If it's crap ... We'll tell you
What does that have to do with anything?
My point is that I had a different opinion than you, and you need to stop pressing that fact into my face in a desperate attempt to change my opinion and just accept the fact that I didn't like your fucking Star Wars prequel.
I will say this; Phantom Menace did have impressive visuals when it was first released (or so I have heard), and visuals in today's modern blockbusters probably wouldn't be what they are today if it weren't for that, although that argument is not entirely valid as CGI was becoming more and more modern amongst many other films as well. But if that's all the film has to work with, then those visuals are eventually going to be outdated and the film will have nothing. I've been able to forgive outdated visuals in a lot of films because they actually have a story to tell. The visuals in Phantom Menace do not impress me as much as they impressed critics back in the day. They look so artificial that the film looks like something off of Syfy, and the dull performances and lame as hell story add to that.
You can press your arguments in all you want, but it's not going to change my thoughts. So, you might as well just get over it.
Edit: And just for the record, I wasn't trying to insult you with my "that explains a lot" response to your post. I was simply pointing out that your defense for the prequels explained why you went all nuts against my argument.
"But if the CGI is all the film has to work with, then those visuals are eventually going to be outdated and the film will have nothing."
What in the holy mother of fuck are you smoking? Please tell me where you get it from so that I can kill the dealer and prevent the creation of more fuck-brained retards like you.
Just because a film has great CGI and is lacking in several other departments doesn't mean that it will become outdated. Since I'm feeling deeply sorry for you to have the mental condition you have, I'll be generous and give you an example:
Like them or not, the Transformers movies will be remembered positively for the effects and nothing else. Everything about those movies sans the effects (and maybe the sound) is complete and utter garbage. And what, that first movie came out four years ago? And after Avatar, those effects are still recieved well?
Speaking of Avatar, that is precisely what you're saying The Phantom Menace is going to become, except for the retarded "magical aging" process that I still can't seem to grasp. Weak story, forgettable acting, and outstanding effects. I'm suprised you haven't looked up from sucking James Cameron's dick to realize that.
Besides all that, what you fail to realize in this argument is that you're comparing the effects of The Phantom Menace to that of a channel that has a team of braindead clods as their visual art department. It is not an opinion, but a motherfucking fact that the effects in The Phantom Menace are significantly better than the SyFy channel's. Better motion, better texture, and better stimulation. There is no way that something that incredible can be magically reduced to something so inferior because the rest of the film is not up-to-par.
As for your refusal to change your mind on the subject, I feel sorry for you. Plenty of professional critics change their minds on a film over time wether it's someone else's observations or another full viewing of it that makes them see something in it that changes their outlook on it, for better or for worse.
Saying that The Phantom Menace is a bad film is one thing. Saying that it's on par with a SyFy movie is another thing altogether, and deserves me saying once again, until you're fully convinced:
You're completely fucking retarded.