# Will the original Star Wars trilogy still be talked about in 100 or 500 years time? **URL:** \ **Category:** Cafe Society\ **Created:** [August 31, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751 "2011-08-31T15:46:13Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 20\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![heathen\_earthling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/13edae/32.png) [@heathen\_earthling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heathen_earthling)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:04pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/21 "2011-09-01T15:04:07Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Star Wars currently has 70 years to run on its copyright, and in all likelihood that will be extended forever. So, no remakes, no adaptations. Star Wars already has several remakes/adaptations, like the ones by Family Guy. How is that really different? ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/22 "2011-09-01T15:08:48Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > Star Wars already has several remakes/adaptations, like the ones by Family Guy. How is that really different? Parodies are exceptions. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:08pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/23 "2011-09-01T15:08:50Z")
Parodies are allowed under copyright law which is what I imagine the Family Guy episode was. But you can’t make a straight remake of a copyrighted work. Of course one would hope that the absurd extension of copyright because of lobbying by Disney and others will stop at some point of time and the public domain will once again be allowed to expand with previously copyrighted works. ---
**Author:** ![mr.jp](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/48db29/32.png) [@mr.jp](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/mr.jp)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 3:46pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/24 "2011-09-01T15:46:51Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > My guess is that “Star Wars” will be remembered the same way. Everyone in 100 years time will instantly recognise the “Star Wars” story and characters form a dozen ripoffs, but the original will be known only from a couple of shoddy remakes by the same studio. > > This IMO is the greatest tragedy of the ridiculous extent of current copyright laws. It stifles creativity and destroys cultural continuity. Rather than a popular work remaining popular and being continually refreshed with every generation, instead it remains trapped in the past. And the laws don’t prevent the work form being shit on. All it means is that the copyright owner is the only one who gets to shit on it. I fully agree. It would be awesome to see someone else make 1-3. ---
**Author:** ![heathen\_earthling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/13edae/32.png) [@heathen\_earthling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heathen_earthling)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:25pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/25 "2011-09-01T16:25:08Z")
> [@Lantern](#): > > Parodies are allowed under copyright law which is what I imagine the Family Guy episode was. But you can’t make a straight remake of a copyrighted work. The Family Guy specials are officially endorsed by George Lucas, so legally it shouldn’t matter that they are parodies. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:34pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/26 "2011-09-01T16:34:04Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > The Family Guy specials are officially endorsed by George Lucas, so legally it shouldn’t matter that they are parodies. The Family Guy specials were your examples, not ours. You asked how they were different and we told you: Because they’re parodies. That they were given Lucas’ stamp of approval is just another item on the list of reasons why they’re different. ---
**Author:** ![Reno\_Nevada](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/r/6f9a4e/32.png) [@Reno\_Nevada](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Reno_Nevada)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:42pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/27 "2011-09-01T16:42:05Z")
First of all, the first movie, _Star Wars_, will be watched by students of film and the history of film, along with \*Birth of a Nation \*and _Citizen Kane_. I would not be surprised if it already shows up in most film curricula–does anyone know? It was a landmark film. The sequels and prequels, not so much. Second of all, after George Lucas shuffles off this mortal coil, I imagine that Michael Bay Jr. will get the rights to remake the whole series. It might even happen before that–they are currently remaking _Spider-man_, for crying out loud. There must be Hollywood producers who cry themselves to sleep at night at the thought of the sweet, sweet money that would be generated by a \*Star Wars \*reboot. I imagine that a relatively small percentage of the people on the street will have seen the original. Probably most will be vaguely aware of it–much like _Citizen Kane_. I imagine more people have heard of “Rosebud” than have actually seen the film. All of this for 2077, and probably still for 2111. 500 years after? No telling. I doubt if much 20th century popular culture will survive. How many works from the 15th century are still relevant? ---
**Author:** ![The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/the_other_waldo_pepper/32/12370_2.png) [@The\_Other\_Waldo\_Pepper](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Other_Waldo_Pepper)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/28 "2011-09-01T16:45:36Z")
> [@Reno\_Nevada](#): > > I imagine that a relatively small percentage of the people on the street will have seen the original. Probably most will be vaguely aware of it–much like _Citizen Kane_. I imagine more people have heard of “Rosebud” than have actually seen the film. Why compare to _Citizen Kane_ when you could compare to _Wizard of Oz_ instead? It’s a watchable fairy tale for little kids the way _Kane_ ain’t. ---
**Author:** ![The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/t/bcef8e/32.png) [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/The_Man_In_Black)\ **Post date:** [September 1, 2011, 4:49pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/29 "2011-09-01T16:49:03Z")
> [@Little\_Nemo](#): > > No, I think it’s another part of the baby boomer phenomena. _Star Wars_ will seem important only to the people who lived through the nineteen-seventies. Once they pass into history, _Star Wars_ will become just another historical fad. I was born in 1982, and I consider Star Wars important. I know many people my age who feel the same way. ---
**Author:** ![Kent\_Clark](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/kent_clark/32/105_2.png) [@Kent\_Clark](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Kent_Clark)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 12:56am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/30 "2011-09-02T00:56:36Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why pick those two films, and not _Metropolis_ or _Nosferatu_ - massively important genre films that are still watched, loved, and discussed today? Strictly an issue of being literal to the OP’s question. If _Metropolis_ and _Nosferatu_ had been made 10 or 15 years earlier, I would have had no problem using them as examples. And I stand by my answer either way. ---
**Author:** ![dangermom](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/d/e274bd/32.png) [@dangermom](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/dangermom)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 1:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/31 "2011-09-02T01:17:11Z")
College students in the liberal arts will have to see it and write papers analyzing the structure, and will complain about how difficult it is to understand. ---
**Author:** ![C.Montgomery\_Burns](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/c/ecd19e/32.png) [@C.Montgomery\_Burns](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/C.Montgomery_Burns)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 1:39am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/32 "2011-09-02T01:39:51Z")
In 100 years, it may still be known by name and people will vaguely recognize the characters. Think about it- people still remember Sherlock Holmes and Tom Sawyer, but would the average person be able to tell you all the stories? And Star Wars isn’t really that noteworthy, other than the movies are pretty good and have a legion of geeks whose lives revolve around it. The average person is rather so-so about them. In 500 years, nobody will care about a blip on pop culture’s radar, nor most other 20th century pop culture phenomenons like The Beatles. They’ll have their own pop culture. Which will be just as irrelevant in 1000 years. ---
**Author:** ![Zagalejo](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/z/c5a1d2/32.png) [@Zagalejo](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Zagalejo)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 1:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/33 "2011-09-02T01:43:35Z")
> [@The\_Man\_In\_Black](#): > > I was born in 1982, and I consider Star Wars important. I know many people my age who feel the same way. There are plenty of kids born in _2002_ who love Star Wars. ---
**Author:** ![heathen\_earthling](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/h/13edae/32.png) [@heathen\_earthling](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/heathen_earthling)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 3:17am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/34 "2011-09-02T03:17:34Z")
> [@AClockworkMelon](#): > > The Family Guy specials were your examples, not ours. You asked how they were different and we told you: Because they’re parodies. That they were given Lucas’ stamp of approval is just another item on the list of reasons why they’re different. One of Blake’s examples was a Looney Tunes adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde. Surely that was played for laughs? So for at least one category (cartoons), Star Wars seems to be following in the tradition of those other stories, _despite_ having copyright issues to deal with. ---
**Author:** ![Lantern](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/l/d26b3c/32.png) [@Lantern](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Lantern)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 6:12am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/35 "2011-09-02T06:12:54Z")
I tend to agree that the series is not strong enough to stand on its own for 100 years. It’s uneven in quality and only ESB among the six is a really good film IMO. So its longevity depends on the quality of re-makes and spinoffs. Ideally the copyright extension madness passes and it falls into the public domain sometime. Even if it remains under copyright I think there will be a strong commercial incentive to do a remake sometime. Lucas will never allow it but his heirs might. And actually I think a remake could potentially be a big improvement over the originals. Certainly the special effects will be a lot better. In general the OT has great characters and a simple story which just works but scene by scene it has a lot of mediocre acting and writing. I would bet someone like Joss Whedon or Peter Jackson could do a lot better job with the material than Lucas and I have no doubt there will be similar directors in the future. ---
**Author:** ![Jragon](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/j/e19b73/32.png) [@Jragon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Jragon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 6:34am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/36 "2011-09-02T06:34:26Z")
I think as long as we keep re-releasing it it’ll be remembered. Snow White is still remembered, certainly not because of the original fairy tale\*, or even abundant parodies (other than the rare oblique reference to dwarves with stupid or character representative names), but it’s released like clockwork every 10-15 years and is a best seller almost every damn time. Likewise, the fanbase of Star Wars is so huge that no matter how much it’s mangled, every updated re-release will be bought, no matter how many previous copies they have. Like Disney movies, it just will never reach critical mass. Oh sure, it may not have quite the fan following it has today, but I think it will be in the lineup the way Disney films are, how we still know about Bambi and Fantasia even if we’ve never had the nerve to sit through them, because they’re simply ubiquitous. It’s not even a matter of whether or not it’s actually good, something doesn’t have to be good to survive, it just has to be overwhelmingly popular. Franchising also helps, the Expanded Universe has taken on a life of its own, and if we keep releasing things, maybe not books, but ESPECIALLY well-produced cartoon series (Tartakovsky’s Clone Wars, I hear the current Clone Wars also grew the beard and is doing well), and well produced big budget games, people will still at least understand the basics of the original out of necessity to grasp the franchise. It’ll probably dwindle in to less of a power house, but I think it’s simply done too well for itself. It also has a perk other “iconic” films like Citizen Kane, The Usual Suspects, Triumph of the Will, or Birth of a Nation have, it’s (relatively) kid friendly. Maybe not 4-year-old Disney appropriate, but I wouldn’t bat an eye showing Star Wars to kids in their older single digits, which really helps the ability for it to be propagated and carried forward through the generations. - I actually consider this true for pretty much every Fairy Tale inspired Disney movie except Alice, simply because Alice in Wonderland is such a popular fairy tale “Alice in Wonderland” is practically a genre in itself, and this isn’t limited to the Disney interpretation like others (Beauty and the Beast, Cinderella, etc) are. Oh yeah, those fairy tales have had the odd TV series or movie on them that were mediocre to good, but I don’t think any can claim to really be “independent” from their Disney property the way Alice can. You can argue that perhaps the current “Alice” stand-alones are more inspired by Disney than the books, and I’d probably agree, but saying “Alice in Wonderland” brings up a general archetype more than a specific animated film the way other properties do. ---
**Author:** ![AClockworkMelon](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/aclockworkmelon/32/10803_2.png) [@AClockworkMelon](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/AClockworkMelon)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 7:05am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/37 "2011-09-02T07:05:52Z")
> [@heathen\_earthling](#): > > One of Blake’s examples was a Looney Tunes adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde. Surely that was played for laughs? So for at least one category (cartoons), Star Wars seems to be following in the tradition of those other stories, _despite_ having copyright issues to deal with. If it’s “played for laughs” it’s likely a parody and so there won’t be any issues to deal with. A suit may be filed and feathers ruffled (see: I’m A Barbie Girl by Aqua) but that’s it. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 7:58am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/38 "2011-09-02T07:58:40Z")
> [@Steophan](#): > > Why pick those two films, and not _Metropolis_ or _Nosferatu_ - massively important genre films that are still watched, loved, and discussed today? Metropolis is probably a good example of what will happen. It’s really only ever watched by media students. The vast majority of people have at best a passing acquaintance with eh name. I doubt if one person in 1 000 could tell you the basic storyline or name any of the characters. Less than one in 10, 000 could tell you the plot in any sort of detail. For everyday purposes, the movie has been forgotten. Nosferatou was, of course, a remake itself, a blatant ripoff of Dracula. It is remembered because it set the groundwork for countless other Dracula ripoffs. Which was precisely my point. Works get remembered because they they get adapted and re-imagined, something that can not happen with Star Wars. > [@heathen earthling\[/quote](#): > > One of Blake’s examples was a Looney Tunes adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde. Surely that was played for laughs? So for at least one category (cartoons), Star Wars seems to be following in the tradition of those other stories, despite having copyright issues to deal with. No, it isn’t. To use a trivial example, the Looney Tunes episode actually had a bottle labelled “Hyde Potion”. You couldn’t similarly use a “Han Solo” potion because all the important names form Star Wars are copyrighted in their own right. You simply can’t use them, even in parodies. And unless someone is already familiar with Star Wars, a “Dark Helmet” potion is going to make no sense at all. And this is the issue. Parodies and adaptation keep works popular and fresh, but parodies can only work if the the audience knows what you are parodying, and that only either when the work is still fresh or if you can actually adapt characters wholesale. The point at which parody infringes copyright is when the work is deemed to be re-telling the original story. IOW a parody is only legal if it _doesn’t_ recognisably follow the original storyline. As such, parodies working against copyright have a shorter lifespan than the work they are parodying, They can’t extend that lifespan. Go back and look at the Looney Tunes cartoons. See how many parodies you simply don’t get. Who is that crooning guys in that scene? What exactly is funny about a “Doctor Chilled Air”? While these parodies were doubtless uproariously funny in 1949, by 1979 we were all utterly mystified by them. Nobody in the late 70s would have parodied those subjects. This is the sort of thing that happens when parody runs into copyright. Once the material being parodied is no longer current, the parody loses its humour, and so it stops being used. And once the parody stops being used, the work itself stops being refreshed. This goes doubly for adaptation and re-workings. Looney Tunes could do a Jekyll and Hyde parody because because everybody knew the Jekyll and Hyde story, and they knew the story because even in the 1940s there had been something like 20 adaptations, re-writes and sequels, excluding parodies. ---
**Author:** ![SciFiSam](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/s/47e85d/32.png) [@SciFiSam](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/SciFiSam)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 8:44am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/39 "2011-09-02T08:44:12Z")
> [@Blake](#): > > Metropolis is probably a good example of what will happen. It’s really only ever watched by media students. The vast majority of people have at best a passing acquaintance with eh name. I doubt if one person in 1 000 could tell you the basic storyline or name any of the characters. Less than one in 10, 000 could tell you the plot in any sort of detail. For everyday purposes, the movie has been forgotten. > > Nosferatou was, of course, a remake itself, a blatant ripoff of Dracula. It is remembered because it set the groundwork for countless other Dracula ripoffs. Which was precisely my point. Works get remembered because they they get adapted and re-imagined, something that can not happen with Star Wars. > > One of Blake’s examples was a Looney Tunes adaptation of Jekyll and Hyde. Surely that was played for laughs? So for at least one category (cartoons), Star Wars seems to be following in the tradition of those other stories, despite having copyright issues to deal with. > > No, it isn’t. To use a trivial example, the Looney Tunes episode actually had a bottle labelled “Hyde Potion”. You couldn’t similarly use a “Han Solo” potion because all the important names form Star Wars are copyrighted in their own right. You simply can’t use them, even in parodies. And unless someone is already familiar with Star Wars, a “Dark Helmet” potion is going to make no sense at all. > > And this is the issue. Parodies and adaptation keep works popular and fresh, but parodies can only work if the the audience knows what you are parodying, and that only either when the work is still fresh or if you can actually adapt characters wholesale. > > The point at which parody infringes copyright is when the work is deemed to be re-telling the original story. IOW a parody is only legal if it _doesn’t_ recognisably follow the original storyline. As such, parodies working against copyright have a shorter lifespan than the work they are parodying, They can’t extend that lifespan. > > Go back and look at the Looney Tunes cartoons. See how many parodies you simply don’t get. Who is that crooning guys in that scene? What exactly is funny about a “Doctor Chilled Air”? While these parodies were doubtless uproariously funny in 1949, by 1979 we were all utterly mystified by them. Nobody in the late 70s would have parodied those subjects. > > This is the sort of thing that happens when parody runs into copyright. Once the material being parodied is no longer current, the parody loses its humour, and so it stops being used. And once the parody stops being used, the work itself stops being refreshed. > > This goes doubly for adaptation and re-workings. Looney Tunes could do a Jekyll and Hyde parody because because everybody knew the Jekyll and Hyde story, and they knew the story because even in the 1940s there had been something like 20 adaptations, re-writes and sequels, excluding parodies. Dr Chilled-Air would still have been current in the 70s, when there was a sequel to the hugely popular 60s TV series Dr Killdare. Sherlock Holmes was copyrighted until quite recently, but was hugely popular worldwide. Peter Pan has perpetual copyright and a really small number of adaptations and it isn’t a common subject for parody, but pretty much everyone knows the story. I don’t think remakes are essential for the longevity of an original work. ---
**Author:** ![Blake](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/b/a9a28c/32.png) [@Blake](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/Blake)\ **Post date:** [September 2, 2011, 9:43am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751/40 "2011-09-02T09:43:07Z")
> [@SciFiSam](#): > > Dr Chilled-Air would still have been current in the 70s, when there was a sequel to the hugely popular 60s TV series Dr Killdare. Whether that is true or not, it totally misses the point. > [@](#): > > Sherlock Holmes was copyrighted until quite recently, but was hugely popular worldwide. Sherlock Holmes entered the public domain over 30 years ago. But right from the beginning the character spawned a multitude of spawned unauthorised stage plays and novels and that continued unabated right up to the 1980s with stories liek “The Seven Percent Solution”. Just as importantly, the rights to Holmes changed hands numerous times, with every purchaser eager to make as much as possible as fast as possible, so spawning numerous adaptations. AFAIK Holmes still holds the record for the most frequently portrayed character on film and TV. > [@](#): > > Peter Pan has perpetual copyright 😕 Peter Pan is public domain and has been for 25 years. There is a special law in England that means that people using the character have to pay a small royalty. Outside of England people can do whatever the hell they like with the character at no cost. In most countries all Peter Pan works are public domain and can be reprinted and bastardised as you see fit. > [@](#): > > … and a really small number of adaptations and it isn’t a common subject for parody [Are you joking?](http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_works_based_on_Peter_Pan) [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751.md?page=1) [Next page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/will-the-original-star-wars-trilogy-still-be-talked-about-in-100-or-500-years-time/594751.md?page=3)