[ SECRET POST #3231 ]

[case]

⌈ Secret Post #3231 ⌋

Warning: Some secrets are NOT worksafe and may contain SPOILERS.

01.


__________________________________________________



02.


__________________________________________________



03.


__________________________________________________



04.


__________________________________________________



05.


__________________________________________________



06.


__________________________________________________



07.


__________________________________________________



08.









Notes:

Secrets Left to Post: 02 pages, 045 secrets from Secret Submission Post #462.
Secrets Not Posted: [ 0 - broken links ], [ 0 - not!secrets ], [ 0 - not!fandom ], [ 0 - too big ], [ 0 - repeat ].
Current Secret Submissions Post: here.
Suggestions, comments, and concerns should go here.

Comments

[philstar22]

Oh, wow, it is almost like people have different opinions and different ideas of what makes a good movie. Don't like them fine. "Don't understand how anyone can defend them?" Some of us like them.

[kaijinscendre]

No! You are WRONG! WRROOONNNGGGGGG!

[(Anonymous)]

Do you think it is possible to talk about movies being good or bad, in general, at all. BC I think if it is theoretically possible to do that, you have to conclude that these movies are deeply flawed. Of course "Don't understand how anyone can defend them" is a deeply stupid thing to say, but like. I agree that you can have different ideas of what makes a good movie, but there are also certain respects in which some movies are just better made than others, and the SW prequels are fundamentally lacking in many of those respects.

Like, do you think that Manos: The Hands of Fate is a bad movie? Or would you say that perhaps someone thinks that the qualities that it has are quite good? That's what's really frustrating to me about this argument. I don't mind if someone likes the prequels, but I do think, you know, there are conversations we can have here.

[philstar22]

Yes and no. I think there are some objectives, but not that many. And what makes a good movie is going to differ for people. Like, I think you can objectively say the dialogue has problems (though that is true of the OT too). But to me that doesn't make a bad movie. I think we can talk about the acting, though some of that is also going to be subjective.

I don't agree with people who say that the cinematography is bad. I really, really love the way the prequels look. And that is something that I think is entirely subjective. I don't think CGI is inherently worse than physical affects. I think the prequels are mostly an example of good CGI (whereas, while I like the Hobbit movies, I don't love a lot of the CGI stuff in them).

I don't mind having conversations. The problem I have is with people just saying they are objectively bad and then listing their reasons for thinking that as fact and as if everyone agrees. That's not a discussion. And then a lot of people are really rude towards Lucas and I have a problem with that too. They make it personal.

[(Anonymous)]

I mean I definitely agree that there are lots of Star Wars fanboys who are terrible about these kinds of discussions. But I also don't think pretending that there's no such thing as a flaw in a movie is a useful response to that. I'm also kind of hungry so I might just be irritable rn sorry.

FWIW I do agree that the aesthetic issues with the prequel are overstated, and not mostly a result of CGI. To the extent that I dislike the way they look, I think it's more about the specific design aesthetic that they chose to go with, but as you say that's subjective.

But I genuinely don't understand how you can look at the plotting, the acting, and the dialogue and not say that there are real flaws there. Obviously the fact that something is flawed is no bar to liking it - I like plenty of things that are far more flawed than the SW prequels. Hell, I mean, the original SW movies are pretty deeply flawed. But, like, it's just that specific argument is so frustrating to me, where hey maybe there's just no such thing as a flaw so we don't even have to think about this.

[philstar22]

The dialogue, yes. The acting, yes. The plotting, though? What are you referring to? I think some things were rushed (like Anakin's turn which makes more sense in the novelization). But for the most part I think the plotting works pretty well.

[(Anonymous)]

You know what, I think I'm actually thinking only of Phantom Menace there, which I think is by far the worst of the series. Once you get past that there's a few silly things in 2 but it's really not so bad. But I think Phantom Menace's plot just does not work as a movie plot. I think the problem is that it's kind of two unrelated plots - the Naboo plot, which meanders and seriously lacks drive & motivation, and the Anakin/Tatooine stuff, which doesn't really have any natural connection with the Naboo plot which is the nominal point of the movie. And I get the reasons that drove Lucas to do it that way but it just does not work as a movie plot at all for me.

[(Anonymous)]

as a random anon opinion, I think if Lucas had treated the Phantom Menace plot like he'd treated the Empire Strikes Back plot, it would have been a much better movie. The Empire Strikes back threw you into one conflict after another. Whereas Phantom Menace never felt like there was a conflict due to Jedi ex machina. (Another opinion of mine is that Amidala is the real main character of the original trilogy and not Anakin. But, digression.)

[(Anonymous)]

'I like them' isn't much of a defense in itself though, so if that's all fans are saying I can see why it's hard to understand. What do you like about them?

[philstar22]

I like the general plots. I like the overarching saga story. I actually like the political stuff. I like the characters. I love some of the acting (particularly Obi-Wan and Palpatine and Bail Organa) and don't necessarily hate some of the acting others do (I don't think Christensen was horrible, though he wasn't amazing). I like the effects. A lot. I love the way the movies look. I love the whole fantasy and scifi together feel of Star Wars in general. I love the whole galaxy. I love the look of the aliens.

Generally I just love Star Wars. There are a few things I think have problems (dialogue for example, though that was true in the OT as well). But for me the overarching story and feel is more important for what makes a movie good.

[shahrizai]

I like the political aspects and villains of space opera much more than the protagonists having adventures part. So I enjoyed Episodes 2 & 3 a lot with all of the Republic stuff and Anakin's slow descent to the dark side. I also have a thing for master/subordinate relationships, so Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan overshadowed the negative aspects of Episode 1 for me. Coruscant was pretty awesome too.

I'm totally over 'idealistic young guy grows into the man he's meant to be!' plots and didn't like Luke very much.

[(Anonymous)]

This. I don't know you enough to care about your opinion in a good or a bad way, but 'I like them' from someone whose judgment I don't trust is actually the opposite of a defense. Tell us WHY you like it and see if you can make it defendable.

[(Anonymous)]

Not the OP, but liking a movie and thinking it is a good movie are two entirely different things. There are several movies that I really like that I will freely admit aren't the greatest of movies. A "good" movie is less subjective than a "fun" movie or a "movie I like". The prequels have a lot of aspects of them that are really objectively bad. That doesn't mean that others cannot enjoy them.