PT Why Are The PT Films criticized? (catch-all thread)

The problem with the family scenes are gone over by Lucas and Burtt on the commentaries. It's hard to say what to make of them either way. They were dropped early enough in the process that the versions we get on the deleted scenes were specifically done for the DVD and so in film terms compared to the movie they are quite crude, use the actual on set audio which is usually not used in the movie anyway and certainly doesn't have the same visual style we would necessarily see in a finished movie never mind any music that would be created by JW for the scenes.

As they are they are nice background but as fan edits placing them in show it's such a side step that in movie terms the relative worth of having them is questionable. I think quite a few people like them because they weren't in there in the first place and so make it a "mistake" to not have them in. One wonders if some version had been if those same people would have then said they would be better left out? It's entirely likely that would be the case.

I think the Luke and Biggs scenes etc enhance ANH greatly but they don't entirely work and you can do without them. The Vader scene at the start of ROTJ and Luke activating his Lightsaber are excellent and were almost in the movie with music and effects. It's a toss up if the additions are stronger than the subtractions.

AOTC is entirely coherent. The consternation over the droid factory sequence which is only a few minutes in total is a case in point. I don't recall the exact sequence of deletion and insertion but IIRC earlier versions simply had Anakin and Padme basically arrested in arrival and then taken to Dooku then put on trial. We see deleted scenes covering this. Again these are like the family scenes OK for deleted scenes but I suspect they would be far more in-depth in terms of coverage if they had actually made the movie. I find it hard to believe that Lucas would have has anything as totally static as that in a SW movie. It's really just the wide shots for the most part.

If anything this could be interpreted as Lucas reacting to some of the unjustified criticism's of TPM and political talk. Lucas is not one for unnecessary talk in his movies so when he has it he judges it to really be important. The point is that as usual some people want it both ways. When Lucas cuts talk about it should have been in. When he has it in then it should have been cut out. So which is it? Answer? Whichever way Lucas didn't do it is the way it should have been done (according to them).

I don't know what poor editing there is in AOTC. If that is poor then TFA is a disaster of epic proportions in comparison!

JW's score is also hacked up in TESB or hacked off with lots of music deleted and changed around and reused where it wasn't originally.ROTJ does even more hacking.

The director determines how best to place the music. One report I read stated that some 3 hours of music were done for TFA for a 2 hour plus movie so they was tons of re-recording. So 15 minutes or so of music is on the original soundtrack that is NOT in the movie. So there is hacking a-plenty of JW's scores in Star Wars. That is just what happens in movies.

 

Good thing they release the full OST to the general public.

 

I think the family scenes would have fit if they dropped that scene with Queen Jamillia which doesn't add much to the movie (and makes Anakin look like an ass again). As it happens, Padme's motivation is now missing and that's one of the major criticisms of the movie.

 

Listen, man. I don't mean any disrespect towards you or anyone else on this forum but you are also making quite a few false assumptions yourself. The first assumption is that people who saw the OT originally hate TPM for being too "slow" or "too talkie". Has it ever occurred to you that many believe a political thriller (which TPM tries to be a lot of the time with the Trade Federation and all) might be a cool thing to pull off well in the GFFA? I mean, come on, the Republic issues with Bail Organa and Cloak of Deception are examples of this type of story being done well. It's what clashes with these elements that makes the film hard to watch multiple times. Things like the pod racing, the Gungans, Anakin destroying an entire armada and deactivating an entire army ON ACCIDENT are examples of what takes the gravitas out of the politics. The wooden acting and line delivery also contribute to this.

You also make the assumption that people who are fans of the OT can't see the "kiddie" stuff as flaws. Well, guess what? I am MORE than capable of doing that. Take the Ewoks, for example. There is a very good reason many people were displeased with their addition into ROTJ. That's because of the phrase, "A hero is only as great as his greatest villain." That phrase hangs over ROTJ like a blessing and a curse. Now, I love the Throne Room sequence. It, along with the Sail Barge and Palace scenes, make ROTJ for me. The duel and the dialogue made it into one of the most epic, harrowing, atmospheric and suspenseful moments in the whole trilogy. It is fantastic. However, this is exactly why the Ewoks don't work. The Emperor states that a legion of his FINEST SOLDIERS are guarding the shield generator on Endor. How can you take any of that seriously when a bunch of anthropomorphic, spear-chucking teddy bears (Can't even say that with a straight face.) turn the tide of the battle against the Empire's deadliest forces? Well, that's simple. You can't. It's stupid and it should have just been Wookies (a race that has enough strength to rip off human limbs with ease) in the first place. It may be campy fun, sure, but it is not appropriate given the context and stakes of Episode VI's third act. As for the comedic moments in TESB, I feel they were actually appropriate. You sort of need a bit of levity before you see the heroes get betrayed by a man they thought to be their friend and the protagonist getting beaten to a bloody pulp while getting his hand cut off by the dread lord he figured out was his father all along.

I wholeheartedly agree that AOTC is the worst of the 6. Couldn't have described it as well as you did in your post. Although, my opinion as to why the film kind of picks up during the second half is because it was the beginning of the Clone Wars. The conflict that molded Obi-Wan and Anakin into the men they were in the OT. That is very exciting. It's just unfortunate that the films skip over most of it. The Republic comics, Labyrinth of Evil, Medstar, Republic Commando, the 2003 series, The Cestus Deception, etc. are stories that fleshed out a ton of that but for people who DID NOT read the EU, that's disappointing. It's also a wasted opportunity that authors like John Ostrander, W. Haden Blackman, James Luceno, Matthew Stover, John Jackson Miller and others thankfully took full advantage of. Saying that I'm insulting Lucas by saying this is simply underhanded especially when I don't present even an iota of the kind of vitriol many others do regarding the man. More on that later.

As for ROTS, it's definitely my favorite of the three. There are actually a lot of things I like about this movie. Order 66, THE MUSIC (THE GLORIOUS MUSIC!), the slightly more understated choreography (with some exceptions that just stick out like a sore thumb, unfortunately), the notable improvements in CGI integration and quality, Ewan McGregor's acting, the Darth Vader transformation (the NOOO! kind of kills it for me though but other than that, I loved it), and seeing mass warfare in a Star Wars film that looks epic. There might be a few more I edit in later just in case I think of any. However, the line delivery is still weak in many areas, some of the writing is really bad (although you could make a decent argument for many lines, I've discovered), and there are things cut out of the film that should have been included in the film in some way like Dooku's character development (I weep) or the reasons Anakin wished to reach the rank of Master in the order. The absence of these details really seemed to make him out to be a COMPLETELY different person than the one spoken of in ANH. It muddles his character into something he wasn't at that point in his life. Another flaw for me crops up when Anakin and Obi-Wan's duel concludes. Ewan McGregor gives this wonderful, heartfelt performance that made me legitimately feel sorry for the both of them but I didn't think there was enough of that brotherhood and camaraderie in the whole trilogy to make it as effective as it could have been.

Now, back to what I was saying about my criticisms. My frustrations with Lucas are from an artistic perspective and ONLY from that perspective. Saying that I think one artist took a better path in writing a story in a fictional universe than another is not insulting. By the way, the reason I brought up Sophocles and Arthur Conan Doyle wasn't to place him in an insurmountable contest for my own amusement. It was to show that the proper elements of mystery, intrigue and tragedy that those authors took advantage of to great degree weren't very well-utilized in the films. That is a far cry from insulting the man personally. In fact, I admire the man for being able to make Star Wars as big as it was. Those aren't the actions of a stupid or incompetent man. He is a wonderful producer and businessman. He just made some story decisions and has shortcomings in cinematic storytelling I feel were detrimental to his the prequels. He certainly isn't the first or the last for anybody. One thing I STRONGLY tell myself not to do is insult the man personally because very few have the involvement in his own life to make those judgments. This includes his personality, his family, his interactions with his loved ones, etc., because THAT is the kind of crap the fan-sites you speak of have been feeding off of for years. I hate that because it is essentially smut journalism. You see it everywhere in the entertainment industry and it is sad. Also, I don't agree with the statement that Disney have "saved" anything. If anything, they've been stroking the ego of the OT purists you're describing in your post since 2014 in order to make back all that money they lost buying the license, resulting in a lot of material that is really telegraphed, boring and sometimes, poorly written. I await Rogue One as their first test of succeeding whilst doing something different and unexpected.

On the subject of the Special Editions, George did make a mistake. Attempting to erase the original versions of films that so many people loved and made him as celebrated as he was is simply unappreciative and rude. Not only to his fans but to the men and women who worked on the projects themselves. While I do agree that the hate goes overboard a lot of the time, it's a mistake he has yet to own up to and it isn't a good thing that he did it in the first place.

Well...that was a long post. Sorry if I offended you earlier or if I was appearing argumentative (which I feel I was).

 

In my opinion, there are 3 factors in the PT negativity:

1. Taste - people like different things and that's normal (queue debate about how my opinion has more value than yours)

2. Expectations - not just being too high, but TPM simply not being what they wanted or being done how they wanted it.

3. Hyperbole and the Internet - I actually think a lot of "haters" enjoy a lot of aspects about the PT. The Internet has a way of bringing out the negative, and simple negative ideas that fit nicely into memes are spread easily with the Internet. People start to remember the meme more than they do the movies themselves.

#3 makes me shy away from these forums sometimes.. I miss the days when I was totally oblivious that any OT vs PT thing existed, and I just enjoyed it all as 1 thing. Now it feels like you have to take a side or defend something you enjoy, or defend yourself for enjoying it, and that's unfortunate. I also dislike that the whole "hate on a movie if it's not A+" attitude is spreading to other franchises as well. Oh well.

 

While I do enjoy many aspects of it, there are still many flaws that detract from the overall experience. While the hyperbole is rather ridiculous (there are films worse than the PT, that's a certainty), attempting to chock it all up to "taste" and "expectations" is just an attempt to devalue the perfectly valid criticisms that have been voiced about this trilogy. Anakin's characterization in Revenge of the Sith and Attack of the Clones, for example, is one of these flaws.

 

The classic trilogy had been in the public consciousness for many years. Those movies are dipped in nostalgia, years and years of fond memories watching them over and over with family and friends. Knowing all the scenes and having deep relationships with the characters. The prequel trilogy has it's flaws, but it also has a lot of strengths. I find them very entertaining.

 

It's interesting that some attempt to devalue the concept of consensus, especially considering that consensus influences our lifes in so many ways. If consensus doesn't matter in the valuation of art, why do we have museums? Why are certain pieces of art considered special enough, that we literally put them on a pedestal?

Of course it is perfectly fine to disagree with popular opinion, but popular consensus has a function. Most people will have consulted an imdb rating to determine, if a movie is considered good, before deciding to see it. If a film gets an imdb rating of 1.4, I think most people would agree, that it's highly unlikely, that they are going to like that film.

Daniel Mendelsohn described the equation of criticism for critics as Knowledge + taste = meaningful judgment. Consensus is the averaging of these judgements, in an attempt to filter or reduce the effects of individual taste, and essentially distill some common knowlegde about the merits and failings of a particular work. This process is by definition imperfect, but should not be dismissed as meaningless altogether, simply because one flies in the face of popular opinion.

 

I have no reason to trust in some vague 'consensus' created by the masses. What I like, is what I like. I don't care what the public likes. If every followed the consensus, then everyone would love exactly the same things. What gives the public the right to make me dislike something?

Art is entirely subjective. Some people may put some art on a pedestal, but others may completely hate that art. Why should the bigger group get to control the consensus?

The only opinion anyone should consider is their own.

 

This is fine in theory, but it doesn't really work that way in practise. Have you never consulted imdb or a read a review before paying to see a film? Did you never go to a museum to go see a work of art, that is considered special by some majority? Have you never bought a book, because it is on the best-seller list, or has recieved critical acclaim? Our entire society is build around the concept of consensus. Does this invalidate individual opinion? Of couse not, but it is the most objective valuation method we have as a society, and everyone of us use it continually in our daily lifes.

 

I watch movies with concepts that I find interesting or are in series I like. I got to museums to look at art, but not to put any art above other art. I read books that interest me.

I have no desire to see if other people share my opinions of said art, films, or books. As long as I like it, that's all that matters. Most of my favourite movies wouldn't be considered classics by the public. Do I care? No. I don't need validation for my likes from the amorphous indistinct public.

Games are about the only thing I check reviews for, because they have mechanics that can be objectively analysed, such as glitches or comparisons to past titles.

 

Yes, but now you are contradicting yourself. Why can games be compared to past titles, and films cannot? Film making is a craft as well as an art. The craft of film making can be objectively analyzed, and compared to previous works. There is for example a difference between artistic intent, and execution.

You say you read books that interest you, but the underlying process that decides which books become available for mass consumption is still a process of consensus. The process that determines which pieces of art you will see in a museum, is still consensus. Star Wars would never be what it is today, without popular opinion, or the process of consensus. In fact most people would never have seen it, if the majority had not decided, it was worth seeing. Now, you may argue, that you would have been that special person, that would have still seen it, even if it was considered a failure by most, but I think that would qualify as a self-serving bias.

 

Games have gameplay mechanics, which are objective and can be clearly compared with other titles. If a game is riddled with glitches, it would be fine to learn about this beforehand. Films and books don't have mechanics such as these (Although I suppose typos or production errors could be considered an equivalent, even if they are less prevalent)

My favourite film, Treasure Planet, was a box office failure. That doesn't make me like the film less because other people like it less. Atlantis: The Lost Empire? Also a failure, and one of my favourites. If I followed the consensus, I would hate them by default. However, I don't mindlessly follow public interests. No one should. The reasons I watched them are because I liked the content of the films themselves, not public opinion on them.

As an inverse, I think the OT is good, not great for the most part. If I followed the consensus, I should love it unequivocally.

While art museums could be considered a consensus, as the museum owners have to decide which art to display to the public, the actual producers of art shouldn't be beholden to such considerations.

If Star Wars was a critical bomb, that was still the exact same film, and I had watched it, I would still have liked it. Consensus does control which films get more media attention. That doesn't mean they're good. It just means other people think they are.

 

Nobody is arguing, that anybody should automatically follow popular opinion. However, that doesn't mean popular opinion and consensus don't have an important function in society, or that there is no validity in popular criticisms of certain aspects of works of art. Naturally artists should not be beholden to popular opinion. However, to deny that it plays a role in the artistic process, is to deny the relationship between an artist and the public. If an artist doesn't care about the opinions of others, why display it in the first place? I think most artists seek some form of recognition, and George Lucas is no exception. I mean, do you really think we would have seen such an elaborate backstory for Boba Fett, if the character was not a popular favourite? Popular opinion and consensus influence art, just like they influence many aspects of our lifes, even if we don't always personally agree with it.

 

What else do you think it comes down to?

Opinions is a big factor, so does taste also.

Expectations is something that shouldn't even be denied. Generally, people expected it to be like the OT, It was predicted by GL that many wouldn't like it, it was predicted by one of the news papers about SW(in 83?), and we all know that many have expected Anakin older.

It's not to say it's everything, but that's not "devaluing" anything to say "a lot of the disdain is expectations" came from fans. Which is true.

 

Good art is in the eye of the beholder. What an art critic may say about the Mona Lisa has no bearing on whether I enjoy the painting as a piece of art, and neither does some sort of consensus (for the record, having seen it in person, I think it's a rather good painting, but I digress).

I guess I'm at a loss for the argument of consensus, considering it falls into the fallacy of appealing to popularity. "This is what the consensus says, so this must be true" isn't a valid argument. There's no way to truly prove what the consensus is for the population as a whole. Perhaps for critics since reviews are aggregated anymore, but knowledge+taste does not equal meaningful judgement. Even the most casual movie watcher understands what a film may be trying to do visually, even on an unconscious level. Critics are human just like you or I; prone to their own subjective taste. They also have to watch hundreds of films, many of which they probably don't want to see, and may review a film poorly because they were either tired of the genre or were simply not in the mood to watch said film (something I'm sure many of us are guilty of as well).

In the end, consensus really means little particularly because it's so hard to measure. What I can measure are home video sales, box office, etc. And for the box office and home video sales of the PT, that alone tells me plenty of people enjoyed those movies. Whether or not they enjoyed them as much as the OT is a bit more difficult to measure without going from person to person and asking them.

 

This argument completely misses the point. If there wasn't a consensus that the Mona Lisa is a great work of art, you very likely would never have seen it in the first place. Also, while you may regard yourself as an independent mind, the cards are stacked in the Mona Lisa's favour, as the fact that it is widely considered a great work of art, makes it far more likely that you will like the painting, than dislike it. Similarly, if someone were to have never watched the Godfather, it is very likely that this person will also consider it a good film, even if he or she does not know it's standing among his or her peers. The argument of consensus is not a fallacy, as it is an accurate predictor of how viewers will regard a film. Simply put, if I take the 95% cream of the crop fresh rate for the Godfather, and I take 10 people at random, the odds are that at least 9 out of 10 people will like the film. Similarly, if I take 10 people at random and have them watch TPM, the odds are that only about 5 out of 10 people will like the film, considering it's 41% cream of the crop fresh rate. So, from this stand point the Godfather is a better film, as it is much more likely to please an average person, than TPM. Therefore, I maintain the stance that knowledge+taste = meaningful judgement, as an aggregated film score is an accurate predictor of moviegoers viewing experience.

Well, this is like arguing a scientist cannot objectively review a paper, because he doesn't like the subject matter, or because he's having a bad day. Many film critics like scientists are professionals who are very knowlegeable about film, and passionate about film in general. Personally I rate the opinion of Daniel Mendelsohn, an award winning memoirist, essayist, critic, columnist, and translator, over the opinion of a casual movie watcher.

 

You shouldn't rate anyone's opinions of a piece of art other than your own. Why should I care what people say about things that I like?

What good does it do me to find out that people hate almost all the films I love?

The film 9 is one of my favourites and I consider it one of the best movies ever made. Did it get good press, good reviews or much attention? No. That just goes to show why the critical 'consensus' is completely useless. I picked up the movie on a whim, and it turned out to be good. No consensus helped me choose it.

Besides, it's impossible for any large group of people to like anything equally. Nothing is universally loved. Even the OT is hated by some. That doesn't reduce the fact that you think it's a masterpiece, no more than people hating the PT makes it any less of a masterpiece to me.

Just because other people have decided that they like the Mona Lisa, and have decided to display it prominently, doesn't make me like the painting at all. There are obscure pieces of art I really like, that aren't in any gallery. Does that mean they're terrible, because the 'consensus' says they are? No.

 

You should not care. I never said you should care, what critical consensus says, or be consciencely influenced by it in any way. However, just because you don't consciencely let yourself be guided by consensus, doesn't take away it's predictive power of people's response to a film or any other work of art. Like I said, the simple fact that there is a consensus, that the Mona Lisa is a great painting, makes it far more likely that you will like it, than hate it. The fact that the Mona Lisa is in a museum, distuingishes it from some obscure work of art, someone might have at their home. The obscure work of art will be liked by some, possibly just yourself, and disliked by others. The famous work of art will be liked by many, and disliked by few. Critical consensus doesn't just tell us, how people that saw a work of art responded to it, it also tells us, how people that are going to see the work of art, are likely respond to it. Should this affect your own opinion of it? Of course not, but if you have a choice between a number of films at the movie theatre, that you know nothing about, it would be benificial to your enjoyment of the evening, to pick the one that consensus says is good, rather than pick the one that consensus says is bad.

 

I could have easily skipped the Mona Lisa. Easily. And the idea that I was more likely to like it based on the opinions of others is laughable. I formed my own opinion, and it had nothing to do with what others had said. Sure, maybe the consensus made me check it out. But it didn't help actually form my own opinion as an educated adult. It sounds like you're trying to make the argument that there's an objective way to tell if a piece of art is actually good or better than another, which, I'm sorry, isn't the case.

Noooo. You're comparing a scientist, which is using fact based evidence to back up his claim, to someone forming a subjective opinion. There's no such thing as an objective truth to art. Sorry.

 

No it is not, because most people are not that unique. Your opinion is likely to be similar to those that are like minded. Therefore if I ask 100 random people, that walked out of the Louvre, if they liked the Mona Lisa, and 95 say they did, I can be very sure, that if I send another 100 people to see the Mona Lisa, roughly 95 will like what they see. All of these people will form their own opinion, unbiased by the opinion of others, but their opinion is highly predictable. That's the power of consensus. You might be one of the 5, but it's very unlikely.

 

Ehhh, I don't know man. It seems like we're trying to make a scientific probability of someone liking something that's completely subjective. And that's just something that doesn't jive with me. And it also sounds like we're trying to make that probability a norm and being the more correct conclusion to said work, and I think that's where we're either misunderstanding each other or butting heads.

 

DrDre

I don't think that works really , 'critical opinion' tends to be different from public opinion , for instance Picasso is rated very highly in the art world but I don't think many of the general public like him , similarly with Jean Luc Goddard .

I'm not dismissing critical opinions , they can be very useful and do indicate what has garnered historical levels of quality (become a classic) , but there's all sorts caveats .

.

 

Trust me, I'm a statistician. I do this for a living... Consensus is a norm, and it's used to make business decisions, or as a basis for marketing campaigns. You might disagree with that norm, but that's not the point, I'm trying to make.

 

I agree, there are many caveats, but I'm simply arguing, that it's not meaningless, and that it influences our daily lives, often without us realizing it.