 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes? If that was the only bad thing about the movie, I'd have enjoyed it; terrible acting, terrible dialogue, too much unsignificant special effects crammed in every scene (much like the special edition rape of the original trilogy), too many uninteresting characters, annoying annakin, jar jar, boring story, battles don't have sense of danger to them... If I'm not a true SW fan for not liking the prequels, so be it. But critique, I must. Crap, they are. It's my opinion, seeing them again wont change it believe me; tried, I did!
There is a reason why with the original trilogy audience grew and more people went to see it; with the prequels, each time a new one was released, the line got shorter; when I went to see Phantom Menace, it was sold out and you'd have to wait for the next show; By the time I went to see Revenge of the Sith, there was a small crowd on opening night (!) and most people weren't there to see Star Wars. Can you imagine that?
P.S. It was the same deal with the Matrix movies, first movie huge crowds, by the time the third movie was out people over here didn't even bother anymore.
Sorry but you are being completely delusional here.Revenge Of The Sith was an even bigger hit than Attack Of The Clones.It grossed over 850 million dollars during its theatrical run and was the biggest hit of 2005 in the united states.
So id say the audience grew and grew! Any more ridiculous fantasies you want to throw out there?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 5:00 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Taxes? If that was the only bad thing about the movie, I'd have enjoyed it; terrible acting, terrible dialogue, too much unsignificant special effects crammed in every scene (much like the special edition rape of the original trilogy), too many uninteresting characters, annoying annakin, jar jar, boring story, battles don't have sense of danger to them... If I'm not a true SW fan for not liking the prequels, so be it. But critique, I must. Crap, they are. It's my opinion, seeing them again wont change it believe me; tried, I did!
There is a reason why with the original trilogy audience grew and more people went to see it; with the prequels, each time a new one was released, the line got shorter; when I went to see Phantom Menace, it was sold out and you'd have to wait for the next show; By the time I went to see Revenge of the Sith, there was a small crowd on opening night (!) and most people weren't there to see Star Wars. Can you imagine that?
P.S. It was the same deal with the Matrix movies, first movie huge crowds, by the time the third movie was out people over here didn't even bother anymore.
Sorry but you are being completely delusional here.Revenge Of The Sith was an even bigger hit than Attack Of The Clones.It grossed over 850 million dollars during its theatrical run and was the biggest hit of 2005 in the united states.
So id say the audience grew and grew! Any more ridiculous fantasies you want to throw out there?
By box office he is still correct.
Phantom Menace made a lot more money globally and domestically than either of the next two. Phantom Mencace lowered the expectations for what followed.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Taxes? If that was the only bad thing about the movie, I'd have enjoyed it; terrible acting, terrible dialogue, too much unsignificant special effects crammed in every scene (much like the special edition rape of the original trilogy), too many uninteresting characters, annoying annakin, jar jar, boring story, battles don't have sense of danger to them... If I'm not a true SW fan for not liking the prequels, so be it. But critique, I must. Crap, they are. It's my opinion, seeing them again wont change it believe me; tried, I did!
There is a reason why with the original trilogy audience grew and more people went to see it; with the prequels, each time a new one was released, the line got shorter; when I went to see Phantom Menace, it was sold out and you'd have to wait for the next show; By the time I went to see Revenge of the Sith, there was a small crowd on opening night (!) and most people weren't there to see Star Wars. Can you imagine that?
P.S. It was the same deal with the Matrix movies, first movie huge crowds, by the time the third movie was out people over here didn't even bother anymore.
Sorry but you are being completely delusional here.Revenge Of The Sith was an even bigger hit than Attack Of The Clones.It grossed over 850 million dollars during its theatrical run and was the biggest hit of 2005 in the united states.
So id say the audience grew and grew! Any more ridiculous fantasies you want to throw out there?
By box office he is still correct.
Phantom Menace made a lot more money globally and domestically than either of the next two. Phantom Mencace lowered the expectations for what followed.
The Phantom Menace was the first SW film in over 16 years.Hype and anticipation was HUGE.Its no wonder it made that amount of money.
Attack Of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith came out within three years of each other.They were massive successes.Revenge of The Sith increased its audience from AOTC and was the biggest hit of 2005.
The guy was making it sound like they were massive flops ' NO ONE WENT TO SEE IT OPENING WEEKEND AT MY CINEMA! I SWEAR I WAS THE ONLY ONE WATCHING IT!! THAT MEANS IT WAS A FLOP! WAAAH GEORGE LUCAS YOU RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!!!! '
So therefore he is incorrect.He is just a delusional hater.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 5:15 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Ado
(Member)
|
Taxes? If that was the only bad thing about the movie, I'd have enjoyed it; terrible acting, terrible dialogue, too much unsignificant special effects crammed in every scene (much like the special edition rape of the original trilogy), too many uninteresting characters, annoying annakin, jar jar, boring story, battles don't have sense of danger to them... If I'm not a true SW fan for not liking the prequels, so be it. But critique, I must. Crap, they are. It's my opinion, seeing them again wont change it believe me; tried, I did!
There is a reason why with the original trilogy audience grew and more people went to see it; with the prequels, each time a new one was released, the line got shorter; when I went to see Phantom Menace, it was sold out and you'd have to wait for the next show; By the time I went to see Revenge of the Sith, there was a small crowd on opening night (!) and most people weren't there to see Star Wars. Can you imagine that?
P.S. It was the same deal with the Matrix movies, first movie huge crowds, by the time the third movie was out people over here didn't even bother anymore.
Sorry but you are being completely delusional here.Revenge Of The Sith was an even bigger hit than Attack Of The Clones.It grossed over 850 million dollars during its theatrical run and was the biggest hit of 2005 in the united states.
So id say the audience grew and grew! Any more ridiculous fantasies you want to throw out there?
By box office he is still correct.
Phantom Menace made a lot more money globally and domestically than either of the next two. Phantom Mencace lowered the expectations for what followed.
The Phantom Menace was the first SW film in over 16 years.Hype and anticipation was HUGE.Its no wonder it made that amount of money.
Attack Of The Clones and Revenge Of The Sith came out within three years of each other.They were massive successes.Revenge of The Sith increased its audience from AOTC and was the biggest hit of 2005.
The guy was making it sound like they were massive flops ' NO ONE WENT TO SEE IT OPENING WEEKEND AT MY CINEMA! I SWEAR I WAS THE ONLY ONE WATCHING IT!! THAT MEANS IT WAS A FLOP! WAAAH GEORGE LUCAS YOU RAPED MY CHILDHOOD!!!! '
So therefore he is incorrect.He is just a delusional hater.
Oh so you are up early too.
No they certainly were not flops by any means. For myself the last one had the most meat and drama, and the least of Hayden makes lovey looks, so it was the best of the three. It also plain looked the best.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 5:53 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Jim Phelps
(Member)
|
Since we're discussing the quality of the prequel films, I can say that for me personally the absence of a Han Solo-type element to those films kept me from being interested, among many other things, but the lack of a delicious scoundrel like Han was sorely missed. I never cared much for Luke, Yoda, the Jedi Knights, and all that mysticism (and subsequent Midi-Chlorians).
In fact, when my friends and I played with our Kenner Star Wars action figures, we created our own characters which were made "cool" by establishing their "space cred" as being friends of Solo's. lol Only one of my childhood pals favored Luke and all that overly-serious stuff.
I guarandamntee you that if Lucas had put a Han Solo type character in the prequels, there would have been a ton of criticism along the lines of ' Lucas is so unoriginal, he puts a Han Solo rip off character in the prequels '.
No offence intended, but this is more ' The prequels did not look and sound like the movies i grew up watching as a kid therefore it sucks ' mentality.
No offense taken. This is just Star Wars after all. I don't cling to the original trilogy like a newbie Jedi Knight nervously clutching his Lightsaber in his first big duel as many in my generation do.
As for your assertion that the appearance of a Han-type character would bring further criticism, I disagree. The fact that Mos Eisley once again reappeared in TPM would have been perfect for another scoundrel. There was that Wattoo(?) landspeeder salesman and he was one of the few things in the movie I liked; he was trashy as hell. lol
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 10:08 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
My point is, it wasn't the "universally reviled" film many people claim it was.
For all intents and purposes, The Phantom Menace was probably the first film to fall under the now common category of Internet Hate. Word of mouth on the film was bad because so many people (read: internet nerds, Star Wars nerds, nerds in general, etc) were posting about it and (at least I think) a lot of people who were only mildly disappointed read the really angry posts and it created something of a snowball effect. This is something we now see so regularly, we know the type intuitively and can dismiss it very quickly. Well, in 1999, it was something new and since it ingrained its self so much in so many people's heads, so long ago - thats sort of the reason the film still has such a bad mantra.
It also doesn't help that so many people seemingly staked their personal image on a film series that was at that point 20 years old. There really is no way of winning in that scenario, so it ended up disappointing a lot of people.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 11:46 AM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Francis
(Member)
|
My point is, it wasn't the "universally reviled" film many people claim it was.
For all intents and purposes, The Phantom Menace was probably the first film to fall under the now common category of Internet Hate. Word of mouth on the film was bad because so many people (read: internet nerds, Star Wars nerds, nerds in general, etc) were posting about it and (at least I think) a lot of people who were only mildly disappointed read the really angry posts and it created something of a snowball effect. This is something we now see so regularly, we know the type intuitively and can dismiss it very quickly. Well, in 1999, it was something new and since it ingrained its self so much in so many people's heads, so long ago - thats sort of the reason the film still has such a bad mantra.
So there was a widespread (it was the internet after all) conspiracy of nerds and haters who trashed the image of Phantom Menace irregardless of the quality of the movie? That's not even including film critics and journalists who had little good to say about it as well. Well I wasn't on the internet back then reading reviews or fora, I saw the film and based my opinion on my experience of the film, not what nerds on the internet said. In regards to your premise, I will say that the opposite was true as well; people hyped into liking the movie for its special effects and Star Wars label, but just because it has Yoda doing back flips in it doesn't make it a Star Wars movie to me.
It also doesn't help that so many people seemingly staked their personal image on a film series that was at that point 20 years old. There really is no way of winning in that scenario, so it ended up disappointing a lot of people.
Again, I disagree. Back before Phantom Menace, people were looking forward to the prequels and the new Star Wars movies much like they are today. The only difference is that back then we got 3 George Lucas movies that sucked, and now we will be getting movies by your favorite director JJ Abrams who IMO has already proven twice he can direct Star Wars and actors acting in green screen environments. That at least gives me a new hope (pardon the pun). But I guess I must be a disillusioned optimist in that regard. 
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 12:30 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
Tall Guy
(Member)
|
The kid that they cast in the primary roll in TMP was really not a very good actor.
MikeJ -
Yes, this! Jake Lloyd was a terrible actor. Why on Earth Lucas cast him in the first place is beyond me. Lloyd's performance in Jingle All the Way should have told him everything he needed to know about Lloyd's lack of acting skill (frankly the moose in Jingle All the Way would have made a better young Skywalker).
But you have to give Lucas his command of continuity. Having cast a dreadful actor in the role of young Anakin Skywalker, he then casts that talentless plank Hayden Christensen as the adult incarnation. I could just about accept the brat's lack of talent but the portrayal of Skywalker in Episodes II and III was just excruciating.
There is no better example of Christensen's total lack of talent than the scenes in Episode II on Naboo where he tries to seduce Padme. Seriously, Haystack Christensen's performance here makes Richard Kiel's acting in The Humanoid look like Laurence Olivier. Obviously Lucas' script doesn't help but frankly even if Woody Allen, Neil Simon or David Mammet had written the words the delivery would have still been dire in the extreme.
It's obviously quite telling that Christensen (aka "Woody The Actor") has not exactly had a steller career since he phoned in his performance as Mannequin Skywalker.
Tom Servo -
Anakin is supposed to be awkward when trying to seduce Padme, he's never done it before and pretty much all of us guys at the age of 19 or 20 were awkward in doing the same. I think Hayden did a nice job in bringing this across, with a puffed up sense of confidence that all guys at that age imagine will impress the girl. And we all tripped over ourselves in the manner. But hey, maybe every other guy on this board was some Lothario with the ladies at 19 years old, which is why Hayden's portrayal didn't connect with you.
Me -
I'm afraid I agree with Mike on this. Even if Tom's theory is correct, and Hayden was aiming for false bravura masking shyness, I'm sorry to say that he missed it by several light years. And I'll never forgive him for dragging Portman down with him in that scene. It was like some nightmarish Ikea advert where a wardrobe is trying to jump a chest of drawers.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Posted: |
Oct 24, 2013 - 2:13 PM
|
|
|
|
By: |
LeHah
(Member)
|
I'm afraid I agree with Mike on this. Even if Tom's theory is correct, and Hayden was aiming for false bravura masking shyness, I'm sorry to say that he missed it by several light years. And I'll never forgive him for dragging Portman down with him in that scene. It was like some nightmarish Ikea advert where a wardrobe is trying to jump a chest of drawers.
When it comes to acting, the prequel movies are very easily a split vote: those who actually CAN act (Ewan McGreggor, Liam Neeson, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Sam Jackson) and those who obviously cannot act at all (Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Jake Lloyd - though I don't blame him, he was a *child* - Keira Knightley).
|
|
|
|
|
|
I'm afraid I agree with Mike on this. Even if Tom's theory is correct, and Hayden was aiming for false bravura masking shyness, I'm sorry to say that he missed it by several light years. And I'll never forgive him for dragging Portman down with him in that scene. It was like some nightmarish Ikea advert where a wardrobe is trying to jump a chest of drawers.
When it comes to acting, the prequel movies are very easily a split vote: those who actually CAN act (Ewan McGreggor, Liam Neeson, Ian McDiarmid, Christopher Lee, Sam Jackson) and those who obviously cannot act at all (Natalie Portman, Hayden Christensen, Jake Lloyd - though I don't blame him, he was a *child* - Keira Knightley).
Did someone mention oscar winning Natalie Portman cannot ' act at all '?
I thoght the acting was fine from all the major players in the prequels.I also find it funny when certain original trilogy fans blast Hayden Christensen for his ' whiny ' performance but somehow look at Mark Hamills whiny acting ( in at least his first two SW films ) through rose tinted glassses.
' But i was going into town to pick up some POWER CONVERTERS!!!! '
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Did someone mention oscar winning Natalie Portman cannot ' act at all '?
I thoght the acting was fine from all the major players in the prequels.I also find it funny when certain original trilogy fans blast Hayden Christensen for his ' whiny ' performance but somehow look at Mark Hamills whiny acting ( in at least his first two SW films ) through rose tinted glassses.
' But i was going into town to pick up some POWER CONVERTERS!!!! '
Agreed on Hamill. Even as a nine-year-old seeing TESB in the theater, I cringed with his "NOOOOOO! THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!!!" or whatever the line was. Putrid then and now.
There is an odd similarity between both Hamill and Christensen playing their roles in both trilogies which may or may not have been intentional on Lucas's part.Luke often acts ' whiny ' in his first two movies but matures a lot by the time of ROTJ.Both the character and the actor is better.
In my opinion the same is true for Christensen.He is a ' whiny ' teenager in AOTC but matures a lot by ROTS.Christensens performance is better too.I will say that i thought his performance in the ' confession ' scene in AOTC was very good and one of the best scenes out of all the movies.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
