Erm...can it be that you're too young to have played games from the eighties or nineties? It seems to me you have your opinion based on how horrible SOME movie tie-in games became, and try to mask your lack of knowledge with an unhinged response (don't get me wrong: I like the video game historian. But he can't really convince me that there were only bad games based on video games when I lived and played games in that time).
Look...there are certainly infamously bad games based on movie franchises (ET and superman 64 come to mind). And with the dawn of 3D games (which became increasingly complex, and as such costly) quite some video game companies attempted to cash in rather than make a good/great game. This came from both sides, btw: movie distributors also started asking more for the privilege of having a known face on a video game.
The thing is: games weren't as expensive to make in the eighties and early nineties, and from interviews I've read (IIRC from former Ocean developers), movie distributors often had no idea about the value of video games so they charged little or didn't had much requirements. As such, developers had far more freedom, which resulted in better quality games.
On top of that: your example of star wars as being bad is particularly badly chosen. Star wars games were made by the legendary Lucasarts studios, who practically set (if not raised) the bar of quality for video games in general. Heck...I've played star wars games DESPITE their franchise (I think they're "kind of okay" at best), simply because the quality was so good.
EDIT: heh...just noticed
@DANTENDO mentioned Ocean as well.