Who else thinks that Star Wars never that good?

[BrokenBoy]

I do get that Star Trek has depth that Star Wars never tried to have on more than one level.

I don't see how this is relevant to the original post. The first criticism (as opposed to general complaint) about the movie is the special effects, which are, as you say, "...the spaceships and other futuristic looking things." That was the big deal.

I don't think many stage actors quit learning Shakespeare to do stage adaptations of Star Wars, and few philosophers changed their outlook on life. Most people don't apparently ask much of a movie, but Star Wars changed what they ask of a particular genre, one that makes big bucks. I doubt Blade Runner would look as good were it not for Star Wars. Blade Runner surely qualifies as sci-fi, a very thought-provoking movie.

I wasn't trying to criticize Star Wars when I said it wasn't sci-fi. I'm sorry if I worded it incorrectly.

What I meant was saying that Star Wars is apart of the sci-fi genre is inaccurate because it has only certain "trappings" associated with the genre and not much else. This is not a criticism since it doesn't particularly bother me.

Aesthetics don't necessarily determine if a story is apart of certain genre or not. Likewise, "deep" writing is not required for a story to be sci-fi.

What I'm trying to ultimately say is Star Wars is an fantasy/adventure story that just happens to use certain iconography associated with sci-fi. Again, not a critique.

 

[SusanLR]

I watched the first Star Wars and wasn't impressed. It just didn't hold my attention
so I didn't continue to watch the rest.

I grew up being a true Trekkie.
I was nine when Star Trek the original series began. Hooked.
I do like movies are more science oriented and deep meanings that make me think.
The original Star Trek had poor special effects, but, at my age then, I didn't pay much attention to that.
It was science and futuristic. And Mr Spock was like a mentor. The ultimate no humanistic,
no nonsense, logical thinking, most handsome creature created.

Later series and movies became more realistic to Science Fiction with better plots.
I've seen them all more than once.

I like most everything J. J. Abrams created. That's my style.
Sorry, I agree, Star Wars didn't make the mark. But, that's just my view.

 

[renaeden]

I'm enjoying The Mandalorian at the moment. That's in the Star Wars worlds.

But I'm a Trekkie at heart because I've always found it easier to understand than Star Wars.

 

[Mia]

What I'm trying to ultimately say is Star Wars is an fantasy/adventure story that just happens to use certain iconography associated with sci-fi. Again, not a critique.

Science fiction can be all over the place, and when this movie came out science fiction included fantasy and is still part of it. You could say that someone like Han Solo is similar to many pirates in science fiction. The cargo captains who transversed the stars in sci fi novels, bootlegging parts and cargo. Space pirates like Atomsk, Killer Kane, Hammerhand and the Orions from Star Trek. All part of the genre. It certainly has many themes associated with science fiction.

 

[Judge]

Science fiction can be all over the place, and when this movie came out science fiction included fantasy and is still part of it. You could say that someone like Han Solo is similar to many pirates in science fiction. The cargo captains who transversed the stars in sci fi novels, bootlegging parts and cargo. Space pirates like Atomsk, Killer Kane, Hammerhand and the Orions from Star Trek. All part of the genre. It certainly has many themes associated with science fiction.

Agreed. After all, some of us have a frame of reference for the broad nature of however one chooses to categorize "science fiction" or "fantasy" that goes all the way back to films like "Metropolis" (1927) or "The Shape of Things to Come" (1936). Many years before franchises like Star Wars or Star Trek.

What I've never understood are fans with rigid expectations over things that are purely fictional or simply do not exist in the present. It's not logical.

Nor are such expectations in the film industry without clearly understanding the real motives of studio executives in crafting such films. To generate corporate profits and proliferate shareholder equity. Not pander to fans or the Academy of Motion Picture Arts & Sciences. Almost insuring a gap between what the audience wants, and what they actually get. But hey, it's a business- not a charity. And not a "crystal ball" into what may or may not be our future. They're just movies- in which some will love them and some may hate them.

Me? I like Star Wars. But I love Star Trek. Always have, always will.

 

[Progster]

Yeah, I agree, I've always loved Star Trek but never was quite so keen on the Star Wars movies.

I agree with the points made about Star Wars lacking depth compared to Star Trek, and being more fantasy than science fiction, in it's purest definition.

Depends what you want or look for in a movie. If you're looking to be entertained - you like plenty of action, special effects and suspense, then Star Wars is likely to appeal more. But personally, what I look for in both literature and movies is good ideas that make you think a bit more deeply about a theme, or see things from another perspective - to feel that I've come away with something new and have food for thought. A bit more than just entertainment. Star Wars doesn't give me that.

 

[Finder]

Star Wars is a summer science-fiction adventure movie for kids and families. As such, it is brilliant. It is not "deep," but pure escapism. Given its appeal, it really hit an important nerve. Perhaps it is not great from your point of view, but it has made a huge cultural impact.

 

[Tom]

The mania for ever more catagories in films is rather recent. One site lists 90+ and counting. When I was your age we only had about 10 genres. And we were happy to get them!

 

[Crossbreed]

I think it reflected the fact the writer was primarily a director/film maker and not professional writer.

I thought the political infrastructure (in 1-6) was pretty deep for popcorn movies. They had more detail than I really cared for, but it didn't distract too much from the movies otherwise.

I have only seen two[?] of the Disney films,

• Rogue One (2016) &
• Solo: A Star Wars Story (2018)

 

[Crossbreed]

...because it's so [snipped] SJW.

(I didn't pick out the SJW part.)

~~~~~~~~~~~~~
2 or 2 not.
There is no 3.

(Say the numbers in French, you must.)​

 

[Tom]

Of course, the deepest darkest secret in all the Star Wars Universe is...

 

[Mia]

What I'm trying to ultimately say is Star Wars is an fantasy/adventure story that just happens to use certain iconography associated with sci-fi.

You could be right about that Broken Boy, in fact I tend to agree now that I've given it some thought. There is a tendency to like certain movies or even music because of where you were at that moment in time. Usually without any real critique involved. Very perceptive.

 

[renaeden]

Out of The Clone Wars, Ahsoka Tano is my favourite character. Two lightsabers! And always full of spirit and energy.

I have two POP figures. One is Ahsoka and the other is The Mandalorian.

 

[gaffaglow]

I saw it in the theatre as a little kid. My parents thought it was fabulous, but I found it kind of boring. I loved Star Trek as a kid though.

I do love Chewbacca.

 

[gaffaglow]

BrokenBoy said: ↑
Star Wars is not sci-fi at all.

I have to agree. It's more like cowboys in space.

 

[dhl02]

Star Wars is totally a space fantasy series.
I like it.

 

[Magna]

One thing my daughter and I agree that we don't like about The Mandalorian, is that they totally hired the wrong actress to play Bo Katan Kryze. Her acting is very flat, and if you've seen any of the animated series, you know that she's a very fierce fighter, even tougher than Cara Dune. But in The Mandalorian, she just sort of stands there and poses with a blaster and then shoots people. It seems like they hired a pretty pretty princess actress, when what they needed was more of a vicious MMA fighter.

We were talking about how Gina Carano should have played Bo Katan.

Also, why is she making such a big deal about Din Djarin not being able to give her the darksaber, when in the animated series, Sabine Wren (pictured above) literally just hands her the darksaber, no fight to the finish needed!??

Also... wouldn't Bo Katan Kryze be closer to fifty years old in the Mandalorian???

AND... Why does she roll her eyes and say "Ugh, he's one of them.", referring to Din Djarin being "a child of the watch" (a member of Deathwatch), when she in the animated series was literally THE LEADER OF DEATHWATCH. For reference, another leader of Deathwatch was Darth Maul. Hypocrite anyone? Or just bad writing?

Interestingly, the actors that played the shrimp farmer and Bo Katan were both in the Netflix show Longmire.

Regarding Star Wars. I was under ten years old when the first Star Wars movie came out. As Mia said, there was nothing like it before that. I was in awe seeing it in the theater during its first release. At the time I concluded that if I was forced to choose between my parents and a real working light sabre, I woudl have picked the light sabre (sorry Mom and Dad). I wasn't really a fan of the Ewoks but other than that I liked the first three films. I thought all the other ones in the middle sucked until the most recent two came out.

 

[Prysmata]

After "Return Of The Jedi," I stopped watching the "Star Wars" movies. To me, now it's gotten to be overkill--there didn't need to be any more movies after Episode VI.

 

[Streetwise]

Id like to understand why sequels don't work ?

 

[Katsuragi]

I've seen most of the star war movies and I've enjoyed them to various degrees none of them have i ever praised through the roof. I just cant see how it is that so many people can swear by them to be honest. The only time these day's i'll watch one of them is if one is on TV and there is nothing else on worth watching and even then i'm usually only half paying attention to what is happening on screen.