Post by Deleted on Jul 10, 2018 0:29:55 GMT
Jul 10, 2018 0:19:52 GMT @joetorrence said:
Jul 9, 2018 21:56:16 GMT @graham said:
Which prequels?If you mean the Star Wars prequels, it's because they are terribly written, terribly plotted, terribly acted movies. None of that kills a movie for me - some of my favourite movies have those qualities. But the Star Wars prequels had essentially unlimited budget and talent at their disposal. They SHOULD have been great movies, and they're just the exact opposite of that. As for why exactly... go watch the Red Letter Media reviews, possibly the most devastating piece of film criticism ever produced. To that point, anyway.
If you mean the Hobbit movies, their issue is that they are so needlessly padded out. Hell, I get that the studio wanted a trilogy, but even then - why have a trilogy of three hour movies? Cut the extraneous crap and make them 100-120 minutes each.
Hmmm, other prequels... The Thing? I quite liked that one, except that dammit, why go to all the trouble of reproducing the original Norwegian camp events if you're going to ignore the fact that they blew up the ship excavating it with bombs, and stick that silly explosion ending on? Bleargh.
Can't think of any other prequels you might mean.
I mean, I'll say: I can't find a single thing wrong with any of the prequels. I mean I use to agree with Mike stoklasa on the prequel reviews but then I realized he didn't really know what he was talking about 70 percent of the time.
Yeah, but the thing is that when you realised that, that was just your brain blowing farts out of its asshole without any particular correspondence to reality.
I mean, things people have pointed out as problems in the star wars prequels are not things I consider problems really.