Your Favourite Star Wars and was it overrated?

Better and more interesting than the real thing.

Empire>New Hope>Return of the jedi> Revenge of the sith> Attack of the clones> Phantom Menace.

That is the correct order. No other permutation is valid!

I really don't think Star Wars is very good at all. I liked it as a young teen but now think it's pretty crap.

I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

Harry Bizzle wrote:I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

If it wasn't for the success of Star Wars, there'd have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture or any of the subsequent movies or TV series.

My favourite Star Wars film is Star Wars.

Octoroc wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

If it wasn't for the success of Star Wars, there'd have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture or any of the subsequent movies or TV series.

My favourite Star Wars film is Star Wars.

But Star Trek started in 1966

I'd wager it would still have continued being a success with or without Star Wars.

Empire has this sown up like it should.

Everyone knows it's Empire.

Empire, New Hope, Return of the Jedi, Revenge, Phantom, Clones

Steve wrote:

Octoroc wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

If it wasn't for the success of Star Wars, there'd have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture or any of the subsequent movies or TV series.

My favourite Star Wars film is Star Wars.

But Star Trek started in 1966

I'd wager it would still have continued being a success with or without Star Wars.

Read the sentence properly Steve, pay special attention to the word subsequent.

They'd already canned a Star Trek movie before Star Wars came out. The original TV series was stopped in 1969 and had been relegated to "cult" status- popular, but by no means mainstream.

I don't see why that matters though. I see why it was culturally significant but by current standards I don't think it's very good.

Harry Bizzle wrote:I don't see why that matters though. I see why it was culturally significant but by current standards I don't think it's very good.

It's a 32 year old children's film. Technically it's not going to stand up to modern sci-fi, but how many contemporary sci-fi movies will be regarded as "culturally significant" in thirty years time? I'd say approximately none.

Octoroc wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:I don't see why that matters though. I see why it was culturally significant but by current standards I don't think it's very good.

It's a 32 year old children's film. Technically it's not going to stand up to modern sci-fi, but how many contemporary sci-fi movies will be regarded as "culturally significant" in thirty years time? I'd say approximately none.

I'm not speaking from a technical standpoint. What I'm saying is a lot of those amazing memories people have are probably to do with the amazing effects at the time which made it an altogether more interesting experience.

If you watch it now for the first time, sans nostalgia, I think that without the effects being as impressive the movies are pretty meh-tastic.

But it was all about the effects!

I think Phantom Menace is underrated, being second in my list. You all take for granted the amazing, um, cinematography - AND it had Darth Maul!

Denster wrote:Empire>New Hope>Return of the jedi> Revenge of the sith> Attack of the clones> Phantom Menace.

That is the correct order. No other permutation is valid!

But as I said earlier, Jar Jar Binks > Hayden Christensen! So those last two could, and possibly should, be switched! Oh yes.

Octoroc wrote:

Steve wrote:

Octoroc wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

If it wasn't for the success of Star Wars, there'd have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture or any of the subsequent movies or TV series.

My favourite Star Wars film is Star Wars.

But Star Trek started in 1966

I'd wager it would still have continued being a success with or without Star Wars.

Read the sentence properly Steve, pay special attention to the word subsequent.

They'd already canned a Star Trek movie before Star Wars came out. The original TV series was stopped in 1969 and had been relegated to "cult" status- popular, but by no means mainstream.

not quite true, a new series had already been put into pre production prior to Star Wars, it just got swapped over to a film after Star Wars. Which is why The Motion Picture had that hodge podge cast (and was generally strawberry floating awful)

satriales wrote:Empire Strikes Back easily.

I never even bothered to watch Revenge of the Sith as Attack of the Clones was one of the worst films I've ever had to sit through.

I think you should check it out. Revenge of the sith is easily the best of the 3 new films and the closest to the original trilogy.

Also i do agree with Steve Spaceballs is criminally over looked and easily the best of all the Star Wars films, George Lucas's greatest work me thinks.

This is a no-brainer. Obviously Empire. It's by far the best written of the films, and therefore packs a shitload of emotional punch around the natty FX. Compare the Han/Leia stuff with the likes of the painful "sand" scene in AOTC.

A New Hope - the original and the best (only just over Empire) I loved the introduction of the characters, the whole sneaking around the Death Star and the space battle at the end.

Zartan wrote:

Octoroc wrote:

Steve wrote:

Octoroc wrote:

Harry Bizzle wrote:I prefer Star Trek. It's mildly entertaining.

If it wasn't for the success of Star Wars, there'd have been no Star Trek: The Motion Picture or any of the subsequent movies or TV series.

My favourite Star Wars film is Star Wars.

But Star Trek started in 1966

I'd wager it would still have continued being a success with or without Star Wars.

Read the sentence properly Steve, pay special attention to the word subsequent.

They'd already canned a Star Trek movie before Star Wars came out. The original TV series was stopped in 1969 and had been relegated to "cult" status- popular, but by no means mainstream.

not quite true, a new series had already been put into pre production prior to Star Wars, it just got swapped over to a film after Star Wars. Which is why The Motion Picture had that hodge podge cast (and was generally strawberry floating awful)

The shenanigans regarding the rebirth of Star Trek in the 70s are a very interesting story indeed, one that would require a number of pages to properly summarise here! Massive levels of machinations, flip-flopping and general studio politicking.

But you're all partly right. The flip-flop from a series back to a film actually followed two things:

1. The release of Close Encounters, which proved that Star Wars wasn't a one-off flash in the pan when it came to successful movie sci-fi.

2. Paramount abandoning its plans for a fourth TV network, which was planned to start with two hours of programming: Star Trek Phase II and a movie of the week.

Harry Bizzle wrote:If you watch it now for the first time, sans nostalgia, I think that without the effects being as impressive the movies are pretty meh-tastic.

Objectively speaking I agree with you and I can't remember the last time I watched Star Wars, but I was seven years old in 1977 so sans nostalgia isn't really an option although it means I also have a cultural perspective that isn't available on DVD.