Disney and the prequels

[The Romulan Republic]

a backlash by The Last Jedi-bashers.

TLJ basically shit the bed. I almost didn't see Solo until I said "fuck it" one day and went anyway. It was good enough to make me want to see any future anthology films (BOBA FETTTTTTTTT), but I'm fucking not going to see Episode 9 until it's on Redbox because of TLJ being such shit.

Well, opinions differ, but as I said, it would be a shame if the message Disney got is "God forbid that we ever do anything to offend the loudest and angriest parts of the fan base." Say what you will about Rian Johnson and TLJ, they tried to do something a bit different. That's always risky- sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But deciding never to take risks, or to simply pander to what the angry fans say they want, is the fastest way to kill a franchise, every time.

[ray245]

Well, opinions differ, but as I said, it would be a shame if the message Disney got is "God forbid that we ever do anything to offend the loudest and angriest parts of the fan base." Say what you will about Rian Johnson and TLJ, they tried to do something a bit different. That's always risky- sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't. But deciding never to take risks, or to simply pander to what the angry fans say they want, is the fastest way to kill a franchise, every time.

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!).

Green-lighting a Solo, Boba Fett movie is also Disney listening to the demands of the vocal fans. ( The potential Obi-Wan movie is also another example). The problem with Solo is that this is a movie fan wanted 15-20 years ago. It's no longer a movie they are interested in. The problem is Disney's information about the fandom can be out of date.

[Vympel]

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.

[ray245]

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"

Are you serious? I've not seen someone trying so hard at being an apologist for Disney. Are you calling marketing 'creatively association'? Marketing is marketing.

- 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.

Nothing wrong with using props( nevermind the fact that the sequels used more cgi than the prequels ever did). It's building a marketing campaign around it that shows they're basically showing "SW had returned to its roots!".

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.

Of course, you'll be able to conclusively proof that this reflects the view of everyone who've seen the prequels?

Prequel apologist? Oh you silly fool. I guess that makes film critics like Roger Ebert a prequel apologist for daring to like the prequels? There's flaws in the prequels, I think most people who like the prequels have no problem admitting that. But I don't pretend this is a majority opinion and go around trying to police people's enjoyment of movies like you.

Stop being scared of people having different views in movies from you and stop acting like a fanboy.

[Vympel]

Are you serious? I've not seen someone trying so hard at being an apologist for Disney. Are you calling marketing 'creatively association'? Marketing is marketing.

No, it's not marketing. It's a creative decision.

Nothing wrong with using props( nevermind the fact that the sequels used more cgi than the prequels ever did). It's building a marketing campaign around it that shows they're basically showing "SW had returned to its roots!".

Who cares if the sequels used more CGI? You were trying to dismiss the use of puppetry - a hugely respected field in effects with a long history that is not in any way obsolete, as mere marketing.

Of course, you'll be able to conclusively proof that this reflects the view of everyone who've seen the prequels?

Learn to read. If I say something is a widely held consensus, it does not mean that "everyone who has seen the prequels hated it". So this is a fucking stupid request.

Prequel apologist? Oh you silly fool. I guess that makes film critics like Roger Ebert a prequel apologist for daring to like the prequels? There's flaws in the prequels, I think most people who like the prequels have no problem admitting that. But I don't pretend this is a majority opinion and go around trying to police people's enjoyment of movies like you.

You can enjoy whatever poorly made piece of shit poorly made film you like, I ain't trying to stop you - but it's clear from how you rail against me shitting on these turds that you resent being told the piece of shit movie you like is a piece of shit. And wy should I care if Roger Ebert liked the prequels (note, not even he liked Attack of the Clones, it was that crap)? One critic is your big defence? Their critical reception was poor overall, and it has not improved over time. That's simply an objective fact. Their status as a cultural punchline is indisputable apart from - again - prequel apologists bouncing around the internet. You can't swing a dead cat in any commentary on the Star Wars films in any media you care to name without someone mentioning the prequels poor reputation. That's a reflection of reality. Stop whining against objective reality and accept it.

Stop being scared of people having different views in movies from you and stop acting like a fanboy.

Could the pot be any blacker? If you weren't so insecure about the prequels being shit movies you like anyway you wouldn't be embarassing yourself by declaring that "Disney" is "prequel bashing" because they used puppets or some stupid ass shit. Nevermind using "Disney" as a boogeyman for all of your problems with Lucasfilm's work is bullshit, too.

[ray245]

No, it's not marketing. It's a creative decision.

It's the same bloody thing.

Who cares if the sequels used more CGI? You were trying to dismiss the use of puppetry - a hugely respected field in effects with a long history that is not in any way obsolete, as mere marketing.

Making videos showing people they are using puppets and not using CGI is marketing.

Learn to read. If I say something is a widely held consensus, it does not mean that "everyone who has seen the prequels hated it". So this is a fucking stupid request.

So you can't actually prove it?

You can enjoy whatever poorly made piece of shit poorly made film you like, I ain't trying to stop you - but it's clear from how you rail against me shitting on these turds that you resent being told the piece of shit movie you like is a piece of shit. And wy should I care if Roger Ebert liked the prequels (note, not even he liked Attack of the Clones, it was that crap)? One critic is your big defence? Their critical reception was poor overall, and it has not improved over time. That's simply an objective fact. Their status as a cultural punchline is indisputable apart from - again - prequel apologists bouncing around the internet. You can't swing a dead cat in any commentary on the Star Wars films in any media you care to name without someone mentioning the prequels poor reputation. That's a reflection of reality. Stop whining against objective reality and accept it.

It's not like your opinions is some sort of definitive fact. It's your opinion, nothing more. Are you seriously using memes to defend your arguments?

Could the pot be any blacker? If you weren't so insecure about the prequels being shit movies you like anyway you wouldn't be embarassing yourself by declaring that "Disney" is "prequel bashing" because they used puppets or some stupid ass shit. Nevermind using "Disney" as a boogeyman for all of your problems with Lucasfilm's work is bullshit, too.

Considering Disney invited people like Kevin Smith to help and promote their movies and allow him to bash the prequels on stage, that's pretty much prequel-bashing. The fact that you feel petty enough to mock people's taste in movies instead of admitting people can enjoy movies despite their flaws is just one of the many indications your nothing more than a fanboy raging about "prequel apologist".

Who else would give a shit about "prequel apologist" other than Gen X fanboys?

[Vympel]

It's the same bloody thing.

By that logic anything anyone decides to do in any film for any reason is 'marketing'. You're trying to turn legitimate creative decisions into exercises in mere cynicism.

Making videos showing people they are using puppets and not using CGI is marketing.

So what? That's nothing to do with what the filmmaker is setting out to do, and only someone whose unreasonbly defensive would think it's meant to be some sort of dig at the prequels for showing the audience how they're making the film.

So you can't actually prove it?

No, I cannot prove your obvious strawman that everyone on Earth who has ever seen them hates the prequels. I admit it!

It's not like your opinions is some sort of definitive fact. It's your opinion, nothing more. Are you seriously using memes to defend your arguments?

It's not my opinion the prequels have a poor reputation, its a fact. Their critical reception was and is objectively poor, with only Revenge of the Sith eking out anyhing that could reasonably called the positive side of average. These things are capable of being measured, there are after all several websites who exist to collate that information. And I never said anything about memes. I'm talking about cultural commentary on the prequels in any sort of mainstream media context.

If you actually think that it's at all controversial that Jar Jar Binks is a by-word for a terrible characer or that Anakin talking about sand isn't short-hand for notoriously awful dialog, you're on narcotics and are living under a rock.

Considering Disney invited people like Kevin Smith to help and promote their movies and allow him to bash the prequels on stage, that's pretty much prequel-bashing.

Now you're making an entirely different argument from what you started out with. Apparently Disney is expected to curate Kevin Smith's commentary like they're some sort of totalitarian state, or else they're "prequel bashing".

(Note, again, the continued erasure of Lucasfilm in favour of "Disney")

The fact that you feel petty enough to mock people's taste in movies instead of admitting people can enjoy movies despite their flaws is just one of the many indications your nothing more than a fanboy raging about "prequel apologist".

Of course people can enjoy films despite their many many many many flaws. I like Dune for fuck's sake. I'm just not going to make an idiot out of myself and try and argue that it's Good, Actually.

Who else would give a shit about "prequel apologist" other than Gen X fanboys?

LOL what? They're shitty movies for any generation. And yes, I give a shit when someone unironically tries to tell me an obviously shit-ass movie is Good, Actually.

[ray245]

By that logic anything anyone decides to do in any film for any reason is 'marketing'. You're trying to turn legitimate creative decisions into exercises in mere cynicism.

It's a freaking business decision. Disney and LFL are a profit-driven company. Creative decision is made for the sake of generating profit, hence marketing.

Call a spade a spade.

So what? That's nothing to do with what the filmmaker is setting out to do, and only someone whose unreasonbly defensive would think it's meant to be some sort of dig at the prequels for showing the audience how they're making the film.

So? I'm talking about Disney making a whole marketing campaign out of it.

No, I cannot prove your obvious strawman that everyone on Earth who has ever seen them hates the prequels. I admit it!

Then stop harping about how everyone hates the prequels. It's pointless.

It's not my opinion the prequels have a poor reputation, its a fact. Their critical reception was and is objectively poor, with only Revenge of the Sith eking out anyhing that could reasonably called the positive side of average. These things are capable of being measured, there are after all several websites who exist to collate that information. And I never said anything about memes. I'm talking about cultural commentary on the prequels in any sort of mainstream media context.

Mainstream media have a terrible cultural memory. They are not historians and are influenced by what's popular on the Internet ( click-bait articles is a thing).

Poor reputation is something the vocal fans have been screaming about, and we simply do not know what's the reputation of the prequels among causal movie-goers.

The only metric that measures casual filmgoers after watching the movie, Cinemascore gives the prequels an A- rating. That's a decent rating. Certainly not as horrible as movies like Batman and Robin who got a C+ rating. The prequels aren't perfect but they aren't as horrible as some intenet fanboy are making them out to be.

To put things in perspective, Solo have an A- score as well.

If you actually think that it's at all controversial that Jar Jar Binks is a by-word for a terrible characer or that Anakin talking about sand isn't short-hand for notoriously awful dialog, you're on narcotics and are living under a rock.

So? That does not mean the movie as a whole is unenjoyable. Look, people aren't idiots and judge the merit of the whole movie purely by its flaws. I used Roger Ebert as an example because he recognise what the prequels are about. They aren't perfect films with tons of flaws, but overall they are still enjoyable to many viewers.

It's people like you that cannot understand how people can look a film collectively and not act like a fanboy.

Now you're making an entirely different argument from what you started out with. Apparently Disney is expected to curate Kevin Smith's commentary like they're some sort of totalitarian state, or else they're "prequel bashing".

Because it's not like Kevin Smith was hiding his distate of the prequels prior to being invited by Disney in their promotions.

(Note, again, the continued erasure of Lucasfilm in favour of "Disney")

Oh god, please stop acting like an idiot. You know what I am talking about when I am talking about Disney. We aren't in a legal court. We both know what I am referring to when I use Disney as a shorthand for corporate decision makers.

Of course people can enjoy films despite their many many many many flaws. I like Dune for fuck's sake. I'm just not going to make an idiot out of myself and try and argue that it's Good, Actually.

If people like Roger Ebery, a well-respected film critic thinks the prequels ( EP 3 and 1) are good enough to call it decent, I don't see why I cannot do the same.

LOL what? They're shitty movies for any generation. And yes, I give a shit when someone unironically tries to tell me an obviously shit-ass movie is Good, Actually.

Why should you care about the opinions of others? Going around and telling everyone you can somehow define something as malleable as a film's quality as "objectively good" or "objectively bad" is plain hilarious. I guess people who studied films like Ebert are just idiots as well because they dare to call the prequels decent?

You're just acting like a fanboy here. I debated with you countless times about the prequels and the new SW movies. We both know each other's opinions and know we aren't changing anyone's mind here.

[Civil War Man]

Regarding the marketing argument, in its most basic form, marketing is a form of advertising. As a result, anything that is emphasized and promoted in order to try to entice people to buy the product (in this case, go see the movie) is marketing. So, the creative decision to use more practical effects is marketing if it's used to try to get people to want to see the movie. This was definitely the case with TFA, less so with the other Disney Star Wars movies since the marketing for them didn't emphasize practical effects as much.

As for prequel-bashing, the attitude is inevitable in any franchise sequel where "returning to its roots" is a common thread in a lot of the marketing. If you argue that something needs to return to its roots, it carries the implicit argument that the changes that took place in the meantime were mistakes. That said, I have noticed some softening of opinions of the prequels over time. Maybe not enough for many people to call them good, but perhaps that they are less bad than they are often portrayed.

As an aside, I do think it's kind of funny how quickly the Disney Star Wars films went from "Star Wars is returning to its roots" to "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to," but that's more a topic for a different thread.

[Vympel]

Regarding the marketing argument, in its most basic form, marketing is a form of advertising. As a result, anything that is emphasized and promoted in order to try to entice people to buy the product (in this case, go see the movie) is marketing. So, the creative decision to use more practical effects is marketing if it's used to try to get people to want to see the movie. This was definitely the case with TFA, less so with the other Disney Star Wars movies since the marketing for them didn't emphasize practical effects as much.

As for prequel-bashing, the attitude is inevitable in any franchise sequel where "returning to its roots" is a common thread in a lot of the marketing. If you argue that something needs to return to its roots, it carries the implicit argument that the changes that took place in the meantime were mistakes. That said, I have noticed some softening of opinions of the prequels over time. Maybe not enough for many people to call them good, but perhaps that they are less bad than they are often portrayed.

As an aside, I do think it's kind of funny how quickly the Disney Star Wars films went from "Star Wars is returning to its roots" to "Let the past die. Kill it if you have to," but that's more a topic for a different thread.

Wait:

"Let the past die, kill it if you have to" is not the message of the Last Jedi. That's the villain talking, and he's wrong. We have a whole movie saying the opposite. The message of the movie is that Luke is wrong to think that he's no good to the galaxy, wrong to think that the Jedi need to die, and that's why the movie ends the way it does - with him pulling out a laser sword, facing off against the First Order, and saving everyone.

It's a freaking business decision. Disney and LFL are a profit-driven company. Creative decision is made for the sake of generating profit, hence marketing.

Call a spade a spade.

Again, this is nothing but sophistry. You have no meaningful response to the point that by this piss poor standard everything is marketing because the company wants to turn a profit, so you simply repeat yourself.

So? I'm talking about Disney making a whole marketing campaign out of it.

What rubbish. What 'whole marketing campaign'? That JJ Abrams shot a video on Jakku and a puppet alien was walking around once? Last I checked the trailer was full of CGI.

Then stop harping about how everyone hates the prequels. It's pointless.

I didn't say everyone hates the prequels. I said the wide cultural consensus is that they have a poor reputation. Which is simply a fact.

Mainstream media have a terrible cultural memory. They are not historians and are influenced by what's popular on the Internet ( click-bait articles is a thing).

Declaring that mainstream media is "wrong" or somehow under the influence of the internet is nothing but a weaksauce handwave. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones got terrible reviews and a terrible reaction before the internet had anything approaching the level of influence it has now.

Poor reputation is something the vocal fans have been screaming about, and we simply do not know what's the reputation of the prequels among causal movie-goers.

Who cares? We don't need to take a poll of casual movie-goers a decade after the fact to know the prequels have a poor reputation. If the prequels had gotten glowing reviews from actual film critics (i.e. people who understand film as a medium and review films professionally) you'd be crowing about it, and you'd be right to.

The only metric that measures casual filmgoers after watching the movie, Cinemascore gives the prequels an A- rating. That's a decent rating. Certainly not as horrible as movies like Batman and Robin who got a C+ rating. The prequels aren't perfect but they aren't as horrible as some intenet fanboy are making them out to be.

To put things in perspective, Solo have an A- score as well.

As above. You keep trying to make out the prequel's shit-ass reputation as something created on the internet rather than what it actually is. As to the Cinemascore, big whoop. If someone had asked me when I walked out of the movie how much I liked Phantom Menace, I would've said I enjoyed it a lot. I was deluding myself, and it faded by the end of the second time I saw it. That's what almost two decades of pent-up anticipation do. A genuinely well received film unites a good critical reception with good audience reaction.

So? That does not mean the movie as a whole is unenjoyable. Look, people aren't idiots and judge the merit of the whole movie purely by its flaws. I used Roger Ebert as an example because he recognise what the prequels are about. They aren't perfect films with tons of flaws, but overall they are still enjoyable to many viewers.

It's people like you that cannot understand how people can look a film collectively and not act like a fanboy.

You used Roger Ebert as an example because he agrees with you, nothing more. And protesting that they're 'still enjoyable to many viewers' is irrelevant. They're still bad movies with a shit-ass reputation and poor critical reception.

Because it's not like Kevin Smith was hiding his distate of the prequels prior to being invited by Disney in their promotions.

Even if this was true (Kevin Smith has defended the prequels more than once publically. I'm not even sure what you're referring to. This fantasy version of Kevin Smith who unambiguously 'hates the prequels' doesn't match with reality) it doesn't do a single thing to refute what I said.

Oh god, please stop acting like an idiot. You know what I am talking about when I am talking about Disney. We aren't in a legal court. We both know what I am referring to when I use Disney as a shorthand for corporate decision makers.

You're using "Disney" as a shorthand for "corporate decision makers" misrepresents who is actually making the creative decisions you abhor in relation to these films. It's designed to conjure negative associations of evil corporate overlords who in reality have no day-to-day creative control over what Lucasfilm does.

If people like Roger Ebery, a well-respected film critic thinks the prequels ( EP 3 and 1) are good enough to call it decent, I don't see why I cannot do the same.

Have you actually read Ebert's review of Phantom Menace? Let me give you an idea of the flavor:

At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior.

" 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.

Speaks for itself really.

Why should you care about the opinions of others? Going around and telling everyone you can somehow define something as malleable as a film's quality as "objectively good" or "objectively bad" is plain hilarious. I guess people who studied films like Ebert are just idiots as well because they dare to call the prequels decent?

You're just acting like a fanboy here. I debated with you countless times about the prequels and the new SW movies. We both know each other's opinions and know we aren't changing anyone's mind here.

Let's note that you were the one who took umbrage when I shat on the prequels from a great height re: your 'prequel bashing' / 'minority' assertion. It seems you think only someone who thinks the prequels are garbage can be a 'fanboy'.

[Crazedwraith]

What does any of this have to do with Solo, again?

[Vympel]

What does any of this have to do with Solo, again?

It's ... Star Wars ... and ... I got nothing.

[ray245]

Again, this is nothing but sophistry. You have no meaningful response to the point that by this piss poor standard everything is marketing because the company wants to turn a profit, so you simply repeat yourself.

So calling marketing as marketing is sophistry now? Marketing doesn't have an inherently negative meaning ( unless you disagree with the whole concept of marketing).

Can creative decision be taken in a big budget movie? Sure, but the idea that profit-making have zero influence is just plain laughable.

What rubbish. What 'whole marketing campaign'? That JJ Abrams shot a video on Jakku and a puppet alien was walking around once? Last I checked the trailer was full of CGI.

There are all the movie magazine interviews talking endlessly about how they have returned SW to its roots with all the puppets and etc.

I didn't say everyone hates the prequels. I said the wide cultural consensus is that they have a poor reputation. Which is simply a fact.

The idea that you can show there's a cultural consensus just by looking at some news articles online is funny. Sure, those articles are common and popular, but the idea that this makes it a consensus is funny to me. You can't prove it as fact unless you actually did a proper scientific survey ( which would be ridiculous because no one is going pay money for such a pointlesss thing).

Declaring that mainstream media is "wrong" or somehow under the influence of the internet is nothing but a weaksauce handwave. The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones got terrible reviews and a terrible reaction before the internet had anything approaching the level of influence it has now.

Dig up reviews written by people in the past and see what they said about the prequels when it was released. There was a mixed reaction, but the idea that it was universally hated is just plain false.

If we live in an age where a really rotten film like BvS is considered a "mixed reception", AOTC looks absolutely wonderful by comparison.

Who cares? We don't need to take a poll of casual movie-goers a decade after the fact to know the prequels have a poor reputation. If the prequels had gotten glowing reviews from actual film critics (i.e. people who understand film as a medium and review films professionally) you'd be crowing about it, and you'd be right to.

Poor reputation among who? The people who hated the movie would have a disproportionately large representation. It's the same case with TLJ. There's a rather tiny minority that hated TLJ, but they are growing in presence because they are the one spending ages bitching about "how Rian Johnson ruined their childhood". People who like the TLJ don't feel the need to go on and on about how the movie is great like those fanboys.

As above. You keep trying to make out the prequel's shit-ass reputation as something created on the internet rather than what it actually is. As to the Cinemascore, big whoop. If someone had asked me when I walked out of the movie how much I liked Phantom Menace, I would've said I enjoyed it a lot. I was deluding myself, and it faded by the end of the second time I saw it. That's what almost two decades of pent-up anticipation do. A genuinely well received film unites a good critical reception with good audience reaction.

The internet gives complainers a far bigger voice than they actually do have, and this allows them to influence the discourse. See what's happening to TLJ's reception. A movie that received a solid A grade on cinemascore is made to look like an extremely mixed movie online.

You used Roger Ebert as an example because he agrees with you, nothing more. And protesting that they're 'still enjoyable to many viewers' is irrelevant. They're still bad movies with a shit-ass reputation and poor critical reception.

I'm using Ebert because he is someone who doesn't look at SW like a fanboy and talks about how "Geroge Lucas ruined my childhood". The fact that he's already an adult when the OT came out helps massively as well. SW wasn't his childhood and that informs his opinion of the prequels.

Even if this was true (Kevin Smith has defended the prequels more than once publically. I'm not even sure what you're referring to. This fantasy version of Kevin Smith who unambiguously 'hates the prequels' doesn't match with reality) it doesn't do a single thing to refute what I said.

You are aware that he changed his mind quite often? He switched from loving the prequels to hating it ( saying comments like "could no longer be considered a die-hard fan. While I still had mountains of respect for what Lucas had created, and enough affection for what I felt were just some old movies that meant a lot for me growing up to keep referencing them in movies I now found myself making, I'd long since gotten divorced from my childhood marriage to Star Wars" in Kevin Smith, "Married To The Force," from A Galaxy Not So Far Away: Writers and Artists on 25 Years of 'Star Wars,' ed. Glenn Kenny, Owl Books, 2002), to loving it again.

Let's not forget one the reason he changed his mind about the prequels was because of Dave Filoni.

You're using "Disney" as a shorthand for "corporate decision makers" misrepresents who is actually making the creative decisions you abhor in relation to these films. It's designed to conjure negative associations of evil corporate overlords who in reality have no day-to-day creative control over what Lucasfilm does.

You're the one thinking it must mean evil corporate overlords. I have no problem with Disney management of much other franchise like the MCU, Pixar and Disney own animated movies. I'm just not ignoring the fact that corporate decision makers were part of the decison making process. You do not buy a $4 bllion dollar franchise and have zero oversight over its production.

Have you actually read Ebert's review of Phantom Menace? Let me give you an idea of the flavor:

At the risk of offending devotees of the Force, I will say that the stories of the "Star Wars" movies have always been space operas, and that the importance of the movies comes from their energy, their sense of fun, their colorful inventions and their state-of-the-art special effects. I do not attend with the hope of gaining insights into human behavior.

Have you read what you just quoted? If you can take off the your nostalgia glasses, SW has always been fun movies with state-of-the-art special effects. Not even offers deep insights into human behaviour. SW from Ep 1-6 has always been fun popcorn flicks.

The fact that you expect SW to give you some sort of insight into humanity is you placing SW on a ridiculous pedestral as a fanboy.

" 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.

Speaks for itself really.

And I agree with Ebert because the deep dialogue isn't the point. These movies are about having new and interesting things to look at. The prequels have plenty of flaws, but if you enjoy them as simple and fun popcorn flicks, they are pretty decent and enjoyable.

Ebert saw the OT as an adult and not as a kid. This is why I think his argument is valid because he's not as affected by nostalgia compared to gen-X superfans.

Let's note that you were the one who took umbrage when I shat on the prequels from a great height re: your 'prequel bashing' / 'minority' assertion. It seems you think only someone who thinks the prequels are garbage can be a 'fanboy'.

Going online and bitching endlessly about how everyone that like the prequels must have poor taste in movies does make you look like a fanboy. I don't think the prequels are perfect or the best movies of all time. Somehow that alone is enough to send you into a spiraling rage about the prequels.

I don't think anyone who disliked the prequels is a fanboy. I think people who felt so compelled to complain about the prequels 20 years after it had been released makes the person look like a fanboy. That's the vocal set of superfans Disney should not listen to. ( Together with the vocal set of fans complaining about "SJW ruined SW").

[Vympel]

So calling marketing as marketing is sophistry now? Marketing doesn't have an inherently negative meaning ( unless you disagree with the whole concept of marketing).

Can creative decision be taken in a big budget movie? Sure, but the idea that profit-making have zero influence is just plain laughable.

Marketing may not have an inherently negative meaning, but your use of it is clearly intended to be so.

There are all the movie magazine interviews talking endlessly about how they have returned SW to its roots with all the puppets and etc.

So what? That's something any film afficiando (of the kind who would be interviewing a film maker or his crew) would notice, and it is noteworthy.

I
The idea that you can show there's a cultural consensus just by looking at some news articles online is funny. Sure, those articles are common and popular, but the idea that this makes it a consensus is funny to me. You can't prove it as fact unless you actually did a proper scientific survey ( which would be ridiculous because no one is going pay money for such a pointlesss thing).

To illustrate why I have a problem with this argument, you need only reverse it. Do you think there's no cultural consensus that Star Wars (1977) is one of the most popular, well regarded films of the 20th century?

Dig up reviews written by people in the past and see what they said about the prequels when it was released. There was a mixed reaction, but the idea that it was universally hated is just plain false.

I didn't say it was universally hated - you continually overstate what I'm saying to you. There'll always be a minority of people who defend any given bad film. It doesn't change a bad film.

If we live in an age where a really rotten film like BvS is considered a "mixed reception", AOTC looks absolutely wonderful by comparison.

BvS had a far worse reception than Attack of the Clones. Both aren't equally bad.

Poor reputation among who? The people who hated the movie would have a disproportionately large representation. It's the same case with TLJ. There's a rather tiny minority that hated TLJ, but they are growing in presence because they are the one spending ages bitching about "how Rian Johnson ruined their childhood". People who like the TLJ don't feel the need to go on and on about how the movie is great like those fanboys.

Again, I'm not talking about regular viewers complaining on the internet. Critical reception is relevant.

The internet gives complainers a far bigger voice than they actually do have, and this allows them to influence the discourse. See what's happening to TLJ's reception. A movie that received a solid A grade on cinemascore is made to look like an extremely mixed movie online.

There's no doubt some people are trying to promote this narrative, yes, but it's critical reception is sterling, which is the key point of difference.

I'm using Ebert because he is someone who doesn't look at SW like a fanboy and talks about how "Geroge Lucas ruined my childhood". The fact that he's already an adult when the OT came out helps massively as well. SW wasn't his childhood and that informs his opinion of the prequels.

There are plenty of professional critics who didn't grow up with Star Wars who meted out bad reviews to the prequels. Disliking the prequels isn't a matter of mere insular fandom complaints.

You are aware that he changed his mind quite often? He switched from loving the prequels to hating it ( saying comments like "could no longer be considered a die-hard fan. While I still had mountains of respect for what Lucas had created, and enough affection for what I felt were just some old movies that meant a lot for me growing up to keep referencing them in movies I now found myself making, I'd long since gotten divorced from my childhood marriage to Star Wars" in Kevin Smith, "Married To The Force," from A Galaxy Not So Far Away: Writers and Artists on 25 Years of 'Star Wars,' ed. Glenn Kenny, Owl Books, 2002), to loving it again.

Let's not forget one the reason he changed his mind about the prequels was because of Dave Filoni.

But that's not that negative at all. He's just saying he doesn't love Star Wars like a child anymore. He's not bashing it by any means.

You're the one thinking it must mean evil corporate overlords. I have no problem with Disney management of much other franchise like the MCU, Pixar and Disney own animated movies. I'm just not ignoring the fact that corporate decision makers were part of the decison making process. You do not buy a $4 bllion dollar franchise and have zero oversight over its production.

Of course there's oversight, but its high level. They'll approve concepts, but they don't make day-to-day decisons like "for this, you'll use puppets".

Have you read what you just quoted? If you can take off the your nostalgia glasses, SW has always been fun movies with state-of-the-art special effects. Not even offers deep insights into human behaviour. SW from Ep 1-6 has always been fun popcorn flicks.

The fact that you expect SW to give you some sort of insight into humanity is you placing SW on a ridiculous pedestral as a fanboy.

Nonsense. The original trilogy is an homage to myth and fairy tale which resonates deeply with audiences, which is why they're wildly popular and will always be so. You can be a fun popcorn flick and still provide something more to the audience, which the OT does.

And I agree with Ebert because the deep dialogue isn't the point. These movies are about having new and interesting things to look at. The prequels have plenty of flaws, but if you enjoy them as simple and fun popcorn flicks, they are pretty decent and enjoyable.

Ebert saw the OT as an adult and not as a kid. This is why I think his argument is valid because he's not as affected by nostalgia compared to gen-X superfans.

Ebert is saying that TPM's dialog is awful (as indeed it is) and then moving on to say he still likes it because it offers "new and interesting things to look at". What value is there in a film if, after the first time you see it, the "new and interesting things" are no longer new and interesting, but the script has the actors mouthing trite, awkward and poorly delivered lines forever? It's a damning indictment, and to assert that the difference between the prequel's cack-handed, first draft writing and those of the original trilogy is down to nothing more than 'nostalgia' of 'super fans' is just utter bullshit. It's got absolutely no relationship to reality.

There's a reason why the original trilogy has an excellent reputation (again: amongst people who review movies professionally) and the prequel trilogy has a poor one. Because there are real (and considerable) differences in quality between the two, and Roger Ebert's single take doesn't change that.

Going online and bitching endlessly about how everyone that like the prequels must have poor taste in movies does make you look like a fanboy. I don't think the prequels are perfect or the best movies of all time. Somehow that alone is enough to send you into a spiraling rage about the prequels.

I don't think anyone who disliked the prequels is a fanboy. I think people who felt so compelled to complain about the prequels 20 years after it had been released makes the person look like a fanboy. That's the vocal set of superfans Disney should not listen to. ( Together with the vocal set of fans complaining about "SJW ruined SW").

What bitching endlessly? You protested "prequel bashing", I disputed that and shat on them because I don't think they're any good (mostly). I'm not hunting down people who say they like the prequels and arguing with them.

[ray245]

Marketing may not have an inherently negative meaning, but your use of it is clearly intended to be so.

That's your assumption. My issue has never been about Disney trying to market their SW movies, it's about the way they market the movie.

So what? That's something any film afficiando (of the kind who would be interviewing a film maker or his crew) would notice, and it is noteworthy.

Building a narrative around "we've gone back to the roots" while deliberately downplaying the CGI elements is part of a careful marketing campaign.

http://www.slashfilm.com/force-awakens-visual-effects/

To illustrate why I have a problem with this argument, you need only reverse it. Do you think there's no cultural consensus that Star Wars (1977) is one of the most popular, well regarded films of the 20th century?

In America and the anglo-speaking world? Sure. We can use box office performance to tell us that. However, the problem is the box office performance of the prequels simply does not match the picture portrayed by more recent (the late 2000s/early 2010s) media. If a news outlet talks endlessly about how every hated the prequels, the box office number shows a very different picture.

For blockbuster movies, the reality is often the casual don't give enough of a shit about the movie to spend years talking about "how their childhood has been ruined".

I didn't say it was universally hated - you continually overstate what I'm saying to you. There'll always be a minority of people who defend any given bad film. It doesn't change a bad film.

If a film reception was initially mixed among critics, then it is difficult to make a statement claiming some sort of cultural consensus simply by looking at media articles on the internet.

BvS had a far worse reception than Attack of the Clones. Both aren't equally bad.

Then you cannot make an argument that there's a cultural consensus. What happens is there are a bunch of fanboys talking very loudly on the Internet.

Again, I'm not talking about regular viewers complaining on the internet. Critical reception is relevant.

You mean like how AOTC and ROTS still have a fresh rating on RT and how TPM despite being rotten, still managed to receive a 55% ( meaning more than half of the critics still liked the movie to give it a passing grade). And let's not forget RT does not differentiate the reviews written during its release and reviews written much later.

There's no doubt some people are trying to promote this narrative, yes, but it's critical reception is sterling, which is the key point of difference.

It doesn't matter on the Internet. People have very short memory. A "mixed reception movie" can be transformed into an "universally hated movies" by fanboys. A "critically well-received" movie can become a "mixed reception" movie in just one year.

There are plenty of professional critics who didn't grow up with Star Wars who meted out bad reviews to the prequels. Disliking the prequels isn't a matter of mere insular fandom complaints.

Of course, they did. I am not disputing that. My issue is I agree with the view put forth by Roger Ebert. If you see SW as a fun popcorn movie franchise ( I do), then you will not have too high of an expectation on what is a good SW movie. Roger Ebert is one of the few critics that are able to put things into proper perspective ( especially for blockbusters).

But that's not that negative at all. He's just saying he doesn't love Star Wars like a child anymore. He's not bashing it by any means.

That's pretty much saying "Lucas ruined my childhood". And he went on set of TFA talking about how his childhood is back. "Prequel-bashing" was essentially a fanboy phase thing.

Of course there's oversight, but its high level. They'll approve concepts, but they don't make day-to-day decisons like "for this, you'll use puppets".

Do you realise this is the same Disney that asks directors to reshape entire animated movies ( Zootopia) after they've seen early versions of movies? Were they the ones that told JJ Abrams to use puppets? I doubt so, but marketing the movie as "returning to its roots", and downplaying the CGI is something top-level executive would have a say over.

In the 90s and the early 2000s, it was popular to market movies as having as many vfx shots as possible. CGI was very popular back then and everyone wanted more CGI in their movies. It's only in the mid 2000s that the perception starts to change and there was a growing backlash against CGI.

Nonsense. The original trilogy is an homage to myth and fairy tale which resonates deeply with audiences, which is why they're wildly popular and will always be so. You can be a fun popcorn flick and still provide something more to the audience, which the OT does.

So? That does not make the OT deep movies by any means. Star wars back then is basically the same as Avatar (2009). There's a decent story, but the main draw is their beautiful visuals and the sense of fun. It's the chidlren growing up with Star Wars that created the whole idea of the OT being deep and meaningful.

There's some decent themes in it, but they are not deep movies that explore the human condition. Look into how people( adults received the movie back in the 70s).





It's the main sense of adventure and "fun" that makes Star Wars enjoyable to them. They don't think about how this explores the human condition like 2001: A Space Odyssey or compare it as such. Instead, they compare Star Wars to adventure stories like Sinbad and etc.

Ebert is saying that TPM's dialog is awful (as indeed it is) and then moving on to say he still likes it because it offers "new and interesting things to look at". What value is there in a film if, after the first time you see it, the "new and interesting things" are no longer new and interesting, but the script has the actors mouthing trite, awkward and poorly delivered lines forever? It's a damning indictment, and to assert that the difference between the prequel's cack-handed, first draft writing and those of the original trilogy is down to nothing more than 'nostalgia' of 'super fans' is just utter bullshit. It's got absolutely no relationship to reality.

Because that's what many movies are about ( and why today there is more and more desire to keep the plot as closely wrapped up as possible). There are classics that can be enjoyed again and again. But that is precisely what makes them classics.

The prequels are not classics in the minds of many, and that's understandable. They aren't movies that are meant to be rewatched again and again until the DVD is destroyed, nor are they movies that will be closely analyzed and ripped apart for deep themes. Ebert understood precisely what the prequels were about. They are fun movies that you'll enjoy for 2 and a half hour in the cinema with popcorn. They are movies that you can enjoy and move on to other movies.

It's the fanboys that don't understand this concept. They are holding SW in the ridiculously high pedestal ( because of nostalgia).

There's a reason why the original trilogy has an excellent reputation (again: amongst people who review movies professionally) and the prequel trilogy has a poor one. Because there are real (and considerable) differences in quality between the two, and Roger Ebert's single take doesn't change that.

Whether the OT is better than the prequels is NOT the point. It's stupid to make a comparison because those tend to be stuff influenced by nostalgia (especially if you watched the OT as kids). There's no need to compare them in order to judge a movie's merit. The prequels are not the OT, and I don't think the prequels ever tried to be like the OT.

Lucas envisioned them as fun popcorn movies that kids and their parents will pay money to enjoy in the cinema. And the prequels met those standards. ( Certainly compared to many other late 90s, early 2000s blockbusters that everyone has forgotten about).

What bitching endlessly? You protested "prequel bashing", I disputed that and shat on them because I don't think they're any good (mostly). I'm not hunting down people who say they like the prequels and arguing with them.

Prequel-bashing is prequel bashing. Whether you think they are bad doesn't matter. You're the one going into a raging argument about how the prequels hate is justified.

Sure, even if you can justify the prequels are bad movies, you're completely ignoring my point. It doesn't matter whether the prequels are bad movies or good movies. What matters is Disney (shorthand for corporate management) are trying to play up the prequels as a mistake and they are "returning SW to its roots".

You're bitching endlessly about a point that doesn't matter. It's why I accuse you of being a fanboy because you are far more concerned about whether the dislike towards the prequels can be justified and completely miss my point is that Disney has tried to appease the loud fanboys on the Internet.

[ray245]

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.

[Vympel]

That's your assumption. My issue has never been about Disney trying to market their SW movies, it's about the way they market the movie.

Building a narrative around "we've gone back to the roots" while deliberately downplaying the CGI elements is part of a careful marketing campaign.

What, the nefarious absence of mentioning the prequels in some context? Let's put it another way - why would marketing ever want to mention them?

In America and the anglo-speaking world? Sure. We can use box office performance to tell us that. However, the problem is the box office performance of the prequels simply does not match the picture portrayed by more recent (the late 2000s/early 2010s) media. If a news outlet talks endlessly about how every hated the prequels, the box office number shows a very different picture.

No, its not just box office performance that tells us that. Avatar was the biggest movie ever and it had no cultural impact whatsoever (unless you count an obnoxious run of 3d films). Their critical reception tells us that, their impact on other film makers tells us that and the stamp they've left on popular culture in all sorts of ways, that tells us that.

If a film reception was initially mixed among critics, then it is difficult to make a statement claiming some sort of cultural consensus simply by looking at media articles on the internet.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The film's reception on release was poor and has remained poor.

Then you cannot make an argument that there's a cultural consensus. What happens is there are a bunch of fanboys talking very loudly on the Internet.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. BvS is a shit film. Attack of the Clones is a shit film that's less shit than BvS. Just because one has better reviews than another doesn't mean it's considered a good film or that there isn't a cultural consensus that both aren't good films.

You mean like how AOTC and ROTS still have a fresh rating on RT and how TPM despite being rotten, still managed to receive a 55% ( meaning more than half of the critics still liked the movie to give it a passing grade). And let's not forget RT does not differentiate the reviews written during its release and reviews written much later.

AoTC's barely 'fresh' rating on RT is indicative of its lack of quality, and is not anything to brag about. A 'fresh' rating of 70% is barely enough to garner a narrative of "it's ok, I guess" as it is, and even the supposedly 'positive' reviews contributing to that 'fresh' score are full of damning with faint praise. And the difference between reviews written on release and written much later is of no consequence, a review is a review. Also, it's always been widely acknowledged that RotS is the best of the prequel films.

It doesn't matter on the Internet. People have very short memory. A "mixed reception movie" can be transformed into an "universally hated movies" by fanboys. A "critically well-received" movie can become a "mixed reception" movie in just one year.

That's not what happened in the case of the prequels. Only RotS was critically well-received (by comparison, anyway) and as a result it should be no surprise to anyone that whenever the prequels are discussed RotS is constantly excluded from the doldrums of TPM and AotC as "the good one". This is not a coincidence.

Of course, they did. I am not disputing that. My issue is I agree with the view put forth by Roger Ebert. If you see SW as a fun popcorn movie franchise ( I do), then you will not have too high of an expectation on what is a good SW movie. Roger Ebert is one of the few critics that are able to put things into proper perspective ( especially for blockbusters).

Roger Ebert is one critic, and even by his permissive standards in relation to the genre he thought AotC was a poor film.

That's pretty much saying "Lucas ruined my childhood". And he went on set of TFA talking about how his childhood is back. "Prequel-bashing" was essentially a fanboy phase thing.

It's really not. If he wanted to say that, he'd say so. Smith said he liked the prequels after that.

Anyway, do you see how down in the weeds and absurd this is getting? Your "Disney hates the prequels" narrative is based in part on "they let Kevin Smith deliver a coded insult to the prequels on stage."

You are seeing things that are not there.

Do you realise this is the same Disney that asks directors to reshape entire animated movies ( Zootopia) after they've seen early versions of movies? Were they the ones that told JJ Abrams to use puppets? I doubt so, but marketing the movie as "returning to its roots", and downplaying the CGI is something top-level executive would have a say over.

In the 90s and the early 2000s, it was popular to market movies as having as many vfx shots as possible. CGI was very popular back then and everyone wanted more CGI in their movies. It's only in the mid 2000s that the perception starts to change and there was a growing backlash against CGI.

Zootopia is a Walt Disney Animation movie. It's not produced by another studio that they own - i.e. a Lucasfilm or Marvel.

So? That does not make the OT deep movies by any means. Star wars back then is basically the same as Avatar (2009). There's a decent story, but the main draw is their beautiful visuals and the sense of fun. It's the chidlren growing up with Star Wars that created the whole idea of the OT being deep and meaningful.

There's some decent themes in it, but they are not deep movies that explore the human condition. Look into how people( adults received the movie back in the 70s).

Who cares how the very first film was received by two random people on the BBC in 1977? You can point to any surface level pap about any film on release and hold it up as evidence that there's nothing else 'there' in the films, but it doesn't make it true.

Because that's what many movies are about ( and why today there is more and more desire to keep the plot as closely wrapped up as possible). There are classics that can be enjoyed again and again. But that is precisely what makes them classics.

The prequels are not classics in the minds of many, and that's understandable. They aren't movies that are meant to be rewatched again and again until the DVD is destroyed, nor are they movies that will be closely analyzed and ripped apart for deep themes. Ebert understood precisely what the prequels were about. They are fun movies that you'll enjoy for 2 and a half hour in the cinema with popcorn. They are movies that you can enjoy and move on to other movies.

It's the fanboys that don't understand this concept. They are holding SW in the ridiculously high pedestal ( because of nostalgia).

The prequel trilogy is looked down upon compared to the original trilogy not because anyone 'hold SW on a ridiculously high pedestal', but because they got a certain standard of quality from the original trilogy in terms of all aspects of film making and the prequels failed to meet that standard. If the original trilogy is a classic that can be rewatched again and again, it's not because the people rewatching it are somehow deluded, it's because the movies are that good. It's not 'nostalgia' to hold a film with awkward plotting, pacing, cack-handed acting, directing and dialog in lower regard than a superior example of the craft, its just good sense.

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.

You're seeing things that just aren't there. There's no evidence that Disney has been 'listening to loud prequel bashers on the internet'. Your conception of this is:

- Marketing the films in a manner that's evocative of those that are well regarded; and
- Allowing Kevin Smith to somehow insult them by implication in some vague way?

[ray245]

What, the nefarious absence of mentioning the prequels in some context? Let's put it another way - why would marketing ever want to mention them?

Because that's your marketing team trying to show the franchise is in the "right set of fans" who would truly understand the SW material.

No, its not just box office performance that tells us that. Avatar was the biggest movie ever and it had no cultural impact whatsoever (unless you count an obnoxious run of 3d films). Their critical reception tells us that, their impact on other film makers tells us that and the stamp they've left on popular culture in all sorts of ways, that tells us that.

Avatar has no follow-up for years(still don't, with the sequels in development). SW had a sequel 3 years after the first. It's legacy is sustained by constant output of media and books over the years.

I'm not sure what this is supposed to mean. The film's reception on release was poor and has remained poor.

Poor and mixed are not the same thing. If even the least liked prequels can have more than half of the critics liking it, this is pretty much a mixed reception rather than a poor reception.

Even AOTC scored over 60% today.

I don't know what you're trying to say here. BvS is a shit film. Attack of the Clones is a shit film that's less shit than BvS. Just because one has better reviews than another doesn't mean it's considered a good film or that there isn't a cultural consensus that both aren't good films.

Then your standards of a "good" film are ridiculously and unreasonably high ( and even more so than respected critics like Egbert). A movie does not need to be a "classic" to be a good film. If it entertains its audience and has a good performance at the box office, it's a good movie ( certainly by blockbuster standards).

I'm judging the prequels in comparison to hundreds of other blockbuster movies that came out year after year ( and became forgotten very quickly).

AoTC's barely 'fresh' rating on RT is indicative of its lack of quality, and is not anything to brag about. A 'fresh' rating of 70% is barely enough to garner a narrative of "it's ok, I guess" as it is, and even the supposedly 'positive' reviews contributing to that 'fresh' score are full of damning with faint praise. And the difference between reviews written on release and written much later is of no consequence, a review is a review. Also, it's always been widely acknowledged that RotS is the best of the prequel films.

A movie does not need to reach 70% to be "ok". 70% is a very good score. Recent Marvel movies with consistent high reception IS a major shift in the way blockbusters are being judged and received. But even some of the Marvel movies still receive grades comparable to ROTS and AOTC. Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 both received a similar percentage, but no one ever screams about how they are horrible movies.

You are the one that have lost perspective, because you are overly attached to Star Wars as a kid that grew up with it.

That's not what happened in the case of the prequels. Only RotS was critically well-received (by comparison, anyway) and as a result it should be no surprise to anyone that whenever the prequels are discussed RotS is constantly excluded from the doldrums of TPM and AotC as "the good one". This is not a coincidence.

AOTC has the similar score as Thor 2. The reason why no one talks about how MCU has been ruined is that there is no legion of nostalgia-induced fanboys screaming about it online.

Roger Ebert is one critic, and even by his permissive standards in relation to the genre he thought AotC was a poor film.

And he thought TPM was a decent film. The prequels are by no means perfect, and some are definitely weaker than others. That does not mean the prequels as a whole are objectively bad movies. Film critics like Ebert that can put SW into proper perspective certainly make a good argument how we should judge them.

Whether Ebert is the minority among critics is not the main point. He presented a decent argument on why we should look at SW in a particular way and evaluate it based on that. As someone who've seen tons of good and horrible movies, he's in a far better place to judge the prequels than a bunch of screaming fanboys on the Internet ( that have probably not watched as many movies as they have claimed).

It's really not. If he wanted to say that, he'd say so. Smith said he liked the prequels after that.

Anyway, do you see how down in the weeds and absurd this is getting? Your "Disney hates the prequels" narrative is based in part on "they let Kevin Smith deliver a coded insult to the prequels on stage."

You are seeing things that are not there.

He talks about how his understanding of the prequels has changed after talking to Dave Filoni (after TFA i believe)



Please, Disney has been talking about how they are the true inheritors of Lucas's original vision and returning SW to its roots consistently in their media interviews, marketing and so forth prior to the release of TFA. This is not making stuff up.

Zootopia is a Walt Disney Animation movie. It's not produced by another studio that they own - i.e. a Lucasfilm or Marvel.

So? Disney exec has shown to have a very active interest in the properties they are managing. Look into the history of their interference with Pixar. Whether their interference is good or bad isn't the point. The point is to show they have very direct influence over the production of a film.

Who cares how the very first film was received by two random people on the BBC in 1977? You can point to any surface level pap about any film on release and hold it up as evidence that there's nothing else 'there' in the films, but it doesn't make it true.

Aren't you the one talking about wider cultural consensus? This kind of media talk about ANH back in 77 is what you are looking at.

The discussion about SW back in the 70s, as far as we can gather from sources are not movies that somehow convey the very deep philosophical message within the film itself. There are mythic elements and injection of Lucas' own philosophical views, but they are not deep by any measure.

The prequel trilogy is looked down upon compared to the original trilogy not because anyone 'hold SW on a ridiculously high pedestal', but because they got a certain standard of quality from the original trilogy in terms of all aspects of film making and the prequels failed to meet that standard. If the original trilogy is a classic that can be rewatched again and again, it's not because the people rewatching it are somehow deluded, it's because the movies are that good. It's not 'nostalgia' to hold a film with awkward plotting, pacing, cack-handed acting, directing and dialog in lower regard than a superior example of the craft, its just good sense.

Why should you compare the prequels to the OT? Why do the prequels need to match the OT to be good movies? I fundamentally disagree with this view and find this view to be entirely generated by nostalgia. Judge the prequels by the standards of late 90s/early 2000s popcorn blockbusters.

You're seeing things that just aren't there. There's no evidence that Disney has been 'listening to loud prequel bashers on the internet'. Your conception of this is:

- Marketing the films in a manner that's evocative of those that are well regarded; and
- Allowing Kevin Smith to somehow insult them by implication in some vague way?

You mean like hiring loud prequel bashers like Simon Pegg for what amounts to a cameo and asking him for advice on the script?

"When we were shooting The Force Awakens in Abu Dhabi he was there as an actor [a small role as junk dealer Unkar Plutt]," says JJ Abrams. "But for me, he was there as a writer and film-maker, and as someone to go around the issues I was having at the time with the story and to get some great feedback. And he's so quick with his responses that he will often come back an hour later and say, 'I wrote up this scene 'cos we were just talking about it'. Which I really appreciate. I'd rather get something up on its feet quickly and then work it out rather than spend as much time, as friends of mine do, just getting a first draft out. Simon's much more instinctive."

He might be just writing a tiny scene in TFA, but he had a close working relationship with JJ Abrams before. Those loud fanboys certainly have a degree of influence over SW.

[Gandalf]

Why is Pegg characterised as a "prequel basher" as opposed to someone who likes Star Wars and also has a decent writing background?

[The Romulan Republic]

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.

Its interesting that there seems to be a split in the fandom between people who think that the new films are undermining the OT, and people who think they're too much like the OT.

To me, it just proves the futility of trying to pander to a diverse and often simply unpleasable fanbase. Nothing good will come of each film being a reaction to whichever group whined loudest about the last film. That's just written by committee increased by a few orders of magnitude.

[ray245]

Why is Pegg characterised as a "prequel basher" as opposed to someone who likes Star Wars and also has a decent writing background?

When you basically talk about how they're the worse movie ever, you kinda lose any sense of objectivity. The prequels have plenty of flaws, but someone raging about them is pretty a sign they are an old-school fanboy who is angry Lucas ruined their childhood.

SW has been such a massive part of the Gen X-ers' childhood and I am very skeptical of anyone from that generation able to look at the prequels in a calm and collected fashion. Whether they are good writers in their other works doesn't matter.

Its interesting that there seems to be a split in the fandom between people who think that the new films are undermining the OT, and people who think they're too much like the OT.

To me, it just proves the futility of trying to pander to a diverse and often simply unpleasable fanbase. Nothing good will come of each film being a reaction to whichever group whined loudest about the last film. That's just written by committee increased by a few orders of magnitude.

The sequels should always be something new and different from previous 6 movies. If Disney wanted to build SW as their own brand, they need to move beyond nostalgia and make the era unique on its own term.

The problem is they have not.

[The Romulan Republic]

The sequels should always be something new and different from previous 6 movies. If Disney wanted to build SW as their own brand, they need to move beyond nostalgia and make the era unique on its own term.

The problem is they have not.

To an extent, they have done things surprisingly differently from the OT. Off the top of my head:

-Greater diversity in casting.

-Ex-storm trooper protagonist.

-More "ordinary joe" type characters- see Rose, and pretty much every major character in Rogue One (though that's not really one of the sequels).

-Subverting some typical Star Wars (or action genre) tropes, particularly in TLJ, with regard to how the Force works (though the deconstructive elements of TLJ, ambiguous as they were, were really nothing the EU hadn't done before), and trying to subvert the "hero goes rogue against corrupt/incompetent authority figure" trope with Poe vs. Holdo. And perhaps most notably, Rey being "nobody".

But a lot of the same archetypes are used- the planet-destroying super weapon, Siths (in all but name) vs. Jedi, Empire (in all but name) vs. Rebels, Light Side vs. Dark Side, the hero from humble origins who must discover their destiny as a Jedi...

The problem is... how many of those archetypes can you significantly change before it ceases to be Star Wars in the minds of the public, especially when the main trilogy films will be expected to feature a galactic-scale conflict between Light and Dark Side Force Users (and I'd argue that that is the essence of what Star Wars is)?

To me, its less that they reused old ideas that's the problem, and more that they cut corners on the execution. It often feels rushed, underdeveloped, forced. I'd point to the way in which the "search for Luke" plot of TFA was resolved almost as an afterthought (I regard this as the single biggest structural defect of the Disney films thus far), or the underdevelopment of the New Republic (which both raises questions as to how it could fall so quickly, and lessened the impact of its destruction compared to say the destruction of Vulcan in Abrams' Star Trek), or the lack of any explanation whatsoever as to where Snoke came from. Certainly, some fans were already determined to hate these films since before they were announced, but it couldn't have hurt to address these issues.

If you want to sell the audience on an old plot or trope, you can do that. Its done all the time. But it probably helps if you don't skimp too much on the world-building, and even more if you have a coherent plot and good pacing. Unfortunately, plot and pacing seem to be afterthoughts at best in most Hollywood blockbusters these days (though this is neither unique to the Disney Star Wars films, nor even something that particularly stands out in them as compared to the industry standard these days).

Edit: I do also think that TFA and TLJ both come off as being too much a reaction to the previous films (or the backlash against them), rather than being their own thing. TFA doesn't develop the NR politics, made heavy use of "practical effects", and had a plot closely imitating the OT, and it comes off as a reaction to the criticisms of the OT, an attempt to appease the fandom. TLJ, meanwhile, throws out a lot of the stuff TFA appeared to be setting up, as though trying to be more original.

To some extent, that's understandable, even logical. Give the fans something familiar in the first film, to reassure them that this is still the familiar Star Wars universe and win over those who disliked the Prequels. Then, when you've established your new trilogy, try something a bit bolder and more original in the next film. But if that was the plan, it seems to have backfired (because the fan base is fractured and unpleasable). And if IX is just going back to the formula in response to the criticism of TLJ, that won't bode well for the future of the franchise. Unfortunately, with Abrams back in as director, that's pretty much what I expect.

[ray245]

To an extent, they have done things surprisingly differently from the OT. Off the top of my head:

-Greater diversity in casting.

-Ex-storm trooper protagonist.

Sure, but they don't directly affect the plot. Greater diversity is kinda weird because the GFFA isn't modern earth and ethnicity don't nicely correspond to modern day Earth.

Stormtrooper protagonist is entirely irrelevant to the plot ( except when they need a convinent guide inside FO bases).

-More "ordinary joe" type characters- see Rose, and pretty much every major character in Rogue One (though that's not really one of the sequels).

I mean even Han counts as an "ordinary joe" back in the OT.

-Subverting some typical Star Wars (or action genre) tropes, particularly in TLJ, with regard to how the Force works (though the deconstructive elements of TLJ, ambiguous as they were, were really nothing the EU hadn't done before), and trying to subvert the "hero goes rogue against corrupt/incompetent authority figure" trope with Poe vs. Holdo. And perhaps most notably, Rey being "nobody".

Rey being a "nobody" isn't really that big of a deal considering she is the new "chosen one". While she might not have a special heritage, she is still the new "chosen/special one".

But a lot of the same archetypes are used- the planet-destroying super weapon, Siths (in all but name) vs. Jedi, Empire (in all but name) vs. Rebels, Light Side vs. Dark Side, the hero from humble origins who must discover their destiny as a Jedi...

The problem is... how many of those archetypes can you significantly change before it ceases to be Star Wars in the minds of the public, especially when the main trilogy films will be expected to feature a galactic-scale conflict between Light and Dark Side Force Users (and I'd argue that that is the essence of what Star Wars is)?

I think the "core essence" of Star Wars is the setting itself. It doesn't need to mirror old conflicts in SW movies as long as the setting itself feels consistent with prior movies and TV shows.

To me, its less that they reused old ideas that's the problem, and more that they cut corners on the execution. It often feels rushed, underdeveloped, forced. I'd point to the way in which the "search for Luke" plot of TFA was resolved almost as an afterthought (I regard this as the single biggest structural defect of the Disney films thus far), or the underdevelopment of the New Republic (which both raises questions as to how it could fall so quickly, and lessened the impact of its destruction compared to say the destruction of Vulcan in Abrams' Star Trek), or the lack of any explanation whatsoever as to where Snoke came from. Certainly, some fans were already determined to hate these films since before they were announced, but it couldn't have hurt to address these issues.

If you want to sell the audience on an old plot or trope, you can do that. Its done all the time. But it probably helps if you don't skimp too much on the world-building, and even more if you have a coherent plot and good pacing. Unfortunately, plot and pacing seem to be afterthoughts at best in most Hollywood blockbusters these days (though this is neither unique to the Disney Star Wars films, nor even something that particularly stands out in them as compared to the industry standard these days).

My issue has always been clear right from the news that JJ Abrams is the director of EP 7. My contention back then was that JJ Abrams is the last person you want to set up a whole new SW universe, precisely because he's not good at world-building.

Edit: I do also think that TFA and TLJ both come off as being too much a reaction to the previous films (or the backlash against them), rather than being their own thing. TFA doesn't develop the NR politics, made heavy use of "practical effects", and had a plot closely imitating the OT, and it comes off as a reaction to the criticisms of the OT, an attempt to appease the fandom. TLJ, meanwhile, throws out a lot of the stuff TFA appeared to be setting up, as though trying to be more original.

To some extent, that's understandable, even logical. Give the fans something familiar in the first film, to reassure them that this is still the familiar Star Wars universe and win over those who disliked the Prequels. Then, when you've established your new trilogy, try something a bit bolder and more original in the next film. But if that was the plan, it seems to have backfired (because the fan base is fractured and unpleasable). And if IX is just going back to the formula in response to the criticism of TLJ, that won't bode well for the future of the franchise. Unfortunately, with Abrams back in as director, that's pretty much what I expect.

That's the wrong strategy to start off with because you need to keep an audience interested in SW by Ep 9. By the time the old cast have retired/killed off, you need to make sure the new cast are well-received enough that fans will turn up in droves to support the new heroes and their conflict. You cannot do that if you over-rely on Nostalgia.

IMO, Disney strategy is one of dismissing returns. Sure Ep 7 and 8 were big successes, but I think the overall profits will diminish over time. What Disney/LFL should have done is to make someone willing to do something new the director of Ep 7 ( to break things up) like Rian Johnson, while Ep 8 should be guided by a more "creatively boring" director like JJ Abrams.

I don't see Ep 9 being a huge success. It will still make money of course, but there's a chance it might not earn more than TLJ. ( The main attraction of seeing Luke, Han and Leia is gone).

[Vympel]

Because that's your marketing team trying to show the franchise is in the "right set of fans" who would truly understand the SW material.

Wait, who's the right set of fans?

Avatar has no follow-up for years(still don't, with the sequels in development). SW had a sequel 3 years after the first. It's legacy is sustained by constant output of media and books over the years.

It's legacy was sustained by well-received movies, not a constant output of licensed material that a minority within a minority of people ever consumed. When I say Star Wars, I don't mean ANH, I mean the original trilogy, and chiefly ANH and TESB.

Poor and mixed are not the same thing. If even the least liked prequels can have more than half of the critics liking it, this is pretty much a mixed reception rather than a poor reception.

Even AOTC scored over 60% today.

Poor and mixed are the same as far as I'm concerned.

Then your standards of a "good" film are ridiculously and unreasonably high ( and even more so than respected critics like Egbert). A movie does not need to be a "classic" to be a good film. If it entertains its audience and has a good performance at the box office, it's a good movie ( certainly by blockbuster standards).

I'm judging the prequels in comparison to hundreds of other blockbuster movies that came out year after year ( and became forgotten very quickly).

Why should I judge them against forgettable, mediocre blockbusters? The OT is no such thing. I don't see any reason to lower my standards. If they were to be judged by a contempary trilogy of films, the obviously superior Lord of the Rings is a good place to start.

A movie does not need to reach 70% to be "ok". 70% is a very good score. Recent Marvel movies with consistent high reception IS a major shift in the way blockbusters are being judged and received. But even some of the Marvel movies still receive grades comparable to ROTS and AOTC. Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 both received a similar percentage, but no one ever screams about how they are horrible movies.

First of all, but Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 are consistently ranked as low points in the series, because they're simply not that good. But to look at just the RT percentage is shallow. Even 'positive' AotC reviews are full of backhanded compliments and prevaricating about it's godawful script.

You are the one that have lost perspective, because you are overly attached to Star Wars as a kid that grew up with it.

Rubbish. The original trilogy are classic films that have had a huge and obvious cultural impact because of their obvious quality. I see no reason to pretend they're not to elevate the prequels beyond the doldrums in which they're placed.

AOTC has the similar score as Thor 2. The reason why no one talks about how MCU has been ruined is that there is no legion of nostalgia-induced fanboys screaming about it online.

No, it's because the MCU and the Star Wars saga are not identical projects, and Thor 2 isn't a cultural punchline with particularly shoddy acting, dialog and plotting (it's just a medicore, forgettable film). The MCU is a universe of loosely collected subject matter and many different heroes that sometimes come together to deal with a threat, not holding itself out to be a single story. The Avengers' conflict with Thanos is not undermined by anything that happened in Thor 2.

And he thought TPM was a decent film. The prequels are by no means perfect, and some are definitely weaker than others. That does not mean the prequels as a whole are objectively bad movies. Film critics like Ebert that can put SW into proper perspective certainly make a good argument how we should judge them.

When did this become about the prequels being objectively bad movies? I've heard all sorts of defences for why 'subjectively' these plodding medicorities are not that bad.

Whether Ebert is the minority among critics is not the main point. He presented a decent argument on why we should look at SW in a particular way and evaluate it based on that. As someone who've seen tons of good and horrible movies, he's in a far better place to judge the prequels than a bunch of screaming fanboys on the Internet ( that have probably not watched as many movies as they have claimed).

It is the main point if the argument is whether the prequels have a poor reputation - which they do. Ebert is one person and even he knew that AotC is a piece of shit.

He talks about how his understanding of the prequels has changed after talking to Dave Filoni (after TFA i believe)

And? What's he said that's supposed to be so bad?

Please, Disney has been talking about how they are the true inheritors of Lucas's original vision and returning SW to its roots consistently in their media interviews, marketing and so forth prior to the release of TFA. This is not making stuff up.

I defy you to find a single piece of marketing where Disney talks about being "the true inheritors of Lucas's original vision" (I'm not even sure how you would do so, as the owners of the IP they are by default and need not prove that to anyone).

So? Disney exec has shown to have a very active interest in the properties they are managing. Look into the history of their interference with Pixar. Whether their interference is good or bad isn't the point. The point is to show they have very direct influence over the production of a film.

High level, not low level. If you have a problem with the production of a film, take it up with the actual producers.

Aren't you the one talking about wider cultural consensus? This kind of media talk about ANH back in 77 is what you are looking at.

That's a totally nonsensical statement. Star Wars' (by which I mean trilogy) cultural impact can be seen in its influence on generations of film makers and film making, the film going public, and its mark on popular culture.

The discussion about SW back in the 70s, as far as we can gather from sources are not movies that somehow convey the very deep philosophical message within the film itself. There are mythic elements and injection of Lucas' own philosophical views, but they are not deep by any measure.

You're the only one who introduced the word 'deep' into this conversation. It's a meaningless qualifier.

Why should you compare the prequels to the OT? Why do the prequels need to match the OT to be good movies? I fundamentally disagree with this view and find this view to be entirely generated by nostalgia. Judge the prequels by the standards of late 90s/early 2000s popcorn blockbusters.

I judge them by the story that they purport to be part of and the standards set by that story. And if I wanted to judge them by popcorn blockblusters, then an obvious point of comparison is the obviously far superior Lord of the Rings trilogy.

You mean like hiring loud prequel bashers like Simon Pegg for what amounts to a cameo and asking him for advice on the script?

Simon Pegg? You mean the highly successful actor, writer and producer who co-wrote the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy? You keep insisting that I'm a fanboy who hates the prequels due to nostaglia but it's obvious that you just can't stand to see them criticised - look at how you reduce Simon Pegg's professional filmography to "loud prequel basher" (as if that is anyone someone who isn't a Star Wars fan actually knows or thinks about) or insist that Kevin Smith is some sort of hateful prequel basher because of what you imply from his innoccuous comments.

[ray245]

Wait, who's the right set of fans?

Apparently, the OT fanboys.

It's legacy was sustained by well-received movies, not a constant output of licensed material that a minority within a minority of people ever consumed. When I say Star Wars, I don't mean ANH, I mean the original trilogy, and chiefly ANH and TESB.

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.

Poor and mixed are the same as far as I'm concerned.

They are not. The fact that you think they are the same is your problem.

Why should I judge them against forgettable, mediocre blockbusters? The OT is no such thing. I don't see any reason to lower my standards. If they were to be judged by a contempary trilogy of films, the obviously superior Lord of the Rings is a good place to start.

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.

I don't need a movie to be Oscar-winning or Oscar-worthy to enjoy a movie.

First of all, but Iron Man 2 and Thor 2 are consistently ranked as low points in the series, because they're simply not that good. But to look at just the RT percentage is shallow. Even 'positive' AotC reviews are full of backhanded compliments and prevaricating about it's godawful script.

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.

Rubbish. The original trilogy are classic films that have had a huge and obvious cultural impact because of their obvious quality. I see no reason to pretend they're not to elevate the prequels beyond the doldrums in which they're placed.

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.

No, it's because the MCU and the Star Wars saga are not identical projects, and Thor 2 isn't a cultural punchline with particularly shoddy acting, dialog and plotting (it's just a medicore, forgettable film). The MCU is a universe of loosely collected subject matter and many different heroes that sometimes come together to deal with a threat, not holding itself out to be a single story. The Avengers' conflict with Thanos is not undermined by anything that happened in Thor 2.

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.

When did this become about the prequels being objectively bad movies? I've heard all sorts of defences for why 'subjectively' these plodding medicorities are not that bad.

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 is the main point if the argument is whether the prequels have a poor reputation - which they do. Ebert is one person and even he knew that AotC is a piece of shit.

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.

And? What's he said that's supposed to be so bad?

Nothing. It's just stating that he moved from his fanboy-raging phase and look at the prequels more maturely.

I defy you to find a single piece of marketing where Disney talks about being "the true inheritors of Lucas's original vision" (I'm not even sure how you would do so, as the owners of the IP they are by default and need not prove that to anyone).

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.

High level, not low level. If you have a problem with the production of a film, take it up with the actual producers.

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.

Aren't you the one talking about wider cultural consensus? This kind of media talk about ANH back in 77 is what you are looking at.

That's a totally nonsensical statement. Star Wars' (by which I mean trilogy) cultural impact can be seen in its influence on generations of film makers and film making, the film going public, and its mark on popular culture.

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.

You're the only one who introduced the word 'deep' into this conversation. It's a meaningless qualifier.

You're the one that quoted Roger Ebert with his quote about SW never being deep movies to begin with.

I judge them by the story that they purport to be part of and the standards set by that story. And if I wanted to judge them by popcorn blockblusters, then an obvious point of comparison is the obviously far superior Lord of the Rings trilogy.

Most blockbusters don't win or even get nominated for Oscars. Your standards is just plain ridiculous.

Simon Pegg? You mean the highly successful actor, writer and producer who co-wrote the Three Flavours Cornetto trilogy? You keep insisting that I'm a fanboy who hates the prequels due to nostaglia but it's obvious that you just can't stand to see them criticised - look at how you reduce Simon Pegg's professional filmography to "loud prequel basher" (as if that is anyone someone who isn't a Star Wars fan actually knows or thinks about) or insist that Kevin Smith is some sort of hateful prequel basher because of what you imply from his innoccuous comments.

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.