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

I can see what Zeta is saying.

It's pretty disheartening for me to watch the PT now knowing that Maul isn't really dead or the Sep leaders are neutral or even Anakin having a Padawan.

 

I enjoyed TCW (only watched 3 seasons) but I don't think of it as official canon (even though it is).
Besides, it did bring a lot of new fans (kids especially) into the prequel era so I can forgive a few questionable decisions.

Wait till they bring back Boba Fett in ST. Or maybe Plagueis (the former is not such a bad idea actually)

 

Both would be necessary imo. Keep Plagueis a Munn and I would be a happy camper.

 

Kill Fett. Most overrated character ever. Lucas even gave him a connection to the Clone army only to be dissed by fans.

Plagueis, on the other hand, has a potential to be an amazing villain, if handled properly.

 

So you don't want to count the "vast majority" of the modern RT reviewers. So even the initial PT reviews are out. You don't want to count TPM 3D reviews bcs apparently those reviewers aren't allowed to have an opinion.

To quote Han Solo "what would you like?"

 

I agree about Plagueis, even the old EU was ambiguous about him surviving beyond death as ROTS pointed out. It would be awesome if the ST was about Kylo resurrecting Plagueis, or Bane perhaps Voldemort style?

 

It's not like if people don't have the right to give reviews. But there's a bias against the PT which has been maintained and endured for the last decade, especially during the last 5 years, people have become very aggressive against it on the internet. Even some people denied their original and positive reviews simply in order to fit in the crowd. Remember what was written on the article I've posted in the first page?

EDIT: Plus, if you think that when I was saying that people have become very aggressive against the PT and against others who have a different opinion from the crowd, I'm saying that all of this is a conspiracy, well here's quote from an article on CloneCorridor talking about Mike Klimo's scoring of each of the Star Wars movies:

Link: https://clonecorridor.wordpress.com...matoes-mike-klimo-and-the-voice-of-the-media/

 

What's the difference between a bias & a case where people increasingly dislike something over time? Plenty of films gain a greater appreciation over time & their reputations improve. Some movies go the other way. They seem ok at the time of their release but then age badly, they don't compare well to other similar movies that come out later etc. There's nothing wrong with that. It's common & not just confined to the SW prequels. I get why PT fans like to point to a "bias" or other such effects & conspiracies to wave away bad reviews, but it just seems far too convenient. It's a case of reinterpreting opinion to suit their PT fandom. Surely it's better to just take all opinions & reviews at face value. Don't try to re-frame them in a more positive way & don't try to exaggerate them to seem more negative. It's arrogant & presumptuous to tell people/reviewers that their opinion is just a result of bias, even if they've changed their opinion over 15 years. I bet we've all done that with various movies, movies or books.

 

Huh? I thought it was made clear that he didn't survive.

 

Yea he was stabbed to death by Palpatine while in a drunken stupor at his penthouse. But ROTS would hint to us that he isn't totally dead. At least that's how I interpret it.

 

I didn't like how Plaguies was alive during the PT in the old EU.

 

He could survive in a ghost form and brought back to life (yes, I thought about Voldemort too )

 

He could save others from death... but not himself.

But why would that ability be available to him?

 

According to Palpatine... not the most trustworthy character in the saga. He could have also been fooled by Plagueis. Regardless, at least we don't see Plagueis die, unlike Maul or Boba Fett. Maybe he's like Sauron after losing his ring, not present in flesh, but maybe gathering strength to come back again.

 

It's not arrogance or presumption to say that people change their opinion because of a bias or because to try to fit in a crowd, it's a fact!

Two years ago, I was starting to change my opinion towards the PT and also beginning to believe that they were bad simply because a lot of people were keeping to say this on the media and on the internet, and not because I have watched the movies recently. In fact I haven't watched the movies at all for years and I was changing my opinion not because of my own experience, but because others were thinking for me instead of myself.

I've watched the movies recently after not having watched them for 6 to 9 years and discovered that the critics against these movies were grotesquely exaggerated: http://boards.theforce.net/threads/...after-many-years-thoughts-and-views.50033269/

It's not conspiracy or anything like that. It's psychology: people don't want to be left behind and tend sometimes to follow or imitate other people. Of course each can have his own opinion, but there's a difference between thinking independently and being heavily influenced by others and follow what they do and say.

 

Hav him dead for around 10 years before the PT.

 

Yes but people naturally changing their opinion about movies over time is also a fact. It's impossible to sift through all of the reviews & work out which of them fall into this category & which of them are "biased". When you start doing this it also opens up scenarios where people re-interpret to suit their own agenda. That's why it's easier & fairer to simply take reviews & opinions at face value.

 

With that I agree. It's true that people can change their opinion and perception about things over time.

But, you can't always take everything at face value. Especially after seeing the aggressive way with which people bash the PT and attack other's opinion on the internet. What really should count for someone is his own opinion, not other's. And I've seen in my real life experience many people just changing their speech or opinion just to avoid stand-off or being rejected by others.

I've also done that many times in the past because I was afraid of not being liked. But I figured out that I was being dishonest to myself, but also to others. If a group of people or friends or family really care for you and respect you, they should also respect the fact that you're different and have a different way of thinking.

But from what I've seen in fandom and on the different media outlets during the past two years, that's not always the case.

 

Usually a person's initial opinion is the most genuine. I would rank that higher than someone's opinion that takes a 180 after a decade of outside influence.

 

Sorry but that's ridiculous. People's taste in all things change over time. The only opinion that ever counts is your opinion now.

 

Agreed. Do you really think that a person who was 18 would share the same opinion as when they were 5? No way.

 

In all things is also ridiculous, my favorite favor when I was 5 was orange and it still is my favorite. Society and the group have strong influence over individuals, they can dictate who you should be friends with, who you should marry, where you should live, what time we should eat certain foods, etc . Society has a strong influence over all of our decision making.

 

Ok...and? There are probably hundreds of factors that change what we do & don't like over time including "society". Doesn't make that change in taste & preference invalid or not "genuine". What people think now is all that matters now.

 

There's nothing ridiculous about it. I've seen it happen time and again (both in person & online.) Someone sees a movie and is all hyped from the experience, then runs across someone with the opposite opinion. 9 times out of 10 the person with the negative opinion will wear down the person with the positive experience. Because it's always easier to tear down than defend. That's how we get the "piling on" effect with supposed "bad movies",because eventually people will throw in the towel, rather than defend their enjoyment of a film deemed "bad" by the masses.

 

& that changes someone's actual opinion like some kind of brainwashing? More likely they'll give up arguing but not change the way they think. How about poor online polls of movies like Eps 1 & 2? They're completely anonymous. People give their opinions then completely free of criticism or arguing.

In any case that type of thing happens with anything & everything. What does it matter? Opinions are what they are. Many things influence them. Even the first time you see a film, your opinion can be influenced by those of who you see it with. If your friends all gush about it or complain about it afterwards it can have an effect.
Maybe alot of people say the Beatles are great bcs that's the general consensus. Or that the Godfather is a great film just bcs of its reputation. Do we have to question their status too?

Might be easier to just take opinions at face value without all of the analysing & reinterpreting.