Media bias against Star Wars: The Definitive Discussion

Is there a bias by critics and entertainment shows against Star Wars, and the prequels in particular? Or is it just a justified expression of disappointment in Lucas' current output.
Whatever your opinion of the prequels, it does seem that they get bashed more frequently and more viciously in the media than any other films. We don't see the same level of vitriol directed at films like Godzilla, Armagedon, Pearl Harbor . . . hell, even Batman & Robin got off lightly compared to TPM. Why is this?

Another example is critics changing their opinions to jump on a bandwagon. Peter Traver of Rolling Stone magazine initially gave AOTC a positive review, then changed it to a bad review when the DVD came out and listed as one of the worst films of the year. I posted a message on the RS site pointing this out, and it was subsequently deleted.
Conspiracy, or not? I'll let you be the judge.

We're through the looking glass here, people.

 

I'll bite first. I don't know about a media bias, but I do understand that GL is a bit of an "outsider" by Hollywood mogul standards. I agree, there are many, many, MANY so-called "blockbusters" that are FAR worse than Star Wars. But I don't know what the media is expecting out of the SW films. They're not meant to be like "The Hours" or "The Pianist." They're meant for families to be able to go and watch together. They're meant for kids. The media do not understand that what they liked when they were 12 when ANH came out has probably changed over the past 25 years.

I do think that a lot of them change their minds when other opinions come out against the films. But personally, I don't care what film critics think. In fact, I can almost bank on not liking movies they praise, and loving movies they hate. But perhaps I'm not as intellectual or in-tune as they. Perhaps I just like to be entertained sometimes.

I don't like to see bad reviews about the Star Wars films, but I think it's almost an unspoken "rule" that critics now are supposed to respond negatively to movies like these--big-budget, special-effects spectaculars. And, if they wrote positive things about movies they saw, I guess they'd no longer have a job.

When it comes down to it, critiques are nothing more than opinions. And you know what they say about opinions. All that matters to me is whether or not I like it, and I absolutely LOVE TPM and AotC.

 

" Whatever your opinion of the prequels, it does seem that they get bashed more frequently and more viciously in the media than any other films. We don't see the same level of vitriol directed at films like Godzilla, Armagedon, Pearl Harbor . . . hell, even Batman & Robin got off lightly compared to TPM. Why is this?"

I don't agree. All those films you mentioned get conmstantly trashed by the media even years after they're released. The difference is that for a SW fan the negative comments about AOTC tend to "stand out".

There is no media bias. You might as well say that poor Batman & Robin suffered from media bias. Why do most serious reviewers bash films like Godzilla, Battlefield Earth, Batman and Robin, AOTC? Because they's not very good films, that's why!

 

It's become very fashionable for critics and "intellectuals" to bash SW these days. I guess it all comes down to personal taste. Don't forget that the critics are often wrong. The OT got lukewarm reviews at the time. Scarface was panned. Reservoir Dogs and The Usual Suspects got 2 thumbs down from Siskel and Ebert. All of those movies are now considered classics.

TV, newspaper, magazine, internet and fanboy critics all do the same thing: they pick out which films they like and don't like and write out their reasons. Some seriously analyze the movies they critique; most don't. A lot of people have their minds made up by somebody else with a stronger opinion. In any event, they're all just opinions.

Ironically, most of the SW bashing I've seen is from these forums. There probably is a media bias and bandwagon bashing (I think many in the media enjoy provoking SW fanatics) but it doesn't matter because those who truly like the PT will still do so. Besides, SW is so big that everyone will see a new movie anyway.

 

Who cares what the media says? All that matters is whether or not people pay money to go see these films. AOTC was a success financially, so it obviously was not a poorly made film. Films that make over $600 million dollars worldwide are not bad films.

 

Hasn't their always been critics against Star Wars? It's there as long as I remember.

My granfather used to say that everything that gets critics is good. If it wasn't it would be ignored.

 

You might want to take a look at the Hollywood awarded Lucas an oscar thread and the George Lucas Doesn't get enough respect thread, considering they both deal with the same topic and can provide an interesting perspective in the discussion.


I do like this idea for a thread, Duckman. It brings all of the subject matter from other, similar thread and brings in in to a, well, "definitive discussion."

Very nice idea, and very good potential.


Ken Kenobi- And you have a nice day

 

" Don't forget that the critics are often wrong. The OT got lukewarm reviews at the time. Scarface was panned. Reservoir Dogs and The Usual Suspects got 2 thumbs down from Siskel and Ebert. All of those movies are now considered classics."

first of all - just because a movie is a classic doesn't mean it's of great quality.
Second - all the films you mention have genuine "problems" and it's therefore legitimate to dislike them. I personally think Scarface is racist rubbish of the lowest level and Usual Suspects is ordinary. I like ANH a lot but I can see where some critics come from. To summarise - just because a film still attracts a geek following years after it's released doesn't mean it's beyond criticism

 

To summarise - just because a film still attracts a geek following years after it's released doesn't mean it's beyond criticism.

True, but the way the media goes out of its way to take potshots at STAR WARS is a little ridiculous.

 

I agree, Durwood but I think this is not limited to Star Wars

 

first of all - just because a movie is a classic doesn't mean it's of great quality.
Second - all the films you mention have genuine "problems" and it's therefore legitimate to dislike them. I personally think Scarface is racist rubbish of the lowest level and Usual Suspects is ordinary.

I never said that a classic is automatically "great quality." Calling a movie a classic means that there's a lot of people who like it and that it's popularity has endured despite possible critical misgivings. Describing a movie as "great quality" is relative to its impact on the viewer. Even though you don't like them and they may have "problems," there are plenty who consider Scarface and The Usual Suspects to be great.

I like ANH a lot but I can see where some critics come from. To summarise - just because a film still attracts a geek following years after it's released doesn't mean it's beyond criticism

Of course, no film is beyond criticism. Instead of saying that critics are often wrong, I should have said that a critic's word is not gospel. It's "legitimate" to like or dislike any movie you want, and there are plenty of movies that mainstream critics have hated but are loved by more than just a "geek following." Just because a critic hates a movie, doesn't mean everyone else has to.

 

The media and critics ASSUME that EVERYBODY hated TPM and AOTC. They think that just because they have a platform to speak from (TV,Magazines,Papers,Radio and the Internet) that there opinon is worth more then the average person who doesn't have a TV show.

Thank goodness for The Forece.net where I can go I express my opinon and have many other people be able to read it.

I have seen critics jump onto a bandwagon so that won't look foolish. Leonard Maltin said TPM was a good movie not great just a good film. He now says AOTC was horrible. Why? Because all of the critics have jumped onto the PT is awful bandwagon.

He also said that LOTR FOTR was a good movie not great just good. He now says that LOTR TTT is a great and excellent film. Why? Because FOTR is now hail as a masterpiece(Which is is) and he looked somewhat foolish. Now him plus all the other critcs who didn't care for FOTR have jumped on the TTT is awesome bandwagon.

In the end all that matters is that no critic, no magazine and no internet idiots will be able to stop Lucas from making Star Wars for me and the rest of the fans who love it.

 

. . . this is not limited to Star Wars.

Care to point out some other examples?

 

"Why do most serious reviewers bash films like Godzilla, Battlefield Earth, Batman and Robin, AOTC? Because they's not very good films, that's why!"

That's odd, Tukafo. Because AOTC is the only one of those films to make over $600 million at the box office, the only one to get positive scores from audience exit polls, and the only one to get mostly positive reviews (at least from the non-snobby critics). So the fact that the media would have us believe AOTC was a "bad" film is highly dubious, don't you think?

 

I don't really care for critics,but they should have the guts to stick with a review of a film they wrote,through thick and thin. Maybe that's why nobody should pay any attention to them.

 

Duckman:
>>Is there a bias by critics and entertainment shows against Star Wars, and the prequels in particular?<<

Not in such explicit terms, I don't think.

>>Or is it just a justified expression of disappointment in Lucas' current output.<<

MUCH more likely, though some would, of course, dispute the "justified" part.

>>We don't see the same level of vitriol directed at films like Godzilla, Armagedon, Pearl Harbor . . . hell, even Batman & Robin got off lightly compared to TPM. Why is this?<<

Because, by-and-large, those other films have been largely forgotten. Godzilla 98 has slipped into bad memory, Armageddon has been outlived by it's theme song. Pearl Harbor AND it's themesong have fallen off-radar. Batman & Robin "got off lightly" because it was the final low-point for a series critics weren't really taking seriously to begin with.

stacysatrip:
>>I don't know about a media bias, but I do understand that GL is a bit of an "outsider" by Hollywood mogul standards.<<

The "moguls" are gone, have been since the decline of the studio system. There are none left. Just about every major "name" producer in Hollywood goes about the "act" of doing something "different" from the standard fare in order to distinguish themselves. Lucas only "goes to extra mile" by spending his own money.

>>I don't like to see bad reviews about the Star Wars films, but I think it's almost an unspoken "rule" that critics now are supposed to respond negatively to movies like these--big-budget, special-effects spectaculars.<<

Okay, broken record time... ::dons flame-retardant suit::: If thats the "rule," explain LOTR.

Oh, and Minority Report, Matrix, etc.

Tufako:
>>There is no media bias. You might as well say that poor Batman & Robin suffered from media bias. Why do most serious reviewers bash films like Godzilla, Battlefield Earth, Batman and Robin, AOTC? Because they's not very good films, that's why!<<

Agreed. Actually, I think there's a larger consideration being missed here. The only REAL bias the media has is the bias in favor of what will make a good story. That the "Godzilla" remake was lousy was no huge shock to most people, ditto for "B&R" which had been getting nothing but bad buzz a year before it's release.

Of the three mentioned, the most hugely media-buzzed was "Battlefield Earth." Why? Because "Superstar John Travolta blows career on Scientology B-movie!" is a great entertainment story. Y'know what else the media probably thinks will be a GREAT entertainment story? "Reigning blockbuster-movie franchise usurped!" "Star Wars saga crumbles as fans turn on Prequels!" "Viggo Mortensen (or, if you prefer, Keanu Reeves): The NEW Hollywood hero!"

In short: The media are following the "end of Star Wars" because it's a good news story.

DarthSil:
>>All that matters is whether or not people pay money to go see these films. AOTC was a success financially, so it obviously was not a poorly made film. Films that make over $600 million dollars worldwide are not bad films.<<

Umm... No? A film can make TWICE that and still be a "bad" film, since "bad" is all a matter of an opinion. The only people who measure film "qaulity" in monitary terms are investors, and even most of them are likely keen enough to know when they've made a fortune off a turkey.

 

Here's my take on the whole issue:

I don't know if it's so much a media bias so much as it is the media trumpeting the opinion of the minority. It's hardly a secret that the media thrives on controversy, and what better way to create controversy than to report the minority opinion?

Think about, say you're at a party where everybody is talking about how great, say, the latest John Grisham novel is, and you say, "I thought it sucked, and Grisham is a hack." All of a sudden, you'll be the most popular guy in the room, not necessarily the most well liked guy, but certainly the most popular in that everybody will want a piece of you, so to speak.

Well, that's what the media is doing. They know that Lucas is successful and that his movies are extraordinarily popular. They also know they're not going to get much notice from the general public if they report on what the majority feels. "Latest STAR WARS film smash hit as expected" isn't going to get nearly the same reaction as, "STAR WARS a flop; Lucas washed up".

The interesting thing is, there are just enough fans with a dissenting opinion that the media is able to validate their reporting, even if it is minimal validation at best. It doesn't matter that Lucasfilm's exit polls show that a large majority of the audience has greatly enjoyed the prequels, or that the films have been box office hits and top DVD sellers. As long as members of the media can log onto any number of movie forums and see just a few people trash talking about STAR WARS, they'll go ahead and print their stories about "disappointed fans" and films performing below "expectations" (never mind the fact they never specify exactly who's expectations they're referring to).

It's ironic that to get the most attention, all you need to do is embrace the least popular opinions, but that's the psychological angle the media is banking on.

 

Well said Durwood!

BTW, everyone look at this "review" and tell me you don't think the guy's a scumbag.

 

You've gotta be kidding.

I didn't even bother reading the whole thing. That guy's a freakin ... ugh. I can't believe people actually read that crap.

I don't see why the media views AOTC as such a horrible movie. They really have a narrow view of things somethimes ... I thought Titanic was horribly boring, yet it's considered brilliant. *shrug*

 

Okay, broken record time... ::dons flame-retardant suit::: If thats the "rule," explain LOTR.

Okay, I will. But it's not likely the explanation you expected. It's my opinion that the LOTR films suffer from the same bias that the recent Star Wars films do. That being that it's just not intellectually acceptable to like sci-fi and fantasy.

But, both have been nominated for best film, you say? That's just it, nominated. Nominated for only one reason - that they've already been regarded as works of classic literature for decades. That can't be ignored. If a critic pans it, they'd look uncultured. Not well read. Whatever.

So, they get nominations. Because they're already considered classic, and they are spectacular films. If they were blatantly horrible, the critics might be able to get away with ignoring them. The nominations show that the critics are well-read lovers of literature... but did anyone ever get the feeling that they had a chance? I know I didn't. It wasn't really being treated the same as the other nominees.

First, FoTR gets beat by A Beautiful Mind? What the...? It was an alright film, a good film. Entertaining. But not the movie of the year by a long shot. (Everyone ignored the fact that the movie left convenient parts of the book out, like the fact that the main character was anit-Semitic)

Then, TTT's nomination barely is on the radar. The only clip they show during the awards is the Gollum monologue. Over and over. All the breath-taking scenes in that movie, and that scene is the only one they show. And it gets beat out by a freaking musical. A freaking musical!!

I'm going to stop typing now. Wombat out.

 

"BTW, everyone look at this "review" and tell me you don't think the guy's a scumbag"

You are correct, Duckman. He is a scumbag.

I mean here is a review of a part of a saga that this critic -I use the word with contempt- claims to have loved since childhood(though how he can claim that he loved the OT is up for debate). And yet he says in the same article that the only part of the OT that had any merit was TESB, and that the prequels have sullyed his memories of the OT. Well, Mr. Critic Man, it looks to me like you were not a fan of the OT or the whole saga. You are a fan of TESB, nothing more.

 

however negative that review was, i think he had a point about the dialogue. that was my least favorite part of AOTC.

however, it's people like this who help make films high-grossing. even if the critics go see the movie only to bash it, they will. someone made a comment in another thread a long time ago (and i dont remember who it was or where) that star wars bashers have seen the movies more than fans have. apparently they like to torture themselves.

 

True, but the way the media goes out of its way to take potshots at STAR WARS is a little ridiculous.

This is soo true! Thank god for this thread! I have been meaning to vent on EW and now I get my chance! If you look at The Core's artcile in EW. I forget the issue. A couple of weeks ago, EW interviewer takes a potshot at SW. And the Director responded saying his movie has character development and not focus so much on F/X etc... Can't remember right now what the exact phrase was.

Then in last weeks EW issue, on The Matrix Reloaded review, it said in 1999, The Matrix shoved aside Star Wars and became the new movie for sound and visuals. As I remember, TPM made $431 million. The Matrix was like $170+m. Seems to me SW not just shoved The Matrix, but it blew it away. Then the last part of the review it said, they hope Reloaded is not The Phantom Menace part Deux. I mean come on! This magazine is pathetic!! They are the only ones that keep bringin up SW in thier reviews. Other magazines I read never bring up any other movie in there review. Do they constantly need to bring down the SW franchise in order to make themselfs look good? They also act if everyone feels as they do. Once my subscription is done I am not renewing it. So do not tell me there is no media bias. I wish I could email EW but they do not have an email address for me to write them.

Now do not get me wrong. I love The Matrix and looking forward to the sequels. I am just tired of EW and their constant shots at SW. GROW UP OVER THERE EW!!!!

I feel better now.

 

Lucas could care less what the critics say, just so long as they buy a ticket...or three!

 

Why do most serious reviewers bash films like Godzilla, Battlefield Earth, Batman and Robin, AOTC? Because they's not very good films, that's why!

Come on! All the films on your list are bad except AOTC! I would NEVER EVER in a MILLION years ever think that AOTC is as far down on the ladder of quality like garbage such as Battlefield Earth or Batman and Robin. The difference is that the jury will forever be out on the verdict of AOTC's merits, whereas the sentence has already been served on the other films you mention.

Why not use the RottenTomatoes percentages as a vague guide to what the reviewers think.

Godzilla: 23%

Battlefield Earth: 4%

Batman & Robin: 14%

Attack Of The Clones: 63%

AOTC ranks a full 40 percent above the nearest competitor on your list. Now, surely that PROVES that AOTC can't be fairly lumped in with the rancid crap on you list, can it?

I don't think there is any media bias myself, but there sure is a lot of basher-bias.

-JDR.