ChainsawAsh said:

But it wasn't part of any trilogy for the first 3 years of its existence. It was just Star Wars, and that was it. That's what Anchorhead is a fan of, so to him, it's not a part of any "trilogy" - it's just a very good movie. (not to put words in your mouth, Anchorhead)

Warb, to you, the three films of the original trilogy are one and inseparable. That's not the case for Anchorhead.

See, the way he sees Star Wars is the way I see Indiana Jones - I'm really only a fan of Raiders of the Lost Ark. To my mind, the other movies are vastly inferior. The way I look at it, Lucas and Spielberg made a fantastic film, then decided to make a spinoff trilogy featuring one of the main characters, and said spinoff trilogy wasn't as good.

I have Temple, Crusade, and Skull on my hard drive - they're not terrible movies, but I don't have the desire to watch them often enough to own the discs. I own Raiders on DVD, and it's also on my hard drive. I even made a copy with no menu, a new disc label, and a new cover so I wouldn't have to look at that fucking new title that places it in the same series as the other three films.

And I just realized that this totally turned into a rant about how much I love Raiders and don't like the other three, when I'm trying to defend Anchorhead, so I'll just stop right there.

My name is Anchorhead, and I approve of this post. ;-) That's really it in a nutshell. The story in Star Wars didn't need to be completed or explained. It was (is) a fantastic stand-alone film.

Also, I see Raiders as the deeper, more serious of the four, but I like them all. Crusade & temple the least though. Guess it all depends what mood I'm in.