Again that is fine. Of course I'm passionate about it. However, just because I was not around during the OT does not mean that there are tons that are that just like me hated the PT. The PT just did not have the significance that the OT did have. LOTR and TDK were the big talked about films that really shook up the industry and garnered attention from every angle.
1. No doubt. But, there are also scores of people that felt differently. The slippery slope is when you are taking your truth/pov and coloring everything with it...like it's THE universal truth. As you know, you can go to forums all over the internet and find people bashing LOTR or The Dark Knight as well, does that detract from your enjoyment of those films? You can talk about what these movies mean to you, but it's a stretch if you apply that sentiment to the rest of the world. Furthermore, why does how anyone else feels/thinks validate your (or my) opinion?
2. Define "shook up the industry" and garnered attention from every angle. You mean a hit with critics? Academy Award nominated? If so, do those things have to be there for people to enjoy/love a film?
But I'm just posting back with what I feel is wrong about some of those arguments. I think we are having a good debate, some of those things I admit I took personally because it felt like you were going after me with it.
That's just it, I wasn't even addressing you. I wasn't going after anyone. There is no "wrong." We are just talking pov/opinions.
I mean, I can tell you that Revenge of the Sith
was the biggest hit of 2005, but that I liked Batman Begins
better. Does that automatically invalidate Revenge of the Sith
's impact. If I tell you that Sith got less nerd love on the net, or critics approval does that negate it's popularity/impact? I don't think so.
The age thing I think is not as important. It was widely talked about right away that people were mixed (especially about Episode I and II). And that was taken as a surprise. The biggest news that the PT still carries 10 years later is the controversy and the split of it. The OT, not the case. Still seen as classics and that is what is talked mainly about with them.
This is where the age thing comes in. There is TONS of info out there which you and I have no doubt poured over, but some of it is revisionist history.
The very first Star Wars WAS a critical/commercial hit in the biggest sense of the word and in every way. The world shifted because of that movie in a way that's not been replicated. Not with Avatar, Titanic, ET, LOTR, or The Dark Knight, not Avengers. The way the movie business is, no movie will likely match it's adjusted box office or overall impact.
It was deemed as an instant classic and people (at the time) thought it was a old fashioned kind of thing, with b-movie roots, that had revolutionary special effects and a modern/hip sensibilities. Yet, the content wasn't taken THAT seriously. It was viewed and appreciated like the Avengers
(a uberfun, fast paced, witty, popcorn flick), but it's impact/innovativeness was far greater.
The sequels however became beloved classics over time. Modern critics rate those movies higher (as they should) than the critics of '80 and '83.
Many superfans even still debate the merits of ROTJ...is it in the National Film Registry, etc?
The reason I tell you this, is because you are experiencing living through the first wave of Star Wars mania 2nd hand.
That means your compare/contrast for how the Prequels impacted the world vs how the OT impacted the world is different than mine. Not worse, not wrong, just different.
From 1977 onwards, it wasn't 6 long years of sheer Star Wars fever. It was long waits in between with no home videos, no internet, just scattered fan magazines, and then suddenly the hype machine was on and new Star Wars played in theaters for an entire 6 months to a year...like all hit movies did back then.
So, in 1999, I didn't sit and wait for the earth to move when Episode I came out, because it didn't really move when Episode V came out. Not like 1977. You only get one first time. Sequels are just...sequels...beloved or not. New Star Wars whether it's V I or VII is never going to live up to/recreate/be what the first Star Wars was/did.
In fact NO movie does/will do what the Original
Star Wars (1977) did initially. Yet, much of the talk about the Original Trilogy changing things should be attributed to the first one, but they all get lumped together now. It's kinda like how in retrospect, Batman Forever
shares Batman & Robin
hate/fate, even though it was a the big hit of 1995 movie that people liked a lot.
But it's okay we are getting both sides out there. I am objective as well. I went into the PT with no judgments. With all three of them I gave them chances, my original post in this thread stated that. And I kinda liked them. But as I got older I became more objective and not surrounded by the hype, or the name Star Wars and looked at it differently.
Which is great, but you journey towards being a bit more jaded about the prequels it's your singular experience. Yes, there are TONS of people that feel the same, but there are many that don't. No right, no wrong. Just opinions.
In my opinion, Star Wars was robbed of it's best picture Oscar, and Annie Hall was not the better movie. Agree with me? Am I right? Go to a Woody Allen forum and see how far that thought gets you.
*In response to the Bond analogy: I don't like the Roger Moore era films that much at all. However, you cannot deny that they were the most successful era of Bond films up until 1995, and in some ways, more popular than Connery's Bond.
Yes, they were more corny, less hard boiled, and bordering on parody. Yes, they have not aged as "retro cool-ish" like Connery's. Yet to much of the world they/Roger Moore is just as much THE James Bond as Connery....despite my disdain for that era and the fact that he is my LEAST favorite 007...Roger Moore is just as valid as Bond and a HUGE cornerstone to that franchise. To a generation Roger Moore is FOREVER their James Bond. Just like some BAtman geeks swear that Keaton is/was/will be THE Batman.
Again, to say that Roger Moore and T Dalton's eras are not celebrated is really to paint things with your brush and call it "the truth."