logo Sign In

Ranking the Star Wars films — Page 161

Author
Time
 (Edited)

It’s not sci fi! Just because it shares elements of the genre doesn’t mean it’s sci fi!

I’d suggest moving this argument to a different thread.

Author
Time

snooker said:

It’s not sci fi! Just because it shares elements of the genre doesn’t mean it’s sci fi!

I’d suggest moving this argument to a different thread.

Starting it elsewhere might be good, but if you do, I challenge you to name one aspect of Star Wars that can’t be found in something clearly acknowledged as science fiction. Find one thing. I’ve read science ficton that goes back to the 30’s and you can’t do it because everything Lucas did has been done before in science fiction. Everything.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

snooker said:

It’s not sci fi! Just because it shares elements of the genre doesn’t mean it’s sci fi!

I’d suggest moving this argument to a different thread.

Starting it elsewhere might be good, but if you do, I challenge you to name one aspect of Star Wars that can’t be found in something clearly acknowledged as science fiction. Find one thing. I’ve read science ficton that goes back to the 30’s and you can’t do it because everything Lucas did has been done before in science fiction. Everything.

I don’t think you’re looking at it the right way at all. We’re talking about a genre here. A genre is more than just a collection of components that are found in the story, it’s how the story is told.

Not to mention, if I said “look at Braveheart and tell me one thing it does that can’t be found in Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings,” that doesn’t make Braveheart a fantasy film. There’s a lot of things that sci-fi does that SW doesn’t.

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

yotsuya said:

snooker said:

It’s not sci fi! Just because it shares elements of the genre doesn’t mean it’s sci fi!

I’d suggest moving this argument to a different thread.

Starting it elsewhere might be good, but if you do, I challenge you to name one aspect of Star Wars that can’t be found in something clearly acknowledged as science fiction. Find one thing. I’ve read science ficton that goes back to the 30’s and you can’t do it because everything Lucas did has been done before in science fiction. Everything.

I don’t think you’re looking at it the right way at all. We’re talking about a genre here. A genre is more than just a collection of components that are found in the story, it’s how the story is told.

Not to mention, if I said “look at Braveheart and tell me one thing it does that can’t be found in Game of Thrones or Lord of the Rings,” that doesn’t make Braveheart a fantasy film. There’s a lot of things that sci-fi does that SW doesn’t.

Well, as both science fiction and fantasy were born from the old Romance (not to be confused with the modern Romance genre) tales, the flaw is not in the way I am looking at it. Science fiction and fantasy are part of a larger genre called speculative fiction. They share a huge amount, especially in how they tell the stories. What has become known as Space Opera is virtually the same as epic fantasy except for the science/magic aspects being interchanged. Experts at genre classification label Star Wars, Star Trek, Dune, Foundation, Babylon 5, Stargate, Doctor Who and John Carter of Mars as Space Opera. It involves long, epic tales, magic with a scientific explanation, faster than light travel, and many other tropes. It is what makes good movies and TV. Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings are Epic fantasy which has the exact same type of story telling. Space Opera by its nature contains many implausible things that have, in that universe, been found to work. Faster than light travel and teleportation are two of the biggest with telepathy and telekinesis not far behind. Artificial gravity being another.

This is different from urban fantasy, high fantasy, fairy tales, dark fantasy, gothic fiction, hard science fiction, cyberpunk, dystopian, alien invasion, or the true crossovers between fantasy and science fiction. Lucas made up Space Fantasy in 1977. Star Wars is space opera. It fits that sub-genre of science fiction in every single way, from the tropes to the story telling. I think Lucas was trying to say Star Wars was different, but as it turns out, he is very much a copy cat and nearly everything he included, especially in OT, was borrowed from one of the pillars of science fiction. He added campbell’s heroes journey and mixed in some samurai (neither of which have nothing to do with fantasy). But plenty of science fiction is based on retelling those ancient legends from which Campbell drew his theories. The place you will find reference to a space fantasy is Edgar Rice Burroughs Barsoom series (John Carter), but that is an old genre category before any of the modern categories were defined. Lucas may have dredged up the old label, but in modern genre classification the Barsoom series is Space Opera. Hard science fiction purists like Arthur Clarke claim that all Space Opera (see the list above and he specifically cited Star Trek) is space fantasy. But the problem is that fantasy doesn’t claim those stories and rejects them as fantasy because they don’t fit. But when you look at the big names of science fiction, you find space opera after space opera. They are the stories that capture the imagination and sell books. And there is a real crossover area where you have science and magic (not explained away with science) in the same stories that borrow from both fantasy and science fiction and merge the two. Star Wars doesn’t fit that category at all.

So if you must insist on calling Star Wars Space Fantasy, that is a sub-sub-genre of Space Opera which is a sub-genre of Science Fiction, not fantasy. That is where Star Wars fits in the slew of genres and sub-genres. The key is in Star Wars itself when Ben talks of the force. He calls it an energy field created by all living things. Fantasy would never use the phrase “energy field”, but science fiction would. That is a classic Space Opera explanation of something that is beyond science.

Author
Time

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Star Wars is fantasy. Space fantasy if you want to be specific. The problem is people tend to equate fantasy to the past and sci-fi to the future, and see them as otherwise interchangeable. In reality, sci-fi is more like a historical story set in the future. It’s supposed to be believable as something that could happen in our world.

Author
Time

yotsuya said:

OutboundFlight said:

In A New Hope, all of a sudden there was sound in space.

Not the first SF film to do that.

Fair, but it still contradicts real life. Therefore, star wars physics is not equal to real life physics. So you can’t say SKB contradicts star wars physics, unless at some point in the franchise they say "it is impossible for a red planet destroying beam to be seen throughout the galaxy. > >

In Empire, all of a sudden you could fly to other planets without the need of hyperspace.

Not the first SF film to do that. Besides, if you consider each system named to be a planetary system rather than a star system, all those planets could easily be circling the same star and no laws of physics are broken.

But that’s not the case: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bespin_system. According to Wikipedia, Bespin and Hoth are three systems away, which is impossible to reach at regular speed.

In Return of the Jedi, all of a sudden a moon sized space station can be flown through under the span of a couple minutes, besting even an explosion.

They aren’t flying faster than light so what’s your point?

The Death Star 2 is 200 kilometers in width, about 100 to the center. How does a ship fly through all that in a couple minutes? It’d have to be very fast, and in that case crash into something.

In The Phantom Menace, all of a sudden every star system in the galaxy could meet in one room.

This is just silly - not SF at all and not the first council of many civilizations seen.

A New Hope stated there were thousands of worlds under the Empire’s rule, and that fear will keep the local systems in line. That means all the tiny local systems must all be present at the senate meetings, and that is just impossible given what we were shown.

In Clones, all of a sudden you can erase the existence of a planet and no one will notice.

Well, as this was just in the Jedi Archives, this is hardly SF related in any way.

So no one in the Jedi Order didn’t stop and think "hey wasn’t there a planet here? Or just go on the regular republic database and notice a planet?

In Sith, all of a sudden the galaxy will just unanimously join a new Empire led by a scary guy making contradictory claims despite a prior civil war having just ended.

Now you are stretching things. It is based on 1930’s Germany and many other countries that have let a dictator/emperor take over.

Right after the CIS finally surrenders and joins back to the Republic, they notice exactly what they feared was going to happen and just roll with it? If they went into action beforehand why not now? This is like if a bunch of German Socialists rebelled against Weimer but then just didn’t care when the Nazis rose to power.

Star Wars physics have been contradicting themselves since day one.

Well, as a lot of those had nothing to do with physics, that really isn’t a point. Shall we talk about how Star Trek constantly broke the laws of physics? Don’t pretend any hollywood SF franchise or film was truly faithful to physics. They take short cuts and break the rules all the time. Constantly. That does not make Star Wars some other genre besides science fiction. But even so, most do a pretty good job of not being too obvious or providing some in-universe explanation to gloss over the errors. TFA didn’t even bother to do that.

Umm… Star Trek redesigned their species for the sake of looking cooler. If they changed the look of Chewbacca and the Wookies in Ep 7 I think JJ. Abrams would have been assassinated by the purist Star Wars Fandom.

My point with this is to bring up that the PT and to an extent the OT are just as guilty as the ST is. Would you have preferred if Finn and Rey had not seen Starkiller, and someone just tell them instead? There’s a little thing called show, don’t tell, which people love to say about TLJ but criticize TFA for accomplishing.

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

DuracellEnergizer said:

The pedanticism in this discussion’s so high it belongs in a stoner flick.

We’re using this thread as sort of a writer’s table for the Clerks 3 script.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

OutboundFlight said:

yotsuya said:

OutboundFlight said:

In A New Hope, all of a sudden there was sound in space.

Not the first SF film to do that.

Fair, but it still contradicts real life. Therefore, star wars physics is not equal to real life physics.

FFS, I can’t believe this particular argument still gets used.

Most sci-fi (or science-fantasy/space opera/what the @##$ ever) has sound effects in space; even Alien — the movie with the famous “in space no one can hear you scream” tagline — has them. It’s not indicative of any in-universe phenomena; it’s artistic license, pure and simple.

Author
Time

Anakin Starkiller said:

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Star Wars is fantasy. Space fantasy if you want to be specific. The problem is people tend to equate fantasy to the past and sci-fi to the future, and see them as otherwise interchangeable. In reality, sci-fi is more like a historical story set in the future. It’s supposed to be believable as something that could happen in our world.

That is the definition of Hard Science Fiction. Most science fiction does not fit that definition. Arthur Clarke wrote hard science fiction. Isaac Asimov wrote what gets called soft science fiction. The distinction is scientific accuracy vs. science inspired. All of Lucas’s inspirations in the science fiction genre are soft science fiction (Dune, Foundation, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon). The emphasis is not on science but on using what science can project to tell a story of adventure. Lucas sets his as a fable by placing it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but he is not the first to do that or the only one.

Author
Time

OutboundFlight said:

yotsuya said:

OutboundFlight said:

In A New Hope, all of a sudden there was sound in space.

Not the first SF film to do that.

Fair, but it still contradicts real life. Therefore, star wars physics is not equal to real life physics. So you can’t say SKB contradicts star wars physics, unless at some point in the franchise they say "it is impossible for a red planet destroying beam to be seen throughout the galaxy. > >

In Empire, all of a sudden you could fly to other planets without the need of hyperspace.

Not the first SF film to do that. Besides, if you consider each system named to be a planetary system rather than a star system, all those planets could easily be circling the same star and no laws of physics are broken.

But that’s not the case: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Bespin_system. According to Wikipedia, Bespin and Hoth are three systems away, which is impossible to reach at regular speed.

In Return of the Jedi, all of a sudden a moon sized space station can be flown through under the span of a couple minutes, besting even an explosion.

They aren’t flying faster than light so what’s your point?

The Death Star 2 is 200 kilometers in width, about 100 to the center. How does a ship fly through all that in a couple minutes? It’d have to be very fast, and in that case crash into something.

In The Phantom Menace, all of a sudden every star system in the galaxy could meet in one room.

This is just silly - not SF at all and not the first council of many civilizations seen.

A New Hope stated there were thousands of worlds under the Empire’s rule, and that fear will keep the local systems in line. That means all the tiny local systems must all be present at the senate meetings, and that is just impossible given what we were shown.

In Clones, all of a sudden you can erase the existence of a planet and no one will notice.

Well, as this was just in the Jedi Archives, this is hardly SF related in any way.

So no one in the Jedi Order didn’t stop and think "hey wasn’t there a planet here? Or just go on the regular republic database and notice a planet?

In Sith, all of a sudden the galaxy will just unanimously join a new Empire led by a scary guy making contradictory claims despite a prior civil war having just ended.

Now you are stretching things. It is based on 1930’s Germany and many other countries that have let a dictator/emperor take over.

Right after the CIS finally surrenders and joins back to the Republic, they notice exactly what they feared was going to happen and just roll with it? If they went into action beforehand why not now? This is like if a bunch of German Socialists rebelled against Weimer but then just didn’t care when the Nazis rose to power.

Star Wars physics have been contradicting themselves since day one.

Well, as a lot of those had nothing to do with physics, that really isn’t a point. Shall we talk about how Star Trek constantly broke the laws of physics? Don’t pretend any hollywood SF franchise or film was truly faithful to physics. They take short cuts and break the rules all the time. Constantly. That does not make Star Wars some other genre besides science fiction. But even so, most do a pretty good job of not being too obvious or providing some in-universe explanation to gloss over the errors. TFA didn’t even bother to do that.

Umm… Star Trek redesigned their species for the sake of looking cooler. If they changed the look of Chewbacca and the Wookies in Ep 7 I think JJ. Abrams would have been assassinated by the purist Star Wars Fandom.

My point with this is to bring up that the PT and to an extent the OT are just as guilty as the ST is. Would you have preferred if Finn and Rey had not seen Starkiller, and someone just tell them instead? There’s a little thing called show, don’t tell, which people love to say about TLJ but criticize TFA for accomplishing.

A system is never defined in any Star Wars film. 3 systems away means nothing unless you know what system refers to. It is like sector or quadrant. Either you use a standard term of measure or you define it. Sure, most people assume system means star system, but that is never explicitly stated and you can use that to refer to a planetary system as well, such as Jupiter and its moons.

And I’m still confused by why you think a gathering of all the senators of the republic must have a representative from every planet present. The US Senate has two representatives from every state, but our states are a political construct and we don’t have representatives from every city, town, or village. Just what the political constructs are that a senator represents is never indicated so there is no reason to think that the meeting is impossible. Plus we never see the entire senate chamber, only from a certain level down, so we don’t know how vast it is. The building is quite large on the outside so there could be a lot more than you are seeing.

And your complaint about how fast the Falcon exits the Death Star is a bit unfounded. If you go by screen time, they exit in 40 seconds. Based on the 160 km diameter of Death Star 2, that works out to be about 4500 miles an hour. Or about twice as fast as the SR-71. That is assuming it isn’t time compressed for drama. That also works out to be about 1/4 escape velocity for and Earth sized planet. So not all that fast.

My point is that your list of complaints is not a valid list of breaking the laws of physics. The parts that break the laws of physics lie in instantaneous holographic communication across the galaxy, hyperspace travel, telepathy, telekinesis, calling something that can be seen moving a laser, calling it a laser sword, ships flying though space like they fly through air, sound in space, and the list goes on and on. But none of these is unusual in soft science fiction. They are the norm. Star Trek did most of these first (except flying through space like flying through air - they skipped that one as well as light sabers). It is obvious that a lot of of the science gaffs in Star Wars can be fixed by terminology. Blasters do not fire lasers, but bolts of glowing plasma. TFA pretty much establishes that the word system does not refer to a solar system but a planetary system (fixing the gaff in TESB). Isaac Asimov even came up with a propulsion system that would explain the way ships fly - gravitic propulsion. Definitely not hard science fiction, but he used it in his later novels. It is also consistent with the use of anti and artificial gravity in the Star Wars universe.

The difference in some of these can be clearly differentiated by watching Babylon 5. The Earth tech is very much in keeping with hard science fiction. Rotation for gravity, fighters that obey the laws of physics in combat. But the aliens who are more advanced have the typical soft science fiction tech of FTL via hyperspace, artificial gravity, powerful energy weapons, etc.

And the difference between science fiction and fantasy can be summed up by Arthur C. Clarke himself. Any technology sufficiently advanced will appear a magic. Soft science fiction leans toward assuming we will find those advances and tries to not explain them very clearly (often not explaining typical tropes at all). When the tech is low and you still have magic, that is when you have fantasy. That is the line between science fiction and fantasy. If you provide tech to do the things that seem magic or provide even a quasi scientific explanation for it, it is science fiction. If there is some mystical source of the power - some deity usually - then you have fantasy. Lucas gave us a quasi scientific explanation for the force in 1977. He dredged up an out of date genre description that everyone in the science fiction entertainment industry ignored because what he created is space opera. Not space fantasy, but space opera. It amounts to the same thing and it is firmly science fiction, not fantasy. I’ve read some of the stuff that actually crosses the SF/Fantasy genre line and Star Wars is way to the SF side of that line.

This idea that it must be realistic to be science fiction is laughed at by science fiction writers, most of whom write soft science fiction. Only hard science fiction authors and fans make the claim that space opera is more fantasy than science fiction. Hard science fiction is only about 10% of the entire science fiction side. And the fantasy people laugh and say that it has spaceships so it isn’t fantasy.

Anyway, end of discussion here I think. I made a new thread if anyone cares to continue this conversation.
https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Science-Fiction-or-Space-Fantasy-what-is-Star-Wars/id/62732

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Star Wars is fantasy. Space fantasy if you want to be specific. The problem is people tend to equate fantasy to the past and sci-fi to the future, and see them as otherwise interchangeable. In reality, sci-fi is more like a historical story set in the future. It’s supposed to be believable as something that could happen in our world.

That is the definition of Hard Science Fiction. Most science fiction does not fit that definition. Arthur Clarke wrote hard science fiction. Isaac Asimov wrote what gets called soft science fiction. The distinction is scientific accuracy vs. science inspired. All of Lucas’s inspirations in the science fiction genre are soft science fiction (Dune, Foundation, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon). The emphasis is not on science but on using what science can project to tell a story of adventure. Lucas sets his as a fable by placing it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but he is not the first to do that or the only one.

To be science fiction, it has be about science.

Anyway, we’re going on tangent endlessly debating something nobody is likely to change their minds on. Let’s get back on topic.

Author
Time

Anakin Starkiller said:

yotsuya said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Star Wars is fantasy. Space fantasy if you want to be specific. The problem is people tend to equate fantasy to the past and sci-fi to the future, and see them as otherwise interchangeable. In reality, sci-fi is more like a historical story set in the future. It’s supposed to be believable as something that could happen in our world.

That is the definition of Hard Science Fiction. Most science fiction does not fit that definition. Arthur Clarke wrote hard science fiction. Isaac Asimov wrote what gets called soft science fiction. The distinction is scientific accuracy vs. science inspired. All of Lucas’s inspirations in the science fiction genre are soft science fiction (Dune, Foundation, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon). The emphasis is not on science but on using what science can project to tell a story of adventure. Lucas sets his as a fable by placing it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but he is not the first to do that or the only one.

To be science fiction, it has be about science.

Anyway, we’re going on tangent endlessly debating something nobody is likely to change their minds on. Let’s get back on topic.

That is the definition of hard science fiction, not the science fiction genre as a whole. The genre was born from adventure fiction of the 19th century and has always been quite loose with the science. Even scientists like Asimov didn’t make their stories just about science.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

yotsuya said:

Anakin Starkiller said:

Science fantasy is an oxymoron. Star Wars is fantasy. Space fantasy if you want to be specific. The problem is people tend to equate fantasy to the past and sci-fi to the future, and see them as otherwise interchangeable. In reality, sci-fi is more like a historical story set in the future. It’s supposed to be believable as something that could happen in our world.

That is the definition of Hard Science Fiction. Most science fiction does not fit that definition. Arthur Clarke wrote hard science fiction. Isaac Asimov wrote what gets called soft science fiction. The distinction is scientific accuracy vs. science inspired. All of Lucas’s inspirations in the science fiction genre are soft science fiction (Dune, Foundation, Buck Rogers, Flash Gordon). The emphasis is not on science but on using what science can project to tell a story of adventure. Lucas sets his as a fable by placing it a long time ago in a galaxy far far away, but he is not the first to do that or the only one.

To be science fiction, it has be about science.

Anyway, we’re going on tangent endlessly debating something nobody is likely to change their minds on. Let’s get back on topic.

That is the definition of hard science fiction, not the science fiction genre as a whole. The genre was born from adventure fiction of the 19th century and has always been quite loose with the science. Even scientists like Asimov didn’t make their stories just about science.

Official definition of “science fiction” according to Merriam-Webster is fiction dealing principally with the impact of actual or imagined science on society or individuals or having a scientific factor as an essential orienting component

Technology is not the driving factor in Star Wars. It’s the Skywalkers.

Hard sci-fi is just a probable look into the future. Soft sci-if is unlikely and a bit fantasitacal, but nevertheless is centered around tech. Trek’s future is still technically possible, although extremely unlikely. Asimov is not the definition, just because he wrote fantasy once doesn’t mean sci-fi = fantasy.

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time
  1. Star Wars

  2. The Empire strikes back

  3. Solo - A Star Wars Story
    All i can say is: I love this movie! Such a fun space adventure with likeable characters and a great engaging soundtrack. Watching it, i’m feeling like a 10-year old boy again discovering the magic & fun of Star Wars for the first time.

  4. The Return of the Jedi

  5. The Force Awakens
    I don’t mind the copied A NEW HOPE story structure. Too me it is an entertaining movie that pays tribute to the original trilogy and A NEW HOPE in general.

I can’t rank the other movies since i don’t care about them any more. But for the sake of completeness:

  1. Attack of the Clones
    Strange to say this is my favorite Prequel movie. There is a swelling atmosphere of doom in the story i always liked. And John Williams soundtrack supports that baleful atmosphere very well.

  2. Revenge of the Sith

  3. The Phantom Menace

  4. Rogue One
    Bland and uninteresting. Also irritating fan service and a way too epic final battle.

    (The truth is: Kyle Katarn stole the death star plans.) 😉

  5. The Last Jedi
    This movie is terrible. Last december i left the cinema very dissapointed. I really tried to like TLJ when it arrived on Blu-ray. Some of my comments in the TLJ thread reflect my attempts. But no. The phase of denial is over.

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author
Time

I will never understand how or why the copy-paste job that is TFA is so highly ranked.

Author
Time

fmalover said:

I will never understand how or why the copy-paste job that is TFA is so highly ranked.

You don’t have to understand. Just respect an opposing opinion (even if you disagree) and move on.

Anyway, my rank (if you have a problem it, oh well…):

Return Of The Jedi [Love-Favorite SW movie]
The Empire Strikes Back [Love]
A New Hope (or Star Wars) [Love]
The Last Jedi [Love]
The Force Awakens [Love]
Rogue One (TLJ, TFA, & R1 may switch around depending on my mood I think)[Love]
Revenge Of The Sith [Like]
The Phantom Menace [Like]
Attack Of The Clones [Mostly Okay-Least Favorite SW movie]

Haven’t seen Solo yet.

YUB NUB!

Author
Time

Haarspalter said:

  1. Attack of the Clones
    Strange to say this is my favorite Prequel movie. There is a swelling atmosphere of doom in the story i always liked. And John Williams soundtrack supports that baleful atmosphere very well.

I will admit having not paid much attention, but it seems to me like that score was too-often a simple repackage of TPM’s score.

Author
Time

skywalkerfan101 said:

fmalover said:

I will never understand how or why the copy-paste job that is TFA is so highly ranked.

You don’t have to understand. Just respect an opposing opinion (even if you disagree) and move on.

Anyway, my rank (if you have a problem it, oh well…):

Return Of The Jedi [Love-Favorite SW movie]
The Empire Strikes Back [Love]
A New Hope (or Star Wars) [Love]
The Last Jedi [Love]
The Force Awakens [Love]
Rogue One (TLJ, TFA, & R1 may switch around depending on my mood I think)[Love]
Revenge Of The Sith [Like]
The Phantom Menace [Like]
Attack Of The Clones [Mostly Okay-Least Favorite SW movie]

Haven’t seen Solo yet.

See it! If you liked every movie but one and that one was still mostly okay, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t at least like this one at a minimum.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

TV’s Frink said:

skywalkerfan101 said:

fmalover said:

I will never understand how or why the copy-paste job that is TFA is so highly ranked.

You don’t have to understand. Just respect an opposing opinion (even if you disagree) and move on.

Anyway, my rank (if you have a problem it, oh well…):

Return Of The Jedi [Love-Favorite SW movie]
The Empire Strikes Back [Love]
A New Hope (or Star Wars) [Love]
The Last Jedi [Love]
The Force Awakens [Love]
Rogue One (TLJ, TFA, & R1 may switch around depending on my mood I think)[Love]
Revenge Of The Sith [Like]
The Phantom Menace [Like]
Attack Of The Clones [Mostly Okay-Least Favorite SW movie]

Haven’t seen Solo yet.

See it! If you liked every movie but one and that one was still mostly okay, I can’t imagine why you wouldn’t at least like this one at a minimum.

Aaaaand just to be clear…I’m not a shill. Such a stupid-a** label created by desperate people (you know who you are [this is towards the ones hiding in the shadows waiting to attack]). I have a few nitpicks in the Prequels and newer films. I don’t love everything with Star Wars stamped on it.

Anyway, I do plan to buy the blu ray soon. It might be the one film I’d consider unnecessary regardless of how I feel.

YUB NUB!

Author
Time

You weren’t being called a shill.

Author
Time

My problem is that over the last few years prior to TFA I read complaints EVERYWHERE about the lack of originality in the movie industry, then along comes TFA, which is another unoriginal movie, and people are perfectly fine with it. Huh? Even the Redlettermedia guys enjoyed it.

At this point I feel like some sort of extraterrestrial being.