Badmovies.org Forum

 We my as well get this out in the open, because it's one of the most popular movies of all time.
It's also a big budget remake of old Flash Gordon Buster Crabbe serials.
Do you like it? If so, why? I read a lot of comic books- and it was like a living comic book- except it sucked. I was 15.
Myself, I thought it had good F/X- but never cared .
I went back to comics in later years- but never STAR WARS- where the storyline was going. It had a comic book plot, and in 1977, I kinda was done with comic books . I never cared about it from day one. I saw it when it first came out. Didn't really care. It was like the KING KONG remake. It was big budget reworked s**t.

I like it. Stating why is harder.

It helped advance the art & technology of special FX. 2001: A Space Odyssey had great FX, but the techniques they used were too expensive to really change things; the motion control cameras used on Star Wars made filming space ships, fighter jets, & the like practical. Having said that, Close Encounters also used motion control cameras; it was probably just the right time for those techniques to take over. Star Wars did lead to the founding of ILM, which is still one of the best FX houses in the industry.

It does have a classic story, & that story is told well. Sure, it might be cliché, space opera stuff, but it was generally well-refined cliché space opera stuff. Sort of like comparing Edgar Rice Burrows to the dozens of other early-20th-century pulp writers; sometimes a story doesn't need to be original, if it's developed better than what's competing against it. Star Wars does have an interesting technology vs. mysticism angle. While it's not the first sci-fi story to take that approach, I don't think Flash Gordon or Buck Rodgers used that angle. John Carter of Mars did, but it hadn't been made into a movie by 1977, & I think it kinda came down on the "religion is evil" side of things. Not heavily so; the Martian religion just turned out to be fake; John Carter doesn't call out all religion.

The music is good, tho it owes a lot to other classical pieces, especially Holst's The Planets.

^Well! There ya go!
PS: I Love 2001.

http://youtu.be/ypEaGQb6dJk (http://youtu.be/ypEaGQb6dJk)

I forgot that 2001 gave us front projection, during the Dawn of Man segment. That is significant. Thanks for the reminder!

I was 8 when it came out, the perfect age. So yeah, I liked it!

This has nothing to do with STAR WARS- but  one of the 2001 monkey man heads were used in the Joan Crawford film TROG!

(https://i.imgur.com/Xgl35Z3.jpg) (https://lunapic.com)

I saw each of the first 3 when I was about 7 or 8. I remember thinking they were pretty good (but then at that age I thought the POLICE ACADEMY movies were genius comedy). I understand why they're considered so iconic, and I get the fanboyness they inspire, but I never jumped on that bandwagon...

iirc I actually liked the toys/action figures way more than the films...

STAR WARS is fun and important.  I like all 3 of the first films.  The later ones do not interest me. 

I like them all, but I LOVE the original trilogy.

The first one is the classic "Hero's Journey"  (and a remake of Kirasowa's "Hidden Fortress") with just the right touch of a unique spin that made it engaging for me. The bit that blew my 13 year old me back then was being hyped up to see a movie that takes place in the future... only to have my mind instantly blows away with "A Long time ago in a Galaxy Far Far away..."   It never occurred to me that a Science Fiction film that could take place in the past....and no where near earth!

I grew up watching Star Wars and collected the toys. Guess as a boy it was my big thing.

Don't get me wrong. I loved that it had Peter Cushing doing something beyond a horror film, and using James Earl Jones as Darth Vader's voice was genius. The f\x, of course were fantastic.
I dunno- maybe because they so oversold it. Breakfast cereal and toys and fast food giveaways- it got to be grating at the time. Like the band KISS in 1977. Who I liked for about a year.

Different strokes for different folks my friend.

What I really didn't like, was that my favorite magazine back then was Famous Monsters of Filmland- and once STAR WARS came out- it was on every dam cover for the rest of it's run.
I had to stop buying it. And I loved Famous Monsters.
I reckon I took it kinda personal. We didn't have cable TV. The nearest theater was 8 miles away. I read a lot.

I was really jealous of another kid in my class who had Ti-Fighters (sp?). I thought they were so cool but I only had a few figures.

It's possible that I might have liked STAR WARS more than I recall? but it wouldn't have been for long.

Luke Skywalker has a cool name, and the light sabres were cool. hah, just remembered I had a light sabre as well. it lit up

might as well just come out as a STAR WARS uber fan right now eh?  :bouncegiggle:

I had a lot of the figures (although nowhere near a full collection at the time), as well as a X-Wing,  Jabba's Throne Room and AT-AT. One of the guys I was friends with was an only child (and if I am entirely honest, something of a spoilt brat thinking back), and I was rather jealous of his collection of pretty much every Star Wars playset. Just after I got married I did pick up most of the rest of the Star Wars figures from the 80s, although a few of them (and I am looking at you here A-Wing pilot) were just more than I was willing to pay.

yeah that must've become a more and more expensive hobby as time went on no doubt...

no idea what happened to any of my old figures. probably got their heads chewed off my my younger bro's

That reminds me of this review of the second movie:

https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200430-star-wars-why-the-empire-strikes-back-is-overrated (https://www.bbc.com/culture/article/20200430-star-wars-why-the-empire-strikes-back-is-overrated)

and even another article linked to that one, and from the same author:

https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20170522-did-star-wars-ever-need-sequels (https://www.bbc.co.uk/culture/article/20170522-did-star-wars-ever-need-sequels)

This is how I feel about Ridley Scott’s prequels to the Alien franchise, Prometheus (2012) and  Alien: Covenant (2017). What made the first Alien (1979)  movie so frightening was the mystery surrounding the xenomorph; where it came from and slowly discovering the frightening things that it could do. This quote from your second article serves as a pretty good parallel opinion of what I think of what the Alien franchise has become:

The first three films are exactly what was expected: kid stuff; Flash Gordon or Buck Rogers.  Lots of fun, but deep meanings and dark mysteries are the drivel of comic books.  Also lots of fun, but absurd to intellectualize.  STAR WARS has become a superb object lesson in bloated excess.   

I wonder if delay has something to do with the phenomenon, i.e., the sequel came out three years later, which was a lot of time for viewers' imagination. On top of that, there was no 'net or lots of opportunities for rewatching the movie.

We were given time to appreciate and anticipate the original trilogy when they were first coming out. The toys were great for us kids, but our parents were the ones that were able to truly relish the cinematic aspects of the original films in the late '70s and early '80s. The prequels were clunky but also benefited from a lengthy 6-year movie theater release timeline. The final trilogy was essentially thrown together as a shameless Disney marketing campaign that favored wokeness and spinoffs galore over any type of substance, which is why we were subjected to no less than 5 Star Wars films in the span of 4 years. What artistic quality that wasn't killed by redundancy, shameless catering to the Woke Generation took care of the rest.

I'd say a new movie every 2-3 years is about right. James Bond has been around for a long time, & that seems to be their average release schedule.