deco_droid wrote:I guess my question is why do we care what James Rolfe thinks about Star Wars? he's a movie reviewer, i gather? Whatever -- I doubt the guy was ever that big a fan in the first place. He even admits he didn't like star wars after the ot concluded in 1983.
He's one of the most popular video reviewers online, due to his AVGN series. Besides, why critisize someone for doing a review? Would you critisize Roger Ebert by saying "Why do we care what he
thinks?". It's nice to see another person's opinion on something, that's what reviews are for.
deco_droid wrote:I like how he criticizes the prequel's "overuse" of CGI (as most lucasbashers do), yet he fails to mention the fact that there were more models used in the prequels than there were in the OT. I also find it funny how the OT with its low-tech matte paintings and rubber masks earns a "10", "5 star" rating, yet the prequels (for the most part) get just a "ho-hum" yawn from Mr. Rolfe. I'm sorry, there is just no practical way to make half the stuff in the prequels without CGI- it would be nice if some of the bashers recognized that.
What if there were more models in the PT? Most of it is dominated by the CGI used for almost all the ships, aliens, and scenery. And also, he doesn't dislike the PT just for the CGI, he doesn't like it for other reasons as well. He gave the OT a 5/5 because of the story, characters, references, and special effects. Also, I can't beleive you're critisizing the OT because it used rubber masks sometimes. They didn't outright look like masks, and the overall effects were incredible, even to this day. The CGI just looks...fake. As he said, with the models, what you're seeing is actually there, and there's some wonder about how they did it, even if you already know. With the CGI, it was all just done on a computer.
deco_droid wrote:He also criticizes the "boring" story of the prequels with it's taxation of trade routes and trade federation talk. I know he must be in his 30s, but he sounds like a 10 year old with that statement. I know I found the more adult dialogue in the PT interesting, especially since we're watching how palpatine uses government to seize control by the end of ROTS. to balance that, there were quite a few action sequences, so I don't know why the guy has such a negative view of the prequels as a whole.
"More adult dialouge"? Seriously? Half the stuff was banal or cliche, and the other half was ruined by horrid acting (Pardoning McDiarmid and McGregor, they were great). Also, he gives distinct reasons for why he dislikes each film, if you don't remember them, watch the review again.
deco_droid wrote:Really, the guy just comes off as jaded when it comes to the PT, yet forgiving when it comes to the OT. To me, it's one story, six chapters. I don't go around saying Fellowship of the Ring sucked, but the Two Towers and Return of the King were awesome, because it's ONE STORY. Anyway, my view...take it with a grain of salt.
Just because it's one story doesn't mean you can't grade each one on its own. Take the Harry Potter movies, for example, it's all one story, but that doesn't mean I can't say Goblet of Fire sucked but Sorcerer's Stone was good. The PT movies were considerably less quality than the OT, and I'm allowed to say it, I can't just forgive it because it's part of the same story as the OT.