It ignores nothing. The movies are what they are. They were cultural events of the time. I can't deny that for a moment. But how old were you when you first saw Star Wars? How many times did you watch them as a kid? Did you play with the toys? Did you read the books? Did you think about Star Wars all the time? From the ages of 4-8, that was extremely true for me. I built these movies so much in my mind that despite them being cultural events, when a 19 year old Campe98 saw The Phantom Menace for the first time, I had unbelievably high expectations.
Nostalgia: Of course you ignored objective facts to argue that nostalgia even exists as a reason for the glaring difference in perception/assessment of the ST, as if (in the larger point) nonexistent "rose colored glasses" prevent OT fans from enjoying the ST. The only fair way to judge the ST is to be compared to other parts
of the same series, which is not influenced by the myth of nostalgia. One can easily and use only facts to analyze & conclude that
Terminator: Dark Fate was an artistically and culturally inferior film compared to the original (or
T2); similarly, the same, fact based analysis concludes that
The Ghost of Frankenstein (1942) was a cultural and artistic failure, and that's certainly apparent when compared to its series predecessors,
Frankenstein (1931)
, The Bride of Frankenstein (1935) and
Son of Frankenstein (1939), even acknowledging that the third was the weaker entry of that group.
That is how analysis of
any group or series works...except in the case of
Star Wars, where some are so hyper-defensive over the ST, that any honest analysis / criticism of it must come from the take-your-pick catalog of sweeping, false accusations (but not limited to):
- "hate"
- "OT nostalgia" / "Rose-colored glasses"
- "Anti-SJW", etc.
- Any number of personal insults
The majority are unfounded accusations to be sure. Some will need to accept that a film is judged by it parts of / overall series it is a part of. It is utterly dishonest to avoid holding part of a series to its best standards as the only way of selling it, or attempt (and fail) to tear down acknowledged superior entries in some breathless crusade to pump up the ST, and yes, in this forum that has happened in reviews threads for
every ST film. That says so much about the how and why of their motivations.
Age: I covered that; I was there to see
Star Wars when it was released in 1977, and movie goers of all ages were in those theatres. In other words,
"...the OT had on audiences of all ages in its time" meaning there was no
But the moment you think too hard about them and look at them critically, they all really fall apart
No, they do not. Actually, I addressed each of your questions with ease, as those were not unanswered by the films, but to keep it short, I will post the answer to two here
Is the Rebellion a group of freedom fighters or terrorists?
Considering the Empire was founded on a false war, mass murders/assassinations, hostile takeovers of worlds, etc., all topped by being orchestrated by Palptatine--an undeniably evil member of an equally evil religious order, then the reaction/rejection to the Empire could only be one that seeks to
restore the freedom the Empire violently ripped away / crushed. The Rebellion--unlike the Empire--is not in the business of forcing anyone to comply or die. Freedom is there to be reclaimed
if the individual/group/world desires it. The Empire as a force of totalitarian, spiritually corrupted overlords, which by any measure is in the ideological wrong. Opposing it makes one an advocate or freedom, not terror.
How does Luke Skywalker, who in the course of the first movie, loses the people who raised him, his mentor and his best friend actually manage to function?
Adversity and/or so many tragedies (as Luke endured) can be a forked road for some: one can lead to accepting it (but not losing its meaning to your life) and becoming stronger, wise to the darker realities of the world, and never taking it for granted The other can lead to a life of unending depression, or in some cases, a feeling that disaster is just one step in front of--
and behind you, and/or a bleak, self-oppressing outlook on life.
Luke chose the former, or rather, his true self naturally took that road. I understood that in 1977, as I watched Luke suffer one blow after another, yet he saw the Empire as not only this omnipresent threat, but step by step, it was the source of
his greatest losses. It was all brought to his life. One could take that second fork in the road as a response to that, or attempt to stop it from harming and/or killing others (just as Obi-Wan warned aboard the Death Star in regards to the importance of delivering the DS plans to the Rebellion). Luke was burdened with personal tragedy, but it also served as his emotionally believable call to action.
Why did the Empire build another expensive Death Star when the first one failed so spectacularly?
For the same reason real world private and commercial airplane construction/use continues despite a
very long history of tens of thousands of crew and passenger deaths...with no end in sight. To avoid returning to a practical invention due to death or a technical failure robs the users of its obvious benefits. In the SW sense, you don't have to be a supporter of the Empire to see how valuable a Death Star would be in that galaxy. Just ask Alderaan's population or the crews of a number of Rebel capital ships and fighters during the Endor battle...
But asking these critical questions is simply part of fandom
Then it should come as no surprise, and not be taken as an offense for
fans to offer legitimate, critical analysis of the Star Wars sequel trilogy. It is, after all, a part of fandom.
.
I think the motives are still the same. Filmmaking is still a business. George and Disney both wanted to make money. Perhaps the endgame is different in that while Disney wants to raise its stock prices, George wanted to improve film. But the financial motive is still there.
Lucas wanted to bring an older, then-buried form of the morality play back to audiences; he famously did not even think the original film would be successful at all, and was shocked to see the response to its opening. but he was wise enough to secure the merchandising rights, among other things.
All I’ve got is:
