Quote:
Originally Posted by Max Cow Disease
I don't agree at all that this movie was so well received simply because of the Star Wars branding and that people were anxious to like a Star Wars movie again. It was well received because it's a good movie genuinely worthy of widespread praise.
You don't end up with 93-96% on a site like Rotten Tomatoes - a vast conglomeration of critic and random reviews- being a crappy popcorn flick that's simply pulled the wool over everyone's eyes by yanking a few nostalgic heart strings. The prequels were generally of a poorer quality than this, and were thus more poorly received. The relationship makes sense.
|
I don't put a lot of stock in Rotten Tomatoes, reviewers can be bought and influenced and the studios are wise to the fact that a lot of people hold RT in high regard. Blockbuster movies are almost always rated higher than what I think they should be on RT, they seem to get a 25% cushion on where I think they should be (except Mad Max, I'd give Mad Max a 97%, easy).
Remember when GTA4 came out to unanimously positive 100% reviews, but is now largely thought of as the GTA game that forgot to be fun? Reviews can't be trusted when marketing budgets exceed $200 million.