AOTC the Most Disappointing Movie of the Summer?

"Your missing the obvious. Scooby Doo was not a disapointment because most people already knew that it would be a joke. However AOTC was a Star Wars movie it was supposed to be good. AOTC let alot of people down"

You mean let down the people who thought TPM was a masterpiece and wanted more Jar Jar in the sequel, RBE?
I'll repeat my question again. If most people who didn't like TPM consider AOTC at least a slight improvement, then how can it be a disappointment? I've heard many people argue that the disappointment of TPM was a good thing, because it would lower expectations for Episode II, but it doesn't seem to have worked out that way. Even the bad reviews AOTC received didn't seem to prepare people to be disappointed all over again. If Episode III is better than both TPM and AOTC, will it still be called a disappointment? Not in my opinion, but clearly other people disagree.

I'm beginning to think I was right when I predicted long ago that anyone who hated TPM would hate all the prequels. It doesn't seem to matter what Lucas does, the prequels just can't please a significant portion of moviegoers.

 

Actually the most disappointing movie for me is MINORITY REPORT. It's not a bad movie, but I had expected better from Spielberg and Cruise.

 

If you want to talk about whether AOTC was a disappointment, then you have to reach an agreement about what the "expectations" were to begin with.

I don't think anyone expected AOTC to top out under, or just at $300 million. If Lucas himself thought that, he certainly didn't say it publicly as far as I know. Relative to all other Star Wars movies, in terms of real dollars and in terms of tickets sold, AOTC is a disappointment, even though it almost certainly turned a profit.

I don't think anyone expected AOTC to be a critical success, and it wasn't. A lot of the fans wished that the critics had embraced it. You know that's true from the defensive, angry threads about the critical response.

But the fans, as a whole, do not seem to be disappointed. Maybe because, as DarthHomer suggests, TPM demoralized them into much lower expectations.

 

Or maybe, just possibly, because they liked the movie?

I know what you're thinking, but it might be true.

 

Jabba, when are you going to stop your revisionism?

BTW, Lucas said he expected the film to be in the Top 15 all-time. Where's the film at now Jabba?

 

I think we're in agreement that a lot of fans liked the movie.

In terms of box office, the American public went to see AOTC at about the same levels they went to see FOTR and Harry Potter. No one would deny that the Star Wars prequels have box office clout equal to either of those franchises.

So why does the aura of disappointment linger around AOTC?

Possible explanations:

1. It's media induced
2. Virtually everyone expects Star Wars movies to outperform everything else at the box office.
3. AOTC was not as good a movie as it could have been.

 

I can't beleive that Scooby Doo 2 and Spider-Man 2 are in the process of being made now.





I can understand your disbelief over Scooby Doo, but Spider-Man? NEWSFLASH: Look at the box office gross.

If they can make sequels to Austin Powers when the first one made a little more than $50 million at the theaters in '97, they can make sequels to a $400 million grosser.


*IJ still waits for a sequel to ID4 to be made*

 

But Scooby Doo has crashed badly at the box office after its big opening. It's not totally clear that the movie is even going to turn a profit, especially when you consider the likelihood that, e.g. "The Grinch", the movie will totally flop outside the U.S.

I do not understand why a studio would ever make a sequel for a movie that earned less than three times its budget.

Charlie's Angels is another good example. It cost $95 million to make and earned about $260 million worldwide. That's just not sequel material.

 

Jabbadabbado:

I had higher expectations for Episode II than Episode I. I wanted a darker, dramatic story in line with ESB.

So much for TPM lowering my expectations for the AOTC

 

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones

Most dissapointing FAN REACTION of the summmer!

 

ShaneP, that's interesting. I had not read that quote anywhere. Of course, every other Star Wars movie finished in the top 5 in the year it came out.

And of course, if you adjust for inflation, a far more realistic look at a film's commercial success, then AOTC comes out at about 73, right next to "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom."

In real dollars, all the OT films are in the top 15, and TPM is in the top 25.

You like the word "revisionism" but you never explain exactly what you mean, or what you claim I've revised. That's a big word, "revisionism." Make sure you use it correctly.

 

Jabbadabbadoo (sp?)

You're forgetting that CHARLIE'S ANGELS did a mint in ancilliary revenue. It was a big hit on video, no? I'm sure SCOOBY DOO will doo (sorry) big business on video, also. The reality of the Hollywood decision machine isn't necessarily how much money a movie earns the first time out. It's about one word: franchise. Every studio hungrily searches for a movie that will provide them that tent pole for years. It's no secret that Sony bent over backwards to make MIB2 because they were one of the few studios that didn't have a franchise. Now that SPIDER MAN is a certified franchise, it'll be interesting to see if Sony continues with MIB movies, especially considering all the profit participation among its individuals. Over at Universal, they're eager to make a FAST AND FURIOUS 2 because they feel its a franchise, although Vin Diesel isn't returning. A movie like XXX is gold for a studio because it deals with a superhero character played by a "hot" action actor. SCORPION KING was practically a franchise forced down audience's throats. So, as you can see, bottom line profit can be long ranging with the right risks.


In the case of DOO and ANGELS, the risk of the sequels failing is worth the effort to make one because of name recognition alone. And in the case of ANGELS, there are a lot of movie stars to keep happy. Yes, movies get greenlighted on that principle alone.

 

I don't have anything to add to that. Excellent post.

 

Ok, first of all, I'm going to admit it, I was watching Scream 2 yesterday...wait, it's for good reason. I was looking specifically for the part when they talk about sequels. There are only 2 times in history of film where a sequel is decidedly better than the original. The Godfather Part II, and ESB. Now, I guess you could put AOTC in there too, because it was decidedly better than TPM right? So, why should any of us be dissappointed, 2 out of the 3 best sequels in the history of film turned out to be Star Wars movies, pretty cool if you ask me.

JediNTraining

 

quote:

If most people who didn't like TPM consider AOTC at least a slight improvement, then how can it be a disappointment?

naivete born from hope and desperation.

 

Totally off topic but I have to comment on the Scream 2 sequels bit. Godfather 2 is not decidedly better than the original. It is arguably better than the original. Now Terminator 2 is decidedly better. I would also have to say Goldfinger is decidedly better than it's predecessors and decidedly the best Bond film. I also wouldn't say ESB is decidedly better than ANH. It's a pretty tough call.

Onto AotC. I guess technically AOTC is a the sequel of TPM and it is decidedly better. Unfortunately AOTC is also a sequel of the OT and I think it falls far short. It was a good jump though.

 

dahveed, it's amazing you're able to type so much after your massive stroke.

 

Youre my biggest fan foxbat!! Where should i send my newsletter?

quote:

<<Now Terminator 2 is decidedly better.>>

I always thought you were kinda suspect madmardigan. this confirms it.

 

Here's an interesting thought mad, what if Lucas is purposely making each movie better and better. Now, let me explain. TPM, not very good, AOTC, better than TPM, but maybe not the OT, so, if III is close to the OT, but not better, ANH is better than the PT, and ESB and ROTJ are very close. Each movie, if you watch I-VI, gets progressively better, opposite of what most series do. Something to think about.

JediNTraining

 

why would anyone deliberatley make a movie not as good as it could possibly be?

why would someone make one movie bad to make another look better when they could make all of them great?

thats just plain ridiculous

 

Sadly, at this point many of us will be happy/relieved if ep 3 is ALMOST as good as ROTJ.

 

Why would Lucas waste $115 million dollars on the first movie just to make the other movies look better?



ST

 

I don't want to get into a list of SW movies but they don't get progressively better from I-VI. Instead they get progressively better like this I, II, (III), VI, IV, V

Dahveed - I'm suspect because I think T2 is better than T1? C'mon on now. T2 is purely awesome filmmaking.

 

By modern standards, yes. But the only thing T2 had on T1 was better effects.

Well, more REALISTIC effects anyway. I still get a kick out of the scene where arnie "repairs" his face even though its fake looking. And its darker, tenser. yada yada.

Youre still suspect, mad, but ill let it slide 4 now.

 

Actually, not as ridiculous as you may think. Now originally, the only thing that kept ANH from being the best it could be was that it came first, and Lucas couldn't take the huge risk. Plus the technology issue. So, each movie automatically became better. So, when making the PT, he goes with the same thing. Making a safe first movie, then going darker, which makes them historically better. But, if you make your base audience, you are able to do that. So, TPM makes a new base crowd, he already knows the hardcores will be there, but he introduces characters that kids like too. What do kids do? They grow up, so, each movie gets darker as kids age. Each movie gets better because those kids now understand tougher topics. So, each movie is able to be better than it's predecessor.

JediNTraining