Star Wars Forum

• Add

@Luthorcrow: I didn't say Top Critics. So, I was in fact correct. The prequels all rate positively on rotten tomatoes.
 
Though, its funny that you try to objectively justify your hatred towards the prequels. Despite popular opinion, I don't think their that bad -- not revolutionary as the originals were for their time -- and not extraordinary, but decent B movie rentals if nothing else. Sure, some bad acting here and there, but nothing offensively bad.
 
Did I see them at an impressionable age? Maybe. But I didn't love them even then. Now let me ask you something... did you see the originals at an impressionable age?

@Spazz: If you really want to understand why the prequel trilogy is cinematic garbage, I suggest you watch RedLetterMedia's The Phantom Menance spoof review (it's in 9 different parts, mind). It pretty much outlines every reason why the original trilogy surpasses the prequel, and why the constant Special Edition tweaks are cancer to the series. Plus, it's genuinely hilarious.
 
Alternatively, I suppose you could study Film or Screenwriting and learn the basics of structure, pacing, visual composition, verisimilitude, etc. But hey, I figure a 9-part video review is probably easier.
 
Here's the first part: 
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI

@Spazz said:

" @Luthorcrow: I didn't say Top Critics. So, I was in fact correct. The prequels all rate positively on rotten tomatoes.
 
Though, its funny that you try to objectively justify your hatred towards the prequels. Despite popular opinion, I don't think their that bad -- not revolutionary as the originals were for their time -- and not extraordinary, but decent B movie rentals if nothing else. Sure, some bad acting here and there, but nothing offensively bad.
 
Did I see them at an impressionable age? Maybe. But I didn't love them even then. Now let me ask you something... did you see the originals at an impressionable age? "

 Oh Spazz, I think you like them a little more than you let on.  But once you again you are simply wrong about Rotten Tomatoes.  Even if we take only what the peanut gallery thinks you point comes tits up. 

• 62% Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace (1999)  
• 66% Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones (2002)  
• 80%  Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith (2005)

 
That's still D, D and B. Let's be honest the only reason Episode III gets a better rating is because the first two films progressively cull out most people with good taste leaving only the fanboys, suckers and the misguided watching the third. 
 
Honestly Spazz not liking these turkeys hardly needs any justification.  No, it is the reverse, the burden is on the fans. 
 
 As for your question, yes you have me by the short hairs on that one, I was an impressionable age for the first three but unlike when I tried to argue with my dad at 9 that  Gil Gerard from Buck Rogers in The 25th Century was a good actor, time has proven my love of the orginal Star Wars films was and is justified. 
 
Side note, my parents to this day still give me a hard time about Gil. :()

@Slique said:

" @Spazz: If you really want to understand why the prequel trilogy is cinematic garbage, I suggest you watch RedLetterMedia's The Phantom Menance spoof review (it's in 9 different parts, mind). It pretty much outlines every reason why the original trilogy surpasses the prequel, and why the constant Special Edition tweaks are cancer to the series. Plus, it's genuinely hilarious.  Alternatively, I suppose you could study Film or Screenwriting and learn the basics of structure, pacing, visual composition, verisimilitude, etc. But hey, I figure a 9-part video review is probably easier.  Here's the first part:  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI "

LOL, spot on. It's is definitely a funny view and is must watch.  Other reviews are pretty good as well. 

@Luthorcrow: The prequels are all positive on Rotten Tomatoes. "Positive", as defined by RT, is 60% or higher. You can't objectively say a movie is bad. You can get close, with sites like RT and Metacritic, but in this case, both these sites give the prequels a neutral score or higher. Do people hate the shit out of, say, The Expendables? It's at a 42% on RT. Why don't people say it's garbage? It is, as defined by the majority of critics, a "rotten" movie. I'll tell you why: people didn't walk into it with incredibly specific expectations. Sure, people had expectations, what with that cast, but not like Star Wars, whereas the average movie-goer remembered the originals films very fondly, and expected the prequels to be exactly the same or better.
 
Oh, and I've seen that review. It's really funny, sure, but it's in no way genuine; the man just lists generalizations. I'd trust, say, Roger Ebert, who is more qualified than 'some-guy-on-youtube'. And he gives The Phantom Menace a 3 1/2 star score.

I don't even care if they don't want to release the original unaltered trilogy in HD, I just want them in anamorphic at least! It's such bull shit that we don't even at least have that, because the versions released on DVD are ridiculous. They're basically the same transfer that was used on laserdisc. Sure they're letterboxed formated, but they are suited for display on a 16x9 TV, so either you gotta stretch the image, or watch it with huge bars on the sides.  
 
Fuck you George Lucas, just because he made the movies, it doesn't give him the right to rape our memories. There have been plenty of movies that have had "director's cuts" or special edition movies made, but they still include the originals in re-releases. He's an asshole for trying to sweep them under the rug the way he is.

@Spazz said:

" @Luthorcrow: The prequels are all positive on Rotten Tomatoes. "Positive", as defined by RT, is 60% or higher. You can't objectively say a movie is bad. You can get close, with sites like RT and Metacritic, but in this case, both these sites give the prequels a neutral score or higher. Do people hate the shit out of, say, The Expendables? It's at a 42% on RT. Why don't people say it's garbage? It is, as defined by the majority of critics, a "rotten" movie. I'll tell you why: people didn't walk into it with incredibly specific expectations. Sure, people had expectations, what with that cast, but not like Star Wars, whereas the average movie-goer remembered the originals films very fondly, and expected the prequels to be exactly the same or better.  Oh, and I've seen that review. It's really funny, sure, but it's in no way genuine; the man just lists generalizations. I'd trust, say, Roger Ebert, who is more qualified than 'some-guy-on-youtube'. And he gives The Phantom Menace a 3 1/2 star score. "

A neutral score or higher? A score in the 60% range is not natural. A 'D' is not neutral. As for the Expendables, no it is a bad film because it is not a good film.  The 42% just reflects that I am not alone in that view.
 
Roger Ebert?! Seriously.  Roger has not been on his game since about 95.  You realize that at the time that he would have reviewed the Phantom Menace a blood clot was starving his brain of oxygen rich blood which climaxes just three short years later in a stroke in 2002. After which he is basically shot. How can you talk about being objective when you cherry pick a reviewer with brain damage over the majority 60% of film critics that gave it a thumbs down.  
 
Honestly, I don't see how you can watch the RedLetter videos that aside from being funny are much more incisive and intelligent than any of the movie reviews I read in the paper.   
 
You are right that you cannot make a completely 'objective' argument that a film is bad to a deductive proof but we can measure the weight of opinion based intelligent observations, etc.  So yes, can we prove it in the same way as 1+1 = 2, no.  But that does not mean all opinion are of equal weight nor that all films are of equal quality. I can saw with a high level certain that the prequels suck dog nuts.  And honestly that may be being a little generous.

@Spazz said:

" Han shot first? "

Lucas can always edit that again. Not that he wants to. Cause he's all "4 teh kidz"