Comments on: #20 Undeniable Fact About TPM

By: Tpm | TagHall

Tpm | TagHall — Sun, 18 Mar 2012 09:16:12 +0000

[...] pictures . Lib TPM Research Project « Kristin R. Eschenfelder . TPM « unitecupv2011apgm . #20 Undeniable Fact About TPM « . TPM 3D: What Worked, What Didn’t, What Could Be Better [...]

By: Stefan Kraft

Stefan Kraft — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:14:54 +0000

Except for the “I have seen TPM five times now, and it gets worse every time I see it” fans.

By: Stefan Kraft

Stefan Kraft — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 22:11:50 +0000

Well, I think that “The Secret History” acknowledges the 60 + something % at RottenTomatoes, but then notes the only 40 + something % of “Cream of the Crop”, i.e. professional critics (I think?). I do not know whether zombie really does the contextual errors taffysaur points to or not. To be honest, I am not interested in checking (at least now), so I’ll just stick to my statement that even the “Cream of the Crop” reviews, while not “fresh”, consider the prequels still better than many other movies. (“Deep Impact” or “Armageddon”, for instance – and “Contact” is on the level of TPM and AotC at RottenTomatoes. Why does no one bash this movie?)
Who knows, maybe the re-releases will improve the overall rating.

By: lazypadawan

lazypadawan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 16:51:22 +0000

Ugh, I wouldn’t rely on “The Secret History” for anything. The author’s followers are just as fanatical as the RLM crowd. As taffysaur noted below, it’s hard to compare a time when most film critics were professionals who worked for newspapers, magazines, and network television versus a time when any dork with a computer could be called a critic.

By: taffysaur

taffysaur — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 15:12:52 +0000

sometimes the star review seems lower, but the review is a positive one, by virtue of how praiseworthy it is.
he raved about aotc on release, but then when reviewing rots he said clones was ‘mired in pseudo-profundity + solemnity’ or something. total 180°, like he was remembering what public sentiment seemed to be rather than his own memories (and the public are not movie critics)

as for secret history of star wars, the writer (zombie off theforce.net) does make a fair few factual/contextual errors. one of which is mixing retrospective reviews among contemporary (which is a mistake you could make if you just checked metacritic or rottentomatos or someth), therefore getting a skewed view on critical reaction, coloured by time, fading memory + cultural trends.

By: Stefan Kraft

Stefan Kraft — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:31:02 +0000

I must say I enjoyed Avatar – certainly not the most intelligent movie of the planet, but good for me to have a good time.
One thing however for sure: the PT certainly had the more intelligent story, by far IMHO.

By: Stefan Kraft

Stefan Kraft — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 11:28:16 +0000

Didn’t Roger Ebert only gives 2 out of 4 stars to AotC, but 3 1/2 to TPM and RotS? Whatever, at least there’s a well-known movie critic that does not think that the prequels suck, far from it.
About “the OT movies were not as well reviewed as the PT movies when they were released…” I have read a statistic (Secret History of Star Wars, I think) that says the contrary. Depends on how you measure, I guess…
However, bashers will argue that the OT movies (with the exception of RotJ of course because Ewoks suck* ) have been recognized as classics while the PT movies still only get mixed/bad (and no positive?) reviews. This may be true, but you could then argue that all the bashing did not help to set the record straight, either… But then bashers will answer that the PT movies do not need to be defended if they were so good… But then…
Anyway, I think that the majority of the “average” movie critics and moviegoers has never considered the PT movies as bad as the bashers claim the PT movies are: that’s what the reviews on RottenTomatoes and IMDB tell you (not ultra-positive reviews, rather mixed, but still not the catastrophe most of the bashers see in them).

*Don’t get me wrongo, I like Ewoks, I am just quoting the bashers.

By: lazypadawan

lazypadawan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:25:58 +0000

Right. Hype doesn’t make you see a movie 10 times.

By: lazypadawan

lazypadawan — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 04:22:17 +0000

The odd thing with movies is that their success is measured by box office, which makes sense in comparing which is more popular among contemporaneous releases in a given weekend, month, or year but doesn’t make sense over the long term because of inflation/changing ticket prices. An album or book’s popularity is measured by unit sold, even downloads. Ticket sales are not counted. Adjusting for inflation is as close as that gets.

I’ve heard though that the most successful film of all time isn’t really “Gone With The Wind,” it’s “Deep Throat.” But porn isn’t counted with mainstream releases.

By: taffysaur

taffysaur — Sun, 22 Jan 2012 01:16:57 +0000

tickets sold would certainly put phantom menace in the top movies of all time, but then you have people saying that it was so hyped it couldn’t help but sell that many (bull, of course. no-one made you see it 8 times), + that we should note the poor critical reaction to the prequels.
here’s the things tho– *at the time of release*, the prequels were reviewed better than the original trilogy. only a new hope manages to squeeze in amidst the prequels at number two highest-rated, but it’s still second to revenge of the sith.
like i said, it’s only once the bandwagon starts up that critics start revising their opinions (roger ebert *adored* attack of teh clones when it came out, but when reviewing rots (+ praising hell out of it) he said it was a better movies because it rectified the many flaws of its predecessors)

it’s telling that you say only “one old dude” found something to dislike about tpm.
i.e; someone who wasn’t a kid (therefore not particularly invested) upon the original movies’ release.