Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP
Posting-Version: version B 2.10.2 9/18/84; site topaz.ARPA
Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!cbosgd!cbdkc1!desoto!packard!topaz!@RUTGERS.ARPA,@MIT-MC:MLY.G.SHADES@MIT-OZ
From: @RUTGERS.ARPA,@MIT-MC:MLY.G.SHADES@MIT-OZ
Newsgroups: net.sf-lovers
Subject: Re: SF-LOVERS Digest   V10 #37
Message-ID: <503@topaz.ARPA>
Date: Mon, 4-Feb-85 00:56:58 EST
Article-I.D.: topaz.503
Posted: Mon Feb  4 00:56:58 1985
Date-Received: Tue, 5-Feb-85 04:10:23 EST
Sender: daemon@topaz.ARPA
Organization: Rutgers Univ., New Brunswick, N.J.
Lines: 25

From: geoffrey dov cooper <MLY.G.SHADES%MIT-OZ@MIT-MC.ARPA>

	i was only being semi-facetious about the star wars movies.
yes they did gross an amazing amount of money, but, they are not and
never have been good science fiction.

	they lack adequate characterization, an adult plot, realism in
their special effects, etc.

	as someone previously pointed out they are simply a remake of
all the old westerns that we watched as kids, with the addition of old
air battle footage ala n wwii movies.

	i forget the originator of the quote but "you can't go broke
underestimating the taste of the american public."

	star wars is and was a prime example of shooting for the
lowest common denominator.  money made is not an adequate indicator of
quality it just goes to show that action/adventure never goes out of
style.  if money made was the way to choose quality then harold
robbins and sidney sheldon are the greatest writers since the edge of
creation (excepting moses of course).

                            shades@mit-oz
-------