Force Awakens. (Possible spoilers)

[MBunge]

First things first, I still can't why they're some guys who can't accept the fact that there are a lot of people who legitimately believe that the prequels are good movies. Seriously why are you guys so threatened when people say they are good movies. Aren't movies supposed to be subjective? I liked the prequels and felt that they were well made. Does that make me a lesser fan? A person with bad taste in movies? In denial that they are bad movies? No, I just loved the story and characters, I felt they were interesting and complex. If you don't like the Prequels, fine but I ask that please respectful towards those who think differently from you. Some of you guy sound like Donald Trump the way you spew venom towards prequel fans. 

With that out of the way and this is overdue. I liked the The Force Awakens.

Was it the fart jokes or the terrible acting that you enjoyed?

Every movie will have at least some fans. Some people prefer Uwe Boll to Shakespeare. As works of art, though, one is objectively superior to the other.

Well I think that the acting was on par with the OT.  As for your art comments how is it objective? By what measure and who's judging it? Honestly (I'm not calling you out just an observation) I think who say that a work of art is objectively superior to one another is just using to put people down, judging from these comments here.

Is there any outer line for you? Is Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel objectively better art than a third grader pooping on a paper plate?

The point is, everyone has different standards on what makes a good movie. When it comes to things like movie's I don't believe that one is "objectively" better than the other.

Human beings have been telling stories for thousands of years.  In that time, we have actually developed some guidelines or rules for what does and does not constitute a good story.  When someone says "The Godfather" is better than "Ernest Goes to Camp," they are partly expressing an opinion but they are also judging each work on well-established standards of performance and narrative.

Those rules have little to do with personal preference and I've seen a lot of crap movies I've enjoyed more than finely made cinema, but that doesn't mean the rules don't exist or have value.

If a film has a huge plot hole, you may not care about it.  That does not mean the plot hole doesn't exist and it doesn't mean that plot holes are, in general, bad things in movies.

Mike

It does depend on how much of the good things the movie does to the point where it outweighs the bad. In other words, It really depends how much you're willing overlook those flaws and acknowledge whatever good things the movie has to offer.

But that's not the same thing as denying objective standards exist.  You subjectively may not care about them in the case of movie X but they are still there.

Mike

[BitterJim]

Ranking movies is both subjective and objective.  Objectively, every movie had a range that it can reasonably considered to be in, but different people will rank it differently in that range.  It's like NBA Draft prospects: no one thinks that the guy that goes 6th is better than the guy that goes 6th, but is the guy that goes 6th better than the guy going 59th? That's a matter a bit more difficult

[Rondo9]

First things first, I still can't why they're some guys who can't accept the fact that there are a lot of people who legitimately believe that the prequels are good movies. Seriously why are you guys so threatened when people say they are good movies. Aren't movies supposed to be subjective? I liked the prequels and felt that they were well made. Does that make me a lesser fan? A person with bad taste in movies? In denial that they are bad movies? No, I just loved the story and characters, I felt they were interesting and complex. If you don't like the Prequels, fine but I ask that please respectful towards those who think differently from you. Some of you guy sound like Donald Trump the way you spew venom towards prequel fans. 

With that out of the way and this is overdue. I liked the The Force Awakens.

Was it the fart jokes or the terrible acting that you enjoyed?

Every movie will have at least some fans. Some people prefer Uwe Boll to Shakespeare. As works of art, though, one is objectively superior to the other.

Well I think that the acting was on par with the OT.  As for your art comments how is it objective? By what measure and who's judging it? Honestly (I'm not calling you out just an observation) I think who say that a work of art is objectively superior to one another is just using to put people down, judging from these comments here.

Is there any outer line for you? Is Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel objectively better art than a third grader pooping on a paper plate?

The point is, everyone has different standards on what makes a good movie. When it comes to things like movie's I don't believe that one is "objectively" better than the other.

Human beings have been telling stories for thousands of years.  In that time, we have actually developed some guidelines or rules for what does and does not constitute a good story.  When someone says "The Godfather" is better than "Ernest Goes to Camp," they are partly expressing an opinion but they are also judging each work on well-established standards of performance and narrative.

Those rules have little to do with personal preference and I've seen a lot of crap movies I've enjoyed more than finely made cinema, but that doesn't mean the rules don't exist or have value.

If a film has a huge plot hole, you may not care about it.  That does not mean the plot hole doesn't exist and it doesn't mean that plot holes are, in general, bad things in movies.

Mike

It does depend on how much of the good things the movie does to the point where it outweighs the bad. In other words, It really depends how much you're willing overlook those flaws and acknowledge whatever good things the movie has to offer.

But that's not the same thing as denying objective standards exist.  You subjectively may not care about them in the case of movie X but they are still there.

Mike

You may be right, but people use those arbitrary objective standards. Some people can overlook them some people can't.

[Roy H.]

First things first, I still can't why they're some guys who can't accept the fact that there are a lot of people who legitimately believe that the prequels are good movies. Seriously why are you guys so threatened when people say they are good movies. Aren't movies supposed to be subjective? I liked the prequels and felt that they were well made. Does that make me a lesser fan? A person with bad taste in movies? In denial that they are bad movies? No, I just loved the story and characters, I felt they were interesting and complex. If you don't like the Prequels, fine but I ask that please respectful towards those who think differently from you. Some of you guy sound like Donald Trump the way you spew venom towards prequel fans. 

With that out of the way and this is overdue. I liked the The Force Awakens.

Was it the fart jokes or the terrible acting that you enjoyed?

Every movie will have at least some fans. Some people prefer Uwe Boll to Shakespeare. As works of art, though, one is objectively superior to the other.

Well I think that the acting was on par with the OT.  As for your art comments how is it objective? By what measure and who's judging it? Honestly (I'm not calling you out just an observation) I think who say that a work of art is objectively superior to one another is just using to put people down, judging from these comments here.

Is there any outer line for you? Is Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel objectively better art than a third grader pooping on a paper plate?

The point is, everyone has different standards on what makes a good movie. When it comes to things like movie's I don't believe that one is "objectively" better than the other.

Human beings have been telling stories for thousands of years.  In that time, we have actually developed some guidelines or rules for what does and does not constitute a good story.  When someone says "The Godfather" is better than "Ernest Goes to Camp," they are partly expressing an opinion but they are also judging each work on well-established standards of performance and narrative.

Those rules have little to do with personal preference and I've seen a lot of crap movies I've enjoyed more than finely made cinema, but that doesn't mean the rules don't exist or have value.

If a film has a huge plot hole, you may not care about it.  That does not mean the plot hole doesn't exist and it doesn't mean that plot holes are, in general, bad things in movies.

Mike

It does depend on how much of the good things the movie does to the point where it outweighs the bad. In other words, It really depends how much you're willing overlook those flaws and acknowledge whatever good things the movie has to offer.

But that's not the same thing as denying objective standards exist.  You subjectively may not care about them in the case of movie X but they are still there.

Mike

You may be right, but people use those arbitrary objective standards. Some people can overlook them some people can't.

That's completely fair. I'd watch American Pie over Citizen Kane.

[LarBrd33]

First things first, I still can't why they're some guys who can't accept the fact that there are a lot of people who legitimately believe that the prequels are good movies. Seriously why are you guys so threatened when people say they are good movies. Aren't movies supposed to be subjective? I liked the prequels and felt that they were well made. Does that make me a lesser fan? A person with bad taste in movies? In denial that they are bad movies? No, I just loved the story and characters, I felt they were interesting and complex. If you don't like the Prequels, fine but I ask that please respectful towards those who think differently from you. Some of you guy sound like Donald Trump the way you spew venom towards prequel fans. 

With that out of the way and this is overdue. I liked the The Force Awakens.

Was it the fart jokes or the terrible acting that you enjoyed?

Every movie will have at least some fans. Some people prefer Uwe Boll to Shakespeare. As works of art, though, one is objectively superior to the other.

Well I think that the acting was on par with the OT.  As for your art comments how is it objective? By what measure and who's judging it? Honestly (I'm not calling you out just an observation) I think who say that a work of art is objectively superior to one another is just using to put people down, judging from these comments here.

Is there any outer line for you? Is Michaelangelo's work on the Sistine Chapel objectively better art than a third grader pooping on a paper plate?

The point is, everyone has different standards on what makes a good movie. When it comes to things like movie's I don't believe that one is "objectively" better than the other.

Human beings have been telling stories for thousands of years.  In that time, we have actually developed some guidelines or rules for what does and does not constitute a good story.  When someone says "The Godfather" is better than "Ernest Goes to Camp," they are partly expressing an opinion but they are also judging each work on well-established standards of performance and narrative.

Those rules have little to do with personal preference and I've seen a lot of crap movies I've enjoyed more than finely made cinema, but that doesn't mean the rules don't exist or have value.

If a film has a huge plot hole, you may not care about it.  That does not mean the plot hole doesn't exist and it doesn't mean that plot holes are, in general, bad things in movies.

Mike

It does depend on how much of the good things the movie does to the point where it outweighs the bad. In other words, It really depends how much you're willing overlook those flaws and acknowledge whatever good things the movie has to offer.

But that's not the same thing as denying objective standards exist.  You subjectively may not care about them in the case of movie X but they are still there.

Mike

You may be right, but people use those arbitrary objective standards. Some people can overlook them some people can't.

That's completely fair. I'd watch American Pie over Citizen Kane.

i have art prints of cartoonish ninja turtles hanging on my wall, but I'd never be foolish enough to suggest those are as great as Monet's Water Lilies simply because "taste is subjective".

There's all sorts of things (Food, art, clothing, music, plays, movies, etc) that have some base-level attributes used to determine qualify.  Yes, it's a matter of opinions. You might be of the strong opinion that "Insane Clown Possee" deserves to sweep the Grammy's every year.  Your taste might not align with what is considered qualify.  And that's ok.

[Eja117]

I thoroughly reject the "It can still be great and fine if you didn't enjoy it" argument and I also thoroughly reject the "Well people do this for a living so therefore they are the only real authority". Bull. If some authority on film tells you Ishtar is great does that make it better? These same authorities awarded Best Picture to Shakespeare in Love over Saving Private Ryan. They also picked Titanic over Good Will Hunting. They didn't give any consideration to Batman Dark Knight and they haven't awarded or nominated Best Picture to a comedy since the 60s or something. Schindler's List is a great example. The Pianist mopped the floor with it on tons of levels but that was the academy's opportunity to kiss Spielberg's arse and nobody had the guts to call it.

By the same token it's been conclusively proven in blind taste tests the best testers in the world simply cannot consistently tell the difference between an appellation controlee that's been aged vs a born yesterday California box wine.

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

[thirstyboots18]

Whether or not someone thinks I am lacking in taste or objectivity, I liked Force Awakens.  I am not a big Star Wars follower.  I don't care who directed, wrote, or starred in the movie.  I did notice that John Williams did the music, however.  I can not critique a film that is pure fantasy, science fiction.  I can only say that the reason I went was not to prove how intelligent I am by tearing it down scene by scene.  The reason I went was pure escapism, and to be entertained  for a couple hours.  Mission Accomplished.  I really did not find the film worthy of spending time spent on dissection.

[Roy H.]

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

Ewoks > Jar Jar, fart jokes, racist accents and Jango Fett

The prequels had two epic potential storylines: the temptation of Anakin, and the Clone Wars / near extinction of the Jedi. They didn't pay enough attention to either aspect. I could overlook the other stuff, maybe even Jar Jar, if they nailed the central elements. They didn't. Add to that the terrible acting / directing, and it was a jumbled mess.

[Rondo9]

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

Ewoks > Jar Jar, fart jokes, racist accents and Jango Fett

The prequels had two epic potential storylines: the temptation of Anakin, and the Clone Wars / near extinction of the Jedi. They didn't pay enough attention to either aspect. I could overlook the other stuff, maybe even Jar Jar, if they nailed the central elements. They didn't. Add to that the terrible acting / directing, and it was a jumbled mess.

Jango Fett was awesome, the fart jokes were only in TPM and weren't used as much as you think it did, Jar Jar wasn't that bad and honestly people couldn't decide what race that George was "offensive" so I hesitate to call them racist. YOU didn't think they were awesome, but clearly I and the poster two posts above thinks so and you know what, the acting was actually pretty good on par with the OT.

[Roy H.]

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

Ewoks > Jar Jar, fart jokes, racist accents and Jango Fett

The prequels had two epic potential storylines: the temptation of Anakin, and the Clone Wars / near extinction of the Jedi. They didn't pay enough attention to either aspect. I could overlook the other stuff, maybe even Jar Jar, if they nailed the central elements. They didn't. Add to that the terrible acting / directing, and it was a jumbled mess.

Jango Fett was awesome, the fart jokes were only in TPM and weren't used as much as you think it did, Jar Jar wasn't that bad and honestly people couldn't decide what race that George was "offensive" so I hesitate to call them racist. YOU didn't think they were awesome, but clearly I and the poster two posts above thinks so and you know what, the acting was actually pretty good on par with the OT.

So of those are opinions, but stuff like "the acting was pretty good" is ridiculous. Natalie Portman thought the prequels would end her career, because the acting / directing / dialogue was so bad.

And no, Asian caricatures are racist.

[Eja117]

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

Ewoks > Jar Jar, fart jokes, racist accents and Jango Fett

The prequels had two epic potential storylines: the temptation of Anakin, and the Clone Wars / near extinction of the Jedi. They didn't pay enough attention to either aspect. I could overlook the other stuff, maybe even Jar Jar, if they nailed the central elements. They didn't. Add to that the terrible acting / directing, and it was a jumbled mess.

You can't use Jar Jar as an excuse to hate all the prequels.

Racist accents? It's scifi. Are we to assume all accents in space are the same? Any racist accents in Star Trek or Battlestar Galactica or Firefly? I'm just curious. As long as we're talking about political incorrectness in a galaxy far away a long time ago we should probably point out that Leia's outfits are just not cool...except for cloud city where she balanced feminism with well fitting clothes, and had a sensible yet nice hair do. And why do we only care about Asians? Jar Jar set back Caribbean people another generation. Also...what's the theory here? Shortly before Lucas married and had a child with a black woman he developed a thing against Asians?

This is the first I've heard of someone not liking Jango. He had a pretty good video game for himself.

I have no real problem with people not liking all the acting in the prequels, but I'll take Ewan McGregor's acting at his absolute worst in any of the prequels over just about all the "acting" in Force Awakens. 

Jar Jar....the whole world hates him but if you put him in an annoying contest with C3PO I'm not sure who wins. Jar Jar was more annoying but was on screen way less.

[Rondo9]

The prequels were awesome. Taken as a whole they did everything they were supposed to do. They showed the jedi temple. They showed the origins and fall of Anakin. They showed the Clone Wars. And there weren't any stupid teddy bears fighting off walkers and stormtroopers with sticks.

Ewoks > Jar Jar, fart jokes, racist accents and Jango Fett

The prequels had two epic potential storylines: the temptation of Anakin, and the Clone Wars / near extinction of the Jedi. They didn't pay enough attention to either aspect. I could overlook the other stuff, maybe even Jar Jar, if they nailed the central elements. They didn't. Add to that the terrible acting / directing, and it was a jumbled mess.

Jango Fett was awesome, the fart jokes were only in TPM and weren't used as much as you think it did, Jar Jar wasn't that bad and honestly people couldn't decide what race that George was "offensive" so I hesitate to call them racist. YOU didn't think they were awesome, but clearly I and the poster two posts above thinks so and you know what, the acting was actually pretty good on par with the OT.

So of those are opinions, but stuff like "the acting was pretty good" is ridiculous. Natalie Portman thought the prequels would end her career, because the acting / directing / dialogue was so bad.

And no, Asian caricatures are racist.

So one actress over plenty of actors who said they loved working on the prequels means the acting was bad? And as I said before people can't even decide what stereotypes they were pepertuatinng so it makes the racist accusations dubious at best

[Eja117]

It's interesting that Portman was concerned about her career when her acting was clearly the worst. Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have both stated they are open to returning in stand alone films.

[Roy H.]

It's interesting that Portman was concerned about her career when her acting was clearly the worst. Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have both stated they are open to returning in stand alone films.

I think they had fun with it more, for sure.

Hayden's acting was the worst, but Portman's wasn't much better.  But, that's largely on the script and the directing.

But, honestly, I didn't think that McGregor and Neeson were close to as good as they can be.

[Eja117]

It's interesting that Portman was concerned about her career when her acting was clearly the worst. Ewan McGregor and Liam Neeson have both stated they are open to returning in stand alone films.

I think they had fun with it more, for sure.

Hayden's acting was the worst, but Portman's wasn't much better.  But, that's largely on the script and the directing.

But, honestly, I didn't think that McGregor and Neeson were close to as good as they can be.

I agree with that last sentence, and I agree the script mostly didn't do favors. I have to wonder what exactly went down with that line when Neeson is talking to Watoo and he's like "We'll be far away from here my blue friend".  I mean...nobody? Nobody said anything? Why didn't Neeson say something?

I liked Hayden way more in AOTC but it's hard to defend him. Had the looks and the moves, but that's about it.