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

Post Reply New Topic

I was born in 1968 and saw Star Wars Episode IV in 1977 when I was 9. I went to the local cinema with my Dad and came out saying "That was the best film I've ever seen. It was amazing." My Dad didn't look that impressed, but what did I care? I'd just seen the best film in the history of the world ever, so he could suck my sweaty prepubescent ballsack. But after seeing the film recently as a grown-up I've realized that the film isn't that good. Well, no, worse than that, it's actually really bad. It has a very lame plot (basically the rebels blow up a thing called the Death Star that can allegedly destroy planets), the acting is bad and the ending is so cheesy it should win an award for cheesy endings. The special effects were OK for 1977, but look terrible now in 2016. And there are some things that make no sense at all. The white stormtrooper "body armour" wouldn't stop a fly. R2D2 and C3PO get into an escape pod and get jettisoned to the planet below, yet no-one fires at the pod. A parsec is a unit of distance. Han shot first. Whatever.
Does anyone else feel that Star Wars is s**t?

No, I think this is blasphemy.

You're hating the wrong one! The first one (actually the first 3) was revolutionary. Yes, it had some technical flaws, but it told a story and had characters that we cared about.

s**t? No. Overrated? Yes. I'd love to rewatch the original Star Wars trilogy with the original special effects though, instead of the 1997 remasters with their godawful CGI.

Sweetleaf, you think it's blasphemy? Why?

AspE, I wouldn't call the original trilogy "revolutionary". It was just a rehashing/reinvention of elements of things that have gone before: the hero's journey, good vs evil, David vs Goliath, the underdog vs the bully, Samurais, cowboys & Indians, totalitarianism, soap operas, etc. There's nothing new under the sun. And when you boil the film down to its basics, it's essentially just the goodies beat the badies. The end, roll credits. Been done a million times before - nothing revolutionary about that as far as I can see. OK, I get that the universe we were presented with (the spacecraft, the light sabers, The Force, etc) appeared new, but means of transport, swords and religious beliefs have been around for a good long time now. (The concept of The Force seems to me to be composed of elements taken from New Age beliefs/Zoroastrianism/Wicca/pantheism). As I said, there's nothing new under the sun. But I could live with all that if the plotholes, poor dialogue, etc were all fixed.

Mr Bigmouth: I've gone through 3 distinct phases over the years: loved ANH as a kid (although it was just referred to as "Star Wars" when I was a kid before ESB came out), became more disenchanted with it each time I rewatched it as an adult (where I came to think it was overrated), and now where I've come full circle where I now actually think it's s**t (but wish it wasn't). I'd like to see all the Star Wars films remade with a good scriptwriter, good dialogue, good actors and a good director. Also get rid of all the Muppet-like characters, Ewoks and Jar Jar. Get rid of the corny/cheesy dialogue. Get rid of the lame jokes and wisecracks. Maybe then the films would be much better. Maybe then we'd end up with what the films should have been in the first place, instead of what we got. They'd still essentially be a good vs evil story, which has been done a million times before, but the execution of the films could be drastically improved, and especially if all the plotholes were fixed.

And for the record, I want to love Star Wars. As a kid I grew up loving it (as I pointed out in my OP), but it hasn't stood the test of time for me. Watching it as an adult, I notice all the glaring plot holes & things that make absolutely no logical sense that as a kid back in a cinema in 1977 didn't register because I was so swept up in the whole exciting experience. I was so overawed in fact that I don't think I was capable of viewing it dispassionately for a very long time. So bearing that in mind, Sweetleaf's blasphemy comment kinda makes sense, but blasphemy is such an odd word to use imo - at the end of the day it's just a movie after all. And I think if people take off their rose-coloured specs, they'll realize that the Emperor isn't wearing any clothes. (The Hans Christian Andersen Emperor, not the one in Star Wars).

I started this thread because I get the impression sometimes that I'm the only person on the planet who doesn't like Star Wars and I wanted to see if anyone else on WP feels the same way. Modern-day culture is saturated with Star Wars references from friends just referencing it in everyday conversations, to TV comedies like Spaced/Family Guy/The Big Bang Theory, and many other TV shows and films. Certain lines have become engrained in our collective consciousness: "You're a traitor and a member of the Rebel Alliance", "These aren't the droids you're looking for", "I am your father", "Search your feelings", "Do or do not, there is no try", etc. Not just lines, but issues such as whether Han shot first or whether Lucas originally intended Luke and Leia to be siblings. Star Wars has had a huge influence on society, that can't be disputed, but I just wish the films were good. They could have been and I'm pissed off that they're not.

I want Star Wars ANH to be as good as my 9-year-old self thought it was and am deeply disappointed/disillusioned/angry that it isn't. I want all the Star Wars films to be good in fact.

The bad acting and poor/cheesy dialogue aside, ANH has many other shortcomings (as do all the Star Wars films to a greater or lesser degree). Alec Guiness thought ANH was s**t and he was in it! He was just there for the paycheck. See: https://io9.gizmodo.com/5974242/alec-gu ... s-tennyson

Re plotholes, if the escape pod with C-3PO and R2-D2 in it had been destroyed then that would have been the end of the film, roll credits. They don't shoot at it because "there are no life signs on board". Makes absolutely no sense in a galaxy full of robots which wouldn't give out any human life signs anyway. Although that raises the question: If their sensors can detect human life, why can't they detect electricity and electronic signals coming from the robots? In fact wouldn't it be easier to detect the latter than the former? Also, Leia puts some kind of disk into R2-D2 that contains the Death Star blueprints. The whole film is based in this hi-tech galaxy and yet Leia has to resort to using some kind of floppy disk? Couldn't R2-D2 have just encrypted the blueprints and emailed them to the rebel base using a VPN or Tor or something? (Or whatever the Star Wars equivalents of those technologies are).

The Death Star has this ludicrous design flaw where if you fire magic torpedoes (that can do a 90 degree downward turn exactly at the desired point so they go down a shaft), the damn thing blows up. Umm, OK.

And the Death Star can allegedly destroy planets? How the hell does it do that? It couldn't possibly generate enough energy to destroy a planet, could it?
David Boulderston at the University of Leicester wrote a paper on this, which is summarized at http://www.universetoday.com/92746/coul ... -a-planet/
This webpage states: "Boulderstone’s conclusion is that the Death Star could indeed destroy Earth-like planets, given its main power source." [Ed.: which is fictional]. The quote continues: "While the Death Star could destroy an Earth-sized planet, a Jupiter-sized planet would be a tough challenge [...]".
However this conclusion is based on the assumption that the Death Star's fictional 'hypermatter' reactor possesses the energy output of several main-sequence stars. Boulderstone also assumes, given that the power output of our Sun is about 3 x 10^26 Joules per second, that it's a reasonable assumption the Death Star's reactor could power the superlaser. Isn't that a non sequitur? I don't see how his assumption about the Death Star's reactor follows from what he says about the sun's power output. There's no link or relation between the two as far as I can see.
This page from the same website isn't so confident about how possible it is for the Death Star to destroy a planet:
http://www.universetoday.com/119404/cou ... -a-planet/
This article too isn't so sure either: https://www.scientificamerican.com/arti ... eath-star/ and ends by saying "When the Death Star fires, six laser beams are generated around the circumference of a circular depression on the exterior of the space station. The six beams meet at the center of the circle and head down toward the planet as a single, huge beam. What would actually happen, I'm afraid, is the six beams would pass through each other and head off in six different directions, probably all of them missing the planet. If we're lucky, maybe they'd run into some star destroyers." (And wouldn't the same argument apply to light sabers? Wouldn't they just pass through each other because they're made of light?)

Sure the effects looked cool when the Death Star destroyed Alderaan (although boo hoo for all the millions of people who died), but could the Death Star really produce enough energy to destroy a planet? I'm not convinced.
I know it's fiction, but it's meant to be science fiction, so the science needs to make sense and be feasible as far as I'm concerned. I'm not saying I'm right on this point, I'm just saying that if I'm wrong, please explain to me how I'm wrong.

And how long did it take to build the Death Star in ANH? Why wasn't it attacked during the construction phase? (And that itself poses serious problems because of the extreme cold in space. It would have presented serious problems to the Death Star construction workers).
And it's not a star, it's a space station. To quote Eddie Izzard (putting on a thick New York accent): "What does it do? -- It does Death buddy". I'll grant you that, it does "do Death". Big style. So its name is only half wrong.

And what about lightspeed? Aside from the fact that travelling at the speed of light is impossible according to Einstein because you'd need an infinite amount of energy to propel a craft to the speed of light (which is impossible because how are you going to generate an infinite amount of energy in the first place?), what about all the planets, comets, asteroids, suns, blackholes, spacecraft and space debris between you and your destination? How are you going to avoid crashing into something? And what about the distances involved? One light year is the distance that light travels in one year. After our sun, the next nearest sun/star to earth is Alpha Centauri which is over 4 light years from earth. In other words it takes light over 4 years to travel from there to earth. So lightspeed isn't some magical means of accomplishing space journies to other solar systems in just a matter of seconds as portrayed in the Star Wars universe (or rather galaxy). That is utter BS. So you totally have to suspend all disbelief/common sense to live with this.

Family Guy spoofed ANH in Blue Harvest and pointed out some of the many plot holes and logical inconsistencies: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CtohInWd9Do (not available in the UK, but presumably is in the US). One of my favourite parts is when they're discussing the architect's "aesthetic design choice" to leave a big damn gaping hole on the surface of the Death Star that if a torpedo went down it, the Death Star would blow up. They then start talking about "boarding it up" and one character says it could be done immediately if price were no object. Darth Vader hesitates, then suggests they get a quote. Genius!

I have a huge issue with the Stormtroopers' body armour, if you can call it that. Firstly, that body armour doesn't stop anything, they get shot and go down. Secondly, it would seriously restrict movement and vision, especially peripheral vision (which is presumably why their aim is so bad). Thirdly, it looks all shiny and immaculate - no scuffs, scratches or any signs of wear and tear to indicate that the Stormtrooper has ever seen any previous action. They're not going to be issued new body armour after every battle, are they? Fourthly, it looks dorky. Fifthly, why is it white? That's terrible camouflage. In RTJ on Endor the rebels wear camouflage, the Stormtroopers don't.

Luke grows up on a desert planet. How does anyone survive there? What do they eat? Where do they get water from? How do they grow crops? (Same goes for Rey and everyone else on Jakku). I suppose food could be imported from off world, at a ridiculously high cost, but what about water for drinking and what about irrigation & soil for crops? Wells maybe, but nothing is explained. Maybe hydroponics for food, but you'd still need water and soil (or some alternative medium the plants could grow in). Like I said, nothing is explained.

Luke was placed on Tatooine to hide him from Darth Vader. Firstly he's placed with relatives, which isn't a very smart move. That'd be one of the first places His Darkness would check on a planet where the Empire has a presence. Secondly, he's kept the surname Skywalker. The Star Wars Witness Protection Program clearly didn't know what it was doing.

Not a plothole, but Luke in ANH is a whiny little brat. I just want to slap him. All through the movie.

As for Finn in TFA, he's described as a sanitation worker. The Stormtroopers are elite troops, special forces like the SAS, Delta Force or the Navy SEALs. So why Finn is a Stormtrooper in the first place makes absolutely no sense. He saying that he was a sanitation worker was just put into the film for a cheap laugh with no regard to the fact that it's totally illogical.

Kylo (Emo) Ren is another whiny little brat who likes to have temper tantrums. He wears a mask and outfit to make him look kinda like Darth Vader who he idolizes, but his face isn't disfigured like Vader's was, so there's no practical reason for him to wear that mask & use a voice modulator. Just makes him come across as a sad wannabe. But then he takes the mask off and I just wanted him to put it straight back on again.

I could go on, but all you have to do is Google Star Wars plotholes - there are loads of them across all 7 movies. No doubt episodes 8 and 9 will continue this tradition.

Actually, scrub that. The Stormtroopers aren't like special forces at all. I was talking s**t.
But still, why is Finn (a sanitation worker) being put on the front line with other Stormtroopers? That makes no sense at all.

Yes, the themes of Star Wars weren't new, they are as old as storytelling itself, that part is fine! You want new and edgy, watch a David Lynch movie. It was a great movie (I mean at least the first two, the last 3 were a disaster) as I explained because the characters were interesting, and we cared about them. That's all that matters. Movie making is about storytelling, it isn't about the physics of fictional weapons! The science is irrelevant. Here, watch this:

Well, first off I'm not a millennial, I was born in 1968.

Secondly, you said in your first post that the original trilogy was "revolutionary", then contradict yourself in your second by admitting that "the themes of Star Wars weren't new, they are as old as storytelling itself."
So which is it? Revolutionary or as old as storytelling itself?

As I said before, there is nothing new under the sun.

Re David Lynch, I kinda liked Eraserhead, but I never said that I wanted new and edgy, did I?
You appear to have assumed that's what I meant.
I said (in as many words) that I wanted something better than the slop we were dished up.

You wrote: "Movie making is about storytelling, it isn't about the physics of fictional weapons!"
Of course one major element of movie making is storytelling, but the Star Wars films are science fiction, so shouldn't the science part of the fiction at least make sense? How can science be irrelevant to science fiction?

You wrote: "It was a great movie (I mean at least the first two, the last 3 were a disaster) as I explained because the characters were interesting, and we cared about them."
Did we? Do we? I did as a 9 year old, but as an adult, I couldn't care less about any of the characters. They're all one-dimensional and shallow. I personally thought that Episode III was pretty good since it showed how Anakin became Vader (and that interested me), but even even Ep III had its shortcomings (like every Star Wars film, I through VII). So to argue that characters trump science in the Star Wars universe doesn't convince me since I find the characters insipid. They don't interest or hold my attention.

What does hold my attention is the lack of scientific credibility in many parts of the films.

You then asked me to watch a YouTube vid - what point were you trying to prove there?

The YouTube vid is the best analysis on the internet of why the first movies were great and the later ones sucked. Sorry I misread your post count as your age. I did delete that part of my comment, as I regret saying that. There is something called artistic license. I love hard science fiction, but popular science fiction doesn't have to make sense. Why were the first movies revolutionary? It told a compelling if not entirely original story in a brand new way. The experience was immersive, Lucas created a new universe that we could believe. I disagree that the original characters were one dimensional. Their place in popular culture proves that people loved them. You did imply that any retelling of classic hero vs. villain story couldn't be good.

I've heard so many people say that the original trilogy is great and the prequels are s**t, but I just don't buy it.
It's like if enough people repeat the same mantra over and over again, it becomes true.
That's just herd-think/group-think.

Just to be clear, there were elements in all Star Wars movies (I through VII) that I liked, but in general:

I thought Ep IV was pretty lame on the whole (Luke's whiny, the plot's basic, the ending's cheesy)
Ep V was OKish
Ep VI had its moments, but I didn't like the Ewoks (yeah they're cute & make you laugh at first, but after that, not so much)
I wasn't mad on Ep I (plus Jar Jar was atrocious)
Kinda liked Ep II [despite its flaws]
Liked Ep III [although it's far from perfect, I did like it]
Hated Ep VII on the whole [some of the visuals were spectacular, but otherwise no]



OK fair enough, although deleting that part of your comment makes my reply look illogical. Could you please put that part of your comment back?



OK, yeah, artistic license (or 'licence' where I live in England) is a thing, and yeah 'hard science fiction' and 'soft science fiction' are things too, but where do you draw the line? For me there are so many things wrong with Star Wars science-wise that they lose all credibility for me. I can deal with the odd bit of artistic licence here and there, but when the films are saturated with inaccuracies then for me the films lose all credibility.



Again, you've just contradicted yourself. The original films can't have been "revolutionary" and "not entirely original" at the same time.



Well as a 9-year-old I was totally immersed. I left the cinema in 1977 thinking that Star Wars (later renamed Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) was the best film I'd ever seen.
But in hindsight, as an adult, I don't view it that way any more.



He did create a new universe, but as an adult I can't believe in it.



Well we'll have to agree to disagree then. Obviously opinions aren't facts, but for me the characters are one dimensional. If you can persuade me otherwise though, then I'm open to that.



I don't dispute for a minute the huge place that Star Wars characters have in popular culture. That goes without saying.
But does that mean that people love them?
Define love. Would you give your life for your favourite (or any) Star Wars character?
Rather I'd say that people have become infatuated with the whole Star Wars mythology and have mistaken infatuation for love.



I didn't imply that any retelling of a good vs evil story couldn't be good. Where did you get that from?
What I believe is that such a story should be told in such a way that it has depth and draws people in. For me Star Wars didn't do that on the whole.

I've seen each of the films many times, but they stand out to me because I've never absorbed much about them. I could give you a rough outline, a few characters, but not much else, and certainly no emotional response. This is highly strange because as a rule I file all content I consume, whether I like it or not. I guess Star Wars just doesn't speak to me for whatever reason...

I've heard so many people say that the original trilogy is great and the prequels are s**t, but I just don't buy it.
It's like if enough people repeat the same mantra over and over again, it becomes true.
That's just herd-think/group-think.

Just to be clear, there were elements in all Star Wars movies (I through VII) that I liked, but in general:

I thought Ep IV was pretty lame on the whole (Luke's whiny, the plot's basic, the ending's cheesy)
Ep V was OKish
Ep VI had its moments, but I didn't like the Ewoks (yeah they're cute & make you laugh at first, but after that, not so much)
I wasn't mad on Ep I (plus Jar Jar was atrocious)
Kinda liked Ep II [despite its flaws]
Liked Ep III [although it's far from perfect, I did like it]
Hated Ep VII on the whole [some of the visuals were spectacular, but otherwise no]



OK fair enough, although deleting that part of your comment makes my reply look illogical. Could you please put that part of your comment back?



OK, yeah, artistic license (or 'licence' where I live in England) is a thing, and yeah 'hard science fiction' and 'soft science fiction' are things too, but where do you draw the line? For me there are so many things wrong with Star Wars science-wise that they lose all credibility for me. I can deal with the odd bit of artistic licence here and there, but when the films are saturated with inaccuracies then for me the films lose all credibility.



Again, you've just contradicted yourself. The original films can't have been "revolutionary" and "not entirely original" at the same time.



Well as a 9-year-old I was totally immersed. I left the cinema in 1977 thinking that Star Wars (later renamed Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope) was the best film I'd ever seen.
But in hindsight, as an adult, I don't view it that way any more.



He did create a new universe, but as an adult I can't believe in it.



Well we'll have to agree to disagree then. Obviously opinions aren't facts, but for me the characters are one dimensional. If you can persuade me otherwise though, then I'm open to that.



I don't dispute for a minute the huge place that Star Wars characters have in popular culture. That goes without saying.
But does that mean that people love them?
Define love. Would you give your life for your favourite (or any) Star Wars character?
Rather I'd say that people have become infatuated with the whole Star Wars mythology and have mistaken infatuation for love.



I didn't imply that any retelling of a good vs evil story couldn't be good. Where did you get that from?
What I believe is that such a story should be told in such a way that it has depth and draws people in. For me Star Wars doesn't/didn't do that on the whole.

Because it's not sh*t, certainly not perfect as far as graphics and all that at least the first three, but it was made in the 70s I imagine things have advanced since then as far as graphics and special effects. Still has a good storyline and is awesome..

There are things that can be criticized, but to say it's sh*t seems a little extreme.

, get rid of the muppet like characters and ewoks....can't believe anyone would say that. You'd probably really hate The Dark Crystal and The Labyrinth.

A little extreme? To you, but not to me. I think ANH is s**t and I stand by that.
If you can persuade me otherwise, then knock yourself out.

I've never seen The Dark Crystal or The Labyrinth.
I want to get rid of the Muppet-like characters and Ewoks in the Star Wars films because they're s**t.
What is so unbelievable about that?
I want a proper sci-fi film, which means no characters that are purely designed to become merchandise.