there's certainly a case to be made that Episode IV broke such new ground that it's a more significant film overall, a fact reflected by the fact that it's the first sci-fi film to ever get nominated for an Oscar whereas Episode V wasn't nominated at all.  

Is the difference in how they compute the scores, or is the difference in the critics they choose to include in their scoring?  

Little bit of both, but the main thing is likely number of critics.  Metacritic only uses about 40 reviewers which correspond closely with what RT terms top critics.  RT has a much loser guidelines for including critics and is why big wide release films will often get to 200 or more reviews that are part of their calculation.

 

The second part is the weighted number which is assigned for how positive or negative the review is slightly different .  For instance if someone gives a film 3 out of 4 stars one site will count this as an 8 where the other counts it as a 7.  Small differences, but they can add up when averaged.

Edited December 14, 2017 by drotto

[fantastic_four]

21 minutes ago, drotto said:

The second part is the weighted number which is assigned for how positive or negative the review is slightly different .  For instance if someone gives a film 3 out of 4 stars one site will count this as an 8 where the other counts it as a 7.  Small differences, but they can add up when averaged.

Are you sure Metacritic does that?  I would think they would translate a 3 out of 4 stars as a 75 score.  The fact that their point scale is 100 points suggests they do it to retain the precision you're saying they lose.  Similarly, I would think Rotten Tomatoes would translate that 3 out of 4 as a 7.5.  Where did you hear they round up or round down, and more importantly that they do it differently from each other with one going up and one going down?

Good info on the Metacritic score corresponding more closely to the Rotten Tomatoes top critics.  Using just the top critics average rating, here are the updated numbers for the Star Wars films.  They almost all get closer to the Metacritic scores when just looking at top critics, particularly Empire Strikes Back.

• Episode IV - RT 8.5, Metacritic 92
• Episode V - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VI - RT 7.2, Metacritic 53
• Episode I - RT 5.5, Metacritic 51
• Episode II - RT 6.2, Metacritic 54
• Episode III - RT 7.0, Metacritic 68
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VIII - RT 8.3, Metacritic 86

Edited December 14, 2017 by fantastic_four

[drotto]

9 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

Are you sure Metacritic does that?  I would think they would translate a 3 out of 4 stars as a 75 score.  The fact that their point scale is 100 points suggests they do it to retain the precision you're saying they lose.  Similarly, I would think Rotten Tomatoes would translate that 3 out of 4 as a 7.5.  Where did you hear they round up or round down, and more importantly that they do it differently from each other?

Good info on the Metacritic score corresponding more closely to the Rotten Tomatoes top critics.  Using just the top critics average rating, here are the updated numbers for the Star Wars films.  They almost all get closer to the Metacritic scores when just looking at top critics, particularly Empire Strikes Back.

• Episode IV - RT 8.5, Metacritic 92
• Episode V - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VI - RT 7.2, Metacritic 53
• Episode I - RT 5.5, Metacritic 51
• Episode II - RT 6.2, Metacritic 54
• Episode III - RT 7.0, Metacritic 68
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VIII - RT 8.3, Metacritic 86

It was somewhat of a guess on the rounding.  I suspect you are right about Metacritic since it uses a 100 point scale, but RT does only use a ten point scale, so if RT does not round it should account for much of the difference.  But like I said, thr biggest is the number of reviews and what reviews are included, especially since MC has much stricter criteria for inclusion.

Edited December 14, 2017 by drotto

[mar-vell]

7 hours ago, fantastic_four said:

Does anyone know how the Metacritic and Rotten Tomatoes average rating scores differ?  I thought that both scores are theoretically calculated in a similar way--by taking a critic's score, converting it to a more standard scale of 10 points, and averaging all critic scores together--but I just realized they do differ significantly sometimes, as is evident in the scores below for all of the main Star Wars films:

• Episode IV - RT 8.6, Metacritic 92
• Episode V - RT 8.9, Metacritic 81
• Episode VI - RT 7.2, Metacritic 53
• Episode I - RT 6.0, Metacritic 51
• Episode II - RT 6.7, Metacritic 54
• Episode III - RT 7.3, Metacritic 68
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 81
• Episode VIII - RT 8.2, Metacritic 86

 Just for comparison Metacritic's highest-rated superhero film is The Dark Knight and that only got an 82, so an 86 is an exceptionally high score for them to give to Last Jedi.  Looking at those scores, I agree more with the Rotten Tomatoes average rating because Empire Strikes Back is the best film and RT reflects that, whereas Metacritic has the original film as best by a wide margin of 11 points over Empire.  Having said that, there's certainly a case to be made that Episode IV broke such new ground that it's a more significant film overall, a fact reflected by the fact that it's the first sci-fi film to ever get nominated for an Oscar whereas Episode V wasn't nominated at all.  

Is the difference in how they compute the scores, or is the difference in the critics they choose to include in their scoring?  

While Empire is the greatest sequel of all time Star Wars truly was groundbreaking in a way that I feel is under appreciated today by many fans. I was 7 when I saw star wars i believe in early june just before the end of the first grade. I left earth that day and spent the next few years in a galaxy far far away. I saw Empire on opening day thanks to my dad being willing to go the extra mile to make it happen for me and my best friend(thanks dad!). Empire was a truly great movie with such a great beginning and end. Sadly believe it or not the greatest spoiler of all time was let loose by the local newsman on air a day or two before release, While I wasn't sure I believed that vader was luke's father that revelation lessened the shock when it came out in the theatre so the impact of that great moment was lessened for me! With that in mind I still think star wars is the greatest of the franchise and what Lucas went through to make it including almost giving himself a heart attack from the stress makes the story even greater in my evaluation.

[bane]

Anytime I want to watch Star Wars I just watch Family Guys Blue Harvest instead.

[Anfield Fox]

Star Wars: The Last Jedi. A very good movie sadly ruined by a handful of ridiculous decisions which left me feeling ambivalent. What were they thinking? At least it's an original story and not a rehash like The Force Awakens. I think casual film viewers will enjoy it much more than people like myself. Rogue One still the best of the Disney films.

Edited December 14, 2017 by Anfield Fox

[kdoginohio]

it wasn't Empire. nuff said.

[SkOw]

5 hours ago, Anfield Fox said:

Star Wars: The Last Jedi. A very good movie sadly ruined by a handful of ridiculous decisions which left me feeling ambivalent. What were they thinking? At least it's an original story and not a rehash like The Force Awakens. I think casual film viewers will enjoy it much more than people like myself. Rogue One still the best of the Disney films.

This.

I thought it was great.... with a few "but" statements tacked on....

Mark Hamill was absolutely amazing, as was Daisy Ridley.

[Rip]

26 minutes ago, SkOw said:

This.

I thought it was great.... with a few "but" statements tacked on....

Mark Hamill was absolutely amazing, as was Daisy Ridley.

A very good movie with two very questionable moves. It's much better than Force Awakens. I liked it better than Rogue One also. Mark Hamill was very good. For those worried about a remake of Empire, its nothing like it.

[Crimebuster]

Puzzled by those saying this is nothing like Empire. 

 

Spoiler

The major beats are very similar. 

 

It starts with a battle where the Rebellion has to escape from their secret base that's under attack. 

Rey goes to another world to get training from a Jedi master.

While she's doing that, her friends are chased by star destroyers and end up going to a seemingly neutral alien city to find help.

During her training, Rey is drawn into a strange cave where she confronts her dark side. 

The morally questionable rogue Finn recruits to help them ends up cutting a deal with the Empire and betraying them.

Rey breaks off her training to try and save her friends. 

The bad guy tells Rey who her true parents are, and then asks her to join him to rule the galaxy together. She refuses. 

The survivors fly away in the Millennium Falcon to regroup before the next movie. 

 

It's all there, just a little better disguised than in Force Awakens. And there's a whole giant battle sequence at the end that is new, and for me made the movie about 30 minutes too long. Otherwise, though... second rate Empire all the way.

 

Only other thing I will say is Luke was amazing. Blew everyone else off the screen. 

Edited December 15, 2017 by Crimebuster

[fantastic_four]

You shouldn't need to hide spoilers in tags starting today.  I'm signing off of this thread until after I see it tomorrow.

This, by the way, is one reason I love the new forums.  With the old forums, I would have had to avoid the entire sub-forum to pick up where I left off on this thread, because once you went into a sub-forum ALL messages in ALL threads were marked as read once you enter the sub-forum.  Now, each thread is tracked separately, so I can exit gracefully today and re-enter after I've seen the film, losing nothing I've read to date and nothing I haven't read  yet.  

[AnthonyTheAbyss]

12 hours ago, kdoginohio said:

it wasn't Empire. nuff said.

Yep.  I'm starting to not trust the early reviews.  Their credibility is starting to erode.

 

The Last Jedi is a good movie.  Definitely worth the ticket, popcorn, and slushee.  I recommend seeing it and adding the DVD to the collection.  Luke is awesome.  I really like Kylo.  The CGI is top notch.  The new machines/vehicles put me in awe.  I'm going to go see it again.

 

But to hear the people tweeting "The movie left me shaking" and "Best movie since Empire Strikes Back" really is misleading.  The first 3 movies made me (and a large portion of the population) life long fans.  This movie is another good movie in a great franchise.

 

7.5/10...but I wouldn't argue if somebody gave it an 8/10.

Edited December 15, 2017 by AnthonyTheAbyss
Rating hotness

[Gatsby77]

33 minutes ago, fantastic_four said:

You shouldn't need to hide spoilers in tags starting today.  I'm signing off of this thread until after I see it tomorrow.

Respectfully disagree.

I think spoiler tags should last at least through the weekend.

I'm a _huge_ Star Wars fan, but for various reasons won't get to see it tonight or tomorrow.

To presume that the die-hard fans on a comic book message boards all got to see it Thursday or Friday is ridiculous.

[fantastic_four]

16 minutes ago, Gatsby77 said:

To presume that the die-hard fans on a comic book message boards all got to see it Thursday or Friday is ridiculous.

That's not what I'm presuming at all.  If I can't see it this weekend, I'll skip the thread until I do.  I still haven't read the Punisher thread because I'm not through the series yet.  EVERYONE has a different idea about how long everyone else should not openly discuss a film, and it revolves entirely around how long THEY take to see a film.  Should it be opening weekend only?  Opening month?  Entire theatrical run?  I've seen no consensus over the years when the topic comes up, just a preference based entirely upon how much time the person themselves has to go to films or watch shows.

I started a discussion about what really happened in the ending to Birdman three months after it opened and just before it exited theaters and had a dozen old fogies from the Water Cooler who don't go to theater films jumping down my throat about spoilers.  If there's a thread about a film or a show and you haven't seen it yet, what's the solution--two threads for every show or movie, one with spoilers and one without, or hundreds of pages of dialogue buried in spoiler threads?  There's a foolproof way to solve it that the new forums facilitate--don't even click on a thread after a film or show's release until you've seen it.  Anything short of that and you're going to get spoiled eventually.

Edited December 15, 2017 by fantastic_four

[fantastic_four]

I'm screwing up my own ability to not have Last Jedi spoiled by talking about spoiler etiquette in this thread, so I'll take the discussion to a new one.  Been meaning to do that for about a year or three anyway.  I'll search for an existing thread dedicated to the best way to avoid spoiling movies and shows, and if I can't find one I'll start a new one.

[Rip]

2 hours ago, Crimebuster said:

Puzzled by those saying this is nothing like Empire. 

 

  Reveal hidden contents

The major beats are very similar. 

 

It starts with a battle where the Rebellion has to escape from their secret base that's under attack. 

Rey goes to another world to get training from a Jedi master.

While she's doing that, her friends are chased by star destroyers and end up going to a seemingly neutral alien city to find help.

During her training, Rey is drawn into a strange cave where she confronts her dark side. 

The morally questionable rogue Finn recruits to help them ends up cutting a deal with the Empire and betraying them.

Rey breaks off her training to try and save her friends. 

The bad guy tells Rey who her true parents are, and then asks her to join him to rule the galaxy together. She refuses. 

The survivors fly away in the Millennium Falcon to regroup before the next movie. 

 

It's all there, just a little better disguised than in Force Awakens. And there's a whole giant battle sequence at the end that is new, and for me made the movie about 30 minutes too long. Otherwise, though... second rate Empire all the way.

 

Only other thing I will say is Luke was amazing. Blew everyone else off the screen. 

Points 6 and 7 I would say aren't exactly true. 6 was far more Jedi. The strength of the movie is how very different many those points unfolded. Agreed, Mark Hamill was great!

Edited December 15, 2017 by Rip

[ARCHIVED COLLECTIBLES]

I was fortunate enough to see SW IV in the movie theatre as a kid. Unfortunately I fell asleep and missed the last 30 minutes of the movie. You think someone would have woken me up. Fast forward to last night. FINALLY sat down to watch SW VII for the first time in order to catch VIII tonight. Made it to the 46 minute mark and next thing you know.....I woke up to see the rolling end credits