TPM is "winning" IMDB's Worst Star Wars Film survey. WHY?

But that's no reason to leave her suffering in slavery. And her continued enslavement is something which makes it harder for Anakin to break his attachment. Plus - Shmi wouldn't be hanging around with Anakin, she knows the rules and wouldn't want to ruin his training, freeing her doesn't mean that she goes and lives with him.

The fact Anakin didn't know if Shmi was safe or not, if she was a slave, had been sold off, or if she were even alive, tormented Anakin to the point of obsession. If she'd been freed and allowed to stay, for example, on Naboo, Anakin would not have to worry about his mother. She'd be safe, he'd know where she was, and he could continue with his training free from anxiety.

Well all through '98 and early '99 Lucas and SW were media "darlings", there was no end to the magazine and TV articles about how great he and it was. And then for some reason around about May '99 that began to change. Something happened that May ... what was it ? Oh yeah - The Phantom Menace came out. Perhaps that had something to do with it.

Tell me about it. One interviewer said Lucas had "The Midas Touch," all the others were Romanticising him as being a creative genius that "bucked the system." As you said, something happened in that time, and that thing was The Phantom Menace. Pre-TPM, Lucas is literally made love to in the media; post-TPM, we're seeing a general disillusionment with him in many avenues. Given the hype and glorification Lucas and his movies got before 99, one can see all the conspiracy theories about how the media have their darlings and keep a relentless hatred/jealously as just laughable. If TPM were as great as some people claim, the media would have hailed it as such.

 

Well, you know, the media can be alsmost as bad, if not worse than the "fanboys". The "opinions" generated by such outlets seemed to be largely fed by the disgruntled fanbase and the incessant whining of the general public; it's really quite pathetic, in its way. Lucas himself said in a 2002 Premiere article that he is aware of the fact that many of the fans want "Star Wars" to be "like 'The Matrix'", and that the reality was that it wasn't ever going to be like that. Since people are so insistant on drawing parallels between "The Lord of the Rings" and the "Star Wars" films, particularly the prequels, I feel almost obligated to make some comments. One of the reasons that I believe that LOTR is so popular is because director Peter Jackson has re-imagined Tolkien's universe in terms of a swashbuckling action saga. Audience taste over the past, oh, 30 years has become increasingly bloodthirsty and the desire to see violence and destruction has never been more extreme. I like all three LOTR pictures, and Jackson's vision is largely awesome to behold, but the spirit and purpose of Tolkien's tale has been misplaced. Not misplaced enough so that the Friday night action audience will not be adequately sated, however. I dislike the way that, in the first two films, the Hobbits are presented as supporting characters unable of doing anything without the assistance of the likes of Aragorn, etc. I tend to agree with Entertainment Weekly film critic Owen Gleiberman's assertion that the LOTR films lack palpable dramatic conflict and immediacy, and that the "Star Wars" pictures have enough interpersonal conflict to shame all of Middle-Earth. The "conflict" in the prequels is apparently not prominent enough for people to accept according to "surveys" such as the one posted on IMDB. The fact of the matter is that the prequels have not adequately pandered to the current audience taste in violence. There is a certain innocence in them that creates an incongruity in such cynical, ironic times. Why else do you think we have threads dedicated to the MPAA rating of ROTS, and that a frighteningly large amount of people actually want an 'R'-rated "Star Wars" film with dismemberments and gore that would rival the content of "Kill Bill"? Why else are there threads devoted to the "lack of darkness" in the prequels, with people constantly arguing that "the first three 'Harry Potter' films were darker than Episodes 1 and 2 combined"? Why should darkness or violence really have anything to do with the quality of a film? I don't know, I really don't.

Since the general public is unhappy with a commercial film, such as Episode 1, that additude or feeling begins to permeate society, and it becomes second nature to 'bash' the film. People who haven't seen it hate it. It becomes fashionable to adopt the "feelings" of a collective source. Some people use it as an outlet through which they filter their own personal anger and frustration. I have no doubt that such people pa-TROLL these boards, deliberately seeking a fight. I guess to me, that's just sad.

In closing, I want to state that I do not 'love' "The Phantom Menace". It would be my least favorite of the "Star Wars" films, but that doesn't mean that I dislike it. I actually like it quite a bit, but would not be foolish enough to vote in a patronizing poll such as the one at IMDB. I respect people who dislike Episode 1 and those who claim it is amongst the greatest films of all time - as long as they are able to support their claims in an articulate, thoughtful manner. The media cannot be grouped in the latter category.

 

Well, you know, the media can be alsmost as bad, if not worse than the "fanboys". The "opinions" generated by such outlets seemed to be largely fed by the disgruntled fanbase and the incessant whining of the general public; it's really quite pathetic

wow.
You just trashed the general public, fanboys and the media. Is there anyone left?
But well done for pointing out that so many people dislike the film.

Lucas himself said in a 2002 Premiere article that he is aware of the fact that many of the fans want "Star Wars" to be "like 'The Matrix'",

Lucas says all sorts of stupid things.

[
Audience taste over the past, oh, 30 years has become increasingly bloodthirsty and the desire to see violence and destruction has never been more extreme.

You might want to take another look at the films of the 70's, there was plenty of violence and destruction in the cinema, the decade was infamous for it.

but the spirit and purpose of Tolkien's tale has been misplaced...I dislike the way that, in the first two films, the Hobbits are presented as supporting characters unable of doing anything without the assistance of the likes of Aragorn, etc

what?
They do all sorts of things without aragorn etc. The events in this matter follow the books very closely, how are they different?

I tend to agree with Entertainment Weekly film critic Owen Gleiberman's assertion that the LOTR films lack palpable dramatic conflict and immediacy, and that the "Star Wars" pictures have enough interpersonal conflict to shame all of Middle-Earth.

Please go ahead and tell us more about it.

The fact of the matter is that the prequels have not adequately pandered to the current audience taste in violence.

Bah. Blame the audience time again. It just doesn't wash. There are plenty of very violent films that flop and plenty of very un-violent films which made plenty of money. LOTR is no more violent than the OT.

. Why else do you think we have threads dedicated to the MPAA rating of ROTS, and that a frighteningly large amount of people actually want an 'R'-rated "Star Wars" film with dismemberments and gore that would rival the content of "Kill Bill"?

What's a "frighteningly large amount" ?
How many people have said that they want the violence to rival Kill Bill ?

Why should darkness or violence really have anything to do with the quality of a film? I don't know, I really don't.

It doesn't. But it does have something to do with the content, this is a tale about how a good knight fell to the dark side so people are bound to expect some darkness.

Since the general public is unhappy with a commercial film, such as Episode 1,



People who haven't seen it hate it. It becomes fashionable to adopt the "feelings" of a collective source. Some people use it as an outlet through which they filter their own personal anger and frustration. I have no doubt that such people pa-TROLL these boards, deliberately seeking a fight. I guess to me, that's just sad.

Whoah there! Hang on. You're saying that there are people who haven't seen TPM patrolling these boards simply cos they heard TPM is unpopular and they want a fight? Point em out. Go ahead.

g

 

Still, the point remains that the people who think any one of these films suck really have nothing to base that on.

 

^ What does that mean ?

g

 

"LOTR is no more violent than the OT"

???????

 

Was the OT as violent as LotR Trilogy? For the most part, the violence was less personal, and less graphically depicted (even more so in the Spec. Eds where blaster bolt flaming effect on human contact is occasionally removed).

As for the IMDB poll... I believe that something Shelley mentioned in another thread was entirely correct - it became 'fashionable' to bash TPM. TPM is certainly a more 'subtle' film than AotC, and has more interesting characters (Qui Gonn, Maul). AotC had great action sequences but not as well developed a story. And so, I personally think that TPM should not be the head of IMDB's poll... but I'm only one voice.

 

Go-Mer they have their own opinion to base it on. just like you like the films and that is your opinion.


strilo ... So how do Gallup polls work and why would it be better than imdb?

Gallup polls are scientific and specifically work to survey an accurate cross section of public opinion. IMDB has a specific audience that skews the results BADLY. You are taking a cross section of that specific audience. That poll does not tell us what the general public thinks, it tells us what the IMDB userbase thinks. That's it.


I thought they were making fun of people who like Kevin Smith movies.
Does imdb allow profanity ? p

HAHAH do you think when you watch movies? Kevin Smith was skewering people who know nothing about movies and have no desire to be intelligent and objective. He was lambasting people for bitching solely for the sake of bitching. People who go too far and get too extreme in their postings when they never would in real life. Go watch the film and listen to Ben Affleck's speech about these people. Many many people like this post regularly on IMDB.

 

Alright, Go-Mer, I'm going to stop you right there before you derail this thread into a major basher/gusher fight. Plenty of people have plenty of things to support their opinion, for or against. Just because you don't accept that doesn't make it so. Art has a degree of 'subjectivity' to it, which you cannot dispute because it isn't rooted in scientific fact. Heck, go to an art gallery sometime. There's all sort of tripe in those places that are hailed as genious, and any attempt to rebuke them deemed 'artist ignorance', and to that I say


No, the survey does say that most people think TPM is the worst--though I'd go with AOTC.

Oooh! LOL! I'm an idiot. I read through this so fast, I thought we were talking a poll for best film.

 

If I had to pick one, I think it would be ROTJ or ANH. I love them, though, so I don't want to think that way.

 

I think the reson that people dont like TPM is that most of them did not go in with an open mind as such. Almost all of the people that went and saw it where people that Love the orignal trilogy. Also it makes more sence if you watch ep 2 and 3. Its like reading the 1st chaptor in a book. and saying you hate the book because of this and that. ANH is a complete and total movie. Would survive really well by its self, but TPM is better when seen with ep 2 (and 3). Most people (i think) that hate TPM is the rock hard Fans of the trilogy that have been concertrating for 10 or so years on that and cant accept new ideas and charators.

*re-reads that*
Did that make sence ??

 

Did that make sense ??

Yes this was my impression (for a long time) as well.

Ask a particular author (for the ROTS book) on his opinion after knowing about Ep. III,
when he originally didn't much care for TPM or AOTC. He's been fairly surprised on how well the Story works

 

Remember, all this poll asks is which film is the worst of the 5 so far. It is not addressing if people LIKE their least favorite SW film at all. It merely makes TPM the least favorite of the 5. Many of the people who voted for it undoubtedly like or even love the film. I for one voted ROTJ yet I do like that film.

 

I thought the whole unspoken reason for not going back to get Shmi is because Anakin needed to break off his emotional investment in her. We can see how deeply it affected his training and sense of attachments. Think how much worse it would have been had they freed her and she'd actually been around for him for most of the time. It's brutal logic, but given how we've seen the detriment Anakin's sense of attachment had led to already, understandable from a Jedi's point of view.

I think it's more than that. It's another example of how corrupt the Jedi Order and the Republic (for which the Jedi Order works) have become. Recall that the Republic didn't want to expend more than minimal effort to help Naboo; that's why Padmé had to take matters into her own hands. Then there was the slavery on Tatooine. Padmé said at the dinner table that she couldn't believe there was still slavery in the galaxy, because of the Republic's anti-slavery laws, and Shmi cut her off by saying, "The Republic doesn't exist out here." That's why Qui Gon had to resort to making bets and to using the Force to manipulate the chance cube in order to free Anakin.

Could the Jedi Order have freed Shmi? Probably, if they were inclined to, which they weren't. They were trying to sever Anakin's attachment, not encourage it. And the Republic couldn't have cared less. If the Republic cared, it would've been enforcing its anti-slavery laws on Tatooine all along.

 

Stilo: "People who go too far and get too extreme in their postings when they never would in real life. Go watch the film and listen to Ben Affleck's speech about these people. Many many people like this post regularly on IMDB."

You mean like this?

Holden: "This is a site full of militant movie buffs: sad bastards who live in their parents' basements, downloading scripts and trading what they believe to be inside info about movies and actors they despise yet can't stop discussing. This is where you go if you wanna hear frustrated would-be filmmakers mouth off with their two-bit, arm-chair- director's opinions on how they all could've made a better Episode One. " from Jay and Silent Bob Strike Back

Not unlike some people at the E3SA forum. j/k

Kevin Smith Rocks!!!

 

Was the OT as violent as LotR Trilogy? For the most part, the violence was less personal, and less graphically depicted

The OT has some pretty strong stuff in it - Owen and Beru's smouldering corpses, Leia garotting Jabba, the Emp viciously electrocuting Luke, Vader slicing off Luke's hand, all pretty personal. We could get into a long debate about which is more violent, but I think the use of violence in both series was responsible, it served the story, it wasn't just there to gain an audience.


Gallup polls are scientific and specifically work to survey an accurate cross section of public opinion. IMDB has a specific audience that skews the results BADLY. You are taking a cross section of that specific audience. That poll does not tell us what the general public thinks, it tells us what the IMDB userbase thinks. That's it.

Well imdb is non-genre specific . But in the absence of a Gallup poll is there a site that has a larger cross section than imdb?


Kevin Smith was skewering people who know nothing about movies and have no desire to be intelligent and objective. He was lambasting people for bitching solely for the sake of bitching. People who go too far and get too extreme in their postings when they never would in real life. Go watch the film and listen to Ben Affleck's speech about these people. Many many people like this post regularly on IMDB

Well that's why I asked if they allow profanity on imdb. As far as I can tell - they don't. Now in the film Affleck reads out a bunch of messages which are all along the lines of strongly worded (!) references to anal sex (etc.) Which isn't the sort of thing I've seen on imdb. However - it is exactly the sort of stuff which Jay would say. And at one point Affleck says something like - "who would want to see a movie about those guys?" and turns to look at the audience.
So to me the movie was very self-reflective, it was making fun of itself, it's own characters and it's audience.
But I really don't think imdb was the specific target .

Also it makes more sence if you watch ep 2 and 3.

Have you watched 2 and 3 ?

Most people (i think) that hate TPM is the rock hard Fans of the trilogy that have been concertrating for 10 or so years on that and cant accept new ideas and charators.

Okay - it was quite well publicised for quite a long time before it opened that TPM would not have the OT characters so I really don't think it took anyone by surprise. And they've had 5 years to get used to it.

Padmé said at the dinner table that she couldn't believe there was still slavery in the galaxy, because of the Republic's anti-slavery laws,

and yet Padme does nothing to free Shmi in the 10 years that follow.

Could the Jedi Order have freed Shmi? Probably, if they were inclined to, which they weren't. They were trying to sever Anakin's attachment, not encourage it.

That makes no sense, anakin's attachment is exacerbated by his worry over her suffering in slavery, if she were freed it would help him break his attachment.

g

 

[image=http://www.theforce.net/virtualedition/ve_newspics/death_owen_beru.jpg]
Crispy Critters

[image=http://www.maarasuniverse.com/leia/leia46.jpeg]
One tight fit deserves another.



and, for no particular reason.

[image=http://mobz.org/starwars/bin.boa/836.jpg]
Perhaps an ad for the abdominizor, flat stomach still it hawt, even in a galaxy far, far away.

 

Actually all of this makes sense. But it wouldn't be sporting to tell you how.

You will have to figure out how on your own.

 

Well imdb is non-genre specific .

It purports to be.

But in the absence of a Gallup poll is there a site that has a larger cross section than imdb?

IMDB.com doesn't give a cross-section of anything but people who a) have internet access; b) know IMDB.com exists; c) care that it exists; d) are registered members; e) saw the poll; f) cared enough about the poll to vote in it.

Not really much of a cross-section.

and yet Padme does nothing to free Shmi in the 10 years that follow.

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. In any case, I don't know what, exactly, she could've done, beyond bringing the matter to the Senate, which would've gotten her nowhere.

That makes no sense, anakin's attachment is exacerbated by his worry over her suffering in slavery,

It is? Seems to me that it was due to him missing her. Anyway, it's not until after she's been freed from slavery that he senses any kind of "suffering" from her.

if she were freed it would help him break his attachment.

How would it do that? His attachment to her wasn't broken after Cliegg freed and married her.

 

gez the lack of a better alternative to IMDB does not make IMDB a good source. It merely makes it the best available one. I for one still question the lack of any sort of reliable accurate cross section of public opinion from an online movie site's polls.

 

Maybe she did, maybe she didn't. In any case, I don't know what, exactly, she could've done, beyond bringing the matter to the Senate, which would've gotten her nowhere.

Why would freeing Shmi have to be taken to the Senate? Did Qui-gon get Senate approval in releasing Anakin? As a Queen or a Senator, I doubt she would have had any problems in finding a way of freeing Shmi. She had the capabilities of taking in refugees of other planets without any problems, why not the mother of Naboo's savior? Some droids, wrecked Naboo starfighters left over from the battle again the Trade Federation, she could have bartered for Shmi's release and safety.

It is? Seems to me that it was due to him missing her. Anyway, it's not until after she's been freed from slavery that he senses any kind of "suffering" from her.

Missing her? Or not knowing what was happened to her on a far off planet as a slave? I'd go with the latter.

How would it do that? His attachment to her wasn't broken after Cliegg freed and married her.

Was that before or after he found out she was abducted by Sandpeople?

 

Well, if a farmer like Cliegg can buy Shmi, I'm sure a Queen (at the time of TPM) could scratch enough dough to do the same, afterall money is power on Tatooine.

The polling for the most part at IMDB.com doesn't appear to be all that disagreeable. I believe there was a poll/survey done here years ago where Episode One wasn't a top of the Star Wars flicks list.

[image=http://www.emerchandise.com/images/p/TPM/pdSUTPM0001.jpg]
Talk about a Razzie!

 

Bottom line is she went on with her life, and Anakin went on with his. Perhaps if Anakin had contacted Padme about trying to free his mother she would have helped him, but if he isn't worried about it, why would she go out of her way?

Bottom line is that as the Queen of Naboo, it isn't her place to enforce the Republic's rules on planets outside of the Republic.

 

A Friend in need, is a friend indeed

At least Luke got a medal from Leia. All Anakin got was a haircut.

 

All Anakin got was a haircut

I didn't see any barbers in TPM but Anakin was able to have his dream of being trained a Jedi come true