Star Wars Prequels: Were they "Almost Universally Panned?"

[Kurgan]

This was brought up in the Star Wars 3D discussion, but since it's another topic, maybe it's worth another look.

We all know that in sheer dollar values, the Star Wars prequels made a boatload of money, especially Episode I (even beating out the OT, unless you adjust for inflation). But what about the "almost universally panned" allegation?

It all depends on where you measure from, I suppose.

On RottenTomatoes.com, which gives a percentage "fresh" or "rotten" for a film, there are two ratings... a main number and a "top critics" number. The first is from a list of registered critics (to qualify as a critic, last I checked, you simply must have at least 200 published reviews). Hence, these are critics from across electronic media. Then there is the "top critics" list, which is based on more established print media (magazines & newspapers).

Another thing that's interesting is that there are different versions of RT for different countries, which obviously have different "top critics" (and some of these are repeated since some US print media extends to other countries).

But just looking at the US version of RT's rating here is how it breaks down:

TPM: 62 % Fresh / Top Critics: 40 % Rotten
AOTC: 66 % Fresh / Top Critics: 40 % Rotten
ROTS: 80 % Fresh / Top Critics: 67 % Fresh

(Just for fun, "Clone Wars" got 19/15%)

(So right there, if you go with established critics, they were "almost universally panned," because only the third movie got a fresh rating. If you go with the internet critics, they were all fresh, albeit with some "mixed reviews").

There's also the fan opinion factor... (which either doesn't matter, or is of supreme importance, depending upon whom you ask) some fans have mellowed a bit on the prequels they once hated. Others feel they haven't aged well. For me, I think my opinion of the three prequels has gotten generally worse, rather than better, over time (especially for the first two, since there was always the expectation of the third part tying up loose ends and making it all make sense in the third act). Yet, I'm still more forgiving of the last two. I primarily enjoy them as action movies, while I genuinely enjoy the characters and story of the originals a lot more.

Of course if you compare them to the Originals, there's the added difficulty that most of the reviews we have of them now are decades later. It seems like the tide of opinion of OT critics has shifted to liking ESB more, and ROTJ less over time.

[Srelex]

TBH, it depends where you look; even on IMDB you can have people praising Lucas for the unrivalled majesty and beacon of awe that is TPM, or ranting about how he's a worse human being than Hitler and Mao combined and that the Prequels raped their unborn children. Personally, I consider the Prequels to be meh overall, although somehow my opinions on TPM and AOTC have improved and worsened respectively. I do believe the Prequels, and the SW films overall, do seem better watched in a cinema.

[adam_grif]

I think most people would agree that the prequels would have been judged far less harshly if they did not have such expectations placed on them, and were called "Space Fighting" instead of Star Wars or some shit. Even then, only the third even holds a candle to the worst of the PT, RotJ.

They will probably get worse over time, because the effects-heavy focus will seem less impressive 10 years from now than it did when they came out.

[Kurgan]

TBH, it depends where you look; even on IMDB you can have people praising Lucas for the unrivalled majesty and beacon of awe that is TPM, or ranting about how he's a worse human being than Hitler and Mao combined and that the Prequels raped their unborn children. Personally, I consider the Prequels to be meh overall, although somehow my opinions on TPM and AOTC have improved and worsened respectively. I do believe the Prequels, and the SW films overall, do seem better watched in a cinema.

True, when it comes to fan opinion, certainly. The reviews are one thing, but I'd take the actual ratings on IMDB with a grain of salt anyhow.

[Elfdart]

The phrase "almost universally panned" implies that almost everyone panned the movie. Not "many people panned it", not "most panned it", not "the overwhelming majority panned it", but almost everyone -just under 100%- panned the films. This is a demonstrable lie.

Not only were the prequels NOT panned, they did better with critics than the originals did when they were first released.

[Channel72]

Not only were the prequels NOT panned, they did better with critics than the originals did when they were first released.

That's interesting, and it definitely demonstrates how initial critical response (whether positive or negative) is not always an accurate prediction of how a movie will be regarded over time. That's why it's more important to look at how a movie is regarded years or decades after its release.

At this point, it's been over a decade since the first Prequel was released. TPM was released in 1999, and AOTC was released in 2002, 11 and 8 years ago respectively. Right now, the aggregate opinion regarding these films is generally pretty low compared to the originals. So what was the aggregate opinion regarding ANH and ESB 10 years after their release, in 1987/1990? I'm pretty sure both of those films were already considered classics by 1990. (At least, by 1997 both ANH and ESB appeared alongside movies like The Godfather and Citizen Kane on AFI's top 100 list.) But here we are, 10 years after the Prequels, and it's doubtful they will ever reach anywhere near such acclaim. I'd be surprised if they're even remembered 20 or 30 years down the line.

[Kurgan]

To be fair, there's no way to know how well the Originals would have fared if the internet was around 1977-1983. When the special editions came out (20th anniversary of Star Wars) ANH and ESB did well and ROTJ was panned. I guess we'll see in 2012, 2013, and 2014 how the prequels fare.

[Srelex]

I'd be surprised if they're even remembered 20 or 30 years down the line.

Well, why not? They're still discussed and debated even now. Star Wars is a big name that's going to last a long team, and like it or not the prequels are a part of it.

[adam_grif]

Not only were the prequels NOT panned, they did better with critics than the originals did when they were first released.

Right, and 11 years later, people still hate TPM. I have a gut feeling that while fan backlash is probably less severe now than when it first came out, neutral parties would probably rate it lower than at release because the effects are not impressive anymore and the hype train has completely disappeared.

I'll be keeping an eye on the 3D releases to see how they do.

[Srelex]

I wonder if any of the sillier stuff will be snipped out for the 3D release like they were for the IMAX ones--that'll save money on the conversions as well. Depends how pedantic Lucas feels.

[Darth Fanboy]

Right, and 11 years later, people overzealous nerds on the internet still hate TPM.

Fixed, because let's face it, from 2000 on it is the way cool trend to hate popular things offhand.

[adam_grif]

If you're going to dismiss everyone who hates it as "just hating because it's cool" then I'm not really sure how you could ever be persuaded that people genuinely dislike the film.

[Darth Fanboy]

If you're going to dismiss everyone who hates it as "just hating because it's cool" then I'm not really sure how you could ever be persuaded that people genuinely dislike the film.

How nice of you to put words in my mouth. It's no secret that most of the vitriol towards these films comes from the internet generated by fanboys whose rose-tinted glasses didn't let them enjoy the film. Especially ironic given that some of those same fanboys probably stood up and cheered in the theater after the end credits started playing and only started dissing the movie when they found out that they could increase the size of their e-peen by bashing something popular online.

I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't like it, there isn't a movie that is 100% accepted as great. But when the movie came out it stayed in theaters for a while and continued to make good money after the opening week. A lot of people liked the movie and if you talk to the previously mentioned fanboys they will try to paint TPM as some kind of cinematic abortion that was widely panned by everyone in the world.

[Metahive]

It's no secret that most of the vitriol towards these films comes from the internet generated by fanboys whose rose-tinted glasses didn't let them enjoy the film.

It's no secret that most of the gushing, unthinking praise towards these films comes from the internet generated by fanboys whose rose-tinted glasses overlook every single flaw of the film(s).

Two can play that game.

[adam_grif]

It's no secret that most of the vitriol towards these films comes from the internet generated by fanboys whose rose-tinted glasses didn't let them enjoy the film.

Stop acting like this is somehow assumed to be true. How are you supposed to tell apart SW fans who hated TPM because it was a shit movie from SW fans who hated TPM for the reasons you're suggesting? You've made this ridiculous blanket statement as though it dismisses all criticisms of the film. Guess what! Most of the people reviewing TPM for professional outlets displayed nothing you're talking about, but still gave it mediocre ratings (average rating: 5.9 / 10).

"Everybody knows" that everyone who hates the film is just an irrational fatty nerd just like "everbody knows" that you only use 10% of your brain and "everybody knows" that New Coke was just a premeditated marketing gimmick to boost the sales of regular coke. Please show your working on this one.

Especially ironic given that some of those same fanboys probably stood up and cheered in the theater after the end credits started playing and only started dissing the movie when they found out that they could increase the size of their e-peen by bashing something popular online.

Completely unverifiable.

I'm sure there were plenty of people who didn't like it, there isn't a movie that is 100% accepted as great. But when the movie came out it stayed in theaters for a while and continued to make good money after the opening week.

Are you going to do the Elfdart thing and try to argue that popularity == quality? Just recently we've had examples of total abortions of films that do fucking depressingly well at the box office; the twilight saga, the transformers series, etc. Star Wars is the kind of thing that can pull huge crowds just from brand power alone, even with total garbage (re: The Clone Wars pulling 70 million despite being an abysmal turd and critically trashed).

Film reviews are notorious for being polarizing; there is seldom a movie that didn't get at least some good reviews and as you say every movie has a few haters. I think it's pretty safe to say that TPM got mixed reviews, and fanbases are quite fickle already. There is nothing to explain about a portion of it thoroughly hating that turd of a movie, in my opinion that many people liked it is more in need of explanation.

Stating that people who feel strongly about the series generally are the most vocal about one part of it being crap is almost tautological in its redundancy.

[Dooey Jo]

So right there, if you go with established critics, they were "almost universally panned," because only the third movie got a fresh rating. If you go with the internet critics, they were all fresh, albeit with some "mixed reviews".

40% positive reviews is "almost universal" panning, now? What would you call it for films that get, like, 7%? Damnation?

[Darth Hoth]

If you're going to dismiss everyone who hates it as "just hating because it's cool" then I'm not really sure how you could ever be persuaded that people genuinely dislike the film.

How nice of you to put words in my mouth. It's no secret that most of the vitriol towards these films comes from the internet generated by fanboys whose rose-tinted glasses didn't let them enjoy the film. Especially ironic given that some of those same fanboys probably stood up and cheered in the theater after the end credits started playing and only started dissing the movie when they found out that they could increase the size of their e-peen by bashing something popular online.

Anyone want to play "Guess What Fanboy Is Going To Post Next"? I bet his reply will somehow involve the phrase "nerd rage" . . .

Because if we can dismiss the critics with buzzwords, we can dismiss them!

[Darth Fanboy]

Stop acting like this is somehow assumed to be true. How are you supposed to tell apart SW fans who hated TPM because it was a shit movie from SW fans who hated TPM for the reasons you're suggesting? You've made this ridiculous blanket statement as though it dismisses all criticisms of the film. Guess what! Most of the people reviewing TPM for professional outlets displayed nothing you're talking about, but still gave it mediocre ratings (average rating: 5.9 / 10).

Again, you're missing the fucking point. I'm talking about the most outspoken of the critics, the people who hit the caps lock button because JAr Jar Binks somehow ruined their childhood. The internet allowed that segment of fans to get together than blow the whole TPM hate thing out of porportion. The point of this thread is wondering if the movies were "universally panned" when in fact the only people making those claims are the hardcore fanboys.

I didn't realize 5.9 out of 10 was somehow this big universal failure. I get it, it didn't live up to a lot of expectations,, whoop de shit.

"Everybody knows" that everyone who hates the film is just an irrational fatty nerd just like "everbody knows" that you only use 10% of your brain and "everybody knows" that New Coke was just a premeditated marketing gimmick to boost the sales of regular coke. Please show your working on this one.

Easy, how else a decade ago were people supposed to gather together to create this opinion of a movie. IF you take that out of the equation, well, the movie was in theaters for a long time and it made a shitload of money. Usually that is the sign of a fairly well recieved movie.

http://www.imdb.com/boxoffice/alltimegross

$400 million at the domestic box office? Somebody fuckin' liked it enough. And yeah some people didn't like it so they didn't see Episode II, that still made over $300 million domestically, and then Episode III made about $380 million.

Oh but you might retort with the fact that those numbers aren't adjust for inflation. Very well, let's do that then.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Adjusting the gross still makes TPM the 20th highest grossing film of all time.

I repeat. The 20th highest grossing film of all time was "universally panned"? Doesn't make any sense. It can't be just the fanbase, seeing as how that wasn't enough to make Serenity a commercial success.

Completely unverifiable.

What is it about being a douchenozzle that gets you off?

I know of two people that I WENT TO THE FILM WITH who did just that. ou can't tell me they were the only two.

Are you going to do the Elfdart thing and try to argue that popularity == quality?

The popularity of a movie tends to reflect more as to how entertaining it is than whatever standard it is you seem to want to apply. If I make a movie that ten million people go see over the course of a few weeks, and you make a movie that one million people go see over the course of a few weeks, I think i'd be fair to say that my movie was better. SEEING AS HOW THE GOAL OF MAKING HOLLYWOOD FILMS IS TO MAKE MONEY.

Just recently we've had examples of total abortions of films that do fucking depressingly well at the box office; the twilight saga, the transformers series, etc. Star Wars is the kind of thing that can pull huge crowds just from brand power alone, even with total garbage (re: The Clone Wars pulling 70 million despite being an abysmal turd and critically trashed).

Oh god the movie for young children hashed together from TV show episodes was not well recieved by adults call the film gestapo.

Film reviews are notorious for being polarizing; there is seldom a movie that didn't get at least some good reviews and as you say every movie has a few haters. I think it's pretty safe to say that TPM got mixed reviews, and fanbases are quite fickle already. There is nothing to explain about a portion of it thoroughly hating that turd of a movie, in my opinion that many people liked it is more in need of explanation.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Grif reveals himself as one of the dorks I was referring to earlier.

Stating that people who feel strongly about the series generally are the most vocal about one part of it being crap is almost tautological in its redundancy.

blah blah blah blah blah you are the most boring motherfucker to read on this board possibly ever blah blah blah blah blah

I made a point about how the only people claiming the films were universally panned were butthurt whiners on the internet and your response is to be butthurt. For fuck's sake does your mom ever regret not having that abortion?

[Darth Fanboy]

Because if we can dismiss the critics with buzzwords, we can dismiss them!

Oh I'm so glad your back I was wondering that this board was becoming too rational. Please list ten reasons why Palpatine's policies regarding slavery were ethically and morally justifiable so that I might get my Hoth Fix for the month.

I didn't dismiss criticism of the movie for it's faults, it is without a doubt the weakest of the six films. However the OP asks if the film was universally panned. The evidence as presented in this thread has failed to demonstrate that it was, and if anything it shows that a majority of viewers like the movie (given the 60% fresh rating on RT). What i'm dismissing is that the movie was universally panned, because the people who make said claim are full of shit.

[Metahive]

I didn't realize 5.9 out of 10 was somehow this big universal failure. I get it, it didn't live up to a lot of expectations,, whoop de shit.

For something that was as universally beloved as Star Wars, that is a pretty steep fall and I argue that if it hadn't borne the Star Wars label it would have fallen even deeper. For all your complaints about the "nerdraging" fanbase, it's pretty much the reason those movies got as far as they did. Yeah, if it had been "Space Struggles" featuring the adventures of Hokey van Dokey and Annoyink Scarwanker how much of a success do you think it would have had?

Also, "not living up to [their] expectations" is the primary reason why people wouldn't enjoy a movie. So no "Whoop de shit".

Oh god the movie for young children hashed together from TV show episodes was not well recieved by adults call the film gestapo.

I guess children just don't deserve quality entertainment. For fuck's sake, we aren't talking about Dora the Explorer or Barney the Dinosaur here. Star Wars' intended audience isn't just freaking toddlers with no clue!

I know of two people that I WENT TO THE FILM WITH who did just that. ou can't tell me they were the only two.

Where you and those two the only people watching? It's otherwise telling that out of an audience of dozens or even hundreds, you can only vouch for two having massively enjoyed the movie.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand Grif reveals himself as one of the dorks I was referring to earlier.

O right, because Grif talks disparigingly about your holy cow, he must be one of those fat, nerdy no-life losers who only rant against those movies to get e-fame. Clutch those pearls a little harder.

I made a point about how the only people claiming the films were universally panned were butthurt whiners on the internet and your response is to be butthurt. For fuck's sake does your mom ever regret not having that abortion?

Liar. Grif claimed that the PT got mixed reviews, yet you threw him into the camp of "fatty nerdy losers" anyway. Here:

I think it's pretty safe to say that TPM got mixed reviews, and fanbases are quite fickle already.

[Bakustra]

Oh god the movie for young children hashed together from TV show episodes was not well recieved by adults call the film gestapo.

I guess children just don't deserve quality entertainment. For fuck's sake, we aren't talking about Dora the Explorer or Barney the Dinosaur here. Star Wars' intended audience isn't just freaking toddlers with no clue!

You're missing Fanboy's point here. You're using people well outside the target audience whether they liked the film and then using that as a barometer for quality. (Using RT ratings and then dismissing popularity as a measure of quality is also hilarious as hell, but whatever). It's like asking seven-year-olds what they think of The Grand Illusion or Casablanca or a twenty-year-old today what he thinks of Saturday Night Fever. They're not the people those films were aimed at, so their opinions aren't all that important to judging the success of those films. Frankly, TCW was a success if the kids walked out of the theaters happy, even if the movie could have been better for older audiences.

By the way, nice equivocations there.

[Darth Fanboy]

By the way, nice equivocations there.

Thanks for saving me the trouble of replying to that part, niely phrased.

[Darth Fanboy]

For something that was as universally beloved as Star Wars, that is a pretty steep fall and I argue that if it hadn't borne the Star Wars label it would have fallen even deeper.

Well seeing as how it was a Star Wars movie removing the label makes absolutely no sense whatsoever, seeing as how the movie was about a key element of the SW universe (Jedi).

For all your complaints about the "nerdraging" fanbase, it's pretty much the reason those movies got as far as they did. Yeah, if it had been "Space Struggles" featuring the adventures of Hokey van Dokey and Annoyink Scarwanker how much of a success do you think it would have had?

I think it wouldn't have even existed since they were intended prequels to films already released that are based around key elements of the SW universe. Your "Space Struggles" argument makes no sense because without that label those films don't get made. You also act as if there are some fans who do not have a choice when seeing a film about a franchise they like and are compelled to see it. Also, you're once again ignoring the fact that going by Rotten Tomatoes, which is being promoted IN THIS THREAD as a semi-accurate barometer of public opinion, that a majority of people seem to like the films more than they dislike. But please do counter my "angry fanboy" argument by being an angry fanboy, it's actually amusing.

Also, "not living up to [their] expectations" is the primary reason why people wouldn't enjoy a movie. So no "Whoop de shit".

Bullshit. For many of these Star Wars fans, they will readily admit that oe of the fils of the OT (usually ANH or ESB) is their favorite movie of all time. These prequels had no choice but to be directly compared to some of the most widely cherished moments in history. But the thing is that those prequels were the events leading up to the story, they were missing pieces to the puzzle. They weren't ever going to be the same. There is a reason RoTS was the most liked of the prequels and that is because it was much more clearly related that beloved OT. The clones finally looked like stormtroopers, we saw the birth of Luke and Leia, we saw the death star, we saw Darth Vader and the Emperor, Obi Wan and Yoda were two of very few Jedi Survivors, and we finally got to see that defining moment in REpublic History that brought about the birth of the Galactic Empire, which is what people had been frothing for since TPM debuted.

Where you and those two the only people watching? It's otherwise telling that out of an audience of dozens or even hundreds, you can only vouch for two having massively enjoyed the movie.

If there were two people at the screening I went to, then it is reasonable to me that of thousands of other screenings there were at least one or two who did the same thing.

O right, because Grif talks disparigingly about your holy cow, he must be one of those fat, nerdy no-life losers who only rant against those movies to get e-fame. Clutch those pearls a little harder.

How is this my holy cow again? Oh wait i'm sorry you have sided with the Grif school of putting words in people's mouths, stating it as loudly and repeatedly as possible, and then believing it as fact.

Liar. Grif claimed that the PT got mixed reviews, yet you threw him into the camp of "fatty nerdy losers" anyway. Here:

I think it's pretty safe to say that TPM got mixed reviews, and fanbases are quite fickle already.

If he agrees with me then why did he feel the need to argue with me? Especially when he views one of the highest grossing movies of all time as some kind of failure?

[Kurgan]

I'm not sure RT is being used as a semi-reliable reflection of PUBLIC OPINION, so much as a semi-reliable measure of quality.

I know that if someone has a strong opinion about a film (especially if they like it) and the critics disagree, then most likely, "critics don't know squat" is what they'll say. The Aliens Vs. Predator movies were pretty popular and everyone I knew at the time wanted to see them, but they were critically panned, and I personally thought they sucked (even though I love the franchise and loved the idea of those films, but don't consider myself a "fanboy"). Looking back, most of my friends agreed too. That doesn't mean everybody thought that, but it's possible for bad movies to make a lot of money. What's rarer is for bad movies to continue to make money and be popular (even after their initial "series run" at the theater). You can add the "SAW" movies to the pile, and a lot of other bad horror flicks that get sequel after sequel (and not just direct to video).

Rather, critics are supposed to be people who are able to recognize quality, because it's their JOB to watch and analyze a lot of films. There's no accounting for personal taste, but there ARE people who like crap movies, simply because they don't watch many movies. They enjoy it because there's nothing to compare it to, or they are just loyal to certain actors/directors or they had a good time at the theater with their friends, etc.

Not living up to expectations doesn't completely excuse the Prequels' flaws. I think Episode I might be a special case, because the hype for it was so massive (this wasn't just fan generated hype after all), and because the other movies hadn't been made yet, so people assumed that it would only get better and all "make sense" once the new trilogy was complete.

The real measure I think will be if people will shell out to go see Episode I AGAIN like they did the first time.

I'm wondering if Lucas may be doing more harm than good to his franchise by over-saturating the market with his stuff, including the many re-releases. Obviously he has the motivation for profit (which fanboys feed into), but the nostalgia factor doesn't work if 1) it wasn't that great to begin with and 2) if you don't let people ever forget it... Since the whole point of nostalgia is to recapture and rediscover something you used to like but haven't seen in awhile and the positive memories associated with it.

Let me be clear about my view... you can really like Pork Rinds if you want. But they're disgusting!

[Bakustra]

Rotten Tomatoes is a compilation of critics. By definition, it is popular opinion, especially since it collates minor critics, fringe critics, and some specialty ones as well. Critics themselves aren't really objective, either. Good ones, like Ebert, are aware of this fact and elaborate on why they didn't like movies. They tend to have tastes similar to many people, but just as an example, Ebert dislikes slasher films, which nevertheless remain very popular. This is because his tastes in movies don't really extend to mindless entertainment like typical slasher flicks or action flicks or, for that matter, formulaic romance movies. But the continued success of these movies show that there are a great many people that do enjoy them.

I believe that popularity is a measure of quality, to an extent. Consider that movies like The Godfather, Casablanca, and other favorites of critics are also popular with many other people as well. Quality is personal, but one can measure success by seeing how popular something is in its target audience. If a great many kids loved, say, Alvin and the Chipmunks Three: The Cheekilogy, then the movie was a success no matter how much its commercials make me want to claw my eyes out and mail them to the producers with an angry letter.

So if a number of people liked the prequels (especially amongst the general population they were targeted at), then they were a success on that level, and the rest is one's own opinion.