I was really into Star Wars in the '90s, as were my friends, so it's always a little weird to me when people talk about the '90s being less Star Wars saturated. I read most of the EU books from Zahn's trilogy to shortly before they killed Chewie, and played a hell of a lot of X-Wing, TIE Fighter, Dark Forces, Jedi…

That's fair. And I'll grant that the reason I'm not similarly upset by TFA is that my expectations for it were always very low.

I'm, uh, not disputing anyone's right to call it "Star Wars". I wasn't alive during that blissful four-year window before the subtitle was added. But I grew up in the '80s calling it "A New Hope", and I'm going to go on calling it that. There've been times when I've referred to it thus and been told, essentially,…

No, it was first given that subtitle for the 1981 theatrical re-release.

You weren't that wrong - Splinter would have been the low-budget sequel if Star Wars hadn't done well.

OK. I didn't mean to imply that you were necessarily a hipster poseur. Mostly just wanted to point out that the subtitle is older than some people assume.

I think there was also a Star Wars parody episode, right? With Kermit as Luke and Piggy as Leia. And Obi Rowlf Kenobi.

The thing is, though (and I say this as someone for whom the original trilogy is a cherished - nay, revered - part of childhood, but also as one of the few who actually liked the prequels) that however much one might hate the prequels, that needn't have any impact on one's relationship with the beloved original…

But if all those women are gathered, and there's no male gaze observing them - do they even exist!?

You know, the title "A New Hope" was added for the theatrical re-release in 1981. I have no problem with people calling it "Star Wars" (when it's not ambiguous), but it strikes me as hipster posturing to insist that "A New Hope" is wrong.

I can't remember a time before I'd seen Star Wars. Imagining life without Star Wars is a bit like imagining life without, say, the moon - it'd still kind of be the same in almost every way, but at the same time, somehow totally different.

You can't be a flat earther and solve math-related crimes, that's for sure!

That seems bizarrely convoluted. Couldn't the sun just circle the flat earth, and night be when it's underneath?

Well, Leif Erikson did.

Bah, math is a priori. Evidence don't enter into it.

The flat earth thing in this day and age is only marginally less crazy than Time Cube, if you ask me.

You are not crazy. I came to the comments to complain about this very error. Almost makes me start to think that there's some kind of massive conspiracy to wipe out the word "phenomenon"…

Shared reality is just the ultimate conspiracy!

As with everything, it seems that the only solution is going to be a ride in a zeppelin.

An alarming number of people couldn't even tell you what it means for a photon to be off mass shell!