logo Sign In

zombie84

User Group
Members
Join date
21-Nov-2005
Last activity
12-Jan-2024
Posts
3,557

Post History

Post
#397122
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.

You are mistaken. I am not trying to invalidate the film's success, because I do not believe its success is proof of anything. I have no need to invalidate its success. I am merely trying to point out that it is not necessarily as universally loved as you seem to think it is, and I am doing that because you seem to believe this is an important point and because I am not so confident that everybody loves or would love it.

Yes, you were. I said the film was financially and critically very successful. You said it was because the films "artificial" characterization was in style at the time it was released, and if people could evaluate it again they might change their minds. This is what you said:

"Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame."

This is essentially saying it was only popular because standards were poorer (read: different) back then. But regardless: the film was released in the 80s and was successful in the 80s, by both fans and non-fans. It wouldn't be as popular now because its not in sync with 2010 tastes and styles--but it WAS in sync with 1987 tastes and styles, as you admitted, which is why it was popular.

Again, this brings me back to judging films based on temporal styles. A lot of people in the 1980s would say the film is pretty good, and clever, with witty writing, sophisticated effects, and well-developed characters, with a very relevant socio-political message. Today, they might not, because tastes have evolved and now people have different criteria, standards, and expectations of films in general. But this is like complaining a film from the 1920s has no color and sound. Its a reminder that evaluating the worth of anything in art and entertainment is strictly temporal to the context you are living in.

Post
#397115
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

VISNH: Apologies for calling you an idiot, but I think the discussion at hand is one of the great problems of not only film studies but art criticism in general.

The problem is that people have this notion that art isn't subjective. It clearly is. I understand that the situation is more complex than sweeping statements allow. But the biggest problem in art criticism, and to a lesser degree in media studies, is that the intelligentsia thinks it can state definitively if something is good or bad, on grounds that at the end of the day rely only on the degree of sophistication of their argument. Some teenage girl thinks Twilight is awesome. Someone may say, "why, its so simple and the characters are dumb!" and she may say, "no, they appeal to me, I think its a very good movie/book." At the end of the day, there is no reply to that. You can state why YOU think she SHOULD consider them to be stupid and hollow, but she can understand exactly what you are saying and still state "I just don't agree." And that's that. Hell, cinephiles can't even agree amongst themselves about films, and they are supposedly educated about all the mechanics, intellectualism, etc of films.

The illusion of the objectivity of taste is the great lie that cinema professors invented to justify their existance. Its elitism that stands on a pedestal of bullshit.

That's why it personally bugs me when people pretend that taste is something that exists outside of their perception, some greater truth to be discovered if only they can analyse something enough. But the bottom line is that people love stuff you think is shit, and you love stuff other people think is shit, and there would be a lot of time saved if everyone just realised, "hey, people have different tastes, interests, and criteria for what is appealing to them."

Post
#397095
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

How good a film depends on how entertaining it is, because at the end of the day thats why people are watching. Sometime this "entertainment" can be in form of admiring its mechanics (editing, cinematography) or characters (writing, acting), or plot (writing, directing) or any combination, but all art is about eliciting some form of appreciation in the viewer, whether that is emotional or intellectual.

Actually, the last post on STIV being made in the 1980s is a good example of how what makes "good art" is entirely subjective, and very tied to historical context. What people considered "good" about films in the 1920 and 1930s is very different than the 1970s and 1980s, for example. If you were to show many typical films from the former to the latter, they might complain that the acting is over-the-top, the plots not realistic, the sets fake looking, no challenging messages, etc. And if you show a film from the 1980s to people today, some might have the same reaction. Do you really think that any of todays "masterpieces" will be looked at any differently from many people in 2050s?

Taste is subject to trends and fashion, it changes over time, and what people consider artistic, or noteworthy, or entertaining, or whatever is entirely temporal. Anything with expliciti sex and/or violence in it was considered "trash" until the 1970s, and even then it was rejected by many people for its moral ineptness and such. Ever since the 1970s, if there was no "hard" subject matter, a lot of people looked at it as fluff, and not very serious.

Art is subjective, and the trends in its appraisal change as much as the fashion styles on runways, because there essentially is no difference.

 

It's not a question of whether I would judge the film by the standard of now but a question of many people doing so.

The point is that you attempted to invalidate that films success by asserting it wouldn't be recieved as such today, the implication being that the film isn't really as good as its reputation holds. Which is a circular argument--it wasn't released today, it was released in the 80s and was very successful in the 1980s, and if it was made today it would be quite different.

Post
#397091
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films).

Well, that's back in the early 80s. The sort of artificial character portrayal that the film goes in for would make it less popular if it were released now, because films go in for that sort of thing less nowadays. And some people developed their view of the film back in the 80s and never got around to revising their view in recent times. Plenty ordinary moviegoers, if shown that film, would think it was pretty lame. 

 This is a circular argument. It was recieved well in the 80s because thats when it was made. Its probably true that it wouldn't be recieved well today because it doesn't adhere to current fashions and trends--because its 30 years out of touch with those very fashions and trends! Because it was...you know, made in the 80s? You can only evaluate a movie's construction in the context of when it was made, not 30 years into the future. If it were made today, it would be quite different, and very likely conform to the fashions and trends in filmmaking that you feel is lacking in the film (because, you know, they didn't exist). This is basically like complaining that a movie from the 1920s doesn't have sound or colour.

Post
#397090
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Vaderisnothayden said:

 

Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.

That's the it's-all-subjective viewpoint. I don't subscribe to that view.

Well then you are an idiot. If a film is entertaining to someone then its entertaining for them, it doesn't matter whether you share that view or not. You can back up your claims with arguments for sophistication of plot and character, but sometimes entertainment doesn't need to be sophisticated, otherwise we wouldn't have Jacky Chan, The Three Stooges, or low-budget horror, in all cases where the lack of sophistication is partly the appeal. But at the end of the day there is no objective truth beyond your perception of what you like and why, art is not some objective object that you can measure scientifically in this respect, its effectiveness is an emotional resonance created in people, sometimes for different reasons, but none of them any more or less valid than anyone elses.

Don't confuse the study of film and its mechanics, and the justification of why you like the film because of those mechanics, with something that makes your opinion somehow more real. It's not real, it's still just a subjective view at the end of the day, regardless of how you articulate it.

Post
#397063
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Some films may be crap to you, but liked by others. You are not correct any more than other people are, because it's all just taste. Its incredibly presumptuous that discussion of movies goes anywhere beyond what I like and you like, as if there is some greater truth that exists outside of our perceptions.

As to herd mentality, you are basically writing off anything that is popular, which is not constructive or any sort of specific argument, nor is it proveable in any case. As to non-ST fans, WOK is usually the only film any of them can stand in my experience, and STIV was by far one of the more critically and commercially successfull of the series, which implicates a strong non-fan approval (I would say precisely because it is the least Star Treky all the films). Anyway, it's hard to even divide non-fans and fans in the ST world because usually anyone that likes some of the films is considered a fan, and most people who don't consider themselves a fan in some degree don't like ANY of them, hence the disussion about ranking popularity becomes moot.

The herd argument is stupid and in bad taste though. It's not much an argument as it is unfalisifiable paranoia.

Post
#397049
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Or how about films are considered good by many people because they are good films? That people just honestly believe that? People are very vocal about their love and hate for certain films, especially in the ST circles where people will bash STV to death and then profess great love of STII. This argument doesn't hold much water, nor is it possible to prove in any case.

Anyway, having read much about the films, talked to many people about the films, even been to a Star Trek convention, I can say that of the hundreds of people I've interacted with about them, I have never heard of that before. I'm not being literal in saying that 98% of people believe that, but certainly I've never encounted anyone who shares your view, nor even heard of such a thing from others, so at the very least its an incredibly minority stance on the films. As I said, nothing wrong with that, to each his own, I just find it a bit strange, and not because I'm some brainwashed sheep.

Post
#397044
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

I'm not saying its wrong. There is no right and wrong, its all just matters of taste. I DO think its wrong to attribute the wide popularity to a herd mentality. Thats a cheap cop-out. I think you either just approach the films in a different way (which is not to say we accept the crap, just that we don't see certain elements as crap but as part of the appeal, case in point with Shakespear) or you simply have tastes with regards to them that almost no one else has. I'm sure there are some people who share your views, and I don't think it means you have to feel bad or anything, but I do think I am absolutely correct in saying that about 98% of everyone who has seen the films would say STII is good and STV poor, rather than the reverse, and not because of an argument as simplistic as "herd mentality."

Post
#397033
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

I think you are approaching Khan in the wrong way VINH. It's hammy and over the top--and that's what's great about it. Shakespear is hammy and over the top, too, and that's what is enjoyable about it a lot of the time, you can relish in the pure cartoonish stylization of it. Khan is a masterpiece, and a big part of that is the fact that you have Khan and Kirk as these two really big personalities, the film is almost like a sophisticated comic book.

I have to agree, I never heard of ANYONE disliking WOK while liking the others, and certainly haven't heard of anyone liking ST V more than any other film, least of all WOK. There's a reason why critics, audiences, and fans alike have been hailing the film for 25 years as a great film, let alone the best in the series. "I'm not crazy, EVERYONE ELSE is crazy!!" But to each his own. I find this sort of view incredibly bizarre--I have to wonder, if you think ST V is the second-best in the original series and WOK among the worst, what exactly are you looking for in a ST film? I'm not being rhetorical here, I'm just curious as this viewpoint is the inverse of almost every other person on the planet that has seen the films.

Post
#396905
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Timstuff said:

I don't really like the idea of making a movie-length review of a movie just because you hate it so much. To me, that kind of crosses the line from "entertaining" the way The Nostalgia Critic and the Angry Video Game Nerd are, to being downright obsessive. It seems kind of like the guy who refuses to stop complaining about his ex, not because she's every bit as bad as he says, but because he's still emotionally attached and can't let her go.

I have a better idea: instead of making a 70 minute movie complaining about everything that's wrong with The Phantom Menace, why not try and fix it? I'm sure that the Phantom Editor could have just made an angry video review of Episode I if he wanted to, but rather than just complain about the movie he actually did something, and helped launch what would become the fan edit movement.

I think it's a waste of time to invest that much time and effort into a movie that you claim you despise, only to come out at the end saying you still despise it. Likewise, why should I spend 70 minutes watching a movie whose only reason for existing is to tell me why I shouldn't like another movie, when I could spend that time watching a movie that I will enjoy? I hate Jar Jar Binks as much as the next guy, but I can think of plenty of better ways to spend 70 minutes than watching someone angrily dissect a movie.

 I'd say spending dozens of hours (hundreds?)making a fan-edit is a much more severe manifestation of "not being able to let go" than making a 70-minute video. I mean, let's face it, people here, myself included, have hundreds of posts bitching about the film. Whats less work? Making a 70-minute video rant and being done with it, or going to a message board every day and making a post about it, day after day, for years on end?

Post
#396889
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Warbler,

All of the elements in the Meyers films come from TOS, I'm not disputing that. Some episodes played on comedy, some played on political intrigue and some played on action and cat-and-mouse space stuff. But in the total package, they never were so overt as the way Meyer presented him. Beginning with WOK, he radically overhauled the Enterprise into a naval battlecruiser, even going as far as totally re-designing the uniforms to be navy uniforms and giving the torpedo way a sort of galleys design. You would have never seen that in TOS because the enterprise was a science vessel in a utupian socialist conception of the world. And while there was comedy in some episodes, and that one where they went back to the 1940s, that's worlds apart from a whole 2 hour film set in 1980s San Francisco with Spock giving the nerve pinch to a punk rocker on a public bus. And, of course, Nimoy directed the film, but the film is what it is because of Meyer's writing and central role in the focus of the film.

Anyway, I love TOS and I'm almost equally fond of TNG, but the approach needed to be more ambitious to bring them to the big screen. ST TMP tried a more heady, 2001-inspired approach that is much more in line with TOS--it really does feel like a big-screen adaptation to me--but for whatever reasons it didn't click, and so they went as far in the opposite direction they could for the sequel, which is a naval action film between two arch nemeses. I would say that STIII and V are actually closer to the spirit of the TV in how they mix action, character, humour, adventure and ideas, but those are the films people hate the most in the series, it was the Meyer films that were always the most popular and beloved because they took chances and re-thought the franchise for what would be best as films, with legacy to the TV show being less important. In the end, this ended up winning more fans, because even though some were put off by being slightly deviant from the formula, more were appreciative that they were simply really good films.

I would compare this with Irvin Kershner and ESB. He took chances, deviated from formula, re-thought the entire style and approach to the series, and while this alienated some (including Lucas) in the end people appreciated it because it was just a really good film.

I would put ST FC in this category as well, although in a slightly lesser way, which was the problem I had with RLM's review. He's reviewing it as a fanboy a lot of the times, instead of as a viewer of a film. That was why I liked his TPM review, because fanboys could explain away some of the holes based on their knowledge of the inner workings of the characters and the worlds, etc. but as a film it just fails, for much simpler reasons (shitty characters, shitty drama--the main thing that FC avoided, which was why it was so successful).

Post
#396827
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

He turned it from a utopian science ship to a naval battlecruiser in WOK.

He turned a then-serious sci-fi intellectual series into an outright contemporary comedy in VH.

He turned a idealistic view of the characters and humanity into racist, cold-war allegorys in UC. So much that members of the cast protested some of the lines they were given.

He re-wrote the series and what it was each time he went up to bat, and each time it alienated some fans because of the liberties and deviations, but each time it was met with enthusiastic approval from everyone else because finally the series was good!

Post
#396822
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

As far as the ST series went, there is a very observable pattern:

-Someone would make a mediocre movie, putting the franchise in jeapordy

-Nicholas Meyer would come in and make a great film that re-energized the series.

-Someone would make a mediocre movie, putting the franchise in jeapordy

-Nicholas Meyer would come in and make a great film that re-energized the series.

As far as I am concerned, without Wrath of Khan, Voyage Home and Undiscovered Country, not only would there be no TOS feature film series, but what was there would be pretty sorry. Meyer took great liberties with the series, but that is precisely what was needed, because what was there wasn't very interesting or dramatic. That's the same reason I always approved of First Contact.

Post
#396444
Topic
Original Trilogy Reception 1977-1983
Time

That's a good question regarding RT--since I used the top critic selection, my understanding is that they are all weighted equally. For my comparison of the OT, my RT are unweighted--in the weighted reviews of my own calculations, all the OT films score slightly better. This indicates the OT was actually recieved better in the major media publications than their averages.

Post
#396429
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

Well, I can't speak for the other TNG films, since they aren't very good, but as for FC's re-invention of Picard--it worked. It was a better direction. That's all it really boils down to. I realise it is out of place with the utopian socialist pacificism of TNG, but I always felt that was the series' biggest flaw and here was a vision of a human being that felt believable. Take that continuity!

Its much like "I am your father" the biggest ret-con in history. But dramatically, it works.

Post
#396398
Topic
RedLetterMedia's Revenge of Nadine [TPM 108 pg Resp. [RotS Review+RotS Preview+ST'09 Reveiw+Next Review Teaser+2002 Interview+AotC OutTakes+Noooooo! Doc.+SW Examiner Rebuttal+AotC Review+TPM Review]
Time

You know, I watched the guys critique of First Contact, and was less than impressed, as someone who is both a casual Trek fan and someone who found his review of TPM excellent.

This has to do mainly with the bottom line that FC is a film with very good drama, acting and characters. It doesn't mesh well with the series, which is his main point, but the ST continuity is so constricted that I find the ones that deviate the most are the best because of this--they give a chance to re-invent and go with what works best for the drama, rather than honoring a million references in the hundreds of episodes that pre-date it. Wrath of Khan for example tosses aside most of the continuity of the series, and would be in RLM's terms "just an action movie." In fact, the entire introductory set-up involving Checkov doesn't make any sense, since the character didn't exist in the series during "Space Seed." It reminds me of the fact that the entire premise of Citizen Kane is based on a flaw, that no one is around to hear Kane's deathbed utterance. Star Wars too has its share of these sorts of things.

The difference is that the power of the characters and the drama work in such a way that either you don't notice through the dramatic sleight-of-hand, or you are so wrapped up that you don't care, or both. TPM failed to achieve any of the aforementioned factors for a lot of people, which is why its failings stick out so much on repeat viewings. FC, on the other hand, worked, even if when you break it down there are some inconsistencies and gaps in the plot. I think this applies to basically every successful (or not successful) film.

Post
#396391
Topic
Original Trilogy Reception 1977-1983
Time

You know, that's an interesting point, and I raised it in the second article of mine. The third film in the original trilogy was seen by many as a disappointment because the previous films were so good--while the third film in the prequel trilogy was seen by many as impressive because the previous films were so bad! Interesting inverse relationship. And they still score almost exactly the same by my measurements!

Post
#396252
Topic
New HDTV Broadcasts?
Time

The 2004 SEs were not scanned in 2k, they were scanned in 1080, so the master negative is the same resolution as the HD version. I have no idea how the 4x3's were derived. It's possible that they just cropped the SD downconversion, which is what many 4x3 transfers are. Given that there was never a 4x3 HD release/broadcast as far as I know, I'm going to say that it's less likely that a 4X3 HD crop was made that was then downconverted. The 4x3 version was designed only for SD broadcast and DVD, so I wouldn't be surprise if they went the easier route of just cropping the WS downconversion.

The 16x9 HD crop shouldn't net you any higher detail though, since the negative master is itself HD--it's just a blow-up.

So perhaps none of the fullscreen releases are any better. There might be hope though, since the broadcasts are so compressed that the blow-up would reveal detail that got lost in the compression. The compression is applied during broadcast and isn't on the master they recieve, so in this respect even though the fullscreen is a blow-up you might get information thats not on the widescreen version.

Post
#396216
Topic
New HDTV Broadcasts?
Time

That all depends on the assumption that the P&S is NOT a blow-up from the widescreen, which probably isn't the case. In the 80s and 90s the 4x3 transfers were minted straight from a print because this was 99% of the market, but in the DVD era where 4x3 is not liked I think they are more often than not just blow ups from a widescreen master. Even on Fox's "what is widescreen?" feature on the Die Hard 5-star DVD from 2001 they show the fullscreen process as derived from the widescreen master and thus losing resolution.

Post
#396112
Topic
Discussion: Another... FAIL Star Wars Toys Review
Time

LOL, true dat.

Although in my experience, even when collectors go on about "value", I have never, ever seen a collector sell any significant portion of his "rare collection" for financial gain. Value on the market just seems to be a justification for the hobby. Even though the hobby revolves around trying to obtain the highest value of collectible, its pretty circular since this really just becomes a means to its itself, rather to an ends (selling it for cash value to buy OTHER stuff). But I guess this is part of the irony of the collecting sub-culture in general.

Post
#395364
Topic
Original Trilogy Reception 1977-1983
Time

This has been a study I have been conducting since 2005 or so, mainly looking at the original trilogy as it was recieved by critics in the years of its original release. This study, by Rotten Tomatoes, published in 2005 stated that upon examination, the prequels were actually reviewed better than the originals.

"Tomatometer Ranking of Star Wars Series Based on Critical Reaction During Original Release Dates:
83% - Star Wars Episode III: Revenge of the Sith
79% - Star Wars
65% - Star Wars Episode II: Attack of the Clones
62% - Star wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace
52% - The Empire Strikes Back
31% - Return of the Jedi"

This made a lot of people scratch their heads, but its hard to argue with hard data. Well, I'm arguing back. That study is fundamentally flawed in a multitude of ways, such as the fact that they only sampled whatever reviews were onhand at the local library, to the fact that the ratings for the prequels come from websites. Over the last three years, I collected close to 100 reviews of the original trilogy, in contrast to their 48, for my study.

The results I have published on my website. I will post the links below.

Here are the results, however. For the prequels the rating is from metacritic.com, and the tomatometer from Rotten Tomatoes "Top Critic" filter. For the originals, both tomatometer and rating are my own calculations based on my study:

Phantom Menace
Tomatometer:39
Rating:52

Attack of the Clones
Tomatometer:38
Rating:53

Revenge of the Sith
Tomatometer:69
Rating:68

Star Wars
Tomatometer:83
Rating:82

Empire Strikes Back
Tomatometer:92
Rating:73

Return of the Jedi
Tomatometer:76
Rating:64

This is very different than the 79%, 52% and 31% tomatometer results RT claimed for the originals.

Below are the detailed pages on my study.

In Part I I explain the background, my aims, my methodology and then present the raw data in various forms of measurement.

Part II is the real heart of it. Here I offer analysis and interpretation of the data, give the reviews greater context and detail, track shifting opinions of the OT films through the post-release period and into 1997 and the modern era, and finally compare the prequels to the originals.

I am sure people will have something to say about any of this. Enjoy! (Sorry about all the words and stats!)