PT Was the "reputation "of the Prequels doomed from the start ?

I've been thinking about the PT and other "Prequels" to well know films.

The first example is one that I haven't seen compared with the PT a lot. And that is the recent Planet of the Apes films.
To be fair, the Apes films has already had prequels in the "Escape, Conquest and Battle" films way back in the day.
But I remember when Rise of the Planets of the Apes was announced.
There wasn't that much hype or anticipation. Some felt "Really, we're doing this again?"

And the first film did not have that much buzz prior to release but it did well at the BO and with critics.

Then came "Dawn.." A little more hype and buzz but not a huge amount. And some said that the film might do badly because it wasn't that much marketing for it.
But the film did even better at the BO and still did well with critics.

Now we have a third film coming soon. And there is some hype but not tons of it yet.

Personally, Rise surprised me and I liked it more than I expected. Dawn was even better and I am looking forward to the third film.

2) The Alien series, Prometheus and Alien Covenant.
Here I have seen more comparisons to the PT and Lucas and not always in a good sense.
The Alien series was in bad shape after Alien 3 and Alien Res plus the two AvP films.
So that Scott was coming back was an event and Prometheus had quite a bit of hype.
But the reception was mixed. And the same seems to be true of the latest film.
Some comments that I've seen, that mention the PT, talks about how Scott is explaining things that didn't really need to be explained and or that the mystique is gone.

3) The Hobbit films. Like with the Alien series, you had the original filmmaker coming back and again the reception was more mixed.
And again comparisons with Lucas and the PT were made. That PJ overused CGI and the like.
Like the PT, there was a lot of hype and some real disappointment when the films didn't live up it.

What I can see in these three plus the PT is that excessive hype can lead to unreal expectations.
The Apes films, while doing far less at the BO than the PT or Hobbit films, seems to not have gotten as much criticisms or fans feeling let down by them.
But then again, they are free to do more their own thing as they aren't based of a book or need to follow a already set up backstory.

Just some thoughts.

Bye.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Another one with some possible parallels is Twin Peaks and Fire Walk with Me. While exploring some dark and unsettling territory, the original series was just as well known for its likeable main characters and quirky interaction. At times the Lynchian weirdness was almost entirely lacking in favor of something close to simply being "delightful." In comparison, the prequel film takes away the comfort and focuses on a deeply troubled young protagonist. The setting is demystified, portrayed less as a dreamlike place of weirdness and more one plagued by horrific reality.

Of course Star Wars is tamer across the board, so the surface comparisons aren't as immediately noticeable, but I see something similar in the prequels. Anakin is deeply troubled even before he officially became Vader. Jedi life isn't some mystical wandering knighthood, but an arm of bureaucracy.

 

The analogy with the Alien prequels is an apt one because you have a filmmaker coming back to do something very different with the franchise he helped create and the reaction was mixed. But personally I think the Star Wars prequels are generally more successful than the Alien prequels. I enjoyed Prometheus even though I felt it had problems, but I disliked Covenant. I can't help but think that Scott may have been more of a slave to fanservice where as Lucas was more free to do what he wanted on the prequels.

Another example even though it is not a prequel would be the 2006 Miami Vice movie. Michael Mann comes back to direct a feature film version of the hit tv series he produced. He does something very difference with it and the reaction is mixed. But I loved the movie.

 

I enjoyed all the prequels. Some people hate them just to hate them. CGI was great. Loved the Anakin storyline. The political part was the worst for me, although I understand why Lucas put it in there.

 

Or hate them because someone else did.

Of course, there are people that just genuinely didn't like the movies and made their own mind up about it and have valid reasons. (That I sometimes agree with and sometimes don't)....but I would venture a guess that about 50% of people that say they hated them or that they suck are parroting someone else's opinion.

 

Thus invalidating half of all Prequel criticism. Well played

 

Yes thats certainly a guess Heres some more guesses, 50% of people that like the prequels think the people that have issues with the prequels don't get them because they're films on a higher level. 30% think that the people who don't like the prequels are just jumping on the haters bandwagon, 15% thinks its because of the advent of the internet and 5% think its because the prequel haters expected a different story.

They weren't doomed to failure at all. Sure the hype surrounding TPM was something I don't recall seeing before and being human nature as it is they would naturally be carrying the baggage of comparison to 3 classics in the OT. But it wasn't the hype or expectation thats created a negative aura around them, because if they had been a great films then we wouldn't be seeing threads like this or generally low ratings across the board for them. Sadly the perception seems to be that the prequels didn't match up to the OT, hence why you then see a major Hollywood studios marketing machine trying to distance their new films from said perception of the prequels.

 

I agree with this, Andy. I don't really agree with the original premise of the thread.

I was just responding to the idea of "hating them to hate them".....which in my opinion carries a lot of weight with many people who say they don't like the PT. And that negative feedback of a bunch of VERY hateful and very vocal minority somewhat tainted the reception of them and still contributes to them being a punch line to this day, when there is much evidence that they were actually pretty well received. (although as you said, correctly, not on par with the OT)

I DID make a point of saying that many people that disliked the movies have valid criticisms. Your somewhat mocking use of percentages in reply to what I made as just an estimation of a very real psychological phenomenon was a bit condescending.

 

Bcs like I said, it renders half of all PT criticism as just made up to conform to the opinion of others. I find that quite dismissive, & unlikely in the extreme. It's also a bit condescending & snobbish quite frankly. Implying that half of the people out there can't think for themselves or form their own opinions. On the other hand The Dutchman did concede that it was only a guess. My guess would be more like 5% among people who have actually seen the movies.

 

50% is very conservative.

Time and time again even now 18 years after TPM came out and 12 years since ROTS and the same old repeated non-arguments are used again and again from the midi-chlorians being the Force, to the CGI, to all sorts of complete repetitions of the same thing with nothing to back it up besides. "Well it's obvious" , "I'm being objective" "Everyone knows that" etc etc.

It seems they simply take the views of others as "fact" and don't think about it at all. It's just a gang pile on with no thought.

The percentage doesn't matter at all if it's completely nonsensical unthinking criticism though.

The only thing important is actual thought out criticism. That is 100% useful to debate.

 

I don't think they have to. They probably just saw the movies & didn't like them. They may not be able to articulate why in great detail but that doesn't diminish their opinion. These are just movies. They're designed to entertain people for two hours & after that they get on with their lives. We're the exceptions, people endlessly disecting & discussing them online. The fact that someone doesn't like something is justification enough. There are plenty of movies I've seen just once or twice that I didn't like. I probably couldn't explain why particularly well bcs I'm not that familiar with them.

Basically this all seems a bit self serving & convenient. We're on a PT fan forum & we're saying that half or more of the PT criticism isn't real, or isn't genuine. Somewhere there are Batman vs Superman fans saying the same thing about their favourite movie. Or Suicide Squad fans, or fans of the Hobbit movies which received some criticism. Just seems like people inventing facts & statistics that suit their opinion. Which I find a bit on the nose, but maybe that's just me.

 

My sincere apologies if I offended you. I was just trying to highlight what I thought was in a jokey way that anyone could pick percentages out of the air based on common use of terms in this forum for example.

But I don't hold the opinion that anyone with a crticism should be dismissed because they're just jumping on the bandwagon fuelled by a small minority on the internet. Thats quite sweeping to say the vast majority of people that didn't like them, (or aspects of them), are basically mindless sheep because they don't hold the same opinion as others. You could say the same the other way for films that people like too. You can't even quantify this as a fact as a percentage to suit your own view.

No doubt the prequels did very well money wise, on that front its impossible to say that they failed, but equally there seems to be a stigma surrounding them thats hard to ignore too. Whether that be CGI, the story, the acting or whatever.... you will find those criticisms are common. If people want to say its only a small minority that caused that then thats fine. Indeed as I mentioned, Disney, JJ and Gareth were clearly very conscious of this in the marketing of TFA and RO, so for them to acknowledge it in making of features and even at SW conventions in front of the most rabid fans clearly shows theres no conspiracy as some may think but actually something behind those worries.

So whilst they didn't fail at the box office, I can only think that theres a perceived failure of them to live up the originals or maybe even moving away from what made the originals special, (for want of better phrases), is something thats hard to quanitfy with a figure or a percentage, but it must have been something that was bubbling away enough for them to address it to try and allay fears.

So to some degree I can't help but think in some way TPTB thought that the prequels harmed the brand enough for them to even consider criticising what was done on those films, as a consequence of that they've pushed the OT focus and style of the latest ones. As a result we have 2 films that have done well at the box office and whos WOM seems better than the prequels too, so I can see why those people that prefer the prequels may be upset, as it does look like that for the time being TPTB are distancing themselves from the prequels or at least that style of SW movie for a bit. You only have to look at the criticism they got on here for the comments made in the run up to TFA for instance, and thats fuelled the SW Lucas films v the SW Disney films divide too.

What will be interesting is to see where the films go after the ST and the Han Solo film, surely they can't keep with the OT themed films and surely they have to branch out to utilise the PT more as well.

 

Yep at some point the OT era will start to get abit same old and they probably will branch out abit.

I actually don't think there is anything wrong with setting it in the episode 3 > Episode 4 era because still a time close to episode 3 that there are still enough elements you can bring back.

Now if they decided to set the films after episode 6 then i could understand the complaints.

 

RotJ isn't a classic, it was just lucky that its in the same trilogy like ANH and ESB.

 

Yes that is the important part. Many people I have come across will hold their opinions but when asking them for something of their own to support it they fall apart and just go to "Well it's my opinion." "I get that but why?" I ask and they have nothing of their own and parrot what others have told them. The CGI argument is one of the most common. They say over and again no sets were built ever, everything was CGI and that is their opinion and I can't change that and if I try they I am denying their opinion of how the movies were made.

This is clearly ludicrous in the extreme but no matter how much you try to explain to them this is simply not true they will come back and say it's their opinion so they can't be wrong. Except I tell them that they are wrong. I can show them a book of pictures of sets, models, miniatures etc. They simply will walk away.

When you dig a bit deeper you'll often find that what it's really all about is that they want the original versions of the movies, hate the SE's and wanted the prequels to conform to the OT (meaning exactly the way they wanted to their own personal story of the OT as opposed to Lucas').

So trying to talk to someone who insists that falsehoods are true and that they hate these "truths" is quite problematic as they are creating the very thing that they hate that isn't actually in the movies in the first place!

 

Exactly. Saying that the acting and/or writing and/or directing in the prequels is bad, is an opinion. It can't be proved or disproved. Saying that the prequels were "all CGI," or, not quite so extreme, "mostly CGI, with little if any sets and miniatures," can be easily disproved. You're not suppressing anyone's opinion by doing so. But some people's hatred of the PT is obdurate. No matter how many behind-the-scenes videos or pics you provide that show how many practical effects were used in the prequels, they still claim it was "all CGI." Or they assume the "victim" mentality, wherein you're trying to deny them free speech by pointing out that their "all CGI" claims aren't true.

 

I've never once seen anyone say that literally everything in the PT was CGI. Like it was a 300 or Sin City type of film. Anyway, at the end of the day it's up to the movie to win people over. To get a positive reaction. That's show business & applies to a movie, play, stage show, whatever. Even if people's reasons seemingly don't make sense, it's still a failure on the part of the performance if the audience didn't like it or didn't respond to it.

 

That's another bizarre one. I've met people who like the performances of the actors in the prequels in basically everything else they do EXCEPT the prequels. This even extends to HC who they really don't know from anything but the PT but when they happened to see some of his other work they think he is at least alright and all of the problems once again go back to Lucas "ruining" everything. Over and again it goes back to Lucas. Then of course it becomes "Well you know Star Wars was never really him and the prequels prove it because that is all him and he's terrible but on the OT it was everyone else but him."

Which they all obviously did so that isn't a problem.

The problem is for those people I'm talking about who base their like of the prequels on if the original OT was out on home video. They would also like them if they were made to their own specifications.

Nothing seemingly about it. They don't make sense. It's a failure on the part of those audiences members because they are delusional and completely close-minded.

 

The PT actors have given better performances in other movies, and the OT actors have given better performances in other movies. We're not supposed to remember that the OT actors tried their mightiest to separate themselves from the OT as much as possible, because they didn't want to be remembered "just" for being in SW.

Harrison Ford in particular was very vocal and very adamant about wanting to leave Han Solo behind. (I have no doubt that killing off Han in TFA was not only his idea, but a condition of him signing onto the project in the first place. He'd wanted to kill off Han since 1983 at least.) Of course, he continued to say that even after he became a superstar in his own right, and, frankly, had nothing to complain about. He may or may not have been denied a part he wanted because of the SW association, but I know for a fact that Mark Hamill was. When the play "Amadeus" was adapted into a movie, the people behind it felt that having "Luke Skywalker" play the lead would turn it into a joke, even though Hamill had played the part onstage, to great acclaim.

As for the Lucas stuff, yeah, I noticed that too. Certain...people hate him so much that they want to blame him for everything they hate in SW, and credit everything they like in SW to someone other than him. He's described in promo material as "associated with SW." Associated with SW? He created the dang thing! But just try saying that and a half-dozen people show up instantly to say he really had little to do with creating it, he took other people's ideas and claimed they were his own, he had a lot of help bringing it to the screen. That last claim is actually true, and he's said so, repeatedly, although certain...people seem to want to think otherwise.

 

Yeah, I've noticed that phenomena, its weird. The only explanation I can think of is that people who hold this belief are perhaps in denial that Star Wars movies they didn't like (the PT) were made at all. They felt so let down that they couldn't just say, "oh well, that wasn't for me, at least I've still got two/three existing SW movies I love". Instead, fuelled by extreme disappointment, they decided that, Gary Kurtz and/or Lawrence Kasdan had made the OT?
To use a comparison borrowed from Blast Points podcast, I do think its true that the PT was a little more 'full on George Lucas' than the OT, perhaps a little too full on for some people, and understandably so. But I've seen people of this mind set exacerbate this difference to the extreme, claiming that Star Wars was an intensely character driven franchise, non-reliant on special effects. Personally most of the reviews I've seen from back in the day, praise the 1977 film for its VFX, and critise the acting. Similar to the PT. The Special Effects of both Trilogies were ground-breaking in their day.
Similar is the issue of 'goofiness' in the franchise. Star Wars has always been a charming kind of weird. The first Star Wars movie ever made begins with two (apparently sentient) robots wandering around an alien desert.

 

I wouldnt read too much in actors wanting to distance themselves from roles, I don't see it as a reflection on what they thought of the films themselves but more as a reflection on their career. Its no surprise they wanted to stretch out a bit into different fields. From an artistic stand point why would you want to be pigeon holed in one role or genre? Take Harrison Ford for example, look at the different roles he was taking between the films, he was doing everything he could that was varied to show his range and in the end look at the career he's had. He often came across as someone who was thankful for the chance SW gave him but he didn't seem to take it seriously.

 

Doesn't matter. It's the movie's job to win over its audience. To have them trying to explain why they loved it, not why they didn't like it.

 

Someone finds faults in a film that you don't and you call those poeople delusional and close minded, what a disgustingly arrogant and condescending statement that is. Statements like that say a lot about you as a person.

Never read that before, crazy if true.

Just going back to the point about actors being associated with roles, even though Harrison Ford is a huge star and managed to break away from being typecast he will still always be mainly known as Indiana Jones and Han Solo because of the popularity and success of those films, just like Mark and Carrie will be known for their roles too. But in the case of those 2 even though they've done a lot outside of SW, because its not as successful then people think they've done nothing since. It must be frustrating trying to get people to know that you're more than just Luke Skywalker or Princess Leia, indeed Carrie was often very funny in her monologues about that. When I think of actors being typecast I immediately think of William Shatner and Leonard Nimoy. On the other end of the spectrum look at what happened to Jake Lloyd being associated with one part.