Originally posted by chinabing
TPM and AOTC are wonderful movies. Lucas hit a homerun with all of the prequels, and ROTC is a grand slam.
ROTC being Return Of The Crack-whore right?
Like I said, I wish the prequels never existed. Superficial and cold. Apart from a few sparking moments of magic during Revenge Of The Sith, there's nothing that matches up to the characters of the originals.
All the prequels are wonderful movies. Perhaps you forget Most critics gave Ep I 3 out of 4 stars, and everyone said AOTC was better than TPM. And critics said Sith was even better than the first two.
I'm so glad the prequels were made. They are a triumph. People should just get over their Jar Jar hatred!
Ahem...
The Phantom Menace - Average: 6/10 NOT 3/4
Attack of the Clones - Average: 6.5/10 NOT better than 3/4
Do your research first if your gonna make stupid statements like that...
And since when did critics' opinions count for anything anyway?
Originally posted by DiamondBulletsReally? That's sad. I've never cared much about what critics say... To me the only person whose opinion matters is mine.
They always have.
Originally posted by DiamondBulletsYes. It took me a total of 15 seconds...
...and you really took the time to research all that crap?
Originally posted by DiamondBulletsMy point exactly.
C'mon nigga, who cares?
Oh sure, if you believe rotten tomatoes. Every joe blow ink-stained wretch with column inches to fill, or dot.com blogger gets tabulated. How about the major critics, the ones who've been reviewing movies for decades? Ones like the NYTimes, Ebert, Time, Newsweek, etc. etc. Those are the reviews that really count. Plus tomatoes is flawed because they let in even dot.com reviews which have about as much credibility as an online poll.
And then you go on to say critics don't really count, after saying they do? sheesh
Originally posted by chinabing
Oh sure, if you believe rotten tomatoes. Every joe blow ink-stained wretch with column inches to fill, or dot.com blogger gets tabulated. How about the major critics, the ones who've been reviewing movies for decades? Ones like the NYTimes, Ebert, Time, Newsweek, etc. etc. Those are the reviews that really count. Plus tomatoes is flawed because they let in even dot.com reviews which have about as much credibility as an online poll.And then you go on to say critics don't really count, after saying they do? sheesh
Sorry, you have nothing to support your argument.
And I never said critics' opinions count... I am merely proving you wrong. Critics are nothing more than people who watch movies, and their opinions have no more credibility than yours or mine.
Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
their opinions have no more credibility than yours or mine.
Yeah they do. For example: "Four out of five dentists recommend Crest." Now I'd beleive a dentist's opinion more than I would joe-blow off the street. Just like I would trust Ebert or TIME more than I would a cashier at Blockbuster.
Yes well that's because a joe-blow off the street has no experience in dentistry... A joe-blow has, however, probably seen many films and therefore has a valid opinion - as valid an opinion as anyone else, that is.
Personally, I think Roger Ebert is an idiot and usually only side with him when he reviews with Richard Roeper - Ebert is the lesser of two evils.
TPM and AotC have many low points, but hey also have some amazing high points, which tends to make people think, "Why couldn't the whole movie have been like this?"
In the case of TPM, some incredibly low low-points drag the movie down substantially.
Low points of TPM:
-Jar-Jar's annoying retardation. I can live with some of it. Understandably, most people can't.
-Child Anakin's horrible acting ("But I-!"😉
-Stupid embarassing jokes, FARTING ANIMALS
-Bad characters, such as slobbering Boss Nass, the two-headed podrace announcer, etc .
High points of TPM:
-Some awesome characters, such as Qui-Gon, Darth Maul, Palps, and Obi-Wan. Qui-Gon fecking owns all with his Jedi Master-ness. Darth Maul is an icon of evil.
-Ian McDiarmid does an incredible job as Palps, as in all the PT movies.
-LIGHTSABER DUELS!!! Duel of the Fates is arguably the best saber duel ever.
-Some awesome landscapes: Naboo, Theed Palace, Tatooine, Coruscant (sp?)
Now, AotC has far many more low points, IMO:
-Wooden acting. For the most part, it's just acceptable, but some of the scenes between Anakin and Pads are simply embarassingly badly akwardly written and acted.
-The feckin droid factory scene. It was added last minute, and it shows.
-More stupider kiddy jokes in the form of stupid droid antics. C-3PO borders on a Jar-Jar level of annoying-ness.
-Some long, drawn out, expositional scenes. Mostly in the beginning and middle.
-The hangar duel is mediocre, definately disappointing.
Here are the high points of AotC noticably fewer than low points:
-The arena scene. All those Jedi fighting, the Battle of Geonosis, the Clones, Mace bein a total badass, the arena beasts, all of it ROCKS!!!!
-Anakin's slaughter of the Tuskens and follow-up confession to Pads. IMHO, these are Hayden's best acted scenes in AotC
^ Thats about it for AotC ^
As you can see, there is an uncomfortable mix of good and bad elements in the first two movies.
I don't think it's fair to outright say the movies sucked, but the good parts are dragged down byt the bad parts.
Another reason people are too hard on the prequels: They know the outcome of the movies. Yep, Anakin goes bad. That point removes an enormous amount of drama from the movie experience. I don't know a lot of movies where I bother to go to them when I already know the outcome. In the prequels, we do. It would be like seeing Lotr 3, then watching eps 1 and 2. No one's ever done prequels on the scale of the Star Wars prequels. So given that they're prequels, I'm giving them a lot of slack. And they're still a triumph of moviemaking.
Go ahead and read a few reviews of AOTC, there are a ton of them saying "It's better than the last one."
Threepio? Irritating? Wow, never heard that one before.
So if we are to take Rotten Tomatoes faulty sampling at its face, we find Ep I's imaginary score to be 6 out of 10, and Epi II's fantasy-land score to be 6.5 out of 10. These scores are both above average. That means they don't suck.
Yep. For all the bluster from the prequel haters, the critics have given 2 of them scores to the right of the bell curve, and the last one into excellent territory.
If the prequels sucked, they'd have the fantasy scores of 2 and 1 and 4 and 3. But they don't. Therefore, the prequels don't suck!
Originally posted by chinabingI know what happens at the end of Empire Strikes Back and it's still my favourite movie of all time...
Another reason people are too hard on the prequels: They know the outcome of the movies. Yep, Anakin goes bad. That point removes an enormous amount of drama from the movie experience. I don't know a lot of movies where I bother to go to them when I already know the outcome. In the prequels, we do.
Originally posted by chinabingNo.
It would be like seeing Lotr 3, then watching eps 1 and 2.
Originally posted by chinabingAccording to some people. People who have no greater authority than myself, or anyone on this board.
Go ahead and read a few reviews of AOTC, there are a ton of them saying "It's better than the last one."So if we are to take Rotten Tomatoes faulty sampling at its face, we find Ep I's imaginary score to be 6 out of 10, and Epi II's fantasy-land score to be 6.5 out of 10. These scores are both above average. That means they don't suck.
I seriously don't understand why people hold critics' opinions in such high regard... 😬
I know what happens at the end of Empire Strikes Back and it's still my favourite movie of all time...
I'm happy for you. That, however, doesn't prove anything except you know what happens in a movie you've seen a hundred times.
People who have no greater authority than myself, or anyone on this board.
I'd take a serious journalist who'se reviewed films for decades, (Kael, Ebert, Corliss, etc.) over some blogger. But no one's got a gun to your head to respect them.
I seriously don't understand why people hold critics' opinions in such high regard...
Hmm, let's see. Decades of work in the field, articles read by thousands in major publications, seminars held, interns trained, etc. The cream rises to the top in any field. Hey, on Sneak Previews in 1980 Ebert gave Thumbs Down to Empire Strikes Back. (He's changed his mind since.)
Originally posted by chinabingNo. It proves that even though I know the outcome I still love the movie... A rebuttal on your point that we are too hard on the PT because we know what's going to happen...
I'm happy for you. That, however, doesn't prove anything except you know what happens in a movie you've seen a hundred times.
Originally posted by chinabingAll redundant. The only thing reviewers have is an opinion. I respect their opinions no more than I do yours. I find it sad that people regard critics opinions so highly just because they are able to write coherently.
Hmm, let's see. Decades of work in the field, articles read by thousands in major publications, seminars held, interns trained, etc.)
Originally posted by DeVi| D0do
All redundant. The only thing reviewers have is an opinion. I respect their opinions no more than I do yours. I find it sad that people regard critics opinions so highly just because they are able to write coherently.
Yeah? There's a difference between an expert opinion and a shot in the dark. Wouldn't you a trust an expert in the field as opposed to some one who knows shit? C'mon, whyu gotta be so difficult? You know the critics have a more accurate opinion than average people who just "like" movies. That shit's their meal-ticket, how they make their bread. 'naw mean?