Relay-Version: version B 2.10 5/3/83; site utzoo.UUCP Posting-Version: version B 2.10.3 alpha 4/3/85; site ukma.UUCP Path: utzoo!watmath!clyde!bonnie!akgua!whuxlm!whuxl!houxm!ihnp4!cbosgd!ukma!sean From: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) Newsgroups: net.movies,net.movies.sw Subject: Re: _Star_Wars_ (spoiler) Message-ID: <1935@ukma.UUCP> Date: Mon, 1-Jul-85 23:36:06 EDT Article-I.D.: ukma.1935 Posted: Mon Jul 1 23:36:06 1985 Date-Received: Fri, 5-Jul-85 06:43:33 EDT References: <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> <285@mit-vax.UUCP> Reply-To: sean@ukma.UUCP (Sean Casey) Distribution: net.movies Organization: The White Tower @ The Univ. of KY Lines: 22 Xref: watmath net.movies:6870 net.movies.sw:569 In article <285@mit-vax.UUCP> csdf@mit-vax.UUCP (Charles Forsythe) writes: >In article <2202@ut-sally.UUCP> kelvin@ut-sally.UUCP (Kelvin Thompson) writes: >> _Star_Wars_ >> >> by Kelvin Thompson > >No no no no no no no no no no no no nooooooooooo! >[more flames] Actually, whether it was intended to be funny or not, I thought the review was quite accurate. Star wars was quite a shallow movie. The reason it succeeded was because it's concept and execution was so new. The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi were MUCH better movies than Star Wars. I thought that the book "Star Wars" was quite good. -- - Sean Casey UUCP: sean@ukma or - Department of Mathematics {cbosgd,anlams,hasmed}!ukma!sean - University of Kentucky ARPA: ukma!sean@ANL-MCS.ARPA