 |
| |
|
| |
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
 |
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
Why don't we put it to a vote. Your viewpoint is decidedly in the minority. Most people place ANH almost akin to ESB in quality and RotJ much lower. |
I don't think you can speak for "most people," and I think your lowering of RotJ against ANH in this regard is a little unwarranted.
But even so, it doesn't matter. What makes a movie good or bad isn't popular consensus. Gladiator, Titanic, Forest Gump, etc.
quote:
It's cliche now, because movies have aped Star Wars in that regard. |
Right. Nobody ever did that story before. 
So I take it you've never watched any film made before 1977?
Ass-backwards again, Imran: It was Lucas following the cliche--he certainly didn't create that plot device.
The rest was irrelevant piffle.
quote:
Remember, "Star Wars" (ANH) was the only one of them nominated for a Best Picture Academy Award. |
Yeah, and why was it? Because it was something new and different wrt being a space opera. You yourself claim ESB is better--so why did it not get nominated and ANH did? Are you saying *GASP* the best movie might not have garnered the award nods that it deserved? And could that mean that movies that do get nods might be undeserving? I wonder...
quote:
Don't just take my word for it, what about movie critics? |
[/QUOTE]
So I take it you believe that every movie that has high praise from a majority of critics are good films? That you agree with every tomatometer average?
Lessee:
Face/Off: 93%
Spy Kids: 92%
Titanic: 86%
Bram Stoker's Dracula: 86%
Forest Gump: 78%
Those are all bad movies in their own special way. Yet critically lauded. I wonder what could cause that? Could critics get caught up in the sweep of popular sentiment over novelty films? Could they also be under the thrall of traditional popular notions for Star Wars (since those tomatoes are not from the original release, anyway)? Maybe a lot the critics, many of whom grew up on Star Wars, would be a little blind to the flaws in the movie? I think that's pretty possible.
I do find it amusing that you've basically implied that you are a slave to the tomato meter, though.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
 |
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
I think your lowering of RotJ against ANH in this regard is a little unwarranted. |
It's totally warrented. RotJ is all just buildup to the final confrontation. Everything else is irrelevent, but is needed so we can have a 1.5 hour movie.
quote:
Ass-backwards again, Imran: It was Lucas following the cliche--he certainly didn't create that plot device. |
Lucas was following mythological story types, but it certainly wasn't movie cliche at that time.
quote:
Because it was something new and different wrt being a space opera. You yourself claim ESB is better--so why did it not get nominated and ANH did? |
ESB had tougher competition. Compare the Best Pic nominees in 1981 with the ones in 1978. Though "Raging Bull" should have probably won in 1981, IMO.
quote:
So I take it you believe that every movie that has high praise from a majority of critics are good films? That you agree with every tomatometer average?
Lessee:
Face/Off: 93%
Spy Kids: 92%
Titanic: 86%
Bram Stoker's Dracula: 86%
Forest Gump: 78% |
I thought Face/Off was a pretty good movie. Great fun and Cage and Travolta played really well against each other, especially in the change of personalities.
Spy Kids is rated on a view of whether kids would appreciate it. Its rated with them in mind and their parents. I haven't seen it. It may be that good.
Titanic is definetly not as bad as has been stated around. 86% may be a little higher than I would have given it. But 80% isn't that far, and that's what I would have rated it. Great effects for one. Btw, the Cream of the Crop rating is 68% with an average rating of 6.6, which is much lower than the all inclusive rating and a better indicator of quality, IMO.
Bram Stoker's Dracula was definetly fun, even though Keanu looked like he got lost to the costume party. Oldman is fabulous in anything he's in. He's one of the most underappreciated actors of our generation.
Forest Gump is rated pretty low (78% is not good) and is not a bad movie. Actually I remember it being pretty fun when it came out.
I don't agree with every consensus rating (such as the English Patient), but I think they are mostly spot on the money. And even for those I disagree with, I can see how the intended audiences would have liked them.
quote:
Could they also be under the thrall of traditional popular notions for Star Wars (since those tomatoes are not from the original release, anyway)? Maybe a lot the critics, many of whom grew up on Star Wars, would be a little blind to the flaws in the movie? |
And that explains the piss poor ratings for RotJ how? If anything RotJ should have gotten similar ratings based on that logic. They grew up with that movie as well... it was the finale.
quote:
I do find it amusing that you've basically implied that you are a slave to the tomato meter, though |
Not a slave (only you would think someone saying "don't just trust my word, but how about some movie critic opinion" means someone is a 'slave' to that critic opinion), but when a consensus of critics think a movie is pretty damned good, they probably have a good case. Much better than non-critics on random message boards (ie, all of us). I tend to trust the consensus judgement of critics a little more than someone who says they are all a bunch of idiots.
And the Tomato Meter hasn't steered me wrong yet in picking a movie to watch, so I'll stick with it.
Last edited by Imran Siddiqui on 07-04-2005 at 10:43
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
RotJ would not be as good without the buildup. Jabba mattered.
Faceoff, Spykids, and Dracula I can tell by the titles I have no interest in watching. Titanic was pure garbage. Gump was mostly garbage, and most of what's left was garbage in disguise.
|
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
| |
|
|
|
Boris Godunov
|
|
Portland, OR
Aug 2001
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It's totally warrented. RotJ is all just buildup to the final confrontation. Everything else is irrelevent, but is needed so we can have a 1.5 hour movie.
|
Huh? The exact same thing can be said for ANH. I see little difference in the "relevance" of their plots.
quote:
Lucas was following mythological story types, but it certainly wasn't movie cliche at that time. |
Okay, Imran, sure. No films had ever featured story lines about redemption. I find it most amusing you would assert this. What's more, it's decidedly weak in ANH. They don't even establish Han as much of a rogue, and then all the does is come back in the last 5 minutes and shoots a few ships. Such redemption... 
quote:
ESB had tougher competition. Compare the Best Pic nominees in 1981 with the ones in 1978. Though "Raging Bull" should have probably won in 1981, IMO. |
I don't see why Raging Bull should have won in 1981, since it had already had its shot at the academy awards in 1980... 
But I don't see much difference in the nominees from those years. And consider that everything Lucas did win was solely on technical achievement. Which reinforces my point--people were enthralled by the special effects and space opera aspect, not that it was a well-written or well-acted or well-directed movie.
And your comments about the movies I listed just reinforce the point that you have crap taste in movies. Looks like you've pwned yourself.  And I don't see how you can say 78% is "bad" for ratings? What the hell? If 78% of critics give positive reviews, I'd say the overall critical trend is that they liked the movie.
quote:
And that explains the piss poor ratings for RotJ how? If anything RotJ should have gotten similar ratings based on that logic. They grew up with that movie as well... it was the finale. |
80% is hardly piss-poor. You are just establishing an arbitrarily high cutoff point so you can claim such an average is "piss-poor."
Yeah, RotJ is rated lower, but you have to take into account the "been there, done that" factor when comparing it to ANH. ANH was something that was, on a technical scale, very new and exciting for people. RotJ was simply simply old hat by the time it came out in this regards. ANH got away with its bad script/acting/etc. because people were enthralled by the new spectacle. RotJ didn't have that luxury.
quote:
I tend to trust the consensus judgement of critics a little more than someone who says they are all a bunch of idiots.
|
In general, yes, I do as well. But, there are often times when the critics are patently wrong. I'd say probably about 75-80% of film critics have no business being in their profession and are, in truth, just armchair hacks. Even respectable critics are prone to jumping on popular bandwagons when movie "events" like ANH appear. That's exactly what happened with Titanic and Forrest Gump. People all jumped aboard these because they were little movie phenoms. But once people stepped back and cleared their heads, they realized, "hey, these movies are crappy!"
I don't think ANH is crappy. Lord knows, it's better than the two prequels so far. But I think it's overall less enjoyable than RotJ. It is boring for long stretches, which RotJ never is. They both are prone to really dumb plot scenarios. But RotJ makes for a more enjoyable experience overall, simply because it's got better action, better acting and (slightly) better directing.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
What did you expect?
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
i didnt expect it to be imran vs boris
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
that wesley crusher picture is ****ing classic
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Imran Siddiqui
|
|
The Potterverse
Jan 1970
time: 00:16
|
|
quote:
The exact same thing can be said for ANH. I see little difference in the "relevance" of their plots. |
ANH introduces the story and the main characters. Most of it is very relevent for the rest of the story. It also introduces the force. And it, as well as ESB, stresses the mysticism and spirituality of the force. If is something more than simply allowing more action, like it is done in RotJ. The mysticalism of the force is what makes Star Wars more than just a Buck Rodgers ripoff.
quote:
Okay, Imran, sure. No films had ever featured story lines about redemption. |
Film featuring story lines about redemption = cliche?
Even for you this argumentation is pathetic. Cliche doesn't mean that a few people did it in the past. It's more pervasive than that.
quote:
What's more, it's decidedly weak in ANH. They don't even establish Han as much of a rogue, and then all the does is come back in the last 5 minutes and shoots a few ships. Such redemption... |
What are you talking about?! The only reason Han goes to find the princess is because Luke says there will be a monetary reward. Han reminds the Princess of this after they are rescued (I'm only in this for the money). He leaves before the Battle of Yavin IV because there is no money in it for me.
However, he comes back, sticks his neck on the line and shoots Vader's kickass modified Tie Fighter before he can destroy Luke's X-Wing.
Pretty good redemption right there.
quote:
I don't see why Raging Bull should have won in 1981, since it had already had its shot at the academy awards in 1980... |
BZZZZT! Wrong again!
http://www.imdb.com/Sections/Awards...Awards_USA/1981
quote:
And your comments about the movies I listed just reinforce the point that you have crap taste in movies. |
Actually what it indicates is YOUR crap taste in movies. The fact that you think Face/Off or Forest Gump are horrible movies shows that you have no clue what you are talking about.
quote:
And I don't see how you can say 78% is "bad" for ratings? |
Pretty low = bad? There is that reading comprehension again. And I said it wasn't bad, if you read.
And it is pretty low. 78% is a C level, which isn't all that great. Rotten Tomatoes, as well as university grades, have somewhat of a 'grade inflation' where B is good and C is average.
quote:
80% is hardly piss-poor. You are just establishing an arbitrarily high cutoff point so you can claim such an average is "piss-poor." |
You don't think 80% is piss-poor compared to 93%? And the Cream of the Crop ratings (which I've said are more important) were at 64% for RotJ. That's piss poor under any standard.
quote:
Yeah, RotJ is rated lower, but you have to take into account the "been there, done that" factor when comparing it to ANH. ANH was something that was, on a technical scale, very new and exciting for people. RotJ was simply simply old hat by the time it came out in this regards. ANH got away with its bad script/acting/etc. because people were enthralled by the new spectacle. RotJ didn't have that luxury. |
If it was all about a 'new spectacle' why is ESB considered to be rated higher then ANH? Did not ESB come AFTER ANH? According to your spectacle theory, ANH should have been rated higher! ESB isn't that much better in script and acting. The difference is that ESB is a far darker movie which ends on a downer. That, IMO, makes it better than ANH, but just barely.
quote:
That's exactly what happened with Titanic and Forrest Gump. People all jumped aboard these because they were little movie phenoms. But once people stepped back and cleared their heads, they realized, "hey, these movies are crappy!" |
Actually they didn't. There are more than a few that defend 'Titanic' and 'Forrest Gump' today from unwarrented attacks (the pendulum swung too far the other way). They aren't bad movies. 'Titanic' was a decent film and 'Forrest Gump' was a very fun movie about a guy who finds himself in interesting circumstances (like a predecessor to 'Big Fish'... another good movie in that genre).
quote:
But I think it's overall less enjoyable than RotJ. |
I think RotJ is far less enjoyable and is on the same level as AotC (which I like, so that isn't an insult). ANH has a better plot, better characterization, and emphases on the spirituality of the force. And RotJ has nothing comparable to Sir Alec Guiness (Hell, neither does the prequals... Ewen McGregor comes close... interestingly in playing the same character), who was integral to pushing the religiousity of the Jedi and the Force (which was continued by Yoda in ESB). The transcendant nature of the Force made, IMO, Star Wars such a cultural phenomenon and spawned geeks everywhere. Wouldn't have been the same with just space battles.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
face off imran? cmon now, im sure you could have pointed to a better movie.
|
|
| |
|
|
|
MRT144
|
|
Seattle Washington
Oct 2002
time: 21:16
|
|
quote:
Originally posted by Imran Siddiqui
It was an example Boris used. I actually thought that movie was entertaining. Especially when Cage and Travolta 'switched' characters. |
entertaining doesnt equal good
|
|
| |
|
|
|
Brent
|
|
Everything having anything to do with Britney Spears is garbage.
I wonder, what sort of movies rate under 40%?
|
|
| |
All times are GMT. The time now is 05:16.
Apolyton Time is 00:16. |
top of page
|
|
|
Forum Rules:
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
|
HTML code is ON
vB code is ON
Smilies are ON
[IMG] code is ON
|
|
|
|
|
|
07-04-2005 10:09
ACK!
|