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

Or it could mean that they're part of a hugely popular franchise. With a massive built-in fan base that will always see these movies. Most of the Transformers films also meet the criteria you've just outlined. Yet they're dismissed as poor movies by so many people. This is a point that Mark Hamill made a while ago. Success does not automatically equal acclaim. For every TDK, LotR, Avengers, TFA etc that managed huge returns AND very strong reviews & ratings you have Transformers movies, Pirates of the Caribbean sequels etc that only achieve the first part of that equation. Eps 1 & 2 earned the cash but mixed reviews from the audience & critics. That still continues to this day when you look at recent polling.

That applies to the Saga in general. It does nothing to address why Eps 1 & 2 stand out as poorly rated within the SW series. Why those 2 always finish last in every poll & metric we can find. Why they received the fewest award nominations, the most Razzies etc etc. Any theories on why that is the case?

In your previous post you talk about ion engines vs rocket engines. That's not apparent in the movies either. So why is it fine for you to point that out yet you dismiss the addition of shields, upgraded weaponry etc?

 

Like this one?
http://blog.dvd.netflix.com/new-dvd-releases/the-star-wars-movies-ranked-by-rentals/4/25/2016
Or this one?
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/star-wars-prequels-come-top-pandora-ranking-1000284

 

are they "poorly" rated tho ? I mean I don't deny that they're both the lowest rated , but still above average right ?

from my POV I have big problems with TPM as a movie but I always thought AOTC was a big improvement .

.

 

But also sold a butt load on home video. Folks liked the movies well enough to say, "Yeah, I'll add those to my collection." While the hardcore fans may be completists, the general audience is not. It's a fact that's often overlooked.

As far as polls go, they mean little. I mean, look at my rankings. Here I am, talking about how people dug Episodes I and II, and I have them at the bottom of my favorites list. Not because they're bad, but because I like the other entries more. I still like all of them.

Again, anecdotal, but a completely logical reasoning that can line up with any reasoning given in a poll.

And don't get me started on the Razzies. The Shining got nominated for a few Razzies back in the day. Goes to show how little those satirical awards really mean. You really shouldn't be taking those seriously as a metric.

 

Neither of those reflect people's opinion of quality.

I said "poorly rated within the SW series". Why are the same 2 entries always rated last? This is the essence of this thread question. That very few seem interested in attempting to answer.

 

You can't seriously bring up the Netflix rental numbers...

Prople by a large margin rent newer films. That's just a fact. Also, you need to consider how many people already own the OT, and might not bother renting them. Also, of course, those numbers do not include how viewers rated those rentals...

But the broader point is who cares if the prequels aren't as popular as the OT? It's highly popular in Star Wars fandom to rank ROTS as the best prequel, and it sits at the bottom of my list. Should I launch an assertive campaign to prove that ROTS is actually the least liked prequel by fans, using questionable data (and questionably relevant data)? No. I accept that many fans think it's the best of the prequels and I don't.

Because, of course, I have much better taste than everyone.

 

People like familiar things. When something becomes a hit, we tend to cling to the formula that made it successful in the first place; that feeling that made the world fall in love with it. Pop culture will return to those roots over and over, hammering in the message that they are the true essence of the franchise/series/band/etc.
Any sequels will be judged by how much of that essence they contain. Too much and it's a rehash. Too little and it's not the real deal. People want it to feel like the original and be original at the same time.

That, I believe, is why TPM and AOTC usually end up at the bottom of polls and metrics. There's too little ANH in them. Many viewers like them well enough, but they just feel different. Some of the essence is there, but it's mixed up with a lot of other elements that sort of dilute the "Real Star Wars" experience.

ROTS marked a return to form of sorts. Visually, it was much more reminiscent of ANH than its predecessors and the opening act undoubtedly brought back fond memories of the character interactions and battles in and above the Death Star. Furthermore, this film contained a lot of deliciously dark drama and showed us the much anticipated birth of Darth Vader as well as the rise of the Galactic Empire headed by the now familiar-looking Emperor Palpatine.
This was a result of a natural progression within the story that had to fit with what happens next, of course, but the result was that ROTS had a myriad of links to ANH that TPM and AOTC did not have and that's why so many viewers fell for it.
In the eyes of pop culture, it was the real deal, or at least close enough.

 

The Phantom Menance IS ANH. In fact, it's more ANH than ANH itself. This is the movie Lucas wanted to do..The pulpy adventures, the depth in politics and Samurai culture to boot. Only the first 20 minutes or so of ROTS is a remake of Ep 4. The rest is basically THX1138.

Further more, why expect it to even be like the first movie? Seems oddly specific...

 

I just don't really think they're very good, at least compared to other offerings.

In general, I like parts of AOTC and TPM. The visuals were all fairly good, I enjoyed most of the action, and I will always jump in to defend Ewan McGregor's performance of young Obi-Wan. Hell, as a kid, I remember the Podracing scene being one of my absolute favorites. It's still paced incredibly well, and a lot of fun to watch.

The sticking points for me are, largely, the acting, writing, and general feel of the trilogy. Admittedly, the writing in Star Wars has never really been incredibly, apart from some amazing lines that have become fairly iconic. However, I find some of the lines in the prequels to be fairly dreadful. George Lucas isn't really an actor's director, and that shows a lot in these movies as good actors have trouble with their characterization. And, on top of most of that, it doesn't feel like I'm watching Star Wars. I can look at Rogue One, and while it certainly isn't the Star Wars we all know, it has the same vibe as the originals. However, when I watch the Prequels, everything seems much too polished and clean, with not nearly as much charm or wit as the originals. Most of these problems are somewhat personified in what I believe is the worst aspect of the Prequels: The romance between Anakin and Padme. Very little on-screen chemistry, poor acting, poor writing, and an occupant of a large chunk of the movies.

When I look at them, compared to the originals, R1, and TFA, I can't really look at them favorably.

 

I agree with you. Sadly, our pop culture is pretty narrow-minded and stubborn.

 

For the best part of the last century, some of the best movies have been about other movies as much as they have been about anything else. Ask Ford and Hawks. Welles and Hitchcock. Kurosawa, Leone et al.

 

Nearly finished with my PT rewatch.

I'm mostly disappointed by 2 things: How little actual story seems to be told in each movie (compared with IV through VIII) and how much camera time is devoted to cool visuals that contain no actors and/or don't actually move the story along.

What's frustrating is how much or that narrative space could have been used for character development or to add nuance to what I consider to be a REALLY great overall story arc.

What's REALLY frustrating is that I really REALLY want to at least *enjoy* these movies. I'm not some super-perceptive film critic. I generally can't tell good directing from sub-par directing So when I watch a movie and can actuall point out exactly why I think certain elements really detract from my enjoyment of the movie...that's not a good sign.

That being said, if anyone knows of any great metas that might give me a different perspective on the PT movie-making style, I'd love to read some. Because I'd love to find a way to at least enjoy the PT.

 

I find these videos not only positive looks at the prequels but also noticed subtle things that i never noticed before.

 

I guess it's very popular.

What is fair in this case? A whole bunch of articles and videos on internet that spit on the PT? Where are Stoklasa's OT reviews? Has anyone written anything about TFA being so... ANH?

How come no one says that the OT looks like a toy store with all those toys pretending to be spaceships and puppets that are so obviously fake? Has anyone said anything about TFA being made with nr. one intent to stick the practical effects in our eyes?

Yes, well, George Lucas, being as a filmmaker focused on a story and art, made TPM and AOTC as he wanted them. Being different yet familiar is his trademark as opposed to his successors, focused on imagery, sets and effects, who managed to put the story aside and focus on mentioned things.

 

Since Star Wars Fandom is so big, every movie from here on out will have people who love them, and people who hate them.

Your last bit there is in contradiction to Lucas himself, I think. His stories are never very deep (not to be confused with complex), but he has always been VERY strong with visuals. In fact, his painting-like composition is one of his hallmarks. But it's nuts to me to say that somehow his "successors" have put story aside. I see no evidence of that. You might not appreciate the stories being offered, but they are the focus, at least in my opinion (and it is shared by the vast majority of my Star Wars buddies).

 

A big part, at least foundation, of the criticism is that on the one hand a lot of people love the first two OT films (and can't resist comparing later works to them rather than judging them on their own) and OTOH they have mixed-to-negative feelings about RotJ and more negative about the Special Editions so they were predisposed to think the series and Lucas were on a downward trend.

Also, the most common criticisms are pretty specific if arguably petty-excess CGI, Jar-Jar being annoying (and a notable example of there being a lot of CGI) and that Anakin and Padme were both stiff on their own and had little chemistry together. There was a pretty big shift in focus to with TPM bashing Jar-Jar to Clones bashing the romance, then with Sith not having the former and a lot less (and yet at least somewhat better) romance and better, more likeable characters it got a much better reception and I think still has it.

 

Visually, I find that TPM is much closer to the McQuarrie aesthetic than either ROTS or AOTC. That's because Doug Chiang was in charge for TPM, and Ryan Church for AOTC and ROTS.

"Darker" and "some similar ships" does not an aesthetic make. TPM looks and feels like the same GFFA of the OT, while the other two prequels look and feel like a different galaxy/ franchise altogether.

 

I agree to some extent, and disagree in others. I DESPISE the Naboo ship designs (as Star Wars designs, that is). And I particularly hate the Naboo fighter pilot uniforms. Blech. I know you are a Ryan Church hater, and I get that, but I prefer a lot of designs we get in AOTC and ROTS, with the exception of the Separatist designs.

 

Yeah, we'll agree to disagree, for the most part. The only designs in AOTC and ROTS that I found of comparable quality to the TPM designs were the Jedi starfighters and the Kamino exterior. Just thinking of Grievous's ship and wheelbike, the Arc-whatever X-wing predecessors with a hundred wings, and some of the planetary environments of AOTC and ROTS makes me itch.

 

The FO TIEs have visible large rocket thrusters instead of small ion engine ports like the OT TIEs. They also visibly lack enlarged engine pods like Vader's TIE. I could be wrong, but I do not remember either Finn or Poe mentioning shields in the fighter they stole. In the 1978 SW poster book, it states rebel fighters use older rocket sublight engines that put them at a serve disadvantage to the more advanced ion engines the TIEs use which require large radiator wings.

 

These poster books are subject to a certain amount of retconning though.

Notably, the idea that Obi-Wan was enraged by Vader's murder of Luke's father, and that was why they fought in the first place.

 

8 Star Wars Prequel Moments George Lucas Planned In 1977

 

I honestly find the amount of hostility towards the prequels to be discouraging in the greatest degree. It's just upsetting how vicious, unfair, and obviously biased against these movies,

 

Kind of like how obviously biased your post is in the opposite manner?

It's fine to come to the defense of something you enjoy, but you're not really pointing the remark towards anything. Just... letting it sit in the void.