Sorry Star Wars

[Erts]

Okay, I have to get this off of my chest. Please don't bite my head off.
Star Wars. What's the appeal?
That simple. I watched them in order when I was younger, (but not young, I was 15) and just wasn't that impressed. The acting was cheesy overall, the story was the most cliched thing I had ever seen, and the effects, while I can appreciate the first one for cleverly making do with what they had, they seemed outdated by the time I watched them.
I don't think they are bad movies, sure, they are passable, but I don't understand the hype.
Trying to dodge the inevitable attack,
Erts

[Gaius Marius]

Fr*king Lightsabers

[Haruki-kun]

Okay, I have to get this off of my chest. Please don't bite my head off.
Star Wars. What's the appeal?
That simple. I watched them in order when I was younger, (but not young, I was 15) and just wasn't that impressed. The acting was cheesy overall, the story was the most cliched thing I had ever seen, and the effects, while I can appreciate the first one for cleverly making do with what they had, they seemed outdated by the time I watched them.
I don't think they are bad movies, sure, they are passable, but I don't understand the hype.
Trying to dodge the inevitable attack,
Erts

Well, to be fair, I don't think the story was that clichéd back when it was released. I may be wrong.

[Moff Chumley]

Zeitgeist when it came out, and nostalgia thereafter.

[Devonix]

Realistic Scifi universe coupled with the classic hero's journey. It all comes back to me with the saying Used universe. More than anything Starwars allways felt like a place that actually could exist with characters that acted pretty much normal. They weren't overly preachy You could imagine these characters hanging out together. And the Millenium Falcon felt like a ship that worked and even broke down like things we have.

Plus frikkin laser swords!!!

[Devonix]

Though to be honest I liked Starwars the movies. but didn't love it until I got into the EU stuff. To me EU > Movies.

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly Erts, I'm right there with you. Liked the movies as a child, saw them again as an adult and despised them. The EU material reads like a bad attempt to ape Warhammer 40k, and the setting can't withstand its own weight. I pass it up these days in favor of something written competently.

[The_JJ]

OT Moviewise they hold up. Reasonably fun adventure, great setting building through a good mix of show and tell, reasonably acted, suitably epic scope, great vista effects, passable special effects. Nostalgia. Frikken lightsabers.

EU-wise, I'd pass. Prequels don't quite deserve the hate they get but they were by no means good in any way shape or form. They manage, for instance, to make Natalie Portman unappealing for most of her time on screen, a feat previously possible through the magic of her not being old enough to be attractive.

[Eldan]

Yeah, I'm in the same boat. I guess I had just read too much other science fiction when I grew up, but when I finally got around to seeing the Star Wars movies, I wasn't too impressed either. They felt, I don't know. Adequate. A few nice ideas, a bit slow for my tastes overall (which is strange: I like fast movies, and really, really slow movies, but not those in between), with some good and some bad acting and a not too impressive story. An average movie, really.

Anyway, I guess it's because I wasn't around when it first came out. I guess it was special back then.

[Brother Oni]

Bear in mind the age of the series (A New Hope was released in 1977).

They've been copied and improved on so much that they seem really dated these days, when they originally introduced the ideas that have been copied.
It's much like people complaining that the Lord of the Rings novels are too cliche for them, when the books actually introduced the concepts for the first time and started the whole fantasy genre.

That said, A New Hope and The Empire Strikes Back are easily the best of the series.
Return of the Jedi stretches my suspension of disbelief too much in places, while mascot placement and too much slapstick mar The Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones for me. I haven't got round to seeing Backstroke of the West Revenge of the Sith yet.

[Welf]

Well I like the movies, but I'm no fanatic fan. What I really like are the characters. They are perfect. Luke Skywalker, Obivan Kenobi, Han Solo, Leia, Darth Vader, the Emporer. All that came after is measured at these guys and rightfully. The plot isn't that good, especially in New Hope it was very cheesy. A battle station the size of a small moon, and one shot trough a 2 meter wide hole blows it up. Seriously. And I don't care.
Also, Fr*king Lightsabers.

[ThePhantasm]

There's a number of things.

1. When the movies were first released, both from a storytelling and a special effects standpoint they were quite novel and revolutionary. Star Wars changed many things about film making, from the special effects to stuff like film credits (it was the first film to not place the credits at the start of the film).

2. John Williams music.

3. There were some classic characters in the original trilogy. R2D2. Yoda. Darth frickin' Vader. These characters have become quite legendary because at the time they were so unique, dynamic, and like nothing the audience had seen before. There are dark lords on screen aplenty now but Vader was really one of the first big thrilling baddies.

4. The storytelling of the original trilogy has stood well over the test of time. The special effects are still enjoyable. Many scenes are still powerful. Whereas George Lucas is responsible for the aweful and cringe-worthy dialogue of the prequel films, different screenwriters polished the scripts of the original films, giving us many of the classic lines we have today.

5. The characters might seem cliche now, but it is really because a lot of folks have been influenced by Star Wars, rather than vice versa. I'm not saying everything in Star Wars was new compared to epics in film and literature from before, but it has had a ton of influence on storytelling since.

6. For a lot of folks, it is just the nostalgia and wonder of it all. Sure, there is cheesy stuff in the films. I wouldn't say they are the greatest films of all time. But they are classics.

7. I'm not talking about the prequel trilogy, in case you couldn't tell. Those films don't even exist in my mind.

[Sarco_Phage]

Realistic Scifi universe


frikkin laser swords!!!


the Millenium Falcon

One of these things does not go with the other.

Perhaps the last thing Star Wars can be considered is a "realistic sci fi universe". It's a galaxy where a refitted cargo freighter can go way faster than lightspeed. It's also a galaxy that's probably REALLY TINY, given the fact it doesn't take very long to cross any amount of distance.

Also? Psychic ascetics with a bond to a mystical power.

No, Star Wars is not a "realistic sci fi universe". But it's an awesome space opera trilogy.

[Gnoman]

I think he meant "realistic" in terms of setting, not technology. In other words, the SW universe feels like a universe that evolved naturally rather than being thrown together like most scifi universes.

[ShaggyMarco]

No, Star Wars is not a "realistic sci fi universe". But it's an awesome space opera trilogy.

Clearly he didn't mean "Realistic" in the sense that it could really happen. He meant realistic in the sense that-given the rules of the setting (common ftl travel using wormholes/hyperspace, The Force, etc.), this universe feels lived in, connected, and weighty, not one-dimensional and all-new, all-the-time.

I think, the problem comes in with people comparing Star Wars to other Sci-fi. It ISN'T Sci-fi. It is straight-up fantasy set in space. There is very little or nothing sci-fi about it. If you love good sci-fi, there is no reason that you will necessarily love Star Wars. However, if epic high-fantasy floats your boat, you are likely the target audience.

[Psyren]

Yay, another star wars thread! Moar!


Zeitgeist when it came out, and nostalgia thereafter.

Really, it comes down to this.
(And laser swords. Did we mention the laser swords? Because there are totally laser swords.)

[Renegade Paladin]

This guy:

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v350/RenegadePaladin/Star%20Wars/DarthVader.jpg

Vader is an iconic villain, so much so that he altered the landscape of villainy not only in science fiction, but across fiction in general. His mask is instantly recognizable even far outside the context of Star Wars, a fact which is no coincidence. His character introduction is excellent (though I still contend that Jack Sparrow's is the best in the history of cinema) and it doesn't degrade from there, all the way through to the end of Return of the Jedi.

A pox upon the prequels for casting a pall upon his badassery, but even they cannot bring him low. I find your lack of faith disturbing. :smallamused:

[shadow_archmagi]

Didn't enjoy star wars

That's a perfectly valid opinion, and it'd be insane to expect one franchise to appeal to everyone. I suspect that to some degree your lack of satisfaction may have to do with Seinfeld is Unfunny (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/SeinfeldIsUnfunny)


How dare he defy us! Release the Jedi; destroy this man!

[Reverent-One]

Though to be honest I liked Starwars the movies. but didn't love it until I got into the EU stuff. To me EU > Movies.

This. The movies create the idea of a interesting universe with some truly enjoyable characters, but it's the EU that brings that idea to life and gives it depth.


EU-wise, I'd pass. Prequels don't quite deserve the hate they get but they were by no means good in any way shape or form. They manage, for instance, to make Natalie Portman unappealing for most of her time on screen, a feat previously possible through the magic of her not being old enough to be attractive.

Nitpick, the Prequels aren't part of the EU (at least, that's what I think you're saying here). The EU "encompasses all of the officially licensed, fictional background of the Star Wars universe, outside of the six feature films produced by George Lucas" as Wiki would put it.


Honestly Erts, I'm right there with you. Liked the movies as a child, saw them again as an adult and despised them. The EU material reads like a bad attempt to ape Warhammer 40k, and the setting can't withstand its own weight. I pass it up these days in favor of something written competently.

Aping WH 40k? :smallconfused: I can understand not liking the EU for poor writing, because it certainly has a fair amount of that (put enough authors together and it's going to happen), but how is it like/tries to be like 40k?

[hamishspence]

Nitpick, the Prequels aren't part of the EU (at least, that's what I think you're saying here). The EU "encompasses all of the officially licensed, fictional background of the Star Wars universe, outside of the six feature films produced by George Lucas" as Wiki would put it.

What about the prequel novelizations? they're G-canon, but they aren't the films.

The RotS novel could be said to be EU- and changes some scenes, while adding others (many of which were cut from the main movie due to length issues.)

So- it's both Prequel, and EU.

[Sarco_Phage]

Aping WH 40k? :smallconfused: I can understand not liking the EU for poor writing, because it certainly has a fair amount of that (put enough authors together and it's going to happen), but how is it like/tries to be like 40k?

The Emperor is gone, but we've still got Iceheart and her coterie.

And the Ssi-Ruuk!

And the Yevetha!

And the Yuuzhan Vong!

And a host of new Dark Jedi!

Possibly what he's comparing it to is the fact that in order to generate new threats, writers seem to feel the need to add bigger, more badass villains each time.

Also, the EU is almost as inconsistent as 40k lore. I mean, there's some gems in there, but most of it is almost as bad as, say, C.S. Goto's works or Matt Ward's endless deluges of Ultramarine love (I'm lookin' at you and your Mandalorian fetish, Traviss!)

[Kato]

Hm... yeah, I'm with the thread opener. The movies are fine and I realize it was pretty awesome stuff back in the days and yeah, some of it is pretty neat, like Vader who is a great villain, nostalgia or not.

But the story has no less plot holes than other movies, the characters are overall mostly just okay and even though the effects were neat back in the day they're only mediocre nowadays.

Not saying it's a bad series but a lot of the love is nostalgia or... I don't know... maybe even peer pressure with some people. 'Everyone loves it so I have to as well.' Though, for the clichés, it uses some but a lot originated there. So that's not really one of my major complaints.

[Lord_Gareth]

Aping WH 40k? :smallconfused: I can understand not liking the EU for poor writing, because it certainly has a fair amount of that (put enough authors together and it's going to happen), but how is it like/tries to be like 40k?

There's also its massive MOAH POWAH syndrome that leads to some serious setting dissonances. I mean, if the Emperor could have mind-raped the universe into obliterating fleets, then why the hell didn't he? Each new series stuffs more over-the-top, setting-cracking stuff into what we're expected to stomach as canon, and unlike 40K it doesn't even do us the courtesy of not expecting us to take it seriously.

[Reverent-One]

Possibly what he's comparing it to is the fact that in order to generate new threats, writers seem to feel the need to add bigger, more badass villains each time.

Of those you mentioned, only the Vong and maaaaybe the Yevetha are truly bigger and badder (though both are certainly far creepier).


Also, the EU is almost as inconsistent as 40k lore. I mean, there's some gems in there, but most of it is almost as bad as, say, C.S. Goto's works or Matt Ward's endless deluges of Ultramarine love (I'm lookin' at you and your Mandalorian fetish, Traviss!)

I'd disagree with calling most of it bad. And if most of the Star Wars material is allowed to have a Jedi fetish (with a sizeable subset that has a Starfighter Pilot fetish), what's wrong with Traviss's Mando fetish?

[Lord_Gareth]

See above comments regarding MOAH POWAH.

[Reverent-One]

There's also its massive MOAH POWAH syndrome that leads to some serious setting dissonances. I mean, if the Emperor could have mind-raped the universe into obliterating fleets, then why the hell didn't he? Each new series stuffs more over-the-top, setting-cracking stuff into what we're expected to stomach as canon, and unlike 40K it doesn't even do us the courtesy of not expecting us to take it seriously.

Most of the MOAH POWAH stuff people talk about comes from only a small handful of sources (most of them old ones), like the Sun Crusher storyline and pretty much anything to do with Palaptine reborn. Generalizing that over the entire EU is not really accurate.

[Sarco_Phage]

I'd disagree with calling most of it bad. And if most of the Star Wars material is allowed to have a Jedi fetish (with a sizeable subset that has a Starfighter Pilot fetish), what's wrong with Traviss's Mando fetish?

Starfighter Pilots and Jedi are pretty much core aspects of the Star Wars films, so I don't really see a problem with it.

The only problem with Traviss' Mando fetish is that they're basically operating like her personal manly tough honorable warrior race. This unfortunately also carries over to the Clone Troopers.

[Eldan]

I will agree that the music is impressive. And Vader has a lot of screen presence.

[shadow_archmagi]

Most of the MOAH POWAH stuff people talk about comes from only a small handful of sources (most of them old ones), like the Sun Crusher storyline and pretty much anything to do with Palaptine reborn. Generalizing that over the entire EU is not really accurate.

Well, I admit, I havn't read any of the books in a long, long time, and the ones I did were young adult adventure books about some kids being trained in Luke's new academy, so it wasn't really about power creep so much as teenagers trying to find their way and stuff. Good memories.

But uh, let's see... of the *video* games I've played, we have things like

1. Jedi Outcast, in which there's a magic valley that grants force powers, but mad science has compressed that magic into crystals and plans to build an army of dark jedi with lightsaber-proof armor.

2. Jedi Academy has a that magic staff that eats force sensitive areas and then resurrects a Sith Lord...

3. Knights of the Old Republic has that giant space station that can make infinity spaceships per second and is made of pure evil. (It also included being able to rip out someone's lifeforce via the force)

4. Knights of the Old Republic 2 included Darth Scarface, who was immortal as long as he stayed angry, and Darth Nihilism, who could eat planets via the force.

5. Force Unleashed. Needs no explanation.

Admittedly, the two Jedi games were by the same company, but the two KOTOR games were not, and it isn't like it would've been that hard to have a star wars game without throwing out crazy powerful stuff.

[Lord Seth]

Why are there about 6 Star Wars related topics on the first page of Media Discussions? Did something big Star Wars related happen recently?

[Sarco_Phage]

2. Jedi Academy has a that magic staff that eats force sensitive areas and then resurrects a Sith Lord...


Academy also had two-handed Force Lightning, unlike Kyle Katarn's casual one-handed force lightning.

Full-powered Force Lightning was enough to hurl a Jawa across the map, screaming all the way.

Man, even Academy was POWAH UNLIMITED POWAH

[Lord_Gareth]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a beef with the UNLIMITED POWAH if Star Wars didn't try so hard to be taken seriously. Writers trying to close up the setting's plot holes and make everything more awesome have torn any credibility it might have had to shreds, but it still runs around like a kicked puppy, trying to convince us that it's actually Serious Business.

[Sarco_Phage]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a beef with the UNLIMITED POWAH if Star Wars didn't try so hard to be taken seriously. Writers trying to close up the setting's plot holes and make everything more awesome have torn any credibility it might have had to shreds, but it still runs around like a kicked puppy, trying to convince us that it's actually Serious Business.

I know. I wish they'd play up the HIGH ADVENTURE IN OUTER SPACE and Space Opera aspects instead of trying to stat everything.

You know the most ridiculous piece of Star Wars fluff I've ever heard?

Star Destroyers have 200 Gigatons worth of output on their turbolasers.

You know how much that is? That's far more than the Death Star would need to destroy a planet. Hell, if the SDs can do that, why do they even bother with the superweapons?

Trying to add numbers both took away a lot of the fun AND broke even more things, because the writers had no idea what they were talking about.

[Reverent-One]

Starfighter Pilots and Jedi are pretty much core aspects of the Star Wars films, so I don't really see a problem with it.

The only problem with Traviss' Mando fetish is that they're basically operating like her personal manly tough honorable warrior race. This unfortunately also carries over to the Clone Troopers.

Traviss didn't invent the idea of the Mandos as a "manly tough honorable (for a given definition of honorable) warrior race", Knights of the Old Republic material puts forward that idea as well.


Well, I admit, I havn't read any of the books in a long, long time, and the ones I did were young adult adventure books about some kids being trained in Luke's new academy, so it wasn't really about power creep so much as teenagers trying to find their way and stuff. Good memories.

But uh, let's see... of the *video* games I've played, we have things like

1. Jedi Outcast, in which there's a magic valley that grants force powers, but mad science has compressed that magic into crystals and plans to build an army of dark jedi with lightsaber-proof armor.

2. Jedi Academy has a that magic staff that eats force sensitive areas and then resurrects a Sith Lord...

3. Knights of the Old Republic has that giant space station that can make infinity spaceships per second and is made of pure evil. (It also included being able to rip out someone's lifeforce via the force)

4. Knights of the Old Republic 2 included Darth Scarface, who was immortal as long as he stayed angry, and Darth Nihilism, who could eat planets via the force.

5. Force Unleashed. Needs no explanation.

Admittedly, the two Jedi games were by the same company, but the two KOTOR games were not, and it isn't like it would've been that hard to have a star wars game without throwing out crazy powerful stuff.

A fair point on the video games, which do like to push power bounderies moreso than other EU material (perhaps because the bigger the threat, the more fun the player has fighting it?).


You know how much that is? That's far more than the Death Star would need to destroy a planet. Hell, if the SDs can do that, why do they even bother with the superweapons?

Fear. It's one thing to have a ship wipe out life on a planet given a bit of time, it's something else to have a planet cease to exist in a moment thanks to a battlestation the size of the moon. It's not really the authors not knowing what they are doing, because SD's are supposed to be able to do that.

[Lord_Gareth]

Fear. It's one thing to have a ship wipe out life on a planet given a bit of time, it's something else to have a planet cease to exist in a moment thanks to a battlestation the size of the moon. It's not really the authors not knowing what they are doing, because SD's are supposed to be able to do that.

I don't think you understand what he meant - the Star Destroyers can already one-shot planets with those lasers if the numbers are correct.

[Sarco_Phage]

Fear. It's one thing to have a ship wipe out life on a planet given a bit of time, it's something else to have a planet cease to exist in a moment thanks to a battlestation the size of the moon. It's not really the authors not knowing what they are doing, because SD's are supposed to be able to do that.

No. No they aren't.

The SSD Lusyanka took approximately an hour to glass a 1-kilometer radius.

A regular SD with that supposed amount of power would literally erase a planet in a single volley. No joke.

For reference, the most powerful nuke so far detonated is a Russian one, which was about 57 Megatons. A weapon with a yield of a single gigaton would be enough to end all life on a planet within a few shots.

[hamishspence]

200 gigatons isn't so much if it's all in one spot (diminishing returns start to kick in with big blasts)-

but spread out, 200 gigatons-worth of, say, nuclear explosives, could conceivably wreck an entire planet's surface and ecosystem- and possibly the oceans as well.

And even non-nuclear explosives would generate enormous amounts of damage.

After all, the entire arsenals of all the nuclear-equipped factions at the height of the Cold War, was only about 22.5 gigatons.

When one turbolaser bolt, out of the many turbolasers a Star Destroyer bristles with, carries several times as much energy as this, questions might be raised.

it all stems from one writer (not a SW novelist, but a physicist) arguing that "Base Delta Zero" (wiping out life on a planet) required the total melting of the entire planet's crust to a depth of at least one metre.

The problem is, at the time, no examples of Base Delta Zero explicitly said this was happening- and some strongly suggested otherwise- with rubble and corpses being expected to be left behind after a Base Delta Zero attack- and troopers being sent down to check everyone was dead.

But- he didn't change his mind- and the numbers he'd extrapolated, were used in the Star Wars Technical Cross-Sections books that he helped write.

[Reverent-One]

No. No they aren't.

The SSD Lusyanka took approximately an hour to glass a 1-kilometer radius.

A star destroyer can wipe out all life on a planet in an hour if it wants to, so yes, they can.


A regular SD with that supposed amount of power would literally erase a planet in a single volley. No joke.

And your math for that? Most that I've seen puts it at quite a bit higher than that. That said, worrying too much about specific numbers in the Star wars universe is generally unneccessary.

[Lord_Gareth]

A star destroyer can wipe out all life on a planet in an hour if it wants to, so yes, they can.



And your math for that? Most that I've seen puts it at quite a bit higher than that. That said, worrying too much about specific numbers in the Star wars universe is generally unneccessary.

Our point was that the writers putting in said numbers was an example of A. them trying to be Serious Business and B. the typical amount of incompetence displayed by SWars writers.

[Sarco_Phage]

And your math for that? Most that I've seen puts it at quite a bit higher than that. That said, worrying too much about specific numbers in the Star wars universe is generally unneccessary.

The post above yours makes my math unneeded.

Granted, stating that an SD carries that much firepower is irrelevant if it doesn't actually bear out in action. I blame Imperial propaganda.


A star destroyer can wipe out all life on a planet in an hour if it wants to, so yes, they can.

Okay, see, now you're just making things up.

[Yora]

Fr*king Lightsabers
The Force Unleashed is a pretty bad game that probably nobody would play. But it has lightsabres! :smallyuk:

[hamishspence]

A star destroyer can wipe out all life on a planet in an hour if it wants to, so yes, they can.

Source? Every reference I've seen to Base Delta Zero type operations that specifically had Star Destroyers, involved three star destroyers, not one-

Danyako, in Scavenger Hunt (a module) where three Star Destroyers left a base in ruins, its topsoil "atomized" and the surface of the planet cratered

The Bothan planet, in Vision of the Future, where 3 star destroyers were to attack the planet and eliminate witnesses, after a shield generator would have been destroyed, and the fleets above it having annihilated each other.

And no time frame is given in either case for what 1 Star destroyer could have done.

[Renegade Paladin]

You know how much that is?
Do you?
That's far more than the Death Star would need to destroy a planet.
Apparently not. 200 gigatons is not a planet-destroying amount of energy; not even close. For comparison, a magnitude 10 earthquake on the Richter scale would release one teraton of energy, and Earth would not cease to exist were one to happen. The asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous era was in the petaton range, and the planet is still here. Destroying a planet, or even just life on it, is much harder than you think it is.

[Sarco_Phage]

Do you?
Apparently not. 200 gigatons is not a planet-destroying amount of energy; not even close. For comparison, a magnitude 10 earthquake on the Richter scale would release one teraton of energy, and Earth would not cease to exist were one to happen. The asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous era was in the petaton range, and the planet is still here. Destroying a planet is much harder than you think it is.

Dude, each individual turbolaser has that 200 gigaton amount of power, if I remember correctly.

And a star destroyer has multiple turbolasers.

Either that or I misread the source material way back when.

EDIT: Hmm, looking back, I may have overstated the power of a single volley.

[TheMinxTail]

Okay, I have to get this off of my chest. Please don't bite my head off.
Star Wars. What's the appeal?
That simple. I watched them in order when I was younger, (but not young, I was 15) and just wasn't that impressed. The acting was cheesy overall, the story was the most cliched thing I had ever seen, and the effects, while I can appreciate the first one for cleverly making do with what they had, they seemed outdated by the time I watched them.
I don't think they are bad movies, sure, they are passable, but I don't understand the hype.
Trying to dodge the inevitable attack,
Erts

Edit: Excuse spelling, I don't have a spellcheck in this browser and I type too damn quick to keep myself in check.

I suppose I could say that for people who grew up with the films there is the rosy tint of the nostalgia-goggles, but about it being cliched, the more I think on it the more I realise why that is so; old things tend to be cliched because they were good enough that everyone ripped them off and built upon the cliche born of their own unoriginality, to the point that old movies like Star Wars or Karate Kid are so frightfully generic taht we no longer appreciate them in a way we may have two or three decades back. Another is that in teh case of Star Wars, it just very strongly adhered to the skeleton around which the flesh of great mythology is weaved - 3 act structure, hero's rise, Joseph Campbell, blah blah blah. The most boring parts of Star Wars movies for me are usually the big battles - that fight in the trenches on the surface of the Death Star, the big robots at the start of episode 4, and the more I think about it the more that seems to tie into my previous point. Luke Skywalker hookshotting up to the underbelly of a gian machine and light-sabering it's weakspot or being in a quick-cut-of-incomprehensibility dogfight with Vader in Ep.4 might have been stunning back then, but these days is a rather conservative fight scene. So I guess my point is that Star Wars may be a timeless tale, but we as a society have become quite jaded towards even it. I watched teh original trilogy a few years back and found it pretty good, nothing spectacular, but nothing I would describe as mediocre, and I wasn't even factoring in (as I sometimes do) leeaway to account for its age. I am in the middle of re-watching them now with my little sister, and I am giving it a full evaluation of sorts, and I think I may have an incling to what the appeal was.

It is a little hard to place, but it occured to me more strongly in Episode 5, as I actually found episode 4 kind of slow for how basic a story it was. Come to think of it, they all open kind of slow - Episode 6 was there to bring things to their dramatic head and a big fiery conclusion and it opens with a half hour of rather clumsy attempts to outwit a fat alien mobster, but perhaps that was episode 5's comparatively strong opening of near-death situations that was a better hook. But anyway, neither here nor there.

I was sitting there, quietly analysing, coincidently, what exactly the appeal was. What, if anything, made this series so good so as to be deserving of its fan following. Part of that was noting that the less involved Lucas was, the better the movie seemed to be for it, so I postulate that perhaps he was never that good. Oh, I simply cannot hold back these rants, I've prematurely entered senility - and I'm not 19 yet! Anyway, I noted that for one thing, the score and the camera work were quite good even for today. The effects, while lame, were actually easier to wrap my head around; the prequels, which I believe I saw the first episode of which when it was first released, in the cruelest of all ironies considering where the production emphasis seemed to be, had horrendously bad looking effects - not least by today's standards, only a decade later. Just goes to show really, when it comes to CG, go with style over realism - in realism, the mind has real objects to compare it to, and will quickly become outdated, while style remains timeless and possibly superior, whcih is why the PS2's Okami looks better than most modern games. Fear not, for their is a poit to this digression, and it is this; sometimes, a set piece can be too awesome.

Yahtzee Croshaw of the Escapist did a full article that I happened to nod at just about every word of on this very subject, I believe mostly using his own review of Force Unleashed 2 as a speaking point if memory serves - another Star Wars license which showed a heavy reliance upon spectacle. The essential point was that, in today's high-budget high-CGI movies, the only limit to what can be put on screen is the Director's imagination, and unfortunately some directors can't limit themselves. For this reason, many movies these days are too over the top in their quick-cut action set pieces and too over the top in their overblown effects-driven fights for teh human midn to really comprehend it, to really relate to it, to really feel the weight to every blow, which is why a movie like Transformers is horrendously boring to watch for more than 5 seconds. In the prequels, the fights were highly coreographed, and Jedi had no qualms about pulling hitherto unknown super-atheltic abilities out of their asses - superspeed, standing 5 feet from a lava pit and not boiling, etc. But look at the lightsaber duels in the originals - certainly not amateurish moves, and their is the occassional case of mario-style super-jumps going on, but the low energy makes them feel more probable, and even when someone defines the laws of physics it generally seems like it took some damned effort. So for this reason, and the fact that most of the important fight sequences aren't drawn out to the point of tedium, pod-race style, the orginal movies do have exciting moments to punctuate the major events. Of course, one cannot merely make the case for something being good by comparing it to something bad, and just because the prequels are inferior is a fact that does not in any way make the originals perfect. But on the other hand, part of the reason why the movies still hold up is because of how primitive it it, how conservative the effects are - the right balance of exciting and probability in fight scenes to keep them enthralling, and throughout the movies there is a bit of charm to seeing all the physical effects. I rather preferred the muppet-looking Yoda to the CGI one of today.

I was going to rant on this for a few more paragraphs, but I gotta go, be back in a while...

[Reverent-One]

The post above yours makes my math unneeded.

The one that says "200 gigatons isn't so much if it's all in one spot"? That sounds different than your "That's far more than the Death Star would need to destroy a planet".


Source? Every reference I've seen to Base Delta Zero type operations that specifically had Star Destroyers, involved three star destroyers, not one-


I don't remember off the top of my head, I'll have to check later. Probably a sourcebook of some sort though.

[Gaius Marius]

The Force Unleashed is a pretty bad game that probably nobody would play. But it has lightsabres! :smallyuk:

I will simply quote this part (http://lparchive.org/Knights-of-the-Old-Republic-II/Update%2011/)of the best LPlay of KOTOR 2 I've ever read.


So the Handmaiden's joined our little happy fun crew. I think this is the train of thought that went into her design at Obsidian:

"Hey guys, we made this kick ass animation system for hand-to-hand combat. And we added all these new unarmed feats too."
"What, you mean it's actually viable now?"
"Yeah."
"But you realize no one will ever SEE any of it. Everybody will be using lightsabers."
"Yeah, but-"
"Lightsabers, man. Lightsabers."
"Sigh."

[hamishspence]

Do you?
For comparison, a magnitude 10 earthquake on the Richter scale would release one teraton of energy, and Earth would not cease to exist were one to happen. The asteroid impact at the end of the Cretaceous era was in the petaton range, and the planet is still here. Destroying a planet, or even just life on it, is much harder than you think it is.

It depends how the energy is released. A 1 teraton nuclear bomb, for example, one would expect to kill far more life, than an 1 teraton earthquake.

And a whole mass of small bombs, totalling 1 teraton, will kill far more life than that.

Not to mention that- is it ever said that Base Delta Zero operations are only accomplished with turbolasers? What about all the TIE bombers on the ship? And just how destructive can their bombs be- if they work like proton torpedoes?

[Yora]

This thread is about pondering what's the appeal of star wars. Not about conflicting measurements in seperately written sources.

Discussing large numbers in Star Wars is like alignment discussions in D&D. It ruins every thread! :smallbiggrin:

[Sarco_Phage]

The one that says "200 gigatons isn't so much if it's all in one spot"? That sounds different than your "That's far more than the Death Star would need to destroy a planet".

Per bolt, he said, dude.

[HalfTangible]

5. Force Unleashed. Needs no explanation.

I think it does. While the actions taken in the game were more violent and extreme than that which occurs in other SW media, the actual scale of said action is smaller than, say, Darth Nihlus or Sion.

If you mean the star destroyer, yeah, i see where you're coming from -_-

[hamishspence]

In Death Star, it said that, on low power, the Death Star's beam is still more destructive than all the guns on a Star Destroyer firing at once, and that it can:

"scorch a city or two, or boil dry a large lake or small sea, but that's it"

[pendell]

Okay, I have to get this off of my chest. Please don't bite my head off.
Star Wars. What's the appeal?


this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=999lXvHwkgk). (Start at 1:29)

I saw this when I was seven years old.

AND I WAS BLOWN AWAY!

I love star wars because I love space and science fiction. I love gritty characters and daring capers and fast ships. That's why I like Han Solo, that's why I like Mal from Serenity, that's why I like the new BSG -- and the old one, for that matter!

The only reason I am interested in fantasy at all is because there isn't enough space SF to suit me. Like drinking beer when Captain Morgan isn't available.

Which is to say, I REALLY liked the first two. The third was passable. I didn't care for the prequels because they were too clean 'n neat, the same reason I didn't care much for Star Trek. The cardboard characters didn't help either.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

[H Birchgrove]

I still like Star Wars but I think the prequels and the previous "re-making" of the Original Trilogy have taken away some of the appeal... and it has becoming tiresome to note how many influences Star Wars has. It was OK when I only knew about the influences from Flash Gordon and Akira Kurosawa, but now I feel like I would rather read Doc E.E. Smith's Lensman novels...

... until next time Star Wars is on TV, because then I will probably watch it anyway. :smalltongue:

[Yora]

Honestly, I wouldn't have a beef with the UNLIMITED POWAH if Star Wars didn't try so hard to be taken seriously. Writers trying to close up the setting's plot holes and make everything more awesome have torn any credibility it might have had to shreds, but it still runs around like a kicked puppy, trying to convince us that it's actually Serious Business.

For me, good Star Wars comes down to The Empire Strikes Back, the Heirs of the Empire novels, the X-Wing novels, the Jedi Covenant comics, and the game Tie Fighter. If you only consider these, Star Wars is really damn good!
Abd while I enjoyed some other games and some novels were pasable, everything but the aforementioned is pretty weak when it comes to the plots and setting consistency. When I say I love Star Wars, I love those. When I talk about anything else Star Wars, I admit it's very silly and childish.

[Renegade Paladin]

Source? Every reference I've seen to Base Delta Zero type operations that specifically had Star Destroyers, involved three star destroyers, not one-

Danyako, in Scavenger Hunt (a module) where three Star Destroyers left a base in ruins, its topsoil "atomized" and the surface of the planet cratered

The Bothan planet, in Vision of the Future, where 3 star destroyers were to attack the planet and eliminate witnesses, after a shield generator would have been destroyed, and the fleets above it having annihilated each other.

And no time frame is given in either case for what 1 Star destroyer could have done.
Three ships is standard procedure because that is the minimum necessary to achieve total coverage of the entire surface at once, to ensure no vessels escape. Three ships in evenly spaced geosynchronous orbit would have command of every possible escape route. One would take longer, certainly, and would leave the possibility of refugees, but if three is sufficient then one can do the job given enough time and fuel.

As for melting: "Niathal was very quiet. And she hadn't said a word about Jedi StealthXs wandering around at will in the fleet assembly area. Any commander would have been in a flap about that, unless they thought it was a problem that didn't have their name on it.
I'm not stupid, Admiral.
"Thoughts?" said Caedus, looking her way.
"I've often fought the urge to reduce a planet to molten slag myself, "Niathal said, unmoved. "Probably for totally different reasons to you, Colonel. But I agree with Gil-holding what we seize is going to be a drain on resources, unless Fondor shows some pragmatism and rolls over. Let's give them an extra reason for doing that, beyond annihilation." - Revelantion, Legacy of the Force

"Daala's Star Destroyers controlled enough power to turn entire planets to slag, but she didn't want to do that here. "Dantooine is too remote for an effective demonstration," she said, "but we can make use of it nonetheless." - Dark Apprentice, Jedi Academy Trilogy (by the famously minimalist Kevin J. Anderson, no less).

"Besany didn't think she'd been crashing around anywhere. She was mortified. "Why should I believe you?"
"Because Qiilura has a fragile ecology and we know Skirata is a vengeful little piece of vermin who really could persuade the fleet to melt it to slag. We want to be left alone now. Really alone."
"I see."
"We'll maintain a presence here, by way of insurance," said the Gurlanin. "Not that you'd notice." " - Republic Commando: True Colors

"Niathal was watching the exchange with faint interest. "This is an exquisite ethical argument, but right now I'm more concerned with stopping Corellia repairing an orbital weapon that was capable of taking out the Yuuzhan Vong and that will, if brought back online, ruin the Alliance's entire day."
Omas almost twitched. The power play was luminous in its visibility. "What would you prefer to do, Admiral? We failed to destroy it last time."
"We can reduce a planet to molten slag from orbit. Let's not rule out the possibility of needing to do that to Centerpoint-even if it would be best preserved to defend the Alliance."
"It's populated," said Luke.
"So are warships." " - Bloodlines, Legacy of the Force

Pay particular attention to this next one:

"Suddenly scrutiny from the Empire brought al normal life on Nar Shaddaa to a screeching halt. Moff Sarn Shild proclaimed the Hutts' lawless territory would benefit greatly from stricter Imperial control. As a public-relations stunt, Shild was authorized to blockade Nal Hutta and turn the smuggler's moon into molten slag." - Essential Chronology

"Have you ever seen what a Star Destroyer can do to the surface of an unshielded planet? Stones run like water and sand turns to glass. And I have two Star Destroyers at my disposal." - Crimson Empire

"Throughout the Trioculus affair , the New Republic was engaged in a protracted military campaign for possession of Milagro, a world located at a key hyperspace junction. The Empire was prepared to lay waste to Milagro rather than allow the Rebels access to its manufacturing facilities. Following three months of exhausting clashes between AT-AT walkers and the New Republic Army, the defeated Imperials slagged the planet's surface with a withering orbital bombardment, then fled." - Essential Chronology, p71.

"Sunlight ripples across a sea of shimmering glass. Glass that had once been part of iridescent domes, towering minarets, soaring archways, vertical towers, and all the other structures that constitute a city. A city reduced to a sea of manmade lava, as Imperial laser cannon carved swathes of destruction through the once-beautiful metropolis." - Jedi Knight p47 (also referring to Milagro).

"The shield has to cover everything from the beach to the tops of the mountains. On the North side it should be possible to blast through the mountain and open up enough of a gap to let our bombers in. Once we're under the shield, the generators go and it's over ... Grand Isle would be no match for two squadrons of Y-wings. In addition to two laser cannons, the Y-wings sported twin ion cannons and two proton torpedo launchers. Each ship carried eight torpedoes, which meant either of the squadrons packed enough firepower to turn the lush, verdant landscape of Grand Isle into a black, smoking mass of liquid rock."- Rogue Squadron, p216,224 (even tiny little Y-wings can do some serious slagging with the right loadout).

For completeness' sake, I should note that the slagging of Milagro was incomplete; the Imperials demolished a city, not the entire planet, but it constitutes evidence that when they say slag, they mean it.

Against this, we have the imaginings of a green officer who'd never seen large-scale orbital bombardment before, Imperial atrocities not explicitly referred to as Base Delta Zero operations, and non-Imperial operations that might or might not have been BDZ-equivalent. Given that military deep planet shelters are known to be capable of surviving the bombardment, a post-bombardment sweep isn't exactly preposterous either.
Not to mention that- is it ever said that Base Delta Zero operations are only accomplished with turbolasers? What about all the TIE bombers on the ship? And just how destructive can their bombs be- if they work like proton torpedoes?
See the last bit in the spoiler. :smalltongue:

[hamishspence]

Given that military deep planet shelters are known to be capable of surviving the bombardment, a post-bombardment sweep isn't exactly preposterous either.

That much molten rock takes a long time to cool enough to be walked on safely.



See the last bit in the spoiler. :smalltongue:

Which proves the point that some of the "slagging" or "glassing" might be done with torpedoes, and that the energy figures for turbolasers may be too high since they assume the whole thing is done with turbolasers alone.


As for melting:

Several of those were written after Episode II Cross Sections came out (the first source to explicitly specify 200 gigaton turbolaser) so may be a case of "following the leader".

[Renegade Paladin]

That much molten rock takes a long time to cool enough to be walked on safely.
Does it say they get out and walk? All over the planet? Even if a Star Destroyer was totally incapable of glassing at all (a preposterous position even for Darkstar; modern tactical nuclear weapons can do that much), that's a lot of ground to cover even at high speed from the air.

That said, this is rapidly leaving the thread topic behind, so I won't carry on here.

[hamishspence]

They have to get out and walk if they're going to inspect the interiors of places.

Even if a Star Destroyer was totally incapable of glassing at all (a preposterous position even for Darkstar; modern tactical nuclear weapons can do that much),

I don't see any problem with "glassing" it's "metres of molten man-made lava all over the planet" that raises eyebrows.

Going back to the subject- personally I enjoy most Star Wars material- original movies, prequels, and sequels.

[grimbold]

well i suppose that when you weigh the movies it goes
Original Trilogy Awesome
Jar Jar The epitome of Anti-awesome
in other words Jar Jar is so bad he takes away the orginals coolness

in fact the star wars story was not original it is merely a thing called the heroic lay which has been used for thousands of years

i definitely see your point, and i agree star wars is not the best, but you have to give lucas a hand on one of the defining films in movie history

[Yora]

Jarjar is so incredibly stupid that he's the most easy to spot flaw in the prequel movies. But if you watch them movies again a couple of times, he really doesn't make such a big impact on the movies. He is very visible and anoying, but you could simply redo all his dubbing and he wouldn't really bother you much.
However, the movies have much more serious structual problems when it comes to the plot and far reaching implications for the whole universe.
JarJar is anoying when you see him, but he doesn't really affect anything. Just ignore him and there's no problems. Other things have far wider reaching repercussions, but they are not that obvious to see.

[TheThan]

Ok so what’s the appeal of the original star wars trilogy?
For me it’s the setting. I love the concept of a “used universe” a place where things break down, wear out and need maintenance. It’s a universe filled with as many normal people as it is filled with rogues, scoundrels, soldiers, leaders, Jedi, Sith, Mandalorians and just about anything else you can name. It’s a setting that feels real. It feels like any sort of character can exist inside. The setting is not a perfect world, there is no utopia. People just try to get by and make ends meet.

Compared to stay star trek, there is very little room for rogues and scoundrels and the like. Everyone is part of the federation, and everything is perfect and neat, and clean and orderly.. Star trek focuses on the adventures star fleet personnel so you rarely get a sense of what the rest of the universe is like. You don’t have gunfights in bars, and tramp freighters blasting their way out of space dock or normal people going on high adventures.
That’s what appeals to me the most about star wars. The feeling that I could exist in the setting, I don’t get that feeling from star trek, or stargate, or battle star galactic or Flash Gordan.

[Erts]

I was well aware of the "it wasn't cliche when it happened", the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope. I know that it was a groundbreaking work in science fiction, that has never been what annoyed. Ever. Please do not reitirate the same point again.
(Sorry if I seem exasperated, but whenever I bring this up someone is sure to say "Oh, but for the time it wasn't cliched.")
Untrained farmboy, in a matter of days, takes down an empire? Beats professionals far more experienced them him? Gains a magical sword, is trained by a wise witty mentor who sacrifices himself to save the hero? Is the chosen one to save the galaxy?
Boy, George Lucas sure invented those ideas.

EDIT:

Compared to stay star trek, there is very little room for rogues and scoundrels and the like. Everyone is part of the federation, and everything is perfect and neat, and clean and orderly.. Star trek focuses on the adventures star fleet personnel so you rarely get a sense of what the rest of the universe is like. You don’t have gunfights in bars, and tramp freighters blasting their way out of space dock or normal people going on high adventures.
That’s what appeals to me the most about star wars. The feeling that I could exist in the setting, I don’t get that feeling from star trek, or stargate, or battle star galactic or Flash Gordan.
There, there's an argument that rather then looking at my tastes personally, defends the setting.
But those elements are not really the focus of the setting, as awesome as they are.
Don't get me wrong, I do enjoy this setting at times. I like the action, some of the characters, but it doesn't seem (at least to me) that it should deserve the mountain of praise it does.

[TheThan]

Those elements are what draw me personally to Star Wars. The best of the EU doesn’t focus on the Jedi or the main characters, they focus on that character in the background you didn’t notice, but the writer did. It focuses on people, not events or “unlimited power”.

Characters like Mara Jade, Corran Horn, Wedge Antilles and the other pilots of Rogue and Wrath Squadrons really make the universe come alive. I feel that games like “the force unleashed” really ruin the charm of the setting. These games and books and other media suffer from power creep, they focus on how powerful that character is, not who that character is. The end result is a walking Deus Ex Machina instead of a character you can relate to.

Star Wars was my very first introduction to the science fiction genre. Because of that it’s responsible for helping to shape what I like and dislike about science fiction. For example I don’t like shows that focus on science and technology (like a lot of star trek), I like the technology to be pushed in the background like it is in the real world. I mean when was the last time you stopped and explained to an audience how your smart phone works? Bet you haven’t, most people just simply use the technology and don’t think about it. Sure the technology is there, but it plays second fiddle to the story and plot.

The story might be simple, the characters may have become cliché and the special effects may be out dated but it all fits together perfectly. It all works together to create a movie that people of all ages can sit down, watch and enjoy, and keep enjoying for years to come. That’s what makes the movie endearing to fans. It’s become familiar and comfortable and that’s not always a bad thing.

[Gaius Marius]

Just because it needs to said more:

Fr*cking Lightsabers.

[Shyftir]

I think it comes down to this. There are very few bits of sci-fi that capture the attention of the mainstream in society. For a very long time if you liked sci-fi you had two choices of how to present yourself to the world.

Trekkie - read: in it for the super-nerdiness

Or

StarWars fan - read: Action movies! In Space! with Frickin' Laser Swords!

Now which of those two stereotypes would you prefer to be associated with?

I happen to really enjoy certain parts of StarWars. (X-Wings!)
And others not so much. (Jedi power-creep.)
So I think its mostly that StarWars was the big franchise with the most mainstream appeal.

Extra thoughts.
StarWars = fantasy.
A New Hope
Mystic Ranger (Luke) with wise old Wizard mentor (Obi Wan), meet up with Rogue (Han) and Barbarian (Chewie) buddies. They rescue action-girl princess, who is most likely an Aristocrat/Rogue.(Leia) Mystic Ranger beats the BBEG Blackguard (Vader) in a piloting duel. They save the day.

The Empire Strikes Back
Evil Empire (trope namer!) chases after band of plucky heroes. Party is split with the Mystic Ranger going off with his Droid Companion (R2D2) to "train" in a solo campaign with new wise old Wizard run by the DM. The others run until they visit one of the Rogues' friends who is also a Rogue (Lando). The BBEG Blackguard is back with a Fighter/Rogue minion (Boba Fett). Since the party is split, bad things happen. Ranger returns at climax and fights BBEG again (Cue big twist). They get away but the Rogue is captured so he plays as his treacherous buddy for the next arc.

I'm going to leave it at that because my point is pretty well made by now.

[Psyren]

Now which of those two stereotypes would you prefer to be associated with?


Neither; Mass Effect is the only sci-fi/space opera universe that I actually like being associated with. I can't wait for the movie.

[Tavar]

Those elements are what draw me personally to Star Wars. The best of the EU doesn’t focus on the Jedi or the main characters, they focus on that character in the background you didn’t notice, but the writer did. It focuses on people, not events or “unlimited power”.

Characters like Mara Jade, Corran Horn, Wedge Antilles and the other pilots of Rogue and Wrath Squadrons really make the universe come alive. I feel that games like “the force unleashed” really ruin the charm of the setting. These games and books and other media suffer from power creep, they focus on how powerful that character is, not who that character is. The end result is a walking Deus Ex Machina instead of a character you can relate to.

This, very much this.

[SITB]

Neither; Mass Effect is the only sci-fi/space opera universe that I actually like being associated with. I can't wait for the movie.

"Oh Shepard, please use your aura of raw awesomness and solve every problem in the universe, from our meancing robtics overlords to our crippling father issues."

Foundation Supermecy!

[Eldan]

Neither; Mass Effect is the only sci-fi/space opera universe that I actually like being associated with. I can't wait for the movie.

Space Opera... hmm. I don't know much, actually. But I like Alastair Reynold's books. There are SciFi movies I like, but few of those are space opera. Most are Cyberpunk, or generally futuristic, but not in space. Is Firefly Space Opera? Probably too.

[Manga Shoggoth]

I still like Star Wars but I think the prequels and the previous "re-making" of the Original Trilogy have taken away some of the appeal... and it has becoming tiresome to note how many influences Star Wars has. It was OK when I only knew about the influences from Flash Gordon and Akira Kurosawa, but now I feel like I would rather read Doc E.E. Smith's Lensman novels...

I still read them. The entire series is on the bookshelf next to my bed in case I need some light bedtime reading.

(And really, Lensman did pretty much the same thing for written Science Fantasy that Star Wars did for filmed Science Fantasy).


I was well aware of the "it wasn't cliche when it happened", the "Seinfeld is Unfunny" trope. I know that it was a groundbreaking work in science fiction, that has never been what annoyed. Ever. Please do not reitirate the same point again.
(Sorry if I seem exasperated, but whenever I bring this up someone is sure to say "Oh, but for the time it wasn't cliched.")
Untrained farmboy, in a matter of days, takes down an empire? Beats professionals far more experienced them him? Gains a magical sword, is trained by a wise witty mentor who sacrifices himself to save the hero? Is the chosen one to save the galaxy?
Boy, George Lucas sure invented those ideas

So, you can repeat the same old question, but we can't repeat the same old answer?

Besides, nobody suggests that Lucas invented the tropes. Even he acknowledges his sources.

The appeal of the original Star Wars was that it was a fresh usage of the tropes, using the styles from (for example) the much earlier Republic serials.

Yes - Star Wars was itself a throwback to earlier styles. What made the film was that it put the pieces together in a fresh way. Add in the music and effects and you had a winner, warts'n'all. Remember also that the films had to stand on their own - no EU to patch over the holes, much less merchandising...

And as far as cliche is concerned - I am old enough to remember some of the pseudo-Star Wars drek that came out after Star Wars was a success. Some of it was really awful, exceeding the worst criticisms of the PT.

[Renegade Paladin]

Those elements are what draw me personally to Star Wars. The best of the EU doesn’t focus on the Jedi or the main characters, they focus on that character in the background you didn’t notice, but the writer did. It focuses on people, not events or “unlimited power”.

Characters like Mara Jade, Corran Horn, Wedge Antilles and the other pilots of Rogue and Wrath Squadrons really make the universe come alive. I feel that games like “the force unleashed” really ruin the charm of the setting. These games and books and other media suffer from power creep, they focus on how powerful that character is, not who that character is. The end result is a walking Deus Ex Machina instead of a character you can relate to.

This, very much this.
Would this be a good time to mention I'm polishing up my After Effects skills and writing a script for a fanfilm following the bulk of the Rebels after the Hoth evacuation instead of the main characters? There is absolutely no good reason for the rendezvous to just go off without a hitch for everyone else, after all. :smallbiggrin:

[Erts]

So, you can repeat the same old question, but we can't repeat the same old answer?


Well, yes, because why I don't like it as much as most people Star Wars isn't only for the cliches, it isn't because I think Seinfeld is Unfunny. The argument that I don't like it because it is cliche is because Lucas established these cliches is not a correct argument, because the premise that I don't like it for the cliches is incorrect.
It's because it seems like for every gem of genius in the series (the music score, Darth Vader, or Yoda, or other strong characters or moments) you have a heap of pointlessness or plot holes, or characters either over or underacting. I'm sure that anyone could go on for ages listing all of the plot holes in the originals, but that seems lie it would trivialize the argument to details, when the argument is more one of overarching story.

Fine, I concede that it is in fact a decent movie. But I know so many better science fiction stories, shows, books, movies, that are not influenced by Star Wars and that have real depth to them other then a pseudo-magical "Force" and "FRICKING LAZORRR SWORDS" that never get the praise or recognition they deserve.

I'm not in it for the super nerdiness or the action, I'm in it for the story. Special effects and relying on them is fine, but not when it tries to act like it is incredibly deep. It's a fun little series, but there are many things out there that are better in terms of story.

As for pseudo-Star Wars movies, I believe you, but, (asking because I'm curious) what are some examples?

[The Big Dice]

As for pseudo-Star Wars movies, I believe you, but, (asking because I'm curious) what are some examples?
Battlestar Galactica (the original series) was a direct response and rip off of Star Wars. To the point where 20th Century Fox almost sued.

Star Trek The Motion Picture was a direct response to Star Wars. If it wasn't for Star Wars, Star Trek would probably never have gone beyond the Animated Series.

The slew of cheesy science fiction movies of the early 80s was a direct response to the success of Star Wars. And there are more examples of how Star Wars altered popular culture in the late 70s, early 80s. There are good reasons why it's such an iconic movie.

[Manga Shoggoth]

Fine, I concede that it is in fact a decent movie. But I know so many better science fiction stories, shows, books, movies, that are not influenced by Star Wars and that have real depth to them other then a pseudo-magical "Force" and "FRICKING LAZORRR SWORDS" that never get the praise or recognition they deserve.

True, alas.


As for pseudo-Star Wars movies, I believe you, but, (asking because I'm curious) what are some examples?

Well, the worst offender was Starcrash (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starcrash), but there was one called Battle Beyond the Stars (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_Beyond_the_Stars) (nowhere near as bad, but tried to do the same sort of thing that SW did with the old Republic serials, but using The Seven Samuri as a base).

There was also a particularly bad western (originally intended as a pilot for a series, I think) which looked like a wholesale repackaging of Star Wars. Mercifully, I can't remember too many of the details. My memory has even suppressed the name.


EDIT: On the other hand, we also had Spaceballs. Now, that was a good ripoff...

[Brother Oni]

With regard to films influenced by Star Wars, don't forget Moonraker (James Bond in Space!) jumping on the bandwagon. :smallbiggrin:


Fine, I concede that it is in fact a decent movie. But I know so many better science fiction stories, shows, books, movies, that are not influenced by Star Wars and that have real depth to them other then a pseudo-magical "Force" and "FRICKING LAZORRR SWORDS" that never get the praise or recognition they deserve.

That's because Star Wars isn't strictly speaking sci-fi, it's space opera or fantasy set in space.

Sci-fi mostly deals with innovations in science or technology and their effect on society and humanity.

The Star Wars universe is one where technological advancement has pretty much reached the end of the bell curve - compare things from Knights of the Old Republic to how things are by the time of the Galactic Empire.

Because of this distinction in genre, it's more accessible (I can't think of a single technobabble explanation in any of the movies) to people - as somebody else said, you had the option of Star Trek or Star Wars back then - which do you think the average person is more likely to admit to liking?

I admit it's unfair that better, more interesting shows/books/other media are overshadowed by Star Wars, but that's life for you.


As an aside - there's an important point that people are forgetting about the 'common farmboy/Mystic Ranger' - it's a 'common farmboy/Mystic Ranger with a prophecy'. :smallbiggrin:

[Gnoman]

Battlestar Galactica (the original series) was a direct response and rip off of Star Wars. To the point where 20th Century Fox almost sued.


Too bad the original script was written almost two years before A New Hope hit theatres (Larson just couldn't sell it) and the lawsuit was over a single specific special effect that Lucasfilm insisted they owned, which is why the BSG laser pistols don't fire a visible bolt like SW blasters. The courts later voided Lucasfilm's trademark on the effect as too broad.

[The Big Dice]

Too bad the original script was written almost two years before A New Hope hit theatres (Larson just couldn't sell it) and the lawsuit was over a single specific special effect that Lucasfilm insisted they owned, which is why the BSG laser pistols don't fire a visible bolt like SW blasters. The courts later voided Lucasfilm's trademark on the effect as too broad.

I dodn't know the specifics, only that it almost came to court :smallyuk:

[Nerd-o-rama]

I'm not in it for the super nerdiness or the action, I'm in it for the story.

Yeah, there's your disconnect. Star Wars is one of those stories that takes the most very basic plot (it's basically written directly from Campbell's The Hero's Journey) and makes it interesting through details, likeable characters (mostly), so-bad-it's-good campy acting (especially in the original trilogy, when the actors didn't take it so seriously), technical flash, and building an interesting and expansive setting. All those things, in different amounts for different people, are why Star Wars is so long-lived and beloved as a popular movie series.

For another example of a pile of stock tropes and clichés that's still an excellent story in the details of its execution, see David Eddings's Belgariad and Malloreon novels.

It also doesn't really help that Star Wars was such a huge influence on Hollywood and our perception of "science fiction" (as mentioned before, it's really more like Space Fantasy) that many of the other things in the science fiction and fantasy genres owe their existence (or at least publication) to Star Wars, making it seem even more derivative now, looking back.

[TheArsenal]

Well anyway Maybe its only me but I think that people forget that Star wars is NOT an action film. Its an adventure film. Or people just forgot what a adventure film even is.

The point is that the Star wars movies are adventures. They go through a variety of places and a variety of situations happen to them. Action is only part of the adventure (Or it isnt at all). Star treck 4 has no action at all, yet feels very exiting for me and gets my attention (Key word MY).

An additional notice is that "action" in adventure films usually happen WHILE traveling somewhere. Retreating, being ambushed, carrying something. Although some Adventure movies do have confrontations (I am your father comes to mind), they usualy avoid that.

Action movies Showcase, ahem. Action.

Adventure movies are about the Journey:

First we are in Space. Then on tattooine, then meet Obi wan, them go to a bar, then escape to space, then into the death star, then out, then attacking it. See what I mean?

I know that Action movies showcase different places as well but its only to showcase action: Shooting, blades, ect.

In Adventures its (Star wars):
Minor Scrimish war, then slow scenes of life in the movie, then stuff and stuff and STUFF! All have different pints of tension. Like the Garbage chute scene. First its a monster movie (AAAAH THE MONSTER!) then its tense because R2D2 needs to save them (AAAAh Crushing thing!)

Now in terms of the acting.....Its good. Luke Is well written but I believe Mark hammil just didnt add his on flare on the character of Luke. To make him more determined, or more stuff I guess. Just a bit too gooey eyed Innocent. But not bad.

For every other character its in reverse. They should be boring and forgettable but the acting GIVES them a spark. A cool part of them.


What I also like was that most of the aliens in star wars speak different languages. Not one speaks English. It just makes it cooler.
Oh and another thing, I love the Comedy Relief. R2D2 and C3PO are a great duo. Thier bumbling, but not so that they get killed all the time/ Live through every single problem. They influence the story, not much. But in a meeningfull way.

And in terms of the plot holes, they are handled very well. The thing is, if Luke just suddenly said "Oh I need to shoot there" or Obi wan just drove by the Storm Troopers with no explanation then I would go BULL****! But it doesn't. It makes sure to explain everything.

Lets think about that hole:

It was in secret plans.
Protected By Turrents,
Ships
And couldn't even be hit by a targeting computer.
And an entire fleet focused on that one spot all died.

Its still pretty stupid but its not terrible, and it was handled well.

In addition the entire movie built up to that scene, and the words "Luke, Use the force" are great. I dont know but for some reason I have the ability to watch movies as if for the first time.

Its something about those words that just make me go "No way! I saw him die. Its... incredible"

Along with "Luke, I AM YOUR FATHER!"

The implications are just chilling. This horrible....Thing! Is lukes Father? OMG!

So at the end Its a matter of opinion.

[Sholos]

Okay, I've seen it several times now. The word is "turret", not "turrent". there's no 'n'. Sorry, just had to say something.

[Shyftir]

Star Wars was like nothing anyone had ever seen. I think the best way to understand is to hear the stories from those who saw it when it was new. The special effects were awe-inspiring, way before CG existed these guys did incredible things. (Special Edition version kinda sucked because they covered the flaws that were minor/barely noticeable with CG which WAS noticeable.)

We are spoiled today with all sorts of sci-fi/sci-fan out there. Star Wars was a phenomenon because it was absolutely ground-breaking. Also Star Wars is fun. because it is a crazy action/adventure series set in space. This may not hit for everyone but every random stick was a lightsaber for me as a kid. When my dad was a kid they pretended to be a cowboy or pirate or soldier. I pretended to be a Jedi and a starfighter pilot, and a smuggler, along with a wizard and a knight and Robin Hood.

If you don't have childhood memories of Star Wars, well, you just wouldn't understand. The thing that drives me to enjoy Star Wars is the same thing that has me playing DnD, and reading comic books. It's not very fun to stand around and pretend to be a super-educated starship captain like you would for Star Trek, it's super fun to pretend to be a group of Jedi commando's striking at a hidden Imperial base.

So the major criticisms, "It's campy, it doesn't make scientific sense, the characters are not that deep" are exactly what we like about it. You can be a major ham, and go Beyond the Impossible, and easily put yourself in the roles. It's not great cinema or serious literature, and thank whatever higher powers you do or don't believe in, because 2001: a Space Odyssey is boring. And War & Peace is inaccessible.

The real world is grey vs. black, but Star Wars is light vs. darkness. Sometimes I wanna go to a place where Orcs are Always Chaotic Evil, and a plucky hero with a sword can save the world in one great blow, because in my world everyone is just another person doing their best to survive and succeed, and one (actually two) proton torpedo(es) down an exhaust port will not defeat Evil.

[Erts]

I suppose it falls down to that. People either see it through the lens of nostalgia, or they don't. Not that one is superior to the other, but when I grew up, the people who were old still liked them.
For the record, I don't like the whole "BAH GRITTY DARK DARK DARK". I like sometimes when heroes are heroes, and the villains are the villains. I've played many a DnD game like that, were we just kicked orc butt for the whole time. I just don't like when it is taken with real weight behind it.
I read the old science fiction as a kid before I watched Star Wars. The Big Three of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, and I read the even earlier stuff of Verne and Wells.
I can appreciate a space opera. I like Star Wars for what it is. But I don't like people's reaction to it as the best science fiction ever.
Shyftir, you summed it up perfectly.

[Trog]

I saw Star Wars when it first came out, in the theater… about 20 times.

Now, to first get everyone who is too young I need to paint you a picture of being a kid and entertainment in the 70s.

1. There were 13 channels on the TV and there was no such thing as a remote control unless you were a millionaire or something. 3 major networks existed. Fox didn't exist. MTV didn't exist. ESPN didn't exist. None of that.

2. There was no such thing as a VCR or DVD player. Thus movies were seen either in the movie theater or, if they were popular enough, they'd get onto TV during the few time slots each week where they might show a movie that had been in theaters a few to several years before. This was often a once-a-year event for these films. Take the Wizard of Oz. Nowadays you can just go rent it. Or probably find it online somewhere. Back then they played it once a year every year and each year it was a huge deal because that was the ONLY way you could see it.

3. Movie theaters had FAR fewer screens. And movies came out at a much slower pace.

4. The Atari 2600 was the newest thing and it just came out that same year. Prior to that: no video games unless your parents had gotten you Pong.

Now… to Star Wars as remembered by an old troglodyte.

1. In my hometown the movie was "held over." For those of you who do not know what this means, it means that they kept showing the film in the theaters even though it should have, by rights, passed the end of its run date. They did this with popular movies that people still came to. If it was really good it might get held over a month or even two. Star wars was held over for over an entire year. I distinctly remember seeing in the newspaper "Held over for the 53rd week: Star Wars" Matinees were like $1 for kids. Might have been less.

2. Star Wars was the first film to ever have a toy marketing plan drawn up with the movie. The toys were all planned from the get go. And damn if that didn't work like a charm. Every boy I knew had a bunch of Star Wars action figures. This practice was so successful that, ever since, people were crazy NOT to do this for their film release if kids were the target audience. So everyone I knew played with the action figures.

3. Yeah everyone has mentioned that the special effects were top notch for their kind and they were. Compared to many other things that came even after it nothing touched it for years. At least not until Empire Strikes Back came out.

So that's the climate it emerged in. And it was head and shoulders above anything else at the time for effects, for marketing, for available screen time.

On top of all this Star Trek was as close as you could get to sci-fi anything and that had been in syndication for years by the time Star Wars came out, iirc. And compared to Star Trek, Star Wars was all action and adventure. Not talking heads in tiny little studio sets with the same tired special effects that had been used for years by that time.

Then three years later Empire came out and it was a phenomenon. Then HBO came about as a premium channel with movies on all day and as soon as they got a hold of Star Wars it was run three times every 24 hours for at least four months or more. And I for one watched it anytime it was on.

Oh, and that Star Wars Christmas Special? Saw it live on TV. Sure it was 70s TV variety show lame but I didn't care. I watched it in rapt attention just because it had the characters making small appearances throughout and that was well worth it.

Fast forward to after Jedi came out and then the advent of the VCR and you had teenagers watching the films over they saw as kids and still remarking on how cool it was. Those kids grew up and had kids of their own and the love was passed on down.

Then the next trilogy came out and the formula was repeated all over again. There was soooooo much Darth Maul and Jar Jar Binks stuff cram paced into stores everywhere you couldn't help but be exposed to it. And all those raving fans were excited as HELL to see an all new Star Wars film. I had a geekgasm at the opening line when it came up on the screen and it was one of the few times in my adult life where, in that moment, I was a kid again.

And that, kids, is an experience you can't BUY.

Star Wars.

Is.

Awesome.

[Sarco_Phage]

I suppose it falls down to that. People either see it through the lens of nostalgia, or they don't. Not that one is superior to the other, but when I grew up, the people who were old still liked them.
For the record, I don't like the whole "BAH GRITTY DARK DARK DARK". I like sometimes when heroes are heroes, and the villains are the villains. I've played many a DnD game like that, were we just kicked orc butt for the whole time. I just don't like when it is taken with real weight behind it.
I read the old science fiction as a kid before I watched Star Wars. The Big Three of Asimov, Clarke, and Heinlein, and I read the even earlier stuff of Verne and Wells.
I can appreciate a space opera. I like Star Wars for what it is. But I don't like people's reaction to it as the best science fiction ever.
Shyftir, you summed it up perfectly.

Hmmm. I think the problem is that people think of it as sci fi. Even when I was a kid, I knew sci fi involved more technobabble and junk than star wars.

Star Wars, for me, was an opportunity to watch my favorite knightly adventures enact themselves in a technicolor environment, ahaha.