Sign In

Unpopular Opinion Thread — Page 12

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

I’ve actually seen the opposite happening. When TFA came out, it was met with an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the vast majority of people. As time has gone on, though, I’ve noticed that fan perception of the movie has soured. TLJ’s perception is still just as split between love and hate as it always was.

I think it’s important for love of a franchise to never be unconditional. We’re not obligated to love whatever new content a brand produces. Fans ought to be critical of subpar material when they see it. Otherwise, if corporations are able to put out content and have it be praised and profitable regardless of quality, then they’ll pay less and less attention to quality in the future. Star Wars content is not inherently good just because it’s Star Wars. The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films. It had to earn that distinction. Modern Star Wars has been able to stand on the OT’s shoulders, coasting on fan good will and nostalgia while often not being able to stand on its own. We all want Star Wars to be the best it can be. We know it can be better than what it’s become now. There’s nothing wrong with calling attention to that.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Critics are very often wrong about the films they judge. Let’s not drag down the OT to try to make the newer films look better. That won’t get us anywhere.

Citizen Kane is objectively a better film than The Room, for example. No one will dispute that. Some films are simply better put together than others. A film is like a piece of architecture. We judge it partly based on our own personal design tastes, but we also judge it based on how well or shoddily it’s been built.

Author
Time

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Both of you make fair points, but the OT also had an entire generation of existing alone (at least as far as movies are concerned) to “stand on its own.” If the ST was made immediately after the OT (which I believe was the plan at one point), things would be very different. But because an entire generation went by (16 years for the PT and 32 years for the ST), both of the latter trilogies had to in some way or another metaphorically “respond” to the pop culture influence of the OT. I’m in the minority in that I don’t think the OT is as “holy” as most people do, but I’ll stop trying to push that argument because, frankly, I forgot that I was posting on a forum called originaltrilogy.com

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

The planet celebration montage added in the RotJ Special Edition is stupid and doesn’t make sense. It wraps up the story too neatly to the point of being unrealistic, while the original version is more open-ended. Palpatine is defeated, but that doesn’t necessarily mean the Empire is. And I always liked the EU version of events where the Empire falls apart due to infighting, but still exists in a fragmented, diminished form in later stories, being just one of many factions at work in the galaxy. That feels like a more realistic progression than that whole “Operation Cinder” business ending the Galactic Civil War within just a single year.

I can see a way in which the war ends quickly - but it depends on how loyal the military is to the ruling regime of Emperor, Vader, and the Moffs. If not very, then I can see massive defections quickly bringing back a Republican form of government. Or if the military is apolitical. But like you, I enjoyed the Legends EU take of the post-Endor situation, in which the military were strong supporters of the Imperial style government.

Then again there is post-TPM Legends and pre-TPM Legends EU - which differ on the composition of the Imperial military.

General Grievous is ridiculous. He should have never been brought over to live action.

There have been very few menacing droid designs in Star Wars, sadly.

“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

I get why George added the montage, of course. He wanted to give the ending a greater sense of finality, while also tying it into the upcoming prequels, as a way of making the saga feel more complete when watched in chronological order. RotJ was retroactively changed from the finale of a three-part story to the finale of a six-part story, so he wanted to give its ending more weight and a sense of total closure. Arguably, the new ending works better if someone is watching in Chronological or Machete Order, but I don’t watch in those orders, and to me, it still just feels forced.

Author
Time

The planets montage never bothered me in theory, although in execution, I didn’t need more Jar Jar or shoddy CGI Tatooine.

I think though now that the sequels are out, tonally it works better without the planets montage. Maybe I should try editing it out again. I wasn’t ever able to get it quite right with the movie’s audio, but I got it pretty good with the soundtrack. Maybe a blend of the two would work.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

真実

Author
Time

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

“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

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

Apples to oranges. Comparing a classical orchestra composer to a pop singer, or comparing a movie made by an actual filmmaker (Citizen Kane) to a movie made by a mentally-ill person who’s likely a runaway criminal (The Room) is not the same thing as simply comparing one Star Wars movie to another Star Wars movie.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

I’ve actually seen the opposite happening. When TFA came out, it was met with an overwhelmingly positive reaction from the vast majority of people. As time has gone on, though, I’ve noticed that fan perception of the movie has soured. TLJ’s perception is still just as split between love and hate as it always was.

I think it’s important for love of a franchise to never be unconditional. We’re not obligated to love whatever new content a brand produces. Fans ought to be critical of subpar material when they see it. Otherwise, if corporations are able to put out content and have it be praised and profitable regardless of quality, then they’ll pay less and less attention to quality in the future. Star Wars content is not inherently good just because it’s Star Wars. The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films. It had to earn that distinction. Modern Star Wars has been able to stand on the OT’s shoulders, coasting on fan good will and nostalgia while often not being able to stand on its own. We all want Star Wars to be the best it can be. We know it can be better than what it’s become now. There’s nothing wrong with calling attention to that.

I’ve noticed some feelings of TFA souring and some feelings of TLJ warming towards positivity, but overall, yeah it’s not much different from when either film was new. TRoS, on the other hand, is one that nobody ever seems to talk about, and nobody ever really has. It seems like most people have just written that one off altogether (can’t say I blame them, either).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

I think you do not understand the basic concept of objective/subjective. As a scientist and an engineer, I have a very clear idea of what objective and subjective is. The definitions of objective and subjective are actually pretty simple. Objective is something that can be quantifiable by a metric. On the other hand, subjective is something that cannot be quantifiable.

Are there some elements of films that can be quantifiable by certain metrics? Yes, there are. For example, like how many words from the script were faithfully reproduced in the actual dialogue in the film (you will get a percentage score). However none of the elements that are quantifiable really matter when we think about “how good the film is”. When we say “how good the film is”, we pretty much think of purely subjective elements. So what I said still essentially holds true.

And yes, Britney Spears can be as good a musician as Mozart, since it completely depends on an individual opinion. Music is also an art and therefore completely subjective thing too. Unless you will come up with objective metrics, such as “notes per second”, to quantify “goodness”, which does not make sense at all, as it does injustice to some of the great minimalist composers, like John Adams.

真実

Author
Time
 (Edited)

imperialscum said:

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

I think you do not understand the basic concept of objective/subjective. As a scientist and an engineer, I have a very clear idea of what objective and subjective is. The definitions of objective and subjective are actually pretty simple. Objective is something that can be quantifiable by a metric. On the other hand, subjective is something that cannot be quantifiable.

Are there some elements of films that can be quantifiable by certain metrics? Yes, there are. For example, like how many words from the script were faithfully reproduced in the actual dialogue in the film (you will get a percentage score). However none of the elements that are quantifiable really matter when we think about “how good the film is”. When we say “how good the film is”, we pretty much think of purely subjective elements. So what I said still essentially holds true.

And yes, Britney Spears can be as good a musician as Mozart, since it completely depends on an individual opinion. Music is also an art and therefore completely subjective thing too. Unless you will come up with objective metrics, such as “notes per second”, to quantify “goodness”, which does not make sense at all, as it does injustice to some of the great minimalist composers, like John Adams.

So taste cannot be measured? Talent can’t be measured? At least not by any quantifiable metric? Editing skill and decisions in film making, the pacing of the script, quality of special effects, composition of shots? These are all subjective by your definition, yes?

“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

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

I think you do not understand the basic concept of objective/subjective. As a scientist and an engineer, I have a very clear idea of what objective and subjective is. The definitions of objective and subjective are actually pretty simple. Objective is something that can be quantifiable by a metric. On the other hand, subjective is something that cannot be quantifiable.

Are there some elements of films that can be quantifiable by certain metrics? Yes, there are. For example, like how many words from the script were faithfully reproduced in the actual dialogue in the film (you will get a percentage score). However none of the elements that are quantifiable really matter when we think about “how good the film is”. When we say “how good the film is”, we pretty much think of purely subjective elements. So what I said still essentially holds true.

And yes, Britney Spears can be as good a musician as Mozart, since it completely depends on an individual opinion. Music is also an art and therefore completely subjective thing too. Unless you will come up with objective metrics, such as “notes per second”, to quantify “goodness”, which does not make sense at all, as it does injustice to some of the great minimalist composers, like John Adams.

So taste cannot be measured? Talent can’t be measured? At least not by any quantifiable metric? Editing skill and decisions in film making, the pacing of the script, quality of special effects, composition of shots? These are all subjective by your definition, yes?

Not that you asked me, but that’s certainly how I would define it, yes.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

I think you do not understand the basic concept of objective/subjective. As a scientist and an engineer, I have a very clear idea of what objective and subjective is. The definitions of objective and subjective are actually pretty simple. Objective is something that can be quantifiable by a metric. On the other hand, subjective is something that cannot be quantifiable.

Are there some elements of films that can be quantifiable by certain metrics? Yes, there are. For example, like how many words from the script were faithfully reproduced in the actual dialogue in the film (you will get a percentage score). However none of the elements that are quantifiable really matter when we think about “how good the film is”. When we say “how good the film is”, we pretty much think of purely subjective elements. So what I said still essentially holds true.

And yes, Britney Spears can be as good a musician as Mozart, since it completely depends on an individual opinion. Music is also an art and therefore completely subjective thing too. Unless you will come up with objective metrics, such as “notes per second”, to quantify “goodness”, which does not make sense at all, as it does injustice to some of the great minimalist composers, like John Adams.

So taste cannot be measured? Talent can’t be measured? At least not by any quantifiable metric? Editing skill and decisions in film making, the pacing of the script, quality of special effects, composition of shots? These are all subjective by your definition, yes?

Yes, to all your questions.

But, like I said, I am a scientist and therefore very open-minded. If you provide me quantifiable metrics for all those things you listed, I will gladly change my mind (not to mention you will invent something spectacular that no one has managed to so far in human history). Until then, it is yes to all your questions.

真実

Author
Time

Lol why is this even a debate. The atomic weight of gold can be objectively measured. Citizen Kane being a better movie that The Room cannot be measured. ‘Better’ and ‘worse’ are not mathematical things. If an alien lands tomorrow he could say that The Phantom Menace is a good movie, but he won’t say that one plus one equals three.

Yub Nub for life

Author
Time

Mocata said:

Lol why is this even a debate. The atomic weight of gold can be objectively measured. Citizen Kane being a better movie that The Room cannot be measured. ‘Better’ and ‘worse’ are not mathematical things. If an alien lands tomorrow he could say that The Phantom Menace is a good movie, but he won’t say that one plus one equals three.

Couldn’t have said it better myself!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Author
Time

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

Mozart has a lot of qualities that Britney Spears doesn’t have, and they’re worth talking about. But whether or not Britney Spears is as good as Mozart is subjective.

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

theprequelsrule said:

imperialscum said:

SparkySywer said:

rocknroll41 said:

Servii said:

Rodney-2187 said:

I’ve already seen opinions of TFA and TLJ improve.

The OT is revered because it’s a well made set of films.

Art is subjective. If the OT was as objectively well-made as you say then why did places like Time Magazine and Empire Magazine shit on ESB when it was new? We also mustn’t forget that a lot of people also crapped on RotJ up until TPM was released.

Art is subjective, and the quality of a movie is subjective. But the OT is undeniably popular, and not simply just because it’s old or because le Star Wars fans are le dumb. It’s also incredibly influential, in a way the PT and ST, like them or not, never will be.

Agreed completely. As I stated so many times on these forums, films are purely subjective, there are no two ways about it.

Still OT has something special that extremely few films ever had or ever will.

To say “purely subjective” is a rather extreme position. There may be an element of subjectivity, but there objective elements. Is Britney Spears as good a musician as Mozart?

I think you do not understand the basic concept of objective/subjective. As a scientist and an engineer, I have a very clear idea of what objective and subjective is. The definitions of objective and subjective are actually pretty simple. Objective is something that can be quantifiable by a metric. On the other hand, subjective is something that cannot be quantifiable.

Are there some elements of films that can be quantifiable by certain metrics? Yes, there are. For example, like how many words from the script were faithfully reproduced in the actual dialogue in the film (you will get a percentage score). However none of the elements that are quantifiable really matter when we think about “how good the film is”. When we say “how good the film is”, we pretty much think of purely subjective elements. So what I said still essentially holds true.

And yes, Britney Spears can be as good a musician as Mozart, since it completely depends on an individual opinion. Music is also an art and therefore completely subjective thing too. Unless you will come up with objective metrics, such as “notes per second”, to quantify “goodness”, which does not make sense at all, as it does injustice to some of the great minimalist composers, like John Adams.

So taste cannot be measured? Talent can’t be measured? At least not by any quantifiable metric? Editing skill and decisions in film making, the pacing of the script, quality of special effects, composition of shots? These are all subjective by your definition, yes?

How would you measure whether or not any of these things were good or bad? You’d need some set of standard, but those set of standards can’t be objective. You can’t prove what blocking should have been used, or how long a take should have been.

It’s the is-ought distinction (Hume’s guillotine), you can’t prove what ought to be solely based on what is. You can only make claims about what should and shouldn’t be based on some set of standards, which are subjective.

Every attempt to define an objective set of standards, or prove whether some art is objectively good or bad, falls short. A movie can be objectively artistically complex, or objectively popular, or objectively influential, or objectively a box office hit, or objectively thrilling, but none of these are inherently, objectively good.

Especially because a lot of the time, people want different things out of movies. Sometimes the same person wants different things at different times.

Sometimes people want schlock BS popcorn movies with cringe dialog. Sometimes people want pretentious arthouse kino from 1729. You really can’t prove either of them wrong.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Hypothetically, the universe has limitless potential for new stories to tell and settings to explore, but since the people in charge of this IP are unwilling to step outside of the franchise’s comfort zone and make anything too unfamiliar, it will continue to stagnate, and the universe will shrink. This isn’t just Disney’s fault or modern Lucasfilm’s fault, by the way. This was a problem under George, as well. The franchise is too fettered to its past.

So, if movies can’t actually have their quality measured, then what’s the point of lists like the AFI Top 100? Why create official rankings of movies that are generally considered great if there’s no way to actually quantify that?

Author
Time

Servii said:

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

Hypothetically, the universe has limitless potential for new stories to tell and settings to explore, but since the people in charge of this IP are unwilling to step outside of the franchise’s comfort zone and make anything too unfamiliar, it will continue to stagnate, and the universe will shrink. This isn’t just Disney’s fault or modern Lucasfilm’s fault, by the way. This was a problem under George, as well. The franchise is too fettered to its past.

So, if movies can’t actually have their quality measured, then what’s the point of lists like the AFI Top 100? Why create official rankings of movies that are generally considered great if there’s no way to actually quantify that?

For the same reason I might get bored one day and decide to make a personal ranking and/or put up a fan poll somewhere.

In other words: it’s purely for recreational fun, and it doesn’t matter whoever is making said list. Some places that make these lists you speak of just so happen to be more popular than others, is all. But as a poster above mentioned: “Objectively Popular” does not equal “Objectively Good.”

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Budu1ux09Rs

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Prequel Obi-Wan is a bad person, his character is written inconsistently, and he’s overrated by fans. I know the whole “He mutilates Anakin and leaves him to burn to death next to a volcano” was something George had come up with a long time ago. It’s still stupid, though. It goes against Obi-Wan’s character, and it doesn’t make sense with the tone of their reunion on the Death Star.

Qui-Gon Jinn should never have existed. His existence contradicts what’s said in the OT, he takes away screentime and development from Obi-Wan, and because of him, Obi-Wan lacks agency since he only trained Anakin because Qui-Gon told him to. The fact that Qui-Gon is basically the protagonist of the first film of the prequel trilogy was a huge misstep.

Prequel Palpatine was excellent until halfway through RotS. Before that point, he was really well acted and his evil was subtle and sinister. Palpatine in the second half of that movie was a clown and ruined the intimidation factor of the character.

(Maybe these aren’t unpopular opinions on this site, but they are unpopular elsewhere.)

Author
Time

Servii said:

Cthulhunicron said:

The Star Wars universe is pretty limited, and I don’t think there’s really anywhere for the story to go.

So, if movies can’t actually have their quality measured, then what’s the point of lists like the AFI Top 100?

Top 100 most important movies (which can be objectively measured)

Why create official rankings of movies that are generally considered great if there’s no way to actually quantify that?

Top 100 most popular movies (which can be objectively measured)

Death of the Author

Author
Time

But, you’ll admit that some films are simply poorly made and poorly written, right? There may not be some inherent metric for judging a film’s quality, but the fact that we keep trying to create metrics to assess films (Rotten Tomatoes, Metacritic, IMDB, etc.) shows that we are aware of inherent quality differences between the movies we watch. It’s like how we know the Mona Lisa is a better work of art than a child’s drawing. The child’s parents may have a greater subjective attachment to their kid’s art, but it’s almost universally understood that the Mona Lisa is better conceived and better executed as a work of art, even thought we have no way of quantifying that.