Revenge of the Sith just hit 900 million in the box office

Revenge of the Sith just hit 900 million in the box office

NOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

ACK

you know what this means? obi wan season 2 confirmed

All that money is going to Disney.

no, most of it went to George back in the day and a big chunk of the re-release goes to the theaters that are in desperate need of movies that people want to see

The fact that this movie is at all celebrated is laughable. If you watch this movie, and divorce it from the existing IP of "Star Wars", just as its own series of movies, it is literally among the worst movies ever made. If it was called something like Galactic Crusaders: Trade Fedaration Troubles, it would be widely known as a movie that is in a similar tier to other complete shit like Manos: The Hands of Fate. The acting is laughably bad, the dialogue is nonsensical, the visuals are fucking awful. Everything about these films is pure dreck. Even Ulli Lommel's worst films have superior performances. Uwe Boll delivers greater emotional depth. Even Danny Trejo's taco truck Cross-trilogy is superior, unironically. Everyone that likes the prequels should be bullied viciously.

dialogue is nonsensical

No, you're just stupid.

It doesn't make any sense. If you had 500 cinemas showing Revenge of the Sith, and it took 90 minutes to finish a showing, and each cinema could have 100 visitors at a time... There's just no way it can be as high as 900 million, okay!

RLM lost.

RLM lost.

The prequels are shit, Lucas MUST die and RLM was right

based and true

coal

Is it bothersome being so retarded you need to manually breathe?

holy based

I’m serious. Nothing in the last 30 years in any of the arts has been produced as emotionally compelling and significant as the finale of Revenge of the Sith.

So true so true

You like the prequels, so this is a realistic concern for you exclusively, I'm afraid.

youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw
She even got interviewed by the History channel for a documentary that compares Star Wars with classical mythology.
youtube.com/watch?v=-5e9pWgyZYA

Explain how the Prequels are bad.

lots of nonissues

seethe, cope and dial8

all the sequels hit even more than that

flat directing, infantile dialogue, nonsenical plots, infinite greenscreen, mediocre cinematography
only the music and the acting of a few actors make them worth watching in the slightest
but they aren't the worse children's film I've watched, not even close

The only based lesbian in existence

News so great that Anakin finally learned to love sand.

What's with all the Star Wars Autism? I mean I saw all the movies as a kid and then again as an adult. I never understood the obsession with it? Were you guys like molested as kids or something?

autistic people find it very hard to let go of the stuff they grew up with

I think an IP made by a creative autistic man strikes a chord with fellow autists in a way that non autists might not understand, it's like their own wavelength frequency

I think the prequels are abominable but I think you're wrong about the originals being overrated. They set many visual standards for blockbuster sci-fi films and popularized the "trilogy" release format. I can understand being sick of them (I am too) but their existence, fluke or not, is important.

$50m for a re release tells you everything

Disney Star Wars is dead

I really wish I could erase the existence of all star wars related media

fuck you. we'd lose porn of padme getting dpd by gungans

LIAR

white man literally sells his soul for a jewess, gets burned in hell, lives in absolute misery for 20 years before finally being reunited with the Force (God)

Lucas was telling white men important shit, you better listen to him.

why would people go re-watch a shit movie?

already did lol

they wouldn't. you've almost figured it out.

You're right regarding its influence. But it was negative influence that ruined cinema. So, still garbage.

See this is how I know you don't understand film.
Lucas film tastes lie in the French New Wave, documentary film-making, and "Pure Cinema" which Lucas achieves in the Star Wars films by treating the camera in two main ways, the first is the fly-on-the-wall style, simple camera moves, asymmetrical framing, crash zooms. The other is used in more emotion driven scenes where the camera is tighter, but used more rythmic editing to convey feeling, often using the Kuleshov Effect. Lucas is very specific in how he uses the camera not in a way to draw attention to the camera movements themselves, but instead to give you the unconscious feeling of being in the room where the story is unfolding.
Lucas' dialogue is utilitarian. It's designed to give you the information you need to progress the plot in the most efficient way possible. Which is why there is very rarely a lot of specificity in the incidental details "You fought in the Clone Wars?" Lucas only deviates from this in specific moments, which is when characters are expressing their emotions, which is why AOTC feels so different to the rest of the saga, because Lucas intentionally shifted his usual style to instead adopting the melodrama style of the 30s and 40s. Which is why the film is split into two distinct styles, an epic romance, and detective noir until the end where Lucas returns to his documentary style evoking Vietnam war footage.

nonsenical plots

The plots for all the Star Wars films are so easy to follow you have to be either genuinely retarded, or purposely over-thinking them to the point where you're just confusing yourself.

infinite greenscreen

The amount of greenscreen use was for several linked reasons, the first, being that the films were independently funded, meaning they were able to save cost on building sets, this also leads into the second, that not only do the Prequels go to a LOT of different locations, many of those locations could not be realised fully, or even in part by shooting on location or building full scale sets. So instead they built the sets that were needed, and then either used CGI or more often miniatures to extend the backgrounds. The stands during the podrace, Mustafar, the arena on Geonosis, those were GIGANTIC miniatures. CGI was used where it made sense, Coruscant could not have been been achieved the way we see it, through either location shooting or a miniature work. People love to go back to greenscreen as if it's an actual complaint, but Lucas was instead doing what he always did, which was pioneering a technique that is now used in basically EVERYTHING. Lucas took what at the time would have usually been achieved through matte paintings, and instead supercharged the technique allowing for more camera movements or dynamic action in the background. The reason the stuff like the CGI and compositing has aged the way it has is because in almost all cases he was the FIRST to do it. What Lucas did on Star Wars allowed for hundreds of other films to exist at all.
youtube.com/watch?v=bP2sJqoZD7g

looking up articles about the rerelease

journos desperately trying to downplay the movie's success by saying a rerelease didn't make the box office rise above the Disney slop or that Anakin's descent is comparable to "right wing extremism"

Wow, this movie really touched a nerve on these faggots, didn't it?

To objectively assess a film?

And why would that require I pretend they aren't connected to Star Wars? That's not how they're intended to be viewed. Turning my brain off and pretending a film is anything other than what it actually is is something sequel trilogy fans do.

The "jewess" in question didn't push him to do any of what he did though. He chose to side with the devil even when she protested against it.

Imagine if Lucas and Spielberg died in a car crash in 1973

they hated him because he spoke the truth

a big chunk of the re-release goes to the theaters

Nice try, mouse

You offered Jeremy Renner half his salary of season 1 of Hawkeye for season 2, and you expect me to believe you gave theaters most of the money for the rerelease of ROTS after you treated a man without a penis so horribly???

Yup yup. And now they're in these threads trying to shame us good and honest men for loving kino.

none of these are true though shill

This is the most pretentious sophistry I've ever read and none of it works in favor of the movies at all. You can't just say something is "this style" as if that means it is automatically good. A stylistic choice can be inherently shit. Which it is, in this case. You could write a defense like that for literally every film in existence, by the way, which means it's worthless.

I wouldn't give a fuck ordinarily but the fact that they're trying to shit on other people's parade reeks of so much narcissism that I almost wouldn't believe it if it hadn't been the norm for the past decade. At this point I'm just shocked that they're still doing it, especially after yesterday when the same type of people who pull this crap over at Polygon got shitcanned.

The only thing that isn't true is that he said it isn't the worst. It is.

infantile dialogue

t. homeschooled

You can't just say something is "this style" as if that means it is automatically good. A stylistic choice can be inherently shit.

It could also just as easily be your inherently shit taste. You neglected to mention that for some reason, so that's probably it.

stylistic choice can be inherently shit.

yeah but it's not the case for the prequels

Jeremy now has AT MOST a quarter of his original dick. Why should he get what he was previously paid?

a movie explicitly made to be part of a greater saga

yeah well if you divorce it from the saga it isn't good

Huge take.

YYYEEEEEEEEEEEEEEESSSSSSSSSS

anime website

You can't just say something is "this style" as if that means it is automatically good.

I'm not saying that. HISTORY is saying that. The French New Wave came about during the late 50s and early 60s, it then influenced film-makers in Hollywood during the late 60s and 70s leading to a lot of experimental styles that were then folded in with traditional techniques. Lucas instead folded the French New Wave techniques in with his documentary experience, leading to a style that allows his films to work entirely on visuals alone, meaning that even though Star Wars has been translated into more languages than probably any other film ever, it doesn't need to be.
But here's the real kicker, Lucas isn't the only one to use this style, Francis Ford Coppola, Martin Scorsese and to a certain extent Steven Spielberg all use it, because they're all friends and all learned from each other during their early careers, influencing each other.
Lucas' style was applauded by basically everyone with films like American Graffiti and the first Star Wars. His skills didn't dimish with the Prequels, instead what happened was a bunch film-illiterate manchildren and idiot critics who were pissy about the fact that Lucas wanted to actually tell an interesting story instead of just doing the same thing again (like what Disney and JJ tried to do with TFA) decided that they didn't like the Prequels, and screamed about it so loudly that as per usual for a very vocal minority, it seemed like it was the only opinion in the room. So now people like YOU just repeat the same bullshit narrative that Lucas is a hack and that the Prequels are bad because the acting is silly, the camera work sucks, the plot makes no sense, politics, trade disputes, Jar Jar, greenscreen, wah wah fucken wah. Lucas is brilliant, you're just another moron too stupid to actually understand what you're talking about.

what is Disney thinking right now

It was a thing to do with friends on a weekend. We went with another couple and no one particularly enjoyed the movie but what else are we going to watch in the cinema? Current year slop?

That's not the point, nigger. Anakin shouldn't have been with a jewess in the first place. He got rightly punished for wasting his Aryan genes on a heebess.

Just because something is trying to imitate a style doesn't mean it is automatically good or imitated the style well.

giving money to disney lol

Thanks ChatGPT

Scorsese

AAAAAAAAAAAIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEEEEEEEEEEEE

GET RLM ON THE LINE ASAP, THIS WASN'T SUPPOSE TO HAPPEN

Based. Pottercucks btfo. Us Prequelchads win yet again as usual.

Aryan genes

He is Italian, but this was always a problem with naziboos - they wouldn't recognize whites even if they hit them like Harris hit Berlin.

ive never heard the infamous plinkett review but did he really shit on Revenge of the Sith?

He is Italian

unfortunately no. he trashed everyone who contributed to project. big crab in a bucket mentality. big blind spot for terminators

Can't formulate their own opinion so thinks everything is ChatGPT

Based Paglia.

Do want

my brother tried to get me to go and I reminded him how shitty the prequels were when we saw them in theater the first time.
sure the Revenge of the Shit was the best of the prequels, but it was still slop-tier.
I reminded him about the "NOOOOOOOO" scene and that killed his enthusiasm.
I'm not gonna settle in this Dark Age for scraps and pretend it's steak.

Oh you're a typical annoying nigger faggot

Wow, I guess every long series sequel and prequel is automatically good then! You don't criticize things solely as they are as a sequel or a prequel, you criticize them as the individual works they are you fucking moron. To use this logic to defend the films would be the same to extend this stupid shit to the sequels which also suck.

faggot

You just regurgitated what you said earlier and added nothing new. You have no substance that you argue with, just word salad.

Im convinced this board is full of scatfags

If you watch this movie, and divorce it from the existing IP of "Star Wars", just as its own series of movies, it is literally among the worst movies ever made.

If you watch this movie with the full consideration that it's a star wars movie, it's still one of the worst movies ever made.

This is true as well actually, lmao.

You are trying real hard to pretend to be intelligent.

it is certainly not among the "worst movies ever made" and not even close to being on the same leve as Manos. The acting and dialogue delivery is absolutely stiff and stilted but this was because of George, for some reason, wanting these prequels to evoke more of a theatrical/Shakespearean style than the OT. you can argue that this doesn't work or that you personally don't like that aspect (I don't really), but RLM-fags make the mistake of assuming this stuff is some accident or blunder by the actors/writers when it was clearly an intentional artistic choice

the prequels were supposed to be a grand epic steeped in dramatic tragedy with a space backdrop and action that actually had the scale, visual appeal, and choreography that could only happen with a major movie and not on a stage. is it perfect? no. isn't even good? eh not really. is it the worst thing ever made? not by a long shot, and retards who think it is are either hyperbolic (every thing they don't love is the "worst thing ever") or get all of their opinions from youtubers without any critical thought

reading comprehension

I love how boomer retards here are acting like the OT wasn't a nonsensical goyslop either solely carried by the revolutionary special effects for their time. Reality is ROTS might be the best Star Wars movie and the same types of problems the prequels faced, plagued the OT to hell and back.

Camille Paglia, a controversial author and intellectual, identifies as transgender. She states that she has experienced gender dysphoria since childhood and has never felt female. However, she has not transitioned and expresses skepticism about the current "transgender wave," attributing it to more complex psychological and sociological factors than current gender discourse acknowledges

to be fair while the acting in the OT is nothing to write home about, the acting in the prequels is way worse (aside from the usual based actors who can do anything)

This isn't true. The line delivery is all over the place if you contrast each actor. If it is a "stylistic choice", then it was a choice executed poorly, either by poor direction or bad actors, or both. Not to mention that deliberateness is not an inherently good thing.

Fine, I'll try and keep this simple. Lucas' directing style was always considered great, even sometimes too experimental or fast-paced, he was celebrated just as if not more than his contemporaries. But when the Prequels came out, retards saw them and didn't like them because they weren't what a bunch of neckbeards wanted them to be, or just couldn't live up to 16 years of hype after one of the greatest cinematic trilogies ever made, and those people yelled so loudly and so confidently that people assumed they must be right. So even though Lucas' is actually one of the greatest film-makers of all time, people talk shit about him because all of their reference points are retards like RLM, Chris Stuckman and The Nostalgia Critic. So "The Prequels are bad, Lucas sucks" became the mainstream view, but anyone that can actually think for themselves, and understands film can see why the Prequels and Lucas are actually amazing.
For reference just because a lot of people say something doesn't make it true, saying The Prequels are bad is the cinematic equivalent of saying you should piss on a jellyfish sting or put butter on a burn, it's repeated constantly as if it's solid, but it's really just fucking stupid.

You're just retarded.

It's ironic that you say "people talk shit about him because all of their reference points are retards like RLM, Chris Stuckman and The Nostalgia Critic" but then the crux of your entire argument is that "his contemporaries thought was really good though". So where's your own opinion? Or have you just filtered it through his "contemporaries", that he's definitely one of the greatest filmmakers ever, because they said so? lmao.

It's a fun series of three movies that are a slapdash combination of westerns, Flash Gordon and, Kurosawa. It's not revolutionary goofball.

You have absolutely no "understand" of film whatsoever

Go rewatch those movies. Mark Hamill and Carrie Fisher are atrocious and Harrison Ford is basically sleeping through half his lines albeit he is a bit better than them. I think Hayden delivered a million time better performance than all 3 of them in 3, but much of the problem that plagues the Star Wars movie is the clunky, unnatural dialogue that nobody can really deliver that well. That has been prevalent in every actual SW movie (discounting the Disney trash) and isn't really unique to the prequels.
I think a lot of the internet was taken over by the RLM reviews. They were funny, well made and very unique for the time. They basically set the standard for youtube reviews. I myself enjoyed them a lot as a kid but now that I've grown older and rewatched them it's easy to see that 90% of it at the very least is straight up nitpicking or nonsensical arguments that you can bash any of the old movies easily with. I still find them funny, but they are just straight bad reviews coming from an emotional standpoint rather than objective criticism.

The bit in the RLM review of Phantom Menace where he goes on a tangent where if you aren't one of 20 directors then you can never deviate from the cliche Hero's Journey was one of the stupidest things I've ever heard.

and not even close to being on the same leve as Manos.

Because it had a higher budget and professionals working on it. AOTC story is absolutely as nonsensical as Manos it just has pretty lights and autism candy to paper over it.

Did they change anything?

they set many visual standards for blockbuster sci fi

And prequels didn't? First movies shot on all digital. Lots of cutting edge cg work (first entirely cg character in jar jar).
Lots of stuff under the hood as well, editing techniques, digital filmmaking and so on. All new stuff.

They were just as influential, whether you like them or not.
This well explained post will NOT get a reply, because prequel haters are genuinely deranged, tranny-adjacent ghouls that do not care about truth. They only care about pushing a narrative online.

Nope, just not a pathetic pseud like yourself.

AOTC story

A brewing crisis in a country sparks assassination attempts, the law attempts to figure it out; ends up lighting the match on the powder keg in the process.

That's the main strokes. Further layers include a grand conspiracy to create a hidden army , a forbidden love story and a main character dealing with the ghosts of his past that come back to haunt him.

Everything ends with the plot threads resolved or progressing nicely.

Its a very understandable plot. What don't you understand about it

The reviews are littered with nonsense like that. For example when he asks for his friends to describe Qui Gon and Han as characters as to say that the prequels don't have deep characterization and his friends come up with anything about Qui Gon but their description of Han as a character is summarized as 'well, he's hot'. And apparently that's supposed to be a deep character. Again, I can very much appreciate the humor, they are very well made reviews from a technical standpoint, but once you grow older and can actually think for yourself, you find the reviews are absolute bullshit. Not to say there aren't valid criticisms here and there, but it comes across as extremely disingenuous when he obviously gives pass to the OT for said problems but bashes the prequels with them.
I think the prequels are even more revolutionary in the sense that everyone since then has copied George when it comes to using the green screen and everything, but they are not as revolutionary in the sense that people were not really that enamoured with the visuals as they were with the OT. With the OT that's the first time fans had actually seen such high quality imagery. Before that sci-fi/fantasy didn't really exist. The few that did were terribly made movies that looked like garbage. The OT changed that. But by the time the prequels came out, cool special effects on the big screen weren't really all that interesting to watch. It was something many blockbusters in the 90s had.

So where's your own opinion? Or have you just filtered it through his "contemporaries",

This is a solid question, and I'll admit it's hard to explain in a way that is more than "I agree with those guys."
When I was younger I was very much on the "The Prequels are shit" bandwagon, but over the years as I've learned how films are made, more than just watching films and watching YouTubers talk about them, I mean actually studying film and making films I've, for lack of a better term, learned the language of film. So watching how Lucas made the films I understand the language he's speaking. So I can see what his intent was, and I can see that he achieved it, I can also see how when people criticise certain elements, that they are wrong.
I'm not saying that I'm on Lucas' level, or that you need to be an academic, I just get what he was going for. I have "seen the light."

What don't you understand about it

Why middle aged men devoted their lives to defending it rather then starting families?

It's not revolutionary goofball.

It was though. Star Wars was so revolutionary that it literally reshaped how films are made, so in the almost 50 years since its release it doesn't seem special anymore, but when it came out it blew people's minds. Lucas took all these disparate elements, of westerns, Flash Gordon, Kurosawa, 2001, WW2, drag racing, magic, monsters, heroes, princesses, spaceships, fairytales, greek epics, the monomyth, small town Americana, and managed to blend it all together seemlessly and the show it to people in such a spectacularly new way through pioneering special effects that it changed cinema the world over, basically over night. Star Wars changed the way we make and watch films, it even changed the way we speak to an extent.

They're using the updated visuals from the Blu-Ray release, so the CGI has a little more detail in some spots and there's additional background dialogue and stuff. But there's no new scenes or anything.

Its dumb because Quigon has a very distinct character that has plenty of time to do his own thing.

If the intent was to parade their own ignorance they succeeded, but that's also all that stuff like that shows.

Quigon has real personality traits and they're clearly delineated compared to others. He's often in conflicts where these traits become apparent. Feds, Obiwan, Jarjar, Watto, Council, Padme etc

Also regarding the prequel's impact - I think the fact that their aesthetic never became ubiquitous and part of the "cultural canon" the same way all the images from the OT did - is a negative.

The movies stand more on their own, and they have a clear aesthetic and their own impact to work with. They're very long lasting, more than two decades on now, and people still talk about them, still watch them, still think about them a lot.

OT immediately became part of a phenomena and a mass media following. The actual movies went out of the picture pretty quickly as "fandom" took over.

I already have two kids. And you're dodging the question like a little bitch ass nigger

What don't you understand about the very simplistic and straight forward plot of ep 2?

No one gives a fuck about your worthless life and its dogshit opinions

Ok, crybaby.

You don't have to be a pseud to know how to read and understand words, no? But does it make your smoothbrain hurt when it's trying to form its first wrinkles?