Why Star Wars licks the sweat off a monkey's sack...

Slutmonkey57b

Recently Star Whores was voted best film ever in a poll of blind mongoloids. It's a film I've always hated for a lot of reasons:

1: The script is TERRIBLE. SHi-ITE. AWFUL. Hackneyed. Claptrap. Predictable. Stunted. Slow moving. Lucas was hawking this script around for 10 years before the film got made. Why? IT BLEW MONKEYS THATS WHY. He called the character "Luke Starkiller" for christ's sake. "Starkiller". If you've seen Spaceballs (a far superior script), just remember Rick Moranis flipping down his helmet and saying "LONE STARR...." Now try it with "StarKiller". Equally cheesy.

2: The "hero" is a pathetic, whiney, little pu$$y boy who you can tell has never had a boner in his life, never mind gotten laid. A more ineffectual, unconvincing character coldn't have existed if Richard Simmons had been playing the part as himself. In hot pants.

3: Groundbreaking special effects... not. The effects are SHi-ITE. "UUh but for the time they were great it was 1977 you know..." Yes - if you look at them through your legs with one eye closed and squinting. Look at 2001 which is ten years OLDER. The effects are technically far better. The effects, even in 77, were tacky and badly done.

4: The set design is the most tedious 70's "computers will be all meaningless flashing lights in the future" tripe. WTF is Darth Vader doing sitting in a Kinder Egg talking to somebody? Doesn't the stupid fcuk have a phone? Absolutely no thought went into "this should look like... because it will be doing...." Just "What looks good from a distance to a starving pig? Flashing LEDS and jagged kinder eggs! Get on it!"

5: Why the gay droid? Why on earth would a droid be gay? And how come machines are all so clunky and legoish? "oooh I'm in a 40-foot walking tank that crushes forests underfoot and blows mountains away but whoops I got tripped up by a clothes line." Bullsh!t. "Uuh we built a big thing that destroys planets but the 3000 million lasers we have on the thing can't shoot down one little battered fighter. All our computers are good for is flashing random gibberish at us and we have to have stupid humans man the guns."

6: Lightsabres the "ultimate" weapon? Hmmm. I think a minigun might just possibly get a *couple* of its thousands of rounds a minute past some poncing gaylord swishing a shiny sword about. "Back off! Or I'll run over there with my shiny sword!". "uuuh no dude I think I'll just drop a daisycutter on your stupid ass from a couple of miles up. Dodge this."

7: Did I mention the script was crap?

Mr E

Most overrated movies ever, no contest. They're fun, but thats it. Nothing more.

Maybe they captured the imagination of kids in the late 70s/early 80s, but they look terrible now.

- Dave.

tman

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
3: Groundbreaking special effects... not. The effects are SHi-ITE. "UUh but for the time they were great it was 1977 you know..." Yes - if you look at them through your legs with one eye closed and squinting. Look at 2001 which is ten years OLDER. The effects are technically far better. The effects, even in 77, were tacky and badly done.

lol, yeah you're right, there was so much better around at the time:rolleyes:

5: Why the gay droid? Why on earth would a droid be gay? And how come machines are all so clunky and legoish? "oooh I'm in a 40-foot walking tank that crushes forests underfoot and blows mountains away but whoops I got tripped up by a clothes line." Bullsh!t. "Uuh we built a big thing that destroys planets but the 3000 million lasers we have on the thing can't shoot down one little battered fighter. All our computers are good for is flashing random gibberish at us and we have to have stupid humans man the guns."

it's not like he was a mass produced droid...

Slutmonkey57b

What's mass-produced got to do with anything?
Why would a droid need to be gay? is the question.

tman

maybe anakin wanted some sweet robot lovin

Spiffing

What can I say, it was an enjoyable movie.

Tusky

[edit] Ive decided not to get into an arguement about star wars
what I will say is...

get a life,grow a willy **** off :rolleyes:

Karl Hungus

I'm not gonna bother replying to most of this... Except:

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
What's mass-produced got to do with anything?
Why would a droid need to be gay? is the question.

He's not gay, he's a protocol droid, for translation and some such ****e, he's got a poncey "Proper" accent... Unless of course you want to remind me of when he was porking R2 in the back of the spaceship?

Squall

2: The "hero" is a pathetic, whiney, little pu$$y boy who you can tell has never had a boner in his life, never mind gotten laid. A more ineffectual, unconvincing character coldn't have existed if Richard Simmons had been playing the part as himself. In hot pants


Actually the only other thing i saw Mark Hamill in was a channel 18 style softcore porn film. It was quite disturbing

Zukustious

I enjoyed the movies. I'll admit that they were overrated. Very overrated, but they were still good. When I saw them, I thought, wow that was a cool movie. But now looking back on them, it seems that it's just "Space" Americans, versus "Space" Nazi's.

Did anyone else think that?

Mr E

LOL.... Star Wars fanboys are sooooooo defensive!

- Dave.

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by TmB
LOL.... Star Wars fanboys are sooooooo defensive!

- Dave.

Who the **** are you calling defensive you ****wad!?
**** off!

Jim

please please please move this to the star wars board....


ill admit im a bit of an sw fan, although i will say certain aspects of the film are ****e.
but............its a film ffs. no need to get so aggressive, did star wars run over your dog or somefin? i mean, the c3po thing is a little petty, since when does the way someone talks define their sexuality? and why does it matter?

jim

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
3: Groundbreaking special effects... not. The effects are SHi-ITE. "UUh but for the time they were great it was 1977 you know..." Yes - if you look at them through your legs with one eye closed and squinting. Look at 2001 which is ten years OLDER. The effects are technically far better. The effects, even in 77, were tacky and badly done.

I can't believe you used a "not" joke to try and prove a point. And using words like "technically far better" when dissing Star Wars on the internet is just asking for trouble from angry nerds, clutching books of Star Wars facts the size of my head.

I don't particularly like Star Wars (I'm nowhere near the stage where I'm struggling to come up with dumb reasons to troll the internet with), but I can see why people would like it - simple, cheesy entertainment.

Zukustious: I was talking to someone recently, who was saying that they cannot watch Spielberg films, since he's made his liberal views well known (ie.. Saving Private Ryan/Schindler's List). He said that the worst case of this is when he sits down and watches Indiana Jones.. constantly sees Spielberg showing completely one-dimensional nazis.

My own personal feeling is that in these kinds of simple, high-action, almost 'camp' adventure movies, there's no room to give anything but a very simple caricatures of characters. They work well because they are simply Good Vs Evil. Sure, there were a hell of a lot of Nazi overtones to the empire, but that's probably because the Nazis were so incredibly camp themselves, and they provided us with such an abundance of fantastic iconography of an "evil empire". I remember reading somewhere - "Fascists have the coolest uniforms"

Remember, Lucas has been accused of directly stealing from the Nazi propaganda film "Triumph of the will" already.

I guess, what I'm trying to say is.. I don't think you should read too much into what's happening on screen. "Light Sabre" isn't a metaphor for "Penis", C3PO isn't gay, and the "rebellion" isn't a metaphor for the aryan race. It's all harmless entertainment.

Karl Hungus

Going quite a bit off-topic here, but...

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Zukustious: I was talking to someone recently, who was saying that they cannot watch Spielberg films, since he's made his liberal views well known (ie.. Saving Private Ryan/Schindler's List). He said that the worst case of this is when he sits down and watches Indiana Jones.. constantly sees Spielberg showing completely one-dimensional nazis.

I'd disagree there somewhat.
While I would agree that in Indiana Jones and whatnot, they are very comic-book Nazis (What's he buying? Nazi-smasher?) and Saving Private Ryan is quite sickeningly patriotic American rubbish. Schindler's List was quite a good film, with Ralph Feinnes playing the concentration camp leader, Amon Goeth unbelievably well, who I found quite a realistic character, quite a far cry from the nazi's portrayed in Jones or Ryan. But maybe that's just me?

Talking about Nazis, I'm in a mood to watch Romper Stomper again.

Slutmonkey57b

Oh I agree that the film SHOULD be viewed as harmless entertainment. The problem is that it is now being viewed as a cinematic masterpeice... which it completely isn't. Only the other day I read a film critic describing Star Whores as one of the greatest films ever made - an "iconic film of mythical status that has gone beyond criticism."

Quoted from the Triumph... site above:
"I was very much influenced by the trilogy as a child and adolescent, and that in general I support the moral and political philosophy espoused so elegantly in the Adventures of Luke Skywalker. The fact that this page may seriously consider the possible shortcomings of this philosophy does not mean that it should be construed as a STAR WARS bashing site. Indeed, the mission of this site is precisely the opposite. "

Is this twat serious? Luke "Starkiller" Gaylord's philosophical musings? Give us a break.


The rot has to stop. If the Star Wars fanbois are allowed to continue touting this film as great without being pulled up for it,
then we'll all be worse off for it.

"Wise men ne’er sit and wail their woes,
But presently prevent the ways to wail."

William Shakespeare, Richard II, act 3, sc. 2, l. 178-9.

davej

Nice post slutmonkey, but alas not as entertaining as seeing Star Wars for the first time when you're a child.

Star Wars has scored consistently well in many polls of the "greatest movies of all time", so it isn't just nerdy fan boys who vote for it.

The thing about SW is that it isn't just a movie. Lucas bascially invented the concept of the movie franchise (fox stupidly let him have all the rights to them and he made $8 billion). So a lot of little kids (myself included) bought the action figures and the spaceships and then spent every day playing with them with their friends. They collected the sticker albums, slept in their SW duvet, drank from their SW mug. They cried when their wookie got broken.

So when someone votes Star Wars in movie poll, they're not just voting for the movie itself, they are voting for everything that the movie represents. They are voting for the time they got the Millenium Falcon for christmas. They are voting for the time they nicked someone elses chewbaca figure. They are voting for fantasy and imagination. They are voting for childhood.

davej

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Oh I agree that the film SHOULD be viewed as harmless entertainment. The problem is that it is now being viewed as a cinematic masterpeice... which it completely isn't.

I'd certainly think that Star Wars is possibly the greatest piece of universal cinematic entertainment that we have - it appeals to children, men, women - but I think the problem is that it's fallen into the trap of celebrity.. it's kinda famous now for being famous, the same is the case with the Godfather movies (which I have never enjoyed). Everyone expects them to top just about every "Greatest Movie" chart, that it's never really questioned.

But then again.. these "Greatest Movie" charts reflect public views, and chances are, won't coincide with your own views very much No big thing. As the man says - 50,000,000 Elvis Fans Can't Be Wrong.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Only the other day I read a film critic describing Star Whores as one of the greatest films ever made - an "iconic film of mythical status that has gone beyond criticism."

Just take the time to dissect the sentence above, before you dismiss it as uh.. critical masturbation.
"Iconic film" - I can't think of a film that has influenced popular culture more than Star Wars. So this part is certainly true..
"Mythical status" - this is probably true. Like I said before - it wins just about every public opinion vote on "Greatest Movie". I'd probably also use this to describe "Godfather" (though I don't like it), "Citizen Kane" (though I didn't like it) and just about every other movie that regularly makes it to the top of such votes. Think of the number of people who say these are their top films. Add to this the afformentioned cultural impact Star Wars has had, and you really do have a "mythical status".
"gone beyond criticism" - I guess this is also true. No offence, but your 6 points of criticism were pretty weak when it came to criticising the film. So it's high-camp. So the script is a little weak. So the sets can sometimes look like they're made of cardboard. So the story is just a mix of three (or so) other movies. None of these change the fact that it has entertained millions of people for 25 years now.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Is this twat serious? Luke "Starkiller" Gaylord's philosophical musings? Give us a break.

The dude has a boner for Triumph of the Will. He's obviously a nutbag.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
The rot has to stop. If the Star Wars fanbois are allowed to continue touting this film as great without being pulled up for it,
then we'll all be worse off for it.

Admirable. But I don't think your 6 weak points are doing a great job so far. Maybe you should try using more "not" jokes.

Slutmonkey57b

You seem to be devastating my arguments by the simple method of... not reading what the thread is about. It's not about how many people like Star Wars. Or about the time you were bought a load of expensive plastic toys as a kid. It is:

The Star Wars films were artistic tripe cooked up by a third rate dropout, lazily executed and sloppily finished. The only professional end of the operation was the "flog it all" marketing scam.

Not

People liking it makes it great.
They are popular, and the gimp struck lucky, because kids in the 70's and 80's had such low expectations. All they had before was musical Disney films, which frankly were more professionally made but lets face it, how many times can a singing cat be interesting? Star wars was not a big hit with people over 18 because it is so childishly and obviously flawed.

By the "lots of people liked it and it was a big influence" argument, New Kids on the Block are greater than Miles Davis because they sold more albums and have caused an avalanche of manufactured, packaged, talentless drone balladeering camp zombie shuffling dancers to take over the mainstream music industry.
The truth, of course, is that Davis was a genius, and that all the drones who audition for these bands should be gassed in a big warehouse while the marketing droids are tortured. (Yes the Monkees were the first manufactured band but hardly anyone took up the idea until years after them so they can't be said to have the same influence.)

Not even Shakespeare is beyond criticism, and it's that sort of attitude that ranks Star Wars above the Bard in that respect that requires challanging. Actually it requires that anyone advancing the theory have their tongue cut out on grounds of preventing them from further polluting the airspace around them with their bovine idiocy but apparantly there's a law against this.

So if you like, let's examine why Star Wars fans are idiots. A lot of fans didn't like the new prequel films, thinking them inferior to the originals, despite their being better scripted, better acted, better produced, more techincally competant, and more thouroughly developed in terms of ideas and background. Some of the things they didn't like:

Jar-Jar binks. "How come Lucas didn't realise everyone would hate this character?" they wailed. A large-eared stupid coloured alien creature with a gimpy walk, annoying high-pitched voice that needlessly mangles sentences to no good purpose and does little or nothing to advance the plot other than stand about stating the obvious.

Unlike popular hero Yoda, a.. large eared... stupid coloured... alien... that... oh right.

Anakin Skywalker.. a boring little kid with no character or impact on the film. So we know where his son gets it from then. Unlike his son of course, he has a bright future of becoming physically intimate with another human being and then doing something useful with his life, namely kicking a lot of peoples' ass at some point, not actually seen in any of the first films mind you... While his son will.. stand around like a gimp, get caught in a lot of obvious traps, and generally be a weedy prat with nothing to say for himself and in the end will only win by... having his dad fight the bogeyman for him. Clearly another case of not living up to the first films then.

So why the big disappointment? Perhaps it's because the same fans who loved it as a result of watching it at the age of 8 were a (little) more intelligent at the age of 28 and didn't get taken in by the hokey action second time round? Certainly not because the films themselves were in any way worse. The fans just got a little example of how rational people see the first films - flawed, uninteresting, childish trollop. That's why they didn't like them.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
They are popular, and the gimp struck lucky, because kids in the 70's and 80's had such low expectations. All they had before was musical Disney films, which frankly were more professionally made but lets face it, how many times can a singing cat be interesting? Star wars was not a big hit with people over 18 because it is so childishly and obviously flawed.

Oh my. You're basically saying that (arguably) the most popular film of all time is only popular because.. there was nothing better to do for two decades? Seriously - is that what you're trying to say?! And you want us to take your argument seriously?

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
By the "lots of people liked it and it was a big influence" argument, New Kids on the Block are greater than Miles Davis because they sold more albums and have caused an avalanche of manufactured, packaged, talentless drone balladeering camp zombie shuffling dancers to take over the mainstream music industry.
The truth, of course, is that Davis was a genius

You're ignoring two things here. First is that there is a huge difference between a "fad", and something that people "like". Time is the only thing that really tells the two apart. So that's that part of your NKOTB example out of the way.. And as you so expertly mention, NKOTB represented absolutely nothing new in the way bands were created and marketed specifically to the teen market - there are numerous examples of this throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s. So NKOTB are a bad example.

And then there's the fact that a lot of people like Miles Davis, and he was a huge influence on the artistry of music - within his own genre, possibly the largest of anyone, ever.
So Miles Davis is also a bad example.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Not even Shakespeare is beyond criticism, and it's that sort of attitude that ranks Star Wars above the Bard in that respect that requires challanging.

Noone has ranked Star Wars above Shakespeare. Who has? So far, everyone that has replied to this thread has said that Star Wars is just a piece of entertainment.

But even if they had - let's assume they had - I don't see why that would make them idiots. They have a different opinion to yours - what makes you think your opinion is right? And for that matter - what makes you think that you're Mr. Smartypants, which would make those 50,000,000 fans "morons"?

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
So why the big disappointment? Perhaps it's because the same fans who loved it as a result of watching it at the age of 8 were a (little) more intelligent at the age of 28 and didn't get taken in by the hokey action second time round? Certainly not because the films themselves were in any way worse. The fans just got a little example of how rational people see the first films - flawed, uninteresting, childish trollop. That's why they didn't like them.

Welcome to three years ago, when everyone else realised this.

Anyway, back to the topic.. noone (well.. noone here at least) is calling Star Wars "artistic". Entertaining tripe, certainly.. but not "artistic". There may be flashes of artistic achievement, but that's about it, and they are few and far between.

Art is something that challenges your perceptions and all that other nonsense. Entertainment is something that just.. well.. entertains. They both have their own place, but only an idiot would say that one is "better" than the other.

Are you sure you're not just pissed because Star Wars kept A Bout De Souffle off the top spot?

Karl Hungus

Sorry to butt in, but the reason Jar Jar Binks is so hated, is that he downright ruined key scenes of the film. Yoda didn't... When Luke went off into the forest to confront his fears, Yoda didn't come along making goofy noisey and tripping up. He played his part well, while making some semi-decent philosophical musings "Judge me by my size do you?" and whatnot.

As for the acting differences between the original trilogy and the new films... Honest to god, you have got to be joking me! The originals had Harrison Ford, Peter Cushing, James Earl Jones, Alec Guinness, Ian McDiarmid... The only person in the new films who even came close to a decent preformance was Christopher Lee! Everyone else just looked like they were bored, and preocupied.

Now I admit to being quite the Star Wars fan, but I've never bought into the merchandise of the whole thing. I never had any of the toys, or anything... I was busy with my transformers.

Quite frankly, it was a good script. But the main story behind it was quite brilliant. Very well rounded, and thought out. However long it took, or what the character's were initially named doesn't really factor in. A great film is a great film, whether it was baked up in a couple of months, or if it was strained over for years. Perhaps you're rather too young, but at the time(Alright, I had to wait for the video releases), Empire Strikes Back had the most unbelievable twist in imagination! I remember seeing it for the first time and thinking 'Oh My God!!!' Also, it was basically the first film I've ever seen where the bad guys won at the end! And this was something very, very different that had pretty much never been seen in such a popular film before. The whole story was very well done, and everything was brought full circle with Luke cutting off Vader's hand, and when I was young seeing that it was just an awesome mindblowing moment. Obi-Wan's great "Strike me down now..." part all coming together nicely. It was amazing, no doubt.

And since, I've watched the films countless times.

But hey, maybe I'm just a moron?

Slutmonkey57b

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Oh my. You're basically saying that (arguably) the most popular film of all time is only popular because.. there was nothing better to do for two decades? Seriously - is that what you're trying to say?! And you want us to take your argument seriously?

No, idiot, I'm saying that kids at the time had two choices: Disney or Star Wars. Given that Disney had been making the same singing animal film for 40 years it isn't suprising kids latched onto something different, even if it was tripe.

You're ignoring two things here. First is that there is a huge difference between a "fad", and something that people "like". Time is the only thing that really tells the two apart. So that's that part of your NKOTB example out of the way.. And as you so expertly mention, NKOTB represented absolutely nothing new in the way bands were created and marketed specifically to the teen market - there are numerous examples of this throughout the 60s, 70s and 80s. So NKOTB are a bad example.

And then there's the fact that a lot of people like Miles Davis, and he was a huge influence on the artistry of music - within his own genre, possibly the largest of anyone, ever.
So Miles Davis is also a bad example.

NKOTB was 15 years ago son. 15 years for one type of music to dominate popular culture is a long time. And yes, they did represent something new over bands like the monkees since the creation of the band was marketing driven. The monkees were created to exploit an existing fad, NKOTB were started to *create* a fad. Not the same thing at all.

Again, if you read what was written, what I said was that elevating Star Wars to its current position was *equivalent* to elevating NKOTB above Davis.

Noone has ranked Star Wars above Shakespeare. Who has? So far, everyone that has replied to this thread has said that Star Wars is just a piece of entertainment.

Read it again. By agreeing that Star Wars is "above criticism", you are saying that nothing can be said against it. Since this cannot be said of Shakespeare, you are effectivly saying that Star Wars is on a plane of achievement above Shakespeare, by virtue of its "mythical status".

But even if they had - let's assume they had - I don't see why that would make them idiots. They have a different opinion to yours - what makes you think your opinion is right? And for that matter - what makes you think that you're Mr. Smartypants, which would make those 50,000,000 fans "morons"?

Previous experience.

Art is something that challenges your perceptions and all that other nonsense. Entertainment is something that just.. well.. entertains. They both have their own place, but only an idiot would say that one is "better" than the other.

Are you sure you're not just pissed because Star Wars kept A Bout De Souffle off the top spot?

The idiots ARE saying one is "better" than the other. You can tell because they keep saying it's one of the best films ever made.
I despair of teaching you anything, really.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
No, idiot, I'm saying that kids at the time had two choices: Disney or Star Wars. Given that Disney had been making the same singing animal film for 40 years it isn't suprising kids latched onto something different, even if it was tripe.

Either you're being facetious (not unlikely - most of your points have revolved around this), or you're not checking your facts properly. By the 70s, Disney had moved onto making live-action movies - Herbie dominated the kid's movie market for pretty much all of the 70s. Then you also had stuff like The Island At The Top Of The World (I still absolutely adore this film), the Witch Mountain movies, Benji, King Kong..

You'll hopefully have noticed that the films I'm mentioning are wildly disparate. We've got "Giant Monkey Terrorising New York", "VW Bug Has Life Of Its Own" and "19th Century Donald Syndon Goes Travelling To Norway To Save His Son... In A Zeppelin". My point is this - the kids weren't just getting the same-old-same-old. Your argument here is extremely weak in this case. The reason Star Wars was so wildly popular among children is because it is pure, simple entertainment. Good Guys vs the Bad Guys... With Lasers.

That and copious amount of Moichandising (I love Spaceballs).

Either way - it wasn't just out of some need for "something different".

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
NKOTB was 15 years ago son. 15 years for one type of music to dominate popular culture is a long time. And yes, they did represent something new over bands like the monkees since the creation of the band was marketing driven. The monkees were created to exploit an existing fad, NKOTB were started to *create* a fad. Not the same thing at all.

What fad were NKOTB manufactured to create? Teen-oriented pop? The style of music may have changed slightly from the days of the Monkees, but it was still the same formula underneath. In between the Monkees and NKOTB, you also had stuff like New Edition, Menudo, The Osmonds, Herman's Hermits... Boy bands were nothing new by the time NKOTB rolled around. Pop music (pretty much as we know it) had been dominating the charts since before the 80s. So what other fad could you be talking about? I think you're mistaking your sudden awareness with the boy band phenomena with the actual beginning of the trend.

NKOTB, just like the Monkees, were created to exploit a fad. As such - nothing revolutionary.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Again, if you read what was written, what I said was that elevating Star Wars to its current position was *equivalent* to elevating NKOTB above Davis.

I went on to say that these are bad examples - NKOTB because they were nothing revolutionary, Miles Davis because he _was_ revolutionary.

Let's remove NKOTB from the equation because, like I said.. it's just plain wrong. The point you were essentially trying to make is that elevating Star Wars to it's current position was *equivalent* to elevating *something with a wide appeal* to something with a *limited appeal*. Uh.. when we're dealing with public opinion.. what's wrong with that?

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Since this cannot be said of Shakespeare, you are effectivly saying that Star Wars is on a plane of achievement above Shakespeare, by virtue of its "mythical status".

I'm not saying that "Star Wars is on a plane of achievement above Shakespeare". You are, once again, reading something that isn't there. I've said before that these are completely different things - important works of art vs a monumentally successful piece of light, fluff entertainment. Apples vs oranges. Bear vs Shark.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
By agreeing that Star Wars is "above criticism", you are saying that nothing can be said against it.

And yet I also gave examples of things that have been said against it. You are, once again, not reading something that is there. I just think that by virtue of the phenomenal impact it has had on modern popular culture, and also by virtue of its role as "most popular film ever" - such criticisms are pointless, or at least miss the point. Let me demonstrate on your six criticisms...

"1. The script is terrible" - So? It's an entertaining film. Bonus credit: the dialog from the Star Wars films is now a huge part of popular culture. How many times have you heard "Luke, I am your father" come out of people's mouths?
"2. The hero is a pathetic, whiny.." - So? It's an entertaining film. Bonus credit: The hero is meant to be pathetic in the first two films. Way to spot it, Columbo.
"3. Groundbreaking Special Effects. Not." - So? It's an entertaining film. Bonus credit: I don't want to be the fact-wielding dork that gets to prove you wrong, but I will if I have to. Let's just say "The most successful special effects company ever was created just for these films", and leave it at that.
"4. The set design is ..." - So? It's an entertaining film. Bonus credit: just about every science fiction film I have seen has 'dated' awfully in this sense (including 2001). I think it's commendable (or maybe just 'cute') that Lucas is trying to bring the entire thing full-circle by leading the set design for the three prequels towards the "A New Hope" look.
"5. Why the gay droid?" - Uh.. I was going to keep with my "So? It's an entertaining film" motif here, but this is just messed up. I've never once, ever, thought of any of the robots as gay. You've got problems, dude.
"6. Lightsabres aren't the ultimate weapon" - So? It's an entertaining film. Bonus credit: But they looked pretty cool, and different for a sci-fi film. Also, does anyone actually call them anything but an 'elegant' weapon?

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Previous experience.

You're arguing.. about Star Wars.. on the internet. Against me, a moron who has been making sloppy, meandering points for a whole day now.. and you haven't.. won.
I think it's about time you took stock again.

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
The idiots ARE saying one is "better" than the other. You can tell because they keep saying it's one of the best films ever made.
I despair of teaching you anything, really.

Regardless of how they're labelled, "Greatest Movie" polls don't show what is "better", just which is more popular. I'd have thought a man of your pseudo-intelligence would have spotted that already?

Beyond that, it's all down to personal taste. If someone wants to say that they think Star Wars is the best film ever, that's their perogative. Enforcing pseudo-intellectual opinions on them isn't going to make the world a better place.

Karl Hungus

My god...
You're even more arguementative than I am!?

Fair play, ObeyGiant.

Clintons Cat

I think where Starwars was groundbreaking was in proving the Sci-Fi Movie genre could have mass market appeal.
Prior to that Sci fi was definately a niche market which tended to treat the subject with reverential deference,themes were of a more adult (read ambiguous) nature.Budgetary constraints meant locations and scenes were restricted to a few formulaic sets,(spaceship/sickbay/spacebar)

Where Starwars broke the mould was in applying The colours and sensations of a Buzzley Berkly Musical, the spectacle of Cecil B De Mille,The moral certainties of a Cowboys and indians.The Swashbuckling of Flyyn to a staid and conventional genre.And traditional Sci/fi fans hated it,Chewebaca was the jar jar binks of his day...

Yes it was Space Nazis,lucas hardly disguised the fact.Darth Vader looks like a Stormtrooper in a gas mask,Storm troopers were called...erm...storm troopers,the dogfight scenes were straight out of any number of Battle of Britain/tora tora tora style movies.

But where it was important was....

Starwars single handedly kick started the Sci-Fi Special effects race which ressurected Paramounts Star Trek Francise (and look how reverentially the producers treated the first movie,stripping out all the fun and joi de vive of the original series and replacing it with theology as a sop to hard sci fi fans),Battlestar galactica,superman and tron followed through the door kicked open by starwars.

But without starwars sci fi would probally still be a man sitting in a capsule watching a light go on and off whilst extrapolating endlessly about the universe.

Mr E

Great post, ObeyGiant..... Looking forward to Slutmonkey57b's reply!

- Dave.

Ping Chow Chi

ewoks !!!

oh how the imperial army that has crushed 100's of worlds fell to the ewoks and their slightly pointy sticks !!

I did like empire strikes back though

satchmo

I find just mentioning NKOTB and Miles Davis in the same sentence offensive.

That is all.

Pugsley

Originally posted by AngelWhore
My god...
You're even more arguementative than I am!?

No he isnt, you would still put him to shame on most topics you choose to rant on

Slutmonkey57b

Uuugh. So since you can't refute any of the evidence that shows that Star Wars is a lazy, shabby, unimaginative piece of cr@p you now revert to "So? I liked it. Nya." Stunning.

I'll repeat (again) for your benefit:

"Did you like it?" is not the point at issue.

The point at issue (again) is:

IT'S A WORTHLESS PIECE OF SH!T.

Whether or not you *like* the worthless piece of sh!t merely indicates your own personal tastes (ie those of a blind mongoloid). If I wanted to hear why some slathering gimp liked it I'd have posted this on the Star Whores board.


The monkees: Finally: Hundreds of "Merseybeat" bands popped up after 1963. The Monkees was the biggest. But it was not planned in advance, it was a wagon hopping exercise. The marketing machines that create new pop bands nowadays simply did not exist in the 60's. Single record companies did not have that sort of power over the market. A modern such band (S Club) is planned, in meticulous detail, with a target market, sales figures, merchandising figures, development timescales, and even a built - in product lifespan, long before the droids that make up the band have been seen; in the manner of NKOTB. Selection of the "band" is the last step in the chain and the process bears no relation to anything that happened beforehand in terms of a producer (such as Motown) packaging a group of unknown singers with a songwriter and launching them on the world.

The entire discussion is based around MERIT. Does Star Wars MERIT the position it currently holds in terms of being hailed as an artistic achievement. People are perfectly free to hold the opinion that it does - but they must be prepared to be branded protozoic proles as a result.

Jazz: I agree but the offence had to be made.

How many times have I heard parts of the script come out of people's mouth? About the same number of times I've heard something equally witty come out of their arse.

How many cases of script quoting could be described as having been perpetrated by something that could be classified as Homo Sapiens might be a better question.

So ILM is economically successful, that's not in doubt - just like Star Wars's economic success is not in doubt. But - put simply - how difficult was it to make sure that you couldn't see through the ships flying through space? Or to make sure that a bloke hitting his head and falling over didn't make it on screen?

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Whether or not you *like* the worthless piece of sh!t merely indicates your own personal tastes (ie those of a blind mongoloid). If I wanted to hear why some slathering gimp liked it I'd have posted this on the Star Whores board.

Greetings Slumonkey.

Firstly I would like to say, since you started this topic stating a personal opinion, you are in absolutely no position to tell someone that their opinion doesn't come into the arguement.

Secondly, no matter how much you want something to be true, it doesn't make it so. And proclaiming "IT'S A PIECE OR WORTHLESS SH*T!!!" isn't going to help your arguement.

Technical points, I'd argue, don't factor into it.
I remember watching Jabberwocky, and even at a relatively young age I could see the monster was the most obviously fake thing in existance, and the fact that you could clearly see the strings didn't help in the realism stakes either. But I still massively enjoyed the film reguardless. Neither does it factor in that, yes, I'd say someone with a minigun could gun down a Jedi or two... But that's no more valid an arguement than saying 'Instead of looking for the code to the Zoin mainframe, Agent Smith should've just loggin in as a guest...' It's that level of banality.

And just to annoy you, I'd say that the Star Wars films definetly deserve to be at the top of any list.

ObeyGiant

Originally posted by Slutmonkey57b
Uuugh. So since you can't refute any of the evidence that shows that Star Wars is a lazy, shabby, unimaginative piece of cr@p you now revert to "So? I liked it. Nya." Stunning.

I am not just saying that "I liked it". Remarkably - I actually said at the very start of this that I don't particularly like Star Wars. What I have been saying is that it is liked by millions of people - it has possibly the largest mass-market appeal of any film, ever. This is supported by the countless numbers of "Greatest Movies" polls it consistently tops.

In this argument, I have gone to great lengths to make the distinction between "art" and "entertainment". While Star Wars is arguably devoid of artistic merit (I don't particularly like it one way or another, so I'm probably not qualified to answer that), it resonates with entertainment value - this is where its strength lies, and this is why so many people have embraced it.

I have also gone to great lengths to emphasise the degree to which Star Wars has entered society's collective unconscious, something you are desperately (but weakly) trying to shrug off as just being for the lowly mouth-breathers. Regardless of whether you ignore them or not, the facts are there. Another thing that hasn't been mentioned, or at least hasn't been mentioned enough, is the impact Star Wars has had on filmmaking. As Clinton's Cat pointed out, Star Wars brought sci-fi to a mass market. It has influenced thousands of filmmakers (The first one to spring to mind - would Clerks have been as enjoyable without Kevin Smith as he is today, a huge Star Wars nerd?). As Clinton's Cat also pointed out, it also ignited the special effects race, making just about everything possible on film. Not just for summer blockbusters etc - Akira Kurosawa's "Dreams" used ILM's effects for a number of its sequences.

So, for it's legacy alone, Star Wars cannot be described as a "worthless piece of shit".

But more on this later.

Your defense of your "The effects were crap" point is amazing. Some dude thwapping his head on a low door has absolutely nothing to do with special effects, it's just a goof - big deal. 2001 has these as well.. including one very special "you can see the wires" goof - I love those. (Hey, durrr, couldn't the 'technically better' special effects of 2001 have fixed those wires? durrr. Naw, I'm just kidding, you're alright). Anyway, back to the point - how hard is it to make sure that you can't see through a spaceship when flying through space? When doing a space dogfight the scale and dynamism of which had never been seen before, and coming up with new techniques to do it in, whilst confined to an extremely meagre budget.. in the seventies.. I'm going to go out on a limb and say "pretty hard".

So back to whether or not the film is "worthless" Don't you find it ironic that you retaliate with a "HEY, CAN'T YOU DEFEND THIS FILM WITHOUT BEING SUBJECTIVE?! CAN'T YOU SAY WHY THIS FILM ISN'T WORTHLESS WITHOUT SAYING 'I LIKE IT'", when your entire argument has been subjective? You have brought nothing to back up this statement. Oh, apart from 6.. uh.. "criticisms", which have already been answered.

Intolerance and snobbery go hand in hand? Who'd have thunk it.

Oh - As regards the Monkees - I appreciate the interesting-yet-worthless history lesson. This still does not change the fact that NKOTB were nothing new in terms of marketing pop music at teenagers. The most perfect example of this, I have already given you.. Menudo, who have been going since the seventies, and actually had a rule that no member could stay once they hit 16 years of age (they're still performing in South America as MDO). My point about NKOTB is, and always has been, that they represent absolutely nothing revolutionary in the music industry, except perhaps in the fact that this particular template (the 'something for everyone!' template) has worked so well, it's still in use today.

ObeyGiant

Oh - AngelWhore already made the "personal opinion" point.

High five, dude!

davej

Seriously slutmonkey, I feel you are not telling us the whole story. I suspect there is some sort of love-hate relationship going on here. You seem to have put a lot of effort into criticising the technical shortcomings of the "special" effects, coupled with criticisms on the minutiae of the plot.
Either you have scoured the very depths of some Star Wars versus Star Trek flamewar or you have watched the movies ad infinitum. Either way you seem to have been tainted by that which you loathe so much.

"It is hard to fight an enemy who has outposts in your head."

Sally Kempton

davej

Wolf

tbh

Karl Hungus

Originally posted by ObeyGiant
Oh - AngelWhore already made the "personal opinion" point.

High five, dude!

They say that great minds think alike, but I'd rather say Fools Seldom Differ.

Theboinkmaster

Slutmonkey57b = troll

Get a life

:cool:

banquo

"Mythical status" - this is probably true.

*SIGH* - im the only one in teh whole world who knows anything.

take the example of HArry Potter - where does he get his scar?
A = when voldemort tried to kill him, but failed. BUT voldemort never failed to kill anyone else, why not Harry Potter?
Harry Potter gets his scar from entering into a situation in which most ordinary men would perish, but instead survives with just a scar

4000 years before that, the Greek Hero "odysseus" got his scar as a child, when he was attacked by a terrible wild boar. amazingly, he got away with just a scar: "the tusk ripped the flesh; but not the bone"

Every hero has a scar obtained from an encounter with death with the "terrible father" e.g. Vader or Voldemort, and teh scar usually is placed about the leg e.g. Odysseus was at his thign, "oedipus" was, as a baby, pinned at the ankles and left to die, and survived with a limp. Jason, as in "jason and the argonauts" was "one-sandelled"

Even christ entered into death on the cross, met with the father, and lived with only the scars on his hands and feet as proof of his status. In this respect, Luke's hand is cut off by Vader at the end of the second film, in his enounter with his father, and he lives to tell the tale.

This is just one of the million mythic motifs that skywalker and his crew adhere to.

*SIGH*