logo Sign In

Unpopular Opinion Thread — Page 9

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Okay, three more:

The Machete Order is not the optimal viewing order. Release Order all the way (except for the anthology films. Those can be watched whenever).

Darth Vader in the OT only ever pulls out his lightsaber to duel other saber wielders. He never uses it on ordinary soldiers. The modern depiction of Vader as some frontline killing machine cutting down troops left and right is inaccurate to his original depiction and shows a lack of understanding of the character.

“Nobody hates Star Wars more than Star Wars fans” is an absurd statement. Star Wars fans are, for the most part, a very easy to please group.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time

Servii said:

Darth Vader in the OT only ever pulls out his lightsaber to duel other saber wielders. He never uses it on ordinary soldiers. The modern depiction of Vader as some frontline killing machine cutting down troops left and right is inaccurate to his original depiction and shows a lack of understanding of the character.

I agree 100% with this and is one of the reasons I dislike him in RO.

Author
Time

Patrick Willems, whose YouTube channel is definitely worth watching, says Vader’s slaughtering scene in RO, while visually cool, is ultimately devoid of substance.

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

As I understand it, a movie not having ‘tight’ writing doesn’t mean it has plotholes per say, just that it isn’t as efficient with its scenes/dialogue/plot as another movie.

Yeah, I recognize that and kind of wanted to address it originally, but my comment was already long.

I think a good example of flabby writing would be Anakin/Padme in AOTC, where they have a half-dozen scenes which don’t move their characters forward at all in the eyes of the audience. Another is the Exegol plot from TROS, where our characters go to four or five locations just to find a mcGuffin while barely developing as characters at all. But again, the problem is a lack of character progression per scene, not necessarily how flabby/nonsensical the plot becomes. Tight writing, in this case, does not equal a tight plot. Fury Road has a simplistic, borderline stupid plot, but it packs so much character work into each scene that one would never call the writing flabby.

Nerrel’s video makes a similar argument, and I don’t really agree. At least not in principle. Just because you can cut out portions of the movie to get to the point, doesn’t mean you necessarily should.

Sometimes detours like what we have in TRoS can be used to add something meaningful to the story, or can have some memorable sequence. The problem with these scenes in TRoS isn’t that they could be cut, it’s that what they add isn’t interesting or memorable or important at all. The problem with AotC and RotS’s similar scenes is that they don’t really add anything at all.

I think the fact that TRoS isn’t criticized for dragging, but the exact opposite, having a ridiculously frantic pace, kind of shows this. And that’s also where I agree with Nerrel more, these scenes shouldn’t be cut because they’re unnecessary, but because their screentime can be lent to something else, or even just to let the movie chill tf out.

Reading R + L ≠ J theories

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The Original Trilogy is no more perfect than anything else. The same criticisms often leveled at other Star Wars movies can also be applied to the OT. Since we’re in the habit of forgiving and overlooking, why not spread that attitude over all of Star Wars?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

The Original Trilogy is no more perfect than anything else. The same criticisms often leveled at other Star Wars movies can also be applied to the OT. Since we’re in the habit of forgiving and overlooking, why not spread that attitude over all of Star Wars?

No one here will suggest that the OT doesn’t have flaws. What matters is the amount and severity of those flaws. I don’t ignore flaws outright, but the OT are solid enough films that the occasional flaws don’t detract from the experience, and I’d argue that they are “closer to perfect” overall. Other Star Wars films, however, are more flawed on a fundamental level that takes you out of the movie. Too many problems on a structural level start to add up until the film appears broken under scrutiny.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

The Original Trilogy is no more perfect than anything else. The same criticisms often leveled at other Star Wars movies can also be applied to the OT. Since we’re in the habit of forgiving and overlooking, why not spread that attitude over all of Star Wars?

No one here will suggest that the OT doesn’t have flaws. What matters is the amount and severity of those flaws. I don’t ignore flaws outright, but the OT are solid enough films that the occasional flaws don’t detract from the experience, and I’d argue that they are “closer to perfect” overall. Other Star Wars films, however, are more flawed on a fundamental level that takes you out of the movie. Too many problems on a structural level start to add up until the film appears broken under scrutiny.

I don’t think they’re any more flawed, at least not significantly. While some flaws are certainly objective, others are very subjective.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think it’s relatively easy to recognize that there are films more solid than others, which is the reason why almost every new SW product is measured against the OT. But I kind of enjoy (or try to enjoy) almost all of the films equally in spite of their flaws.

Author
Time

The OT is Star Wars - If it wasn’t solid, Star Wars wouldn’t have taken off.

Reading R + L ≠ J theories

Author
Time

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

Please don’t mistake my comments for hating or trolling. I love all of Star Wars and I do prefer the originals to the prequels and sequels. I’m just saying the originals are often given a pass on certain criticisms. A lot of it has to do with them being well established before social media was prevalent. They are more engrained in our brains. I think a lot of classics would suffer similarly if released today.

This isn’t to invalidate the movies themselves. This is to put in perspective the amount of criticism being handed out regularly to almost everything.

Author
Time

Rodney-2187 said:

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

Sorry, but this isn’t a sentiment that makes sense to me. To focus just on the original film; it was like nothing people had ever seen in '77 with special effects that were invented for the movie and made by a group of world-class talents at the pinnacle of their skills, and which tapped into the zeitgeist so deeply that most of the people in the US had seen the movie, mostly through word-of-mouth, by the time it left theaters.

To extract the film from its historical context and compare it to something released today is ludicrous, especially since it would undoubtedly suffer John Carter issues where it is seen as predictable due to the multitude of films that had been made in emulation of the elements which made Star Wars great. It’s like saying the moon landing wasn’t actually that great because we know how to make better spaceships and would do that differently today.

Finally, you say ‘in today’s climate’, but I assume you mean in the climate of the Star Wars fandom or movie fans in general. People are always comparing new movies in a franchise to the originals, so these films couldn’t be released ‘in today’s climate’, because that same climate has been built out of expectations set by…the originals.

Here’s an acid test - if the originals were objectively no better than the prequels or sequels, with rudimentary and sometimes embarrassingly dated effects, then I guarantee that there would be talks to remake them. Robocop, The Thing, Final Recall…they all got the remake treatment. But films like Blade Runner, 2001, Indiana Jones…nobody even considers a remake even though they would have massive name recognition, and I think we all know the reason for that isn’t some arcane legal one.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Rodney-2187 said:

I don’t think they’re any more flawed, at least not significantly. While some flaws are certainly objective, others are very subjective.

Actually only a very few flaws are objective (i.e., measurable and quantifiable) and most of them are irrelevant, such as for example: incorrect grammar (where you can quantify to a grammar rules) or some object in the scene that was not intended to be there (the film makers admit they did not want it there).

All other “flaws” that people actually care about are purely subjective opinions and not flaws per se. For example, if one says that the dialogue is bad, the is purely subjective because there is no objective measure to quantify dialogue quality. Except for maybe grammar mistakes and how well it follows written script; none of which is usually referred to when they say that the dialogue is bad.

So when people say that a film is flawed, they are just trying to make their subjective opinion sound more than what it actually is; a subjective opinion.

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

That is highly unlikely. I would argue that most of us (even within this forum) first saw OT years or tens of years after its initial release and it still evoked the same overwhelmingly positive reactions. Actually some of us even first saw OT as 1997 SE and it still did not change that positive reaction.

It is not “today’s climate” (whatever that means) to be blamed. ST is just crap and it so no matter in what climate you put it in.

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NeverarGreat said:

Rodney-2187 said:

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

Sorry, but this isn’t a sentiment that makes sense to me. To focus just on the original film; it was like nothing people had ever seen in '77 with special effects that were invented for the movie and made by a group of world-class talents at the pinnacle of their skills, and which tapped into the zeitgeist so deeply that most of the people in the US had seen the movie, mostly through word-of-mouth, by the time it left theaters.

To extract the film from its historical context and compare it to something released today is ludicrous, especially since it would undoubtedly suffer John Carter issues where it is seen as predictable due to the multitude of films that had been made in emulation of the elements which made Star Wars great. It’s like saying the moon landing wasn’t actually that great because we know how to make better spaceships and would do that differently today.

Finally, you say ‘in today’s climate’, but I assume you mean in the climate of the Star Wars fandom or movie fans in general. People are always comparing new movies in a franchise to the originals, so these films couldn’t be released ‘in today’s climate’, because that same climate has been built out of expectations set by…the originals.

Here’s an acid test - if the originals were objectively no better than the prequels or sequels, with rudimentary and sometimes embarrassingly dated effects, then I guarantee that there would be talks to remake them. Robocop, The Thing, Final Recall…they all got the remake treatment. But films like Blade Runner, 2001, Indiana Jones…nobody even considers a remake even though they would have massive name recognition, and I think we all know the reason for that isn’t some arcane legal one.

Read my comment just before this one where I said I like the originals more than the prequels or sequels. I also said my comment was more of a critique of movie reviews in general.

I like your NASA analogy. Yes the OT was a groundbreaking achievement, certainly more so than the prequels or sequels. I’m a fan of the Saturn V rocket. I have a model of it displayed in my movie room. The moon landing was an incredible achievement. But to use your same analogy, would be like saying the Space Shuttle or Falcon 9 are inferior to the Saturn V, even though technologically superior, just because they weren’t around for the moon landing. I’m sure the SR-71 is superior to what the Wright brothers flew. I’m just saying if you evaluate them on their own, side by side. But I see your point about being groundbreaking for their time.

Again though, my comment was more of a critique of the mudslinging reviews that are popular now. How people go on a seek and destroy mission with a hate-for-clicks revenue stream. I’m not one who thinks movie making has significantly declined. I think reviews have become too critical. I love the Original Trilogy. But when I look at them objectively, I see similar flaws in them that people lambaste other movies for. If social media was around back then, the contrarians would have had plenty to say about the OT.

Not so sure your comment about remakes will stand the test of time though. I think everything will be remade eventually. Interstellar is extremely similar to 2001. They wouldn’t remake Blade Runner because slow brooding noir isn’t known for box office results. Look at BR 2049. Blade Runner is another of my favorites by the way. I think Indiana Jones will get rebooted with another actor very soon actually.

I love the OT, but I don’t think it’s irreproachable, and I also think other movies, especially those in the Star Wars franchise, get critiqued on a whole other level.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

Please don’t mistake my comments for hating or trolling. I love all of Star Wars and I do prefer the originals to the prequels and sequels. I’m just saying the originals are often given a pass on certain criticisms. A lot of it has to do with them being well established before social media was prevalent. They are more engrained in our brains. I think a lot of classics would suffer similarly if released today.

This isn’t to invalidate the movies themselves. This is to put in perspective the amount of criticism being handed out regularly to almost everything.

Maybe to a degree. There’s a lot of criticisms that originate from clickbait BS artists who’ll make stuff up for the hell of it. The same would probably happen if the OT came out today (and in the context of being a new installment of an already beloved series).

But I don’t think it’s at all right to say that they’d get the same level of criticism, though. Speaking as a fan of a ton of things outside the OT (especially the Last Jedi), they’re not at all on the same level. The original Star Wars movies were culturally iconic and revolutionary to the film industry, in a way that the prequels and sequels never could be.

They ride off the success of the OT to an undeniable amount, and if it weren’t for the OT I doubt either of them would even be remembered 10 years down the line.

It may be true that there’s a lot of criticisms of stuff that happens in the ST and PT that also happens in the OT, but if I’m going to be honest, a lot of people (especially ones who are fans of every Star Wars movie) will take criticisms of the movies they like, and force them onto the OT.

I think the obsession modern film discourse has with a movie’s quality being determined by its flaws or inconsistencies is unhealthy, though. The OT isn’t the best trilogy because it has the least amount of problems (although I think it does), it’s because it has a ton of good qualities.

Reading R + L ≠ J theories

Author
Time
 (Edited)

These days blockbuster films don’t stand the test of time for a year or two, never mind 4 or 5 decades. Things are not as good as they were and it’s not just nostalgia. Realistically speaking most big popcorn movies barely reach the level of ROTJ, and never the heights the other two. But the truth is most films just get a pass if they follow the Donner Superman structure and have a few gags. In today’s climate people are actually way less critical and gladly eat up most franchises. Rabid hardcore groups don’t count as average movie goers.

Author
Time

Rodney-2187 said:

NeverarGreat said:

Rodney-2187 said:

If the OT was released in today’s climate, it would receive the exact same level of ridicule as the prequels and sequels.

Sorry, but this isn’t a sentiment that makes sense to me. To focus just on the original film; it was like nothing people had ever seen in '77 with special effects that were invented for the movie and made by a group of world-class talents at the pinnacle of their skills, and which tapped into the zeitgeist so deeply that most of the people in the US had seen the movie, mostly through word-of-mouth, by the time it left theaters.

To extract the film from its historical context and compare it to something released today is ludicrous, especially since it would undoubtedly suffer John Carter issues where it is seen as predictable due to the multitude of films that had been made in emulation of the elements which made Star Wars great. It’s like saying the moon landing wasn’t actually that great because we know how to make better spaceships and would do that differently today.

Finally, you say ‘in today’s climate’, but I assume you mean in the climate of the Star Wars fandom or movie fans in general. People are always comparing new movies in a franchise to the originals, so these films couldn’t be released ‘in today’s climate’, because that same climate has been built out of expectations set by…the originals.

Here’s an acid test - if the originals were objectively no better than the prequels or sequels, with rudimentary and sometimes embarrassingly dated effects, then I guarantee that there would be talks to remake them. Robocop, The Thing, Final Recall…they all got the remake treatment. But films like Blade Runner, 2001, Indiana Jones…nobody even considers a remake even though they would have massive name recognition, and I think we all know the reason for that isn’t some arcane legal one.

Read my comment just before this one where I said I like the originals more than the prequels or sequels. I also said my comment was more of a critique of movie reviews in general.

I like your NASA analogy. Yes the OT was a groundbreaking achievement, certainly more so than the prequels or sequels. I’m a fan of the Saturn V rocket. I have a model of it displayed in my movie room. The moon landing was an incredible achievement. But to use your same analogy, would be like saying the Space Shuttle or Falcon 9 are inferior to the Saturn V, even though technologically superior, just because they weren’t around for the moon landing. I’m sure the SR-71 is superior to what the Wright brothers flew. I’m just saying if you evaluate them on their own, side by side. But I see your point about being groundbreaking for their time.

Again though, my comment was more of a critique of the mudslinging reviews that are popular now. How people go on a seek and destroy mission with a hate-for-clicks revenue stream. I’m not one who thinks movie making has significantly declined. I think reviews have become too critical. I love the Original Trilogy. But when I look at them objectively, I see similar flaws in them that people lambaste other movies for. If social media was around back then, the contrarians would have had plenty to say about the OT.

Not so sure your comment about remakes will stand the test of time though. I think everything will be remade eventually. Interstellar is extremely similar to 2001. They wouldn’t remake Blade Runner because slow brooding noir isn’t known for box office results. Look at BR 2049. Blade Runner is another of my favorites by the way. I think Indiana Jones will get rebooted with another actor very soon actually.

I love the OT, but I don’t think it’s irreproachable, and I also think other movies, especially those in the Star Wars franchise, get critiqued on a whole other level.

Certainly everything with name recognition will be in danger of eventual remakeland, but famous movies are usually famous for being exceptional in some way. From what I’ve heard, the remakes of each of the movies I listed were fairly standard and unexceptional. It’s the catch-22 of remakes; for a film to be considered for a remake it has to be of unusually high quality, but any remake is unlikely to escape mediocrity itself. The exceptions to this rule where people are interested in a remake of a boring mess of a film, like Dune or Eragon, are themselves adaptations of source material which is of above average quality in the first place.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time

Mocata said:

Realistically speaking most big popcorn movies barely reach the level of ROTJ

Realistically speaking, ROTJ is rated among the very best films ever made (e.g., in top 100 of IMDb, which has by far the largest pool of voters). So anything reaching ROTJ level is pretty damn great.

真実

Author
Time

Yeah but the amount of trash talk about it on somewhere like this is incredibly high. But that’s my entire point. Release the OT today and it will still be ultra successful… except in these kinds of circles.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rocknroll41 said:

Nah I’m of the opinion that if the OT somehow came out today, to THIS fanbase, it would’ve been ripped to shreds (especially RotJ, with the sibling retcon and whatnot).

On this site, maybe, but the majority of Star Wars fans are much less critical than this community. Also, this is a difficult hypothetical scenario to work through, since Star Wars content has always been in the shadow of the OT and been compared to it, and there was no internet then, and the fandom wasn’t as large or established yet. Any scenario where the OT came out today would vary based on whether Star Wars already existed, meaning there was basis for comparison and an established fandom.

But we can’t turn back. Fear is their greatest defense. I doubt if the actual security there is any greater than it was on Aquilae or Sullust. And what there is is most likely directed towards a large-scale assault.

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:
Robocop, The Thing, Final Recall…they all got the remake treatment.>

Robocop is incredible. Our world gets closer and closer every year to the world it portrayed. It NEVER should have been remade.

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time

Star Wars opinions are not generational. I don’t know why this is such a common idea when people of all opinions are at pretty much every age.

I think this idea comes from the fact that prequel fans tend to be younger. But people have been saying this for two decades now, and the 12 year old prequel fans of 2001 didn’t grow up into 32 year old prequel fans of 2021, they grew up into 32 year old OT fans. The same thing is happening to the 12 year old prequel fans of 2011 and will happen to the 12 year old prequel fans of 2021.

For the inevitable “I grew into a 32 year old prequel fan” responses: The previous paragraph was a generalization of a larger trend to which there are inevitably many exceptions.

Who exactly the prequel generation is keeps getting pushed back, though. Once upon a time it was the preteens and kids who saw the prequels in theaters with a fresh mind who were the prequel generation. Then it was the kids who grew up with them on DVD in the 2000s. Now it’s the people who watched TCW as kids. The prequel generation is whoever’s in the 12-18ish age range, and it’s been that way, unchanging for longer than the current prequel generation has been alive. I bet it will continue to be pushed back, at least until the prequel generation was born after the Force Awakens came out.

The sequels are too young to call yet, but since there’s a lot of people who cite the generational nature of Star Wars opinions to show that opinions on the sequels will change as the “sequel generation” gets older, it’s also worth mentioning that that’s probably not true.

If the general opinion on the sequels change, it won’t be because of any generational shenanigans.

Reading R + L ≠ J theories