CT Star Wars will lose it's relevancy in our lifetime

I wish I didn't agree with you, but I kind of do.

 

The other day, someone in my office referred to one of the organization's directors as "...more intimidating than Darth Vader."

I can't imagine anyone saying that someone is "...more intimidating than Count Dooku." The response would most assuredly be "Who?".

 

Yeah, and most people would probably give the same response if you mentioned Alec Trevelyan or Le Chiffre instead of Auric Goldfinger. Their loss.

 

I haven't read through the entire thread, however I must say I disagree with the original posters sentiments.

Firstly I think it is unlikely the OT will loose any real relevance in the form of being rendered obsolete or forgotten. One of the key things about Star Wars is the fact it is timeless. That is why it is called a mythology and that is why people continue to enjoy the films. I am confident that in 50-100 years time people will still reference and enjoy the Saga for the simple fact is that it is a timeless modern mythology.

Secondly I fail to see how the PT was a missed opportunity to 're-validate' the Saga. Kids enjoy the Prequel Trilogy immensely, with TCW reinforcing this, and as such I would say the success of the PT is obvious. What a generation enjoys is different from the next or the previous generation. As such it was obvious to me that the OT fans were not going to enjoy these films to the same degree as the generation which 'grew up' with the PT. Different films for a different generation. The hypothetical ST films would likewise be different films, depending on the primary target demographic. If anything I think the PT did a better job of 're-validating' the Saga then any Fanboy-PT-hypothetical-films.

 

Well, he's saying that people who grew up with the OT generally don't like the PT, and people who grew up with the PT generally do like the PT. But I'm with you... I grew up with the OT but I do like the PT. I like them equally, in fact. I'm pretty tired of these assumptions being made about who does or doesn't like something based on when they grew up, honestly.

 

Not only that, but I really don't spend a great deal of time going on about things that I hate so vehemently. Just sayin..

 

Therein lies the key: pass it on to your children. That's exactly what my dad did with me and my family's 120-year history of Czech folk music. He made it relevant to me by passing on the music to me and letting me decide for myself to take interest in it. The Star Wars story can be passed on in the same manner. Share the story with your children and express your enjoyment for it, and if they are drawn to the story, you've just made it relevant to them. A good story will last a multitude of generations. After all, there are many works/stories out there that have survived 100+ years.

 

^ Exactly. My son was easily won over by Star Wars, without me pushing it on him. All I had to do was expose him to it, and then talk about it and answer any questions he had on it. He is four, the same age I was when I became a life-long fan. Keep in mind this is based only on the movies (all six), plus a few reference books we have. He is aware of The Clone Wars show but hasn't seen it. So no generational loss of relevance is applicable in the case of SW, IMO.

 

whats with all this prequel hate crap, they are every bit as good as the original trilogy, and have much better special effects, every star wars movie is as good and rich as the next, that is purely opinion

 

If we had like buttons I would use it here. Born in 78, the first movie I remember watching was ANH. Plopped in front of the TV watching an old VHS taped off HBO. Over and over and over. I love the prequels, have since the first moment TPM started in the theater I was sitting in. Its never wavered. And nothing makes me more annoyed then people speaking for me about what I like or don't like about these movies, or claiming they're a better fan for some arbitrary reason. The whole thing makes me just tired.

 

^ Thanks!

 

This thread is ridiculous and honestly, it kind of ticks me off.

Really? People with this intense hate of the prequels are stuck in an OT bubble. Yes, the OT was amazing, but I can say in all seriousness that the PT is just as good, it's just different. You didn't get more of the same Star Wars with the PT but you still got great movies. I don't buy into the comments that episodes I & II were terrible. I've seen the long documentaries that tear the movies apart. It's all rubbish. It all comes from people wishing they were like the originals, that's it. Anyone could tear apart the OT movies just as much if they wanted to. Star Wars has more fans now than it ever did. Please stop being so pessimistic. More movies/shows or whatever will continue to come out. You can count on it.

...I just had to get that rant out!

 

Spot on. It was my dad who introduced me to the original films when I was a kid (before the PT came out) and I fell in love with it, and even took me to see the films during the 1997 re-release (he even took me to see them in the very same theatre he had seen the films in for the first time when he was a kid). And I'll even add that both of us also really like the Prequel Trilogy (despite its flaws). It's our privilege and honor to make sure that we pass it on to our children to make sure that it lives on in the hearts and minds of children for many generations to come. And I agree with earlier posters that this thread seems very pessimistic about the situation and another splinter of Prequel Hate. I know that we can do our part to make sure that STAR WARS will never die.

 

I would think it was perfectly logical that people who like the PT are still talking about the films in fan forums. The fact that people who don't like them are also doing the same thing speaks even more to the enduring relevance of Star Wars. Among fans, anyway.

 

I don't know whether STAR WARS will or will not lose its relevancy in our lifetime. At the moment, I believe it is more relevant than ever . . . especially if one looks at the world today. Whenever I see how our political and economical situation has turned out and where we are going, I cannot help but wonder if George Lucas was a psychic. Especially when he was writing the Prequel Trilogy.

 

The prequels are terrible films with no heart.

I gave up trying to defend them years ago... The acting is some of the worst ever put on film. I think it's the potential that the films had that people get so fired up over.

The Lord of the Rings films are amazing. Imagine how people are going to react if the Hobbit films suck and are nothing like the originals... It could happen. I see Peter Jackson alot like Lucas these days -who would possibly challenge him if he came up with crappy ideas?? Yep...

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but wasn't the post-ROTJ/pre-Heir to the Empire era comparatively arid? Bear in mind, my recollection might be a bit capricious as I was a mere youngling at the time, but I don't remember Star Wars being a perpetual hot property.

Strange, since those three movies were regarded as masterpieces.

(Or two, if you ask me.)

(Or one, if you ask others.)

(Or none, if you ask certain cineastes.)

 

Let's not kid ourselves-- SW was still pretty dry as a franchise in the period between ROTJ and the SE releases. No more than any other finished film series, but still. SW has never been more alive than it is now.

 

Star Wars will always be highly remembered, wether you like it very much or not, mainly because ANH shattered the US Box Office records in 1977-1978 and became a real phenomenon, with the rest of the OT basically living up to the expectation, although slightly less successful. Also because it was the real rebirth of mainstream Sci-fi-space opera films at the time, thanks to Mr Lucas, and because it was a fantastic breakthrough in the FX area.

The PT didn't have that same impact at the box-office adjusted for inflation, didn't break any records although it was still highly successful, and did not become such a huge pop-culture phenomenon, probably partly because it was not so new and not such a breakthrough at the time (1999) compared to the OT.

Still the PT will be remembered too, because TPM was one of the most anticipated movie ever by the motion picture industry and the general audience, especially in the US, and because it was again a real landmark in term of FX technology and the widespread use of CGI in movies as well, wether you like CGI invasion or not (personally I don't).

On this issue, the endless debate between PT bashers and lovers or OT versus PT really doesn't make sense.

 

Star Wars will be remembered in the same way as other mythologies are remembered; reason being that the messages are not specific to time periods, but are rather a constant for humanity, and as such they transcend time.

It won't loose relevancy since its messages and themes could be understood and appreciated by all humanity - whether you live in Ancient Rome, the Dark Ages, the 20th Century or the 28th Century.

 

Why does it have to be movies remembered? Books and videogames and tv shows and toys will keep it alive.

 

All of that was a matter of opinion.

Brining up a possible scenario for the LOTR films is pretty irrelevant to the conversation.

And I don't get the hate to the overall performances. I mean yeah Hayden Christensen (though I think he did show some improvement in REVENGE, thought that's not saying that much), Jake Loyd, Ahmed Best, and at times Natalie Portman (at times I think she was decent, but the love dialouge she had to deliver was clunky enough to apparently ruin it all for her)were very weak. But I don't see why all of the other actors are getting slammed because of them. I thought most of the other players were just fine. I mean Ian McDiarmid and Ewan McGregor were both fantastic and easily matched Aled Guinness (in sophistication and elogance) and Mark Hamill (the most underrated performers of the saga who got better and better with each film) respetively. I mean I don't even get the problems with Liam Neeson, Christopher Lee, or Samuel L. Jackson who all played their roles as the wise and warm kind mentor, darkly charismatic villainous leader (easily on par with fellow Hammer Horror film alumn cast member Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin), and the stern no nonsense Jedi leader respectively to a tee. I think even smaller player Jimmy Smitts managed to make his smaller role in the films as Bail Organa memorable in EP III just based on his performance. They don't excuse the poorer cating choices for Anakin (who being such a major character should've been casted better, I even heard that they considered Heath Ledger who would have been fantastic) but I don't see why it seems to rub off on all of the performances for so many people and honestly kind of unfair.

 

I completely agree with this.

King Arthur, Robin Hood, Hercules, Sherlock Holmes, Luke Skywalker(& company), Frodo and his one ring, Harry Potter, Dorothy Gail, Indiana Jones, James Bond, Superman, Batman, Spiderman, Scarlett & Rhett, Don Vito Carleone, etc....they all hold a place in history as fictional greats(books, legends, movies, comic books...whatever the case may be).

All the new characters and stories from since the beginning of motion picture and comic books(and literature like LoTR and Harry Potter) are too recent for us to think of in terms of Legends, but 1000 years from now people will still be enjoying the exploits from A Long Time Ago in a Galaxy Far Far Away.

 

I'd disagree with that slightly in that that stuff like James Bond and 'Superhero' films won't be as remembered. Reason being many of them are very specific to our timeframe within history, and many lack eternal messages of the human condition, etc. That is why those series' often need reboots etc - the previous incarnations have either already lost their relavence or the series has fallen off the rails. In 500 years the world may not be interested in 'Superheros' or 'James Bond' simply because the themes in those texts are very 20th-21st Century ideas and concepts.

The following series', in my opinion, will be immortal. Most follow ancient thematic and conceptual templates (like the monomyth and tragedy):

1) "STAR WARS"
2) "HARRY POTTER"
3) "THE LORD OF THE RINGS"

...and possibly...

4) "INDIANA JONES"
5) "PLANET OF THE APES" (2009 reboot) - simply because of the new moral messages in the text about the inadequacies of humanity and a disconnect with nature.

All of those examples are removed from our own time and setting, or are eternally historical (like "INDIANA JONES"). Each period in history adds its own human fables and texts - only a select few are added to that 'panthenon'.

 

I'm not the world's biggest LOTR fan, but there's no question that Jackson was able to infuse his trilogy with more epic visual sweep and genuine emotion than Lucas was able to conjure in his sterile, CGI-laden fantasyland.

And you're totally right - Lucas isn't the only once-great director to have fallen mightily: look at Francis Ford Coppola, William Friedkin, Oliver Stone, Bernardo Bertolucci, M. Night Shyamalan, etc.

Jackson's last film, The Lovely Bones, was a piece of junk, IMO. Hopefully he got that out of his system and returns to form with The Hobbit.

POTA was good in spite of a distressingly thin human story. Also, it was overshadowed - for me - by the infinitely superior Project Nim, a more thoughtful and compelling film that considered some similar issues.