Wildboy said:

Also, the stop motion used for the Rancor was flawless and a throwback to Ray Harryhausen, and if you guys want to talk about someone who actually revolutionized the special effects industry, You literally CAN'T get any better then him.

Just to chime in with some (unwelcome?) facts, the rancor wasn't stop-motion - it was a rod puppet shot overcranked so that it would have weight and gravity when played back at speed. I thought the puppetry work there was pretty good, though the compositing was a little rough... I think that's what you guys are talking about there.

For stop-motion in Star Wars, you've pretty much only got the tauntaun, the walkers, and the creatures on the chess table in the first film.

eyewishuheaven said:

Wildboy said:

Also, the stop motion used for the Rancor was flawless and a throwback to Ray Harryhausen, and if you guys want to talk about someone who actually revolutionized the special effects industry, You literally CAN'T get any better then him.

Just to chime in with some (unwelcome?) facts, the rancor wasn't stop-motion - it was a rod puppet shot overcranked so that it would have weight and gravity when played back at speed. I thought the puppetry work there was pretty good, though the compositing was a little rough... I think that's what you guys are talking about there.

For stop-motion in Star Wars, you've pretty much only got the tauntaun, the walkers, and the creatures on the chess table in the first film.

They recomposited this for the DVD release. It is one of the few changes that was actually necessary.

Didn't know that about the Rancor. Always thought it was stop motion

Wildboy said:

Thought thread would dry up. Not happening so I'm throwing my hat back in the ring.

Of course you are. You think that just because you lose interest in something that so does everyone else? Telling. Why not just pm me like you promised?

Wall,

Skywalker is delusional about the success and mass appeal of the prequel trilogy, but to say that the acting and dialog in the prequels is better, and to bash the Leia/Han script and performance....I just don't even know what to say... like, are you HIGH? Seriously, are you on Drugs? I mean, even Skywalker wouldn't make a claim that outlandish. The fact that you think Christianson and Portman bumbling their way through the prequels with zero chemistry and some of the worst love dialog put to film was better then the clever and subtle romance of Ford/Fisher makes you lose pretty much ALL credibility in any argument you make from this point on ever. That just blows my mind.

You haven't even seen the movies with Hayden Christiansen and Natalie Portman. You are critiquing things you haven't even seen. How credible is that?

Also, the stop motion used for the Rancor was flawless and a throwback to Ray Harryhausen, and if you guys want to talk about someone who actually revolutionized the special effects industry, You literally CAN'T get any better then him.

Also, Skywalker still hasn't put up a defense for the Mariah Carey argument (and this is after i answered his half baked attacks a number of times) or the poor dvd vs VHS showing of the original trilogy vs the prequel trilogy (available to anyone who can GOOGLE Nilsen SoundScan)

The Mariah Carey argument is: Once an artists has a monster hit , that wins multiple awards, and is critically favored, they must followup said hit with another one that equals or surpasses their previous effort in sales, acclaim, and awards garnered. If not, said artist loses credibility and is a "commercial and artistic failure".

As I pointed out to you, The Empire Strikes Back, and Return of the Jedi did neither when compared to the original Star Wars. Now you level the "Mariah Carey" argument at the prequels. Yet, you fail to take the sequels to task for the same. Why is that?

TrevorA, my friend, there is one fatal flaw in your and my argument. We're are trying to use LOGIC and BASIC KNOWLEDGE in a debate against crazy, delusional people

Logic like calling people retards, douches, druggies, and accusing people of posting under different user names?

Let's not forget, I am the one that has been posting sources beyond just wikipedia. When I ask you for sources of your info/facts you tell me to "google it".

No matter how many times you or I use common sense, or facts, or basic problem solving, Skywalker/JoeTyler/Wall will ignore us and come back with an even crazier* statement then they did last time. Believe me, I figured this out the hard way. You can't use intelligent arguments with these people, they either don't care or won't let themselves see the truth. It's like you said, "Hamburgers taste better then rat piss" and then Skywalker says "I happen to LOVE rat piss! and that's YOUR OPINION that hamburgers are better!"

Change the inflammatory rat piss to an actual food that you've never tasted and you see why you are the one delivering the crazy statements and weak argument.

there's no real arguing with that. Obviously hamburgers are better and everyone with a brain knows it, but you can't convince someone of even an obvious, basic truth if they intend upon sticking their heads in the sand like an ostrich.

Everyone with a brain knows we are talking about films. More specifically Star Wars films...so films that, in the grand scheme of things, aren't actually THAT different from each other.

*I invite everyone to reread this entire damn thread and see who is making crazier statements. Let's tally it up, shall we?

[Edited 5/24/12 15:56pm]

[Edited 5/24/12 16:08pm]

THAT'S YOUR RESPONCE TO THE MARIAH CAREY ARGUMENT? Seriously?

I never said that it had to be a bigger hit then the original, just make a certain base level of profit given the brand name and the amount of exposure and the fact that it was SUPPOSED to make way more then it did. Stop trying to put words in my mouth to weaken my strong arguments.

totally different with empire, which wasn't a failure as it alone profited as much as TWO of your prequels. How can you argue that Empire is a failure when it DOUBLED the profits of those crud fests? That argument, like the rest of your arguments, holds NO WATER. Get your S together and form a REAL answer to the Mariah Carey question (saying that I'm not the judge of whether an answer is good enough or not is a BS cop out)

I pointed you toward Nilsen SoundScan. if you don't want to look it up from there, you're just a lazy punk (who probably isn't even a teacher)

Now I know how much you love to try and get the other person on the defensive and badger them with non stop questions so you don't have to answer any questions yourself. Unfortunately for you thats the type of entry level stuff they teach you when you're on the seventh grade debate team.

So, Give a REAL answer to the Mariah Carey question.

Check out the Nilsen data and then tell me if the movies are so loved, why they have sold such a small amount in comparison to the originals

Then tell me why there is SUCH bad word of mouth on the prequels (on rotten tomatoes and netflix)

Give complete answers, the type you would expect from your students.

Wildboy said:

THAT'S YOUR RESPONCE TO THE MARIAH CAREY ARGUMENT? Seriously?

I never said that it had to be a bigger hit then the original, just make a certain base level of profit given the brand name and the amount of exposure and the fact that it was SUPPOSED to make way more then it did. Stop trying to put words in my mouth to weaken my strong arguments.

Again, how much was Empire supposed to make? Why do you give it and Jedi a free pass? Both those movies were promoted to high heaven and had the Star Wars brand name, but were not as commercially, nor critically, successful as the original. As much as I don't give a fuck about that, you clearly do because it's the ammo you fire off at the prequels.

totally different with empire, which wasn't a failure as it alone profited as much as TWO of your prequels. How can you argue that Empire is a failure when it DOUBLED the profits of those crud fests? That argument, like the rest of your arguments, holds NO WATER. Get your S together and form a REAL answer to the Mariah Carey question (saying that I'm not the judge of whether an answer is good enough or not is a BS cop out)

Again, you are comparing the profits of what Empire made to the prequels. (As if the prequels didn't make profits in the hundreds of millions.)

What I am asking you to do is calculate how much Empire "should have" made, based on the strength of the Star Wars movie that preceded it. Based on the Star Wars brand, based on the monster promotion behind it, why did it make approximately half of the movie before it?

Also, why did it receive less critical acclaim?

Why did it receive less awards/nominations?

I pointed you toward Nilsen SoundScan. if you don't want to look it up from there, you're just a lazy punk (who probably isn't even a teacher)

This website? http://www.nielsen.com/us/en.html

Go to the offical site and search for Star Wars. Do you get results?

There are no numbers for Star Wars home video sales at this website.

Soundscan is primarily used for tracking music. Not the source for home video sales/rentals.

Furthermore, soundscan was implemented in 1991. You were giving me Star Wars sales figures from the 1980's home video market. Where did you get those figures?

Now I know how much you love to try and get the other person on the defensive and badger them with non stop questions so you don't have to answer any questions yourself. Unfortunately for you thats the type of entry level stuff they teach you when you're on the seventh grade debate team.

So, Give a REAL answer to the Mariah Carey question.

Rephrase the Mariah Carey question. I honestly apologize if you don't think I addressed it.

I'll answer it about the Star Wars prequels if you do about the Star Wars sequels. Also, can we call it something other than "The Mariah Carey" question?

Check out the Nilsen data and then tell me if the movies are so loved, why they have sold such a small amount in comparison to the originals

Again, I am not finding Star Wars home video sales at the website. Are you using another?

Then tell me why there is SUCH bad word of mouth on the prequels (on rotten tomatoes and netflix)

Give complete answers, the type you would expect from your students.

I answered as to why I believe the prequels are less respected earlier today Check it:

I think they are less respected because

A. The target audience that grew up on the originals (in the theaters/or on VHS) in their youth had grown up. The prequels (maybe mistakenly) weren't catered to the them as much as they were to a newer generation of kids.

B. They delved more into Star Wars mythos that many people didn't care to delve into (demystification of mysterious characters and the demysitfication of mysterious worlds and events).

C. They lacked a Han Solo archetype that could give some levity and humanity and wise ass commentary to all the Jedi/Sith Republic/Empire mythology.

D. There was too long of a gap between trilogies. The expectations built up over the years were too varied/high. The movies were always going to have a rough go living up to 20 years of fanboy anticipation.

E. They were not the first. Roger Ebert has a quote about this in his review of The Phantom Menace, and I really think it is on point:

"If it were the first "Star Wars" movie, "The Phantom Menace" would be hailed as a visionary breakthrough. But this is the fourth movie of the famous series, and we think we know the territory; many of the early reviews have been blase, paying lip service to the visuals and wondering why the characters aren't better developed. How quickly do we grow accustomed to wonders. I am reminded of the Isaac Asimov story "Nightfall," about the planet where the stars were visible only once in a thousand years. So awesome was the sight that it drove men mad. We who can see the stars every night glance up casually at the cosmos and then quickly down again, searching for a Dairy Queen."

Lastly, from http://www.the-numbers.com:

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/Picture4.png[/img:$uid]

Thoughts? Valid or not?

[Edited 5/24/12 18:04pm]

Thoughts??? We already went over this. It's called INFLATION. Ask one of your students about it, I'm sure one of their more competent teachers knows what it is and taught it to them. They made the same amount of money almost 30 years apart, which means that A new hope actually profited about 2 to 3 times (or greater, I'm going with a conservative estimate) more.

Now, what I don't get, is that we've already covered this part of your paper thin argument. Did you get hit in the head? We went over this already and I already schooled you with it. Why are you putting up arguments that hurt your own cause? Do you have the thing that Guy Pierce had in Momento?

And I really don't feel like re-writing the Mariah Carey argument for the third time so get off your lazy butt and go back and read it. Any lack of response to this argument is an admittance that you have NO response (IE I WIN!!!!)

Now, you also didn't answer the Empire question. You turned it around and said "well how much should it have made." A lot of people were looking for Lucas to fall flat on his face with the sequel to star wars, and Empire still made a crazy amount of money, not as much as Star Wars, but twice as much as AotC or RotS, and at that point, star wars was not a BRAND like it is today. There was one movie, then the Xmas special, a lot of people thought it was a one hit wonder that couldn't be equalled, and there was nowhere near the amount of marketing that exists today. To even compare marketing in 79-82 to marketing now is fucking preposterous. You keep trying to compare the movies from MY trilogy to one another instead of your shitty trilogy, whys that? I know, cause in EVERY WAY the original trilogy is better and a bigger success. Time has already not been kind to the prequels, and as the few kids who got caught up in the hype have started to age, fewer and fewer people even watch/remember the prequels. Deal with it.

Furthermore, Nielson has records dating further back then it's inception. That's a ridiculous argument to begin with, because if no one had records dating further back then their creating you wouldn't be able to find any data on the Internet older then the middle 90's. Get it together and use the search function. (I like that argument btw, "You don't show your sources" I show one of my sources "I'm too lazy/inept to use the search function") Now how come the DVD/VHS sales are so much higher for the originals?

Answer some questions for once!

damn reading you two piss each other off reminds me of my lyin ass bitch ex wife .. you both need lawyers at this point

ok a few more facts (as i call em)

the issue with the rancor was that it looked inconsistant in a bad way .. like luke was pretty much standing in front of a screen with the rancor projected on it .. just didn't blend

i love stop motion tho .. all the stop motion tauntauns and at ats are great .. way better than cgi by like a million million billion zillion miles .. to be fair .. the prequels basically look like that old rancor scene from the original un new edition version ... and to have a whole movie look unblended .. excuseme ... 3 whole movies .. its just bad ... newsflash toworld .. cgi does not work .. it looks like shit

dont for get sam jacksons shit performance along with ewen, qui gon and that babe black swan .. and believe me portman doesnt need to do much to impress me and i am a huge starwars geek and it still didnt get over on me .. that is truly saying something to the horror of these diarhetic movies

wildboy .. i think the world is better off never hearing prince after the name change and never seeing a star wars movie past jedi .. so seeing as you have not seen them .. congradulations .. i am very proud i have never seen titanic .. what a slab of shit that must be

star wars was not promoted .. it was a hit then the marketing kicked in

less people saw empire because it had a bit of a backlash due to the unresolved ending

if eye was ur girlfriend is one of prince best songs .. which came out after purple rain

empire is better than star wars

sales have nothing to do with whether or not some thing is good or not ... nothing

if you are and artist and have a hit than you need to have an even better hit next time and so on .. otherwise your not an artist anymore .. every artist seeks to improve .. not cash in and let the art deteriorate into total shit with a brand label on it ... otherwise ur not an artist anymore ..

hear me prince .. ur not an artist anymore .. and neither is lucas ... fucking sad ... exspecially for 2 guys with millions to burn .. or billions george .. ud think they would have something better to do than pull the wool over the publics eyes and ears like they have .. ps prince .. lucas is a better sell out than you .. he can still make millions on rubbish ... ur just given them tea cup coasters away .. so in that sense i guess i like you a little better ... at least you didnt have the nerve to charge your fans on that last one ..

man there is a lot of crap on that top grossing list .. transformers .. avatar .. et .. harry potter .. lord of the rings .. come on .. how can u read that list and think it has anything to do with good or bad movies .. have you watched transformers?????? ugh .. what shit

Wildboy said:

Thoughts??? We already went over this. It's called INFLATION. Ask one of your students about it, I'm sure one of their more competent teachers knows what it is and taught it to them. They made the same amount of money almost 30 years apart, which means that A new hope actually profited about 2 to 3 times (or greater, I'm going with a conservative estimate) more.

Whoa princess, don't get excited*. You are missing the point. I should have remembered you are mr prequels vs originals. I just thought it'd be dirty to blur our the original Star Wars to avoid your inflation rant again.

Notice that most of these movies except (E.T. and Star Wars) are from the last 20 years or so. The modern era if you will. The Phantom Menace is one of the most profitable movies of it's time.

one of the most profitable of the current climate.

Is it as profitable/high earning as the original? Of course not. No modern blockbusters are.

No modern blockbuster is ever going to be as profitable as the past blockbusters because they cost increasingly more and more to make, while earning less. That is not a trend exclusive to the Prequels, but of all modern blockbusters. Do you get that? Movies are in a downward trend in terms of profit and dollars compared to movies from previous decades.

I'll say it another way: It is completely misleading to say The Prequels are not popular now and then use a comparison of stats/figures to the original films. You have to judge numbers to movies of the same era. Get it?

That's why I keep prodding you about Empire and Jedi. They were in the same era (same costs/same movie going trends/etc) as the original and, compared to the original, were not as financially or critically successful. Yet, you don't use that info to deem those films a failure because you like them. So do I.

I also like the Prequels. That's why I balk when you try to portray them as huge financial disappointments that no one went to see. In actuality, they kept the whole Star Wars thing going for decades to come. You prefer The Clone Wars? Lego Star Wars? Fine. There'd be none without the prequels. They kept Star Wars relevant instead of just being (to some) some nostalgic thing from the 70's/80's. For better or worse, you got a whole new generation of Star Wars fans because of the prequels. If they end up preferring the originals? Good for them. High five from you. Glad they aren't "idiots and retards" in your eyes.

Now, what I don't get, is that we've already covered this part of your paper thin argument. Did you get hit in the head? We went over this already and I already schooled you with it. Why are you putting up arguments that hurt your own cause? Do you have the thing that Guy Pierce had in Momento?

Tough talk from a guy who left this thread with such sweet promises to privately message me more Star Wars chatter. And it's Memento. Mo' Mento sounds like an In Living Color skit.

And I really don't feel like re-writing the Mariah Carey argument for the third time so get off your lazy butt and go back and read it. Any lack of response to this argument is an admittance that you have NO response (IE I WIN!!!!)

Fuck, you are the lazy one. I am busting my ass getting sources for you, and you won't even rephrase a question that you are demanding me to answer. Okay I'll play. Read your quote.

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.

Is there a question here? I don't see one. I'll spar you on the Mariah question, but answer a few below to clear up the analogy you are making:

What is the movie/money equivalent to going multiplatinum? Give me a dollar amount or a profit margin.

Now, you also didn't answer the Empire question. You turned it around and said "well how much should it have made." A lot of people were looking for Lucas to fall flat on his face with the sequel to star wars, and Empire still made a crazy amount of money, not as much as Star Wars, but twice as much as AotC or RotS, and at that point, star wars was not a BRAND like it is today. There was one movie, then the Xmas special, a lot of people thought it was a one hit wonder that couldn't be equalled, and there was nowhere near the amount of marketing that exists today.

Whatever dude. You know that Empire and Jedi were as HYPED as a movie could be for the 1980's. Adjust it for inflation. Know what I mean? Yep, they didn't do things like internet campaigns in 1980. No shit.

To even compare marketing in 79-82 to marketing now is fucking preposterous. You keep trying to compare the movies from MY trilogy to one another instead of your shitty trilogy, whys that? I know, cause in EVERY WAY the original trilogy is better and a bigger success. Time has already not been kind to the prequels, and as the few kids who got caught up in the hype have started to age, fewer and fewer people even watch/remember the prequels. Deal with it.

Wow. You are crazy. YOUR trilogy. I have fully admitted that I like all of the films and prefer the originals. The reason you originally dipped out is because someone called you on your shit for turning this into a prequel vs originals debate. I have never even been interested in that and I have said it time and again...I love them all. Do you really not get that?

Furthermore, Nielson has records dating further back then it's inception. That's a ridiculous argument to begin with, because if no one had records dating further back then their creating you wouldn't be able to find any data on the Internet older then the middle 90's. Get it together and use the search function. (I like that argument btw, "You don't show your sources" I show one of my sources "I'm too lazy/inept to use the search function") Now how come the DVD/VHS sales are so much higher for the originals?

Listen, you said you were using nielsen/soundscan for your numbers. Where can you view their home video sales records online? They have a search option. Doesn't yield results. You are throwing out numbers about toy sales, dvd and home video sales, but I have no idea where you are getting these and I honestly looked. I suspect that you are not giving me any links, because you don't have them. Even used google (is that how you spell it? ) a few times.

Answer some questions for once!

I just layed out 5 answers as to why I think the prequels aren't as popular as the originals. What are you talking about? Did you respond to them?

You know, many people have been calling you a troll in this thread (and others) but I haven't really bought into it. The mods have even stepped in on you a few times. I can talk/debate about Star Wars for years if needed (check the name and avatar).

I think you actually have some good things to say, but you do so in such an asshole-ish way that it's hard to debate/converse with you. I've tried to be civil with you, tried to be smart ass, tried to be funny, but you are mostly about slinging dirt and insults and your heavy bias.

You talked about "winning" like Charlie Sheen, but you already lost credibility when you started criticizing films you've never seen.

Also, this didn't help either:

Wildboy said:

I want to discuss this, just not as the top thread of a Prince site. I'll PM you when I'm not at work, but I won't be responding to this thread anymore

skywalker said:

Cool. Please do.

Less than 24 hours later and not a single pm/orgnote in my box.

Wildboy said:

Thought thread would dry up. Not happening so I'm throwing my hat back in the ring.

No matter how many times you or I use common sense, or facts, or basic problem solving, Skywalker/JoeTyler/Wall will ignore us and come back with an even crazier statement then they did last time.

Fun stuff.

* See what I did there. Han and Leia.

They should retitle this thread skywalker and wildboy: Nerds at large.

[Edited 5/24/12 21:12pm]

skywalker said:

Wait a minute. Reread my original comments that I bolded. Not sure how I misrepresented the dispute. I know the masses think the 80's were Prince's golden era. As I said, I know what popular opinion is on Prince and Star Wars. I just think it's too easy to buy into group think mentality and accept popular opinion as fact.

Sigh. You're still being sneaky. You're admitting NOW that the 80s are seen as Prince's golden era, but back THEN you went to inordinate lengths to prove that this was not true. Again, you are misrepresenting what the dispute was. Obviously, since that argument you've realized how absurd your denial was and you're trying to pretend that you never did deny it in the first place when you absolutely did. You denied it with great passion. By pretending that you didn't you are showing yourself to be a highly dishonest character.

As for the prequels, no-one is saying that everybody hates them, but we are saying that most people agree that they pale in comparison to the originals. It seems you are now admitting that this is the general consensus (regardless of the reasons) which means the bulk of this argument is now over.

midnightmover said:

skywalker said:

Wait a minute. Reread my original comments that I bolded. Not sure how I misrepresented the dispute. I know the masses think the 80's were Prince's golden era. As I said, I know what popular opinion is on Prince and Star Wars. I just think it's too easy to buy into group think mentality and accept popular opinion as fact.

Sigh. You're still being sneaky. You're admitting NOW that the 80s are seen as Prince's golden era, but back THEN you went to inordinate lengths to prove that this was not true.

Show me an example of when I went to inordinate lengths to prove this, or even disputed this as a fact.

Again, you are misrepresenting what the dispute was. Obviously, since that argument you've realized how absurd your denial was and you're trying to pretend that you never did deny it in the first place when you absolutely did. You denied it with great passion. By pretending that you didn't you are showing yourself to be a highly dishonest character.

As for the prequels, no-one is saying that everybody hates them, but we are saying that most people agree that they pale in comparison to the originals. It seems you are now admitting that this is the general consensus (regardless of the reasons) which means the bulk of this argument is now over.

Read the bolded portion. This IS very clearly what wildboy is saying.

My stance has never been that the prequels were "better" than originals. I challenge you to find an example of me declaring such in this thread.

My main argument has always been that the prequels were hugely successful , global box office smashes, with revolutionary special effects that helped usher in the digital era of film.

I never have tried to steer this debate into a originals vs prequels discussion. Again, I love all of the Star Wars films.

Any seemingly disparaging remarks I have made about the originals has only been in order to illustrate that many of the criticisms leveled at the prequels could just as easily be leveled at any Star Wars movie.

I am sorry if you feel that I have been contradictory, or unclear in my arguments. I honestly am not trying to be. Again, this has never been about bashing the original Star Wars films.

My goal has only to point out that many are wildly overstating the prequels as failures and underselling the fact that they were actually enormously successful films that were/are groundbreaking in their own right.

[Edited 5/25/12 7:35am]

[Edited 5/25/12 7:37am]

midnightmover said:

Sigh. You're still being sneaky. You're admitting NOW that the 80s are seen as Prince's golden era, but back THEN you went to inordinate lengths to prove that this was not true. Again, you are misrepresenting what the dispute was. Obviously, since that argument you've realized how absurd your denial was and you're trying to pretend that you never did deny it in the first place when you absolutely did. You denied it with great passion. By pretending that you didn't you are showing yourself to be a highly dishonest character.

As for the prequels, no-one is saying that everybody hates them, but we are saying that most people agree that they pale in comparison to the originals. It seems you are now admitting that this is the general consensus (regardless of the reasons) which means the bulk of this argument is now over.

Exactly

Wildboy said:

midnightmover said:

Sigh. You're still being sneaky. You're admitting NOW that the 80s are seen as Prince's golden era, but back THEN you went to inordinate lengths to prove that this was not true. Again, you are misrepresenting what the dispute was. Obviously, since that argument you've realized how absurd your denial was and you're trying to pretend that you never did deny it in the first place when you absolutely did. You denied it with great passion. By pretending that you didn't you are showing yourself to be a highly dishonest character.

As for the prequels, no-one is saying that everybody hates them, but we are saying that most people agree that they pale in comparison to the originals. It seems you are now admitting that this is the general consensus (regardless of the reasons) which means the bulk of this argument is now over.

Exactly

Exactly? You see the underscored portion? You just spent this entire thread claiming the very opposite thing. I guess people do change.

Again, remember how this began:

Wildboy said:

Yeah, Episodes 1-3 were the worst they could have possibly been.

skywalker said:

And they still are some of the biggest box office hits ever. For better or worse, the prequels changed movies. These films (and the technology used in them) ushered in the digital era of film. Fact.

Tell me that you disproved any of this

Lastly, I'm still up for the Mariah Carey analogy if you are. PM me? Come back to this thread tomorrow?

[Edited 5/25/12 17:06pm]

Maybe I missed it, I skipped from page 1 of this thread where it was first mentioned to the last page where it was still being debated, but why are raw movie gross revenues being compared? At a minimum you need to adjust for ticket price inflation. Ideally you would also adjust for population growth. This table does the first for domestic movie revenue.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Star wars is #2 all time

Empire Strikes Back is #12

Jedi is #15

Phantom Menace is #16

Sith is #59

Clones is #86

Why would Star Wars make more money if Empire is better? Because Star Wars had the benefit of being new. New in taht nobody make movies like that before Star Wars.

Since this is a thread comparing Prince to Lucas. Most people thought Sign O the Times was Prince's best album, yet Purple Rain was far and away his best selling album.

alandail said:

Maybe I missed it, I skipped from page 1 of this thread where it was first mentioned to the last page where it was still being debated, but why are raw movie gross revenues being compared? At a minimum you need to adjust for ticket price inflation. Ideally you would also adjust for population growth. This table does the first for domestic movie revenue.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Star wars is #2 all time

Empire Strikes Back is #12

Jedi is #15

Phantom Menace is #16

Sith is #59

Clones is #86

The main argument that wildboy has been making is that "only retarded people" liked the Prequels and that they were incredible financial failures and not box office hits.

Which is untrue. The prequels were box office behemoths across the globe. Wildboy also suggests that the prequels didn't make much of a profit. Which is also incredibly false.

He then compares the prequels box office stats to the original Star Wars trilogy numbers to pad his argument. Which, in addition to plunging the conversation into an unecessary/off topic prequels vs originals debate, is also an incredibly misleading way to show/illustrate any modern film's box office success.

No modern blockbuster (nor any from the last 20 years) will ever have the profit margin (or likely box office success) of the original Star Wars. Not The Avengers, not Avatar, not Titanic, The Dark Knight, Lord of the Rings, nor the Prequels. This is the reason hollywood doesn't ever use/point out adjusted box office.

My point is that shrinking profits/higher costs is not a trend exclusive to the Prequels, but of all modern blockbusters. The chart I posted illustrates that. My argument is that you must compare The Prequels box office and profit from movies of it's same era to be accurate in gauging popularity. In retrospect, it would have been more clear to have used a chart adjusted for inflation and only shown numbers of profit for modern movies.

Why would Star Wars make more money if Empire is better? Because Star Wars had the benefit of being new. New in taht nobody make movies like that before Star Wars.

And I completely agree. It happened to Return of the Jedi as well. I have said earlier that the same could be said of the Prequels...check the Roger Ebert quote.

Interestingly enough, this chart from box office mojo illustrates that the Star Wars sequels in each trilogy had same trends in terms of order released and money made.

[img:$uid]http://i563.photobucket.com/albums/ss73/shawnsolo3000/Picture223-17-12.png[/img:$uid]

First films make a shit ton, second film makes the least, 3rd film sees a rise in box office.

Now wildboy says that Episode II and III made less money because everyone hated Episode I.

However, the sequels to the original Star Wars trended in popularity the same way also.

I agree that popularity and quality don't go hand in hand, but I fail to see how anyone can look at the numbers and say that The Prequels were not box office monsters ... they were.

Since this is a thread comparing Prince to Lucas. Most people thought Sign O the Times was Prince's best album, yet Purple Rain was far and away his best selling album.

Do you that the general public regards Sign O' The Times is Prince's best album?

It is certainly my favorite, and I think it is regarded as a favorite amongst hardcore Prince fans, but what about the casual fan/listener?

[Edited 5/25/12 20:03pm]

skywalker said:

midnightmover said:

Sigh. You're still being sneaky. You're admitting NOW that the 80s are seen as Prince's golden era, but back THEN you went to inordinate lengths to prove that this was not true.

Show me an example of when I went to inordinate lengths to prove this, or even disputed this as a fact.

You have got to be fucking kidding, right? This was about 4 or 5 years ago. You know full well I'm not gonna dig up the threads from that long ago, but the fact that you're refusing to admit this settles any lingering doubt about your character. You are a lying skunk. And please don't run like a cry-baby to the moderators to get them to snip that. It's a plain statement of fact.

Back then you argued that it was just me and some whingers on the org who thought Prince had gone downhill; and that the majority saw no decline in P's post-80s output. You posited his high concert attendance figures as proof of this, completely ignoring the fact that people were coming to hear the old songs, not the new ones. In one thread I even saw you claim that Emancipation was one of his best selling albums! Are you seriously saying you don't remember any of this? Please....

[Edited 5/28/12 6:34am]

skywalker said:

midnightmover said:

Show me an example of when I went to inordinate lengths to prove this, or even disputed this as a fact.

Again, you are misrepresenting what the dispute was. Obviously, since that argument you've realized how absurd your denial was and you're trying to pretend that you never did deny it in the first place when you absolutely did. You denied it with great passion. By pretending that you didn't you are showing yourself to be a highly dishonest character.

As for the prequels, no-one is saying that everybody hates them, but we are saying that most people agree that they pale in comparison to the originals. It seems you are now admitting that this is the general consensus (regardless of the reasons) which means the bulk of this argument is now over.

Read the bolded portion. This IS very clearly what wildboy is saying.

Even here you're being disingenuous. WildBoy is saying he thinks the prequels are shit. Fair enough, that's his opinion. He's also saying that most people out there think they pale next to the originals. Is he literally saying that everyone who ever saw them, hates them? Of course not. He never said that and no quote you've produced shows him saying that. He's saying that an awful lot hated them and most of the remainder of the audience were lukewarm.

As I said before, you have already now conceded his main point, which is that the prequels are generally seen as poor cousins to the originals. You can try and wiggle out of it, but you've quite clearly conceded that point, which means all your protestations from now on are just white noise.

alandail said:

Maybe I missed it, I skipped from page 1 of this thread where it was first mentioned to the last page where it was still being debated, but why are raw movie gross revenues being compared? At a minimum you need to adjust for ticket price inflation. Ideally you would also adjust for population growth. This table does the first for domestic movie revenue.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Star wars is #2 all time

Empire Strikes Back is #12

Jedi is #15

Phantom Menace is #16

Sith is #59

Clones is #86

Why would Star Wars make more money if Empire is better? Because Star Wars had the benefit of being new. New in taht nobody make movies like that before Star Wars.

Since this is a thread comparing Prince to Lucas. Most people thought Sign O the Times was Prince's best album, yet Purple Rain was far and away his best selling album.

The answer to that question in bold is very simple. It's because there are some folks around here who have no principles.

And from looking at those inflation-adjusted numbers you produced it becomes clear why skywalker would focus instead on the raw figures, because the inflation-adjusted numbers seem to back up WildBoys' claim that the prequels were less successful than the originals.

like skywalker says .. everybody does hate the prequels .. its a fact

and if they don't .. it's because something is wrong with them .. perhaps they were droppped on their head as a child ... perhaps they have absolutely no taste in movies at all ... perhaps they are sheep meant to be poked and prodded with electric shocks into their lil stables to be prepared for slaughter .. that is the only way anybody would watch the prequels .. they suck so bad .. everyone and i mean EVERYONE knows it ...

watching the prequels is like watching an 8 hour comercial for a mcdonalds happy meal toy .. hell mayor mccheese is a better actor than sam jackson .. fuck people got some stones trying to defend this complete shit .. stones in their head

midnightmover said:

skywalker said:

Show me an example of when I went to inordinate lengths to prove this, or even disputed this as a fact.

You have got to be fucking kidding, right? This was about 4 or 5 years ago. You know full well I'm not gonna dig up the threads from that long ago, but the fact that you're refusing to admit this settles any lingering doubt about your character. You are a lying skunk. And please don't run like a cry-baby to the moderators to get them to snip that. It's a plain statement of fact.

Wow. I am honestly really sorry. Let me say a few things:

1. I thought you were talking about THIS specific thread.

2. I don't really have you, midnightmover, pegged as someone that I got into it with. Or someone that I disagree with.

Meaning, I don't doubt we did get into an argument half a decade ago on prince.org, but I don't remember it that well. Certainly, I didn't remember it was with you. Again, I apologize. Was this after The Superbowl, maybe? I could see myself being hyped up about Prince's spike in mainstream popularity enough to talk about how popular he was blah blah blah. Again, I apologize. Obviously I left a bad fucking taste in your mouth. That was not my intention.

Back then you argued that it was just me and some whingers on the org who thought Prince had gone downhill; and that the majority saw no decline in P's post-80s output. You posited his high concert attendance figures as proof of this, completely ignoring the fact that people were coming to hear the old songs, not the new ones. In one thread I even saw you claim that Emancipation was one of his best selling albums! Are you seriously saying you don't remember any of this? Please....

[Edited 5/28/12 6:34am]

Again, this sounds somewhat familiar. I am not trying to be a dick, I just don't recall the details. As I said, I thought you were referring to my talking points in this thread. Not to something from years ago.

Lastly, I am not going to "run to the mods" but, I do think you are a bit out of line to make severe comments about my character. I apologize that I offended you. Apologize if I crossed a line.

[Edited 5/28/12 11:24am]

midnightmover said:

alandail said:

Maybe I missed it, I skipped from page 1 of this thread where it was first mentioned to the last page where it was still being debated, but why are raw movie gross revenues being compared? At a minimum you need to adjust for ticket price inflation. Ideally you would also adjust for population growth. This table does the first for domestic movie revenue.

http://boxofficemojo.com/alltime/adjusted.htm

Star wars is #2 all time

Empire Strikes Back is #12

Jedi is #15

Phantom Menace is #16

Sith is #59

Clones is #86

Why would Star Wars make more money if Empire is better? Because Star Wars had the benefit of being new. New in taht nobody make movies like that before Star Wars.

Since this is a thread comparing Prince to Lucas. Most people thought Sign O the Times was Prince's best album, yet Purple Rain was far and away his best selling album.

The answer to that question in bold is very simple. It's because there are some folks around here who have no principles.

And from looking at those inflation-adjusted numbers you produced it becomes clear why skywalker would focus instead on the raw figures, because the inflation-adjusted numbers seem to back up WildBoys' claim that the prequels were less successful than the originals.

This is what is problematic. I never claimed that the prequels were MORE successful than the originals. In fact, I admitted this several times.

My claim was that the prequels were popular and groundbreaking in their own right.

This is the claim that wildboy took issue with. He would steer the conversation into prequels vs original conversation, but that is not the claim I was making.

Is he literally saying that everyone who ever saw them, hates them? Of course not. He never said that and no quote you've produced shows him saying that. He's saying that an awful lot hated them and most of the remainder of the audience were lukewarm.

No, what he is saying is often even more insulting/incendiary and off base. Direct quotes:

wildboy said:

"Nobody went to see episode 1 twice in a row.

Or at least no one who doesn't suffer from boarder line retardation."

"To be honest, the kids who are sort of stupid (love to hear themselves talk, drink lots of mountain dew, drown their hotdogs in WAY too much ketchup) are always the ones who love phantom menace, they kids who excell in school and sports usually perfer the Original Trilogy, sort of speaks for itself."

"As a rule of thumb, the kids in my class who are stupid are the ones who like phantom menace, the ones who are more crafty, are the ones who like han fucking solo. BAM!"

"Anyway, it's usually THOSE kids who love Phantom Menace. Also, it's funny how the kids that DO like Ep 1-3 usually decide the real trilogy is better right around the time they turn 14 or 15 (ie the age you actually develop taste for things that don't suck)"

"...unlike the prequel trilogy, which has already been filed away and forgotten."

"I'm not alone in thinking that no one cared for these films"

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

"They were a financial disappointment, and an artistic failure."

"The only people I've heard of who apparently liked the prequels was you and your boyfriend JoeTyler."

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

Financial and Artistic FAILURES"

Bottom line is:

wildboy was trying to make the point that the Prequels are/were universally hated. And that if someone didn't hate them, they were "borderline retarted", etc. He seems to think that any evidence of the prequels being successful is a detriment to the originals.

My position is not/has never been that The Prequels were more loved/popular than the originals.

My argument has been that the prequels were huge box office hits that were groundbreaking.

I challenge you to (in this thread) find me claiming otherwise. I challenge you you to find me turning this into a prequels vs originals debate.

I was only using negative reviews and box office figures for the Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi, to illustrate that many of the accusations/criticisms wildbou was making against the prequels could have been made against all of the Star Wars films except for the first one. Hypocrisy.

I am sorry if you think I have been deceptive, or dishonest in the discussion. Sorry that I've insulted you to the point that I obviously have. Was not my intention.

[Edited 5/28/12 11:26am]

Great thread and perfect comparison. Both lost their mojo and made cheesy follow-ups to legendary works of art. George dumbed down his work and had "Guido shoot first" and Han step on Jabba's tail, to Prince's 1999 The New Master and "99 bible versus in a one night stand"

Which desecrates his work worse? It's a toss up, but I'll go with George and Darth's "NOOOOOOOOO!"

As George retires, probably happy to get out from under the obnoxious fanboi ire over terrible horrible prequels, he say's he wants to fiddle around in his garage and make experimental films again and make sure kids stay off his lawn.

Fanbois will not have George to kick around anymore.

Sooner or later Prince will do the same, but sadly he will not appoint a qualified individual such as Kathleen Kennedy to feed the doves at Paisley Park

Luckily we will always have Steve Parke to create his wonderful album art for all future remasters with his Commodore 64 and Print Shop Lite.

Kathleen Kennedy to co-chair Lucasfilm as George Lucas 'moves forward with retirement'

http://insidemovies.ew.co...lucasfilm/

Turns out George Lucas wasn’t bluffing with all that talk about retiring. Lucasfilm Ltd. announced today that Steven Spielberg’s longtime producing partner Kathleen Kennedy is joining the production company as co-chair. Lucas will retain his position as CEO but Kennedy’s new role will allow him to “move forward with his retirement plans,” according to a press release.

A former president of the Producers Guild of America, Kennedy has produced seven films that received Academy Award Best Picture nominations, including E.T.: The Extra-Terrestrial, War Horse, Seabiscuit, and The Curious Case of Benjamin Button, after having started out as Spielberg’s assistant in the late 1970s. To assume her position at Lucasfilm

[Edited 6/4/12 23:43pm]