Disney and the prequels

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 28868
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Solo release thread (spoilers)

Post by Vympel » 2018-06-11 10:34pm

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-09 11:24am
Apparently, the OT fanboys.
And this terminology has been used where?
I
SW would have declined like other popular 70s and 80s movies like E.T. This doesn't mean they won't be popular, just not as popular if there wasn't a constant flow of new materials for people to get into the franchise.
Asserting that the licensed material kept SW more popular is sort of like asserting that the beer nuts in a bar with musical acts kept it open before the acts came on.
They are not. The fact that you think they are the same is your problem.
I think it's pretty clear that you're so obsessed with defending the prequels from criticism you think 'mixed' is somehow a hill to die on.
Because your standards are based on your nostalgia as a kid watching the OT. LOTR is an all-time classic, and deserve its Oscar. Most blockbusters don't win Oscar, nor do they need to win Oscars to be called a decent summer blockbuster.
No, they're really not. The significance of the OT in terms of film-making is well settled and has been the subject of plenty of serious commentary. Your attempt to deride its significance as just 'kid nostalgia' is utter nonsense which erases its signifiance.
I don't need a movie to be Oscar-winning or Oscar-worthy to enjoy a movie.
Didn't say you needed to.
So? Plenty of Blockbusters reached those scores and many people walked away from it having an enjoyable time. People don't go on about how their childhood is ruined because a movie only reached low 60s% instead of 90% on RT unless they are a bunch of fanboys.
And when did this become about "their childhood is ruined"? That's something you've introduced just now in a quite obvious attempt to tar me with that brush, and it casn get fucked.

They're just shit films, and that has nothing to do with my childhood.
By your standards, every movie that isn't a classic is a horrible movie. This is a good indication you've long lost your perspective in judging the prequels.
Rubbish. There are plenty of perfectly fine movies that aren't classics. This does not mean the prequels deserve to be placed with them.
It's because no one gives a shit about Thor 2 to even make memes about it. So what if MCU and SW saga are not identical projects? You judge a movie on their own individual merits and not by their "franchise". You have no consistency in your rage against the prequels.
Sequels and prequels are justifiably judged by - amongst other things - their contribution to the story which is being told. This should be plainly obvious.
Weren't you the one spending ages raging at people for having worthless taste in movies as if you're being objective in some way?
No? I can tell them they have horrible taste without holding myself out to be 'objective'.
A mixed film is not the same as a poorly received film. If a film reception is mixed, you cannot support your claim of there being a "cultural consensus" about the Prequels.

A mixed film is by definition, nothing something people have a "cultural consensus" about.
It's laughable that you think film's with mediocre critical reception (i.e. poor) which are constantly derided when they're mentioned in any medium are somehow not subject to an obvious cultural consensus.
Nothing. It's just stating that he moved from his fanboy-raging phase and look at the prequels more maturely.
Huh? You're inventing things that aren't there in your hyper-sensitivity about the prequels again, aren't you? Kevin Smith didn't say anything that could be interpreted as 'fanboy-raging' in that video.
Of course Disney is not dumb enough to openly state they are the "true inheritors of Lucas's original vision". I never said they stated that explicitly. You need to have an extremely rose-tinted glass not to see Disney was trying to portray themselves as as the people who could somehow bring back the "old magic of the OT" in their marketing.
So more hyper-sensitivity about the poor prequels. You see enemies and slights everywhere! Disney is sending out coded messages denigrating the prequels!
Once again, you've missed the point. All I need to do is to show you that Disney/LFL at the top level have made decisions in the way a movie is marketed. They do want to please the fanboys ( not surprising from a business standpoint).

The question Romulan Republic asked is whether Disney(at the top exec level) will be influenced by fanboys raging on the Internet. My reply to that is yes they will.
Based on all the imagined slights you invented in your head about the prequels, you mean.
Your question is whether there is a wide cultural consensus about the movies having some sort of deep insight into the human condition( and whether that was the main reason for the success of the OT). My counter-point to that is there isn't. People( adults) in the 70s saw Star Wars as a fun, enjoyable summer blockbuster with good story and good vfx.

It's the fanboys growing up with SW that tries to make SW into something it never was. The OT are not "deep" movies.
Again with your "deep" distortion. I reject it. Noted absolutely no substantive response to what I said, sticking to your ridiculous "adults in 1977 are what matters!" idea for Star Wars as a cultural milestone.
You're the one that quoted Roger Ebert with his quote about SW never being deep movies to begin with.
Must've missed where Ebert used the word "deep" either.
Most blockbusters don't win or even get nominated for Oscars. Your standards is just plain ridiculous.
LOL, as if the only thing that marks the LotR trilogy as superior to the prequels is whether one of them won an Oscar. Not the awful script and dialog, cack-handed plot or mediocre direction.
Oh please. You're the one constantly triggered by anyone talking about prequel-bashers. Just because someone is a professional filmmaker does not make them immune to nostalgia and being a massive fanboy when it comes to Star Wars. People who are mature about the flaws and criticism of the prequels don't go on raging about how they are the worse movies ever.

The vast amount of movies coming out every year are forgettable movies with plenty of flaws. The difference is there is no legion of Gen X fanboys going online and raging about how their childhood has been ruined for years.
Project much? It's pretty obvious that the only person getting constantly triggered here is you, and your constant inventions of what are actually totally fictional, imagined slights against some pretty poor films demonstrates that over and over and over:

- Kevin Smith makes an innocuous comment about how Dave Filoni made him appreciate the prequels more? He obviously went through a 'fanboy-rage' stage and what's more Disney having him on stage at some event was obviously a clear signal to "OT fans" that they hated the prequels.

Because that doesn't sound fucking insane.

- Simon Pegg, accomplished professional filmmaker, is chiefly useful to JJ Abrams because he's a "prequel basher".

- Disney's entire marketing efforts for the ST are aimed at denigrating the prequels because they're vaguely associated with ... the better, more successful, better received films.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10108
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Re: Solo release thread (spoilers)

Post by Elfdart » 2018-06-19 08:14pm

Vympel wrote:
2018-06-06 11:48pm
ray245 wrote:
2018-06-06 08:50pm
Oh please, they've already listened to the vocal minority with their mindless prequel-bashing. This has resulted in the new movies deliberately sidestepping many important storytelling elements ( see TFA cutting away scenes that offered some context to the political situation in the Galaxy), marketing ploy (look, we are using puppets instead of CGI!) and aesthetic ( new X-Wings that practically looks the same as the old one with very minor differences!).
Leaving aside that preferring to creatively associate their new films with the beloved original films (to which they are a direct sequel) and not the critically panned culturally punchline that is the prequels is not "prequel bashing" - its laughable that you think the only reason for making any of these decisions is disliking the prequels and marketing. Like it's impossible to conceive that a film-maker would prefer to work with real props and creatures he can percieve with his own eyes for any reason other than commercial reasons.

And that the prequels are piss-poor films isn't a minority held opinion, it is a wide cultural consensus reflected in both their poor critical reception and cultural legacy. The loud minority are prequel apologists.
Apparently, one of the Red Letter Morons has hijacked Vympel's account. When he gets back, he'll no doubt have a laugh that someone would be stupid enough to think they could attribute such fucktarded claims to the Vymp -who has already seen these very same fucktarded claims debunked on this very same site. Like the one about the prequels being "critically panned" when they got better reviews when they were first released than the first three films got when they first came out.

As for "cultural consensus" (whatever that's supposed to mean), just because something is popular online (like prequel-bashing) doesn't make it popular in general. For example, libertarianism is huge online, but somehow they just can't win elections or even make a good showing at the polls. Sure, it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates the prequels, just as it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates Anne Hathaway. Yet strangely enough, both seem to have done just fine at the box office.
"The actual smallest viable human unit is Jordan Peterson’s dick"

----Allen Ventano

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10108
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Re: Solo release thread (spoilers)

Post by Elfdart » 2018-06-19 08:39pm

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-08 09:47am
More precisely, my point is that Disney had been listening to the loud prequel-bashers on the Internet. There is no reason to assume they won't listen to the fanboys raging about TLJ.
To some degree they have by bringing back Abrams to do the next one. No one paints by numbers more than that jobber. No doubt the next movie will chew the cud of TFA, just as TFA chewed the cud of ANH -a rehash of a rehash.
"The actual smallest viable human unit is Jordan Peterson’s dick"

----Allen Ventano

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14317
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-19 10:01pm

I don't think it'll be just another TFA- but it might very well be a rehash of RotJ, as TFA was a rehash (in some respects) of ANH.

My main fear is that there will be a bunch of clumsy retcons of stuff from TLJ to make it fit with the direction things appeared to be going in TFA. Like Snoke being retconned back in, Rey turning out to have some special heritage after all, etc.* In which case, we're in for an incoherent trilogy that swings back and forth on plot, themes, and characterization depending on who's in charge. I suppose it depends on how much coordination between directors/writers there is behind the scenes, and I can't really answer that question right now.

*Edit: I think the one I'm most afraid of is actually that they'll quickly kill off Rose because of the fan attacks on the character, and to get her "out of the way" of the Rey/Finn ship. If they did that... honestly, I might just refuse to recognize the film as canon, as I would consider that a deeply disrespectful and arguably misogynistic thing to do.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
ray245
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6473
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-20 05:53am

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-19 10:01pm
I don't think it'll be just another TFA- but it might very well be a rehash of RotJ, as TFA was a rehash (in some respects) of ANH.

My main fear is that there will be a bunch of clumsy retcons of stuff from TLJ to make it fit with the direction things appeared to be going in TFA. Like Snoke being retconned back in, Rey turning out to have some special heritage after all, etc.* In which case, we're in for an incoherent trilogy that swings back and forth on plot, themes, and characterization depending on who's in charge. I suppose it depends on how much coordination between directors/writers there is behind the scenes, and I can't really answer that question right now.

*Edit: I think the one I'm most afraid of is actually that they'll quickly kill off Rose because of the fan attacks on the character, and to get her "out of the way" of the Rey/Finn ship. If they did that... honestly, I might just refuse to recognize the film as canon, as I would consider that a deeply disrespectful and arguably misogynistic thing to do.
Rey is essentially the new "chosen one", which isn't that much different from being the child of some powerful force user.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
ray245
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6473
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Solo release thread (spoilers)

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-20 07:32am

Elfdart wrote:
2018-06-19 08:14pm
Vympel wrote:
2018-06-06 11:48pm
ray245 wrote:
2018-06-06 08:50pm
Oh please, they've already listened to the vocal minority with their mindless prequel-bashing. This has resulted in the new movies deliberately sidestepping many important storytelling elements ( see TFA cutting away scenes that offered some context to the political situation in the Galaxy), marketing ploy (look, we are using puppets instead of CGI!) and aesthetic ( new X-Wings that practically looks the same as the old one with very minor differences!).
Leaving aside that preferring to creatively associate their new films with the beloved original films (to which they are a direct sequel) and not the critically panned culturally punchline that is the prequels is not "prequel bashing" - its laughable that you think the only reason for making any of these decisions is disliking the prequels and marketing. Like it's impossible to conceive that a film-maker would prefer to work with real props and creatures he can percieve with his own eyes for any reason other than commercial reasons.

And that the prequels are piss-poor films isn't a minority held opinion, it is a wide cultural consensus reflected in both their poor critical reception and cultural legacy. The loud minority are prequel apologists.
Apparently, one of the Red Letter Morons has hijacked Vympel's account. When he gets back, he'll no doubt have a laugh that someone would be stupid enough to think they could attribute such fucktarded claims to the Vymp -who has already seen these very same fucktarded claims debunked on this very same site. Like the one about the prequels being "critically panned" when they got better reviews when they were first released than the first three films got when they first came out.

As for "cultural consensus" (whatever that's supposed to mean), just because something is popular online (like prequel-bashing) doesn't make it popular in general. For example, libertarianism is huge online, but somehow they just can't win elections or even make a good showing at the polls. Sure, it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates the prequels, just as it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates Anne Hathaway. Yet strangely enough, both seem to have done just fine at the box office.
It'll be nice if Mike was more active here and go head to head with Vympel. My position on the prequels is essentially similar to Mike's reviews of the prequels on this site. SW is not some high art. They are fun adventure movies that you don't take too seriously. Sure there's quite a bit of deep themes in the movies, but simply having them does not make them high art movies.

Mike is able to avoid being a fanboy when it comes to the prequels, even if he was an OT fan and grew up with them. I don't need a movie to be an all time classic in order to enjoy a movie. The vast majority of movie-goers don't need movies to be an all time classics to enjoy them.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
ray245
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6473
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-20 07:47am

Bah, ran out of edit time.

Also, digging through some old threads, I've seen Vympel's comment on Ep 2 when it was released:
Vympel wrote:
2002-09-07 10:17pm
The best movie of all time? Nay... that's going way too far.

That title is reserved solely for The Empire Strikes Back :)

Bah I can't choose a favorite movie anways.

Attack of the Clones was very good, better than TPM and ROTJ, and I think George Lucas knew what he was doing with the romance- he wanted it to be the old style icky kind of romance- its more in line with the story of the prequels than the gritty I hate you/ love you romance of Empire Strikes Back.
Of course, he's free to change his mind about the movies, but if he doesn't leave a very good impression with all his comments about how he has superior taste to those that liked the prequels.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10108
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Elfdart » 2018-06-20 05:15pm

The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-19 10:01pm
I don't think it'll be just another TFA- but it might very well be a rehash of RotJ, as TFA was a rehash (in some respects) of ANH.

My main fear is that there will be a bunch of clumsy retcons of stuff from TLJ to make it fit with the direction things appeared to be going in TFA. Like Snoke being retconned back in, Rey turning out to have some special heritage after all, etc.* In which case, we're in for an incoherent trilogy that swings back and forth on plot, themes, and characterization depending on who's in charge. I suppose it depends on how much coordination between directors/writers there is behind the scenes, and I can't really answer that question right now.

*Edit: I think the one I'm most afraid of is actually that they'll quickly kill off Rose because of the fan attacks on the character, and to get her "out of the way" of the Rey/Finn ship. If they did that... honestly, I might just refuse to recognize the film as canon, as I would consider that a deeply disrespectful and arguably misogynistic thing to do.
I doubt they'll do that, on the simple grounds that the only thing more idiotic than the nerd rage of incels is giving in to their demands. They wanted Lucas gone and that's what they got. Now they can't come up with a halfway interesting villain character or story of any kind. They wanted more "practical" effects :wanker: and that's what they got -to the point where it costs almost as much to make one Disney Star Wars movie as it took to make and market all three prequels. They wanted every creative decision to be run through several committees and a corporate chain of command. Now they hire and fire writers and directors willy-nilly -and for all their efforts, still end up with mediocrity. Previously, I noted that between having creatively bankrupt jobbers churning these movies out, and Disney treating the property the way a clueless madame treats the newest/prettiest girl in the whorehouse, that they are humping the poor thing to death. Well, falling sales and word-of-mouth from unsatisfied johns have obviously tripped up the brothel owners' plans. So a bunch of permavirgins hate Rose. Disney/LFL would have to be exponentially more retarded to bump her off to appease them.

By the way:

Disney has just pulled the plug on Star Wars spin-offs.
"The actual smallest viable human unit is Jordan Peterson’s dick"

----Allen Ventano

User avatar
Elfdart
The Anti-Shep
Posts: 10108
Joined: 2004-04-28 11:32pm
Location: What's the bonus for shooting bad guys from behind?

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Elfdart » 2018-06-20 06:12pm

One reason for cutting back on new movies could be that Disney is now in a bidding war with Comcast over the rights to 21st Century Fox.
"The actual smallest viable human unit is Jordan Peterson’s dick"

----Allen Ventano

User avatar
MKSheppard
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Ruthless Genocidal Warmonger
Posts: 28829
Joined: 2002-07-06 06:34pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by MKSheppard » 2018-06-20 06:50pm

Motherfuck....no boba fett movie or Obi Wan movie?

Fuckers killed the only SW movies I liked, the spin offs.
"If scientists and inventors who develop disease cures and useful technologies don't get lifetime royalties, I'd like to know what fucking rationale you have for some guy getting lifetime royalties for writing an episode of Full House." - Mike Wong

"The present air situation in the Pacific is entirely the result of fighting a fifth rate air power." - U.S. Navy Memo - 24 July 1944

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14317
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-20 08:32pm

You know, much as I defend the movies (mostly), I think that whatever quality they've achieved is in spite of, not because of, management. They seem increasingly flailing and directionless.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14317
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-20 08:33pm

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-20 05:53am
The Romulan Republic wrote:
2018-06-19 10:01pm
I don't think it'll be just another TFA- but it might very well be a rehash of RotJ, as TFA was a rehash (in some respects) of ANH.

My main fear is that there will be a bunch of clumsy retcons of stuff from TLJ to make it fit with the direction things appeared to be going in TFA. Like Snoke being retconned back in, Rey turning out to have some special heritage after all, etc.* In which case, we're in for an incoherent trilogy that swings back and forth on plot, themes, and characterization depending on who's in charge. I suppose it depends on how much coordination between directors/writers there is behind the scenes, and I can't really answer that question right now.

*Edit: I think the one I'm most afraid of is actually that they'll quickly kill off Rose because of the fan attacks on the character, and to get her "out of the way" of the Rey/Finn ship. If they did that... honestly, I might just refuse to recognize the film as canon, as I would consider that a deeply disrespectful and arguably misogynistic thing to do.
Rey is essentially the new "chosen one", which isn't that much different from being the child of some powerful force user.
Yeah, TLJ all but confirmed the theory that she was, if not literally a reincarnation of Anakin, then a reincarnation of the Chosen One.
"Our progress in degeneracy appears to me to be pretty rapid. As a nation, we began by declaring that "all men are created equal." We now practically read it "all men are created equal, except negroes" When the Know-Nothings get control, it will read "all men are created equal, except negroes, and foreigners, and Catholics." When it comes to this I should prefer emigrating to some country where they make no pretence of loving liberty -- to Russia, for instance, where despotism can be taken pure, and without the base alloy of hypocracy." - Lincoln.

User avatar
ray245
Sith Acolyte
Posts: 6473
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-20 08:45pm

Yeah for all the hoo-hah, RJ really didn't do anything that different from what we've seen in SW/fantasy stories.

If they wanted to be actually creative, they would have made Rey an "average" Jedi instead of the new uber-powerful Jedi. A run of the mill Jedi as a protagonist would have been fascinating in a SW movie.

What make a Jedi great isn't their force abilites, but what they can do with those abilities.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 28868
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Vympel » 2018-06-20 10:01pm

Elfdart wrote:
2018-06-19 08:14pm
Apparently, one of the Red Letter Morons has hijacked Vympel's account. When he gets back, he'll no doubt have a laugh that someone would be stupid enough to think they could attribute such fucktarded claims to the Vymp -who has already seen these very same fucktarded claims debunked on this very same site. Like the one about the prequels being "critically panned" when they got better reviews when they were first released than the first three films got when they first came out.
There's no particularly compelling evidence that the prequels were better reviewed than the contemporaneous reviews for the originals (and which originals? What are we comparing to what here? RotJ isn't a very good movie by the standards of ANH and TESB). Revisionist claims in that regard are invariably based on random sampling of poor reviews for the original trilogy and then treating them as if that's the norm.

The "on release" standard is also bullshit for another reason - the prequels were a long time ago. It's been 20 years. No big critical re-evalation of the prequels (like that asserted as happened for the originals in order to pretend the prequels are the same) is coming. It's over.
As for "cultural consensus" (whatever that's supposed to mean), just because something is popular online (like prequel-bashing) doesn't make it popular in general. For example, libertarianism is huge online, but somehow they just can't win elections or even make a good showing at the polls. Sure, it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates the prequels, just as it's an article of faith that "everyone" hates Anne Hathaway. Yet strangely enough, both seem to have done just fine at the box office.
If box office mattered, then clearly everyone loves the Transformers movies (until Last Knight, anyway). Just because you lined up to watch a movie doesn't mean you loved it.
ray245 wrote:
2018-06-20 07:47am
Bah, ran out of edit time.

Also, digging through some old threads, I've seen Vympel's comment on Ep 2 when it was released:
Vympel wrote:
2002-09-07 10:17pm
The best movie of all time? Nay... that's going way too far.

That title is reserved solely for The Empire Strikes Back :)

Bah I can't choose a favorite movie anways.

Attack of the Clones was very good, better than TPM and ROTJ, and I think George Lucas knew what he was doing with the romance- he wanted it to be the old style icky kind of romance- its more in line with the story of the prequels than the gritty I hate you/ love you romance of Empire Strikes Back.
Of course, he's free to change his mind about the movies, but if he doesn't leave a very good impression with all his comments about how he has superior taste to those that liked the prequels.
Oh no! When I was 21 years old I had embarrassing opinions about something! However can I recover from this devastating revelation? Clearly, one's ability to comprehend and articulate why a film is good or bad undergoes no changes whatsoever in *check notes* 16 years.

EDIT: and another thing:
It'll be nice if Mike was more active here and go head to head with Vympel. My position on the prequels is essentially similar to Mike's reviews of the prequels on this site. SW is not some high art. They are fun adventure movies that you don't take too seriously. Sure there's quite a bit of deep themes in the movies, but simply having them does not make them high art movies.

Mike is able to avoid being a fanboy when it comes to the prequels, even if he was an OT fan and grew up with them. I don't need a movie to be an all time classic in order to enjoy a movie. The vast majority of movie-goers don't need movies to be an all time classics to enjoy them.
I never said or even remotely implied the original trilogy was high art, for fuck's sake. Is it even possible for you to discuss these movies without engaging in flagrant distortions like "its shit if its not high art?"

They're just poor films. They've got varying degrees of poorly written, under-cooked scripts, frequently uninspired direction, they're marred by bad storytelling and baffling creative decisions, crappy humor and wooden, stilted performances.

Do you understand that a movie can avoid all these pitfalls and not be considered 'high art'?
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

Post Reply