And this terminology has been used where?
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.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.
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.They are not. The fact that you think they are the same is your problem.
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.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.
Didn't say you needed to.I don't need a movie to be Oscar-winning or Oscar-worthy to enjoy a movie.
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.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.
They're just shit films, and that has nothing to do with my childhood.
Rubbish. There are plenty of perfectly fine movies that aren't classics. This does not mean the prequels deserve to be placed with them.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.
Sequels and prequels are justifiably judged by - amongst other things - their contribution to the story which is being told. This should be plainly obvious.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.
No? I can tell them they have horrible taste without holding myself out to be 'objective'.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?
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.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.
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.Nothing. It's just stating that he moved from his fanboy-raging phase and look at the prequels more maturely.
So more hyper-sensitivity about the poor prequels. You see enemies and slights everywhere! Disney is sending out coded messages denigrating the prequels!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.
Based on all the imagined slights you invented in your head about the prequels, you mean.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.
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.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.
Must've missed where Ebert used the word "deep" either.You're the one that quoted Roger Ebert with his quote about SW never being deep movies to begin with.
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.Most blockbusters don't win or even get nominated for Oscars. Your standards is just plain ridiculous.
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: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.
- 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.