Originally posted by Murfy I like both movies, but I do believe star wars was marketed to kids
Star Wars, if I recall one of the making-of documentaries that were almost as popular as the films, was a homage to all the Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers-type Saturday Afternoon matinees of the silver-screen era. So by no means was it ever supposed to be in the same league as 2001, which (as a film, not so much as a novel) was an exercise in minimalist storytelling and deep philosophy from start to finish.* Someone, I think it was Ray Bradbury, said that the first time he saw 2001, he thought Kubrick was mad; after the second viewing, he thought he was a genius, which is an interesting way to look at it. I had already read the novel by the time I saw the film, and I think the novel (which took them all the way out to Saturn) is better.
Also, I have seen the film several times in both North America and Australia, and at NO time, as far as I can hear, does Bowman ever utter the immortal line "My God, it's full of stars!"
Long and the short - you both can and can't write off Star Wars as shallow Saturday Afternoon fluff because THAT WAS ITS DESIGN PURPOSE. Anyone expecting any more from it is kidding themselves. That being said, Episodes IV, V and VI are clearly the three best of the original six; on the other hand, the world-building in I, II, III is delightful (Naboo is what I always imagined the Old Republic should look like), but the stories were full of more holes than the Second Death Star.
* Arthur C Clarke said what he wanted was "A smashing theme of mythic grandeur".