Why is Lucas so pesimistic about Episode 3's box office potentital?

I recall seeing at boxofficemojo.com that each of the SW films, adjusting for inflation, has made less than the others in the order in which they were released. Thus, ANH made the most, followed by TESB, ROTJ, TPM, and AOTC. I might be wrong and TPM and ROTJ might be switched in order, but I found that particularly interesting.

I am not sure what accounts for this trend, i.e., why the films have sold fewer tickets as time has gone on. More recent movies in general have made less in comparison to older films when adjusted for inflation. Some of it may be that there are more films now to compete for the public's attention, just as more choices from cable networks have lowered overall ratings for NBC, ABC, and CBS and fragmented viewership, as opposed to the old days when you had no choice but to watch the networks. There are also more diversions for entertainment now (video games, DVD, computers, the Internet, etc.) than back then. But I have wondered if this is because SW is increasingly marginalized in the public's opinion. ANH was a great crossover that appealed to all ages and kinds of people, but as the films have gone on to tell the rest of the story, casual fans have lost interest. Since the 1980's, SW has just not been as cool to most people as it was when ANH was released. Now it is thought of more of as a sci-fi genre that appeals only to geeks, and SW fans and films are lumped in the public's perception in the same category as Star Trek films and fans. I am not saying this is correct, but I have noticed this attitude in talking to friends and family.

Some of Lucas' comment may be that Lucas is trying to deflate everyone's expectations preemptively. There was a huge build up to TPM in 1999, and with all the media hype, Lucas started trying to downplay expectations when the film was just days away from opening by telling everyone it was just a kid's movie. After the movie came out, the media and critics started jumping on the bandwagon and bashing everything SW related, which hurt AOTC and made the other studios more willing to put up stiffer competition last summer.

Lucas is correct, as some have pointed out earlier. Episode III will be very dark indeed, perhaps moreso than TESB. People like happy endings, and this film will not have one. Die hard SW fans will love it, but it will probably not have much crossover appeal. But I don't plan on letting it ruin my enjoyment of this film. I have waited years for this one, and am confident that Lucas will fulfill the reasonable expectations of SW fans everywhere with it.

 

People,

Can there be any doubt as to the main reason why the new SW films were not as commercially successful as the old ones?

Its simple! They aren't as good.

There are other, secondary reasons as well. SW has lost its enchantment with the same demographic that loved the original trilogy - that being 7-35 year olds.

That demographic flocked to LOTR and Spiderman but has had enough of Lucas and his computer generated movies. His movies are all special effects and no story.

It will be interesting to see how this next one does. After these last two, I'm sure it will be the least successful, not because of tone, but because TPM was awful and AOTC was so-so.

I would agree with the above writer when he said alot more is on the table for entertainment value today than back in the late 70s early 80s.

I would also reiterate that as much as ESB was the least commercially successful of the OT, it was movie that critics liked the most because it was all story.

Oh, and of course, George Lucas didn't direct it.

 

I would also reiterate that as much as ESB was the least commercially successful of the OT, it was movie that critics liked the most because it was all story.

TESB was heavily bashed by critics when it opened in 1980. It was years later that it, along with ANH and ROTJ, earned critic's respect.

Expect the same thing to happen with TPM, AOTC, and Ep3.

 

No one is a prophet in his own ground.
Ep3 will gain its rightful respect in time, not in the premiere-previews (TV, magazines, etc).

If this going to be even close to ESB, I'm going to love it. Probably.

 

Its simple! They aren't as good.

Precisely!

AotC sucked more than TPM
TPM sucked more than RotJ
RotJ sucked more than ESB
ESB sucked more than ANH

That's terrible logic no?
There's hundreds of reasons why they're not. It has nothing to do with which is better in such simple terms since that is merely opinion.
One day, I think I'll compile a list and put it in the Saga forum and see what people have to say about it...

 

It will be a hint darn it!It's the end of the movie saga.Stargeeks all around the world will be seeing!Lucas is gonna make big big money,and the darkness is gonna make it sssooooooooo cool!!!!There I rest my case.*calming down*

Edit:Critics have been saying that the PT isn't as good as the OT,but they change there minds closer to the release when they pay attention to it and it's just as good.

 

I think what GL really is getting to, is to say that Ep. III cannot be watched as one film. The normal movie going audience, like to see things resolved and straightforward in just one moive. However, Ep. III will require watching, all the eps. in one go. Only SW fans will get the gist and be able to "connect the dots" by watching Ep. III that answers how Anakin turns, but in reality it the normal mentality is to see "the good guys win" or have hope of winning. Ep. III will be basically the Empire getting control of things and the "good guys" beaten to a pulp. This will not be acceptable to quite a number of movie going public and even more sady to SW fans as well.

Ep. III on the other hand, may start very slow and could pick up, once people get the hang of it, "if they have the patience". I think the Box Office numbers will be "disappointing" to those who think otherwise. Regardless, I think critically, Ep. III just might suprise. GL I think can pull it off, and if the respect for his story craft is realized, who knows, how great Ep. III will do.

Personally, GL I think will be right. But after time, say 3 to 4 months or so, GL may be proven wrong. We'll see.

 

One of the most common criticisms of SW is that the quality of the films has deteriorated as the saga is churned out. I commonly from bashers how much the PT sucks with bad dialogue, wooden acting, and overreliance on special effects and how the new films will never rise to the level of ANH and TESB.

I am not sure how the PT bashers may be characterized demographically, but I would bet that most are around my age (32) who grew up on and loved ANH and TESB. They wanted to be blown away by ROTJ, but were a bit too old to like a film series that is essentially for children and/or got swayed by peer pressure into thinking that SW was no longer cool. ROTJ thus jaded them. After waiting 16 years, they went to see TPM but were not open minded about it because of high expectations and left thinking the PT was going to be more like ROTJ, so they never even gave AOTC a chance. It's a shame, because AOTC was much closer in terms of feel and story to ANH and TESB than TPM or ROTJ, but it just goes to show that no matter what Lucas does, some SW "fans" will not be happy. People overall take these films too seriously and get way too upset when Lucas does not meet their unreasonably high expectations.

I strongly disagree that any of the films are better or worse than each other. Each has its faults and we all have our personal favorites. I used to believe that the OT were vastly superior to the PT. However, I refrained from watching SW for almost a year and then watched the OT with a sharply critical eye, including my personal favorite, TESB. To my surprise, I saw that the PT and OT were really about the same quality. The OT will always be special to me because I grew up with them, but I don't believe that the PT deserve the scorn they have received. They are really quite good, even though the OT raised the bar high. Thus, I would not say that the SW films have made less money as each one is released because they have gotten progressively worse since ANH. That might be the public or popular perception, but I don't think it is accurate. Sequels generally make less than their predecessors; core fans will keep going, but casual fans who have not kept up with all of the movies do not. This has occurred with Superman, Batman, Star Trek, Harry Potter, Lord of the Rings, etc, just as it will happen with the Matrix movies and Spiderman.

P.S. I always laugh when I hear the criticism that SW has lost sight of the importance of story and relies too much on special effects. LOTR and Spiderman are now held up as being the opposite, but that is not true. LOTR could not be made without special effects, and Peter Jackson consulted with Lucas about making the films and special effects. John Dykstra, who did the special effects in ANH, did them for Spiderman. Neither of those films would be half the movie they are without special effects. I think it is just that SW is no longer cool and it is too easy for people to jump on the "let's bash SW" wagon.

 

Well said, sellars.

Each of the movies has its high points and low points. There are scenes in the OT, even the holy ESB, which drag like nobody's business. There's wince-worthy dialogue/acting in all of the movies. Really, Han's lame-o line "Good against remotes is one thing, good against the living...that's something else" doesn't make me cringe any less than Panaka's "sitting ducks" line in TPM. Luke's line "But Han and Leia will die if I don't!" in ESB is much more poorly delivered than any of Anakin's lines in the fireplace scene of AOTC. Anakin's periodic whining in AOTC is no more annoying than Luke's periodic whining in ANH and ESB. And though ROTJ is my least favorite of the movies, I've recently found it has many more good points than I've long thought it did.

Anyway...Harrison Ford, whose grumpy remarks about SW have been well documented (and often misquoted, but that's a whole other ball of wax), said that he doesn't feel like one trilogy is better than the other -- they're just different. That looks oversimplistic, but really, it isn't. I don't see how the trilogies could possibly NOT be different, being as one trilogy was made in the late 70s/early 80s and the other in the late 90s/early 21st century -- nearly two decades apart. Huge changes have taken place, both in filmmaking and in the life of the filmmaker.

 

I think that many of you are off with your box office predictions. Even though I am only one person, I have many friends lined up to go see episode three who have never seen a Star Wars movie in the theatres before. I am guessing this movie with make no less than $350 million.

 

I am not so sure about 350million i would think a fair estimate would be 250.

I love Star Wars and I think AotC went in the right direction.

We have all stated for years that EpIII has the potential to be the greatest Star Wars movie ever made. This is the one i have been looking forward to for years. This is the one i am most hyped about. This is the one that can disappoint the most.

 

first:

Someone said:

AotC sucked more than TPM
TPM sucked more than RotJ
RotJ sucked more than ESB
ESB sucked more than ANH

I didn't say that. I opined that:

ESB was the best
ANH was a close second
Probably AOTC was third
ROTJ was fourth
TPM a distant 5th.

Also, on the critics "recent" embrace of ESB. I'm do not agree that critics reviews are only recently favorable. Someone else called me out on this and shuffling through all the SW stuff I still had, I have several reviews of ESB and they are all favorable. I looked also on rotten tomatos and while dates aren't given, you can tell that many of them were from 1980 and some were from the special edition of the movie. All were favorable.


Now about the probably disappointment of the 3rd and final "PT" movie as you guys call them.

Lucas has "prophecied" that the third and final act will be a box office dissapointment because it will be dark.

The question at hand should be: why does anyone or should anyone care?

If you guys are going into these movies hoping that a SW film will knock off Titanic at the top I think is pretty shallow. Simply rooting for a movie for its box office place in history is ridiculous.

Now onto some comments from other writers, particularly sellars1996. Some good comments and probably some of the most intelligent in these forums.

I think you're right to a certain extent. Simply having revved up special effects in a movie is somewhat of a guarantee that the movie COULD be successful. It does not equate success.

Also, I think your demographic argument makes sense in that we are not as young as we used to be. I'm 32 also.

The problem becomes not whether we are too old to see a "kids" movie but whether we are still enchanted with the story as it is being told at all? I'm still interested but I'm not hanging on the edge of my seat to see EP3. Why?

Because I think the new movies do not offer - as the basis for a good movie - a compelling story....as it is being told to us. Certainly the story is compelling but I think older guys/girls drawn to the old trilogy have remarked that they're not sure what they're seeing. Whether to take it seriously or not? Whether to embrace the likes of Jar Jar or whether to heap scorn on him and characters like him.

Lord of the Rings - thats a serious story with wit and humor intermingled with good dialogue and special effects.

Spiderman - a camp comedy intermingled with serious undertones and a bevy of special effects.

In short, we know what we're getting when we go into movies like this.

With AOTC I think Lucas has gotten back to some of the basics of what made the old trilogy so good. However I still feel, as I have remarked in previous forums that Lucas's talents lie with the creation and direction of special and digital effects and technological advancements in cinema. Directing is not one of them.

 

I recall seeing at boxofficemojo.com that each of the SW films, adjusting for inflation, has made less than the others in the order in which they were released. Thus, ANH made the most, followed by TESB, ROTJ, TPM, and AOTC. I might be wrong and TPM and ROTJ might be switched in order, but I found that particularly interesting.

You know what the most profitable movie of all time is, adjusting for inflation and allowing for production/distribution costs?

"Deep Throat."

Anyway...it puzzles me to see how a $400 + mil gross for "Spiderman" makes it a monster hit, but a $400+ mil gross for TPM is a disappointment. Likewise, I fail to see how a $300+ mil (and counting) gross for AOTC is a flop when the two LOTR movies have made about the same amount and are considered smashes.

I know, I've heard that adjusting for inflation, blah blah blah, the OT grossed more, so really, the PT isn't all that successful. OK, so taking that logic to the movies that are trumpeted as being so much better, more mature, etc. than the PT -- "Spiderman" and LOTR -- doesn't it mean that they, too, aren't all that successful? How come they're smashes and monster hits, while TPM and AOTC are disappointments/flops? The same criteria applies. If, compared to the OT, the PT movies are disappointments/flops, then so are "Spiderman" and LOTR.

I don't see any evidence that "older school" fans by and large don't like the PT or don't get it. While some don't, others do. Of course the PT is going to be different from the OT. It's made in a different era, takes place in a different era of the GFFA. It's got an entirely different cast, with only the droids, Obi Wan (played by a different actor), and a couple of minor characters providing a bridge between the two trilogies.

Some people don't like the movies of the PT, but movies do not gross as much as TPM and AOTC have without an awful lot of people liking them. I must add that the PT has been successful despite the incredible amount of negativity that has been spewed all over it by the media ("Spiderman" and LOTR were fawned over practically non-stop), which has gone out of its way to bash the PT, with no end in sight.

Lucas is not the greatest director in the world, but he is better than he gets credit for. I don't see what's so horrible about his directing, either in TPM or AOTC, and I'm glad he decided to direct them himself. If people don't like his movies, they don't have to go see them. If you think he's a talentless, greedy hack, then don't give the man your money. It's really that simple.

 

Shelley and Philip, thanks for the kind words and interesting/intelligent discussion. This has been one of the best threads I've participated in. I tried to respond yesterday before Shelley posted her reply, but my computer crashed.

Philip, I agree with most of the points you made. It's possible that fans our age don't know what to expect from each SW film as they come out. ANH was a great feel good movie, but TESB was dark. I was completely baffled by ROTJ and disappointed so much in 1983 when I thought Lucas had given me a kiddie flick instead of more TESB. People had such a huge buildup and high expectations for TPM after waiting sixteen years that they did not know what to expect, and when some fans saw Jar Jar, they thought it was more ROTJ kiddie stuff. Then AOTC was more like TESB. So maybe fans are confused. But that ignores the role of each film in an overall story. Each film is different and has a different story to tell.

I really think some fans are not as enchanted by the story as it is being told because the PT do not recreate the magic and awe we felt as kids watching the OT. I do not think it is the fault of the PT, but really a function of us growing older. As hard as I try, I cannot watch the OT objectively and distance the films entirely from my memories associated with them. So they naturally will seem better to me at first than the PT.

Also, I think a lot of fans our age have forgotten how to watch these films. Roger Ebert's reviews of all of the SW films were good, but what I thought was particularly interesting was a statement that these are films mainly to look at rather than dissect and analyze. These are not art films or films by independent or avant garde studios trying to provoke thought or lead us to a deeper understanding of human psyche. People take these SW films very seriously and forget these films are telling a story, but they are not meant to be taken seriously. I think some fans lose sight of that, particularly fans our age because they were so good and meaningful to us as kids, but we are much more critical as adults. The criticism is heightened because we have built SW into something more than it is and cannot accept the films for what they are. They are B movies with A movie actors, budgets, and production values. Lucas wanted to make another Flash Gordon/space western, and that's what these are. They are not the end all/be all of films.

People criticize the acting and directing in the SW films, but all in all, the production values and acting are superb. The acting by Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher, Liam Neeson, Alec Guiness, Samuel L, Jackson, Ewan McGregor, Natalie Portman, and Hayden Christensen in the SW films will not rival any performance by Jack Nicholson or Tom Hanks in movies like Terms of Endearment or Saving Private Ryan, but given what the SW actors had to work with and the constraints placed upon them by the story and the genre, they all are outstanding. People mistake the shallowness or faults of the characters as bad acting, but that is ignoring the point of the film. I have no acting background, but I imagine that it is difficult indeed to stare at a blue screen and to talk to someone not on the stage with you. Jack Nicholson and Tom Hanks have, to my knowledge, never done these sorts of films, but I can't imagine that they would do much better.

Philip, I agree with you that Lucas is a masterful technical innovator and storyteller. But I think the criticism of him as a director for the perceived shortcomings of the SW films is misplaced. Watch American Grafitti or ANH and you will see that he can direct. He has had his share of duds, but as I said above, people tend to lose sight of the fact that the SW films are glorified B movies. Lucas might not be as versatile as Spielberg, who can direct heavier fare like The Color Purple or Schindler's List and lighter fare like Indiana Jones and do both convincingly; except for American Grafitti, I have not really seen Lucas direct a warm movie. I have read that Lucas vie

 

Shelly said:

"I must add that the PT has been successful despite the incredible amount of negativity that has been spewed all over it by the media ("Spiderman" and LOTR were fawned over practically non-stop), which has gone out of its way to bash the PT, with no end in sight."

Let us simply ask, "why?"

While I cannot agree that Spiderman was a better movie than AOTC I would completely affirm the critics opinion that each of the LOTR movies was better than either Phantom or Clones. Put simply, they fawned over a better movie.

On Lucas: hey, I'm not trying to bash the guy because HE is the one who originated the whole darn thing. Without him, there would be nothing! I'm simply saying, (and Lucas says as much on Disk 2 of the Clones DVD, that he is a visual director, not a actor/character director), that he is not a proficient director for actors or to advance a story properly.

Grafitti was the last and only acting film Lucas directed. Francis Coppola stated after SW came out that America had lost a great director. I think he was right.

But I think, getting back to the topic at hand, has to do with financial gross and why SW is scorned and makes a ton of money but Spidey and Rings make a ton of money and are media darlings.

Does it matter? And if it does, why does it? I can only posit that SW fans are upset that the new films have not been embraced by the GENERAL PUBLIC as the old films were even though they made bank.

I mean, lets face it, the only two measures of what constitutes a successful movie in popular culture are: box office gross and critical reviews. You can have one or the other and still have a successful movie. But if you have both, you are sitting on a gold mine.

Phantom had monster financial success but was a critical train wreck. Clones had better reviews yet did a steady gross at the box office. Why are we complaining?

Again I think some SW fans are bitter that SW, particularly the new films, hold less of importance today in popular culture than the older ones did. Forget which ones were better, we could argue that all day. Like it or not, critics set the tone and set a movies place in history if the box office doesn't. Those are the two measures.

If Lucas says that III will be a box office disappointment, then perhaps we are seeing the potential for a finale that will be a critical success. Wouldn't that be ironic. The king of the box office making the finale to his magnus opus ends it with a critically acclaimed movie?

Hmm, I'd pay money to see that.

 

While I cannot agree that Spiderman was a better movie than AOTC I would completely affirm the critics opinion that each of the LOTR movies was better than either Phantom or Clones. Put simply, they fawned over a better movie.

Put simply, I don't agree. I think the quality of LOTR and the PT is roughly comparable, with LOTR getting a slight edge in terms of the dialogue being better -- which is due to the source material. LOTR does not deserve the hosannas that have been unquestioningly laid at its feet. If critics (and fans) applied the same microscope to those movies as they do to the prequels, and if they went into them with as big a chip on their shoulder as they went into the prequels, they would find that LOTR has many of the same flaws that they whine endlessly about in the prequels.

sellars wrote:

Some films that were not successful critically or at the box office may only be appreciated years after their release, like It's A Wonderful Life. So critical or commercial success is ultimately not important as long as you like the film.

That's a good point. Put another way: what do the original "Psycho," "It's a Wonderful Life," and "The Wizard of Oz" all have in common?

Answer: they all got horrible reviews when they were first released. "Wizard of Oz," for instance, was called "stupid and unimaginative."

"Snow White" was called "Disney's Folly" (to be fair, I do think he made a terrible folly in choosing who he did to play Snow White's voice, but that's neither here nor there), to say nothing of how Disney was sneered and laughed at when he pushed for sound, then color, in cartoons.

Time has a way of being kinder to movies that were savaged by the critics than to movies which drew raves.

 

shelly said:

"I think the quality of LOTR and the PT is roughly comparable, with LOTR getting a slight edge in terms of the dialogue being better -- which is due to the source material."

That last line...."which is due to the source material".

Ok, and who is the source material for Star Wars?

Its George Lucas. I think that your statement somewhat confirms what I've been saying that Lucas can't write screenplays worth a hoot and that, when compared with LOTR, LOTR is better because of the writing/dialogue.

No movie deserves hosannas. But what I'm talking about is the measure of a good movie in popular culture. Not within the SW circle, not within the different mediums or genres of film but in popular culture.

Again, two measures: box office and critics reviews.

I mean, shelly, we're looking for explanations as to why critics seem to fawn over other tech movies or fantasy movies while they deplore George Lucas and the new SW films. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy or jealous backlash over every film Lucas makes? Because if you are, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

In your opinion, the new SW films are good and it seems that you can't understand why movies like LOTR and Spidey are embraced by critics and the box office while SW is defamed.

What the critics, box office and general public are "saying" seems incongruous to your opinion and that is what's causing problems here.

There is no other explanation necessary like age, changes in society, culture, violence, than to say that the measure of a film is how its embraced by the general public, not one demographic.

You and I might think Clones was brilliant but we can't seem to understand why critics liked it less than LOTR or Spidey.

All I can tell ya is, simply, they just seemed to like LOTR more. Perhaps LOTR was better. I opine that it was.

 

shelly said:

It's Shelley.

Ok, and who is the source material for Star Wars?

Its George Lucas.

Yeah. So?

I think that your statement somewhat confirms what I've been saying that Lucas can't write screenplays worth a hoot

It confirms no such thing. I said that the LOTR dialogue was better because of the source material. Lucas is not the greatest screenwriter in the world, and I think it's accepted by many people that Tolkien was definitely a superior writer, being an English professor and all.

and that, when compared with LOTR, LOTR is better because of the writing/dialogue.

Wrong. I said it has a slight edge in terms of the dialogue being better, which is due to the source material. That is, it's not due to screenwriting talent on Peter Jackson's part.

I mean, shelly,

It's Shelley.

we're looking for explanations as to why critics seem to fawn over other tech movies or fantasy movies while they deplore George Lucas and the new SW films. Are you suggesting that there is some sort of conspiracy

No. I am suggesting there is a bias, because the LOTR films have the same flaws as the prequels, yet in the prequels they are considered inexcusable, while they are overlooked, or even praised, in LOTR. SW has long been a whipping boy, but critics grudgingly accepted that they were very popular, "king" of fantasy movies. Every once in a while they'd try to push some film as a rival or something to dethrone it, but usually said film was forgotten pretty quickly. Then LOTR came along. It was the first viable weapon against SW the critics ever had, being as the books are beloved all over the world and a live-action adaptation was getting people very excited.

It's no coincidence that many critics took the opportunity to dis the prequels in their reviews of the LOTR movies, nor was it coincidence that many critics said, in their unbelievably vicious reviews of AOTC (which often got details wrong, leading me to question whether they even saw the thing), that SW had now been rendered irrelevant by -- you guessed it -- LOTR. It's no coincidence that newspapers put out editorials denouncing AOTC, and saying that if SW fans knew what was good for them, they'd leave for "series with real depth and passion" like LOTR. It's no coincidence that USA Today recently ran an article proclaiming LOTR the champ in the "fantasy wars" between it and SW, using as proof the results of a survey it conducted in which the questions were so incredibly biased and slanted that the survey should never have seen the light of day.

or jealous backlash over every film Lucas makes? Because if you are, then I'm not sure what to tell ya.

Backlash, yes. Jealous, not necessarily. But there is a lot of evidence to show media bias against SW. Major sources of entertainment news take every opportunity they can to viciously bash the prequels, ignoring or downplaying good news about them -- i.e., the way the great DVD sales for TPM were mostly ignored or downplayed, and reports were often accompanied with commentary on why the DVD was selling well, offering bizarrely elaborate theories while overlooking the blatantly obvious answer: people were buying the DVD because they liked the film.

Then there is the idea, often perpetuated by the media, that TPM was "poorly received" by the fans. Since when does a $431 million gross and 60% approval rating on Gallup polls signify a movie is "poorly received"? Oh, and the idea that "Matrix" outgrossed TPM and stole its thunder. "Matrix" made less than half of what TPM did, even if it was a media darling. Yes, "Matrix" did win the Best FX Oscar, which the media never let us forget -- a couple of years later, journalists were still gloating about it.

When Ewan McGregor said he thought TPM was "a little flat," that was blared in headlines. When Liam Neeson said he wanted to quit movies after making "The Haunting," the press misquoted him as saying that about TPM, and made no effort to correct the error even after Neeson himse

 

Philip and Shelley, more good replies. Very thought provoking.

Philip asks why we should care what critics think and why SW gets bashed while LOTR/Spiderman do not. Maybe the films they like are really better and we are fooling ourselves and making excuses for SW/Lucas. Some of it may be backlash against the Lucas marketing machine that is in part responsible for the big build up of the SW movies and the incredibly high expectations of fans. I have read reviews of ROTJ from 1983 that indicate strong resentment against the man who helped to forever change the film industry and made films not just movies, but a tool for selling merchandise and spawned a generation of blatant commercialism and overblown costly blockbusters. But I agree with Shelley that Spiderman and LOTR are guilty of the same excesses SW/Lucas is charged with. Maybe when Peter Jackson makes The Hobbitt or when Spiderman V is released we will start to see more of the same SW treatment from the media.

Ultimately, I guess we should not care why these things are the way they are. They do not destroy my enjoyment of SW and will not stop me from liking Episode III.

P.S. As I typed this, Shelley (I am glad I typed that right!) posted another reply. I had never heard the subsequent reports about Liam Neeson saying he had been misquoted and that he liked being in TPM. All I had heard was that he, Harrison Ford, and Ewan McGregor were trying to distance themselves from the films. It is good to know how much the media manipulate and contort things, especially with concrete examples to back up your arguments. Thanks, Shelley.

 

Well, Shelley,

I don't really see why LOTR can't simply be better than the PT. Better acting, better dialogue, better pacing, better effects. And it's not like LOTR wasn't microscoped to death. Are you kidding me? What are arguably the best loved novels of the 20th century made into films? I think there was incredible pressure on PJ to succeed. Whether it was worse on the pressure GL was under for TPM, I have no idea.

At least, for FOTR - don't get me started on TTT. When PJ sticks to Tolkien's vision, he is phenomenal. When he starts changing stuff for NO APPARENT REASON, it blows. But that's a completely different topic.

Anyway, I don't think critics understand SW, they never have and they never will. How could people become obsessed over these films when they could be watching...Unforgiven?

Therefore, in order to compensate for their lack of comprehension, they think they have to bash it. I think that's at least part of it.

It's not just SW; there are many aspects of society where "criticism" is cool; don't buy into what's "popular", cut it up, you'll look witty and discerning.

Plato once predicted that if a perfect man ever entered the world, he would be killed. Christ was crucified.

We love to destroy things, especially precious things, when we can't partake of them.

I look at some of the bashers on this message board, and it really makes me sad how vicious, unrelenting, and intense their criticism is of the PT. It seems like they've been personally betrayed. Their criticism is far worse than any critics, I believe.

But the critics have never understood SW, and never will, so their criticism is reduced to bashing the acting, pacing, and directing. Why? They can't be a part of this magical universe, so in order to feel better, they criticize it.

Some of the criticism I think has been deserved - the experiment with Jar Jar was so OBVIOUSLY Lucas wanting people to be blown away by the CG effects; I think Dooku and the Separatists prolly should have been introduced in TPM, but that's just b/c I love that concept so much. But this isn't a "what's wrong with SW?" thread.

Anyway, I agree that we really shouldn't care how much money Episode III makes.

I would be surprised if it didn't make more than AOTC and possibly TPM. Why? It's the last SW movie ever...even casual viewers will go. Plus, since it will be dark, it will probably get slightly better reviews.

Maybe now that another film will never be made (theoretically), critics will be able to appreciate what GL has done.

In terms of the OT/PT comparison, I think it's pretty obvious: the OT is the benchmark for ANY SF/Fantasy flick, and it's still #1. Therefore, when a new SW trilogy comes along, almost ANYTHING that differs from the OT will seem in comparison to be inferior.

Sorry for the length - it's a great thread.

 

Harrison Ford, and Ewan McGregor were trying to distance themselves from the films. It is good to know how much the media manipulate and contort things, especially with concrete examples to back up your arguments. Thanks, Shelley.

Sure, no problem.

Ford has made many grumpy remarks about SW -- I think it's because he simply isn't a fan of sci-fi; he doesn't speak highly of "Blade Runner" either -- but he's also praised Lucas as a filmmaker, and when an interviewer tried to get him to badmouth the prequels, he said that while he hadn't seen AOTC, he had seen TPM, and he wouldn't want to say which series was better than the other, because they are so different. I talked about that in a previous post.

Lucas said that McGregor is like a young Harrison Ford -- not in terms of acting style or physical appearance, but in terms of attitude. He was more right than he knew. Nonetheless, McGregor has said he likes working on the prequels. He just hates blue screen, and I think he was a bit ticked that he didn't play that big a role in TPM.

You brought up a good point, sellars, about the backlash against marketing. People sniped at Lucas for the Ewoks in ROTJ, saying they were just a toy marketing opportunity. He pointed out that there were already teddy bears; if he wanted to make a critter just for the sake of marketing a toy, then he could've done better than that. Anyway...while there is a certain amount of truth to the "excessive marketing" accusations against Lucas, he is no more guilty of them than the media-worshipped movies like LOTR and "Spiderman." In fact, Lucas scaled back the marketing for AOTC (too much, IMO -- I think more marketing could've added as much as $20 mil to the box office returns) in part because of the vicious backlash against the "excessive" marketing of TPM.

Even so, the media still piously slammed AOTC because of its marketing/hype -- and it was hypocritical as well as pious, because it had zero trouble with the marketing/hype of AOTC's so-called "rivals." The media blasts Lucas and SW to the sky for "faults" that it is somehow blind to in other franchises. And so do many SW bashers.

 

I don't really see why LOTR can't simply be better than the PT.

It isn't.

Better acting,

Nope. The acting is roughly comparable.

better dialogue,

Yes, but only because of the source material.

better pacing,

Nope.

better effects.

No way. The only effect that is comparable to the effects of TPM and AOTC is Gollum, and that's because the people at Weta consulted with ILM beforehand.

And it's not like LOTR wasn't microscoped to death.

Not like the prequels it wasn't.

 

wow, no coming back to that.

what does it matter if ILM was consulted? Gollum still looks way better than Jar-Jar.

Don't get me wrong, the way that Jar-Jar's robes move on his body is amazingly realistic, but who cares?

ILM is still the leader in terms of CG and general special effects, no one is really going to argue that. But that doesn't mean that everything they do will work out. Like, say, Anakin riding the shaak, for example.

I think the acting was better in LOTR, and maybe that's mostly because of the casting. Sir Ian did a phenomenal job as Gandalf, and the other actors were spot on as well.

I dunno, my biggest problem with the PT is the "wooden" acting. People have tried to say that the society is very stilted and polite, and that's definitely a part of it, but not all of it. I think Portman's mostly to blame, since she is absolutely brutal (in AOTC) and is obviously a central character.

But I find the acting in LOTR more believable and sincere, more like the OT, to tell you the truth.

By the time LOTR and the PT are complete, which will be a better product? Well, that will come down to personal taste.

I personally would say there is a definite reason LOTR has received more acclaim than the PT.

Then again, as my friend so adroitly pointed out, "LOTR may be better movies, but which are you more likely to watch 5000 times? The PT."

True, true.

 

what does it matter if ILM was consulted? Gollum still looks way better than Jar-Jar.

Not really. If people could get beyond their hatred of Jar Jar they'd be able to see he's a technical marvel. And it's not just him. Watto is great, and so is Yoda. Gollum is not that spectacular.

Don't get me wrong, the way that Jar-Jar's robes move on his body is amazingly realistic, but who cares?

Obviously you do, or you wouldn't be posting about it.

ILM is still the leader in terms of CG and general special effects, no one is really going to argue that. But that doesn't mean that everything they do will work out. Like, say, Anakin riding the shaak, for example.

And not everything Weta does will work out, although people treat every effect, no matter how dodgy, like it's pure gold, while deriding far superior effects in the prequels.

I think the acting was better in LOTR, and maybe that's mostly because of the casting. Sir Ian did a phenomenal job as Gandalf, and the other actors were spot on as well.

Sir Ian did do a great job, but the rest of the actors range from pretty good to downright appalling (Cate Blanchett, aka Galadriel on Thorazine).

People have tried to say that the society is very stilted and polite, and that's definitely a part of it, but not all of it.
I think Portman's mostly to blame,

Portman was better in TPM. I don't think she's a very good actress on the face of it; Lucas seldom errs when it comes to casting, but he erred with her. IMO her problem is she just doesn't care about her part. Hayden cared about his, and it shows in his performance.

But I find the acting in LOTR more believable and sincere, more like the OT, to tell you the truth.

What's so believable and sincere about the OT's acting? I don't think it's more sincere and believable than that in the PT, and sometimes less so. And while we're at it, what's so believable and sincere about LOTR's acting? I found much of it forced and stilted.

By the time LOTR and the PT are complete, which will be a better product? Well, that will come down to personal taste.

Exactly. And I am sick of LOTR fans trying to pass off their opinion as fact, pointing to awards as "proof."

I personally would say there is a definite reason LOTR has received more acclaim than the PT.

Because it's based on literature that is not just classic but legendary, and because critics were prepared to adore it before they even bought their tickets.

Then again, as my friend so adroitly pointed out, "LOTR may be better movies,

They aren't better movies. They're just more overrated movies.

 

Philip, I agree with you that Lucas is a masterful technical innovator and storyteller. But I think the criticism of him as a director for the perceived shortcomings of the SW films is misplaced. Watch American Grafitti or ANH and you will see that he can direct. He has had his share of duds,

Actually, sellars, he hasn't. He's directed five movies, and all of them were commercial and/or critical successes.

He's produced his share of duds, but his track record as a director has been quite good.

IMO, his two best-directed movies were "American Graffiti" and TPM.