The biggest fault in AOTC was...

Can we just not bring the Oscars up. I don't know what that even has to do with anything?

 

Did we see the Tuskan slaughter?

Nope, but whats your point? The film is dark in its tone, it doesn't have to be dark for the sake of it, besides why should we need to see it, theres no point to it.

Did we see anybody being cut in half by a lightsaber?

No, but we did see someone get decapitated and two others lose arms, but that doesn't count right?

Saying AOTC was dark is untrue. I think it had a more rich color tone to the film which perhaps was dark, but the movie itself did not have a dark theme to it.

Rubbish, maybe if you spent more time reading and less time with your big mouth open you'd realise there are dark themes in this movie.
Look at Anakin's story, the fact he is giving into his emotions becoming embroiled in the Darkside. Look at the Republic and how its willingly giving its democracy up to a dictator. The clone army, come on you can't tell me thats not dark. Thats creating an army of sentient beings bred just for war. The clone wars are even dark and sinister, they are just a means to demoralise the galaxy and rid Palpatine of all the obstacles to his future plans.
There are plenty of dark themes in AOTC,you're just not paying attention.

 

Whether a film critic liked or disliked a film doesn't mean nearly as much to me as whether or not I like it myself.


I don't spend a lot of time perusing the writings of film critics, but I can tell you that Roger Ebert gushed over TPM to the point that I thought he was 'brown-nosing'. Three years later, he trashed AOTC, saying that Lucas had forgotten how to tell a story.


I'm skeptical of both reviews. I think both were exaggerations.


Instead of arguing about what percentage of critics liked or disliked the film, why not focus on your own perceptions?

 

Instead of arguing about what percentage of critics liked or disliked the film, why not focus on your own perceptions?

Agree with you I do. Here's the one thing about SW, LOTR, and heck even Star Terk. There Geek things. in few years times. Those who still are talking about LOTR will be the geeks, same with SW, ST, The Matrix, and so on. The reason is because they are fanstay movies and fantasy movies are more of a geek thing then any MTV thing.

Sure MTV will show things about them. But after they are gone MTV goes right back into things that are not for geeks.

Me I like being a geek and like LOTR, and SW.

 

Thanks for replying to all my points Shelley. [/sarcasm]

 

Has anyone mentioned the website moviemistakes.com?
A friend of mine told me about it today. Some interesting things in their lists... I got to the point where it's like "aaah, I shouldn't read anymore 'cuz it's just gonna ruin the viewing pleasure
... if I never noticed before, now it's gonna be a distraction"

 

What few original critiques from their times of release show the positive outweighing the negative by a good margin, 4:1 for ESB in fact and if you want to show that I'm wrong, do it. Not by the words of others, do it by showing me cold hard evidence.


Okay..... so the margin is 4:1..... where did you get this number? Did you make it up? Okay, then the percentage of people who like the OT better than the PT is 68%..... I made that up but its every bit as credible as you conjured up 4:1 margin.


The same complaints about the PT can indeed be found in the OT, in that you are correct (for once).

The OT got plenty of bad reviews.... Sorry I don't have "cold hard evidence" but neither do you..... I just don't won't post made up ratios to prove my illconceived point....

And save me the attacks Insidious..... try to be civilized....

 

Hmm, DarthTerrious, I think I've touched some kind of nerve with you. No matter, I'll reply in a courteous and objective manner - as I always do.

Another poster brought up the Tuskan slaughter as a way to describe the picture being dark. But we don't see it, it is implied. The fact that he snuck in at night and killed them at dawn doesn't mean its dark.

Hmm, what else . Oh, the clone wars. Have we seen it? We see the opening battle against droids but we haven't seen the "war", have we? Was it dark that most of the combatants were cgi created? Did it have drama to the action?

If we want to bring this back to the original thread, the biggest fault of AOTC - and perhaps not its own - is that there really is no drama. As that critic Rossio commented, the scenes seem spliced together to bring us to ep4, not necessarily to tell a story.

I suppose Oscars isn't the best way to judge "special effects" movies because they win only technical awards. I think the only exception that may happen is LOTR in winning a non-technical award.

This OT/PT thing is sooo tired. I simply cannot understand that people believe the PT is just as good or better than the OT. Furthermore, to imply that critics/bashers/oscars/rest of the world would judge them differently simply because of George Lucas or to get back at him for "ruining" cinema is simply absurd.

Arguments that critics are witless hacks with a chip on their shoulders only presents your argument as emotional and without any empirical evidence as to why your argument might have merit.

In fact, your baseless defense of the PT is analagous to a childs protection of his favorite toy.

 

"Okay..... so the margin is 4:1..... where did you get this number? Did you make it up? Okay, then the percentage of people who like the OT better than the PT is 68%..... I made that up but its every bit as credible as you conjured up 4:1 margin."

That number was arrived at when myself and others got into the same argument I'm having again right now. They found one negative review of ESB (the infamous Canby pan), and I found four positive ones. That's a 4:1 ratio. You think you can go find more negative ones from 1980? Be my guest, and post them here.

"The OT got plenty of bad reviews.... Sorry I don't have "cold hard evidence" but neither do you..... I just don't won't post made up ratios to prove my illconceived point...."

I do have cold hard evidence, and I've posted it before. You're the one without any whatsoever.

 

Arguments that critics are witless hacks with a chip on their shoulders only presents your argument as emotional and without any empirical evidence as to why your argument might have merit.

And why does it really make any difference anyway?
This is an internet message board, not a court of law.

It doesn't exactly take a genius to ascertain
that a lot of critics think they are much smarter and wiser about films than those who make them, and that a thinly veiled resentment pervades numerous film reviews which are in fact a platform to demonstrate how cutting, sophisticated and jaded they are while trying to show off their verbal virtuosity. None of this has much to do with giving the public a clue what the movie was like. The telltale clue of the ego of the critic is when they make suggestions on how the movie would have been better "if." Please don't tell me what YOU think would make it better, thank you, simply comment on what IS on the screen.

Do you know how many film critics carry screenplays they've written into interviews with stars and directors hoping lightning will strike? I do. I worked as a publicist for awhile arranging interviews and you'd be amazed how many of these people have a hidden agenda. A lot of them hate their jobs.

In fact, your baseless defense of the PT is analagous to a childs protection of his favorite toy.
This has to be one of the most arrogant, condescending comments I have ever read on these boards.

 

Another poster brought up the Tuskan slaughter as a way to describe the picture being dark. But we don't see it, it is implied. The fact that he snuck in at night and killed them at dawn doesn't mean its dark.

Seeing people being killed does not make a movie dark. You don't need to see people being killed to make a movie dark. If I want to see people being killed left and right I will go watch a horror movie.

Hmm, what else . Oh, the clone wars. Have we seen it? We see the opening battle against droids but we haven't seen the "war", have we? Was it dark that most of the combatants were cgi created? Did it have drama to the action?

Sure we have seen the war we have seen the first part of the war we have seen where it will be going. That is dark because it is haeding down a dark path. This is not Saving Private Rayn where we need to see blood and guts.


Arguments that critics are witless hacks with a chip on their shoulders only presents your argument as emotional and without any empirical evidence as to why your argument might have merit.

DarthTerrious backed up ever thing he said. He does not need empirical evidence to give a good argument for a movie.

In fact, your baseless defense of the PT is analagous to a childs protection of his favorite toy.

Why is it baseless for him?

 

What it is in Internet terms is a bait, so please realize that and everyone behave. Thanks.

 

You found 5 internet reviews for Empire, and you're calling this empirical evidence?

Let's get a couple things straight. The argument is not that the OT was disliked by the general public, or even most critics. The point was that certain particular critisicms of the PT (namely acting, dialogue, exchange of story for SFX) were just as prevailent in the time of the OT. You can argue all you want against this, go find your 2-3 old critiques on the internet, and think this proves something, but you'd be wrong. It's nearly impossible to find film reviews from 30 years ago. And the ones you do find will be skewed to the positive because they're saved by fans.

As for evidence, I was there. I saw it. I was a part of that generation and know what they said. Here is a knowledgable witness to the events occuring from 1977 to the present. That's all the evidence I need.

And let's go on to this myth about AotC losing fans due to TPM's bad reception. How does a movie everyone supposedly hate earn 1 billion worldwide? It doesn't. I don't care if you factor in the 16 year anticipation, the truth is that people went to see this movie again, and again. And AotC was labled a loser for not matching TPM's gross. What kind of ridiculous measuring stick is that? How can the 5th story in such a long running franchise (and the middle part of the PT) be expected to match those numbers. Let's compare the drop off from Star Wars ($460,998,007 US) to Empire ($290,271,960 US). Wow that's a huge drop off. I guess everyone hated ESB.

And finally, in response to AotC's failure to hold it's own drama. That reviewer brought up some very interesting and revealing points, but they cannot accurately be applied to Star Wars. Although we call these additional films Prequels and Sequels, they aren't. They're each chapters of one full story. And I don't know how many of you actually read, but when was the last time you read a book where the story and drama built up and ended in each chapter? It doesn't. Often times the build up will not reach any kind of resolution until the end. Instead of understanding, more questions will be revealed as we move along in a story. That's what makes for an interesting tale.

These movies do not have to stand on their own. That's a misnomer. Imagine reading The Two Towers without ever having read any of the other books. It has no real explanation of what's going on, and certainly no dramatic resolution. You need those other books to have a complete tale. Yet no one cries that the LotR films cannot stand on their own. Some falsely claim that they do! Like Tolkien's tale, the individual chapters such as Episode II, or V must be taken together. They cannot be compared to a Lethal Weapon 3. It's a different breed entirely.

 

Another poster brought up the Tuskan slaughter as a way to describe the picture being dark. But we don't see it, it is implied. The fact that he snuck in at night and killed them at dawn doesn't mean its dark.

Actually the fact he killed them, even without us seeing it, shows how dark the territory is that Lucas is crossing into. You dont need to see him kill them all just to make it dark. Just by implying he did it, then confirming it later with his confession, this makes the subject much more darker and scary.
Thats the brilliance of it, we get told it happened then we're left to imagine what horrors he inflicted upon them.....and our imaginations can come up with much more darker things than George Lucas can. Psychology, a very good way to make the theme he's presenting be very dark.

Hmm, what else . Oh, the clone wars. Have we seen it? We see the opening battle against droids but we haven't seen the "war", have we? Was it dark that most of the combatants were cgi created? Did it have drama to the action?

Hmmm well I saw a war when I watch that clone war battle. And CGI doesn't make something dark. Its not the actual battle thats supposed to be dark, its why the war itself was started and whats behind it that makes it dark.

If we want to bring this back to the original thread, the biggest fault of AOTC - and perhaps not its own - is that there really is no drama. As that critic Rossio commented, the scenes seem spliced together to bring us to ep4, not necessarily to tell a story.

Rossio can kiss my ****, I couldnt give a toss what she thinks. There is drama in AOTC, I saw it and I reacted to it.

I suppose Oscars isn't the best way to judge "special effects" movies because they win only technical awards. I think the only exception that may happen is LOTR in winning a non-technical award.

Since when has Star Wars needed to be oscar worthy?

This OT/PT thing is sooo tired. I simply cannot understand that people believe the PT is just as good or better than the OT. Furthermore, to imply that critics/bashers/oscars/rest of the world would judge them differently simply because of George Lucas or to get back at him for "ruining" cinema is simply absurd.

Well believe it, the PT maybe newer but its still the same as the OT, in its style,in its structure and every single category you bashers continually try to compare the two against each other with. TPM & AOTC are great films in my mind, and easily hold upto the other three.
You may believe its absurd but some of those people do do that. Bashers, for example, just cry because he didnt pander to their fanboy wet dreams.

Arguments that critics are witless hacks with a chip on their shoulders only presents your argument as emotional and without any empirical evidence as to why your argument might have merit.

Hmmm maybe you could refresh my memory on where exactly I said this?
And why should I not be emotional? You and your basher mates are attacking one of my favourite movies!
And actually I have backed up my arguments thank you, maybe you should read through my posts rather than making up such a stupid statement.

In fact, your baseless defense of the PT is analagous to a childs protection of his favorite toy.

Baseless? PPOR.
And yeah I am defending it like that, I am a big fan of TPM & AOTC whether you like it or not, and I wont put up with my favourite movies being spit on by people like you.

 

Great Post RG.

Go back and read the post were I pasted some old reveiws of the OT.... the bad dialouge and even a mention of Ford giving a "Chevy Chase-like preformance" is mentioned.... My point is not to prove that the OT was disliked as the PT is... although it's not as widely disliked as the bashers would like to believe...

(the infamous Canby pan), and I found four positive ones. That's a 4:1 ratio.

Okay, so you did one google seach and found 5 old reviews and came up with a ratio that you're using as cold hard evidence.... you're a real sleuth.

Try as you might but its a FACT that the OT was criticized for the same things as the PT. Script, dialouge, too many SFX, acting, etc....

 

Bad acting in the OT by Mark and Carrie?

Fine.Much WORSE acting by Natalie and Hayden in the PT.

Bad story in the OT.

Much WORSE story in the PT.

Over reliance on special effects in the OT?

Much more over-reliance in the PT.

 

Roland: I never said I had empircal evidence. I said the exact opposite, that there weren't enough original reviews to properly gauge a critical reaction from that time period. What few reviews we do have point to you being wrong. I don't care about your personal experiences. The reviews that have been posted don't tell the whole story, but your unproven personal experiences don't tell any story at all. They hold no water, and until you can back them up with hard evidence, they never will.

Randy: No, I left finding positive reviews up to the people on your side of the argument, and they came up with only one negative, whereas I found four positive.

State it here for everyone in this thread to see: what evidence do you have that the OT recieved the same reception as the PT on its initial release? No more run arounds, just post it. Or admit that you haven't any.

And one more time, I've never denied that the OT was criticized for the same things the PT is now. With one caveat: it was on a scale small enough for people to overlook it and still give the films favorable reviews. Ebert did it. Siskel did it. Several other reviewers did it. With the PT, the flaws are obviously too abundant to overlook.

 

Insideous: Your overwhelming abudance of AskJeeves-based cold hard evidence and census-like ratios are very impressive.

My own google reasearch led me to a few reveiws which I posted a few pages back.... again. I am not saying that the OT was met with as much backlash as the PT....

My point, like RG's, is to say that many of the criticisms we hear about the PT, too much SFX, bad acting, etc etc etc... was used for the OT.... it's pretty widely known... why are you clinging to the idea that it isn't? I'm sorry I'm not at the New York Public Library right now so that I can rifle through the Microfiche machine and look up old reviews... but for the love of god it's so obvious..... why are you so opposed to this idea?

 

"I never said I had empircal evidence. I said the exact opposite, that there weren't enough original reviews to properly gauge a critical reaction from that time period. What few reviews we do have point to you being wrong."

Exactly my point. You don't heve enough actual sources to disprove anything. As I said before, the likelihood that some internet site would save unfavorable reviews is next to none.

"I don't care about your personal experiences. The reviews that have been posted don't tell the whole story, but your unproven personal experiences don't tell any story at all. They hold no water, and until you can back them up with hard evidence, they never will."

That's a fabulous attitude. Either you're saying that I'm delusional, or you're calling me a liar. Last time I checked Eyewitness testimony was still very much accepted in a court of law.

"And one more time, I've never denied that the OT was criticized for the same things the PT is now. With one caveat: it was on a scale small enough for people to overlook it and still give the films favorable reviews. Ebert did it. Siskel did it. Several other reviewers did it. With the PT, the flaws are obviously too abundant to overlook."

Personal opinion.

I remember watching the Siskel & Ebert review of RotJ. I remember thinking that at last we found some critics who got it. Roger still had it with his review of Phantom Menace. Unfortunately he let his fear of change in the film industry (namely from celluloid to digital film) color his review of AotC. Take a look at both and see how he derails the things he once praised in Phantom. Then look at his semi-retraction after seeing AotC in a digital theater.

 

Ok, a couple things:

one of the most arrogant, condescending comments I have ever read on these boards.

That was meant for DarthTerrious and his big mouth statement he made to me. But I'm glad you liked it.

critics think they are much smarter and wiser about films than those who make them, and that a thinly veiled resentment pervades numerous film reviews which are in fact a platform to demonstrate how cutting, sophisticated and jaded they are while trying to show off their verbal virtuosity.

Your paragraph above is actually a piece of verbal virtuosity. But I think it still doesn't have any merit. Again, I think whether a critic has a harsh or unkind word to a SW film, you perceive them as agenda laden, resentful, jaded and caring only for their prose. Is this a valid argument against why a SW film might be perceived as lacking or not measuring up to the original trilogy?

Let me ask you this, if those same people that gave a positive review to the SE films, then it would follow that they would give a kind review to the PT wouldn't they? I mean, they're not the same reviewers that saw the OT. They're younger, grew up with the OT, etc. Another poster said this. How would you explain this phenomenon?

anidanami: how did terrious back up his statement apart from his own viewpoint of the film being dark? Has he incorporated some film principles? Has he gone down the "Dark Path" and employed critical reviews to his personal opinion?

roland of gilead: again, you employ box office numbers to justify everyone's love of AOTC. I thought we weren't using box office? And I never searched for reviews. I can provide them for you if you wish.

Although we call these additional films Prequels and Sequels, they aren't. They're each chapters of one full story.

I wouldn't necessarily disagree with that statement but I think the real question is: does it work? Does it present a capable progression of characters and plot points. I'm not sure it does. And for that, I'm not sure AOTC should be given a free pass just because its a "different" movie. Also, keep in mind that the LOTR movies were from books first, then adapted to film. Perhaps novelization first is the way to go rather than creating a story, then doubling back and filling in the blanks so they gel with the first movies you did.

One of DarthTerrious' free thinking comments:

Rossio can kiss my ****, I couldnt give a toss what she thinks. There is drama in AOTC, I saw it and I reacted to it.

Hmm, again, I think your emotions are getting the best of you. Take a deep breath, clear your thoughts, then speak. Your dismissal of a review that I thought was rather insightful is all the more telling of your viewpoint. You make statements like this and you think that is backing up your argument. lol

I suppose since I still work in research I could do everybody a favor and start looking into historical reviews, post them and watch what happens.

Would everyone like me to do this?

 

Randy: I've already told you that I know the same criticisms were levelled at the OT, just on a much smaller scale. If you're willing to accept that, fine. If not, then I have every right to ask you for proof.

Roland: Establishing motive and bias is also an accepted means of cross examination in a court of law. And it's quite obvious that you have an agenda, just as I do. The difference? I've backed mine up with valid sources. You've backed yours up with memories from over 25 years ago.

It is personal opinion to say that the flaws in the PT annoy an indivdual more than those in the OT. It is not personal opinion to say that the critics were much more annoyed by the PT's problems than the OT's problems. The few reviews we have from back then, as well as the more plentiful reviews we have now both support that.

 

Hmm, again, I think your emotions are getting the best of you. Take a deep breath, clear your thoughts, then speak.

Dont be condescending to me thank you.

Your dismissal of a review that I thought was rather insightful is all the more telling of your viewpoint.

Yeah I like the movie, is that such a surprise?

You make statements like this and you think that is backing up your argument. lol

No I dont think it backs up my argument. I just made that statement because I couldnt care less about a moaning ***** who has nothing better to do than analysis the films OUT of context.

 

"roland of gilead: again, you employ box office numbers to justify everyone's love of AOTC. I thought we weren't using box office? And I never searched for reviews. I can provide them for you if you wish."

You're mixing up your posters. I've not used box office tabulation at any time before in my posts. It's use here was to demonstrate that there was not in fact a major dropping off of the fanbase as was purported earlier.

I'd love for you to research reviews. Look for the following key items: commentary on acting, on dialogue, and special effects use over story. Not whether they liked the movie or not. This has never been our argument.

 

Insideous: 've already told you that I know the same criticisms were levelled at the OT, just on a much smaller scale. If you're willing to accept that, fine. If not, then I have every right to ask you for proof.

I'll accept that, fine... you can stop shelling us with your cold hard RottenTomato backed evidence now....

Keep in mind that the reviews for the OT were on a much smaller scale because the media was much smaller.... today everybody and their mother with a computer can be a movie reviewer.... there are dozens more TV stations, magazines, etc....

 

This OT/PT thing is sooo tired. I simply cannot understand that people believe the PT is just as good or better than the OT.

And I can't understand the mindset of those who think it is substantially worse. But whatcha gonna do, eh?