Originally By Time Magazine:
and the first live-action movie to franchise its popularity into merchandising at a level that equaled, and then surpassed, the Disney cartoon features. (That revenue, not Lucas� share of the film�s take, was what made him a billionaire.) and the first Hollywood epic, at least so far as I know, that was conceived as a trilogy—proof of Lucas� capacious vision and audacious entrepreneurial reach. AND, as Lucas mentioned in an interview I had with him two weeks ago in preparation for this week�s TIME story on the future of movies, Star Wars was one of the hits whose profits, shared by the theater owners, financed the multiplexing of America.
if your going to use george lucas quotes, you might as well use the ones that also say star wars is an epic as well...
sucker.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1173216,00.html
there is the link to that interview.
Again, take more time and put together a concise argument. You're floundering here.
Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Indiana Jones should have died after the Holy Grail. Temple of doom is nothing to write home about...
Again, one could say Temple of Doom is the weaker of the trilogy, but it certainly isn't as weak as Return of the Jedi. And remember, this has moved on to personal opinion now, you have moved your argument yet again, and I'm simply adapting to respond while stilling having a concise, valid argument in my backpocket.
Simply the amount of feedback that Star wars gets back from us pitiful geeks is enough to prove that it is in fact, way more popular, if not better. do a google search for "star wars fanfilm" and you will get way more results then if you did one for "Indiana Jones Fanfilm".
Like many people, you seem to think greatness equates to popularity, and that (this is infact hilarious on your behalf) fan films equal popularity. Again, not true. Yet the argument was never about the popularity of Star Wars; you've changed your argument again. Stick to one or, as you can see from these posts, you will get confused.
Also, Lord of the Rings is a crappy franchise and an even crappier movie. Ever used your inflated intelect to the point of reading the books? no... i didnt think so.
No, no no. Again, as a whole the Lord of the Rings trilogy is much better, and also contains more elements of the epic mythos you inaccuratetly mentioned earlier. And, as you well know, but couldn't find the plural to express, there are three movies, not one. Of course, we should all giggle at you blindly assuming I haven't read the books. What an oversight on my behalf that would be if it were true. Again, yes, my "inflated intellect" has read the Lord of the Rings, indeed I can also count The Hobbit, The Silmarillion, Unfinished Tales and The Children Of Hurin (More his son than him) as works of Tolkien I have read. There you have it, I have validated myself as a reader of Tolkien; now, what was your point again? You look daft.
Hmm. if its a futuristic western, how come I see more spaceships then tauntauns? If star wars was as heavily based on a western as you demand that it was, wed be debating over which tauntaun goes the fastest, and wheather hopalong cassidy would every be able to defeat Darth Roy Rogers.... but, i guess george lucas's word is Cannon, so... lets go crap on our faces over that oversight....
Again, you show little knowledge of the things I am discussing and certainly not enough to hold up any sufficent response to my argument. Since I am guessing you are a Yankee (from the time difference in your replies) I would at least thought you would know something of the Western Myth as it is so inherent in American society, but perhaps I'm simply overestimating you. After all, if you have points as weak as this, why should I expect you to understand that.
Conisdering Lucas' quote that SW is a Western in Futuristic garb, I would expect you to understand that SW would not contain any Western Mise En Scene (when in fact it does in small tidbits) yet carry the same underlying themes, tensions and mythos of said genre. Again, I expect to much of you.
the point is, I never said that star wars couldnt be a western, or that a western couldnt be epic... I mainly said that Star Wars without the Jedi would be way harder to keep in the vast epic scale.
Yes, that is right, that is what you said. But you struggled with a number of things, all stemming from your use of "epic." Your first mistake was to use such an ambiguous term. You didn't even attempt to explain how you would define "epic." Your second mistake then, when asked, was to reference (and poorly) characteristics of the Classical Epic in the guise of Homer, without acknowledging that you were dealing with different mediums and that SW didn't even fit into the parameters set by the your definition. That's not a good case for an argument, try harder.
I mean, in the old west you could ride for 100 miles and find a guy just as much of a quickshot as good ol John Wayne. or someone could practice and become as good as good ol Wrangler Boba Fett... With the force, potential is picked, and destiny and supernatural is involved. You cant do that with cowboys like you can with supernatural destiny and Magically picked Jedi Knights.
So you meant the Supernatural all along? Even if that is what you meant in the first place, you cannot escape the fact that SW is succesful because it fulfills the empty void left by the decline of the Western, a distinctly American genre, in the American mindset.
in your pitiful mind, you have failed to realise that your arguements keep changing. is it not you who said: "its a flim, not a piece of prose" yet, you refer to some movies of 2 generations ago as "epics"... I said the greatest story of OUR Generation, and OUR time... Did I say it was the greatest ever?
You've got confused again. My argument has not changed in any way. My responses to you have adapted to what ever your argument has changed to. Remember, I've stated the fact that SW is a Western, an argument that you could not challenge in any way (with any academic sources), yet you have floundered about trying to define SW as Epic Poetry across mediums. Again, remember my distinction; Historical Epics (those films of the post-war decades) and Epic Poetry are different things. One is a loosely grouped genre of films and one is a loose genre in literature. You asked for Epics, I gave you Historical Epics, and now you confuse yourself and moan a tad. Remember, this is your flawed argument we are discussing, not my concise, reasonable and also provable one.
There will be blood is pitiful, I remember not wanting to pay the money to go and see it. to strengthen your arguement, you should have picked a different film, perhaps? and I doubt that "there will be blood will quickly generate 5 sequels all better then the first.
Again, your opinion means close to jackson. Five star reviews and Oscar and Bafta nods towards the film are at least evident of the films successes. With that in mind, I can easily say, no, that was a perfect film to mention, because it's narrative, performances and writing all curbstomp the Star Wars saga. Obviously, There Will Be Blood is a prestige picture, so sequels are out of the question. You don't know much about cinema however, so I can forgive your reason. Yet what I can't understand however, is you possibly eluded that SW has five sequels all better than the first? I think you mean, after Empire Strikes Back! the SW films get a little better than the Bring It On trilogy. You're a fan, no doubt.
take a look at the pic. its kind of sad, but let the masses speak for themselves. this is undoubtedly the saddest thing ive seen to make me think that the people of the world are stupid, but it also 100% backs me up on my point that star wars is the greatest (and most popular) story of our time...
I don't think I've seen anyone attempt to justify using a google search as valid evidence in a long, long time. You know why it doesn't happen much? Because it's ludicrous. This is undoubtedly the saddest thing I've seen to make me think that the people of the world are stupid. Your words, but it suits my reply well. It in know way suggest that SW is the most popular and greatest story of our time. In fact, it suggests that SW has the most search results if you google it.
Again, you confused yourself that popularity equals greatness, it doesn't, while also comparing a saga that has had three films in the age of the web (and countless merchandising), against Historical Epics from the 50s. If anything, it simply suggests Star Wars' overexposure and tiresome marketing. You also contrast against a small, prestige film and a film that hasn't even come out yet. Ludicrous really. Get a decent source dolt. Yet I do commend you for finally getting A source, even if it was laughable. Let's move on shall we.
[B]if your going to use george lucas quotes, you might as well use the ones that also say star wars is an epic as well...sucker.
http://www.time.com/time/arts/article/0,8599,1173216,00.html
there is the link to that interview.
You might want to read your source again. In that entire interview, George Lucas does not even mention the Epic. The Interviewer does however, but George Lucas doesn't even acknowledge that. Again, a weak source (but getting better, hang in there!). Try an academic source at least, perhaps dealing with genre, and not a populist magazine (who tend to throw out generic terms excitably). Again, you have no argument to challenge mine.
Finally, I can say, no, you do not know what you are talking about, nor have you shown any progression in understanding while you go on. You might have to think about bailing soon. So much for me stfu'ing. Cheers and a last "That %$&£ is futile," from me.
You mean the protagonist is flawed? Yeah, great, that suits Anakin Skywalker, of course! It must be an Epic. Err, no. Actually the capacity of for good and bad is inherent in tonnes of genres, so it's not particuarly clever to mention one and claim it to be fact. Classical Greek Tragedy involves a tragic flaw in a character, while Classical Medieval Tragedies involve the curse of fate; given that SW shrugs off fate as The Force, then it doesn't leave much room for logical analysis in the character department. Again, you speak ill-informed. And the documentary is wank.
Ok, I can't stay out of this any longer. Especially when you bring up my beloved Ancient Grece. It is true, what you say of Ancient Greek tragedys, but also you must realize is that most, if not all tragedys in ancient greece are consitered "Epics".
Can't even hold a grasp onto the argument? Again, a lot of people don't seem to be able to see anything other than black or white when someone throws a criticism at Star Wars. No, Star Wars isn't one of the greatest stories of all time (that's just plain ignorant), in fact both the Indiana Jones trilogy and way out in the lead, LOTR, are better franchises.
Umm, Umm, Mr. Kane? I'm not sure you know this but LOTR originated as a series of books by JRR Tolkien, and is thus not really a film franchise since, you know... it's books... which were made into movies... which aren't as good as the books.
Indiana Jones. Exelent trilogy. Gonna be a Quadrilogy. But... uh... More people know Star Wars than Indy... so which is truly the beter franchise?
I know, you like Harrison Ford so anything with him as the leading role has to be beter than something with him as a leading support role. But seriously, when did this become an argument of how good Star Wars is? That, my friends, is a matter of opinion.
I pose the true purpose of this thread again:
What would Star Wars be without the Jedi?
Oh, and by the way, Kane? I've been reading your arguments as well, and you mostly rely on insults to make yourself seem smarter. Unfortunately... It works... Damned human stupidity.
Once again, I return to the question that I have posed before: If you hate the EU so much then why don't you go to your beloved OT forums? The EU exists, and like it or not, it and the Prequils have shaped Star Wars into something diferent than it originally was.
Without the Jedi, this is what Star Wars would likely be:
What the OT is: A Fantasy western in space. About a farm-boy who meets an Jedi named Obi-Wan Kenobi, and goes off to fight a Galactic empire which is fueled by the Dark Side force, and is ruled by a powerful sith Lord and second-in-command is the Farm-boy's sith father. The boy becomes a Jedi and in the end defeats the Emperor and turns his father back to the Light side of the force.
what the OT would be: Western in space. About a farm boy who meets a soldier named Obi-Wan Kenobi, and goes off to fight a Galactic empire and his dad... ... ... ... ... ... That's probably where it would end...
What the PT is: An epic fantasy in space. About a Slave-boy who was found by two Jedi, freed, and trained in the Jedi ways by the younger of the two. A war breaks out, in which the Manipulative Supreme Chancelor Palpatine Dark lord of the sith Darth Sidious is leading both sides in a successful attempt to turn the Galactic Republic into the first Galactic Empire. He also turns the slave boy into his apprentice, Darth Vader.
How the PT would be: Umm... would it get this far? Well, let's pretend it does. A war in space. Well, let's see... There's this kid who somehow fights in a war... against separatists... one side wins and somehow the kid becomes the second-in-command to the Emperor... Somehow...
I'm not going as far as the EU. This was keeping it as close to the plot lines of the movies as they are, without the Jedi. There are many possibilities of what the plot would be without the Jedi, but I can guarantee they would not be as great a phenomenon.
Welcome back into the fold kiddo...
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Ok, I can't stay out of this any longer. Especially when you bring up my beloved Ancient Grece. It is true, what you say of Ancient Greek tragedys, but also you must realize is that most, if not all tragedys in ancient greece are consitered "Epics".
...And still not concise argument nor valid points. Yes, most tragedies in Ancient Greece are considered Epics, that's a reasonable good estimation, yet you are again missing out a good two thousand years of storytelling, where Ancient Greek characters are supplanted from the Epic and pasted allover the place. Prime example, Shakespeare. Both Hamlet and Macbeth are Greek characters in the sense that it is a fatal flaw that leads to their final demise. Would you consider the plays Hamlet and Macbeth to be Epics in the Ancient Greek sense of the word? I thought not.
Umm, Umm, Mr. Kane? I'm not sure you know this but LOTR originated as a series of books by JRR Tolkien, and is thus not really a film franchise since, you know... it's books... which were made into movies... which aren't as good as the books.
Heh. Refer to the other kids comment first, to answer your commendable little dig. Again, three films is considered a franchise (consider the other products), even when they are adaptations. Since we are talking about films, LOTR can be seen as a film franchise in direct comparison with SW and Indy. The question of whether they are as good as the books isn't part of this discussion and even so, I'm not sure it's wise to compare different mediums as such.
Indiana Jones. Exelent trilogy. Gonna be a Quadrilogy. But... uh... More people know Star Wars than Indy... so which is truly the beter franchise?
Why do you also think that popularity equates to a higher quality? Again, please look over prior posts before you stick your nose in; the question of which is a better trilogy is subjective. I think that SW has lost a lot of ground as a franchise compared to the nostalgic Indiana Jones trilogy and the excellently executed LOTR trilogy. That's my opinion and I was clear on that. It makes you look inconcise that you spend a whole paragraph attempting to dislodge a subjective opinion, with little success, when I have already clarified that it is a subjective opinion.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I know, you like Harrison Ford so anything with him as the leading role has to be beter than something with him as a leading support role. But seriously, when did this become an argument of how good Star Wars is? That, my friends, is a matter of opinion.
In fact, Han Solo is a better character than Indiana Jones, but that's my opinion. As the other wuzzletoff decided to say, stupidly, SW is the greatest story of "our" generation. Idiocy in itself, plus the fact that it is entirely subjective. If both of you dislike baseless opinion posing as fact, then please, do not try and use it in an argument. Again, please, don't get so confused over your own argument, I can ask only that.
What would Star Wars be without the Jedi?
Again, this has been covered. Star Wars is a Western set against a futuristic back drop of a Pulp Mythos. The exclusion of Jedi in SW would affect only an aesthetic story, NOT the basic conventions, attractions and most importantly (in this discussion) the success of Star Wars. You seem to be using your recurring question to show that there is nothing to Star Wars other than Jedi, which is not true. Naturally the argument that follows is what makes SW tick and what made SW successful in the first place.
Once again, I return to the question that I have posed before: If you hate the EU so much then why don't you go to your beloved OT forums? The EU exists, and like it or not, it and the Prequils have shaped Star Wars into something diferent than it originally was.
Those are some silly assumptions you are shaking your leg at. My reasons for posting in this thread, I hoped, would be clear; to correct you. Also, the Thrawn trilogy was a relatively good work of pulp fiction, that's EU so live with it. Again, must I return to the fact that there is a reason why SW was so successful in the first place? While the Prequels* (remember that 'un!) pay homage to the Epic in a few, small ways, the underlying generic basis of SW still stands.
Without the Jedi, this is what Star Wars would likely be:What the OT is: A Fantasy western in space. About a farm-boy who meets an Jedi named Obi-Wan Kenobi, and goes off to fight a Galactic empire which is fueled by the Dark Side force, and is ruled by a powerful sith Lord and second-in-command is the Farm-boy's sith father. The boy becomes a Jedi and in the end defeats the Emperor and turns his father back to the Light side of the force.
what the OT would be: Western in space. About a farm boy who meets a soldier named Obi-Wan Kenobi, and goes off to fight a Galactic empire and his dad... ... ... ... ... ... That's probably where it would end...
What the PT is: An epic fantasy in space. About a Slave-boy who was found by two Jedi, freed, and trained in the Jedi ways by the younger of the two. A war breaks out, in which the Manipulative Supreme Chancelor Palpatine Dark lord of the sith Darth Sidious is leading both sides in a successful attempt to turn the Galactic Republic into the first Galactic Empire. He also turns the slave boy into his apprentice, Darth Vader.
How the PT would be: Umm... would it get this far? Well, let's pretend it does. A war in space. Well, let's see... There's this kid who somehow fights in a war... against separatists... one side wins and somehow the kid becomes the second-in-command to the Emperor... Somehow...
This reminds me of Bob Loblaw's Law Blog. That's right, I call bollocks again. The reason why? Because this has been covered quite a few pages back, please keep up. Like Schecter said, it's not the story that is important, because it would simply be different. I'm quite shocked you try and keep this charade up considering your ill informed knowledge of the subject, that you have shown time and time again while discussing in this debate. That's not a veiled insult at you, well, it is actually, but you certainly haven't shown any reasoned and deductive logic here.
I can guarantee they would not be as great a phenomenon.
Guarentee that if you like, but you still have no proof to back up that short sighted assumption. What can I say here? I will only berate myself if I lower myself to say "owned," or whatnot, but I can't help feeling that you literally are walking without looking. End this malarkey as you will, or for the last time (although I doubt that) I shall say, get yourself a concise and reasoned argument before you post. Or words to that effect. Toodles.
And still not concise argument nor valid points. Yes, most tragedies in Ancient Greece are considered Epics, that's a reasonable good estimation, yet you are again missing out a good two thousand years of storytelling, where Ancient Greek characters are supplanted from the Epic and pasted allover the place. Prime example, Shakespeare. Both Hamlet and Macbeth are Greek characters in the sense that it is a fatal flaw that leads to their final demise. Would you consider the plays Hamlet and Macbeth to be Epics in the Ancient Greek sense of the word? I thought not.
Very true, I was only stating a fact.
Heh. Refer to the other kids comment first, to answer your commendable little dig. Again, three films is considered a franchise (consider the other products), even when they are adaptations. Since we are talking about films, LOTR can be seen as a film franchise in direct comparison with SW and Indy. The question of whether they are as good as the books isn't part of this discussion and even so, I'm not sure it's wise to compare different mediums as such.
However, SW and Indy were original works as films, but LOTR is a story which had been written 60 years ago, and turned into a film. Therfore I feel it is dis-respectful to the memory of JRR Tolkien to consiter LOTR a film franchise. That, however IS a personal opinion. I shall try to keep from that in the future.
Again, this has been covered. Star Wars is a Western set against a futuristic back drop of a Pulp Mythos. The exclusion of Jedi in SW would affect only an aesthetic story, NOT the basic conventions, attractions and most importantly (in this discussion) the success of Star Wars. You seem to be using your recurring question to show that there is nothing to Star Wars other than Jedi, which is not true. Naturally the argument that follows is what makes SW tick and what made SW successful in the first place.
However, what you are not seeing is that the force gives a depth to the Galaxy not seen in other Scs fi storiess. It is more than super-human abilities.
This reminds me of Bob Loblaw's Law Blog. That's right, I call bollocks again. The reason why? Because this has been covered quite a few pages back, please keep up. Like Schecter said, it's not the story that is important, because it would simply be different. I'm quite shocked you try and keep this charade up considering your ill informed knowledge of the subject, that you have shown time and time again while discussing in this debate. That's not a veiled insult at you, well, it is actually, but you certainly haven't shown any reasoned and deductive logic here.
Fine, I shall attempt to step away from the story, however, haven't you thought that perhaps the story has allowed the fame of Star Wars to endure, and move into books and comics? Because there aren't any visual effects in books, besides what your mind can create.
The EU will be the only thing to continue Star Wars into the future. Without the Jedi the story would not be as deep and mysterious and the EU would have died long ago, and thus IF the prequils were made Star Wars would be dead now, and only seen as a Good ol' classic. There would be nothing adding to it, because it would be dead.
However once GL dies He'll probably take the rights to SW with him... as he should. This comment was a side note and not part of my argument.
Well, as you offered no real argument to mine, I can only offer my spontaneous conjecture. Not too sound pretentious, but conjecture is a jackson of a word.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
However, SW and Indy were original works as films, but LOTR is a story which had been written 60 years ago, and turned into a film. Therfore I feel it is dis-respectful to the memory of JRR Tolkien to consiter LOTR a film franchise. That, however IS a personal opinion. I shall try to keep from that in the future.
No, I don't think it disprectful at all to speak of the LOTR films as a film franchise. If I was to speak about the franchise more generally, give or take, I would call it the "LOTR franchise." But seeing as this was a discussion of films, and in particular franchises, it was quite apt. After all, given Tolkien's belief that LOTR could never be made into a movie, I think he'd prefer it if it was distanced from him.
However, what you are not seeing is that the force gives a depth to the Galaxy not seen in other Scs fi storiess. It is more than super-human abilities.
I fail to see how Jedi give a depth to SW in the ways that other similar castes of warrior monks don't in other franchises, other than toy lightsaber sales and Star Wars Kid parodies. Examples have already been given of these collectives.
Fine, I shall attempt to step away from the story, however, haven't you thought that perhaps the story has allowed the fame of Star Wars to endure, and move into books and comics? Because there aren't any visual effects in books, besides what your mind can create.
Of course I've thought about it and I have partly acknowledged it in my argument. Again however, the SW given to the world at the time of it's most important success was a Western and its legacy hasn't left the building completely. The books, I take it you have read some, are good examples of Pulp novels of the 1920s and 30s, similar in style, length and genre, rather than accounts of oral storytelling found in Homer's works (No, he didn't write them down!). Even Frank Herbert's DUNE, which contains the Bene Gessarit similar to Jedi, and it's sequels are very different from any SW literature.
The EU will be the only thing to continue Star Wars into the future. Without the Jedi the story would not be as deep and mysterious and the EU would have died long ago, and thus IF the prequils were made Star Wars would be dead now, and only seen as a Good ol' classic. There would be nothing adding to it, because it would be dead.
Well, the line will be blurred in the future considering the recently touted Clone Wars series featuring at the theatres. Again, I must ask what proof you have for your argument, simply out of neccesity. You can't expect to say some of the above and expect to be lauded for it; the films take precedence over EU and their success lies firmly within their own content. In fact, the success of the Special Editions in the mid 90s proves that SW was still popular 20 years after it first entered the public conscience and would be revered in the same way.
Again, I can only end by saying that the Jedi are not all-important to the SW forumla, and Star Wars, although different, would still be a success without them. Based on the evidence of the Special Editions, the Prequels were not a last great hope for the franchise.
No, I don't think it disprectful at all to speak of the LOTR films as a film franchise. If I was to speak about the franchise more generally, give or take, I would call it the "LOTR franchise." But seeing as this was a discussion of films, and in particular franchises, it was quite apt. After all, given Tolkien's belief that LOTR could never be made into a movie, I think he'd prefer it if it was distanced from him.
But he didn't mean he wouldn't want it to come to movies, people just assume that's what he ment, but he could have very well just thought it was impossible, since Visual effects of the time were limited to what you could make out of physical elements. Computers were not extremely advanced at the time, and CGI was an Unknown medium.
The first of the modern computers was invented during World War II, in 1941 by a German engineer named Konrad Zuse.
Tolkien to begin what would become his most famous work: the epic three-volume novel The Lord of the Rings (published 1954–55).
I fail to see how Jedi give a depth to SW in the ways that other similar castes of warrior monks don't in other franchises, other than toy lightsaber sales and Star Wars Kid parodies. Examples have already been given of these collectives.
1: I said the FORCE. Not JEDI.
2: Once again, you focus on the movies, but even in them the force is a deep an mysterious thing, It just wasn't the 100% focus. The EU however has detailed the force into something that is more than the movies have shown.
Since I don't feel like going into detail, here are a few quotes that help to beter understand the force
"The ways of the Living Force are beyond our understanding... But fear not. You are in the hands of something much greater and much better than you can imagine." Qui-Gon
"The Force surrounds us… and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter." Yoda
The Force is a river from which many can drink, and the training of the Jedi is not the only cup which can catch it." Luke Skywalker
"Remember: power alone is not enough. Patience. Cunning. Secrecy. These are the tools we will use to bring down the Jedi. The Sith are only two now--one Master and one apprentice. There will be no others." Bane
Peace is a lie, there is only passion.
Through passion, I gain strength.
Through strength, I gain power.
Through power, I gain victory.
Through victory, my chains are broken.
The Force shall free me.
—The Sith Code
There is no emotion; there is peace.
There is no ignorance; there is knowledge.
There is no passion; there is serenity.
There is no death; there is the Force.
- The Jedi Code
There is more, like different parts of the force, but this is all I could think of at this point. I'll explain later.
Well, the line will be blurred in the future considering the recently touted Clone Wars series featuring at the theatres. Again, I must ask what proof you have for your argument, simply out of neccesity. You can't expect to say some of the above and expect to be lauded for it; the films take precedence over EU and their success lies firmly within their own content. In fact, the success of the Special Editions in the mid 90s proves that SW was still popular 20 years after it first entered the public conscience and would be revered in the same way.
My proof? Ok, First off, if you go to any store and look in the toys section, you will see that the EU characters or minor characters in the movies that were given a name in the EU are the predominate figures, and Hasbro is looking into making more EU figures in the future.
there will be no more movies. I've heard rumors that GL is working with Zhan to write the next three movies, but I don't belive it. The EU is Everything outside oof the movies (The Clone Wars, Books, games, Comics, etc.)
Again, I can only end by saying that the Jedi are not all-important to the SW forumla, and Star Wars, although different, would still be a success without them. Based on the evidence of the Special Editions, the Prequels were not a last great hope for the franchise.
Never said either of those things. All aspects are important to what SW is. It would not be as popular with any one of those sapects missing, The Jedi, however, next to the Western feel of the OT, contributed the most to SW's success.
I don't even need to quote anything you just said there, because it was rubbish. In no way are your unrelated opinions and the facts-you-get-off-of-Wikipedia positioned and organised to challenge my argument. You have no academic proof and no understanding of genre. Why do you continue to post?
Consider yourself ridiculed.
Originally posted by exanda kane
I don't even need to quote anything you just said there, because it was rubbish. In no way are your unrelated opinions and the facts-you-get-off-of-Wikipedia positioned and organised to challenge my argument. You have no academic proof and no understanding of genre. Why do you continue to post?Consider yourself ridiculed.
I never once wikipediaed in that post. I read books. Something you obviously don't do.
These are first Hand experience of Star Wars as it stands TODAY. IE: When I posted those quotes, they were from the movies, and books that I had read. When I mentioned the toy sections, I work in a toy store, and know exactly what we sell.
Ha. I'm pretty sure it has no reason to be closed apart from the retorts you gave when you couldn't give a satisfying argument.
Again, just to put the discussion into perspective.
This has been covered. Star Wars is a Western set against a futuristic back drop of a Pulp Mythos. The exclusion of Jedi in SW would affect only an aesthetic story, NOT the basic conventions, attractions and most importantly (in this discussion) the success of Star Wars. You seem to be using your recurring question to show that there is nothing to Star Wars other than Jedi, which is not true. While you have acknowledged my point, you do not accept it in its entirety. Naturally the argument that follows is what makes SW tick and what made SW successful in the first place. This is the zenith of the discussion, and the answer to it lies within the Western, not the collective of monks who preach veiled Christian values.
Originally posted by exanda kane
Ha. I'm pretty sure it has no reason to be closed apart from the retorts you gave when you couldn't give a satisfying argument.Again, just to put the discussion into perspective.
This has been covered. Star Wars is a Western set against a futuristic back drop of a Pulp Mythos. The exclusion of Jedi in SW would affect only an aesthetic story, [b]NOT
the basic conventions, attractions and most importantly (in this discussion) the success of Star Wars. You seem to be using your recurring question to show that there is nothing to Star Wars other than Jedi, which is not true. While you have acknowledged my point, you do not accept it in its entirety. Naturally the argument that follows is what makes SW tick and what made SW successful in the first place. This is the zenith of the discussion, and the answer to it lies within the Western, not the collective of monks who preach veiled Christian values. [/B]
This is absolutely hilarious... and, yet, a mildly depressing view into the state of the human race. he sits here arguing when noone is even arguing back. This desparation for conflict, could it be to prove to himself that he's beter than others? only time will tell.
I will make this final statement, and this IS where it ends:
I really don't care what people think about what makes Star Wars great anymore, in the end it boils down to personal prefrence. Something I failed to realise before, but now do, and thus, this entire discussion is pointless. And your part in reviving it, and arguinw with... well noone... just re-inforces my previous statements about you.