Preach it Trevor.

And don't listen to Skywalker/Joe Tyler. They are the same person with two different accounts. Also, skywalker once said that Prince's just as relevant in pop culture now as he was in the 80's. The guy lives in a fantasy land. Don't bother gettiing into with him. I already put him in his place earlier in this thread. Check out my post where I show the amount of money made from ticket sales adjusted for inflation, and how the original trilogy earned 10 academy awards, while the prequels earned zero. Skywalker is crazy and a troll, it's not worth it bro

Wildboy said:

Preach it Trevor.

And don't listen to Skywalker/Joe Tyler. They are the same person with two different accounts. Also, skywalker once said that Prince's just as relevant in pop culture now as he was in the 80's. The guy lives in a fantasy land. Don't bother gettiing into with him. I already put him in his place earlier in this thread. Check out my post where I show the amount of money made from ticket sales adjusted for inflation, and how the original trilogy earned 10 academy awards, while the prequels earned zero. Skywalker is crazy and a troll, it's not worth it bro

and you must be the stoopidest person to ever achieve the rank of teacher

[Edited 5/16/12 11:12am]

TrevorAyer said:

its not old fashioned or nostalgic .. i like plenty of new movies that don't have cgi but do have good acting .. strait up most star wars fans can practically recite the dialog to empire word for word .. NO ONE can do that with the prequels because there is NO dialog .. its rubbish

Whatever. Plenty of nerdy fanboys can recite the dialog of the prequels word for word. Casual fans have only recited the big sound bytes anyways. May the force be with you, I am your father, etc.

harrison, fisher, alec, hell even c3po was a good if not great actor

If you think Carrie Fisher is a better actress than Natalie Portman...good for you. If I remember correctly, C-3PO was in the new Star Wars films as well. Count the academy award winning actors in the prequels to the amount in the old films. Again, I prefer the original cast...but I don't think that they constitute a group of better actors.

and the acting was really good in those movies .. well not the ewoks .. but for the most part .. billy dee williams .. compare that to portman (outstanding actress) and jackson in the preqels .. in both cases they are horrible when they should have been great

Again, whatever floats your boat. Mark Hamill has some cringe worthy moments in the original films. Again, I love the original films better than anything, Luke Skywalker being my fav character, but let's not get crazy. "But I was going into Toshi Stationto pick up some power converters" is a horrible cringe worthy line and always has been.

as for box office

coca cola is a box office smash .. that doesn't mean it doesn't rot your teeth, destroy your immune system, give you diabetes and make u fat and give you a heart attack

so wtf does box office have to do with the quality of a movie .. nothing

shit sells all the time ..

Same sentiment that crabby old men said about the originals. So what? You honestly think that the originals were high brow art and not pop movie making?

and cgi does not work .. end of story .. they cant blend it good enough its like shelby yelping get up a all over classic prince .. it just ruins it

starwars has far more obsessives than prince or any other phenonmenon .. giving jesus christ a good run for his money .. and you don't think that affects the box office .. people wanting more star wars does not make a movie labeled star wars a good movie .. just like people wanting more good prince does not make his new record good .. people buy it to hear it to search for that one good song or idea .. they see the movie to find some plot detail or see how cool jango looks .. but its not nostalgic its having taste ... i guarantee that NOONE who grew up "loving" the prequels will love them when they do finally grow up .. certainly not the way people love the original trilogy .. its just not good and people will out grow the MASSIVE marketing campaign ... even prince had a hit with that slab of shit musicology with enough press and brand name marketing on board ..

Well, good luck with that guarantee. I am sure your opinion is the same as everyone across the world. You liked the old Star Wars and you hate the new. I am gonna guess that new Star Wars films/tv/etc. isn't being made for you anymore. Probably hasn't been made for you since you were younger.

even lucas made money off of indy 4 ... i don't follow prince the business man .. who cares what he sells who cares what lucas sells .. i only want good art and neither deliver any more and both try to ruin what was good about their past work ... yeah we need renato jazzin up prince .. yeah we need lil cartoon crap all over the original trilogy .. yeah lotus is as good as sign .. yeah they both still got "it" .. yeah bull sheeet maaaan ..

prince needs people he can collaborate with .. he used to all the time .. now he doesn't he just tells them what to do .. thats why its so bad and boring .. lucas is unchallenged as well .. just throwing shit on the screen the way prince throws raps on songs .. ugh

Hey, if the thrill is gone for you for the shit you used to love, I am sorry. Me? I love the new Star Wars films, like a lot of Prince's newer material. I am sorry that you aren't into it. You can call me without taste, if I can call you bitter. I am not the one hanging out at a fan site talking about shit I ain't into.

[Edited 5/16/12 12:45pm]

Wildboy said:

Preach it Trevor.

And don't listen to Skywalker/Joe Tyler. They are the same person with two different accounts. Also, skywalker once said that Prince's just as relevant in pop culture now as he was in the 80's. The guy lives in a fantasy land. Don't bother gettiing into with him. I already put him in his place earlier in this thread. Check out my post where I show the amount of money made from ticket sales adjusted for inflation, and how the original trilogy earned 10 academy awards, while the prequels earned zero. Skywalker is crazy and a troll, it's not worth it bro

I am a troll? I was totally nice to you in the end, and thought we had kind of agreed to disagree. Pages later you are still bashing me. You are sweet

You are fighting some battle where it's the old Star Wars vs. the new Star Wars. I am not even into that. I love them all. About a billion Star Wars fans agree with me. There is nothing to prove, you are trying to prove that the prequels weren't popular. They were. As popular as the original trilogy? Not with old fuckers like you and me. So what?

[Edited 5/16/12 12:53pm]

The whole god damned point of this is New vs old star wars,

[Snip - luv4u]

We came to no agreement. I spanked your ass using facts easily found online, and then you tried to take control of the conversation by saying "wow, that was WAY better then your usual posts" You're like a college freshmen who thinks they're very clever.

Don't try to take a left up redemption ally now. I like the way you mis-spell 'Stoopid' as Tyler to try to throw us off your scent, nice try.

And btw, as for the whole Natalie Portman being a better actress then Carrie fisher, this may be true, but the star wars films are THE WORST acting of Portman's career. If all you ever saw was the prequel trilogy, you'd think Portman was one of the worst actors in Hollywood.

For the last time, the prequels

A) Didn't sell as many tickets, and didn't make as much money (adjusting for inflation) by HALF.

B) Have WAY lower ratings on rotten tomatoes

C) Didn't win any Academy awards (as opposed to 10)

D) Have worse word of mouth

E) Despite having promotional groundwork of 30 years of star wars being laid for them, and more money (adjusting for inflation) spent to produce and promote them, didn't sell as well, making them AN ARTISTIC AND FINANCIAL DISAPPOINTMENT

Have fun Skywalker/Tyler, your arguments make NO sense to anyone but yourself. Moron.

Wildboy said:

Have fun Skywalker/Tyler, your arguments make NO sense to anyone but yourself.

[Snip - luv4u]

I picture you as Major Frank Burns from M*A*S*H* in that episode where he gets dumped by hotlips. Hiding in the bushes with a grenade in full Camo facepaint with branches on your helmet convinced that everyone you see is Skywalker

In a good way

Cop booked me for speeding? "SKYWALKER"

Kid put pins on my chair? "SKYWALKER"

Someone stole my car? "SKYWAAAAAALLLLKERRRRR

[Edited 5/16/12 14:38pm]

Look at the time stamps and the sentence structure, they are the same person. Also, anytime Skywalker gets in an argument, he tries to take the high road, and then Joe Tyler will swoop in and call you a jerkoff or something. If you look at threads, no matter what is being talked about, Joe Tyler shows up only to help out Skywalker in losing arguments. Dude doesn't have the balls to stand up for himself. [Snip - luv4u]

Wildboy said:

Look at the time stamps and the sentence structure, they are the same person. Also, anytime Skywalker gets in an argument, he tries to take the high road, and then Joe Tyler will swoop in and call you a jerkoff or something. If you look at threads, no matter what is being talked about, Joe Tyler shows up only to help out Skywalker in losing arguments. Dude doesn't have the balls to stand up for himself. [Snip - luv4u]

you're HILARIOUSLY PATHETIC man: INSAAAAAAAAAAAAAAANE!

Wildboy said:

Look at the time stamps and the sentence structure, they are the same person. Also, anytime Skywalker gets in an argument, he tries to take the high road, and then Joe Tyler will swoop in and call you a jerkoff or something. If you look at threads, no matter what is being talked about, Joe Tyler shows up only to help out Skywalker in losing arguments. Dude doesn't have the balls to stand up for himself. [Snip - luv4u]

joetyler and I are separate people. how would I be able prove it to you? Even if I did, you wouldn't believe it.

Wildboy said:

BTW, I'm pretty sure that JoeTyler and Skywalker are the same person.

Not true.

K folks, move along .............

luv4u said:

Wildboy said:

BTW, I'm pretty sure that JoeTyler and Skywalker are the same person.

Not true.

K folks, move along .............

Not sure how you can be sure despite the fact you're a mod. How come when they called me a Snob and Old Geezer there was no editing?

JoeTyler said:

midnightmover said:

This post is a classic example of someone mouthing off about something they haven't understood. Of course Prince made great music after PR, because he was a genius at the top of his game so that self-reliance worked for him. But he's not at the top of his game anymore so that same approach is now working against him. Understood?

As for PR, Albert Magnoli definitely identified some key traits of Prince's in that movie and put them in the script. There is no doubt about that.

or maybe your post was poorly constructed: "In real life though he has NEVER gotten past this personality flaw. And his music is much poorer for it."

NEVER? that's why he collaborated with Madhouse, Sheila E, was keen on the idea of a crossover experiment with Warners/Tim Burton for Batman, allowed an outside (sort of) rapper in his own NPG band, released a neo-funk masterpiece with the NPG (Exodus), etc.

"much poorer, so that same approach is NOW working against him".? I think you mean the 1996-99 debacle, 13 years after PR. Make up your mind, are you talking about post-84 or the 00s decade???

if you meant the 00s ("NOW")... really? much poorer? after TRC, the 04-06 SOLO comeback, the Superbowl and Lotus? As I said, Prince's 00s music is not poor, is just decent compared to the stuff he released during the 80-95 years...

It seems that some orgers truly WANTED to kill off Prince's career after 20Ten, which was basically a good album poorly distributed.

now, keep dreaming about that Rick Rubin-produced album that WILL never happen, lol

First of all, I've already said that Prince will never work with a serious producer, so what the point of that last sentence is I truly don't know.

Secondly, I think you need to take a look at the credits on your Prince albums. It seems you've forgotten that he writes, produces, arranges and performs them by himself. That doesn't mean no-one else comes in, but their contributions are limited. Probably the closest he ever came to genuine collaboration was the W&L period with ATWIAD and Parade. But no serious person would ever deny that for the most part Prince dictates what goes down. The fact that you're equivocating over such an undeniable fact should be a clue to tell you you're on shaky ground.

To clarify my position, I'm saying that even in his golden years there were times when he would have benefitted from having someone around to challenge him. For instance "Forever In My Life" is a great song, but the recording is totally under-produced. But there was no-one around to tell him. In the post WB years this problem has moved from being a minor one to being a massive one. His albums just sound slightly amateurish at times now because the mixing and the engineering is so poor (although the musicianship is still great). The proof of this is just to compare the studio versions with the live versions. The live ones are a million times better. I could play them to non-fans and not be embarrassed. I couldn't do that with the studio recordings. There is more I could say, but I'll leave it for another day.

By the way, it's entirely possible that my initial sentence was unclear, but there was never any excuse for you to start screaming insults like a four-year-old. This is now my second attempt at clarification. Any failure to understand will be down to you, not me.

[Edited 5/17/12 7:05am]

JoeTyler said:

midnightmover said:

He would need someone who wasn't wedded to any particular sound or style, but was skilled at getting the best out of an artist.

and nobody can't help Prince, because Prince is a VETERAN artist, the kind of +30 years old career artist that keeps releasing decent/modest albums that only the loyalists can appreciate, maybe with some spark of the glory of the old days (Musicology, 3121), but still modest albums. Why? because HE'S DONE as a cutting edge songwriter.

btw, that experiment with outside producers or collaborators or A&R men (whatever) already FAILED: remember Rave??

Again, you need to look at the credits for that album. If you do, you'll see it was written, produced, arranged and performed by P himself. The fact that you think that album is an example of what I'm advocating shows you haven't understood a word I've said.

Everyone I ever spoke to who saw the prequels said they were crap. Even Michael Jackson's son was caught on camera in 2002 saying how bad the one he'd just seen was.

The reason I posted that clip earlier from the BBC documentary was because it nicely illustrated the insanity of the whole phenomenon. No-one really liked them, but they still went to see them based on the strength of the brand name and the massive hype campaign.

[Edited 5/17/12 7:22am]

midnightmover said:

Everyone I ever spoke to who saw the prequels said they were crap. Even Michael Jackson's son was caught on camera in 2002 saying how bad the one he'd just seen was.

The reason I posted that clip earlier from the BBC documentary was because it nicely illustrated the insanity of the whole phenomenon. No-one really liked them, but they still went to see them based on the strength of the brand name and the massive hype campaign.

[Edited 5/17/12 7:22am]

You should watch them yourself and make up your own mind. I am sure Michael JAckson's kids are a great barometer of everything.

skywalker said:

midnightmover said:

Everyone I ever spoke to who saw the prequels said they were crap. Even Michael Jackson's son was caught on camera in 2002 saying how bad the one he'd just seen was.

The reason I posted that clip earlier from the BBC documentary was because it nicely illustrated the insanity of the whole phenomenon. No-one really liked them, but they still went to see them based on the strength of the brand name and the massive hype campaign.

[Edited 5/17/12 7:22am]

You should watch them yourself and make up your own mind. I am sure Michael JAckson's kids are a great barometer of everything.

The argument being had here is about how popular and respected the films are. I don't need to have seen them myself to know that. It may well be that if I saw them I'd love them (highly unlikely), but that wouldn't change the fact that the general response to them was negative.

Michael Jackson's son was just one random example of the poor reception they received. I could regale you with many more if you wish.

http://redlettermedia.com...om-menace/

case closed

midnightmover said:

skywalker said:

You should watch them yourself and make up your own mind. I am sure Michael JAckson's kids are a great barometer of everything.

The argument being had here is about how popular and respected the films are. I don't need to have seen them myself to know that. It may well be that if I saw them I'd love them (highly unlikely), but that wouldn't change the fact that the general response to them was negative.

Michael Jackson's son was just one random example of the poor reception they received. I could regale you with many more if you wish.

I think you have tapped into what the whole crux of this discussion is for me:

There is a difference between a film being popular and well respected.

In terms of popularity/box office/etc they were as "popular" as a modern blockbuster can be.

Without a doubt, the prequels are not nearly as well respected as the originals.

Now, there are many reasons for this, but to me, it is a cop out to simply slag off on the prequels being complete shit. As a fan of the entire saga, there are things about the prequels that I like better than the originals, and things I definitely do not. I just don't think there is tremendous difference in quality between the originals and prequels. This review of the Phantom Menace by roger ebert pretty much sums it up for me:

http://rogerebert.suntime.../905170301

[Edited 5/17/12 9:33am]

Comparatively the prequels ARE complete shit. Following up the classic trilogy with the prequels would be the Prince equivalent of following up 1999, Purple Rain, and SOTT with Rave....3 times in a row.

I agree that the movies are not well respected, but they are not even generally liked that much, as is evident by their low ratings on websites like rotten tomatoes, and the lower number of action figures sold.

Wildboy said:

Comparatively the prequels ARE complete shit. Following up the classic trilogy with the prequels would be the Prince equivalent of following up 1999, Purple Rain, and SOTT with Rave....3 times in a row.

I agree that the movies are not well respected, but they are not even generally liked that much, as is evident by their low ratings on websites like rotten tomatoes, and the lower number of action figures sold.

I hear you on the rotten tomatoes, but if you actually look at the reviews for the Original Trilogy..most of them are modern (post 1996) reviews. Few of the original reviews from years 1977, 1980, and 1983 are even on rotten tomatoes.

What I am getting at is that the original Star Wars films (especially the sequels) actually received many mixed reviews at the time of their released. Many negative reviewers praised the films for special effects/eye candy, but slammed the dialog and acting. Some critics were accusing Return of the Jedi of being a toy commercial/puppet show.

Toys: Hasn't Star Wars continuously been among the best, if not THE BEST, selling toy line every year since the late 90's? It died out in 1985 (only 2 years after ROTJ?) and made a resurgence around 1997?

Also, I would suspect that many action figure collectors (old fanboys) aren't buying Jar Jar Binks figures.

Following up the classic trilogy with the prequels would be the Prince equivalent of following up 1999, Purple Rain, and SOTT with Rave....3 times in a row.

Prince followed up 1999 and Purple Rain with Around The World in a Day, and Parade. The masses stayed away from those albums in droves but the hardcore Prince fans stayed because it was Prince. In 1985/86 you had mainstream fans claiming that "new Prince" sucked and they wanted him to go back to the greatness of Purple Rain and 1999.

[Edited 5/17/12 19:43pm]

Look up A new hope on wiki and note that it opened to Mostly positive reviews. Star Wars was an instant classic, unlike the prequel trilogy, which has already been filed away and forgotten

Wildboy said:

Look up A new hope on wiki and note that it opened to Mostly positive reviews. Star Wars was an instant classic, unlike the prequel trilogy, which has already been filed away and forgotten

For sure A New Hope did. I more meant it's sequels.

Empire and Jedi received mixed reviews initially. Contrast that to Revenge of the Sith receiving mostly positive reviews. Wikipedia.

[Edited 5/18/12 7:19am]

Prequels were shit. Too much CGI and studio wizardry and not enough substance. Story was way too convoluted and uninteresting. The original Star Wars movies, although not exactly intellectual, were at least original and used the story as the driving force.

Prince prequels (upto 1994) were original and had substance. there was a journey to follow and the script was more important than the window dressing. The sequels (post WB 1995 onwards), way convoluted and (by and large) uninteresting with technology overwhelming the substance (over dubs, over produced, over use of studio wizardry etc). And way too much window dressing.

More uncanny similarities:

Lucas in interviews - boring

Prince in interviews - pointless

Lucas on the piano - hopeless

Prince behind the camera - hopeless

Lucas' shit - stinks

Prince's shit - stinks

The only difference?

Millions pay to see a Lucas movie.

Thousands pay for a new prince cd

Wildboy, you are Troll king.

I doesn't matter how many insults you throw at people (and I think we just need to count the snips to prove that one), nothing takes away the fact that all 6 Star Wars films make the majority of top grossing lists.

We can adjust the figures for inflation all we like. There were far more cinema goers 35 years ago than now. I went to see the OT 10 times because there were no aftermarket at the time to take it home. In fact, you could argue the prequels attracted more individual viewing numbers, as opposed to the OT where millions saw it over and over again.

To call any of them a flop is bollocks and you know it.

In between taking those polls in you class room, take a trip down to Toys R Us. There you will find that Star Wars is one of the biggest brands in the world, and that the prequel merchandise makes up a firm 50% of the offer. Not bad for a set of films that finished 7 years ago and only has a cartoon to back it up. Like it or not, the prequels have pleased a generation.

SOTT sold a fraction of Purple Rain. And if I took a poll of of everyday music lovers, they would all pick Purple Rain as princes pinnacle.

Does that make SOTT shit, or are you justed pissed that some people like a bunch of films you claim to have never seen....

Don't answer that. I think we know the answer.....

Dear squirrel meat,

I'm not alone in thinking that no one cared for these films, there are a lot of other people who commented on this thread as well who are in agreement that these movies are a disappointment. Furthermore, adjusting for inflation is THE ONLY numbers that count. If you don't adjust for inflation you could make the claim that Steven Segals latest straight to DVD release was more profitable then 'Gone with the Wind'

The entire reason that the movie industry quotes dollar figures instead of ticket sales is that they are trying to create artificial buzz about whatever this years POS blockbuster they are trying to push this year. Each summer there is a new highest grossing movie due to inflated ticket prices. Think about it for a sec, in music they count number of albums sold, not amount of money made from that album. But the counting system for the music industry is much more accurate, and actually reflects the consumers buying the product (well....at least before 'music sharing' came along lol)

The fact that there were more movie goes domestically in 1977 is something that I brought up myself in earlier posts (which you apparently didn't bother to read, and instead are coming to the defense of your buddy skywalker), but the flip side is that there were WAY fewer movie theaters internationally in 1977. (Japan actually delayed the release of Star Wars a whole year, so they could rush their own Japanese version called 'Battle from Space' into theatres first)

As for name calling, I only started with that after I was called a geezer, an idiot, and a lot worse (edited out by the lame ass guys who sent it before the mods got a look at it). I only tossed an insult at someone who first insulted me.

Now, for the last time:

-Original Trilogy won 10 academy awards, Prequels 0

-Original more than doubled the amount of box office $$ made by the prequel when adjusted for inflation

-Websites like rotten tomatoes that rate films by pro critics and fans alike consistently rate the prequels much lower then the originals

-Word of mouth with the prequels is much worse, even with young children.

-Toy sales during the prequel trilogy were lower then the Star Wars special edition release a few years earlier.

It's tough when confronted with FACTS. The prequels were a disappointment on every level, and it was Lucas cashing in on Star Wars by tarnishing it's legacy.

I'm not saying the prequel trilogy didn't make money, cause it did. What I'm saying is that the prequel didn't make AS MUCH money as it should have given the word of mouth it had going almost ten years ahead of it's release, and the fact that Star Wars was one of the strongest brand names ever at that point. Lucas made a billion dollars, but not the ten billion dollars he should have. On paper the prequels SHOULD HAVE been better movies. They had better actors in them, a much larger budget, more time to plan and film, a script that had years to be developed, more advanced editing techniques, and the benefit of new special effects technology. But what happened was a box office and artistic disappointment.

The original trilogy was a tough act to follow, but a live action version of the kids clone wars TV show, or the Knights of the Old Republic Xbox game would have been a stronger film series

Fin

I love the prequels.

Best Thread EVER

Wildboy said:

Dear squirrel meat,

I'm not alone in thinking that no one cared for these films, there are a lot of other people who commented on this thread as well who are in agreement that these movies are a disappointment. Furthermore, adjusting for inflation is THE ONLY numbers that count. If you don't adjust for inflation you could make the claim that Steven Segals latest straight to DVD release was more profitable then 'Gone with the Wind'

The entire reason that the movie industry quotes dollar figures instead of ticket sales is that they are trying to create artificial buzz about whatever this years POS blockbuster they are trying to push this year. Each summer there is a new highest grossing movie due to inflated ticket prices. Think about it for a sec, in music they count number of albums sold, not amount of money made from that album. But the counting system for the music industry is much more accurate, and actually reflects the consumers buying the product (well....at least before 'music sharing' came along lol)

The fact that there were more movie goes domestically in 1977 is something that I brought up myself in earlier posts (which you apparently didn't bother to read, and instead are coming to the defense of your buddy skywalker), but the flip side is that there were WAY fewer movie theaters internationally in 1977. (Japan actually delayed the release of Star Wars a whole year, so they could rush their own Japanese version called 'Battle from Space' into theatres first)

As for name calling, I only started with that after I was called a geezer, an idiot, and a lot worse (edited out by the lame ass guys who sent it before the mods got a look at it). I only tossed an insult at someone who first insulted me.

Now, for the last time:

-Original Trilogy won 10 academy awards, Prequels 0

-Original more than doubled the amount of box office $$ made by the prequel when adjusted for inflation

-Websites like rotten tomatoes that rate films by pro critics and fans alike consistently rate the prequels much lower then the originals

-Word of mouth with the prequels is much worse, even with young children.

-Toy sales during the prequel trilogy were lower then the Star Wars special edition release a few years earlier.

It's tough when confronted with FACTS. The prequels were a disappointment on every level, and it was Lucas cashing in on Star Wars by tarnishing it's legacy.

I'm not saying the prequel trilogy didn't make money, cause it did. What I'm saying is that the prequel didn't make AS MUCH money as it should have given the word of mouth it had going almost ten years ahead of it's release, and the fact that Star Wars was one of the strongest brand names ever at that point. Lucas made a billion dollars, but not the ten billion dollars he should have. On paper the prequels SHOULD HAVE been better movies. They had better actors in them, a much larger budget, more time to plan and film, a script that had years to be developed, more advanced editing techniques, and the benefit of new special effects technology. But what happened was a box office and artistic disappointment.

The original trilogy was a tough act to follow, but a live action version of the kids clone wars TV show, or the Knights of the Old Republic Xbox game would have been a stronger film series

Fin

Other than The Phantom Menace, you honestly haven't seen the prequels?

[Edited 5/18/12 20:37pm]