main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

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

Discussion in 'Prequel Trilogy' started by fastcooljosh, May 2, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. WebLurker

    WebLurker Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2016
    I was actually thinking about TFA specifically.
     
  2. Qui-Riv-Brid

    Qui-Riv-Brid Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Apr 18, 2013
    Yes. It's both. Each inform and support the other.
     
    Seeker Of The Whills likes this.
  3. trikadekaphile

    trikadekaphile Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    May 6, 2015
    So no wonder TFA is so underwhelming, with its tepid new characters (Rey and Finn are the only ones who stand out distinctly) and its blatant reliance on audience affection for the Big Three, particularly fan-favorite Han, to carry the movie, along with its rehash-of-ANH plot and the dishonest "back to the old school style of FX" campaign. Abrams, et al played it so safe it wasn't even funny. Yet they get plaudits for "gutsiness" because of the completely unprecedented move of having a strong female character in a SW movie, and a "racially diverse" cast.

    Note: that last part is sarcasm.
     
  4. WebLurker

    WebLurker Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2016
    You and I really processed the movie differently. I found it anything but underwhelming.

    For what it's worth, while integrated well, I'm not sure that the Big Thee carried the movie at all; Luke was the Macguffin, not really a character in it; Leia was a very supporting role, and Han was in the mentor role that Kenobi had in the original ANH (or Gandalf from Lord of the Rings, if you want a mentor character who carried a bit more of the story). Also, those characters weren't brought in until the movie was well underway, meaning that the new characters were the ones carrying the movie, and given that they've become break out stars (esp. the good guy characters), I'm very skeptical that the old characters were the only reason that people liked the movie.

    It's Star Wars; the Saga movies always parallel, remix, rehash, reflect, ripoff, and make meta jokes off each other. TFA is no different than TMP to ANH in that regard.

    That's a fault with the marketing, not the movie.

    It is unprecedented for this specific movie series and given that Star Wars somehow obtained the idea of being a "boy's franchise," it does make sense that having a female be the central hero would draw attention. On top of that, most of the praise I've seen about the movie is that they liked the characters in and of themselves. Mileage may vary, but I think the idea that TFA was a weak or bad movie is not a majority opinion. I think a case can be made that it's better than the prequels on an artistic level and that it stacks up well with the originals.
     
    Gamiel, DrDre and Samuel Vimes like this.
  5. TheDutchman

    TheDutchman Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2015
    Better than the PT on an artistic level?.......are you serious.

    Please make the case.....defend that statement.
     
  6. CIS Droid

    CIS Droid AOTC 20th Anniversary Banner Winner star 5 VIP - Game Winner

    Registered:
    Oct 21, 2015
     
  7. heels1785

    heels1785 Skywalker Saga + JCC Manager / Finally Won A Draft star 10 Staff Member Manager

    Registered:
    Dec 10, 2003
    This is not a thread devoted to bashing any films. Friendly reminder.
     
  8. Daxon101

    Daxon101 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2016

    Artistic only if you are tracing a picture of another picture, but in terms of drawing originality... not really.

    Most of TFA was a traced drawing of ANH and while they attempted to disguise in ways like calling the Tatooine planet Jakku it was still fairly obvious.
     
  9. trikadekaphile

    trikadekaphile Jedi Knight star 2

    Registered:
    May 6, 2015
    Goody goody for you.

    ONE has become a "breakout star": Rey. She was the paint-by-numbers scrappy heroine/Mary Sue who could do everything. I admit, I liked her myself, mostly because of Daisy Ridley's appeal. Fairness compels me to say that the folks behind the movie have a real find in Ms. Ridley.

    Maybe. Maybe they also liked the heavy reliance on nostalgia and the constant retreading of old territory.

    Out of curiosity: why do you always say TMP instead of TPM? Also, TPM was hardly a remake of ANH.

    The marketing was done FOR the movie, by the people who MADE the movie. They sold it as "going back to the old school" and derided the supposedly "all CGI" prequels, and it achieved the desired effect: getting the prequel-dislikers on the movie's side, ready to completely overlook that the flick was dripping with CGI. Hence the emphasis on BB-8 and critters portrayed by puppets, while carefully ignoring the CGI character (I forget the name) played by Lupita Nyong'o. This after all kinds of bragging about getting a recent Oscar winner in the cast.

    It didn't "draw attention." The people behind the movie went out of their way to get attention for the female protagonist, bragging about their feminist bravery in finally having a strong female character in a SW movie, thus making SW appeal to girls, as it had never done before.

    I don't CARE if it's a majority opinion. Am I supposed to alter my own opinion because of a supposed "majority"? Is my opinion invalid because of what a supposed "majority" thinks?

    Sure it can. A case can also be made that it's worse than the prequels and the originals, on an artistic level, and that it's a blow-by-blow, homogenized, playing-it-very-safe remake of ANH made by a filmmaker who's basically a good mimic.
     
    Sith Lord 2015 likes this.
  10. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005
    The thing is, DD... You've been busy implying the prequel films, especially Episodes I and II, are objectively lesser; since you've cited box-office statistics, the alleged ramblings of prequel actors, and fan-poll data multiple times in multiple threads, all in what seems like a protracted bid to shame prequel fans into submission. (removed). One might contend that you are the other side of that ideological horseshoe. Nevertheless, I agree that lazily throwing out made-up percentages to dismiss criticism and backlash is lame and counter-productive. It'd be a little like saying that half the people that claim to love TFA or R1 are faking it (which, by the way, is a charge that used to get thrown at prequel fans not infrequently here and elsewhere). People probably do deserve a bit more credit than that.

    On the other hand, many opinions in this world are formed third-hand, and the ideological, fact-starved resistance to serious matters like vaccination and climate change potently illustrates that psychological phenomena like the cult of personality, groupthink, cherry-picking and taking data out of context (and being ignorant of it entirely), and regurgitating catchphrases and epithets in the place of real arguments, are all alive and well (or diseased and in need of dying out) in the human animal. In politics and religion, we also see a lot of scheming to maintain the status quo; and a HUGE resistance to inconvenient facts and new ideas. This, again, suggests that human beings aren't rational actors, and many people will simply parrot what their peers say, or what the media tells them to think. Furthermore, social ostracism is an enormous fear in most people -- as it has occurred throughout human history and often meant losing status, wealth, access to mates, food, and death or dismemberment. So people have good reason for repeating prevalent dogma and remaining within the safety (albeit, often, in modern, cosmopolitan times: the illusory safety) of the herd.

    And what have we seen on the Internet these past twenty years? Whaddyaknow... Non-stop, 24-hour, CNN-approved (metaphorically speaking) prequel trashing. It has simply run on and on, like a never-ending sentence or a freight train without a destination. A ribald symphony; with the increased, quasi-formal backing of an emergent geek-media-internet complex. Carping about Lucas and the prequels, and rhetorically slaying them for this grand failing or that, turned into a national pastime with no borders. The ultimate headless chicken cyber dance. No "clergy" was overseeing this thing. It just took on a life as its own as more and more people picked up the beat; until it essentially turned into sacrosanct "truth". In this regard, it is right to question (even if only rhetorically: I don't like the application of arbitrary numbers to lend an argument undeserved authority) the scale of the negativity and people's seeming devotion to being negative. Perhaps Star Wars is the "black swan" of cinema; and the prequels a sort of black swan within a black swan. They seem to have sent people a bit crazy. I can't say the real figure of opinion-parroting is actually 50%; but I can't agree with your 5%, either. It isn't something that can be easily quantified. Yet I've little reason to doubt it isn't defined (or partially-defined) by mindless repetition and other forms of online virtual signalling. We're seeing this constantly now across the opinion spectrum.




    You're conveniently casting a very wide net when you use a term like "audience". What audience are you talking about? Hardcore OT fans? Young, first-time viewers? People with a passing interest in science-fiction and fantasy? The vast majority of movie-goers who see a movie once or twice and then move on to the next thing? Star Wars reaches different audiences in different ways. If we look at the box-office takings for the prequels, their cable-television viewing figures, their home-video sales figures on DVD and Blu-ray, and all the merchandise shifted, we would see some very healthy stats. Lucas didn't sell Star Wars and his film companies to Disney for $4 billion on the basis of the OT alone. How much do you think a franchise with a single trilogy from the late 70s/early 80s would have netted him? I'm not after a number (like I said above: I think arbitrary numbers should be generally avoided). Just putting that question out there to provoke some thinking.

    You eagerly talk of "failure" on the part of the "performance", to use your terminology, as if all blame for purportedly sub-par responses should be automatically shifted onto the art itself. However, it depends what you mean by "failure"; and what you mean by "performance". The "failure" component, beyond some questionable negativity floating about online, and yes, generally weak fan-polling for Episodes I and II, is not some homogeneous absolute. There does still seem (for the most part) to be a hegemony of hate (or disdain) for TPM and AOTC online; and a nebulous or ambivalent regard for the PT as a whole. I don't dispute that. I do, however, dispute the fact that great numbers of people generally dislike TPM and AOTC; especially now. By financial metrics, at least, they were popular, successful movies when they came out; and they seemed to continue in that vein on cable television and home video. Moreover, they appear to have created many new fans; or shored up resurgent interest in Star Wars as a whole the past decade or so. For instance, my sister recently visited with her new boyfriend. He is twenty years of age. Turns out he's a big Star Wars fan and even designs Star Wars characters and vehicles; with a view to getting into the entertainment/gaming industry in the next few years (he's presently at university). He told me his favourite SW movies, without yet knowing my own positions, are TPM and ROTS. Note that: His two favourite SW films are PT movies. Additionally, he doesn't much like TFA, but he told me he loves R1. My brother and sister also both put ROTS as their favourite SW movie. I am the odd one out in presently rating either TPM or AOTC (or TPM-AOTC-ROTJ -- what I call "The Outer Trilogy") the highest; while also respecting ROTS like fire. But there we go. There's plenty of prequel admiration out there. The Internet is not a completely reliable source of information. I think Lucas was right when he said the hate is massively added to online; and that how people feel about the trilogies is largely a generational thing.

    I want to say a little more about the "performance" side here before I finish. You seem to think you have the prequels over a barrel on this point. But I don't think art can ever be "blamed" for people not liking it or getting snide about it. One might in fact charge that people only come out in force "against" something when it riles them and strikes a deeper inner chord. On some level, such art can be a blow to the false security of what they "know" to be true about the world. Much like Vader telling Luke that he's his father, the immediate, short-term reaction is one of shock, hatred, and bawling denial. Then, when they grew up a bit, or let other people pick up on the same truth, a deeper acceptance and appreciation penetrates their being and they come to grips with the fact they were wrong; or, at the least, begin to see that they were failing to accept a bigger picture. Now, granted, that might make me sound a bit snobbish and condescending, but there is ample precedent in the world of art and storytelling for this very thing happening numerous times before. Below are a couple of links that list and briefly discuss novels/works of literature that are now widely held to be "great", but which were savaged and/or ignored when they were first published. In some cases, their authors never lived to see their work becoming popular; popularity and acclaim, in their cases, was achieved posthumously. Which goes to show it can take a while for people to come around and for a new consensus to develop. This also applies in even the very intellectual realm of science. The quantum physicist Max Planck famously said: "Science advances one funeral at a time." Anyway, the links, with some commentary to follow:


    http://listverse.com/2015/01/11/10-great-books-that-were-not-appreciated-during-their-time/

    10. Moby-Dick
    Herman Melville

    9. The Sound And The Fury
    William Faulkner

    8. On The Road
    Jack Kerouac

    7. The Master And Margarita
    Mikhail Bulgakov

    6. Heart Of Darkness
    Joseph Conrad

    5. Catch-22
    Joseph Heller

    4. The Great Gatsby
    F. Scott Fitzgerald

    3. Lolita
    Vladimir Nabokov

    2. The Metamorphosis And Others
    Franz Kafka

    1. Walden
    Henry David Thoreau


    http://www.cracked.com/article_18645_6-great-novels-that-were-hated-in-their-time.html

    6. Brave New World
    Aldous Huxley

    5. The Grapes Of Wrath
    John Steinbeck

    4. Lord Of The Flies
    William Golding

    3. The Catcher In The Rye
    J.D. Salinger

    2. Moby-Dick
    Herman Melville

    1. The Lord Of The Rings Trilogy
    J. R. R. Tolkien


    Some pretty famous books and authors on those lists. The one common to both is Herman Melville's "Moby-Dick". If we take a look at what both lists say about Melville's classic work:


    http://listverse.com/2015/01/11/10-great-books-that-were-not-appreciated-during-their-time/

    The reviews of the novel were far from kind. The Charleston Southern Quarterly Review wrote the following on the subject of Moby-Dick and its author:“Mr. Melville’s Quakers are the wretchedest dolts and drivellers, and his Mad Captain . . . is a monstrous bore . . . His ravings, and the ravings of some of the tributary characters, and the ravings of Mr. Melville himself, meant for eloquent declamation, are such as would justify a writ de lunatico against all the parties.” Melville’s death was hardly noteworthy at the time, and the lone newspaper that carried the news of his passing referred to him as a “long-forgotten author.” Melville’s genius would be recognized long after his death, and Moby-Dick, his magnum opus, would finally be hailed for the masterpiece he believed it to be.


    http://www.cracked.com/article_18645_6-great-novels-that-were-hated-in-their-time.html

    Contemporary reviews for Moby-Dick were harsh. Very, very harsh. Think Son of the Mask meets Battlefield Earth. Despite introducing the world to some of the most original characters in literary history, not the least of which were Captain Ahab, Queequeg or the God-like Moby-Dick, Melville's poetic prose completely went over everyone's head. Part of this was due to one publisher accidentally omitting the book's crucial epilogue, which kind of tied the book together not unlike a fine Persian carpet in a lazy man's apartment. The other reason for its bad press was that most critics just flat-out didn't like it. One of the most esteemed literary magazines in England dismissed the book as a "catastrophe." One Methodist publication slammed the book as "unfit for general circulation." Some of the more dickish critics went so far as to attack Melville himself, along with what they took as "his rhetorical contortions, all his declamatory abuse of society, all his inflated sentiment and all his insinuating licentiousness."


    The second list provides a link to the Wikipedia entry for "Moby-Dick": https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Moby-Dick#Reception

    I enter that for fairness. It was primarily the American press that was hostile to Melville's novel. It can be argued that they were a little too "close" to it to see its genius at the time (the book is usually seen today as a meditation on America and an elegy of sorts for democracy as a leviathan under threat). The British press, meanwhile, contrasted strongly against its American counterpart by generally being approving of the work and laudatory. There are odd twists and counter-narratives to every dismissed and "forgotten" work. The same obtains with the prequels. The Internet generally reads as "anti-prequel"; but the wider viewing populace doesn't seem to hold them in contempt (and again: good box-office figures, good television figures, good home-video figures; plus positive personal anecdotes). Nothing is ever straightforward.

    Do note, however, the savage nature of the denunciations many of those works and their authors received. If one were to focus solely on the negativity thrown their way, one would probably come away with the impression (with no deeper understanding of human nature) that they were artistic pretenders at best, horrible frauds and enemies of society at worst. Take a look at the entry ahead of "Moby-Dick" in the second link: "Catcher In The Rye". Read the barbs reportedly uttered in the wake of its release: "disappointing", a "near miss", "too long", "wholly repellent", "amateur", "monotonous and phony", and "predictable and boring". People have trotted out all these put-downs toward the prequels countless times. So it seems that human beings like to repeat themselves with depressing regularity. Unique, original strains of thought seem rare. If they are to be found anywhere, it is often in the very works of storytelling art being repetitiously attacked when they first appear. I guess the universe has a sense of humour.

    I hope you can see the situation isn't as simple as you're trying to make out. I can't ultimately tell you if the prequel trilogy is good art, great art, crap art, or an abomination that deserves to be wiped from the face of the Earth. I am, however, reminded of two quotes on the whole matter:

    "The most subtle art, the strongest and deepest art - supreme art - is the one that does not at first allow itself to be recognized."
    -- Andre Gide

    "When a great genius appears in the world you may know him by this sign; that the dunces are all in confederacy against him."
    -- Jonathan Swift
     
  11. L110

    L110 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Oct 26, 2014
    Box-office statistics and fan-poll data don´t prove a goddamn thing and aren´t objective measurements of a film´s quality.
     
  12. DrDre

    DrDre Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Aug 6, 2015
    Where do you find the time to write these elaborate responses Cryo? :) It's literally scary to write a response to these. I mean, where do you start?
     
    Darth Downunder likes this.
  13. AndyLGR

    AndyLGR Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 1, 2014
    With a dictionary apparently so Cryo said in one of his first posts on here :)

    But ultimately we can all write what we want here, we can quote film ratings sites or top film lists but really our own posts are our own opinions and we can back that up with guesses on percentages and say this poll backs me up or say everyone's wrong and just parroting negative opinions. But ultimately neither is going to change our own opinions, it's like a tug of war.
     
    Deliveranze and Mostly Handless like this.
  14. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005

    That might be one position you could extract from my post. That said, box-office statistics and fan-poll data can be useful in gauging some matters; some more than others. However, given the subjective nature of film appreciation -- not to mention the rabbit holes one is liable to tumble down, even unawares, when dealing with statistics and polling data -- it isn't advisable to put too much stock in them, by and large, when trying to construct an argument from them; much less when they are cited as pure substitution for where an argument should appear but none is evident.


    Ha! I don't even know how to answer your latter question. To your former: I don't know if I ever find the time; the time finds me. I seem married to these movies much as a priest is "married" to God. I'm up a lot, many hours, and the films are often on my mind. So I feel confident when I turn to the task of constructing a fresh response; though, by the same measure, or more, I'm also often anxious before I get started (if that's any consolation). You have to write about what you know; or where you feel you can swim rather than merely treading water or traipsing gingerly around the water's edge. Star Wars provides me with that surety. You might be able to infer certain fascinations of mine in the response you seem bewildered by. I'm not going to run a full analysis, but I've long been interested in psychology, argumentative (or "informal") fallacies, polemics and op-ed pieces, light philosophical summaries of the sort you find in Wikipedia pages, YouTube videos, populist books, etc., and what you might awkwardly term "surprising facts" about the world and the flow of history. All that is probably in there, inflecting my writing, somewhere.

    Lastly, Christopher Hitchens is a (now-late) hero of mine, and he could sit up all night hammering out copy, and do so, according to various of his comrades and acquaintances, at frighteningly great speed. There's no way in hell I'm anywhere near his level, but he at least proves it's possible to write like the wind when you're really fired up and eager to turn your thoughts into prose. Although I'm also willing to believe he was an aberration in human history. A total machine!

    There was one other thing I was going to say, but I forgot what it was.


    About the dictionary usage: Sounds like something I might have said. There was a time, in all honesty, I barely used one. I do now, in more recent times, make fairly frequent use of the dictionary to double-check the meaning of a word I usually knew at one stage but have become uncertain about; and to "top up" my knowledge of definitions, to peer into the etymology of a word, and maybe, along the way, to accidentally (or semi-deliberately) encounter new ones. I do also fully-deliberately look up new words that I encounter in my travels; though that is usually in the process of reading unrelated to Star Wars (though, in a way, if I'm a "priest" of these movies, I suppose it all relates back, some way, some how). It's a joyful process when not done to excess; I recommend more people do it and take a firm interest in language. That said, looking through my Internet search history, the last time I went on thefreedictionary.com (I almost never use anything else) was actually yesterday, on June 10th ("yesterday" for me in relation to my last response). This is my full history (minus the "home" page of thefreedictionary.com) for June:

    (Reverse chronological order: newest to oldest)

    June 10th:
    - screen
    - shield

    June 7th:
    - shellack

    June 4th:
    - beard

    June 3rd:
    - univocal
    - indomitable

    June 2nd:
    - affect

    That is literally my entire usage for the month (thus far). Not very much at all. I seem to be off to a poor start this month.


    Anyway, yes, we can all write reams of delightful word-magic about this notion or that, but it doesn't change much in and of itself. Nor should any of us expect it to. Ultimately, I do write to persuade to some degree; but more as an abstract intellectual exercise as much as anything else. You can call it therapy. If I have any concrete aim in mind, it's some faint but real hope that I am planting a seed of doubt in people's minds -- including my own. We all have the right in any free society to articulate and avail of ourselves of counter opinions. Maybe what I write, and what most other people write, isn't much more than "bird song", but I'm reasonably content with that notion; and if it ends up being more than that, maybe I should be horrified! Still, if life is communication, as I increasingly seem to believe it is, then I don't think it hurts to try and communicate a set of ideas; and send them out into the world as beautifully (or as pretentiously) as possible. :p
     
  15. Darth Downunder

    Darth Downunder Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 5, 2001
    You've either mistaken me for someone else Cryo or this is an awful example of misrepresentation. Firstly, I haven't cited box office statistics in any post for months. Can barely remember the last time. Secondly, I've never said that the PT, or any other films are "objectively lesser". Because I'm not an idiot. Clearly there's nothing definitive anyone can ever point to which establishes one movie as objectively worse than another. In fact an extreme example I often cite (& mentioned in a recent post) are films like Norbit or Battlefield Earth compared to The Godfather. Even in such an obvious glaring example we can't produce anything that "proves" that one is better than the other. We could always find someone who's a fan of Norbit & who thinks The GF is as boring as hell. That person is not "wrong". It's their valid opinion. Does that then mark the end of the discussion? Do we all pack up & go home? Or are we allowed to calmly & objectively discuss the reasons why one of those films is generally (but not universally) considered an all time classic while the other is generally (but not universally) considered a pile of crap?

    In the case of the SW series, what we can say with near-certainty given the volume of commentary, polling & metrics involving many hundreds of thousands of people is that Eps 1 & 2 are on average rated as the weakest of the SW movies. Doesn't mean it's a fact for everyone, just with more people on average than the other episodes in this series of films. Even if you're a massive fan of Eps 1 & 2, surely you can discuss why this is the case. Evaluate & comment on the reasons even if you don't agree with them. You in fact are in a better position than most to do this. You've told us that it took you years to warm the early Prequels. Until then you weren't particularly keen on them. So you've been on both sides of the fence. I imagine your past issues with the Prequels must give you quite a bit of empathy for those who still don't like them.

    Unfortunately we often can't discuss the issues that so many people have with the PT in a civil manner. That's bcs some fans take any criticism or even a discussion of that criticism very personally. So they "come out swinging" in defense of them. Either that or the reasons they produce are designed to blame other factors other than the films themselves. Like critics simply copying others. Or that people have been corrupted by RLM. Take this thread title as another example. Its very premise suggests that the mixed reception of the PT was pre-ordained by fate. That the PT never stood a chance to be considered anything better. That's the sort of nonsense that I personally have no time for. Movies, like all forms of popular entertainment get the reception they deserve. They earn the good & the bad.
     
    DarthCricketer and AndyLGR like this.
  16. AndyLGR

    AndyLGR Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 1, 2014
    That last paragraph and in particular the last sentence is absolutely fantastic, so well put. Theres isn't some kind of conspiracy and it's not like they went over peoples heads, it's because they aren't quite as good as what came before. It seems like that's the general consensus and it's hard for those that do prefer them to accept that. Ill be honest I found that hard to accept as a SW fan myself, and ultimately that's what's "doomed" them - their own quality and issues did it themselves.
     
  17. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005
    I never accused you of directly deeming any of the films objectively lesser. I said -- right in the very quote you built your response out of -- that you have sought to imply such a thing through a variety of methods. And you clearly didn't even bother to deny two of the three methods I mentioned. Which is reassuring. After all, only three days ago, you were again supplying the forum with a negative Ewan McGregor quote/clip on the last page of this thread: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...-from-the-start.50045289/page-8#post-54373955

    Also, it's funny to me that you would revert to these methods, given that they are fairly obvious arguments from authority (or numbers). When, in your former post which I was responding to, you bristled at the idea that prequel critics can't think for themselves, citing 5% as a better percentage of unoriginal/regurgitated thinking than 50%. But bringing up numbers, or actors' quotes, and doing so with tedious regularity, in multiple threads, reveals a lack of confidence in your own opinions (in my opinion), when you have to rely on the crutch of importing external data to firm up your view. Why not just give us your views instead of constantly reverting to rantings, ratings, and statistics?

    Fan polls, for instance, are not a particularly good measure of how much Star Wars fans like one movie or another. Most polls ask a very restrictive question: "What is your favourite Star Wars movie?" I hope you can instantly see the problem with that. All they capture is the movie people like most. And surprise: Fans overwhelmingly like the most dramatic installments. Episodes I and II were not intended to be as drama-laden as some of the other installments. They are build-up or back-story installments. And, again, people are only voting for their favourite. Some fans on TFN, for instance, have stressed that they like all the films equally, or some better than others but that they have a love or admiration for all of them. Asking a person merely to select their favourite doesn't do proper justice to what might be a person's second or third favourite. And even if they personally rank, say, TPM or AOTC last, that doesn't necessarily mean they dislike those films; especially when a fan goes out of their way to clarify that they still enjoy those films a great deal.


    Where's the prickliness entering from? Go back and re-read my last post. It's pretty lengthy -- and yet nowhere did I say or even insinuate you aren't or shouldn't be allowed to calmly (or "objectively") discuss reasons; or what you personally consider reasons. All I did at the outset, before opening the topic out, was to impugn you for (in my opinion) engaging in tactics that are as bad as what you were objecting to; when you complained of that 50% statistic and accused prequel fans of indulging in snobbery and condescension. Also, sorry, but you seem to be attempting to smear the prequels by drawing a false equivalence above. "Battlefield Earth" and "Norbit" have terrible reputations; and this is reflected in their RT ratings of 3% and 9% respectively. The lowest-rated Star Wars movie on RT is TPM with a rating of 55%. You are clearly attempting to trivialize the popularity of the PT and marginalize PT fans. Some films completely crash and burn. That didn't happen with the prequels and hasn't yet happened with any Star Wars movie. Even when their overall presence or esteem in popular culture varies.


    You're sounding like a broken record in invoking (and getting wrong) my personal history yet again. I've already explained my background on these movies directly to you in public. This is now the third or fourth time you've mentioned this. I used to like Episodes I and II less than I do. It didn't take me years to "warm" to them; I simply blew a little hot and cold back in the day (and it was more towards TPM than AOTC). I have empathy for anyone that extends empathy. But you take a rather presumptuous and mocking tone toward prequel fans; making it hard for me to always show a great deal back. Especially when you keep snipping at people and blitzing threads with box-office statistics, or invoking polls, or dredging back up actors' comments which you seem to treat as gospel. Moreover, you have done plenty to fly the flag of Disney and defend TFA, on this very forum, no less. Where's your empathy, given your professed dislike/tepid appreciation of Episodes I and II, for prequel fans less enamoured of TFA? I haven't seen much of it.


    You're seeing things that aren't there. It's actually prequel fans that can't discuss the Disney movies openly on TFN. And no-one is allowed to use the term "Mary Sue" on the TFA board. Though no equivalent blasphemy law has ever been instituted to protect the prequels from equivalent "insult" (e.g., "TPM has racist characters"; "Anakin is a whiny punk", "Padme is a horrible mother and sexist stereotype", etc.). We also wouldn't have much scope for discussion if we weren't able to look beyond the films themselves. Films don't get made or exist in a vacuum. You seem to be laying all the blame on allegedly sensitive fans. Which is interesting since you have passed right over everything I just offered about art (literature) that is ignored or derided on publication; only to later be hailed as a masterpiece and revered in academia. That material situates the conversation in a broader context. But you're pretending nothing was said.



    Fair enough -- you have no time for it and that's your opinion. But if you see no validity to the premise whatsoever, why post in the thread? Also, for what it's worth, I think you have the premise slightly wrong. The thing being assumed as an axiom is that the prequels have a poor or lesser reputation than the originals. The "pre-ordained by fate" part technically constitutes a question: the subject of debate. The thread is asking whether you agree with that or not; and encouraging people to marshall evidence, or argumentation, for or against. It seems like a perfectly reasonable topic to have a thread around. I guess you see things differently.
     
  18. Darth Downunder

    Darth Downunder Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Aug 5, 2001
    I've always made a point of saying that at an individual level a movie's quality is always subjective.
    Anything wrong with that? We were in the middle of a discussion about the volume of digital work in the PT. That was a quote from the lead actor of the Prequels, who was commenting on the amount of green screen acting he was required to do. It was completely relevant & in context.
    No, I think you're deliberately distorting my comments & pretending to misunderstand me. I clearly labelled Norbit/Godfather an extreme & glaring comparison where even then, no proof could be submitted to establish that one is objectively better than the other. Sometimes an extreme example like that is useful to illustrate a point. It has nothing to do with the Prequels. You could just as easily say I was comparing them to The Godfather as I was to Norbit. In fact I was drawing a direct comparison to neither.

    To finish off, I noticed you didn't address this:
    My memory must be failing me bcs I don't recall citing box office stats this year let alone recently. Could you pls point out some of the examples you refer to?
     
    DarthCricketer likes this.
  19. Cryogenic

    Cryogenic Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Jul 20, 2005
    That's like a Muslim deploying the utterance: "There's no compulsion in religion." While inwardly wanting Sharia law to ultimately replace secular, democratic rule.


    Yes... When you do it, there's context to take note of. But if a poll says a film is bad/disliked, then it's bad/disliked, end of discussion. The point is you find various ways of constantly injecting such material into threads. Which is what I said two posts ago now.


    First you called my charges against you "awful"; now you're accusing me of "pretending" to misunderstand you. I explained why that's a bad comparison. Furthermore, people have equated them on here with films like "Battlefield Earth" before, and "The Godfather" has been brought up any number of times as an example of "clearly superior" filmmaking. Citing the character of Michael Corleone is a common bashing tactic to suggest Anakin could/should have been more "likeable"; because apparently Francis Ford Coppola, Lucas' mentor, managed to do it forty years ago, and Lucas utterly failed to learn from his Old Master.


    You've directly invoked or alluded to box-office takings and attendance figures multiple times in the past couple of years in various threads. You even admitted it a moment ago; and now you're asking for proof. Cute. (removed) I'm done here.
     
    DementedMeerkat and ezekiel22x like this.
  20. ezekiel22x

    ezekiel22x Chosen One star 5

    Registered:
    Aug 9, 2002
    Hostile fans can be found in every forum here. It's a fandom thing, not a specific PT fan thing. I was once on the receiving end of ridiculous fanboy snark in the TFA form for merely saying I was glad Doug Chiang was working on Episode VII.
     
  21. Gamiel

    Gamiel Chosen One star 9

    Registered:
    Dec 16, 2012
    A bit late for the Maz's Castle discussion but I would like to ad my thoughts: I overall like Maz's Castle as a set, it mostly feels different from the Mos Eisley cantina which is dark, smoke filled and with a bar as the centrepiece, Maz's Castle on the other hand is bright with clean air and I don't remember a bar (which don't mean there was not one I have only seen TFA twice and it was over a year ago). To me the Mos Eisley cantina feels like a seedy bad guy bar where people don't really react to people killing or shopping of limbs of each other, Maz's Castle on the other hand feels more like a truckstop/way station, probably of the more colourful/seedy kind going by its patrons but not near as seedy as the Mos Eisley cantina.

    Now, I do have some problems with it: 1) most of the patrons more look like they belong in a seedy bar then a truckstop, if the idea was that Maz's Castle was a gathering place for smugglers, pirates and other scum I think they failed to give that impression by how Maz's Castle looked and how characters acted inside it. If they on the other hand did mean to have it as a truckstop/way station (which is my impression) they should have had more of the patrons that look like normal shipping crew (here would have been an excellent place to make homage to the crew uniforms of ships like the Nostromo, the Red Dwarf and/or other commercial freighter spaceship) or truckers, instead of scum and lowlife.

    2) With all the people inside Maz's Castle and without any city near I find it really strange that we can't really see any spaceships near the Castle or any notable clearings

    [​IMG]

    This really bothers me; there should be lots more visible spaceships, some of them probably parked in the water.



    Also I think it was a missed opportunity that when our heroes got out of the castle they where alone against the FO instead of having them fight together with the patrons that had not escaped and Mez's staff against the FO.
     
  22. WebLurker

    WebLurker Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 12, 2016
    Okay. To start, I will concede that comparing a trilogy of movies with a single installment of a trilogy is tricky, so this's my opinion. (Also, while I said "artistic," I was thinking of "general quality of movie making," so that might've been a better choice of words.

    First point is the characters. The writing and directing choices left the prequel characters less than totally engaging, while I've found that the characters in TFA much more so. I think that falls to the actors (try reading the TFA novelization; it falls flat, while the prequel novelizations are improvements as far as the characters are concerned). TFA is a better-acted movie, I think.

    Second point would be the pacing. Now, I do think that the prequels are good story overall, however a lot of stuff is never explained or left hanging. The prophecy that Anakin is ostensibly supposed to fulfill is never explained; the mystery about the erased archives is dropped as soon as its brought up. A case can be made that Anakin's turn is a little too quick. While one could argue that TFA glosses over some things (although, from my experience, most of the questions are actually answered in the movie proper; it just doesn't spoon-feed the viewers), the movie seems generally more balanced. Information is dealt out as needed and characters decisions make sense and don't feel hurried. Basically, I kind of feel like the prequels told me what was happening, while TFA showed it.



    I think the main strength that George Lucas has is visual storytelling. In the prequels, even if the cast is playing the scene weakly, the choices for the set (decor, lighting, music, editing, etc.) are very good at conveying the mood of the scene. While maybe not in quite the same league, I think JJ Abrams also does a decent job of visual storytelling.

    One can argue points, but for my money, TFA comes out on top. I think using a more character-driven story plays to the franchise's strengths and they came up with a good cast. I also think that setting the movie in the future, where the events of the old movies have become legends of sorts makes for a more interesting setting, but that is subjective.

    Roll of the dice I guess.

    Not sure sure about just one, although I will concede I'm not sure how to prove that one way or the other. As far as Rey being a Mary Sue, I've seen/read most of the relevant canon material and find that the Mary Sue theory was DOA (based on the presented arguments vs. the "facts").

    Okay.

    Possibly. However, there are so many factors involved in someone liking or not liking something that I don't think you can boil it down to one thing. On top of that, going off of my memory of the Internet chatter I've read, the new stuff is pretty front and forward about what a lot of people like about the movie.

    Never noticed that before. I'm also a Trekkie, so I might've been mixing up TPM with "TMP," a common shorthand for Star Trek - The Motion Picture?

    Anakin really comes off as a inverted Luke in a sense (raised in poverty on the same world, taken in by a Jedi Master to learn the Force, destroys the main enemy's ship/station with two shots). One can argue how much percentage of a movie is like the others, but at the end of the day, the movies rhyming with each other has been a set practice. Besides, TFA is not the same movie as ANH and there are differences.

    The movie and the marketing a two separate things. A poorly thought out marketing campaign doesn't ruin a good movie, any more than a good campaign elevates a bad movie to a good one.

    I'm aware that some female viewers were extremely happy to have a female-led Star Wars movie. Given that the character was fairly universally liked across the board, I'm not sure how it's a weak point of the movie.

    Um, no. I'm just saying that you might find it harder to find others who agree with you. Case in point, you found the movie underwhelming. I literally cannot see that viewpoint.

    You could make the case, but I honestly don't find that position very convincing.
     
    Gamiel and Darth Downunder like this.
  23. Jozgar

    Jozgar Jedi Master star 3

    Registered:
    Dec 20, 2015
    To steer this discussion back to the original question:

    No, of course they weren't doomed from the start. It's true that the Prequels don't deserve the absurd level of hatred and vitriol thrown at them, but that doesn't mean they never had a chance in the first place.

    You see, people can criticize one part of a work (the title) without damning the whole work. It's true that some people thought the title was cheesy and silly. A few proto-trolls were extreme with their criticism. But overall, expectations were still very, very high.
     
    WebLurker likes this.
  24. AndyLGR

    AndyLGR Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    May 1, 2014
    I think characters is the key point of the films for me and is something I've said before, the core of the originals was a great ensemble cast with the 3 leads, Chewie and the droids and then the addition of Lando later, and of course Vader. I thought they were written well, played well in the main and they were characters I felt I had a vested interest in and I wanted to see what they did and I cared about them. I thought they achieved that with TFA too, they were the best part of the film for me and carried it along nicely (with 2 more films to go I think theres still plenty yet to judge though).

    But I didn't think that was the case as much with the prequels. I feel that Anakin, Padme and Obi Wan should have been the ones that carried those films through, but I feel that in terms of story pacing making Anakin a child in the first one means nothing is achieved in terms of their 3 characters other than it being an introduction to them, and of course the main focus is Qui Gon too and then hes gone at the end.

    We then jump to him being a lot older in AOTC and we're starting again with him as a character. We're already a third of the way through the story and we need to get to know what is essentially someone new. I don't think they paid enough attention to the dynamic of those 3 and as a result I find that I don't get a real sense of a relationship between any of them, or even a sense of what Obi Wan and Anakin have between them either.

    I feel that the final 2 films have a lot to cram in and I think its a bit rushed, purely because of the decision to make the first one virtually a standalone film with Anakain as a child. The later consequence of that was when it came to him turning I didn't really care as much as I felt I should, it didn't convince me and it should have done. All that building to the turn, the relationships, the reasons why, are the central point of the story and its not front and centre throughout because theres so much other stuff going on that detracts from those characters dynamic together. I watched all the PT again this weekend as they're currently on Sky TV, but when Anakin screams to Obi Wan that he hates him, I thought that what we've seen between them before doesn't establish well enough why he suddenly hates him. I just don't find it compelling enough.

    Not only that we have no real sidekicks, (the unnecessary Jar Jar was wisely dropped after one film) and the villains are chopped and changed too. So the core that we see in the originals with heroes and villains that we follow all the way though just isn't there to the same degree in the prequels.

    It seems that 2 common points that were often mentioned at the time of the release of TPM, (and still are), were Anakin and Jar Jar. Two factors that seemed to doom the film to a lot criticism. Were they enough to doom the entire PT? Only from the point of view that they were essentially starting again with AOTC with the Anakin character I think.
     
  25. Daxon101

    Daxon101 Force Ghost star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 7, 2016
    Star wars fans can be very protective and i imagine their view point has evolved along with the franchise has but at the time of say Episode 1,2 and 3 there really wasn't much to the franchise as there is now.

    In the last Jedi council episode on collider they were talking about the recent Darth Vader Comic and Mark Ellis was saying how he always see Darth Vader as this dark menace that drove fear when he walked into the room and how he didn't want to see Darth Vader look weak or humanised and brought up the scene in ROTS where you see the Vader asking where padme is and how he hated seeing that.
     
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.