**Official** MEDIA reviews of AOTC -- your reactions

Good to hear AOTC is now fresh (even if it's too little, too late from RT).
Now I want to hear what Kevin Smith (the good fanboy) and Mark A Altman (the evil fanboy) thought of it. Anyone know if they're reviewed it yet?

 

Kevin Smith did not write an official review of it. But he did mention on a radio show that he absolutely loved it.

Also, in a recent article he wrote about seeing Spider-Man (which he hated the first time he saw it and then liked it more the second) he made a comment about AOTC (the last paragraph).

[edit]

The link takes you to an article with very adult language

RB

 

I don't know if this has been mentioned before, but last night I was watching t.v. and a commercial came on for that new animated kids movie "Spirit". If you don't know anything about it (I really don't either) it's about a horse who goes on some kind of adventure supposedly.

Anyway, I guess the critics just think it's the cat's ass, cause all these qoutes from movie reviewers pop up on the screen gushing about how good this movie is (Ebert and Roper gave it two thumbs up).

I wasn't really paying it much attention until one qoute came up and I heard the narrators voice say : "So-and So from the (whatever paper) says this movie has more action than Star Wars Episode 2!"

What a frickin' cheap shot! Why didn't they say it's got more action than Spiderman? How about more action than 'Ice Age'? No, instead they chose SW!!

Now, I'm no fanboy, but I do think that that was cheap shot by whatever reviewer made that comment. It just goes to show you that critics just seem to love to hate Star Wars!

 

Um, no movie has more action than AOTC - that's a fact. Stupid critics!

 

It's cool to bash Star Wars, because everyone likes it. Like I have said before, it's just an ego trip for these critics. Think about it- millions of people around the world are waiting eagerly to see the new Star Wars movie, and these critics get to see it first. If they say they love it, what happens? They get lost in the shuffle. But if they HATE it... well, that makes headlines! I remember Drudge made a big deal out of the fact that Newsweek hated it.

I don't think that these critics intentionally give it a bad review, but I DO think they go in with a chip on their shoulder. Its like they are saying to themselves "well lets just SEE how good this movie is!" The rest is history.


Then there are people like Rex Reed who are just snobs and they wont like it no matter what.

 

thenink, I created a new thread on that very thing a couple of min ago and it got locked. No wonder, you beat me to it.

And yes, that blurb about Spirit is the biggest BS I heard all weekend.

Before my thread got locked, someone said that Spirit DID have more action. Do I even have to explain why I don't believe that?

 

Don't worry Lord_Ender, that was a troll. Anyways, just so you know, Spirit is not Disney. I think it's Dreamworks. Anyways it looks crappy, I like Disney and know they wouldn't say something like that in a commercial.

 

Thanks for clearing that up foxbatkllr. I was pretty sure it was Disney, but now that you mention it, Disney isn't the kind of company that would stoop that low.

 

Stoop that low meaning what?

How about aping another movie's promotional campaign to capitalize on its success? *cough*Yoda commercial*cough*

 

Even USA Today is getting in on the bashing. What's the deal with them calling AOTC "feeble" after their critic gave it 3 1/2 stars?

 

I saw that too DarthHomer and I am outraged by it. That's just as bad as what EW is doing...capitalizing on AOTC's success while bashing it and giving it a poor review at the same time.

 

((Even USA Today is getting in on the bashing. What's the deal with them calling AOTC "feeble" after their critic gave it 3 1/2 stars? ))

Unless the same critic that liked it called the entire movie feeble, you have no point. Link us to what you are quoting from.

 

Uh huh.

 

((**** them criticz they can shove the remarks up there ***! If they don't like Star Wars the why watch it! Like they could make a movie like GL!!!))

By the same logic, you can shove your remarks about the critics up your ass. Judging by your comment, it doesn't look like you can CRITICIZE as good as the critics.

 

Indeed.

 

Hey, watch the language! This is not a bathroom wall!

Critics are pretty useless and non-talented people. See my sig for more ...

 

((Critics are pretty useless ))

Without critics, art would never get better.

You need someone to tell you you're wrong so that you can progress.

Fans are only there to give you money.

 

Most real artists paid little to no attention to professional critics and just kept producing great art. As a matter of fact, the more creative people I've met have little patience for critics. History shows this too.

But hey, maybe you are smarter than Mark Twain, and the masses matter not. Yeah, right.

 

And that's the end of that.

 

((Most real artists paid little to no attention to professional critics and just kept producing great art. ))

Most great artists do pay attention to criticism, even when they don't admit it. Only the people that think too highly of themselves do not. All of the best artists I know listen to criticism - the mediocre ones think they are already on top (which is why they continue to be mediocre).

Or perhaps you know more than Steven Spielberg, who has mentioned the usefulness of criticism on multiple occasions? That might explain why Spielberg is a better director than Lucas rigth there.

 

Thanks GriffZ

 

>> Most great artists do pay attention to criticism, even when they don't admit it.

Ah, so we can go through history and mind read all the professional critic bashin, and it's just artists being in denial. I can't argue with time traveling mind readers.

>> Only the people that think too highly of themselves do not. All of the best artists I know listen to criticism - the mediocre ones think they are already on top

I didn't say great artists don't listen to criticism, I said they don't generally listen to professional critics, that's why you find the overwhelming negative quotes throughout history wrt to *PROFESSIONAL* critics.

If you bothered to read my sig as I poointed out, you would have understood that I think criticism is valid, but mostly from your intended audience.

If I create a children's book, I'll value the opinions of the children reading it, not some smug "professional critic" that is not my intendeded audience and his qualification not quantifiable like most critics and other made up professions.

You can come in here and tell us all day how the "professional" critics can analyse more, and blah blah blah, I could care less.

When I was in art class (and I'm not a professional artist, I woke up from that) the most important and valuable input for me was that of the people not in my class. Because they knew nothing about the craft, and only cared about the output. If they got it, and they liked it, I was happy.

And I'll take Mark Twain's opinion on the matter over Spielbergs any day of the year, let's see where Spielberg is in a couple of hundreds of years from now.

 

((When I was in art class (and I'm not a professional artist, I woke up from that) the most important and valuable input for me was that of the people not in my class. Because they knew nothing about the craft, and only cared about the output. If they got it, and they liked it, I was happy. ))

And that shows why you're not an artist. This discussion has been gotten into before, but any artist will tell you (when he cannot be quoted) that the "public" are idiots when it comes to art. I did read your signature, and it stresses that public criticism is the only criticism that is important, which is ridiculous to any artist.

The most important criticism comes from a peer, someone who understands what is going on in the artwork - not some Joe Schmo that just says 'wow, that looks cool!' You only worry about the masses when they're putting food on your table.

As for your Mark Twain/Spielberg statement, Spielberg will obviously be remembered as one of if not the greatest director of all time in future years, obviously. He's already viewed that way now, and his career is far from over.

 

"And that shows why you're not an artist. This discussion has been gotten into before, but any artist will tell you (when he cannot be quoted) that the "public" are idiots when it comes to art. I did read your signature, and it stresses that public criticism is the only criticism that is important, which is ridiculous to any artist."

Oh crawl off your elitist perch abbmcrcy. Your constant pretensious yammering gives artists a bad name.

Excuse me now, I have to go deal with members of the idiotic public.

 

It's not really an "elitist perch."

It's what artists don't tell the "public." Why would they? As obvious as it might be, it's bad marketing. If you tell the public, "YOU ROCK! YOU MATTER!" they're more likely to follow you/buy your stuff/like you. The people who "tell it like it is" are the ones who get lambasted, which is why certain people get "elitist" after they get in a position of power.

It's all marketing.

Come on, TELL ME you knew this before I told you. It' pretty freakin' obvious.