Disney and the prequels

[ray245]

What would you accept as sufficient evidence that they are not well liked films? You admitted yourself prequel "bashing" is wide spread. It's a cultural meme. You agree with this and then say 'it doesn't prove anything!!!!'

No. You made the claim it's a loud minority. You prove it.

Box office returns. The prequels all had decent performance at the box office despite all the fans complaining about them back in the early 2000s. The complaints about EP II did not stop EP III from making a very decent return at the box office. Cinemascore gives the prequels A- scores.

The Clone Wars managed to last for 6 seasons before it was canceled. Clone Wars era games and novels continued to be made and published. There are still people buying and consuming prequel era stuff even after the ROTS was released. Being "wide-spread" in the media does not mean the casual SW fans care about prequel-bashings.

You treat this claim as axiomatic. Please prove it. You have no prove at all prequel backlash is responsible for whatever you dislike in the ST.

What would your non-prequel basing ST even look like?

Obviously, I can't prove it because no one in LFL is stupid enough to say so explicitly. So we have to look at the new movies, especially TFA and make inferences. You're free to disagree with my inference, but you need to make a counter-arguments why those inferences are invalid.

Did TFA try its best to avoid the prequel elements even when it makes sense to do so? The lack of any political exposition in TFA is one thing that can be easily seen as something influenced by the prequel bashers. ANH had a political exposition scene, TFA had none. We didn't even know the name of the NR capital in the movie!

This is a ridiculous pile of shite. Whatever problems the ST has a lack of CGI and non-flashy swordfights are not among them.

The marketing still tried to portray a picture of the production team "returning to their roots" with more puppets and etc. Even the vfx artists admitted they did downplay the fact that TFA had more CGI than the prequels.

I'm not saying these are factors that affected the overall quality of the ST. I'm saying there are clearly people in LFL that listened to the prequel-bashers.

I barely had any idea that Yoda is a puppet or a CGI. The idea that TLJ was hurt by that instead of its myriad other flaws is laughable.

And I never said the TLJ was hurt by the appearance of a puppet Yoda. Don't misconstrue my words. I'm saying the appearance of a CGI Yoda will not result in prequel-bashers going on a massive boycott against the new films. So Disney/LFL don't need to cater to them.

[Vympel]

Good enough to meet the expectations of the people watching it and allow them to enjoy something for 2 hours.

So the prequels are about as good as Transformers Age of Extinction? What an achievement.

People enjoyed The Room for it's unintended comedy value. I don't think your 21 year old self enjoyed ep 2 for its comedy value based on your own comments.

Missing the point, which is that simply because someone enjoys something does not make it good.

It is a shaming culture when you make personal attacks and mock people for their taste in movies.

Whenever someone says or implies "that movie you like is a piece of shit" you are arguably being attacked for your taste in films. It's still not shaming.

Why should the prequels be judged against the OT instead of judging them according to all the other average blockbuster in the era it was released in?

Because people expect the standard of quality which they were previously given, not any other old shit that happens to have been foisted on them at the same time they're released.

that itself should tell you there's no such thing as an objective metric for judging a movie. People don't have a consistent metric to judge a movie as well. Sometime they are bothered by bad dialogue, sometime they are not. This is why art is a medium that's so difficult to judge.

Sometime a blockbuster is fun enough that you can ignore it's flaws. Sometime a blockbuster is not as fun so you'll spend all your time finding flaws in the movie. Movies needs to be understood as a whole package. Balancing out what you enjoy and what you didn't enjoy.

Nothing I said is based on art being easy to judge.

[Gandalf]

Wait, how do "box office returns" prove that a film is disliked, considering that people need to see a film to know whether or not they liked it?

It also doesn't really account for films that make very little at the box office but go on to be widely liked films.

[Civil War Man]

Wait, how do "box office returns" prove that a film is disliked, considering that people need to see a film to know whether or not they liked it?

It also doesn't really account for films that make very little at the box office but go on to be widely liked films.

It's not proof by any means, but it can be a useful data point if put in the proper context. Just saying "It made X million dollars in the box office" doesn't say much beyond a lot of people saw it, but showing the change of box office returns over time can provide more useful information. Post-opening weekend, box office returns are heavily influenced by factors like repeat viewings, word-of-mouth, and changes in the number of screens its shown on. A sharp drop in returns after the opening weekend would support the argument that a movie was not well-liked, since it suggests that there are fewer multiple viewings and/or fewer people going to see it after hearing the opinions of people who did see it on opening weekend.

[Elheru Aran]

Wait, how do "box office returns" prove that a film is disliked, considering that people need to see a film to know whether or not they liked it?

It also doesn't really account for films that make very little at the box office but go on to be widely liked films.

It's not proof by any means, but it can be a useful data point if put in the proper context. Just saying "It made X million dollars in the box office" doesn't say much beyond a lot of people saw it, but showing the change of box office returns over time can provide more useful information. Post-opening weekend, box office returns are heavily influenced by factors like repeat viewings, word-of-mouth, and changes in the number of screens its shown on. A sharp drop in returns after the opening weekend would support the argument that a movie was not well-liked, since it suggests that there are fewer multiple viewings and/or fewer people going to see it after hearing the opinions of people who did see it on opening weekend.

I mean, the Transformers movies tend to break even at least, and nobody is going to argue that those were GOOD movies... box office returns are no proof of quality, merely that for one reason or another (even negative press) a lot of people decided to buy tickets to see that movie. That's all.

[Civil War Man]

I mean, the Transformers movies tend to break even at least, and nobody is going to argue that those were GOOD movies... box office returns are no proof of quality, merely that for one reason or another (even negative press) a lot of people decided to buy tickets to see that movie. That's all.

I don't think anyone's really been arguing that large box office = good movie. At most, it's been large box office = popular movie. Even then, my whole point is that opening weekend box office is mostly a testament to the quality of the studio's marketing department, while the change in box office returns in subsequent weeks can serve as an indicator as to the relative popularity of the movie.

[ray245]

So the prequels are about as good as Transformers Age of Extinction? What an achievement.

Loads of other blockbusters failed to even earn back the production costs. It is an achievement for a popcorn blockbuster to achieve massive success at the box office. It implies that there are many people that are entertained by it, to say the least.

Missing the point, which is that simply because someone enjoys something does not make it good.

"Good" is entirely subjective. There are many reasons to call a film good. I can call Del Toro's Pacific Rim a "good" movie, but obviously, that does not mean it's a cinematic masterpiece like The Shape of Water.

The prequels are good popcorn blockbusters. They are films that entertained a rather sizeable audience to be solid box office success. Blockbusters that are hated by the vast majority of the movie-going public do not achieve box office success. They either outright bomb, or they only make such a tiny profit that a sequel cannot be justified.

Whenever someone says or implies "that movie you like is a piece of shit" you are arguably being attacked for your taste in films. It's still not shaming.

When you called your 21-year-old-self( and others who share the same view as your 21 year old self) as "embarrassing", that's pretty much a shaming culture. What the fuck do you need to call someone's opinion of a movie embarrassing? What's there to be embarrassed about? That he or she enjoyed a popcorn blockbuster for 2 hours?

Because people expect the standard of quality which they were previously given, not any other old shit that happens to have been foisted on them at the same time they're released.

Why should a film be judged on the quality they were previously given to older movies? Every film should be judged on its own merits, rather than the expectations fostered upon it by fans. Take Solo for example. It's a solid, well-executed film. Should it be judged based on the standards set by the OT before someone can call it a decent movie?

Nothing I said is based on art being easy to judge.

Your arguments lead to that conclusion. You are not allowing any subjectivity when it comes to judging film (except when it's your own opinion).

Wait, how do "box office returns" prove that a film is disliked, considering that people need to see a film to know whether or not they liked it?

It also doesn't really account for films that make very little at the box office but go on to be widely liked films.

Because we can see films that are widely disliked outright collapsing at the box office after opening week. You can look at 2nd/3rd-weekend drop-off and gauge the response of the audience.

2nd weekend drop-off for a very divisive film can be as much as -69.1% ( Batman V Superman) or -59.1% (Tristar Godzilla).

I don't think anyone's really been arguing that large box office = good movie. At most, it's been large box office = popular movie. Even then, my whole point is that opening weekend box office is mostly a testament to the quality of the studio's marketing department, while the change in box office returns in subsequent weeks can serve as an indicator as to the relative popularity of the movie.

What is "good" movie is something entirely subjective and movie-goers can compartmentalize movies based on their expectations. Is a Transformers movie going to win an Oscar? Of course not. No one walks into a Transformer movie expecting that kind of "good" movies.

People walk into a Transformers movie expecting a "good, 2-hour fun movie" that allows you to switch off your brain and simply enjoy the spectactle on screen. It's the difference why Transformers movies can make money at the box office while movies like Justice League outright bomb at the box office.

[Elfdart]

- The idea that a movie isn't poor if a 21 year old enjoyed it is ridiculous. I enjoy The Room and have been watching it over and over again for over a decade, that doesn't mean its not a terrible film.

Here's the crux of the matter: You can be swayed into pretending you loathe something you really enjoyed. It would be one thing if your opinion of the movie had only changed somewhat (like 3 stars to 2), but to go from something you thought was awesome to dogshit? Nah, there's something else at work here and your comment about The Room gives it away. If you like something well enough that you keep watching it over and over, then obviously you liked it and therefore it can't really be "terrible". If you like something, it's good -so try forming your own opinions and sticking to them and don't let others browbeat you.

For example, Modern Problems got terrible reviews and was a box office dud. I love that movie because it's a laugh riot and all the critics, box office figures and YouTube videos aren't going to change that. If critics, accountants and Stoklassholes disagree with me, they're wrong and I'm right.

[Ralin]

Here's the crux of the matter: You can be swayed into pretending you loathe something you really enjoyed. It would be one thing if your opinion of the movie had only changed somewhat (like 3 stars to 2), but to go from something you thought was awesome to dogshit? Nah, there's something else at work here and your comment about The Room gives it away. If you like something well enough that you keep watching it over and over, then obviously you liked it and therefore it can't really be "terrible". If you like something, it's good -so try forming your own opinions and sticking to them and don't let others browbeat you.

Yeah, but being 'swayed' can also mean 'I like it less after I became smarter or noticed things about it that flew over my head before,' and Present Me's opinion is at least as valid as Past Me's. I'm drawing a blank on movie examples, but you know that song "You are my sunshine?" I used to find it cute and inoffensive. Then a friend of mine pointed out that if you look at the lyrics as a whole it's basically Stalker: The Anthem and now I can't un-see that and I legit find it creepy. Yeah, I think that because someone swayed me, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right or that now I'm just pretending to not like the song because I think it makes me look smarter or more woke.

I mean, you're telling us to form our own opinions but part of forming opinions is changing them from time to time because we've thought about them some more. And hearing other people's criticisms is a common impetus for doing that. I'm not sure why we'd even bother talking about movies and shit here otherwise.

[ray245]

Here's the crux of the matter: You can be swayed into pretending you loathe something you really enjoyed. It would be one thing if your opinion of the movie had only changed somewhat (like 3 stars to 2), but to go from something you thought was awesome to dogshit? Nah, there's something else at work here and your comment about The Room gives it away. If you like something well enough that you keep watching it over and over, then obviously you liked it and therefore it can't really be "terrible". If you like something, it's good -so try forming your own opinions and sticking to them and don't let others browbeat you.

Yeah, but being 'swayed' can also mean 'I like it less after I became smarter or noticed things about it that flew over my head before,' and Present Me's opinion is at least as valid as Past Me's.

The thing is, why should "Past Me's" opinion be any less valid as "Present Me's"? At least, this is what Vympel seems to be implying. Every movie has flaws in one way or another. The question is whether those flaws are enough to distract the audience from their overall enjoyment of the movie. More importantly, focusing on the flaws of a movie will affect your view of the movie. If you go into a movie with a bone to prick with, you're far less likely to enjoy a movie ( which is certainly true in my case with TFA).

When you are evaluating a movie, you cannot just list down the flaws and say it's bad because of X number of flaws. People can ignore the flaws or weigh them against the overall experience. That's why films are so subjective. Flaws that bothers one person might not bother the person sitting right next to him/her.

[Vympel]

Loads of other blockbusters failed to even earn back the production costs. It is an achievement for a popcorn blockbuster to achieve massive success at the box office. It implies that there are many people that are entertained by it, to say the least.

Who cares?

"Good" is entirely subjective. There are many reasons to call a film good. I can call Del Toro's Pacific Rim a "good" movie, but obviously, that does not mean it's a cinematic masterpiece like The Shape of Water.

Of course its subjective. The difference is that the prequels are not very good is a widely held not to mention easily justifiable subjective opinion. The same is not true of the original trilogy.

The prequels are good popcorn blockbusters. They are films that entertained a rather sizeable audience to be solid box office success. Blockbusters that are hated by the vast majority of the movie-going public do not achieve box office success. They either outright bomb, or they only make such a tiny profit that a sequel cannot be justified.

No, the prequels just made money.

When you called your 21-year-old-self( and others who share the same view as your 21 year old self) as "embarrassing", that's pretty much a shaming culture. What the fuck do you need to call someone's opinion of a movie embarrassing? What's there to be embarrassed about? That he or she enjoyed a popcorn blockbuster for 2 hours?

ROFL, no it isn't. You may want to live in a world where everyone says "sir, excuse me good sir, in my opinion but yours is perfectly valid too" everytime they give a view on something in the fear that the person on the other end might think they are being 'shamed', but I do not. If the alternative to what you call a 'shaming culture' is that sort of insanity, count me out.

Why should a film be judged on the quality they were previously given to older movies? Every film should be judged on its own merits, rather than the expectations fostered upon it by fans. Take Solo for example. It's a solid, well-executed film. Should it be judged based on the standards set by the OT before someone can call it a decent movie?

Absolutely yes, a Star Wars movie should be compared against other Star Wars movies. That's ... obvious.

Your arguments lead to that conclusion. You are not allowing any subjectivity when it comes to judging film (except when it's your own opinion).

Oh get off it. Of course I allow subjectivity. This entire debate has been about your attempt to argue that the prequels are not widely - subjectively - disliked. Subjectivity is inherent in these discussions. It doesn't need to be declared.

Here's the crux of the matter: You can be swayed into pretending you loathe something you really enjoyed. It would be one thing if your opinion of the movie had only changed somewhat (like 3 stars to 2), but to go from something you thought was awesome to dogshit? Nah, there's something else at work here and your comment about The Room gives it away. If you like something well enough that you keep watching it over and over, then obviously you liked it and therefore it can't really be "terrible". If you like something, it's good -so try forming your own opinions and sticking to them and don't let others browbeat you.

For example, Modern Problems got terrible reviews and was a box office dud. I love that movie because it's a laugh riot and all the critics, box office figures and YouTube videos aren't going to change that. If critics, accountants and Stoklassholes disagree with me, they're wrong and I'm right.

What swayed me on AotC being terrible was a combination of time, getting older, watching more films, and then watching it again. I rated it far better than it actually was because I was keen to get over my disappointment of The Phantom Menace. I also judged movies based on things back then that I could not give a shit about now, like seeing Star Destroyer predecessors and stormtrooper progenitors and Slave I shooting at things.

I had spirited debates with friends where they argued that it was worse than The Phantom Menace was. I was of two minds about this for quite a while. Watching the prequels again back in 2015 - I decided they were absolutely right. Episode I is a better movie than Episode II.

[Crazedwraith]

What would you accept as sufficient evidence that they are not well liked films? You admitted yourself prequel "bashing" is wide spread. It's a cultural meme. You agree with this and then say 'it doesn't prove anything!!!!'

No. You made the claim it's a loud minority. You prove it.

Box office returns. The prequels all had decent performance at the box office despite all the fans complaining about them back in the early 2000s. The complaints about EP II did not stop EP III from making a very decent return at the box office. Cinemascore gives the prequels A- scores.

The Clone Wars managed to last for 6 seasons before it was canceled. Clone Wars era games and novels continued to be made and published. There are still people buying and consuming prequel era stuff even after the ROTS was released. Being "wide-spread" in the media does not mean the casual SW fans care about prequel-bashings.

You've moved goal posts. At first it was Prequel bashers are an angry loud minority. Now it's 'well it doesn't matter they're disliked anyway'. Just because the prequels did not completely wreck the franchise doesn't mean that they were good or well-liked, especially not in comparison to the OT.

Cinemascore is meaningless. (For one thing Star Trek 5 and Nemesis both have an A- rating as well. ) And doesn't even have rankings for the original Trilogy that I can find.

If we go by Rotten Tommatos We can see the rankings for the Prequels are well below those for the OT, and that's all Disney needs to justify emphasising its links with one over the other. Other the fact than of course the Squels are going to be more closely related to the movies they're direct sequels to.

If we go by Adjusted box office We're forced to assume Phantom Menace and Force Awakens are better, more popular films than Empire Strikes Back. Does that seem right to you?

-

As an additional point: Even by your measures for success The ST is better than PT (A's in cinemascore better box office) so obviously Disney's marketting strategy worked.

-

Once again merging these:

Obviously, I can't prove it because no one in LFL is stupid enough to say so explicitly. So we have to look at the new movies, especially TFA and make inferences. You're free to disagree with my inference, but you need to make a counter-arguments why those inferences are invalid.

Did TFA try its best to avoid the prequel elements even when it makes sense to do so? The lack of any political exposition in TFA is one thing that can be easily seen as something influenced by the prequel bashers. ANH had a political exposition scene, TFA had none. We didn't even know the name of the NR capital in the movie!

The marketing still tried to portray a picture of the production team "returning to their roots" with more puppets and etc. Even the vfx artists admitted they did downplay the fact that TFA had more CGI than the prequels.

I'm not saying these are factors that affected the overall quality of the ST. I'm saying there are clearly people in LFL that listened to the prequel-bashers.

And I never said the TLJ was hurt by the appearance of a puppet Yoda. Don't misconstrue my words. I'm saying the appearance of a CGI Yoda will not result in prequel-bashers going on a massive boycott against the new films. So Disney/LFL don't need to cater to them.

Right because of the breaking down of large points into smaller one, I think I've strayed from what my point was in a desire to tackle all of your stuff. Allow me to clarify and if I appear to be contradicting myself take that as a concession of the earlier point.

1)Yes, the creators of the ST clearly want to highlight their likeness with the OT over the PT. A return to basics thing where the used models and puppets and so on.
2) Dislike of the prequels, or at least people who like the OT much more, is a widespread thing not restricted to a loud minority of fans.
3) You ignore the possibility that the creator themselves have a negative opinion of the prequels independent of loud fan or generally-held opinion.


Therefore:
3) Point one is a sensible marketing strategy based on relative popular opinion of the PT and OT
4) Point 1 does not mean Disney have caved to said fans or are likely to cave even more to said fans based on Solo's failure which was the original point.

[ray245]

Who cares?

The people watching them?

Of course its subjective. The difference is that the prequels are not very good is a widely held not to mention easily justifiable subjective opinion. The same is not true of the original trilogy.

So what if the prequels did not reach the heights of the OT?

No, the prequels just made money.

Blockbusters that are severely disliked do not make money. They certainly don't become number 1 or number 3 at the office for the year.

ROFL, no it isn't. You may want to live in a world where everyone says "sir, excuse me good sir, in my opinion but yours is perfectly valid too" everytime they give a view on something in the fear that the person on the other end might think they are being 'shamed', but I do not. If the alternative to what you call a 'shaming culture' is that sort of insanity, count me out.

Why should we carry on acting like fanboys or cinema snobs? The fact that I've seen more movies per year than most movie-goers does not make me any authority to dismiss the opinion of them.

Absolutely yes, a Star Wars movie should be compared against other Star Wars movies. That's ... obvious.

Why?

Oh get off it. Of course I allow subjectivity. This entire debate has been about your attempt to argue that the prequels are not widely - subjectively - disliked. Subjectivity is inherent in these discussions. It doesn't need to be declared.

Widely disliked movies do not succeed at the box office. They bomb at the box office like Batman and Robin, Godzilla an so forth.

You've moved goal posts. At first it was Prequel bashers are an angry loud minority. Now it's 'well it doesn't matter they're disliked anyway'. Just because the prequels did not completely wreck the franchise doesn't mean that they were good or well-liked, especially not in comparison to the OT.

My argument is that the hardcore fanbase that disliked the prequels spent more time complaining about the prequels than the average movie-goer. The prequel bashers have to be a significant and loud minority because otherwise, you cannot explain the box office success of the prequels. We now know that the Star Wars brand alone isn't enough to make a killing at the box office ( see Solo). So we need to explain how despite the idea of the prequels being "widely disliked", they achieved massive financial success.

Cinemascore is meaningless. (For one thing Star Trek 5 and Nemesis both have an A- rating as well. ) And doesn't even have rankings for the original Trilogy that I can find.

If we go by Rotten Tommatos We can see the rankings for the Prequels are well below those for the OT, and that's all Disney needs to justify emphasising its links with one over the other. Other the fact than of course the Squels are going to be more closely related to the movies they're direct sequels to.

If we go by Adjusted box office We're forced to assume Phantom Menace and Force Awakens are better, more popular films than Empire Strikes Back. Does that seem right to you?

Cinemascore is useful because it is effectively an exit-poll. A good score simply means the audience enjoyed the overall experience after walking out of the cinema. And I disagree with the need to compare the performance or score the prequels against the other Star Wars movie. Instead, you need to compare them with other major blockbusters of their era. Because your average movie-goer doesn't need the new Star Wars movie to be on par with say ESB to enjoy a movie. They just need the new SW movie to be as enjoyable as the new MCU movies and etc.

As an additional point: Even by your measures for success The ST is better than PT (A's in cinemascore better box office) so obviously Disney's marketting strategy worked.

I'm not disputing that the ST was well received. What I am saying is the ST doesn't need to be influenced by the backlash against the prequels to be good movies in their own right.

Once again merging these:

Right because of the breaking down of large points into smaller one, I think I've strayed from what my point was in a desire to tackle all of your stuff. Allow me to clarify and if I appear to be contradicting myself take that as a concession of the earlier point.

1)Yes, the creators of the ST clearly want to highlight their likeness with the OT over the PT. A return to basics thing where the used models and puppets and so on.
2) Dislike of the prequels, or at least people who like the OT much more, is a widespread thing not restricted to a loud minority of fans.
3) You ignore the possibility that the creator themselves have a negative opinion of the prequels independent of loud fan or generally-held opinion.

1) We seem to agree in this regard. Our disagreement lies in whether this approach is necessary to achieve massive box office success and good critical reception ( among critics and fans alike).
2) Yes, it is widespread, but my disagreement is how widespread is it. I disagree with the notion that prequel-bashing are so widespread that the new films would fail just because of some elements that remind them of the prequels. Would a more detailed exposition about the state of the Galaxy or prequel-style lightsaber duel cause an uproar among the people watching TFA and TLJ? I think not.
3) That is very true. However, the question is whether the creators needed to avoid as many elements of the prequels as possible in order to make a good SW movie. I don't think so. My view is that doing so will result in a more creatively limited Star Wars movie. The ST are well-recieved, but I think they needlessly limited themselves in terms of storytelling and worldbuilding.

Therefore:
3) Point one is a sensible marketing strategy based on relative popular opinion of the PT and OT

My argument is you don't need such a marketing strategy. The selling point of the ST is not about the PT vs OT debate. It's about the main trio returning to the big screen and we are finally seeing new live-action SW movies a decade after ROTS.

4) Point 1 does not mean Disney have caved to said fans or are likely to cave even more to said fans based on Solo's failure which was the original point.

See above. I'm saying it's an unnecessary marketing strategy in the first place, and hence why it's a case of Disney caving in.


At what point do a divisive movie become "widely disliked" instead of merely being "disliked by a loud minority"? Take TLJ for example. If people are able to defend TLJ's popularity based on its box office result, why should we not take the box office result of the prequels into account as well? Simply looking at Rotten Tomatoes and ignoring the box office result feels like you're not looking at the overall picture. Which is the prequels were enjoyed by a sizeable amount of casual movie-goers.

[The Romulan Republic]

Box office means fuck-all about quality. It can be an indication of popularity, but even that's murky, because it can be skewed by other factors like poor marketing, a hostile media campaign, downturns in the economy, what sort of competition the film faced, etc.

About the only thing it meaningfully indicates is how much money the company made off the film.

[ray245]

Box office means fuck-all about quality. It can be an indication of popularity, but even that's murky, because it can be skewed by other factors like poor marketing, a hostile media campaign, downturns in the economy, what sort of competition the film faced, etc.

About the only thing it meaningfully indicates is how much money the company made off the film.

Films that are widely disliked do not make tons of money at the box office. Those films collapsed at the box office very easily in the 2nd weekend. A movie with a massive box office intake might not be an extremely high-quality movie like TDK or LOTR, but it does suggest it is good enough to attract a sizeable amount of movie-going public to see in the cinemas.

I think you and many others dismiss box office results far too easily.

[The Romulan Republic]

Which ignores all of the reasons I gave for why box office returns might not reflect popularity (at least two of them could easily apply to a 2nd. weekend collapse as well as an overall low performance). And also that popularity is not and never has been a reliable measure of quality.

[Elfdart]

Yeah, but being 'swayed' can also mean 'I like it less after I became smarter or noticed things about it that flew over my head before,' and Present Me's opinion is at least as valid as Past Me's. I'm drawing a blank on movie examples, but you know that song "You are my sunshine?" I used to find it cute and inoffensive. Then a friend of mine pointed out that if you look at the lyrics as a whole it's basically Stalker: The Anthem and now I can't un-see that and I legit find it creepy. Yeah, I think that because someone swayed me, but that doesn't mean she wasn't right or that now I'm just pretending to not like the song because I think it makes me look smarter or more woke.

Since neither the movie nor an 80-year-old country song have changed, the fact that your opinion of them has is on you. It's like when taking a test: Your first answer is usually the right one, so don't overthink about it. Have I changed my mind about movies? Sure. I fucking hated Robin and Marian when I first saw it as a kid who loved Robin Hood movies, books and TV shows. Like TLJ, it took a big country shit all over characters and stories and themes from Robin and his Merry Men: making Robin a dimwitted thug and the Sheriff of Nottingham into the good guy. Years later, I appreciated the cinematography by David Watkin and John Barry's score, so my opinion of the movie has improved somewhat.

This is a far cry from Empire Magazine going back and changing 4 and 5-star reviews for TPM and AOTC to 2-star pans, or Peter Travers giving both movies overall favorable reviews in Rolling Stone in May, then listing them among the year's worst movies the following December: revisionist chickenshit of the worst kind.

As far as "Sunshine" is concerned, these days just about any song about unrequited love, anger, abandonment, begging forgiveness or any of the other aspects of lovers breaking up can be interpreted as "creepy" or "stalking". I hope your friend never listens to Alanis Morrisette, Adele or pretty much all country music. Though it might be funny to get her to analyze the lyrics to Only Time Will Tell.

I mean, you're telling us to form our own opinions but part of forming opinions is changing them from time to time because we've thought about them some more. And hearing other people's criticisms is a common impetus for doing that. I'm not sure why we'd even bother talking about movies and shit here otherwise.

Telling people you liked X, but not Y or Z (and why) is one thing. Trying to convince others that they didn't (or worse still shouldn't) enjoy something when they clearly did is far beyond matters of personal taste, and a form of gaslighting, to use current jargon.

[Vympel]

The people watching them?

I'm not even sure what that means. At the end of the day, your entire argument seems to be that the prequels must be good and popular films because people spent money to watch them when they came out. That's just bunk, and transparently so.

So what if the prequels did not reach the heights of the OT?

They not only didn't "reach the heights" of the OT, they're all different shades of poor films.

Blockbusters that are severely disliked do not make money. They certainly don't become number 1 or number 3 at the office for the year.

As above. The people lined up to see a movie does not mean they are widely liked. It's like you've never heard of 'critic-proof' movies before.

Why should we carry on acting like fanboys or cinema snobs? The fact that I've seen more movies per year than most movie-goers does not make me any authority to dismiss the opinion of them.

What does authority have to do with anything? That's a concept you've introduced just now. We're talking about subjective opinions.

Why?

Because they're Star Wars movies and people expect a standard consistent with what they've come to expect.

Widely disliked movies do not succeed at the box office. They bomb at the box office like Batman and Robin, Godzilla an so forth.

Nonsense. Many movies make money at the box office and have an exceedingly poor critical reception and reputation. You keep pretending that the only thing that could possibly determine whether a movie makes money at the box office is whether people enjoy it. It takes no accounting for marketing, the competition they're up against, the time of year, the cultural significance (or lack thereof) of the film, and whether its riding the coat-tails of some other culturual phenommenon.

Do you think Fifty Shades of Grey made money because people enjoyed it? That the only reason you can think of?

[Patroklos]

Box office performance also doesn't differentiate between franchise fans vs fans of a specific entry into the franchise. I have been pretty up front about how much I hate every SW film from TPM on (hate is probably too strong for R1), but I registered a tick in your data set by attending anyway. The reason being, even if I hate every plot point of the movie's story, even if I expected the movie to suck in regards to every new thing it it, two things still impact my decision:

1.) I enjoy the world, even if the particular window into it is fogged up with bullshit, and can still enjoy the overarching franchise through that imperfect portal. And I can still do that while believing the movie I just watched is shit.

2.) The franchise has enough street credit from previous experience that I am willing to give iterations in it the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean my attendance under that circumstance lets you log my attendance as a up vote. This was the case with me until Solo, where I finally put my foot down after TLJ and refused to put good money after bad regarding this franchise. I'll catch Solo for free somewhere eventually, and if its good maybe I will give the next one a chance.

I also need to point out since there has been some discussion about the OT vs PT vs nuWARS and their blockbuster performance. While many will adjust for inflation when talking about gross reciepts, few adjust for movie ticket price and more importantly available viewership. The OT racked up its numbers with basically nothing but North America and Western Europe, and there were far fewer people living there then than now to boot. The PT had a true worldwide audience and nuWARs has a completely open China, yet their numbers to scale with this expanded viewership.

[ray245]

I'm not even sure what that means. At the end of the day, your entire argument seems to be that the prequels must be good and popular films because people spent money to watch them when they came out. That's just bunk, and transparently so.

Because I judge them based on their performance and reception that's relative to other blockbusters of their time?

They not only didn't "reach the heights" of the OT, they're all different shades of poor films.

And this is where the whole subjectivity comes into play. Your standards of judging a movie might not be the same as the average movie-goer who do pay money happily to watch the prequels in the cinema. Most people would have been more similar to your 21-year-old self than you today.

As above. The people lined up to see a movie does not mean they are widely liked. It's like you've never heard of 'critic-proof' movies before.

The whole notion of "critic-proof" movie is bad is because you're relying on the standards set by movie critics. Yes, critics do know more about movies than average movie-goers, but that does not make their opinions the only valid opinions. Film is an art and not a science, and that means there's no such thing as a definitive opinion. What makes film "good" is up to the audience/eyes of the beholder.

There are many people that do enjoy "critic-proof" movies. It will be mere snobbery if we dismiss all the opinions of the average film-goers and merely listen to movie critics alone.

What does authority have to do with anything? That's a concept you've introduced just now. We're talking about subjective opinions.

You've been claiming your taste in movies is superior to others who disagreed with you for a while now. You've been making the argument that your age and experience somehow gives you a better authority to judge and evaluate a movie. I disagree.

Because they're Star Wars movies and people expect a standard consistent with what they've come to expect.

That's just repeating the same statement and not a development of your argument. Why should people expect a standard consistent with what they've come to expect to enjoy a movie? Why can't people enjoy a film even if it does not come close to reaching the standards of other movies in the same franchise?

Nonsense. Many movies make money at the box office and have an exceedingly poor critical reception and reputation. You keep pretending that the only thing that could possibly determine whether a movie makes money at the box office is whether people enjoy it. It takes no accounting for marketing, the competition they're up against, the time of year, the cultural significance (or lack thereof) of the film, and whether its riding the coat-tails of some other culturual phenommenon.

Those accounts are relevant if we are merely talking about movies that are a decent success at the box office and not movies that are somehow in the top 1 or top 3 movies of the year. And films that are widely disliked do experience a massive drop in their succeeding weeks at the box office. The prequels, by and large, managed to avoid this.

Do you think Fifty Shades of Grey made money because people enjoyed it? That the only reason you can think of?

Just because you personally disliked it does not mean there are no people that enjoyed it. Films need a certain amount of people watching it to be a box office success. Just because you fall into a different audience category from the people that will pay money to watch FIfty shades of Grey does not mean their taste in movies is somehow invalid.

Box office performance also doesn't differentiate between franchise fans vs fans of a specific entry into the franchise. I have been pretty up front about how much I hate every SW film from TPM on (hate is probably too strong for R1), but I registered a tick in your data set by attending anyway. The reason being, even if I hate every plot point of the movie's story, even if I expected the movie to suck in regards to every new thing it it, two things still impact my decision:

1.) I enjoy the world, even if the particular window into it is fogged up with bullshit, and can still enjoy the overarching franchise through that imperfect portal. And I can still do that while believing the movie I just watched is shit.

2.) The franchise has enough street credit from previous experience that I am willing to give iterations in it the benefit of the doubt. That doesn't mean my attendance under that circumstance lets you log my attendance as a up vote. This was the case with me until Solo, where I finally put my foot down after TLJ and refused to put good money after bad regarding this franchise. I'll catch Solo for free somewhere eventually, and if its good maybe I will give the next one a chance.

I also need to point out since there has been some discussion about the OT vs PT vs nuWARS and their blockbuster performance. While many will adjust for inflation when talking about gross reciepts, few adjust for movie ticket price and more importantly available viewership. The OT racked up its numbers with basically nothing but North America and Western Europe, and there were far fewer people living there then than now to boot. The PT had a true worldwide audience and nuWARs has a completely open China, yet their numbers to scale with this expanded viewership.

Put it this is way. You can acknowledge the flaws of the prequels AND enjoy them at the same time. They are not mutally exclusive.

[Vympel]

Because I judge them based on their performance and reception that's relative to other blockbusters of their time?

You're not even doing that properly. The prequels were not critical darlings of their time, I'm sorry to say.

And this is where the whole subjectivity comes into play. Your standards of judging a movie might not be the same as the average movie-goer who do pay money happily to watch the prequels in the cinema. Most people would have been more similar to your 21-year-old self than you today.

"Most people"? That's a baseless claim for which you have no evidence. I can easily justify why I think they're poor films by all sorts of easily articulated critera, and that is enough.

The whole notion of "critic-proof" movie is bad is because you're relying on the standards set by movie critics. Yes, critics do know more about movies than average movie-goers, but that does not make their opinions the only valid opinions. Film is an art and not a science, and that means there's no such thing as a definitive opinion. What makes film "good" is up to the audience/eyes of the beholder.

There are many people that do enjoy "critic-proof" movies. It will be mere snobbery if we dismiss all the opinions of the average film-goers and merely listen to movie critics alone.

And I should care about something being "snobbery" why? The critical reception of a movie has overwhelming relevance to the cultural memory of a movie, far more so than the momentary impressions of a random film-goer.

You've been claiming your taste in movies is superior to others who disagreed with you for a while now. You've been making the argument that your age and experience somehow gives you a better authority to judge and evaluate a movie. I disagree.

You can disagree as much as you like, luckily I can easily articulate and defend my taste and why its superior to say - that of my 21 year old self better than most - since I know my 21 year old self.

It also has absolutely no relevance to this topic.

That's just repeating the same statement and not a development of your argument. Why should people expect a standard consistent with what they've come to expect to enjoy a movie? Why can't people enjoy a film even if it does not come close to reaching the standards of other movies in the same franchise?

I don't need to 'further develop' my argument. It speaks for itself and requires no justification beyond it being stated. That you are willing to lower your standards to your subjective memory of whatever also came out when the prequels were released (but not the much better films, for some reason) is your own concern.

Those accounts are relevant if we are merely talking about movies that are a decent success at the box office and not movies that are somehow in the top 1 or top 3 movies of the year. And films that are widely disliked do experience a massive drop in their succeeding weeks at the box office. The prequels, by and large, managed to avoid this.

Who says? Based on what? There are many, many factors that contribute to the success or failure of a film financially, and those factors do not magically disappear if the movie was at Number 1 (or 3, or 4) at the box office. That's an arbitrary criterion you've made up.

Just because you personally disliked it does not mean there are no people that enjoyed it. Films need a certain amount of people watching it to be a box office success. Just because you fall into a different audience category from the people that will pay money to watch FIfty shades of Grey does not mean their taste in movies is somehow invalid.

Missing the point completely. Let me be more specific: do you think Fifty Shades of Grey's success at the box office had nothing to do with the reputation of the novel on which it was based?

[ray245]

You're not even doing that properly. The prequels were not critical darlings of their time, I'm sorry to say.

Have you seen the critical reception of many other blockbusters in the late 90s and early 2000s?

"Most people"? That's a baseless claim for which you have no evidence. I can easily justify why I think they're poor films by all sorts of easily articulated critera, and that is enough.

The prequels were box office hits. You keep dismissing that as unimportant, I see that as the most important piece of evidence.

And I should care about something being "snobbery" why? The critical reception of a movie has overwhelming relevance to the cultural memory of a movie, far more so than the momentary impressions of a random film-goer.

Cultural memory is entirely subjective and can change over time. Then there's also the fact that the Internet tends to amplify those that hate a movie/video game over those that liked it. And I disagree with the notion that the cultural memory of a movie is more relevant than the momentary impression of a random film-goer. I argue they are just as important because films are also about giving the audience a short-term escapism for 2 or so hours. We don't need films to create a lasting impression on our minds to enjoy them.

You can disagree as much as you like, luckily I can easily articulate and defend my taste and why its superior to say - that of my 21 year old self better than most - since I know my 21 year old self.

It also has absolutely no relevance to this topic.

Your taste is yours alone. What you don't have is a right to claim your taste is superior to anyone else.

I don't need to 'further develop' my argument. It speaks for itself and requires no justification beyond it being stated. That you are willing to lower your standards to your subjective memory of whatever also came out when the prequels were released (but not the much better films, for some reason) is your own concern.

Am I supposed to take that as a concession? Because that's not an answer to my question. You're going back to saying it's my concern and not making any logical response to the question I've asked. There's no point discussing with you if you refuse to engage in a proper discussion.

Who says? Based on what? There are many, many factors that contribute to the success or failure of a film financially, and those factors do not magically disappear if the movie was at Number 1 (or 3, or 4) at the box office. That's an arbitrary criterion you've made up.

Those factors mean jack-all if a film is truly hated by the audience. All the good marketing, good release dates and etc will not save a film if the audience disliked it. It's why films like Godzilla bomb at the box office despite a massive marketing campaign.

Missing the point completely. Let me be more specific: do you think Fifty Shades of Grey's success at the box office had nothing to do with the reputation of the novel on which it was based?

Fifty Shades of Grey is an adaption of a novel. This means what matters to the audience is whether the film version managed to adapt a book into a movie successfully. Those that watched the movie thought the adaptation is enjoyable enough for them to spend their money at the cinema. We have no right to say their way of enjoying a movie is inferior to people like me who disliked such movies/novels.

I don't think we should claim to our taste in movies is any better than anyone else. ( If I do in the past, I certainly don't right now). I don't have a superior taste in movies just because I've seen more movies than most people. Our metric of enjoying every movie is different.