Vympel wrote: ↑
The people watching them?
Of course its subjective. The difference is that the prequels are not very good is a widely held not to mention easily justifiable subjective opinion. The same is not true of the original trilogy.
So what if the prequels did not reach the heights of the OT?
No, the prequels just made money.
Blockbusters that are severely disliked do not make money. They certainly don't become number 1 or number 3 at the office for the year.
ROFL, no it isn't. You may want to live in a world where everyone says "sir, excuse me good sir, in my opinion but yours is perfectly valid too" everytime they give a view on something in the fear that the person on the other end might think they are being 'shamed', but I do not. If the alternative to what you call a 'shaming culture' is that sort of insanity, count me out.
Why should we carry on acting like fanboys or cinema snobs? The fact that I've seen more movies per year than most movie-goers does not make me any authority to dismiss the opinion of them.
Absolutely yes, a Star Wars movie should be compared against other Star Wars movies. That's ... obvious.
Oh get off it. Of course I allow subjectivity. This entire debate has been about your attempt to argue that the prequels are not widely - subjectively - disliked. Subjectivity is inherent in these discussions. It doesn't need to be declared.
Widely disliked movies do not succeed at the box office. They bomb at the box office like Batman and Robin, Godzilla an so forth.
Crazedwraith wrote: ↑
You've moved goal posts. At first it was Prequel bashers are an angry loud minority. Now it's 'well it doesn't matter they're disliked anyway'. Just because the prequels did not completely wreck the franchise doesn't mean that they were good or well-liked,
especially not in comparison to the OT.
My argument is that the hardcore fanbase that disliked the prequels spent more time complaining about the prequels than the average movie-goer. The prequel bashers have to be a significant and loud minority because otherwise, you cannot explain the box office success of the prequels. We now know that the Star Wars brand alone isn't enough to make a killing at the box office ( see Solo). So we need to explain how despite the idea of the prequels being "widely disliked", they achieved massive financial success.
is meaningless. (For one thing Star Trek 5 and Nemesis both have an A- rating as well. ) And doesn't even have rankings for the original Trilogy that I can find.
If we go by Rotten Tommatos
We can see the rankings for the Prequels are well below those for the OT, and that's all Disney needs to justify emphasising its links with one over the other. Other the fact than of course the Squels are going to be more closely related to the movies they're direct sequels to.
If we go by Adjusted box office
We're forced to assume Phantom Menace and Force Awakens are better, more popular films than Empire Strikes Back. Does that seem right to you?
Cinemascore is useful because it is effectively an exit-poll. A good score simply means the audience enjoyed the overall experience after walking out of the cinema. And I disagree with the need to compare the performance or score the prequels against the other Star Wars movie. Instead, you need to compare them with other major blockbusters of their era. Because your average movie-goer doesn't need the new Star Wars movie to be on par with say ESB to enjoy a movie. They just need the new SW movie to be as enjoyable as the new MCU movies and etc.
As an additional point: Even by your measures for success The ST is better than PT (A's in cinemascore better box office) so obviously Disney's marketting strategy worked.
I'm not disputing that the ST was well received. What I am saying is the ST doesn't need to be influenced by the backlash against the prequels to be good movies in their own right.
Once again merging these:
Right because of the breaking down of large points into smaller one, I think I've strayed from what my point was in a desire to tackle all of your stuff. Allow me to clarify and if I appear to be contradicting myself take that as a concession of the earlier point.
1)Yes, the creators of the ST clearly want to highlight their likeness with the OT over the PT. A return to basics thing where the used models and puppets and so on.
2) Dislike of the prequels, or at least people who like the OT much more, is a widespread thing not restricted to a loud minority of fans.
3) You ignore the possibility that the creator themselves have a negative opinion of the prequels independent of loud fan or generally-held opinion.
1) We seem to agree in this regard. Our disagreement lies in whether this approach is necessary to achieve massive box office success and good critical reception ( among critics and fans alike).
2) Yes, it is widespread, but my disagreement is how widespread is it. I disagree with the notion that prequel-bashing are so widespread that the new films would fail just because of some elements that remind them of the prequels. Would a more detailed exposition about the state of the Galaxy or prequel-style lightsaber duel cause an uproar among the people watching TFA and TLJ? I think not.
3) That is very true. However, the question is whether the creators needed to avoid as many elements of the prequels as possible in order to make a good SW movie. I don't think so. My view is that doing so will result in a more creatively limited Star Wars movie. The ST are well-recieved, but I think they needlessly limited themselves in terms of storytelling and worldbuilding.
3) Point one is a sensible marketing strategy based on relative popular opinion of the PT and OT
My argument is you don't need such a marketing strategy. The selling point of the ST is not about the PT vs OT debate. It's about the main trio returning to the big screen and we are finally seeing new live-action SW movies a decade after ROTS.
4) Point 1 does not mean Disney have caved to said fans or are likely to cave even more to said fans based on Solo's failure which was the original point.
See above. I'm saying it's an unnecessary marketing strategy in the first place, and hence why it's a case of Disney caving in.
At what point do a divisive movie become "widely disliked" instead of merely being "disliked by a loud minority"? Take TLJ for example. If people are able to defend TLJ's popularity based on its box office result, why should we not take the box office result of the prequels into account as well? Simply looking at Rotten Tomatoes and ignoring the box office result feels like you're not looking at the overall picture. Which is the prequels were enjoyed by a sizeable amount of casual movie-goers.