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

Discussion in 'Classic Trilogy' started by zabrak999, Aug 6, 2011.

  1. drg4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    Honestly folks, what's the worst that can happen to Lucas's sextet? That instead of becoming the source material for a new religion, it ?merely? shares the fate of such iconic cultural fixtures as the Universal monster movies, classic Walt Disneys, and the Connery Bonds?

    Was Star Wars supposed to salvage our souls or something?
  2. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
  3. Jedi_Keiran_Halcyon Jedi Grand Master

    Member Since:
    Dec 17, 2000
    star 6
    This. They don't need to be perpetually "new".

    As far as I can tell, SW's reputation peaked about 10 years after Jedi, when the films had fallen into place as classics to be looked back on fondly.
  4. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Yeah. These things are more mainstream than people let on. It's harder to tell, now, because of how fragmented, how balkanized the pop-culture psyche is now. But "padawan" is an easy word for people to recognize. I've found myself surprised when talking with people I know aren't huge SW or sci-fi fans, and hear them using it casually, in place of "apprentice". I wouldn't be surprised if the TPM 3D release winds up reminding people just how much the Prequels are still with them.
  5. drg4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    For what it's worth, I've heard quite a few "Palpatine" and "Sith" references from civilians.

    (Yes, I realize that they appeared in the OT novelizations, but only us nerds knew about them.)
  6. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Yeah. This actually happened to me with a couple of friends after seeing a movie a while ago ("Band of Outsiders", Film Forum), both of whom are not fans of the PT. Nevertheless, they us PT terms like "Palpatine" and "Padawan" rather casually in conversation. So even among people who don't like them, the Prequels are easily just as relevant as any other big tentpole movies from the past decade. I can't say the same thing about "The Matrix" movies, much as I like them (I still always have to explain to people which characters are real or computer programs, and which scenes actually take place in the Matrix), and I doubt that even the LOTR movies will have that kind of staying power with their minutiae (people will know "Hobbit" and "Orc" easily, I guess, but all the rest of it will go over people's heads, save for the stuff that's in all generic fantasy).
  7. Arawn_Fenn Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Jul 2, 2004
    star 7
    :rolleyes: Oy vey. And they even went to the trouble of garishly color-coding the whole thing just so those people would have a clue.
  8. DarthBoba Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jun 29, 2000
    star 9
    I can't say the same thing about "The Matrix" movies, much as I like them (I still always have to explain to people which characters are real or computer programs, and which scenes actually take place in the Matrix),

    Okay, almost laughed out loud there. I mean...what? Them suddenly not looking like homeless people wasn't enough of a clue?
  9. Drewton Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 8, 2009
    star 4
    THIS.
  10. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    I think Star Trek is an interesting comparison.

    I used to watch the original Trek on TV in the early '80s, the movies in the late '80s and the new shows in the '90s. Now there's a pseudo-reboot some 40+ years after its debut.

    Trek has never had the same level of mainstream popularity that Star Wars has enjoyed, yet it maintains a presence in pop-culture, with an 11 year head start. Why? Because it has never really disappeared (barring the '70s--analoguous to SW in the late '80s.)

    If a successful Star Wars TV series in one form or another can air for the next 10+ years (and I don't see why not), you'll have a franchise that will be untouchable--a world without Star Wars will be as inconceivable as a world without Trek or James Bond.

    IMHO, it all hinges on whether the live-action series can get off the ground: if it airs and is successful, SW will be bulletproof.
  11. Jedi_Ford_Prefect Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2003
    star 4
    Frankly, I think SW's proven itself rather Kevlar after the success of TCW. I'd like to see Lucas Animation do something original next, but an OT or Pre-PT era SW series could also be lots of fun, and keep SW on the radar for the foreseeable future.

    You don't need to have constant content coming up, at the same time-- those 6 films are going to stand well enough on their own. Perhaps regular theatrical re-showings would help, as they have in the past for bloated cows of films like "Gone With the Wind", but hey.
  12. Artoo-Dion Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 9, 2009
    star 4
    Re: TCW, I'm not sure. I personally think it's a great show that deftly blends the better (but not best) parts of both the PT and OT, but I do wonder how many casual adult fans watch it. I really don't know the answer to that.

    I think a prime-time live action series, if done well, will pull-in a demographic that would pass on TCW. I'm thinking here of the nuBSG viewers and such.

    As for theatrical re-releases, I really think home theatre has killed that for all but film buffs. I mean, I'd be happy to see a 70mm screening of Ben-Hur, but the average person wouldn't care one way or another.
  13. drg4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    I'm starting to wonder whether the facets that folks seem so keen on harping upon (i.e., acting, dialogue) will actually help ensure Lucas's cinematic immortality.

    Think about it: So many of the superhero/fantasy adaptations have this inoffensive but largely unremarkable quality?-efficiently mechanical?-but Star Wars is so uniquely, sublimely schizophrenic, where highs and lows abound.

    To put it another way: Wouldn't you rather listen to Carrie Fisher's wavering British/American affectations or Hayden Christensen and Natalie Portman's misfire of a fireside chat than three Spider-Man movies-worth of Tobey McGuire/Kirstin Dunst moping sessions?

    I can't recall what Harry Potter's cadre was yammering on about for seven or eight or twenty movies, but boy do I remember Jake Lloyd's starfighter dialogue. That stuff just burrows into the ol' memory bank!
  14. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4

    Who are you to judge those who like Episodes I and II? The quality of STAR WARS movies is not based upon your tastes, or the tastes of anyone on this board - including me. It's one thing to simply state that you don't like the PT. It's another when you have to issue a backhanded insult on those who do not share your tastes. And there are a good number of people WHO ARE NOT ON THIS BOARD that are actually fans of the PT.
  15. henderson Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    Mar 30, 2005
    star 2
    Like MEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEE!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
  16. DRush76 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 25, 2008
    star 4
    Was Star Wars supposed to salvage our souls or something?


    Salvage our souls? You are kidding . . . right?:oops:
  17. Heero_Yuy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 4
    :rolleyes:
  18. Pendulous_Dewlap Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2011
    star 1
    Some things are just objectively bad. You can enjoy them on a subjective level, but artistically they are indefensible. Understand?
  19. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    And who gets to make the call as to what works of art are "objectively bad"?
  20. StampidHD280pro Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 28, 2005
    star 4
    [face_laugh]No.
  21. Pendulous_Dewlap Jedi Youngling

    Member Since:
    May 21, 2011
    star 1
    How can you reasonably defend Darth Vader's embarrassing "Nooooooo!" in Episode III, the atrocious Anakin-Padme 'romance' in Episode II, Lil' Annie in Episode I, and the CGI abomination that is Jar Jar Binks? I can understand someone liking these things on his or her own terms, but artistically they're inexcusable.
  22. anakinfansince1983 Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 4, 2011
    star 7
    Again, who gets to define "artistically inexcusable" or "artistically indefensible"?
  23. EHT New Films Manager

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Sep 13, 2007
    star 6
    Sounds like someone needs to brush up on the definitions of "subjective" and "objective".
  24. Cryogenic Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 20, 2005
    star 4
    Technically, all art is "inexcusable". That is, it is literally ineligible to have excuses made for it. And why? Because it's art. Art exists because it exists. Or as Oscar Wilde put it, "all art is quite useless". Curiously, opposition to artistic expression is quite common on the right of the political spectrum; and the further right you go, the more extensive and violent that opposition tends to become. I think, in part, this can be understood via Wilde's assertion. That is, right-wing views tend to favour rigid production, rules, procedures, hierarchy and uniformity over values more commonly associated -- at least, dialectically -- with the left: personal freedom, personal expression, heterogeneity and the right to dissent. All human beings, I think, tend to have a mixture of right- and left-leaning views and behaviours, which oscillate based on any number of external variables. What you're saying, there, perfectly exemplifies that: it's another person's "right" to have their views (left-leaning), but the views they may hold, in artistic terms, are "inexcusable" (right-leaning). I guess I am wary when I see right-leaning stuff entering into a conversation, particularly where art is concerned. And given that art IS subjective, I have to simply say you're wrong on this matter.

    This is where the term "apologist" -- a term that often crops up in PT discussions, especially those on IMDb, oddly enough -- makes me laugh. People are never "apologizing" for art. At most, they are EXPLAINING, or *attempting* to explain, why they like a thing; or, indeed, why they dislike it. In fact, the obverse (i.e., "why they dislike it") reveals the underlying hypocrisy -- blinkered projection -- of those that DO dislike something in the realm of art when using such a label. If someone who LIKES something, and attempts to explain why, on a social forum, is an "apologist", what is a person who DISLIKES something, and also attempts to explain why, or doesn't even do that much, on a social forum? Well, they must be something rather scandalous. I must admit, I have even seen HIGHLY INTELLIGENT, WELL-EDUCATED people throwing that accusation at me. I remember when I was talking to a very educated friend, in private, about "Lost In Translation", and what I liked about it. He, on the other hand, disdained it for what he perceived to be incredibly shallow and stereotypical depictions of Japan and its people (for the record, he was/is half-Japanese, and his wife was/is fully Japanese), and eventually fired back at me with, "To be honest, I think you're feeling the need, psychologically, to defend it". He may have been right about that, but only after he, from a similar point of view, went on the ATTACK.

    So, really, saying such things are artistically inexcusable is kind of an incendiary action. Clearly, people differ in their views, and where art is concerned, there is no "right" or "wrong" answer. And even if there WERE right and wrongs, it would STILL be possible to defend something; or at least allow for the fact that "nothing happens by accident". That's why we have people in the world who devote themselves to physics, or medicine, or psychology, or whatever, in an attempt to understand all the things in the world that people are quick to have both positive and -- more often -- negative reactions to. Y'know, everything has its place in this world. Ironically, I have always seen that as one of the "explosive meanings", if you like, of Jar Jar. He is a "disturbance in the Force", calling to mind things that would otherwise go unacknowledged and unsaid. Really, this is art, and people are free to like and dislike at will. There is no objective standard. People who say that or base their rema
  25. negative1 Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Oct 17, 2012
    as a fan of all six movies to varying degress.
    although star wars (ep4) is my favorite,

    i can't see star wars ever disappearing from
    cultural relevancy at all. it's too ingrained in
    too many people, and too many references
    and other parts of society as mentioned in
    previous posts.

    lucasfilm and george lucas has done a good
    job of keeping it going via non-movie things,
    such as tv shows, books, toys, etc. the demand
    for those is even greater than all the movies put
    together according to recent accounting.

    i don't think star wars fans will be going anywhere
    anytime soon, and wondering what happened.
    there might have been a danger of that before
    the special editions and prequels, but not anymore.

    later
    -1