New Yorker considers Attack of the Clones best Star Wars

>>64658701
Are you stupid? He literally says right there in the section you quoted that ROTS is the best Star Wars.

>>64658701

I thought people at the New Yorker were supposed to be smart

>>64658701
>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.”

"True patricians enjoy X", this guy is probably a frogposter

>>64658975
>le kikebook frog maymay

The author wrote a book on Godard, patrician confirmed. RiP RLM, your betters have spoken

>>64659390
he didn't just write a book on godard, he wrote with godard's consent and participation

File: laughing beach girl.png (81KB, 256x256px) Image search: [Google]

81KB, 256x256px

>RLM BTFO by actual patricians

Thank you, Jew Yorker.

>>64659587
>>64659390
I hate sand, it gets everywhere.

>>64659473
>>64659390
>>64659587

you guys are retarded. despite the New Yorker generally being a great magazine, their film section is always the weakest part of the whole and their worst offender for generally tone deaf taste is Richard Brody.

that being said, I hate all Star Wars movies equally but you guys are being dumbasses by revering a writer you've embarrassingly never even heard of

>>64659704

>posting the Brody doesn't have taste meme

Good job, lad. You did it.

File: 1449671033301.jpg (206KB, 1000x643px) Image search: [Google]

206KB, 1000x643px

Reminder that The New Yorker also said The Force Awakens had a magnificent soundtrack, which is equally bullshit.

Also, another reminder that the New Yorker is not one person or a hivemind. That's what I primarily like about it, actually. John Cassidy might write something that someone else would pen a disagreeing article later on. It takes longform journalism seriously.

>>64659780

>likely never reading the New Yorker and just reading Brody's blurbs online

keep it up my man

>Abrams’s shortcomings as a rebooter also make it easier to appreciate Lucas. Lucas didn’t always think of himself as a great director. (He has often said he was mostly a great editor.) But he was a Tolkien-level master at creating new worlds—as the critic Tom Shone noted, he created so many that Abrams didn’t seem to feel the need to create any.

This is from a different article but it does a good job of showing some of Abrams' shortcomings compared to Lucas.

>>64658701
B T F O

T

F

O

>>64659390
That book is pretty much trash and filled with errors tho.

I guess even the New Yorker needs some clickbait.

And people call Armond a contrarian

>>64660073
Have to compete with all these young whippersnappers and their blogs.

>>64659642

>oh you have a boyfriend, a cute boyfriend?

>>64659852
This.

I guarantee most of these cucks didn't know who Brody was before this article anyway.

He has shit opinions and the New Yorker's film section is notoriously pleb

>>64658701

I agree with a lot of Brody's opinions, unfortunately this stupid article is going to be paraded around /tv/ for the forseeable future just because someone who isn't some youtuber has this opinion.

Doesn't help that Brody's ridiculous writing style convinces plebs that he's some sort of ultra-intelligent savant and his opinion should be taken as fact.

That said, I am legitimately glad that Lucas is being appreciated more and the high points of the prequels are being singled out, though I don't get the problem he has with Williams, personally.

>>64658975
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JybITdCrqyU

>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.

Why is this allowed?

The whole article feels like a 12 year old with a dictionary at hand trying to type big words for an essay due tomorrow what a fucking retard

What a bombastic and pretentious way to write an opinion piece. I can't even take it seriously. The article is too self-impressed. It's far more interested in sounding intelligent and cultured instead of conveying its opinion.

>>64660360

People are allowed to dislike Williams' compositional style.

It's not like he's Beethoven.

>>64660640
No theyre not.

File: image.jpg (31KB, 350x526px) Image search: [Google]

31KB, 350x526px

>>64658701

We've already been over this.

Episode 1: Movie
Episodes 2-3: Cinema
Episode 4: Movie
Episode 5: Film
Episode 6: Movie
Episode 7: Flick

>>64660640
> people are allowed to dislike Williams
> anyone who dislikes the prequels are Disney shills
> anyone who dislikes TFA are contrarians

Seriously, because you seem like a good guy, but where do you think you are?

File: 1437813212727.jpg (57KB, 250x402px) Image search: [Google]

57KB, 250x402px

>editor: We need a Star Wars article...some new perspective!
>blogger: New perspective? shit half the internet is star wars articles.
>editor: Ill give you 1/2 a portion.
>blogger: What if...we say the prequels were the best movies?
>editor: give me 2000 words

And thats how these "BTFO" articles are created.

>>64660244
>he's some sort of ultra-intelligent savant
Seriously? I immediately thought he was a complete tosser.

>>64659704
This tbqh family

>>64658701
People from New York are untrustworthy.

>>64660688

Sorry lad, I probably should have called him a cuck.

>>64660685
2-3 Cinema

TRIGGERED

>>64658701
>Jew Yorker
>ever

>>64658701
suck it stormfags hahahahaha

BTFO
B
T
F
O

>>64659704
>their film section is always the weakest part of the whole
no that would be the music section
>you guys are being dumbasses by revering a writer you've embarrassingly never even heard of
are you fucking retarded i had a subscription to the magazine for years and still regularly listen to brody's podcast

>>64661049
>still regularly listen to brody's podcast
Who's the retard in this thread?

>>64661093
you for thinking i dont know who brody is

>Richard Brody
>Good opinion

He's a shit critic and I'm not surprised everytime he says shit like this.

>>64660360
>The whole article feels like a 12 year old with a dictionary at hand trying to type big words for an essay due tomorrow
is this the first movie review you've ever read?

>>64660685
this is correct

This is merely a glib facsimile of a good movie review.

>>64658701
But /tv/ has always loved prequels. They are severely underrated gems.

File: Lucas.jpg (2MB, 1333x2000px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 1333x2000px

http://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-george-awakens

>On the other hand, it must be satisfying to see his gifts as a director, so long forgotten, be praised. “The Force Awakens” makes it once again possible to think about George Lucas as a man of imagination, of conviction, and (minus Jar Jar Binks) of taste—as a brilliant appropriator rather than an average one. It took a forgery to get him called an artist.

File: Captura de pantalla 2016-01-09 a las 10.41.20 a.m..png (1MB, 2384x710px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2384x710px

Anakin and Vader

POTTERY
O
T
T
E
R
Y

>>64658807
He's supporting the prequels, of course he's stupid.

>>64660815
Its alright anon, this board plays by its own rules these days anyway

God damn, the direction was horrible on 2&3. What an absolute pleb

>>64662141

It's funny that you're calling others plebs with an opinion like that.

Lucas should just remake this whole new trilogy which I'm sure will be complete shit