George Lucas lost his touch and should have gotten Spielberg or someone else to direct the pre-
 Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
 |
Nothing Ever Happens Shirt $21.68 |
George Lucas lost his touch and should have gotten Spielberg or someone else to direct the pre-
he did try. he wanted ron howard, steven spielberg, and someone else and they all turned him down
oh right, robert zemeckis was the third
Right, but the point is that he was literally the more well received director in 2005, compared to Spielberg. Acting like the prequels are some cinematic abomination and that Lucas was secretly a hack compared to his new Hollywood peers is the most comically divorced-from-reality meme that the filmbuff internet ever spawned.
You should have been aborted.
>Acting like the prequels are some cinematic abomination
Because they are my esl friend. Now go back to r/prequelmemes.
>Because they are my esl friend.
By what metric?
>You should have been aborted.
And you should of been aborted, ESL moron.
You should have been chocked to death on your mothers feces
>should have
ESL moment.
Episode III was overrated because getting something decent after the shitshow that was the previous 2 made it seem amazing. War of the Worlds is a better movie. Cope more, prequeer.
You are the one coping though. Staggering lack of self awareness there, chief.
>it's a better movie because... number higher
JJ has a higher score than both for Force Awakens, maybe George should've had him direct the prequels.
To be fair, this was post Superhero movie boom where critics started playing with kid gloves.
Ok what about his Star Trek remake then?
That movie is actually really good, but still debatably post capeshit boom. I haven't bothered to nail down the exact year critics went soft, but it was 2012 at the latest.
It was right around when the first Avengers movie came out, before that most superhero movies got mildly positive reviews but it was afterwards that they all started getting way inflated scores becoming some of the highest rated movies ever.
Probably, yeah. Before that the MCU movies like Thor and Hulk got fitting scores, afterwords Ant Man 2 and shit got inflated scores.
It came out in 2009.
lens flare: the movie
>94% and 91%
Movie isn't even a 70%
If that were the case RoS would have gotten good reviews. TFA isn't a bad movie, its just a cashgrab rehash of ANH to bring in kids to the franchise.
>TFA isn't a bad movie
It is though. Rey is written much worse than Luke, the tone is all over the place (why is a brainwashed child slave soldier acting like an excitable urban american teen?), "a good story for another time", unexplained and illogical backdrop for the story, utterly unoriginal=not entertaining to watch, etc etc etc and so on.
Also the movie claims to be a return to le practical effects and film but uses no spaceship models and is color graded to frick and back.
You said absolutely nothing. Good job
I accept your concession, JJ. That being said you make a good point with RoS getting bad reviews. Perhaps at that point after two movies of illogical nonsense the critics were forced to confront the inevitable end result of that bad set up being... bad.
this will never not make me angry
the main character lacks a clear goal and shows no growth. she's immediately liked by everyone and goes through no struggles. they blatantly copied A New Hope and still fricked it up in almost every way
I walked out the theater saying "Wow that was trash" and all my friends said "Wait you didn't like it?"
General audiences are morons
He makes vapid people pleaser movies that you don’t realise aren’t actually any good until 5 years later when you haven’t felt the urge to rewatch them even once and they ways in which they damaged their respective franchises becomes apparent
lucas was riding on the franchise
didn't help the previous two films
Ever since AI, Spielberg has been a meme director that is just collecting paychecks off his name.
Catche Me If You Can was kino.
I liked it more than Minority Report even, evdn if it's a less "significant" movie. Walken is perfect in it.
asd
bump
Neither of those are good movies, but Spielberg released more good movies in the 2000s than Lucas did his entire career.
>but Spielberg released good movies in the 2000s
Now do Attack of the Clones and Minority Report. Or even Attack of the Clones and Catch Me If You Can. Or Saving Private Ryan and The Phantom Menace (close enough); feel free to average out Saving Private Ryan with A.I. if you want, even.
Another appropriate comparison would be the PT to The Lost World, 2 filmmakers making sequels to their own films. Clones and Sith handily beat The Lost World, which sits neck and neck with Phantom Menace.
>Another appropriate comparison would be the PT to The Lost World, 2 filmmakers making sequels to their own films
I guess, but unlike Lucas Spielberg's career as a filmmaker didn't almost entirely revolve around a single IP. As a sample the proportions are not even close to being the same, and even Spielberg admits Lost World was a misbegotten product of his own lack of interest.
Spielberg didn't give a shit about Lost World, it was just a paycheck movie. His interest was in JP1. The PT was Lucas's long awaited ultimate project, the one he had to wait decades to even approach making.
>Spielberg didn't give a shit about Lost World
Source from before it flopped critically?
No I'm going to respond by saying that you can't read.
Episode III is one of the best Star Wars. You don't have to agree with a fat trekky boomer
The visual bloom of war of the worlds is horrible, same as minority report just disgusting to look at.
I think it works for Minority Report, but doesn't for Worlds. Not sure why.
>and even Spielberg admits Lost World was a misbegotten product of his own lack of interest.
sounds like cope
Wasn't he the one that pushed Crate ton to write a sequel?
>sounds like cope
It's probably true, though. More confidence and less interest made for a much worse movie. Even Temple of Doom and Last Crusade pale in comparison to Raiders, but they turned out better because Indiana Jones is easier to sequelize.
Agree to disagree.
>imma steal that
who still takes rotten tomato scores seriously?
Desperate prequelgays.
OP here, I don't personally put much stock in critics etc, it is OTgays who constantly say
>muh RLM, muh critics, muh public reception
So I speak to them in their language.
>>muh RLM, muh critics, muh public reception
Your half-assed comparison doesn't serve this point, though. War of the Worlds wouldn't even make Spielberg's top 10 for most people, and the fact he released one movie that was (by this metric) worse than the best (by this metric) prequel the same year doesn't change the fact he was a much more successful director from 1999 to 2005 than Lucas.
The funny thing is your shitpost ignores he also released Munich in 2005. Nobody even gives a frick about Munich, yet look how it compares on Rotten Tomatoes.
>Your half-assed comparison doesn't serve this point, though
It does though. Lucas was releasing the better films in 2005, including Munich which has a lower critic score than Episode 3.
>including Munich which has a lower critic score than Episode 3.
By one point, and a much higher audience score.
Concession status: accepted.
A dramatically higher audience score doesn't offset a single percentage point critic score? Either way, the point remains: his 00s output is much stronger than Lucas's. Anything else is cope.
With the the available data, Revenge of the Sith would have been a worse film if given to him.
Even if that were true (it isn't), that also means the other two prequels would have been so much better that the trilogy as a whole would have been better off with Spielberg directing, by your own "data."
>it isn't
?
>that also means the other two prequels would have been so much better that the trilogy as a whole would have been better off with Spielberg directing
Having a strong final installment is very important though. The set up being well reviewed for a bad payoff was the sequel trilogy's mistake.
>?
The audience score for Munich being so high surely offsets its critic score being a mere 1 point lower. But if you want to discount the audience entirely in this shitpost scenario, fine.
>Having a strong final installment is very important though.
But we're talking about an extremely small difference in critic scores for 2005 and dramatically different critic scores otherwise. This cope scenario you've imagined where Spielberg's ROTS is 1% worse than Lucas's doesn't offset how much better the other two prequels would be.
You're forgetting about War of the Worlds.
And Spielberg might also tank Episode 2 like he tanked The Lost World and arguably Temple of Doom/Crystal Skull.
>You're forgetting about War of the Worlds
That at most makes it a 4% difference. If we average it, 2.5%.
>And Spielberg might also tank Episode 2 like he tanked The Lost World and arguably Temple of Doom/Crystal Skull.
Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull both fare better than TPM and AOTC, per your "data." Last Crusade is higher than even Revenge of the Sith. He's better at sequels than Lucas. Now what?
2.5 is a big difference though. Mid 70s starts getting into "stay away" territory.
>Temple of Doom and Crystal Skull both fare better than TPM and AOTC, per your "data." Last Crusade is higher than even Revenge of the Sith. He's better at sequels than Lucas.
ToD and Crystal are lower than Sith. TLW is lower than Clones and Sith, by a lot.
>2.5 is a big difference though
No.
>ToD and Crystal are lower than Sith. TLW is lower than Clones and Sith, by a lot.
He's still better at sequels:
(77 + 84 + 54 + 77)/4 = 73
(51 + 65 + 79)/3 = 65
Now what?
Now we see that Lucas made a six percent better film than Spielberg would have, beating the odds.
Concession: accepted.
Plus, you already probably dislike RotS now. Imagine it being even slightly worse, and imagine it from Spielberg.
>Plus, you already probably dislike RotS now
Yeah. It's a piece of shit.
So imagine it worse and from a director you like to boot.
Now be thankful we even got what we got.
>Now be thankful we even got what we got
But I don't want it at all. Star Wars would have been fine as just the three original movies.
Don't care, you lost the argument.
Lucas made the stronger films in 2005 and guided the prequels to a stronger landing that Spielberg would have. Concession accepted.
Munich, the dark, slow and cynical thriller, has a lower "audience score" than the crowd pleasing franchise movie that came after a dogshit entry? I'm sure you're going to respond by claiming ROTS is DARK as well.
How is WOTW so low? It remember it being pretty popular when it came out and it's Cruisekino.
The audience is wrong.
And, yet, RotS is insanely-overrated.
cope and sheev
Yep.
Nope.
The prequels are great, but so is War of the Worlds. Don't get the hate.
Attack of the Clones was the first Star Wars film to not become the highest grossing of its year. It was beaten by Lord of the Rings, Harry Potter, and Spider-Man.
Spielberg also made Munich the same year and that was mostly good (except the sex scene and the twin towers ending)
I have run out of patience for ESLs and their endless prequel praise and APOLOGIZE threads. Revenge soon, take out on everyone.