why didnt the critics

like the prequels? maybe they don't understand the story being told

 

Some didn't like the OT either. The movies are critic-proof anyway.

 

I think, like many of us who grew up with the OT, you have a romantic idea about Star Wars from when you were a kid. So the critics, and some fans, expected the PT to be the same way. What GL has made clear is that these are two different trilogies and the tone would be different. But you know critics, they still want to be negative.

 

The thing of it was, Star Wars for a lot of reviewers made an impact on them. Lucas in fact, is known fof making vastly different movies as a director.
THX was not American Grafiti, which was different that Star Wars.

They were expecting Lucas to do something radical and new.

What he did was Star Wars.

Some got it: Ebert understood what Lucas was doing.

Others who had analysed the orginal to death, Thought that Lucas failed when he didn't introduce a "Han Solo" type character.

In the end, a movie critic compares Star Wars to OTHER movies instead of taking it for what it is. They have a checklist of if its a good plot, good acting and writing.

That usually translates to "Does it have a modern plot that treats life with utter seriousness. Does it have good acting.. the kind where everyon method acts and cries a lot? Does it have good writing: the kind where eveyone speaks "realisticly, while espounding philosophical views in a humorous way?"

Lucas delievered a epic plot, stylized acting and mythological archetype writing.

 

I honestly don't give a **** what critics think. I waste no time listening to them or thinking about their opinion. If they had any real talent they would be creating and not commenting from the sidelines.

 

i dont see the need for critics either except maybe bringing some good films to the limelight that wouldn't get them otherwise

 

i like ebert only because hes older and doesn't let nostalgia get in his way in reviewing the prequels. although he did let his bias take over on aotc because it was filmed digitally and he hated digital. i think he changed his mind about it though

 

Strilo posted on 4/10/05 10:55pm

---

I honestly don't give a **** what critics think. I waste no time listening to them or thinking about their opinion. If they had any real talent they would be creating and not commenting from the sidelines.

[hr][/blockquote]

[face_applause] I can't stand film critics in general. Especially when it comes to something like SW which, to understand and really appreciate, takes more than one viewing with your little notepad.

[hl=tan][color=darkred][b]-sj loves kevin spacey[/hl][/color][/b]

 

whats the point for reviewing star wars anyways its not like people don't have there own opinions about it

 

Ratings. It's all for ratings.

 

Didn't the critics hate 2001: A Space Odysee upon it's original release?

They have no respect in my eyes

 

Critics are just people expressing their opinions like anybody else. Granted, they are more "well-versed" in whatever particular medium they comment on, and they can put together structured and analytical pieces of writing often with more skill than your average citizen, but really; they are just movie-goers giving an opinion. There are many people on the Jedi Council Forums alone who are just as able as critics to express their views on a topic, and whose views are just as valid.

At the end of the day, the critics have little real power. Just look at how much money Episodes I and II made, and they were hated by the critics. And besides, I've now adopted the view that most of those who dislike the Star Wars prequels are either too lazy, too stubborn or too stupid to try and understand them.

 

Critics have a right to their opinion as much as anybody else, although I think there's alot of politics that go into movie critiques more than anything else. As long as critics don't get viscious (which, unfortunately, is not often), I don't really mind what they say. I'm more bothered by magazines like Entertainment Weekly who constantly feel the need to measure the quality of a new movie or book by insulting something else. (The PT being one of their favorite victims.)

However, what makes you think the critics utterly hated the prequels? o_0 Just because the hype is that the prequels sucked doesn't mean that they actually are. Check out sources like www.rottentomatoes.com. The majority of the critics actually like them. They aren't the landslide that the original SW films are, but I didn't expect that, since the PT doesn't have 20+ years of nostalgia backing it. (And for that matter, it's not as though all critics were exactly kind to SW when it first came out. They just have the PT to vent frustrations at now rather than the OT.)

 

Some got it: Ebert understood what Lucas was doing.

But didn't he give AOTC thumbs down?

 

"why didnt the critics...like the prequels? maybe they don't understand the story being told"

It is called personal taste my friend. The story is easily comprehendable but there are several reasons one could dislike the prequels. If you want to, look for a social thread called The Basher Sanctuary in the Community forum and there are plenty of good solid reasons for not liking the prequels so far.

 

Film critics are like earths version of hutts. All they do is sit around and demand to be entertained.

 

But didn't he give AOTC thumbs down?

He did, but the fact that he rejected AOTC based on alot of things he forgave in TPM made alot of people go

IMHO, Ebert's movie reviews haven't been quite on par since the days when Siskel was by his side.

 

****That usually translates to "Does it have a modern plot that treats life with utter seriousness. Does it have good acting.. the kind where everyon method acts and cries a lot? Does it have good writing: the kind where eveyone speaks "realisticly, while espounding philosophical views in a humorous way?"****

That's the best description of how critics analyse a movie that I have ever read. Kudos!

TPM and ATOC were no less liked than ROTJ. Go to rottentomato.com or metacritc.com, they all get roughly the same scores (usually a number in the "mixed or average reviews" category). Many smaller critics LOVED both prequels. We have a local newpaper critic here in Cincy that loved both TPM and ATOC. I think that the more "intellectual" (i.e. elitist) a critic believes himself or herself to be, the less they like SW.

Roger Ebert should be commended as a movie critic for being the only major movie critic to review a movie within the context it was created. Big budget, fx heavy sci-fi movies are not compared to Citizen Kane, but rather to other big budget, fx heavy sci-fi movies. Futhermore, RE rates them on simply whether or not he liked them. Generally, if a movie does what it set out to do, RE likes it (i.e. last summer's GARFIELD). I have read and seen many of his movie reviews and think he is the only "fair" movie reviewer out there (and an excellent writer). He is the only critic I will listen to. He loved TPM (and the OT). His mainly negative review of ATOC seemed based on not seeing it in the digital format (he gave it 2 out of 4 stars). When viewed in the grand scheme of things, though, it was average compared to other reviews. I would like to see what he says about it now as all he commented on was the "dingy" special effects then.

My prediction for ROTS is that he will give it 2 stars also, and say that it just decended into constant, meaningless, action sequences.

Finally, I wonder what the fans who don't like all of the PT will think. The reaction so far, is that it will be good and make up for the shotcommings of the PT as a whole. I think if people go in thinking they will like it, then they are more likely to do so.

EDIT: on metacritic.com: TPM scored 51/ATOC scored 52/ROTJ scored 52--all in the "mixed or average reviews" category

 

They prefer much more complex stories of today like The Cronicles of Riddick and Chicago.

 

The Chronicles of Riddick? I do not know one critic who thought that was a good movie. I've never seen it, but if it's more complex than the PT, I will eat my hat. Things could have been worse: Vin Diesel could have played Anakin. We should all count our blessings.

 

if anyone is interested; there is an article on MSNBC website about this very thing. Dont ask for a link; i'm a moron and can't do that. left side; click the entertainment and go to movies..it should pop up right in front. Basically critics are saying LUcas is wrong when he always says "critics hated the first ones too." The article talks both trilogies but some of itis about the prequels so i figured with the information and the title of this thread it was relevant.

 

They prefer much more complex stories of today like The Cronicles of Riddick and Chicago.




You forgot movies like "Bringing Down the House" and "2Fast 2Furious"...

eh, give me a break. critics don't know ****; if film were critiqued as other types of art were, it would be much different. they make me sick.

 

They didn't like the prequels for the same reason they didn't like the Matrix sequels. The expectations were so high, it was impossible to reach.

 

how about the fact that the prequels werent anywhere close to as good as the OT? The acting, dialouge, and plot fell way short of 4 5 and 6.

 

^****how about the fact that the prequels werent anywhere close to as good as the OT? The acting, dialouge, and plot fell way short of 4 5 and 6.****^

They weren't? I always thought they were good, and that the acting, dialouge, and plot was pure SW.

I guess I need to go home and re-think my life.

Seriously though, judging by certain sources, the acting, dialouge, and plot of ROTJ fell way short of 4 and 5.

You all should go and read the Christian Science Monitor reviews of TPM and ATOC. It's funny in a sad way--like when a clown kills a mime.