Ziz said:
But that's Lucas' point - are the prequels really as bad as people say they are, or do people THINK they're bad because of all the build-up to what fans were expecting over the years?
With each series - SW or Indy - you've got 20 years of familiarity and maturity in between there. No matter how hard you try, you're not looking at the new film thru the same eyes or with the same attitude as you did the originals, so naturally you're going to be more critical of it.
I'm not saying the PT or Crystal Skull are flawless - sure they have their rough spots, But are those the fault of the film making process or is the audience just better at finding the faults than they were 20 years ago?
zombie84 said:
I liked how Lucas says "people will hate the film because they just will, because that happened on the prequels" and then Spielberg says "George speak for yourself"--apparently, Lucas still doens't get that the prequels were criticised because they fucking sucked.
I liked how Lucas says "people will hate the film because they just will, because that happened on the prequels" and then Spielberg says "George speak for yourself"--apparently, Lucas still doens't get that the prequels were criticised because they fucking sucked.
But that's Lucas' point - are the prequels really as bad as people say they are, or do people THINK they're bad because of all the build-up to what fans were expecting over the years?
With each series - SW or Indy - you've got 20 years of familiarity and maturity in between there. No matter how hard you try, you're not looking at the new film thru the same eyes or with the same attitude as you did the originals, so naturally you're going to be more critical of it.
I'm not saying the PT or Crystal Skull are flawless - sure they have their rough spots, But are those the fault of the film making process or is the audience just better at finding the faults than they were 20 years ago?
You can't watch Attack of the Clones and say "people criticized the acting and writing in this film because they're not 8 years old anymore." Thats ridiculous, and insulting to the tastes and standards we hold our movies by. Jedi has some weak writing too, which is why we don't look rosy-glassed back at it either. Phantom Menace got unfairly reviled because you'd think it was the worst movie of all time judging by some peoples reactions, its not a complete waste, there were way worse movies that summer, but the prequels were very weak films and thats why they got bad reviews and bad reputations. Its not some nostalgia thing. But Lucas puts up some bullshit to excuse bad moviemaking by blaming the viewers.
Crystal Skull has actually been recieved in pretty much the same manner as the previous two sequels, which tells me its more or less at the same level. It got mostly warm reviews, but some negative ones--better than Temple of Doom, which was hugely criticised by viewers and only got so-so reviews, and similar to Crusade which got good reviews but as fantastic as we might expect. And going by the current estimates, Crystal Skull will probably be the third-highest grossing movie of the year or theareabouts--which is on par with Crusade, which got beat by Batman, and Temple of Doom, which got beat by Beverly Hills Cop and got seriously beat by Ghostbusters. So, Spielberg has been pretty consistent with the franchise, it didn't get the prequel reaction because its not on that low a level, even if it might be the weakest of the three Indy sequels.