anjohl: Amen. But, star wwars is VERY overrated. People typically have a hard time seperating appreciation and nostalgia.
Not really, Star Wars was revolutionary. The writing was more or less schlock that had been done to death, but the special effects were absolutely astonishing. It's a shame that George won't let us view the original theatrical releases as they really do stand up well for being 30 years old.
OTOH, if you include I-III the series was pretty bad as well. Then again Star Trek did have the issues with the odd movies. Although the series in general was much more sophisticated.
Navagon: I don't get why people compare Star Wars and Star Trek. Is it because they have Star in their names?
Surely it would be more logical to compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings given that they're both sword and sorcery fantasy trilogies?
TBH, I much prefer the original Starwars trilogy to Star Trek, but it's hard to come up with reasons why Starwars is anything much beyond a comfort food type of series. Star Trek is definitely a much deeper franchise which is probably why it's survived so much better into old age. Gene Roddenberry died and it still continues. With Star Wars, I'm pretty sure that George will be the death of the franchise.
It was hugely influential and the special effects that were invented to make the filming of the original trilogy were groundbreaking, but the reality is that Starwars was essentially a story that was quite shallow and was more typically told with horses and six shooters.
Navagon: I don't get why people compare Star Wars and Star Trek. Is it because they have Star in their names?
Surely it would be more logical to compare Star Wars to Lord of the Rings given that they're both sword and sorcery fantasy trilogies?
wpegg: I wanted to post this before, but the site was killing my posts. Anyway, just to bring a few other fans and genres into it:
wisdom lol you almost fooled me with that faux Dumbledore.
