ST Your predictions about the reception of the ST

While true, preconceived notions of what a movie "should" be can do very detrimental things to a movie's reputation/perception.
That, and in the Internet age nothing popular is ever actually seen as "good".

 

Eh that's not really true is it? Of course if you scour the internet long enough you're bound to come across some enraged fanboys out there venting their frustration. But those people existed long before the internet. All the internet has done is grant them a platform to speak their voice. Still, unbeknownst to them apparently... their voice is largely ignored.

If something is good the public will take to it. Plenty of films have gone on to become modern classics in spite of the internet.

 

My point is that despite the apparent "lack of quality" in the prequels, each one went on to make ****-tons of money. Even the 3D re-release of TPM did so. Pretty amazing considering they, apparently, weren't very good.
If TPM was as bad as many try to say, then how did the subsequent movies do nearly as well as they did?

 

What point are you trying to make here? That because they made a lot of money they must've been good?

It was new Star Wars. They were always going to make money.

edit: And didn't Lucasfilm axe the whole saga being re-released in 3D due to TPM's poor performance?

 

My point is that despite "popular" opinion they were good movies. The OT was no less critically ripped to shreds.
If the first one was so poor, the others wouldn't make money "cuz Star Wars".
And no, the 3D re-release actually made nearly half a billion. Not bad for a poor film 13 years later.

 

I think either a lot of people will hate it but still go see Episodes VIII and IX or people will think they're average/mediocre and not as good as the OT but better than the prequels(which I personally like).

 

True.

Absolutely not true.

Even in the snipy, whiny, pathetic fanboy culture of the internet age, the Lord of the Rings Trilogy, The Avengers, The Dark Knight, and Inception are a few films that sure didn't have a problem garnering overall glowing reviews with online folk.

Half a billion is 500 million dollars.

The Phantom Menace 3-D rerelease made 43 million in the US and 102 million worldwide.

Not bad for a re-release, but not remotely "half a billion" dollars.

 

And yet the OT went on to become a timeless classic and the PT faded into obscurity?

Actually "cuz Star Wars" is exactly why it made money. It's called brand. It's why Apple can put out the same phone year after year and continue to be the best selling phone on the market and continue to break records. They're coasting on brand. They're coasting on the good will they've built in the past.

I thought TPM was a steaming pile of ****. Guess what, I paid to see the next one. I thought that one was even worse. Guess what, I paid to see the next one. We all did. Know why? "Cuz Star Wars". They had our money the moment these movies were announced regardless. Having them be good would have just been an added bonus.

You don't even know a single thing about the upcoming trilogy and I bet Disney already has your money and nothing they do or say from here on out is going to change that. They could come out right and now and announce that Michael Bay is director and I bet you'd still be there Day 1. And you wanna know why? "Cuz Star Wars".

Then why didn't they re-release the rest of the saga as planned? What... are they against making money?

Mav Edit: The whole word has to be starred out.

 

I can say with all sincerity that if Michael Bay was announced as the director of a Star Wars movie, I wouldn't see it in the theater. I might get around to seeing it once at some point, just because curiosity would probably get the better of me, but I'd never purchase it or see it again after that. There are limits to what I will accept even with this brand, and I actually expect that Disney will cross that line for me eventually, so I'm really just riding the wave until it crashes (not that I'm hoping it will).

 

http://boxofficemojo.com/movies/?id=starwars3d.htm
I went off the "lifetime gross." I should've looked that it wasn't including 1999, when it was. Oops.

 

First, you think the PT "faded into obscurity"? lol?
Brand can only take you so far in movies. Otherwise, explain how Superman Returns made less in domestic gross than it cost to make the movie. Just because you're a sucker and a fool with your money doesn't make everyone else that saw the PT one. It's funny you bring up Michael Bay. As soon as his involvement with the new TMNT movie was announced I knew I wouldn't go watch the movie. So nice try there, slick.
And the 3D re-releases were ended by Disney the moment they got the license so that all efforts could be put into the ST. Time and resources they'd rather not split, apparently. Pretty simple concept to understand.
Whatever, clearly you don't like others having a difference of opinion with you. Won't bother any longer.

 

I'm not a prequel hater, but these points about SW's box office can not be argued.

Indeed it is the power of the "brand".

With Disney's plans to release films every 2-3 years from 2015 on, my brand support is changing.

I will pay money to see every film in the next trilogy at the cinema. The planned spin offs? That will come down to word of mouth and critical acclaim to me. Especially for characters that I don't have any interest in seeing in a stand alone, like Fett or Han. I'd have to hear that those films are incredible before going, where as with the main in-trilogy features I'm there regardless.

Star Wars now has become like the X-Men franchise. I'm a shoe in for the main movies, but character spin offs will not be touched unless I have some idea that they'll be worth my money. I still haven't seen the newer Wolverine after kicking myself for watching the atrocious first one.

 

Brand doesn't save a movie from 6+ years off being ripped to shreds and ridiculed if it doesn't have any redeeming qualities. If TPM and AotC were nearly as bad as many would like to claim, RotS wouldn't have done nearly as well as it did. Brand or no. Did being Star Wars help it get people in the theater initially? Sure, I'll bet it did. Is it what kept people going to see it after opening weekend? No. It being a good movie did that.

 

I agree that the PT really isn't "obscure", however the Superman example isn't the best one here.

Superman had a very mixed cinematic brand long before Returns came out. The first two were hits (though nowhere near on the level of Indiana Jones or Star Wars), but the latter two 80s films were very poorly received critically and represented huge diminishing financial returns, with part IV being an outright flop that killed the film's cinematic life for years to come.

Superman Returns did incredible business by that franchise's standards. The biggest financial issue with Returns was that it ended up costing an absurd amount of very unnecessary money.

 

I'm more or less the same for the spin-offs. And in regards to X-Men, I actually haven't gone to the theaters to see a single one since X2. Didn't get to X3 right away, but had friends that did. Saved me the cost of admission, let me tell you. Saw it in TV down the line; won't ever get that time back. The only movie since I've actually watched at all was First Class. It was meh. I'll eventually watch Days of Future Past. Likely won't pay to see it, though.
And I've always been a huge X-Men fan. One of my first comic books was the #1 of the Claremont/Lee "adjetiveless" run. So brand power doesn't always account for a whole lot.

 

Like I said, I don't hate the prequels.

But you're on a slippery slope whenever you begin equating box office performance with artistic merit.

I mean Citizen Kane made far less money than Transformers 2. Does that make the latter better?

 

True. Probably should've went with Batman Begins. It made quite a lot lifetime, sure. But not out of the gate. And Batman is one of the few things DC has always been able to sell. Good or not. It just goes to show that no matter how powerful a brand name is (and Batman is about as strong a brand name as you can find), bad movies will hurt subsequent releases. At least initially.

 

That's where you get sucked into a discussion about inflation. Pretty sure there's quite a few movies that would make hundreds of millions, if not billions, today based on the number of tickets sold when they actually released.

 

I don't think Citizen Kane was a massive hit when it was released though. Certainly not on the level of the TF movies. And it lost the Best Picture Oscar to How Green Was My Valley, which I just saw the other day and absolutely hated, so awards don't mean much in the scheme of things either.

 

No, Citizen Kane wasn't a major hit even in the context of it's release time.

In fact many of the most artistically acclaimed films of all time didn't sell anywhere near the amount of tickets, inflation or no, that the big, massive tentpole flicks have.

Tent poles often make money for reasons that can surpass artistic merit.

 

I'm not quite sure (have yet to actually watch Citizen Kane ), but wasn't it very much considered one of those "way ahead of its time" movies? At least in hindsight?

 

But how many movies, good or not, can stand up in quality when put next to a movie like Citizen Kane? Was TF2 a good movie? Meh, it is debatable to call it a "decent" popcorn flick (which is several levels way down). Are the prequels on the level of CK? No. Neither is the OT. Very few movies are on that level. Are the prequels good movies? Yes. Are they flawed? Yes. Are they flawed in many of the exact same ways as the OT? Yep.

 

In my personal view? Quite a lot. Kane is extraordinary, but there are many sublime, great pieces of cinema.

And it just so happens that quite a lot of them did mediocre to poor business.

 

Apparently not much can be as good at drawing an audience as Twilight: Breaking Dawn Pt.2

 

To most people Star Wars is defined largely by the original trilogy. That's the canon. That's the mythology. That's what makes up Star Wars phenomena. The prequels had their day and no doubt they raked in money at the box office but even MC Hammer had a best selling album and a #1 hit. Where is he today. The prequels are a glorified else worlds tale that few people even take seriously to begin with. Only a few years later and it's like they may as well not even existed. No one gives a **** about some dumbass cartoon or the seemingly endless amount of books and video games that only further exploited the franchise.

Nothing that ever came out of those movies transcended film and crossed over into pop culture. When ESPN had a Star Wars themed Sportcenter were any of the anchors dressed as prequel characters? No. When Deal Or No Deal had a Star Wars themed show were the briefcase holders dressed as clonetroopers? No, they were dressed as stormtroopers. The average person in the street doesn't know who Padme is, or Mace Windu, or Count Dooku, or Qui Gon Jinn. They know Luke Skywalker. They know Han Solo. They know Princess Leia. When someone says Darth Vader, images of Hayden Christensen do NOT come to mind.

I'm glad you enjoyed the prequels and quite frankly you can choose to view them however you wish but no amount of revisionist history will ever change the fact that they are largely acknowledged by the public as an unimportant and forgettable experiment. They did NOT live up to the Star Wars name or the Star Wars brand.

Mav Edit: The whole word has to be starred out.