The anti-Star Wars media bias continues!

You know I've already proven you wrong on that.

It's an exaggeration. I know Elijah Wood changed his facial expression in the movie. Once.

Most of the other stuff you spouted is just your personal preference.

No kidding. Here I was thinking what I "spouted" was indisputable facts.

I don't know, I didn't think AOTC was that bad, but I didn't think it was that great either. Unfortunately that instantly gets me labelled as a basher. See the problem here?

If you posted vicious remarks about AOTC and how much Lucas sucks, then I'd consider you a basher. I haven't seen many of your posts on this forum so I don't know if you have. Merely thinking a movie isn't that great doesn't mean you're a basher.

 

"The anti-SW bias is not directed at the OT. Not anymore. During the mid-80s, before the OT achieved "classic" status, there were some snarks here and there. It is directed at the prequels. In fact, the media uses the OT to bash the prequels."

hahahaha what a huge contradiction. is the media biased against lucas or not?

"I would think the people who can't enjoy themselves while watching a SW or LOTR film are the ones who take it too seriously."

were you referring to me or shelley with that one gomer? and since when does everyone have to like every movie they see? you seem to think there is something wrong with people who didnt like TPM or AOTC. i hope you like every movie you see gomer, otherwise there may be something wrong with you.

 

I was reffering to anyone who is incapable of enjoying either franchise.

 

hahahaha what a huge contradiction. is the media biased against lucas or not?

*sigh* I knew I was using too general of terms.

The media is biased against the prequel films. They call Lucas a tired old has-been, or say that ANH was a fluke, ESB was good because Lucas had no involvement in it (not true, but what the hey), and ROTJ isn't that great, but at least it's not one of the horrible prequels. They say Lucas's glory days are behind him and say that (cue heavenly choirs of angels) Peter Jackson has taken his place.

So though the media now seems to like the OT (two-thirds of it, anyway), they attribute it to "flukes" and "other, more talented people being in charge" or whatever.

 

Who cares! As a CGI character, what I saw out of Gollum was pretty good, but nowhere near as good or convincing as Yoda. As far Jar-Jar, CGI-wise he looks a bit better.

 

"cue heavenly choirs of angels"

I hate it when you do that, please help me out and stop it. It is all that I ask of you

 

"So though the media now seems to like the OT (two-thirds of it, anyway), they attribute it to "flukes" and "other, more talented people being in charge" or whatever."

interesting that this is pretty close to the opinion of most people who were dissappointed with the PT. you could almost call it a consensus, which means that the media is not biased, but only reflecting public opinion.

maybe it seems to some of you that these opinions are repeated too much is because they are widely held opinions and typical of most people.

 

interesting that this is pretty close to the opinion of most people who were dissappointed with the PT.

Yeah. So?

you could almost call it a consensus, which means that the media is not biased, but only reflecting public opinion.

No, it is reflecting a part of public opinion: the negative part.

maybe it seems to some of you that these opinions are repeated too much is because they are widely held opinions and typical of most people.

Or it could mean that the people who hold those opinions won't, or can't, move on and just like to complain, because bashing SW--the prequels, mostly, but some of the ill will has leaked over into the OT--has been deemed "cool" and proof of intelligence and taste for some reason.

 

Dr Evazan,

What happens if you turn out to like Episode III? What happens then? Now this is just my feelings but how do you deal with the fact that you did not like the two movies that set it up?

 

How could Dr E possibly like a new SW film?

 

Interesting to see my thread make it to three pages, with the first two pages being rather moderate! Unfortunately, this third page has turned rather basherific, but let's see if we can get back on topic.

I really didn't want this thread to turn into another tiresome "Is not! Is so!" debate which serves no purpose, because we all pretty much know who here likes or dislikes Star Wars and why.

No, my main thing is that I find it interesting that a major media network like Fox news would view 16 minutes of footage out of a 3 hour movie and proclaim it the greatest movie of the year. And if the "popular" media and general prequel detractors are to be believed, Star Wars is the most disappointing movie of 2002, so here we have a journalist comparing the alleged best movie with the alleged worst. Does that not strike you as odd? I mean, why didn't he compare the CG work of TTT with, say, Spiderman? Or even Harry Potter?

If Star Wars has truly become as margainalized as the "popular" media would have us believe then why is it the standard of comparison for every other blockbuster that has come out in the last 4 years? Is it because the media really believes deep in their hearts that Star Wars is in fact a very worthy standard of comparison, offering a level of quality and pure cinematic genius against which all others should be measured?

 

"I mean, why didn't he compare the CG work of TTT with, say, Spiderman? Or even Harry Potter?"

I'd say it's partially because TPM was the first film to really push the concept of a CG character interacting with live actors front and center. It wasn't the first film to do this--Casper and Dragonheart had the same thing going years before--but TPM easily garnered the most attention, both because of its obvious Star Wars ties, and because no other live action film had integrated CGI on that kind of scale before.

So I'd say that, in a technical sense, it did become the standard, and Jar Jar's infamy only added to that.

 

"What happens if you turn out to like Episode III? What happens then? Now this is just my feelings but how do you deal with the fact that you did not like the two movies that set it up?"

i would be thrilled if episode III is great, and i will still think the two movies that set it up were awful.
your point?

 

One point: He didn't say it was the greatest movie of the year. He said we may be looking at another best picture nominee.

 

Hey DrEvazan i would like to know are there any part of TPM and AOTC that you did like??

My main problem with the PT'S are SOME of the acting,writing and editing of the films. you know the whole jar jar thing,the crappy love story and some of the awful dialogs.

Some of the cool things i loved are all the action scenes,all the beautiful planets and cities and kickass vehicles and spaceships.

 

The thing about the review to me is that it's just poorly written. The transition, if the writer intended to make one, was near invisible. Friedman's first point contained in paragraph one specified his opinion of this movie's placement within the yearly structure of movie releases. ("This may be another Oscar nominee for Best Picture.") He then moves on in the second paragraph to compare the the computer-generation abilities of a movie released this year to one released years ago. One could say that Friedman was comparing Gollum to the Jar Jar in AOTC, but that would be senseless to do so with the vast array of CGI characters in AOTC that even outshine Jar Jar's technical achievement. Since he excluded the great work done on the likes of Taun We, Dexter, Poggle the Lesser, etc., it is an easy assumption that his reference was a comparison to the Jar Jar of TPM, especially granted with how much hatred most people have toward Jar Jar. The logic of comparing one CGI character from one movie to one made several years ago while ignoring all other CGI characters contained within movies of the same year of release as that of the primary character of concern (in this case, Gollum) is flawed. There is the chance that Friedman didn't even pay attention while watching AOTC to realize the CGI characters in it, or he just is so against TPM that his mind couldn't think about any other CGI characters that exist aside from Jar Jar. Either way, to me it's just another person thinking being a critic is a valuable service to the world trying to parade their opinion as being worthy of other people's adoption when it's not.

 

He said we may be looking at another best picture nominee.

That's still awefully high praise after having seen only roughly 8% of the movie.

Now here's a question, if it were't for the Star Wars prequels, would the critics be making as big a stink about any blockbusters right now?

 

Interesting question. They'd probably be stuck picking on Rollerball and Ecks vs. Sever.

 

I wonder how the media and critics would react to the LOTRs movies if GL was the director, but they still turned out EXACTLY the same?

My guess is they wouldn't recieve nearly as much praise.

 

Depends. If GL came directly off the OT and did LOTR (assuming he'd do it exactly like PJ did), I think he'd do fine. If PJ had never done LOTR, and George did them exactly the same way after finishing the PT, I think critics would call it a step up, though they might go a little harder on him.

 

I can't believe they let Dungeons and Dragons off the hook just to focus on TPM. Nothing makes me feel better about enjoying this saga then when I hear about people who don't.

It makes me appreciate it more.

 

D&D got its share (although not as much as it deserved); it just died away too quickly and quietly to get any lasting attention.

I wrote up my own little roast of it a while back; if anyone wants to read it, PM me.

 

Sigh. Dungeons & Dragons had such potential, but fizzled out so easily, imo. It's kind of sad. The only thing that gets me to watch that movie now is the main female mage character. I think the actor did a great performance for that character, thought it seemed so out of place next to the rest of the characters. Other than that, I did like the female elf character telling Snails her age. That did grab the stereotypical elven snobbishness that D&D's elves have.

But what fun would the critics have in comparing movies not yet released to Dungeons & Dragons? It's so much more fun to complain about The Phantom Menace!

Sigh again.

 

Good question, Gomer! Why is Star Wars mercilessly criticized while true drek like Dungeon & Dragons barely even registers on the critics' radar?

Edit: Frankly, it just seems rather hypocritical to so roundly criticize a certain movie or franchise while at the same time banking on its undeniable success and popularity to prop up your own fledgling career.

It also seems to have made critics very lazy lately! Want to say a movie is good without having to actually validate your opinion with good ol' fashioned critical analysis? Just say, It's better than Star Wars," slap on your self-serving signature and publish the sucker! For shame.

 

Once again, I believe he was comparing Gollum's character to Jar Jar's. I don't believe he was comparing them technically, although that might have been part of it.