so george lucas may have been critized alot for the star wars prequel movies he has made i look beyond the people who say the prequel films are bad i watched 1 and 2 and 3 and found nothing wrong with them at all all i ever see on amazon and youtube how much people hate the prequel star wars movies i find the star wars prequels to be on par with the orginial trilogy i read alot of star wars books and people critized star wars just as much as the star wars prequel films star wars saved my life and i thank george lucas for bringin me happyness into my life who soo much hate towards the star wars prequels it makes no sense at all
I've said it before, I enjoy them much better when I set them aside in my mind as it's own trilogy, and not try to hammer a square peg into a round hole by forcing it to fit in with the original three. It's easier to enjoy that way, rather than bichin' that all 6 don't flow together seamlessly! :)
I do like the perquel movies 3 being the best, however i did and still feel let down because of the choice to leave out the "Original Theatrical Verisons". A problem i want face when "Bond 50" comes out can anyone imagine 22 bond movies and no"Original Theatrical Verisons".
They are hopelessly corny, horrific acting... my God, we used to have a drinking game for the number of scenes you could tell Ewan McGregor was wearing a bad wig in Episode 1. These movies are horrible. You should really get a taste of quality cinema before you declare these to be good movies.
Yeah they are. They just don't work; these prequels are not exactly a perfect or faithful fit to the storyline of the original films Lucas and company made. Tighter storylines and better actors for key roles such as Padme and Anakin would have made for better prequels. I will always appreciate George Lucas, even though as of late I have been very harsh with his storytelling and meddling with the original films. He is the reason we have Star Wars in the first place, but he should have relinquished the director's chair as he did with Empire. He has the vision, but not the full capability to tell it. He needed help in telling these stories and translating them to film and was too arrogant to find it or ask for it.
I agree that the prequels have strong, enriching qualities, and like JMM said and I couldn't say better myself, "there is value in every Star Wars movie."
I particularly don't understand people's criticisms about the plot or storyline being nonsensical or not holding up. In my opinion, those criticisms most often amount to Lucas being too subtle for some of the audience to comprehend everything that was happening. For all the talk of the Star Wars movies being juvenile or simplistic--and they are for the internally youthful in some respects--and in spite of his limited dialogue composition, I think George Lucas designs his storytelling, through both words and visual images, for intelligent, thoughtful, and actively involved viewers. Kids in school are taught to "read actively" (i.e. ask themselves questions about the story, draw inferences, and make predictions), and I think the same principle can be applied to watching movies--if filmmaker chooses to cater to a relatively intellectually involved audience. In my opinion, the Star Wars movies, including the prequels, are actually much more complex, denser, and more intricate in terms of plot than many other blockbusters/corporate films, so it's ironic that some people deride them for lacking in substantial plotting.
For instance, some people think that Palpatine tries to bring the queen back to Naboo, but then exploits her by getting her to turn on the chancellor on Coruscant, because Lucas is an inept writer. It's easy to see where the issue is there: if Palpatine spent the first half of the movie trying to recapture the queen and send her back to Naboo to sign the treaty, how can he have been planning all along to use her on Coruscant to get rid of the old chancellor? The logical answer, as Sherlock Holmes would say, is absurdly simple: having Amidala vote against the old chancellor at that point wasn't Palpatine's original plan. Darth Maul was unable to capture the queen before she got to Coruscant as we saw, so doesn't it make sense that Palpatine had to revise his plan at some point? Admittedly, we don't know exactly what Palpatine's original with the queen signing the treaty would have been (but that doesn't really matter once it's discarded) and this means the treaty is, for all intents and purposes, a red herring to strengthen the tension and keep the bad guys in action, but having watched the movie more than enough times in the last ten+ years, I do really think that Lucas meant to have Palpatine change his plan at a certain point.
^And on top of all that, Palpatine's / Sidious's main goal is to take over everything and knock off anyone who gets in his way. Hell, even my wife understood that the first time she saw The Phantom Menace, and she is not a fan of any of the Star Wars movies at all. She just watched it with an open mind instead of with a chip on her shoulders, and it made sense to her.
Well-put, Coressel. My mom, of all people, is kind of like your wife about Star Wars. She's interested in mythology, but wouldn't consider herself a fan. Although she hasn't seen them in a while, 'm pretty sure she's a more reliable person to talk about the movies than any of the bashers.
By the way, it's pitiful, in my opinion, that after nine months on the market, this product is pulling a 2.5 star average on Amazon's scale. Anyone, as you put it, not watching with a chip on their shoulder, knows that from a technical standpoint, this is not a 2.5 star blu-ray. With the outstanding AV, extensive bonus features, and the films themselves, which, in my opinion, don't deserve a rating of 2.5/5, it's really a shame for this quality product to have a low rating because some people don't like George Lucas working on his own movies. I have rarely seen a group of people this narrow-minded (or at least narrowly focused) and persistent about something like this. The whole thing just strikes me as being very small-minded and mean-spirited on the part of the bashers. It's maddening the degree to which some posters have total tunnel vision about this release. Understand that I'd support a release of the original cuts (especially of ANH) alongside Lucas preferred version, but some of the posts here have taken it to the point fanaticism; mania. And they have so little respect, some of them, for George Lucas' right as an artist, let alone as a human being. I'm sorry, but anyone who claims this is the worst blu-ray release of all time (and one or two posters have actually claimed this), has not only a chip on the shoulder, but their head stuck pretty far up you-know-where. It's just pathetic. The degree of fixation and frustration in some of the bashers' comments cannot be healthy.
Sorry to unload on you, but I just came back here for the first time in several weeks, saw the low average, and a string of ludicrous and unreasonable basher comments about this release. I hope I didn't blow too much steam off in your direction. How does Amazon calculate the average rating anyway? How many reviews does it take to tip the balance? I guess the more reviews there are, the harder it is--or the more reviews it takes--to impact the average rating, but I'd somewhat like to know how they do and how much it would actually take to get this product's rating up to something more realistically representative of the product as a whole.
I don't think the 1star ratings are fair. The real issue seems to be that Lucas is the only one who insists on doctoring his older work to the degree that he does. You can touch up the Mona Lisa, but once you start fiddling with its appearance, it would no longer be the same work of art. Fans of the original are outraged, and rightly so. If the original trilogy was art (and ESB is generally regarded as one of the best films ever made), the newer films are some garish, post modern facsimile. They are not good movies. Bad dialogue, bad acting, bad direction, glaring inconsistencies with the original trilogy, childish action sequences, etc. The back story of Darth Vader should have been much more satisfying, but this prequel trilogy is way too synthetic. More machine now than man, if you follow me.
However, despite all this, the presentation is still pretty fantastic. It's just having to swallow that bitter pill when one of these awkward changes comes on screen, like Greedo shooting first, Vader yelling "Noooooo!" and so on that diminish the experience.
george lucas stated this once he became something that he didnt want to become i know for a fact that nobody sees why i like george lucas iv seen him in lots of interviews and yes in one of those intewrviews he admitted that he became something that he didnt to become from the begining you know owning a company and everything else he was against that stuff in the 70s and 80s george lucas star wars saved my life in a good way not a bad way i just dislike all this towards george lucases prequel trilogy i love both trilogys heck i even thank george lucas for letting authors write star wars book george lucas is one of my heroes and influences i do have alot of role models in my life and people that i look up to this includes george lucas as well and many many others
Surely you meant this as a response to the OP and not to me, since I'm not the one who claimed that the prequels are "not bad movies at all".
But since you asked - Writing is a craft. Acting is a craft. It is absolutely possible to execute these crafts poorly. It is not "inherently subjective" to identify stilted dialogue that doesn't flow naturally, or acting that fails to convey emotion. Bad writing and bad acting exist in the world, just like bad drawing, bad customer service, bad plumbing, and bad auto repair. These are not ethereal concepts. There is some subpar acting and writing in the SW prequels. This is a fact. I'm not saying the films as a whole are good or bad - THAT is an opinion. The OP expressed an opinion as fact and I responded to that. It's fine to like these films, but that doesn't make them good or bad - it just means you like them. Own that. Don't try to tell me I'M missing something because YOU see something I don't.
You said something along the lines of "just because you like something doesn't make it good", so that's where my question came from. I'm asking how it is that you wish to define "good" and "bad" so absolutely. We really are not dealing in provable facts here. Epistemologically, it isn't possible to be right or wrong about some of these things. Sure, acting, writing, etc. are crafts in the broadest sense, but different people have different tastes. Someone might like a certain room painted a certain color, but someone else might find that same decor to be detestably ugly. That's how the human brain seems to work.
That is absolute nonsense. There are things that Ihave enjoyed that I can still recognize as trash, in terms of artistic value. While enjoyment can certainly be subjective, what can be construed as having artistic merit is not so up for debate. The prequel trilogy could only be argued as having such quality by someone wholly ignorant and uneducated in both cinema and classic literature; there is no depth to it. If you find these movies entertaining, that's great, no shame in it. But these are not "good" movies, in terms of artistic merit.
So I very simply respond: prove it. Show me your objective criteria, your metrics for proving these are bad movies.Then we'll see what's absolute. (Not that I ever said any Star Wars movie is a great film; I'm just making the point.) You think they aren't--fine. I think they are, at least at a certain level. So I simply disagree with you and have had the gumption to say so. The question now becomes: what difference does it make? As far as I'm concerned, if you don't accept individual, subjective perception, you don't accept the essence of art and what makes it a brilliant human achievement.
Please pardon me if I appear unused to being judged in this manner by a complete stranger.
I'm not going to spell out metrics; the broader your range of experience in literature and such, the better you know what is creative and what is not. I'm not judging you; I just question whether you know the difference between a good movie and an entertaining one. I actually just got my copy of the saga collection on bluray this week (Best Buy had it for $70 and I had a $20 gc to burn, seemed an opportune time), and I slapped in TPM. It was sloppier than I remembered. Bad editing (there is one moment where Jake Lloyd clearly speaks over Liam Neeson's line and it throws the entire tempo of the scene off), and while the dialogue isn't as bad as Ep2, it's still pretty bad. The original trilogy worked because it was a fresh take on classic archtypes that have been used in literature across the globe for generations; while it was accessible to children, it wasn't aimed specifically for them. The newer movies seem aimed specifically for children and the immaturity of the dialogue and story premise make this painfully clear. It's a vehicle to sell merchandise.
"'m not going to spell out metrics; the broader your range of experience in literature and such, the better you know what is creative and what is not."
It's astounding to me that you assume this is a matter of absolute fact. A broader range of experience translates to a broader understanding, but in my opinion, not necessarily a deeper one. You repeat your assumptions as you mention the "immaturity of the dialogue and story premise." Sure, SW dialogue is traditionally a bit corny; it's part and parcel. But rather than assuming it's obvious the "story premise" is immature, since I'm not convinced of that, please give me your argument for that. If you can't type it out, maybe it doesn't really exist? I also didn't really take notice of the editing gaff you mentioned, but my experience is that most movies have these things, and I'm not prepared to accept a condemnation based upon one brief moment. Shouldn't the dialogue have gone away during ADR anyway, if it stemmed from an error that occurred during filming?
"It's a vehicle to sell merchandise" is also a completely unfounded assumption. Star Wars merchandizing, first of all, began when the original film was a smash success. It's existed since then. Deal with it. If you don't have anything other than your assumption to suggest that George Lucas made them purely with the intent of selling action figures (anymore than any other movie is designed for this purpose), please don't complicate things by bringing that ostensibly unfounded argument into the discussion. I understand you're trying to say they rang hollow for you. That's fine. But you don't have to try and make that reality anything other than what it is or cast it as the result of some other issue you that don't really have any evidence exists. I sometimes think that some prequel detractors know the films ring hollow for them but are caught up with trying to work out why, which leads to theories like the "two-hour toy commercial" argument you just brought up. I just don't see it as only that. So help me.
The bottom line is: I see something different in the SW prequels from what you do. Not to sound too much like a belligerent axx, but what are you going to do about it? You can't change my perception, and you can't change the fact that different people have different tastes and different responses to the same input. You know the official methodology. Great. But first of all, not everyone is going to be approaching movies or art with the same criteria as you. Secondly, please look up "absolute", "fact", "objective", and "subjective" again. For me, the success or failure of a film doesn't depend on textbook technical perfection or adherence to "the rules", and I think that's a close-minded way of looking at it. I'm also not saying the SW prequels are classic cinema. I just don't find them artistically meritless, either. Again, going on about the number of textbook-level errors you spotted isn't going to change my perception of them, and don't know why you feel the need for "good" and "bad" art to be an absolute distinction. I'm perfectly willing to let you think they're atrocious films, as long as you don't treat me as an inferior being for perceiving art differently than you do. I think we're just working under different criteria, and I suppose you can use whichever words you wish to describe the distinction. But consider this:
-Bob Dylan is a technically unskilled singer -Authors like Cormac McCarthy flagrantly disregard conventional grammatical wisdom--sometimes to my great irritation. - Artists like Picasso and Van Gogh were considered artless, talentless hacks by respected artists and art patrons of the time, the people who were experienced and "knew the rules".
Lack of adherence to conventional wisdom or presence of technical imperfection does not equate to lack of artistic merit.