Rotten Tomatoes says...

Firefox · Post by **Firefox** » 2005-05-11 11:41am

I almost refuse to believe it. It's now on par with ANH in good/bad reviews.

Actually, I do refuse to believe it. It must be a conspiracy, I tell you!

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-05-11 11:43am

You know, if you think about it, it's almost kind of back-stabbing.

YT300000 · Post by **YT300000** » 2005-05-11 09:00pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:You know, if you think about it, it's almost kind of back-stabbing.

What do you mean?

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-05-11 09:18pm

Vympel wrote:Invisible Hand is in the novelization. Considering that the novel mentions Carracks, Victory-class Star Destroyers, and Dreadnoughts, but doesn't mention Venator Star Destroyers even once, I doubt Invisible Hand was Dr. Saxton's doing.

Why did Stover switch to the EU fetish? Anywho, is it called the Invisible Hand in the script?

Master of Ossus · Post by **Master of Ossus** » 2005-05-12 02:33am

How, exactly, does Rottentomatoes score movies? If you get 2.5/4, that's a rotten tomato. SW just got a review that was 3/5, which is 60%, and so is on the cutoff between a "fresh" and a "rotten" but was placed in the "rotten" category. I guess that's okay--tie can go to the rottens, but Kingdom of Heaven's 3/5 star reviews are scored as "fresh," some of the 6/10 reviews are scored as "fresh" and some as "rotten," and their 2.5/4 scores (which is a higher fraction than 3/5) are all scored as "rotten." wtf?

Kurgan · Post by **Kurgan** » 2005-05-12 02:43am

Interesting, very interesting. Sounds good so far (I haven't read a single review posted, I'm just going by the numbers)!

What I keep in the back of my mind is that no matter what somebody else says, you have your haters and your fans:

*Positive Review happens*
Fan: Yes, so true!
Hater: Lies! Propaganda!

*Negative Review happens*
Fan: Boo! Biased, Bullsh*t!!!
Hater: Truth hurts, don't it?

I know, it's not what they think, it's how they arrive at that conclusion and there's no accounting for taste...

We'll see in just a week (that's it?)!

VT-16 · Post by **VT-16** » 2005-05-12 04:29am

I know, it's not what they think

Actually, that was spot-on.

Pint0 Xtreme · Post by **Pint0 Xtreme** » 2005-05-12 04:59am

To me, it seemed as if the bad reviewers were merely the "Prequel Star Wars is t3h SUCK!" crowd. It's as if they went into the movie with the fixed attitude that this movie will suck and it somewhat shows only to have it backfire when the vast majority of other reviews gave ROTS good ratings.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-05-12 07:42am

Rotten Tomatoes annoys me. They link to a review by IGN and labels it "rotten". The reviewer isn't overly positive, but he's not all negative.

BTW, the IGN reviewer annoys me. He points to several inconsistencies, among the things he mentions, he doesn't understand why the clones turn on the Jedi. He can't have paid too much attention when he watched AOTC, as the answer is clearly given during the tour of the Kamino facilities Obi-Wan is given.

felineki · Post by **felineki** » 2005-05-12 09:20am

Vympel wrote:He didn't have all three prequels written before Shrubby was elected. He only wrote the RotS script in 2003, I think. Maybe early 2004. It's the general plot he had worked out, so the point remains the same.

Hmm. So maybe General Grievous looking like something ripped out of Bionicle wasn't just in my mind after all.

Mange · Post by **Mange** » 2005-05-12 09:47am

Vympel wrote:He didn't have all three prequels written before Shrubby was elected. He only wrote the RotS script in 2003, I think. Maybe early 2004. It's the general plot he had worked out, so the point remains the same.

Hmm, the script for ROTS must've been finished before the summer of 2003 as ROTS was filmed during that period. I don't know exactly what changes was made for the reshoots though.

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-12 11:06am

The IGN reviewer is a fucking idiot. He has three alleged examples of "inconsistencies", when its clear he's just a twit who doesn't know how to analyse the films.

Joe · Post by **Joe** » 2005-05-12 01:09pm

That's the IGN way. Obsolescence and shit in one package.

Post by **Darth Wong** » 2005-05-12 01:12pm

The "Anti-Bush Diatribe" line is still the absolute dumbest criticism. I had no idea that Bush was secretly orchestrating both sides of the War on Terror

Stofsk · Post by **Stofsk** » 2005-05-12 01:15pm

Darth Wong wrote:The "Anti-Bush Diatribe" line is still the absolute dumbest criticism. I had no idea that Bush was secretly orchestrating both sides of the War on Terror

"Our enemies are innovative and resourceful, and so are we. They never stop thinking about new ways to harm our country and our people, and neither do we."

It seemed like a strangely appropriate joke...

Glocksman · Post by **Glocksman** » 2005-05-12 02:25pm

Darth Wong wrote:The "Anti-Bush Diatribe" line is still the absolute dumbest criticism. I had no idea that Bush was secretly orchestrating both sides of the War on Terror

You didn't get the Memo from Michael Moore?

Like you said, you can read anything you want to into a movie.
Hell, it wouldn't surprise me if some idiot claimed the Rambo movies were secretly pro Communist.

ROTS is hardly another Mission to Moscow.

Captain Cyran · Post by **Captain Cyran** » 2005-05-12 03:08pm

Vympel wrote:The IGN reviewer is a fucking idiot. He has three alleged examples of "inconsistencies", when its clear he's just a twit who doesn't know how to analyse the films.

Yes, but at least he apparently watched the film without a brain, instead of his head up his ass like Mr. "Anti-Bush, monoliths blah blah blah."

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-12 07:19pm

Note I had originally dissected the IGN review's alleged "inconsistencies" but it was so full with spoilers and for some reason the size tags weren't cooperating, so I just edited it. I'll repost that dissection tonight.

Illuminatus Primus · Post by **Illuminatus Primus** » 2005-05-12 07:20pm

Good, I want to read it.

Spanky The Dolphin · Post by **Spanky The Dolphin** » 2005-05-12 07:22pm

The Tomatometer has taken a bit of a hit: now it's 30/5 at 86%, thanks to two seemingly scathing reviews from Orlando Weekly and Rolling Stone.

Shroom Man 777 · Post by **Shroom Man 777** » 2005-05-12 07:33pm

...damn!

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-12 07:44pm

Bah, I'll do it right now.

These are the only examples IGN-boy comes up of with "limitless inconsistencies". They are pathetic.

The evil Chancellor Palpatine – who has quietly puppet-mastered an entire Galactic Republic throughout these prequels – suddenly declares "Order 66", prompting tens of thousands of "Clone Troopers" to suddenly turn on & assassinate the very Jedi they've been fighting beside for years. At face value, they murder their friends and comrades – simply because they were told to do so.
This severely dilutes the impact of the long-awaited "Jedi purge." Revenge of the Sith spends God knows how long on political and metaphysical ranting and raving, yet one line of crucial explanation would have brought greater substance and meaning to this dramatically essential event. Were the Clones imprinted with "sleeper programming" when they were hatched at the clonery (which would serve to exemplify the horrific, and boundlessly patient, depth of the Sith's long-term plans)? Does Palpatine have a brainwashing device of some sort? Is a piggy-back zombiefication code imbedded in Palpatine's trans-galactic snuff command to the Clone armies? Or, are the Clones simply brainless and stupid? If so, I'm selling a bridge in Brooklyn, and I've more than a few tasks for them...

We've been waiting for this moment since Obi-Wan Kenobi (Alec Guinness) first alluded to the fate of the Jedi in Episode IV. We see the moment, and it is well executed (excuse the pun). But we do not understand the event. It's vacuous, and feels like a plot device rather than the gut-wrenching betrayal it was clearly intended to be.

You want a line of exposition to explain what is obvious? The very fact that Palpatine/Sidious can give the order and the Clonetroopers turn on the Jedi without hesitation tells you all you need to know- they're loyal to Palpatine, and it was obviously how they were raised/designed/engineered. They're following orders. It has nothing to do with being brainless/stupid- and being given a corny line of dialog explaining just why they would do so [how the fuck would that work anyway? Palpatine cackling to Anakin, revealing his plans?] is even more so.

IGN boy:

In Episode II - Attack of the Clones, Anakin Skywalker senses the torture (and impending death) of his captive mother from far across the Galaxy. He drops everything, goes to rescue her, and fails. This is a pivotal plot point in RotS.
Yet, in Sith, Anakin fails to detect the presence of the twins gestating in his wife's womb, even though he is sleeping in the same bed as the woman.

He knew she was with child- we don't know how specific or accurate the Force is in detecting say, the difference between one child or two in the womb. This is your huge inconsistency? The torture and death of his mother during his pre-cognitive dreams vs detectng twins? Did it occur to you that they're NOT THE SAME? Heck, how much of RotS has him obsessing over the impending death of Padme?

Furthermore, one of these twins is eventually "hidden" on the same planet from which he detected his mother in Attack of the Clones – only this time the location is implied as remote enough to "avoid detection by the Sith." So, which is it? Thus, one of the primary dramatic thrusts of the entire franchise hinges on conceptual inconsistency and lack of internal story logic. Perhaps the Sith are as stupid as their Clones? Or, perhaps they need new writers...

WTF? Perhaps you're just a moron? It has NOTHING to do with the planet, dumbass. It's the PERSON. The impending death of his mother was what drew him to Tatooine- the *pain*- in the same way that Luke was drawn to Bespin. What kind of idiot thinks that it must have anything to do with the planet? Tatooine, the magical force detetion planet! Idiot ...

IGN-boy:

In the earlier prequels, Jedi skydive from tremendous heights, dodging aerial traffic & leaping from impossibly high balconies like flying squirrels. So, how can a principal Jedi character in this film die...by falling? The same discrepancy rears its ugly head in Episode VI - Return of the Jedi, by the way. This undercuts the intent of the sequence, and the fate of the key character.

This is just standard inability to think reasonably. Only an idiot would watch Obi-Wan hurtling down to Coruscan't surface and think he'd be perfectly fine if he impacted- i.e. thinking there are no limits to Jedi abilities- as if surviving a relatively small jump means you can somehow survive meeting the ground from several kms up. And that this stupid ass actually thinks this "discrepancy" comes out in RotJ is even worse- did you miss the explosion of the Emperor, fool?

and finally

The Jedi are repeatedly able to detect unrest in The Way of Things. They can sense an individual's restless spirit, or the plight of a colleague endangered millions of miles away. Yet, they can stand in the center of their enemy's power base, and be completely blind (or only vaguely suspicious) as to who...and what...they are truly dealing with?
The Jedi make noise about their order's diminished ability to use "The Force." So, if they are aware of this shortcoming...and if the future of humanity (and the entire galaxy) is at stake...shouldn't they be a bit more proactive in figuring out what the enemy is up to?

There are tremendously compelling conceits to be mined here: the hazards of political/religious over-extension, our personal/collective accountability and responsibility in dire times, etc. These issues are poked at, but never addressed full-on. A true waste for a film whose tone and substance purports to be so deep. As it stands, these obtuse and A.D.D. Jedi deserve what they get.

So he fully accepts the reason stated again and again in the plot as to why the Jedi can't detect just who is the Sith Lord- how is this an inconsistency again? It isn't. And just how would he like to define "be more pro-active"? Their actions in RotS seemed plenty pro-active to me. One would've thought getting Anakin to investigate Palpatine and quickly discovering he's the Sith Lord (after already being aware of the dark side surrounding Palpatine) would've clued him into that fact.

Dumbass ....

Post by **Vympel** » 2005-05-12 07:47pm

Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The Tomatometer has taken a bit of a hit: now it's 30/5 at 86%, thanks to two seemingly scathing reviews from Orlando Weekly and Rolling Stone.

I've really got to question reviews that can't understand basic plot points- it tells me they weren't really paying attention. Rolling Stone, for example, claims that in the opening space battle Anakin and Obi-Wan are "firing on the Clones". Does that mean this guy thinks the Clonetroopers were set up to be bad guys? Or maybe it was just a typo.

Jalinth · Post by **Jalinth** » 2005-05-12 07:48pm

Mange the Swede wrote:Rotten Tomatoes annoys me. They link to a review by IGN and labels it "rotten". The reviewer isn't overly positive, but he's not all negative.

.

According to the website, reviewers (on-line) can enter their own "fresh/rotten" rating. Otherwise, it is up to the editors and their take on the review - and they view that "wishy-washy" means it isn't worthy.

It is a reasonable system given they need a yes/no - and I'm hopeful about seeing EPIII after my trauma from EPII.

Noble Ire · Post by **Noble Ire** » 2005-05-12 09:19pm

Vympel wrote:
Spanky The Dolphin wrote:The Tomatometer has taken a bit of a hit: now it's 30/5 at 86%, thanks to two seemingly scathing reviews from Orlando Weekly and Rolling Stone.
I've really got to question reviews that can't understand basic plot points- it tells me they weren't really paying attention. Rolling Stone, for example, claims that in the opening space battle Anakin and Obi-Wan are "firing on the Clones". Does that mean this guy thinks the Clonetroopers were set up to be bad guys? Or maybe it was just a typo.

Perhaps its an error by choice, subconcious or otherwise. Those determined to hate a movie will hate it, no matter what the movie is actually like.

StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Rotten Tomatoes says...

good point.. every reviewer has his own system