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

Of course he makes conclusions. It's a review. Where does he include "we" in his conclusions? That was one of your gripes.

 

Doug Chiang was influenced by McQuarrie. So it is wrong to assume Chiang was this big new direction away from McQuarrie in the design.
But I will say part of the reason I've grown to love The Phantom Menace over the years is precisely because of the things that maybe didn't look "Star Warsy" at first but have come to be though of as that over the years, such as the N1 Starfighter. I love those.

 

I guess he does not outright say we, but he does say you, which infers we, right around 3:12. "You as a kid seeing this, how can you make the prequels worse?" How does he know that they are bad since he admits never have watched them? He infers that watching the microseries makes the pt seem worse than they already are is his opinion, but not watching those films makes his conclusions faulty and hearsay. By saying you, he is inferring the audience has the same opinion as him, and is being used the same as we. Of course when he says you, he really means me or I.

The thing is he is reviewing the microseries, let he feels he has to put down the pt and make uninformed conclusions about films he has never watched, its besides the point and poor reviewing. Then again if he was a good reviewer, he would not be on Youtube. I noticed a lot of people do this online they show a brief random clip from either pt film, and they act as it is absolute proof the pt sucks. It reminds me of a review of a Lego pt set where the reviewer starts off how he hates the pt and think they are crap. It seems anytime anyone tslks about Star Wars, they have to quantify their statement with a pt putdown so as to be taken seriously. Perhaps it is a easy target for troll shielding, where you mock something else to point potental detractors toward that target and away from oneself, a decoy for trolls.

I agree with Quantium/midi and he really hits the nail on the head with the issues I have with the cgi TCW. Its really is inconsistent with the pt and has way too much EU influence. Filoni is a open raging EU fan, and has stated he would pester Lucas to interject EU elements into Lucas' scripts to make them more authentic, bah.

 

I agree that it is pretty lame for him to criticise movies that he admits to not seeing. Credibility pretty much gone at that point. Anyway, this is just some clown on YouTube doing his own review. We've given him far too much attention as it is.

 

Weird, it seems like among the "Bring Back Legends" factions, Filoni's name is mud and the popular assessment was that he disliked or didn't care for the EU.

 

Well, I think TPM and AOTC had plots that could be a lot more interesting

4 me i like ROTS it shows anakin fall to the dark side and show his betrayal. That's not to mention how he got his suit.

y is hayden criticised so much. i

 

This is very true Filoni and George Lucas never cared about the characters or the continuity of the EU

They did what they wanted with the characters of the EU and adapted them in Clone Wars changing the origins and the personality of the character Quinlan Vos, Aayla Secura, Ventress, Grievous, Aurra Sing, and Barriss Offee are some examples of this

Also They canonized some elements of the EU in the Clone Wars as the Selkath or the Mandalorian War against the Jedi or the Unknown Regions

The problem of Filoni is that he wants to canonize characters and elements of the EU but when he does they not look like the original

I prefer that in this new canon they do new things It does not make sense to have eliminated the old EU if you are going to canonize an EU character

For something the new canon is called NEW canon

 

Sounds like they did like the EU/Legends. Why the heck would they play around elements from it and use its characters if they didn't like it?

How is that a problem, esp. considering that TCW was made as its own thing from the get-go and was never bound by the EU/Legends in the first place? It's like saying that the Lord of the Rings movies are bad films because they changed things from the books.

Fair enough if you don't like it (and I'm not a huge fan of the blurring between canon and non-canon that introducing Legends into canon can do), however, introducing a preexisting character allows them to tell stories with them that couldn't be done in the old continuity. It allows fans of those characters to seem them in action again.

Also, the new canon is new. It may use a lot of the same foundations and world building, but it's taking stuff into new places.

 

That's not a problem for me. I loathe the EU characters and elements. I don't like the idea of them being canonized at all, but if they must be, I'm all for changing them so they don't resemble their EU selves. Their EU selves are horrid.

That Filoni and Lucas used some EU elements in the real SW story does not mean they like the EU overall. It simply means they liked those particular elements. Lucas had reportedly always liked the idea of having a Twi'lek Jedi, so when he saw Aayla Secura on the cover of a comic, he asked that she be put in AOTC as a background character.

The LOTR movies are bad films because they're bad films: garish, pretentious and sophomoric.

 

Fair enough if you think that way.

Filoni has gone on record as liking Legends. Why aren't we giving him the benefit of the doubt?

Also, he handled the "Lair of Grevious" episode of TCW in a way that allowed Lucas's new backstory for Grevious to be implied without overwriting the backstory that the tie-ins had invented.

Words fail me.

 

I think that way about the EU in general. It may have one or two decent elements, but overall, it's crap.

I'm...not seeing the significance of this.

Words fail me when I see people gush so exaggeratedly and embarrassingly about those boring, melodramatic, and often flat-out stupid flicks. And the unnecessarily bloated, plainly silly "Hobbit" movies are even worse, yet people wouldn't shut up about how they were "everything the SW prequels should have been." Thank heavens Lucas didn't think so!

 

You know...I'm kinda surprised to hear this coming from someone who's had to endure similar language hurled towards their beloved trilogy for years...

:/

 

I'm...not seeing the significance of this.[/quote]

I'm not sure we can say that he didn't care about Legends. In fact, if I understand correctly, a lot of the Legends references where though his influence.

Well, some of us like them a lot. I've also seen a lot worse movies, too.

Funny thing about the Hobbit movies. Actually over 85% of the films' plot was taken directly from J.R.R. Tolkien's original writings. Very little of it was invented for the movie, and a lot of that is riffs off of book elements.

I'd also submit that the Hobbit movies had better acting overall.

 

I'm not sure we can say that he didn't care about Legends. In fact, if I understand correctly, a lot of the Legends references where though his influence.

Well, some of us like them a lot. I've also seen a lot worse movies, too.

Funny thing about the Hobbit movies. Actually over 85% of the films' plot was taken directly from J.R.R. Tolkien's original writings. Very little of it was invented for the movie, and a lot of that is riffs off of book elements.

I'd also submit that the Hobbit movies had better acting overall.

 

OK. But like I said before, maybe he liked the individual elements, but not Legends overall.

That's nice. Some of us like the prequels a lot, and have seen much worse movies than the PT-bashers claim the prequels are. For me, those movies include the LOTR flicks.

That's nice. They're still garish, stupid, bloated messes.

I'd submit that the acting in the Hobbit movies was about the same quality as the acting in the prequels. At least it wasn't as bad as the acting in LOTR.

Oh please. What I said is much milder than what is typically said about the prequels, and has been said for almost two decades. I didn't, for instance, liken the LOTR flicks to infanticide (a statement that got hearty approval from the prequel-bashers when Simon Pegg made it). And why should I not be critical of the LOTR borefests, because people have viciously trashed the prequels? I didn't bring LOTR up in this convo, and the movies are frequently used as spanking sticks against the prequels.

 

^ Yeah I always found the LOTR movies mediocre. I just couldn't get into the story at all and I found Peter Jackson's directing style so hokey. The way he conveys emotions is so much the opposite the way Lucas does it and it blew my mind that people actually seemed to want the prequels to be more like LOTR. But I will say this: I do think a lot of love and effort went in to LOTR. And LOTR had the right look and visual style, unlike so many other fantasy /medieval movies of the early 21st century .. cough, cough, recent King Arthur movies...cough! cough!! . And I'll gladly take LOTR over TFA.

 

I think the LOTR movies were fine, yes, even "great", though I still find the books superior from a storytelling perspective. I wouldn't lump them together with Hobbit though, even though they were written and filmed by the same person, respectively. The LOTR movies, IMO, are light years ahead of Hobbit, at least as far as I have seen them. Yes, fans do exaggerate when they praise LOTR sometimes, still it's one of the most visually stunning and epic (though you find them "bloated") sagas of the 2000s decade. I can't find anything wrong with them in regards to acting, music, photography, production design, or anything that counts anyway. I agree however that Lucas was right NOT to follow Jackson's style. It would not have been suitable for SW. In any case, I am proof that it's possible to like BOTH LOTR and the prequels.

No argument here!

 

And I'm someone who loves the PT, LOTR, and the Hobbit, but this feels off-topic, as this is the PT thread. Can we go back to talking about those films instead?

 

So you think that bashing other peoples' favorite movies short of actually throwing around terms like "infantacide" is totally fine because the PT has been bashed as well?

All I can say in response is this: If you don't understand why, or don't care, that others take offense when you use such loaded pejorative language (far beyond mere criticism) towards their beloved movies (and, by implication, them), then perhaps you'd like to rethink taking such offense when others mock and criticize the PT and those who love it.

No personal attacks.

Please think about it

 

Could be,

Can't be wrong about your own opinion.

Put it this way, the standout prequel performances in the prequels (IMHO) were Ewan MacGregor as Obi-Wan Kenobi, Liam Neeson as Qui-Gon Jinn, Christopher Lee as as Count Dooku, Ian McDiarmid as Palpatine, and Frank Oz as Yoda.

For LOTR/Hobbit, you got Sir Ian McKellan as Gandalf, Andy Serkis as Gollum, Christopher Lee (again) as Saruman, Martin Freeman as young Bibo Baggins, and Benedict Cummberbatch as Samug and Sauron (Hobbit only).

This could also be subjective, but I also think that the LOTR movies had more consistent acting; while some performances were weaker than others, they seemed closer to the same quality, while the prequels had a lot more uneven performances across the board.

(Ironically, I like Star Wars more than Lord of the Rings. I just happen to think that Star Wars has somewhat less consistent quality in moviemaking, although Disney's recent successes could change that.)

First I've heard that they're "spanking sticks," however, given that the preuqels are not very well-liked by general audiences and popular assessment is that LOTR are truly great movies (which I think a case can be made for that), I guess it makes sense that they would be a yardstick for modern cinema quality.

I actually brought it up as an analogy (an adaptation can be considered "good" even if it takes liberties with the source material). Since I think the point has been made, I'm willing to get back on topic if others are.

 

Minor correction above post. I accidentalIy types that I've heard that LOTR were "spanking sticks" for the prequels. I meant to say that I'd never heard that before.

 

For movies that supposedly aren't well liked by the general audience, a lot of folks seem to have purchased those movies time and again on home video...

 

I don't think anyone argues that the PT wasn't successful.

TBH, I've never seen a serious opinion study on the PT. Just because the "loudest voices in the room" disliked the PT doesn't mean the general audience didn't.

 

Yeah, but there is a correlation between success and popularity that is often ignored. It's hard to say that the general audience didn't care for the PT and in the same breath acknowledge there was repeat business and that folks gladly purchased the films on home video. The hardcore fan base may purchase movies because they're completists, but the general audience won't.

 

I know what you mean. The ultimate test may be what SW-in-pop-culture looks like a few more decades down the line.