Why is Clones getting such bad reviews.......

Yay,. this place is already turning into a gusher/basher warzaone.

What the admins forgot is that it didn't start with gusher/basher clubs but with threads like this. There's no stopping the final outcome.

 

They'll say yes, or they'll say the only reason the OT's characters seem better is because we all grew up with the OT. Sadly there's no way to prove they're either lying to us or to themselves. The objective fan with an eye for quality knows better, however.

You can read peoples minds? And I have no idea why someone would lie to themselves about liking a movie, if I dont like a film, I dont like it big deal. But I do like TPM.

 

Perhaps it is receiving bad reviews because it isn't a very good film. I loved Star Wars and ESB (and still do) but the critics weren't far off regarding TPM. It did have bad dialogue and wooden acting. The reviews for AOTC are sounding awfully similar.

I know the OT had its fair share of poor acting and subpar dialogue. But it also had some memorable lines. And the defects were overwhelmed by great action sequences. Not so with TPM. I hope AOTC is better but let's not forget that Lucas didn't direct between Star Wars and TPM. Maybe he has lost his edge. Francis Ford Coppolla didn't craft the Godfather all by himself. Maybe Lucas needs some assistance. Hire a grade A screenwriter and a director; let Lucas sketch out the big picture. But it may be too late.

 

<<<You can read peoples minds?>>>

I can predict arguments, yes. I've been here since '98. Most arguments used to counter prequel critcism use the same basic ammo.

<<<And I have no idea why someone would lie to themselves about liking a movie, if I dont like a film, I dont like it big deal. But I do like TPM.>>>

This place is full of Star Wars fans who lie to themselves. Suddenly it's full of people saying reviews mean nothing, while a week ago, when the reviews were very positive, this place declared the world at Star Wars' feet and couldn't stop gloating. Have you seen the official review thread? In it you'll find that Roeper is now called a fresh, contemporary critic to trust, while Ebert is a fat old fogey. A few days ago, when Ebert was expected to give AOTC a thumbs up, he was called the only critic to be trusted, and Roeper was a clown. Many Star Wars fans around here lie to themselves because they respond to bad news like children. There's your answer.

 

When does Ebert's review come out? I'll see it Thursday morning. Anyone else get it sooner?
-----signature


ebert hated it basically, roper LOVED it for all of the same ......lol
Roper really seemed to like it a lot but Ebert I think hatedthat it was created on Dig and not on old 'film'
He liked the other one with Jar Jar but NOT this one, give me a break!
I think he hit his head when he fell

 

Because critics have popcorn where thier brains shud be!

 

Endboss, it is always a pleasure to see that at least some Star Wars fans have the ability to see through hypocrisy.

 

"Where did you dig up this old fossil?"

 

"Perhaps it is receiving bad reviews because it isn't a very good film. I loved Star Wars and ESB (and still do) but the critics weren't far off regarding TPM. It did have bad dialogue and wooden acting. The reviews for AOTC are sounding awfully similar."


You do realize that ANH, ESB and ROTJ are just as guilty of bad dialogue and wooden acting, as TPM and AOTC.

Critics have complained about this for all of the SW movies. In fact, every time a new one is released, they make this complaint as if its something new.

I know that AOTC has its share of bad dialogue and wooden acting. Hell, so do all of the other SW movies. If the reviewers want to complain about the movie, fine. But for God's sake, can't they think of complaints that are more original or revelant?

 

die thread!!! die!! this news is so old can we please just drop this thread? PLEASE!!

 

Notice how every film the critics say is better than the prequels is actually crap?
The Matrix = stylish crap
Austin Powers 2 = unfunny crap
The 6th Sense = boring crap
Harry Potter = kiddie crap
LOTR = brilliant in parts, crap in others.
Spider-Man = unimaginative but entertaining if a bit slow in parts crap

Why is this?

I also don't like how all people who hate the prequels are arrogant SOBs. Can anyone point me to bad reviews which aren't arrogant?

 

Why is Clones getting such bad reviews.......

because its title begins with the words Star Wars and they'll die before giving it a fair chance. The End.

 

Why is Clones getting such bad reviews?
By TokyoXtreme


Attack of the Clones is a weird George Lucas movie about robots and clones, and the people who love them, hate them, shoot them, or get shot by them. There is a planet called Corsucant very far away from our own, and that's where the action takes place.

Now already this movie is quite unlike other movies like The Matrix, 48 Hours, and The Graduate. The Matrix was a movie about computers, whereas 48 Hours and The Graduate were about cops and teacher/student relationships repsectively. As you can clearly see, the deck is already stacked against Attack of the Clones.

Some critics like movies that have what are sometimes called "meaty" or "terse" scripts. Roger Ebert is a Chicago reporter who used to be Gene Siskel's partner. Gene Siskel was a reporter who died the same year that The Phantom Menace (another weird George Lucas movie) arrived in theaters. It baffled many fans as to why Ebert would rate The Phantom Menace higher than Attack of the Clones, but Ebert did and apparently there's no turning back now.

Attack of the Clones has a lot going for it, and critics recognize this. Critics are people who watch movies and then write little articles about the movies. In Attack of the Clones, Jango Fett flies the Slave I spaceship from Kamino to Geonosis. This is a bit too much for the critics to handle, so obviously the final rating is going to reflect this. In the 1984 film WarGames, Matthew Broderick and Ally Sheedy blow up the world with a nuclear missile after they lose a game of tic-tac-toe against Dabney Coleman. Dabney Coleman was also in Cloak & Dagger, in which he played an USAF pilot and also an action figure. Needless to say, neither of these films fared too well with the critics. The box office is a different story though.

In conclusion, critics do not like movies in which things happen that actually "can't" happen. Lord of the Rings, E.T., and Spider-Man were not liked by the critics because there are no such things as elves, periscoping aliens, or men made from spiders, respectively.

 

Very astute but I think the end of that is where you lose it.
Within the genre of things that can't really happen, critics love HP, LOTR, SM and everything else compared to SW.
That's the bias that I hate.
Just look up SM on rottentomatoes, then AOTC.

Now I love AOTC and SW in general so, sure, I'm not totally objective but I'll be damned if AOTC is not AT LEAST as good a movie as SM.

 

The best comment about AOTC can by summed up by Jim Anchower of the Onion

"It was like watching C-SPAN on some other planet."



Right on Anchower

 

Yeah, whenever I turn on C-Span it's the same boring sword fight or gun battle taking place

 

AOTC is AWESOME and any reviews in the media that say it is rubbish are just written by jumped up PUNKS who are trying to look clever by being controversial with their opinions.I HAVE SPOKEN....BYE!

 

Critics are a decidedly mixed bag. There are media critics who write reviews to sell newspapers, and then there are the nameless critics who write reviews to critique and improve upon the art.

Critics (media variety) of today have completely lost this sense of improvement. Not everyone has to love AOTC, it DID have its faults, but that does not give one the right to bash it. A critic could simply say "The grand scale of the story was awe-inspiring, but I feel that the sometimes wooden acting detracted from this a bit". He doesn't have to rant "This was a terrible film. Wretched acting and mediocre story plague this worthless excuse for drama. SW has lost its magic". It IS possible to criticize something while still being congenial. But critics of today write to sell papers, and the art is soon forgotten.

In the end, it all boils down to what YOU as the viewer (the ultimate critic) think. If you enjoyed it, great! If you didn't enjoy it, then feel free to critique it, but don't spoil the fun by bashing it.

 

In my experience, the critics who really bash the prequels in a hateful manner fall into two groups:
Either they never liked Star Wars in the first place (and their opinion is therefore irrelevant)
Or they only like the original trilogy because the films are widely acknowledged as classics now. These same people will probably praise the entire saga as a classic after 2005

 

The critics usually have a problem with Sith lightsabers, like... "how are they made?", for example.

 

yous funnyman

 

AOTC is getting generally mixed reviews. All of the other Star Wars films except ANH also got fairly mixed reviews. To say that AOTC is getting all bad reviews is overly generalizing.

Also, just because a critic gives AOTC a bad review does not mean they are part of some conspiracy to smear Star Wars or just an idiot.

Anyone who says that ESB and especially ROTJ recieved significantly better reviews than the prequels when they first came out is engaging in revisionist history.

 

Darth Homer:
"In my experience, the critics who really bash the prequels in a hateful manner fall into two groups:
Either they never liked Star Wars in the first place (and their opinion is therefore irrelevant) etc."

what an arrogant argument. If a critic doesn't like Star Wars his opinion is irrelevant? What planet are you living on?

Reviews are not written for Star Wars fans or to please Star Wars fans. The purpose of reviews is to recommend or not recommend a film that comes out.
Actually reviews by fans FOR fans are pointless as SW fans are going to see the film anyway. But somebody who's not a fan wants to know if the film is recommended for people who are not fans. Plain and simple. That's why it makes perfect sense to let a non-fan write a SW review

 

"Why is Clones getting such bad reviews..."?

BEACAUSE SOME CRITICS DON'T LIKE IT!!!!!

ARGH!!! Sorry, but damn it, are there truly that many people who are unable to understand this SIMPLE CONCEPT???? It's a film, and watching it is a SUBJECTIVE EXPERIENCE, therefore different people will have different reactions.

Why...why must we have thread after thread, post after post after post after post, trying to come up with different reasons why people's subjective opinions of the quality of a film are WRONG????

WHY?????

 

Tukafo, what I meant was that if a critic doesn't like any previous Star Wars films, then they're not likely to enjoy AOTC, so it's pointless for them to review it. It would be like someone who hates heavy metal reviewing a Metallica album.
Lucas has made the prequels for the fans, and that's the only opinion that matters to me.