Kurosawa
Superhero
- Joined
- Jan 25, 2003
- Messages
- 9,485
- Reaction score
- 1
- Points
- 31
I'm not a fan or rottentomatoes to be honest, but a friend showed me this today. Could the Star Wars Prequels Actually Better Reviewed Than Originals? according to this, it's true!
Tomatometer Ranking of Star Wars Series Based on Critical Reaction During Original Release Dates:
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
79% - Star Wars
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
62% - Star wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
31% - Return of the Jedi
I found this part rather funny: As one can see, only Star Wars managed to be Fresh, with a respectable 79% on the Tomatometer, while the other two sequels got successively worse. Most of the critics thought the first film was an inventive, fun, and entertaining summer popcorn movie. Its interesting that they complain about the dialogue back then too.Empire, which is regarded as the best of the series nowadays, only managed to score a mixed 52%. It received great technical grades, but critics had problems with the plot, one way or other, and thought it was just minor entertainment. It got worse with Jedi uneven pacing, no character development, tired acting, and hollow and junky filmmaking. It scored a moldy 30% on the Tomatometer.
Anyways, you can read the full article here:http://www.rottentomatoes.com/m/sta...quels_actually_better_reviewed_than_originals
We didn't have the internet in 1980, but I remember discussing ESB extensively in comic shops, and a lot of people back then SAVAGED the movie. They felt Lucas was obsessed with special effects and muppets and couldn't tell a story. Yoda being a muppet was just hated by a lot of people that I remember talking to, and Vader being Luke's father was seen as soap opera crap. And I also remember a lot of people hated Jedi back in 83.