This may have already been discussed, and if so I apoligize...but:

I noticed in one of the other threads that someone mentioned Prince's interview with P&B podcast where he stated the rights were revereting to him. The very first time I heard this I thought of George Lucas and the fact that he has complete control of his work as well...At first that sounds OK, but...the one thing Prince and Lucas might REALLY have in common is the desire to change or "fix" their original works of art. Hopefully I'm wrong, but I can't help worrying that the remastered version of his old albums might have his current views edited inside each and every one of his classic albums.

You think a digital Jabba in ep.4 or blinking ewoks in ep.6 is bad?--Just imagine "23 scriptures in a one night stand"...on record, as the only available remastered version of Gett Off.

I really really hope I'm wrong.

lucas said:

You think a digital Jabba in ep.4 or blinking ewoks in ep.6 is bad?--Just imagine "23 scriptures in a one night stand"...on record, as the only available remastered version of Gett Off.

I really really hope I'm wrong.

I'm with you there, and despite how pointless much of this thread has gotten, that's the crux of the issue, as far as I'm concerned:

George Lucas has a right to make 10,000 more Star Wars films, and fill them all up with as much CG and as many Jar Jars as he likes. Prince has a right to release as many songs/albums of 'Purple and Gold' caliber as he wants to. But each of them has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that their classic and historic work is preserved just as it was when it was initially released.

eyewishuheaven said:

lucas said:

You think a digital Jabba in ep.4 or blinking ewoks in ep.6 is bad?--Just imagine "23 scriptures in a one night stand"...on record, as the only available remastered version of Gett Off.

I really really hope I'm wrong.

I'm with you there, and despite how pointless much of this thread has gotten, that's the crux of the issue, as far as I'm concerned:

George Lucas has a right to make 10,000 more Star Wars films, and fill them all up with as much CG and as many Jar Jars as he likes. Prince has a right to release as many songs/albums of 'Purple and Gold' caliber as he wants to. But each of them has an obligation and a responsibility to ensure that their classic and historic work is preserved just as it was when it was initially released.

Well, you can buy both in their original form. Right? You don't have to buy reissues/remasters.

Yes, but not in archival quality. The original cuts of Star Wars are only available in non-anamorphic standard definition, ripped from a laserdisc release dating from about 1993, and they look dreadful.

And the WB Prince catalogue on cd, well, we know how that sounds...

eyewishuheaven said:

Yes, but not in archival quality. The original cuts of Star Wars are only available in non-anamorphic standard definition, ripped from a laserdisc release dating from about 1993, and they look dreadful.

And the WB Prince catalogue on cd, well, we know how that sounds...

Agreed, but I don't think that is for the artists to do. Typically, preservation of most art is done by archivist and such. The irony is that artists work often isn't as important to them as it is to us. Meaning, in many ways, Star Wars fans take Star Wars more seriously than George Lucas does.

skywalker said:

eyewishuheaven said:

Yes, but not in archival quality. The original cuts of Star Wars are only available in non-anamorphic standard definition, ripped from a laserdisc release dating from about 1993, and they look dreadful.

And the WB Prince catalogue on cd, well, we know how that sounds...

Agreed, but I don't think that is for the artists to do. Typically, preservation of most art is done by archivist and such. The irony is that artists work often isn't as important to them as it is to us. Meaning, in many ways, Star Wars fans take Star Wars more seriously than George Lucas does.

That's right, just as Prince fans take Prince's legacy more seriously than he does. Star Wars fans and Prince fans definitely have a lot in common.

skywalker said:

eyewishuheaven said:

Yes, but not in archival quality. The original cuts of Star Wars are only available in non-anamorphic standard definition, ripped from a laserdisc release dating from about 1993, and they look dreadful.

And the WB Prince catalogue on cd, well, we know how that sounds...

Agreed, but I don't think that is for the artists to do. Typically, preservation of most art is done by archivist and such.

Very true. But in this case, it's the artists themselves who are standing in the way of this vital work being done, and I have a real problem with that.

I think it's important to have some integrity in these debates. For me, quoting dollar figures that aren't inflation-adjusted shows a complete lack of honour. It amounts to wilful deception. I can understand why studios do it since they're trying to trick the sheeple into thinking they're missing out on something historic every summer, but their dishonesty should not be duplicated in debates that are meant to be concerned with truth. WildBoy is right. Do you guys even know what currency devaluation is?

midnightmover said:

I think it's important to have some integrity in these debates. For me, quoting dollar figures that aren't inflation-adjusted shows a complete lack of honour. It amounts to wilful deception. I can understand why studios do it since they're trying to trick the sheeple into thinking they're missing out on something historic every summer, but their dishonesty should not be duplicated in debates that are meant to be concerned with truth. WildBoy is right. Do you guys even know what currency devaluation is?

yeah .. its like when a store jacks the price up so they can pretend they are having a sale .. you don't need deception with quality .. you don't need to include the cd with the ticket price if the record is good fans will buy it .. and it will go to number one all by itself .. and you certainly don't need 150 lightsabers if you have an actual plot with dialog and decent acting

TrevorAyer said:

midnightmover said:

I think it's important to have some integrity in these debates. For me, quoting dollar figures that aren't inflation-adjusted shows a complete lack of honour. It amounts to wilful deception. I can understand why studios do it since they're trying to trick the sheeple into thinking they're missing out on something historic every summer, but their dishonesty should not be duplicated in debates that are meant to be concerned with truth. WildBoy is right. Do you guys even know what currency devaluation is?

yeah .. its like when a store jacks the price up so they can pretend they are having a sale .. you don't need deception with quality .. you don't need to include the cd with the ticket price if the record is good fans will buy it .. and it will go to number one all by itself .. and you certainly don't need 150 lightsabers if you have an actual plot with dialog and decent acting

EXACTLY! You guys nailed it.

midnightmover said:

I think it's important to have some integrity in these debates. For me, quoting dollar figures that aren't inflation-adjusted shows a complete lack of honour. It amounts to wilful deception. I can understand why studios do it since they're trying to trick the sheeple into thinking they're missing out on something historic every summer, but their dishonesty should not be duplicated in debates that are meant to be concerned with truth. WildBoy is right. Do you guys even know what currency devaluation is?

I hear you and agree. Unfortunately, modern movie successes aren't measured/reflected adjusted for inflation in the main stream media. All box office should be tallied/measured by tickets sold. The bottom line is that not as many people are going to the movies as they were back in the day...only 5 films from the last 20 years are in the top 20.

My point is that, even adjusted for inflation, The Prequels are some of the biggest box office hits ever. The Phantom Menace sits right next to Return of the Jedi on the list. The new Star Wars films are/were about as successful at the box office as a modern films can be in this day and age.

[Edited 5/21/12 8:42am]

skywalker said:

I hear you and agree. Unfortunately, modern movie successes aren't measured/reflected adjusted for inflation in the main stream media. All box office should be tallied/measured by tickets sold. The bottom line is that not as many people are going to the movies as they were back in the day...only 5 films from the last 20 years are in the top 20.

My point is that, even adjusted for inflation, The Prequels are some of the biggest box office hits ever. The Phantom Menace sits right next to Return of the Jedi on the list. The new Star Wars films are/were about as successful at the box office as a modern films can be in this day and age.

I like the italicised point a lot, especially cause I made it five posts ago and you dismissed it as being stupid.

As for the first bolded section, the whole "no one goes to the movies anymore" point, that's BS as Titanic is in the top 5. If a film contains some substance it CAN be as successful as older films. (BTW, I'm not saying Titanic was some great movie, but next to The prequel trilogy, it looks like a masterpiece).

And for the second bolded point, the Prequels, despite having all the promotional machinery and the star wars brand name, and three times the acting power of the originals, didn't manage to outperform the originals. The prequels were supposed to be a slam dunk money maker, but that didn't happen. The only one of the prequels that even cracked the top 50 is the first, and that's because word of mouth at how SHITTY the prequels were hadn't yet gotten around. Once news of the absolute LACK OF QUALITY of the product was known throughout the marketplace, the prequels couldn't do a lick of business. So even the slight "success" of PhanMen can be attributed to how good the preceding films were. And BTW aside from PhanMen (which wouldn't have even been released if it hadn't had the Star Wars brand name on it) the next highest grossing prequel scores only a few spots above Tootsie. Almost beat out by TOOTSIE....that's actually right where the prequels belong in the world.

The Prequels are nowhere near as successful as a modern film can be, and they were not half as good as they should have been even with Lucas phoning them in. They were a financial disappointment, and an artistic failure (how many golden raspberries did each of the prequels win?)

FACT!

Wildboy said:

skywalker said:

I hear you and agree. Unfortunately, modern movie successes aren't measured/reflected adjusted for inflation in the main stream media. All box office should be tallied/measured by tickets sold. The bottom line is that not as many people are going to the movies as they were back in the day...only 5 films from the last 20 years are in the top 20.

My point is that, even adjusted for inflation, The Prequels are some of the biggest box office hits ever. The Phantom Menace sits right next to Return of the Jedi on the list. The new Star Wars films are/were about as successful at the box office as a modern films can be in this day and age.

I like the italicised point a lot, especially cause I made it five posts ago and you dismissed it as being stupid.

As for the first bolded section, the whole "no one goes to the movies anymore" point, that's BS as Titanic is in the top 5. If a film contains some substance it CAN be as successful as older films. (BTW, I'm not saying Titanic was some great movie, but next to The prequel trilogy, it looks like a masterpiece).

And for the second bolded point, the Prequels, despite having all the promotional machinery and the star wars brand name, and three times the acting power of the originals, didn't manage to outperform the originals. The prequels were supposed to be a slam dunk money maker, but that didn't happen. The only one of the prequels that even cracked the top 50 is the first, and that's because word of mouth at how SHITTY the prequels were hadn't yet gotten around. Once news of the absolute LACK OF QUALITY of the product was known throughout the marketplace, the prequels couldn't do a lick of business. So even the slight "success" of PhanMen can be attributed to how good the preceding films were. And BTW aside from PhanMen (which wouldn't have even been released if it hadn't had the Star Wars brand name on it) the next highest grossing prequel scores only a few spots above Tootsie. Almost beat out by TOOTSIE....that's actually right where the prequels belong in the world.

The Prequels are nowhere near as successful as a modern film can be, and they were not half as good as they should have been even with Lucas phoning them in. They were a financial disappointment, and an artistic failure (how many golden raspberries did each of the prequels win?)

FACT!

I don't disagree that the prequels didn't out perform the original trilogy at the box office. Only one film has ever. It is highly unlikely that any modern film will outperform the original trilogy. This isn't a failure of the prequels as much as it is a change in the market/movie going public over the years.

What you are flat out wrong about (and have been this whole time) is in your refusal to admit that the prequels were box office smash hits. This is evident in statements like this:

The prequels were supposed to be a slam dunk money maker, but that didn't happen.

The Prequels are nowhere near as successful as a modern film can be.

What are the top money making films of the last 20 years (adjusted for inflation)? One of them is a Star Wars film. In fact, only two modern film (Avatar and Titanic) did better. The prequels were slam dunk money makers. Sure, Episode II and III didn't do as well as Episode I. So what? Jedi and Empire didn't do as well as A New Hope. Law of diminishing returns and all that.

Once news of the absolute LACK OF QUALITY of the product was known throughout the marketplace, the prequels couldn't do a lick of business.

Couldn't do a lick of business? Completely overstating things. The prequels were monsters at the box office. They were some of the biggest box office hits of all time. To pretend they were not is just as crazy as accusing me as being 3 or 4 different users at this website.

You comically throw out the Tootsie comparison (now you have a problem with Tootsie too?).

However, you fail to mention that the prequels were bigger hits than films like Rocky, Back to The Future, Superman, Terminator 2, a few of the Indiana Jones films, and a few of The Lord of the Rings films.

Bottom line is this: You hate the prequels and were disappointed by them. Fine. A huge fucking portion of the world loved them. The proof is in the numbers. You can have all the promotion in the world, but is takes people loving a movie to have the box office numbers the prequels do.

[Edited 5/21/12 11:22am]

[Edited 5/21/12 11:40am]

IF a huge portion of people loved the prequels, the second two would have made near as much money as the the first. That didn't happen because once people saw how bad the film was, they didn't bother to go to see the other two.

You keep saying these are some of THE HIGHEST GROSSING FILMS EVER. This is not the case. Are they in the top 100 films, yes, but that really doesn't mean shit. When you factor in that George Lucas could film 90 minutes of a guy fisting a hippopotamus and with his marketing and reputation it would probably pull $400 Million, (putting it at number 47, which would still be a better score then AotC or RotS), it really isn't that impressive that PhanMen cracked the top 20.

FINALLY you managed to get one thing right. The proof IS in the numbers. Or more accurately, the lack thereof. Why did Around the World in a Day, an album which was intentionally quirky, and alienated Princes casual listeners, still reach number one and go multi platinum? Because it was released after 1999 and Purple Rain. Prince could have recorded 9 tracks of subway noise and it would have shot to number one.* The thing is that the Prequel trilogy should have been a guaranteed top ten money maker. It'd be like a new Mariah Carey album just going gold. If you're a new musician and your album goes gold you shit your pants with happiness, if you're Mariah Carey and your album doesn't go multi platinum, someone majorly screwed the pooch somewhere. When it comes to the prequels, The lack of quality with the dialog, story, and poor special effects all made these films sputter out at bringing in half the money they should have made. Hell, LEGO Star Wars was better then the prequels.

An artistic and financial disappointment.

You keep talking about how there are so many fans of the prequels. Really? I know a bunch of people between the ages of 4 and 16 and they don't really like the Prequels as much as they like other forms of star wars media. I'm pretty sure the sales of the Knights of the Old Republic games and the Clone Wars TV show are what is keeping the franchise going and the toys selling. The only people I've heard of who apparently liked the prequels was you and your boyfriend JoeTyler.

Skywalker, you need to face reality, bro. Or are you one of those people who thinks Dinosaur bones were buried by the Jews in 1902 and the earth is only 6,000 years old?

*(I am not bashing ATWIAD as an artistic album or an important part of Princes catalouge, I am saying that the casual listener obviously has no interest in it, and doesn't "Get it")

[Edited 5/21/12 12:00pm]

Wildboy said:

IF a huge portion of people loved the prequels, the second two would have made near as much money as the the first. That didn't happen because once people saw how bad the film was, they didn't bother to go to see the other two.

Your logic is flawed. That didn't even happen with the 1st Star Wars sequel. Empire Strikes Back only earned approximately half of what Star Wars made. Return of the Jedi made less than Empire. Does than mean that people didn't go to the sequels because the quality of films dwindled? Absolutely not.

Furthermore, Revenge of the Sith made more than the Star Wars film that preceded it. Explain that.

You keep saying these are some of THE HIGHEST GROSSING FILMS EVER. This is not the case. Are they in the top 100 films, yes, but that really doesn't mean shit.

In the top 100 grossing (adjusted for inflation) films of all time doesn't mean shit? It only means that they are/were massively popular.

When you factor in that George Lucas could film 90 minutes of a guy fisting a hippopotamus and with his marketing and reputation

1. All movies have marketing pushes. Star Wars is/was no more marketed/hyped than other summer blockbusters like The Avengers, Batman, Transformers, etc. Only the original Star Wars didn't have a marketing machine/promotional push behind it. From Empire on, every Star Wars films had toys, fast food tie ins, tv commercial saturation, etc.

2. Thought you said George Lucas ruined his legacy/reputation with Episode I. You don't have to be impressed that Episode I is one of only three "modern" films in the all time top 20, but you should at least acknowledge that is one of the most popular films ever. Even if you don't like it.

FINALLY you managed to get one thing right. The proof IS in the numbers. Or more accurately, the lack thereof. Why did Around the World in a Day, an album which was intentionally quirky, and alienated Princes casual listeners, still reach number one and go multi platinum? Because it was released after 1999 and Purple Rain. Prince could have recorded 9 tracks of subway noise and it would have shot to number one.*

It's a bit messy tying in Prince's numbers to George Lucas's. But follow me on this:

Sign O' The Times sold only fraction of what Purple Rain did. In fact, saleswise it was a bit of a flop. SOTT won less major awards, was less critically lauded. Lastly, SOTT is not viewed, by most, as being nearly as culturally significant as Purple Rain.

Does that mean that no one loves Sign O' The Times? Is it shit compared to Prince's previous work? Would you say (as you so eloquently do) that only "retarded people" like the album?

Of course not. You porabably say that Sign O' The Times kicks ass because you probably like it. However, here you are slamming The Prequel Trilogy (two of the films you claim not to even have seen) and anyone that claims to like them simply because they were a disappointment to you.

The thing is that the Prequel trilogy should have been a guaranteed top ten money maker.

It'd be like a new Mariah Carey album just going gold. If you're a new musician and your album goes gold you shit your pants with happiness, if you're Mariah Carey and your album doesn't go multi platinum, someone majorly screwed the pooch somewhere. When it comes to the prequels, The lack of quality with the dialog, story, and poor special effects all made these films sputter out at bringing in half the money they should have made. Hell, LEGO Star Wars was better then the prequels.

Again, the prequels were incredibly successful financially. How do you not see that? Were you not around when they were the biggest hit films each of the years they were released?

How much money "should" they have made? More than Titanic? More than Avatar? Should they have made more money than the original trilogy? Been 1,2,3 on the list?

It seems to me that, unless the prequels made more money than the original Star Wars film ( a feat that likely won't be happen with any film) that you'd deem them a failure financially.

An artistic and financial disappointment.

You keep talking about how there are so many fans of the prequels. Really? I know a bunch of people between the ages of 4 and 16 and they don't really like the Prequels as much as they like other forms of star wars media.

I am sure that the 4 to 16 year olds you know don't make up the entire rest of the population in that age group. Every kid I know loves the prequels and doesn't really draw a distinction between the trilogies. You have other members on this thread saying the same.

I'm pretty sure the sales of the Knights of the Old Republic games and the Clone Wars TV show are what is keeping the franchise going and the toys selling. The only people I've heard of who apparently liked the prequels was you and your boyfriend JoeTyler.

So now he's my boyfriend. Boy, you were so sure that we were the same. Are you admitting you were (gasp) wrong? Look back at this thread of gen xers and 30/40somethings* and you'll find more than a couple that said they liked the prequels.

Skywalker, you need to face reality, bro. Or are you one of those people who thinks Dinosaur bones were buried by the Jews in 1902 and the earth is only 6,000 years old?

Nope. I am one of those crazy fuckers that loves this shit out of Star Wars. Payed to see all 6 of them multiple times in the theater.

You are the one telling me to "face reality" when , in reality, you are accusing anyone on this thread that disagrees with you of being me (or my boyfriend).

Reality is that the Prequel Trilogy that you so despise (while not as beloved or respected as the original trilogy amongst your age group) is a wildly successfully addition to the Star Wars saga that made a fucking ton and the box office. It is in the company of the most popular films ever made. Whether you like it or not. Also, give it up with slagging off on the special effects. They are/were state of the art. Further more acting/script have never been the crowning achievments of any Star Wars film. You can poke holes in the original trilogy for acting/script if you wanted.

*(I am not bashing ATWIAD as an artistic album or an important part of Princes catalouge, I am saying that the casual listener obviously has no interest in it, and doesn't "Get it")

* prince.org ages probably tend to skew older. I would guess that folks around here tend to better love the original trilogy that they/we grew up with.

Lastly, it is incredibly mindblowing that you include this phrase about not "getting it" when the masses don't like the things you do. Do you not see the irony?

[Edited 5/21/12 15:10pm]

I don't know who the critics are who rated SOTT lower then Purple Rain? you're making it up as you go along. Also, Sott didn't win any golden raspberries. Your arguments only make sense to yourself. And, there are a lot of people who think that Purple Rain IS better then Sott

There's also another factor. Anyone with eyes can tell you the prequels suck

Financial and Artistic FAILURES

The end

Wildboy said:

The prequels were supposed to be a slam dunk money maker, but that didn't happen.

What is your definition of a slam dunk money maker? The prequels have made over $2.5 billion, I don't think George is going broke any time soon. I sure hope I don't make some shitty money like that someday, I don't think I could live with the failure.

Wildboy said:

I don't know who the critics are who rated SOTT lower then Purple Rain? you're making it up as you go along.

Nope. That'd be you. Check it out:

http://princetext.tripod...._sott.html

If you read these reviews and think that are better than Purple Rain that would explain a lot about your bias towards what you like or against what you don't.

Also, Sott didn't win any golden raspberries. Your arguments only make sense to yourself.

No shit. Golden raspberries are for films. They are also a joke. Not judged on any actual criteria. They are spoof awards. Take them seriously if you want. I barely take the academy awards seriously.

And, there are a lot of people who think that Purple Rain IS better then Sott

Sure there are, but that doesn't make it true.

Just like you thinking Empire Strikes Back is better than the rest doesn't make it true.

I love it that movie. You love it? So what? It still made about half of the original and received mixed reviews upon it's release. Doesn't make it less great in my eyes.

There's also another factor. Anyone with eyes can tell you the prequels suck

You've never even seen the prequels save for Phantom Menace. What are you talking about? Zero credibility.

Financial and Artistic FAILURES

Artistic failures? Debatable. Was Return of the Jedi an artistic failure? Some people think none of the Star Wars films have much artistic merit. I think that they have moved the medium of film to new places. Even the prequels: the movement of film into digital, the pioneering of digital effects, chief of them being the 1st fully realized cgi character). Like or not, they were groundbreaking.

The end

Hope so. Your opinion is valid. It's just your view. Not the rest of the world's. A shit ton of people were into the prequels and gladly accepted them as Star Wars. The fact that you don't , or don't know anyone that does, is fine with me. All 5 of me posting on this thread.

[Edited 5/21/12 16:50pm]

TheEnglishGent said:

Wildboy said:

The prequels were supposed to be a slam dunk money maker, but that didn't happen.

What is your definition of a slam dunk money maker? The prequels have made over $2.5 billion, I don't think George is going broke any time soon. I sure hope I don't make some shitty money like that someday, I don't think I could live with the failure.

Exactly. As I said earlier, the Star Wars prequels are/were about as successful at the box office as modern day films/franchises can be.

skywalker said:

TheEnglishGent said:

What is your definition of a slam dunk money maker? The prequels have made over $2.5 billion, I don't think George is going broke any time soon. I sure hope I don't make some shitty money like that someday, I don't think I could live with the failure.

Exactly. As I said earlier, the Star Wars prequels are/were about as successful at the box office as modern day films/franchises can be.

Except for Avatar or Titanic.

if any of you have even watched a star wars movie you know damn well you need to see the prequels .. you cannot look away .. you want to involve your kids .. its worse than valentines day .. or mothers day .. its like you have to buy a card .. its all programming and nostalgia based sales .. geeks watch it multiple times while hating it .. i know i did .. young fans grow out of it .. and the rest just thought it was cute and are glad there kids have something to obsess over and keep them busy ..

the notion that the sales from this franchise have anything to do with the quality of the movies is a freaking joke .. and you all know it .. so start talking out the right hole and hopefully the one attached to ANY sense of taste or artistic integrity

i'll give most prince records at least 10 spins even if they are pure rubbish .. prince moved me so much at one time that i will keep reexamining looking for a glimpse of the ole genius that maybe i missed

lucas is the same way .. who does not want to love the prequels? we all do .. but we can't .. no one honest with themselves can anyway .. de nile aint just a river in egypt .. go ahead watch them again .. you will see ... you will see

jonylawson said:

both sets of obsessive fans tend to be white,overweight and a tad scary

I ain't white, overweight, or scary.

But then again, I woulsn't consider myself obsessed.

[Edited 5/21/12 17:30pm]

Wildboy said:

skywalker said:

Exactly. As I said earlier, the Star Wars prequels are/were about as successful at the box office as modern day films/franchises can be.

Except for Avatar or Titanic.

Exactly. One of the most successful in all time terms. I don't sweat Gone With the Wind in regards to Episode 4 either. Thank you, goodnight.

[Edited 5/21/12 19:18pm]

skywalker said:

Wildboy said:

Except for Avatar or Titanic.

Exactly. One of the most successful in all time terms. I don't sweat Gone With the Wind in regards to Episode 4 either. Thank you, goodnight.

[Edited 5/21/12 19:18pm]

That's the edited one skywalker? that makes even less sense then you're normal drivel

Wildboy said:

skywalker said:

Exactly. One of the most successful in all time terms. I don't sweat Gone With the Wind in regards to Episode 4 either. Thank you, goodnight.

[Edited 5/21/12 19:18pm]

That's the edited one skywalker? that makes even less sense then you're normal drivel

Careful about trolling. Wouldn't want the mods the have to snip you again.

TrevorAyer said:

the notion that the sales from this franchise have anything to do with the quality of the movies is a freaking joke .. and you all know it .. so start talking out the right hole and hopefully the one attached to ANY sense of taste or artistic integrity

For me it's this: Star Wars movies are escapist bliss. All of them have flaws and are not "perfect" films. That's cool with me. I can look past the flaws in the prequels now, just as I could/can look past the flaws in the original films. They are fun as hell, and incredibly imaginative. Also, to me, they have a bit more soul than the usual summer blockbuster movie.

That said, I also think my favorite musician is a genius, but sometimes he wears too much makeup and pants that are designed to let his ass show. So, who knows? Maybe I don't know the difference between artistic integrity and a good time.

TrevorAyer said:

if any of you have even watched a star wars movie you know damn well you need to see the prequels .. you cannot look away .. you want to involve your kids .. its worse than valentines day .. or mothers day .. its like you have to buy a card .. its all programming and nostalgia based sales .. geeks watch it multiple times while hating it .. i know i did .. young fans grow out of it .. and the rest just thought it was cute and are glad there kids have something to obsess over and keep them busy ..

the notion that the sales from this franchise have anything to do with the quality of the movies is a freaking joke .. and you all know it .. so start talking out the right hole and hopefully the one attached to ANY sense of taste or artistic integrity

i'll give most prince records at least 10 spins even if they are pure rubbish .. prince moved me so much at one time that i will keep reexamining looking for a glimpse of the ole genius that maybe i missed

lucas is the same way .. who does not want to love the prequels? we all do .. but we can't .. no one honest with themselves can anyway .. de nile aint just a river in egypt .. go ahead watch them again .. you will see ... you will see

I don't think anyone is saying the Star Wars movies made loads of money because they are the epitome of quality movie making. For me they are incredible fun and very enjoyable, I don't take any of them too seriously, how could anyone?

They have all been slagged off for one thing or another, even the originals and if the internet was around in the mainstream when Jedi was released Lucas would probably have quit Star Wars then instead of now. I remember the criticisms of the original films. The gay robot, the ridiculous green muppet and the stupid teddy bears. But who now doesn't love C3P0, Yoda and the Ewoks? Ok, not the Ewoks.

But even with their flaws, it seems wrong to say the prequels are complete crap, that is just nonsense. Just like it's nonsense to suggest Prince has released an album which is pure rubbish. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it rubbish. I can't stand Housequake but I'd never say it's rubbish, it just doesn't move me.

One quote I remember reading really summed up the whole slagging off the Phantom Menace received and it was in a summary of the year 1999. It said something along the lines of, '1999 was the year that George Lucas, creator of childrens sci-fi adventure Star Wars, got critically panned for releasing a childrens sci-fi movie'. The audience grew up and expected something more than Star Wars ever was or could ever be.

yeah but you all keep acting like the prequels are as good as the originals

the prequels are only slightly more enjoyable than transformers .. and that is most likely because they are labeled star wars movies and not much more

the originals are actually decent movies .. so were the indy movies .. the prequels are not

even on an escapist level they don't even make enough sense in dialog and plot to sit thru without gawking at the absolute senseless stupidity

and lets not forget the original star wars created the blockbuster .. revolutionized an industry .. brought something new to the table both in artistic expression and business

it was good enough to do that .. to put george on the map .. to capture the imagination of children and adults

when i first saw phantom i made lots of excuses as to why it was still a decent film .. things like .. its supposed to be bad ... its just a kids movie .. its like flash gordon .. its really pretty to watch ... at least we get a little more of the back story .. its got natalie portman in it .. yet if thats all there was to the original star wars it would not have become the worlds first block buster or toy franchise it became ..

much like prince .. the fans make lots of excuses why its ok that these artists served us such drivel when they are perfectly capable of so much more .. it becomes insulting to ones intelligence .. like when prince has shelby tell eveyone to get up a! over and over .. or sang! if the music is good you don't need to bark at the crowd like a bunch of idiots .. they will dance and sing just fine ..

the prequels seemed more an experiment in cgi than anything to do with the star wars story .. starwars was just the backdrop .. and thats a shame to take star wars .. which was much more than a kids movie .. and just use it as a backdrop to pile on pointless special effects .. its like prince rapping .. he writes whole songs just so he can rap .. does rap involve a new melody or even a new beat from prince .. no .. is he even any good at the delivery .. no .. is there a song in there .. no .. can his rap pretty much interchange with all his other rap attempts yes .. is there any point or reason for prince to ever rap again .. no .. did he bring anything new to the rap game .. no .. does it even sound good on any of his songs .. no .. is prince a great songwriter .. yes .. could he do much better .. yes .. did lucas special effects improve his ability to make a good movie .. no .. did he do anything that interesting with them .. no .. do they blend with real actors at all .. no .. do any of the prequels even matter in the starwars story .. no .. do they even look good at all .. no ... did adding effects to the orginal star wars make them better or ruin them .. ruined them .. did adding rap to prince music make it better or ruin it .. ruined it .. did prince sell more records under the prince brand instead of the fartist .. yes .. did lucas sell more tickets using the star wars name even tho the movies were rubbish .. yes

does anyone feeled ripped off by prince and lucas .. yes ... at least 90 percent of all prince starwars fans now feel gyped when they support new product .. its a fact

purple rain and star wars are both cult classics .. flawed but awesome none the less

the prequels are not even in the ball park ... not even close .. no where near it .. they are not the same .. not similar .. never going to be cherished by a generation .. kids are into them because of there parents wanting them to share in their childhood .. not because the prequels will have any more impact on this young generation than transformers did .. its all the same forgettable rubbish

rubbish

prince and lucas .. you need ta .. you need ta .. you need ta .. you need ta lay down

skywalker said:

midnightmover said:

I think it's important to have some integrity in these debates. For me, quoting dollar figures that aren't inflation-adjusted shows a complete lack of honour. It amounts to wilful deception. I can understand why studios do it since they're trying to trick the sheeple into thinking they're missing out on something historic every summer, but their dishonesty should not be duplicated in debates that are meant to be concerned with truth. WildBoy is right. Do you guys even know what currency devaluation is?

I hear you and agree. Unfortunately, modern movie successes aren't measured/reflected adjusted for inflation in the main stream media. All box office should be tallied/measured by tickets sold. The bottom line is that not as many people are going to the movies as they were back in the day...only 5 films from the last 20 years are in the top 20.

My point is that, even adjusted for inflation, The Prequels are some of the biggest box office hits ever. The Phantom Menace sits right next to Return of the Jedi on the list. The new Star Wars films are/were about as successful at the box office as a modern films can be in this day and age.

[Edited 5/21/12 8:42am]

I don't follow these things very closely, but on first glance that statistic seems to prove the opposite of what you're saying. Cinema has been around for over 100 years. If 5 movies from the last 20 years are in the all-time top 20 then that means they make up a massive 25% of the list. That tells me that cinema attendance must have held up pretty well, at least for the big blockbusters.

But the truth is all this talk about box office numbers conceals the real point. The real point is that the prequels were a massive disappointment to almost everyone who saw them. The dialogue is so notoriously bad that it's now actually used in screenwriting classes as an example of how NOT to do it.

Robert McKee is the most celebrated screenwriting guru in Hollywood. In this video he explains what makes bad dialogue, and the example used at the end is - you guessed it - George Lucas' Revenge of the Sith.

http://www.youtube.com/wa...M50DmC-il0

TheEnglishGent said:

I don't think anyone is saying the Star Wars movies made loads of money because they are the epitome of quality movie making. For me they are incredible fun and very enjoyable, I don't take any of them too seriously, how could anyone?

They have all been slagged off for one thing or another, even the originals and if the internet was around in the mainstream when Jedi was released Lucas would probably have quit Star Wars then instead of now. I remember the criticisms of the original films. The gay robot, the ridiculous green muppet and the stupid teddy bears. But who now doesn't love C3P0, Yoda and the Ewoks? Ok, not the Ewoks.

But even with their flaws, it seems wrong to say the prequels are complete crap, that is just nonsense. Just like it's nonsense to suggest Prince has released an album which is pure rubbish. Just because someone doesn't like something doesn't make it rubbish. I can't stand Housequake but I'd never say it's rubbish, it just doesn't move me.

One quote I remember reading really summed up the whole slagging off the Phantom Menace received and it was in a summary of the year 1999. It said something along the lines of, '1999 was the year that George Lucas, creator of childrens sci-fi adventure Star Wars, got critically panned for releasing a childrens sci-fi movie'. The audience grew up and expected something more than Star Wars ever was or could ever be.

Agreed.