Rotten Tomatoes: "The Prequels were better reviewed than the Classic Trilogy."

10% is no where near enough to produce a finding that is free off reasonable doubt.

That would be 10 reviews out of 100. Let's say that by chance you grab 6 bad ones and 4 good ones.

That would leave your conclusion to sat that 60% if critics disliked that particular film.

50% would be more acceptable. Even that does comes with a certain amount of doubt.

 

In election sample predictions samples are by far smaller than 10 percent - otherwise one wouldn't have predictions on the evening of the election. Conversely, sample sizes smaller than 30 (in absolute terms) ordinarily aren't considered. I was presuming a total number of existing reviews of about 2000 - in this case, depending on assumptions about variance, formulas yield a necessary sample percentage of about 10 percent, if the error margin is to be less than 5 percent.

 

When it comes to election pollings. They do not just make one set of calls. They call each district. Comparing the two is apples and oranges.

They call hundreds and hundreds of people in different disctricts and then they crunch the data. That is why election polling is accurate.

That is different than taking 50 reviews out of 500-1000 or more and basing what you find on that FIFTY or less to be an accurate presentation.

 

Yeah but it's the best we have to go on.

 

lol that doesn't make it accurate.

 

"Memory can change the shape of a room; it can change the color of a car. And memories can be distorted. They're just an interpretation, they're not a record, and they're irrelevant if you have the facts. Facts, not memories. That's how you investigate. I know, it's what I used to do."

Yes, I do. There is this little study of collected data called "statistics". I would say 50 reviews of a film is a large enough sample size to determine if a film is well liked or not. I can't see how a reasonable person cannot see this.

I would take any random sampling over your "memory" of 3 or so reviews you may have read thirty years ago.

 

That's simply a method employed to make sampling more *efficient* compared to ordinary random sampling - it's called cluster sampling. It serves to reduce the necessary sample size from about 10 percent to a lower percentage.

You can look up the matter in any basic textbook on statistical sampling theory.

 

You really have changed your position, haven't you?

In regards to the PT, 50 reviews from the top critics are enough to say that it was generally negatively reviewed.

But, in regards to the OT, 50 reviews from the top critics are not enough to say that it wasn't originally reviewed as well as it is now.

Perfect definition of a hypocrite.

 

Nonsense.

50 reviews out of 500 or more is not enough for ANY film. PT or OT.


If you think grabbing 50 reviews out of 1000 is enough to say that the over all majority of the entire 1000 is the same as the findings out of the 50 then you are a very uneducated person.

I am starting to think I am talking to a bunch of 5th graders.

"But, in regards to the OT, 50 reviews from the top critics are not enough to say that it wasn't originally reviewed as well as it is now."

Are you really that stupid? My god.

I am not just going by RT. Any source you look at will back up my argument about the OT.

I am going to say this and then I am droping this entire subject cause some of you are just not bright enough to understand or just too bias to want to understand.

My parting words on this subject is this.

The OT received over 20 academy award nominations. It won 12. Nominations for best picture and screenplay included.

MOST ANY film review book at the bookstore will give the OT films 4 stars or 3 and a half stars.

The prequels id nothing but win razzies for worst actor, worst actress, worst screenplay, worst movie of the yr, worst director.

Attack of the clones and phantom menace are bashed everywhere. Go to any film site and look up the reviws for those two. Some will be good but just as many are bad.

People make fun of the prequels. They make fun of the acting and the dialouge.



So prequel fans tke your razzies. Take your joke acting and god awful screen play and your yoda jumping around like sonic the hedge hog.

The prequels are pure garbage that deserves to be burned in a trash dumpster.

I am done with this topic. For those of you that want to reubttle wat I just said. In advance I will just say this.

Google search the reviews. ALL the reviews. Not just pre 97. ALL of them. I hope you enjoy seeing your prequels just LAUGHED at and made fun of for the garbage that they are. I will rejoice with my 20 academy award NODS and my 4 stars.

"love me like you did on naboo" Vader"NOOOOOOOOOOO" such pathetic garbage.


Bye now.

 

Oddly, you fail to mention the academy award nominations of the PT.

 

Sorry, but my impression is that you are lacking even the most basic understanding of sampling theory.

Please consult a basic textbook on the subject to get an understanding before you judge the method as "foolish" or people who actually *do* have an understanding as "a bunch of 5th graders" or as "very uneducated". Then we can talk again.

 

You are the most stubborn person I have ever seen. You clearly are not using reason in your argument. Instead all that fuels your points is just an innate hatred for the PT.

Why the hell would we do that? The whole argument is that the reviews of the OT when they orginally came out are not as good as they are now. It's not my fault you're too stupid to realize that.

I'll give you some there. The OT did get a lot of Acadamy award recognition. Did you know 11 out of those 20 nominations are from ANH alone?

ANH Oscar Noms

Best Art Direction
Best Costume Design
Best Effects, Visual Effects
Best Film Editing
Best Music, Original Score
Best Sound
Best Actor in a Supporting Role
Best Director
Best Picture
Best Writing, Screenplay Written Directly for the Screen
Special Achievement Award - Ben Burtt

ESB Oscar Noms

Best Sound
Best Art Direction
Best Music, Original Score
Special Achievement Award - For VFX

(So already we see that ESB, while now is considered the best of the Saga. Did not get the same recognition as the first. There are holes in your argument already.)

ROTJ Oscar Noms

Best Art Direction
Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing
Best Music, Original Score
Best Sound
Special Achievement Award - For VFX

(So you see that after ANH, all of the Oscar noms were for the technical categories. Something that will be repeated in the PT.)

TPM won 1 Razzie for Worst Supporting Actor (Jar-Jar)
AOTC won 2 Razzies for Worst Supporting Actor (Hayden) and Worst Screenplay
ROTS won 1 Razzie for Worst Supporting Actor (Hayden)

So while they did get Razzie recognition. It was not on the massive scale you are trying to lead people to believe.

As far as the Oscars go, they were nominated in some of the same techincal categories as the other Star Wars sequels that you claim had vastly better reviews.

PT Oscar Noms

Best Achievement in Makeup - ROTS
Best Visual Effects - TPM, AOTC
Best Effects, Sound Effects Editing - TPM
Best Sound - TPM

Bye.

 

The insults -- "stupid", "uneducated", etc. -- and derogatory language of all kinds must cease. We're all STAR WARS fans, and human beings worthy of respect and tolerance. If this thread must continue, I would ask all of you to please be considerate and polite in your posts, even if you strongly disagree with someone. Thank you.

 

And you take that avatar of Jesus and...

Wait, that's Qui-Gon!

Qui-Gon's from the PT.

Why do you have a Qui-Gon avatar?

 

This is getting silly.

The original point of this thread was "was the PT better reviewed than the OT?" The answer is "no". That shouldn't be surprising.

The additional point is "BUT--the OT wasn't as well-recieved back then as it is today." Which I thought was common knowledge. So this shouldn't be surprising either.

So, what is the big deal with this exactly?

Regarding the number of reviews--first of all, you cannot say that 50 out of 500 reviews is slanted because you don't actually know what the total is, and what you consider to be counted as a proper review under this category. Going by anyone who ever wrote a piece on the appraisal of ESB or ROTJ in 1980 and 1983, for example all the local newspapers, obscure magazines, fan-zines, plus television news coverage, etc., there could very well be much, much more than 500 reviews of each film in existance, just domestically. The problem is that these are not seen or read by many people and have no influence on the mass media, pop culture or the world of film criticism. A film's reception is gauged and colored mainly by the reviews in a relatively narrow selection of publications, the number which is probably around 20 or 30. These 20 or 30 sources overpower the influence and visibility of the remaining few hundred (few thousand?) reviews from tiny and insignificant source elsewhere, in a purely unscientific estimate I'd say by a factor of at least 50-1. Variety and Rolling Stone are read by dozens of millions of people around the entire country (and overseas), while, to use this example again, the Modesto Bee is read by only thirty or forty thousand in central california. When we measure a film's reception we mainly look to these top 20 or 30 publications.

They account for the majority of a film's critical reception, in preportional measurements. In terms of numbers, as in amount of sources, they are not that many, but their preportional influence accounts for 80-90% of a film's public reception in the media.

Furthermore, these sources historically are characteristic of the remaining sum of reviews in the country. If most of these publications say a film sucks then it is highly unrealistic that the remaining sum of reviews in the country will say a film is brilliant. There is historic precedence to this, a verifiable trend, and there is no reason to doubt that this will be an exceptional case. To that end, local and metropolitan review sources outside the sphere of the top publications in the country were sampled, which, unsurprisingly, more or less followed exactly what the top publications were saying.

Additionally, a sampling, though limited, of actual individuals--fans and individual moviegoers--of their thoughts on seeing the film, recorded during the months of May and June 1983 (the usenet posts) would indicate that these newspaper publication are not wildly out of line with opinion of the common audience member, an inference transmitted to us culturally by the notion that Return of the Jedi is remembered by many fans as "the bad Star Wars movie".

Therefore, my findings and conclusions should be considered reliable and of a reasonably accurate scientific basis.

 

But what competition did the originals have compared to what we have now?

 

Now that's an interesting question - what exactly are we trying to measure? The perception of the films by critics, or their influence on the public? If it is the latter, you are correct - if it is the former, not so much. Because this would amount to conducting an opinion survey and giving more weight to the opinion of people who for some reason are more influentual than others - like celebreties, politicians, and the like. This is not what's usually done in opinion surveys. Likewise, considering only the major reviews is a measure of their influence on the public, but if the aim is to measure the reviews in general, the sample needs to include minor reviews as well.

 

I dislike the prequels. Does that make them bad? Of course not.

Very true, and for this reason this whole issue shouldn't be such a hot button issue, and that being so, why the big debate? As I understand it, neither you nor Go-Mer really cares what critics think, anyway. Truth is, nobody does, except as a means to validate their opinion. I do know people who might decide to give a movie (they haven't seen) a chance based on critical review, but once a person has seen the movie they cease to care what a critic thinks and forms their own opinion.


I feel robbed after almost 20 yrs of waiting. I am sorry if I seem bitter but I am. So are many others.

Well, you get over it, or you should. I don't mean to sound condenscending, I've shared some of your annoyances, but (1) its just a movie series and, as such, not a hill worth dying on (speaking metaphorically, of course), and (2) you'll find your opinion of any such series can improve greatly if you accept what you enjoy and ignore the rest. For example, Star Trek and myself: I really don't like Enterprise, so as far as I am concerned its an alternate timeline and never happened in "Star Trek cannon". Paramount my say otherwise, but I could care less. They can't make me watch it, nor can they make me accept it. (3) It's sci-fi, it doesn't have to make sense.


Vortigern suggested I start this thread, and my opening post was not "gusher/basher" fare.

You should know me well enough to know I won't accept that response, Go-Mer, and don't try to hide behind Vort. Don't get me wrong, the thread topic is great, and I am enjoying it. And if all you want to do is continue having this enjoyable discussion with a sincere mindset, I'm all for it. But I know you (at least you in your internet personality). I know you're going on your crusade again, as you have many times before. You claim that you are not, however, you even go on to say right after that, "No I'm not tired of sticking up for what I believe in." OK, fine, if you feel the honor PT or any other part of SW is a hill worth dying on, go die on that hill on some other message board, because no one else here in Saga thinks the PT vs. OT vs. SE is a war worth fighting over anymore. Do us the courtsey of taking that battle elsewhere.

And Lav, same for you. Had you been here six years ago it might have all been interest, but its been said, and getting mad about what the PT were or weren't just drives good conversation down the drain. You're welcome to express whatever opinion you have and do so honestly, but venting against the PT and getting all mad about it will just ruin good conversation, and I won't have that here.

Go-Mer and Lav, you both talk the talk of "this is what I really meant" after I come in here and start calling you out. If you really mean something else, then have your actions (by actions I mean posts, in this case) reflect it. And don't think you guys can spin things retroactively and not have me see it for what it is. I've made a four year career of defusing and elimenating basher\gusher conflict, it's a game I've gotten really good at.

Now, if you really want to have an honest conversation about critical ratings of the Saga, then let's move forward and do so, it could be fun. I'm game if you guys are game. Sound good with you both?

 

I am not sure what you are going on about. This isn't a crusade, and I'm not dying on a hill. That is how -you- choose see this situation. I am not a "gusher" or a "basher", I am an individual with an individual point of view that is just as valid as anyone else's around here.

It was posted in another thread that Empire had gotten almost universal praise upon it's release.

I posted this article in that thread as a means of disagreeing with that assessment, and Vortigern, feeling it was tangential to the thread at hand suggested that I make it into it's own topic.

I did that, and I have been having an honest discussion about it.

Please don't marginalize my point of view by labeling me a "gusher" or "basher".

 

am not sure what you are going on about. This isn't a crusade, and I'm not dying on a hill. That is how -you- choose see this situation. I am not a "gusher" or a "basher", I am an individual with an individual point of view that is just as valid as anyone else's around here.

My POV? Perhaps, but you're user notes and many conversation we have had in which you admitted the truth about your intent tell a different story, and that (plus you behavior in this thread) are what I have to go on to make my assessment of the situation, and so I am standing by it. As it is, this whole "its your choice" is classic Go-Mer pyschological counterplay, and as we both know your attempt to pysco-analysis have gotten you in trouble many, many times, so the fact that you resort to it tells me that I was right in my assessment.

Now, since you have shown I must play hard ball with you -- unfortunately -- if you do anything but 100% comply with my request to drop this basher and gusher warfare, you will be banned. If you have any confusion on what that means just PM me and I will be glad to discuss it, but arguing with me in this thread over the issue will be deemed as off-topic and also earn you a ban.

Everyone else would do well to heed this warning, too. Vort's also been generous to issue warnings for insults already given that would otherwise have earned you a ban. Don't dismiss his generousity. If you love or hate any part of the Saga, fine by me, and you're welcome to say so, but if you start slamming and inflamming other people for not agreeing with you, we're going to start issuing some severe bans. This isn't the forum for it. I hope we are all clear.

 

I would appreciate it if you would stick to what I'm posting, and refrain from assuming my "hidden intent" whatever you may feel that may be.

I'm just here to talk about Star Wars, and in this thread (which I wouldn't have even posted had Vortigern not suggested it) we are talking about the critical reception of the Star Wars films from around the times of their intitial releases. If that is not a valid topic of conversation then so be it, but please stop "reading" things into what I am saying and please stop pretending to psychoanalyze me.

The films not the fans right?

I have not engaged in any "Basher/Gusher" warfare and would love to hear how you have reached the conclusion that I have. I simply presented the facts of the report, and even though others were stooping to getting personal about it, I never did.

If you have a problem with something I've posted that's one thing. But I have no control over what you choose to assume I mean between the things I am actually saying.

Please show me what I wrote in this thread that was in any way violating the TOS.

 

Darth I agree with you 100%

I was guilty in this thread of letting my anger and frustration get the better of me. It is sometimes easy for that to happen when it is a topic one is passionate about.

I think the rules you just layed down are based with sound logic and fair for all involved.

Perhaps a thread could be dedicated for those who feel the need to vent anger and frustration about any part of the two trilogies that they feel bothers them and be able to do so without fear of crossing the line. (outside of dircting that anger and harsh words towards a fellow poster)

Go-Mer I do not know you well enough to pass any kind of a judgement against you.

I appreciate your love for all things star wars. It is a passion that runs deep for me too. At times too deep as I feel attacked, cheated, robbed and raped by the prequels after 20 yrs of waiting.

One thing I do not confuse though is the fact that just because I hate something does not mean that is should be universally hated. It is all personal likes and disklikes.

The only thing I can say about you as a star wars fan is after reading your comment in another thread about what do you dislike about any of the star wars films and your response was "THERE IS NOTHING I DISLIKE I LIKE ALL OF THESE FILMS" is to me the worst kind of fan. The kind that is so bias that they ignore any wrong or bad and convince themselves that it does not exist.

Much like a fan of a sports team. Even if that fans team committs a FOUL. The foul is wrong and should be acknowleged but if the refs don't see it the fan acts like it didn't happen and on the flip side if the refs call it that same fan gets mad or upset over the ref calling the foul even though the foul really took place.

If you want to ignore or come up with reasons why this or that happend or was not included or excuse poor acting and dialouge then you have every right to do so.

I hope you think well on what Darth is trying to say because it makes sense.

 

Had you been here six years ago it might have all been interest, but its been said, and getting mad about what the PT were or weren't just drives good conversation down the drain. You're welcome to express whatever opinion you have and do so honestly, but venting against the PT and getting all mad about it will just ruin good conversation, and I won't have that here.

Thank God. I was here six years ago and it was a bloodbath. Good to see that it's cooled off to some degree with time.

It really isn't a fair argument regarding OT vs PT reviews. For one thing many, many OT reviews were written after the SEs, with 20/20 hindsight. Secondly, any dude with a website can pretty much be a "reviewer" on RT.

The critics that interest me the most with their opinions are those who reviewed the OT at the time it came out, and the PT when it came out. Those reviewers, by and large, seem to be pretty fair in their opining.

 

What I remember, when I actually saw the OT in their original runs back in 77, 80, and 83; is that the films were mostly disregarded by critics but addored by regular people. I was only 7 when Star Wars came out so my personal perspective may be off a bit, but I remember the lines for the films being around the block and they were the first films ever to do that as far as I had known at the time. 'Jedi' had the least amount of buzz in the series and i suppose part of that was due to my generation getting older. I saw it at 13 and that's about the time girls were becoming more interesting than lightsabers and droids. Regardless of what critics may have thought, Star Wars was nominated for best picture at the academy. Not even 'Empire' had that distinction, and that is considered to be a greater film in many circles. I think what this shows is that the buzz was Star Wars was due largely to it's technical inovations in film craft. Yes the story was great, but the technical end of the film was a whole new experience in cinema. And even though that aspect of the film improved ten fold for empire, it was sort of old news. Much of what is appreciated in the OT today is related to nostalgia and that's probably true in most things. If the prequels had been made first, they'd be the films hailed high and low as the grand film fare. But the prequels could not have been made in 77 because the story is too big for the technology of the time. Personally I find none of these films to be masterworks in the areas of acting or script design, but the stories are solid and the lore it brings to the table concerning the classic hero archtypes introduced to us by Joseph Campbell adds a richness and unique experience that can't be found anywhere else. Add to that the feast of visual and sound effects and you have a series that stands the test of time.

 

I can't believe this is still being debated and with the usual suspects no less. S

Seriously, nothing is ever resolved on an internet forum. The fact is that there aren't enough reviews left to judge anything. Anyone who claims otherwise is flat out wrong in this instance.