Click HERE to see this thread with all of the graphics, features, and links.

Ok, if you think about it, the Jedi (or force users) make Star Wars stand out. Without them, the plot would not have developed along the same lines, the series would be a rudementary Sci-fi, and it just would not have been as popular... In truth? It would be similar to the origional Battlestar Galactia (Never was one for the new series with the female Starbuck, and the cylons being human-constructions) Anyway, here is one point I have.

No Jedi = No Sith

Odds are, there would not even be the force, or atleast it wouldn't be known. The origins of both Jedi and Dark Jedi come from a planet (Can't remember it's name) where there were warring tribes of "Magicians". As the Jedi, and their teachings spread across the galaxy, the Dark Jedi did also. Eventually the Dark Jedi were banished, and they came across planet with a tribe known as "The sith". Well through inter-breeding, and learning the sith "Magic" The sith as we know them were born.

Darth bane: The Rule of Two
By: Drew Karpyshyn
The Golden Age of the Sith
By: Keven J. Anderson

Thoughts?

It would be a war without stars.

It would be Star Wars; a Western fantasy in space, without a religous faction really. Think Cowboys and Indians, the Man With No Name. Yeah, you got Han, Aliens (the 'other') and Boba Fett. That's your Star Wars, right there.

It would be Firefly but with Aliens.

Originally posted by Morridini
It would be Firefly but with Aliens.

I dunno about that, River is pretty much your Jedi-element there, dealt differently, true, but the similarities are there.

it'd be like the first half of Empire Strikes Back, until luke reaches dagobah

or Ice Pirates..
(Which IMO, was a great movie!)

SW would not have the same popularity without Jedi and Sith. That's what makes it different from other sci-fi movies and series. When you come to think of it, almost everything about SW is Jedi. Most comics are stories about Jedi or Sith, the movies main character are always Force-users, most books tell a story about a Jedi or a Sith, or something that has to do with the Force. NJO series: Jedi-based, LOTF series: Jedi based, POD: Sith based, ROT: Sith based, etc.. Even some games are based on stories of Jedi or Sith, like KOTOR, KOTOR 2, Jedi Outcast, Jedi Academy or The Force Unleashed.
If you take the Jedi out of Star Wars, there wouldn't be nearly as many plots, stories, characters, etc.. And comics would virtually disappear.

Star Wars without the Jedi would be a total disaster of a series. And not worthy of me paying to see it.

considering the minimal amount of time dealing with the jedi theme in ep iv, it probably still would have been a success anyway.

It would be just another crappy sci-fi that takes place in space.

so basically

Star wars minus (the force, jedi.etc....) = star trek.

crapola

Crapola indeed...

puke

Star Wars without Jedi = Star Wars with good dialogue, perhaps?

Just think about it kids

Originally posted by exanda kane
Star Wars without Jedi = Star Wars with good dialogue, perhaps?

Just think about it kids

Dude, without the Jedi you wouldn't have ANY of Obi-wan's greatest lines.

"For over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Before the dark times... Before the empire."

The plot would have been completely different also, for instance, Anakin wouldn't have as easily joined the emperor, since he was doing it for the power to save Padme`

Originally posted by Sesse
It would be a war without stars.

Or would it be stars with out the wars?

Originally posted by Schecter
considering the minimal amount of time dealing with the jedi theme in ep iv, it probably still would have been a success anyway.

However, without the Jedi the backstory of how the Empire came to be would have to be completely different.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Dude, without the Jedi you wouldn't have ANY of Obi-wan's greatest lines.

"For over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Before the dark times... Before the empire."

The plot would have been completely different also, for instance, Anakin wouldn't have as easily joined the emperor, since he was doing it for the power to save Padme`


Kid, those aren't great lines. While among the better of the SW dialogue-catalogue, still, in relation to anything else, they're pretty poor.

I don't even think you have a valid argument for this discussion. Not that anyone with the same opinion as you couldn't put forth theirs better, but until you take a contextual look at the situation, get an understanding of genre and take an objective viewpoint, anything you say sounds like it came from the mouth of a complete idiot.

Wait til that special someone arrives and handles your opinion better than you, then perhaps there might be some truth to your argument.

It would be like having a blank shoot out.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Kid, those aren't great lines. While among the better of the SW dialogue-catalogue, still, in relation to anything else, they're pretty poor.

I don't even think you have a valid argument for this discussion. Not that anyone with the same opinion as you couldn't put forth theirs better, but until you take a contextual look at the situation, get an understanding of genre and take an objective viewpoint, anything you say sounds like it came from the mouth of a complete idiot.

Wait til that special someone arrives and handles your opinion better than you, then perhaps there might be some truth to your argument.

And maybe you should actually pay attention to what I am saying instead of glancing at my posts and arguing with them.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Dude, without the Jedi you wouldn't have ANY of Obi-wan's greatest lines.

"For over a thousand generations the Jedi were the guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy. Before the dark times... Before the empire."

The plot would have been completely different also, for instance, Anakin wouldn't have as easily joined the emperor, since he was doing it for the power to save Padme`



Or would it be stars with out the wars?



However, without the Jedi the backstory of how the Empire came to be would have to be completely different.

point i was making was that it still would havelikely been successful since it was really ilm's visual effects which wowed people back then. the iconic scene of the day was not obiwan/vader's duel but rather the opening space assault and the battle of yavin. would it have kept people's interests for 2 trilogies without the jedi? thats another story.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
And maybe you should actually pay attention to what I am saying instead of glancing at my posts and arguing with them.

But you're speaking utter bollocks, what do you expect me to do?

You're just citing occurences and events within the Star Wars universe which bear no relation as to why you think Jedi make Star Wars special. Every "Sci-Fi" franchise has their own "Jedi," even Star Trek probably has a couple of superhuman monks about over the course of its poorly scripted history.

Please, stop indulging me with how many lonely nights you have spent pouring through Star Wars comics and actually solidify or create your argument, as you are coming across as a complete loony.

A movie about a bunch of religious nutjobs!

Originally posted by exanda kane
But you're speaking utter bollocks, what do you expect me to do?

You're just citing occurences and events within the Star Wars universe which bear no relation as to why you think Jedi make Star Wars special. Every "Sci-Fi" franchise has their own "Jedi," even Star Trek probably has a couple of superhuman monks about over the course of its poorly scripted history.

Please, stop indulging me with how many lonely nights you have spent pouring through Star Wars comics and actually solidify or create your argument, as you are coming across as a complete loony.

Ok,
A: I don't spend lonely nights pouring over Star Wars comics, I read them for entertainment puropses and remember what I read, and even at that I have only read part of Tales of the Jedi and what is out of Knights of the Old Republic. I mostly read the books.
B: The thing about the Jedi isn't that they are super-human monks, But the fact that they were at one time a religious group that were open defenders of peace throughout the galaxy. And not EVERY Sci-Fi has "Jedi". Many may have Force-esque abilities, but that doesn't make the people (Or aliens) who use them "Jedi Characters".
C: Without the Jedi, the story would not have developed along the same course as it has. Also, though the first movie may have been a sucess without the Jedi, it would not have held the attention of audiences through six movies, and the EU would be nearly, if not completely, Non-existant.

I will give that I was arguing 2 different points at the same time, but that doesn't make them any less valid.

Oh, and as a side-note Hasbro would brobably not be as huge of a company since their main money-maker is Star Wars.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Ok,
B: The thing about the Jedi isn't that they are super-human monks, But the fact that they were at one time a religious group that were open defenders of peace throughout the galaxy. And not EVERY Sci-Fi has "Jedi". Many may have Force-esque abilities, but that doesn't make the people (Or aliens) who use them "Jedi Characters".

No, not every Sci Fi franchise has their Jedi, but they are certainly a generic convention , synonymous enough to not be a unique asset to Star Wars. The fact that they are religous crusaders makes little to no difference.



That's purely your assumption and you have no proof.



What's that got to do with Jedi? And you play with kids toys?

My argument is that the Western elements of Star Wars make it stand out from the crowd; the conventions of which are fundamentally American in ideology, both for US audiences and as an export for the rest of the world. Star Wars simply recycled the Western in futuristic garb for audiences at a time when Westerns were thought to be on their last legs.

Originally posted by exanda kane
That's purely your assumption and you have no proof.
The Jedi/Sith/Force users were a key plot factor in the movie series, without that plotfactor the story would not have developed the same way as it did.

I.E. Vader's ENTIRE backstory would be diferent.
Luke would not have gone to dagobah to learn the ways of the Jedi.
Obi-wan would not have returned as a force ghost after his death, actually he probably would not have let Vader kill him as easily.
Obi-Wan's back story would be completely diferent.
How the Republic became the Empire would be diferent.
Odds are that Luke and Leia's back stories would even be diferent. Hell, even 3P0's back story would probably be diferent.
The events of the Pre-quils would not have happened as they are, and the same goes for Episodes V and VI.
IV would probably be similar, since the Jedi were a small factor, but they would be different.
It is also VERY possible that the ENTIRE story would have been diferent, just for it to make sence.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
The Jedi/Sith/Force users were a key plot factor in the movie series, without that plotfactor the story would not have developed the same way as it did.

I.E. Vader's ENTIRE backstory would be diferent.
Luke would not have gone to dagobah to learn the ways of the Jedi.
Obi-wan would not have returned as a force ghost after his death, actually he probably would not have let Vader kill him as easily.
Obi-Wan's back story would be completely diferent.
How the Republic became the Empire would be diferent.
Odds are that Luke and Leia's back stories would even be diferent. Hell, even 3P0's back story would probably be diferent.
The events of the Pre-quils would not have happened as they are, and the same goes for Episodes V and VI.
IV would probably be similar, since the Jedi were a small factor, but they would be different.
It is also VERY possible that the ENTIRE story would have been diferent, just for it to make sence.

And? That doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the story.

Exanda Kane is officially The Man. Like Palpatine.

Originally posted by exanda kane
It would be Star Wars; a Western fantasy in space, without a religous faction really. Think Cowboys and Indians, the Man With No Name. Yeah, you got Han, Aliens (the 'other') and Boba Fett. That's your Star Wars, right there. may HORSE be with you

Without Jedi or Sith it really wouldn't work. No, Darkside backed Government to enslave the galaxy or good force user to save it. Take out the Force and you take out the magic and mystery of the whole thing, becoming some generic Sci-Fi story with nothing really special to offer.

Other than Han Solo, the best character?

it would be a different story. no way to determine whether it would have been better or worse, let alone good or bad. the presupposition is that no other interesting and compelling elements would be included in place of the jedi/sith which is completely fallacious. by your logic, star wars has been the only success in the space/scifi genre...because it had jedi and sith. you have no ground for which to present your argument besides restating over and over how you love the jedi. well most if not all of us do (this IS a starwars forum). this however is not the point. it would have been a different story, different characters (even if not in name), different timeline...endless possibilities which only the most pretentious of fools would claim to know for certain.

There would have been Star Wars, the movie.

Maybe Star Wars 2, the sequel.

If that does moderately well, you'll have #3.

But the plot for 2-3 would be one which doesn't exist in any sense. At most you get the space rebels fighting the evil galactic empire with lasers, light-speed, and spaceships.

Throw in some heroes who know how to shoot their laser guns and wield a laser sword like a samurai or musketeer, and you get a carbon copy of countless other space-based sci-fis.


Star Wars IS the Jedi and the Force. Not even the Sith, they're just the evil Jedi who came about in the prequels two decades after the originals. The Force, Jedi and lightsabers, when working together, form the very core of Star Wars. Every in-universe story NOT to do with them only exists because they set the precedent.

pure overly presumptuous and pretentious hogwash.

also, dune came way before star wars and was borrowed from heavily by george lucas. quality scifi did not begin nor end with star wars ffs.

Do you mean Dune the movie? Cuz that was an '84 film.

Originally posted by Tangible God
Do you mean Dune the movie? Cuz that was an '84 film.

lol

ok, this conversation is over

beef tings

Originally posted by exanda kane
And? That doesn't mean anything outside of the context of the story.

The story has been my point this entire time.

Originally posted by Tangible God
There would have been Star Wars, the movie.

Maybe Star Wars 2, the sequel.

If that does moderately well, you'll have #3.

But the plot for 2-3 would be one which doesn't exist in any sense. At most you get the space rebels fighting the evil galactic empire with lasers, light-speed, and spaceships.

Throw in some heroes who know how to shoot their laser guns and wield a laser sword like a samurai or musketeer, and you get a carbon copy of countless other space-based sci-fis.


Star Wars IS the Jedi and the Force. Not even the Sith, they're just the evil Jedi who came about in the prequels two decades after the originals. The Force, Jedi and lightsabers, when working together, form the very core of Star Wars. Every in-universe story NOT to do with them only exists because they set the precedent.

My point exactly.

Originally posted by Schecter
pure overly presumptuous and pretentious hogwash.


Not true, as I have been pointing out over-and-over again the story of Star Wars leans VERY heavily on the existance of the Jedi, without them, either the story would have to be completely diferent, or else it would make no sence.

Originally posted by Schecter
lol

ok, this conversation is over

Incredibly well said hahahaha

'84 film. eff off.

And JLRTENJAC, you're still talking bollocks. The aesthetics of the story have no place in the discussion about what Star Wars would be like without "Jedi." Storylines are all moot besides the fact that George Lucas considers Star Wars a Western in futuristic garb; it is the Western that makes Star Wars significant, not some pseudo-religous collective of monks.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Not true, as I have been pointing out over-and-over again the story of Star Wars leans VERY heavily on the existance of the Jedi, without them, either the story would have to be completely diferent, or else it would make no sence.

or it might have been epic or perhaps a flop.
fine. but thats as far as this discussion can rationally go.

q: What would Star Wars be without the Jedi?

a: something completely different.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Incredibly well said hahahaha

'84 film. eff off.

And JLRTENJAC, you're still talking bollocks. The aesthetics of the story have no place in the discussion about what Star Wars would be like without "Jedi." Storylines are all moot besides the fact that George Lucas considers Star Wars a Western in futuristic garb; it is the Western that makes Star Wars significant, not some pseudo-religous collective of monks.

And why exactly are storylines moot besides your alleged fact?

Because it's a discussion of "What would Star Wars be without the Jedi," or did you not know that?

Originally posted by exanda kane
Because it's a discussion of "What would Star Wars be without the Jedi," or did you not know that?

However, without storyline there would be no Star Wars, because it would be a non existent story... or does that make too much sense for you?

Erm, no, that's just bollocks again. You do like your bollocks, I'll give you that.

The storyline would be different. The elements that make Star Wars what it is will still be there.

hmm I can imagine anakin without the force. he would have died a long time ago and the movies would have been better for it. Moron.

Imagine the first half of kotor II, you know, the boring part where you run around desperately seeking a lightsaber and dont wear any star wars clothing, dont run into any star wars badguys and dont use any star wars weapons....

that would be star wars without jedi.

Originally posted by Schecter
the presupposition is that no other interesting and compelling elements would be included in place of the jedi/sith which is completely fallacious.

many scifi character have supernatural abilities. not just the jedi.

let that soak into your fanboy brains. repreat after me:

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

Originally posted by Schecter
many scifi character have supernatural abilities. not just the jedi.

let that soak into your fanboy brains. repreat after me:

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

george lucas did not invent the concept of superhuman abilities

I know that, but the superhuman ABILITIES are not the important part in this conversation, it is the nature of the force, Light and Dark that made the Jedi what they are. It is what made the Galaxy what it is. Without it, Star Wars would not exist as it does today.

Also, think about it, what aspects bring out the Western aspects of Star wars the most? The empire? No. The Massive space battles? No. The rebel and imperial armies? No. The scenery of the visited planets? No. Or the battle between the Jedi and the Sith... Light and Dark? well... yea.

Think on it, Jedi and sith meet, in a classic shoot-out style. You have the "White hat" hero, and the "Black hat" Villan. Etc, etc.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I know that, but the superhuman ABILITIES are not the important part in this conversation, it is the nature of the force, Light and Dark that made the Jedi what they are. It is what made the Galaxy what it is. Without it, Star Wars would not exist as it does today.

the force is just another representation of the supernatural. it could have ben presented in another form, with another form of follower/practicer and still been a success. light/dark use of magic is a theme as old as...well...the very act storytelling.


stop trying to sell the concept of the force/jedi as a cool idea. we were already sold on that by george lucas long ago.

just dont buy into the hogwash that it had to be exactly that story and every element, to a tee, to have been a success. thats just delusional.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I know that, but the superhuman ABILITIES are not the important part in this conversation, it is the nature of the force, Light and Dark that made the Jedi what they are. It is what made the Galaxy what it is. Without it, Star Wars would not exist as it does today.

And you think simply the nature of the Force (basically magic, or the supernatural, both old concepts) is what made Star Wars what it is? By that silly logic, Eragon, Hawk The Slayer and just for the hell of it, Le Morte d'Arthur should be as big as SW in the public conciousness. You really don't have any grasp on what you are talking about.



Jedi and Sith bring out the elements of the Western? Well, you've finally understood that Star Wars is a Western, but you have highlighted the only element which is problematic in the Western context. Disregarding the fact that George Lucas admits that Star Wars is a Western in futuristic garb, it is quite alarming obvious. Add in a few WWII spitfire battles, a few tensions about the fear of executive power and an exagerrated Western Fronter in the shape of Tatooine and you have Star Wars.



You know nothing about the Western fs that, seriously, is your answer.

Originally posted by exanda kane
And you think simply the nature of the Force (basically magic, or the supernatural, both old concepts) is what made Star Wars what it is? By that silly logic, Eragon, Hawk The Slayer and just for the hell of it, Le Morte d'Arthur should be as big as SW in the public conciousness. You really don't have any grasp on what you are talking about.

Jedi and Sith bring out the elements of the Western? Well, you've finally understood that Star Wars is a Western, but you have highlighted the only element which is problematic in the Western context. Disregarding the fact that George Lucas admits that Star Wars is a Western in futuristic garb, it is quite alarming obvious. Add in a few WWII spitfire battles, a few tensions about the fear of executive power and an exagerrated Western Fronter in the shape of Tatooine and you have Star Wars.


Ok, I will lay this out to you clearly. It is a combination of every aspect of Star Wars that has made it popular. The Force in Star Wars is what stands out and makes it what it is. This discussion was NEVER about what made it popular, but what made it what it is.

I just believe that, were the series without the force, and thusdifferent it would not be as popular.

Your move.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
Ok, I will lay this out to you clearly. It is a combination of every aspect of Star Wars that has made it popular. The Force in Star Wars is what stands out and makes it what it is. This discussion was NEVER about what made it popular, but what made it what it is.

I just believe that, were the series without the force, and thusdifferent it would not be as popular.

Your move.

I called Check Mate a few posts a go.

If you want to go with deniability route, then go for it; you look like a fool and end the discussion with your trousers by your ankles. Fact is, the Western elements that shine through in Star Wars (and which George Lucas admits too) are the underlying factor in Star Wars' success, purely because they fill the gap left behind by the popularity of the Western. End of really.

(Note, I missed the part where you have NO evidence.)

Originally posted by exanda kane
I called Check Mate a few posts a go.

If you want to go with deniability route, then go for it; you look like a fool and end the discussion with your trousers by your ankles. Fact is, the Western elements that shine through in Star Wars (and which George Lucas admits too) are the underlying factor in Star Wars' success, purely because they fill the gap left behind by the popularity of the Western. End of really.

(Note, I missed the part where you have NO evidence.)

Listen, I really don't give a rat's @ss what Lucas has and hasn't admitted to. If he wanted to keep his stories 100% to his vision he shouldn't have allowed so many people to create stories in his galaxy far far away. What Star Wars was origionally intended to be and what it is are not the same. I admit that western influence is shown greatly in the original movies, and some in the prequals but it isn't what shines in the story as it is. Everyone, Including the "AllMighty" George Lucas, needs to understand that the EU exists, that it is the only future for Star Wars, and if you only base what you know of Star Wars on the movies and what GL spouts when he is feebally trying to reclaim the story to himself then you have made yourself ignorant to what Star Wars truly has become, which is a story inwhich the Force shines, and the Western element has become little more than a a dull ember.

And even the prequils didn't live up to GL's origional vision. (I.E. in EPV obiwan said that Yoda trained him, but in EPI it was Qui-gon. And in EPIV Vader said that he left obiwan when he was a learner, but in EPIII he is a jedi knight.)

It's not the fact the of whether you agree with whatever George Lucas says or not, it's the fact that I have proof to back up my opinion and you don't.

I don't like George Lucas myself, but the matter of the fact is that as the creator of Star Wars, his opinion dicks on all. Fortunatedly, what he says here is one of the only things that makes sense. He backs up what I believe is the most appealing and succesful characteristic of Star Wars; a reinvention of the Western.

For your gestation, the majority of EU is poorly written and just plain daft. The dull ember in Star Wars is the silly Jedi business, not the Western influenced characters, who's remergence as the top dogs of Star Wars shows the franchise still has some balls. The popularity of Boba Fett ever since his inception is more proof, which weighs heavily on your scrawly argument.

You are out of your depth.

Originally posted by exanda kane
It's not the fact the of whether you agree with whatever George Lucas says or not, it's the fact that I have proof to back up my opinion and you don't.

I don't like George Lucas myself, but the matter of the fact is that as the creator of Star Wars, his opinion dicks on all. Fortunatedly, what he says here is one of the only things that makes sense. He backs up what I believe is the most appealing and succesful characteristic of Star Wars; a reinvention of the Western.

For your gestation, the majority of EU is poorly written and just plain daft. The dull ember in Star Wars is the silly Jedi business, not the Western influenced characters, who's remergence as the top dogs of Star Wars shows the franchise still has some balls. The popularity of Boba Fett ever since his inception is more proof, which weighs heavily on your scrawly argument.

You are out of your depth.

The fact is that he has allowed people to add to his story, and it is part of his story now weather he or you movie honkies like it or not. Once again, you have used popularity of one part of a story as proof, an act which is born of pure ignorance.

You really should just give up. It's embarrasing to pummel you with facts, especially now you're trying to turn this into a tirade against George Lucas, idiot though he may be.

I mean, come on; Boba Fett survives because of the EU, and has endorsed the EU as what even Rick McCallum considered the most popular character. He's The Man With No Name, Lucas has even said as much. There's your Western right there, in the EU, alive and well. You're ridiculous.

And you talk of ignorance? You wouldn't know reason if one of your little geek pals came and hit you over the head with a toy lightsaber. You've been presented with proof that you are wrong, end your embarrasment now kiddo, because it'll be a big stain on anything interesting you might have to say in the future.

Star Wars works because it's a Western. The Jedi are all moot. Go home.

so there you go... it might be a dang good western without Jedis/sith and epic duels, but it certainly wouldnt be a vast epic on the same level with beowulf, The Oddessy, and Lord of The Rings....

or did you just mean if there werent jedi and there were sith? in which case, the sith corrupt themselves and civil war rages in between them, and then next thing you know, one sect of sith is nicer then the other and has more elegant motives and ways of getting things done, and now they are the good guys... so pretty much no matter what you do, without jedis, some sith eventually become jedis...

oh yes, and what I said above about the 6 main elements of a Epic is true, its taught in all classes of english literature... it is CANON in rl...

everything else is my opinion, not intended to start a debate. Dont debate with me over my own opinion, you arent going to change it. Sorry.

And dont call me noobaris, youngling. It really makes me mad.

Yes, youngling, this means you! gunsmilie

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
Star Wars without Jedis would be way Less epic... I mean, the lightsaber embodies the most violent kind of hand to hand conflict. The jedi embodies the Image of a Hero, such has not been written about since Achilles (with the exception of all lord of the rings characters)

Yeah, you try and define epic in light of the Western. First off, the lightsaber is a gimmick. Ever seen Blade Runner? The handles of the umbrellas glow like lightsaber and do they contribute to the telling of the story? No. Second, who defines Star Wars as epic? I'm pretty sure it wouldn't have made an arrival in discussions before the Prequels came. The Prequels do take snippets out of the epics, but as they came later, with 30 years of nostalgia, it is hard to measure there success in entertaining audiences in the same way as the Originals did. The void left by the Western was already filled. Third, before I begin to clarify, remember this is a film, not a piece of literature, thus when you try and cottonball a Western into ill suited parameters like the Historical Epic, you're gonna get "hop-ons" as one would say.

Here you generalise and say that the Jedi is the embodiment of the Hero, yet obviously that would not be true if you lump Anakin Skywalker, Aurra Sing, Count Dooku, Jacen Solo, Revan and Malak in that box, just to name a thing. Understand that Jedi is not a blanket term for a protagonist. You have your innocent Hero luke and your tragic Hero Anakin, it has nothing to do with them being Jedi or not. You also reference Lord of the Rings after skipping out a good couple o' thousand years of literature. Bit silly.



Assuming Western characters are equal is also a tad ignorant. Let me again reiterate that this is film and not literature we are speaking about, even if we acknowledge the influence of said literature. Again, I can return to Boba Fett, a Western character with "great historal and legendary significance." He fulfills your chararcteristic of the Epic and is, to extents a Hero.



I don't understand why you felt the need to put this in. Jedi have nothing to do with it.



Deeds of great valor of both ability and moral are carried out by Han Solo in Star Wars: A New Hope and the rest of 'em. Han Solo undertakes a similar predicament to that of the Ringo Kid in the eyes of Luke. You may argue too, that Luke Skywalker still fits into the parameters of the Western in the first few films; think of Shane and so on, and you get your innocent Hero. I do note that you used "superhuman courage," which either seems to me to be a bit of bollocks, a problematic phrase and just plain incorrect.



Again, why is this important? Star Wars is not an Epic in the literary or even Ben-Hur sense of the word. Understand that, you'll get this a lot easier. Again, the supernatural forces are purely aesthetic and could be summised as an analogy of faith and religion in another plane of reality.



This is a classic example of why your intepretation does not work! Do you even know what sustained elevation is? Star Wars does not practice sustained elevation in anything but the scrolling prologue, other than that, the story moves by edits and a classical narrative. George Lucas isn't a poet, he is a director-producer. Understand that.



Evidence is with me. Any kind of deductive thought you try is simply curbstomped by the fact that George Lucas says that Star Wars is a Western in futuristic garb, and I don't even have to mention any other sources because of the importance and significance of that. I hope this clarified things for you.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
so there you go... it might be a dang good western without Jedis/sith and epic duels, but it certainly wouldnt be a vast epic on the same level with beowulf, The Oddessy, and Lord of The Rings....

Again that is entirely subjective reasoning and quite a lot of bollocks at the same time. Of course, it disregards the fact that Star Wars is only an Epic in a small number of ways, while not being a poem or another piece of literature either. If you are genuinely illuminating some kind of connection between the 50's historical epics then that is also overly optimistic, as they have very little in common. But would you say Stagecoach, High Noon, Once Upon a Time in the West weren't epic to a degree? Same thing with Star Wars kiddo.



Well, they may be truthful as bulletpoints, but really, your descriptions have no depth whatsoever. I'm guessing you aren't too familiar with them either, considering you mentioned sustained elevation, which simply contradicts anything you say. Again, they may be true, but you've got the wrong end off the stick, so they don't really hold on as a succesful argument.



That's all well and good, you're allowed that opinion, yet the fact that you've been preseneted with plenty of fact to the contrary doesn't give you any sustained argument.

Originally posted by exanda kane
You really should just give up. It's embarrasing to pummel you with facts, especially now you're trying to turn this into a tirade against George Lucas, idiot though he may be.

I mean, come on; Boba Fett survives because of the EU, and has endorsed the EU as what even Rick McCallum considered the most popular character. He's The Man With No Name, Lucas has even said as much. There's your Western right there, in the EU, alive and well. You're ridiculous.

And you talk of ignorance? You wouldn't know reason if one of your little geek pals came and hit you over the head with a toy lightsaber. You've been presented with proof that you are wrong, end your embarrasment now kiddo, because it'll be a big stain on anything interesting you might have to say in the future.

Star Wars works because it's a Western. The Jedi are all moot. Go home.

I have seen little to no proof from you, other than George Lucas this and Boba fett that. Star Wars works because of a combination of EVERYTHING most of all the Jedi. Go to someone and ask them "What stands out to you in star Wars?", and they will say "the Jedi." or "The force."

Besides, Boba Fett is nolonger the man with no name, the Prequils made sure of that.

Edit: Oh yea, I forgot, your final bits of proof, Popularity this and Load of Bullocks that. How can I stand up to such well constructed arguments.



Film is an extention of literature.



Once again GL said this: George Lucas is no longer the soul creator of Star Wars stories, it origionated with him, he made it popular, but it is no longer completely his. And besides, the Western influence was even minimised in HIS prequils.

And before I confuse your little mind, I didn't mean that George Lucas said that, but that you are using a statement of George, which in all honesty, is moot.

Jesus kid, give yourself a break.

Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
I have seen little to no proof from you, other than George Lucas this and Boba fett that. Star Wars works because of a combination of EVERYTHING most of all the Jedi. Go to someone and ask them "What stands out to you in star Wars?", and they will say "the Jedi." or "The force."

George Lucas this and that?

George Lucas is the creator of Star Wars and whatever he says goes, even if it's ludicrous. Fortunatedly in this matter, he makes perfect sense. That's end of, you're wrong and your argument is shite. Fact. And yes, Star Wars "works" as it is, as a collection of components from all over the place, fact, BUT it is the fact that Star Wars is a Western that gives it such a place in the social conscious. Also a fact.

If you look statistically at the popularity of the Western, one of the most prolific and popular genres in the history of cinema you will see the slowdecline of the Western over the years. The Western in it's natural form flounders and dies yet it feeds certain tributaries; Sci-Fi and the Road Movie are among the more prominent. Star Wars takes the place of the Western in the social conciousness. Fact.

The Sci-Fi elements of Star Wars stand out to people because as I have said, it is a Western in futuristic garb. That means that the visual iconography of the franchise is futuristic, a la your assumption (with no proof remember). Analogy for you, take Blade Runner yet again. It has iconography we associate with science fiction, yet it is actually a film noir detective story exploring many things. So basically (I don't want to overcomplicate things for you!) your argument consists of bollocks and a whole lot of waffle.



It's Prequels* and how can you pretend to be having a debate about genre in Star Wars when you don't even understand the concept of The Man With No Name. George Lucas, yet again fortunatedly, reveals that Boba Fett is the Man With No Name of SW mythos. Fact. So, fyi, you're a dolt, leave now.



Well you haven't given much of a considered argument yet.



Are you one of the people who bought the highly sought after Idiot's Guide to being an Idiot? That's such a ridiculous opinion I'd almost shit my Topman boxers if I didn't pity you. It's a shallow opinion that is really, a big bunch of bollocks.



No, it's still George Lucas in charge over the direction of SW I'm afraid. Fact, you're wrong and if I didn't mention before, you speak an awful lot of bollocks and STILL, no proof. Get some kiddo.

The unfortunate problem with this is that HE has allowed these other stores into his universe, and thus has made them a part of his story. If it weren't for the fact that he has argued that the EU is separate from his stories then I would hold his opinion in higher regards, but he likes to not only allow these stories to exist, but approve them as a part of his story, then says "Oh, it's not part of my story."



This is getting old: Pay attention to what HAS been created vs what is said to have been created, you WILL see a stark difference.



Literature is a body of usually (Not always) written works related by subject-matter, by language or place of origin, or by dominant cultural standards. Literally translated, the word means "acquaintance with letters" (from Latin littera letter). In Western culture the most basic literary types include poetry and prose, fiction and non-fiction.

Books, Movies, Radio programs, and Video games can all be classified as literature, because ALL are written works in the beginning. Ever heard of a script?



Read the beginning of this post.

Jeez I can't help but mock you now.
Originally posted by LORD JLRTENJAC
The unfortunate problem with this is that HE has allowed these other stores into his universe, and thus has made them a part of his story. If it weren't for the fact that he has argued that the EU is separate from his stories then I would hold his opinion in higher regards, but he likes to not only allow these stories to exist, but approve them as a part of his story, then says "Oh, it's not part of my story."

Once again, you have over stepped your mark chicklet. The EU (Yes, this is an EU forum, but that's your mistake) is moot when considering what Star Wars would be like without Jedi; the Western aspects caused Star Wars to be a success, thus the EU was created. What any EU author or so forth has said cannot contradict what the success and appeal of Star Wars was in the beginning...end of. It's not a chicken or the egg situation kiddo.



What is this?





Wikipedia much? That has nothing and absolutetly nothing to do with the debate at hand, but then, I shouldn't be suprised as you have expressed zero valid points. Try again.



Yeah, that's right. Except it's a lot of bollocks on your behalf. You seem to be unaware of the practices within the industries you are talking about. I'd highlight film (include TV if you will) here, seeing as the script doesn't always come first. Take Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom for instance; Spielberg basically cobbled together a bunch of action scenes and stunts and made a narrative out of it; improvisation is a stock trade for some, the way a package is made by producers and taken to Studio executives.

Oh, and by the way, that's not even taking into consideration the final product. Different mediums. No two ways about it. I was joking about the Idiot's Guide to being an Idiot at first, but I must half seriously ask now, have you read it?

The sheer fact that you are constantly shuffling your pathetic argument about and can't rebute anything I sau is comical, tragic even. I don't like one sided arguments, please, for my sake too, cobble together something reasonable. If you have a view on something, keep it, or at least concede. Don't change your argument without addressing your old ones shortcomings first. I expect a funny rebuttle next.

You know, I don't even care anymore. I quit.The fact is that without the Jedi Star Wars wouldn't be the same and you're obviously too dense to see it. Au Revoir. À l'Année prochaine.

Of course it wouldn't be the same kiddo, you should have listened to Schecter earlier, and could have saved yourself the trouble. But the fact is, a lack of a pious collective of warrior monks would not, by default, mean Star Wars would revert to a generic Sci-Fi franchise. It isn't particuarly complex generically, but it has more layers than that; example being the generic elements of the Western.

While it is by no means alone that the Western influence allows Star Wars to rise above peers, it is certainly the most significant and prolific argument for its success. Glad you saw reason by the end of it.

Grift that turkey.

also, the lightsaber embodies the samurai sword, the Spartan sword, the Roman Sword, the European Broadsword, in the fact that that is the most passionate and bold way to express conflict.

Have you ever seen a gunfight give you goosbumps (aside from the matrix please) Like the one part when Luke draws on the darkside to defeat vader?

For god's sake, use the plural of Jedi correctly; Jedi. I'm afraid it makes you look like an idiot and affects anything else you say.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
High Noon is an epic... your right...

look up there at the 5 things I posted... star wars fulfills each and every one. even if some of them dont have anything to do with jedis, they are all VERY Star Wars. This makes star wars an Epic...

You mean you used wikipedia? Here you use "Star Wars," as an adjective, yet fail to describe what that entails. What does Star Wars mean? Give the parameters for what you mean and EXPLAIN. Don't copy and paste from wiki; you look silly and ill-informed, especially when you have something like sustained elevation in there (Star Wars is NOT a piece of prose). If you want to shove Star Wars into the literary parameters of the Epic, then go and beat yourself up over it; at the end of the day, while it may contain elements of the Epic (or elements trying to aspire to an Epic, it is a very small part of the overall composition of the franchise. I repeat, it's a Western, fact.



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.

I

Again, I was clarifying for you that the traits of the Epic have become inherent in storytelling (note, not literature in this case, considering a great majority of Greek tragedies were told orally.) You aren't being clear on the type of protagonist you're on about now. I think you mean Han Solo is a Cowboy, and Luke Skywalker is the innocent aspiring cowboy. The relationship between Luke and Han is a tension inherent in Westerns. Plus, Pirat-y? What the hell are you on about.

Fact that you are characterisating people simply because of the weapons they use is funny too. Come on, admit it. You don't have any welll formed opinions on this matter. You can't watch one documentary, cope and paste from wiki and expect to know what you are talking about.



Maybe...call it like a Film? As, taking into consideration inflation, it is still the second highest grossing film in the US ever and is also the most important thing in US film history when considering "New, New Hollywood."

Apart from that, I'll say again that it isn't literature. It has a narrative from which the audience can place a story chronologically. Doesn't mean it is literature, especially when you realise that it takes as much from futuristic pulp serials as it does old myth, but mostly from the Western. In other words, SW is a Western set in front of a pulp mythos; not dense enough to have a commednable mythology,but at the same time not trying to attain one. Again, your reasoning is pretty pathetic for someone trying to debate issues of genre, especially switching mediums like hopping on different feet when it suits you.



You have seen A New Hope, right? What don't you stop trying to tell me what I already know (although I was unaware of good sword choreography in the original SW - which made it popular rememberr). Again, it shows bad reasoning from you. Come up with a good argument please, I can't run this show on my own.



Except that you're wrong. Call it what you want, but it makes you look silly.
For instance, would you have say a bad story, i.e. prose, published in a book was a bad story? You're muddling your mediums again. Film critcism was problematic when high-brow literary criticisms were used, because they are different mediums and even stories constructed from narratives if they are displayed as films, are films.



I realised kiddo.

Please, please, please get yourself a good argument together. This is embarassing.

You're talking about a subjective opinion there and I hope you aren't expecting me to take that seriously. I'll indulge myself though. I think Return of the Jedi is a medicore film, containing too many cringeworthy moments that distract from the good parts, i.e. not the story. And no, that moment isn't great nor does it give me goosebumps, plus the camera technique Kasdan tries to use is also silly. You talk about goosebumps, you gotta talk about the moment William DeFoe dies in Platoon, or the restaraunt scene in the Godfather, or the famous scene in Rear Window. That's good cinema.

Originally posted by exanda kane
For god's sake, use the plural of Jedi correctly; Jedi. I'm afraid it makes you look like an idiot and affects anything else you say.

For the record (not that I disagree with what you're saying here), that's actually how George Lucas himself uses it, lol.

actually look at any high school literature book and it will say these 5 points about epic poems. not just from wikipedia.

the samurai word for "hero" as in the way we use protagonist, is "Jadai" and is in fact where George Lucas got the name for Jedis. THe lightsaber was originally going to be the samurai sword, but he then decided to give them a weapon that could be used to deflect bullets and changed it to the lightsaber (the past paragraph is from statements from george lucas)

the story of star wars is indeed epic as it fills all of the necessary requirements for epic poetry.

sure, its not literature, but put it down on a peice of paper in stanzas, and youve got epic poetry....

so It is my belief that if you will not call it epic, at least call it the greatest story of our generation.

I told you to put together a concise argument, and you post this?



Why are you telling me this? That has no bearing on your pitful argument whatsoever.

It doesn't fulfill sustained elevation, as I will mention AGAIN. I've already shown that the "requirements" aren't simply limited to the Western, and when considering we have a FILM on our hands, they take on an altgother different light.



So you've changed your argument again? Keep it steady for gods sake, you're pretty poor at this game. Star Wars isn't epic poetry; get over your love affair with a film franchise.



It isn't an "epic," both in the sense of epic poetry of Homer and of the 50's Historical Epics. It contains elements of the Epic that are universal in genre. That proves nothing. You simply cannot find anything to criticise in my argument, end it there. Again, Star Wars, not really my generation, nor I could predict it was yours. It's a Pulp Mythos. Take it or leave it, but as far as films are concerned, there are much stronger "stories" out there.

Again, you kinda fall in a ditch and die in slow agony. Niiiiiiice.

So if Star wars isnt one of the greatest stories of all time, why dont you go find your 'high noon' debating forum and keep your crappy cynical ideas out of this. did you even click on that history channel vid link?

didnt think so...

there arent very many stronger films out there. name a few



so those are also literary greats.... and they arent of "our time" like i said before...

so what other movies can you think of that might be considered epics?

You've gone off topic kiddo. But I'll indulge you none the less.

Originally posted by Lord Knightfa11
So if Star wars isnt one of the greatest stories of all time, why dont you go find your 'high noon' debating forum and keep your crappy cynical ideas out of this. did you even click on that history channel vid link?

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.

Does that make An Empire Strike Back! and A New Hope bad films? No, they're both solid films, plus the original Star Wars is the second most important film in American film history (not the world though). Deal with that. And again, Star Wars is a futuristic Western set amidst a Pulp Mythos.



Strong proof. I was almost overblown with your argument.



You're not very adventurous with film are you? There are plenty of better films out there, kiddo, just take a look. Again, they may be literary greats in their "literature" form, yet you can't extend that title to the films. We call Gone With the Wind a classic movie, because it sets new standards in the industry for a film with a classical hollywood narrative, as well as its production design. In fact, There Will Be Blood, which I saw last night, is far better than any of the SW film, even ESB.

And again, you're off topic. The fact that you keep changing your argument shows you have no real solid base or informed reasoning to fall back on. Why ask me questions about epics when I've just shattered your argument that SW is an epic, even if it contains a couple of the characteristics (which are mainly universal btw)?

To answer your last, poor question, I can think of quite a lot of Historial Epics; Ben-Hur, Cleopatra, Julius Cesar and Spartacus to name a few. But it isn't Classical Epic Poetry because they are different mediums, and no, just because something contains the same name, does not mean it's the same. Again, you're off topic and floundering about. It's embarrasing.

I've not seen a good pwning like what Exanda's doing here in a long time.

Originally posted by exanda kane
You've gone off topic kiddo. But I'll indulge you none the less.



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.



Indiana Jones should have died after the Holy Grail. Temple of doom is nothing to write home about... and simply the ammount 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". 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.



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....

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. 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.




why thank you...



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? 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.

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...

o i forgot something.

this is the website i got those results from and the results of indiana jones vs star wars. measely compared to the 207 million that star wars has.

so stfu... I know what im talking about

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.

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".




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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.



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.

Very true, I was only stating a fact.



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.



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.




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.



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.



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.




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.

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.

Hear hear.

No Jedi no Star Wars.

Wow. That actually summed up everything pretty good.

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.

Here to re-open the discussion.

You have no academic proof for your belief and you have no understanding of the other approaches you have to take in order to have an inkling what Star Wars would be without Jedi.

Here to ask a mod to finally close this thread and let it die.

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.

A sucky knock off of star trek

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, 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.

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.

Without jedi star wars would be ****

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
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. You replied, that shows interest. Apparently, Exanda knew what he was doing reviving this.

Originally posted by BetrayedUnicorn
A sucky knock off of star trek

Yep!

With Han Solo/Luke playing a Flash Gordon-esque role (though I like Flash Gordon franchise) while fighting the agents of the Empire; the Evil General Darth Vader and his right hand man Quick Draw Boba Fett. It wouldn't lend much to the imagination that's for sure.

Dune had a story element like the Jedi and the force, what with the prescience of the Atreides family and their golden way and the Voice of the gesserit sisters, not to mention a "chosen one" legend in the kwisatz haderach. Every great space opera has it's "Jedi", the swashbuckling gunman is usually just a side kick in these times of stories i.e. Han solo . Star Wars would be poorer without Jedi.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC
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.

No need to be melodramatic about the 'state of the human race.' If I were that wet, I'd make you an example and pull a Morgan Freeman, saying that the 'state of the human' race is cancerous because they have absolutedly no 'backbone' or 'tenacity' whatsoever. In fact, the reason you waste a paragraph on that (remember, I'm just responding to you where it counts) shows that you have nothing to offer to the civil discussion other than seminal bickering.



Take it or leave it, I said I would revive it to remind you that you simply can't put together a concise argument and I can, contrary to what you say in your limited contributions in these forums. If you leave it, then I think I am at liberty to ignore anything phattic you say in other threads. If you bite the bullet and try to reply with a (coherent at least) argument, then at least you'll make yourself look like less of a carpet.

Remember, it's a discussion, not a heated argument (well it's quite easy for me) and you can't really convince anyone otherwise.

Originally posted by Allankles
Dune had a story element like the Jedi and the force, what with the prescience of the Atreides family and their golden way and the Voice of the gesserit sisters, not to mention a "chosen one" legend in the kwisatz haderach. Every great space opera has it's "Jedi", the swashbuckling gunman is usually just a side kick in these times of stories i.e. Han solo . Star Wars would be poorer without Jedi.

Then why is Dune not as successful as Star Wars if we consider the Bene Gesserit to be the generic collective of monks that, in Star Wars, are called Jedi?

Fine.

Maybe everyone liked the way the several common elements were arranged in Star Wars, and the lacking of one element (Whether it be the Jedi, or the western influence, or whatever) would have caused it to be not as popular.

This is my belief and yes, kane, it IS different that what I started out with because the Jedi, I now realize, are not the singular most impoartant element to Star wars, but I still believe that it wouldn't have worked out without them. On the flip-side of that also is that fact that it wouldn't have worked out without the western influence.

It is as popular as it is because it is what it is. If there were one element lacking then it would not be what it is and thus not as popular.

You do, however hae to factor in marketing. Most of the time a great product, poorly marketed, will not be as popular, just because fewer people know of it.

But what I have learned from this is noone will ever know what could have been, and we all have differing opinions, but a discussion about it can never come to an absolute conclusion. I have stated mine, you have stated yours, neither will change, so let's let it die.

Originally posted by exanda kane
Then why is Dune not as successful as Star Wars if we consider the Bene Gesserit to be the generic collective of monks that, in Star Wars, are called Jedi?

Simple. Star Wars had great timing, it came at a time when sci-fi in the theatres were few and far between and for the most part: awful. Secondly, it was from its inception a feature film unlike Dune which started as a novel. Thirdly, Dune was not properly adapted into the big screen. The 1984 movie was not made with popularity in mind, it was made to satisfy those fans who wanted a movie adaptation but not for those who wouldn't have read the book/s.

The more recent Dune miniseries was a better attempt but it was a straight-to-tv adaptation. Dune certainly had a chance, but I don't believe it's the kind of fictional universe that would ever have had mass popularity on the level of SW. The Gesserit sisters are not warriors, they control minds, can kill with a mystical application of their voice etc. (I know they can fight, but that isn't their strength) In contrast to the Jedi they are politicians, constantly jostling for positions of power in the administrative hierachy of the imperial government.

The Atreides family are the good guys but they are noble men not a bunch of rebel fighters. The Hakonnen Baron doesn't make a popular villain either - he's morbidly obese, obnoxious, cowardly, weak yet clever and persistent etc Even the sand people (forget their names) are not portrayed fully in the movies. Maybe if a director similar to Peter Jackson had taken the reigns, the grand epic that is Dune the novel would have been better translated to the movies.

Originally posted by Allankles
Simple. Star Wars had great timing, it came at a time when sci-fi in the theatres were few and far between and for the most part: awful. Secondly, it was from its inception a feature film unlike Dune which started as a novel. Thirdly, Dune was not properly adapted into the big screen. The 1984 movie was not made with popularity in mind, it was made to satisfy those fans who wanted a movie adaptation but not for those who wouldn't have read the book/s.


That really isn't the right answer, although I can see where you are coming from. Star Wars being succesful has nothing to do with Sci-Fi whatsoever though, but rather the Western, the Baby Boom and new management in Hollywood. Jedi aren't responsible for Star Wars being succesful in the first place so Star Wars aren't neccesarily what make it tick.

The Jedi stuff added a... you could say spiritual, magical element to a sci-fi western. Rather unique, and Star Wars wouldn't be, IMO, as good or as popular as it has been without them. Not to say they wouldn't be at all, just not as.

It isn't unique but I would say that explicit religious pathos is to be found in Star Wars, like an awful lot of the films in the late 70s, early 80s.

it would crash down like mikel jaksons socks i mean the whole point of starwars is the jedi/sith like if you search "starwars" on youtube all that would come is corny lightsaber fights between two or more people! starwars without jedi/sith would be bulls*it

no. ITs just "star wars without the jedi" without the jedi, the sith would rule the galaxy and there would be no stopping them.

Originally posted by pgdarth95
it would crash down like mikel jaksons socks i mean the whole point of starwars is the jedi/sith like if you search "starwars" on youtube all that would come is corny lightsaber fights between two or more people! starwars without jedi/sith would be bulls*it The f*ck is up with you and Michael Jackson (and spelling his name wrong somehow)? Were you one of the few kids who liked his antics?

he has a crush on michael jackson.

The Only reason Star Wars got big is because of Darth Vader

um...

no.

Star Wars "got big" because it was, at that time, a revolution in film making.

Originally posted by Kapton JAC


No Jedi = No Sith



Thoughts?

It would be like a porn flik without sex.

Originally posted by FistOfThe North
It would be like a porn flik without sex. CNN?

Originally posted by Tangible God
CNN?

Canibus.