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

AMJ and Cryo exchanging remarks on SW is like a dream come true

 

You're too kind by half!


Wait... that was a compliment, right?

 

LOL -- our friend Cryo and I do definitely operate on the same wavelength when it comes to understanding and appreciating Star Wars' delightful weirdness, especially when it comes to the PT.

My hat goes off to Cryo, though, because he's been able to consistently bring it to these kinds of threads for such a long time. I've been hanging back from these for a while because really, I can only type it all out so many times before I just want to hermit myself in the desert while lamenting all that has transpired.

 

I said that because you are both friends of mine but your personalities are complete opposites

 

Oh, I'm a pretty persistent fellow -- or, at least, that is the impression I give off.

In reality, trust me, I'm always pulling back, and fighting myself. I am Kylo Ren (Cryo Gen).

How many times, indeed, can one say the same, or almost the same, thing?

And is it healthy to spend all this time here?

Help me, AprilMayJune, you're my only hope.


P.S. I don't know if you know this, but you have the name of all the news reporters mentioned in one of my favourite movies from childhood, "Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles" (1990).

Which is kinda awesome (/bodacious/radical and all the rest).

Oh, a Marvel movie reference!

Well, I, uh, yeah...

Hey, where's the exit?

*runs off*

 

Hahahaha, oh trust me, I cannot help ANYONE give up this place, really, nor can I help anyone stop repeating themselves. I am in no position to tell anyone how to do either of those things. I just don't do as much of the throwing-down-for-the-PT as I used to. I should, though. It needs more people vocally in its corner. Because it is awesome.

That's right, Internet: I love the PT. Come at me.

 

I know, right?

It would be the blind leading the blind.

Is there anyone here with, I dunno, half an eye, and a moderately sane grip on reality (optional)?

And yes, Internetz, come at us. Actually, AMJ, be careful what you wish for!



BTW...

Want to quickly return to my earlier post. Was looking and looking for this quotation earlier, then I found it, quite by accident ("Nothing happens by accident"), via a link I just inputted in another thread (always the way).

To those quotes, I wish to add the following:

"I couldn’t have that same tonality in the father’s trilogy that I did in the children’s trilogy. The thing about children is, they’re exuberant, they’re naïve. You know, they’re funny. But fathers, especially fathers going down the wrong path—it’s a much more somber reality."

Source: http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2005/02/star-wars-george-lucas-story


Indeed, that is the same source where the author himself notes:



The original trilogy (the Luke and Leia movies) seems like a comedic folk story, while the second (the Anakin movies) has a feeling closer to that of a 19th-century novel, with its overlapping, ambitious characters jostling for space in a narrative rife with duels, political intrigue, and young people falling in forbidden love.

That friction is exactly why the whole saga juices me up.

And why, in particular, I love the PT: the explosion in depth.

I suspect it also forms a part of why others have never been able to take to it.

And why "The Force Awakens" was made and marketed the way it was.

Oh, George!

 

Me OT Elitist! Me want simple story! Me want no politic! Me want puppet only! Me hate CGI! Me hate digital film!

Elitist SMASH!

That's how the elitists sound 2 me.

 

Short answer to this thread:
1) The movies are flawed, justifying the IMDB ratings.
2) They deviate in plot, and style, from what they "should've been" based on 4-6.


The "hate dumb" (TV Tropes lingo) that formed itself around it all:
1) Exaggerates the existing flaws, and makes up new ones.
2) Confuses purism with criticism.


And then details ensue.

 

I much prefer the OT, and there are things about the PT that I do like, but overall it just doesn't connect with me the way the OT did.

I think it's important to remember that different things appeal to different people for different reasons. Personally, if someone were to tell me that AotC is was favorite Star Wars movie, I just wouldn't get why. But the thing I think we as fans need to remember, especially with something as big and varied as Star Wars, there are different things to like and different ways to like them. There is no right or wrong way here, just like what you like. If someone likes something you don't, let it be, or better yet, chat with them and find out what it was that resonated with them. They probably wont change your opinion and you probably wont change theirs, and that's fine. But the cool thing is that they might show you a different way of looking at something which might change your view, and you might end up liking something that you previously thought you didn't. And personally, I think liking things is a lot more fun than disliking them.

I just don't get what good bashing does. If you don't like the prequels, that's cool. If you do, that's cool too. Like i said, just like what you like and let other people like what they like. This is supposed to be about fun, not tearing each other down. But hey, what do I know?

 

Let the Box Office Numbers speak for themselves (number adjusted for inflation)

OT
May 25, 1977 Star Wars Ep. IV: A New Hope $786,598,007
May 21, 1980 Star Wars Ep. V: The Empire Strikes Back $534,171,960
May 25, 1983 Star Wars Ep. VI: Return of the Jedi $572,705,079

PT
May 19, 1999 Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace $1,027,044,677
May 16, 2002 Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones $656,695,615
May 19, 2005 Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith $848,998,877

I find it ridiculous that the PT weren't a success. If the movies were bad, then the numbers would have been lower.....simply not the case

I won't buy people saying "well, TPM numbers were high because we hadn't seen Star Wars since 1983"...blah blah, blah....if that's the case...then TFA is hyped as well since "its the first Star wars Film since 2005"....blah, blah, blah........Episode 8 numbers maybe lower than Episode 7 (lets see)

In my opinion, it is a small group of disgruntled fans who don't like the PT and voicing all their opinions in forums spread across the internet.

The same fans who spent since 1983 imaging how the Star Wars PT "should" be according to them.

George Lucas is a creative genius...Let JJ create his own Saga from scratch...then we can talk.

Its easy for fans to expand the star wars universe....not so easy to create one universe from scratch.

 

EpI has 50%-60% critical approval on aggregators - you sure it's a "small group" and not, like, the half?

Or maybe it was a half or a third 10 years ago, but it's grown into the dominant viewpoint since... small group seems unlikely.

That's actually a reasonable endeavor.

I thought Alias was that?

 

Episode 1 made 1 billion dollars...wow imagine if people really liked it?

Episode 5 is my favorite film...but many critics at the time did not like it at all:

http://www.starwars.com/news/critical-opinion-the-empire-strikes-back-original-reviews

could you argue that it got a 50% to 60% approval rating during its initial release and yet today is heralded as the best of the series?

People like PT or don't like it, impressive numbers at the time:

May 19, 1999 Star Wars Ep. I: The Phantom Menace $1,027,044,677
May 16, 2002 Star Wars Ep. II: Attack of the Clones $656,695,615
May 19, 2005 Star Wars Ep. III: Revenge of the Sith $848,998,877

But as a wise old fossil once said:

 

Also keep in mind 99% of the PT's gross came in WITHOUT 3D or IMAX.

 

"The Empire Strikes Back is not a truly terrible movie. It’s a nice movie. It’s not, by any means, as nice asStar Wars. It’s not as fresh and funny and surprising and witty, but it is nice and inoffensive and, in a way that no one associated with it need be ashamed of, it’s also silly. Attending to it is a lot like reading the middle of a comic book. It is amusing in fitful patches but you’re likely to find more beauty, suspense, discipline, craft and art when watching a New York harbor pilot bring the Queen Elizabeth 2 into her Hudson River berth, which is what The Empire Strikes Back most reminds me of. It’s a big, expensive, time-consuming, essentially mechanical operation. The Empire Strikes Back is about as personal as a Christmas card from a bank.”

Aaaaaaaalright, can I just ask without looking up, or having the need to... is that Pauline Kael??!
Wow - what an INCREDIBLY off the mark review!

Oh wait no, Pauline said the only nice thing about SW was the sunset... my bad




Anyway, how many dollah bills were collected isn't enough of an indicator - people can also show up to make fun of it, or just enjoy the spectacle but think all the rest sucks etc., there's no way to say.

The critical consensus has shifted since '80 up to around 90%.
That doesn't automatically mean the same thing will happen to TPM or AOTC - especially as mixed reviews for those actually make sense, unlike that nonsense excerpt from above


Also, was it a small group back then who did this to 5?

 

As INCREDIBLY off the mark as Red Letter Media.

Actually, the review is from the New York Times By Vincent Canby in 1980.

http://www.nytimes.com/library/film/061580empire.html

True, but if that were the case, then we can say the same for TFA no? People could have showed up for the same reason one can argue....and the fact that it got a 95% rating is based on what, the hardcore fans only maybe....was it 95% of the total viewing audience...who knows.

Put it in the context of its initial release year:

Episode 1 was a huge success
Episode 4 was a huge success

Episode 2 in relation to Episode 1 dropped in numbers
Episode 5 in relation to Episode 4 dropped in numbers

Episode 6 in relation to Episode 5 gained in numbers
Episode 3 in relation to Episode 2 gained in numbers

WOW, same trends for both OT and PT...a spike, a dive and a ramp up again.

Can we make the same prediction for 7,8,9 and say Star Wars fans are predictable?

Episode 7 in present day made huge numbers and had good reviews
Episode 8...prediction....makes less than episode 7
Episode 9...prediction....makes more than episode 8

who knows 15 years from now the review may stay at 95% for episode 7 or it can go up or decrease. Complete speculation on my part.

 

Well, so we both agree that box office doesn't reflect critical reception


So the next point is, how do you know a critical consensus is reasonable? Well, by reading the reviews I guess.
Mixed reviews for I and II were the only ones that ever made sense to me, so yea.

The idea that there's supposed to be a symmetry between the trilogies in terms of shifting critical reception, is based on nothing:
yes, RLM is off the mark, but just because they're wrong, doesn't automatically mean the movies deserve a 95% - and will get a 95% in an x amount of years.

 

I that because RLM is off the mark doesn't mean the movies deserve 95%. I am saying that the Box office performance of the PT were good and contradicts the reviews over time.

For example:

The 60% that TPM gets is based on 60% of the 1.2 million user ratings reviews. I would like to know the actual number from all of the viewing audience in 1999.

Box office performance is a measure of a films popularity, do critical reviews matter?

The best measure is to survey the movie goers after the viewing and rate it and see if they would see it again.

My reference to the articles was to point out that an argument can be made between the OT and PT critical reviews.

The symmetry is in the performance between 1,2,3 and 4,5,6. They are the same...up, down and up

Debate is good.

 

"Box office performance is a measure of a films popularity, do critical reviews matter?

The best measure is to survey the movie goers after the viewing and rate it and see if they would see it again."

Well yea, correct; RT has "audience ratings" (which are generally similar to the critical ratings, in this case) but I'm not sure how much of the audiences it captures.
Something like a representative survey would be an indicator for a film's popularity - if popularity is understood as approval, not just the interest to go see it.

 

Statistics can be a grey area for me. TPM had 1.2 million user ratings, giving it 60%, that a small sample size. But I would like to know all who watched....that's a more accurate review.

so box office performance does matter in that sense when we don't have all who reviewed it.

 

Well, that's a bit like searching for the keys under the lamppost, isn't it? Box office says nothing about how much those people who saw it, liked it - it doesn't contain the essential information.


I don't know how they determine a representative sample (size) in science, but yeah, they're in the business of doing that - so a large enough sample would provide the answer, I suppose.

 

For the record, the size of the sample has almost nothing to do with its representativeness. But again for the record, to say why people say PT are horrible" have nothing to do with the representativeness either. Some people say something.... Some/Many/Whatever of them have more media influence for different reasons and that is another issue. For example in my coutry the PT did it fine. I understood from IMDB forums that there is a cult of bashing it. This cult even produced movies with such purposes (RLM reviews, for example).
Back to the main topic: I'm a little surprised that this question is asked here. Don't get me wrong, I'm not accusing the OP for nothing, just I wonder why is expected that this question could be answered here in the PT forums where most participants think that prequels are at least good movies....

 

It certainly is the dominant position in the whole "online critic / forum movie debater" subculture, this includes youtubers, articles etc.

It extends beyond the internet as it reflects some negative reviews from the time, and uninvolved celebrities like David Tennant also think that.



But yea, how representative that is of population / audiences, need data for that regardless

Don't know too much about that, but I'm pretty sure a bigger sample size leads to a higher probability that the "arbitrary" choices average out to something that represents the whole - i.e. if you just pick 10 people it's not unlikely that they just all happen to be "from one side", but the more you pick, the likelier that you'll end up picking people of all widespread mindsets, and then that the proportions you'll find reflect the proportions out there etc.

Of course other criteria are required, like picking people from different demographics, areas, subcultures, held views on various subjects etc.

 

As this not statistical forum let explain it in that way: if you pick 100 people from the list who adores/like RLM reviews or 200 people form the PT threads it would be less representative than pick 10 following the so called random choice procedures (because those 10 could represent more groups in the population, not only the haters or the lovers). So the mentioned by you 'other criteria' are the key. But I agree completely that it couldn't be concluded that most people, i.e. viewers in some country hate/love the PT only based on " I heard that people are saying that the PT are good/bad" . I myself simply don't understand the statement "PT are horrible". I would except 'not good enough' no matter that I like them very much but horrible completely different thing.

 

When a film does bad it doesn't make money....when a film does great it makes a lot of money....if a film is bad...word of mouth spreads fast and people most generally won't go see it....yes its a broad statement....but don't ignore the fact that for such "horrible" movies....they made a lot of money in their initial release.

If you don't think box office performance counts, then this applies to TFA as well....as you can argue its all Hype....like TPM was right?

But it's subjective and a healthy debate is good as we can learn from each other. I would rather discuss the hidden meanings in the narrative, story and structure. I mean in school we read Lord of the Rings, Shakespeare, etc.....and what do we analyse...story, the meaning...etc...

...fact is you either like it or don't and BOTH points are valid. What's ridiculous is the fact that some parent ban their kids from watching the prequels....that's pathetic IMO.

Let the child/teenager/youngling or who ever be the judge for himself...by doing this, aren't the parents themselves not understanding what Star Wars message is all about?

The journey from innocence to heroism?
The value of friendship?
The power of corruption and the way to defeat it?

ironic isn't it....or moronic?