|
CPFortest posted:He got so close to the heart of the matter when he briefly acknowledged that the prequels were meant to be different from the originals. Did he mean to make them terribly written, edited, directed and acted too? That was the biggest difference and the only one that particularly matters
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:05
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Only a fully trained shitposter, with the Force as his ally, will conquer Lucas and his Prequels. If you end your training now—if you choose the quick and easy path, as Tezzor did—you will become an agent of evil.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:13
|
|
|
Basically an hour and a half to say: "The Force Awakens is decently well crafted and watchable but insanely safe and keeping with current popular trends regarding diversity/representation. It is going to continue to be insanely safe and keeping with popular trends and will take absolutely no risks. This combined with it being annualized is going to result in Disney churning out the Star Wars equivalent of warm gruel. Also really bad and stupid people on the internet will complain about the poo poo that does not matter, or use the relative okayness of the new stuff to retroactively say the prequels were not bad (they were)." There. And I pretty much agree. I saw TFA in theaters and was relatively engaged beginning to end and enjoyed it. Afterwards however I almost instantly forgot about it, and it kinda became less and less good in my memory when I was reminded about it and thought back. I originally was like 100% on buying it in Bluray when I exited the theater and now that it's out on Bluray I don't really care if I ever see it again because really it was kinda eh meanwhile I can pop in the original trilogy as background noise while doing something else and enjoy it to this day
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:17
|
|
|
euphronius posted:Lol I love this guy writing off diversity like its a meaningless buzzword. What he actually says is that it's insidious.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:20
|
|
|
Fabricated posted:use the relative okayness of the new stuff to retroactively say the prequels were not bad Who does this?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:21
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Who does this? apparently the people who wrote that ring theory poo poo
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:22
|
|
|
Fabricated posted:apparently the people who wrote that ring theory poo poo They argue that the prequels were good… because TFA is good? 
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:23
|
|
|
Zoran posted:They argue that the prequels were good… because TFA is good? RLM is arguing that the prequels being redeemed in the press is a result of direct action by Disney to improve confidence and nostalgia for the Star Wars brand. Also, to echo what everyone else is staying, TFA is an extremely safe movie, competently made but ultimately forgettable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:27
|
|
|
The prequels were always reasonably okay in the press and only became the worst films ever in internet nerd culture.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:29
|
|
|
Zoran posted:Who does this? It has become very common to attack TFA as being unoriginal and saying "at least the prequels were original" and decrying Disney turning it into a bland production meant to make the optimal amount of money. I want to reiterate that they are saying this about PG-rated callback-heavy prequels to an established blockbuster film franchise, created by an obese elderly billionaire who has printed Darth Vader on every category of manufactured object made of baryonic matter in this solar system.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:30
|
|
|
Zoran posted:The prequels were always reasonably okay in the press and only became the worst films ever in internet nerd culture. Nope! Two counterexamples I saw just today:   (March 2003)
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:37
|
|
|
Nothing more zeitgeist-y than The Simpsons in 2003.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:39
|
|
|
That's a very interesting definition of 'the press'.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:41
|
|
|
Plinkett will not rest until every last person in the world agrees the prequels were terrible. All resistance must be crushed.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:43
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Plinkett will not rest until every last person in the world agrees the prequels were terrible. All resistance must be crushed. How many people disagree with that?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:47
|
|
|
Here's a quote I found from when TPM was first released:Some No-Name Film Critic posted:If it were the first "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" would be hailed as a visionary breakthrough... "Star Wars: Episode I--The Phantom Menace," to cite its full title, is an astonishing achievement in imaginative filmmaking... I was happy to drink in the sights on the screen, in the same spirit that I might enjoy "Metropolis," "Forbidden Planet," "2001: A Space Odyssey," "Dark City" or "The Matrix... What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of "The Phantom Menace," as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:48
|
|
|
Motto posted:I think he doesn't like Star Wars much. I actually don't, at least in terms of volume. This is supposed to be a slam dunk but let's look at it honestly. Most of the fiction that has the Star Wars logo on it is terrible. Only 4 of the 8 theatrically released films are any good, so we're already rolling a solid F there. Then we've got the Ewoks films and the Holiday Special. The Tartakovsky Clone Wars was pretty great, the other Clone Wars was ok to terrible depending on episode, all the other stuff they've released for TV has been terrible (big shoutout here to the Robot Chicken-esque Star Wars comedy series Disney is sitting on like The Day the Clown Cried.) That's the most official stuff and already it's mostly garbagewater by volume by a pretty wide margin. Then you've got the EU, which dwarfs all that other stuff both numerically and in volume. So yeah, as the fact that the brand logo is on a film or a toy or a TV show doesn't mean anything to me. It's the Guy Fieri Ate Here sticker of fiction.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:52
|
|
|
I'm sorry for your loss.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 01:54
|
|
|
The opening of TFA where Kylo Ren stops the blaster shot midair and it's just suspended there while the scene goes on was really cool and striking.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:Here's a quote I found from when TPM was first released: Contemporary reviews were better for the films than retrospectives. The general opinion had largely turned against these films each within one or two years of their release, and the excuse to see the next one was implicit in criticism of the last ("Attack of the Clones has Obi-Wan in it more and Anakin isn't a kid," "Revenge of the Sith is darker and gets rid of the childish crap," etc.) I want to note in the Ebert review that he is raving about special effects and visual design throughout the entire film like a nine year old or bucktoothed rube. That's not really even the most embarrassing part. Here's the end of the review: quote:. As for the bad rap about the characters--hey, I've seen space operas that put their emphasis on human personalities and relationships. They're called "Star Trek" movies. Give me transparent underwater cities and vast hollow senatorial spheres any day. Characters? Human personalities? Relationships? Ha! Pretentious poo poo. Give me cartoon cities any day.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:01
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:How many people disagree with that? More and more people are coming around on the prequels. They're undergoing a re-evaluation and people are finally starting to get them.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
It is important that everyone agree. There must be no individuality, no choice. Basically Tezzor seeks the Anti-Life Equation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:I actually don't, at least in terms of volume. This is supposed to be a slam dunk but let's look at it honestly. Most of the fiction that has the Star Wars logo on it is terrible. Only 4 of the 8 theatrically released films are any good, so we're already rolling a solid F there. Then we've got the Ewoks films and the Holiday Special. The Tartakovsky Clone Wars was pretty great, the other Clone Wars was ok to terrible depending on episode, all the other stuff they've released for TV has been terrible (big shoutout here to the Robot Chicken-esque Star Wars comedy series Disney is sitting on like The Day the Clown Cried.) That's the most official stuff and already it's mostly garbagewater by volume by a pretty wide margin. Then you've got the EU, which dwarfs all that other stuff both numerically and in volume. So yeah, as the fact that the brand logo is on a film or a toy or a TV show doesn't mean anything to me. It's the Guy Fieri Ate Here sticker of fiction. In the full text of the review Ebert says that most other critics are complaining about the characters, and Ebert himself criticizes the characters, plot, writing, and dialogue. Serf posted:More and more people are coming around on the prequels. They're undergoing a re-evaluation and people are finally starting to get them. What's to "get"?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:06
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:Contemporary reviews were better for the films than retrospectives. The general opinion had largely turned against these films each within one or two years of their release, and the excuse to see the next one was implicit in criticism of the last ("Attack of the Clones has Obi-Wan in it more and Anakin isn't a kid," "Revenge of the Sith is darker and gets rid of the childish crap," etc.) How many knots are you going to twist yourself into before you are going to accept that plenty of sensible people like these movies for perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with self-delusion? And how many more posts are you going to make us all wade through before we can go back to discussing them? Or would you prefer to just set an agenda for all of us and we'll make sure to stay on topic?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Serf posted:More and more people are coming around on the prequels. They're undergoing a re-evaluation and people are finally starting to get them. Uh dude I don't know how to tell you this but even among people who defend the prequels it isn't that they are just now starting to "get them," it's because they love Lightsaber Fightz and Worldbuilding. Outside of this carefully curated clown terrarium I have never seen anyone argue that they were actually subversive works about Robot Racism, Darth Jar Jar has a bigger following than that by several orders of magnitude
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:08
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:What's to "get"? How they reinforce and enrich the originals. The way that it all fits together is quite genius. Taken as a whole, the movies are much more meaningful.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:On a rewatch of Attack of the Clones, Do you often rewatch films you despise?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Jewmanji posted:How many knots are you going to twist yourself into before you are going to accept that plenty of sensible people like these movies for perfectly legitimate reasons that have nothing to do with self-delusion? And how many more posts are you going to make us all wade through before we can go back to discussing them? Or would you prefer to just set an agenda for all of us and we'll make sure to stay on topic? I agree that many sensible people liked these movies when they came out. I also agree that many sensible people did the Macarena.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:10
|
|
|
Serf posted:How they reinforce and enrich the originals. The way that it all fits together is quite genius. Taken as a whole, the movies are much more meaningful. You mean that Ring Theory thing?
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:11
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:Do you often rewatch films you despise? Just these, really. Their awfulness is so intensely complex you can come back at different points in your life and continue seeing new things that make no sense and are terrible decisions.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:13
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:Uh dude I don't know how to tell you this but even among people who defend the prequels it isn't that they are just now starting to "get them," it's because they love Lightsaber Fightz and Worldbuilding. Outside of this carefully curated clown terrarium I have never seen anyone argue that they were actually subversive works about Robot Racism, Darth Jar Jar has a bigger following than that by several orders of magnitude You keep thinking that Tezzor. Guy Goodbody posted:You mean that Ring Theory thing? Ring Theory is awesome, but it really goes above and beyond what is needed to enjoy the movies. All it takes is some basic film literacy, really.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:14
|
|
|
It is definitely true that within a year or two of each prequel's release, dedicated fans were able to articulate that the Jedi were hypocritical, self-satisfied shitheads; that the boy who became Darth Vader was anything but a hardcore badass anti-hero; that the romance was palpably an unhealthy one, and in most respects was deeply uncomfortable; and that the big galactic war was fought by faceless hordes whom no one cared about. These observations became proof that George Lucas missed the point of Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:16
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:Just these, really. Their awfulness is so intensely complex you can come back at different points in your life and continue seeing new things that make no sense and are terrible decisions. So you are saying that the experience of watching the film is, to you, consistently rewarding and pleasurable, for reasons relating to its content and not some entirely personal or nostalgic reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:18
|
|
|
*Zizekian rant about the Holy Spirit and the Force*
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:20
|
|
|
Serf posted:Ring Theory is awesome, but it really goes above and beyond what is needed to enjoy the movies. All it takes is some basic film literacy, really. Zoran posted:It is definitely true that within a year or two of each prequel's release, dedicated fans were able to articulate that the Jedi were hypocritical, self-satisfied shitheads; that the boy who became Darth Vader was anything but a hardcore badass anti-hero; that the romance was palpably an unhealthy one, and in most respects was deeply uncomfortable; and that the big galactic war was fought by faceless hordes whom no one cared about. OK, I get it. The prequels are like mirrors of the originals. The originals were fun space adventures with likable characters, and the prequels were no fun and full of weirdos and assholes, and that was intentional and good.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:21
|
|
|
Vegg220 posted:I want to note in the Ebert review that he is raving about special effects and visual design throughout the entire film like a nine year old or bucktoothed rube. Maxwell Lord posted:So you are saying that the experience of watching the film is, to you, consistently rewarding and pleasurable, for reasons relating to its content and not some entirely personal or nostalgic reason.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Guy Goodbody posted:OK, I get it. The prequels are like mirrors of the originals. The originals were fun space adventures with likable characters, and the prequels were no fun and full of weirdos and assholes, and that was intentional and good. Sorry Tezzor, wrong again.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:22
|
|
|
Zoran posted:It is definitely true that within a year or two of each prequel's release, dedicated fans were able to articulate that the Jedi were hypocritical, self-satisfied shitheads; that the boy who became Darth Vader was anything but a hardcore badass anti-hero; that the romance was palpably an unhealthy one, and in most respects was deeply uncomfortable; and that the big galactic war was fought by faceless hordes whom no one cared about. Well, that, and the fact that the films were poorly made in every other way, and that everything he says indicates he did not intend to make films that made his heroes look like worthless idiots, his romance lovely and terrible, and his battle scenes boring and irrelevant.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:25
|
|
|
Maxwell Lord posted:So you are saying that the experience of watching the film is, to you, consistently rewarding and pleasurable, for reasons relating to its content and not some entirely personal or nostalgic reason. I guess if you want to say they work as a comedy of errors I'm not going to argue buuuut I don't think that's the position you want to take.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:26
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 13:25 |
|
|
Vegg220 posted:I guess if you want to say they work as a comedy of errors I'm not going to argue buuuut I don't think that's the position you want to take. Hey, to each his own. Freedom is the right of all sentient beings, that was either Jack Kirby or Optimus Prime who said that.
|
|
#
?
Oct 4, 2016 02:27
|
|