20260204-review_bombing_and_star_wars.txt

I'm not sure if I've mentioned this before, but I wanted to talk about
the idea of review-bombing. I think anyone thinking it's illegitimate
is an intellectually dishonest person at the very least. Why? Because
opinions are formed based on interactions, and they don't even have to
be personal interactions. For example, if my family goes to a
restaurant without me and has a very poor experience, is it not my
right to share that I think this restaurant is terrible? No, I didn't
directly do business or even necessarily go to the restaurant, but
that doesn't mean you can censor my opinion. It's my right as a human
being to form opinions based on any criteria I feel like.

People hate Bill Gates and Steve Jobs, but does that mean they can't
judge their products harshly because of the men who made them? Maybe
Muckbooks really are great hardware. I still have the inalienable
right to dislike them because of the parent company's stance on things
like the Right to Repair, consumer rights, reasonable pricing, etc.
Just because I've never owned one doesn't preclude me from having an
opinion on them that I can share.

I hate it. I've been the ire of many folks whom I've made feel less
than, almost entirely online. I do not fault or cry foul if they
choose to respond with negatives to any post I make, provided it's
within the rules and laws. That's their right to dislike anything to
do with me. I don't tie my self-worth to a thumbs up counter. If you
do, maybe you shouldn't be on the Internet to begin with. The idea of
major review companies taking down criticisms because of negative
publicity for one reason or another is fraudulent. Every single person
leaving a review has the right to state their opinion.

The slimiest parts are horror stories about review sites like Ylp
saying they'd tank businesses in the rankings/search results if they
didn't pay them protection money...I mean if they didn't subscribe to
some pro program. Yet these same sites feel it's absolutely justified
to remove any negative reviews posted when something becomes viral and
infamous. That doesn't make their opinions invalid.

Is it a flimsier premise to judge a product or company based on no
firsthand experience? Absolutely, but it's just as flimsy as judging a
company on one bad product that eked through quality control. Just
because one in one thousand people have a broken product shipped
doesn't mean they "deserve" a one-star review. But they do, because
that's the reviewer's opinion.

I've also seen plenty of people personally and financially involved
with certain products/companies/movies give absolute drivel positive
ratings. While I vehemently disagree with them and it's probably a
conflict of interest, they're allowed to share their opinion, or at
least they should be. It's terrible because 2.5 stars should be the
average, or maybe 3.5 stars. But when the average retard sees a rating
like 3.5 out of 5 stars, they assume it's bad. Why? I think part of it
is due to companies paying people to give good reviews. Maybe I'm
breaking my own rules here, but that, to me, sounds much more wrong
than having a negative opinion of a company without actual contact.
Maybe I should adjust and say people involved or financially rewarded
with good reviews SHOULD have their reviews removed and nullified. At
the very least any self-interest should be mandatorily disclosed.

It's just silly and IMO, reviews should be without ratings: just
disclosure of good or bad experiences without some average of numbers.
Especially in films on sites like IMDumb where many new films get
rated higher than absolute classics and the number of ways a movie can
be "good" is not as cut-and-dry as a simple 1-10 scale. I know I've
rated films as 7s or 8s that are probably worse than films that are
6s, mainly because it's heavily dependent on mood and expectations.
One movie I really, really despised when I watched it initially was
Cabin in the Woods. I was looking for a typical horror flick. What I
got was much more parody or satire than a proper horror flick. But the
previews I saw indicated nothing of the sort. It broke expectations
and while that can be a good thing, it was not at all what I was in
the mood for and that really shaped my opinion of it.

Another movie I rated probably poorer than it actually was (in
comparison) was Star Wars Episode 7. It was an OK movie in and of
itself: I'd probably give it a 6.5 out of 10 if I weren't invested in
the prior lore and story. It had great visual effects. The writing
wasn't great, however, and the story was just a retread of a story
we'd seen before in the same franchise. I gave it a 4.

One of the most maddening parts of the movie to me was the destruction
of the planet that held the Senate. Everyone was sad for about 3
seconds and then moved on. Now in Lucas canon, that planet would have
been Coruscant. Coruscant is a planet with a city on top of ALL of
it. It's like New York, London, Paris, Tokyo, Berlin, etc. all in ONE
city. It's the center of Star Wars politics and the seat of power. It
is not something you just blow on and move on from 3 seconds later.
Blowing up that planet would have killed at least billions if not
trillions. Acting sad for a brief moment but then going "Oh, well.
Back to fighting the Resistance or whatever the fuck they're called."
That should have been 100x worse than 9/11 for Star Wars. And the
"great" storytelling did NOT explain it adequately. I was so confused
and generally upset by the movie that I went and had to look it up
online...

It was Hosnian Prime. The planet the Senate was on was Hosnian Prime,
a planet created by Disney just to be blown up. Even Alderaan
warranted a stronger reaction because we knew Leia's family was there.
The destruction of Hosnian Prime was a Michael Bay-esque show with
little to no impact on the story of Episode 7. Looking back, I was
pretty livid. Why didn't they explain that? Yes, there were probably a
bunch of people that didn't know, but the focal point for the prequels
was still Coruscant. The Senate was shown to be on Coruscant. So even
people that hadn't read the books but had just watched at least one of
the prequels should have been confused like I was. Maybe 4 was too
high a rating. All I know is that not only was that a major detractor
from the movie for me, but so was Disney's decision to destroy the
canonicity of hundreds if not thousands of stories that took place
AFTER Episode 6. I had said the Thrawn trilogy would have been a great
one to adapt for the sequel trilogy. I think the Jedi Academy trilogy
would have been a good one to adapt as well. But Disney cared so
little about the story and so much about making "original" characters
and settings that would be 100% profit for them. That's why Jakku
isn't Tatooine. That's why Ridley and Co. aren't Luke and Co. That's
why BB-8 isn't R2-D2. And they threw it all away for a few idiots with
no plan.

I didn't watch any of the other mainline Star Wars movies after that.
The only one afterwards I bothered to watch was Rogue One, and that
was because it had gotten so much praise and, in my experience, was in
a relatively-unexplored time period after the prequels but before the
original trilogy. It wasn't going to retroactively ruin so many books
like the sequels did. And while I did end up watching it, I did it in
2 or 3 sittings on Netflix. It still had some rancid Disney taste to
it. It was a very "meh" movie, especially in the Star Wars context. It
just wasn't complete and utter garbage like the mainline Disney films
were. I still put Episodes 1-6 higher than any drivel Disney put out.
I didn't watch the Mandalorian, mainly because it was on Disney Plus.
Now a friend of mine "made" me watch the first couple of episodes, but
I was too jaded and too burned by Disney to give it much of a chance.
It wasn't horrible, but it wasn't Star Wars as far as I'm concerned.
Take your digital Halloween mask characters and fuck right off,
Disney. That guy in charge of Vought in The Boys that played some
Imperial moff or something will always be that guy from Vought. Lucas
was onto something when he hired relative unknowns to play the
characters (Guinness excluded). Too bad Disney didn't 100% follow that
memo.

Anyways, sorry for the long rant, but it's just stuff that I need to
let out. It doesn't help that I'm sick and what medication I've had
has been expired for a year...