Novelty? Are we talking YouTube videos and independent film makers or something, because almost every major media genre is stuck in a cycle of endless sequels and recycling ideas.

As long as Disney can keep it out of public domain like Mickey Mouse, meaning it's worth it to them to pump money into it and come up with a new generation of fans, I think Star Wars will be around in some form. It may not be quite as popular but it should endure. Even before the latest movies, kids who aren't even old enough to have seen the prequels in theaters have had Clone Wars, Rebels, Lego and such to keep them interested.

Star Wars was so because because it was a turning point in filmmaking innovation.

What will be the next leap? I don't think anyone has any idea. Avatar had the immersive 3D.

100 years from now the Star Wars movies (particularly the OT) will be viewed a little better than the 1933 King Kong is now. Kong was great in it's day, and it's still great on a lot of levels, but technically it is out of date (black & white, 1.37:1) so a lot of younger viewers won't even watch it.

Star Wars, on the other hand, will hold up better because it is in color, widescreen, and set in a different galaxy and won't be outdated like, say, BTTF2 is. (It's 2015 and I want my hover conversion for my car, dammit!) (Having said that the BTTF movies will still hold up because of the sheer greatness of the movies, and the novelty of the concept.)

I'd love to be around 100 years from now just to see what has sustained an audience and what hasn't.

The first movie will be watched forever. It's a film history fundamental like King Kong, Stagecoach, and Casablanca.

Long term I think the characters will live longer than the films. Like Mickey Mouse and Batman which someone already mentioned. Those characters have survived longer than the entertainment media that launched them. People occasionally watch Steamboat Willie, but for the most part Mickey is evergreen for whatever he's currently doing (staring in a kids show, appearing on a t-shirt, a costumed character at Disneyland).

The characters Luke Skywalker, Han Solo, R2-D2 and especially Darth Vader will live forever even if the children of 2115 don't actually watch the 1977 film. Just like my daughter born in 2011 loves watching Mickey Mouse.

6 votes already on Are You High? Tough crowd since I think this is one of the better polls from Oldboy.

and yes, I'd say the force will stay relevant 100 years from now. (I just don't see any generic crap coming out these days to make SW irrelevant).

Who knows if movies will be like they are now. Will people still go to a theater? Depends on lots of factors in the next 100 years.

But back to the real question, yes. Everyone has been chasing Star Wars since 1977, and they still are.

In 1915:
The most important and popular movie made in America was Birth of a Nation.
Charlie Chaplin made The Tramp.
Mary Pickford was a year away from becoming one of the richest, most famous, and most powerful actresses in Hollywood.

Will a 138 year old Star Wars be relevant in 2115?
Will any of the current crazes in popular culture be relevant 100 years from now?

Maybe humans in 2115 will identify with an entertainment in which the only natural environment depicted is a desert planet where people farm moisture.
Maybe the 2-D and FX will look so primitive that it is just a curiosity that audiences were ever impressed, and SW will just be an example of what unsophisticated morons people were 100 years ago.
Maybe the robot overlords will have banned SW because it depicts C3P0 and R2D2 in a comical manner.

Only time will tell, of course but yes, I think it will still be relevant.
Majority of the current popular crazes will no doubt die down with time but some will last with SW still leading the pack along with the likes of Bugs Bunny, Mickey Mouse and Superman.

A handful of characters will definitely remain popular. I imagine children in 2050 will still know who Darth Vader is but the original movies will have been largely forgotten. The closest comp is probably Superman, who was a popular character across different entertainment mediums in the 1940s. The Superman Radio show was immensely popular and responsible for many of the things associated with the character, but is largely unknown today to the general population. Everyone still immediately recognizes Superman but most of the original stuff that formed the character is gone from the public conscience.

I believe Disney will eventually wipe the prequels from existence and do them completely over. That is the next logical move once they run out of good sequel ideas. Many, many people would love to see Lucas' terrible prequels removed from Star Wars continuity.

I was at Target today and every section in the store had at least one item with the Star Wars license on it. It was ridiculous, but understandable from a marketing and business standpoint.

Right now, I'm staying away from anything Star Wars until the new movie comes out. I don't want to get sick of it.

I would question your claim that BB, MM and Supe are relevant.

A lot of the discussion here centers on the premise that because SW is now a Disney property, the House of Mouse will keep it relevant. When all of southern CA has been destroyed in the Great Quake of 2075, and all of Florida is under water, who is to say that Disney will still exist.

BB,MM and SM are instantly recognizable icons which easily makes them still relevant. You don't expect to see them in new movies or shows every 3-4 years, right? Does that make them obsolete or forgotten?, I'd say no.

There are no right or wrong answers in this thread (for sure) - which makes the are you high? votes a bit baffling to me. Though I know people like to rag on Oldboy for his inane polls more than anything.

You're being too narrow to make your point. A great quake can happen in CA but... those 3, specifically the Mouse, are international icons of entertainment. They're not just isolated to to here.

I have a second grader and I visit her campus every day. Mickey Mouse, Bugs Bunny, and Superman are on T-shirts, backpacks, lunchboxes, and everything else. As is Star Wars. These kids are 8. Those characters aren't going away any time soon.

What is your point here? It sounds like you are voting yes. Chaplin, Griffith, and Pickford are still well known and they are studied and viewed frequently today, 100 years later. There's a cable movie channel that routinely plays their films. Almost all of their films are available on DVD. If those cinematic artists can last a century then Star Wars certainly can.

What does being iconic have to do with being relevant?

Marilyn Monroe is an icon for sexiness, but is anything about her relevant?

Bob Dylan and John Lennon are icons of rock-n-roll and Sixties counter-culture, but are they relevant?

Superman is an icon, but they can't make a good movie about him, no matter how many times they try.

Mickey Mouse is maintained as the icon of Disney, but who is to say Disney will exist in 100 years.
Someone mentioned that the Disney Princesses keep movies made 50-70 years ago relevant, but 20 years ago that was not the case.

All these things that people identify as iconic and "relevant" in 2015 are just that way because entertainment conglomerates market them.

Who is to say that mass marketing will be the same in 2115 as it is in 2015? It certainly is different in 2015 from 1915.

We have seen a historical trend in the last century towards liberalism and secular culture. What if the next 100 years trends the other way? What if by 2115, the idea of people investing so much time, energy, and interest in popular media is an anathema?

Well, those 8 year olds are not buying their own clothes.

The characters aren't going away because corporations are shoving them down our throats.

1) Capitalism did not work that way 100 years ago. Who is to say it will work that way 100 years from now?

2) I would defy you to explain Bugs Bunny's relevance to a child in 2015.

If you think the three people you named are relevant to people in 2015, you are delusional.

Reruns of Full House from 20 years ago are more well-known and viewed than anything from 100 years ago, and Full House is not relevant in 2015.

Depends on what circles you're in I guess, What constitutes relevant? Everybody have general knowledge, everybody being a fan, or a large group being a fan?

100 years from now CGI will be so advanced they will be making live action Star Wars films with Harrison Ford, etc. Won't be able to tell it's not really them.

Unlike literary characters which have no defined face and voice(Tarzan, Sherlock Holmes, Superman, James Bond), the 20th century introduced characters originated on the screen with the features of the actor undivorcable from the character. Take the newer Star Trek films. The replacement actors resemble and imitate the original actors. Curious to see what the future holds for these characters.

7 billion people on Earth and The Force Awakens won't make $2 billion. It isn't relevant to most people now.

I hate the RELEVANT conversations about tv/movies/music.

Instead of asking will Star Wars be relevant (since nobody know what that means), we should just ask if Star Wars will still be ENTERTAINING.

Chaplin's Tramp character is literally the most iconic media live action character of all time, second to only Mickey Mouse. People in every corner of the globe, people who have never even seen the films, know that character. And the character is instantly recognizable all these years later. If it can endure than Darth Vader can endure.

And mostly that's the argument I've been making. The films may not endure but the characters certainly appear to have the strength to endure a hundred years.

They certainly have a say.

When we colonize and start to destroy other planets even those poor species will know the name "Elvis."