Feel free to use this thread for all debates about whether the prequels sucked or not. This way, the other threads don't have to be derailed by this argument constantly popping up where it's off-topic.

Only YOU can prevent thread jacks!

Yeah, I guess the falling out came/discussion really started when someone called the PT objectively bad.

I agree however that they are objectively bad movies. That is not to say they didn't have any redeeming features, but once I appreciate a movie more for its set pieces, species portrayal and locales and they are universally disliked for their script, acting and direction it is not a stretch to label them as objectively bad movies.

I certainly agree the first two had some pretty major flaws, but I thought the third one was no worse than average.I feel like to a certian degree, it suffers unfairly due to its predecessors.

I certainly agree the first two had some pretty major flaws, but I thought the third one was no worse than average.I feel like to a certian degree, it suffers unfairly due to its predecessors.

This I can agree on.

I resist the attempted use of symbolic violence by the elite telling me that anything creative can be "objectively" anything at all. It lays a claim to truth, which in this context is only a by product of the contemporary social discourse and the position it offers the actors to take, what can and cannot be said and accepted isn't necessarily true "objectively", but certainly socially. Cultural capital is or should no longer be handicapped by the idiocy of the elite, subjecting everyone else to symbolic cultural violence, which is meaningless. I despise attempts to equate social truth claims with so-called "objective" truth claims, it's what causes wars, genocide and hate in this world. There. I said it.

In other words: I enjoy the prequel trilogy, they may not be comparable to 2001: a space oddyssey, citizen kane, metropolis, dune or blade runner, but so what? Socially a group may agree that the prequel trilogy is bad, sucks or whatever, but another group may agree that they like it, think it's good and so on, neither is more or less right or wrong than the other. Because the premisses might differ - and taste differs.

Objectively bad?

objectively - adjective

• not influenced by personal feelings, interpretations, or prejudice; based on facts; unbiased

bad - adjective

• of poor or inferior quality; defective; deficient

I understand some people have strong feelings about the prequel trilogy, but to call them objectively bad is a bit extreme. If that were the case, one would thing a majority of people would agree. Do they? I don't think so. Looking at Rotten Tomatoes, probably the most objective source for reviews online, the prequels score as follows:

• Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace
  • Reviewer score: 57%, with 109 "Fresh" and 82 "Rotten"
  • Audience score: 60% liked it. Over 1.1 million viewers rated it.
• Star Wars: Episode II - Attack of the Clones
  • Reviewer score: 65%, with 146 "Fresh" reviews and 73 "Rotten" reviews
  • Audience score: 60% liked it. Over 830,000 viewers rated it.
• Star Wars: Episode III - Revenge of the Sith
  • Reviewer score: 85%, with 202 "Fresh" reviews and 51 "Rotten" reviews
  • Audience score: 65% liked it. Over 33 million viewers rated it.

Given those scores, I would say the prequel trilogy could not be called objectively bad, and that those who think they are bad are actually thinking subjectively. While it is true that these numbers can't stack up to the original trilogy ( The Empire Strikes Back received 96% and 97% reviewer and audience ratings, respectively, with A New Hope receiving 93% and 96%, and Return of the Jedi scoring 78% and 95%), that doesn't make the films objectively bad, only objectively worse .

Actually you can judge movies and other cultural byproducts by a different standard than the age old "it is all a matter of taste" yard stick. Because a. there are criteria that can determine quality besides this and b. it is not all a matter of taste. Plain and simple taste and especially the taste of the masses is in fact a terrible means of determining quality.

Now, and I want to be extremely clear about this, I do not think people should not enjoy these movies, because who am I to tell them they are wrong.

However, quality is not determined by how many people enjoy a certain thing. If it was then The Phantom Menace would be a better movie than 2001 is, considering the amount of money made by the former, the number of people that viewed it and the number of people that like it all far exceeds the latter.

By that same logic McDonalds would be a better restaurant then NOMA and I think the masses would be better of sticking to Big Macs anyway, this is not to say I look down on them, I don't. however they don't know **** about food.

Hell, I'll one up you! There are people that like to literally eat **** but I think we can all agree that **** is not quality food. Objectively.

However, quality is not determined by how many people enjoy a certain thing. If it was then The Phantom Menace would be a better movie than 2001 is, considering the amount of money made by the former, the number of people that viewed it and the number of people that like it all far exceeds the latter.

You are right, quality is not determined by how many people enjoy a thing, but quality can be assumed based on a broad sample of people, some of whom like and some of whom dislike a thing. Take your example - 2001: A Space Odyssey versus The Phantom Menace . We can automatically discount the three variables you offered...

• ... amount of money made
• ... number of people who viewed the film
• ... number of people who liked the film

... because none of those things objectively tell us if more people liked each film than those who disliked it. In the case of The Phantom Menace , only 57% of the reviews were good, and just 60% of the viewers liked it. In the case of 2001: A Space Odyssey , 95% of the reviews were good, and 89% of the viewers liked it. And while a much smaller sample of viewers have reviewed the movie, one can assume that a sample size of nearly three hundred thousand viewers (roughly the population of Wichita, Kansas) would provide a reasonable cross-section of the populace, thus providing a more objective barometer of "good" or "bad" than gross profits, number of viewers, or number of people who liked the film.

Your food comparison is also a false equivalency. More people eat at McDonald's because...

1. ... it's less expensive, and...
2. ... there are far more McDonald's restaurants (33,000 - 14,000 in the U.S. alone!) than there are Noma restaurants (only one), and...
3. ... McDonald's restaurants have much easier access, as Noma is a singular restaurant in Copenhagen, a city with a population of just over half the number of viewers who have reviewed The Phantom Menace .

I would wager than if you were to poll McDonald's eaters vs. Noma eaters on how much they liked the food at each establishment, rather than just looking at the number of people who ate there, you would find Noma would come out ahead in every case.

I live in Washington D.C. and I often visit the museums, including the Museum of Modern Art.

There's a picture hanging up there which is basically a blank white canvas with a red circle in the middle. Apparently, this is a work of such genius that it deserves to hang in a museum in our nation's capital. But when I look at it, well, I just see a red circle on a blank white canvas that anyone could have painted.

What this tells me is, I will never understand the judging of art. I only know how I feel about art when I experience it, and when I see Jar Jar Binks on the screen acting like a buffoon, I think it is childish. At such moments, I was embarrassed when I went to Episode I with my parents. I could imagine them thinking to themselves "This is the entertainment our adult son likes?"

I know that when I hear lines such as "I'm haunted by the kiss you never should have given me." or others like it, I cringe because it does not sound like anything a real human being would say to another real human being. It sounds like something out of a Harlequin romance novel (and I should know, because I actually studied those in college.)

So, I then look around. I talk to other people and ask them what they think. Am I the only one who feels this way? Apparently not. In fact, within my sphere of friends and family, almost everyone feels this way. If I accept us as a microcosm of what the rest of the world feels like - a huge leap, I won't deny, but not necessarily incorrect - then we arrive at that key definer of what apparently makes art great or terrible - the consensus.

I think it is the consensus that defines a work of art as bad or good. It's the consensus that says a red circle on a white canvas is a work of such timeless quality that it should hang in a museum, and it's the consensus that says Episode I is a bad movie.

But that should in no way deter us from sharing our own individual points of view, because the voice of the individual should never, in my opinion, be suborned by the din of the majority.

Actually no. There is a reason why there are so many sh*tty restaurants/movie companies that can spew out filth for the masses at low prices and I can tell you from experience from dealing with a large cross section of the populace in a small country that underdeveloped taste (and yes, that is a thing) tends to make uniformity a merit.

Then we arrive at that key definer of what apparently makes art great or terrible - the consensus.

I could not disagree more...

You seem to make the opposite point I am making. Do you really believe the masses would find that painting a spectacular work of art? I am pretty sure the majority of people would have the same reaction you have as some art isn't gcreated for the majority, it is in fact created not to appease the majority but to look to challenge the people that look at it/watch it/eat it/hear it.

There is a reason Tom Waits songs are more succesful when covered by others but that people who really understand and love music prefer the Original Waits versions.

By the way, i am happy that we can have such a civil discussion about this here on the boards!

Actually no. There is a reason why there are so many sh*tty restaurants/movie companies that can spew out filth for the masses at low prices and I can tell you from experience from dealing with a large cross section of the populace in a small country that underdeveloped taste (and yes, that is a thing) tends to make uniformity a merit.

No offense intended, Dante, but that sounds dangerously close to "my opinion is better than yours because it is" and accusations of herd mentality.

Then we arrive at that key definer of what apparently makes art great or terrible - the consensus.

I could not disagree more...

You seem to make the opposite point I am making. Do you really believe the masses would find that painting a spectacular work of art? I am pretty sure the majority of people would have the same reaction you have as some art isn't gcreated for the majority, it is in fact created not to appease the majority but to look to challenge the people that look at it/watch it/eat it/hear it.

There is a reason Tom Waits songs are more succesful when covered by others but that people who really understand and love music prefer the Original Waits versions.

What about critics? Do they count? They aren't "the masses", but people who study and write about movies (or art) for a living. Look at their numbers and you'll find my argument is still born out.

Also, when you use phrases like "... people who really understand and love music...", you really do show that you're thinking subjectively. Is your way of understanding music the right way? Is there such a thing as a right way?

Actually you can judge movies and other cultural byproducts by a different standard than the age old "it is all a matter of taste" yard stick. Because a. there are criteria that can determine quality besides this and b. it is not all a matter of taste. Plain and simple taste and especially the taste of the masses is in fact a terrible means of determining quality.

I disagree on a fundamental level. This is what my humorous jargon in the previous post was pointing towards. The belief in and acceptance of the notion of something as "good taste" or objectively better than something else based on some criteria (the whole notion of objectively determining anything social (and art is social - and films are art in the broader sense of the term) is inherently flawed). That is the result of symbolic violence, that is the product of contemporary hegemonic discourse telling us what to say or not to say, guiding our thoughts about what can be accepted and not (as true, valid and possible), in a search for some sort of meaningful reference point, to make it all fit, be neat, systematic and predictable... but I shouldn't write my musings on a synthesis of Bourdieu, Foucault and others here on this forum. Sorry. Suffice to say, the taste of the masses is a better indication of quality, sadly, than any indication given my "experts" and know-hows and others that claim authority on the field, of course the masses (i.e. us) are guided by these "experts", but we are also guided by consumer culture and other factors. A fun point: referencing "the masses" as something or someone else, is kind of elitist and peculiar when discussing social phenomena - are you distancing yourself from everyone else? or who is the "masses"? what constitutes the "masses"? who are included and who are not in this rather vague and nonsensical category?

Sucks.

EDIT: In my most humble opinion, and whilst maintaining the highest respect for those whose opinions differ.

Some hidden gems. More universe to play around in. But by-and-large it was three wasted opportunities.

Mr. Plinkett covers it well.

Movie Bob puts a more positive spin on them.

I thought they were great, and so did my 10-year-old son to whom they introduced the galaxy far, far away. Just like these Disney films will serve a new generation. Okay, maybe a cinematic art Episode 1 was not flawless but as an event it was terrific fun for Jacob and me, lighten up, The first trilogy wasn't as great as you remember, but wow, you had to be there. Lucas said in 99, he wasn't going to make SW a body-count film, which I think some of you critics wanted.

Actually no. There is a reason why there are so many sh*tty restaurants/movie companies that can spew out filth for the masses at low prices and I can tell you from experience from dealing with a large cross section of the populace in a small country that underdeveloped taste (and yes, that is a thing) tends to make uniformity a merit.

No offense intended, Dante, but that sounds dangerously close to "my opinion is better than yours because it is" and accusations of herd mentality.

No, no, no... I don't think you get what I mean then.

This goes for a great many things that I myself am not knowledgable about as well. For instance I hate dance music with a burning passion but I do like a song every now and then. This always turns out to be the stepping stone type song that gets others heavily invested in Dance music afterwhich they look back on it as a shallow tune.

I do think my opinion at times is better then others, i am just putting it out there... If I am invested in something and knowledgeable about it I do look down on the general consensus in such an area. I could lie about it and say I don't, but I do... Having said that, i don't look down on the people that have othat opinion but I do look down on that opinion.

Given those scores, I would say the prequel trilogy could not be called objectively bad, and that those who think they are bad are actually thinking subjectively. While it is true that these numbers can't stack up to the original trilogy ( The Empire Strikes Back received 96% and 97% reviewer and audience ratings, respectively, with A New Hope receiving 93% and 96%, and Return of the Jedi scoring 78% and 95%), that doesn't make the films objectively bad, only objectively worse .

More telling - lets look at the box office:

* Phantom Menace grossed $431 million domestically and $924 million worldwide during its run (apparently the 3D re-release pushed it over the Billion Dollar mark).

* Attack of the Clones grossed $310 million domestically and $649 million worldwide.

* Revenge of the Sith grossed $380 million domestically and $849 million worldwide.

Now, lets assume that all three were as terrible as everyone claims (a thesis I dont subscribe to, but for the sake of argment, lets say they are). We'll give Phantom Menace a pass, since nobody knew it was going to be a piece of crap. But if that's the case, then why would Clones make well over half a billion dollars? And if they both sucked that bad, then Sith wouldnt have made nearly as much as it did. There would have been a sharp decline in profits - and while Clones made the least amount of cash at the box office, 649 million is still pretty respectable and Sith bounced back.

Look, the original Star Wars was a classic that shaped my life - but looking at it objectivly, it's not that good. The plot is simplistic, the acting was dreadful (aside from one or two outstanding performances), there was inappropriate comic relief and the effects occasionally faltered and stumbled. Each and every one of the criticisms leveled against Phantom Menace could equally applied to New Hope in one form or another.

Oh sure I could have done with less wacky Jar-Jar antics, but Phantom Menace had enough to carry it along to make me happy - the pod racing scene is fabulous, all the different sounds whizzing around from left to right, front to back, all around you was really incredible. And of course the battle at the end - the war on the ground, the battle in space and the fight between Jedi and Sith - okay, Maul didn’t have a huge part, but he was a total badass. Say what you will about his movie making skills, but you have to admit that George knows how to cut a climax.

Now, if YOU didnt like 1-3, that's fine. Not everyone is going to like all things. However to say that they "objectivly sucked" is nonsense.

(Also, as far as 2001 versus Phantom Menace, I think that 2001 is boring, slow, pertentious crap and order of magnatudes worse than Phantom Menace)

You're right, Dante. I don't get what you mean at all, especially since you just basically said, "Look, it's all subjective" in your first paragraph and then "Hey, I do think subjectively" in your second.

Bloody hell - I thought this was a joke thread and we're 20 posts in!

I hope Han Solo's appearance is roughly identical to Wolverine's appearance in First Class. That would make my day on several levels...

I hope Han Solo's appearance is roughly identical to Wolverine's appearance in First Class. That would make my day on several levels...

In the prequels? [looks over (non-existent) glasses] Are we supposed to be in the Ep.7 cast thread?

then we arrive at that key definer of what apparently makes art great or terrible - the consensus.

I think it is the consensus that defines a work of art as bad or good. It's the consensus that says a red circle on a white canvas is a work of such timeless quality that it should hang in a museum, and it's the consensus that says Episode I is a bad movie.

The problem with consensus as the key definer is that it cannot - as some, perhaps not you, but some think - objectively define anything, as there is constant fluctuations in taste, opinions, interpretations over time. Also, there is peer pressure, opinion leaders within groups that defines criteria within groups that the members adhere to when in their role as a group member - be it at work, with the family, friends, college, neighbourhood and so on. That said, consensus is a good indication of perceived and accepted quality of a given piece of art, whether informed by learned "experts" or not, within an area, group or other local field of interest and/or knowledge.

However, the inductive fallacy of group (micro) consensus to meso or macro consensus is problematic. Such inference should be avoided I think, as much as ecological fallacies. Both are problematic and leads to misguided decisions and opinions - and these would be opinions no longer based in facts, and therefore no longer really valid as arguments.

I wanted to write out this well thought out argument but then realized it wasn't worth it.

My 11 year old son loves the PT. And thinks the OT is not as good.

I think the PT was disappointing. And the OT is great.

The movies affected us diffefently due to the differences in our age and how we experienced the films.

The PT could be bad but its not much if any worse than the OT.