Posts in total: 41
Good Gott no, the new Trilogy is so incredibly generic and uncreative that it's almost enough to make my eyes bleed. You can criticize how kiddish the prequels were, but they were neither bland nor unimaginative.
The whole point of the prequel trilogy was that, in the aftermath of the smash hit that was the Original (1977-1983), people wanted more. So the Prequel was designed as supplementary material. It does this brilliantly, comparable to what the Mormon Canon was to the Bible. But the Sequel Trilogy is something else: it's a bunch of shameless Hollywood industrialists wanting to make a quick buck off the nostalgia of neckbearded Millennial fanboys and middle aged moms. It adds nothing, since Star Wars was already a complete story: the new storyline had to be dang good to justify it being added to the timeline, and it failed, because it had no substance befitting a living canon. It's the exact same kind of abomination that was Pokemon Go.
I think the movies that came after the OT were good, but the OT is better.
I have not seen Solo.
Empire Strikes Back
Revenge of the Sith
Attack of the Clones
Return of the Jedi, which y'know, I still love it, I'll definitely watch it again.
rest are scumbag movie
I disagree that the adjective "good" or anything resembling "good" could be properly and justifiably used in any sentence to describe the universe of "Star Wars" anything.
If I recall correctly, you don't like scifi, right?
Star Wars is not science fiction. Knights, princesses, castles and magic are more properly devices of the fantasy genre.
I realise that.
IMDB lists Star Wars New Hope as the 20th Greatest Film of all time. Sounds about right to me but I wouldn't call it a better movie than Empire Strikes Back and I wouldn't place Empire Strikes Back higher on the GOAT- rather I would lump all of Star Wars in as a single phenomenon in the 20th spot.
It may be fair to say that Star Wars is not *only* science fiction, and that it has elements consistent with fantasy, or whatever, but it would be factually wrong for about thirty obvious reasons to say that Star Wars was *not* science fiction, because it absolutely is.
It is in addition to being science fiction, a hollow, unidimensional, poorly written, nearly entirely plotless movie whose appeal to sexually frustrated adolescent boys (or men who have reached, at most, the psychosexual maturity of sexually frustrated adolescent boys); is therefore entiely pedestrian, and wholly lacking in anything approaching "quality" in the way of film.
I realize this position places me outside the realm of like at least 1/2 of all people on this site, and probably about 1/4th of the general population of the United States, but those movies are beneath contempt. I cannot seriously appreciate how anyone likes them.
"Science fiction can be defined as that branch of literature which deals with the reaction of human beings to changes in science and technology."
"Science fiction is something that could happen—but you usually wouldn't want it to. Fantasy is something that couldn't happen—though you often only wish that it could."
"Realistic speculation about possible future events, based solidly on adequate knowledge of the real world, past and present, and on a thorough understanding of the nature and significance of the scientific method.'
"I will define science fiction, first, by saying what SF is not. It cannot be defined as “a story (or novel or play) set in the future,” since there exists such a thing as space adventure, which is set in the future but is not SF: it is just that: adventures, fights and wars in the future in space involving super-advanced technology. Why, then, is it not science fiction? It would seem to be, and Doris Lessing (e.g.) supposes that it is. However, space adventure lacks the distinct new idea that is the essential ingredient."
I knew from the beginning that I was not doing science fiction. I was doing a space opera, a fantasy film, a mythological piece, a fairy tale. I really thought I needed to establish from the start that this was a completely made up world so that I could do anything I wanted."
Star Wars is science fiction, and you and I both know that all the creative nonsense you just cited is not disproving that. To be clear, you can argue that it is things in addition to science fiction until your fingers bleed from overtyping. That will not change the fact that the movie is science fiction.
I provided 4 cogent and synchronous definitions of the genre from 4 widely recognized masters of the genre, all of which effectively excluded Star Wars from Sci Fi (not science, not something that could happen, not a realistic future, and space adventure) then I gave coal the writer/director/creator himself rejecting his work as a contribution to SciFi. What coal dismisses as creative nonsense is in fact the makers of two brand names (Science Fiction & Star Wars) defining those brands. Those brandmakers seek to make a clear distinction between possible fiction (however improbable) and impossible fiction (however cloaked in the trappings of SciFi). The point of adhering to the possible lies in SciFi's capacity to warn or inspire readers by speculative forecasting of human problems, human solutions. Star Wars is disinterested in any scientific question- it doesn't understand the distinction between robots and androids, it doesn't know what a parsec is, it doesn't know what lasers look like, it doesn't conform to basic principles of space flight, etc. Lucas deliberately set his fantasy in the past to exclude association with SciFi. What is the advantage of deliberately mislabeling either of these products?
You and I don't agree on what science fiction is. You've got a narrow definition of it. There objectively exists a broader meaning, but you obviously disagree with that broader meaning and, well... fair enough. There isn't much more to say than that.