I have the results about whether Star Wars Episode # Ⅶ: The Force Awakens is a real sequel, SWINO (Star Wars In Name Only), or a remake of Star Wars Episode # Ⅳ: A(n) New Hope (before H, on should use an) and Star Wars Episode # Ⅴ: The Empire Strikes Back:

The Results

For those just wanting the synopsis, Star Wars Episode # Ⅶ: The Force Awakens manages to be both Swino and an awful remake.

Eh, I didn't mind it.

4954124
Again, with the pretending to do a scientific study. It's fine if you didn't like the movie, but this is just wrong. Seriously, stop.

4954523

I used objective measures:

* ¿Is it not really Star Wars? No, Star Wars takes place in a large Galaxy, while this Swino takes place in a small pocket-universe with minature planets and stars, all floating on top of each other, where one can see, with the naked eye, during the day, what happens to other planets orbiting other stars, in real time.

* ¿Is it a remake? Yes, it is a badly done remake.

¿Do you argue against these facts?

4954594
They are not objective measures. You really don't know what objective means.

4954610

Each measure can be broken down into binary-questions:

¿Is it the big Star Wars Universe? or ¿a little pocket-universe?

As for remake:

Let me tell you the tale of an astromech-droid the baddies on an Imperator-Class Stardestroyer want because it has critical information. it is on a desert-planet. The main baddy wears a mask. A force-sensitive person rescues the droid. The baddies built a superweapon.

¿Which movie did I just describe?

4954747
I told you why they weren't objective in the comments to your original blog. I'll copy them here if you're too lazy:

>> Walabio

About the obligations of bias, I give this movie every chance I gave give it:

You can't eliminate bias by urging yourself to give it a chance. The bias is inherent in your judgement, and cannot be removed by any conscious effort you make. The only way to get an unbiased review of a movie is to aggregate a great number of viewers' opinions together; hence review sites. Your single review can never be scientific.

It is Scientific because I have an objective measure of success:
The Movie must be a sequel of Star Wars Episode # Ⅵ: Return of the Jedi to succeed. If it is a remake of Episode # Ⅳ or Swino (Star Wars In Name Only, it fails.

I see no objectivity in that supposed ‘measure’. What I see is something vague enough that you can argue it matches one or the other based on whether you like the movie.

It doesn't help that the terms you are using are inherently biased:
It is absolutely a sequel to Episode VI. No matter how crappy it might be, that doesn't change that it is a sequel to Return of the Jedi. So the first ‘objective measure’ is tautologically true, and it has succeeded without you even seeing the movie. Since you are claiming it needs your judgement, you must be using a special definition of ‘sequel’ that does not match the generally accepted definition and which is known only to yourself, which is about as unscientific as you can get.
The second ‘objective measure’ cannot be true under the standard definition of ‘remake’, so that word must be similarly twisted to your own needs.
The third ‘objective measure’ is an acronym you made up to disparagingly refer to what you think the movie will be; namely a bad movie that you don't want to acknowledge as part of the Star Wars Franchise. The definition of this acronym is quite literally a movie you don't personally like; it is not possible to get more subjective (and therefore less objective) than that.

You're embarrassing yourself, and it's painful to watch.

In addition to all that, I note that you changed one of the criterion: You originally only specified a remake of Episode IV, but now you're slipping in Episode V. Changing study protocols after the fact? That's a big no-no.

Edit: Okay, this is bothering me…

A(n) New Hope (before H, on should use an)

No. It's only an ‘an’ if it is directly before the soft ‘h’. There's an intervening word (starting with a consonant), so the official title is grammatically correct, and your attempt to look clever does the exact opposite.

4954936

¡Finally, somepony noticed the "New" between "A" and "Hope"! Now, please turn your attention to the movie and see that it is a bad remake in a miniature universe.

4955042
Really? Not even a rebuttal? You're just going to ignore what I say?

4955044

I have objective measures:

* ¿Is it the same universe? If yes, then Star Wars; if no, then Swino.
* ¿Is it a recycled plot? If yes, then remake; if no, then original movie.

¿Which criteria would you use?

4955899
That isn't a rebuttal, that's a repetition of what you said before, unaltered and undefended from my points. I feel like I'm talking to a creationist.

4955899 But the movie is explicitly a Star Wars sequel. It is part of that universe's canon. Also, to what degree must the plot be recycled? That's an entirely subjective call. I could say that the movie is fresh and new because the main protagonist is a girl with a hot accent and I'd be as right as anyone.