What's the dumbest reason you've heard for someone hating AOTC?

Congratulations, Punisher. You've taken your first step into a much larger world

 

Well for some reason I am able to look past all the little things and really enjoy the big picture. I love the childish fun of Star Wars. I love the little things, how the prequels will change the originals and the whole waiting and speculation of the whole thing. Besides the original films really are NOT much different and this has been proven over and over. But for some reason the public is more interested in other types of films these days. The Matrix and LotR are very different types of films as far as tone. Star Wars with the tone of either one of these movies would not be Star Wars and I probably wouldn't enjoy it.

I've heard people say "I want Star WArs to be more like LotR" and that is a STUPID reason because you've already got LotR.

 

"It was shot in digital."

This gem comes courtesy of Roger Ebert.

 

actually that guy's point of view is indeed valid. I don't like movies shot in digital format either, they look too clean and look like somebody's home video of their wedding (See 28 Days later and many BBC Digital programmes). However this doesn't apply to AOTC where I think the digital process makes sense since there's so much CGI and digital matte work that it's appropriate to use this process. But "normal" films (i.e. films with less than 10 Billion CGI shots) in my eyes suffer greatly from digital cameras.

 

Is it possible that the BBC or the filmmakers behind 28 days later used Digital Camera equipment that was far inferior to What Lucasfilm had Sony design for them personally?

Yes, yes it would.

It's not the medium, it usually the operator that causes poor image quality, and then the equipment.

Both Ep. 2 and the Spy Kids movies are completely digital and they look fantastic, but if you use some crappy budget cameras that the BBC bought, well, what do you expect?

What's a programme? is that a program with an ego? A "Program-ME".

 

Programme is the English spelling, program is the American spelling

 

I see you left your sense of "humour" at home. Thank you for being painfully obvious.

Too bad you didn't "recognise" my sarcasm.

Is it too "colourful"?

It was a play on words, not the ignorance you assumed it was.

 

I didn't assume "ignorance" I simply answered your question.

 

uh huh.

 

"Samuel L Jackson should have quoted the bible"

I'm not joking. Someone actually said that to me.

 

I hate Computer Generated Graphics.

 

No Han Solo is pretty dumb.

 

some trekkie was acutally crying about padmes midriff in the arena

 

I agree with Durwood. I think even most of AOTC's bashers would admit it's a better film than TPM; yet, while TPM was given a thumbs up by Ebert and put on his list of films he admired most from 1999, he gave AOTC a thumbs down, solely because it was shot on digital instead of film.

He wasn't judging the movie: he was judging the way it was made.

 

But from what I remember, Ebert also said AOTC lacks "the juice and delight" of the past films. I don't think it was only the digital quality because he mentions acting and dialogue ("flat utilitarian dialogue", etc)

Technically and thematically, I will concede that AOTC is more mature and strives for better character development than its predecessor. But in terms of enjoyment, I would have to agree with Ebert that TPM would more enjoyable than AOTC.

I suspect Ebert (like me) was turned off by the many of the political/Jedi Council scenes. (Whereas in TPM, these scenes were minimal and straight to the point) And, like Ebert, I was also turned off by the way the actors dealt with their lines. Of course, one may say they were meant to be that way, but I personally did not enjoy it.

 

Well, when AOTC came out, the governer of the backward, redneck infested state I live in was invited to one of the first showings. When asked if she thought it was good, she replied "No, I didn't see Captain Kirk in it."

 

Dumbest reason I've heard is, "It was too long". That's just being lazy.

 

one critic, in the Australian newspaper,'The Daily Telegraph,' said it had too many references to other films (i am presuming he meant TPM etc).

Do some critics just not get STARWARS?