Disney and the prequels

PSW: discuss Star Wars without "versus" arguments.

Moderator: Vympel

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 28902
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: 10122
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: 10122
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: 14985
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
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
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
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
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
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
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: 10122
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: 10122
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: 28855
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: 14985
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: 14985
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
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
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: 28902
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/

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-26 08:59am

Vympel wrote:
2018-06-20 10:01pm
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.
Who the fuck cares if it is embarrassing? If your 21 years old self enjoyed the movie, that's more than enough. If the audience walks out of a cinema having enjoyed their movie, that's good enough.

EDIT: and another thing:

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'?
"Poor" films that can be enjoyed by your 21 years old self? A movie can have all plenty of pitfall, but if the general public walked out of the cinema having enjoyed the movie, those flaws aren't a big deal. Every single movie has flaws in one way or another. Simply pointing to X number of flaws is a horrible way to enjoy and understand movies. You should not focus on the isolated elements of a film but look at the overall experience of the movie. Movies are a very subjective medium simply because there's no "right way" to determine a good movie. We can't pinpoint exactly what makes a movie enjoyable most of the time.

Put it this way. SW is a franchise that pumps out movies that can be enjoyed by the mass audience who only watches 2-3 movies per year. It is not a franchise that tries to target film critics or movie-fans that have seen hundreds of movies a year. Most people don't need to know the "finer details of good filmmaking" to enjoy a movie. SW movies are movies that the casual-movie-goer and go in and enjoy the spectacle for 2 hours. Just because they have flaws does not mean the casual-movie-goer must hang their head in shame.

What you are doing is to contribute to the shaming culture in the SW fandom. We don't need to shame or degrade someone for how they enjoy a movie. There is no "right way" of enjoying a movie.

You keep implying the OT is somehow the "standard" to judge a good movie, which is basically placing your metric for a "good movie" on a ridiculously high pedestal. Most moviegoers don't go into a blockbuster movie expecting it to be the next Star Wars or LOTR to enjoy themselves for 2 hours. You can enjoy an SW movie if you are realistic about your expectation and enjoy SW for what it is.

I cited Roger Ebert, who said these movies are not high art. You objected to Ebert's argument. This seems to me that you are treating the OT as something akin to a "high art" film.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10450
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-26 09:26am

Prequel bashing is not a niche thing. This is from a pretty mainstream British TV show.



It's not a bugbear of nerds, it's a mainstream opinion. Rightly or wrong they have a pretty bad rep so of course Disney wants to associate their films with the ones that are considered pretty good.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
Vympel
Spetsnaz
Spetsnaz
Posts: 28902
Joined: 2002-07-19 01:08am
Location: Sydney Australia

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Vympel » 2018-06-26 10:45am

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-26 08:59am
Who the fuck cares if it is embarrassing? If your 21 years old self enjoyed the movie, that's more than enough. If the audience walks out of a cinema having enjoyed their movie, that's good enough.
Good enough for what? To say it's a good film? That's obviously nonsense.
"Poor" films that can be enjoyed by your 21 years old self? A movie can have all plenty of pitfall, but if the general public walked out of the cinema having enjoyed the movie, those flaws aren't a big deal. Every single movie has flaws in one way or another. Simply pointing to X number of flaws is a horrible way to enjoy and understand movies. You should not focus on the isolated elements of a film but look at the overall experience of the movie. Movies are a very subjective medium simply because there's no "right way" to determine a good movie. We can't pinpoint exactly what makes a movie enjoyable most of the time.

Put it this way. SW is a franchise that pumps out movies that can be enjoyed by the mass audience who only watches 2-3 movies per year. It is not a franchise that tries to target film critics or movie-fans that have seen hundreds of movies a year. Most people don't need to know the "finer details of good filmmaking" to enjoy a movie. SW movies are movies that the casual-movie-goer and go in and enjoy the spectacle for 2 hours. Just because they have flaws does not mean the casual-movie-goer must hang their head in shame.

What you are doing is to contribute to the shaming culture in the SW fandom. We don't need to shame or degrade someone for how they enjoy a movie. There is no "right way" of enjoying a movie.

You keep implying the OT is somehow the "standard" to judge a good movie, which is basically placing your metric for a "good movie" on a ridiculously high pedestal. Most moviegoers don't go into a blockbuster movie expecting it to be the next Star Wars or LOTR to enjoy themselves for 2 hours. You can enjoy an SW movie if you are realistic about your expectation and enjoy SW for what it is.

I cited Roger Ebert, who said these movies are not high art. You objected to Ebert's argument. This seems to me that you are treating the OT as something akin to a "high art" film.
- The idea that a movie isn't poor if a 21 year old enjoyed it is ridiculous. I enjoy The Room and have been watching it over and over again for over a decade, that doesn't mean its not a terrible film.

- It's not 'shaming culture in SW fandom' to say that you think a movie's shit.

- The OT isn't the 'standard' to judge a good movie. They are however, obviously superior films to the prequel trilogy in pretty much every relevant department, and so you can expect vociferous pushback where you try to drag these classic films down to the level of the prequels at their most cack-handed in this doomed attempt to assert that it's all a wash, really, and not so different and what not.

- My objections to Ebert weren't based on the terms 'high art', that's something you invented. I said Ebert's praise for The Phantom Menace were based on backhanded compliments that when applied to any other movie would obviously be an insult - e.g. dialog not even being the point of watching the films (and somewhat amusingly, when applied to the Attack of the Clones, which he loathed, he did a complete 180 and complained about the dialog for the majority of the review):

TPM:
The dialogue is pretty flat and straightforward, although seasoned with a little quasi-classical formality, as if the characters had read but not retained "Julius Caesar." I wish the "Star Wars" characters spoke with more elegance and wit (as Gore Vidal's Greeks and Romans do), but dialogue isn't the point, anyway: These movies are about new things to look at.
AOTC:
But as someone who admired the freshness and energy of the earlier films, I was amazed, at the end of "Episode II," to realize that I had not heard one line of quotable, memorable dialogue ...

...most of that first hour consists of dialogue, as the characters establish plot points, update viewers on what has happened since "Episode I," and debate the political crisis facing the Republic. They talk and talk and talk. And their talk is in a flat utilitarian style: They seem more like lawyers than the heroes of a romantic fantasy.

In the classic movie adventures that inspired "Star Wars," dialogue was often colorful, energetic, witty and memorable. The dialogue in "Episode II" exists primarily to advance the plot, provide necessary information, and give a little screen time to continuing characters who are back for a new episode. The only characters in this stretch of the film who have inimitable personal styles are the beloved Yoda and the hated Jar-Jar Binks, whose idiosyncrasies turned off audiences for "Phantom Menace." Yes, Jar-Jar's accent may be odd and his mannerisms irritating, but at least he's a unique individual and not a bland cipher. The other characters--Obi-Wan Kenobi, Padme Amidala, Anakin Skywalker--seem so strangely stiff and formal in their speech that an unwary viewer might be excused for thinking they were the clones, soon to be exposed.

Too much of the rest of the film is given over to a romance between Padme and Anakin in which they're incapable of uttering anything other than the most basic and weary romantic cliches, while regarding each other as if love was something to be endured rather than cherished. There is not a romantic word they exchange that has not long since been reduced to cliche.

No, wait: Anakin tells Padme at one point: "I don't like the sand. It's coarse and rough and irritating--not like you. You're soft and smooth." I hadn't heard that before.

...

I have to see the film again to do it justice. I'm sure I will greatly enjoy its visionary sequences on DVD; I like stuff like that. The dialogue is another matter. Perhaps because a movie like this opens everywhere in the world on the same day, the dialogue has to be dumbed down for easier dubbing or subtitling. Wit, poetry and imagination are specific to the languages where they originate, and although translators can work wonders, sometimes you get the words but not the music. So it's safer to avoid the music.

But in a film with a built-in audience, why not go for the high notes? Why not allow the dialogue to be inventive, stylish and expressive? There is a certain lifelessness in some of the acting, perhaps because the actors were often filmed in front of blue screens so their environments could be added later by computer. Actors speak more slowly than they might--flatly, factually, formally, as if reciting. Sometimes that reflects the ponderous load of the mythology they represent. At other times it simply shows that what they have to say is banal. "Episode II-- Attack of the Clones" is a technological exercise that lacks juice and delight. The title is more appropriate than it should be.
Like Legend of Galactic Heroes? Please contribute to http://gineipaedia.com/

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-26 10:52am

Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 09:26am
Prequel bashing is not a niche thing. This is from a pretty mainstream British TV show.



It's not a bugbear of nerds, it's a mainstream opinion. Rightly or wrong they have a pretty bad rep so of course Disney wants to associate their films with the ones that are considered pretty good.
Mainstream opinion in what sense? Just because some popular tv show bash the prequels doesn't mean a large segment of casual movie-goers will care about it.

The dislike towards the prequels did not stop Clone Wars era content from being popular. It's mostly the hardcore fans that is concerned about debating the quality of the prequels. Most people simply saw them in the cinema, enjoyed them and promptly forget about them until the next SW movie comes along.

Put it this way, even without adjusting for inflation, the lowest earning prequel is still likely to have a higher gross than Solo.
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
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-26 11:14am

Vympel wrote:
2018-06-26 10:45am
Good enough for what? To say it's a good film? That's obviously nonsense.
Good enough to meet the expectations of the people watching it and allow them to enjoy something for 2 hours.
- The idea that a movie isn't poor if a 21 year old enjoyed it is ridiculous. I enjoy The Room and have been watching it over and over again for over a decade, that doesn't mean its not a terrible film.
People enjoyed The Room for it's unintended comedy value. I don't think your 21 year old self enjoyed ep 2 for its comedy value based on your own comments.
- It's not 'shaming culture in SW fandom' to say that you think a movie's shit.
It is a shaming culture when you make personal attacks and mock people for their taste in movies.
- The OT isn't the 'standard' to judge a good movie. They are however, obviously superior films to the prequel trilogy in pretty much every relevant department, and so you can expect vociferous pushback where you try to drag these classic films down to the level of the prequels at their most cack-handed in this doomed attempt to assert that it's all a wash, really, and not so different and what not.
Why should the prequels be judged against the OT instead of judging them according to all the other average blockbuster in the era it was released in?
- My objections to Ebert weren't based on the terms 'high art', that's something you invented. I said Ebert's praise for The Phantom Menace were based on backhanded compliments that when applied to any other movie would obviously be an insult - e.g. dialog not even being the point of watching the films (and somewhat amusingly, when applied to the Attack of the Clones, which he loathed, he did a complete 180 and complained about the dialog for the majority of the review):
That itself should tell you there's no such thing as an objective metric for judging a movie. People don't have a consistent metric to judge a movie as well. Sometime they are bothered by bad dialogue, sometime they are not. This is why art is a medium that's so difficult to judge.

Sometime a blockbuster is fun enough that you can ignore it's flaws. Sometime a blockbuster is not as fun so you'll spend all your time finding flaws in the movie. Movies needs to be understood as a whole package. Balancing out what you enjoy and what you didn't enjoy.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10450
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-26 11:19am

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-26 10:52am
Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 09:26am
Prequel bashing is not a niche thing. This is from a pretty mainstream British TV show.

--snip video we don't need it every time

It's not a bugbear of nerds, it's a mainstream opinion. Rightly or wrong they have a pretty bad rep so of course Disney wants to associate their films with the ones that are considered pretty good.
Mainstream opinion in what sense? Just because some popular tv show bash the prequels doesn't mean a large segment of casual movie-goers will care about it.
Mainstream in the sense that you can put a 'the prequels suck' joke on telly and most people who see it will get the joke. It's not some obscure thing you need to be deep in fandom to know about; lots of people think the prequels suck.

Now I agree this doesn't necessarily mean movie goers will care but the same is true. How gives a shit about prequel bashing?
The dislike towards the prequels did not stop Clone Wars era content from being popular. It's mostly the hardcore fans that is concerned about debating the quality of the prequels. Most people simply saw them in the cinema, enjoyed them and promptly forget about them until the next SW movie comes along.
Define 'popular'. Because that large segment of causal movie-goers you are talking about before won't give a shit about Clone Wars either. I've not checked by I'm pretty sure viewership is tiny compared to films.

Grant you're right that that segment is not going to give a shit about it being advertised as being like the OT. But they're not going to be put off of it either. But I'd bet numbers of fans who going to be impressed with the OT references vastly out number the people so upset about the prequel-bashing-by-mission that they'll miss out on the new movies.

Now, I agree the vast majority of people probably don't give a shit either way.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-26 12:42pm

Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 11:19am
Mainstream in the sense that you can put a 'the prequels suck' joke on telly and most people who see it will get the joke. It's not some obscure thing you need to be deep in fandom to know about; lots of people think the prequels suck.
I'm not denying that the prequel-bashing is popular. The problem is it's not reflective of how many people actually cared enough about Star Wars to make a big statement about it.
Now I agree this doesn't necessarily mean movie goers will care but the same is true. How gives a shit about prequel bashing?
That's essentially my point. There are a loud segment of fans bashing the prequels decades after Ep I came out, but most people don't give a shit about prequel bashing to have any major impact on the box office.

Ep 3, despite the very vocal prequel bashing back then, was well received at the box office. I'm saying Disney shouldn't care about the prequel-bashing.

Define 'popular'. Because that large segment of causal movie-goers you are talking about before won't give a shit about Clone Wars either. I've not checked by I'm pretty sure viewership is tiny compared to films.
The viewership is much smaller, this goes without saying since this is a tv series (aimed at kids). The argument I'm making is the fans didn't hate the prequels so much that any prequel-era shows, novels and games will fail to make money for Lucasfilm. I'm saying no matter how much they dislike the prequels, they are not opposed to having more clone wars era stuff.
Grant you're right that that segment is not going to give a shit about it being advertised as being like the OT. But they're not going to be put off of it either. But I'd bet numbers of fans who going to be impressed with the OT references vastly out number the people so upset about the prequel-bashing-by-mission that they'll miss out on the new movies.

Now, I agree the vast majority of people probably don't give a shit either way.
Yes, but the casual moviegoers aren't going to be triggered by prequel-style lightsaber duels, heavy use of CGI as opposed to puppets and etc. Sure, OT nostalgia is good, but the mere presence of the OT cast returning is enough to make everyone excited about the new movies. You don't need to recreate the Empire vs Rebellion conflict, you don't need to make new X-Wings and TIE-fighters look exactly like the ones from the OT to excite fans. You don't need OT style lightsaber duel to make fans excited about a fight.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10450
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-26 02:21pm

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-26 12:42pm
Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 11:19am
Mainstream in the sense that you can put a 'the prequels suck' joke on telly and most people who see it will get the joke. It's not some obscure thing you need to be deep in fandom to know about; lots of people think the prequels suck.
I'm not denying that the prequel-bashing is popular. The problem is it's not reflective of how many people actually cared enough about Star Wars to make a big statement about it.
You're splitting hairs here. Your initial argument as I understood it was that disney was listening too much to the tiny-but-loud contingent of prequel bashers. If you admit that prequel bashing is popular then it's not a tiny-but-loud segment is it?

Certainly not as tiny-but-loud as 'the prequels were good why do people hate them?' crowd.


I'm going to lump these into one rather splitting them up further.
Now I agree this doesn't necessarily mean movie goers will care but the same is true. How gives a shit about prequel bashing?
That's essentially my point. There are a loud segment of fans bashing the prequels decades after Ep I came out, but most people don't give a shit about prequel bashing to have any major impact on the box office.

Ep 3, despite the very vocal prequel bashing back then, was well received at the box office. I'm saying Disney shouldn't care about the prequel-bashing.
The viewership is much smaller, this goes without saying since this is a tv series (aimed at kids). The argument I'm making is the fans didn't hate the prequels so much that any prequel-era shows, novels and games will fail to make money for Lucasfilm. I'm saying no matter how much they dislike the prequels, they are not opposed to having more clone wars era stuff.
Yes, but the casual moviegoers aren't going to be triggered by prequel-style lightsaber duels, heavy use of CGI as opposed to puppets and etc. Sure, OT nostalgia is good, but the mere presence of the OT cast returning is enough to make everyone excited about the new movies. You don't need to recreate the Empire vs Rebellion conflict, you don't need to make new X-Wings and TIE-fighters look exactly like the ones from the OT to excite fans. You don't need OT style lightsaber duel to make fans excited about a fight.
Yes, Star Wars fans will consume prequel material, especially if it's the only thing going. This doesn't mean that non-prequel based thing wouldn't do better. It's not entirely relevant.

Going with prequel bashing may not be vital, it's not going to hurt either. See the success of the ST as is and the previous comment that the prequel bashers are a larger subset of fans than those so passionate defend the prequels they will hurts the sequels for not referencing them enough.

You seem to be equating 'aping the OT' with 'Prequel bashing' these are two distinct though related tropes. You could elide all the anti-prequel statements and still have the flaw of being an OT copy.

In fact, I'm going to have to re-read to re-read this thread to pick up and what you think the prequel bashing in the ST even is.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

User avatar
ray245
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 6559
Joined: 2005-06-10 11:30pm

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by ray245 » 2018-06-26 07:04pm

Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 02:21pm
You're splitting hairs here. Your initial argument as I understood it was that disney was listening too much to the tiny-but-loud contingent of prequel bashers. If you admit that prequel bashing is popular then it's not a tiny-but-loud segment is it?

Certainly not as tiny-but-loud as 'the prequels were good why do people hate them?' crowd.
Prequel bashing being popular in certain media does not necessarily imply hates the prequel as much as the prequel-bashers, especially when prequel bashing is done more for a comedy sake. People can find jokes about the prequels funny without necessarily sharing the overall attitude about the prequels.
I'm going to lump these into one rather splitting them up further.

Yes, Star Wars fans will consume prequel material, especially if it's the only thing going. This doesn't mean that non-prequel based thing wouldn't do better. It's not entirely relevant.
As seen by the poor performance of Solo, fans don't necessarily turn up in droves for OT material. What matters is whether the material itself is interesting to fans. If a spin-off SW movie set during the prequel era is well-made and has the X factor to excite fans, they won't care whether the material is prequel era material or not.
Going with prequel bashing may not be vital, it's not going to hurt either. See the success of the ST as is and the previous comment that the prequel bashers are a larger subset of fans than those so passionate defend the prequels they will hurts the sequels for not referencing them enough.
My contention is the prequel bashers don't hate the prequels to the extent of boycotting the Star Wars franchise. The success of the ST has less to do with pleasing the prequel bashers and more about everyone being equally excited about seeing Luke, Han and Leia once again, regardless of their opinions about the prequels.
You seem to be equating 'aping the OT' with 'Prequel bashing' these are two distinct though related tropes. You could elide all the anti-prequel statements and still have the flaw of being an OT copy.
It's quite apparent that the decision to make the new movies an OT copy was influenced by the backlash against the prequels. Otherwise, there would have been no need to ape the OT. The primary attraction of the sequel movies is NOT how much the movies ape the OT, but the idea of the old cast returning to the big screen for one last hurrah.

In fact, I'm going to have to re-read to re-read this thread to pick up and what you think the prequel bashing in the ST even is.
The broad "prequel-bashing" arguments are too much CGI, too flashy swordfights, too much politics, not enough backwater planets and so forth. These are very superficial complaints that somehow had an impact on the new films.

I'm not opposed to Disney improving the script and the acting of the SW movies because those kinds of stuff are sensible changes/improvements, but I am not sure if Disney needed to listen to the more superficial complaints.

Seriously, with the vast improvement made in CGI technology, there's no need for Disney to cater those people complaining about the CGI of the prequels. No one will be enraged if they used CGI Yoda instead of puppet Yoda. Puppet Yoda is a nice touch, but that's not going to have any impact on the overall reception of the movie.
Humans are such funny creatures. We are selfish about selflessness, yet we can love something so much that we can hate something.

User avatar
The Romulan Republic
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 14985
Joined: 2008-10-15 01:37am

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by The Romulan Republic » 2018-06-26 07:22pm

From an artistic perspective, I'd consider the ST's biggest failings to be the way in which TFA treats the resolution of the search for Luke plot almost as an afterthought, and its failure to develop the New Republic more, as well as TLJ's not giving us more context from why Luke went from "I can save Vader" to "Maybe its a good idea to preemptively kill my nephew". Though the hints of creepy Kylo/Rey shipping, while less structurally damaging, irritate me more.

From a fan service perspective, though, its no contest- because you're right about at least one thing: the big draw, for a lot of people, was seeing the old heroes return. So hands down the biggest failure is not having Luke, Leia, and Han reunited on-screen. And as a fan, that pisses me off the most.
"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
Crazedwraith
Emperor's Hand
Posts: 10450
Joined: 2003-04-10 03:45pm
Location: Cheshire, England

Re: Disney and the prequels

Post by Crazedwraith » 2018-06-26 07:24pm

ray245 wrote:
2018-06-26 07:04pm
Crazedwraith wrote:
2018-06-26 02:21pm
You're splitting hairs here. Your initial argument as I understood it was that disney was listening too much to the tiny-but-loud contingent of prequel bashers. If you admit that prequel bashing is popular then it's not a tiny-but-loud segment is it?

Certainly not as tiny-but-loud as 'the prequels were good why do people hate them?' crowd.
Prequel bashing being popular in certain media does not necessarily imply hates the prequel as much as the prequel-bashers, especially when prequel bashing is done more for a comedy sake. People can find jokes about the prequels funny without necessarily sharing the overall attitude about the prequels.
What would you accept as sufficient evidence that they are not well liked films? You admitted yourself prequel "bashing" is wide spread. It's a cultural meme. You agree with this and then say 'it doesn't prove anything!!!!'

No. You made the claim it's a loud minority. You prove it.

It's quite apparent that the decision to make the new movies an OT copy was influenced by the backlash against the prequels. Otherwise, there would have been no need to ape the OT. The primary attraction of the sequel movies is NOT how much the movies ape the OT, but the idea of the old cast returning to the big screen for one last hurrah.
You treat this claim as axiomatic. Please prove it. You have no prove at all prequel backlash is responsible for whatever you dislike in the ST.

What would your non-prequel basing ST even look like?

In fact, I'm going to have to re-read to re-read this thread to pick up and what you think the prequel bashing in the ST even is.
The broad "prequel-bashing" arguments are too much CGI, too flashy swordfights, too much politics, not enough backwater planets and so forth. These are very superficial complaints that somehow had an impact on the new films.

I'm not opposed to Disney improving the script and the acting of the SW movies because those kinds of stuff are sensible changes/improvements, but I am not sure if Disney needed to listen to the more superficial complaints.

Seriously, with the vast improvement made in CGI technology, there's no need for Disney to cater those people complaining about the CGI of the prequels. No one will be enraged if they used CGI Yoda instead of puppet Yoda. Puppet Yoda is a nice touch, but that's not going to have any impact on the overall reception of the movie.
This is a ridiculous pile of shite. Whatever problems the ST has a lack of CGI and non-flashy swordfights are not among them.

I barely had any idea that Yoda is a puppet or a CGI. The idea that TLJ was hurt by that instead of its myriad other flaws is laughable.
To the brave passengers and crew of the Kobayashi Maru... sucks to be you - Peter David

Post Reply