I don't measure quality by earnings. I was simply stating the fact that the movie is well-liked and successful. To claim that using film caused to film to "sink" is untrue. Very successful films, both critically and financially, have been shot on film such as The Godfather and Gone With The Wind. As long as the story is good then what medium the film was shot in doesn't even matter. When the general audience criticizes a film, the shooting medium is the last thing on their mind.
I was not being juvenile, I clearly used evidence to refute your point. Whether you like it or not, the film was successful both with the general audience and the box office. Clearly it didn't "sink".
Of course Star Wars fans complained, it was practically a remake. Star Wars fans have unrealistic expectations, it was the first Star Wars film in 10 years and was following the original trilogy. Nostalgia and hype raised their expectations far too high.
VR while an interesting development benefits the game industry rather than the film industry considering that by definition, a game is an interactive medium whereas film is a passive medium. Then again, VR can apply film techniques to produce very interesting results.
No, using film didn't "sink" TFA. It made over a billion at the box office, as stated by other users it has a 85-90% approval rating on Rotten Tomatoes and as of writing has a 8.3 rating on IMDb. Despite your claims, the evidence has shown the exact opposite. I personally enjoyed the film (although the story bothered me such as taking elements from A New Hope). I think it looked really good. I like the look of films shot both digitally and on film depending on how it was shot. The issue with not liking a film is subjective but the claim you have made is clearly proved wrong by applying objective facts with evidence. And to show how ridiculous your claim is, it would be like saying shooting Avatar digitally caused it to "sink".