Which really makes them look clueless and out of touch, doesn't it? They weren't even all directed by the same person, not to mention the fact that the producers, conceptual designers, and special effects teams were different. Except for that pesky CGI thing... Putting the PT on the same level as the OT will always be a false equivalency no matter how one tries to sell it. The alleged critical reception of the OT was vastly at odds with their reception by the viewing public, while the prequels were largely reviled by the general public.
Critics are not "the general public", so film reviews are irrelevant. Set Harth's statement is false because it's directly and definitively contradicted by the Prequel Trilogy's financial success, which was sustained across all 3 films' release and was driven almost overwhelmingly by general audiences. If the "general public" didn't like the Prequels, they would not be among the highest -grossing films of all time.
Making money is not the same thing as being liked. Anyone can make money of the "Star Wars" name. Also we nerds we tend to even support bad things if it's part of a franchise that we love. It reminds me of that "Simpson's" ep were Comic-Book guy comes out of the "Star Wars" movie and says something like "worst movie ever" and then get's in line and says something like how he is going to see it 3 more times that day. Jason
90%+ of the revenue earned by the Prequels came from general audiences enjoying the films, so the argument that the Prequels only earned money because of the Star Wars brand doesn't hold up.
"Star Wars" though is a brand bigger than just about anything. There is no general audience when it comes to "Star Wars" because almost everyone loves it. Even people who don't care a flip about sci-fi seem to like it. Jason
Yes, even my mom, who hates science fiction and Star Wars, actually went with me to watch these films. Star Wars, especially TPM, is a huge draw, with it being the first Star Wars film in 16 years. That's an event, regardless of fan status.
Episode III was Uber(oober?) successful, popular with critics, and popular with audiences. It was the highest grossing film of 2005(domestic), with the highest grossing opening weekend, and 2nd highest(worldwide)
Things can be good and make money: Marvel CU series, Lord of the Rings, etc. Things can be bad and make money: Transformers, Twilight, etc. Things can be okay and make money: Avatar, The Fast and the Furious, etc. Just because a lot of people go to see something, that doesn't mean they all love it by default.
As if simply ticket sales was the only criteria I mentioned. And....the success of Episode III in those 3 aspects wasn't after a 16 year wait, but was after Episode 1 & 2 had already been released. The critical reaction to episode 1 was mixed. 2 was better, but still mixed. 3 was not only praised, but did way better at the B.O. than 2. That's pretty darn good for a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel, of a sequel. In the OT, it went the opposite. The first one received all this high praise. It was the biggest box office success ever. The second one received mixed reviews, and grossed about 69% of what A New Hope made. The third was even more mixed. Some downright negative and grossed about 61% of what A New Hope made.
Adjusted for inflation, ESB and RotJ still did better than any of the PT. As has TFA. This argument is a non-starter.
Short, sweet, and to the point. But, ROTS was also the culmination of what Lucas was trying to tell, and there was the promise of cool stuff in this one, including how Vader becomes Vader. It was still hyped up, between Celebration, marketing, and the like, it was not a small event. Regardless, as noted by the post quoted before yours, B.O. money does not mean a quality narrative. It means lots of people went to see it and spent money on it. I saw it once in the theater, and that was enough for me. Others found it far more compelling and interesting and I'll not deny them that. But, if we are going to use B.O. money as benchmark for quality than Transformers should be rated next to the Godfather, and Star Trek (2009) should be the greatest of all Star Trek films.
I don't remember being disappointed after seeing TPM. The only thing that was disappointing me at the end was that the music in the credits didn't seem as strong near the end as it had in the (at the time) other three films. Anakin's theme was kind of placid....until something, I thought I heard something. I dismissed it at first, but thought "Did I hear that?" Then it happened again just before the ending of the credits...the Imperial March...Darth Vader's theme. Followed at the very end by the breathing of Darth Vader. At that point I knew what Lucas was doing. He was setting this all up for Episode III and the coming of Darth Vader. The rest wasn't of consequence, everything was going to lead to Vader.
At the risk of repeating myself, B.O. success wasn't the only benchmark I made note of. You guys keep bringing up Transformers. That line of thinking can equally apply to the original trilogy. I'm not sure how fitting the comparison is. I only saw the first one, but it wasn't a bad movie at all. It's kids movie for sure, and 11 and 12 boys love them. Can we objectively appraise Transformers? Was the studio and filmmakers satisfied with the film they set out to create? As a side note Mark Hamill likened The Force Awakens to Transformers. I've heard a lot of "bad" and "awful" this and that, and probably a few other generic adjectives describing generic aspects of 3 whole movies. Not a lot of substance here. Fireproof at least has given some specific examples of why he doesn't care for certain things. I've yet to hear what is objectively bad for all audience members.