zlacker

The Last Jedi was incredibly successful. According to Wikipedia is "the highest-grossing film of 2017 and the ninth-highest-grossing film of all time." I have a hard time believing an audience score of 41% accurately reflects the opinions of the actual audience.

>>goto11+(OP)
It was part of a huge franchise, which it severely damaged. Of course people went in to see it. Most didn't like it, but they still paid for a ticket. However, many of them didn't bother watching the next one.

>>goto11+(OP)
Being a blockbuster movie is not an indicator of quality nor success. One thing is certain about them: they sell like hotcakes because they have millions poured in their marketing.

So highest-grossing doesn't mean absolutely anything about how good a movie is, or whether people actually liked it. There is a huge contingent of people that follow religiously a franchise and will pay to watch the new one even if they've been told it is not very good. You don't skip the latest Star Wars movie if you call yourself a Star Wars fan, and it is marketing's job to create the Star Wars fan in the first place.

As a cynic, I'd argue the opposite to what you said: you have to spend more on marketing if the material is not very good in the first place. The result is a terrible movie that becomes a meme and still makes bank.

>>Andrew+51
Indeed, the trilogy were my favorite movies growing up, and I went to see TLJ on the opening week. Haven’t watched a Star War since.

>>goto11+(OP)
> I have a hard time believing an audience score of 41% accurately reflects the opinions of the actual audience.

Attendance is expectations, and rating is reality, after the necessary act of paying to watch the film. A film that someone is excited to see can still stink.

It did make 30% less than TFA.

>>Andrew+51
Interestingly it may be more accurate to measure performance of a movie by the initial sale of its sequel. I haven't gathered any data but I guess it'll be interesting.

>>sph+A1
Eh... I'm a huge fan of the original trilogy, and found the prequels somewhat enjoyable, if not as magical, but I checked out of Star Wars entirely after TFA. I haven't seen any of the others.

Otherwise, yes, I generally agree that sales are not necessarily an indication of quality.

>>goto11+(OP)
You don't rate it until after you've spent your money

>>goto11+(OP)
I would have paid money to have the money I paid for that movie to be subtracted from the box office take

>>sph+A1
Quality is of course subjective, but I'm questioning whether the audience scores on RT represent what the audience actually thought. Given how easy it is to game scores on such sites by review bombing, I'd take box office as a more reliable indicator or how real-world audiences actually liked the film.

Marketing can boost ticket sales, but there are plenty of examples of movies which flopped despite heavy marketing, just because the audiences didn't like the movie that much.

The ratings on RT and IMDB does not represent the average audience member.

>>Andrew+51
> many of them didn't bother watching the next one.

The third movie was still one of the most successful movies of all time.

>>goto11+(OP)
I watched it not expecting too much -> box office.

I was astounded by just how bad it was -> rating.

I did see the next one (the last of the Skywalker series), mostly out of morbid curiosity. That one was just...random. After that I stopped. The halo of the franchise only carries so far.

>>goto11+0b1
The next movie was Solo, the first Star Wars Movie in a run of 10 to fail.

>>sph+A1
You are stating numerous incorrect things. Just one - marketing can be somewhat successful, but it won't make a turd into highest grossing movie of the year.

The thing is, the last trilogy was tremendously enjoyable by general audience, and this is what generates sales after initial weekend. Few butthurt starwars nerds writing endlessly on internet (just like here with consistently flawed arguments) or review bombing out of pure hate don't change anything, luckily.

I had great fun, considered it as brainless popcorn fun just as original trilogy and prequels, exactly just like everybody else I know. Sometimes, that's enough.

>>mauvia+Ik1
Solo probably failed because the average cinema-goer does not want to see a Han Solo spin-off with Harrison Ford replaced by an unknown B-list actor.

>>goto11+uQ2
The actor was ok, btw, he was also very good in "Hail, Caesar".

>>goto11+0b1
It takes more than one bad movie to kill a franchise of such magnitude. But I think Disney execs are going to persist in achieving this goal.

>>mcmoor+Aw
Box office across all three of the sequel trilogy moves. The same is the case for the three movies in the original trilogy btw, so I guess we should conclude that "Return of the Jedi" was the only Star Wars was movie people actually liked, since The Force Awakens is one of the most successful movies of all time?

In reality, sequels tend to be less successful than the original, but can expect a certain audience. Since only very successful movies get sequels, sequels are still safer investments than original movies.