Revenge Got People's Choice!

It was great. Lucas talked about how this is the award he cares about, because ultimately he makes his movies for "the people". He added "Critics Schmitics".

Also Rotten Tomatoes did a comparison between reviews for the prequels and the classic trilogy from the time of their original release, and found the prequels actually ended up being better reviewed.

See for yourself: The Prequels were better reveiwed than the classic trilogy.

 

I'm happy for everyone involved in 'Sith' that they got this reward. But really, even if it was voted the worst film of the year by every critic and awards progam in the world, it still wouldn't change my view of the film.

Good or bad, I develop my own opineons on the quality of a film. I could care less is IMDB praises or balks a film. At the same time I use their website to investigate filmographies and get news and updates about what people in the industry are working on.

The only use I have for critics is to help me wade through the bulk of bad movies for the benefit of time spent well. But if a film project appeals to me, I'll see it no matter what critics think or say.

That being said, I feel the People's Choice awards are a joke. I put more stock in the Oscars because those who select nominations have the experience to recognise growth in the film medium as well as cliche' and elements such as originality and script design. But like anything else, there are political elements to consider that seldom have anything to do with the quality of the film except perhaps the subject matter and those who made it.

I commend those in film for their grace in showing up and saying thanks and all that, but apart from that, the award means nothing. Just because a movie is popular doesn't mean it's a quality film. Approaching film in terms of popularity is like defining it in terms of fashion. It's great today, but tomorrow it's a laughing stock.

 

That's great that news. This is a first for the prequels.

 

First of all..really cool that ROTS won two awards last night. It may be awards "lite" but they are awards nontheless and on some level a certain portion of the populace enjoys his work and if you beleive Lucas..he really is pleased with this. I say well done and it really is a nice bookend to the SW series; cause as a friend of mine said..(this years blockbuster and best picture nominee....King Kong;this was saracastically of course) will win all the tech awards and I agree..I'll be surprised it ROTS wins anything. So I think it's great.

now Second of all. 24 hours later..ET, access hollywood, extra, showbiz tonight, E news,...the big story of the People's choice Awards??? freakin Jessica Simpson and her awful singing of her "Grammy winning"???????? rendition of "these boots"??? WTH?? Lucas is crapped on by the media AGAIN by.....Jessica Simpson of all people. Unbelievable!!!

 

I guess a lot of people are ignoring the fact that overall, according to several sources, rottentomatoes, imdb, yahoo movies, boxofficemojo.com member voting. ROTS got over 80 percent good reviews.

 

That being said, I feel the People's Choice awards are a joke. I put more stock in the Oscars because those who select nominations have the experience to recognise growth in the film medium as well as cliche' and elements such as originality and script design. But like anything else, there are political elements to consider that seldom have anything to do with the quality of the film except perhaps the subject matter and those who made it.

The Oscars are when bunch of people pretty much vote for themselves right?

 

Well, its hard to compare the Oscars to the People's Choice awards. The Oscars are selected by the industry/critic types.

The People's Choice awards are selected by the people.

Both of these two shows are the biggest and most highly thought of awards shows in their respective awards show categories. The Oscars for critical awards, and the People's Choice awards for public voting/popularity awards....

So if you want to gauge which movies are critically the best, then look to the Oscars. If you wanna gauge what was overall favorite movie and the one that the general public enjoyed the most, then look no further than the P.C.A.

 

Just because a movie is popular doesn't mean it's a quality film. Approaching film in terms of popularity is like defining it in terms of fashion. It's great today, but tomorrow it's a laughing stock.


Comments like these are so tiresome and pop up with regularity on the net. No, just because a movie is popular doesn't mean it's quality. But the reverse is also true. Just because it's popular doesn't necessarily mean it's bad. Snobbery is so unbecoming.

Let's face it, a lot of people like to feel superior by looking down their noses and mocking anything that's popular with the masses. Guess what? The masses include all kinds of people. They aren't all people who can't recognize a good movie.

Quality is purely subjective, popularity is not. It can be measured in practical terms
like number of tickets sold and number of dollars earned. And in a capital-intensive art form like film, if you want to be a working director, you sure the heck better make sure your movies break even on a reasonably consistent basis or it's gonna be increasingly difficult to get financing to make your next film. No one wants to support a loser.

One of my all-time favorite directors is Stanley Kubrick. He had an uneven commercial track record. Some of his films were big hits that made good money, some of his films were not. But Warner Brothers knew that simply because he was a very famous director, he would always have some ticket sales. One film of his, BARRY LYNDON, a slow moving historical epic with great performances and extraordinarily beautiful visuals was a total disaster in America, earning a measly 11 million dollars. And yet the film did well. Why? Because in Europe, especially Germany, the film was a monster hit and was HUGELY POPULAR THERE. It was the exact same film, but appreciated in a different culture in a completely different way than Americans saw it. So it's different strokes for different folks, regardless of the subjective "quality" of a film. By the way, BARRY LYNDON won 4 Academy Awards, but that didn't do a thing for it's box office. Again, there's no accounting for taste.

Why can't we all just get along?

 

Wow! I'm so happy and totally shocked to hear this! An Oscar would be nice but this is actually a little more interesting to me because I really can't stand everything about the Oscars.

 

Also Rotten Tomatoes did a comparison between reviews for the prequels and the classic trilogy from the time of their original release, and found the prequels actually ended up being better reviewed.

Only because there are only a handful of available reviews compared to the HUNDREDS available for the PT. Or are we supposed to believe 3 negative reviews of the original Star Wars is a true representation of what the numbers would be if we had a hundred reviews? Things change with greater numbers.

Eli Roth's new film "Hostel" was sitting in the high nineties when there were only 10 reviews available. Now with more reviews, it sits at 60%. So stop pandering us this shaky evidence as though it means something. The less discriminating eye will miss the finer details and might actually believe this hogwash.

 

I assent to this as well. Kubrick was a genius and arguably the greatest director of all-time. I felt his crowning achievement was "A Clockwork Orange" unlike the masses who view "2001: A Space Odyssey" as his best work. Now back on topic.

 

That's right. Furthermore I guarantee that if you were to go to a mall in anytown USA, or elsewhere across the globe and conducted a 150 person survey (average number of Rotten Tomato reviews) asking people how they rated each film on a scale of 1 to 100, the OT's numbers would totally annihilate the PT's. It wouldn't even be close.

 

REVENGE OF THE SITH WON YES

 

ROTS, # 1 movie in America for 2005!

Winner of Best Movie and Best Drama at the People's Choice Awards

Ah, the sweet smell of victory!



And the New York Times Critic said ROTS was better than the original SW.

Go George!

 

Only because there are only a handful of available reviews compared to the HUNDREDS available for the PT. Or are we supposed to believe 3 negative reviews of the original Star Wars is a true representation of what the numbers would be if we had a hundred reviews? Things change with greater numbers.

Sure they do, but how many people were reviewing movies in the 70s and early 80s compared to today? With the internet we can look at hundreds of reviews. Back then, you might have seen a dozen at most then unless you subscribed to a lot of out of town and out of state newspapers & magazines.

 

RotS also won Yahoo! Movies #1 2005 movie

I'm sure GL is going to buy a nice glass display to showcase this award at his new studio. It is a great accomplishment, to be the fans #1 movie of the year (in both $$$ and votes).

 

Brilliant. Simply brilliant. And I concur: well done, George!

Also brilliant.

Although I feel that Lucas has every right to feel annoyance and express it (he *is* living in a democratic country, after all), and even sympathise with him when he does so, I think he would be showing even more dignity and grace by not venting his anger. Yes, the man is human and I'm an enormous fan of his (more and more so with the passage of time), but insofar as it would benefit him personally, I believe he should take a greater slice from Jedi philosophy. Unfortunately, Lucas is no Qui Gon; he's more like Luke - fundamentally decent and gentile, but prone to outbursts given the motive and opportunity.

I also agree, despite being a huge fan and champion of Episodes I and II, that Revenge of the Sith is more focused and gripping than the previous two. It really is the most deserving - and perhaps the only deserving - prequel to garner the award. And garner the award it has! I also agree that the media weren't engaged in a smear campaign against Star Wars - but the media is a fickle bea

 

And I challenge anyone to explain to me how "Star Wars 3" qualifies as a drama."


Its only a drama by process of elimination of their limited categories. Its not a musical, even though the music is great and its not a comedy, even though there are funny parts. They just dont have a category for action/adventure except for drama.

 

Yay! ROTS deserved it.

The oscars are a laugh. The PT films were not even nominated for Best Costume - Hello! Did you miss Queen Amidala with working lantens in the hem of her throne room dress? Or her 14 costume changers in AOTC?

Morons.

 

Excellent.

 

Lucas has all the money he needs. He can spend the rest of his life making crappy films and be content. He has his nest egg and his children's college funds. Lucas has maintained since 1977, that he was disappointed in ANH and that it was 25% of what he wanted. He is not fond of those versions and in fact has made changes since he first released it. Adding and subtracting things. Barring a few more modifications, he's satisfied with the OT.

Lucas has made the films for fans, but he's done it his way. Not our way.

 

Why must RotS be continually beaten down by people who want it to lose?
If you don't want to like it, fine. But somebody out there does.

 

In my experience, people did like ROTS and I also think it was critically well received. I personally think it is a very flawed film that looks good next to the first two films however, I am willing to concede it is a popular film amongst moviegoers and critics.

 

Not to get off topic, but I never understood the film was 25% what he wanted. As much as I complain about wanting the originals, he didn't change 75% of the original to the SE. He changed maybe about 10%?

I can still enjoy the SE that came out on DVD, although I do still want the originals, but if he changed 75% of the film, I probably would hate the SE. But I don't know where Lucas gets these numbers. Other than effects changes, and most of them are in the final death star battle, Greedo shooting first, the addition of Jabba, and minor changes to ObiWan house, and the jawa sandcrawler, it isn't THAT different.

I can't believe you Darth Sinister, you made me actually defend the SE for a second! What is it some jedi mind trick?

All in all, I don't think any of us know if Lucas will release them because he does change his mind every 5 years, the only way I could see him releasing them is with the 6 box set of all movies in 2007? And have it like E.T. DVD where you have a seamless branching option for either the SE OT, or O-OT, along with newer versions of the three PT movies . Cause Lucas has to know that many fans didn't like the PT, so they won't buy it for that reason, and if they have the 2004 DVD set, they need some reason to buy it, cause there is a huge older fan base that wants them. As much as people take shots at Lucas, the guy is a smart business man, and I don't think he'll pass up a chance at a huge cash cow for a box set to appease EVERY SW fan.

 

I have to say that, much as I wish that will turn out to be the case, I think GL genuinely considers the originals to be inferior and does not want them to represent his artistic vision at all. That can be the only reason he wouldn't release them in some way, because you are right, he would appease every fan. I think that GL just has some very peculiar notions of what is an improvement sometimes. He must be the only person on the planet to think Greedo shooting first even looks passable.