Why Exactly Do We Care About Star Wars?

 Pages PREV 1 2
 

I've never really told anyone this for fear of being hung, drawn and quartered on the spot but... Well... I thought the original trilogy was only 'pretty good'. I fully appreciate that they are landmark films, and as someone studying towards working in special effects they're a particularly important milestone, but having seen them a couple of times now... I've not felt the urge to watch them again. Granted, I didn't see them until my late teens, but that just makes me wonder just how much of Star Wars' eternal popularity is based on a nostalgia that I don't have for the franchise...

I liked the light sabers >.> and thats about it.

the more I found out about stuff, like the jedi, the less I ended up caring to the point I've never actually seen EP3 and likely won't, I just don't care enough to finish it

It's just that Star Wars has such an expansive and interesting world and people keep doing the wrong things with it.

I would say that the the prequels were created because people cared about Star Wars, not the other way around. I was in the age range to enjoy the prequels, and I remember I was excited as the older fans when I learned I would get to see more. Sure, Star Wars may be a hot topic now because everyone thinks Lucas should have done to himself what he did to his movies (what I'm saying is he should have killed himself slowly and painfully), but without the prequels, people would have filled the void one way or another. People like me who grew up watching the old movies would have taken up the task of continuing the story, whereas I feel like now people just want to let the whole universe implode so we can start over.

Therefore, I hope Star Wars VII has nothing to do with the previous six. It's a great universe, but no one wants to use it any more. We need a new canon starting point.

Neat. I've never thought of it like that. I guess if the prequels hadn't come out, I would have nearly as many Star Wars nerdy friends as I do, because so few of my friends growing up ever really got into Star Wars.

As for me personally, I would still be the same Star Wars nut I am today even if the prequels had never come out. When I discovered that the story of Star Wars and its characters continued in books after the movies ended, I immediately set out to find every single book I could. I have read all but...three, maybe four, of the Star Wars books that take place after Return of the Jedi. I've grown up with Jaina, Jacen, and Anakin, and I honestly don't think my love of the franchise would have been affected at all if the prequels had never been made.

Covarr:
The prequel trilogy didn't revitalize the franchise because it was shit. It revitalized the franchise because it was divisive. Revenge of the Sith has an average rating on IMDB of 7.7/10. Keep in mind that's a movie 7.7-by games journalism standards, that would be at least 8.5. Star Wars fans hated it, and people with any sense of good filmmaking, storytelling, or acting hated it, but the general population didn't just like it, they thought it was damn good. Looking at individual reviews, it's got a ton of 10s on both IMDB and Metacritic. The average nerd can tell that it's a steaming pile, but the average member of the masses thinks it's "epic". Even some more discerning viewers said it "redeemed the prequel trilogy".

Let's look at a totally different example: Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Man's Chest. Not a great movie, but not awful the way At World's End was. But it got quite a bit of attention, and left people excited for the third. Just like the Star Wars prequels, it was "epic". So were the Matrix sequels (which also have disproportionately high user ratings compared to their actual quality), so were Iron Man 2, The Bourne Identity, Superman Returns, and Harry Potter and the Movie Where Nothing Happens Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

When a movie is enough bigger than its audience (in some way, not necessarily geography), it will succeed at any quality level. Movies aren't forgotten because they're mediocre, but because they're ordinary. Epic Move was far shittier than the Star Wars prequels, but nobody really remembers it other than a vague idea that it sucked, because nothing about it was extraordinary. Had nothing to do with how bad it was.

P.S. Thanks

The problem with that sentiment is that it implies that there is an objective standard for judging films. Everybody likes different things, and the only objective measure of a film or game's quality that cannot be colored or manipulated by personal bias is the one that everyone hates: Revenue.

A lot of people claim to hate the Phantom Menace, yet it's the highest grossing Star Wars film, breaking 1,000,000,000 at the Box Office.

There's the flaw in most of these arguments. The amount of people complaining about the Prequel Trilogy is astronomically low compared to the amount of people who went to see them. You'll probably find someone who thought Jar Jar Binks was funny. You'll probably find someone who thought the romance in Attack of the Clones was alright. You'll probably find someone who liked the idea of Midi Chlorians.

Hell, if you look hard enough, you might find someone (although this might be the Catalyst that sets a lot of Star Wars fans to explosive rage) who thought Hayden Christensen was a better Darth Vader than James Earl Jones.

So true. I liked the original trilogy, that's about it. I also enjoyed several of the early flight simulation games. Honestly, if you remove The Force and Jedi/Sith from Star Wars, it becomes a decent enough universe to play around in. Unfortunately, they dominate everything about it and because of that, I think we should let it go.

Star Wars Battlefront III is the reason i will never give up on Star Wars...

Yeah, i know it's like not moving on from an abusive ex-girlfriend, but some of us just loved Battlefront II so damn much, we are prepared to wait and put up with a lot of shit.

I've always been a big Star Wars fan, particularly when it comes to the games. Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight is probably one of my favorite games ever.

That being said, I still don't know how to feel about the new movies. I think when it comes to movies, Star Wars has served it's purpose. We have the original trilogy and then we have the prequels to fill in the blanks. That's it. I'm probably still going to watch the new movies when they come out, but I still find the whole thing really surreal.

Da Joz:
Can we please just let Star Wars go? Why are so many people holding on to it? It's time to move on.

I agree. I just recently read another one of those "I just met a person who has never seen Star Wars, OMG" articles, which then led into the discussion about what order to watch all the material in.

It made me realize that if I met a person today who had never seen them, I probably wouldn't flinch. I doubt I'd bother to try and push it on them. Maybe, if they were a fan of good genre films, I'd summarize the first film, tell them to watch Empire, and pretend there were never any more films after that. Jedi is OK but not worth foisting on people; to say nothing of the prequels (which is best).

I'm not really a big fan of the movies - the originals were alright, but nothing special and the prequels were awful. I did like the KotOR games though and Battlefront as well and whilst it is unlikely we will get a third game in the KotOR series I still live in hope that we will get a third battlefront, which is why I do still kind of care about Star Wars.

O maestre:

Funfact: Mof is WW Dutch slang for germans, it also refers to German unsophisticated and rudeness.

second funfact, the dutch also use the word Mof as an insult to police officers in reference to fascists.

OT:
having recently watched the original trilogy again, I find it difficult to see where the series is supposed to go next, everything was pretty much sunshine and rainbows when the empire was beaten and vader redeemed, where do you go from there?

also, what happens to the clones when war ends, we were told they were bred and raised specifically for warfare so do they stick around as law-enforcement or are they "disposed of".

I'd rather just have mediocre films that are enjoyable than pieces of shit that aren't worth watching. I don't care about the fanboys and their desire to be united as underdogs. If you really want to generate discussion put something worth discussing in the film. People still come up with crazy interpretations of 2001 and The Shining or The Soprano's ending. Making something good and stimulating is the only worthwhile project. Stirring up debate about what screwed up the franchise the most is not desirable. Blade Runner is a good example because people sometimes moan about the different cuts and changes but primarily discussion is about whether Deckard is a replicant.

Ultimately what Yahtzee is putting forward is pretty silly and might only be relevant to marketers that could decide to cancel shows and torment the audience about it so they can boost DVD sales and generate buzz about the show.

This is my perspective on Star Wars, in general...

The universe is fantastic... and, typically, the people telling stories in it squander all its potential with crummy stories and crummy characters and the viewers are left going "If only it had done things differently".

I think Star Wars and I don't think "It was great", I think "oh what could have been".

What if Boba Fett actually WAS a badass that didn't originally get clumsily killed ingloriously by a blind, stumbling Han Solo?

What if the battle on Endor actually involved an army of badass Wookies instead of marketable teddy bears that win with the power of sticks and rocks against the Empire's "most elite warriors"?

What if Luke and Leia weren't actually brother and sister, and thus making any scenes of them in prior moves showing obvious romantic and sexual attraction now disturbingly distracting?

What if the prequel trilogies had a strong, central, visually compelling villain like Darth Vader that moved the plot forward, a role Darth Maul could've easily had filled if he hadn't been Boba Fetted at the end?

What if there was no Jar-Jar or prequel-punny C3PO slapstick sucking up runtime that could've gone towards a more coherent plot or actual character development?

What if Yoda wasn't the worst wise man ever with every last single bit of advice spewed from his mouth either being completely wrong, making zero sense, or causing more harm than good?

What if the actors and actresses, who have PROVEN they can give Oscar-winning performances, had a director that didn't render them as vapid, wooden morons speaking some of the worst lines this side of Ed Wood?

What if the George Lucas of the 1980s had stuck to his word and prevent the 1990s/2000s George Lucas from messing with other people's work and artistic visions?

What if they had stopped making the universe so small (everything is connected! Shoutouts everywhere!) and instead spent the time telling new stories with new characters instead of going back to the same well over and over?

What if they had used more practical effects and sets instead of relying on soulless, sterile CG for everything and at times everyone?

What if they had resisted the urge to demystify so many wonder things and mysteries that previous had enriched the Star Wars universe, yet now are shackled by canon to subpar interpretations?

What if the franchise had thrived with different plots, characters, themes, settings, and mysteries, expanding the universe instead of continually shrinking back to the same time, characters, and events over and over?

What if the same amount of originality and passion and talent and self-restraint that made the originals was being made again?

Coulda, woulda, shoulda....

Gonna go with above sentiments and say Star Wars as a franchise would do well to just let go of the Skywalker saga and take things into Knights of the Old Republic territory with the basic universe and concepts but with new characters and stories. That would be better in terms of preserving longevity - there's got to be TONS of places this universe hasn't explored yet.

Also, it just occurred to me that the whole "I am your father" bit was probably a big part of what made Empire so beloved and memorable. And keeping in mind the "Big Picture" discussion on Abrahm's affinity for the "Mystery Box" style of marketing and story-telling, my uneasiness has ballooned to full dread - they're going to shoe-horn a massive plot-twist into the sequels to recapture the excitement Empire brought, it's going to suck hard like Lost,Cloverfield, and Super 8 (all of which I've heard second-hand, mind you, but they still sound stupid), and it's going to be a letdown after all.

In case it hasn't been brought up, I'd like to to point out 2 things regarding Abrams and Star Wars:

1)Lucasfilm President Kathleen Kennedy convinced him to do this when he initially backed out.

2)Kennedy and Spielberg have known Abrams since he was 14. He wasn't necessarily picked for talent or vision - this is pure Hollywood nepotism.

(Second to last paragraph)
http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/lucasfilms-kathleen-kennedy-star-wars-416303

RJ Dalton:

themilo504:
Did the huns ever invade france and England?

I suspect that's a joke. The huns invaded Rome and most of middle Europe. They may have gotten as far as France at one point, but England wasn't Engalnd at the time. My knowledge of history is a bit sketchy, so you may want to fact check me, but I believe England was still under control of the Saxons at this point.

'Huns' happened to be British slang for the Germans during World War 1. The idea is that the eternal enemies of Europe, England and France, teamed up together and fought the expanding Germans.

But I thought the prequal trilogy WAS mediocre?

Why do we care about Star Wars?

Something good (epic moments in Japanese Samurai films and other bold films that were popular at the time and much Sci-Fi gadgetry) was shoveled into a Western film during a popular time for action movies and Science Fiction. After this, it could have ceased to peak the public interest like Bladerunner or Mad Max.

However, products were heavily created between the 80s & 90s to keep what little interest there was from the non-niche market. The result is that this zombie has somehow maintained its-self in our culture today, even retaining demand beyond the original director's cares.

Handing it off to Disney is just another way of increasing its longevity. Disney's Mouse was a decent character that has done nothing worth note for at least 20 years or even 30 or 70 years depending on your mind-set. However, the products have been retained, even if terrible cartoons need to be made for them to seem "fresh."

Disney's Tinkerbell was created 60 years ago with a jealous attitude and a snobbish demeanor. She looked nice though, and pixies were little girls with butterfly wings, so Disney retained the character as part of their animated logo as a sort of mascot for Disney's "magic." Having drifted back into the market about 10 years ago with the Saturday quality cartoon Winx Club emerging, Disney discovered dollars once again. At this time a great many Tinkerbell books, movies, etc were created for the purpose of maintaining the character's popularity during a peak time and the character has retained its existence due to the high volume of "recognition" it gets due to being in all forms of products the target audience would buy.

Is Mickey Mouse an amazing character during this day and age? No. It's a friendly cartoon that could have easily vanished in the massive swath of other friendly cartoon characters from the mid-1900s.

I used to love the original trilogy as a kid, but those days are long past. I have the Special Edition DVDs on my shelf but I haven't watched it in a long time. I also bought most of the books set in the early New Republic era, but that's as far as my fandom goes. Star Wars games used to be awesome too (TIE Fighter especially), but later games kind of tarnished the coolness of the lightsaber for me. Too many lightsaber swinging people around.
Dark Forces 2: Jedi Knight had the balance right. Force users were bosses and your character was still an apprentice in the saber's use so you couldn't mow down everything else with it.

vrbtny:
Star Wars Battlefront III is the reason i will never give up on Star Wars...

Yeah, i know it's like not moving on from an abusive ex-girlfriend, but some of us just loved Battlefront II so damn much, we are prepared to wait and put up with a lot of shit.

Disney axed LucasArts and then gave EA the license to make Star Wars games. Despite what you think of those 2 game companies, I think it's a great thing. Last good SW game from LA was Republic Commando (2005). You might count Force Unleashed (2008). LucasArts just hasn't been the awesome company it used to be for a long time.

The franchise has now been put into the hands of DICE (Battlefield series .. new Battlefront?), BioWare (a KotOR/Mass Effect hybrid set in Empire times?) and Visceral (Dead Space) might finish up 1313, or possibly make a more mature SW game.

The problem with Star Wars hasn't been just the prequel trilogy as of late. The expanded universe pretty much went to shit after New Jedi Order and the amount of times they've retconned the Clone Wars era has made the entire thing look like a messy wire ball.

That said, people STILL would have cared about Star Wars had the prequels been mediocre instead of terribad. The prequel films only brought in new fans and more revelation of why the original trilogy was so special. In short, the prequel trilogy gave another boost to an already popular franchise.

In what I would say is almost unprecedented in the history of nerd culture, the reaction to Star Wars being taken away from its original creator to be made by somebody else was not cries of "SACRILEGE!" but deafening sighs of relief.

That is amusing, and this part of why the culture SURROUNDING star wars has become just as entertaining as the universe itself.

loraen:

Disney axed LucasArts and then gave EA the license to make Star Wars games. Despite what you think of those 2 game companies, I think it's a great thing. Last good SW game from LA was Republic Commando (2005). You might count Force Unleashed (2008). LucasArts just hasn't been the awesome company it used to be for a long time.

The franchise has now been put into the hands of DICE (Battlefield series .. new Battlefront?), BioWare (a KotOR/Mass Effect hybrid set in Empire times?) and Visceral (Dead Space) might finish up 1313, or possibly make a more mature SW game.

It's generally accepted that Lucasarts became just as bad as EA. The only difference now is that instead of shit soulless product we will get moderately entertaining soulless product. Which.....is still better, but it makes one weep for Star Wars and the videogame industry.

What's worse is that the kiddies that started with the prequels and LIKED jar jar are now starting to get all "uber-fan" and tell the original fans how much better the prequels are, the OT SFX were bad, and Empire was the slowest and boring one of them all. The clone wars toons are only helping to fog their vision

Things are going to get uglier as the "new fans" try to out-argue the "original fans" (Or the "real fans" as I call them XD ), So this "quality vs cluelessness" thing isn't over by a longshot.

Oy vey! You, Mr. Croshaw, are a giant hypocrite! I've seen your reviews, and you come across as a giant Star Wars fanboy nerd that had his "childhood raped by George Lucas".

You and Mr. Plinkett should go on a man date to see who hates Lucas the most. Maybe you'll even kill each other over who hates him more, because you really sound like you would do that.

And You want to know what a real bad movie is? Go see any MST3K movie. Or go see Disaster Movie, Manos The Hands of Fate, Gigli, or any Uwe Boll movie. I really hate people who exaggerate how bad a movie is, just because they're fans of what came before. If only you could look into my eyes and see the pain of a really bad movie, you wouldn't hate Lucas as much as you do.

Tara Callie:

The problem with that sentiment is that it implies that there is an objective standard for judging films. Everybody likes different things, and the only objective measure of a film or game's quality that cannot be colored or manipulated by personal bias is the one that everyone hates: Revenue.

A lot of people claim to hate the Phantom Menace, yet it's the highest grossing Star Wars film, breaking 1,000,000,000 at the Box Office.

There's the flaw in most of these arguments. The amount of people complaining about the Prequel Trilogy is astronomically low compared to the amount of people who went to see them. You'll probably find someone who thought Jar Jar Binks was funny. You'll probably find someone who thought the romance in Attack of the Clones was alright. You'll probably find someone who liked the idea of Midi Chlorians.

Hell, if you look hard enough, you might find someone (although this might be the Catalyst that sets a lot of Star Wars fans to explosive rage) who thought Hayden Christensen was a better Darth Vader than James Earl Jones.

Just because something is "high-grossing" doesn't make it great. McDonald's and Wal-Mart both make ridiculous amounts of money. Doesn't mean the quality is there to support it.

You are forgetting that The Phantom Menace was also the first of a new trilogy in a series that was beloved by nerds everywhere that dragged themselves and all their friends too (and kids, etc) in order to see it when it launched. It was Star Wars all over again, but this time they could experience it from start to finish. Did you remember any of the lineups? I do, I was there. I still had hope. They were huge, people were laughing and having a great time. Then people went in to see the movie.

When they came out it was like a bunch of stunned faces, a kind of "What the hell did I just watch? Was it good? It was Star Wars, so shouldn't it be?" People weren't laughing and happy upon leaving the theater. People were surprised that someone could have done that to their favorite franchise.

Do you remember the lineups for the second prequel? A little bit less...long and everyone saying "Well, I hope it doesn't suck as much as the last one." People that were in it out of morbid curiosity or just determined to stick it through to the end despite the quality (kind of like when I played Final Fantasy XIII).

The prequels took something that was beholden in many fans hearts and crapped all over it, in the name of selling toys, rather than just making a good movie and letting it sell itself. With Disney taking it over, it will probably end up somewhere in the middle, not as terrible as the prequels, but not as good as the originals, and built towards the younger generation instead of the people who grew up with the originals.

RJ Dalton:

themilo504:
Did the huns ever invade france and England?

I suspect that's a joke. The huns invaded Rome and most of middle Europe. They may have gotten as far as France at one point, but England wasn't Engalnd at the time. My knowledge of history is a bit sketchy, so you may want to fact check me, but I believe England was still under control of the Saxons at this point.

"The Hun". British term for Germans, circa World War 2. The same war in which Hitler (or, "The Hun") invaded France and tried to invade England. I do not think he is referring to anything further back than this.

As for the article itself, he makes some excellent points. However, I am not sure why Yahtzee does not seem to realise that Star Trek is no less sci-fantasy than Star Wars. It has just as much reference to wandwaving magic powers with just as few concrete boundaries on their abilities and no more of a grounding in any real science than Star Wars.

I for one care because I like all the movies. It can really be that simple.

Da Orky Man:

RJ Dalton:

themilo504:
Did the huns ever invade france and England?

I suspect that's a joke. The huns invaded Rome and most of middle Europe. They may have gotten as far as France at one point, but England wasn't Engalnd at the time. My knowledge of history is a bit sketchy, so you may want to fact check me, but I believe England was still under control of the Saxons at this point.

'Huns' happened to be British slang for the Germans during World War 1. The idea is that the eternal enemies of Europe, England and France, teamed up together and fought the expanding Germans.

So much ignorance here and in the rest of the thread.

It came from the Boxer Rebellion and Kaiser Wilhelm II's speech to the outgoing troops as they were loading up to leave: "When you meet the enemy, he will be defeated! No quarter will be given! No prisoners will be taken! Those who fall into your hands are forfeit to you! Just as a thousand years ago, the Huns under their King Etzel made a name for themselves that make them appear awe-inspiring in tradition and myth, so shall you establish the name of Germans in China for 1000 years, so that a Chinese will never again dare to look askance at a German."

The only problem was that by the time the soldiers got to China the crisis was over, but they took his words literally (Willy was infamous for saying things on impulse) and began to rape and pillage. It wasn't something altogether unique during the Boxer Rebellion, but the fact that a European monarch had seemingly giving his men specific orders to behave in such a way left an impression on the rest of Europe that the Germans were no better than the Huns and were modern day barbarians.

The term was popularized by the founder of the German Social Democratic Party, a Communist who used news from what was happening in China to tar the Kaiser and the conservative base that backed him.

(that's what I thought Obi Wan meant by "Darth Vader helped hunt down and kill the Jedi Knights") rather than having almost all of them destroyed within about 10 minutes in a montage.

This is my major issue with how the trilogy went and it's because Lucas lost out on a huge chance to be dramatic and symbolical: It was implied that over years Anakin not only hunted down the Jedi one by one, but paid for it at times and was severely hurt which necessitated more life-support and that it continued until he'd finally killed almost all of them, but in turn was more machine than man.

It would perfectly reflect his fall. Each time he killed a Jedi, each time one managed to wound him before dying, he lost more and more of himself until he was little more than his breathe. Cold, lifeless, mechanical, devoid of the person he once was.

[quote]As for the article itself, he makes some excellent points. However, I am not sure why Yahtzee does not seem to realise that Star Trek is no less sci-fantasy than Star Wars. It has just as much reference to wandwaving magic powers with just as few concrete boundaries on their abilities and no more of a grounding in any real science than Star Wars.[quote]

Technobabble overtook Star Trek and it at least started out with much science fiction in it, even if it were impractical. There's a difference between technobabble (the random joining of scientific words to produce an explanation for a phenomenon) and borrowing cutting edge scientific speculation and handwaving into being practical and in common use in the hypothetical future.

Things like warp drive, teleportation and using light as a tractor beam were first popping up in scientific debate in the 60s, and even if all three are silly (warp requiring more energy to work than the entire universe will ever produce in its entire existence, teleportation being limited to only information or even not at that and the heat produced from the light of a tractor beam being more than enough to not only fry the object it's targeting but the ship mounting the tractor beam itself), they at least have some basis in scientific speculation for them to be worthy of being used in speculative fiction.

What it came down to with Star Trek was the push to pump out stories on a regular basis and it was easier, and more practical from a production standpoint, to use technobabble to explain plot elements than it was to canvas science for new ideas to flesh out and fit into both a story and production schedule they had to keep up with.

(...) just as old enemies Britain and France put aside their differences in the face of the invading Hun.

Wait, what? Is that supposed to be a joke? Because if it is, I don't get it. -.-
The Huns came into Europe during circa 450 AD, and their empire collapsed by 469, which was almost 400 years before France came into existence and 500 years before England was formed (and yes, England, since "Britain" was formed almost 1300 years after Attila's empire disappeared).

After that point there were only two other incursions that the west thought were huns (for a while); the Magyars, whom the western historians called Huns nevertheless (and thus this is why we are still called Hungarians to this day even though we have nothing to do with them), and the Mongols. However, the Magyars were stopped by the Germans at Lechfeldt with maybe a single Frank unit, but no Anglo-Saxons for sure, while the Mongols were stopped... wait for it... by the Magyars so far away from France and England that they probably didn't even know they existed (well, stopped is maybe a strong word, it would be better to say that they wasted too much time around here and their khan died in the meantime, after which their empire tore itself apart).

I wouldn't normally be so anal about this, but this looks like it was supposed to be a straight comparison, and yet it misses the historical facts by such a long shot that it's frankly embarrassing.

[edit]: Tch. I just looked into the other usages of the term "hun", and it turns out it was also used by the Entente coutries in WWI to describe the Germans... which makes absolutely no damn sense on any level, but hey, that's pretty much propaganda in a nutshell. Still, now that line make sense. Carry on.

GabeZhul:

[edit]: Tch. I just looked into the other usages of the term "hun", and it turns out it was also used by the Entente coutries in WWI to describe the Germans... which makes absolutely no damn sense on any level, but hey, that's pretty much propaganda in a nutshell. Still, now that line make sense. Carry on.

Always lovely not looking deeply enough into the meaning of a words usage (Or just eve reading the post made above yours)...

beastro:

GabeZhul:

[edit]: Tch. I just looked into the other usages of the term "hun", and it turns out it was also used by the Entente coutries in WWI to describe the Germans... which makes absolutely no damn sense on any level, but hey, that's pretty much propaganda in a nutshell. Still, now that line make sense. Carry on.

Always lovely not looking deeply enough into the meaning of a words usage (Or just eve reading the post made above yours)...

Yeah, it was kinda silly in retrospect. In my defense, I am an archaeologist (in training), so it didn't even cross my mind that when Yahtzee said "hun", he didn't actually mean the well-known Roman-empire-toppling nomads whose artifacts are all over the archaeological finds around here (aka. the meaning I am used to in my everyday life) but the derogatory term from 20th century wartime propaganda...

Also, I didn't read the post preceding mine because I only had a minute or two to scribble down that post, and by the time I returned to my computer a few hours later, I have already realized my mistake on my own. Serves me right for being hasty, I guess. -.-'

Finally got around to reading this article. I rarely comment around here, but I found it weird that only one person had this opinion.

loc978:
From the perspective of the owners, he's absolutely right. However, from the perspective of fans who were grinding up copies of the Thrawn trilogy and snorting it (figuratively!) before prequels or remakes were a glimmer in George's disturbingly Gammorean eyes... to us, the resurgence of massive popularity is the worst thing that could've happened to Star Wars. Much like every other aspect of geek culture that's gone mainstream... I'd like my niche back.

The Force Unleashed games and Clone Wars cartoons are what we got from the resurgence of Star Wars, both of which were mediocre at best. X-Wing Alliance and the Jedi Knight series were what I was playing when The Phantom Menace was announced. I adored every single Star Wars game that came out of the original trilogy. The quality of the prequels and the controversy around GL's faffing about with the originals did indeed help with the resurgence of the franchise, but is that what we needed or even wanted? I'm not sure.

Maybe keeping the franchise alive that way is good. Perhaps the new trilogy (or whatever) will be great and we'll get a nice big franchise with 6 great films and 3 bad ones. Who knows, maybe the noughties will be known amongst SW fans as "the ugly years" (I'm aware of how unlikely this is). It's possible (highly probable, I'd say) that without the prequels the franchise would have faded away and only the die hard fans would remain to give a frell. I'm still not sure how bad that latter outcome would be.

I agree with Yahtzee that the new films will most likely be mediocre, safe, just OK! I don't know whether it was preferable that the prequels be bad instead of mediocre or non-existent though. The fans were doing fine arguing about the morality of blowing up a space station that's under construction.

Star Wars forever.

Sorry, guys.

4-EVER!

 Pages PREV 1 2

Reply to Thread

Log in or Register to Comment
Have an account? Login below:
With Facebook:Login With Facebook
or
Username:  
Password:  
  
Not registered? To sign up for an account with The Escapist:
Register With Facebook
Register With Facebook
or
Register for a free account here