Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="takyris" data-source="post: 2291514" data-attributes="member: 5171">I hate losing my casual status! <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":)" title="Smile    :)"  data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":)" />I guess I hang out in mostly geek cultures, then. My office (which is a computer game company) is full of people making the general complaints that have been raised in this forum (dialogue bad, love scenes bad, Anakin's fall too fast, even among the people who liked the movie overall), and my online buddies raised the same complaints. The only complaint I've raised that wasn't raised by many of my friends as well is the fight-scene complaint (although another geek buddy and I talked shop on that for awhile), but I'm willing to chalk that one up to just me.Then there are the movie reviewers -- but again, I'm guessing that you don't consider these people to be casual observers, so whatever their average response is (I'm guessing that most share my complaints to a certain extent, although the ratings may be higher because they said "I'm ignoring the dialogue and focusing on the fight scenes", which they liked -- but I've only read a few reviews, so my random sampling is nowhere near enough to be conclusive), it doesn't factor in here.So, nobody on this board fits your casual observer profile. I'm guessing that my office buddies don't fit, and neither do my computer geek buddies, the vast majority of whom shared my opinion of the major problems with the movie. Movie reviewers don't fit. So who does? And more importantly, why are we using this definition of "casual observer", when it removes pretty much all of us?By "casual observer", I meant myself -- someone who is not a film student or a Hollywood wannabe, who went in looking to be entertained and not to schmooze or make deep literary judgments. By "casual observer", I also meant "person who has read a few of the Star Wars extended universe novels, but not all of them, and doesn't know the names of every race featured in the movie or the various ship configurations beyond the easy obvious ones in the original three movies, so I'll be watching the movie as someone who has seen all of the other movies but doesn't have an encyclopedic knowledge of the universe."That's what I meant by "casual observer." People who had seen all the movies leading up to this one (the three original movies and the two prequels) and came in looking to be entertained.I wouldn't say "requires explanation" for my group, if indeed I'm in one of those groups. I said it in another thread: if you're swimming in a lagoon, and you can't see the bottom, it's either because the water is deep, or because the water is murky. Deep is good. Murky is not. Episode III was not deep enough for the problems to be the result of deep mythic themes that can only be understood by people who work hard to study its intricate mysteries. That's my group: the group that thought it had promise but ended up not living up to that promise because of poor execution on the director's part.On a just-me note, I'm disappointed that so many people don't seem to care about lousy dialogue, as this means that the movie industry will not take this as a message that the dialogue in their movies has to improve -- just as if the movie had lame enviornments and wonderful dialogue, I'd be a happy camper but several people here would be complaining that we need to send a message to movie-folks that they have to have better effects and more CG-intensive environments in their movies.</blockquote>

Verification