By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Movies & TV - What would you do if The Force Awakens is worse than the prequels?

 

What would you do if The Force Awakens is worse than the prequels?

Cry. 45 13.27%
 
Not care. 117 34.51%
 
Get Angry. 36 10.62%
 
Be Sad. 95 28.02%
 
See Results. 46 13.57%
 
Total:339
Soundwave said:

I think the big difference between the two trilogies, aside from the drop off in Lucas' writing skills (especially with no Lawrence Kasdan writing) was Lucas had become a family man by the time the prequels were made and the movies took on a child-ish/kiddie tone.

And no the OT was not like that, maybe in part due to budget restrictions. The OT movies are more like WESTERNS ... now kids can like Westerns and want to be a cowboy, but Westerns are not made for kids. They're just something kids can enjoy on top of the adults. But there's a difference between that and outright making a kids/cartoon movie.


The prequels feel like cartoons though with a ton of pandering to kids. In the OT it was only really obvious with the Ewoks and even the Ewoks were about 30 seconds away from cooking the heroes alive and tearing their skin off to eat them.

I guess he followed Guile, huh.



Around the Network
the_dengle said:
AlfredoTurkey said:

My apologies. I must have misunderstood your post or taken it the wrong way. I tend to do that from time to time. I haven't seen the Clone Wars though. Is that the cartoon movie? If it is, that would be why. lol

I was referring to the Clone Wars animated movie, yes. For what it's worth, the tv series is much better than the film.

XanderXT said:

Well of course the Separtist droid army were incompetent. Their leaders were a bunch of businesssmen with absolutely no military training.

Well of course the Imperials on Lothal are incompetent. They have no experience fighting rebels because they encounter so little resistance from the population (and I quote: "No one has spoken against the Empire on Lothal since the Bridger Transmissions." The Bridgers were silenced at least seven years before the start of the series). See, justifying the behavior of characters doesn't make the plot more interesting. When you have a completely nonthreatening antagonist, there's no tension in your story. This is more of a problem for Episodes 1 & 2 (and especially for Clone Wars) than it is for Episode 3, when Palpatine finally steps up as the antagonist and actually gets shit done.

Sort of like Star Wars Rebels after the first few episodes, when the Inquisitor, then Tarkin, then more recently Vader show up. The Lothal Imperials are woefully bad at managing their little rebel problem, so Tarkin has them executed. Basically every encounter with the Inquisitor ends with the heroes lucky to still be alive. They have a few moral victories, but have nothing substantial to show for their efforts. They can't, because the prologue to A New Hope outright states that the Rebellion's first major victory was the theft of the Death Star schematics. Season 1 had a somewhat hopeful ending with the crew of the Ghost joining a larger Rebel organization. But season 2 immediately opens with Darth Vader leading the Empire to injure and scatter the Rebels before they can accomplish anything.

The Rebels have no experience fighting the Imperial Empire either. Sure they've resisted, but actual fighting? No. Besides, the Imperialists are trained professionals. That gives absolutely no excuse to be losing to Rebels that much. Heck, they were pretty much useless until Darth Vader did stuff.



generic-user-1 said:
SuaveSocialist said:
generic-user-1 said:
SuaveSocialist said:
generic-user-1 said:
SuaveSocialist said:
I'd be pretty disappointed, but I have confidence that it will be a blast. Abrams made Star Trek more exciting than Star Wars, so I think he'll make Star Wars absolutely glorious. Retconning the EU was a good decision; the canon was a mess before and the narrative was too restrictive. Now we get to wonder what happens next rather than whinge about them getting things wrong from the books.

he made the WORST star trek movies ever, and thats realy hard to do. so yeah, maybe he has better luck this time.

Not according to Rotten Tomatoes---based on critics and audience review, he made two of the best of ones.

Critical Review/Audience Appreciation


Motion Picture -- 45/42
Wrath of Khan -- 88/90
Search for Spock --78/61
Voyage Home--85/80
Final Frontier -- 21/24
Undiscovered Country --83/83
Generations -- 48/58
First Contact -- 92/89
Insurrection -- 55/45
Nemesis -- 37/50
Star Trek 2009 -- 95/91 (highest rated in the series)
Into Darkness -- 87/90 (Second place to fourth overall, depending on how you want to view the data)

Abrams is going to rock the Star Wars universe.

thats like asking atheists what your favourite book of the bible...

ask a star trek fan, they will tell you how good the new movies are.

Care to point out the True Scotsmen from the Not True Scotsmen for me?  Or is the Star Trek fanbase so small we only account for a tenth of the audience?  For the record, I'm a Star Trek fan and the data looks about right from where I sit.

its not a true scotsmen argument...  not every critic has an understanding of star trek, they are happy with a good action movie, but thats not what star trek is about.

 

So critics aren't True Scotsmen.  What of the audience?  Adjusting for inflation, Star Trek 2009 made only slightly more than Motion Picture while Into Darkness performed pretty much equally with Wrath of Khan.  Yet the audience appreciation (the figures I placed on the right) are in line with the critical acclaim.  I suppose the audience aren't True Scotsmen either; Trekkies must not have been arsed to ever go to the theatre.  Do clarify who the True Scotsmen are.  I am a Star Trek fan and I know several Trekkies who hold the new movies in the highest esteem.  I guess we aren't True Scotsmen.

Even Metacritic puts Into Darkness above Wrath of Khan AND First Contact (and 2009 ranks well above them).  The new movies perform consistently better even on IMDB.  All data considered, the new movies are objectively among the best if not the best themselves.  Claiming they are the worst is just absurd, and ignoring the vast majority of opinions to justify your own is illogical.

Considering that the most recurring complaints are that the new movies are too bombastic, Star Wars (which is expected to be an epic space fantasy) is in very capable hands.  Keep chugging the Haterade if it makes you feel better, though.



How many months was it before people would admit Phantom Menace sucked? 2 months? 6 months? I would say for the hype The Force Awakens is receiving, plus how people behave on the internet today, they'll NEVER admit it sucks... if it does.



SuaveSocialist said:
generic-user-1 said:

its not a true scotsmen argument...  not every critic has an understanding of star trek, they are happy with a good action movie, but thats not what star trek is about.

 

So critics aren't True Scotsmen.  What of the audience?  Adjusting for inflation, Star Trek 2009 made only slightly more than Motion Picture while Into Darkness performed pretty much equally with Wrath of Khan.  Yet the audience appreciation (the figures I placed on the right) are in line with the critical acclaim.  I suppose the audience aren't True Scotsmen either; Trekkies must not have been arsed to ever go to the theatre.  Do clarify who the True Scotsmen are.  I am a Star Trek fan and I know several Trekkies who hold the new movies in the highest esteem.  I guess we aren't True Scotsmen.

Even Metacritic puts Into Darkness above Wrath of Khan AND First Contact (and 2009 ranks well above them).  The new movies perform consistently better even on IMDB.  All data considered, the new movies are objectively among the best if not the best themselves.  Claiming they are the worst is just absurd, and ignoring the vast majority of opinions to justify your own is illogical.

Considering that the most recurring complaints are that the new movies are too bombastic, Star Wars (which is expected to be an epic space fantasy) is in very capable hands.  Keep chugging the Haterade if it makes you feel better, though.

they are too badly written, THATS the main complain.  we need a bad guy? lets take khan, but well he is not just supersmart,now he is superstrong too.

ohh and his blood cures blood now and lets make carol markus a stupid bimbo with allmost nothing to say and not the bad ass scientist

and we need a HUGE ship for the bad guys because our audience wouldnt understand the fight if we just make one ship damaged or so.

its a well made action movie, but its not a good star trek movie, it lacks the vision of the future star trek stands for, and it uses cliches alot worse than even TOS movies and the forced diversity just sucks, the female characters are just in the movie because they needed more females that do stuff, not in a cool way like dax or janeway, just let them do some stuff and show everyone they are helping too.

 



Around the Network
XanderXT said:

The Rebels have no experience fighting the Imperial Empire either. Sure they've resisted, but actual fighting? No. Besides, the Imperialists are trained professionals. That gives absolutely no excuse to be losing to Rebels that much. Heck, they were pretty much useless until Darth Vader did stuff.

Actually Kanan was trained by Jedi for 14 years, fought in the Clone Wars, and has been on the run hiding from and fighting back against the Empire for about 10 years. Hiding is half the battle for a Rebel. He has a lifetime of experience preparing him for this.

Zeb was a member of the Lasat Honor Guard. He is an elite warrior who fought in an uprising against the Empire on his homeworld of Lasan. The Empire wiped out his people -- but not the local troops stationed on Lothal. So he has experience fighting the Empire, but the specific forces he's fighting against have never dealt with resistance to their rule. They are complacent.

Sabine is a Mandalorian... does that really require explanation? Her background is largely a mystery, although it is known that she was trained at an Imperial academy for a while, so she has some knowledge of Imperial procedures as well as the skills she picked up there. I don't know much about Hera either, but she's mostly just the pilot.

The show is far from perfect, sure season 1 had a few episodes where the enemy was completely incompetent (this has been a big problem for Stormtroopers in general ever since Return of the Jedi) and the story lacked tension because of it. But the Inquisitor was menacing enough, and I certainly wouldn't say he and Tarkin were useless. The Rebels suffered some setbacks along the way, and now they have been driven from Lothal completely. If anyone was keeping score since the start of the series, I'd say the Empire is currently in the lead, given the Rebels have accomplished nothing of note and have been sent running from their base of operations.



Cobretti2 said:
what was so bad about the prequels? i hear lots of people say it but never justify it lol.


Even from a point of view of being movies on their own and not about how poor their angsty cgi ridden mess of story was. The prequels actually revealed some things which were not needed which would prevent the movies being watched 1-6, not only the obvious fact that Vader has a child and he was Anakin skywalker, but they show the fact that he had twins and the other is Leia.

while obviously the Vader = Lukes father spoiler is known by people who've not seen Star Wars (Vader being dutch word for Father lol), the being twins with Leia was pointless to add in the prequels.

Also Jar Jar Binks

Also whiney Anakin politics for hours

Also the Jedi high council who rule everything in the whole universe in the first movie while there is 1 sith person that lives on a rock who has zero power.... but the Jedi council want to find Anakin because he will bring balance.... like... it would be like an army of 50billion soldiers against 1 wanting to add something to the equation which made the fight more balanced, shit writing or the Jedi had no idea they rules all?

Also Jar Jar Binks

General Grevious only getting to appear in a prequel movie just after leaving the final scene of the Genndy Tartakovsky Star Wars Clone wars animated series in which he was an amazing Jedi killing villain... but had his chest crushed in the final scene meaning that in the movies he was a coughing loser who got shot to death with a blaster.... a blaster : < the guy had a collection of lightsabers as a belt which he had removed from Jedi he was wiping out in the animated series.

Also



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

Clone Wars Grevious Vs Jedi



Why not check me out on youtube and help me on the way to 2k subs over at www.youtube.com/stormcloudlive

the_dengle said:
XanderXT said:

The Rebels have no experience fighting the Imperial Empire either. Sure they've resisted, but actual fighting? No. Besides, the Imperialists are trained professionals. That gives absolutely no excuse to be losing to Rebels that much. Heck, they were pretty much useless until Darth Vader did stuff.

Actually Kanan was trained by Jedi for 14 years, fought in the Clone Wars, and has been on the run hiding from and fighting back against the Empire for about 10 years. Hiding is half the battle for a Rebel. He has a lifetime of experience preparing him for this.

Zeb was a member of the Lasat Honor Guard. He is an elite warrior who fought in an uprising against the Empire on his homeworld of Lasan. The Empire wiped out his people -- but not the local troops stationed on Lothal. So he has experience fighting the Empire, but the specific forces he's fighting against have never dealt with resistance to their rule. They are complacent.

Sabine is a Mandalorian... does that really require explanation? Her background is largely a mystery, although it is known that she was trained at an Imperial academy for a while, so she has some knowledge of Imperial procedures as well as the skills she picked up there. I don't know much about Hera either, but she's mostly just the pilot.

The show is far from perfect, sure season 1 had a few episodes where the enemy was completely incompetent (this has been a big problem for Stormtroopers in general ever since Return of the Jedi) and the story lacked tension because of it. But the Inquisitor was menacing enough, and I certainly wouldn't say he and Tarkin were useless. The Rebels suffered some setbacks along the way, and now they have been driven from Lothal completely. If anyone was keeping score since the start of the series, I'd say the Empire is currently in the lead, given the Rebels have accomplished nothing of note and have been sent running from their base of operations.

I get your point.



generic-user-1 said:
Cobretti2 said:

LOL you mean the few that are vocal trolls on youtube?

Also I didn't know that a movie franchise isn't allowed to try and capture a new audience because they were born in the wrong century. Only if you were there day one your opinions shoudl matter I guess.


the movies have NOTHING to do with star trek, and i dont like when a realy good intelligent franchise trs to grab idiots as audience with toning down the science stuff and upping wit stupid, action bubbles. 

Unfortunatelly, that's what's been happening for quite some time now, and not only in Hollywood - just look at how 'modern' versions of old IP like TR has been handled, to give just one example.

As someone who's been Trek fan for some 30+ years, I wasn't very pleased with new films, first one was bearable, although not very good ST movie, but second was just plain terrible.

But, truth to be told, even TV shows went to shit, so IMO, there hasn't been proper ST for a long time now.