[dsgtdave]

This article just furthers my own love hate relationship with the series...I'm on board with this article 100%. What do you think?

With its 3D rerelease, George Lucas' first chapter in the Star Wars prequel trilogy has become the 11th highest-grossing film of all time and on track to overtake The Dark Knight in a matter of weeks, if not days. And that's just unacceptable.

To be clear: Episode I isn't the worst film to have gained entry into the exclusive Billion Dollar Club, which also counts Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Alice in Wonderland and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as members. (Avatar is the club's president, sitting high on a $2.7 billion pile of gold.)

But we should know better. We've had 13 years to sit with The Phantom Menace. We've had more than a decade to debate its flaws ... its many, many flaws. We know exactly what it is. A third dimension doesn't change that. Save your money; Uncle George doesn't need any more.

Let's get our heads together before Attack of the Clones 3D comes down the pike next year, shall we?

Courtesy of Blastr.com

[obsolete toaster]

dsgtdave, on 24 February 2012 - 07:07 PM, said:

This article just furthers my own love hate relationship with the series...I'm on board with this article 100%. What do you think?

With its 3D rerelease, George Lucas' first chapter in the Star Wars prequel trilogy has become the 11th highest-grossing film of all time and on track to overtake The Dark Knight in a matter of weeks, if not days. And that's just unacceptable.

To be clear: Episode I isn't the worst film to have gained entry into the exclusive Billion Dollar Club, which also counts Transformers: Dark of the Moon, Alice in Wonderland and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest as members. (Avatar is the club's president, sitting high on a $2.7 billion pile of gold.)

But we should know better. We've had 13 years to sit with The Phantom Menace. We've had more than a decade to debate its flaws ... its many, many flaws. We know exactly what it is. A third dimension doesn't change that. Save your money; Uncle George doesn't need any more.

Let's get our heads together before Attack of the Clones 3D comes down the pike next year, shall we?

Courtesy of Blastr.com

I'm happy to say that NONE of my Republic credits have gone towards this needless re-release. Although, I have to admit a certain morbid curiosity to see how bad 3D and an overdose of cosmetic tinkering fraks up "New Hope" and "Empire." But beyond that? I have no interest.

As for "Avatar" being king of the billion plus club? Many deride it as they ALWAYS do with James Cameron movies (usually those who haven't properly watched them), but I really enjoyed it. Cameron's movies are like George Lucas movies for grown-ups (ALIENS, Terminator 1 & 2, Titanic, True Lies, etc). And even though I freely admit the plot of "Avatar" was kind of a 'save the American Indians' story in outer space (think "Dances With Andorians"), that's kind of beside the point. It's an emotional experience more than a by-the-numbers, A-B plot kind of movie. I challenge almost ANYONE to see that bioluminescent forest of Pandora at night in proper I-MAX 3D and not feel just a tinge of awe...

But yeah, NONE of the Star Wars prequel rereleases will see a dime from the OT household. Mrs T is pretty militant on that, too. I'm sure Mr Lucas (and his army of accountants) won't miss my money. But my 'dark passenger' is kind of curious as to how bad he frakked up the original trilogy.....

[dsgtdave]

I'm 50/50 on the movies. I absolutely hated TPM, was more or less meh on Clone Wars and liked RVOS. No doubt it is a cash cow. I enjoy the idea and most of the series. I enjoy a lot of the bi-products. The amount it pulled in doesn't surprise me.

[obsolete toaster]

dsgtdave, on 24 February 2012 - 09:09 PM, said:

I'm 50/50 on the movies. I absolutely hated TPM, was more or less meh on Clone Wars and liked RVOS. No doubt it is a cash cow. I enjoy the idea and most of the series. I enjoy a lot of the bi-products. The amount it pulled in doesn't surprise me.

For me it's a 3-way split:

LOVED "New Hope" and "Empire Strikes Back" (two of the BEST movies of all time, IMO). These two movies (especially in their earlier, more visceral, almost raw incarnations) are as close to perfection as is possible for modern sci-fantasy.

I enjoyed "Revenge" and "Return".
ROTS was the movie I've wanted to see since I first read "Splinter of the Mind's Eye" when I was 11 yrs old (SofME was the first non-movie based SW novel from Alan Dean Foster; published in 1978. It described Vader falling off a cliff into a pit of lava, thus leading to his current condition). "Return" had the bloody Ewoks, but it also had the cool stuff with Luke, Vader and the Emperor.

I pretty much hated "Phantom" and "Attack"
Although I hate Phantom slightly LESS because it at least had Qui Gon Jinn (a cool character; we needed more of him in the prequels) and the 3 way lightsaber duel (IMO, that was the COOLEST lightsaber action of the whole saga). "Attack" highlighted the embarrassing, pi$$-poor 'love story' with Anakin and Padme. And even though it had less Jar Jar (always a good thing in my book)? It still sucked worse for me because of that horribly cliched love story. And Obi wan's Kamino plot was kind of boring, frankly.


And yeah, the Phantom box office didn't surprise me either; many agree it was a mediocre movie, but they also hold out some perverse hope that maybe retrofitting it with 3D will somehow make it all better. I'm just not buying it this time...

[dsgtdave]

Liam Neeson is generally a win in my book. You are right. Sometimes certain acting jobs can sometimes trump the movie. I know Taken isn't exactly a blockbuster critic hit but I loved him in that movie.

[obsolete toaster]

dsgtdave, on 24 February 2012 - 09:36 PM, said:

Liam Neeson is generally a win in my book. You are right. Sometimes certain acting jobs can sometimes trump the movie. I know Taken isn't exactly a blockbuster critic hit but I loved him in that movie.

He personally upped that movie from a B-movie actioner to an an A-lister, IMO.

He's in the same class as Sean Connery or James Earl Jones; actors who are cool even if they're just reading the lunch menu at Denny's.

[Cylon-Knight]

I'm glad my billion was well spent.

I think it would be more interesting to see how much money is spent/earned/wasted by "TPM vultures" such as "via The Hollywood Reporter", Blastr and its parent SyFy. I don't need them to tell me that I spent money on a movie, or that there were other people in the theater...

Who reports on reporters!?

[dsgtdave]

I'm sure they get theirs but in the end Joe Schmoes paid for this.

I do need to know how much was blown on this. It only emphasizes how the previous 3 fished this one in. Sad.

[dsgtdave]

I'm not trying to start another battle here. Let's look obvious. The previous 3 brought a ton to the table. So that gave some freedom. How they dealt with that is questionable. It wasn't exactly the acting and it wasn't exactly the story. Combine them and you have horror. People will pay for a prequel that follows billions in the bank so it had that.

I just wish they did more. A lot more.

[Cylon-Knight]

Of course the first three created interest in the fourth film. However, I would say a billion dollars is proof that someone liked TPM too.

[dsgtdave]

Good point CK.

I digress

My kids kill me over this


BUt it is still a bi-product

Maybe I never win..

[Cylon-Knight]

So true dave, it is quite the afterthought - running off the steam of its "parent movies" as it were.
Alas, the old saying... there is nothing new under the Sun.

*oh well* We always have Spaceballs

[dsgtdave]

Spaceballs was LOL

[obsolete toaster]

dsgtdave, on 24 February 2012 - 11:51 PM, said:

Spaceballs was LOL

Spaceballs was MUCH better than "Attack of the Clones", that's for sure....


The fact that TPM made a billion dollars (with 3D tickets that are often 50% higher than a standard ticket) also proves ANOTHER point; movie tickets are a hell of a lot more expensive than they were when Star Wars came out in 1977 (I think an average ticket in those days was about $2; maybe $4 for an evening show). "The Phantom Menace" in 3D can cost around $12-$15 a TICKET depending on the theatre chain (even higher for I-Max).

I'd like to see TPM's figures adjusted for inflation. Pretty sure "A New Hope" would still kick it's CGI a$$....

[dsgtdave]

I think there is a site out there that compares that with inflation. I am just way to lazy to look for it.

I GUESS my point of view is how could it not make a killing? 12-14 some years after Jedi people were hungry for more. People had to see for themselves and ended up in crowded theaters.

[obsolete toaster]

dsgtdave, on 25 February 2012 - 08:18 AM, said:

I think there is a site out there that compares that with inflation. I am just way to lazy to look for it.

I GUESS my point of view is how could it not make a killing? 12-14 some years after Jedi people were hungry for more. People had to see for themselves and ended up in crowded theaters.

I remember a three hour line at a local theatre on opening day... and we had advance tickets!

I wish I could tell my younger, waiting-in-line 1999 self, "Dude. Relax. Wait a couple weeks.... trust me."

[dsgtdave]

LMAO

[obsolete toaster]

I just read (and I genuinely didn't know) that they're going to release only one each year for the next six years?!? You mean even if I wanted to, I'd have to wait until 2015 just to see "New Hope"? Or 2017 to see "Return of the Jedi"?!? Oh f**k it; that's insane. I was under the foggy delusion that he was going to release them all by the end of THIS year!


I mean, these are 3D upconvert reissues; he should be spitting them out every few months or so.

When they rereleased the original SW trilogy SEs back in 1997? They released them one every month (from January through March of that year), not every year. They weren't in 3D, but they were ALL digitally made over. Rereleasing them a year at a time is just stupid.

I guarantee that by the time he gets to Episode VI? You'll hear crickets in the theatres....