Mika, 90% of those user reviews on aggregators are just a score plus a badly spelled rant (or even just a "Dis movie suX coz SJW!!!"), you can do that on a smartphone or tablet easily or ye know, using bots.
PS: Most people that start with tablets or smartphones write a lot with them, it's mostly us computer nerds that have problems if they don't have a mouse and a full sized keyboard because we know better, hell I saw my cousin write long e-mails on a fricking i-pad.
Actually, no. If you start to ignore negative one liner reviews, you should do so for the positive ones as well (there's quite a bunch of them as well if you look through the reviews), and if not, then why not? Written text reviews are actually a minority, most of the people rate the movie just by giving the score number. E-mails are about the longest thing you can write with a mobile or pad. Pads and phones are mostly used for one line at a time chat communications, not writing reviews. If you use Pad for professional writing and text editing work, you really are wasting time. Of course, that's one way to make oneself look busy, though.
The written reviews, for those who wanted to say something about their rating, are a sample of the entire number of reviews. One review means nothing, but if the same issue is mentioned in 30 % of the reviews, that's likely quite valid.
A key component to the idiocies that are peddled in this vast community of TLJ haters is that the badness of this movie was something that wrecked SOLO's chances to succeed. It's like everything else these people say, they take a bunch of facts and then construe an entire silly narrative that caters to their idiocies.
Of course, a simpler explanation is that the movie was too close, it was by far too uninteresting, it had production problems from the get go, there was no hype for it whatsoever, and the word of mouth was "meh it's alright I guess". This doesn't drive sales through the roof.
I loved TLJ, and guess what. I didn't go see SOLO. The thought of doing that never even crossed my mind.
So no, Mika, once again, you're wrong. I guess there's a consistency to admire here.
Taking a bunch of facts and then constructing a so called "narrative" that fits the facts is called analysis. Doing this stuff for a company is part of my actual job.
Your simpler explanation fails to take account other movie franchises; there Marvel vs Star Wars audiences are then assumed to behave differently (Star Wars fans get fatigued while Marvel's don't). Nobody provides any grounds for this. If the audience behavior differs, then provide the reasons why and how they differ. Furthermore, name me one person who didn't want to see the continuation to Empire Strikes Back within 6 months instead of waiting three years when they were originally made?
Production problems are nothing new for Star Wars. New Hope was marred with them too, and eventually saved in the editing phase. Movie being uninteresting and lacking hype are the more likely explanations, but this is not where you should stop if you actually want to find the root cause of issues. The question is, why is there no hype and why is the movie uninteresting? If people didn't see the movie to begin with, so how could they tell it's not interesting? If the movie premise was uninteresting, how come that's the case? There's a rather amusing speculation of why that came to be but that's no longer discussion from the management point of view.
Oh I thought it was 200 million like the other movies, and since it's made more than 200 domestically- either way that sounds more of a Solo problem not a Last Jedi problem.
Is it Last Jedi's fault that Howard decided to re-shoot 70% of the movie? That's probably why the budget is as high as it is. Filming is the most expensive part of production and the dude essentially did it twice
Think about it. Break even is nowhere near good enough. A movie with a production cost of 200 millions should make about 600 millions to break even. To actually make it worth it, the gross needs to be more than 800 millions (leads to about 25 % profitability for the studio before the corporate taxes). Re-shooting 70 % the movie is indeed no fault of Last Jedi, though I don't think anybody has claimed it is. Howard was actually hired to re-shoot the movie, so doing that wasn't his decision. It came from either Lucasfilm or Disney. The same thing happened with Rogue One, Gareth Edwards was sidelined at some point, although the re-shoots were not as extensive as they were with Solo.
But the big problem is not really in the production costs (100 mils isn't particularly much to absorb for Disney), but the bigger thing is: the movie has made ~ 50 % of what it was supposed to. So where's half the audience that was supposed to come? And will that be a continuing trend? Luis above said it won't be, while I've been saying it will. You've seen my reasoning as well why I think so: Last Jedi merchandise sales crash and video sales are also down by a whopping 68 % compared to Force Awakens. The rejection started with Last Jedi, accounted for Solo, and will likely continue to Ep. IX. It can happen that Last Jedi is forgiven over the next 1.5 years, but I wouldn't bet my money on it. JJ Abrams wasn't particularly impressive as a director, and any good will there was for Force Awakens (induced by inclusion of nostalgia characters and the set-up) is likely drastically reduced.
I'm starting to think I've pretty much said what I wanted to say at this point.