Well, to each his own, Eddie. I consider the original "Star Wars" a great film, whether or not I happen to like it and whether or not it happens to use old Western-movie cliches. It's exciting; the acting is good enough to convince us that these people are worth caring about, heroes and villains alike; the special effects, inspired by "2001," continue to hold up well enough to make the movie enjoyable today; and I did not find the pacing awkward but, on the contrary, smooth, forward-pointing, and involving. "Star Wars" was a landmark film that can still give pleasure. It's why it and its two original sequels are the most eagerly awaited films in DVD history (apparently by everyone but you). Oh, well, they're only films.

John

I say if Christen Hayden acts like a sniveling cry baby, like he did in episode II, then episode III will certainly suck the big one.

Sean,

What a person likes/dis-likes is not as important as knowing what's going on in the world. For example, one might not like Adolf Hitler, but it certainly would not hurt someone interested in politics and history to buy books about (or written by) him. I acknowledge that the "Star Wars" series has a major cultural presence in the United States--that doesn't mean that I have to like it in order to own it.

However, "cultural significance" is not the only reason for me for owning the "Star Wars" movies. Like many, I love those light sabre fights. :D

Eddie

I am definitely in the camp that likes the original trilogy, but can completely understand why someone would not like the series (my wife has explained herself quite well, thank you very much!).

However, I have more difficulty understanding why someone who does not seem to particularly like a series of films would want to purchase them.

Eddie, you state that you will more than likely buy the original trilogy due to its impact on the cultural consciousness. I don't get why someone would buy a piece of art if they don't really like it. I would be hard pressed to purchase a painting, book, album, or film based solely on its social impact rather than its aesthetic impact on me personally.

Is there more to it on an aesthetic level, or is its cultural significance the only attribute that would lead you to own it?

Sean

Eddie,

Knowing that Adolf Hitler existed and the atrocities he committed is culturally relevant as a fact. This fact leads us to determine whether we like or dislike him. (Definitely count me in the NOT liking Adolf group!) It is something you know, not own. Art is certainly a different beast than history and current affairs. Knowing how art affected society is one thing, but actually liking a piece of art is completely different. I.e., I understand Jackson Pollock's impact on art and his relevance in the medium, but I do not want to own one of his paintings because I do not find it aesthetically pleasing.

I guess I just don't quite get this one. I do understand buying a movie just for specfic sequences (the lightsaber battles) even if you didn't really like the overall film. I have to admit I have a few purchases that I don't tout even though I like certain aspects of the movie. Heck, I've bought a few just because they were good deals....D'oh!

Alright, you wrangled it out of me. I do own Godzilla, but only because the sound rocks, and it was in the $5 bin at Wal-Mart!

I guess I just got from your post that the only reason you would even purchase the trilogy was for its significance and no other reason, and I just don't quite grasp that. I'm really not trying to be adversarial, just don't quite understand.

Sean

Sean,

I happen to be a student at Chapman University trying to obtain an M.A. in Film Studies. Part of Film Studies involves learning about film history.

If you want historical facts, then "Star Wars: Episode IV--A New Hope" offers plenty of them independent of its merits as a "work of art". For example, it changed the way that movies were marketed. It confirmed what "Jaws" had done in terms of how studios could approach the summer season. Its huge initial box office gross forever imprinted in studio heads' minds that sci-fi aimed at younger males could save everyone's ass. There are plenty of things to discuss, but understand that there is more to cinema than just the films themselves. One must understand the entire process of how films get made (not just film production but film business) in order to get a sense of all of cinema.

If that still doesn't help you understand my attitude, Sean, then let me reiterate again that, on a personal level, likes/dis-likes are less important to me than what academic value something holds. I may not like every period of the Roman Empire, but I certainly try to buy as many good books about the Roman Empire as possible.

Eddie

P.S. Don't worry, I know that you aren't trying to be adversarial. :)

I don't mind being adversarial.

If one wants to explore every facet of history and culture from film to Adolph Hitler to the Roman Empire, then one must try to buy or experience every book, film, painting, and work of art related to everything that has ever existed. Fine if you're the Library of Congress, but the rest of us have to struggle along buying and experiencing the things we can most afford and best enjoy.

Nevertheless, I see your point. Experiencing at least the highlights of history is better than burying your head in the sand and pretending that history and culture are meaningless. You are certainly a Renaissance Man in your tastes, Eddie, as is befitting a proper college student.

John

John,

Hey, at least I'm not buying "Caligula". :)

Eddie

Yeah, but, you know, there's a place in film history for "Caligula," too. It has the distinction (dubious) of being the most expensive porn film ever made. Now, if only those of us with wives could get them to see it that way.

John

Euh...that's blasphemy, John. :p