Currently Online 
| Runa216 said: Star Wars is one of the biggest and most important movie franchises of all time. and while the plot was very similar to A New Hope, it showed that Star Wars was Star Wars again, not whatever the prequels were (I personally liked the prequels but I'm in the minority there.) A simple story told well. |
I'm not sure it's still that much of an unpopular opinion to dislike the prequels, the sequel trilogy sucked so much that it brought the entire Star Wars fanbase together in hatred for it, and now people are 'allowed' to like the prequels. I know I haven't seen much, if any, prequel hate in the past 5 years or so.
That said, I understand why The Force Awakens made all that money. It read the room. There was a massive feeling at the time that the prequels weren't "real Star Wars", and people had been wanting "real Star Wars" for nearly three decades. Force Awakens gave people that, and knew how to deliver the hype. At the time of its release, I got totally carried by the hype train too, I loved the movie. But in the years since, even before any of the sequels came out, I came to realize how hollow it was, and then the rest of the trilogy spoke for itself.
farlaff said:
Yeah, I see where you are coming from. If I were forced or coerced to try and give just one cause for that (and those can be hundreds, if not thousands, of different reasons), I'd go with the general "you have to be competitive to be successful" or "the world runs on conflicts" that marks US generated media in general, the ones that do not favor more collaborative thinking that is usually what drives actual success stories in real life. People need to bring the competition and the conflict for the most ridiculous of situations in order to feel "connected" to this type of thinking. Taking Avatar 2 as a personal example, I absolutely freaking hate that you have to have conflict for the action to happen. On the other side, I was mesmerized by the imagery and all the water, so that one hour in the middle of the movie was way worth the price of admission for me. And then the final hour is all war again. I cannot tell you how tired I am of that. I would go see it again 10 times (I'm not kidding) to see exploration and peaceful contact with the water like Cameron did in the middle section of AWoW. But would the movie be this successful without the stupid war that drives the plot? I'm absolutely sure it would not, which is a shame. |
I was in the "Avatar was just a forgettable pretty movie" camp, didn't care at all for the idea of a sequel, I thought it'd bomb at the box office but I realized I was wrong when my mom came asking me if I wanted to go watch it with her. To which I declined, but she insisted for weeks, further driving home how wrong I was about the movie's appeal. Until I went.
Maybe it's because I was negative going into it, but the first hour of the movie bored me a lot. I didn't think I could care, but then yeah, when they get going with all the stuff that happens on the water, it's kinda impossible not to get behind it. I agree with you that it didn't need the conflict it has, especially when apparently the villain was already dead before (don't really remember the details around that), but even if it could've been taken a different direction, I thought the warfare at the end was an exciting climax and very well done. Which really shouldn't be surprising, it's James Cameron after all. He has a knack for thrilling third acts, actually it amazes me how consistent he is, no James Cameron movie I've seen was ever a masterpiece or anything, but they're all great entertainment. Anything he makes is basically a guaranteed 7 or 8 out of 10. And over three hours of Avatar, of which I really could've done without the first one, he convinced me to enjoy it.
