Attack of the Clones,  Prequel Trilogy,  Revenge of the Sith,  The Phantom Menace

Comic Book Resources falsely says that the Star Wars Prequels were “critically panned”


The false information from Comic Book Resources:

“Star Wars has survived a trilogy of critically panned prequels”

The facts:




  • KirkMan1701

    This whole prequel-bashing gatekeeping has been and always shall be based on a WHOPPING PACK OF LIES! Please stop it with all of the lying propaganda about the prequels since it’s flagrantly biased and dishonest and SW prequel fans and their allies like me are getting sick of it! Such nincompoops make too many complaints about alleged “gatekeeping” against “Star Trek” in name only (STINO) such as the JJ Drek flicks and STD and the sequel trilogy yet sweep under the rug and even partake in actual gatekeeping against the SW prequels, hypocrites! Both STINO and the Star Wars sequel trilogy were founded by two prequel-bashing gatekeepers named Jeffery Jacob Abrams and Simon John “Pegg” Beckingham. Yet for example they make a scene about #TrueTrek fans calling out STINO for violating Star Trek canon saying that’s somehow “toxic fanboy gatekeeping” while glossing over the toxic fanboy gatekeeping that JJ Abrams and Simon Peggy have been involved in. Snap out of it Comic Book Resources and knock it off with all of the prequel-bashing lies..

  • Cryogenic


    Unfortunately, repeatedly spotlighting all these pallid, bland, dull-as-dishwater, deadbeat “articles” (all about as honest, as informative, and as exciting as a Microsoft Windows service update) means that these websites garner clicks and receive an added ring of legitimacy; despite being little more than a slag-pile/dung-hill repository of half-baked, underheated, denatured, regurgitated (pick your metaphor) crap that, in turn, is little more than industry-boosting insider-outsider speculation and gossip. It’s an inane geek-media racket. Not really “dark web”, but definitely “dumb web”. Or to steal a Trumpism: FAKE NEWS.

    Note: I am just commenting here and not telling the webmaster what to do.

    Such articles are both faceless and, for all intents and purposes, anonymous. They have no muscle or sinew; no taste or texture. They reduce films and pop culture to the level of accountants, lawyers, PR machines, and idiotic courtly intrigue. They’re the net equivalent of bird-cage liner.

    And they also stand as a sort of confirmation or proof of the awesome banality and sterility of one species of Internet reporting and “fact” relaying and bubble-making: the dreaded clickbait community; all of whose members drink at the trough of Hollywood and the unaccountable corporation.

    A term like “critically panned” begs to be interpreted through the vernacular of corporatism and commerce and parasitic, art-destroying bean-counting and the spectre of managed appearances and other gestures designed to maximise profit.

    Of course, by default, or a priori, as these reporting/gossip sites would have it, “critically panned” is a negative term, describing a shameful fate. Rebutting such a notion by volleying back with facts and figures unfortunately plays into the hands of these sites.

    Instead, the idea that the prequels were “critically panned” — even if they weren’t really (especially not “Revenge Of The Sith”) — could be looked upon as a badge of pride; given the surprisingly broad company this would put the prequels with.

    Oh, and real art is NOT about chasing approval or pleasing people, but conveying heartfelt and sometimes difficult or subtle emotions and sentiments that may not move critics, or anyone else, for that matter. In other words: True art is about nakedness, taking risks, going out on a limb, rethinking the current paradigm, blowing open the doors of perception, and refusing to fit into anyone else’s preconceived notions of how things “ought” to be. It is an object lesson in having things to say, having the courage to say them, and living truthfully. Good luck finding these qualities pouring out of a corporation or any structure that clings to, venerates, or apologizes for the status quo.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.