Saga Point of view - George Lucas was right not to listen to the embittered fans

I'll concede it may have made sense for LOTR TT to win because of Andy Serkis's mo-cap work on Gollum, but that's about it. AOTC's visual effects are more impressive in every other way, IMO.

 

Not why the OT as better received, just that it was. I'm not interested in trashing the PT or creating a contest between the trilogies. However I can't abide the twisting & recasting of facts. There's no point highlighting a few average reviews from the late 70's/early 80's & declaring "well the OT had some bad reviews so therefore both trilogies had them so the reception for the trilogies were pretty much the same". That's crap. I wish it wasn't the case but the OT was getting mostly praise & winning Oscars while the PT was getting alot of mediocre reviews & winning Razzies. There's no point trying to rewrite history in some ham-fisted attempt to place the two on a level playing field.
Also blaming it all on the internet doesn't wash either. Modern franchises like the LOTR, Harry Potter & the Nolan Batman films all received some online bashing if you look for it. Everything does. But they still received a very high % of positive reviews, high user ratings, no Razzies & no mocking in almost every article they're mentioned in. So the internet doesn't tear down all of these types of movies, only some.

 

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/film/star-wars-the-force-awakens/best-worst-movies-poll/

It's not just a few "average" reviews. As you can see the original releases received plenty criticism, similar to TPM and AOTC.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

Quite the downer today aren't you?

The PT hate didn't start spreading like a cancer until plinkett's hipster hoard of fans went viral.

EDIT: And if Lucas would have followed the fanbase in the 80's Star Wars would have just been another friday the 13th, Halloween, Burton/Schumacher batman with a million terrible rehashed sequels that eventually just grew sour and faded into obscurity.

 

Ah yes, what a laugh that tweet was with the revised RT results. The guy refused to reveal which reviews from the OT era he used for their "ratings". Didn't even provide the number of them & their average score. Just chose himself which ones were "fresh" & gave a headline % with no other information

Also the comparison is absurd to begin with. The OT era didn't have the benefit of hundreds of geek internet sites rating it back then. It was reviewed mostly by stuffy old men writing for the NY Times or Newsweek. If you're going to give the PT the benefit of all the multitude of geek sites who are more inclined to like a space-fantasy movie you need to give the same benefit to the OT. Those results give us:

ANH: 94% RT, avg rating 8.5/10
ESB: 95%, 8.9/10
RotJ: 78%, 6.9/10
TPM: 57%, 5.8/10
AotC: 67%, 6.6/10
RotS: 80%, 7.2/10

OT average: 86% fresh, avg score 8.1/10
PT average: 68% fresh, avg score 6.5/10

Also that article undermines itself with its argument that the OT may not be as highly rated as many think. It has a poll on the same page asking its readers to rank the best SW films. The OT films received 79% of the votes compared to 21% for the PT.
& finally, both trilogies have now been around for at least a decade. What's most relevant is their standing & reputations now. That of the OT continues to grow & grow. Hopefully the PT will do the same, but so far it doesn't seem to be doing so.

The RLM TPM review was in 2009. By that time Eps 1 & 2 had received the above mediocre reviews & ratings & won a host of Razzies for worst picture, worst actors etc. Are you sure RLM invented the negativity surrounding those two movies? I think by 2009 the horse had well & truly bolted. RLM just gave it another kick in the rear.

What should be argued against as I've done many times is the line that Eps 1 & 2 were considered "terrible" or even "bad" movies. That's the rubbish RLM etc have been guilty of spreading. Average perhaps, mediocre maybe but the negativity has definitely been unfairly exaggerated.

 

To quote Kevin Smith (after he first saw TPM)

 

The majority of film awards including the Razzles are more about Hollywood politics than artistic merit. There is an animosity between Lucas and Hollywood after quitting the various guilds after the crap they gave him over the placement of credits for TESB and fining Ivan. However a contributing factor is that the PT faced more competition.

Also nobody is trying to rewrite history by bringing up old bad reviews. Often PT haters paint a false history of the good old days where everyone loved the films and SW, before Lucas ruined things. The old bad reviews show this was not the case plus most of those stuffy old men are either retired or dead and probably not voting on Internet polls. There was one major fanzine, and the author disliked TESB so much she quite the SW, fandom and shut down her fanzine. The reality is each additional installment automatically creates a rift in fans regardless how good or bad it is.

 

Well, the OT didn't have the expectations (which no movie would live up to) and unreasonable hate from thousands of butthurt fanboys, many of whom work for review sites. Many of those fanboys (including RLM) have made videos after videos,'articles after articles belittling the prequels, making PT hate a cool thing, and PT love a a matter of bad taste.
I'm not saying PT is better than OT or vice verse. What I'm saying is SW fans should be able to say ROTS is their favorite over ANH without getting ridiculed and declared crazy/no taste in movies or whatever.

 

Slicer87

Yeah, I really can't stand any of the major film awards anymore. It's clear they run the awards by politics and not artistic merit.

It amazes me how so many fans forget about all the disdain ROTJ received for over a decade. To be fair, I didn't experience it; but my uncle clearly remembers a time where there were only three Star Wars movies and only two of them were considered "good". Even if you look on sites such as Metacritic ROTJ is the second lowest rates movie of the saga and the third lowest rated on Rotten Tomatoes by critics. These are just observations however as I really don't care about these things too much personally.

Side-note: I remember when ROTS first came out and almost everyone said it was Lucas's return to form and the first truly good Star Wars movie since the original trilogy. No matter how internet dwellers tries to paint the prequels, I clearly remember everyone being absolutely ecstatic before and after ROTS released to theaters.

 

All fair points. The reputations of the movies now are what they are. Who cares anyway. Personal enjoyment should be all that counts.

 

Couldn't agree more, but I do hope the reputation of the prequels goes up in the years to come and I certainly hope TFA fairs good as well.

 

It's a big coincidence that someone has found what the OT's rating would have been if the original reviews, at the time of the release of the movies in the 1980's, were only taken into account. Because I've just bought a magazine this evening when coming back at home and there were all the articles written by Vanity Fair, WIRED, VOGUE and The New Yorker for Star Wars, The Force Awakens and even the previous articles written by Vanity Fair before the release of each prequel movies back in 1999, 2002 and 2005: http://www.starwarspost.com/the-epic-saga-the-true-stories-behind-the-star-wars-series/

In the article that was written for Attack of the Clones back in 2002 by Vanity Fair, there was the following thing written:

The romance between Princess Leia and Han Solo was also criticized and seemed to be too cliche for many people, particularly adults back in the 1980's, just like the romance between Anakin and Padme seemed too cliche for others in the 2000's.

As Andy Wylde mentioned it previously, if the internet was there back in the 1980's, I'm sure that the critics against the originals would have been harder. As PiccoloJr from the Star Wars Universe webpage mentioned it in his article that I've translated from French to English in the first page of this thread, for most bloggers and journalists, Star Wars is a big subject and since it still continues to attract many people and particularly an army of fans unlike other franchises. It is sure a safe way for them to write and talk about it, positively or negatively, and to make sure that people keep mentioning their articles. Just like that RLM guy who decided to use the Star Wars brand to make people talk about him and his *cough* reviews *cough* since he couldn't sell his own movies that he made.

Journalists and bloggers, generally write negative articles, not just about Star Wars, but about every kind of subjects, whether it can be about society, politics, events, etc... since for them it can attract a lot of readers. Generally, people don't read the articles written by a blogger or a journalist who is working for the cultural section of a newspaper or a website. Who really needs to know someone's else opinion about a book or a movie? He's going to judge for himself. So you can imagine that for someone working for the cultural section of a newspaper or website, this might not be a very profitable job.

But for them Star Wars is more relevant than any other franchises and must represent a gold mine in order to make people and fans talk about them and their articles. It has thousands, maybe even millions of fans across the world. Talking negatively about a beloved franchise is the best bait to attract fans and people to read their articles. Why would they talk positively about it since it's commonly known that the franchise is already beloved by many people? Because when people or fans find a positive article about Star Wars, they usually go like "Yeah, I already know, Star Wars is awesome!" and they don't really bother reading it. But when something negative about this franchise is being mentioned, people, especially fans, go like "What?!? But why?!?" and they will read the article from beginning to end since something negative about the franchise doesn't sound usual or normal at their eyes. And I can prove this since I had the same reaction one or two years ago when discovering for the first time all the negative videos and articles about the prequels after having lost interest towards Star Wars for many years.

It would only be a question of time before some people begin to yell against Disney and the new Lucasfilm just as people yelled against George Lucas for more than 15 years. and that will be when everything positive about the new projects and the new movies of Star Wars would have already been said and when people will stop paying attention to the articles and videos about Abrams "saving Star Wars", and when some people will need to find some attention from fans and moviegoers.

And so goes life ...

Darth Downunder I think the Razzies Awards aren't meant to be taken seriously, because since when do you reward someone with a prize for his bad acting? People don't usually give a reward for a student who has failed his exam or had bad grades at school!

There's a similar article written by Rotten Tomatoes mentioning that the prequels were better reviewed than the originals at the time of their release: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...r-reviewed-than-the-classic-trilogy.28160040/

Besides we can see that The Phantom Menace was also better reviewed and had a higher score than it is today. It has only taken the re-release in 3D back in 2012 for some critics to unleash once again their fury against Lucas. The ratings for Attack of the Clones and Revenge the Sith still remained the same.

 

They're not to be taken seriously but on the other hand they're pretty good at picking movies & performances that suck. Look through the list of winners each year & you won't find many if any that weren't deserving. So we're left with having to say "the Razzies accurately identify bad movies...except the PT who's awards must have been part of an unfair conspiracy".

Anyway, it's how movies are thought of now that counts. What they were on release is the distant past. Citizen Kane received mixed reviews. As did Blade Runner & alot of other acclaimed films. Does that detract from their current reputations? Nope.

 

I can't take the Razzies seriously since they nominated Sofia Coppola for worst supporting actress in TPM. I only recall her having one or two lines when Anakin was asking to see Padme right before the senate scene. I mean, come on. Really?

 

The razzies are a joke, Darth Downunder. You remember 2008 when Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull came out? It won Worst Prequel, Remake, Spin-off, or Sequel over Disaster Movie. Crystal Skull has 78% on rottentomatoes. Disaster Movie has freaking 1%.

The Razzies are absolutely designed to get the maximum attention possible. And that often means picking a popular movie with a sizable group of people who hated it over a terrible movie that no one gave two figs about. It's all politics.

 

Sometimes they nominate people like that as a joke. Kevin Kline was also nominated for the same category that year for playing a prostitute in Wild Wild West
They didn't win though. Denise Richards beat them to the award for The World is Not Enough. Apparently they didn't find her convincing as a world renowned nuclear physicist.

 

Maybe they meant Godfather III?

 

I know they're a joke Pietts Hat. Still films like TLOTR, The Dark Knight, Iron Man etc are always noticeably absent from the nominations.
Of course the Razzies are no big deal but the raft of them given to Eps 1 & 2 are just another small part of the overall piss-take/mocking those films unfortunately received.

 

You need to be more consistent in what you're trying to say, Darth Downunder. Earlier, you stated:

"They're not to be taken seriously but on the other hand they're pretty good at picking movies & performances that suck. Look through the list of winners each year & you won't find many if any that weren't deserving. "

Which is a point I disagree with.

In 1981, for example, Heaven's Gate was nominated for worst picture and its director actually won for worst director and yet, it's received a lot of re-evaluation and acclaim.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Heaven's_Gate_(film)#Reception

Moreover, the absence of a film does not in any way indicate that it doesn't deserve heavy criticism. I certainly could tear The Dark Knight a new one based on its political implications alone.

 

Still, the difference is Kevin Kline was one of the top billing actors in 'Wild Wild West', whereas Sophia Coppola was just in TPM because Lucas wanted to include her as a family friend in an unsubstantial role. She was also nominated as Worst New Star of the 1990's because of her roles in 'The Godfather: Part III' and 'The Phantom Menace'. Maybe that's why she was nominated.

 

Well that's also true of the Oscars. Forrest Gump beating Pulp Fiction was a howler to many. There are always such examples. Still I think if you look you'd find the vast majority of the Razzie winners earned the award.

You might & your opinion would be valid. One opinion though won't change that film's massive level of acclaim.

Yes their reasoning was she was so bad in Godfather 3 she deserved another nomination. Seems perfectly fair & reasonable

 

You are being so entirely inconsistent.

You say that they're a joke but that...they're right?

You say that the winners earned the award and that one opinion doesn't change massive levels of acclaim.

And yet, somehow, Crystal Skull (78% - which is only 1% less than ROTJ) won over Disaster Movie at 1%.

 

I wonder how I fit into that, I never had a problem with the PT, only TCW and much of the last decade of the EU (specifically the Denningverse), and I now feel completely out of touch with the new canon.

 

They're a joke in that they're lighthearted & fun. Still for the most part they do give their awards to films & performances that are generally considered to be average at best & usually far worse.

Correct. "General acclaim" doesn't come down to one person's opinion.

I imagine the other contenders were expected to be crap while the voters (yes the Razzies have thousands of voters) were more disappointed by Crystal Skull. Even though it's clearly alot better than those films.
For every one dodgy result like this they probably have 50 examples of movies & awards that were deserving.