Have any books hit and persisted on the NYT Best Seller's List without a big social media platform from the author, or advertising dollars spent by the publishing company? Can anyone name any? It would be interesting to see what caught fire without help.
Are you a writer? Because you seem far more concerned with where publishers are spending their advertising dollars than anything that has to actually do with writing. And you are kind of telling us that people are stupid. Well, we're all people here. Maybe you should try your argument out on a pet or something if you have one.
So you now disagree with what you said here? "Basic skills" and "working hard" suggests that any barely competently written product can be a success--which means that quality is irrelevant. So if you didn't mean that, what did you mean?
Most divisive in modern times, sure. At the time of its release, Empire Strikes Back was regarded as in roughly the same light as The Last Jedi. Return of the Jedi was regarded as a return to form. The view of those movies has evolved over the decades. How is social media more reliable? Metacritic doesn't even require its users to prove that they saw the movie/TV show/played the game/whatever. I could make a dozen alt accounts and bombard any media I don't like with 0/10 reviews. Let's not forget that there are some alt-right fringe groups that started pulling these tactics because of the increase in female and non-white roles. It's happened with other franchises too. Social media is very good at amplifying a vocal minority. And? Just having Star Wars attached to it is a massive boost anyway. If you like, we could compare Solo and Rogue One. Both spinoffs with similar amounts of marketing. Rogue One was a critical, financial, and audience success. Solo, on the other hand, flopped financially and got generally 'meh' reviews.
I am new to writing. Haven't made any serious attempt to publish or be successful yet, but am concerned for the future of all writing. I'm not 'kind of telling people they are stupid' at all. In fact, I'm just supporting 99% of writers, by criticising the industry. Most writers fail, largely due to the monopoly of the few and influence of money.
Your over-simplifying. Quality is not irrelevant. But it's only one of many things that matter. It's POSSIBLE for a competent, mediocre novel/book to be successful, with the help of marketing. Marketing works best when the backers have a reliable, hard-working writer, who writes in a consistent style, who is easy to read, and so on. Quality is not essential, but helpful.
I agree, social media is not perfect, but the best way of assessing current popularity that we have. Do you have a better one? If social media can amplify a minority, at can also amplify the opposite view. But Youtube supports the user scores on Metacritic. They are negative, and sometimes very negative. The one below trashes the movie, and yet has 71,000 likes, vs. 4,000 dislikes. And, if you watch and read the criticisms, you'll see many are true of the movie. There's some swearing in this review, but I guess he really didn't like the movie.
Ticket sales over time, blu-ray and digital copy sales of the home release, and exit polling, all of which are more scientific than social media with its tendency of the like-minded to cluster together and its vulnerability to bots. People who enjoyed something usually feel less compelled to make their opinions known than those who didn't. In my experience, those who really don't like a piece of media start acting as if they've been personally slighted. Plinkett is more or less an original trilogy purist, and he naturally draws an audience that feels the same; trying to use the like:dislike ratio of his video to make a statement about the film's popularity overall is a textbook example of sampling error. It's like conducting a poll on the President's national approval rating, but only using data from one state.
Yes, the movie was a financial success, making over a Billion dollars. But not a good movie, according to popular consensus. That's my point. I don't agree. People like to share the great things they've seen. Would you say someone who liked the movie would watch it being trashed and still give it a like? Doesn't sound sensible to me. So what better way is there of gauging who liked it? There are other reviewers who disliked it.
You keep making this assertion, but have yet to provide anything solid. Ticket sales over time, exit polling, and home video sales suggest that it's a well liked movie overall although divisive in the core fan base. Offline or through networks like Facebook, sure. On forums and review sites? Those who dislike the work drown out and often shout down those who disagree. Someone who liked the movie wouldn't watch the video in the first place. Also, take a look at the total views and compare to the number of likes/dislikes. Notice a gap? Most people aren't liking or disliking every YouTube video they watch. And there are other reviewers who liked it, including the overwhelmingly positive reviews from professional critics. Reviewers mean little with regards to how the film was regarded by the audience at large.
What is and isn't mediocre is subjective yet you're invoking it as if it's objective. Also, are you suggesting "easy to read" is an indicator of mediocrity? If so then I strongly disagree.
I think that you have yet to understand that what YOU find mediocre is not going to be what others find mediocre. Tastes vary. Marketing is necessary but not sufficient. You have yet to prove otherwise. If your thesis were true, then there would be no heavily-marketed failures.
In what way do sales suggest it is well-liked? If they are buying a ticket or DVD, it normally means they haven't yet seen it. How do you know if you like it, before you've seen it? In what way do Metacritic dislikers drown out the likers? Or even on Youtube? Are people too frightened to click dislike? It doesn't even require your username. About pro critics, at Metacritic 11 critics gave it 100% rating. Seriously? A movie which has plot flaws, stupid comedy, poor character development and a load of other problems is as good as a movie can possibly be? As good as the masterpieces of Stanley Kubrick and David Lynch and Ridley Scott?
But in time, lots of things that were popular are regarded as mediocre or worse, such as Independence Day. Then you do have a gauge, and it's the best gauge that exists. I haven't claimed marketing is sufficient. I've said that several times now.
It's more that someone who dislikes a video isn't as likely to watch it in the first place. It's a biased sample. So is general public opinion the arbiter of 'good'? If so, Independence Day's holding up pretty well, with 70% on Metacritic. That's not much less than 2001 or Eraserhead (80% and 79%, respectively), and more than Mulholland Drive (68%).
He can't validate public opinion as that would contradict his take on Stephen King. The jury is in on King—the public loves him. Many of his novels are rated between four and five star on Amazon.
Who cares if it’s not a masterpiece? People enjoyed watching it. That—sheer enjoyment—is part of what you seem to fail to understand.
You might notice I said "over time". Some movies draw large crowds on opening weekend thanks to the marketing, but then their sales drop like a rock as word of mouth about the final product spreads around. Staying power at the box office (or a best seller list, for products in other mediums) indicates that word of mouth is good and that you might very well be having repeat sales to already satisfied customers. As for home sales, I've never bought a VHS, DVD, or digital download of a movie I hadn't already seen or at least heard very positive things about. Here's one thing to be understood about sites like Metacritic: most people don't use them. Thus, you end up with a skewed sample right off the bat. Throwing things off further, somebody who enjoyed a movie and is trying to give an honest review might put it at an 8 or 9 out of ten, but many of the people who hate it jump straight to 0/10. This considerably tanks the average score. Making things even worse, there's nothing stopping you from making a bunch of accounts and bombarding the work in question with bad reviews. And because no proof of viewing/playing is required to write a review, you get people with an interest in political causes trying to lower the score. I already mentioned some of the alt-right groups that don't like the diversity of Disney's Star Wars titles. Turning to YouTube, I don't know how to be any clearer about this: it's a matter of a self-selecting audience. If you don't agree with somebody's opinions on YouTube, most people aren't going to bother listening to that person. They're going to go find somebody they agree with. Further, large chunks of viewers--quite possibly most--don't really participate in online fandom. Trying to use the audiences of individual online reviewers to divine the entire audience's views of TLJ is an exercise in futility. Perhaps this will shock you, but not everyone considers the same things flaws, laughs at the same things, or views character development through the same lens. And different reviewers' scores mean different things. Some scales are set up to where 100%, 10/10, etc. just means a very good movie, while in others that means the movie is perfect, or at least as close to perfect as possible.
That's not how it works at all. And many of us on here are published. I sure didn't sell anything because of money influence or propaganda. I spent years working hard and all my stuff went to the slush pile like everyone else is your so-called 99 percent. But the good stuff does get noticed and picked up. I'm also an avid reader. I can't remember the last time I bought a book because of advertising. But I think people in general are smart enough to decide where to spend their money. I don't think they need your help. I think your concerns should be focused on your writing because that's what's really going to count. But if you're not very good, I guess the next best thing would be to complain about an industry you clearly know very little about.
Good point. Independence Day is mixed, according to Metacritic, and the ratings are not current. In fact they could be going back to the beginning of the website, because most dates are not provided.
