Is Star Wars unfairly hated on?

maybe AOTC is just a bad movie, and the critics are totally unbiased because they have no stake in the success or failure of the films they review.

the gushing masses however cant afford to be unbiased as they have invested money, time, emotion, and personal identity into AOTC, and dont want to look foolish for investing so much into something that turned out so bad.

food for thought

*puke* Sorry that tasted nasty. Seriously though, why did 65% of critics give AOTC a positive review if it such a horrible movie and they are completely unbiased?

 

Star Wars has become a victim of its own success unfortunately. Whenver you get to be a big franchise, the critics and media always look to shoot at you first cause you're an easy target.

 

Hey DrEvazan and abmccray,

chew on this: we wouldn't BE diehard fans if SW was not a great series! As for fan reactions to the PT, it seems that the old schoolers are harsher than the critics are.

By the way, what if AOTC was a great movie and you just missed the point? Hmm? Its all in the eye of the beholder, or in this case, the individual viewer.

Just look at the Rocky Horror Picture Show. Ok, don't look at that, sorry. LOL

Anyway, public consensus is that this film is great. Exit polls show it, BO numbers show it, media coverage (mostly) shows it, and a slim majority (to be expected) of critics show it. Therefore, if I liked the movie, then it must be good. If YOU didn't like the movie, then maybe its just not the movie for you.

Afterall, I really don't care for Gone With The Wind, but that doesn't make it a bad movie, now does it?

 

Oh yeah, DrEvazan, if there are gushing "masses" as you say (masses being the operative word) then the movie must not have been THAT bad. Your argument seems to be going around in circles. But you may be right about the critics. I can't help it if they don't like the movie, though. It's there problem, not mine.

 

insert "fans" in place of masses. i didnt intend that to imply vast numbers of gushers.

bad word choice.

foxbat, that was really to the critic haters... are the critics wrong or are they right? are they only right when they give a positive review?

65%... so thats a 6.5 out of 10... not a very positive percentage... on most rating scales thats a D. also rottentomatoes puts mildly favorable reviews in the "fresh" category, so their rating is always erring in favor of "fresh".

and why you wanna kill foxbats anyway?

 

"I actually thought the Mummy Returns was really good".

It takes all kinds, doesn't it, Mad Mardigan?

 

"SW is SW and it doesn't pretend to be a life changing piece of cinema. It's just a shame the critics don't see it that way.

Unfortuantely it has the potential to be that though. AOTC was close. Hopefully Ep3 will change my opinion as a whole."


Wow, MadMardigan, considering all your snide comments re: Lucas and the PT I would have thought you disliked CLONES. But it was "close" to a life changing experience? If I could see ONE of those kind of movies every other year I'd be ecstatic. It seems I enjoyed CLONES more than you and I didn't think it was "life changing" or even "close". It was just darn entertaining.

 

"65%... so thats a 6.5 out of 10... not a very positive percentage... on most rating scales thats a D. also rottentomatoes puts mildly favorable reviews in the "fresh" category, so their rating is always erring in favor of "fresh"."

If 65% of viewers like a film (let alone critics) it's a success. And Rotten Tomatoes also puts mildy negative reviews in the Rotten category, so it's biased both ways.
Really, they should have three categories: positive, negative and mixed. I think AOTC would be about half and half positive/mixed, with a very small percentage of totally negative reviews.

 

65%... so thats a 6.5 out of 10... not a very positive percentage... on most rating scales thats a D.

A "D"? For 65%? I dont think so. I dont know where you went to school, but it sounds harsh

 

i think star wars is undairlsy hated on becaus there's tons of great action and explosions and droids and clones and what more do you even want from star wars? its like christmas came early and Santa Lucas delivered eeverything on my star-wars wish list. I got Jango FETT, Boba FETT, a Slave I, clones armys , Yoda lightsaber mixing it yup with sauron from LOTR, double lightsaber actions from anaking SKYWALKER Jedi Knight, a cut-off arm, a HOT NATALIE PORMAN, and like i said droids and clones!

see, most critics are afariad to admit they like the movie because they think its a kids movie and they dont want to like it because theyare all grown up now. so its trendy and cool to say STAR WARS SUCKS when in fact it doesn not quite the opposite I'm afraid. LOL they must sitll be stuck in 1977 watching ANnie Hall and not a certain movie starring Luke, Leia, R2, Han, and Chewie. Don't forget DARTH VADER galaxy's #1 badguy.

so really just like the movie and talk about how you liked it but if you don(t like it at all then what are you even doing here anyway the spider-man forum is across the hall LOL!!!!

 

I think Star Wars has always been bashed by critics etc.

It's ashame because they are such great films.

 

DarthHomer

" Rotten Tomatoes also puts mildy negative reviews in the Rotten category"

I've also read reviews which slam the writing, directing, acting..etc but say "The last half hour is fantastic" that count as positive, so it works both ways.

SLAVE2

"In England, the most hated soccer team is Man Utd, why? Because they are the most successful, and people want them to slip up and fail."

Or because Man Utd's players constantly harrass referee's, chasing officials in packs, and their manager often gives pathetic reasons for loses, as well as never admitting his players may have actually done something wrong?

On topic, the only question of importance when talking about critics reaction is "are they giving their honest opinion after seeing the film?". If the answer is yes, then I don't see a problem.

Just because a critic, or 35% of critics disagree with you, doesn't mean they are being unfair or biased.

 

chew on this: we wouldn't BE diehard fans if SW was not a great series!

Uhhh, ever heard of Trekkies!

if there are gushing "masses" as you say (masses being the operative word) then the movie must not have been THAT bad.

Two things: Every seen Britney Spears' masses of gushing fans, does that make her talented?

As far as masses go, Noah's family was the only one on the Ark.

 

Rikalonius, it's all subjective. Britney Spears fans would say she is very talented; what exactlty is your point?

 

I'm going with the notion, that unlike most films, AotC receives the harsh critical reviews it does because the elite of Hollywood have long held a grudge against GL. Let's look back at his vast enterprise:

In 1976, when the first Star Wars was produced (not released yet, at that point), the studios begrudingly agreed to proceed with it [against their better judgement!! doh] because of the success of American Graffiti and because other new cinematography successes (et.al. Spielberg) were also praising it. GL beat them all at their own game and won hands down over the establishment of Hollywood at the time, including slipping in the tidy profits for sales of any products sold as a result (think action figures, toys, costumes, etc). They agreed, losing billions of dollars because they didn't have the foresight GL did. To say they were angry with him would be an understatement.

When it was released at the theater, it rocketed up the charts, setting records in just above every way conceivable for a film. It drew attention back to the cinema, which had been severely lacking prior to that time, with the exception of the occassional popular movie (think JAWS and American Graffiti), which it quickly bypassed. The summer blockbuster was set in stone. Filmography changed drastically. He pioneered so many new ideas and his people at ILM engineered so many new cinematic firsts, that it is amazing GL hasn't been given Hollywood Sainthood by now. Everyone in Hollywood profited because of his vision and yet hated him for it.

Think about it. The new cameras, the sound systems, the FX advancements, the epic saga, etc. He's a visionary, that not only envisions the best and brightest updates in and to cinematography, but we also actually get to see the vision take shape before our eyes every time he produces a new film. Hollywood was literally reborn in this man's shadow and to this day, the critical elite continue to lambaste him. Sorry bunch they are.

His continued success is a testament to his genius that can't be overshadowed no matter how many negative reviews his work receives, in or out of the professional critics circle.

Get over it, folks. There's no need to continue to protect GL and his empire, his work stands in its own right and always will.

 

When the WSJ reviewer decides to release a "second review" of AOTC because he loathed it soo much how can you come to any conclusion other than, yes, Star Wars is unfarily hated upon by some critics/media personas.

A similar such review came out in a San Francisco newspaper and even the LA times picked up the slack by blasting Lucas the director.

The media as a whole doesn't have anything against Star Wars, I think it is merely some newspaper/magazine editors who do allow their employees to further jump on their own little hate-filled bandwagon that really have it out for GL.

How can anyone here think that the RACISM articles written by the Detroit Free Press are nothing but unecessary and unfounded personal attacks on Star Wars? If anything I will complement the "bashers" for not subscribing to such slanderous attacks on the movie. No one yet, that I have seen, on this board has agreed with racism charges that some media members like to throw out. If they did think that GL was a racist, I would never EVER reply to anyone of their posts ever again.

It's insane guys.

 

Racism in Star Wars is hogwash. There are some people out there who are just sad, bitter, little nobodies looking for attention. I read about 2/3 of the reviews at rottentomatoes and I cannot recall a single suggestion of racism. So, maybe I missed on. I don't think any legitimit movie critic would ever dirive that from Lucas or his movies. Even if I hate AOTC, which I don't, I would be just as offended at those riduculous claims.

That being said I don't think GL is the Avant Garde filmmaker he was in 1977. I'm sorry to come off like a basher, but he is just another vanilla sumer blockbuster directory that has the resources and repitation (based on past success) to make his more visually stunning than anyone.

I enjoyed AOTC for what it was, but I expected more from a man who talks a big talk about love of things filmmaking. I'll give it George, he does continue to push the digital and CGI envelope with each new release. But I've said since TPM that Star Wars has become ILM's ongoing demo reel.

 

One problem that I see with critics is that they simply review each SW movie on its own, with no regard to the existing SW movies. The SW six part saga is much more than any summer blockbuster can hope to be, but individually each SW movie is simply entertaining. To understand the "deeper" stuff you need to judge AOTC in the context of the whole 6 part saga.

 

Well, to give my two cents worth, it's really mostly the critics who judge these movies unfairly. I've found that most fans and even casual fans liked AOTC. Some of them(including myself) say that this new one is their favorite.

If it weren't for the internet, we wouldn't have backlashes against these movies in such massive forms. Sure, there will always be people who hate these movies, but the internet has been the driving force for the backlash. But as far as I can see, the backlash has diminished quite a bit since AOTC came out.

 

"Racism in Star Wars is hogwash. " Thanks Rik

p.s. It wasn't a "review" but an additional article written for the Detroit Free Press that I am refering too.

 

Seriously, each one of these films so far in the SW Saga has been better than over 75% of the crap pumped out of Hollywood (not perfect mind you). I think with all the pent up anticipation leading up to 1999, people were expecting to have a life-changing experience when they saw Episode I. I personally thought the film was amazing at best, and no more flawed than anything in the classic trilogy at worst. I think the reality of Episode I caused a lot of people to go into Episode II with much more reasonable expectations, which is why so many are saying "George is back on track". Honestly, I think it would be more accurate to say the fans are getting back on track... and not an episode too soon. I don't think the cynical critics will ever understand what we see in these films. Not that all critics are cynical.

 

Undomiel,

While some of your facts are correct, I don't agree with your interpretation.

"GL beat them all at their own game and won hands down over the establishment of Hollywood at the time, including slipping in the tidy profits for sales of any products sold as a result (think action figures, toys, costumes, etc). They agreed, losing billions of dollars because they didn't have the foresight GL did. To say they were angry with him would be an understatement. "

The people controlling the film industry back in 1976/1977 aren't even relevant anymore. Rupert Murdoch now owns Fox, the studio that had the most to lose from the bad decision to give Lucas all merchandising rights. Yes, Hollywood is a competitive environment, but there's no 'star chamber" of folks who jealously protect their business from an outsider. The supposed bias against Lucas in Hollywood just isn't true. It's a global business and reaches far beyond Southern California borders, and it's so money driven that ANYBODY in Hollywood would do busines with him. And, remember, there's no one in the world who represents Hollywood moreso than Spielberg.


"It drew attention back to the cinema, which had been severely lacking prior to that time, with the exception of the occassional popular movie (think JAWS and American Graffiti"

Well, THE GODFATHER and THE EXORCIST were hugely successful, granted not in the mass media kind of manner that STAR WARS had been. In that sense, with its tie ins, wide releases, etc. , STAR WARS raised the bar.


"it is amazing GL hasn't been given Hollywood Sainthood by now"

In 1992, Lucas became one of the youngest recipients of the Irving J. Thalberg Lifetime Achievement award. Other than a 40 foot gold statue outside the Kodak Theater, what does Hollywood need to do for him?

 

The supposed bias against Lucas in Hollywood just isn't true. It's a global business and reaches far beyond Southern California borders, and it's so money driven that ANYBODY in Hollywood would do busines with him. And, remember, there's no one in the world who represents Hollywood moreso than Spielberg

Several of the studios were fighting GL on Star Wars for different reasons. They have large boards of investors, who were also against GL's ideas. At the time, Spielberg was new on the scene but had some clout because of his success with JAWS. The combination of Spielberg's recommendation and GL's American Graffiti success helped to push the movie forward even though none of them really wanted it. They were especially ready to cancel the whole deal when they saw the first showing of it, before it was redubbed with John Williams music and the FX added. He had to fight his way out of that one or we would have no Star Wars today.

Prior to that, when he was attending the film school, none of the students were graduating to become Hollywood movie directors. They were graduating to become governmental and military documentary directors. The professors told their classes they should give up on the idea that they might actually be able to break into Hollywood as a director because Hollywood didn't work that way. GL proved them wrong there as well.

When he founded ILM and it created all new ways to do FX and new cameras to film them with, he proved them wrong again. When he proved that sci-fis, fantasies and epics were still a huge market waiting to be tapped, he proved them wrong again. Then when he repeated the process over and over again, he continued to prove them wrong. And not just one or two of them, but MANY, many of them. Word of mouth spread and it became both a good and a bad thing to be involved with GL. Good because it was almost certain cash in the bank. Bad because it was almost certain cash in the bank at the expense of the establishment.

It became a matter of overkill; too much of a good thing for GL and too little of a good thing for anyone who wasn't involved with GL. Those who weren't working for him or with him, either were sorry they weren't or started finding some way to do so. He was the new golden boy, who stayed a golden boy for 30+ years. You tell me that's not going to generate the entire gambit of negative human emotions in a place as sordid and controversial as Hollywood, and I'll sell you some mountain property in the everglades.

 

"Several of the studios were fighting GL on Star Wars for different reasons. They have large boards of investors, who were also against GL's ideas"

They were fighting his concept of STAR WARS because they didn't get it. This has been the plaque upon the film industry since studios went corporate and the great old gamblers like Selznick and Louis B. Mayer and Irving Thalberg faded away. Nobody in control of the studios, with a few possible exceptions like Robert Evans and John Calley, could ever spot a unique idea. This isn't George Lucas specific.

"Prior to that, when he was attending the film school, none of the students were graduating to become Hollywood movie directors. "

If you're arguing he's a vanguard, then there's no argument. I completely agree with you. But he wasn't the only one. Coppola attended UCLA; Scorsese and DePalma attended NYU; John Milius and Walter Murch were USC boys. I think they all stormed the gates together, and Lucas even admits that he would never gotten his first directing job without Coppola's generous influence.


"It became a matter of overkill; too much of a good thing for GL and too little of a good thing for anyone who wasn't involved with GL. Those who weren't working for him or with him, either were sorry they weren't or started finding some way to do so. He was the new golden boy, who stayed a golden boy for 30+ years. You tell me that's not going to generate the entire gambit of negative human emotions in a place as sordid and controversial as Hollywood"

I think you're generalizing. Sure, in a business as fractured and varied as Hollywood, you're going to get types who harbor a resentment. And as someone who is in the film industry, I know firsthand that this is a culture where someone's failure is someone else's success. It's sad, but true. I've even had to be wary of those emotions, and it's not easy, so competitive is the environment. But I also know and have met a number of executives who've said, bluntly, that the only reason they're in the film industry is because of STAR WARS. I met with an exec at Disney once about a project and he had a big R2D2 figure on his desk, and he said that reminds him of all the good things Hollywood can be. And you have to admit, as biased as all STAR WARS fans seem to feel the Academy is against Lucas, he did receive the Thalberg award before he was 50, which is quite an honor.

If there's a jealousy factor going around, I think it circles around more the intellectual elite that film critics seem to feel they're in. Most Hollywood types are separated into two boards, those who make money and those who make movies. The former would love to be in business with Lucas, and the latter love that he represents their childhood and is showing them the way to the future of filmmaking.

 

Ahh, now I agree with you. Well said.