Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
Yeah, Empire was originally recieved as..."Oh, well that was good, but we expected something different."....at least to hear Ben Burtt tell it on the dvd commentary for Empire.
He goes on to say that it's funny how after 20 years the film is looked at for more than it was at first, and the things that people say about it being the best of the OT. (which, of course it is )
I wonder how the PT will be looked at in 10 years, let alone 20.
I hope that it is remembered with fondness, not as better or worse than the OT, just as the newT, that like the old one, brought some fresh stuff to hollywood.
(I also hope in 10-20 years to have an answer as to why critics praised Episode I, and then bashed II.)
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
For now I'm sticking with them changing their opinions due to the fans backlash over epI, and based on the general critics perception of: prequels, StarWars, George Lucas, etc....
Roger Ebert liked Episode I, defended/ excused the poor acting/cloudy plot, praised the visuals/adventure/fights, and then proceeded to say that Episode II was not a good film.
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: I know where I would like to be
I liked em all! been to every one when they came out in theatres from ANH to ROTS....heard alot of crap weeks after each movie from critics but I remember what all the fellow moviegoers were saying when they walked out...WOW or GROOVY even for ANH...lol...man that was a long time ago! Almost everyone loved it until someone else cracked on it or they had time to analyze little mistakes that make no difference....SW rules... end of line.
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
BUMP.
Feel free to chime in with an opinion.
Why were the Prequels hated by critics/praised by critics at the same time?
Why would a well-known, established reviewer throw his weight(pun intended ) behind Episode I, specifically saying that "character development and relationships" were not as important in StarWars as fantasy, adventure, realism, etc.... then bash Episode II for the things he excused in TPM, while not noting the sizable improvement in adventure, realism, fantasy(Kamino anyone) in EpisodeII?
I think, that guys like this, felt that "its just Episode I, things will improve". Everyone knows Episode I would always be the introductory movie, and so while half the moviegoing audience hyped themselves up, others, like Ebert, understood it is just a beginner movie.
By the time Clones rolled around, everyone had heard everyone elses opinions, and maybe down to that fact alone, the overwhelming negativity slightly polluted Clones hopes of achieving anything more than mediocrity on the review side of things.
I personally liked Phantom Menace way more than Clones too, to be honest. I was expecting a lot more from Clones. I didn't care about people hating on Jar Jar, or any of that bandwagon shit (although I was always a little frustrated how C3PO was shunned as the main comic relief for this quite pointless creation). I just really disliked Clones in general, the villains, the set pieces, and what they did to Boba Fett (making the Fett name a monumental plot device while at the same time removing everything that was once interesting about the once mysterous character). The love story was just not convincing, it was creepy. It had its moments, like the Tatooine scenes, but the rest of the movie just didn't do anything that great, even on a visual point of view. The duels in Clones are the worst in any of the Star Wars films, while the chases and other scenes didn't better any of the other similar action sequences from the other films. At least Phantom Menace had the amazing Pod Race and the superb duel at the end. From a visual point of view, TPM wiped the floor with Clones.
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
Point taken.
I always looked at AOTC as more of the transitional movie, to get us from the Old Republic to the events that would make the Empire, and I still say that the arena sequeces(after the arrival of the Jedi)/clone&droid army battle were rockin...... You're right about the duels/chases.... I always kinda considered the end duels as one long fight against Dooku, rather than 3 short ones.
Kudos to you SuperFly.... that's the first real answer to my question so far.
(Rather than opinions of why Episode I, II, sucked/didn't suck)
[WARNING: THE FOLLOWING CONTAINS OPINIONS AND TRACES OF NUTS]
Because the screenplay is worse, the story is boring, it's bogged down by too much romantic dialogue that's just ridiculously unconvincing and has VFX that don't portray an ounce of realism... thus making the film less fun, less exciting, and less worthy of a good review. You know, some people are actually able to see these movies as individual movies, and not as a trilogy or a saga. Why shouldn't someone be able to like one movie in the trilogy and not another? Just because a critic doesn't like a particular episode doesn't mean he doesn't like the PT or Star Wars...
Because critics are just people... like you and me. Their opinions are celebrated simply for the fact that they are able to put them together in coherent sentences.
There was realism in Episode II? Fantasy? Adventure? Really? Because all I take from it is cartoonish (disney-like) FX, bad dialogue and hokey romance. Nowhere near the adventure/fantasy/realism I expected from a Star Wars picture. And the fact is that if this was not a Star Wars film I think I could have liked it a lot more... I could have liked it as just another mindless action film and I could have been quite happy with it. But it's not just a movie. It's a Star Wars movie. And I wanted more... or better... or different.
A-****ing-men! And a thirty minute action sequence ending with the worst lightsaber duels of all-time.
On Empire: To me A New Hope is a sad film. And it's a sad film because it marks the end of the great George Lucas. The great George Lucas whose creativity and originality gave us THX-1138 and Star Wars: Episode V - A New Hope and... well that's it. Because after that he made Empire Strikes Back. A film that is much more blockbuster and much less ingenious than ANH. A film that, in my opinion, is still relatively devoid of pretentiousness but holds many more hollywood virtues. It's the film that marks the end of George Lucas's great creative flair. And I think this is why it was originally held in such low regard compared to ANH. It wasn't until Return of the Jedi was released and the trilogy complete that critical viewers realised that these were largely 'hollywood' films, and that in that respect Empire reigns supreme. Of course, I could be entirely wrong seeing as I wasn't born until four years later...
Registered: Apr 2005
Location: Jedi Academy on Yavin IV
I don't know, I personally think Episode I was vastly underrated. It got way, way overhyped, and then everyone was dissapointed when it didn't meet up to that hype. However, after watching all three prequels just recently (I hadn't actually seen Episode I since about 2000 or so) I was able to notice that Episode I, was in fact, not a bad movie at all. The special effects were fantastic, especially for the era, the battle scenes were actually quite well done, and the acting wasn't that bad, either. Jar Jar Binks was, in fact, horrible, but I think everyone let the "Jar Jar effect" ruin too much of the movie for them. If you ignore Jar Jar, it's not that bad.
Episode II, on the other hand, used more or less the same quality of visuals, as in nothing ground breaking, much more sketchy dialogue, a good deal less battles, and was a lot less important to the saga as a whole then either Episode I or III. I'm not saying II was bad, but I personally do completely agree that I was the better of the two.
Registered: Apr 2004
Location: Impacting nations and generations
No your opinion is valid. I respect it.
I'm just saying that most posters thought Episode II was great when it came out, and now they change their tunes.
I digress... I only started this thread because of the review Ebert gave Episode I, what he liked and didn't like, and then the review he gave Episode II which seemed to totally contradict his earlier review.
I had always thought that most StarWars fans liked II better (I guess because of all the b*tching I heard over I) but alas, it appears that I am batting 1,000 today.
I think the main reason Episode 1 and 2 get such a bad press has nothing to do with what is on screen. All the guys criticising forget how old they were and their experience of films when they first saw Star Wars.
Now compare that to how old you weree when you saw the Pantom Menace and Attack Of the Clones. Of course your expectations are going to change. As it said in one of the reviews posted any kid watching The Phantom Menace probably thought it was the best film ever.
)
Jan 24th, 2006 01:48 AM
) behind Episode I, specifically saying that "character development and relationships" were not as important in StarWars as fantasy, adventure, realism, etc.... then bash Episode II for the things he excused in TPM, while not noting the sizable improvement in adventure, realism, fantasy(Kamino anyone) in EpisodeII? 
