Some of the negative discussion is thoughtful. Some of it.
I think most people aren't saying you can't DISLIKE something (or pre-judge as you say) before you see or research the movie but the LEVEL of negativity is bonkers.
I think the level of negativity reflects two elements: the love and respect people have for this franchise and the lack of love & respect the studio has shown it in executing this. It really does look awful, and we know from the emails which weren't intended for public consumption and from first-hand accounts from production how little thought went into the approach.
For as long as I can remember, the majority of fans of properties like these have collectively ignored the warning signs when a film like this is queued up. They'd hope beyond hope that they'll be happily surprised in the theater, and sometimes it'd take months or years for them to come to terms with just how much they really disliked the garbage they'd been served (Phantom Menace, anyone?). This is the first time I've seen the seesaw shift to the other side in a significant way - the fandom has caught on to the game and they're sick of it. Finally, finally, we might see filmgoers vote with their wallets and demonstrate to the studio that we want a more thoughtful, artful product. We reject the process that brought this movie about, and we reject the final product. We recognize that it's a business first for the studio, and we need to show them that good filmmaking and respect for your audience equates to good business.
Yeah, pretty much this.
Well, that and the symbiotic (antibiotic?) relationship between the "pro" and "con" fans and their various respective thinkpieces.
I think the level of negativity is due to the factors Westies points out, but it's also due to the back-and-forth sniping and all of the various pieces that essentially try to dismiss some fans' legitimate concerns by waiving them off as merely sexist.
The AVClub piece, for example, basically just said "It's been pretty well proven that if you don't like this film, it's because you're sexist," and then just moved on to a discussion of fan "ownership." Much like Devin's piece, it wasn't really interested in engaging with the actual substantive criticisms, and instead preferred to just dismiss
all criticism as rooted in either sexism or juvenile fan entitlement. So it's either "Well, you're all just sexist" or "well, you're all just whiny crybabies who need to grow up."
And in a way, that kind of
is saying that you "aren't allowed" to dislike the film before having seen it. We've seen plenty of that "OMG, why don't you watch it first and then criticize it?" response. (Along with other lazy responses like "OMG it's not like you can't still watch the old version," etc., which miss the point entirely.) Those kinds of criticisms, along with the "Everyone who hates it is just a sexist manbaby" responses effectively de-legitimize any notion that someone can look at the film, its production history, its background, the leaks that have popped up here and there, and even watch the trailer and say "Wow. That looks/sounds dumb."
This is a bulls**t notion that Hollywood has planted in people's brains: you have to watch the film before you can "legitimately" criticize it.
*****, what a ******* argument. You might as well drink spoiled milk just because the surface doesn't look lumpy. Hey, don't mind the smell or the fact that the date on the carton is from last month. How can you know if the milk has spoiled until you drink it? Besides, the surface looks ok, right? Give it a chance. Or are you an ANTI-DAIRYIST?!?!?!
