Why was AOTC not loved by the public and media?

"It's been repeated so often that TPM was poorly received, that it was a massive disappointment, that people believe it and go along with it."

Do you honestly believe that? That we cant evaluate for ourselves what we like or dislike? Yet you seem to be above the blind following and bashing of TPM as you saw passed the mindless going "along with it." You even mentioned this negative practice was confirmed by the great ROLLING STONE magazine. Please.

I walked out of TPM disappointed and for awhile, I was in complete and utter DENIAL about it. There were no outside influences, just me and the movie. I have the DVD and basically NEVER watch it. Its STAR WARS and I want to like every one but im bored stupid with watching this film. The fact that Lucas seems to be sweeping it under the rug will spell out complete failure with the film. I dont think he realizes that connecting TPM to the other films may redeem it and actually make watching it a different experience. AOTC gets better and is a better film than TPM. Not, saying, a lot. But, I can watch this movie every now and again and be entertained by it. Even more so that it appears that the next film is truly a sequel to it. A continuation of the characters and situations from the last film. But still, the creator of this thread said he RENTED AOTC, and that says a lot of you are wasting your time (including him) with this particular discussion. I have gripes with the films but hell I own a copy, danm. Im a STAR WARS FAN and wouldnt waste time arguing with someone who isnt or is just a casual fan.

Fan Wars, baby, all the way!!

 

"The fact that Lucas seems to be sweeping it under the rug will spell out complete failure with the film."

just curious, but where is your evidence for that? why include Qui Gon in the new trailer for example? he could have easily stuck in Obi from AotC and achieved the same effect.

 

The trailer displays a collection of Jedi and yes, Jinn. I was happy to see Jinn there. But that part of the trailer has NOTHING to do with the upcoming films content. But I will tell you why it appears TPM is being treated like a deformed child locked in the celler.

Lets take Maul, Jinn, and Panaka for instance. New characters introduced, never to be seen again. Instead of the first episode of STAR WARS starting off with Obiwan and his pupil Anakin Skywalker we have Obiwan and his master, Qui Gon Jinn. What is the point of this if the character is to be killed and never to return. Ok, fine, there are some problems with Lucas and Neesom (he wont be back?) but there wouldnt be if the useless character wasnt created in the first place. Neeson's Jinn is the ONLY reason why I can stomache TPM at all but the truth is, his character served little purpose in the overall scheme of things. His rehashed recording of "Anakin, Anakin" will be the last we hear of him.

Two, Darth Maul. Another character presented only to be killed in the same movie. After his fall you start to think George must plan on having a new colorful toy, I mean, villain, every episode. Without a continuing theme other than the obvious and already known plot. Then he brings Jango, Zam, and Grevous. Colorful new characters but Dooku survives to the next film. Now this is interesting, and its connected-But only for II and III. Also, we see that Padme has a new body-gaurd. Wouldnt the films feel cohesive with Panaka standing by her side in the begining sequence? I think so, and since AOTC is a better film it would reflect back on TPM with some of that goodness. Picture the films as a person who wasnt too sure of themself or was an unsavory character at first but is blooming into a better person by the actions they are currently taking. In the end, you can appreciate ALL of that person.

And JarJar. We get JarJar and a lot of people had various reactions of him. Different degrees of hate actually. This character is brought back into AOTC buy not for the story I think. I think JarJars presence in AOTC was Lucas saying "Im not scrapping him for the next film becuase you want me to. But Im not stupid and will add him sparingly. That way I wont hear any crap and at the same time not bowdown to the fans who hated him". Its really a spite thing I think. After TPM JarJar had less of a reason to return in the sequel than anybody. And George even makes JarJar a key part of a significant part of the story with his "Emergency powers" thing. Think about it. I think my spite theory will be proved when we dont see a crumb of JarJar in ROTS. His job is done and was only returned for Lucas on a personal level. I would actually like to see more JarJar in ROTS dispite how I felt about him in TPM because it will bring TPM up a bit.

So how is TPM part of AOTC and ROTS? Its by a string at best. A bastard child, an outcast. If Lucas himself believes in the movie he will bridge the PT with it. He has no problem with forcing PT elements into the original films to make them connect. Why not bring up Annies Japorsnippet or something. Oh snap, he gave that to Padme when he was a little boy and she still has it. I guess that type of thing isnt importnt. But the last half of the films will connect and TPM will be, well, TPM.

 

DBrennan3333,

since you don't have anything better to do, I suggest you find something to back up your arguments before you rush in seeking attention (Not that you'll find anything, because your "facts" are wrong in the first place...)

Fine, you don't like the film. Great. Move on.
Many like it many don't.

I think it rocks...

As for TPM, it does kind of seem like the outcast a little, I think mainly due to the 10 year gap, absence of panaka, death of maul and qui-gonn etc.

It is still connected by the traid federation and their role in the CIS and future events, as well as the politics involving the election of Palpatine. Let's not forget that Anakin returns to Tatooine to "rescue" his mother in Episode II... But, yes, it is only barely connected in ways. I still think it will work in the grand scheme of things (when we see Rots and the everything in order), though - seeing the jedi "golden age" (or one of them) does put things in perspective.


Peace!

 

"But that part of the trailer has NOTHING to do with the upcoming films content"

well, maybe not, but its obviously too early to judge whats what in relation to how the films fit together until we've seen Sith.

There is a continuity between Phantom and the rest of SW, in so much that Phantom set everything up- Palpatines plans for domination, Anakin with his mother (instrumental in his fall to the darkside), the Jedi in their prime, the resurfacing of the Sith etc.

"Lets take Maul, Jinn, and Panaka for instance. New characters introduced, never to be seen again"

Maul was Sidious' hired muscle. He couldnt have survived into episode 2, as for 2 Lucas needed a charasmatic, ambigious character that could be used to lead the sepratists. maul was just represented the violent, surprise return of the sith, obviously of no use to episode 2.

Jinn is in AotC, not only in character (we hear his voice) but he is also discussed by Dooku and Obi Wan. It was neccessary to have a free, independant thinker like Jinn in episode one, firstly because Lucas needed a foil to the set in stone formalities of the jedi council and he needed to set up the idea that Obi and Anakin were forced together in a way, which makes them being at odds with each other more credible- considering Obi didnt even like, or believe in Anakin at first. also were left to think- how would Anakin have turned out if Jinn had survived? Obi is a controlling, restrictive teacher.

As for Panaka, they wanted him back, but Hugh Quarshie refused. You can hardly blame Lucas for that.

"This character is brought back into AOTC buy not for the story I think"

you raised the Jar Jar and emergency powers bit yourself, and i think thats the key to connecting the two characters. In TPM, JJ's bumbling was always used for a bit of light relief, comedy, hes always trying but keeps messing up (wether you think its funny or not is something else of course). In AotC, he hasnt changed, hes still trying hard, but hes still messing up. However, in accordance with the darker tone of AotC, now his bumbling isnt comic- its disasterous. hes a good, tragic character, no matter how hard he tries. thats why i honeslty think that JJ will redeem himself through some act of self sacrifice in RotS.

"Why not bring up Annies Japorsnippet or something"

yeah i wondered about that. i hope its in episode 3, if thats the case, im glad it wasnt in 2 because itll make the (presumably) emotion scene its in in 3 even better.

EDIT-

also dont forget about the other returning characters like Watto and Sio Bibble (as well as Gunray etc.). The minor these characters are, the tighter it makes the whole thing feel. theres also the ships- including the instantly recognisble Federation ship etc.

 

I could live with that. Good post. I see the different side with some very good points you made.

I knew there was some weirdness with Neeson going on but I didnt know Hugh refused to come back. That is outta Georges hands. Its a shame Neesom's ghost is down the drain. Regardless of what TPM is, Jinn is a strong character plaid by a good actor. When it comes to ROTS I feel like Dooku. "I wish he were here". Neesom was strong enough in the character that he repelled the disaster around him and remained immune to the folly of the film. He basically carries the movie on his back like Ewan is doing with the rest of the Prequel. Some well placed items and diolog can raise interest for TPMs content in ROTS if even for a smidgen. Perhaps problems with actors are indeed leaving Lucas strapped for connections but thier are other things he can draw from. Lets hope he does.

 

I'd like to remind the people who keep bringing up AOTC's box office numbers as an indication of how good it was.

How much money do cigarettes bring in every year? Are cigarettes "good"?

No...they aren't. But alot of people seem to like them.

 

And what about Nelly and Brittney Spearse. Their rich yet talentless.

 

And those ring films seemed to make a lot of money too

 

Both franchises have made serious film...it's just that Star Wars was the king for so long and when one film doesn't become the biggest money maker of the year, many take notice.

I still don't think Attack of the Clones box office is indicative of the film itself.

 

I'd like to remind the people who keep bringing up AOTC's box office numbers as an indication of how good it was.

How much money do cigarettes bring in every year? Are cigarettes "good"?

No...they aren't. But alot of people seem to like them.

Have you even read the thread ?

The starter claimed AotC sucks because it "wasn't a succes", people started bringing up its box office to counter the ridiculous theory that it wasn't a "success".

 

DBrennan3333: oh how you bashers make no sense! AOTC was critcally panned wait a minute doesn't AOTC have a 64% approval rating on rotten tomatoes? Is that what you call critically panned? I am not suggesting it is a universally loved movie, but more people love and enjoy this film than hate it. I also laugh when people say Star Wars is a dead franchise. Oh my only $310 million for AOTC it so dead, man I bet if you asked any studio they would kill for their franchises to be that dead that they would make $310 million. If Spider-Man had not have been out 2 weeks before AOTC it would have made at least $350 million. I work at a theatre I hear crowd reaction, and I talk to a lot of people. Majority of people were pleased. At almost every screening of the Incredibles we had people cheering the ROTS teaser trailer and the buzz was HUGE! ROTS is competing against nothing until Batman Begins is released in late June, ROTS will beat Batman Begins, it will make at least $350 and most everyone will love it, except for the occasional unpleaseable basher. Bashers are just like Democrats: ALWAYS WRONG!

 

Doesn't every film get bashed by someone? Look at all the people who bashed "Fahrenheit 9/11." Only was that because it sucked as a film, or because of the content? I think it worked tremendously as a film, whether you think it was outright propaganda or a shining beacon of brave and naked truth. It got everyone talking, didn't it? If it hadn't been so effective in its message, the Bush lovers wouldn't have been so passionate in their bashing, they would have simply ignored it.

It almost seems like TPM and AOTC have inspired as much passion among bashers as Michael Moore has. Weird.

 

To shed some light on the question posed by the title of this thread, I offer the following review:

Mick LaSalle, Chronicle Movie Critic
...The rest of the news isn't so good. Of course, the performances are lifeless, and George Lucas' direction is so stilted that much of the dialogue lands with a thud. Who cares? No one goes to a "Star Wars" movie for the witty repartee. A more serious flaw is that the story is opaque, despite a script loaded down with exposition. And then there's the movie's atmosphere of super- seriousness -- an aura of here-we-are-making-a-classic -- which hangs over the action like a mildewed blanket.

...Yet this won't matter to the faithful, who will receive "Attack of the Clones" as though it were a fifth Gospel, not a fifth "Star Wars" movie. The surprise, or rather the disappointment, is that once again Lucas seems to have made a movie for that audience. Unlike the first "Star Wars," made for a general audience in search of a good time, "Attack of the Clones" is pitched to a cult audience sure to catch every reference, follow every story convolution and receive every eccentric character as a jewel formed by the mind of God.



BY ROGER EBERT
It is not what's there on the screen that disappoints me, but what's not there...

...what about the agnostic viewer? The hopeful ticket buyer walking in not as a cultist, but as a moviegoer hoping for a great experience? Is this "Star Wars" critic-proof and scoff-resistant? Yes, probably, at the box office. But as someone who admired the freshness and energy of the earlier films, I was amazed, at the end of "Episode II," to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue. And the images, however magnificently conceived, did not have the impact they deserved.

...Why not allow the dialogue to be inventive, stylish and expressive? There is a certain lifelessness in some of the acting, perhaps because the actors were often filmed in front of blue screens so their environments could be added later by computer. Actors speak more slowly than they might--flatly, factually, formally, as if reciting. Sometimes that reflects the ponderous load of the mythology they represent. At other times it simply shows that what they have to say is banal. "Episode II-- Attack of the Clones" is a technological exercise that lacks juice and delight.


By Mark Caro, Chicago Tribune
...those of us who respond more strongly to storytelling than computer-generated effects, the new "Star Wars" installment hasn't escaped the rut dug by the last one. If you've ever wondered about the difference between plot and story, here's Exhibit A.

"Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones" is big on plot, small on story. A whole lot is going on, yet the central narrative - what there is of it - never grabs our hearts.

"Star Wars" visionary George Lucas has said these prequels are dedicated to showing how someone good turns bad. On these terms the trilogy in progress must be deemed a failure.

Anakin Skywalker, the future Darth Vader and father of "Episodes IV-VI" hero Luke Skywalker, is this trilogy's central character, and he's a shell. You may have forgiven his lack of dimensionality in "Episode I" because he was just a 9-year-old, played without significant depth by Jake Lloyd.

...Still, in the first movies, the characters drove the ideas and not the other way around. That initial trilogy hooked you because you had to know what happened to Luke, Leia, Han and those lovable droids. They displayed great camaraderie and exchanged banter that didn't function solely as plot exposition, or thematic explanation. Heck, you cared more about Chewbacca than you do about Anakin.

Nevertheless, being impressed by technical feats isn't the same as being wowed by a story. At one point in "Episode II," C-3PO says to R2-D2: "You obviously have a great deal to learn about human behavior." In Lucas' world, count on a robot to get to the heart of the problem.

 

Roger Ebert. Right. The guy who suddenly found digital imagery offensive (and only found it offensive for AOTC), because Lucas was pushing for something he firmly opposed: digital film.

Mick LaSalle has hated every SW movie. In 1997, he wrote a lengthy dis of the holy, sacred, perfect ESB. He began his review of "Wing Commander" by saying it was more proof of how "Star Wars" ruined movies.

The other review might as well be a review of one of the OT movies during their initial release.

 

Much earlier DBrennan3333 mentioned no one besides the fans liked it. That is completely untrue. I can name plenty of people off the top of my head that aren't Star Wars fans, but thought AOTC was the "shiznit".

You can look at the reaction to it the same way you can the matrix trilogy. Everyone was excited about Reloaded, same with TPM. It came out, it dissapointed. I like TPM, but it still is, in my opinion, the weakest of the saga. So what happened? Revolutions came out, no one saw it. What happened with AOTC. People still saw it, just not as many. TPM kinda made the casual Star Wars fan lose hope.

But I know people who saw AOTC on DVD, and it got them hyped for the next edition. And plus, I know plenty MORE people that will agree that AOTC was an improvement over TPM.

 

Society's value

Hudnall if that's what it is I must say I don't really care about the socitey in the USofA. We have the wrost entertainment. The music is garbage I mean when Outkast is given the top award there is something wrong. When people like Usher and Britney Spears. Linkin Park is called the best metal band. While at the same time Korn is said to have saved metal. From what I don't know.

Then there is the new pop punk bands which are not even punk at all. Good Charlotte any one. Meanwhile MTV is there to tell people what to like and what not to like same thing with are of the so called movie and music critics.

The entertainment society of the USof A is all garbage. Heck we had the so called reality shows on the top of the TV ratings for sometime.

So really adjusted for inflation, critics, and society at larg can be throwen out. Until the garbage stops being put on top I don't care what they hace to say. My whole problem with this there. Is there the person who started it started it not to say what he did not like about AOTC. He started it to tell every one that did not agree with him that they did not have good taste.


Well I do have very good taste here's all the movies I like:

ANH, TESB, ROTJ, TPM, AOTC, LOTR:FOTR, LOTR:TTT, LOTR:ROTK, The Ring, X-Men, X-Men 2, Saving Private Ryan, Apollo 13, POTC:COTBP, The Gladiator, and so on.

Here the music I like:

Nightwish, After Forever, Ram-Zet, Our Lady Peace, Epcia, Flowing Tears, etc.

So what if someone like AOTC's. What is the big deal? If you don't like it fine. No one said you had to. People can like what every they want. Roger Ebert can say what every he wants. Adjusted for inflation can say whatever it wants.

Can we just stop with this pointless it's good or it's bad because this person says so. If I want by things like that I would never have any open mind about anything that really was good. This whole thread was nothing more then someone trying to be others into flaming.

 

Painting the film critics as having "an axe to grind" is understandable. However, the criticism of Episode II are not without merit. In finding that Attack of the Clones focused more on special effects than story telling is not an indictment of cgi or the use of it, but rather more a commentary on the storyline in the film which is mired in subplots. Most of the negative criticism toward the film are of the storyline and not of the effects.

Again, the reviews posted were to provide insight to the "why was AOTC not loved by the public and media."

 

"why was AOTC not loved by the public and media."

Ok this whole thing here make no sense. Was every person in the world polled to find out if AOTC was good or not. A good part of the public dose not care about Star Wars, Lord of the Rings, and in other fantasy type movie one way or the other. I'm the only one in my fimaly that even likes Star Wars. My sister hates it my mom has only seen one of the movies. My dad will watch it from time to time but he dose not like it very much. My grandparents don't really know what I'm talking about when I talk about Star Wars, etc. The only thing they do know is that I like Star Wars. They would not even no anything about it if it was not for me.

Oh and posting what critics like or don't like dose not show what the public and media think.

 

Painting the film critics as having "an axe to grind" is understandable. However, the criticism of Episode II are not without merit.

Depends on whether you agree with them.

In finding that Attack of the Clones focused more on special effects than story telling is not an indictment of cgi or the use of it, but rather more a commentary on the storyline in the film which is mired in subplots.

Say wha-?

Most of the negative criticism toward the film are of the storyline and not of the effects.

Again, the reviews posted were to provide insight to the "why was AOTC not loved by the public and media."

And this is based on a faulty theory: that AOTC was not loved by the public and the media.

 

Actually Shelley,
the theory is not faulty at all. There are reviews by the media and by the general public that support the notion Attack of the Clones wasn't loved by them.

And to clarify my point, most of the criticism of Episode II wasn't towards the use of cgi, but the storyline. Additionally, you don't have to agree with something in order for it to have merit, a certain point of view, in this case, a different point of view does have it's value.

Attack of the Clones doesn't have the same type of universal appeal among Star Wars fan as the original triology, which is demonstrated throughout these threads.

 

Personally, I agree with all the critics quoted above. But the same could be said of most of what's popular these days.

As far as "as much passion as Michael Moore".... how'd that turn out?

 

Actually Shelley,
the theory is not faulty at all. There are reviews by the media and by the general public that support the notion Attack of the Clones wasn't loved by them.

You provided exactly three reviews from critics, all of which had an axe to grind, as you yourself put it. I can assure you that with minimal effort, you could find three times as many negative reviews of the holiest of holies, ESB, upon its initial release.

Where are the reviews "by the general public" that indicate that AOTC was not loved by them?

And to clarify my point, most of the criticism of Episode II wasn't towards the use of cgi,

Yes it was.

but the storyline.

More like: "There is no storyline, it's all effects."

Additionally, you don't have to agree with something in order for it to have merit, a certain point of view, in this case, a different point of view does have it's value.

True enough.

Attack of the Clones doesn't have the same type of universal appeal among Star Wars fan as the original triology, which is demonstrated throughout these threads.

Not really. These threads represent only a tiny fraction of the overall SW fandom. Plus, though it may seem like there are more bashers, it doesn't necessarily mean that bashers (and their socks) outnumber people who like the PT. It could just as easily mean that people who like the PT have gotten fed up and either gone to forums where the bashing isn't as bad (I personally know of at least a dozen people in that category) or have left TF.N altogether (I personally know of at least half a dozen people in that category).

As far as "as much passion as Michael Moore".... how'd that turn out?

Pretty well, actually. On a personal level, it lined Moore's pockets with all kinds of money. On a societal level, it helped rouse a usually somnabulent voter base, almost enough to defeat the well-oiled, well-financed right-wing propaganda machine.

 

See, this is a funny debate. I mean, someone (in this case DBrennan) feels that his opinion of AotC is the opinion shared by the general moviegoing public. And while box office is NOT a good indicator of artistic merit, it certainly is indicative of how well something is received by moviegoers.

For an overview of critical opinions, well, look at rottentomatoes.com. While nobody says that AotC is the finest film ever made, it did actually receive more positive than negative reviews. And all it would take is one critical paper/thesis on the gothic element vs film noir in AotC for the film to get a better critical reception. The academics haven't weighed in on the topic, and Ebert, much as I like him, does not ever pretend to be an unbiased opinion (just look at his review of Swordfish to see what Ebert's REAL concerns are).

 

Shelley,
We both know that any film critic with negative comments towards the film submitted to these threads will be treated as "a person with an axe to grind," as it's a tool to discredit their opinion. It's very doubtful you'd find merit in their criticism anyway. Therefore, I'd thought I beat you to the punch and say would you were going to say.

And yes, I'm sure I'll find negative reviews of The Empire Strikes Back as pretty much every other movie that has been made; however ESB has been embraced, for the most part, by the public and media alike, as it's woven into pop culture. "I am your father" has been noted as one of the most shocking moments in movie history.

Attack of the Clones is not woven into the pop culture in the same matter as ESB.

As for the general public thoughts on Episode II, well, there are many negative comments towards the film at IMdb.com. Additionally, on other message boards, such as Soundandmag.com where the members didn't find Episode II up to par.