>If I had seen “Revenge of the Sith” in real time, in a theatre upon its release, in 2005, I think that, at the moment when Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), sizzling in the blue lightning that Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) reflects back at him, cries out to Anakin (Hayden Christensen), “Power! Unlimited Power!,” I would have leaped out of my seat yelling with excitement. The entire movie is filled with an absolute splendor of the pulp sublime, and that moment is its very apogee.
>It’s nice to see George Lucas get a little love (as Bryan Curtis noted this week). Yet this retroactive recognition is nonetheless proof that a filmmaker can be both rich as Croesus and assured of a place in history while still remaining a misunderstood and unappreciated artist. Lucas’s great achievement isn’t the conception of the “Star Wars” saga, the inauguration of the franchise, or his consignment of it to Disney for cloning ad infinitum. Those are for the movie books, for the pundits who reduce movies to such sociological oxymorons as “collective imagination,” the cultural counterparts to industry analysts who talk only about box office. What endures for the critics and their lay associates, for aesthetes who live for the beauty and the pleasure of movies, is Lucas’s directing—of two films, “Attack of the Clones” and, especially, “Revenge of the Sith.” If Lucas had done nothing else in his life, he’d have an honored place in my personal pantheon for that work.
>It’s easy for me to say so, because I only just saw those films now, after a few days of not-quite-binge-watching of the Blu-ray set of the series. I’m nearly a “Star Wars” newbie. Prior to viewing “The Force Awakens,” I had seen the first film in the series (the one belatedly renamed “A New Hope,” from 1977) some time in the nineteen-eighties, and none of the others. That’s because I was utterly underwhelmed by “A New Hope,” impressed solely by the world-making of the script—the delivery of a ready-made but minor mythology—but neither moved nor fascinated nor at all delighted by the filmmaking. Rather, I was shocked—that the director of “American Graffiti” could have constrained himself to create such a turgid, stilted, flat, and textureless movie. I wasn’t working as a film critic or journalist at the time (or when any of the subsequent five films came out). I went to the movies guided solely by pleasure, even curiosity, and nothing in the viewing of “A New Hope” induced me to catch up with the then-recent releases of “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi,” nor to follow along with the three prequels.
>I was wrong not to watch. But it would have taken a couple of decades to find out how wrong I was, because the marathon watching of “The Empire Strikes Back,” “Return of the Jedi,” and “The Phantom Menace” was a chore (for the record, a self-imposed chore). “A New Hope” at least had the merit of coming first—it had the element of surprise—along with a comically flat direction that appeared to be a parody of the mediocre serials on which it was based. “Empire” and “Jedi” had nothing parodistic; their absurd earnestness and the bombastic banality of their direction (by Irvin Kershner and Richard Marquand, respectively) are a perfect match for the oppressive, hectoring John Williams scores that accompanied them.
>My colleague Alex Ross recently wrote in praise of Williams’s music for the “Star Wars” series. I defer to Alex regarding the details of musical knowledge and craft that Williams displays; I differ with him regarding the emotional and sonic affect of the music. Hearing Williams’s compositions for “Star Wars” is like being ordered, loudly and aggressively, to feel, and to feel one thing. It sounds calculated to bludgeon a viewer into submission, to create a cowed unanimity of simple and narrow emotions that are the antithesis of imagination and fantasy.
>If there was nostalgic, faux-naïve whimsy in Lucas’s inaugural installment of “Star Wars,” it was gone from “Empire” and “Jedi,” replaced by a hegemonic bellow for devotion and belief. A friend—who happens to be one of the best critics around—says that the “Star Wars” saga has become the closest thing to shared religious belief among contemporary Americans. He told me this before I had seen “Empire” and “Jedi.” Now I believe him, but I’d add that it’s not a joyful religion, not a terrifying or awe-inspiring one, but a wet blanket of piety that replaces passions with palliatives, and mysteries with nostrums.
>I watched the series in the order of release—4, 5, 6, 1, 2, 3—because it makes no less narrative sense to do so. It’s the age of Christopher Nolan, not to mention the two “Godfather” films, so it shouldn’t take a Ph.D. in Alain Resnais to make sense of a series in flashback, especially because the series superimposes two time frames on each other—the characters’ evolution, and the evolution of the series itself. I’m much more interested in the latter, and that interest brought rewards that far exceeded that of the ostensibly grand narrative revelation at the end of “Jedi.”
>“The Phantom Menace” was depressing, perhaps because of the centrality of the child Anakin Skywalker (Jake Lloyd), whose perky earnestness in a holy cause makes the movie feel like a homiletic children’s broadcast. The actual emotional peak of the film—the “Ben-Hur” parody of the space-chariot race, which Lucas realized with obvious verve and delight—occurred early on, while the huge quantities of exposition and lengthy establishment of the conflicts underlying the episode and the series turned the film into a slog. Nonetheless, the sheer volume of that exposition, the invention of an intergalactic politics to counterbalance the quasi-religious story, impressed me even more than the mythology of “A New Hope”—even if Lucas here relied on even duller methods to deliver it. What’s more, one visual device—the red zone of the shield generator, which filled the screen to look like a faded and scratched color print running sideways—was utterly arresting (I watched it three or four times in a row) and it suggested realms of invention that Lucas was barely ready to tap.
>This peculiar contradiction began to resolve itself with the pleasures of “Attack of the Clones.” There, Lucas’s force awakens. The movie’s rich-hued palette alone is a jolt from the start, and the movie’s action scenes have an alluring, entrancing kinetic vigor and texture. The speeder chase with the paid assassin, with its swoops and spins and drops; Obi-Wan’s fight with Jango Fett; and the serial duels with Count Dooku—all of these display balletic gracefulness and dazzling rapidity along with closely-textured compositions in depth, surprising pictorial imbalances, and angles that are as expressive as they are surprising. The colossal scale of the assembled clones toward the end of the film has an awe-inspiring power greater than anything in any of the four films that preceded it. My hypothesis is that digital technology caught up to Lucas’s imagination. Finally, by 2002, digital technology, which he had begun to use in “The Phantom Menace,” liberated him from the limits of optical effects and, by means of C.G.I., could create the fusion of live action and animation that was implicit in the project, and in his vision, from the start.
>The labyrinthine opening shot of “Revenge of the Sith”— of Anakin and Obi-Wan giving chase to Dooku through the space vehicles on the planet of Coruscant—is a mighty and audacious gauntlet-throw, the digital equivalent of the opening shot of Orson Welles’s “Touch of Evil.” It wheels and gyrates and zips and pivots with a vertiginous wonder that declares, from the beginning, that Lucas had big visual ideas and was about to realize them with a heroically inventive virtuosity. And the rest of the movie follows through on that self-dare.
>If I had seen “Revenge of the Sith” in real time, in a theatre upon its release, in 2005, I think that, at the moment when Palpatine (Ian McDiarmid), sizzling in the blue lightning that Mace Windu (Samuel L. Jackson) reflects back at him, cries out to Anakin (Hayden Christensen), “Power! Unlimited Power!,” I would have leaped out of my seat yelling with excitement. The entire movie is filled with an absolute splendor of the pulp sublime, and that moment is its very apogee. Lucas reaches historic heights in the filming of action: the martial artistry of Anakin and Obi-Wan’s double duel versus Dooku, the gaping maw of outer space and of the airshaft into which the heroic duo drops, Obi-Wan’s light-sabre fight with the four-armed Grievous, and, above all, the apocalyptic inferno of the confrontation of Obi-Wan and Anakin (which, regrettably, cuts back to Yoda and Emperor, a much duller battle). I watched these sequences over and over—happily, with the sound off to get rid of the musical score—and was repeatedly and unflaggingly amazed by Lucas’s precise, dynamic, wildly imaginative direction.
>The scripted politics of the conflicts have a grand imagination to match. What Lucas brings to the script of “Clones” and Sith” is a quasi- (or pseudo-) Shakespearean backroom dialectic of power-maneuvering. The dialogue is just heightened and sententious enough, just sufficiently rhetorical, to convey the grave moment of ideas in conflict and the grand mortal results of that dialectical clash—the making of a villain and the unmaking of a republic.
>No, Lucas isn’t Shakespeare; I’m not inclined to throw around the lines as newfound poetic gems, and there’s nothing in his direction to throw the language, such as it is, into high relief. It’s in language that Lucas’s limitations as a director reveal themselves. When he films people talking, his inspiration seems to grind to a halt. “Clones” and “Sith,” for all their merits, slam against what I’d call the problem of baroque opera: like the operas of Handel, they’re just series of dazzling arias (in Lucas’s films, visual arias) that are punctuated by long stretches of recitative to advance the action.
>If the mark of the modern cinema is its approach to the word, the great modern directors are also like opera composers, who, with the compositional comprehensiveness of Verdi or Wagner, set the text cinematically and seemingly turn words into images. In the classic action films that served as inspirations to Lucas, such as those of Howard Hawks and John Ford, the directors found distinctive and personal ways to turn apparent exposition into dramatic action and visual expression. The question is why Lucas—whose genius burst into brilliant flower in “Clones” and “Sith”—didn’t (or couldn’t) extend that artistry to the entire spectrum of his material, textual as well as physical.
>I suspect that the world-making, the narrative architecture of the self-extending mythological power of the “Star Wars” series, got in the way of its own realization. Could the word be too sacred to Lucas for him to subordinate it to the profane cinematic image? Could the import of the invented mythology be too great, in Lucas’s mind, for him to subject it to the ambiguities of visual transformations? Did he know, or surmise, that the enduring authority of the series would be based not in his direction—however original and distinguished—but in his stories? And, if so, did he conclude that he wasn’t prepared to submit them to the all-too-readily misunderstood realm of the image?
>Lucas is a complex person whose great talents are at war with each other. His gift for serial form—his skill as a writer and producer, as an inventor of stories that will be remembered as cultural artifacts when only a small cult of aesthetic enthusiasts will recall his directorial artistry—is a mark of his will to power. Lucas the producer, a man of the world, is a man of the word. Lucas the director, the still-aspiring avant-gardist whose own pleasures in ecstatic confections and delirious conjurings seem, to the lovers of his myth-world, like a merely incidental idiosyncrasy, is oppressed by Lucas the storyteller and Lucas the showrunner of his own long-term series. In effect, his mighty lust for power clashed with his mighty artistic inclinations and abilities. His great talents and his great desires, his will to create and his will to control, came into conflict—a conflict which, judging from his recent remarks, he hasn’t happily resolved to this day. Anakin Skywalker’s Faustian story is, in a way, Lucas’s own.
I really wish /tv/ would bury the new "prequels are good" meme. We're only 8 days into the new year and it's already played out and was never true to begin with.
The prequels are fucking awful. Deal with it and stop being contrary in order to try to appear different and thus holding a more refined opinion from the rest of us "sheep." Sometimes consensus is correct.
>If I had seen “Revenge of the Sith” in real time, in a theatre upon its release, in 2005, I would have leaped out of my seat yelling with excitement
so hes some fucking kid writing culture articles on SW
Before The Force Awakens came out no one on this board gave a shit about Richard Brody. I can't wait for people to stop talking about him. Armond White is the only contrarian critic that matters.
Every dialogue scene is people walking in front of a green screen or sitting down to talk
The CGI that was much praised when it came out already looks dated barely more than a decade later
"Only a Sith deals in absolutes"
"I have seen a security hologram of him killing younglings"
"From my point of view the Jedi are evil!"
"REEEEE I HATE YOU!"
Not to mention every line of dialogue spoken by Jar-Jar. The SW prequels are possibly the worst written Hollywood blockbusters of all time.
It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, now Brody) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.
The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.
Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. Let's take >>64625979 for instance. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.
Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.
>"I think George really wanted to come up with a new idea, he didn't want to build something bigger than the last one to make a statement about bigness."
Your move, JJ.
>Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate
>I'll try spinning, that's a good trick!
>I killed them, I killed them all, they're dead, every single one of them, and not just them, but the women, and the children too, they're like animals, and I slaughtered them like animals! I hate them!
>It's all Obi-Wan's fault! He's jealous!
>I'm haunted by the kiss that you should not have given me
>From my point of view, the Jedi are evil!
>A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion
>I wish I could just wish away my feelings
>Love won't save you, only my new powers can
>My powers have doubled since the last time we met
>I have seen a security hologram of him killing younglings
>I hate sand
etc etc etc
>Watch the original trilogy in VHS when they announced The Phantom Menace in development at age of 10 for first time
>Watch a cam-rip with no voice and black cuts 4 months before it came out to cinemas
>Watch The Phantom Menace in Cinemas opening day
>Skip Attack of the Clones because from my point of view the movie was shit
>Watch Revenge of the Sith again in cinemas because I want to recover faith in Lucas and I did
>Movie ends and the whole cinema room claps, and I'm not even american
This millienials faggots will never understand what it feels to have lived episodes I-II-III in your childhood/early teenage days, but manchildren 30s years old retards.
Fuck all of you niggers, respect for Lucas.
I bet you would single out any given line from a Tarkovsky film as 'awkward and badly written,' just because you're not used to lines that don't sound like the way people talk in blockbusters.
Anakin doesn't like sand because he had a poor childhood on a sand planet. Later in the film, he returns to his sand planet and slaughters sand creatures who rape, torture, and kill his mother.
The line is poorly delivered, the actor is simply too stiff, but everyone's problem with the line is on a surface level and only shows how shallow their ability to parse screen language runs.
>Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate
So what was, for example, the casting/direction of Anakin Skywalker and Padme? A daring, avant garde attempt to make use of terrible acting in a blockbuster?
Nigga, the prequels aren't supposed to be tone poems on the nature of existence. The fact that you would compare them to Tarkovsky shows how tone-deaf you are about film. They're supposed to be popcorn adventure serials that even a child can understand and enjoy.
And even if Lucas was attempting something more complex with them, he failed. The romance is stilted and reads like some kind of Victorian dime novel. The action is without suspense since we already basically know the outcomes for all the major players. There are large misunderstandings of what makes the Star Wars mythos appealing at the movies' cores.
But, more than anything, they sapped the fun out of Star Wars. George Lucas did what everyone thought to be impossible and made three very boring, completely predictable (and not in a good way) Star Wars movies.
So which is it?
Is it a high piece of art that was misunderstood upon release, or is it a revisionist look at the pulp attributes that made Star Wars popular in the first place?
Is it sophisticated or trashy?
Make up your fucking mind about which side you're arguing for, you inconsistent nitwit.
It was to establish a blockbuster romance that was intended from the start to be in error and result terribly. Their love is foolish to the Jedi and to the audience. It's not the Hollywood romances of classic film, though it often evokes them ironically (for instance, the scene in AOTC where they kiss under the arena arc could be from any classic Hollywood romance with an optimistic ending arc). It's a failure of the viewer to not realize that a narrative can use awkwardness or characters misjudgments purposefully.
Again, you're only digging yourself deeper. Art doesn't have to be one or the other. Ulysses and Gravity's rainbow are high art with 'trashy' motifs, and have been described as 'mid-brow' art. Several art films embrace disparate qualities, for instance Korine.
>Lucas’s reputation is getting shined up because he’s no longer in the crosshairs. This is how it’s supposed to go with sequels. Ridley Scott and James Cameron made the great “Alien” movies, then stepped aside for the lesser ones; nobody blames Spielberg for “Jaws: The Revenge.” So long as Lucas was the chief mythmaker and commercial guardian of “Star Wars,” he never had that luxury. Now he does. And though the two men are friends Lucas couldn’t have picked a better amanuensis than Abrams, who honors his heroes but doesn’t have it in him to drive a light sabre through their hearts. Abrams will never be a master.
I have. I'm not saying SW is on their par, just that it's closer than the originals and that complaints surrounding the prequels are coming from a misjudged and illiterate apprehension. The prequels are flawed and are not great films, but they're better from a cinematic perspective than the originals. I think Lucas had good intentions that should be respected (at least above the originals), not that he's a genius that succeeded 100%.
Jesus Christ, they are not better than the originals.
The original trilogy is quite possibly the most influential and lasting movie series ever created for a reason. It's sublime pulp entertainment.
The prequels are self-indulgent, dehumanized video games masquerading as movies.
You really are trolling.
Just because they're 'lasting' doesn't mean they're good. I think their 'influence' is a bad thing, personally. Brody outlined why they're lasting, and why the reasons are bad, very well:
>A friend—who happens to be one of the best critics around—says that the “Star Wars” saga has become the closest thing to shared religious belief among contemporary Americans. He told me this before I had seen “Empire” and “Jedi.” Now I believe him, but I’d add that it’s not a joyful religion, not a terrifying or awe-inspiring one, but a wet blanket of piety that replaces passions with palliatives, and mysteries with nostrums.
The prequels try to achieve something beyond mere entertainment. And then everyone here complains how 'boring' segments are, as if that's a problem within the movie and not within themselves. For all the characterization of Lucas as completely oblivious, he clearly knew the risks he was taking ('I might've gone a little too far...') and knew that throwing long expository scenes with political jargon could possibly alienate people approaching the films from a pure entertainment expectation.
The fact that an audience hungry for fluff wasn't pandered to does not mean anything at all about the cinematic quality of the prequels, or of the originals.
>This peculiar contradiction began to resolve itself with the pleasures of “Attack of the Clones.” There, Lucas’s force awakens. The movie’s rich-hued palette alone is a jolt from the start, and the movie’s action scenes have an alluring, entrancing kinetic vigor and texture. The speeder chase with the paid assassin, with its swoops and spins and drops
I always knew I'm a patrician.
It was reflection and mirroring. The other two sequels also mirror things, just that the rhyming is more abstract. Yes, I'm aware the 'it's like poetry, they rhyme' thing is a meme, but the fact that there's violent, angry, condescending reaction to Lucas trying to be a film poet only supports my views. The reaction is anti-art. I don't think anyone who spouts the meme as pejorative reads poetry.
TFA is the film that steals.
Again, a typical anti-art phrase slung at many an art film. As for the video-game criticism, it's not the first time a film trying something new was compared unfavorably to another meidum ('this was too wordy, too literary,' 'less a film and more a documentary.')
The fact that the prequels are so divisive points to their merit being higher than the originals. What lasting power do the originals have beside merchandise, grins, and fond memories of turning your brain off time and time again?
That point he makes is completely wrong though.
It's the prequels who explain away the force as something scientific rather than something felt through nature.
The prequels overexplain the Jedi order as something equal to a monastery, where the inhabitants are so far removed from the society which they're tasked with protecting.
The prequels codify Jedi practices, where in the past Yoda gave Luke more of a framework of how to be a good person in spite of the power and advantages that might come from selfishness and cruelty.
It's the prequels that eliminate any imagination regarding the clone wars, Anakin's fall from grace in order to accomplish redemption, etc.
The prequels consumed the mythology that people loved about Star Wars, the ideas of letting go and trusting your instincts or being capable of great things in spite of size, or relying on the strength of cooperation instead of succumbing to the will of a master, and shit out ninja style lightsaber fights.
Fuck you for trying so hard to apply sophistication to movies that totally miss the mark on everything that makes SW great. For fuck's sake, how do you defend Jar Jar and his fart jokes?
Is /tv/ the most pathetic userbase on 4chan? The contrarian mental gymnastics regarding Star Wars: TFA is incredible and at the same time absolutely loathsome.
The constant denial, backtracking and moving the goalposts.
>"TFA will be shit! Fucking Jew Jew Abrams, fucking nigger main character, fucking SJWs! People won't accept this! It will be worse than the prequels and a total flop!"
>Trailer drops. Record pre-sales, screenings booked out months in advance. Hype incredibly high.
>"I-it'll still be a flop! Guaranteed to be shit! Phantom Menace sold well too before people realised it was shit! N-nigger character!"
>TFA releases. 5 star reviews, record opening day. People love based Johnny B's performance, and he's very well received.
>"o-ok it might not be as bad as we thought, but it's still not going to beat Jurassic World! Disney are finished!"
>Beats Jurassic World, despite being released in off-season and no Chinese release.
>"J-just wait until based RLM eviscerates it for being A New Hope ripoff in a Mr Plinkett review! You'll f-fucking see then Starfags!"
>Mike loves it. RLM approve and think it has saved the Star Wars franchise from the prequels.
>"FUCKING SHIT FILM, MARY SUE JEW SHIT. PREQUEL LOVE THREAD. WHO FUCKING LOVES ATTACK OF THE CLONES? I DO. REVENGE OF THE SITH WAS BETTER THAN ROTJ. BASED GEORGE LUCAS. WELL AT LEAST TFA WON'T BEAT AVATAR
The mouthbreathing basement dwellers who strive to be contrarian have been backed into a corner really, they started so verbose. So confident that the film would be a flop, not break any records and would be panned by critics. Slowly as TFA has BTFO them on every conceivable level, they've been reduced to adopting some bizarre cult-like contrarian attitude to the prequels, proclaiming them as underrated gems, and trying to push some kind of narrative where if TFA doesn't beat Avatar, it's somehow failed, despite already being a record breaking movie and saving Star Wars.
It's funny how every criticism towards TFA is met with
>at least it wasn't as bad as the prequels
like it's supposed to mean something or that it completely relieves TFA of all criticism.
How is the force a pious concept then?
How is enjoying Star Wars some kind of panacea for our modern times?
That dude isn't saying anything except that people have turned to mass media for their virtues and values in an age of the Death of God. You could use that insight to criticize any popular art. Bold, fresh point, Mr. New Yorker.
The Midichlorians are clearly explained as being a mediator between the force and the human's genetic structure. It's not purely scientific, and it reflects the more nuanced approach to spiritually that the scientific world had (and still is) edging toward. The two are not black and white - Lucas was trying not to deal in absolutes.
Yes, the Jedi order was blind to the people. It's a similar flaw of the current religious institutions of the real world. It's clear in the films how that turns out for the Jedi, and why.
Yoda clearly learned from the downfall of the Jedi. The prequels are prequels - they work in tandem with what is known of the original trilogy, and, in my opinion, give more meaning to the original trilogy than the originals do the prequels.
Except that the prequels only show the set-up and conclusion of the clone wars. Cartoon installments regardless, you can imagine it as whatever you want, which is exactly what the writers of the series did. They do not steal from you your interpretation. As for Anakin's fall from grace, there is no intrinsic meaning in the ambiguity of that - the version we see is pure Shakespeare, what else could it have been?
The prequels focused on negative choices of an individual and a collective for a moral point. Trusting in instincts and working in a group are all mere platitudes - they don't make for good film. They're the realm of after-school specials. The prequels are dark and deal in operatics, which doesn't make them grand movies by default - what makes them at least better is that the theatrics and operatics work so well in tandem. Nothing in the original films leaps out as something inspired for a Blockbuster, but we hadn't seen action-oriented blockbusters before ROTS that ended in that kind of tragedy or political nightmare.
Jar Jar was supposed to work in line with the film's sense of innocence. He has a clear function. No, I don't like him either, but neither do I like Ewoks or C3PO.
Not just any popular art is as spread across all frontiers as Star Wars, though. It takes one trip to Walmart to realize this - they have aisle-center stands of life-size Darth Vaders and Storm Troopers for sale for 100$, meanwhile their votive candle selection is awfully small. Not to mention that Star Wars video games, comics, and books outsell many other titles in their mediums, and that the characters and even just the name of Star Wars is emblazoned on everything imaginable. The endless Youtube vids of people crying at the trailer reveal is awfully similar to the religious experiences people have during particularly intense Church sermons. The same happened with Harry Potter and Twilight, I guess, but not for more than 30 years, and not across so many demographics.
Yah but C3PO never literally stepped in shit m8
I dont think the prequels are entirely awful if you edit out the complete shit in it, as can be seen on youtube, but even then, as a whole, they fucking suck
Star Wars didn't invent global Capitalism. Nor did it create consumer culture. Blame the people for failing to see the product.
Even beyond the sleazy money-making aspects, however, the fact that movies from a generation ago can still touch so many people, regardless of whether or not they spend a dime on merchandise, speaks to something basic in their nature that resonates across cultures.
That is a good thing. And, I would argue though you may disagree, Star Wars sends very similar messages to the faiths that we've casually abandoned in the age of reason.
The prequels have a bunch of trite backstory no one asked for.
I hate poop because it was a literal showing of how low Star Wars stooped in EP1. It basically pulled an Adam Sandler in my eyes.
I think they have similar roles, that's about it though. There is a way of personifying the role. With one they made it tolerable and the other they didn't. Saying "they are the same character" is like saying "Oh you liked that one sidekick that one time? I guess you now must always like sidekicks because you liked a sidekick one single time".
The idea of Jar Jar wasn't entirely awful, it was his execution that was flat out embarrassing. Although to be fair, it made kids laugh (honestly I don't remember if it made me laugh when I was a kid, so I won't say it didn't) so generally speaking I guess Jar Jar did work, just not as universally as C3PO did.
Not entirely at either of you two in my post, but I haven't been on /tv/ in a while and I'm pretty curious why everyone is hating TFA here? Is everyone faggots now or does the lack of originality really mean that much to you?
If all the prequels are to you is 'trite backstory' then you missed a lot of their point, which, ironically, is against the point you think the originals were making. Which they weren't making, Star Wars was always against religious faith - it was against authority. George is half buddhist, more spiritual than religious. The prequels attempt to do what the originals had in mind - they cast religios dogma as the authority, which through its stringency allows a worse authority to rise. It's a cautionary tale. Star Wars was always anti-dogma, more about self-actualizing than following the status quo, but the prequels actually delivered a meaningful version of this by exploring that good intentions can give rise to bad things. A quote from Steven Weinberg: 'With or without it you would have good people doing good things and evil people doing evil things. But for good people to do evil things, that takes religion.'
The prequels argue for a return to faith, a faith that has succeeded both good and bad dogmatism. They're the origin story of exactly what you like so much about the original's view of spirituality.
>why everyone is hating TFA here?
This is /tv/ where liking something is seen as a sign of weakness. Especially if that something is popular with the masses.
Hence the outpouring of prequel apologists and TFA haters.
No, that's incorrect.
I do admire Lucas for taking risks and expanding the SW universe in the prequels. However, his technique (his writing and directing, etc.) were so incredibly, at times shockingly, subpar as to render all good will moot.
I love world building myself. However, I can't overlook the myriad flaws that stink up the prequels. I just can't.
Am I the only who thinks George (or at least one of his good friends) is paying off writers to play up the "goodness" of the prequels in a desperate attempt to stop Disney from calling them non-canon?
I haven't even watched The Force Awakens but I'm certain it surpasses the mediocrity of I-III.
JJ is too unimagainative to come up with this kinda of p[poetry
Seems fair, this site was always composed primarily of fags. The hate just seems pretty fucking stupid to me though. Like, did they really think they would not play it safe with the first Star Wars since basically the universally hated prequels? Did they really think they would go out in left field for this one, the one they couldn't miss?
Nah, in fact I'm man enough to admit I literally have no clue what either of those things are.
The dialouge was awful. Especially in the Phantom Menace. Just awful. It was slightly improved in Attack of the Clones, yet still pretty bad nonetheless.
Revenge of the Sith feels more like a clip show than an actual 3 act dramatic structure.
The article in the OP and the 'glib facsimile' review and tons of backlash elsewhere means that it's not just /tv/ hating TFA. Acting like everyone who doesn't share your opinion is memeing or a product of a zeitgeist groupthink is logically absurd, especially because there's no bigger groupthink zeitgeist than the people paying to see Disney's new product.
Movie reviews don't consist of links to youtube, because it doesn't communicate anything about your ability to explain why you did or didn't like something. If you can't elaborate on your opinion, it's essentially useless. It doesn't matter if I can formulate my own opinion, even if it's the same as yours - because the topic of discussion here is why you thought the scene was bad, not why, objectively, the scene was or wasn't bad.
tl;dr, if you can't explain your point, stop making posts as if your input matters.
Yeah, conversations between potential lovers are never awkward. Real people talk in Hollywood cliches that show zero flaws or self-consciousness. I'd hate to see the script you'd have written instead.
Yeah, I'm sure that's what it is. Lucas understands young love so well that he wrote a purposefully awkward scene with a bad joke. You know, to show the depth of infatuation.
And not because he uses bad jokes to force together a couple characters who have no chemistry and no reason for wanting to be together.
>he actually thinks that was good writing
It's smashing every single box office record and its camera version of the movie is being downloaded more than literal oscar movies.
There is not tons of blacklish. There are statistical and financial proof that it's but an extremely small minority that just won't shut the fuck up about how much they hate it.
>being this much of a pretentious asshole
no one writing a review here, we're talking about a movie. The scene is obviously bad, you're retarded if you can't see why the acting, dialogue and direction is awful. Anyone with half a brain can see that this is a poorly done scene that breaks your immersion when you realise no two humans in the history of mankind has ever communicated in this fashion. You're a contrarian shitposter, well done.
Learn what the word objectively means before you use it as well you fucking sperg. Jesus christ read a fucking book
>A communications disruption could mean only one thing: invasion
Okay, that is pretty damned funny out of context.
Its no use. Had it been the other way around and people would have loved the prequels, then /tv/ would have hated them without a doubt.
This is why this board is one of the worst on 4chan. Not the memes, but the stupid contrarian opinion about everything.
>contrarian redditors will claim that this scene is amazing cinema
>contrarian redditors will claim that the character motivations in this scene make sense
>contrarian redditors will claim that the dialogue in this scene is realistic
I didn't say anyone was writing a review, I was trying to show you the difference between actual discussion, actual elaboration of opinion, and what you're doing, which is saying nothing at all. 'It was bad, you're dumb if you think otherwise, no one in the complex and vast history of man has ever acted this way because I don't like it!!!' is not an argument, I could say the same thing and change some words - would that make me as right as you think you are?
Say an actual opinion or shut up.
1. this post is literally reddit
2. Richard Brody is far smarter and better at critiquing movies than you and the neckbeard fanbase who actually likes TFA.
His left pinky probably has a higher IQ than you and the typical shills who just want to see any generic action shitfest with light swords thrown in the mix.
>Mouthbreathers on the defense will fail yet again to explain their 'correct' opinions.
It's so obvious you people don't even believe in your own perspective - is it because you know you're wrong?
Your a literal fucking faggot. He said that it "breaks immersion" and "it's not how humans actually talk"
he said exactly what he disliked about it and you respond with "heh you just don't like it thats not an opinion"
borderline tumbler shit right here
I feel genuinely sorry that you can't express your opinion, but think that opinion is such absolute truth. Linking videos is not an argument. If it were, I could just link to the article from the OP and suddenly be right.
I already pointed out the obvious flaws, defend them or stop posting. Your pretentious novel replies are boring to read especially considering it's basically damage control at this point
>doesn't even adknowledge that he used the word objectively whilst having no idea what it means
This is how I know it's worthless to argue with you, you'll never admit when you were wrong and just keep insisting that the issues raised don't matter because "THATS JUST UR OPINION BRO"
>TFA dicksucking redditfags have no unique response to getting told to go back to reddit so they've resorted to telling PT lovers to go back to reddit
So devoid of creative merit that you rehash insults
He didn't explain what about it breaks immersion. That it's because no two people have talked like that is laughable. Outside of Hollywood films people don't talk like that, but that's not a mark against the dialogue - especially if the point was awkward love jitters. No one in this thread has written to the lengths the prequel appraisers have. That just goes to show that beyond repeating Plinkett catchphrases, no one here knows why they dislike the prequels.
>completely ignores my replies because he can't handle being BTFO
Screenshotted your posts so next time some whiny contrarian starts trying to say PT is top tier cinema I can repost them and laugh at you. Next time think before you fucking talk you piece of shit
Just saying he has more insight into how to pace a movie and make it move along through editing than do many critics who find themselves stuck looking at themes and other such higher minded principles.
Filmmakers criticize from the trenches while critics survey the battlefield from the hill.
he's right though
the unlimited power scene is legitimately fucking awesome.
it's so good you could replace every other scene in the prequels with well-written material and leave that scene almost unchanged.
What do you think you deserve a fucking novel anytime someone disagrees with you? And how is that a fucking defense for the dialogue? "Well it's not human, but if they wanted it to be awkward it works." What about Vader's character ever made him out to be awkward? Even when he was a fucking kid he wasn't that awkward about Padme, so why now is he suddenly a little beta fuck?
Like do you seriously like what they did with Vader's backstory? Arguably the greatest film antagonist ever did it because he was a fucking cringy teenager?
Again, 'pretentious' is anti-art and illustrates your approach to things being entirely juvenile. You reduce arguments far exceeding your own by calling them 'novels.' Do you enjoy setting your bars low, then acting like you're the king on the throne, as if one follows from the other? I didn't respond to you think I used the word 'objectively' incorrectly because it was irrelevant, but here you go:
What I said was 'because the topic of discussion here is why you thought the scene was bad, not why, objectively, the scene was or wasn't bad.'
I was trying to emphasize that your subjective opinion of the film was what I was trying to get out of you, not what you feel is an objective fact (that it's bad). But seeing as you still don't see the reason for elaborating on your opinion, because you simply can't, apparently, is the truth, then talking to you at all is irrelevant.
How are humans not awkward? Are you an actual person or just a robot who thinks in 4chan phrases and Plinkett reviews? You don't like how they humanized him - what would you have preferred? What exactly, about their choice, made the film itself bad?
If you think actually thinking out your thoughts makes your posts 'novels' that's truly pathetic.
My rebuttals are in response to them literally not explaining their opinions. If you want to rope logical fallacies into this, the burden of proof is on them to explain why the prequels are bad. As for ad hominem, they're the only ones using expletives.
the worst aspect of that scene is Hershalg
people complain about Anakin, but i think the character is played well as an overly emotional, unstable, psychologically damaged, borderline autistic lunatic. he's not well in the head, and is completely unstable. this is how an autistic little cretin would speak to a woman he cares about. Nat gives a performance as though she is reading from cue-cards.
There may be eye-rolling aspects such as hovering pears and CGI bites, but no more eye-rolling than quips and meaningless plot catalysts present in TFA.
it was a genuine effort from lucas to do something more substantial. hes not a genius, but he knows how to make cinema - abstract and thought provoking cinema at that - THX1138
he tried to be enthusiastic about the project despite understanding that he was being paid to make a film in which the characters could be used to decorate paper plates for childresn parties
TFA is a heartless, pandering, product of a machine. it is designed for social media and the internet generation - those who promote content willingly and unaware of doing so. it is a toy commercial.
Agreed. Stoklasa makes so many errors, it's unbelievable. For example, his whining about Obi-Wan being "inconsistently" impulsive. I don't know how people constantly miss this, because the point is driven home repeatedly over the course of the trilogy:
ANAKIN: I say . . . patience.
OBI-WAN: Patience! That's your plan, is it?
We see it's gotten to the point where even Anakin fucking Skywalker occasionally has to remind Obi-Wan Kenobi to be patient.
This stuff isn't exactly subtle. George Lucas himself points out on the DVD commentaries that Obi-Wan is constantly contradicting himself and ignoring his own advice. The fact that Mike Stoklasa immediately jumped to the conclusion that this clear, consistent characterization of Obi-Wan could only be the result of narrative incompetence on Lucas's part should disqualify him from ever being referred to as an insightful critic of these movies.
>People are actually arguing about the movies
>Not appreciating the strengths and faults of all 7 movies.
>Not liking and enjoying all 7 - soon to be so many fucking movies equally.
This is actually happening in 2016, people are (whether ironically or not) reevaluating the prequels.
Is this real life?
Why do plebs constantly chalk up liking/disliking something to "being contrarian"?
>"Oh, you like this thing that the majority of people doesn't like? You're just being contrarian!"
This isn't even close to being a good argument. People have different opinions on things, especially things like movies. Claiming that 4chan just tries to be "contrarian" is a shitty argument, because then people could just as easily argue that you're just trying to agree with the masses.
Oh you LIKED The Force Awakens? Well you just like it because everyone else likes it. See? That's a stupid, pointless shitty argument.
I enjoy /tv/ and /mu/ because people offer different points of views on movies and television that you're not going to see expressed on other websites where people are afraid for whatever dumb reason to go against the masses and form negative opinions on popular things.
If you want a hivemind literally go to reddit, you will love it.
Both your replies are that it's bad because it's "awful", "bad", "obviously flawed", "pretty bad", "subpar", "myriad flaws", "just awful", "retarded", "poorly done" etc.
This is literally just "it's bad because it's bad because it's bad because it's bad..." with different synonyms for "bad".
This tautology means nothing and gets us nowhere. It presumes some realm of Abstraction which can be appealed to for victory.
Meanwhile, Brody is explaining why he thinks it is good, and does not say "it's good because it's good."
I'm not sure what you're trying to achieve by posting non sequiturs like this but if you've been here for any length of time it's fairly obvious that 4chan in general is contrarian as fuck and will hate things because they're popular
Most people form their opinions in order to fit in with everyone else. When someone else doesn't do this it angers them and they start projecting their own opinion forming process.
If we were true contrarians, we would like Marvel Cinematic Universe flicks as well as the prequels, because everyone here hates those too.
However, we have not. We remain pure, as Marvel DOES suck.
The prequels and TFA simply reflect different forms of film making.
There is nothing wrong with liking one style of film making over the other, and both TFA and the prequels have different aspects which are good and bad for completely different reasons.
TFA is a well directed film (except for the final shot what the fucking shit)and has a well writen script, yet the world building is nothing compared to the prequels and the story is cliche. Most people are just mad that TFA is done in the exact style that all the marvel movies are done in since disney took over marvel.
The prequels have lots of cheesy dialougue and lots of the scenes which are core to character development are poorly done, but they also have have very memorable sequences. Much more than TFA has, which is do to the fact that TFA is just like all the marvel movies.
Stop being a faggot. TFA is shit.
memorable because they're bad maybe, the only scene I remember having positive feelings about is the end fight and if we break it down that's really just a pretty dance routine. TFA had lots of interesting and memorable scenes
>old, broken empire war machines covered by sand
>empire wrecking a village and kylo ren stopping a bolt in mid air
>kylo having temper tantrums and smashing shit up
>rebel ships flying over the ocean on the jungle planet
>Finn overcoming his fears and taking up the lightsaber to defend Rey
I could go on but that'd be boring
>>The scripted politics of the conflicts have a grand imagination to match. What Lucas brings to the script of “Clones” and Sith” is a quasi- (or pseudo-) Shakespearean backroom dialectic of power-maneuvering. The dialogue is just heightened and sententious enough, just sufficiently rhetorical, to convey the grave moment of ideas in conflict and the grand mortal results of that dialectical clash—the making of a villain and the unmaking of a republic.
Henry VIII was the basis for the prequel trilogy, whereas Henry V and Post-WWII battles in Asia formed the basis for the original trilogy.
The sequel trilogy would probably benefit from looking into Henry VI, as he has a mixed character which is reminiscent of Kylo Ren.
>i could go on but that'd be boring
Thats why TFA is so boring. The well done scenes don't stand out at all because there is Micheal Bay tier action going on almost non-stop. You need downtime between big setpieces so you don't wear out the audience. The prequels have too much down time, but TFA has no downtime whatsoever, and both are poor ways of making a film.
I can only hope that the next SW films find a happy medium, but i doubt that is going to happen, because the non-stop marvel action romp is so prevelant in modern pop film, and i doubt disney will slow it down for the sake of keeping with that style of movie.
>claim TPM is better than TFA
>yeah well it doesn't matter because all star wars films are bad
lol ok then
>OMG U CANT DO THAT
>keep doing it anyway
you got BTFO son, sorry to break it to you
>pretend to be someone else
>can't except that everything has flaws
>can't except that people hold different opinions and appreciate different aspects of films
>implying at any time i said "the prequels are good"
>picking on some other anon because he think we are the only 2 anons in this thread
Literally illiterate reddit scum.
Its like arguing with a 2 year old or a feminist .
>in denial that a third party finds you cringe-worthy
whatever makes you feel like a champ, pham
>implying you made a grammar mistake
nah nigga, you used the wrong word twice in a row then had the audacity to call other people illiterate. You're just straight up stupid.
Your argument is flawed anyway since you just keep moving the goalposts when you get BTFO, there's no point in engaging you once you've already embarrassed yourself this much
>universally hated prequels
maybe in your corner of the internet friendo, most people are fine with them. Are they as good as the OT? No, but normal people don't sperg out and start saying they're the worst thing to happen to mankind because of that fact.
I proved you wrong here: >>64632218
your next reply is a bunch of irrelevant garbage that has nothing to do with what we were talking about.
The next reply you made after than was greentexting a bunch of stuff I never said or implied in any way and finishing with a couple of high school tier insults
I can't believe I just had to walk you through what you posted mere moments ago. You are literally the dumbest person on 4chan
>It was to establish a blockbuster romance that was intended from the start to be in error and result terribly
too bad it fails at the first post by being completely unconvincing as a romance on any level
i'm not sure if you don't know how film works or if you're just autistic and don't know how human interaction works at all
>It's a failure of the viewer to not realize that a narrative can use awkwardness or characters misjudgments purposefully.
This is some masterful baiting, especially by /tv/ standards
>no two humans in the history of mankind has ever communicated in this fashion
It's a good thing they're in a galaxy far away a long long time ago, then :^)
And one is a borderline autist manchild.
What about the scene where Finn is distraught because he doesn't like killing after his best and only friend is killed.
Then he goes to free the person who killed his best friend and helps him escape, killing dozens of his fellow Stormtroopers.
What amazing cinëma
Kindof like how AJ McCarron was referred to as a 'game manager' instead of a qb just because he was so consistent while taking very, very few risks.
I really liked the Star Trek reboot. The sequel, not so much. Based on what I've seen, I think of JewJew as an IP Manager. Hardly a creator.
C3PO was genuinely useful and he was able to help people through his abilities. Jar-Jar only managed to help people because his ineptitude would somehow take out the bad guys.
* Convinces Luke to purchase R2-D2 when R5-D4 blows out
* When on the Death Star and the stormtroopers are looking for the Luke, Han, and Leia, the stormtroopers enter the room where C3PO and R2-D2 are. C3PO easily tells a lie and diverts them away from Luke, Han, and Leia.
* When Luke, Han, and Leia are in the trash compactor, C3PO is able to tell R2-D2 to hook into the computer to stop the trash compactor
* C3PO is able to diagnose the Millennium Falcon in ESB.
What useful things did Jar-Jar do by intent and not by accident?
Fuck off, /tv/ has always loved the prequels. If you saw a negative thread about the prequels, it was usually part of a Reddit raid, or a Gaia Online raid before that.
Now go back to Reddit and tell them hello.
This is what the Prequels gave us:
>Double bladed lightsabers
>Variations of Droids
>Curved held with Dooku's saber
What TFA gave us
>Soccer ball droid
Why do I waste my time reading anonymous retards like >>64629645
I never would have imagined that people would unironically defend the fucking star wars prequels
Even if it is trolling seing the same shit over and over again just drains the life force out of you
I fucking hate movies
>implying conversations with the person you love are not awkward as fuck IRL, but you both are too blinded by love to notice or care
Confirmed for basementlord. Love makes you awkward, love makes you forgive awkward. Love is not bought by kind words or gestures. Sometimes it is just being near a person for a while and being attractive.
Real life is not a hollywood movie, and the SW PT love story is more true to life then most of the Hollywood drek.
>the SW PT love story is more true to life then most of the Hollywood drek.
yeah remember that time you rode a space gondola to a field of alien pigs so you could roll around in the grass and smile and laugh
remember that time you killed like a hundred people and she told you that she thought that was hot
Don't you guys get what he was doing with the prequels!?
The original Star Wars was a samurai movie (with direct references to e.g. Hidden Fortress; two bums swept up in a grander plot = two droids etc) interpreted through the aesthetics of Flash Gordon and WWII. It's high camp, like the New Yorker guy says.
Well what are the prequels doing? They're classic Hollywood sword and sandal movies interpreted through the lens of Star Wars!
This also helps us know how to enjoy the prequels: as we would Ben-Hur, The Ten Commandments, or even the original Star Trek, which is filled with the great enjoyable "boring" bravado which is so characteristic of camp.
This "they're all sitting and talking" critique - well have you watched these movies I'm talking about?
This is also why the Force changes between the movies. In the samurai movie the force = zen or bushido, but you can't have ancient Rome and zen, so it's reinterpreted through the new genre. Instead of something vague and mystical it is completely demystified, plain, calculable, quantifiable: something which can work as material for political intrigue.
The reason this offends you is honestly because you are so attached to the originals you can't see what he was doing in the first place.
Funnily enough we can also interpret the Force in the TFA in the same way: what is it if not puerile nostalgia. "It's real!" Yes, the nostalgia is here and very expensively real.
Where does this attitude come from? Is it impossible to dislike both TFA and the Prequels?
TFA is a film with problems and the prequels are films with bigger ones. Let's not constrain ourselves - hate them all equally.
People can think whatever they want to about the other two, different strokes and all that, but AotC is one of the worst films I have ever paid to see. Anyone who tries to defend it, instantly outs themselves as a cunt.
Yes, sequels that are too similar to their previous entries are always panned for being rehash shit, except if it's Star Wars.
VII being a shitty uncreative remake doesnt make the prequels good, but it does make them look better by comparison. I still dont pretend to like them, but I know people who did when they came out, who feel almost vindicated after seeing what happens when you make a cash grab without even discussing the story with its original creator.
be a poorly done lazily scored rehash of a good film that is supposed to be a new sequel instead of a reboot.
honestly it wouldnt suck so much as a reboot. As a sequel its the worst star wars movie. It advances nothing to the plot, there are no political motivations (one of the few good things in the prequels) and the soundtrack sucks compared to his previous scores.
A patrician Sheev fan, I see.
i literally haven't met any other faggot hating the prequels other than old manchildren on the internet. There may be preferences and criticism but this blind hatred is nothing more than a meme designed to give the poster geek cred.
the only logical possibility for the influx of prequel apologists is that TFA did not produce all the le ebin maymays XD that /tv/ wanted. so they cling to the tried and true memefest that is the prequel trilogy. I guarantee if TFA had double the memes it produced, the hate would not be so strong. meme-loving fucks
I tried watching it the other day and it completely crushed my spirit with how mind numbingly dull it was
It's 6 minutes longer than TPM but it feel like 6 hours, I'd rather watch TFA 5 more times.
Thanks for keeping Star Wars and Disney alive.
The cunt fucking movies won razzies for being so bad, the poor quality of the movies is legendary and has been lampooned in the Simpsons, South Park, Roger Ebert, Family Guy, hundreds of jokes in other media, have 50% on rotten tomatoes and terrible reviews on literally every single site ever reviewing the film, the kid from Phantom Menace go teased about the movie being bad until he went crazy. Stop rewriting history you fucking cunt moron.
God damn, that was some 10/10 bait right there. You'll be the new copy pasta for shitposters for a while.Good job.
>/tv/ drones review every critically acclaimed movie as "shit" or "reddit"
>the more critically acclaimed, the harder it is to find praise for it on this board
>this is so consistently true that one can predict a movie is an 8/10 or higher just based on near-unanimous negativity here (muh shit)
>the only exception to this is campy 80s shlock that often has great reviews but can still be used to pad out a fat, retarded neckbeard's special snowflake syndrome with its age and subsequent relative obscurity (i.e Predator, which is mindless ackshun garbage but it's OLD mindless ackshun garbage!)
A good recent example you might have noticed is watching as, over the course of a couple of weeks following torrents releasing, threads on Sicario became infested and rendered useful by memespouting contrarian manchildren and triggered /pol/ inbreds with IQs around 30-50. It's always amusing to watch negativity spike following torrents, as you can really picture (and almost smell) the friendless, pathetic losers rubbing their hands together watching the download bar, ready to shitpost about how bad the movie they haven't watched yet is. Fuck, I could write for days about how bad the people on this board are. They really represent the lowest rung of our species, and they need to go back to circlejerking on the containment board for brainwashed neo-nazi manbabies.
yeah the meme was successful, in order to be taken seriously you had to shit on the prequels.
Its a good thing normal people dont care about this shit.
Besides most who spouted it grew up with the OT. The prequels may not have been great movies but they were enjoyable and had a soul.
TFA is nothing but a shitty rehash cashgrab, completely soulless like most Hollywood movies today.
There are literally two bad things about the prequels:
>dialogues (even Jar Jar could still be salvaged as a character if not for the way he speaks)
>CGI overuse (which already look dated)
Honestly, that's all.
And while only those two things are enough to make PT so awful, you have to admit there are some things they did right.
The storyline and the cast were great for example, stop spouting memes.
you can almost tell by the amount of vitriol they got from manchildren that they had a soul and took risks instead of being a carbon copy of the only thing the manchildren wanted, not a new movie, no, they wanted to watch the OT over and over again with a different paint job.
Well you got what you wanted now with this shit movie I hope you are happy.
The prequels spawned the expanded universe and vidya that is actually much better than the entire saga and they cant take that away from me.
That's just a proof that meme was successful, famiglia. Even the biggest normies act like prequels were the worst thing to ever happend, but can't name one bad thing about them except for Jar Jar. And hating Jar Jar is literally just a meme withing a meme.
And believe it or not, most people around the world don't care for Star Wars as they probably watched max. OT once or not at all.
The original consensus, and the correct consensus for Clone is that it was an 'improvement' over the phantom menace. They changed the consensus like a month ago because muh populism.
Rotten Tomatoes has incredibly low standards for who it lets affect the meter and I wouldn't call 95% of film critics 'versed' academically or even by hobby in film and what makes film good. I mean, look at the reviews - they mostly come from places like FilmJunkiez dot web.
>Lucas re-uses a scene
>JJ uses a modified, logical and somewhat similar plotline as an homage to the original trilogy
Stop kidding yourselves, contrarians. That basement humidity is getting to your heads.
>implying women do not get wet as shit for men in uniform
Anon, I am so sorry to tell you this, but women are not pure delicate flowers. They actually do in fact get attracted to a man who can kill a ton of other people with ease.
>Using grammar as shit as that ad calling others autistic
>The cunt fucking movies won razzies for being so bad
Technically true, but to be more accurate two supporting actors did for their performances in the film, and II for worst Screenplay. Razzie awards are just tastemakers though, the actual worst things in the year often slip through the cracks.
>the poor quality of the movies is legendary and has been lampooned in the Simpsons, South Park, Roger Ebert, Family Guy, hundreds of jokes in other media,
Hyperbole. Unless you can cite the 'hundreds' of lampoons, then you're just being hyperbolic. Also, widespread consensus doesn't mean something is bad. It's widespread consensus that Bjork has a bad voice, but that's not what informed critics think. Also Ebert liked 2/3 of the prequels and didn't outright pan II.
>have 50% on rotten tomatoes and terrible reviews on literally every single site ever reviewing the film
Wrong. The prequels range from 50% to 80% (two being fresh and one being certified fresh), and there are plenty of reviews and critical writing that praise them, for instance OP's post.
>the kid from Phantom Menace go teased about the movie being bad until he went crazy.
Hyperbole/speculation. Plus if it was anyone teasing him, it was the people who share your opinion at nerdy fancons.
>Stop rewriting history you fucking cunt moron.
The only one doing that is you. Just because the prequels are bemoaned in the media you pay attention to (this is called 'confirmation bias') doesn't change the fact that the general public, and the critical public, were lukewarm to enthusiastic about the prequels over time.
Cinemascore found that the audience (their research reflects the average go) scored the prequels all A minus or A plus. The DVDs and Blurays for the prequels sell at the same level as the original trilogy.
The action is also so much better. The punches connect, there is time to breathe. Seriously, if you think the prequels are video games then what the hell is the Force Awakens?
>widespread consensus doesn't mean something is bad
The entire point is that the consensus was that they they were bad. I haven't even seen the third film, I don't care if they're good or not, they simply have that stigma and to say otherwise is a lie. You just proved me completely right by the way.
>The only one doing that is you.
I hope you get raped to death. The prequels are the single most criticized films in the history of the existence single we developed from apes. How dare you even hint otherwise? What an utterly absurd lie.
I just wrote what was essentially fursuit erotica and you have topped me and every post I've read today in terms of autism.
Bravo sir, you deserve several medals for this outstanding example of pure autism.
>The prequels are the single most criticized films in the history of the existence single we developed from apes.
No they aren't: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_films_considered_the_worst
Not him but I have no idea what the fuck you were trying to say either.
The prequels just sucked. The Last Airbender shat all over an entire show even harder then the prequels ever did, it essentially turned TLA into a laughing stock.
>What you said was barely even a sentence at all, much less a statement.
Put a shotgun in your mouth, cunt.
>I didn't say films with the worst reviews, the films with the most bad ones.
>That statement is even more nonsensical. A film doesn't 'have mediocrity
Down syndrome. It's extremely common sense to know that the prequels were met with mixed reviews, and that a huge percentage of people were disappointed.
Wow, anon, calm down. You're making a fool of yourself.
'Common sense' refers to things like looking twice before crossing the road. The reaction to the prequels, as reflected on wikipedia (which should represent the common perspective, right?) has I and II as polarizing films (with good and bad reviews split) and III as generally liked. Your hyperbolic statements like 'the prequels are the worst thing since forever they SUCK they're worse than aids and cancer they're the stupidest thing since we learned how to walk!!!!' is the hyperbolic whining of a nerd virgin twelve year old and are simply not true, on the basis of being clear hyperbole.
I know that when you go to comic con your entire life's purpose rests on fitting in with the other nerds who all hate the prequels, but that doesn't mean normal people or 50% of critics, at max, hate them. By the way, you have extreme clinical autism.
>the prequels are the worst thing since forever they SUCK they're worse than aids and cancer they're the stupidest thing since we learned how to walk!!!!
Hey you fucking retard, you're the one who doesn't understand that you're the only person here using hyperbole. You're a stupid fucking faggot with an agenda who instantly thinks that because I said that the prequels are widely criticized, which they are, you stupid fucking moron, that I must hate the movies. You don't know how I feel about the movies. I might like them. Christ no wonder you sound so fucking stupid, you're literally putting words in my mouth and then attacking them because you have no critical thinking skills. You're a fucking embarassment.
Critical thinking skills, lmao. If I removed the ad hominem from your posts, they'd be 3/4 shorter and complete nonsense. You use 'stupid' as a fucking prefix, nearly.
I'm not putting words in your mouth at all. Look at an example of your dumb hyperbolic statements:
>I hope you get raped to death. The prequels are the single most criticized films in the history of the existence single we developed from apes.
I've given you facts (wikipedia, cinemascore, rotten tomatoes) which all support, more objectively than anything you've given, that the widespread appraisal of the prequels is split to favorable. But do continue your 'primary school student who just learned how to curse' routine.
>everything you say is nonsense
You need a new argument. Please don't put words in other people's mouths and them attack them, it's fucking stupid, and you lost this one. Maybe next time.
Hey go rape your mother, baby
>The prequels are the single most criticized films in the history of the existence single we developed from apes.
They are, they're also the most famous, so it stands to reason that they would get a lot of bad reviews.
>I'm not putting words in your mouth at all.
>Your hyperbolic statements like 'the prequels are the worst thing since forever they SUCK they're worse than aids and cancer they're the stupidest thing since we learned how to walk!!!!' i
They aren't. There isn't a considerable wealth of positive reviews for 'Manos: the hands of fate' for example. And I don't think we can count nameless online nerds in the criticism collection, since then we'd need to count normies who roll their eyes at arthouse or /tv/'s hatred for any given well-received movie. Maybe if you said 'most polarizing movies.'
You didn't make an argument, you're just angry about the following statements being true
The prequels have been met with a lot of criticism and mixed reviews
I like them
Many people have been disappointed by them and there's a lot of negative emotion from many fans
And don't try to complain that it's only neckbeards. That's a logical fallacy, no true Scotsman or some shit like that.
Those are true. The subject wasn't those truths, but the stupid fucking hyperbole and outright lies by the guy who got Ebert wrong and the guy who said they're the 'most criticized movies in history.'
>We're only 8 days into the new year
well, that's me persuaded
Manos would be a movie rated bad by 100% of a group of a 1000 people, which is a 1000 people who don't like the movie, but EP2, being seen by more people, would be rated bad by whatever, 40% of a group of 1,000000 people. That's a huge number of people who don't like the movie, even though Manos is worse and god I'm boring myself just talking about this
The problem with the prequels is they're stuck in no man's land. They're not great drama, the acting and dialogue are too poor. They're not great entertainment, the elaborate storyline makes it too complicated. They're not great narratives, the story is convoluted but very naive. They're not great technical showcases, for every instance of digital accomplishment there's another of digital horribleness. They might have been great exercises in world building, except it frequently contradicts the original universe. It's just a very mixed bag of elements that really should've been polished more. What Brody is doing is reacting against the Marvelized action formula, which shares many of the lows of the prequels, but few of the highs. It's understandable, to a certain degree.
>I already gave you an example.
Tell me again, I'm busy
>most criticized movies in history.'
How can they not be? They're the most famous and have mixed reviews. What other movie would have as many viewers deciding they didn't like the movie?
Your posting style itself is hyperbolic. I quoted you up above, which you somehow missed, and then you misconstrued my mockery of your quote as itself hyperbolic, which was dumb.
So being one of the most famous movies, and having a percentage of the audience not like it, means it's the most criticized? But anon, an unexpressed dislike isn't a criticism. And your percentages are based off the critical reviews, of which there are more split reviews on movies that had high exposure (Transformers, Twilight, etc.) The critics are a smaller representation of the in total criticism, about as much as the vocal prequel hating nerds. Again, and this was said before:
Cinemascore, a survey which represents the typical movie-goers reaction to a film, showed that your average person ranked the prequels all either A minuses or A pluses. This is a fact.
So, the average person liked them (owing to their strong DVD & Bluray & Digital sales), critics were split 50% on exactly one of them, and comic con hates it. That does not, at all, make for the most criticized films in existence, not when we have famously bad movies considered by critics and the public who form their opinions from its recorded critical revile to be 'the worst,' of which no SW movie finds itself there. They're polarizing, yes, but not 'the most criticized.'
>So being one of the most famous movies, and having a percentage of the audience not like it, means it's the most criticized?
Yes you braindead cunt. It has the most criticism. Goddammit I hate you.
Take box office recepits and divide that by it's average online review score, times three because there are three films, then you have a number that can't possibly be touched by another film, and if there is, I'd like to hear it.
Okay, now go do that for all of the films that made as much at the box office as the Star Wars films until you've accounted for all of the prequels (and originals, while you're at it, in which case Revenge of the Sith and Return of the Jedi might are neck and neck, 79% on RT each!) in rank against these films, and then give me the numbers. Until then, your statements are wrong.
I'm sorry if you're victim complex is falling apart but normies at the time loved the prequels far more then anyone loved Manos.
>well a bunch of people saw it and didn't like it so it's the most critisized movie of all time
Is bullshit when you know and I know why you're defending it right now and it's for the same reason people are defending TFA, star wars is a religion at this point, everyone is a fan, everyone saw the OT and everyone loves.
No one was criticizing your normie schlock til now because except to the for the jarjar hate, it was sacred, the second Plinket opened the floodgates you only then realized you have nothing to stand on in it's defense.
You can go be deluded about this thing that means absolutely nothing, no one gives a shit. But why do you expect anyone here to care at all about something you can't prove?
Here's some light reading for you: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophic_burden_of_proof
>well a bunch of people saw it and didn't like it so it's the most critisized movie of all time is bullshit
It is, stop getting so frustrated. It is the movie with the most amount of criticisms. Of all time, probably. It almost can't not be due to its popularity. I don't know why this makes you so mad.
>Yeah well no one cares
Fuck you're asshurt.
Remember kids, follow your dreams.
>no one cares about your 'fact' you can't prove
I don't care that you don't care you little retard
Criticized by who? When? Everyone else has already shown the Cinemascore, the RT, I can drag out the metacritic, I can bring up that wikipedia article again. Nothing you say is worth jack shit because you have no actual evidence to refer to beyond how right you think you are.