This user has been banned.
corellian77 said:
I'm curious, do you exercise this level of vigilance for all films and television shows that your son watches, or just when it comes to Star Wars?
This :D
xhonzi said:
2. They're young kids. There's time for the PT later, if they want. (Your father Uncle George wanted you to have this, but your uncle father wouldn't allow it until you were old enough.) It is my personal opinion that the awesomeness that is Star Wars is diluted through association with the PT. Some of you younger kids that liked the PT once, and either still do or grew out of it, have no frame of reference for what I'm talking about since you don't know a Star Wars without that taint. As Boost said over in the "missing out" thread, the biggest changes to Star Wars (and I'm paraphrasing here) aren't the changes to the individual frames and audio waves, but to the context of them. Sure, it's not 1977 anymore, and that's part of it. But I think the inmovie context of the Prequels is far more damaging to the experience than the extramovie context of 30+ years.
5. Did twooffour call me a nerd and zombie call me obsessive? Ouch! That really hurts when other obsessive nerds call you that!
There's a whole lot of a difference between spending some considerable free time on debating unimportant niché stuff, and actually caring so much about a bunch of movies that it starts becoming important to you what your kid thinks of them, to the point that you start worrying about the (not given at all) possibility that their perception of the "timeless classics" could be "tainted".
To me, Star Wars and the likes are just that, very good films / entertainment, among many others (or, of varying quality), and while I certainly can get involved into lighthearted nerd debates in real life, or have fun at a film evening of whatever, it plays virtually no role in my real life. I've got a 12 year old brother, and while he knows about Star Wars, and even watches CW on occasion, I couldn't care less.
I'm also a classical music fan, yet I don't care whether he listens to it, as well, or not - certainly doesn't prevent me from making fun of some cheesy pop stuff he listens to, though, but that's a whole other thing :D And mostly, I just storm out of the room. :P
Now, do those films get "tainted" by the franchise's new installation? Well, how about I say ROTJ tainted ESB? Yet somehow, that second one remains a classic, right? How about I say ESB sort of tainted SW as that "space adventure film for all ages", and now SW is forever associated with tragedy and torture?
Or how about the whole pop-culture thing, the vast amount of ridicule, parody and plot hole bashing, don't you think that someone who might've watched ANH kinda seriously and let the Stormtroopers slip past their suspension of disbelief, or narm sensors, certainly won't do so after seeing a youtube poop video of that stormtrooper making funny gestures after his bro falls down the pit?
So you're gonna shield him from parodies and jokes, as well, because then they won't experience that chilling shiver you experienced when Vader said he was Luke's father, after having seen like 5 parodies of that scenes in various other scenes? Make sure they never search for "Vader" on Youtube, because they might just bump into his pal "Chad".
But hey, Star Trek considerable "growed a beard" in its later two series - and while it could get silly at times, not even "Voyager" managed to reach the levels of ridiculous camp that the original series had, or look anywhere as dated and cheesy.
So, has the "modernization", or the added level of seriousness and space politics, "tainted" that original space adventure series with Ham Shatner, Spock and gogo-bootsies? Not as far as I know, people do take "Star Trek" in general more seriously than they would without TNG and Ds9, but the original series with all its fun stuff remains as present in the popculture machine as it gets.
So, you know, maybe your concerns are a little unjustified? So your kid won't like Star Wars because of Clone Wars? Oh JESUS NO! Maybe they'll like Blade Runner, then.
TheBoost said:
twooffour said:
That's not even the right picture, you smart alec.
If any, THAT is the approach to go with that includes "not showing the star wars prequels", NOT the "I want him to love the OT and never have heard the prequels existed, as it would've been in an ideal world". I mean, you know, good luck with that - your son has great chances of growing up to be a religious nutcase seducing millions of people all over the globe to severe their attachment to films, in promise of a final state of being where no movies exist and no movies are shown.
Responding to that with a lame still completely detached from its caption, after having decided to respond at all (and it's your own thread, for all it matters) doesn't do anything to support your position, all it does is... making you look like a carebear!
You're a thoroughly unlikable person, do you know that?
Yea come on now, you just didn't like how I destroyed you on that debate about the Trade Federation, is that right? Hey, no worries - you aren't SUPPOSED to like me :D
TML said:
TV's Frink said:
twooffour said:
PS:
Thora Birch in Dungeons & Dragons is 10 times more wooden than Padmé, and her lines are 10 times more cliché.
What does this have to do with anything? Are we on originalD&D.com? Do people care about the D&D movie (I assume this is a movie) like they do about Star Wars?
I'm pretty sure he just watched a new "Nostalgia Critic" video where he reviews that movie...
Oh gee... get a sense. This movie has been made fun of so often by so many already, and Critic wasn't even the only one to review it on tgwtg. Seriously.
Haven't seen it completely, but I've seen me some parts and scenes, and I'd say I'm content with that for now. It was just one example out of many - of movies that are at least as laughable as, say, TPM, but actually probably even more so.
And yes, the fact that this isn't a DD nerd forum is the whole point - people are getting too attached and obsessed with their favorite franchise (I mean specifically those who have serious thoughts about withholding the prequels from their kids, whoever they may be), and instead of shielding their offsprings from "bad movies", for whatever reason having to do with the "art of filmmaking" or "attitudes towards and perceptions of life influences" ruined by those films, you get "shielding them from the bad Star Wars movies so their Star Wars experience isn't ruined", and "they don't acknowledge the new films as true, because they're so bad they CAN'T be real SW movies".
Suddenly, a totally legitimate, even though still highly debatable motivation, becomes laughable nerdrage that makes the supposedly adult parents saying these things look like they're 12 or something.
Yes, they "care", that's the whole point... they care far too damn much.
PS:
Thora Birch in Dungeons & Dragons is 10 times more wooden than Padmé, and her lines are 10 times more cliché.
xhonzi said:
twooffour said:
So it "ruined Star Wars"... who cares??
TV's Frink said:
Luke says:
I care.
That's not even the right picture, you smart alec.
I don't know if you get it, but do you realize that "who cares" NEVER *actually* means "who cares", but ALWAYS rather "it makes no sense to care about it (that much), so no one should"?
I just laid out my reasons, and I think they're pretty legitimate: there are so, so many movies, especially children's movies, that are on a whole other level of obnoxious and stupid, and badly written, and if your goal is to shield your kid from bad movies, you should take those in consideration more than anything else, and THEN include the Phantom Menace because it kinda falls in that same line.
If any, THAT is the approach to go with that includes "not showing the star wars prequels", NOT the "I want him to love the OT and never have heard the prequels existed, as it would've been in an ideal world". I mean, you know, good luck with that - your son has great chances of growing up to be a religious nutcase seducing millions of people all over the globe to severe their attachment to films, in promise of a final state of being where no movies exist and no movies are shown.
Responding to that with a lame still completely detached from its caption, after having decided to respond at all (and it's your own thread, for all it matters) doesn't do anything to support your position, all it does is... making you look like a carebear!
"We caaaaare! We're called Care Bears... because we're bears... and we CAAAARE!!!! Do you caaaaare?
Let's hold our hands and make everyone in the world...caaaaare! Because weeee caaaaare! Please, caaaaaare!"
...
...
Ghostbusters said:
I wonder if George Lucas is actually smarter than we think and decided that he would make more money off of the prequels being bad than good. I mean look at all the publicity they have gotten. They are still writing articles and making reviews on them over 5 years after they were finished. Do you think they would be getting this much attention still being good?
Look at the Irate Gamer, I wonder if this is all a deliberate act because he knows bad publicity is better than good publicity in his case.
Adywan, your comments that were removed from this article, did they repost them or let you submit again?
Back then, I've left a whole bunch of comments and responses there, each last of them negative, derisive and snarky, and yet none of them has been removed to this day as far as I can tell - the only ones that hadn't been published in the first place, had cuss words in them.
I then had a brief exchange with the admin, and he confirmed that my post was deleted because of profanity, and they basically only deleted messages when they violate their rules of conduct.
So could it be that Adywan just swore a lot? Because they're obviously not removing comments for criticism and snarky attitude... in that case, I'd say don't count with his comments being "reposted" :D
He can, of course, resubmit them without the cuss words anytime :D
TheBoost said:
Been thinking about Star Wars character names, ever since we had that thread about stormtroopers and someone told me there's a stormtrooper named Davin Felth. That name sucks.
So I started thinking about the names people have in the movies.
I'm only counting human characters who's names are used in the movie.
Star Wars
- Luke Skywalker... odd last name but it is English.
- Owen Lars... Lars is a first name, used as a surname.
- Beru Lars... It's a wierd name, but it's short.
- Obi-Wan Kenobi aka Ben... A bit wierd, but very reminiscent of Japanese names. Can't get more normal than Ben.
- Han Solo... Han isn't far from Hans, a real name, and Solo isn't usually a name but a recognizable word.
- Leia... not far removed from normal names like Lee or Leigh.
- Tarkin... not a normal last name, but wouldn't be wierd if you met Greg Tarkin at work.
- Darth Vader... wierdest name in the first movie.
Empire Strikes Back
- Piett, Veers, Motti, Ozzel... last names. Wouldn't stand out in the real world.
- Lando Calrissian... This name is surely not from this world, and sounds 'exotic' even compared to other names from the movie.
Return of the Jedi
- Mon Mothma... arguably the goofiest name in the OT.
- Anakin... Not a real name, but resembles "Ken" or "Nick" grounding it somehwat.
Episode One
Episode Two
- Dooku... no comment
- Jango Fett... just plain strange.
Episode Three
- Were there any new human characters?
My conclusion is that the names USED in the movies (Sio Bibble isn't named in dialogue) aren't anywhere near as weird as the names given to characters in the EU. In fact, most bare at least a passing resemblance to normal Earth names.
My final analysis is that EU names kinda suck. Then end. Thank you for your time.
Yea, but where's the fun if you exclude the weird alien names? Some of those can end up very funny with knowledge of the right language...
for example, Chewbacca is very similar to Russian "sobaca", i.e. dog. "Backe" means "cheek" in German, and "chew"... well, that's too reaching, maybe.
Jabba, again, is very reminiscent of the Russian "szaba", which means "toad". He also says "ya yest khochu" at one point, referring to "the Wookie", which, in Russian, means "I want to eat" :D
Fett? That means "fat" in German. "Maul"? Gee, Maul... that's "gob". Halt's Maul = shut your gob.
Now, of course, we all know what "to maul" is, so that leads us to the next category - the obvious, silly, cheesy names that are too obvious and kitschy to be taken seriously.
Skywalker? Like "Starkiller" :D
Solo? Cuz he's like "solo", right?
Vader? Well regardless of original ideas, it's like the German "Vater", which is "father".
Grievous? Insidious? Palpation, maybe? Maul? Greed$?
Gun Ray???
So anyway, you go back to, like, "Flash Gordon", with its "Princess Aura"s and "Prince Vultan"s, and you see that some of the original SW names were supposed to be not just "normal" and "English", but actually silly and campy.
Few annotations: Lea is a real name, although I only know it in Germany. Django is obviously a name, too. Never heard of a "Boba", though... Bobafett? Seriously? It's like "Fat Bubba" :D Or "Fatbob" :DDD
bkev said:
^Comments like the above make me fear for the future. Have I just been lucky with my circle of friends? Although I will admit, I was unable to sit through Metropolis...
Neither classical music, nor old movies, are dying off any time soon.
Awesome post there - however, I clearly remember seeing the original Star Wars (oot) around 97 when I was 9 or something, or maybe it was earlier, on a TV broadcast, having no idea what it was, and I can pretty much say ESB left the strongest impression on me.
And being a Russian immigrant in Germany, I didn't understand the language at that time, so everything that was said was basically a lot of gibberish to me.
So how come I liked it most (remember the shocked feeling towards the end, like "wth happenin, the main heroes all get frozen to death wahaat?"?"
Maybe because it wasn't just a lot of "clever dialogue", but was CONVEYED in such a convincing, connecting matter through the acting, tone, settings and music, that actually.. even a child would understand it?
Anyway, I'd have a much shorter reply to that parent (and I'm glad it's not going to be published) - wow shut your festering hole you nerdy pathetic manbaby.
Jesus H. Christ, this guy's like "omg SW is so GENIUSS, THE BEST MOVIE IN HISTORY!!!", and then "my kid should like it too, oh show me how to make him like this!!!". Just fucking pathetic. What an idiot.
And yes - look at ANY of those cheesy cartoons the Nostalgia Critic rips apart... there is so much more unbearable awfulness in one single scene of "Care Bears" or "Ferngully" than in the entirety of the PT, it's not even funny.
Or how about them cheesy, hammy, stupid game-card animes like Pokemon? Or Digimon?
Also see the Cinema Snob for a different brand of utter awfulness that the prequels don't even begin to touch.
So yea, nerd parents, whoever you may be - if you're gonna let your kids watch that horrible pig slop on TV, you have a duty, yes, a DUTY, to go personally buy a DVD box set with the entire prequel trilogy as a birthday present. :D
So it "ruined Star Wars"... who cares??
TheBoost said:
Katie,
Lucas's biggest changes aren't visible. It's not about Han shooting first, or CGI X-Wings. While I think those suck, and it's good for you to see the OOT when you can, but it's the change in context he created that most deeply effect the films.
I hope you've read "Secret History of Star Wars" that goes really in depth into this. But the next time you watch "Star Wars" keep in mind all the things that AREN'T in the movie. Vader isn't Lukes dad. He isn't even the main villian. There's no Prophecy, no Sith Lords, Obi Wan isn't lying. It's about a farm boy on a quest to save a princess.
THAT is the movie that shattered box office records and changed lives. Good luck with your paper.
While I somewhat get what you're saying, I doubt this has much to do with the original topic - aside from that, didn't "Empire" burn itself strongly into the public mind, as well?
Isn't the "father" one of the most famous and iconic "reveal twists" in cinematic history (how good it actually is is another question)?
his treckodor
Oh, god... let me just quickly unsubscribe to this topic, k? Wait, where's the button.. are there it goes..
Wow, you're all such a bunch of nerds!! *flee*
TheBoost said:
I disagree with any law that tells someone what they must do with their intellectual property. As much as I enjoyed the 1985 pro wrestling comedy "Body Slam" I don't presume that the owners of that piece of entertainment are obligated to preserve it or present it to me in any high quality format, if at all.
However, I think a rule that packaging must honestly proclaim what is in it, both in food and DVDs is a fair rule, especially in the case of "Star Wars" where LFL has intentionally created so much public confusion.
I think what this all comes down to, at the end of the day, is that those films AREN'T purely "Lucas' intellectual property" - he wasn't like some sort of composer responsible for each last note, and the last two movies... well, do I need to go on? Empire was basically Kershner's work. He did meddle with that one the least, though...
So, if anything should become a discussion at congress or whatever - if it ain't already - is the concept of "intellectual property" and its possible abuse.
Asteroid-Man said:
Let me give you a better clue at what I was aiming to say...
Got it the first time around, thank you - it was just way too stupid to address. Did you even NOTICE how campy and silly Ian Hart was in that movie?
So yea, claiming that anyone, and I mean, ANYone, could watch the original Star Wars trilogy for the acting, dialogue and characters, and not only that, but PRIMARILY for the acting and characters, with the cool effects and whacky alien stuff maybe a close (or not so close) second, is so patently, so hopelessly absurd, they person suggesting it MUST be trolling, right?
I mean, he can't actually be kinda saying the truth, CAN HE???!!
I'd suggest you quit ruining more wonderful internet memes by your insipid associations, and look up the word and what it means at all. It's not the kind of generic one-size-fits-all dismissive insult you can just toss at your opponent when you're losing a debate.
While you're hard at work, look what this one's got to say:
^oh dear...
Knowing how huge of a nerd he is, I now start suspecting where Simon Pegg got his idea for this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bUQfHRfX2o8
:D
Haven't seen that movie about young Indy and Dr. Quatermain, but for the record, I don't really much like the "childish" brand of cheese and silly, and the kidactors (save for Malfoy) kinda sucked in that movie, but I thought Ian Hart (the guy in the purple turban) was pretty fucking awesome.
So's almost any of the adult actors in this series, for that matter :D
As for Qui-Gon's ghost, I don't watch CW but, for some reason, I can't get this one image of Jinn's Shadow wandering around the dreary widths of Ralph's Hammes out of my head right now :D
Asteroid-Man said:
I see your link and raise you this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R5kPUFxXYLs
In all seriousness - so Qui-Gon in that episode... was he a force ghost or was he also one of the son's personifications?
Harry Potter 1 certainly got very, very silly at times, too - in fact, it's much sillier than SW and LOTR combined.
Pretty really more childish and whacky than the corresponding book, though.
So what's your point again?
bkev said:
I wouldn't call the nuke a kid-friendly joke as much as I would a mistake. It's pretty ridiculous, but not humorous in the conventional way.
I haven't seen the movie so forgive me for opening my mouth, but from looking at that scene I've always thought it was a kind of self-ironic, savvy wink - i.e. "how much more can our action hero survive without a scratch? oh that's right, let's just turn the rules of reality into a cartoony farce... he survives a NUCLEAR EXPLOSION!!" let's make it really, really silly... by making him fly off in a fridge! like their first design for the Back to the Future time machine design, right... lol, that would've been goofy if they'd done that!".
It's like someone did a 24 reboot on cinema, and they had Jack Bauer do all kinds of silly stuff like roundhouse kick people around the globe (or less extreme, maybe) as a form of popcultural in-joke.
But hey, just rambling.
skyjedi2005 said:
You could argue star Trek 2009's sillyness. Since it is basically a remake of star wars 1977, with a bit of empire strikes back thrown in for good measure,lol.
You could also point out that the design seems like a ripoff of the remake of Galactica, and that a lot seems to have been borrowed from the bad movie adaptation of starship troopers.
No.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=M67nnd8FjLk
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VL_nHrYPxNw
It was silly because it was silly.
skyjedi2005 said:
Episode 1: Jar Jar Begins.
Episode 2:Jar Jar Returns.
Episode 3: Jar Jar's Revenge
Nah nah... if anything, then:
EpI: Jar Jar ex Machina.
EpII; Jar Jar Apocalypse.
EpIII: Jar Jar Redemption.
Asteroid-Man said:
That's some confusing shit... and you just seem like you want to argue for arguments sake...
Yea yea, right on... when you can't be bothered to read, or start realizing that you're being kinda seriously rebuked, don't politely bow out of the discussion by just posting nothing.... no, make like a defiant face and say something dismissive like "ohhh you're just arguing because you can, right??!! ha!"
Oh, and you don't, yea? Just give us all another completely random list of movies ranging from cheesy fantasy spectacles to dead-serious holocaust movies, and insist on how others use some sort of double standard when comparing those to Star Wars which they claim to be not cheesy, when they don't, and I might just try explaining to you how Star Trek 09 is an incredibly silly movie.
Yea, arguing just for argument's sake, right... ohh, boo hoo, I guess I really just watch the OT for the action scenes, and just made all that up... you know, for argument's sake... so your point still stands.
Way to go, asteroid, way to go!
Oops, teh quote fail,
Asteroid-Man said:
NO ONE watches Star Wars because of the acting... [/QUOTE]
Um, what?? Whenever I happen to feel like rewatching parts of the OT just for the sake of it, I do it pretty much exclusively for the actors' scenes.
James Earl Jones and his physical counterpart(s) just amount to such a glorious piece of ham... there's a reason he's so famous, you know.
McDiarmid... WOW. Again, there's a reason Mike Stoklasa from RLM keeps impersonating the Emperor voice whenever he can, and it's not about to get old any soon.
Ford is just a glorious bad boy swashbuckler, certainly so in the first two movies - not only did he come up with some of his own one-liners, he's actually FRICKIN' ENJOYABLE TO WATCH. He carries Indiana Jones, and does the same with Han Solo, as well.
Mark Hamill is perfect for his role, and every stage of character development he goes through the entire trilogy - he holds the series together. Be it the somewhat whiny farmerboy, the campy "I'm here to rescue here" Flash Gordon cutout, the doubting and learning apprentice in Empire, the struck by fate hero, or the calm badass from ROTJ.
Carries' acting in ANH was pretty cheesy (but then again, I'm not sure whether by accident, since she, after all, did get to play the "space princess" with the slug hairdo), and not always sure about ROTJ, but she contributes to the chemistry and fun of the Solo/Leia interaction in ESB just as much as Ford.
Daniels pulls off his role perfectly - again, there's a reason he's become so iconic.
Then, there's all the whacky monsters and robots, like Greedo, Jabba, Yoda, the pink slave guy, or even the "condemned criminal" with the broken nose - all of them extremely creative and fun creations, but all of them highly memorable through their VOICE ACTING.
There's a reason why Yoda comes off as wise and believable in ESB, no matter what he says, and as cheesy and silly in the prequels, and it ain't just the dialogue.
Greedo and Jabba are so damn rewatchable at least 50% due to the voice acting.
Then, to add to that, each Imperial in the series has a different personality, and contributes to the "Empire scenes" ending up so memorable and impressive not just due to Vader and Cushing.
The last reason I ever put on the OT DVDs are the action scenes. Sure, they're fun and well-made, and look "real" and all, but I'd much rather watch Luke and Han bickering in the DS control room than sit through the somewhat dull dogfight.
Can't really find myself caring for the giant robot camels, as well. WTF?
twooffour said:
You know, by this point I feel the need to askyou the question directly: do you understand the difference between "bad" (or "not good") and "cheesy"? Because they ain't the same thing.
As for my previous response, I never said those movies were bad because of all the cheese, did I? Fact remains, there's a whole shitload of cheese and narm in LOTR, ST09 and Batman. And you said "virtually cheeseless"
No I understood that, but you were prepared to put the cheese of Star Wars in the context of the film, but you didn't do it for LOTR or ST.
Um what? That's precisely why I asked you the question above: You denied all those other films being "cheesy". I spoke out for the OT's QUALITY OF THE ACTING.
If a character is made of pure unadulterated "cheese" like C-3P0, I'm gonna judge his performance by how well he pulls off the "cheesy role". Get it?
When did I ever put anything "into context"??? Heck, SW has its own "narm page" on TV Tropes. For Fuck's Sake....
And Batman isn't cheesy - at all. The one thing you might not have liked was the voice, but that was a poor choice on the audio editor's fault, not the director or the actor or the writer.
Umm.. WHWWWATTTT??!!!! Christian Bale did the voice himself, he even talked about having an easier time with it in Dark Knight.
Then, I don't fucking care, because it ended up in the movie. Twice. And also how he moves his mouth while doing that voice.... also the audio editor, huh?
And yea, if you look at BB with all its cheap patronizing one-liners, and all those whacky "witness scenes" (like them kids playing with the toy guns in the car... WTF??), a lot of it is, indeed, very cheesy.
Then, TDK has some craptastic dialogue during the Two-Face climax, too.
Sorry to break it to you.
I can't care for the "patronizing one-liners", but I certainly get the humor of those short witness cuts - sure they're kinda fun and whacky, but ultimately I felt they didn't fit and took me out of the movie.
It's like, "omg we can't leave it this dark, come on, let's shoehorn a Baat-maaaan! into the movie once in a while, uh? Like, these two shits are playing with the toy guns for no reason, and then they see the explosions, and boom boom!!! LOL! Then, like, they say "oh, it's not the bikers, it's not the hikers... it's BATMAN!!!".
And LOTR was meant to show the dark moments very dark and the light moments very light to reflect the feelings people got reading the books at the time which were meant to reflect peoples REAL emotions at the time of the Second World War.
I'm not talking about the light moments in the Shire, though. I'm talking about how fucking narmtastic and hammy some of Gandalf's, Saruman's, and other supposedly "serious climactic moments" come off in the movie.
Also the fact that they made cheap, easy comic reliefs out of Gimli and Pippin, where originally, they actually weren't.
I get there's a lot of "lightness" and "humor" in those movies, but somehow I doubt those elements were designed to be as silly as they ended up.
And that's a key difference to Star Wars - Star Wars, and certainly so the first movie, was designed as a "whacky space adventure" from the start on.
Star Trek 2009 wasn't cheesy...
By cheesy, I'm talking about those truly *face-palm* worthy scenes.
So how about that time where Spock just sends away Kirk on a dangerous, deadly ice planet, and then he meets Fanservice Spock, and then Scotty and that FUCKING GREEN THING THAT CONSTANTLY SITS ON THINGS... that's not "face-palm", to you?
Anyway, yea, ST09 wasn't "cheesy".... DREAM THE FUCK ON.
[QUOTE]Star Wars has a few in every film - denying this is foolish. It's the aspect that draws in kids. Star Wars has elements of film targeted for all audiences and ages, obviously they have to implement cheesy one liners and predictable outcomes (ESB aside) to appeal to them.
Oh, and how.
Jesus H. Fucking Christ, the guy left out Dvorák's New World finale... SERIOUSLY??
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BFZcCNYF6-4
That's, like, fucking Force Theme for you right there...
Then, I'm sure at some point Williams must've heard the overture to Wagner's Tristan and Isolde, because, well, compare:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=d3IIeNorhVU 3:36
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fktwPGCR7Yw 7:15
Not to say that chord combination is totally unique, or was invented there... but come on, tell me that ain't a clear shout-out :D
Then, call me crazy, but somehow the Han&Leia theme terribly reminds me of Liszt's Mephisto Waltz no.1... distantly, though.
No single famous composer from the Romantic era? Really?
Just throwing it out there...
