folk who are disappointed with the prequels are we in the minority?
#1
Posted 07 December 2004 - 05:26 PM
#2
Posted 07 December 2004 - 06:05 PM
~ Voltaire (1694-1778)
Enjoy this Tribute to Nazism...(Mp3)
#3
Posted 07 December 2004 - 07:42 PM
#4
Posted 07 December 2004 - 10:44 PM
Those who do stubbornly defend the prequels are, as I said above, probably living in a state of denial, blindly clinging to the prequels because they're connected to something they loved in their childhood. Fans of the TV series "Friends" continue to defend it as "one of the best sitcoms of all time" even though it was only funny for the first five seasons, refusing to acknowledge that the last five seasons of its ten year run sucked. Similarly, "The Simpsons" isn't really all that funny anymore, but people refuse to believe that it isn't funny anymore because they remember its glory days so fondly.
I still enjoy watching reruns of the old GI Joe, Transformer, Thundercat and He-Man cartoons, but I can't deny that they're kind of campy.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#5
Posted 08 December 2004 - 12:26 AM
Are we in the minority in hating the prequels? Well, I don't know. On internet forums, I think we definitely are. But that's because there's a lot of 14 year old brats out there who are posting on things like the Force.Net. Serious reviewers hate the prequels. I've never come across a single good review for any of the prequels from a credible source*. So I think there's plenty of people out there who hate these movies. They're just not discussing it on internet forums.
* Credible sources. Ie. People who have it right about most movies. For instance, if somebody thinks the Titanic is the greatest film ever made, their opinion is worth nothing. If somebody believed Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom was anything more than a goddamn awful sorry excuse of a film, then their opinion is worth even less.
#6
Posted 08 December 2004 - 03:04 AM
#7
Posted 08 December 2004 - 04:53 AM
Well as logic defing arguments, some of those were pretty good. Couldn't I just as easily say "PT bashers dont like the PT are just blinded by their love of the OT" or some other insubstantiated rubbish?
so by 'credible source' what you actually meant to say was 'someone who agrees with you'. What kind of a basis for impartial critical anaysis is that?
Anyway, I think I should probably keep my beak out of this one. Just try to imagine that there might be people in the world who appreciate things you dont, who have different tastes to you and oh you know...
#9
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:22 AM
What was the 2nd Mrs. Spielberg thinking?
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#10
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:23 AM
On to your other comment I think there can be debate about what JYAMG said. As I told him he should have probably used more universally poor films, such as, well, a lot of crap coming out in theaters now. Try replacing "Titanic" with "Gigli" and "Temple of Doom" with "Anacondas curse of the blood ruby" and you'll understand what he meant.
I think a reviewer can enjoy temple of doom, or claim Titanic to be the best movie ever. If they can justify that and have actually paid attention to the competition that's fine. Just as long as they didn't like "Anaconda curse of the blood ruby"
Quote
#11
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:24 AM
What was the 2nd Mrs. Spielberg thinking?
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#12
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:35 AM
- J m HofMarN on the Sand People
#13
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:54 AM
Oh and sorry that I posted the "Temple of Doom" remark twice, I was having a little bit of posting mishap.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an obi-wan to go.
#14
Posted 08 December 2004 - 12:10 PM
Re: Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom
It's also a good example of how somebody can love a truly shit film. Read the debate when someone came to its defense and you'll see what I mean.
Certain films can be completely objectively viewed as crap. If people like them, it doesn't make them any less crap. It just means that the said people have bad taste.
And if I didn't believe that a film can be inherently, irrefutably bad then I wouldn't have posted on this forum in the first place.
But anyway. As you were.
#15
Posted 08 December 2004 - 08:06 PM
the difference is... that the latest simpsons aren't AS funny as appose to being shit!
i mean they still get quality gags in... they've rust run out of steam... but they're rolling on the tracks even though they're loosing momentum...
but they are still watchable...
the major diffenerence is that all post 80s SW material on film sucks ass...
it's not just inferior quality... it's BAD!!!
the people who love them grew up in a world of realaity TV and sitcoms with titles that describe the sit. (ie. Friends, Two Guys and a girl), and worst of all non-violent cartoons...
it's not about clinging... it's about sucking...
not all people who like the prequels suck though...
i mena we all have our guilty pleasures... action films and what nots... that are silly but we love them anyway... and i could see how people who have't been obsessed with starwars for 27 years could go without being offended by these films...
so i don't hate them...
but any one over 25 should know better!!!
Also: The Chefelf.com Lord of the Rings | RoBUTZ (a primative webcomic) | KOTOR 1 NPC profiles |
Music: HYPOID (industrial rock) | Spectrox Toxemia (Death Metal) | Cannibalingus (80s style thrash metal) | Wasabi Nose Bleed (Exp.Techno) | DeadfeeD (Exp.Ambient) |||(more to come)