Star Wars: The Complete Saga (1977-2005)

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sith's take would've easily placed in the domestic top 4 of every year since then, would've topped 2007 by $44m and would've finished about $1m behind Harry Potter's "grand finale" in 2011. And it would've pissed all over this year's offerings so far, which are just about knocking on the door of $300m, never mind $400.

$380 mil is a heck of a chunk of dough (especially with no 3D/IMAX premiums), no matter what name is above the door. And it's slightly more than that other "grand finale" Return of the King took domestically, so what excuses are there to account for that?

Geoff, c'mon! You know better than to let logic get in the way of blind hatred.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

Sith's take would've easily placed in the domestic top 4 of every year since then, would've topped 2007 by $44m and would've finished about $1m behind Harry Potter's "grand finale" in 2011. And it would've pissed all over this year's offerings so far, which are just about knocking on the door of $300m, never mind $400.

$380 mil is a heck of a chunk of dough (especially with no 3D/IMAX premiums), no matter what name is above the door. And it's slightly more than that other "grand finale" Return of the King took domestically, so what excuses are there to account for that?

Adjusted it would be around $483M which is higher than anything released in the last five years aside from the huge 3D sellers like Avatar and Avengers by a wide margin. It was also more than Return of the King's domestic gross a year and a half earlier, another grand finale, though that movie made more overseas during a less competitive time of year.

Nevermind Menace's near $700M adjusted gross.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by IndyMLVC

See? I can admit when I'm wrong.

If this were true, 90% of your posts would consist of apologizes for your irrational claims.

[BillieCassin]

I find the back and forth measuring contest re: grosses to be really amusing.

I think we learned with Avaturd, that the grosses of a film have very little to do with it's quality, greater historical significance, or really much else other than statistical curiosity.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by BillieCassin

I find the back and forth measuring contest re: grosses to be really amusing.

I think we learned with Avaturd, that the grosses of a film have very little to do with it's quality, greater historical significance, or really much else other than statistical curiosity.

Probably just me, but I don't need every film I watch to have "greater historical significance". Sometimes they are just fun to watch.

[balthazar_bee]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

The main reason for Clones decline was Spider-Man.

Anecdotally, I suspect the decline of Clones' box office receipts might have a little something to do with the shittier aspects of the film itself.

Take me -- I was so maniacal about the prequels when TPM was released that I saw it, yes, nineteen times theatrically. That sounds like a lot, right?

What can I say? I was young. I liked it. I had my first job right next to a local multiplex (and few expenses). I liked the thrill of seeing the visual grandeur of a new Star Wars film on the big screen. And the flaws of the film are much less distracting when you're staring at a gigantic screen, being swallowed by an incredible sound mix. Conversely, what's great about it -- the environments, the orgasmic lightsaber battle at the end, John Williams' ripping return-to-form score, Neeson + McGregor, the sense of...hmm..."doors being opened" for future story-telling purposes...

Then came AOTC. Yes, I saw it several times. Four or five, as I recall. I would've denied it at the time -- most of us were exclaiming, "Well that's more like it!" when we left the theatre -- but I knew immediately that something was wrong.

The first scene in the movie is like a continuation of everything that was underwhelming about TPM. It was so wooden it was practically kindling. No dramatic momentum whatsoever. Another vote in the Galactic Senate. Another decoy Queen. The death of a character we don't know. Padme forcing out some stilted emotional dialogue (AOTC's stock and trade).

Fortunately, Revenge of the Sith tells a cracking story and can't afford to waste time the way AOTC does, so it moves at a gallop, and -- surprise! -- actually recaptures some of the magic of the original trilogy. Camille Paglia, whom I don't always agree with, made the point that Episode III is the work of art of our time, and while I wouldn't go that far, I do think it's a terrific movie, with nuggets of real greatness here and there.

Frankly, the idea that people think it's "more of the same" shocks me. I feel pretty confident saying that it made more money than Attack of the Clones because it's a more satisfying, exciting, skillfully made piece of work.

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Anecdotally, I suspect the decline of Clones' box office receipts might have a little something to do with the shittier aspects of the film itself.

Clones, when released, was viewed as an improvement by most fans, critics, and audiences. It wasn't going to make as much as Menace even if it had 100% on RT and universal praise, but it certainly would have tallied a lot more had it not been for Spider-Man's historic run.

[happydood]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Anecdotally, I suspect the decline of Clones' box office receipts might have a little something to do with the shittier aspects of the film itself.

Take me -- I was so maniacal about the prequels when TPM was released that I saw it, yes, nineteen times theatrically. That sounds like a lot, right?

What can I say? I was young. I liked it. I had my first job right next to a local multiplex (and few expenses). I liked the thrill of seeing the visual grandeur of a new Star Wars film on the big screen. And the flaws of the film are much less distracting when you're staring at a gigantic screen, being swallowed by an incredible sound mix. Conversely, what's great about it -- the environments, the orgasmic lightsaber battle at the end, John Williams' ripping return-to-form score, Neeson + McGregor, the sense of...hmm..."doors being opened" for future story-telling purposes...

Then came AOTC. Yes, I saw it several times. Four or five, as I recall. I would've denied it at the time -- most of us were exclaiming, "Well that's more like it!" when we left the theatre -- but I knew immediately that something was wrong.

The first scene in the movie is like a continuation of everything that was underwhelming about TPM. It was so wooden it was practically kindling. No dramatic momentum whatsoever. Another vote in the Galactic Senate. Another decoy Queen. The death of a character we don't know. Padme forcing out some stilted emotional dialogue (AOTC's stock and trade).

Fortunately, Revenge of the Sith tells a cracking story and can't afford to waste time the way AOTC does, so it moves at a gallop, and -- surprise! -- actually recaptures some of the magic of the original trilogy. Camille Paglia, whom I don't always agree with, made the point that Episode III is the work of art of our time, and while I wouldn't go that far, I do think it's a terrific movie, with nuggets of real greatness here and there.

Frankly, the idea that people think it's "more of the same" shocks me. I feel pretty confident saying that it made more money than Attack of the Clones because it's a more satisfying, exciting, skillfully made piece of work.

I got a kick out of that Camille Paglia assessment. I take her with a grain of salt for sure, but it does go to show that these movies are simply not as universally reviled as some very vocal folks would have you believe.

I'm probably of a minority opinion, but as to Clones: I do think once Christopher Lee shows up and Anakin kills the Sandpeople, it's got a really strong momentum that I can get taken up in.

[Geoff D]

Originally Posted by balthazar_bee

Then came AOTC. Yes, I saw it several times. Four or five, as I recall. I would've denied it at the time -- most of us were exclaiming, "Well that's more like it!" when we left the theatre -- but I knew immediately that something was wrong.

The first scene in the movie is like a continuation of everything that was underwhelming about TPM. It was so wooden it was practically kindling. No dramatic momentum whatsoever. Another vote in the Galactic Senate. Another decoy Queen. The death of a character we don't know. Padme forcing out some stilted emotional dialogue (AOTC's stock and trade).

Fortunately, Revenge of the Sith tells a cracking story and can't afford to waste time the way AOTC does, so it moves at a gallop, and -- surprise! -- actually recaptures some of the magic of the original trilogy. Camille Paglia, whom I don't always agree with, made the point that Episode III is the work of art of our time, and while I wouldn't go that far, I do think it's a terrific movie, with nuggets of real greatness here and there.

Frankly, the idea that people think it's "more of the same" shocks me. I feel pretty confident saying that it made more money than Attack of the Clones because it's a more satisfying, exciting, skillfully made piece of work.

I agree with all of that, the "kindling" remark especially. Those guys should've been careful near open flames, they were that wooden. And yeah, ep III is far, far superior to II in every way, BUT it's still got problems of its own.

Paglia got swept up in the use of symbolism and allegory which Lucas threaded throughout his prequels (there's a good piece on Clones over at Bright Lights) but I've said it before: these movies can't survive on such sophistication alone. Independent movies they may be, but we're not talking about some boho hipster showing 6½ hours of a dripping tap and callling it art, it's freakin' Star Wars. You gotta have snappy one-liners and spunky characters and boo-hiss villainry, not galactic parliaments, robotic performances and baddies who don't even reveal themselves until the last act of the 3rd movie.

[STARKILLER--1138]

Originally Posted by rickah88

Probably just me, but I don't need every film I watch to have "greater historical significance". Sometimes they are just fun to watch.

No, there is another.

[rickah88]

Originally Posted by STARKILLER--1138

No, there is another.

I see what you did there, and I like it!

[Kryptonic]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I agree with all of that, the "kindling" remark especially. Those guys should've been careful near open flames, they were that wooden. And yeah, ep III is far, far superior to II in every way, BUT it's still got problems of its own.

Paglia got swept up in the use of symbolism and allegory which Lucas threaded throughout his prequels (there's a good piece on Clones over at Bright Lights) but I've said it before: these movies can't survive on such sophistication alone. Independent movies they may be, but we're not talking about some boho hipster showing 6½ hours of a dripping tap and callling it art, it's freakin' Star Wars. You gotta have snappy one-liners and spunky characters and boo-hiss villainry, not galactic parliaments, robotic performances and baddies who don't even reveal themselves until the last act of the 3rd movie.

Thanks for the link. Great article.

And I think these films have plenty of the classic Star Wars adventure, probably moreso in Clone than any of the three films. The finale is like a child's dream come true if you love science fiction battles. Darth Maul and Dooku were more than enough to keep the dark side alive until Palpatine revealed himself in Sith as well.

[Geoff D]

I've said over and over how I love Clones' last couple of reels, but what precedes it is sooooooo bad. And Dooku and Maul are mere holding patterns, filling time until we get the REAL big bad.

[Falaskan]

Originally Posted by Geoff D

I've said over and over how I love Clones' last couple of reels, but what precedes it is sooooooo bad.

Clones doesn't have any reels.

[Geoff D]

It's a figure of speech. "Clones' last couple of gigabytes" just doesn't sound as romantic, somehow.

BTW, they actually call it 'Reel 6' on the DVD Extras, so you might want to tell off LFL also.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by Kryptonic

Clones, when released, was viewed as an improvement by most fans, critics, and audiences. It wasn't going to make as much as Menace even if it had 100% on RT and universal praise, but it certainly would have tallied a lot more had it not been for Spider-Man's historic run.

Huh? It got 2 stars pretty much across the board from all major critics! The audience thought it was garbage for the most part. I can't even believe I am reading this.

[GuruAskew]

You're wrong. Between the absence of Jake Lloyd, the greatly-reduced presence of Jar Jar and the darker tone AotC was largely seen as a movie that righted most of the wrongs of its predecessor.

In the years since I've seen a significant amount of people online expressing a TPM preference, generally attributed to some combination of Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and the fact that it was shot on film, but this is largely an internet thing.

In the real world The Phantom Menace is more of an eternal punchline, and there's nothing in AotC that even comes close to evoking nerd rage the way a mention of Jar Jar or Ani will.

[Elvis]

Originally Posted by GuruAskew

You're wrong. Between the absence of Jake Lloyd, the greatly-reduced presence of Jar Jar and the darker tone AotC was largely seen as a movie that righted most of the wrongs of its predecessor.

In the years since I've seen a significant amount of people online expressing a TPM preference, generally attributed to some combination of Darth Maul, Qui-Gon Jinn and the fact that it was shot on film, but this is largely an internet thing.

In the real world The Phantom Menace is more of an eternal punchline, and there's nothing in AotC that even comes close to evoking nerd rage the way a mention of Jar Jar or Ani will.

Actually no Im not wrong! TPM got 3.5 to 4 stars from all the major critics in 1999. It also grossed 430 million on less theaters. Sorry but ATOC is considered the garbage film of the franchise by most. Even Ebert gave it only 2 out of 4 stars! And no 380 mill domestic in 2005 was a disappointment given the fact that it was the buildup to the largest film franchise ever. Should have been well north of 500 mil but the suckage that was Clones carried over to the semi suckage that was Sith hence which = 310 mil and 380 mil.

[GuruAskew]

That's the best you can come up with? Some unsourced generalizations passed off as facts?

Even if TPM was an otherwise-excellent film aside from Jar Jar (and it really isn't) the mere presence of Jar Jar in a major pivotal role cements it's status as the laughing stock of the Star Wars franchise. People who know nothing about Star Wars know the world hates Jar Jar. Your mom knows the world hates Jar Jar.

People are basically indifferent towards AotC. They can take it or leave it or even forget it altogether. But people hate TPM.

Roger Ebert's review has little to nothing to do with how these films were received by audiences or commercially.

How old are you? I'm not trying to be insulting, I'm just sincerely curious to see if you're old enough to actually remember what people thought of these movies when they were first released.

[Stinky-Dinkins]

Who cares which one was "better"? All the prequels were pretty bad. Being the best of the worst isn't much of a feat.