This Article Gets it Right! (Star Wars Related)

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

OK, here is my issue with this idiocy:

Transformers. I'm a HUGE HUGE fan of the Generation One of Transformers (1984-1987 era). But I either dislike or absolutely dispise almost everything past 1993 (with a few exceptions).

However, I do NOT post on (let alone moderate) Transformer websites and rant ON and ON and ON telling everybody about my own opinion about Transformers and get into arguments about how much better G1 Transformers are than anything currently out there! I am perfectly happy with keeping this to

myself, enjoying the "G1" Transformers, letting people love the new era Transformers, while promptly ignoring all post-G1 TF's and not getting into fights with people who love said post-G1 TF's.

It makes NO sense why you people do this. Absolutely none.

-Chris, Who believes that JWFan's message boards are the only MB's in the WWW where the leading posters troll each other and the common-sense people get ridiculed for not seeing things eye to eye...

... AND expecting the painfully obvious return comment from one of 3 or 4 JWFans who will STILL argue against my point, again for no other reason but trolling their own friends... in 3... 2... 1....

[JoeinAR 1,949]

when Transformers gets as big as Star Wars Chris, then bring it up again and it might have meaning.

[Chris ChrusherComix 46]

"As I pre-DUCTED."

-Stunticon in Masquerade

It's got a HUGE cult status and the toys are worth quite a bit more than Star Wars toys right now (both made by the same company and TF topped Star Wars off of the charts in 1984, which is one reason why 1985 Star Wars toys are so painfully rare). It's a different beast. Star Wars was movies first, Transformers was toys first... but the original storylines made the toys so popular.

Plus, you missed my point, sir.

[JoeinAR 1,949]

no I got your point, I just chose to ignore it.

still you and I seem to have little problem with the ROTS score.

[StrongBad992648 0]

That article was complete biased trash. It manipulates facts in order to get its point across. If you personally don't like the new star wars films, that's fine...but I suggest picking a better poster child, or spring board for your arguments.

What really stuck out to me firstly is the fact that they use an example of Ebert. They cleverly use his review of Attack of the Clones, which was, in fact, negative. But...I wonder why they didn't use his review of Phantom Menace...oh...perhaps to get more of a view of the critics' opinions? Nope...Ebert liked the Phantom Menace. But the casual reader won't take the time to go check that out. RIGHT THERE I lost respect for the article.

When Lucas was talking about critics hating all of his movies, he was mostly referring to studio critics. We all know the crap he got while making the original Star Wars. Let's not forget with the prequels that many critics still loved them. But of course the writer doesn't mention that.

Pure biased crap.

[Lurker 5]

When Lucas was talking about critics hating all of his movies, he was mostly referring to studio critics.

That's a new one on me. And you know he had the full support of Alan Ladd Jr. who ran 20th Century Fox while Star Wars was being made, right?

Neil

[Jeshopk 8]

Yeah, it was biased. A scientific examination would handicap the prequels for the fact that spectacular special effects and epic orchestral music have become more common in movies today. Star Wars 4-5 were phenomenons due to their place in history. By the time of RotJ, there were enough movies that had copied 4 and 5, and had used ILM, that audiences and critics were no longer easily impressed. Does anyone really think if Kubrick's "2001" came out for the first time in 2005 it would make any money? Put things in perspective.

[StrongBad992648 0]

And you know he had the full support of Alan Ladd Jr. who ran 20th Century Fox while Star Wars was being made, right?  

Yeah I do know that Neil...but he also had been turned down by countless other studios. And then Fox itself was breathing down his neck the whole time. And were you aware that the first edit of Star Wars was panned so heavily that he went back and re-edited the whole film? Not to mention even his actors were constantly giving him a hard time. If you only watch the documentary on the DVDs you hear him say that he's always worried everybody will hate the one he's doing at that moment. And he usualyl has to go through a lot of crap to get it made.

Am I saying you should like the prequels? No. I hate Citizen Kane...does that make it a bad movie? Hell no...plenty of people love it. But it's just a movie I don't like. Yes yes...bad comparison because all the critics loved that movie. But you know what I mean. I just don't respect any article that tries to be seen as a nuetral piece of writing when in fact it had a side chosen from the beginning.

[A24 4,326]

... Ebert liked the Phantom Menace.  But the casual reader won't take the time to go check that out.  RIGHT THERE I lost respect for the article.

So? Ebert likes TPM! What difference does that make? Are you saying that because of Ebert the article has got it backwards? Do you believe that critics in general prefer the prequels over the first series? Do you believe that the prequels have more heart, more romanticism and humor? Didn't the academy nominated 'Star Wars' for one of the best films ever? Have I been dreaming?

It's a living consensus, people! Not every critic thinks the newer films are bad but I think it's safe to say that a vast majority does. Why do you shut your eyes?

----------------

Alex Cremers

[A24 4,326]

Yeah, it was biased. A scientific examination would handicap the prequels for the fact that spectacular special effects and epic orchestral music have become more common in movies today. Star Wars 4-5 were phenomenons due to their place in history. By the time of RotJ, there were enough movies that had copied 4 and 5, and had used ILM, that audiences and critics were no longer easily impressed. Does anyone really think if Kubrick's "2001" came out for the first time in 2005 it would make any money? Put things in perspective.

Oh boy! Now we only loved it for the effects, right? Keep dreaming, Jeshopk.

[Adam 1]

The issue with Ebert was brought up by the article. He selectively used quotes that fit his thesis. I happen to think his thesis is probably correct, although maybe less so then he tries to pretend, but its not convincing to quote a handful of critics and make it seem like that represents some sort of critical consensus. Using Ebert?s criticism of AOTC works against the author because Ebert liked TPM. So a person could just as easily select quotes in a way that made it seem TPM was a very well-received film and, look, even Ebert thinks so. That would be equally unconvincing.

I just want to know what percentage of professional reviewers didn?t like Star Wars when it FIRST came out - emphasis on first. I think it might give some interesting answers and maybe there?s some truth to Lucas?s statement that a lot of critics didn?t like that film. Of couse, its not surprising when critics and the academy jump on the bandwagon down the line after it becomes a huge phenomenon. Nor would it be surprising if the critical voices that existed at the time felt it was better to slink away quietly and not bring up their initial criticisms, however valid they might be. That would later create what you call a living consensus that maybe wasn't there when it first came out. Or maybe that didn?t happen but the point is that that article doesn?t really help get to the bottom of it.

- Adam

[A24 4,326]

When Star Wars was first released on the Wednesday before Memorial Day in 1977, it arrived in theaters with good reviews and excellent advance word. It didn't take long for it to become a phenomenon.

- James Berardinelli

1) Variety May 1977: Star Wars is a magnificent film. Lucas set out to make the biggest possible adventure fantasy out of his memories of serials and older action epics, and he succeeded brilliantly. Technical crew, drawn from the entire Hollywood production pool of talent, equal the genius of Walt Disney, Willis O'Brien and other justifiably famous practitioners of what Irwin Allen calls 'movie magic.

2) George Lucas' delightful science-fiction adventure fantasy "Star Wars," opening today at the Uptown, is a new classic in a rousing movie tradition: a space swashbuckler.

- Gary Arnold Washington, Post Staff Writer, Wednesday, May 25, 1977

3) Using 70mm Panavision, with Technicolor prints by Deluxe and ear-splitting Dolby Sound, the LucasFilm Ltd. production is one of the most entertaining films of its type yet done. The special effects, conjured up by an army of experts, are non-stop and the action is first rate. Few fantasies have been made with such a sense of humor and the script contains virtually every cliche to be uttered in a war film or adventure epic; the actors -- especially Harrison Ford in a Chevy Chase-like performance -- add to the fun by delivering their lines in an off-handed way.

- Box Office June 6, 1977

4) "Star Wars," which opened yesterday at the Astor Plaza, Orpheum and other theaters, is the most elaborate, most expensive, most beautiful movie serial ever made. It's both an apotheosis of "Flash Gordon" serials and a witty critique that makes associations with a variety of literature that is nothing if not eclectic: "Quo Vadis?", "Buck Rogers," "Ivanhoe," "Superman," "The Wizard of Oz," "The Gospel According to St. Matthew," the legend of King Arthur and the knights of the Round Table.

All of these works, of course, had earlier left their marks on the kind of science-fiction comic strips that Mr. Lucas, the writer as well as director of "Star Wars," here remembers with affection of such cheerfulness that he avoids facetiousness. The way definitely not to approach "Star Wars," though, is to expect a film of cosmic implications or to footnote it with so many references that one anticipates it as if it were a literary duty. It's fun and funny.

- Vincent Canby, May 26, 1977

5) Every once in a while I have what I think of as an out-of-the-body experience at a movie. When the ESP people use a phrase like that, they're referring to the sensation of the mind actually leaving the body and spiriting itself off to China or Peoria or a galaxy far, far away. When I use the phrase, I simply mean that my imagination has forgotten it is actually present in a movie theater and thinks it's up there on the screen. In a curious sense, the events in the movie seem real, and I seem to be a part of them.

"Star Wars" works like that.

The movie works so well for several reasons, and they don't all have to do with the spectacular special effects. The effects are good, yes, but great effects have been used in such movies as "Silent Running" and "Logan's Run" without setting all-time box-office records. No, I think the key to "Star Wars" is more basic than that....

- Roger Ebert, 1977

[Adam 1]

Your response is on point but, again, I think we would need to have something like the RottenTomato Meter or whatever its called. That would give a very wide overview of all the critical reaction. Right now I'm sure its in the 90s but its using a lot of reviews that came later for the rerelese and that kind of thing. And the reviews talk about what a phenomenon it was.

Its not that I discount the thesis in the article - in fact I would be amazed if Star Wars wasn't better reviewed on the whole as compared to the prequels. On the other hand, I'm open to the idea that there was still a quite a bit of criticsm at the time that we don't hear about now. I'm sure somebody has investigated this, its just a matter of finding it. I think its open question until somebody can cite something more complete.

- Adam

[igor 0]

Yes Alex, I have already said that I like the prequels in previous posts, but what amazes me is you. You always strike that pose of the wise know-it-all, and then you come to us calling this a good article. First it proves nothing, second as has been stated, it manipulates information. Third, how can you take an article seriously when one of its sections is entitled: WHY EWOKS, which is why I said it sounded like a fanboy complaining. And now you want to prove beyond doubt that this article is good. I think I would say this article makes you feel good.

Please, defend 2001 or Planet of the Apes with all that you've got, but not this drab.

Igor

[A24 4,326]

Igor, the article says "Critics used to love Star Wars". I already found 5 rave reviews dating from right after its release!!! Does that seem like nonsense to you? The New York critics called it the best movie of the year. It received many awards. The Academy even nominated it for best movie 'ever'!

I call it a good article because it I believe that what it says is true. I believe in it because I've been saying the same things since 1983. I recognize its content. On the other hand, it is in your best interest to disregard it and to look for holes because you like the prequels. Therefore, if George Lucas says, "critics have always disliked Star Wars ", it suddenly becomes truth for many Star Wars geeks, because then the critics would be wrong about the prequels too.

[A24 4,326]

Please, defend 2001 or Planet of the Apes with all that you've got, but not this drab.Igor

May I defend Blade Runner too?

[igor 0]

On the other hand, it is in your best interest to disregard it and to look for holes because you like the prequels.

And it is in your interest to defend it. People keep on ranting about critics and the academy awards and blasting away about how box office income is not really that important, and suddenly (directing a jab at Stefancos) this is an article in which its argument is well defended?? So what if the critics liked the first two, you, the author and some of the members here are using this lamest of excuses to blast everything that came after Episodes 4 and 5.

An article that only talks about Ewoks and Jarjar as weaknesses in the film, presenting this fact reads like a fanboy complaining, nothing more. A very weak article indeed, and I repeat: if you identify with it, enjoy it by yourself, but don't even try to 'prove' how solid this drab is.

Igor

[JoeinAR 1,949]

May I defend Blade Runner too?

yes you may, but I won't agree with you still.

[A24 4,326]

On the other hand, it is in your best interest to disregard it and to look for holes because you like the prequels.

And it is in your interest to defend it. People keep on ranting about critics and the academy awards and blasting away about how box office income is not really that important, and suddenly (directing a jab at Stefancos) this is an article in which its argument is well defended?? So what if the critics liked the first two, you, the author and some of the members here are using this lamest of excuses to blast everything that came after Episodes 4 and 5.

An article that only talks about Ewoks and Jarjar as weaknesses in the film, presenting this fact reads like a fanboy complaining, nothing more. A very weak article indeed, and I repeat: if you identify with it, enjoy it by yourself, but don't even try to 'prove' how solid this drab is.

Igor

Why is it in my interest to defend it? The movies it praises are already worldly acknowledged and recognized. The prequels, whether you believe it or not, are not. What more "proof" do you want? Declarations of scientists? A judge's ruling? A symbol in the sky?

[A24 4,326]

May I defend Blade Runner too?

yes you may, but I won't agree with you still.

Why do you think that I want you to agree with me? The movie's reputations speak for themselves, Joe.

[Lurker 5]

An article that only talks about Ewoks and Jarjar as weaknesses in the film, presenting this fact reads like a fanboy complaining, nothing more. A very weak article indeed, and I repeat: if you identify with it, enjoy it by yourself, but don't even try to 'prove' how solid this drab is.

It doesn't just blast Ewoks and Jar Jar. It points out the strengths of Star Wars and Empire and where the other films have come up short. And it proves Lucas is wrong when he said that critics have always given bad reviews to Star Wars. It's simply not true.

Neil

[JoeinAR 1,949]

May I defend Blade Runner too?

yes you may, but I won't agree with you still.

Why do you think that I want you to agree with me? The movie's reputations speak for themselves, Joe.

It doesn't matter, but I think you should be able to defend it, just as I should be able to detract from it.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

What many Prequel freaks also seem to ignore is that many of those who are very vocal about their dislike for the prequels went to the cinema in 1999 in excitement, glad that after all these years there was finally a new Star Wars film.

I wanted to love TPM, i desperatly tried to love it, but in the end there was nothing to latch on too.

I wanted to believe AOTC would correct all the errors Lucas made in TPM and that he would finally deliver the goods.

But again....

Sigh me too, I really really wanted this to work, alas it just didn't. And neither did AOTC. It's all just so incredibly dull and superficial.

HOWEVER, ROTJ is quite a decent movie. I've never been disappointed with the movie overall. Oh sure the dialoque is blah, the acting of many actors subpar, but the story and drama is still there. Childlike of course, amateuristic, but still there. The atmosphere was good. This movie has problems, certainly, but it REALLY doesn't compare to anything prequel related. That's on a whole new level.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

Would it even matter?

Anf they can include boring wooden Ford too, in an attempt to revive his career.

Han with earring, now THAT'S a rebel!

Don't forget the parrot on his shoulder.

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

How about a storyline where Luke embraces the dark side and kills Harrison Ford's Han Solo out of revenge for Ford having a more sucessful career than he had.  

It would be perfect! Luke kills out of envy just like his father did and for rrying to take his woman Leia away from him.  

Sounds good to me. You could end it with Luke taking his rightful place as the new Emperor with Leia at his side.  

Now there is a finale worth a damn!

It's too made up and forced (hardyharhar) for my likes.

"The biggest problem in this universe is that...everything's related to everything and that everyone's related to everyone."

Well well well, I guess it's a small universe after all.

[Luke Skywalker 1,792]

Have you guys read the Star Wars trilogy Infinities comics?

Lots of different plot twists there... The ewoks are evil there...

[Lurker 5]

The ewoks are evil there...

The Ewoks are evil everywhere.

Neil

[fommes 153]

LOL

[fommes 153]

I don't really get where you guys are getting at. I was under the impression that Star Wars did get good reviews, as Alex pointed out. And that's the point of the article, no? A critic who corrects Lucas who said something about critics. And of course he doesn't have much place for long arguments, you should take that into account, but what he says, he's right about I think.

Oh, and I wanted to like The Phantom Menace too. I actually thought Attack of the Clones was an improvement in comparison with that one.

[Rogue_Leader 2]

How about a storyline where Luke embraces the dark side and kills Harrison Ford's Han Solo out of revenge for Ford having a more sucessful career than he had.  

It would be perfect! Luke kills out of envy just like his father did and for rrying to take his woman Leia away from him.  

Sounds good to me. You could end it with Luke taking his rightful place as the new Emperor with Leia at his side.  

Now there is a finale worth a damn!

It's too made up and forced (hardyharhar) for my likes.

"The biggest problem in this universe is that...everything's related to everything and that everyone's related to everyone."

Well well well, I guess it's a small universe after all.

No .... thats Hollywood!

[igor 0]

Well Alex, box office numbers, Academy Awards, and the author's rantings are still not proof, whatever that may mean. Anyway, this is not the issue I am discussing. All I want to say is that this article voices some personal opinions, and is very weak and biased. It simply shoots itself in the foot when it starts to generalize.

As for Neil, what you state is already taking us back to the issue of whether you like what the author tells you or not. The only thing the author tentatively 'proves' is that critics MAY have tended to prefer A New Hope and Empire more than the others(although I think that is true). As for the rest, I could copy and paste passages from this messageboard and come out with a more decent result.

Igor

[A24 4,326]

Well Alex, box office numbers, Academy Awards, and the author's rantings are still not proof, whatever that may mean. Anyway, this is not the issue I am discussing. All I want to say is that this article voices some personal opinions, and is very weak and biased. It simply shoots itself in the foot when it starts to generalize.

Igor, it doesn't shoot itself in the foot because it's saying that critics used to like Star Wars, which is true. And I never mentioned box office numbers. All what you try to do, as a fan of the accused movies, it try to find one fault in the text, so you could dismiss it as a whole.

---------------

Alex cremers

[igor 0]

If you caught my drift, you would understand that I meant everything EXCFEPT the inconsequential issue of the critics.

Look, this is a vicious circle we are starting. I am going to stop my side of this rather unimportant argument ,unless something different comes out of it, after I state that I am not a blind fan of the prequels and that if anyone read me that article any other time, I would never take it seriously for reasons irrelevant to the films themselves. How can I when it starts with a relatively solid premise (on critics) and ends like this:

Now that the series is coming to an end, there are reasons to believe that Lucas will forget about Jar-Jar and the Ewoks and find his way back to that level. “Revenge of the Sith,” which focuses on the transformation of Anakin Skywalker into Darth Vader, will necessarily be a darker “Star Wars” movie than any previous episode. Here’s hoping it’s more than just a downer.

?????????

Igor OUT

[The Prick vs The DD 0]

How about a storyline where Luke embraces the dark side and kills Harrison Ford's Han Solo out of revenge for Ford having a more sucessful career than he had.  

It would be perfect! Luke kills out of envy just like his father did and for rrying to take his woman Leia away from him.  

Sounds good to me. You could end it with Luke taking his rightful place as the new Emperor with Leia at his side.  

Now there is a finale worth a damn!

It's too made up and forced (hardyharhar) for my likes.

"The biggest problem in this universe is that...everything's related to everything and that everyone's related to everyone."

Well well well, I guess it's a small universe after all.

No .... thats Hollywood!

Or Bollywood. Let's compromise and say it's a small world after all.

[MrScratch 294]

I remember Time magazine had a piece on AOTC a week or two before it was released giving it a positive review, saying that the "heart and soul" of Star Wars is back. My local paper, the Baltimore Sun, gave AOTC a pretty positive review also. That's about all I remember.

Generally speaking though, how often do critics give glowing reviews to a franchises third, fourth, fifth (or more) entry in the series.