[NGTM-1R]

Liking TFA better in one thing, but I honestly don't see how you could argue that TFA represents film making on par with ANH.

I hate to break this to you, but the state of the working art advances. Even allowing for whatever visionary qualities and "film making" (meaning what, exactly? "film making" was and is an ultimately technical process subject to technical improvements) references you want to make the fact remains; ANH is closing on 40 years old.

People do things, many things, all the things, better now. Every aspect of film-making has been refined and improved in that time. Yes, even the creative process that you will doubtless plead.

[karajorma]

That's actually one big problem I have with TFA. Given the fact that they have over 35 years of improvements in film making to draw upon, how did they manage to do so badly with the plot line?

It is perfectly possible for ANH to be a superior exercise in film-making, and have TFA turn out to be the better overall film.  Which was my original point way back there - that, compared apples-to-apples without room for nostalgia, worldbuilding, tech achievements, etc, TFA is the best / most entertaining Star Wars film to date.

It's possible, but that doesn't mean it actually happened. If you liked it better, well that's fine. My problem is that you claimed that by some objective measure it was a better film and in that respect I'm still going to have to disagree with you.

Aside:  I'm also NOW tempted to award it this title purely because I just finished the OT Blu-Ray release and **** GEORGE LUCAS.  Seriously, injecting Hayden Christensen and changing the celebration music in RoTJ alone are grounds for taking away the crown.  Jesus.

If we're going to go by the Special Edition, yeah, that's a master class in how not to make a director's cut of a film. But I don't think anyone here believes the Special Edition is better so we might as well ignore it and talk about the theatrical release.

[swashmebuckle]

I hate to break this to you, but the state of the working art advances. Even allowing for whatever visionary qualities and "film making" (meaning what, exactly? "film making" was and is an ultimately technical process subject to technical improvements) references you want to make the fact remains; ANH is closing on 40 years old.

People do things, many things, all the things, better now. Every aspect of film-making has been refined and improved in that time. Yes, even the creative process that you will doubtless plead.

I'm not arguing that the average movie in 2015 was worse than the average movie in 1977. What I've been saying is that the steps forward that TFA took were in areas that are relatively unimportant to what made Star Wars special, while it took relatively major steps back in the areas of SW's strengths. The "film making" point was in response to MP Ryan bringing that term up, and referred to how understanding the context that the two movies were created in deepens my appreciation of ANH but reinforces the mediocrity of TFA, despite its objectively superior surround sound mix.

[deathfun]

Gotta love arguments over subjective sentiments

[Luis Dias]

That's actually one big problem I have with TFA. Given the fact that they have over 35 years of improvements in film making to draw upon, how did they manage to do so badly with the plot line?

You're assuming these 35 years have been spent mostly on "improving" film-making. In a way, yes, but solely from the capitalistic point of view. The invisible hand does not guarantee an evolution of the quality of the product, only of its profitability.

[MP-Ryan]

I think we have long since reached and passed the point where we are just going in circles.  Ultimately, I've argued TFA has several elements that are objectively superior to any prior SW film which makes it a superior film, but we keep wrapping back to people's (including my own) subjective belief on whether or not TFA is actually the superior film.

Since I don't have an infinite amount of time to argue pedantic silliness on the Internet, I'm cutting myself off here 

[Phantom Hoover]

'I've argued that TFA [...] is the superior film but I won't talk about it any more because you keep making it about whether I think TFA is the superior film'

[Scotty]

Going in circles is clearly a much better option.

[MP-Ryan]

Going in circles is clearly a much better option.

Exactly. 

[Akalabeth Angel]

I think we have long since reached and passed the point where we are just going in circles.  Ultimately, I've argued TFA has several elements that are objectively superior to any prior SW film which makes it a superior film, but we keep wrapping back to people's (including my own) subjective belief on whether or not TFA is actually the superior film.

How can TFA be better than ANH when as a film TFA simultaneously both relies upon and exists to serve other films? How can a film which is dependent upon other films to make sense be better than a film which is self-contained? You're viewing the film not on its own but with the benefit of nearly 40 years of history to prop it up.

And incidentally, moving forward that is exactly what Star Wars is going to become.  Disney intends to release at least one new film every year for four years, and like Marvel they would like to release one film a year for as long as they can. Invariably some or most of those films will exist not to tell their own story but but exist to service stories both before and after their release.  The individual movies will become less important than the overarching narratives, and those overarching narratives will likewise be secondary to the overall lore or general direction of the fiction.  They will become pieces of a whole instead of a whole in and of themselves.

This is what TFA is to ANH.

[NGTM-1R]

How can TFA be better than ANH when as a film TFA simultaneously both relies upon and exists to serve other films?

This is not a contradiction, you realize. ESB is usually considered the best original trilogy film and does exactly the same thing.

[Akalabeth Angel]

How can TFA be better than ANH when as a film TFA simultaneously both relies upon and exists to serve other films?

This is not a contradiction, you realize. ESB is usually considered the best original trilogy film and does exactly the same thing.

Just because people consider it the best doesn't prevent it from being a contradiction. Nor are they "exactly" the same thing when comparing the different scopes of history before both ESB and TFA.
And who exactly considers it the best?  ESB made half the money ANH did in theatres upon release in unadjusted sales.  Adjusted for inflation ANH still made the most money out of any star wars film, it's made even more if you compare marketing and production budgets.

[Scotty]

How can TFA be better than ANH when as a film TFA simultaneously both relies upon and exists to serve other films?

This is not a contradiction, you realize. ESB is usually considered the best original trilogy film and does exactly the same thing.

Just because people consider it the best doesn't prevent it from being a contradiction. Nor are they "exactly" the same thing when comparing the different scopes of history before both ESB and TFA.
And who exactly considers it the best?  ESB made half the money ANH did in theatres upon release in unadjusted sales.  Adjusted for inflation ANH still made the most money out of any star wars film.

When your question is "how can it be the best when it's not self-contained" and the answer is to provide a movie that is the best while not being self-contained, it's a pretty clear demonstration that the contradiction you're trying to frame here does not exist.

[Akalabeth Angel]

How can TFA be better than ANH when as a film TFA simultaneously both relies upon and exists to serve other films?

This is not a contradiction, you realize. ESB is usually considered the best original trilogy film and does exactly the same thing.

Just because people consider it the best doesn't prevent it from being a contradiction. Nor are they "exactly" the same thing when comparing the different scopes of history before both ESB and TFA.
And who exactly considers it the best?  ESB made half the money ANH did in theatres upon release in unadjusted sales.  Adjusted for inflation ANH still made the most money out of any star wars film.

When your question is "how can it be the best when it's not self-contained" and the answer is to provide a movie that is the best while not being self-contained, it's a pretty clear demonstration that the contradiction you're trying to frame here does not exist.

I don't think it's the best. Nor does the general public given it made half the ticket sales of the original movie.  So why should I believe you or him when you say that it is?

[NGTM-1R]

And who exactly considers it the best?  ESB made half the money ANH did in theatres upon release in unadjusted sales.

Argmentum ad ticket sales? Really?

Any poll that's been conducted on the issue in my lifetime has come out with a ranking of ESB>ANH>ROTJ. They're remarkably consistant on that. It's also by far the most critically beloved of the three.

Hell, even in this thread it's come up before. I'm sorry your memory is that short.

[Luis Dias]

Disney intends to release at least one new film every year for four years, and like Marvel they would like to release one film a year for as long as they can.

For reference, Disney owns both Pixar (which used to deliver one movie per year) and Marvel (which is delivering 2 or more per year on average). If Bat vs Sup flops, Disney becomes pratically the only game in town and is fully intended to overfeed us with itself.

Any poll that's been conducted on the issue in my lifetime has come out with a ranking of ESB>ANH>ROTJ.

That ESB is the best, fine. That ANH > ROTJ is ridiculous. ANH has one or two memorable quotes, tops. The Luke - Vader confrontation at the end is just a movie in itself.

[Akalabeth Angel]

And who exactly considers it the best?  ESB made half the money ANH did in theatres upon release in unadjusted sales.

Argmentum ad ticket sales? Really?

Yeah because your anecdotal evidence is rock solid. Much more relevant than hard numbers.

It's also by far the most critically beloved of the three.

Prove it.

Star Wars received an Academy Nomination for Best Picture. Won SIX Oscars. Another 38 Wins and 27 Nominations for other Awards.
Empire Strikes won ONE Oscar, was not nominated for Best Picture. Another 15 wins & 17 nominations.

Critic Scores / Metacritic
Star Wars - 92%
Empire Strikes Back - 79%

Critic Scores / Rotten Tomatoes:
Star Wars 94 %
Empire 94 %


But feel free to create some more anecdotal evidence, pull some words from one critic, trying to discredit the various sources I've given and continue to ignore the facts

[Scotty]

IMDB:
A New Hope: 8.7/10
Empire Strikes Back: 8.8/10

I can use the internet to a ****ty "source" too.  Unlike your hastily scrabbled rebuttal, however, I can also get a good one too.

``The Empire Strikes Back'' is the best of three Star Wars films, and the most thought-provoking. After the space opera cheerfulness of the original film, this one plunges into darkness and even despair, and surrenders more completely to the underlying mystery of the story. It is because of the emotions stirred in ``Empire'' that the entire series takes on a mythic quality that resonates back to the first and ahead to the third. This is the heart.

[NGTM-1R]

That ESB is the best, fine. That ANH > ROTJ is ridiculous. ANH has one or two memorable quotes, tops. The Luke - Vader confrontation at the end is just a movie in itself.

I personally think ROTJ was the best of them, but I'm a sucker for the fighter combat. I'm just reporting what I've seen.

[Scotty]

Similarly, I'm a sucker for the music.  Empire Strikes Back wins the music contest hands down with the Imperial Death March, speeder battle, and asteroid chase pieces.