I Sense A Problem With The Force

[Imran Siddiqui]

That's a far cry different from saying a movie where the heros ultimately lose = a bad movie .

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why don't we put it to a vote. Your viewpoint is decidedly in the minority. Most people place ANH almost akin to ESB in quality and RotJ much lower.

I don't think you can speak for "most people," and I think your lowering of RotJ against ANH in this regard is a little unwarranted.

But even so, it doesn't matter. What makes a movie good or bad isn't popular consensus. Gladiator, Titanic, Forest Gump, etc.

It's cliche now, because movies have aped Star Wars in that regard.

Right. Nobody ever did that story before.

So I take it you've never watched any film made before 1977?

Ass-backwards again, Imran: It was Lucas following the cliche--he certainly didn't create that plot device.

The rest was irrelevant piffle.

Remember, "Star Wars" (ANH) was the only one of them nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award.

Yeah, and why was it? Because it was something new and different wrt being a space opera. You yourself claim ESB is better--so why did it not get nominated and ANH did? Are you saying *GASP* the best movie might not have garnered the award nods that it deserved? And could that mean that movies that do get nods might be undeserving? I wonder...

Don't just take my word for it, what about movie critics?

[/QUOTE]

So I take it you believe that every movie that has high praise from a majority of critics are good films? That you agree with every tomatometer average?

Lessee:

Face/Off: 93%
Spy Kids: 92%
Titanic: 86%
Bram Stoker's Dracula: 86%
Forest Gump: 78%

Those are all bad movies in their own special way. Yet critically lauded. I wonder what could cause that? Could critics get caught up in the sweep of popular sentiment over novelty films? Could they also be under the thrall of traditional popular notions for Star Wars (since those tomatoes are not from the original release, anyway)? Maybe a lot the critics, many of whom grew up on Star Wars, would be a little blind to the flaws in the movie? I think that's pretty possible.

I do find it amusing that you've basically implied that you are a slave to the tomato meter, though.

[Imran Siddiqui]

I think your lowering of RotJ against ANH in this regard is a little unwarranted.

It's totally warrented. RotJ is all just buildup to the final confrontation. Everything else is irrelevent, but is needed so we can have a 1.5 hour movie.

Ass-backwards again, Imran: It was Lucas following the cliche--he certainly didn't create that plot device.

Lucas was following mythological story types, but it certainly wasn't movie cliche at that time.

Because it was something new and different wrt being a space opera. You yourself claim ESB is better--so why did it not get nominated and ANH did?

ESB had tougher competition. Compare the Best Pic nominees in 1981 with the ones in 1978. Though "Raging Bull" should have probably won in 1981, IMO.

So I take it you believe that every movie that has high praise from a majority of critics are good films? That you agree with every tomatometer average?

Lessee:

Face/Off: 93%
Spy Kids: 92%
Titanic: 86%
Bram Stoker's Dracula: 86%
Forest Gump: 78%

I thought Face/Off was a pretty good movie. Great fun and Cage and Travolta played really well against each other, especially in the change of personalities.

Spy Kids is rated on a view of whether kids would appreciate it. Its rated with them in mind and their parents. I haven't seen it. It may be that good.

Titanic is definetly not as bad as has been stated around. 86% may be a little higher than I would have given it. But 80% isn't that far, and that's what I would have rated it. Great effects for one. Btw, the Cream of the Crop rating is 68% with an average rating of 6.6, which is much lower than the all inclusive rating and a better indicator of quality, IMO.

Bram Stoker's Dracula was definetly fun, even though Keanu looked like he got lost to the costume party. Oldman is fabulous in anything he's in. He's one of the most underappreciated actors of our generation.

Forest Gump is rated pretty low (78% is not good) and is not a bad movie. Actually I remember it being pretty fun when it came out.

I don't agree with every consensus rating (such as the English Patient), but I think they are mostly spot on the money. And even for those I disagree with, I can see how the intended audiences would have liked them.

Could they also be under the thrall of traditional popular notions for Star Wars (since those tomatoes are not from the original release, anyway)? Maybe a lot the critics, many of whom grew up on Star Wars, would be a little blind to the flaws in the movie?

And that explains the piss poor ratings for RotJ how? If anything RotJ should have gotten similar ratings based on that logic. They grew up with that movie as well... it was the finale.

I do find it amusing that you've basically implied that you are a slave to the tomato meter, though

Not a slave (only you would think someone saying "don't just trust my word, but how about some movie critic opinion" means someone is a 'slave' to that critic opinion), but when a consensus of critics think a movie is pretty damned good, they probably have a good case. Much better than non-critics on random message boards (ie, all of us). I tend to trust the consensus judgement of critics a little more than someone who says they are all a bunch of idiots.

And the Tomato Meter hasn't steered me wrong yet in picking a movie to watch, so I'll stick with it.

[Brent]

RotJ would not be as good without the buildup. Jabba mattered.

Faceoff, Spykids, and Dracula I can tell by the titles I have no interest in watching. Titanic was pure garbage. Gump was mostly garbage, and most of what's left was garbage in disguise.

[Ted Striker]

Originally posted by joncha

Well done!!!

[Dis]

Originally posted by Ted Striker
Can't nobody replace Han mf'ing Solo

he's really the ony thing that made the originals halfway decent.

[Dinner]

What silly people. If they want to see the movie that bad they should just do what everyone else does and download it off the internet.

[Ted Striker]

[joncha]

Han Solo

[joncha]

Shooting first

[Tuberski]

No disrespecting teh SOLO!!!!

ACK!

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Japher
I hope Triumph goes and interviews them.

That would be sweet.

[Sikander]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
[b]A movie where the heroes ultimately lose = a bad movie.{/b]

Um.. no. Actually that usually makes a good movie. Rocky got an Oscar and the hero loses.

And Rocky sucked. The defense rests.

I've seen all of the Star War Movies (I think) and they suck overall. The best one IMO is Star Wars. The next two were horrible, both plagued with horrible scripts and weak acting. Harrison Ford is way overrated and while Carry Fischer is a decent actress she is miles away from being able to make those scripts come alive. And note to filmmakers: The more Muppets the worse the film.

The modern Star Wars films have enormous budgets and much better actors. Unfortunately they still have weak scripts, and are built on the base of the crappy first trilogy. I just don't give enough of a damn about the characters or their world to make me care about what happens in these films. I only see them for the special effects now. For writing and giving a sh!t about the characters / universe I'd sooner watch reruns of Star Trek, DS9 or even TNG.

[RGBVideo]

Originally posted by Japher
You mean... you go.... outside?!

[Boris Godunov]

Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's totally warrented. RotJ is all just buildup to the final confrontation. Everything else is irrelevent, but is needed so we can have a 1.5 hour movie.

Huh? The exact same thing can be said for ANH. I see little difference in the "relevance" of their plots.

Lucas was following mythological story types, but it certainly wasn't movie cliche at that time.

Okay, Imran, sure. No films had ever featured story lines about redemption. I find it most amusing you would assert this. What's more, it's decidedly weak in ANH. They don't even establish Han as much of a rogue, and then all the does is come back in the last 5 minutes and shoots a few ships. Such redemption...

ESB had tougher competition. Compare the Best Pic nominees in 1981 with the ones in 1978. Though "Raging Bull" should have probably won in 1981, IMO.

I don't see why Raging Bull should have won in 1981, since it had already had its shot at the academy awards in 1980...

But I don't see much difference in the nominees from those years. And consider that everything Lucas did win was solely on technical achievement. Which reinforces my point--people were enthralled by the special effects and space opera aspect, not that it was a well-written or well-acted or well-directed movie.

And your comments about the movies I listed just reinforce the point that you have crap taste in movies. Looks like you've pwned yourself. And I don't see how you can say 78% is "bad" for ratings? What the hell? If 78% of critics give positive reviews, I'd say the overall critical trend is that they liked the movie.

And that explains the piss poor ratings for RotJ how? If anything RotJ should have gotten similar ratings based on that logic. They grew up with that movie as well... it was the finale.

80% is hardly piss-poor. You are just establishing an arbitrarily high cutoff point so you can claim such an average is "piss-poor."

Yeah, RotJ is rated lower, but you have to take into account the "been there, done that" factor when comparing it to ANH. ANH was something that was, on a technical scale, very new and exciting for people. RotJ was simply simply old hat by the time it came out in this regards. ANH got away with its bad script/acting/etc. because people were enthralled by the new spectacle. RotJ didn't have that luxury.

I tend to trust the consensus judgement of critics a little more than someone who says they are all a bunch of idiots.

In general, yes, I do as well. But, there are often times when the critics are patently wrong. I'd say probably about 75-80% of film critics have no business being in their profession and are, in truth, just armchair hacks. Even respectable critics are prone to jumping on popular bandwagons when movie "events" like ANH appear. That's exactly what happened with Titanic and Forrest Gump. People all jumped aboard these because they were little movie phenoms. But once people stepped back and cleared their heads, they realized, "hey, these movies are crappy!"

I don't think ANH is crappy. Lord knows, it's better than the two prequels so far. But I think it's overall less enjoyable than RotJ. It is boring for long stretches, which RotJ never is. They both are prone to really dumb plot scenarios. But RotJ makes for a more enjoyable experience overall, simply because it's got better action, better acting and (slightly) better directing.