PT Do JJ Abrams, Lucasfilm or Disney no longer consider the PT canon or part of the Star Wars universe?

Liking all of the 6 movies makes you a true fan? Ha! Thank heavens for the EU and NEU then because we have 100's of books and comics to follow and content galore since 1991. If you only like the movies and don't like anything else, you haven't liked anything since 2011 with the Blu-Ray editions. How many books, comics, tv episodes have we had since then? A good bunch.

 

Debating the textbook definition of "huge fan" is a bit silly isn't it? If you prefer some of of the 6 episodes over others I'd hardly say that disqualifies you from being a huge fan. It's more likely a reference to how passionate you are about Star Wars in general. Also alot of people who dislike eps 1 & 2 do like ep 3. That's evident from many polls taken on this site & the recent one on TOS. So it's often not a clear line between each trilogy. Eps 1 & 2 seem to be the films that more often than any other polarise fans. If ep 3 is as popular as so many polls suggest then the whole PT vs OT thing is just a lazy oversimplification.

I'd say it's more like being a huge Red Sox fan but not liking a few individual players so much, which is perfectly fine.

 

Have Mark Hamill do the voice. He can do a good Alec Guiness impression.

 

Alot of fans dislike ROTJ, episode 6.

 

Almost all polling indicates RotJ is thought of along similar lines as RotS. A generally positive rating with a few reservations. Eps 1 & 2 stand apart as having a generally more negative-mixed response. We all know that, even though there are those out there & among us who love them. There are also people who think the Beatles were crap & the Godfather is a terrible movie. Their opinion is valid but we all know what the general popular opinion is.

 

There is no such thing as a "General Opinion" its the biggest lie most PT haters I have talked try to point out but the reality says otherwise. The truth is despite pathetic criticisms the PT was very successful. It is not anywhere near universally hated some like to be. Are they flawed films? Well yes every film is flawed in the way but they are well done films.

I understand there are many Star Wars fan that simply don't enjoy the PT and that is fine but what isn't fine is this ridiculous notion that the majority of the fandom hate them which couldn't be any further from the truth.

 

While I'm not trying to answer for Darth_Downunder I think he was basing that on scores from Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc. Where the PT tend to have lower reviewer scores than the OT.
This won't copy and paste well, but from wikipedia:

Critical and public response

FilmRotten TomatoesMetacriticCinemaScore​

Star Wars 93% (71 reviews)[121] 91 (13 reviews)[122] ​

The Empire Strikes Back 96% (75 reviews)[123] 78 (15 reviews)[124] ​

Return of the Jedi 78% (69 reviews)[125] 52 (14 reviews)[126] ​

Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace 57% (191 reviews)[127] 51 (36 reviews)[128] A-[129]​

Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones 67% (219 reviews)[130] 53 (39 reviews)[131] A-[129]​

Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith 80% (253 reviews)[132] 68 (40 reviews)[133] A-[129]​

Star Wars: The Clone Wars 18% (153 reviews)[134] 35 (30 reviews)[135] B-[129]​

List indicator(s)​

• A dark grey cell indicates the information is not available for the film.

 

Critical reception doesn't matter in the least. There is a reason a film is considered a success by its box office numbers.

 

So you're saying a film should only be judged on how much money it makes?

 

A film can only be judged on a individual basis since art is entirely subjective. No I don't believe a bunch of critics can speak for a vast majority of people on whether a film is good or not. The box office is the best indication there is but also should not be taken as absolute authority on whether a film is good or not either. It's all a personal experience and the only one can that can judge is the person experiencing the film.

 

Even if one chooses to go by the above percentages, a film that gets 67% or 80% is still liked by more than disliked by the majority - so even by that metric, how does that make the PT regarded unfavorably? IF one pits the OT vs the PT, the PT is LESS liked, but hardly generally disliked/hated/reviled by that measure.

BTW, in case I need to say it, it doesn't matter if the PT is generally/universally/whatever less liked than the OT. It does matter if the films are generally positively rated, even if less popular, but the conventional wisdom is that the PT sucks and "everyone" knows that.

 

This is a good point. I personally try to explain I was disappointed in some regards with some of the PT. I certainly don't hate the films, in fact I rank ROTS in my top 3. I still own them and like overall what George was going for. I just watched them as a matter if fact as I get ready for TFA. So, I would be in the camp that would give an overall favorable score as is noted above even if I have some personal complaints if that makes sense.

 

DarthAhem (love the name), that's fine. But your line of reasoning has been used by others to "prove" the "truth" that "everyone" hates the PT. Nothing personal intended, as I think you know.

 

Yeah, frankly, I hate when people turn to RT to back themselves up. It's not really any better than turning to RLM. All you're saying is "A bunch of critics (some are merely internet bloggers, whose reviews should count no more than my own) agree with me and didn't like the movie." It's a very flawed argument.

 

I'm in this camp as well. Well said.

 

If you would have said just that I would have liked your post and totally agreed.

But you had to say this:

Your credibility drops when you think the box office is the best indication there is regarding whether a film is good or not. Based on that assumption Transformers: Age of Extenction is better than:
The Departed
Platoon
The Silence of the Lambs
Forrest Gump
Munich
American Sniper
Requiem for a Dream
2001: A Space Odyssey

I could go on.

 

I should phrased my point better I said box office is a good indicator but its not the be all end all. For instance most of those films you listed I don't enjoy I much rather watch Transformers instead because I actually enjoy the Transformers films. So who is the authority on which of the films is better? No one. It's all a individual experience. Another example take Jurassic World the film was panned by many critics yet was a huge box office success and many ppl enjoyed it. So who is right or wrong here? No one as once again it is entirely subjective.

I am sorry but critical reception does not matter in the least. It's all a personal experience as I said. The worst thing about critics is they act like they have the authority to judge what is good or not and that isn't any further from the truth. For every film a critic bashes a million more people may love said film and vice versa.

 

I think it's sort of a conformity thing if you wanna be cool and fit in you have to hate certain films and take everything critics say as gospel. I can't count how many times I have seen people use a IMDB or Rotten Tomato score as a excuse for why they liked a film. I am not even kidding so many people sadly cling on these sites to fit in and try show their supposedly "Superior Tastes" in film. It's quite sad indeed.

 

That is all you needed to say. I will not debate this anymore with you.

 

Look, there's nothing wrong with liking only certain things within a franchise. Everyone has something that they like or dislike. Take me, I like the "Highlander" franchise. But I dislike the fifth film, though I love the first four films. I love the television series, but not every episode. Same with the spin off. I think that the animated series had potential, but it was aimed at the wrong target audience. I liked most of the comics and all the novels. The notion that you're not a fan if you don't like everything is a ludicrous notion. I've seen that argument here and on other forums over the last fourteen years and I think it is a silly thing to argue.

 

Back in 2005 RT did this study about the movies at the time of release:

http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sta...uels_actually_better_reviewed_than_originals/

Tomatometer Ranking of Star Wars Series Based on Critical Reaction During Original Release Dates
79% - Star Wars
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
31% - Return of the Jedi
62% - Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith

http://web.archive.org/web/20141123...ofstarwars.com/originaltrilogyreception1.html

The above argues "This study, while noteworthy for the effort, is fundamentally flawed in many ways. To start, the comparison between prequels and originals is unfair--the prequel trilogy takes its rating from websites and the like, while the original trilogy reviews are sources like New Yorker and Newsweek, very different sets of reviewers; RT has a solution to this problem, which is the "top critic" filter, which only counts legitimate publications. "

The "properly adjusted" numbers are this:

The Phantom Menace 39%
Attack of the Clones 38%
Revenge of the Sith 69%

However you want to fiddle with the numbers and data it doesn't really tell us much of anything we didn't know. Star Wars the unexpected hit was rated highly in the vein of a fun fantasy adventure. It's follow-up was seen as being too dark and kind of disappointing not being as much fun and the third movie was seen as the series being "tired" and worn out.

Then as time went by and almost 20 years later all 3 grew in stature as the nostalgia kicked and in the fans and post-release film critics came in and reevalutated TESB and ROTJ so that they too became classic with TESB getting a lot of love to be considered now the best of them.

By the time the prequels came these critics and fan critics "knew" what made good Star Wars so there was really no way that TPM was going to please them anymore than ROTJ did originally. AOTC might have but the movie got Anakin and Padme and their love story "wrong" only the last movie that "finally" was on the right path did it anywhere near "right".

So the one thing that it tells us that is actually interesting is that ROTS was the best reviewed Star Wars movie at the time of release since the original if you use either of the adjusted or "properly adjusted" numbers.

 

In commercial terms yes. If you're an accountant at a movie studio, yes. But not when we're discussing what are broadly considered good films. Otherwise Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen would be considered a masterpiece based simply on $$.

Not one iota. That's exactly what I said. Again I use the analogy, if you think the Godfather is awful then your opinion is completely valid. No one can tell you you're "wrong". However that doesn't change the general popular opinion that's it's a great movie. The "court of public opinion" has deemed it so. That's what it has been remembered as.
Same thing if you think TPM is a masterpiece. That's great & you're not "wrong", but the general popular & critical opinion is that it's mediocre. Some fans just don't like that fact & take it personally.

 

The problem is that people don't really understand what an "opinion" is. People generally want to be right and prove the other person wrong, but when discussing something subjective there really isn't much else to be said once everyone lays their opinion on the table. Nobody has proven anything to anyone except what they personally feel about something, but nobody wants to admit that they aren't somehow objectively right about some movie (or whatever). The only remaining course to take is try to shore up your opinion with some "majority's" opinion. Even then, people will choose whichever "majority" agrees with them most (i.e. box office vs. critic reviews) and, in the instance where there is no "majority" to side with, will resort to terms like "sheeple" to try and dismiss the majority that disagrees with them.

People really need to stop seeing these types of conversations as debates to solve who is right or wrong and instead see them as discussions where everyone can share their opinion, explain their opinion, and maybe get some insight in to a differing point of view, even if they still disagree with it.

 

From where I'm standing, I only take my personal rating of the movies as the most relevant one for, me and nobody should change that.

The worst thing to do is to take other people's opinions or reviews to make its own up. And that's what I was about to do when I was taking those RLM reviews and other Youtube's channel review of the PT seriously. It has influenced my perception of the movies but I was being naive and easily influenced, taking everything said on the internet as "valid" and granted since they were the most vocal opinions.

But I rather think that the reason why so many people use the IMDB or Rotten Tomato ratings of the Star Wars movies and keep mentionning it is because it's really getting tiring to hear people saying "the Star Wars prequels are universally hated movies", while it has never been the case. If those scores on those websites are mentionned time to time is to debunk the "universally hated movies" argument. There's no such thing as a "universally hated movie" and it may be time that some fanboys put aside this argument.