Anyone else feel that Star Wars is s**t?

Post Reply New Topic

I don't think the movies are that bad. They have their appeal. I personally dont love the movies but I don't hate them either.. so I guess they are in the middle for me.

Good luck with a proper film with characters that wont just be merchandise. A good amount of characters in movies are popular, so merchandise is made. There is more serious science fiction movies if you look. If you really need something that doesnt just have creatures and jokes- perhaps try The Martian (I think thats the name).

Ewoks and others in Star Wars movies do add interesting parts to the story. Different kinds of creatures ARE essential to movies, books, tv shows and video games... especially when it comes to science fiction and fantasy genres. Yes there is bad examples of characters that failed- but Ewoks certainly arent one of them.

Also- fans of popular movies (tv shows, video games, etc) enjoy merchandise. Does it affect you that people enjoy something you don't? Or what? I don't quite understand why it's a big deal that things become merchandise. It's a common practice that has no good reason to go away.

While the Star Wars saga is hardly perfect cinema, and some movies are considerably worse than others, the fact remains, it's good enough, according to the late mythology scholar Joseph Campbell, to become the modern era's mythology. The cultural influence it's had can not easily be dismissed.

You wrote: "Good luck with a proper film with characters that won't just be merchandise. A good amount of characters in movies are popular, so merchandise is made."
I think you've got this back to front. Characters like the Ewoks imo were made purely with merchandising in mind. I don't think they were made, became popular, and then turned into merchandising. I think they were intentionally created by cynical suits with merchandising in mind.

I've not seen The Martian, but from what I've read the plot is basically he goes to Mars, survives for a bit, comes back to Earth. Is that inaccurate? If so, I'm not sure I want to see it. Is there anything about it that makes it worth seeing?
Also try Googling:
the martian scientific inaccuracies

Re Ewoks, you say they aren't an example of failed characters. Well that's just an opinion, isn't it? What's your evidence for claiming that?

You end up by saying that fans of popular movies/TV shows/video games/etc enjoy merchandise. Well, that's perfectly true - no argument from me on that point.
You then say "Does it affect you that people enjoy something you don't? Or what?"
Plenty of people enjoy things I don't, and vice versa. That's the way the world is. No biggie.
What does bother me is the cynicism involved.
If people want to buy cynical merchandising and make cynical merchandisers rich, then that's up to them, but I think they're mugs for doing so. And shame on the merchandisers for being so damn cynical and manipulative.

The point of my question was why you used the word blasphemy. That's a religious word. Why did you use that specific word?

If I may, that word is used for hyperbolic effect for the sake of humor.
I know, humor goes past us Aspies, much of the time without us even noticing.

Nope. I think it's overrated though. Those original three movies are decent - got no problems with them. How they made "Star Wars" the gigantic marketing machine it is today is beyond me.

Yes..but that I also feel that way towards LOTS of franchises that are popular.

I always thought something was wrong with me because I couldn't understand why everyone but me loved all of the Star Wars movies. I hated every single one of them. I tried to watch the original ones several times but kept daydreaming and then realizing I'd been stuck in my own head for an hour. They bored me so much it drained my energy. I also hated Avatar, which had awesome special effects, for the same reason. What a snoozer.

Well you wouldn't like them because they have muppet like characters.

and I disagree about those characters being sh*t as well as the movies being sh*t in their entirity...there'll be no convincing me they are.

Also where is your evidence those characters were purely designed to become merchandise most seem to have significant enough roles to serve a purpose, more like they didn't have CGI back then so movies couldn't depend on that like a lot do now.

Because I found it humourous, obviously it's not real blasphemy...but good word to express strong disagreement. According to devout/fundie Christians half the music I like would probably be considered 'blasphemy'.

What is your proof that Ewoks were made just to sell merchandise? Provide a source then I will honestly believe they were made just to make money.

I strongly disagree with people being "mugs" because they buy merchandise. People enjoy something- so if they want a shirt, a toy, stuffed animal (and so on) of their favorite characters, that's their right. Have you never bought anything based on liking something? Something being popular means it will be merchandised. You might not agree with it- but others enjoy the products. It feels to me like you are complaining due to others enjoying something. Why not just move on? You don't have to enjoy the merchandise, but you don't need to be so rude about it.

As for merchandisers- they arent that manipulative. No one is forced to buy anything! People can think on their own when making purchases. The only big exception- kids. They are easily influenced by others and what they see on television. I will admit television ads are misleading at times, but its still not that manipulative in every case. People have free will to buy what they want, period.

You find it humorous to use the word "blasphemy"?
And then you state that obviously "it's not real blasphemy".
Well define real blasphemy then.
Blasphemy involves insulting God, does it not?

Blasphemy: "irreverence toward something considered sacred or inviolable", "irreverent behavior toward anything held sacred, priceless, etc.:". It can be used in a religious context or it can be used in exactly the way Sweetleaf used it. This really needs to be an argument?

Yes, this does need to be an argument.

(1) Those quotes are incomplete -- they've been deliberately and cynically edited. The full quotes are easily found using a search engine. Any reference to God has been deliberately removed.
See: http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/blasphemy
The first meaning is: great disrespect shown to God or to something holy
See: http://www.dictionary.com/browse/blasphemy
The first meaning is: impious utterance or action concerning God or sacred things

(2) The way Sweetleaf used the term "blasphemy" had nothing to do with God and was deliberately blasphemous in the very way it was used.

I don't feel I'm required to argue that most words have more than a singular meaning, as you yourself inadvertently admit to by needing to delineate the "first meaning" from its ancillary meanings. Using the secondary definition in both of those links, Sweetleaf's use of the word is still lexically accurate, as you're expressing an irreverent attitude towards something held of great cultural value.

It's no less proper than using the word "religiously" in the decidedly irreligious context of being "extremely scrupulous or conscientious": "I watched that TV show religiously", etc.

This entire thread is blasphemous. I suggest we have it locked, and may God have mercy on your souls.