TPM's Appeal: Did the Media Make it Appear that ALL SW Fans Were Dissapointed With It?

I have to disagree, Malthus. Critics ARE stupid.
Exhibit A: Austin Powers: The Spy Who Shagged Me got more positive reviews than TPM.
Exhibit B: Face/Off, which has one of the most ridiculous plots I've ever seen, was praised as the "thinking person's action movie" by critics.
Exhibit C: 2001 and Blade Runner were both panned by critics on their initial release (Pauline Kael called 2001 a "monumentally unimaginative movie").

Need I go on?

 

The only two critics who give/gave smart reviews are/were Roger Ebert and Gene Siskel.

People may listen to the other critics, but none-the-less, most critics are IDIOTS.

And it amazes me why they get paid. They write a five paragraph review after they see a film. Big deal. I could do that





ST

 

Well, here's another example which proves my point.
This guy is bashing AOTC without even seeing it, regardless of the fact that the buzz on the film so far has been nothing but positive. He also claims that Leigh Brackett was one of the people who made ESB great, not Lucas. I can accept people saying Kershner or Kasdan improved the film, but isn't it an accepted fact that Lucas threw out most of Brackett's script, and only gave her a credit out of respect?

But the media aren't biased against Lucas or Star Wars. No way

 

Critics are just people with opinions, like you and me. The difference is, they get paid for them, probably because they tend to be better writers, and maybe have (slightly) more knowledge of film than the average joe.

I read that horrid Reel.com article. Not surprisingly the guy quotes from any source, no matter how full of crap, as long as it is negative about Lucas. I wrote him this e-mail in response.

Mr. Wells,

First off, I'd like to ask you...

If you hate SW so much, why spend your time whining about it? Why not just move on? Or are you one of those SW/Lucas bashers who imagines that slamming it makes you deep or intelligent or improves you as a person somehow?

Your article had a lot of inaccuracies in it. I'd like to counter some of the points you made, specifically about Irvin Kershner.

You've clearly adopted the common refrain for people who wish to credit Kershner and Kershner only with ESB being good, and want to think of him as the martyr who was fired by that cheap jerk Lucas because he lavished money on the movie.

Actually, it was Gary Kurtz who was not asked back for future Lucas projects, because he allowed the movie to go wildly over budget--and you're clearly so full of inexplicable contempt toward Lucas that you don't realize that ESB was a horrible gamble for him. He had sunk a great deal of money into it and he had no idea if it would be a big hit like the original. It was, if you care to recall, the very first followup to the original, and its success was far from assured. If it failed, Lucas would be SOL and in debt. So worrying about it going over budget wasn't a cheapskate talking--it was a man who had real, reasonable financial fears.

Now about Kershner, who you'd like to think is at odds with Lucas because it fits in with your "Lucas vs. the true artists" fantasy. I'll offer you some quotes from the man himself. Take special note of the part where he says he was asked back to direct ROTJ--why would he be asked back if Lucas didn't appreciate him? Also, take note of the parts where he says Lucas wanted to make ESB better than the original. It kind of deflates the assertions from that tabloid piece of crap "Empire Building" that Lucas didn't think it had to be that good, and which you unquestioningly believed, probably by virtue of the fact that it was negative about Lucas.

Irvin Kershner interview in Star Wars Magazine (UK) TESB 20th Anniversary Issue June/July 2000.

Kersh about getting the gig:
"I knew there was a reaction by some people at Fox against me - not me particularly, but they felt I was too old, because it's a young person's film. But George felt I was right for it. I appreciate so much the fact that George had confidence in me."

About TESB and working for/with Lucas:
"I did not expect it ... I turned it down at first. Star Wars was one of the greatest successes we ever had in film, and I felt to follow it would only be to make a film not as good ... Let me explain something here. Very, very important. When I talked to George about it before I took the movie, he explained something. He said 'Look, the second film of the Star Wars trilogy - if it isn't as good as or better than SW, it won't be a series. It'll die right there. It's got to stand up to the original and go beyond it, if possible'. George wanted me to make a better picture than Star Wars."

"George said another thing which was really terrific, and I've never heard it from any other producer. I said to him, 'You know, I'm going to be learning the special effects'. He said, 'Don't worry about it. You dream up what you want to do, and no matter what they say on the set - they'll say you can't do that, it's impossible - you do it. We'll find a way to make it work'. Do you know how liberating that is?"

"I once called George and said, 'George, it's taking a little longer than we thought. Do you want me to take some pages out of the script or, you know, what the hell do we do?'. And he said, 'Don't do anything, just keep on shooting'. Those were his words. And that's, of cour

 

Critics are just people with opinions, like you and me. The difference is, they get paid for them, probably because they tend to be better writers, and maybe have (slightly) more knowledge of film than the average joe.
Shelley, I totally agree. Folks, as soon as you stop just pasting a big "they're media" block over your eyes, you'll realize these people have a profession that they can perform much better than most people. It's commonly taken for granted all that they can do. How do I know? Because I've done it myself. ST-TPM-ASF-TNE, you say you can do that... well, I bet you'd find it hard to sit down and start writing a critical (which doesn't mean negative... it means with discretion) review of a movie in a fashion that other people in the general public would read.

Writing for fans in a fansite forum is one thing. They'll forgive you for all of your bad sentence structure, spelling, grammar, and idea sequencing. Putting your heart and soul (even if fans on some fansite call you an idiot for it) into everything you write, knowing that at any time you could be wrong, is what these critics are doing, and that's quite another thing. The combination of wit and simplicity with which they write is above and beyond most people's ability to read, to say nothing of most people's ability to write similarly.

You can't slap a blanket on all critics, saying they're idiots. Well, I guess you can, but you'd be the closed-minded foolish one to do so. What's more, you can't really say that all of them are idiots... except for the ones that didn't give your precious TPM a less-than-glowing rating. That would be like me saying all fans who were not disappointed in TPM are idiots, just because I don't agree with them. I DO NOT think that, and so I won't say it.

You know, it occurs to me that the point that you want to make is that it's your opinion that sometimes critics don't do a good job in rating a film. I think that's a much stronger argument (one that doesn't exaggerate by saying "They're all idiots"), one that even I could agree with. I just take absolutism literally, and I prefer to use absolutism only when it applies.

 

Not all critics are idiots; in fact, many of them are quite intelligent.

However, that doesn't give their reviews any more weight. I don't understand why people point to TPM's negative reviews as if that proves anything other than: some critics disliked TPM and thought it sucked.

 

Agreed. In fact, I'd go so far as to say that critics ran the gamut from one end of the spectrum to the other. Some tagged it fairly close to where I'd have hit upon it, but liked it just the same, as I did.

 

I hate those guys!

 

I guess we have one thing in commen here people:


Most if us don't like critics




See, we are equals






ST

 

No..GL did the work all by himself. The media...the media has from time to time reflected on the change in attitude before the TPM release and after. Obviously those of us who felt the coming of the one true cinema king felt thrown to the dogs when our enthusisam forced our bodies to endure what I can only describe as a pitifull cinema experience. Not once but FOUR times...I have come to terms with my disapointment which by the way took a further 3 mounths to set in after my excitment died down. And I can esure you the media didint have a thing to do with it....
To illustrate my point Chris Rock, an american black comedian, once had a sketch claming the media had nothing to do with street crime..a popular claim by my brothers who try to defend our current labeling by society. He stated quiet clearly that his fear is not the media at 3AM infrount of a cash machine in the hood..in other words, dont use the media as a scapegoat....

But I am stupid and even knowing the truth and experiencing the pain of my last come down from the Jedi drug I will be watching SW Episode II at 12 midnight on May 15 In London..I am hooked on the force no matter what anybody says.

 

quote:

But I am stupid and even knowing the truth and experiencing the pain of my last come down from the Jedi drug I will be watching SW Episode II at 12 midnight on May 15 In London..I am hooked on the force no matter what anybody says.

Yeah, its some kind of sickness. Ill have my ticket come opening weekend.

And i agree completely with your assessment of the media's role.

BTW, if you get frustrated with having to state the obvious in this forum, keep in mind youre often arguing with little kids. It keeps me from getting overly irritated..

 

It also deludes you.

 

"BTW, if you get frustrated with having to state the obvious in this forum, keep in mind youre often arguing with little kids. It keeps me from getting overly irritated."

Who are the little kids in this scenario, may I ask? The ones who enjoy a film despite its flaws, or the ones who see a film numerous times before deciding it is indeed crap and they must devote the rest of their life to informing people of that fact?
Just curious

 

No one's devoting their lives to informing everyone that TPM is crap (That would be sad!) but it is unavoidable to come here looking to debate with others about what you think of the film and not get caught-up in some thread wheresomeone accuses you of disliking the film because:

a) You've obviously outgrown the saga!

b) You simply didn't get it!

c) Your expectations were too high therefore making it impossible to like TPM.

d) Are no longer a FAN because you did not like TPM.

e) Are apparently brainwashed be the media which for some strange reason are trying to boud mouth the film so that ultimately it will fail - LORD KNOWS WHY?

I'ts always one of these and never simply because the we never found the film that well made in many departments. Why? Obviously the film was good enough for a lot of people but just as obvious is that it dissapointed a lot. I'm wondering how many who enjoyed TPM will look back after watching AOTC and still rate it as much as they did? I understand that for a lot of people TPM was their first cinematic SW experience so that will be quite unforgettable, but for most of us it simply never quite hit the spot!

 

Fair point CeeJay. TPM just didn't cut it for a lot of people. But that's no reason to call the defenders of the film "little kids" like a certain *ahem* poster above.

 

They sure as hell tried to. But they didn't succeed.

Indeed, the biggest question the media had before TPM came out-"will casual fans like it?" Seems to a be a resounding yes. Out of the hundreds of casual fans I've met, the vast majority liked it as much or more than the originals.

And when Roger Ebert gives it 3.5 stars-which puts it below the OT, but above most of the other movies he's reviewed-I don't think there's any dispute anymore. Ebert is the toughest grader critic out there-I see him give a thumbs up to a movie maybe once every two months or so-and he thought highly enough of TPM to give it an almost-perfect.

 

Who are the little kids in this scenario, may I ask? The ones who enjoy a film despite its flaws, or the ones who see a film numerous times before deciding it is indeed crap and they must devote the rest of their life to informing people of that fact?
Just curious

now be nice Homer

 

Roger Ebert also gave Jimmy Neutron a thumbs up.

 

okay i better post something on-topic.

I think people who loved the movie are/were very sensitive to any criticism in the media, and resented any implication that consesus within the fan(boy) community was: Yuck!! The truth is, many many SW fans hated TPM. Whether this was the majority or not, and whether or not the media simply reflected this, is impossible to say (and if u could accumulate the necessary data, why would u bother).

Im still looking for it, but ill post an article with exit polling info that suggests that the younger the moviegoer the more positive the responses were to the survey...

 

Read my points...study there meaning..knowlegable you will become...

Sorry I ve always wanted to drop that line..

 

That's true Darth Homer, but it's also true that the age span of many who post here does cover quite a spectrum, so it is true that some members really are just kids to whom TPM was a sheer blast despite flaws that they can easily overlook for their age. When I was young I watched Flash Gordon (1980 version) with my mates, they thought it was the best thing ever, better than SW even - I thought it was crap! Guess what they thought of FG five years down the line? As you get older you learn how to appreciate different things in movies and also ascertain how well or how badly done certain things are once you've seen enough movies to evaluate levels of quality.

A script like TPM's is pretty bad to someone my age (34) who compares it with the other SW films and finds it lacking in basic character intergration and narrative structure. To a 16 year old the fact that the main protagonists do not even converse for the last 30 minutes of the film because of the shift in the priority of showing pure action, may pass way over his head and why should he care, things are exploding and that's fun! But I find it ridiculous that a child can destroy something that threatens an entire planet with two cultures and there be no scene in the film where:

1: No one congratulates him for saving their lives.

2: No one blinks an eyelid after a child actually took off in a space ship by himself and returned unaided.

3: The very girl that professed how much she cares for him and his guardian don't even show any concern to whether or not he is safe once the fighting is done.

It's like doing SW:ANH and not having the scene where Luke returns and the entire Rebel Base plus Han, Leia and Chewie come out to greet him or the awarding of medals. It turns the story into base plot information instead of actual narrative and that's my main grumble when arguing TPM with those who state that the script and direction is as good as before. I have to wonder if who I'm debating with is actually old/aware enough to make/unserstand that evaluation. Not that I'm pointing any fingers or naming any names of course!

 

CeJay your right on the money....as usuall it appears. But as I said before do not be tempted to follow critcs, evaluate the film yourselves, look within..I did and found it fell short by a long way.

 

Good points all around, CeeJay...when I was eleven I thought "Gremlins" was the greatest movie I'd ever seen.


I'm slightly less enthusiastic about it now.

 

Well Cee-Jay, again I disagree with your reasoning, but you hold a good argument for your beliefs


ST

 

I keep forgetting...anything negative about TPM should be treated with the utmost respect, and anything positive must be immediately discounted.

The idea of there being a media bias against TPM and Lucas is ridiculous and based on flimsy evidence. Interestingly, certain people came to the conclusion that Lucas is surrounded with yes-men based on far flimsier evidence. But what am I saying? Anything negative about Lucas must be treated with respect; it's the courageous few speaking "the truth." Or something.