CT Boy were they wrong!

The acting in all 6 movies was soap opera ish at times. On purpose? Maybe. The saga is considered a space opera. To say characters had no depth , I disagree. Pm had some annoying characters IMO, and the pod races were too long and drawn out. Not a fan. The other 2 were better . I'd say acting was equally bad and good for all 6. Like Harrison Ford told Lucas, you can write this $hit, but you can't say it! He withdrew that comment, but he was kinda right.

 

That's another topic. Topics, in fact.

His audio commentary for Ep 4 is quite interesting. But it's not as powerful and complete as visual ''reviews'' of the PT.
OT certainly provides enough material for at least 100-min ''review''. I want to see that. And I'm certain that RLM PT review fans would embrace OT reviews the same way they did with the PT reviews.

 

You compared Leia's "laser brain" line to Marines slang. "Full Metal Jacket" is about the Marine Corps. Never mind it's a further leap to compare a resistance army to the modern-day US occupying forces-- in terms of spirit, they're more Viet-Cong or other guerilla groups than any of our invasions.

Wasn't there an article from Rotten Tomatoes that showed that the PT reviews actually compare rather favorably to the original write-ups the OT films got back in the day, before fans ascended into critic positions? Hopefully somebody else knows where that is. Pauline Kael was far from alone.

 

Yeah, critics actually say it's really easy to write a negative review but writing an engaging positive review is really tough. I think her reviewing style also owes to her writing for the New Yorker, which tends to target...well, obviously a New York audience, which I think especially during her glory days wanted to think of itself as above mere mass entertainment. Personally, I tend to be a little more interested in what is considered "high art" and I'm pretty picky about "entertainment" films, well actually, I'm pretty picky about all films, but I guess my point is that I don't look down on well-done entertainment. She really came into her own during the late 60's when auteur directors were dominant and films were targeted at adults and usually weren't very fun, and I think Star Wars didn't fit her mold of what a film was supposed to be like.

 

ROTS has 80% positive reviews on rottentomatoes, AOTC 67%, and TPM 57%. Reviews for ANH and TESB were mixed when they were released, and it's only b/c critics back then were able to run away from their reviews (b/c you have to search microfiche to find out what they really said) that the OT reviews are so high today. (Actually ROTJ is lower than ROTS on rottentomatoes.)

The OT has many of the same problems that the PT has. "Laser-brains" Or "Why you stuck-up, half-witted, scruffy-looking, nerf-herder?" "Who's scruffy looking?" are just plain terrible, but I loved them when I was a kid. (Also, how the heck is Han stuck-up?) People make fun of the "No-o-o!" in ROTS and they claim that ruins the whole scene. Well, there's an awful "No-o-o!" uttered by Luke in the pivotal scene in TESB and for some reason, that doesn't ruin that scene.

RLM has some good points, especially about the first two films, but a lot of time, what Plinkett says is just demonstrably false. I've gone through them all point by point, and especially in ROTS, most of his arguments just don't make sense when you consider them in the context of the film.

--He says that ROTS shouldn't change its tone in its opening, but ANH changes its tone in its opening.
--He says that battle droids are expendable, but so were the stormtroopers & the stormtroopers weren't even fighting against Jedi.
--He says the Obi-wan is static and boring, yet he beat out Han 55% to 45% in that recent March Madness poll, and Han is his example of what a character should be like.
--Ignoring the glaring mistake of making a battle station that can be blown up by 1 direct hit in its exhaust port, he claims it's a mistake for Palpatine to end the war b/c fear is the source of his power base, ignoring the fact that the Jedi have become the new enemies of the state and thus a new source of fear (the hidden fear that can walk amongst you, sort of like the fear of our current war on terror...)
--He says that we don't see the effects of the war on regular people, but regular people are never shown in the OT either (which I do think is a failure with both trilogies and TDKR).
--He finds it meaningful that in TESB Luke makes the mistake of judging Yoda by his size, but then he thinks everyone should judge Palpatine by his new grotesque appearance and not trust him, even though that grotesque appearance provides proof that the Jedi have committed an act of murderous treason and also creates sympathy for Palpatine. (Wouldn't people sort of be more likely to side with Obama in wartime if he were injured in a treasonous act?)
--Plinkett/Stoklasa sometimes just outright lies and distorts:

• He says that Palpatine says that the Jedi's acts of treason warrant their death when really Palpatine says: "The remaining Jedi will be hunted down and defeated."
• He criticizes a character for saying that the Republic has stood for a 1,000 years when Obi says it was a 1,000 generations in ANH, but the problem is that character says this in a deleted scene. (Why doesn't he just start criticizing typos in GL's script?)
• He says it makes no sense for the Jedi to ask Anakin to spy on Palpatine, but Anakin is the only one who is friends with Palpatine, so who else are they going to ask?
• He says that it's pointless for Anakin to seek Palpatine's power to cheat death given that Padme gives birth 6 hours later, but he fails to mention that Padme is having a medically-induced labor because she's about to die.
• He criticizes the films for looking fake, but the images he's presents are from the DVD, not the blu-ray, and many of the shots he criticizes are matte paintings and models which he says gave the OT a more realistic look.
• He criticizes how weird Padme and Palpatine's names are, even though it's almost impossible to spell, let alone say the name Stoklasa.

I mean, I could go just go on and on. This is just stuff off the top of my head. And, again, I'm not saying that RLM is all wrong. He does make some good points, and the films have flaws, but flaws shouldn't be ignored when they appear in the OT when they are used to castigate the PT, and because the reviews are so one-sided in that repsect, the RLM reviews are clearly biased either to please haters (RLM is a business, & any press is good press) or Stoklasa is a hater, himself.

 

Yeah, this is one of the real problems I have with both trilogies. In the OT the closest we come to "regular people" being affected are Owen and Beru in ANH, gunned down by the Stormtroopers, and the destruction of Alderann-- in one case we see the aftermath, in the other a completely disembodied act of devestation. It's a good way to abridge and show just the essentials of despotism, but it's still superficial at best. In the PT we get a somewhat more intimate picture of "regular people" in seeing Shmi and Anakin in slavery in TPM, and Shmi's cruel fate in AOTC. It's not seeing the effects of the war, but it's certainly seeing the effects of government issues surrounding war-- we get to see clearly what it means that "the Republic doesn't exist out here", the lives of people on the fringes, neglected by the state. Still, even then, we really could see more.

 

Just a quick note, but those two quotes do actually appear in the films. In AOTC, Papatine says, "I will not let this Republic which has stood for a thousand years be split in two. My negotiations will not fail." Then, in ANH, Obi-Wan says "For over a thousand generations the Jedi Knights were the guardians of peace and justice..."
Still, though, I don't really see how this is problematic. It's conflating two completely different things: the existence of this particular political system -- that particular Republic -- with the service of the Jedi Knights. Or, to put it another way, France is currently on its Fifth Republic -- the French Fifth Republic -- established in 1958 (making it a little over 50 years old), but the priests of the Catholic Church have been serving the French Republic for over two hundred years.

I agree that, on the whole, it would have been nice to see the effects of the war on more regular folk. I do really appreciate the opening of AOTC, though, for that reason -- seeing the nightlife on Coruscant then heading off to Naboo, I think, gives us a bit more of a glimpse into what the lives of ordinary people were like as the war was brewing. Also, I do like that in ROTS, as well, we see some of the peoples being affected by the war -- like the Wookiees and the people of Utapau.

In large part, though, I think the lack of regular folk is also a result of the characters' positions in society. Luke and company live on the fringes, basically as outlaws, while Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Padmé live in a very secluded fashion (that reinforces a key theme of the prequels -- that of disconnect between the "authorities" and the common man).

 

I have seen the article you speak of but I haven't seen it recently.
ANH had about 70-80% favorable reviews, ESB 40-50% and RotJ about 30%.

However there are two problems with it.
1) Each OT films have only 10-15 reviews. Are those ALL the reviews made back in the day? Unlikely, they are only the ones they were able to find.
So how many reviews were made back when each film was released? We don't know. It could be 30-40 or perhaps even more.
Why does this matter? Well since the reviews are only a sample of all reviews then it becomes difficult to determine if this sample is an accurate sampling or not. Say ALL the negative reviews are included but only half of the positive reviews, that would skew the number.
So until we know how many of ALL reviews are included here, the data isn't terribly useful.

2) The PT films have over 100 reviews each and many of them are from websites/amateur film critics. The OT reviews are ONLY from professional film critics that write for papers or magazines. Rotten Tomatoes have a function called "Top Critic", which removes most of the online critics and leave the professional critics. When you do that, TPM for ex drop down to 37% favorable reviews. The other two also drop quite a bit.

In short, if one wants to compare the OT (original reviews) with the PT (original reviews) then this data isn't all that useful as we don't know how many of all the OT reviews are included. Second one needs to screen out the online/amateur film reviews the PT has since those did not exist for the OT back in the day.

What it does show is that, surprise, surprise, the OT films got some negative reviews. Which is hardly news and not unexpected either. Almost all films get some bad/negative reviews. So the OT wasn't loved by ALL critics, some didn't like it. The PT isn't hated by ALL critics, some liked it and others didn't.
So this does disprove some things, like the notion that critics have always hated SW, that the PT was hated by all critics and that the OT never got any negative reviews. It also shows that not all of the positive reviews the OT has are from 1997, some are from 1977-83 so some critics liked SW from the get go.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Some comments here.
First Obi-Wan says THE Old Republic. He uses the singular, definitive article and that doesn't suggest that there have been multiple republics.
Second, Tarkin later uses the same phrase "THE Old Republic" when he says that with the disbanding of the senate the last remains of the old republic is gone. So in ANH, two people use the same wording to describe the republic so the simplest conclusion is that the republic has existed for over 1000 generations or 30 000 years and the same republic it came to an end in ANH.

Palpatines words then comes of as a bit odd, is the republic 1000 years old or 1000 generations?
We are never told why they use different timeframes for the age of the republic. And if the intent with Palpatines words was to give some backstory to the republic, that 1000 years ago something very big happened and afterwards we had a new republic, why not develop that?

We aren't told much about what happened 1000 years ago, the only thing we do know is that the Sith became extinct around that time, but not how or why. A brief history about what happened then would have been good, it could have given some backstory to the Sith and why they wanted revenge at the Jedi and so on.

As it is, Palpatine just uses a different time but for no apparent reason. So why do that if you aren't going to explain why. It would be simpler to have him say "Thousands of years" and then there would be no problem.

[/QUOTE]

I would add Lando and Bespin as "regular" people whose lives are influenced by the empire.
Sure Bespin is remote and not a big operation but the threat of the empire was always there. And once Lando defies Vader and help Leia and the others, he tells everyone to leave as the empire has taken over and we see lots of people trying to leave. So they leave their homes and all they have just because the empire was coming.

In ANH, at the start I would say Luke fits is a "regular" person. He lives on a remote planet but even there the empire is present as Luke says he hates it.
Also some of the people in Mos Eisley view the storm troopers with fear and move out of the way when they are coming. Indicating the fear people have of the Empire.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

Yeah, you make a good point. They seem to be talking about 2 different ideas -- the existence of the Republic in its present form and the Jedi as guardians of the peace. What Samuel Vimes mentions complicates it, but Obi-Wan may have simply not wanted to give Luke an hour-long history of the ups and downs of the Jedi in their role of keepers of the peace over those 1,000 generations. Or Obi-Wan just accidentally misspoke. Or GL wanted to correct what Obi-Wan says b/c Obi's quote, if interpreted the way RLM and Samuel Vines interprets it, would mean that Obi has just wiped out from existence all the Knights of the Old Republic era from the EU, so Obi's comment has to be corrected (if it is really referring to the most recent Republic and not earlier versions that extend back to KOTOR and beyond). So, if it's this, then it's really GL being nice to followers of the EU, so it's kind of cool thing to do in that respect.

Also, I should point out that Plinkett/Slokedlasso is using a scene from AOTC in a review of Revenge of the Sith. That's just a little unfair. If he does think it's an error, he shouldn't slip it into this review to make it seem as if that perceived error actually occurs in that ROTS. It should be in the AOTC review where the line was said. That's just what I mean that by how Plinkett/Sleestak distorts things in their reviews -- using a deleted scene and a scene from AOTC to criticize ROTS.

 

thats awesome

 

To me, I think a good exposition point would have been in TPM, just after Qui-Gon escape from Maul.
Anakin asks him "Who was that bad man?" and Qui-Gon responds "I am not sure, but I think it might have been a Sith."
Obi-Wan is shocked but Anakin asks "What is a Sith?" Then Qui-Gon can give a brief history of the Sith and the Jedi and how they fought each other across the millennia. But then 1000 years ago, all the Sith Lords joined forces and formed an Empire that conquered much of what now is the republic. But Courscant, the senate and 100 or so world close to it held firm.
Then the Sith grew too power hungry and began to fight amongst themselves and their empire fractured and divided.
The republic forces along with rebellion on Sith controlled worlds destroyed the empire and the republic was strong again and now many more worlds wanted to join as they had suffered under the Sith's rule.
Then Obi-Wan can ask "But how can this be a Sith, the Jedi slew the last six Sith Lords on Arcanus Prime?" and Qui-Gon respond "Or so we thought."

This would give us some backstory of the Sith, who they are and why they want revenge and why there are few of them. It also says that the senate and the core of the republic has existed for 30 000 years but 1000 years ago many new worlds joined so Obi-Wan/Tarkin is correct but Palpatine is also correct in a way as the republic is now bigger than it used to be.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

To be honest, I actually think it makes much more sense to consider it as the Jedi serving several Republics,. Why (when Obi-Wan mentioned THE Old Republic)? Well, because no French person I know would ever say that the Catholic Church served the Old Republics. It would be:

Les prêtres catholiques ont servi la République française pour plus de deux siècles. (Catholic priests served the French Republic for over two centuries) Singular Republic

NOT

Les prêtres catholiques ont servi les Républiques françaises pour plus de deux siècles. (Catholic priests served the French Republics for over two centuries) Plural "Republics"

Why? Because (at least among the people I know), it's not considered the "Republics" -- it's always just the Republic of France, even though it's undergone many subsequent political revisions.

Palpatine's use of the this Republic, and specifically noting that it has stood 1000 years, is perfectly logical because he is a politician discussing the political history. He's looking at if from a very specific angle -- in terms of when the last time the Republic was seriously reorganized. Indeed, the dialogue leads us to believe that there was a war the last time this occurred. He's speaking very specifically in political terms. It's all about context.

Obi-Wan in the OT, by contrast, was looking at the Republic from the perspective of the Jedi Order who, at their heart, are not meant to be a political order. But they've existed far longer than the most current manifestation of the Republic and they served it all the longer. In all likelihood, the Jedi would have defended the Republic during its last war over 1000 years before the Clone Wars. But, from their perspective, it's still the Republic. Just as the French people I know, are more likely to think of the Republic as beginning with the French Revolution and not 1958 (when the most current iteration began). Granted, I will say that none of the people I know are scholars or historians.

As for Tarkin, either way you look at it, his words make sense. Whether he is talking about the last remnants of that particular Republic ending or of Republic's as a whole, the Republic is now the Empire, so his statement is logical.

It makes the most sense, therefore, for Palpatine to say this Republic has stood for 1000 years -- which reflects the political situation, but for Obi-Wan to not consider individual Republics and their reformations when discussing the almost-extinct Jedi Order's history. It's largely a matter of linguistics (it seems to me) and perhaps not every language will agree. But I think the way that Lucas stated it is best.

Plus, I think it's rather more realistic for the Jedi Order to have survived longer than the Republic unaltered. It would seem to me that a political body is always going to be less stable than a religious/monastic order. But those are just my thoughts.

I don't agree that Lando is necessarily a "regular" person -- he's clearly an outlaw and does not live within the confines of the Empire's rules. In fact, all of Han's dialogue seems to suggest he has a rather seedy background before Bespin and, in Cloud City, he's clearly trying to build a life outside the sphere of the Empire's influence. Again, I would therefore not say that this is a "regular" person -- an average day to day citizen -- because he lives outside the influence of the Empire, in large part. He's similar to Shmi and the Larses, though, in that he lives in a harsher, more uncontrolled area, though.

As for people fleeing their homes, that could be due to the Empire's arrival, but it could also be due to the fact that if the Empire is taking over Bespin -- an illegal mining colony -- then they could very well be prosecuted for living there and not reporting it to the authorities. Plus, the very fact that they are living there suggests that they've sought refuge from the Empire in the first place. But they're still in the fringes of society (again, much like Shmi and the Larses were on Tatooine). They don't really represent what the day to day life under the Empire is like.

Luke is likewise a regular person at the start of ANH, but he lives on a remote planet (as you note) where he says "it's all so far off from here). And it seems like the only reason that the stormtroopers were there was because of the droids, given how excited Luke is at their presence.

Again, I don't think the OT gave us a clearer picture of the average life of an Imperial citizen anymore than the PT did for the Republic. In both cases, the protagonists are rather removed from society and do not interact directly with citizens often. The closest thing I can think of, actually, would probably be Padmé's family on Naboo. But that's in a deleted scene unfortunately.

 

Oh please, if RLM made a video disowning the OT, the mindless followers would then decide that those movies suck, too.

Seriously, I don't mind that people have a heightened view of the OT movies because of their age, but attacking the PT for the same problems that plague the OT is pretty hypocritical.

 

Errr...I'm not sure what you're saying regarding the French Fifth Republic. That was exactly my point. Palpatine, a politician and government official, refers to this Republic as having stood for 1000 years. But when others (such as laypeople and non-politicians) talk about the Republic, they just talk about THE Republic. It's the same in France. For official purposes, it's the Fifth Republic, but I've often talked to people who readily refer to post-Revolution France as THE Republic, despite the fact that it's undergone several iterations.

Additionally, I think that Obi-Wan's words are more related to the destruction of the Jedi than the wars they fought. Don't forget that the Clone Wars were going on before the formation of the Empire -- which the Jedi fought in -- and yet Obi-Wan specifically notes: "before the Dark Times; before the Empire." Here, I think, it's a direct reference to the genocide of the Jedi -- that even though wars may have happened before, there was much more hope than there is now with the Empire in control and seemingly few means of opposing them.

Like I said, it's not conflicting at all. You just have to look at the context. I never found it confusing personally.

Also, I've never heard of political institutions being dated by generations. It makes sense for a monastic Order like the Jedi to do so, but it seems rather odd for a government. Just my thoughts on the matter.

Lando is most definitely doing something illegal though:

LANDO: So you see, since we're a small operation, we don't fall into
the...uh...jurisdiction of the Empire.

LEIA: So you're part of the mining guild then?

LANDO: No, not actually. Our operation is small enough not to be
noticed...which is advantageous for everybody since our customers are
anxious to avoid attracting attention to themselves.

LANDO: No, not actually. Our operation is small enough not to be
noticed...which is advantageous for everybody since our customers are
anxious to avoid attracting attention to themselves.

The group walks into another corridor and heads for a huge
doorway at the far end.

HAN: Aren't you afraid the Empire's going to find out about this
little operation and shut you down?

LANDO: That's always been a danger looming like a shadow over
everything we've built here. But things have developed that will
insure security. I've just made a deal that will keep the Empire out
of here forever.

Here we see that they are constantly concerned that their operation could be discovered by the Empire -- indicating that they are not working within the confines of the law. Thus, I would say it's quite clear that Lando's colony is not an example of an "average" Imperial citizen. He specifically says that they live outside the jurisdiction of the Empire due to their small size allowing them to pass unnoticed. So it's, again, similar to the Larses on Tatooine in AOTC -- they live outside the jurisdiction of the Republic and aren't exactly the best example of what it means to live as a citizen of the Republic.

Plus, I can definitely say that it would be illegal not to report a business to the Empire. They would want to collect taxes on it after all.

Either way, whether the mine was illegal or not (though I think it's heavily implied to be so), the people there clearly lived outside the jurisdiction of the Empire and feared discovery. Thus, again, they lived on the fringes of society like our heroes.

It's part of the Empire, but they have no presence there -- hence Luke saying it's all so far away from them.

Plus, again, Owen and Beru don't give us a look at the average life of an Imperial citizen because the Empire was trying to retrieve the plans for the Death Star. Essentially, it'd be equivalent to a government looking for plans for an atomic weapon or the locations of such. I don't think we can take their treatment (as senseless and brutal as it was) as an example of the "average" life an Imperial citizen.

I'm sure that the Empire treats its citizens very poorly -- as you note with Alderaan -- but I was more lamenting the fact that we don't really see any day to day life experiences under the Empire. We don't know how restrictive the Empire normally is with most people or how much it interferes with their ability to exercise freedoms. It's one of the reasons I really lament that Biggs' conversation with Luke was cut because I always felt it was a great scene that gave more context. It helped show the many ways in which the Empire was oppressing the people that an ordinary person like Biggs would choose to take up arms against it.

We do see some of the effects the Empire had. But we don't see much of the lives of common Imperial citizens was all I was saying.

 

I just posted a review of TESB on my blog. And although I did point out what I believe were flaws in the movie, I don't think I can agree with this assessment. Despite its flaws, I believe it is a well made movie - one of the best in the franchise. And I don't believe that the characters lacked depth or development. For me, the characters' development was simply a second step that began in ANH. As for the editing . . . I don't know. I'm not that well versed to detect good or bad editing.

 

But take Tarkin, is he talking about the same republic as Obi-Wan is talking about or the republic Palpatine was talking about?
Tarkin uses the exact same phrase "The Old Republic" as Obi-Wan does. So if they are talking about the same thing does that mean that the senate has existed for 1000 generations?

And mostly my point is that if you are going to have Palpatine say something different from what was established, which is fine, then do something with it. Make it matter. Otherwise people might just think it is a goof.

Well "generation" might have been Lucas way to not have so many "Earth like" measurements used.
What we call a year is totally determined by the rotation of our planet around our sun. A Marsian year would be far longer.

Yes Lando is involved in illegal things. But that doesn't have to mean that everyone that lived on Cloud City were criminals. I would say that even people that live in far away places could be considered "Regular". By this I mean they are simply trying to earn a living, raise a family and stay out of trouble. Lando and the people of Cloud City were bystanders in the galactic civil war. Lando didn't like the Empire sure but he wasn't actively fighting it either. In short, they were neutral.
But the war came to them and destroyed what they had been working on.
Making the point that with the empire, you can't really remain neutral for ever.

If a government that have no presence on a planet can still inspire hatred in the people that live there, I'd say that this government is rather nasty.
One interesting thing with the PT added to this.
Tatooine was not a part of the Republic but now it is a part of the Empire. What happened, was it conquered? Possibly. This would explain why the people in Mos Eisely were wary of storm troopers.

Well considering the Empire thinks that destroying whole planets and killing billions is fair game, I doubt their regular treatment is very considerate.

One other interesting thing though, the Empire do take some care in trying to deflect blame away from them. Ex with the Jawas they left behind fake evidence to implicate the sand people. Why would the empire care? Also we have Vader faking a distress call from Leias ship to throw the senate off. So at least at the start of ANH, it seems the empire is at least trying to hide it's worst offences. Of course that goes out the window when the DS is fully operational.

I still say Tatooine and it's people count as does Bespin and it's people. Sure it is on the outer edges of the empire but if the empire can do this much so far away from it's center, imagine what it must be like there.
Given the films focus, following a band of rebels fighting the evil empire, I think the films did give some bits about what life was like for others. Could they have done more? Sure.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

Said George Lucas before the release of Ep3:

"They (the critics) haven't liked any of my movies. They really hated the last two."

 

Honestly, I've never put much stock in reviews of any kind. Word of mouth is much more useful.

 

I don't really listen to other people, or critics reviews..if a movie sounds interesting to me, I'll see it.

 

Ah jeez. Step outside your fandom and realize critics can not be too keen on these movies. You don't have to dissect the movies to figure that out, just know how the critics think. It may not seem like it now, these movies move at a quick pace, and especially did for 1977, 1980. Few scenes are longer than about two minutes but the emotional weight in, for example, the carbon freezing scene is still there and doesn't feel rushed. Place your mind in the time and compare with other films, and what the critics might have been watching and reviewing at the time, especially sci-fi. STAR WARS was no Zardoz or Logan's Run, or Planet of the Apes, or Rollerball, or Soylent Green. It also wasn't like Three Days of the Condor, or Rollercoaster. The SW films are really different, so some critics just might not have known what to make of them, but with so many movies that have followed the action-adventure, save-the-princess formula and exist in a world where people cling to cliffs and give speeches about powers while everything crumbles around them under gunfire, we're just use to it, so critics have learned to kind of grade on a curve and consider other factors.

 

Lucas lied. Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back got rave reviews from critics. Return of the Jedi got decent critical reviews as well.

 

Not all critics though. Some were pretty harsh about Star Wars, some harsh about ESB.

 

so how do you know if it sounds interesting ? I mean if you don't take any notice of other people or critics ? are you just going by advertising ?