The Star Wars Fanbase - How do they feel?

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Jamiestarr

Star Wars was ALWAYS made as something for kids. Watch/read/look at anything about the creation of the 1977 film, and you will see that Lucas was making a film for a new generation of kids.

I mean, much as I love it, the Original Trilogy was not lauded as being great for it's dialogue/acting/character development/plot- meaning, a mature movie for grownups that kids could get into. It was a movie for the youth that grownups kind of dug as well.

Ever see the Star Wars episode of That 70's Show? The father's negative response to seeing Star Wars is a typical reaction from many adults upon the film's first release.

Yes one parent said he did not like it. There is a reason most of these films are taught in film school, and by many film scholars regarded so high. To me again you are doing what lots of PT defenders do. Rip on the OT because you don't point out any merit in the PT instead to make a solid point.

Was the OT's acting the best? Compared to what? Like The Godfather? No it was not. However it was still great acting that did it's job, make you emotionally care about the characters and feel the soul of the film itself. The PT did not do that. It had no emotion it had no character evolution (minus story evolution) it was just there. I will bet you 100 dollars here and now in 20 years the PT will not be seen like the OT.

Remember....the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, that is saying something. The film was at the time regarded very highly by the film world too. To say not is just not true at all. You are acting as if people did not like Star Wars at first, then grew on it except kids. Not true at all. It became the phenomena it was for a reason. In terms of ticket sales....the PT never touched any of the OT sales. There is reason behind that too. Star Wars became what it was because of high quality film. And still stands up today by most people because of that. The PT clearly has not stood up because a massive amount of people think either meh, it was okay, to poor. While the OT is always seen in much higher regards.

[Jamiestarr]

I still disagree, he may have thought that that is what he was aiming for. But it's not what it primarily did.

It sounds like you are saying that, with both Trilogies, Lucas set out to make movies that appealed primarily for young people, but that the first Trilogy happened to have a much broader appeal. Doesn't change the fact that both trilogies were aimed/marketed to young people and families.

Also, you somewhat implying that the Prequels are maybe closer to his initial vision?

Everyone went and saw it, adults, old people everything, and most loved it. The thing is is that it brought the kid out of everyone, but it still told a mature enough of story/character development that everyone connected and enjoyed.

Wait, you are reporting on what you've read, right? You didn't even see the OT in the theaters until 1997?

And at first he made films as films, not as merchandising commercials.

Again, were you alive to experience this? Star Wars was pretty much a commercial enterprise from the get go. It was hyped as much as a movie could be in 1977 and quickly tied into a glut of merchandise that followed. Again, Lucas with Star Wars basically invented modern day movie merchandising/promotion/hype. Studios didn't have the foresight to do this, Lucas did. Believe me, in the late 70's early 80's all things Star Wars were primarily aimed at kids. Ironically, it's only now that you see things like adult sized Star Wars footie pajamas, etc.

I mean from charred skeletons, to grotesque monsters eating flesh, ect. They were not made...just for kids.

I hear you, but these were all in the Prequels as well. These are familiar /well used imagery found in scores Disney cartoons and fairy tales all aimed primarily at kids.

But yes the Buck Rogers thing ect was inspiration. But he made something that was adventurous for all, adults could like as well as kids.

So no adults like The Prequels?

The problem with the PT it aimed too much for kids, and ages way younger then he should have.

You should give specific examples that illustrate how the Prequels are vastly different in tone/age level than the Original Trilogy. I just don't see it. Not with oodles of "kids stuff" like Ewoks, squeaking robots, talking puppets, and burping frog monsters.

There are MANY valid critiques to be leveled at The Prequels, but I don't think that the age level was VASTLY different from what came before.

The OT had so much depth from Campbell's philosophy to so much more. Which as people got older or adults could sink their teeth into.

Campbell is all over The Prequels as well. Willing to provide examples if you want. Have you ever seen History Channel's Star Wars: Legacy Revealed?

[TheDevilIsMe]

Me reading this thread =

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Jamiestarr

It sounds like you are saying that, with both Trilogies, Lucas set out to make movies that appealed primarily for young people, but that the first Trilogy happened to have a much broader appeal. Doesn't change the fact that both trilogies were aimed/marketed to young people and families.

Also, you somewhat implying that the Prequels are maybe closer to his initial vision?



Wait, you are reporting on what you've read, right? You didn't even see the OT in the theaters until 1997?



Again, were you alive to experience this? Star Wars was pretty much a commercial enterprise from the get go. It was hyped as much as a movie could be in 1977 and quickly tied into a glut of merchandise that followed. Again, Lucas with Star Wars basically invented modern day movie merchandising/promotion/hype. Studios didn't have the foresight to do this, Lucas did. Believe me, in the late 70's early 80's all things Star Wars were primarily aimed at kids. Ironically, it's only now that you see things like adult sized Star Wars footie pajamas, etc.



I hear you, but these were all in the Prequels as well. These are familiar /well used imagery found in scores Disney cartoons and fairy tales all aimed primarily at kids.



So no adults like The Prequels?


You should give specific examples that illustrate how the Prequels are vastly different in tone/age level than the Original Trilogy. I just don't see it. Not with oodles of "kids stuff" like Ewoks, squeaking robots, talking puppets, and burping frog monsters.

There are MANY valid critiques to be leveled at The Prequels, but I don't think that the age level was VASTLY different from what came before.


Campbell is all over The Prequels as well. Willing to provide examples if you want. Have you ever seen History Channel's Star Wars: Legacy Revealed?

If you were there do you really remember it correctly? or just in your small confines that you saw? See we both can play that game. There is a lot of documentation of everything, and it's not hard to find. Also I have many friends/parents/people that I work with that I have spoken with over the years that tell me all about it, that were adults when they first came out. So let's not try to use that as some argument point. Another point....do you know how much after inflation the OT made over the PT? Trust me it's not just kids going to see it, the sheer amount of it says otherwise. And again it got nominated for a lot of stuff at the Oscars that year, including best picture, best actor. Did they lose? Ya, but to be nominated still says something about the quality.

Do adults like the prequels? Some do of course. As for the commercialization....not really. Lucas had no idea that the toys would take off. You should read his stuff biographies or more so the Secret History of Star Wars (made up of 95% of actual quotes from the man back then) Fox and no company every thought merchandising would be a hit, neither did Lucas, he sat on an island with Spielberg thinking Star Wars was going to be a massive disaster. But it ended up being completely different and then the toys started to sell after the fact. That is why they could not make enough, they had no idea. Remember the empty promise boxes of figures? Do you know why? Because they did not have enough because they did not plan for that. After a while, mainly after ESB yes it became more merchandising. ROTJ was the first showmanship of that, with Ewoks, and all the things you mentioned.

Lastly the tonal shift, I've gone into it so much before. Red Letter Media (recommend to watch if you have not) went into it for 6 hours and it would take me even longer.

The prime problem with the tonal shift was you went from (especially ANH and ESB) films with no kids, no kid soft cuddly things made at all. ESB there is one kid that runs by in Cloud City. With ROTJ you created many of the more kid friendly things, to me (though still quality but slipping) Ewoks being the main thing a cute cuddly thing. With TPM you had a cartoon rabbit following them around talking.......like someone would a child. You had young kids being the main characters, Boba, Anakin ect. Now funny enough the tone did change in ROTS I will say that, but the film making standard did not.

Was the PT what George really wanted? Yes it was. And its not good. It shows that Lucas is not that good when he does it himself. The OT was made by so many people so many ideas, and restrictions caused the films to be what they were. With the PT George was the emperor. The one man that ruled it all, and decided everything. Because of that is the result known as the PT. And honestly it shows in his SE's of the OT because he keep changing most things for the worst. His ideas are not always the greatest. Gary Kurtz and many others would say no to him. Which he states many times. The reason Gary was not brought back for the PT was because of that, he hired Rick who was the yes man. Funny enough they let him go in September.

Is there Campbell stuff in the PT? Yes. But the characters/story is uninteresting enough that I don't care to go back. Of course it is ripe with the mythology, especially the stuff surrounding Anakin. But the execution was poor.

As for the puppets, they were made to look like real monsters, real aliens. The "cute design" was not a massive factor in the first two. Which most consider the best. It was really during ROTJ that that started to change, George took over more control. He even admits that ESB was Irvin's film not his. And that he was involved the least with ESB out of all six. The problem is what are the puppets? Cool looking monsters? Or cute cartoon rabbits and teddy bears.

[Jamiestarr]

Yes one parent said he did not like it. There is a reason most of these films are taught in film school, and by many film scholars regarded so high. To me again you are doing what lots of PT defenders do. Rip on the OT because you don't point out any merit in the PT instead to make a solid point.

Wow. Kind of getting personal? I think I have made solid points. I love the OT and have told you that. I am simply trying to look at both trilogies objectively and don't really have a horse in the PT VS OT race. Again, any "negative" thing I say about the OT is in the interest in of being objective. Please don't take it as an attack on your position or those films. You don't have to convince me of their merits/significance/or how many college professors use them in their classes. I know.

Was the OT's acting the best? Compared to what? Like The Godfather? No it was not. However it was still great acting that did it's job, make you emotionally care about the characters and feel the soul of the film itself. The PT did not do that.

Listen, all I am saying is that, if you look at both Trilogies objectively, there is not a huge difference in acting quality/skills. If you prefer Mark Hamill's acting to Ewan Mcgregor's, that's fine. But there are examples of good and clunky acting in both. It's like Harrison said, "You can type this ****, but you cannot say it."

It had no emotion it had no character evolution (minus story evolution) it was just there. I will bet you 100 dollars here and now in 20 years the PT will not be seen like the OT.

Again, I am not fighting you here. Emotions and character evolution are subjective to the audience. As characters, the fact is that Anakin evolves as Luke does. You may not like how it's shown, but the character does evolve.

In 20 years the Prequels and OT will be even more lumped together and referred to both as "the old" Star Wars.

Remember....the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, that is saying something. The film was at the time regarded very highly by the film world too. To say not is just not true at all. You are acting as if people did not like Star Wars at first, then grew on it except kids. Not true at all. It became the phenomena it was for a reason. In terms of ticket sales....the PT never touched any of the OT sales. There is reason behind that too. Star Wars became what it was because of high quality film. And still stands up today by most people because of that. The PT clearly has not stood up because a massive amount of people think either meh, it was okay, to poor. While the OT is always seen in much higher regards.

I am happy that you are so passionate about Star Wars, and the Original Trilogy. I am too. I will defend Star Wars to my last breath and can challenge anyone to why Empire is a better sequel than Godfather II , if needed.

The fact is NO MOVIES have touched what Star Wars (1977) did. None of it's sequels/prequels. Not Avatar, LOTR, Dark Knight, Titanic, E.T. etc. You don't need to tell me of it's impact/success. I know. That does not negate that it was made primarily for a young audience. Nor did it negate the the Prequels (although not as beloved) were MASSIVELY successful in their own right. Modern day blockbusters.

Honestly, though, you seem to be getting upset at some of my positions as you are on the defensive about my posts addressed to others.

You seem to be taking it like I am trying to "tear down" the OT to hold up the PT. I am not. I am just taking an objective look at both, and more on point, why there is such a divide amongst the fan base. Again, there are no "sides" that I am on. You don't have to convince me of the awesomeness of the Original Trilogy. However, being the age that you are, you have experienced/live thru the saga differently than me.

You were born, and the OT was over. So any experience you have about 1977-1985 you have heard or read about. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't negate ANY of your positions, but I would hope that you would be a bit open minded about this old school Star Wars fans take on the new school of Star Wars. That's what the OP asked for, and that's what I am giving. My opinion is not an attack/affront on anything. Please don't take it that way, because I am not trying to speak for you.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by Jamiestarr

Wow. Kind of getting personal? I think I have made solid points. I love the OT and have told you that. I am simply trying to look at both trilogies objectively and don't really have a horse in the PT VS OT race. Again, any "negative" thing I say about the OT is in the interest in of being objective. Please don't take it as an attack on your position or those films. You don't have to convince me of their merits/significance/or how many college professors use them in their classes. I know.



Listen, all I am saying is that, if you look at both Trilogies objectively, there is not a huge difference in acting quality/skills. If you prefer Mark Hamill's acting to Ewan Mcgregor's, that's fine. But there are examples of good and clunky acting in both. It's like Harrison said, "You can type this ****, but you cannot say it."



Again, I am not fighting you here. Emotions and character evolution are subjective to the audience. As characters, the fact is that Anakin evolves as Luke does. You may not like how it's shown, but the character does evolve.

In 20 years the Prequels and OT will be even more lumped together and referred to both as "the old" Star Wars.



I am happy that you are so passionate about Star Wars, and the Original Trilogy. I am too. I will defend Star Wars to my last breath and can challenge anyone to why Empire is a better sequel than Godfather II , if needed.

The fact is NO MOVIES have touched what Star Wars (1977) did. None of it's sequels/prequels. Not Avatar, LOTR, Dark Knight, Titanic, E.T. etc. You don't need to tell me of it's impact/success. I know. That does not negate that it was made primarily for a young audience.

Honestly, though, you seem to be getting upset at some of my positions as you are on the defensive about my posts addressed to others.

You seem to be taking it like I am trying to "tear down" the OT to hold up the PT. I am not. I am just taking an objective look at both, and more on point, why there is such a divide amongst the fan base. Again, there are no "sides" that I am on. You don't have to convince me of the awesomeness of the Original Trilogy. However, being the age that you are, you have experienced/live thru the saga differently than me.

You were born, and the OT was over. So any experience you have about 1977-1985 you have heard or read about. Don't get me wrong, this doesn't negate ANY of your positions, but I would hope that you would be a bit open minded about this old school Star Wars fans take on the new school of Star Wars. That's what the OP asked for, and that's what I am giving. My opinion is not an attack/affront on anything. Please don't take it that way, because I am not trying to speak for you.

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.

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. 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.

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.

[regwec]

I think that all of the Star Wars movies have been intended to appeal to the broadest audience as possible, but that the increased disposable income of the younger section of that audience probably did lead to the prequels catering to it more specifically. I think the OT would best be described as a "family adventure", and perhaps the prequels failed to remember the rest of the family, to an extent. It is probably the better quality of the OT that, overall, leads to it possessing an enduring cross-generational appeal.

In thirty years time, I can't honestly envision the prequels being remembered or watched as anything other than a bittersweet footnote to the OT.

[Solidus]

Originally Posted by regwec

I think that all of the Star Wars movies have been intended to appeal to the broadest audience as possible, but that the increased disposable income of the younger section of that audience probably did lead to the prequels catering to it more specifically. I think the OT would best be described as a "family adventure", and perhaps the prequels failed to remember the rest of the family, to an extent. It is probably the better quality of the OT that, overall, leads to it possessing an enduring cross-generational appeal.

In thirty years time, I can't honestly envision the prequels being remembered or watched as anything other than a bittersweet footnote to the OT.

I agree. To me they will be like the Bond films in some regards. Where there will be clear thoughts of quality to the masses. Most still celebrate Connery's Bond era, where as Moore's, and Dalton's not so much. I think the PT especially after the ST will be seen as the lesser of the films. I don't think they will be grouped into the "Old Star Wars films" because if anything Bond has shown that, even to the new generations. Go over to the Bond section and we can see that.

I was 14 when I saw Episode I, so in a sense I was a "kid" but they did not appeal to me, and many of my friends. As I got older they really did not hold up. Whereas I saw the OT as a kid too, and quite the opposite happened.

[Jedi-Spirit]

Originally Posted by Solidus

Yes one parent said he did not like it. There is a reason most of these films are taught in film school, and by many film scholars regarded so high. To me again you are doing what lots of PT defenders do. Rip on the OT because you don't point out any merit in the PT instead to make a solid point.

Was the OT's acting the best? Compared to what? Like The Godfather? No it was not. However it was still great acting that did it's job, make you emotionally care about the characters and feel the soul of the film itself. The PT did not do that. It had no emotion it had no character evolution (minus story evolution) it was just there. I will bet you 100 dollars here and now in 20 years the PT will not be seen like the OT.

Remember....the original Star Wars was nominated for Best Picture, that is saying something. The film was at the time regarded very highly by the film world too. To say not is just not true at all. You are acting as if people did not like Star Wars at first, then grew on it except kids. Not true at all. It became the phenomena it was for a reason. In terms of ticket sales....the PT never touched any of the OT sales. There is reason behind that too. Star Wars became what it was because of high quality film. And still stands up today by most people because of that. The PT clearly has not stood up because a massive amount of people think either meh, it was okay, to poor. While the OT is always seen in much higher regards.

The So-called massive amount of people are still in the minority when it comes to people who go to theaters to see the films, the wider audience was quite satisfied with the PT...even if belly achers & whiners that fancy themselves as having better ideas than Lucas did not...to all of them I say TS...each PT did $300 million plus domestically, with the quote, unquote hated Phantom Menace doing well over $400 million...Disney won't change the formula much, because last year on 4 films did that kind of money!!!!

The reality is, the PT worked as a business model, and the old saying you can't please all of the people all of the time is quite true, I suggest anyone who thinks the same as you about the PT, just forget about the new films and focus on something else, something inside you won't let you like those movies, and its you who need to change, not the movies!

[Jamiestarr]

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."

[Jedi-Spirit]

JaimeStarr...Haters gonna hate, get use to it around these place lol...

[regwec]

Jedi Spirit, I think you may be making a small conceptual error by assuming that the relative financial success of the prequels will lead to their "formula" being followed in future Star Wars films. The fact is that their is a wealth of critical opinion- you can call it bias if you like- that has led to the prequels being established in the popular mindset as tarnishing the collective view of Star Wars. You argue quite persuasively that this isn't a fair evaluation of the movies. But the likelihood is that efforts will be made to disassociate the future films from any negative brand equity attached to the prequels.

I just hope they don't "go darker".

[Jamiestarr]

Originally Posted by regwec

JamieStarr, I think you may be making a small conceptual error by assuming that the relative financial success of the prequels will lead to their "formula" being followed in future Star Wars films. The fact is that their is a wealth of critical opinion- you can call it bias if you like- that has led to the prequels being established in the popular mindset as tarnishing the collective view of Star Wars. You argue quite persuasively that this isn't a fair evaluation of the movies. But the likelihood is that efforts will be made to disassociate the future films from any negative brand equity attached to the prequels.

I just hope they don't "go darker".

I am not sure I posited the "formula" argument.

[regwec]

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

even if belly achers & whiners that fancy themselves as having better ideas than Lucas did not...to all of them I say TS...each PT did $300 million plus domestically, with the quote, unquote hated Phantom Menace doing well over $400 million...Disney won't change the formula much, because last year on 4 films did that kind of money!!!!

For clarity- it was this guy.

[vinsanity]

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

The So-called massive amount of people are still in the minority when it comes to people who go to theaters to see the films, the wider audience was quite satisfied with the PT...

And you know this how? Did you called/mailed/faxed everyone who went to see the PT?

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

even if belly achers & whiners that fancy themselves as having better ideas than Lucas did not...

stereotyping the haters as fats and lazy guys: check

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

to all of them I say TS...each PT did $300 million plus domestically

So did transformers, those award-winning movies...

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

Disney won't change the formula much, because last year on 4 films did that kind of money!!!!

Yeah, firing McCallum, put Lucas on a leash and hiring a screenwriter that wrote the best Star Wars and Indiana Jones movie and also an writer that won an academy award and a director that ressurected 2 dying franchises (M:I and Star Trek) is pretty much maintaining the same formula indeed

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

something inside you won't let you like those movies, and its you who need to change, not the movies!

[Jedi-Spirit]

Originally Posted by regwec

Jedi Spirit, I think you may be making a small conceptual error by assuming that the relative financial success of the prequels will lead to their "formula" being followed in future Star Wars films. The fact is that their is a wealth of critical opinion- you can call it bias if you like- that has led to the prequels being established in the popular mindset as tarnishing the collective view of Star Wars. You argue quite persuasively that this isn't a fair evaluation of the movies. But the likelihood is that efforts will be made to disassociate the future films from any negative brand equity attached to the prequels.

I just hope they don't "go darker".

Let me put it this way, the President of the United States, just got elected by about 52% of the vote...52%...I would say if you polled the general movie going population you would get a favorable rating of 75% of the PT...now back to the POTUS...some say he is great, others say he's the worst Prez ever, maybe as high as 25% may say that...

The point I'm making is, having even a sizeable minority against you, doesnt really matter to the Powers that be...and the minority, well they look like bitter spoiled children that didnt get their way...food for thought...

It's time to ask yourself, what is the motivation for being so anti-PT, cause when ST arrives, you will have issues with it, maybe different ones than you had with PT, maybe new ones, in any event, it's anti/negative/backlash internet Culture, that wasnt around in 77-83 when the OT came into being, thats the real difference in the arguments...

[regwec]

No, I laid out my reasoning expressly in the post you quoted. The stigma of negative brand equity is something which Disney will not want to inherit- if you think of their investment in the franchise as a sum, then Jar Jar Binks might be a liability on it of 20%.

"Batman and Robin" was a very respectable commercial success, but it got panned, so WB wisely chose to take its Batman franchise in an alternative direction. Your view seems to be based on the idea that, because the prequels were a relative financial success, there is no other way that similar money can be made with the Star Wars franchise. I think you are mistaken.

[Jedi-Spirit]

Vinsanity-
"And you know this how? Did you called/mailed/faxed everyone who went to see the PT?"

Just did a little research for ya bub...approx...73.3% of yahoo movie goers gave the PT positive ratings...that's from about 276,527 who gave ratings for the 3 films, so yes, movie goers liked it...even if you didn't..

I called no one, fat or lazy, guilty conscience or something?

Who here is talking about awards, I think we are talking about whether the movies are good & generally liked, in your case, hated?

If you hate the prequels so much, just stop being a fan & give the rest of us a break...

[BenKenobi]

Originally Posted by Jamiestarr

Star Wars was ALWAYS made as something for kids. Watch/read/look at anything about the creation of the 1977 film, and you will see that Lucas was making a film for a new generation of kids.

I mean, much as I love it, the Original Trilogy was not lauded as being great for it's dialogue/acting/character development/plot- meaning, a mature movie for grownups that kids could get into. It was a movie for the youth that grownups kind of dug as well.

Ever see the Star Wars episode of That 70's Show? The father's negative response to seeing Star Wars is a typical reaction from many adults upon the film's first release.

Yeah kids love torture, forced amutation, decapitation, murder. The fact is the original films were good enough that i loved them as a child as did many other and i can still love them today. The prequels however, while many have stated several times they loved as children, they no longer love today. Star Wars was a FAMILY film, NOT a kids film. Meaning it is something that the whole family can watch and enjoy, as opposed to movies aimed only at entraining one or the other.

No Lucas wrote Star Wars because he was weird and he wanted to pay homage to the adventure serials from his childhood. He also put deeper themes and messages about coming of age, atonement of the father, spirituality being lost to technology, and many basic archetypes that you need to have a fairy tale in space. In the prequels he shoved as much crap on screen as he could and tried as hard as he could to pander to the kids without giving it a whole lot of substance. The original films were a slice of cake and the prequel films were twinkies.

[Jamiestarr]

Originally Posted by regwec

No, I laid out my reasoning expressly in the post you quoted. The stigma of negative brand equity is something which Disney will not want to inherit- if you think of their investment in the franchise as a sum, then Jar Jar Binks might be a liability on it of 20%.

"Batman and Robin" was a very respectable commercial success, but it got panned, so WB wisely chose to take its Batman franchise in an alternative direction. Your view seems to be based on the idea that, because the prequels were a relative financial success, there is no other way that similar money can be made with the Star Wars franchise. I think you are mistaken.

I think much of this discussion centers around this:

Will the Disney/Lucasfilm reinvent the wheel for the new trilogy/films?

Depends if you think the current iteration of Star Wars is "broken".

I am guessing they do what Lucas has been doing all along which is to modify the Star Wars machine as it goes.

Example: Clone Wars show. Just a tweak here or there satisfies many/makes the whole thing more modern, more dark, or more "kiddie" when needed. Different portions of the fan base like different Episodes of the show.

[regwec]

I think they will extrapolate from the OT in a different way to the prequels. At least, that is what I would do. We can only exchange preferences and opinions at this stage.

[Jedi-Spirit]

Originally Posted by regwec

No, I laid out my reasoning expressly in the post you quoted. The stigma of negative brand equity is something which Disney will not want to inherit- if you think of their investment in the franchise as a sum, then Jar Jar Binks might be a liability on it of 20%.

"Batman and Robin" was a very respectable commercial success, but it got panned, so WB wisely chose to take its Batman franchise in an alternative direction. Your view seems to be based on the idea that, because the prequels were a relative financial success, there is no other way that similar money can be made with the Star Wars franchise. I think you are mistaken.

Business men think different, as in, don't fix it if it's not broken...Jar Jar a 20% financial liability to the franchise is a laughable thought...

Batman & Robin earned 107 million domestic, production budget was 125 million, to say nothing of its marketing cost...on the other hand Batman Forever, the previous franchise film cost less 100 million, & earned much more $184 million...The reason is was retooled, was because if failed to yield the dollars expected, plain & simple...If reviews & awards mattered, there would rarely be sequels...If you want an education in box-office, I'm happy to give you a lecture...

[regwec]

Originally Posted by Jedi-Spirit

Business men think different, as in, don't fix it if it's not broken...

The catalogue of reboots in recent years indicates that, no, they don't.

[C. Lee]

Friendly reminder to everyone.....

You can argue, discuss, and debate without resorting to name calling or being rude. Civility will get people to at least listen to your point of view.

[Jedi-Spirit]

Originally Posted by regwec

The catalogue of reboots in recent years indicates that, no, they don't.

If you think the PT was a boxoffice failure, well, there no way to reach you then...I just said you don't fix if not broken, Batman of the 90's = broken, Prequels, = Cash Cow!

And that is why, top to bottom, the product won't be very different...