🚀 go-pugleaf

HJ wrote:
> 
> On Mon, 10 Feb 1997 17:01:09 -0600, Defender
> <defender@frontiercomm.net> wrote:
> 
> >In article <5ckb64$nj@smash.gatech.edu>,
> >  jason@r34h11.res.gatech.edu (Jason Kau) wrote:
> >
> >> Not to bring negativity to the big gala re-opening.  But:
> >>
> >> 1) Star Wars is not science fiction
> >> 2) It's really not that good
> >>
> >> Sorry, I just had to get that off my chest in a public forum.
> >
> >Hmm...  First of all, Star Wars can be called science fiction,
> >fantasy, (whatever!) I could care less what class it falls in.
> >Secondly, I would like anyone to tell me a better trilogy than
> >SW.  Each movie is a masterpiece AND a ground-breaker in terms
> >of special effects.  I can respect someones opinion, but to say
> >Star Wars is not that good is pure idiocy!!
> >
> >-Defender of the Faith
> >
> >
> >There is really no reason to reasure everybody that Mr. Defender is 120% correct, However, I�ll do it anyway.
> >SW is the one and only.     What else is there?????      Startrek ?????????


>> This all falls in the realm of subjective, but even I, a hardcore Star Wars junkie have a hard time defending Return of the Jedi. Let's face it... it could (and should) have been a lot more. Let's hope it was just an abberation, and that Jedi, Crusade and Radioland Murders are not what the future holds in store for Lucasfilm.

That being said, I'd rather watch 120 minutes of any Star Wars film than
12 minutes of the spacedock scene in Trek: Motion Picture, or several
hours worth of clear leader than Star Trek V.