skyjedi2005 said:
I think that a lot more people liked the prequels than people now want to admit to. People went to see them multiple times in theaters and they made some serious cash for Lucas. They were much more lucrative in the long run than the originals were.
Add on the home video sales and Lucas made a killing in terms of these being financially sucessful. And these films do what popcorn films are supposed to do they entertained people for a couple hours in their boringly dismal lives.
I have known kids who love these films. They were made for a different generation. Lucas knows his audience.
Adults in their 30's and 40's or even 20's are not going to enjoy films made for 9-12 year olds and 13 year olds for sith.
At the end of the day i think it is okay the new films were not made for me. I am an adult. The wrong such audience for childrens films.
I already know someone will come on and say the originals were for all ages. Well at least star wars and empire strikes back were. JEDI started the kiddie stuff with teddy bears beating the empire and celebrating as harrison said a teddybear picnic.
Really not all that suprising though even all the sequels to raiders of the lost ark got increasingly childish until the fourth film there is no peril and its like a warner bros Looney Tunes cartoon.
ROTJ was overall for all ages too, despite the ewoks. It's a kids' film, but it works for adults in a way the prequels don't. Sure, you have to be open-minded about the ewoks, but they're not all that terrible. Other than the ewoks, ROTJ is not kiddy in a way that would turn off adults. Whereas the prequels seem designed overall not just for kids but for STUPID kids. Lucas should have made the prequels so they'd work for all ages. Not doing so was a betrayal.
Are you sure the prequels were more lucrative than the originals? Even if you calculate for money value changing over the decades since the time of the originals? I do know that they had a much weaker impact on kids.
I think the sequels to Raiders were an improvement on Raiders (except the most recent one). Raiders is actually a rather bland film. I get disappointed by it every time I watch it. And it doesn't use Ford's talents enough, nor does it fully exploit the humor inherent in the whole Indiana Jones thing. The only thing I love in that film is when Indy shoots the guy with the sword and the expression on Ford's face in that scene, which is priceless. Temple of Doom was a significant improvement on Raiders. The blandness was replaced with intensity and atmosphere and a strong sense of threat. And Last Crusade is the best of the Indy films. Here they finally realized that Indy stuff can't be taken seriously and fully exploited the potential for comedy. Sure, some of the comedy is childish, but it's good natured and there's plenty of good comedy too. It's a very positive film with a great sense of fun. Sean Connery is great in it and his interaction with Ford is marvellous. The villains may be the best in an Indy film (though Mola Ram was pretty menacing, with his heart-extraction thing and all). I love Byrne as Vogel, and General Veers Julian Glover is very good, much better than that annoying Belloq guy in Raiders. And Elsa Schneider is the best Indy film female. I agree that Indy 4 lacks a sense of peril. It has this bland plastic feel.
[/IMG]
