Well the PT and the ST both suck but the prequels are the standard against which all badness is measured. So the ST are a little better.
That said however calling something slightly better than the Star Wars Prequels is the correct answer to the question, "What is the faintest level of praise that can be attributed to a film."
Originally posted by StiltmanFTW
Whatever you do, make sure you never see TLJ.
The Last Jedi is one of the most curious cases of a successful blockbuster ever. Taking in 1.3 billion worldwide, highly acclaimed by critics, but two years ago it seemed to get more flak than all the prequels combined, at least from a segment of hard core fandom. That some fans were actually demanding it get wiped from continuity - that's up there with The Phantom Edit 20 years ago.
I joined this forum in the early 2000's, when defenders of the Prequels were hard to find here. To see this shift in attitude...if you are championing the Prequels now, I hope you always were. Or has enough time changed people's minds? Or have the Lucas bashers from the mid 2000's moved on and aren't here anymore?
Originally posted by roughrider
The Last Jedi is one of the most curious cases of a successful blockbuster ever. Taking in 1.3 billion worldwide, highly acclaimed by critics, but two years ago it seemed to get more flak than all the prequels combined, at least from a segment of hard core fandom. That some fans were actually demanding it get wiped from continuity - that's up there with The Phantom Edit 20 years ago.I joined this forum in the early 2000's, when defenders of the Prequels were hard to find here. To see this shift in attitude...if you are championing the Prequels now, I hope you always were. Or has enough time changed people's minds? Or have the Lucas bashers from the mid 2000's moved on and aren't here anymore?
Because it did very hard to break the tropes instead of trying to make a good story and setup for the next one.
Part of Rise of the Skywalker's problem has to do with it.
Killing off Snoke without proper explanation of his background.
Kill off most of the rebels.
Didn't really build up competent villains to use after killing Snoke.
Luke, yeah.
Originally posted by SlowpokeKilling off Snoke without proper explanation of his background.
Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.
Originally posted by roughrider
Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.
Because at the time of OT, we knew very little about the history. Still there is a little bit of explanation in the movie(the opening) about what happened before.
But by the time of ST, we already got the PT and OT story before, so you can't say someone came out from nowehere, so powerful and was able to form an army. Where was he before?
Also in OT, Vader is the main villain, Paplatine was mostly a cause of Vader's downfall and a plot device to be killed. But in ST Kylo Ren isn't close to Vader's characterization and level of menace. So it became the problem.
Originally posted by roughrider
Palpatine got 'killed off' after his first physical appearance in ROTJ and no one complained that he wasn't built up or explained enough. Snoke got practically the same amount of buildup that Palpatine got at the time.
Yes and this is the exact problem with the ST. Its unapologetic imitation of the OT, justifying every idiotic decision by referring back to the OT, yet completely forgetting that this was supposed to be a SEQUEL to the OT. Hence repeating it made no sense at all.
Like I said, its the Superman Returns of Star Wars.