The people versus george lucas tackled the prequel trilogy and the speacial editions more than the original films themselves. Also, it was Jaws that started the summer blockbuster trend, two years before star wars. And although no study is taken, you can see that the hordes of fans, the articles and books praising the series, and the overall reception greatly outnumbers the haters of the first three films at least. If you dont belive me go on google and see how many articles you can find that trash the original trilogy, then see how many praise it. The proof is in the numbers! Also, Disney popularity is different than critical popularity, as disney popularity is commercial popularity. For instance, a lot of people saw the friday the 13th remake, making it lots of cash. But even though lots of people saw it, they ended up not liking what they saw, hence its low CRITCIAL RATING on rotten tomatoes. Popularity in films arent measured by cash, but by critical value. If love towards a film was measured in mollah, then people would be going around dressed as Jason Statham in Death Race (perish the thought).

Many seriously question if the influence made by "Star Wars" was a good or bad one. Many debate that it is the movie that helped ruin filmmaking, and started the Hollywood craze of making a blockbuster first and caring about the art of filmmaking second. Like saturnwatcher, I also question if the public would have been better off if the movie was never made. I'm sure the world of movie making would be very different if those movies didn't exist. And sorry, there is no proof that the movies are loved more than hated. A documentart entitled "The People Vs. Geoge Lucas" explores this by showing equal sides of the argument about if Lucas and his films had either negative or positive effect on people's childhoods and lives.

TJ hooker and Dukes of Hazzard are considered classic though. Not in the sense that they are perfect shows, but in the sense that they have had an impact on our popular culture significantly, and they certainly havent given us that impact by sucking. Im not calling them perfect, but they both deserve their place in the annals of tv history for being enjoyable. The word classic dosnt have to apply to art, it can also apply to just plain entertaiment. Lastly, you don't know how glad I am that pretty much the entire world disagrees with you on the star wars films (prequels somewhat included)! the world would have never been the same without them (at least the first three), and even if you didnt like them, i bet they somehow changed your life for the better, as those films made cinematic history....and not just for the special effects.

You do realize that "classic" is just another term for "TV series from 20 to 50 years ago", right? It means NOTHING to the actually quality of the TV series. Hell, EVERYTHING on the TV Land Channel is called "classic programming", but that doesn't mean all of the channel's programming is classy, untouchable masterpieces.

Dont call me uninformed. Im well aware of Fritz Lang's silent works and who can forget klateau or however u spell it. Good as these films were, they were largely ignored by all but cinematic scholars/critics and film buffs (and it took a while for the original Day the Earth Stood Still to get the reputation it has today). Star Trek opened up the artistic potential of science fiction to the world at large, for EVERYONE(!) giving the genre the critical and universal attention it truly deserved, but was granted by only a few. 

Secondly, the whole point of this post was to argue against what Razzie voters (who don't really represent most of the movie-going public) said... I'm well aware that they already made up their minds long ago and like the forum says, even they make mistakes on their decisions. You're missing the point of this post entirely! 

Lastly, Shatner will be remembered as an artist because the show he was in was artistic (and I'm sure way more people agree with me than would ever dare to disagree with me on this one), morality plays in a science fiction universe, and he certainly helped make the show artistic, hence his "artist" and not just "pop culture" status. 

Also, Stallone isn't just an entertainer. The first Rocky film itself is testament to that. 

You're also forgetting many of Newman's films were made as pure entertainment and not art (such as Cool Hand Luke).  

RESPONSE from Head RAZZberry: Actually, COOL HAND LUKE was both mass entertainment and a work of art -- Here's an IMDb LINK showing that LUKE was nominated for FOUR Academy Awards (including Best Screenplay) and actually won Best Supporting Actor for George Kennedy...  

Also, the idea that anyone would attempt to equate William Shatner (a mediocre TV star who happened to hit it big by appearing in one iconic series, and who has made as many horribly bad movies as anyone, including INCUBUS, WHITE COMANCHE, IMPULSE, THE DEVIL'S RAIN, etc) with legendary screen icon Paul Newman (IMDb LINK) is on the face of it ludicrous. Newman would deserve "legend" status for any ONE of the TEN films for which he was an Oscar nominee.  Shatner has basically built a career on ONE character, and self-aware parodies and variations of that character. 

Also, beyond the two men's "merits" as actors, Newman's much maligned line of food products have raised hundreds of millions of dollars for various humanitarian charities and causes -- What exactly has Shatner done to enrich anyone but himself??

In the real world, there is simply NO comparison between the two.

Oh, and STAR TREK V did suck badly enough to deserve the multiple RAZZIES it "won" -- Has anyone else out there even tried to sit through it lately?? It's a lumbering, overlong, pretentious mess, representing one more attempt to milk box office bucks from a concept that should've been abandoned after the far superior STAR TREK IV, which most movie-goers (LINK) and critics (LINK) agree set the bar for STAR TREK movies featuring the aging original TV series' cast...