Upgrade your account to a Community Supporter account and remove most of the site ads.
Rocket your D&D 5E and Level Up: Advanced 5E games into space! Alpha Star Magazine Is Launching... Right Now!

Reply to thread

Message: <blockquote data-quote="Wayside" data-source="post: 2266656" data-attributes="member: 8394">Well, part of my response to this is something that might seem a bit radical, but I'm going to say it anyway: I don't think people really know why they like or dislike a lot of things. Oh, they can offer lots of reasons, that's true, but that doesn't make them the right ones, and this can play in a lot of different ways. Some of the "reviews" panning RotS I've read, for example, were clearly written by people who weren't going to like the movie under any circumstances anyway. Naturally they used a few of those old standbys people who like to sound "objective" are always trotting out--dialogue, pacing, acting, et al.--but it's pretty obvious the level of scorn they offer has nothing to do with these mythical words, which are bogus anyway.This leads me to part two of my response. Where are these timeless standards of dialogue, pacing, acting people are always on about? Are the patches of "bad" dialogue, "poor" pacing, "uninspired" acting (what an unbearably Romantic phrase that last one is) so much harder to spot in your favorite books and movies, or even in the really "great literature" of the world? Or did that many people miss the train, around the last decade of the 19th century, where the Neo-Aristotelian unities were finally thrown out for good? I'm pretty confident neither is true. I simply think this pseudo-objectivity feeds the impulse of the "haters," to use the opposite of "fanboys," by giving them a mathematical excuse for what is ultimately as equally historical a bias against the prequels as the fanboys have for them. Basically, it makes their disatisfaction "add up"--but it isn't, to my mind, the source of that disatisfaction at all.While it's certainly true the movies would make less money, wouldn't have midnight showings etc., RotS--assuming a rewritten version that would actually make sense as a standalone movie--would not only survive but do quite well. People would eat it up, because it doesn't need anything abstract like "virtues" or "merits"--save that stuff for the totalizing moral systems used in facile RPG's like vanilla D&D; they have no place in aesthetics at all, much less in the aesthetics of Star Wars, of all things. And I'm not saying all acting, all writing, all directing is equal, only that there is no timeless standard. The question isn't whether these things are good or bad, but whether they work in this movie or not. For those who have predecided against the movie, of course they won't work. But the movie isn't thought bad because they don't work--they don't work because the movie is thought bad.I found it to be the worst scene in all of Star Wars, personally.</blockquote>

Verification