Returned to CN, "The Clone Wars" has, hmmm.

[mikeszekely]

But, yeah, there are worse movies out there than the prequels.  The prequels have very little going for them apart from the action - poor performances, lame dialogue, annoying characters, etc...  but the action is reasonably good.  There have been plenty of movies with all of the above, only not as good. 

See and you just nailed how I feel about all SW movies. Except, at the end of the day I think they're just plain fun. I strongly suspect that much of SW's success was simply due to the pioneering special effects, a tradition they appear to be upholding. To me, a rubber suit is just as revealing as a cgi character or backdrop. What do I do? I eat my popcorn and enjoy.

I dunno. Clone Wars seems to be more of the same to me, but people like it a lot more. Its all about the action. However, since I like all of the SW movies anyway, I like Clone Wars as well.

EXACTLY. The characters, dialogue, etc, are no better in the OT than they are in the prequels (aside from Harrison Ford's performance as Han Solo, perhaps). All five are just fun movies, though, at the end of the day.

[Anubis]

Caught the new clone wars tonight. I'm very happy I remembered about it. Very good, especially the Grievous stuff. That was sweet. Great lead in into the movie.

[terry the lone wolf]

The Clone Wars cartoons are Star Wars done right! Nuff said! BTW, I can't wait for Ep.III!

[Uxi]

...and most people still think Ep I and Ep II sucked donkey balls.

"Most?" Ticket sales would seem to disagree. The much vaunted Empire Strikes Back was the least successful movie based on revenue. It's a good movie, but it's no better than any of the other 4. I personally rank it 4th.

[Jolly Rogers]

I was kind of surprised to see the Jedis knight Anakin and Obiwan start calling him "brother" instead of Padawan, considering their exchange in Ep 4 where Vader admits that Obiwan was the master and he was the learner when they last saw each other...

Maybe Lucas will go back and replace that conversation with something else.

[SDFcommander]

I was kind of surprised to see the Jedis knight Anakin and Obiwan start calling him "brother" instead of Padawan, considering their exchange in Ep 4 where Vader admits that Obiwan was the master and he was the learner when they last saw each other...

Maybe Lucas will go back and replace that conversation with something else.

I was thinking about that too, but even after the Jedi Knight ceremony, Anikan still calls Obiwan "Master", mabe out of repect or because Anikan does not make it to the rank of "Master Jedi"

Also, I agree about the Clone Wars DVD. It does ROCK. The video clarity alone is AWESOME not to mention the sound, it's THX after all. You pause it and you think you have the actual cell

The extras looking at how the animated the Clone Wars and bridge the gap with the movies is great along with the new Episode III game trailer which I played over and over again

And darn you X-Box owners, there is even a playable level to that cool looking Cloon Trooper FPS!

Just for fun, I laid out all my Star Wars DVDs in order from 1, 2, Clone Wars, (space for Clone Wars II and Episode III), 4, 5, 6. My wife was having a hard time visualizing how the movies all fit together.

I was pleasently surprised how well the DVD covers complement each other. They actually look like different chapters of one big volume. "Impressive. Very Impressive."

BTW

Mace is one bad dude!

[DARTHTODD]

Just finished this 12" custom inspired by the animated series. My 12" arc trooper:

[BoBe-Patt]

dood, that's pretty cool.

[Hoptimus]

I cant wait for the Clone Wars Volume II dvd. I watched them all on cartoon net but I would love to hear the commentary and check it out frame by frame.

[Hurin]

...and most people still think Ep I and Ep II sucked donkey balls.

"Most?" Ticket sales would seem to disagree. The much vaunted Empire Strikes Back was the least successful movie based on revenue. It's a good movie, but it's no better than any of the other 4. I personally rank it 4th.

Uh. . . haven't we been through this before? Just because people see it, doesn't mean they liked it or even hold it in the same regard as its predecessors. Hell, I even have the DVD of Episode I. . . even though I can't stand it. Citing ticket sales may be the weakest possible means of guaging quality, or even popularity.

Who still thinks Titanic is the most popular movie of all time? Yet, doesn't it still hold the all-time record in ticket sales?

Isn't it just possible that a lot of us hold our nose and see the new movies because they still contain a hint or two of what we enjoyed in the EpIV and EpV? My buying a ticket to Episode I (twice) wasn't a vote for it being the greatest Star Wars movie of all time, it was a symptom of being starved of Star Wars movies for over a decade.

Indeed, the fact that Episode I made so much money can actually be interpreted as a tribute to the original trilogy. A lot of people held their nose and saw Episode I and (to a lesser extent) Episode II because of its relation to their beloved Star Wars. There is still a lot of grudging loyalty out there. And there were a lot of people who squirmed in their seats for ninety minutes watching that kid and Jar-Jar simply to see (again) a few mintues of some Jedi coolness and a few lightsaber battles.

I think most adults were those types of viewers. To cite those people's ticket purchases as empirical evidence of Episode I's superiority over --or even equality with-- EpIV and EpV is just silly.

H

[bsu legato]

Ticket sales are a perfectly acceptable, and more importantly non-subjective method of gauging a films popularity. How else would you measure the public's interest in a film than by how little or how much they saw it? A poll? The IMDB user comments? No, saying that a film sold "X" number of tickets, and "Y" number of DVDs is as good a way as any to cite how popular it was.

Now using ticket sales to measure a film's quality is another issue altogether.

[Agent ONE]

The prequels were just as good as the OT movies.

[Hurin]

The prequels were just as good as the OT movies.

Way to Troll A1. . . you must be so proud.

Edit: And I call that trolling because it contributes nothing to the discussion while obviously attempting to enflame passions. Now, I'm sure you'll deny it in your girly-man way, but it's obvious to just about anyone.

H

Edited March 30, 2005 by Hurin

[Hurin]

Ticket sales are a perfectly acceptable, and more importantly non-subjective method of gauging a films popularity. How else would you measure the public's interest in a film than by how little or how much they saw it? A poll? The IMDB user comments? No, saying that a film sold "X" number of tickets, and "Y" number of DVDs is as good a way as any to cite how popular it was.

Now using ticket sales to measure a film's quality is another issue altogether.

So, you're saying that everyone who bought the tickets and the DVDs enjoyed that movie? That is obviously not the case. Some people bought the DVD because it's Star Wars. . . and they have all the other Star Wars movies. More importantly, saying that, by buying tickets and DVDs, those people are expressing their preference for one movie over another, is also silly.

H

[Hurin]

Well, I just created a thread where we can take this so that we don't destroy the Clone Wars thread any further.

The Star Wars Fanboy Debate Thread

[bsu legato]

So, you're saying that everyone who bought the tickets and the DVDs enjoyed that movie? That is obviously not the case. Some people bought the DVD because it's Star Wars. . . and they have all the other Star Wars movies. More importantly, saying that, by buying tickets and DVDs, those people are expressing their preference for one movie over another, is also silly.

H

I made no claims whatsoever that everybody who saw the films "enjoyed" them. I think there's a slight misunderstanding as to what we're talking about here.

pop·u·lar

adj.

1. Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort.

2. Liked by acquaintances; sought after for company: “Beware of over-great pleasure in being popular or even beloved” (Margaret Fuller).

3. Of, representing, or carried on by the people at large: the popular vote.

4. Fit for, adapted to, or reflecting the taste of the people at large: popular entertainment; popular science.

5. Accepted by or prevalent among the people in general: a popular misunderstanding of the issue.

6. Suited to or within the means of ordinary people: popular prices.

7. Originating among the people: popular legend.

Based on those definitions, its fair to say that a film that does big BO is popular. Films only break the 300 million mark by repeat viewings. And before you bring it up, I've heard the whole fanboyish argument about how people would see TPM several times before it sank in that it was "rapingly bad" or some other such childish nonsense. Bear in mind that fanboys make up a small percentage of the larger movie-going public. But in the most basic sense of the word, both prequel films were popular during their initial theatrical runs. The public in general saw the movies, and continued to see them all summer long. And that popularity seems to have carried over to their DVD sales. Finally, I don't recall making any reference to ticket or DVD sales showing any kind of preference over something else. Back in '02 I saw both AOTC and Spiderman, and based on their success I'd say that they were both popular films. Believe it or not, it is possible to like multiple franchises.

So how would you gauge popularity then?

[Agent ONE]

The prequels were just as good as the OT movies.

Way to Troll A1. . . you must be so proud.

Edit: And I call that trolling because it contributes nothing to the discussion while obviously attempting to enflame passions. Now, I'm sure you'll deny it in your girly-man way, but it's obvious to just about anyone.

H

ME a troll!??? Yeah dude... You got me..

I decided to end the dabate because everybody knows I am always right, therefore when I give my opinion the entire discussion is over.

You have a BAD attitude the last 2 weeks. Whats your deal. Keep pushin and I WILL make that porno with your Mom and the siamese twin migets attatched at the tit.

[Hurin]

ME a troll!??? Yeah dude... You got me..

Not calling you a troll exactly. But you must admit that you post things merely to get a rise out of people from time to time. That's troll-ish behavior. Though, doing it from time to time doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

Keep pushin and I WILL make that porno with your Mom and the siamese twin migets attatched at the tit.

I told you a long time ago that my mom retired and we sent the conjoined (preferred term!) twins Miko and Suma, to the local circus. No matter how many times you ask, they won't do it!

As for the rest of it and my "bad attitude" (hello irony). . . I'll be emailing ya.

We now return this thread to its regularly scheduled broadcast. . .

H

[Agent ONE]

ME a troll!??? Yeah dude... You got me..

Not calling you a troll exactly. But you must admit that you post things merely to get a rise out of people from time to time. That's troll-ish behavior. Though, doing it from time to time doesn't necessarily make you a troll.

Keep pushin and I WILL make that porno with your Mom and the siamese twin migets attatched at the tit.

I told you a long time ago that my mom retired and we sent the conjoined (preferred term!) twins Miko and Suma, to the local circus. No matter how many times you ask, they won't do it!

As for the rest of it and my "bad attitude" (hello irony). . . I'll be emailing ya.

We now return this thread to its regularly scheduled broadcast. . .

H

Dude... I have never posted to get a rise out of people... I post the truth. Sometimes people have problems with that.

[Hurin]

I made no claims whatsoever that everybody who saw the films "enjoyed" them. I think there's a slight misunderstanding as to what we're talking about here.

pop·u·lar 

adj.

1. Widely liked or appreciated: a popular resort.

You're claiming that there is a correlation between BO and a film's popularity. If a film is "popular" it is "liked" and/or "appreciated" according to your own definition.

By that definition: popular=liked=appreciated=enjoyed.

I'm saying that there were indeed a lot of people who saw the film (even twice, I'm one of them) and gradually, after the coolness of a few scenes wore off, realized that the rest of the movie is absolute, insufferable crap. Now you dismiss this argument as "childish nonsense". . . though I don't see any evidence to the contrary. So, we'll just have to agree to disagree. I just know that I came to that conclusion about the movie on my own without being brainwashed by the "childhood raping" hordes after I realized that a few cool scenes did not make the rest of the movie palatable. And, sadly, my two tickets are counted in that total much like a lot of dissillusioned Star Wars fans.

Finally, I don't recall making any reference to ticket or DVD sales showing any kind of preference over something else.

No, you didn't, but I was addressing Uxi's implication that ticket sales mean that most people liked the movie. I don't think that you can make that argument and I don't think that BO numbers prove it. We're talking about sequels here, people. A sequel bases a large part of its BO on the sucess of its predecessors. To say that Episode I gathered such a large audience based on its own merits as a stand-alone film is just silly. People saw it because it was Star Wars and it was hyped beyone any movie release in history.

Back in '02 I saw both AOTC and Spiderman, and based on their success I'd say that they were both popular films.

Uh, okay.

Believe it or not, it is possible to like multiple franchises.

Again, okay.

So how would you gauge popularity then?

By how many people still enjoy the movie after the hype wears off. By its standing in the fan community? If you want to make the argument that Ep1 is popular among kids and non-fans, go right ahead. But, to a lot of people who are so easily dismissed by you, Ep1 just represented the low-point of Star Wars that began with Return of the Jedi. . . and I just don't see how Box Office numbers prove anything one way or the other.

[bsu legato]

So how would you gauge popularity then?

By how many people still enjoy the movie after the hype wears off. By its standing in the fan community? If you want to make the argument that Ep1 is popular among kids and non-fans, go right ahead. But, to a lot of people who are so easily dismissed by you, Ep1 just represented the low-point of Star Wars that began with Return of the Jedi. . . and I just don't see how Box Office numbers prove anything one way or the other.

And just how would this "continued enjoyment" be measured then? Message board polls? And again you're slipping into a more qualitative argument by citing how fans percieve the films. I don't care if a scientific poll on TFN shows that Phantom Menace is the worst film in the history of celuloid. That does nothing to refute the fact that TPM owned the summer of '99. If fans saw it repeatedly in spite of not actually liking it, then I'd argue that they still contributed to its popularity in spite of themselves. If you want to state that TPM was divisive in the fan community, that's fine. But to state that it wasn't popular is just silly. Popular opinion may shift somewhat, but don't use that to rewrite history to "prove" that the films weren't popular. Even Fox seems to have enough faith in the PT that they make an "event" out of their TV airings, and run them against other ratings juggernauts.

And a films standing in the fan community is not exactly the best way to go about showing how popular or unpopular something may be. They're fanatics after all, and can hardly be called unbiased. I'm sure any given segment of the posters on theonering.net would gladly tell us how "world changing" the release of the LOTR films were. Hell, I'll bet there's even a few die hard Trekkies that are still trying to put a positive spin on the disaster of Nemesis.

[Hurin]

And just how would this "continued enjoyment" be measured then? Message board polls?

Consensus. The critics pretty roundly bashed the movie. And there were groans of disappointment from the fan community immediately. . . which grew as the hype died down and the fanboys took off their Jedi outfits and looked at the movie critically.

And again you're slipping into a more qualitative argument by citing how fans percieve the films.

Slipping? I've been talking qualitatively since this began. Uxi is saying that more people liked Phantom Menace than is commonly believed. And he's using box office figures to try to demonstrate that. I don't think box office figures are a useful metric for determining how well-liked a movie was (and we seem to disagree about whether "popular" and "well-liked" are synonymous). The odd part is that I think you and I nearly agree on this point. But we're arguing over semantics.

That does nothing to refute the fact that TPM owned the summer of '99.

And Pearl Harbor did very well at the box office too. But it was a terrible movie. But, nevertheless, people went in droves to see it because it was announced as "the summer movie" that was a must-see. And Pearl Harbor didn't have nearly the advantage in fan-base, hype, and sequel-status that Ep1 had.

If fans saw it repeatedly in spite of not actually liking it, then I'd argue that they still contributed to its popularity in spite of themselves.

This is where you lose me. I don't see how they contribute to its popularity. Yes, they are contributing to its box office receipts. But to its popularity?!? That's essentially making the argument that BO is synonymous with popularity. And I doubt that you intend to go that far! If I'm a fat, greasy fanboy who does nothing more than bash Ep1 and spread anti-Lucas propoganda on his website all day, but then feel compelled to get off my @ss and check out those cool lightsaber scenes or Jedi Council interactions. . . how am I contributing to the film's popularity? I may be contributing to its BO. . . but that is not the same thing.

If you want to state that TPM was divisive in the fan community, that's fine. But to state that it wasn't popular is just silly.

Yes, it was/is divisive. . . and it is probably the least popular movie among the Star Wars movies. And it became so just about the second that Jar Jar appeared on the screen. The movie is obviously different in tone and subject matter, and to many Star Wars fans, that equates with not being as good. But, that is a matter of opinion.

Popular opinion may shift somewhat, but don't use that to rewrite history to "prove" that the films weren't popular.

Again, I don't think that the movie was "well-liked" or "appreciated" (by your definition) by the majority of the people who saw it. I think the parents walked out thinking "well, my kid seemed to enjoy it". . . the kids walked out asking for Jar Jar toys and squeeling with glee. . . and the old-school Star Wars geeks walked out thinking "WTF was that? Now let me get another ticket so that I can see that lighsaber duel again."

And a films standing in the fan community is not exactly the best way to go about showing how popular or unpopular something may be. They're fanatics after all, and can hardly be called unbiased.

Yes, but let's keep in mind that there are fanatics on both sides of the prequel issues. There are tons of fanboys who, to me, are even farther along the spectrum towards fanatic who defend each and every aspect of each film. They're like little Lucas groupies.

I'm sure any given segment of the posters on theonering.net would gladly tell us how "world changing" the release of the LOTR films were.

Uh, I'm a huge Tolkien (books) fan (note my name and website). And I can tell you that, much as with Star Wars, there are Tolkien fanatics who despise the movies and wish that they could go back to being able to buy a paperback edition of The Fellowship of the Ring without Elijah Wood's mug on the cover!

But, to sum up, I think Ep1's box office draw was due mainly to hype and its status as a Star Wars film, regardless of its quality. I don't think the box office returns say anything about how well regarded it was by its audiences and therefore, I don't think it's a useful metric for guaging its popularity. History is replete with movies that did well at the BO, but are universally panned by critics as well as the masses. Star Wars Episode 1, due to the unprecedented media hype, its blockbuster pedigree, and its rabid fanbase, is the penultimate example of this phenomenon. . . outstripping every "popular" (by box office numbers), but sucky movies up to that time.

It's really this simple: Box office returns show how many people saw the movie. Not how many people enjoyed/appreciated (per the 1st definition of popular) it. In my view, to attach any other meanings to its box office returns given the peculiar nature of such a long-awated and hyped film isn't advisable.

Best Regards,

H

P.S. Well, you were right about my thread. Already closed.

[mechaninac]

[Gold leader's voice over the comm. link] Stay on Topic...stay on Topic. [Gold leader's voice off]

Nah! Go ahead and carry on...it's entertaining.

[HWR MKII]

Negative the topic is derailed. It just impacted on the surface.

Now prepare the rest of the group for the next run.

I saw a few eps back to back where Grevious is abducting Palpatine and it for the most part keeps in line with one of the previously written books. The episodes bookend very well with the movies. This isnt suprising really since lucas does have direct involvement with the creators on the story. He gave them a set series of events he wanted to see but allowed the creators freedom to do as they will inside these events. Great stuff.

Edited March 30, 2005 by HWR MKII

[Jemstone]

Talk about over compensating.

Hurin, you could have summed all of that up by just saying "Alien Vs Predator". Crappy film in every way but people still went out to see it cuz it had both Aliens and teh Predator in it. I liken it to The Phantom Menace.

[Hurin]

The much vaunted Empire Strikes Back was the least successful movie based on revenue.

Sigh, well don't I feel like an idiot? Here I spent all this time assailing Uxi's interpretation of box office figures while assuming they were accurate. Yet, when you look at the actual box office when adjusted for inflation, The Empire Strikes Back comes in at #2 (among Star Wars movies) just behind its immediate predecessor, Episode IV: A New Hope. And, bringing up the rear for the OT, as expected, is Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.

Episode 1 is in fourth place. Episode 2 is last (again, among Star Wars films).

Here's a list of each movie, it's all-time rank among all movies, and its gross adjusted for inflation:

2 --- Star Wars (1,113,247,500)

12 -- The Empire Strikes Back (613,629,000)

14 -- Return of the Jedi (587,871,300)

19 -- The Phantom Menace (530,138,300)

80 -- Attack of the Clones (334,177,900)

Sources are here and here.

Silly me for assuming Uxi's figures were accurate.

Anyways, that's one helluva drop-off for Attack of the Clones. It's immediate predecessor (TPM) was #19. Attack of the Clones is #80! But, I really don't fault Attack of the Clones for this. Rather, I think most people still had a sour taste in their mouth after Phantom and had given up on Star Wars. Far from supporting Phantom, the adjusted box office figures actually paint a fairly gloomy picture of its effect on the franchise.

Does anyone seriously want to make the argument, however, that --then or now-- The Phantom Menace was/is more popular than Attack of the Clones? After all, look at that difference in ranking!

No, I still don't think that you can use box office figures to demonstrate how well-received a movie was by those who viewed it. . . but the difference between box office returns for the latter two movies do show a softening of the Star Wars fanbase. I would argue that this was because Phantom Menace disappointed so many. But, I'm sure there might be other plausible reasons.

Man, I wish I had checked these figures a lot earlier!

H

Edited March 31, 2005 by Hurin

[Agent ONE]

The much vaunted Empire Strikes Back was the least successful movie based on revenue.

Sigh, well don't I feel like an idiot? Here I spent all this time assailing Uxi's interpretation of box office figures while assuming they were accurate. Yet, when you look at the actual box office when adjusted for inflation, The Empire Strikes Back comes in at #2 (among Star Wars movies) just behind its immediate predecessor, Episode IV: A New Hope. And, bringing up the rear for the OT, as expected, is Episode VI: Return of the Jedi.

Episode 1 is in fourth place. Episode 2 is last (again, among Star Wars films).

Here's a list of each movie, it's all-time rank among all movies, and its gross adjusted for inflation:

2 --- Star Wars (1,113,247,500)

12 -- The Empire Strikes Back (613,629,000)

14 -- Return of the Jedi (587,871,300)

19 -- The Phantom Menace (530,138,300)

80 -- Attack of the Clones (334,177,900)

Sources are here and here.

Silly me for assuming Uxi's figures were accurate.

Anyways, that's one helluva drop-off for Attack of the Clones. It's immediate predecessor (TPM) was #19. Attack of the Clones is #80! But, I really don't fault Attack of the Clones for this. Rather, I think most people still had a sour taste in their mouth after Phantom and had given up on Star Wars. Far from supporting Phantom, the adjusted box office figures actually paint a fairly gloomy picture of its effect on the franchise.

Does anyone seriously want to make the argument, however, that --then or now-- The Phantom Menace was/is more popular than Attack of the Clones? After all, look at that difference in ranking!

No, I still don't think that you can use box office figures to demonstrate how well-received a movie was by those who viewed it. . . but the difference between box office returns for the latter two movies do show a softening of the Star Wars fanbase. I would argue that this was because Phantom Menace disappointed so many. But, I'm sure there might be other plausible reasons.

Man, I wish I had checked these figures a lot earlier!

H

Those figures are misleading... Back when the OT came out there was no way to see the movies outside of a movie theatre... Now we have DVDs and people wait to see it at home.

You can't make the comparison.

There are pleanty of movies that I wait for and never see at the theatre.

[Hurin]

Those figures are misleading... Back when the OT came out there was no way to see the movies outside of a movie theatre... Now we have DVDs and people wait to see it at home.

You can't make the comparison.

Well, I don't think there were many Star Wars fans who waited for DVD to see The Phantom Menace. But, by your logic (which I don't agree with), there were a lot of people who waited to see Attack of the Clones on DVD. Again, I would argue that this is because the Star Wars fanbase had become disillusioned between the two movies.

I don't know many people who wait for DVD where a movie they are excited about (or an "event" movie such as a Star Wars film) is concerned.

But, regardless of all that, we can at least agree that Uxi can't baldly assert that Empire Strikes Back was the least successful Star Wars film.

H

[Agent ONE]

Those figures are misleading... Back when the OT came out there was no way to see the movies outside of a movie theatre... Now we have DVDs and people wait to see it at home.

You can't make the comparison.

Well, I don't think there were many Star Wars fans who waited for DVD to see The Phantom Menace. But, by your logic (which I don't agree with), there were a lot of people who waited to see Attack of the Clones on DVD. Again, I would argue that this is because the Star Wars fanbase had become disillusioned between the two movies.

...

No dude... Between ROTJ and EP1 SW fans got OLDER! Which means they are less likely to go to a theatre at all. Why don't you do some more research on the age of people who go to the theatres.

[HWR MKII]

It takes a movie as visual as SW or more to even get me to a theatre. I cant stand going to a theatre and seeing something that would look just as good or be just as dramatic on the smaller screen.

Then again every day is a trip to the theatre for me with a 10x5 foot screen in my living room . Still it has to be big for me to shell out todays prices to see something. Lately that has also been a big factor in ticket sales as well. Is a movie worth paying 10 dollars a head to go see.

[Hurin]

No dude... Between ROTJ and EP1 SW fans got OLDER! Which means they are less likely to go to a theatre at all. Why don't you do some more research on the age of people who go to the theatres.

I don't recall making a big deal out of the box office difference between RotJ and Ep1.

And, I certainly don't see where this age concern has anything to do with the difference between the box office for AotC and TPM. Did all the people who got so excited and filled the theaters in droves for TPM suddenly become old and unwilling to visit a theater by the time AotC arrived? Would they have been so unwilling had TPM been better?

I'm just not seeing your point. And, for the record, I think there are movies that transcend the usual demographics for movie-goers. And Star Wars would be at the top of that list.

H

[Agent ONE]

No dude... Between ROTJ and EP1 SW fans got OLDER!  Which means they are less likely to go to a theatre at all.  Why don't you do some more research on the age of people who go to the theatres.

I don't recall making a big deal out of the box office difference between RotJ and Ep1.

And, I certainly don't see where this age concern has anything to do with the difference between the box office for AotC and TPM. Did all the people who got so excited and filled the theaters in droves for TPM suddenly become old and unwilling to visit a theater by the time AotC arrived? Would they have been so unwilling had TPM been better?

I'm just not seeing your point. And, for the record, I think there are movies that transcend the usual demographics for movie-goers. And Star Wars would be at the top of that list.

H

I can't believe you are retarded enough to not know that the younger people are the more likely they are to go to the movies... Factor that in with the advent of the 'home viewing venue' and your statistics are worthless.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v18/ai_18894246

[Hurin]

I can't believe you are retarded enough to not know that the younger people are the more likely they are to go to the movies... Factor that in with the advent of the 'home viewing venue' and your statistics are worthless.

http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_...v18/ai_18894246

Well, first, I'm not that retarded. . . because I do accept the premise that younger people go to movies more often. . . up to a point. Even as your article shows, it's 18-24 year-olds that are the most likely to go to a theater. One-year-olds aren't the most avid movie-goers.

But, what I haven't seen you demonstrate is how this fits cogently into an argument that ressurects Uxi's assertion that The Empire Strikes Back was the least succesful movie and that The Phantom Menace was some incredible box office juggernaut. Surely, numbers that are not adjusted for inflation are more faulty than those that don't take into account your nebulous assertions about how home theater owners wait for the DVD. . . even in the case of Star Wars. . . and that because Star Wars viewers got old, they couldn't drag themselves out of their houses for one movie.

You can say "take those figures with a grain of salt". . . but I don't think your assertions render the box office figures "useless". . . but then again, I wasn't the one who originally tried to score points off of them. So if you want to consider them useless, go ahead. . . because --adjusted for inflation or not-- they don't accurately reflect how well-enjoyed a movie was.

But, again, the drop-off between Ep1 and Ep2 is 61 rungs on the ranking ladder. I don't think that can be explained away via everyone suddenly feeling their age.

Edited March 31, 2005 by Hurin

[Jemstone]

I can't believe you are retarded enough to not know that the younger people are the more likely they are to go to the movies... Factor that in with the advent of the 'home viewing venue' and your statistics are worthless.

He's not retarded. I think he just wants to argue with you so he can feel your muscles.

Hurin, all you have to do is ask cuz I'm sure A1 wouldn't mind.

[bsu legato]

And, I certainly don't see where this age concern has anything to do with the difference between the box office for AotC and TPM.  Did all the people who got so excited and filled the theaters in droves for TPM suddenly become old and unwilling to visit a theater by the time AotC arrived?  Would they have been so unwilling had TPM been better?

Wait...weren't you supposed to be arguing that attendance and box office were NOT useful? But regardless, comparing the OT to the PT in that regard isn't quite useful since the market is so different than what it was like in the late 70's. Now when you compare AOTC to TPM its a more applicable but there are more factors to bear in mind before you make absolute statements. In 1999 TPM had lots of room to "breath" and nobody was willing to risk opening against it. Fast forward to 2002 and you have Sony putting Spider Man out two weeks before AOTC, and in substantially more theaters. Was AOTC's performance affected by a percieved "souring" of the audience on the whole PT thing? Perhaps, but it was also undeniably affected by Spider Man. This isn't something you can make definitive statements on one way or the other, which is why I was only willing to make general yes/no comments on how popular they were due to large attendance figures.

Edit: If you're going to compare the box office for the OT to the PT, then you have to exclude all the rereleases all three of them recieved, from the '78 rerelease of ANH thru the 1997 SE's. None of the PT has had a rerelease, as that doesn't really happen much anymore.

Edited March 31, 2005 by bsu legato