>>6722394Not him
While true, that doesn't override the fact that paid reviews and shills do exist. Not everyone is a shill or retard, true, but you're not acknowledging the fact that many are.
When EA gets caught multiple times making bots and paying off reviews, then what do you think - one of the biggest brands owned by one of the biggest companies of all time - would do? Do you think their hands are just clean? Do you think they put hundreds of millions into marketing and then go "We did enough, we only want people to see it. They can be the judge of whether it's good or not"? Do you think a company like that just rests on their laurels?
Like I said before there exists critics who have given this movie a perfect score. 4 stars, 100/100 and the like. Does this sound correct when the audience score differs so wildly (you previously brought it up as an indicator)? Does this sound correct when you have a hard time finding actual Star Wars fans who give it anything past a 7? Is this not questionable? Does the possibility not exist?
Not to mention the blatant pandering. To sum that up
>The Force is FemaleBecause the previous train of thought was that the Force was Male? But I digress. If I have to go further into this point to explain it, then it's blatant denial.
So what are you left with? Shills, paid off reviews, bots, pandering, and normal people with varying tastes. How do you qualify a percentage when there's so much potential issues going on with the side that loves it? Where does that leave you when you look at it objectively without trying to figure out what exactly is going on? Well, if you go by things you yourself have brought up, you go from 46 percent to 75 percent? That goes from below average to simply "good" on the biggest movie of the year. That's not exactly anything to brag about. Even with such a force behind them, they can't win over the people with no monetary value invested besides a ticket.
Etc, I will delve deeper into this if you want.
