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

Goodness gracious,

You know if this guy knew anything about George Lucas he would know that he doesn't like any movie studio. I would imagine Fox has had their run-ins with GL as well simply because he does things his own way.

I asked for names, you didn't give me any.

I asked for names to confirm who is conspiring or biased against George, you generalized.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that both LOTR's had better reviews and better box-office than Clones. There's no denying that.

That guy likes Clones and Menace better, sees hardly any flaws in them and what flaws there were did not retract from the story.

Regards critics, movie studio presidents, other directors and non-SW fans as having it "in" for George Lucas because of his style of movie making.

Probably thinks Phantom was the greatest movie of all time because its #2 on the box office chart. Doesn't think either LOTR's was better than Clones or Menace and bases that opinion on only himself even though every critic liked LOTR better. Oh wait, I forgot, they have it in for George. Disregard

Wait, if there's all this negativity towards SW, why would GL even release the movie in the midst of such bias? It would be as disasterous as New Coke.

I doubt GL sees a bias, thinks critics are against him and doesn't care about box office. As I said, EP3 will do better than clones but probably not as good as Phantom at the box office. I leave it to the prognosticators to decide why.

 

Goodness gracious,

You know if this guy knew anything about George Lucas he would know that he doesn't like any movie studio.

What are you talking about?

I asked for names, you didn't give me any.

I asked for names to confirm who is conspiring or biased against George, you generalized.

So do you.

The only thing I'm trying to say is that both LOTR's had better reviews and better box-office than Clones. There's no denying that.

And you're contradicting yourself, because you said that box office doesn't mean a movie is good.

Nor does good reviews, especially considering how corrupt the business of film criticism is. Rex Reed admitted that he didn't see many of the movies he reviewed. Who knows how many other critics that's true of as well. And considering how some publications (USA Today, Rolling Stone) did complete 180s on AOTC, and critics who praised TPM initially did 180s later in 1999 and said they hated it, or else said they hated it while reviewing AOTC, I don't know why anyone takes critics' reviews seriously and cites them as proof of a movie's quality.

That guy likes Clones and Menace better, sees hardly any flaws in them and what flaws there were did not retract from the story.

Regards critics, movie studio presidents, other directors and non-SW fans as having it "in" for George Lucas because of his style of movie making.

No, because he doesn't play the Hollywood game and shuns Hollywood for the most part.

Probably thinks Phantom was the greatest movie of all time because its #2 on the box office chart. Doesn't think either LOTR's was better than Clones or Menace and bases that opinion on only himself even though every critic liked LOTR better. Oh wait, I forgot, they have it in for George. Disregard

Again, what are you talking about? Are you talking to yourself, or directing your remarks at me?

I doubt GL sees a bias, thinks critics are against him and doesn't care about box office.

GL probably doesn't care about bias, he has no respect or use for critics, and he has said that he doesn't care about box office.

As I said, EP3 will do better than clones but probably not as good as Phantom at the box office.

Contradicting yourself again? You said Episode III would make the least money out of the PT movies.

I leave it to the prognosticators to decide why.

No one will know until Episode III comes out.

 

Episode 3 is locked to make more than $250M in the domestic box office. But even if it does make around $320M critics and media alike with flame it calling it a flop for the final chapter and what not.

Lucas is just making it more hard for E-weekly not to write "hey Lucas thought it would be popular and it couldn't even make more than Spidey 3 years ago!!?! LOL!1".

$320 isn't bad box office but doesn't compare to the $400M+ TPM or OT adjusted money.

 

...and he has said that he doesn't care about box office.

Which is why he said that if Clones did less than $280 million domestically he'd have to rethink the way he was going to do Episode III?

 

If GL really cared that much about the box office he would have promoted AOTC a heck of a lot better.

 

Which is why he said that if Clones did less than $280 million domestically he'd have to rethink the way he was going to do Episode III?

Nice try. AOTC needed to gross a certain amount for him to be able to fund Episode III and do it the way he wanted.

Oh, and by the way, you got the quote wrong. It's:

"If it does $285 (million), that's okay. If it does $205 (million), it's a disappointment and we have to rethink the things we are doing about the next one."

 

Somehow I doubt it would've made much of a difference in the budget. The man is worth about 3 billion after all.

That quote doesn't have any basis for you to assume that he was talking about Episode III's budget depending on Episode II's gross.

And even if it did, it still shows that he does in fact care about box office grosses.

 

That quote doesn't have any basis for you to assume that he was talking about Episode III's budget depending on Episode II's gross.

Considering how many things you assume with no basis, that's kind of funny.

Read the complete quote:

"Lucas told Reuters a few weeks ago that Clones had to hit $300 million domestically to be "home free" in regards to profitability. "I feel confident we can do it, (but) it's not a slam dunk," Lucas prophetically said. "If it does $285 (million), that's okay. If it does $205 (million), it's a disappointment and we have to rethink the things we are doing about the next one." Bottom line, the picture is a hit in the eyes of its creative force and its studio."

And even if it did, it still shows that he does in fact care about box office grosses.

Only in relation to funding the next movie. I notice you completely ignored the quote I supplied in regards to "Spiderman."

Somehow I doubt it would've made much of a difference in the budget. The man is worth about 3 billion after all.

WRONG.

In "TV Guide," he said that he does not have limitless cash, no matter what people say. LFL makes enough to fund the next movie. I have the issue; I'll dig it up and provide the whole quote.

Oh, by the way, Darth_Insidious, here are quotes some of the reviews that ANH originally got. You know, back when critics did nothing but rave about them and bad reviews were nonexistent and the acting, dialogue, plot, etc. got nothing but praise (as you've claimed):

"On the debit side are the film's human performances. Save for Alec Guiness, the cast is unmemorable." - Gene Siskel, Chicago Tribune

"It is all as exciting as last year's weather reports. What you ultimately have is a set of giant baubles manipulated by an infant hand." - John Simon, New York

"Between these two factions, the ideological differences are hardly more striking than those that separate the Greens and Golds in prep-school athletics." - Molly Haskell, The Village Voice (referring to the war between the Rebels and "Imperialists")

"STAR WARS is an entertaining crowd-pleaser and a monumental technical achievement, but it's a long way from being a classic." - Stephen Farber, New West

 

You really make it a chore for me by posting these things across different boards, you know that?

That Gene Siskel review was positive, and can be found in its entirety here:

http://entertainment.metromix.chicagotribune.com/top/1,1419,M-Metromix-StarWars-starwarsreview!ArticleDetail-3724,00.htm l

One-line quotes prove nothing, as can be seen with that Gene Siskel review. Post the whole thing or don't post it at all.

And that Stephen Farber review is positive. Just because he says its not a classic doesn't mean he didn't like the film. He flat-out calls it an "entertaining crowd-pleaser".

Yes, it's been said that there were many negative reviews of the OT, and if this is the best you can do to prove it, then you shouldn't ever use the argument again, because it's pathetic.

 

Again, its all personal feeling with you.

No one will tell you what you want to hear. No explanation will do or be good enough.

Its pretty funny actually.

The consensus favorite movie of the last two years has been both LOTR movies. Hands down, no argument will prove otherwise.

Even flying in the face of my box office argument of high gross not proving a movie is good - LOTR rejects that argument. Both did better than Clones.

Phantom did better simply because of hype.

Lucas didn't hype Clones as hard as Phantom and that is to his credit. Clones stood on its own - an improved movie in an oversapped marketplace.

Again, this bias against George has not been proven by Shelley or anyone else and is a figment of his imagination. I asked for names and he retorted that he asked for them to and I didn't provide them....as if that's reason not to provide names. Kinda childish. My offer still stands.

No bias. No conspiracy. All imagination. Perhaps delusion.

EP3 will stand on its own. We'll see what happens. My formula still stands. Box office and critical reviews will stand in history.

 

Uh...isn't it clear at this point that Shelley is a woman? lol

Anyway, Philip - I don't think there's a conspiracy or anything like that in terms of "Get Lucas", but I'd bet that a lot of industry people are probably jealous of his success and would like to see him fail.

C'mon, haven't you spoken with people (i.e., pretentious film students or critics) who are like, "how apropos that the SW movies are the most popular movies in history - it just goes to show that the public has no taste whatsoever"?

Of course, to a large extent, I think people will see pretty much anything Hollywood puts on the screen.

The lack of originality in Hollywood (generally) is pretty pathetic.

We've got American Pie 3, Bad Boys 2, Charlie's Angels 2, Tomb Raider 2 (choke), T3 (choke), LEGALLY BLONDE 2 (Nooooooooooo!), 2Fast 2 Furious, Dumb and Dumberer.

And that's just this summer. Not to mention XMen2 and Matrix 2.

And yet no matter how redundant and derivative a film like American Pie 3 is, it will probably make $150 million.

And the critics will attempt in vain to get people to watch at least GOOD blockbusters...

But I think SW in a way is the best of the blockbusters, and therefore is immune to critical review.

What, no one from AOTC got nominated for Best Actor/Actress? Who cares?

Of course, the people who can actually act in SW also tend to get more acclaim from the fans - I.e., Ewan McGregor and Ian McDermid compared to say...Natalie Portman?

I don't even know where I"m going with this anymore.

Shelley, though I think that Lucas definitely has to look at box office success in terms of budgeting his next movie, it's hard to imagine that if Episode III did 1/4 the business of TPM that Lucas wouldn't be like, "WTF? Why didn't they like it?"

Saying it's purely for economic reasons is a little far-fetched.

 

Again, its all personal feeling with you.

And you've yet to offer any hard evidence, just personal feeling.

No one will tell you what you want to hear.

Yeah...the truth.

No explanation will do or be good enough.

No excuse, based on wishful thinking will be good enough, nor will personal attacks in lieu of responses.

Its pretty funny actually.

As is your and Darth_Insidious's attempts to distract from the main point with your smug, smirky personal attacks on me.

The consensus favorite movie of the last two years has been both LOTR movies. Hands down, no argument will prove otherwise.

Post proof or retract.

Even flying in the face of my box office argument of high gross

Which counters other stuff you've asserted, like LOTR's box office proves it's better liked. Not only do you provide no proof, you counter your own arguments.

not proving a movie is good - LOTR rejects that argument.

How?

Both did better than Clones.

And TPM did better than LOTR. So did Spiderman. WAY better. Both TPM and AOTC did WAY better than "Matrix," aka the movie that "stole SW's thunder."

Phantom did better simply because of hype.

Post proof or retract.

Again, this bias against George has not been proven by Shelley

I've proven it many times, with actual examples. You have yet to prove any of your assertions that LOTR is better liked, or that TPM did well only because of hype.

I asked for names and he retorted that he asked for them to and I didn't provide them....as if that's reason not to provide names. Kinda childish. My offer still stands.

I'm female, and you have yet to provide any proof of your assertions, unlike me.

And so does my offer. Post proof of any of your assertions, or retract them. Personally attacking me is a tactic to distract from your inability to provide any proof of your assertions. Stating your opinions as fact is another such tactic.

No bias. No conspiracy.

How many times have I said that there isn't a conspiracy? I've lost count.

All imagination. Perhaps delusion.

Figures. Once again, resorting to personal attacks is what people do when they can't counter an argument. That and stating their opinions as fact with zero backup.

EP3 will stand on its own. We'll see what happens. My formula still stands. Box office and critical reviews will stand in history.

Yeah, and the box office of both prequels was great. The reviews were better than you want to think. Plus, since when do critical reviews stand the test of time? I think I pointed out in this very thread, in one of the many posts you chose to ignore when you decided to personally attack me instead of offering any proof for your arguments, that "Wizard of Oz," the original "Psycho," and "It's a Wonderful Life" were all badly reviewed when they first came out.

 

If I'm not mistaken, "Citizen Kane" was poorly reviewed upon its initial release.

 

well, that settles it.

although, point taken.

If it's not clear by this point that critics are, in the words of Scott Weiland, "bottom-dwelling scum suckers,"

then you haven't been reading this thread.

 

Ok, here's your evidence if it is regarding which was a "consensus" more well received movie:

Using one of the few independent arbitors of film review, which encompasses all reviews and then lets people review movies, here are the numbers:



Menace: 144 reviews, 91 of them "fresh", 53 of them "rotten" for a percentage of 63 percent which represents a fresh movie.

Clones: 196 reviews; 123 fresh, 73 rotten for a passing grade of 63 percent.

LOTR - Fellowship: 178 reviews, 169 fresh, 9 rotten for an approval rating of 95 percent.

LOTR - Towers: 196 reviews, 191 fresh, 5 rotten for an approval rating of 97 percent.

What more do we need. Based on percentage of reviews, both LOTR movies beat both SW movies.

"As is your and Darth_Insidious's attempts to distract from the main point with your smug, smirky personal attacks on me."

Don't know what you're talking about. Please post proof of our vendetta against you.

"Post proof or retract."

See above for proof.

"Even flying in the face of my box office argument of high gross."

Often your argument jumps to the defense of Phantom as a great movie because of its box office position. If not, then see above for percentage of reviews as to which movie was generally received better.

"not proving a movie is good - LOTR rejects that argument.

How?"

See above. If we don't use box office, then we go to the only other way besides personal feeling - reviews.

"And TPM did better than LOTR. So did Spiderman. WAY better. Both TPM and AOTC did WAY better than "Matrix," aka the movie that "stole SW's thunder."

There's your box office argument again. "TPM did better than the Matrix or Spidey so it was a better movie." Again, let's go to the proof shall we:

The Matrix: 103 reviews documented; 89 fresh, 14 rottten for an approval rating if 86 percent.

Spidey: 195 reviews; 172 fresh, 23 rotten for an 88 percent approval rating.

Again, if we don't go with box office, we go to independent reviews.

"I've proven it many times, with actual examples. You have yet to prove any of your assertions that LOTR is better liked, or that TPM did well only because of hype."

How? and if so, could you do so beyond posting reviews that you deem biased or contrary to YOUR view of the film. Again, See above for the proof. Also, while hype is difficult to measure it seems reasonable to assume that part of the phantom's box office success - to any degree - was due to the long wait and marketing machine of Fox.

"I'm female, and you have yet to provide any proof of your assertions, unlike me."

See above for proof of my assertions.

"How many times have I said that there isn't a conspiracy? I've lost count."

When you post "proof" with a posting of a partial review from a critic that you judge as biased, you disregard the merits of that review because it runs contrary to what YOU saw. Again, see above for the proof.

"that "Wizard of Oz," the original "Psycho," and "It's a Wonderful Life" were all badly reviewed when they first came out."

Indeed, and they withstood the test of time because of their reliance on acting and story and a taut screenplay. Will special effects stand the test of time. Certainly the OT is proof that they can but we shall see how the PT stands.

I await your retort.....

 

Using one of the few independent arbitors of film review,

Independent? Oh please... You are too funny!

which encompasses all reviews

ALL REVIEWS? You get even funnier!

Menace: 144 reviews, 91 of them "fresh", 53 of them "rotten" for a percentage of 63 percent which represents a fresh movie.

So TPM was reviewed better than you want to think. It had more positive reviews than negative.

Clones: 196 reviews; 123 fresh, 73 rotten for a passing grade of 63 percent.

For a more than passing grade of 63 percent. I just love how you warp data to suit your purposes.

LOTR - Fellowship: 178 reviews, 169 fresh, 9 rotten for an approval rating of 95 percent.

So what? What does that have to do with how well TPM and AOTC was reviewed, and how well it was received by the public?

What more do we need. Based on percentage of reviews, both LOTR movies beat both SW movies.

You need a lot more. Your info once again tries to distract from the discussion in question. I never claimed that the prequels had better reviews from critics (aka frustrated would-be moviemakers) than the LOTR borefests. I claimed that they were better received than you want to think. You just proved my argument.

Now can you provide proof that LOTR "blew the prequels away" or that the public hated the prequels or that TPM only did $100 million better than either of the LOTR borefests "because of hype"?

Don't know what you're talking about. Please post proof of our vendetta against you.

Vendetta? Who mentioned a vendetta? Oh, it was you. I merely pointed out that you and Darth_Insidious choose to personally attack me rather than refuting any of my arguments.

See above for proof.

Oooohh, more attempts to distract from your TOTAL INABILITY TO DISPROVE ANY OF MY ARGUMENTS.

Often your argument jumps to the defense of Phantom as a great movie because of its box office position.

Point to any incident where I say TPM is a great movie because of its box office position.

If not, then see above for percentage of reviews as to which movie was generally received better.

What about it? Who cares if the LOTR borefests were received better by frustrated wannabe moviemakers? Does that somehow take away from the reaction the PUBLIC had to TPM?

See above. If we don't use box office,

May I remind you that YOU were the one who brought up box office to prove that the LOTR borefests were better liked than the PT? That they "blew the PT away"? Now you are acting like box office means nothing. You are just priceless.

then we go to the only other way besides personal feeling - reviews.[/i]

What about reviews? Since when does critical praise mean a movie is good? I pointed out how many "classic" movies were badly reviewed upon initial release, and btw, that includes the OT. I've lost count of the number of movies which were positively released upon initial release and are now completely forgotten.

pu[There's your box office argument again. "TPM did better than the Matrix or Spidey so it was a better movie."[/i]

Where did I say that? I love how you ut words in my mouth, perversely ignoring that YOU were the one who made the argument about "Matrix" and the LOTR borefests being better received by the public, using box office grosses to prove it.

Again, if we don't go with box office, we go to independent reviews.

And so WHAT? What do reviews by frustrated would-be critics prove about anything?

How? and if so, could you do so beyond posting reviews that you deem biased or contrary to YOUR view of the film.

You are impossibly funny, slamming me for doing what YOU have just spent the better part of a post doing!!

Again, See above for the proof.

WHAT proof? Where have you proved a SINGLE ONE of your assertions?

Also, while hype is difficult to measure it seems reasonable to assume that part of the phantom's box office success - to any degree - was due to the long wait and marketing machin

 

this is getting tiresome

 

Isn't it though?

LOTR "borefests". More passion than reasoning. I guess we know where she stands.

I suppose its only fitting that when I try to present a coherent argument to which film was better "received" by "the media", she says that I offer no proof of that assertion.

All anyone has to do is look at the reviews on the web.

Sure there are plenty of good ones about Phantom. Good ones about Clones. Good ones about both LOTRs, Matrix, Spidey, XMen, whatever.

I've never tried to prove which one was a BETTER movie. Only personal opinion can decide that. But in trying to prove which movie was better received, I think the only place to go is to look at the reviews of each film. I chose rotten tomatoes cuz it gathered all the reviews of each film and rated them either fresh or rotten. Seems enttirely fair to me.

But I guess when personal feeling gets in the way, it is hard to look at things objectively, especially with her comments like "borefests" and special effects being second rate. Again, that's all personal opinion and not objective.

Whether a movie is subjected to hateful reviews, only to be remembered in history as a great movie is not the subject at hand. Nor is box office the final arbitor of what constitutes a good movie. The question at hand was which movie was better received. It doesn't matter about who received it or how long it takes to make the movie a classic. We're talking about the here and now and the here and now is that both LOTRs were better received than either SW film based on a summation of the reviews.

You could say that SW was also received well but not as good as the LOTR movies was.

Box Office

If we bring box office into it, then Phantom has scoreboard but 63 percent approval rating. I guess that rates as a D/D+ in academia.

LOTR-Fellowship is in the top 13 if I remember correctly but had above 90% approval rating. I guess that rates as a B+/A-.

LOTR-Towers is in the top 7 in box office and had a 90% or higher review approval rating. Probably an A-/A in academic talk. This movie also beat Clones by $27 million but did not beat Phantom.

I dunno. If we combine both box office and reviews and NOT personal opinion, we can see that LOTR was not as well received at the box office than Phantom and did just as well or better against Clones. Critically, LOTRs did better.

Sure, reviews are personal opinion but I find it hard to believe that out of the 100 or so reviews for Phantom and Clones, there would be a percentage higher than 10 percent that would have it in for Lucas or want LOTR to perform so much better than SW that they would give it a good review anyway.

Rather I think taken as a whole reviews give us a pulse upon which we think a movie is good or not. Shelley thinks both SW were better than the "borefest" LOTRs. I think the reviews disproves that theory given the higher percentage of approval ratings. But whether one likes a movie more than the other is not the topic.

I liked both Phantom and Clones. However I thought the LOTR's were better movies. Perrsonal opinion and not quantifiable without bias. The reviews demonstrate though that the consensus opinion - in over hundreds of critical reviews - that critics agreed.

Hopefully George will present a movie that is entertaining and thought provokng and one that will leave us wanting for more. I trust this movie will rank up there with the rest of them.

Let's report back in when both the final LOTR and EP3 come out and we'll see what happens with box office and reviews.

 

Philip, all I see is Shelley making well backed arguments, and all i see from you is hypocrisy, diversion and personal attacks.

Shelley, as always its good to see you being mature and not sinking to the level of guys like Philip.


Anyway back to the real topic of this thread.

EP3 wont make that much money. It'll do what ESB did back in 1980. I don't think today's society is pretty receptive to a dark tragedy like we may see in the last Star Wars film.
Though GL has been wrong about TPM & AOTC, it seems his films are well liked and still get audiences flocking.

 

"Philip, all I see is Shelley making well backed arguments, and all i see from you is hypocrisy, diversion and personal attacks."

How so? I haven't personally attacked him.

Hypocrisy? How, I've called it straight the whole time.

Division? How have I divided people? SW fans? anyone?

personal attacks? All I've said is that Shelley uses personal opinion rather than objectivity. At times I have called that delusional. I guess that's a personal attack. Oh well.

How has Shelley made good arguments.

Calling LOTR a "borefest" that has "tenth-rate effects"? That is a good argument?

Saying many critics have a bias against George Lucas simply because of the movies he makes? Stating that many of the critics wish to see him fail?

Is that enough to convince me why SW was liked less by critics than LOTR? Come on. If we're going to go into that, perhaps a new thread is in order.

Personal opinion is one thing. Objectivity is another. If one has a firm personal belief in the greatness of a movie or the belief that the movie was better than another, then he cannot be dissuaded. If on the other hand that person is open to a suggestion by another that a certain movie was more of a consensus favorite among the general public, through a preponderence of critical reviews, then we can have an intelligent discussion.

I trust SW3 will do just as well as Jedi, Clones, Matrix, Spidey, ESB and LOTR1/2 at the box office. That alone will make it a successful movie at the box office.

 

I'm sorry JKBurtola, but Shelley is making few, if any, well-backed arguments. Philip is bringing up critical reviews showing LOTR was much more well received that the PT so far.

And to add to Philip's critical review, just look at how well the LOTR fares in imdb.com's top movie list compared to the PT:

#4 LOTR:FOTR 8.7/10
#9 SW:ANH 8.7/10
#14 SW:TESB 8.6/10
#15 LOTR:TTT 8.6/10
#124 SW:ROTJ 7.9/10
SW:AOTC 7.4/10
SW:TPM 6.7/10

As you can see, neither PT movie makes the top 250, while both LOTR movies are right up there.

Shelley is one of the worst gushers I've seen recently. I love both Star Wars and LOTR, but she is ripping on LOTR as a borefest with tenth-rate effects. That is totally uncalled for! Both are worthwhile franchises, but to tear apart LOTR is ridiculous. Gollum was an extremely well-made, and well-acted, CGI character. Shelley just seems to be tearing apart LOTR because the critics praise it more than the PT. There's no logic in her taking her frustrations out on a quality franchise such as LOTR - surely there other movies more deserving of her rage.

Now until Shelley comes up with solid arguments, she should "post proof or retract." Her blind faith in anything Star Wars while discrediting anything else as worthless is a joke.

 

I'm sorry JKBurtola, but Shelley is making few, if any, well-backed arguments. Philip is bringing up critical reviews showing LOTR was much more well received that the PT so far.

Critical success means nothing. A film is not good or well received just because its favourable with Critics. Give me results of what the General public think, and then I might give a damn about what you're trying to say.

Shelley is one of the worst gushers I've seen recently. I love both Star Wars and LOTR, but she is ripping on LOTR as a borefest with tenth-rate effects. That is totally uncalled for! Both are worthwhile franchises, but to tear apart LOTR is ridiculous. Gollum was an extremely well-made, and well-acted, CGI character. Shelley just seems to be tearing apart LOTR because the critics praise it more than the PT. There's no logic in her taking her frustrations out on a quality franchise such as LOTR - surely there other movies more deserving of her rage.

Well I hate the LOTR movies too. For what they've done to Tolkien's work and how badly they have been made.
Gollum isn't the same character, and he is nothing new CGI wise. Give me Jar Jar, Yoda & Watto any day.
And the LOTR special effects (which were done in the dark - easy way to cop out guys) are not a patch on the Star Wars special effects of the 2 recent films.
And I wouldnt say she does so because she wants to get back at critics, she personally dislikes the LOTR films. Which I can't blame her for.

Now until Shelley comes up with solid arguments, she should "post proof or retract." Her blind faith in anything Star Wars while discrediting anything else as worthless is a joke.

She has come up with some. I would just like to see some real arguments about why LOTR is better received, not by critics but by real people. And don't quote Box office numbers they mean zilch.
And please don't attack her. She is after all just expressing her opinion. You don't agree with her opinion, thats fine but please just respect it.

 

Oh my JKBurtola, you're just another gusher!

Did you not see the imdb.com list I posted? And don't give me some lame excuse about imdb - they had ANH listed as #9 all time. Now if you don't realize that anyone can vote in the imdb list, that's not my fault. The imdb list *IS* what the general public thought! If you can't accept the imdb list as being from "real people", then why don't you go there and vote yourself?

And as for your *OPINION* about LOTR, that's all it is! I loved the books and the movies. It's too bad they didn't live up to your expectations, but nothing can be everything to everyone. I personally would take Gollum over Jar Jar, but that's just my *OPINION*.

Now until you show me something where the PT was better received than LOTR by "real people", I'll believe the opposite based on both critics' reviews and the general public from imdb.com.

 

And as for your *OPINION* about LOTR, that's all it is! I loved the books and the movies. It's too bad they didn't live up to your expectations, but nothing can be everything to everyone. I personally would take Gollum over Jar Jar, but that's just my *OPINION*.

Hey thats fine. We have opposing opinions. I respect yours even if I disagree. Besides I love the LOTR books, I'm not happy with the films not because they didn't meet my expectations (for one I never knew they wre being made until like 3 months before FOTR came out, yeah I know I must have been living in a black void) it was just that seeing LOTR on screen just didn't impact me as well as the books did.
I'll give Jackson and WETA some credit, at least they went for it and did their best. But in the end I just didn't get the same interest in it as I had from the books.

But Star Wars has more impact because, I dunno, its meant for the medium of film. Or thats my opinion of it anyway.

Plus I'll just say "D'oh!" Idiot mode was on (unfortunately) I don't visit IMDB.com so. Plus I kinda dispute that its the general public, its just a bunch of movie nerds (that would include the SW fans as well ) that go and vote for whatever. The general public do have better things to do.
But nonetheless you've got some proof so I am wrong. I can live with that.

 

Not within the SW circle, not within the different mediums or genres of film but in popular culture.


This of course begs the question that pop-culture necessarily embraces movies that are good. For instance, THE FAST AND THE FURIOUS was enthusiastically embraced by popular culture, but it was still a dreadful movie. That's just one of hundreds of example of pop culture embracing something of questionable value.