[Prequel dialogue coach]

WOW. a people choice award is a real indicator of quality.

[Darth Player]

WOW. a people choice award is a real indicator of quality.

Yeah, but nobody is saying what kind of strapless number Dakota Fanning was wearing that evening.......

[jariten]

WOW. a people choice award is a real indicator of quality.

*sigh*

I even put the salient points of the article in bold so they wouldn't be missed...

too subtle for some, it seems.

[Prequel dialogue coach]

so it was widely watched? big deal. so was armageddon.

it was voted by fans? i started posting on here cos there was no point in trying to discuss the prequels with prequel fans on other sites like TFN, imdb etc. the overwhelming majority of them thought ROTS was a much better film than empire strikes back for example, citing "more action", "better characters", "yoda in cgi" and "more emotion". they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to star wars. for them its neverending mindless lightsabre duels and CGI.

[jariten]

they don't know what they're talking about when it comes to star wars.

Why?
Ah, because they don't agree with you. Ok I get it now

Sith received the highest accolade it could- credit from the paying, movie going public.
Sure, you can try to shoot them down with a nice "they're all idiots! they dont know what a good film is!" line. The funny thing is is thats exactly what Lucas critics back in the day said about that original mammoth popcorn movie.
Of course now they've mutated into untouchable classics, and critics are too scared to recall those days, instead turning their attentions to the new SW films, bashing the exact same elements that are all present and correct in the OT too.

and so it goes on and on and on.

[Despondent]

and so it goes on and on and on.

Your blind eye to the Prequels inferiority.

[Prequel dialogue coach]

"Sure, you can try to shoot them down with a nice "they're all idiots!"

never said that.

"Ah, because they don't agree with you. Ok I get it now"

the very things that made star wars great were replaced in the prequels. the new films have bread a new culture of fans. it's not a case of them not agreeing with me, but them not agreeing with star wars. those things i put in inverted comas are real quotes. if people seriously believe that and stick by them then they are really don't know what it is that made star wars so special.

here's a quote from gary kurtz during the making of Empire:

"As shooting lagged further behind, Lucas and Marcia arrived back in London. 'Paul Hirsch (editor) had put together a rough assembly, and it was pretty slow', says kurtz. 'George didn't like it at all'. In a fury, he attacked Kurtz, Kershner and Hirsch, raging, 'You're ruining my movie!' Over the next two days, he recut the whole film, throwing out the early wampa sequence shot by kurtz, and discarding almost all the love scenes. The result was a confused mess, going for action at every cut. 'It was awful', says Kurtz, 'It was chopped into tiny pieces, and everything was fast.'
In the embarassed silence that followed the screening, Hirsch persuaded Lucas to calm down and take a more considered look at the film."

This post has been edited by Prequel dialogue coach: 13 January 2006 - 01:19 PM

[Harmonica]

Using the People's Choice Awards as a determination of quality? Now, that's just silly.

A widely watched measure of movie, television and star appeal.

I won't try to argue that point. The program has fair ratings. However, ratings of an Award show do not determine the quality. The Academy Awards typically get higher and I sincerely doubt if anyone on the planet agrees with every judgement ever made there. Otherwise, this statement is just an opinion from a single person who wrote an article. That's hardly a sign of greatness.

winners are voted on by fans who cast ballots online, unlike other Hollywood honors given by industry groups and the media.

Okay, okay. I see where you're coming from. But I can name another organization that involves passing judgements on movies that involves fans who cast votes online. It's called the Internet Movie Database.

Wait, I'm getting ahead of myself. Let's first go over the Official specifics of the People's Choice Awards:

1. At the year's end, a panel of approximately 6,000 men and women ages 18-54 (Meant to be representative of the entire U.S.) chooses from a set of candidates the top three of each category the nominations.

2. The Nominees for Favorite Movie were: Batman Begins, Hitch, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith.

3. For a period of several days, online users were able to vote multiple times in each category. The limit was one vote for each category every twenty-four hours, with bots, viruses and the like automatically rendering themselves disqualified.

4. Twenty-one million votes were counted.

5. Stars Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was pronounced the best movie.

Now then, that's all fine and dandy and Happy as Hindu Cows. If we assume that this is the Be-All-To-End-All-Alpha-Omega-Absolute-100%-Final-Word-On-Quality, then sure, it's the ultimate measure of how good a movie is, and Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was the best movie of the year.

Not so, according to the IMDB. See for yourself. Top 250 Movies of all Time. On the Top 250 Movies of All Time, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is currently number 241 with a 7.8 average. So looking at the three nominations, if we go by the IMDB, Batman Begins (#110 with an average of 8.1) was highest rated movie of the three, and therefore the Favorite Movie of the Year. But they're not choosing only out of the best three movies.

Note: Again, this is as voted by fans online. Of course, you can argue that the 70,000 users who voted such are insignificant compared to the 21 million of the People's Choice Awards. However, the IMDB doesn't work like such. It categorizes the votes by Demographic Distribution so that the final average is indicative of the entire public. Also, unlike the People's Choice Awards, each user is entitled one vote per movie, the voting period has been several months, and the range of the voters lies from all ages and English speaking countries. If sorted by year, the IMDB uses a much larger, more inclusive sample of movie-goers where the list of Nominees is every movie of the year instead of a pre-selected list of candidates. So it all evens out.

So let's go back further. By nomination process, which is much more apt for comparison between the two. If you weight the IMDB votes as you weight the People's Choice Award Panel, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith does not make the cut for nomination. It doesn't even make the top Five (That's hardly "the highest accolade it could", given from the *same* paying, movie going public). Going by this method, it turns out that Downfall's actually the best movie of 2005. And the IMDB is at least as applicable as The People's Choice Awards. Surprise, they're contradicting each other!

Or, to give another online source of voting, let's go by the scorecard of the critics.

Well, according to this, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is the 43rd (or 46th if you want) best movie of the year with Brokeback Mountain currently winning.

So there you have it. Three different sources. Three different ways of voting. Three different Best Movies of the Year.

All things considered, I could now say that because the IMDB and the Critics say so, this proves that Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith sucks. I won't, because all three lists rely on arbitrary methods that involve different people of different tastes polled. Allow me to rephrase: Each list is pure garbage and equally useless. You can repeat however many internet votes you want in however many different methods you want with however many different people you want. The 'Right' List is completely subjective. To give credence to one list and ignore the others because they hold differing views is to submit to personal bias, ignoring all the facts and simply choosing the one whose views reflect your own. The lists didn't matter back then and they don't matter now.

That said, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith sucked. At his age, Lucas can delude himself with the notion that all the lists against him are from some nefarious colition of sinister old movie critics who don't understand his movies, conspiring against him and his billion-dollar empire, while all his 'True, Loyal' Fans swallow his movies and love them unequivocally like the brainless, zombie cattle he thinks we are. And he can convince himself that Flannel's in style and that he's some macho model of male virility and awesome greatness. He can even believe that middle age has not completely eaten away all of his mind and talent. But I'm not buyin' it.

This post has been edited by Harmonica: 13 January 2006 - 11:29 PM

[jariten]

an impressive post, but you trip on the first line.

Using the People's Choice Awards as a determination of quality? Now, that's just silly.

Who on earth ever tried to argue that?

SW are a series of entertaining popcorn flicks, pure and simple. They have been since '77. For the paying, movie going public to acknowledge that is the greatest compliment they could give Lucas.

and that is a fact.

[Despondent]

Incidentally, have you ever noticed that sometimes the popcorn isn't as good as it should be?

[Harmonica]

an impressive post, but you trip on the first line.

My mistake. I had incorrectly assumed that some people had a large enough attention span to read more than one line of text.

For the paying, movie going public to acknowledge that is the greatest compliment they could give Lucas.

You're repeating yourself. So, I'll repeat myself: No such compliment was ever given. The People's Choice Awards is hardly an indication representative of the paying, movie-going public either. You can look over my last post to see why, but if you can't be troubled to do so, I'll make some new points.

21 Million votes were tallied on a choice between three movies. To get Favorite Movie, only eight-million votes are needed. Moreover, the option to vote once a day was present, thereby allowing a single user ten votes. If we take this to be true, Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith needed only 800,000 votes. Now am I saying that it only got 800,000 votes? No. It's possible that every user voted once, and that Hitch or Batman Begins got 10 million to the 11 Million of Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith. It's even possible that Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith got all twenty-one million. But those would all be an assumption. I would be just as qualified to say it got the lowest amount possible.

Moreover, of those three movies, the IMDB, comprised of the same paying, movie-going public voted Batman Begins higher. But even more so, the collective, paying, movie-going public fans of the IMDB voted all three of the Original Trilogy Movies Higher. Using that logic, it would be easy to say that it "proves that the paying, movie-going public prefer the Originals". But that's not logic because it, like the People's Choice Awards, is skewed. They're both equally qualified (read as: useless), so the only reason to choose one over the other is if one lets his or her personal bias cloud their choice. The same is true of all polls. I could poll the people of a site entitled "The Nitpicker's Guide to Star Wars" over their opinions of the Prequels and the Originals and then pretend that that is the final word of the Star Wars fanbase. Would that make it true? No, and the only people who would say that it was true would be those with a matching opinion, i.e. personal bias.

and that is a fact.

That's a rather high view of your own opinion, isn't it?

[jariten]

Its not an opinion.

What are the other alternatives to judge popularity on? gathering a census on every person in every country who watched a film this year?
In the realm of the feasible, quantifiable realm of the popular vote, the PCA's are the best we have.

It doesn't make RotS a good movie (although I certainly thought it was), but it does make it a popular one. Which is a fact, and which is all that SW has ever asked to be.

[Despondent]

Great posts, Harmonica. Thanks for coming up with new points, and I appreciate your patience.

[Harmonica]

Its not an opinion.

Sorry to argue, but I have to disagree with you there. A fact is indisputable, irrefutable, and undilutable. Even assuming that Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith got all 21 Million votes and that everyone voted once (both of which seem unlikely), that is but a small fraction of the paying, movie-going public, which did not actually vote on whether or not Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith was actually the Favorite of the Year, but rather a Favorite of the three choices given. That's hardly any of the above. You can say that your opinion is fact as many times as you wish, but that does not make it so.

What are the other alternatives to judge popularity on? gathering a census on every person in every country who watched a film this year?

As I said before, I'm of the personal belief that the practice of judging popularity by such votes is a fool's errand. Yes, the world-wide census method would appease me, yet, as you say, it's not feasible. This is why all popularity votes used will be inherently flawed. But if you simply want an alternative method, again, I bring up the Internet Movie Database as a source. It is equally, if not more qualified than the People's Choice Awards in the matter of judging popularity.

In the realm of the feasible, quantifiable realm of the popular vote, the PCA's are the best we have.

Umm... Huh?

If that's a fact, then you can surely support this. I'm familiar with the subject and I've provided my thoughts on the subject with evidence to support, but I'm still honestly curious as to how you came to your decision. Could you tell me why you give the People's Choice Awards more credence than the IMDB or any other source? What are the solid reasons, other than personal bias, to take the People's Choice awards over, for debate's sake, just the IMDB?

Are you aware that even the people behind the People's Choice Awards don't believe that they're the last word? The People's Choice Awards is an amorphous, always changing entity. The current style of vote has only been adopted for the last two years. The other thirty years were determined by a rather sizable gallup poll. The odds are, the system used this year and the last will be changed in a couple years ago as well.

It doesn't make RotS a good movie (although I certainly thought it was), but it does make it a popular one. Which is a fact, and which is all that SW has ever asked to be.

By all means, you can argue that Star Wars: Episode III: Revenge of the Sith is a good movie or a popular one, but my main point is that you can't use the People's Choice Awards to to qualify either one. And unless you back anything up, you're still dealing in opinions. Not facts.

[Paladin]

Well I dropped back by and decided to make a post.

One thing that I'd like to say about the ratings that Star Wars Episode III gets may not be honest on part of the reviewers or critics or voters. I've read a lot of 'positive' reviews on Rottentomatoes.com because I consider myself to be an open-minded type of guy. What I discovered is that there was more negative criticism of the movies than there was positive in those reviews that I've read even though they labelled the movie 'good' in the end. I firmly believe that those critics also believe that those movies are bad but refuse to accept it, both on the inside and out.

All I can say is, you KNOW that the Star Wars prequels aren't good, but they refuse to accept them and instead find all sorts of arguements and reasons to think of them as good. I would daresay that the only reason why Star Wars won the People's Choice Awards is because it was Star Wars! It's that, pure and simple. Had it not been for the massive social phenominon that it created back in the 70's and 80's I would daresay that it would have made a major loss in the box office and recieved more bashing than any other movie of the year... other than Alone in the Dark, of course.