If held to the same standard that dramas are, these movies would be lucky to have double digit percentage of positive reviews.

See, I'm not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Superhero/sci-fi/fantasy movies shouldn't be held to the same standards.

That's not to say that they get a free pass on being bad, of course, nor am I arguing that "fanboyism" isn't playing a role in why some people defend these films. All I'm saying is that holding a Star Wars film to the same standard that one would hold an Oscar bait or coffeehouse production is comparing apples and oranges. It's like saying that a certain song is bad because it doesn't have the same musical complexity as your favorite Baroque piece. Marvel and Star Wars movies aren't made to win awards (though they sometimes still do, of course). They're made to be fun, enjoyable experiences (not unlike the plays by Bill Shakespeare back in his time), and I don't think they really try to hide that.

Sure, you personally are absolutely entitled to an opinion, but trying to attach any sort of objective value to it just places one on the flipside of the fanboy coin.

Personally, I did like Rogue One. Did it have flaws? Sure. Did it play to nostalgia? I'm sure it did- but that's basically just another way of saying "people who like Star Wars are going to enjoy this movie more than people who don't like Star Wars" which just seems kind of like a redundant statement, if you ask me.

See I agree with Union. All movies reviews should be based on some baseline essentials. Remember Star Wars probably would have only reached 50% or so on RT. There were a number of critics that looked past the surface (not that it had much depth) at something more, that liked it, but many who didn't. There was no obligation to like it because it had a female protagonist, and so we must hail it as something bigger than it is. Both TFA and Rogue One are worse than Star Wars, because, using the language liberally here, Star Wars was original. Yes, it burrowed from other movies, but the characters and the settings were all original, and the specials effects were like nothing that had been seen before. TFA and Rogue One are not cutting edge special effects, they are run of the mill special effects. They are both hugely derivative of the original Trilogy, and they both have very awkward, authenticity breaking characters. I think Rogue One less than TFA, but it wasn't great. You can make a film in the Star Wars universe and not be stamping out a re-skinned copy. As a drama, as shallow as it was, Star Wars is better than both TFA and Rogue One, and everything you are seeing is new, not flashed at you screaming, "Remember this, huh? Remember this?" Like we were watching the old Chris Farley show on SNL. In any case a 90+ percent for TFA and 80 something for Rogue One are horribly inflated.

It isn't just Star Wars anyway. The first new Trek movie was decent, until I saw the next two, and that just took off whatever little shine was on the first one. Those movies don't feature exclusive female protagonists and I hated them. There is so much derivative garbage being churned out in every corner of the cinema universe right now. The last movie I can remember having fun at was Guardians of the Galaxy. Not without its faults, but very lovable, and it wasn't a sequel, prequel, reimagining, retooled mess of crap.

I get that "baseline essentials" might be a good thing to base a standard off of, but I imagine we might disagree on exactly how "baseline" we're talking. Movies are meant to illicit different emotions- comedies are meant to make us laugh, for example. A comedy I recently saw was The Night Before. Was it a "good" movie? Well, if you're judging off of the same basis from which you'd judge something like Manchester by the Sea or La La Land, you're certainly not going to think so. But it made me laugh and I had a great time watching it... so, it being a comedy, I'd say it did its job quite exceptionally.

Honestly, even though I often do review media, I strongly urge people to form their own opinions on things. If you enjoyed something, so what, who cares what other people thought? If Batman v Superman was a movie that you were able to enjoy, more power to you. If you thought that Attack of the Clones was the best Star Wars movie, that's fine (though prepare for an avalanche of nerds ready to tell you that you're objectively wrong).

So yeah, I guess baseline essentials should certainly be something to consider, but not rigidly impose. A movie's intent, and how it was met, is in my opinion the most important aspect when evaluating it.

I look at Ghostbusters. That was a really, really bad movie. Yet it got a 75% on RT. If you read the reviews of those who called it fresh, you'll see a lot of hemming an hawing. Not all, but enough. Their conclusion seemed to be, it was ok, but it was an important film. So it wasn't being rated on the merits of the film, which there were none. I'm unmoved by this idea that a Star Wars film should get some special dispensation because it is a Star Wars film. I don't think it should, anymore than Rambo III should have been rated higher because it was a Rambo film and we have no right to expect actual drama, even though First Blood was a darn good movie. I've grown tired of that excuse. "What did you expect from a [insert action franchise here] movie?" That's fine, if you want to make a mindless action movie, that's great. If it sells, even better, but don't expect me to rate it on a bell curve.

Let me add that there are too many Oscar bait dramas that are overinflated just because they are Oscar bait dramas.

Yeah, I'm not saying that I support the knee-jerk reaction of overcorrecting, either. I don't think Ghostbusters was nearly as bad as people tended to think, but I am surprised it got anywhere near a 75%- possibly, at least partially, due as a knee-jerk reaction to the increasingly vile behavior of trolls on the internet. Unfortunate for both sides, really. Sometimes, the internet sucks.

No, again, I'd rate Ghostbusters not as a Ghostbusters movie, but as the action/comedy that it attempts to be. And I thought it certainly had its moments, but was absolutely quite weak at times. And make no mistake, I wouldn't want people to rate them based on their expectations, either. Let me be clear- a film should be rated on what it wants to be. For instance, look at something like 10 Cloverfield Lane. Many people went into that film expecting it to somehow be tied in to the Cloverfield film. While it may be disappointing to some people that it wasn't the case, I wouldn't consider it fair to dock the (admittedly quite good) 10 Lane points because of that.

So yeah, of course anyone can rate anything however they want. But if you start giving this film low ratings because the mise en scene didn't compare to last year's The Danish Girl, I think people are going to start taking the reviews less seriously.

If held to the same standard that dramas are, these movies would be lucky to have double digit percentage of positive reviews.

See, I'm not sure I agree with this line of thinking. Superhero/sci-fi/fantasy movies shouldn't be held to the same standards.

That's not to say that they get a free pass on being bad, of course, nor am I arguing that "fanboyism" isn't playing a role in why some people defend these films. All I'm saying is that holding a Star Wars film to the same standard that one would hold an Oscar bait or coffeehouse production is comparing apples and oranges.

I consider not holding them to the same standard to be accepting of the fact that there are pilots in X-Wings rather than the far more sensible droids, or that the magical Force exists. I'm fine with that.

What I'm not fine with is when a movie lays out rules and then breaks them, or when people don't act like people. If they're not acting like people, then why are you using people?

E.G. Finn, shellshocked from his first battle and having his friend dies in his arm decides... to free the guy who killed his friend and try an implausible escape immediately rather than do something far more likely to succeed. This is retarded.

During his escape he brutally murders probably a dozen of the people he'd just been working with by gunning them down in the hanger bay and control tower with his tie fighter. He gives no ****. This is retarded. Viewers are expected to give no ****, because explosions!

On planet he says he doesn't want to join the resistance... Po gives him BB8 the main plot device and buggers off expecting him to deliver it for him. This is retarded.

Han Solo inexplicably decides that rather than delivering BB8 he'll just go to a bar instead. This is retarded. Eventually we learn that this horrible bit of writing was all to allow Rey to find a lightsaber.

These AREN'T PEOPLE. They aren't doing things people would do. They're just horribly written plot devices. If you try to analyze these characters and their motivations and goals and try to empathize with them you quickly find that they're cardboard cutouts on popsicle sticks being bounced around by an imbecile.

Rey could have found her lightsaber on the Falcon, Po could have ended up escaping and Finn rather than catch him could have ended up seeing an opportunity and going with him. Po could have not been ridiculous and left BB8's fate with Finn. Etc. There is no reason the movie should have been this bad except J.J.

Much like Han's inexplicable detour to get Rey a light saber in FA, we have the assassination attempt go forward in RO with the reason to do it being to stop the construction of the superweapon... except they know at this point it's already been built so there is no reason to proceed. The only reason they're throwing away resources and lives on this task is... to show that Cassian's love for Jyn has made him a better man who is no longer the callous killer of, what, yesterday? Ugh, horrible. Chuck Tingle could do better.

And Ghostbusters was a trainwreck. Ugh.

I liked both movies :-). Pew pew!

-ryanjamal

Why make yourself depended of what critics say? Did you personally enjoy the movie, that is the only question that is important.

Rogue One was amazing to me - a war movie set in the Star Wars universe with a genious seamless bridge to A New Hope.

They included old footage? Awesome, that small snippets of the Gold/Red Leader footage alone during the space battle made my heart skip a beat.

TFA: I dont mind the similarities to ANH scenes, I see it as an foundation to bring in old and new fans for the next movies to come.

If Episode8 is a reshoot of Empire Strikes Back then I will be pissed.

On planet he says he doesn't want to join the resistance... Po gives him BB8 the main plot device and buggers off expecting him to deliver it for him. This is retarded.

What planet? Who asked him to deliver it? Did we even watch the same movie?

You seem to be clasping at straws to support your argument when people who enjoyed it will ignore you and people who enjoy a good discussion will be confused by your points.

In what way was Rogue One a bad movie? Everyone who I have spoken to who saw it loved it. The general consensus is that it was Good to Great.

I have a feeling we're seeing the opposite of a fanboy pass with these arguements. It appears some are trying to hold this movie to some impossible, and unrealistic standard of perfection. No Star Wars movie has been flawless, but are beloved despite them, (and sometimes for them. Even the worst of the prequels have supporters.

It just needs to be accepted that this move was sincerely and legitimately enjoyed. You want to throw around fanboy favoritism, I'll throw back unwarranted fanboy criticism.

Rogue one was a good movie and I am glad I went to see it in the theater.

The end.