fanboy2000
Adventurer
This is so weird. Do you actually think whether or or not I like something is the sort of thing that's subject to someone else's analysis? My own counsel will I keep about what I like.
George Lucas Blames 'Star Wars' Critics for Killing Series
jmucchiello
Hero
Hey, watch it or don't watch it. Like it or don't like it. I don't really care at all. It's just an amusing set of reviews for a bunch meaningless movies ultimately. The reviews are entertaining in their own right. And they are a good argument against the goodness of the movies. You made it sound like you were a challenger of all that isn't as bad as people say. So I put it out there for you to test your fortitude as it were. You don't want to? Don't do it. I can't and have not desire to "make you" do it. I'm just telling you it exists.
And many people are swayed by what is "cool" and what is not "cool" based on the what others speak about it. Why would you find my expectation that external analysis might sway one's internal analysis "weird"? Find it disappointing, or annoying, but weird? I don't think so.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Makes sense to me, but let me answer a question:
And that's what I find weird. Because the prequel trilogy's flaws, seven years after it's completion, are well known. The movies have been dissected, its parts labeled, and every element of them catalogued. Anyone who still likes the movies after all of that probably isn't going to be swayed by yet another argument that their bad.
Also the idea that anyone who like the prequel movies would be swayed to not liking them by popular opinion seems odd given that it hasn't worked in the 10 plus years it's been since The Phantom Menace came out. I suppose, if our hypothetical fanboy just now started to want to be one of the "cool kids" it might work, but that number is likely a small subset and such a fanboy could be turned by efforts much less than a 70 minute video.
Of course, it's not weird to say that there's a funny and insightful review posted on the web. But you said a lot more than that, and I wanted to respond to the other stuff you said.
FWIW, I did watch a video today. But it was The Phantom Menace, and I still enjoyed it.
See, you originally said "To anyone whoever says they weren't bothered by the prequel trilogy, I send this link..." Your next post went on to imply the video contained an objective argument grounded in logic when you said "He doesn't just say the plot doesn't make sense. He explains why and in what ways it doesn't make sense."
And that's what I find weird. Because the prequel trilogy's flaws, seven years after it's completion, are well known. The movies have been dissected, its parts labeled, and every element of them catalogued. Anyone who still likes the movies after all of that probably isn't going to be swayed by yet another argument that their bad.
Also the idea that anyone who like the prequel movies would be swayed to not liking them by popular opinion seems odd given that it hasn't worked in the 10 plus years it's been since The Phantom Menace came out. I suppose, if our hypothetical fanboy just now started to want to be one of the "cool kids" it might work, but that number is likely a small subset and such a fanboy could be turned by efforts much less than a 70 minute video.
Of course, it's not weird to say that there's a funny and insightful review posted on the web. But you said a lot more than that, and I wanted to respond to the other stuff you said.
FWIW, I did watch a video today. But it was The Phantom Menace, and I still enjoyed it.
GreyLord
Legend
Well, though uncredited, from what I hear, the book was actually NOT written by George Lucas, though it's Lucas's name on the cover. The book was ghost written by Alan Dean Foster who was also given the go ahead to write a sequel which would be cheap to make (they didn't expect Star Wars to make all that much at the time, but still wanted a sequel).
When Star Wars did better then expected, they scrapped ADF's sequel write up in favor of a new one. However, that book also saw print and this time since it wasn't the "official" sequel, he even got credit for it.
Another guy that apparantly had a lot to do with the original (from Bullgrit's links) seems to be Kurtz?
PS: I should add, that from all I can tell the original screenplay however is ALL Lucas. It was a different character back then, he was someone who I think could take a lot more criticism and see more of his weaknesses than what he became later.
Last edited:
jmucchiello
Hero
These reviews are old and contemporary with those catalogs being made, and may even be the source of some of the dissections. They are also entertaining and thought provoking because they aren't just a list of what is wrong. They are developed and supported by clips of the films.
Whether or not there are catalogs of what's wrong with TPM, to most people who will watch these reviews, it could be the first time they are encountering what is "wrong" with the films. Reading a list of what's wrong with a film is less entertaining than being shown, using excepts, what is wrong with that film.
And again, I don't care if you liked the film or not or whether you watch the reviews I linked to or not. It's just not that important. Your insistence on supporting TPM as a good movie is no more valuable than my opinion that it sucked. And I'll note that I did demand that you change your mind. I merely suggested watching a review to give you the reasons many people don't like it beyond "it's the suxxor, dude."
Haha! Admit it! You fear to watch the plinkett review! Bwahahahaa!FWIW, I did watch a video today. But it was The Phantom Menace, and I still enjoyed it.
Um, never mind.
fanboy2000
Adventurer
Well, I must say, you've written an intelligent and thoughtful post...I'm glad that...hey...what's that light...?
<center>
Last edited:
Similar Threads
