TCTTS said:

---

"The only reason these movies were hated so much is because people didn't like them!"

What magnificent insight!

---

Not to mention that the CGI was a product of its time...but so was the stellar work in LOTR done at just about the same time.

i miss the days when I could just like star wars without someone being mad at me about it.
these arguments make my face hurt.

Except no one here is mad at anyone for liking Star Wars, or the prequels, or whatever. I think it's great that you, Spilner, or whoever can find joy in the prequels, and I genuinely mean that. At least for me - and it feels like it's the same for others - it just drives me nuts when people who defend the prequels defend them in a manner that labels the rest of as "haters" simply because we think it's "cool" to do so. Or paints our opinion as nothing more than some bandwagon mentality; as if we genuinely don't believe they're bad movies, or haven't been able to articulate exactly why we believe they're bad movies. It's such a BS way to defend something, and that's what makes me "mad."

If you genuinely like something - no matter the quality - it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks of it. Defending your love of something doesn't have to equal defending the quality of something. I ******* love Armageddon irrationally. But I can understand why so many people think it's dumb, nonsensical, and cheesy. That acknowledgement doesn't diminish my love of it. And I'm definitely not going to try and convince people that it's actually a really smart, innovative movie (it's not) and that anyone who dislikes it is simply a Deep Impact fan.

For some reason, when it comes to the prequels, especially, so many people on the internet - and at times on this board - think they have to justify their love of the movies by justifying the quality of the movies. But those two things aren't mutually exclusive. On the same token, when we're bashing the prequels, we're not bashing your love of them. Us being "mad" at the prequels doesn't mean we're "mad" at you. Those are two completely separate things.

TCTTS said:

---

Except no one here is mad at anyone for liking Star Wars, or the prequels, or whatever. I think it's great that you, Spilner, or whoever can find joy in the prequels, and I genuinely mean that. At least for me - and it feels like it's the same for others - it just drives me nuts when people who defend the prequels defend them in a manner that labels the rest of as "haters" simply because we think it's "cool" to do so. Or paints our opinion as nothing more than some bandwagon mentality; as if we genuinely don't believe they're bad movies, or haven't been able to articulate exactly why we believe they're bad movies. It's such a BS way to defend something, and that's what makes me "mad."

If you genuinely like something - no matter the quality - it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks of it. Defending your love of something doesn't have to equal defending the quality of something. I ******* love Armageddon irrationally. But I can understand why so many people think it's dumb, nonsensical, and cheesy. That acknowledgement doesn't diminish my love of it. And I'm definitely not going to try and convince people that it's actually a really smart, innovative movie (it's not) and that anyone who dislikes it is simply a Deep Impact fan.

For some reason, when it comes to the prequels, especially, so many people on the internet - and at times on this board - think they have to justify their love of the movies by justifying the quality of the movies. But those two things aren't mutually exclusive. On the same token, when we're bashing the prequels, we're not bashing your love of them. Us being "mad" at the prequels doesn't mean we're "mad" at you. Those are two completely separate things.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't referring to anything you said.

Look, I'm no prequel defender, but this argument about quality vs. enjoyment does annoy me. What typically happens when someone doesn't like a movie is they attack the quality of that movie, so that the person that does enjoy the movie has no recourse in a debate over the movie.

Star Wars movies are a great example of this. When people don't like a Star Wars movie, they quickly attack the plot, writing, etc. and say it's just a bad movie, when if they took those same arguments to a Star Wars movie they enjoy, that movie would not hold up to the same scrutiny. There are definitely "bad" movies that I enjoy and know they are bad, but I think people (including myself) are WAY too quick to label a movie bad just because they didn't enjoy it. And instead of arguing "this is why I didn't enjoy the movie" the argument is "Here is why it sucked, and if you liked it then you are just liking a bad movie."

Not to bring TLJ up, but this is a prime example of that. If you take the same arguments people make about it, and apply them, to say, the Empire Strikes Back.....Well, a lot of that movie falls apart as well.

OK...end rant...

veryfuller said:

---

Not to bring TLJ up, but this is a prime example of that. If you take the same arguments people make about it, and apply them, to say, the Empire Strikes Back.....Well, a lot of that movie falls apart as well.

---

veryfuller said:

---

Not to bring TLJ up, but this is a prime example of that. If you take the same arguments people make about it, and apply them, to say, the Empire Strikes Back.....Well, a lot of that movie falls apart as well.

OK...end rant...

---

Please allow me to retort....




No it doesn't.

We've had this conversation a dozen times, and this is where we differ. I absolutely believe that quality is not 100% in the eye of the beholder. It's just not. There ARE measurable variables in movie making that can be judged as objectively bad or good. Movies aren't *solely* artistic visions immune to objective, concrete criticism.

It's like if a house fell down due to a sh*tty design and then you just shrugged your shoulders and said, "Welp, the quality of the house was in the eye of the beholder." No. It wasn't a properly designed house. And any expert would come along and say that the architect instead needed to use [X] for the foundation here, should have put [X] here, etc - and no one would go, "But that's just your opinion!" Story telling/movie making isn't that much different. It's WAY more technical than you think, and certain "materials" and "designs" objectively support the "house" better than others.

Now, I know your reply would likely be, "But it's your opinion that the house fell down in the first place." And to that I would argue that the VAST majority of fans disliking the prequels is the equivalent of "the house falling down." They dislike it because it wasn't designed well. It's as simple as that. That doesn't mean that there weren't some really cool rooms, some awesome furniture, and a sweet pool in the backyard. But the house still fell down for a reason.

Anyone that puts Jedi at 6 out of 8 movies can be ignored

Looking at my past comments, I feel I was way too rude in some parts. Calling people "fanboys" was rude, unfair, and stupid. And overall my tone was too aggressive. I apologize.

Everyone is different and likes different things. I'll try to be less of an a-hole going forward.

TCTTS said:

---

MuckRaker96 said:

---

TCTTS said:

---

Except no one here is mad at anyone for liking Star Wars, or the prequels, or whatever. I think it's great that you, Spilner, or whoever can find joy in the prequels, and I genuinely mean that. At least for me - and it feels like it's the same for others - it just drives me nuts when people who defend the prequels defend them in a manner that labels the rest of as "haters" simply because we think it's "cool" to do so. Or paints our opinion as nothing more than some bandwagon mentality; as if we genuinely don't believe they're bad movies, or haven't been able to articulate exactly why we believe they're bad movies. It's such a BS way to defend something, and that's what makes me "mad."

If you genuinely like something - no matter the quality - it shouldn't matter what anyone else thinks of it. Defending your love of something doesn't have to equal defending the quality of something. I ******* love Armageddon irrationally. But I can understand why so many people think it's dumb, nonsensical, and cheesy. That acknowledgement doesn't diminish my love of it. And I'm definitely not going to try and convince people that it's actually a really smart, innovative movie (it's not) and that anyone who dislikes it is simply a Deep Impact fan.

For some reason, when it comes to the prequels, especially, so many people on the internet - and at times on this board - think they have to justify their love of the movies by justifying the quality of the movies. But those two things aren't mutually exclusive. On the same token, when we're bashing the prequels, we're not bashing your love of them. Us being "mad" at the prequels doesn't mean we're "mad" at you. Those are two completely separate things.

---

I have no idea what you're talking about. I wasn't referring to anything you said.

---

Then perhaps clarify what you were talking about? The convo up until your post had been mostly about the prequels. And when that conversation usually comes up, it's quite common for someone to express the general sentiment you did. So, given that context, it seemed fairly apparent to me what you were referring to. In fact, I don't see how to take your post any other way.

---

I was talking about Render and his endless stream of ****ing stupid posts.

You don't have to swing in here on your rope with your 300-word Lord of the Board essays every time someone voices an opinion counter to your status quo of how discussion boards work.