[Closed] who here has never seen Star Wars?

i've got a lego X-wing!

[img] [/img]

it's seriously cool.

I'd beg to differ

Aged 8 at the old Deansgate picture house.

The whole place went mad and started cheering as the Death Star exploded 😀

Can understand not liking something that you've seen, but having a go at something you consider yourself 'to clever for' is a bit pathetic really.

Ye, the dialogue is awful. Yes, some of the acting is risible.
Doesn't matter - think of it as the modern day equivalent to the old Saturday morning westerns and enjoy it for what it is.

it's seriously cool.

Nope, as soon as they made specialists bricks for single kits lego was wrong.

Had it been made of

1'erss
square 2'er
flat 2'ers
normal 4 bricks
thin 8'ers
2'er with a hole
long thin aerial'er (for guns)
right angle 2'ers

then it would be okay

Tiger that kit is mostly made of standard bits. Unlike some semi-modern ones.

Tiger6791 don't forget the turners 🙂

i never knew there were so many star wars films! i'd assumed there were two or three...

And the fact they started with IV was a bold decision.

The tale at the time was that there were to be nine movies. In hindsight now, I'm pretty convinced that "Episode 4" was nothing more than a marketing afterthought to reinforce the idea that things have been going on for a while when the film starts.

Take Highlander II as an example of studios wanting prosaic explanations of things to the detriment of the experience. It's a kind of magic, after all

Highlander, there should've been only one. Highlander is pretty much the canonical example of everything that's wrong with cash-in sequels. If there was ever a movie that had was self-contained and ended with no possible inroads for a sequel (because people didn't really do that back then), it's Highlander. There's a film that Ends.

Highlander II is a study in studio interference - I watched a programme about it. Films are insured against going wildly over budget, and if you have to claim on this then the studio and insurance company get creative control. So you get a load of insurance people dictating how the film's made. In the case of HLII it was going ok but the insurers said (presumably according to study groups) that you had to explain why they were immortal, bring back the stars etc etc etc. So the writers had to go back and cram all this garbage into it.

Which is why it's so monumentally rubbish, and why III ignores it completely. But I disagree about there being no possible sequel to I - weren't you interested to see what happened to him as he became mortal?

My understanding was that George got his idea for the force from Aikido and that Yoda came from Gozo Shioda, the father of Yoshinkan Aikido. However, I might look into the Campbell chap as well.

Highlander II is a study in studio interference

It's also a study in what happens when the economy collapses in the country you're filming in.

I'm fairly well versed in the debacle that was H2's production. The producer and directors have had a few cracks at fixing it since. Mulcahy released the de-Zeisted "Renegade Edition" with a lot of the plot repaired, and there was a later release with a lot of the CGI redone. It's still not a great movie, but it's sustantially better than the theatrical version.

I disagree about there being no possible sequel to I - weren't you interested to see what happened to him as he became mortal?

We-ell, perhaps, yes. But it's not a great premise for a movie. Highlander follows the life of an immortal, that's pretty cool. H2 follows the life of a mortal? Well, wow, that's not been done before.

Highlander is pretty much the canonical example of everything that's wrong with cash-in sequels

My SO has never seen a Star Wars movie.. and I've only seen the old ones..

I pity anyone that doesn't like star wars and consider a dislike of sci fi an indicator of a limited imagination

I'm not so sure about that.. the sci-fi genre became very samey very quickly IMO.. it's seems quite hard to find much inspirational stuff being made..

unless you have any interesting suggestions..?

consider a dislike of sci fi an indicator of a limited imagination

I kind of agree, though there aren't enough great sci fi films - there are loads of great sci fi novels. I think good sci fi is able to deal with complex ideas about reality, physics, philosophy, human nature etc - in a way that is very hard for anything else to do.

Star Wars: decent, but not great.

Each to their own. I love Star Wars because it was the first film my dad took me to see (a double bill of Star Wars and Empire)

Still love it and have star wars toys, books, lightsabers and all that stuff hanging round the house. Currently hanging around on Replica Prop Forum and Custom Sabers as I plan to build a custom lightsaber (and I am fully aware they don't really work)

For me they are escapism and something more colourful and fun than the other films that were coming out round about then.

As a child, how could this not look amazing:[img] [/img][img] http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ0-txQ1f6vJ2VcUa1c_Uy4ZjqkQgV0_EzotFyb4d27VhUDlc1XTA [/img]

Not seen the matrix sequels then?

It's not [i]quite[/i] the same.

Highlander - great film, planned as a stand-alone movie, spawned a couple of gash sequels.

The Matrix - great film, planned as the first part of a trilogy, spawned a couple of gash sequels.

I had Star Wars wallpaper too, keep looking on ebay for a roll but not found any yet.

Wonder how many here that haven't seen or like Star Wars but yet could quote Monty Python?

molgrips - Member
Just like the Dark Knight films
Well not quite - the continuous re-invention of Batman is a long story, and driven by the comic book world.

They have made Eastenders last 20+ years with about three plots so there is plenty of room for adding to either story.

Seems daft to me to limit yourself by saying 'I don't like science fiction' when it comes to film and literature.

However, it's equally daft to limit yourself by saying 'I don't like country music/opera/ballet/folk etc'.

Very difficult to have a completely open mind 🙂

Unless we see all art forms as valid and equally worthy of investigation, we're all missing out on something.

Can anyone remember the Ewoks film? I used to love that as a kid!

8)

Caravan of Courage

🙂

or The Battle for Endor

the sci-fi genre became very samey very quickly IMO

Like any genre. Don't get space-opera style fantasy confused with proper scifi. Proper scifi is like Gattaca, for example. An extrapolation of scientific concepts.

I've got this as my (computer!) wallpaper at the mo, guess that makes me a full paid-up Star Wars geek then 🙂
[img] [/img]

Like any genre. Don't get space-opera style fantasy confused with proper scifi. Proper scifi is like Gattaca, for example. An extrapolation of scientific concepts.

Don't start putting up stupid walls around bits of SF, there's no real defining line where one ends and the next bit starts. "Proper scifi" can include all of that - and there's some proper crap written at both ends of the spectrum.

also quite enjoying the "Clone Wars" 30 min cartoons on Sky.

I like it

Not seen clone wars but I used to love "Droids" and "Ewoks" after school.

For me SCIENCE fiction has to be about science. The clue is in the name 🙂 Magic with space ships is fantasy.

For me SCIENCE fiction has to be about science. The clue is in the name Magic with space ships is fantasy.

Not familiar with Clarke's three laws, then - specifically the third one?

😀

i found starwars to be a cracking bit of storey telling. take your brain out and watch sort of stuff. but i dont like science fiction films. they bore me senseless.
top gun is a rubbish film!

I believe I am.

However in order for that to apply to Star Wars you'd have to accept the bullsht explanation given in the first film, which to be fair is best forgotten. Or come up with something even more wacky.

Not-Seen-Star-Wars Niche.

I remember a discussion involving Mark Hamill (who plays Luke Skywalker for you weird people) and some other "famous" person. She started of by saying "Well, I've never seen Star Wars but...", Mark Hamill interupts her with an evil sounding "So you're the one!"

Mark Hamill?

Mark Hamill?

Ahh yes - he's the other one in the film isn't he?

I've got this as my (computer!) wallpaper at the mo, guess that makes me a full paid-up Star Wars geek then

That's fantastic.

However in order for that to apply to Star Wars you'd have to accept the bullsht explanation given in the first film, which to be fair is best forgotten. Or come up with something even more wacky.

A fair point, well made 🙂 (I admit mentioning Clarke was trolling you a bit...)

Though most people, including me, would classify Star Wars as a science fiction film, even if it doesn't fit your narrow definition. I'm guessing SF for you is "hard" SF, leaving space opera and the like out in the cold.

Well not necessarily - I consider Ian M Banks to be scifi even though it's space opera in nature. Because it's about what would happen if we became so good at making machines to do stuff that we could do whatever the hell we felt like.

I just don't see any science in Star Wars.

Not even the light sabres?

Nope.

They are simply weapons. The fact that they glow and buzz instead of go cling clang is not significant. They are made into potent weapons by use of a mystical magical force.. if that's not fantasy I dunno what is 🙂

Fair enough.

Geek.

😉

Aww, you're making me blush!

That's just the midi-chlorians getting agitated.

Wrong!

A lightsaber IS scientific....

[i]The weapon consisted of a blade of pure plasma energy emitted from the hilt and suspended in a force containment field. The field contained the immense heat of the plasma, protecting the wielder, and allowed the blade to keep its shape. The hilt was almost always self-fabricated by the wielder to match his or her specific needs, preferences and style. Due to the weightlessness of plasma and the strong gyroscopic effect generated by it, lightsabers required a great deal of strength and dexterity to wield, and was extremely difficult—and dangerous—for the untrained to attempt using.[/i]
😀

Wrong!

A lightsaber IS scientific....

Blah blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd blah blah blah blah geek geek geek geek blah blah blah nerd nerd