Quote: CAVQuote: Blackholes_Wolfand wtf why did it receive such a high score on RT? even my normie dad thought it was too high and it shouldve been in the 70s
If I were to take a guess it's that they liked the film's deconstruction of the franchise and attempts to go in a new direction, rather than just repeat the exact same beats from the OT and become a nostalgia simulator.
When you're a critic and you have to watch hundreds of films a year for your job, you start to appreciate when a film does something different than what you expected. The films that do everything exactly as predicted become boring and grating.
I've noticed the same thing with video game reviewers. One of the most common complaints I see in professional game reviews is that a game doesn't do enough to shake up or redefine an established formula, and one of the most common things I see praised is when a game radically changes everything. I've seen many instances where a sequel loses points compared to its predecessor because it doesn't "change things up enough" despite being an altogether better game when compared side to side.
With regular player reviews, on the other hand, I rarely see novelty brought up as an intrinsically positive factor, if it's even brought up at all. Changing up the formula is not necessarily considered a good thing, and sticking to a formula is not necessarily considered a bad thing. Change simply for the sake of change is very often frowned upon, depending on the extent and nature of the change.
We just have to keep in mind that professional reviewers are basically forced to consume the things they review, and so they have no particular attachment to the existing formula and would rather experience something new just for the novelty of it. Whereas the average person chooses what they want to consume, so they are much more likely to highly enjoy (if not prefer above all else) the specific formula in question and thus want to experience variations of it again and again.