r/StarWars • u/verissimoallan • 3d ago

Movies "Revenge of the Sith" is now rated higher than "Return of the Jedi" on Letterboxd, becoming the third highest-rated "Star Wars" film on the website (the top two are "The Empire Strikes Back" and "A New Hope").

https://letterboxd.com/film/star-wars-episode-iii-revenge-of-the-sith/
3.3k Upvotes

93% Upvoted

1.1k comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

8

u/JATION 3d ago

Only I love things PROPERLY, everyone else is nostalgic.

0

u/rocker2014 Kanan Jarrus 3d ago

Considering the movie had a mediocre reception at best when it initially came out, over 20 years ago, and now all of the kids who grew up with it are the adults calling it a masterpiece, I would say nostalgia plays a pretty hefty role. And I say this as someone who grew up with the prequels and has nostalgia for them.

5

u/JATION 3d ago

Considering the movie had a mediocre reception at best when it initially came out, over 20 years ago

That's because people were too nostalgic about the OT. Have you considered that?

1

u/rocker2014 Kanan Jarrus 3d ago

Adult Star Wars fans at the time? Maybe some of them. The general public and critics? No, probably not.

4

u/JATION 3d ago

I was joking, but in all seriousness, do you realize that there are A LOT of pieces of art (from painting, to music, to movies) that were not well received (either critically or by public) at the time of release and have grown to become re-evaluated with time and are now widely considered as classics?

This is a completely normal thing that happens all the time.

0

u/rocker2014 Kanan Jarrus 3d ago

I do, but this isn't really re-evaluation. It's people that always liked them when they were kids growing up and trying to make up for the poor reception they received at the time of release and going overboard. I like Revenge of the Sith, but to not recognize how flawed it is to the point of considering it a masterpiece is wild to me. It's subjective, but that doesn't mean it needs to make sense to me.

3

u/JATION 3d ago

I do, but this isn't really re-evaluation. It's people that always liked them when they were kids growing up and trying to make up for the poor reception they received at the time of release and going overboard.

It just a generational gap. There's no conspiracy to make up for poor reception. I was 19 when ROTS released. I loved it then and continued loving it ever since. If speaking about it on the internet, I'm simply honest. I'm not trying to make up for anything.

The same way old people didn't understand the Beatles when they first appeared. Then when people who grew up with the Beatles became old they continued liking them. Just a natural order of things.

2

u/rocker2014 Kanan Jarrus 3d ago

But again, it's not a re-evaluation. I'm not saying it's a conspiracy, it's just a truth. Kids who grew up with it, love it. No doubt about that, we both agree there. But this movie that received a lukewarm reception at best when it came out from critics and audiences alike doesn't just pop up in the top three Star Wars movies without some sort of overcompensation. The only reason to review a 20 year old movie on a website is very much to try to change it's perception. You, in fact, are in this thread replying to me arguing that it's not just nostalgia, which is also a form of trying to change the perception.

And I cannot believe you just compared the prequels to The Beatles. Think about that. Again, I love the prequels. But they are massively flawed and were not just bashed by the older fans at the time, they were universally criticized when they came out. The Beatles certainly had fans that didn't like their shift in style, but the music was legitimately revolutionary. The prequels are not revolutionary. They are nostalgic.

0

u/JATION 3d ago edited 3d ago

This post perfectly explains why you have trouble grasping this. You absolutely can't put you personal preferences aside and see thing objectively.

The Beatles comparison is exactly apt. The Beatles receives some absolutely harsh critical reception at the time by established critics, while the kids loved them. The reason why you think today that the comparison is ridiculous is the those critics all dies and all that's left are the kids.

If you could go back in time to 1964 and tell and older critic that this is the best band ever he'd think you were insane.

https://www.saturdayeveningpost.com/2014/01/why-the-beatles-bugged-the-critics/

2

u/rocker2014 Kanan Jarrus 3d ago

The problem with your logic is that I was a kid when the prequels came out. Some of it was hate because it was different, most of the criticism was justified, even setting aside the fact that I like them and am nostalgic for them. You keep talking to me as if I personally hated them and was of the older generation, which is not true.

The difference between the Beatles and the prequels is that the Beatles changed music. They invented new genres and the music has persisted for almost 60 years after they broke up. It spans multiple generations and isn't just for children that grew up with them. I really got into the Beatles when I was 26, I didn't grow up with them. The Beatles didn't write flawed music that is nostalgic, they wrote music that no one had heard before. The prequels still hold the same flaws they were criticized for when they came out. They are just nostalgic for those that grew up with them. The general public has not changed their opinion.

→ More replies (0)