CT original trilogy fan's do you like the prequel trilogy

Someone should make a documentary of Mr Plinkett's reviews. Balanced and fair of course. It should point out was RLM was trying to make a review parody or was it meant to be more like in the way The Daily Show does the news.

Which is bending the news thier way with humor.

 

Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith are OK but I don't like The Phantom Menace (that movie is too childish for me).

Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith would probably get 2 out of 5 from me so they are OK (if 2 = OK and 3 = good). I don't watch the prequels very often but it happens once in a while.

The original movies (4,5, and 6) are movies that I watch more frequently.

 

Well you´re right about that. The Mr Plinkett reviews are awfull. As far as "Are we watching the same movie?" is concerned,I thought exactly the same think while listening to Stoklasa´s BS.

 

Well would you look at that, some more people who are taking a comedic review way too seriously.

 

As a whole, I like them. They have some really fun scenes, good new characters (Mace, Qui-Gon, Maul) and most of all, I love how Obi-Wan and Anakin were given expansive background stories. The Prequels are what made Anakin/Vader one of my favorite characters in cinema history. I love the arc of a powerful, well intended, benevolent character falling to darkness out of love, a desire for order, and a lust for power. That was my favorite things the prequels did. They completed Anakin's arc as a tragic hero.

Now, as individual movies, I have varying opinions.

Episode I I think is an ok film. Jar Jar doesn't bug me as much as most, the politics are overdone but not the end of the world. I have more dislike for the writing and acting. It feels so unnatural. Also, I think Darth Maul was way too good of a design to waste on an early death (I know Clone Wars, but still).

Episode II, I honestly have trouble watching. If i do a marathon, it's the one that I am most likely to check my phone during, or make a sandwich. The love story is one of the weakest I have seen in any story ever told. Count Dooku is a decent antagonist, but not exactly memorable. Shmi dying the minute Anakin shows up is incredibly contrived.

Episode III, I like quite a lot. Seeing the Sith come to power and Rise of the Empire was just awesome. And that final shot of the binary sunset to lead us back to the OT, EPIC!

As films, they do have quite a few problems. The CGI aged poorly and was overly used, the writing was often poor, and the acting was off-putting at times. Like I said, Anakin is one of my favorite characters but I find it frustrating that the best prequel era performance of the character was Matt Lantern.

Like I said, as a whole I like the prequels and enjoy seeing the backstory of my beloved Original Trilogy. Are the flawed? Sure, but I still accept and love them in their own right.

 

They are objectively bad movies. I have literally pulled my hair out trying to reason with these "fans" who prefer the PT. Can they not see that the OT has a deep emotional connection to the audience and the prequels have what? Lightsbaer fights? I couldn't give a toss about qui-con vs Maul because i don't care about their character. "We need a deeper meaning to things without it, none of it really matters."

 

No movies are objectively bad.

My love of the PT is no less valid. Why is the fight between Vader and Obi-Wan supposedly better? Are the emotions really much greater?

Why can't people just understand that everyone likes different things. The PT's flaws are no greater than the OT's. And yes, they are flawed. Like all movies.

Can you not see that the PT and OT both have deep emotional connections with their fans?

And I take offence to your use of the word 'Fans'. People who like something are fans. I'm not deluding myself into liking it. If you don't like something, why do you care if I do?

 

I agree with everyone you have mentioned. You have put it so beautifully. Poetic.

Can't say too much because of the warning given out by the mods, however, these prequels really have spoiled a lot of good potential for storytelling. They just cause so much trouble, especially now in the ST. It would be incorrect to simply disregard them (might be ideal but not correct) and obviously there can't be too much emphasis on them because... they're awful. They just cast such a dark shadow.

 

I don't like Attack of the Clones anymore, but I still like Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith (the latter of which I prefer over Return of the Jedi).None of them are as good as Star Wars or The Empire Strikes Back (possibly TFA, I need to see it a second time)

 

I understand you're a fan of the prequels and you may have taken offence of my blunt statements about the prequels but even objectively they are bad movies. Movie reviews by professional, unbiased critics are vastly negative towards the PT. Yes, I agree, this isn't purely objective; but in terms of cinema, it's the most objective we can get.

 

No it's not. Every single review is a subjective opinion.

And it's not like the OT got perfect reviews at the time either. It's only later that they've been deified.

I could give a good review of the Prequels. That wouldn't make them objectively good either, as no art is objective.

 

In the world of cinema, the only way of objectively ranking a movie is by professional critic reviews. It may not be completely objective but it's the best indicator we have.

The OT got less than perfect reviews but soon after their release, ESB and ANH have consistently been cited as the greatest movies ever made. Just think about that for a moment. On the other hand, the PT has just gotten worse with age: people will never let the hate go.

You could give a positive review of them but it would be drowned out by the vast sea of negative reviews. A culmination of reviews that all say one thing is the most objective way of ranking a movie.

 

Cited by who?

And why does that matter? Why should you care what other people think about your favourite movies?

So, because the PT is badly reviewed in general now, they're objectively bad? Despite how well received they were on release? What about reviewers that don't like the OT? Does that mean that they're terrible too?

I have no interest in listening to other people telling me that my opinion is invalid because I'm in a minority.

 

The actual critical consensus of the PT basically comes down to ''not quite as good as the OT'' which is a very long way from being outright bad. There are a few outright critical reviews out there but they are just as much a minority as the ''PT is 'objectively' better than the OT'' reviews. There is a pop culture perspective that everyone totally hates the Prequels with a passion but that just ain't so. In fact I seem to recall that Revenge of The Sith gets critical acclaim roughly on a par with A New Hope and The Phantom Menace (generally held as the worst SW movie EVER) is actually on around a similar critical level to Return Of The Jedi.

 

By many sources, here is the wikipedia article:

• Star Wars (1977) and its sequel The Empire Strikes Back (1980) were chosen as the greatest films by readers of Empire magazine in November 2001 and by voters in a Channel 4 (Film4) poll.[21] Star Wars is also the highest ranking sci-fi film in both versions of the American Film Institute's list of the 100 greatest movies of all time (ranked #15 in the original list, and #13 in the updated list). The Empire Strikes Back was voted #1 in Total Film's Top 100 Movies of All Time,[22] and #1 in the 2006 Empire "Greatest Movies Ever" special.[23]

Yes, that is correct.

Reviewers that don't like the OT don't have a voice. The OT has a swarm of positive reviews, it's the exact same principle as the PT.

Let's put this into perspective:

• The vast majority of reviews for the PT were negative.
• Audience response was negative.
• George Lucas lost a lot of respect from certain 'fans' and others in the film business.

I think that just about sums it up.

Just to echo what you've said. It is perfectly fine to dislike any Star Wars media and your opinion holds the same weight as others' . I do like to talk facts, like the above, and share my views.

 

Which is the question - how do we prove (or disprove) these? If we dig up all the "reviews by major news sources" of each individual PT movie, at the time they were released - what will we get? Strongly negative - or positive with the occasional mild criticism of particular elements of the movies, in overall positive reviews?

 

Look man its fine if you like them but don't try and pretend that the reviews were positive or that the majority of people actually liked the prequels because that's simply not true. Whenever I tell someone who isnt a fan that I'm a Star Wars fan they ALWAYS say something like, "I liked the old ones, but i didn't like those new ones." Most people don't like them, search your feelings you know it to be true.

 

Even if we were to accept the premise that critical reviews = objective measure of quality, how can the RottenTomatoes & IMDB scores for the prequels be explained? The former is an aggregate of critical reviews while the latter is composed of user scores. Let's take a look at the scores of each prequel:

1.) TPM
RT: 55%
IMDB: 6.5

2.) AOTC
RT: 65%
IMDB: 6.7

3.) ROTS
RT: 79% (Certified Fresh)
IMDB: 7.6

So what does this data show? Well, it looks like the critical+audience reception for the first two prequels was mixed but still leaning towards the positive side. And the critical+audience reception towards ROTS can definitely be considered positive. So my conclusion is that the prequels were considered by the public/critics as being anywhere from "okay" to "good", and not as good as the originals. And that kind of reflects my own thoughts on them as well. But the other question is: can we make any kind of objective claim about their quality from this data? I'd say no because any supposedly objective measure of entertainment is inherently rooted in subjective preference. The most we can do with this kind of numerical data is talk about how the films were generally received and keep in mind that majority opinion does not equal objective measure of quality. Even the RLM reviews, which I actually enjoy and agree with on many of their points, are not some kind of objective gospel; they too make claims based on their own subjective preferences.

 

No no no young lady....

You got it wrong...

It's a "professional opeeenion"


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

This battle will never be won.

"This bickering is pointless!"

 

Except for the countless hours spent making objective study of film and film technique, sure I suppose a professional film critic is just as good as any schmoe off the street.

I suppose a gilded toilet seat is objectively no better on a technical standpoint as, say, the ceiling of the Sistine Chapel