I think I'll vote "good for it" because it continues a debate on the worthiness of sci-fi and CGI, after-the-fact editing and additions, etc. While I decry Lucas' alterations, at least he's not whiting-out cigarettes and guns like certain big-time directors have done, and Lucas was able to guarantee a lot of programmers and chip-designers an income as they worked on advancements to cartoon animation in that computerized paint-by-number world.
No, I don't think those are such terrific advancements for humankind, but at least they're thinking about improvements.
In bookstores, I have been amazed to see shelves and shelves of Star Trek books. I'm not a fan, never read them and barely watched the various TV iterations - but I'm glad to see they've given a venue to those who want to pursue such a course.
The Success of Star Wars....Good or Bad for Sci-Fi?
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Ollie,
Good points. I find myself somewhere in the middle on this one. I can vividly remember the hoopla surrounding Star Wars’ initial release. I waited in a line around the block for hours for my opportunity to catch this box-office phenomenon. I loved it, the special effects were like nothing I'd ever seen or imagined in a film.
As the years have passed I find that either my preferences have changed or the movie just doesn't hold up as well as I thought it would. It is a time capsule of serial fun and from that standpoint it shouldn't age, but I find myself enjoying it on fewer and fewer levels every time I see it.
I would say that it damaged the potential for more cerebral science fiction films, except that those are always a tough sell for studios anyway, so I'm not sure how many more would have been made regardless of Star Wars’ success. I mean, would 1980's Battle Beyond the Stars (a good example of a knock-off jumping on the Star Wars coattails) been replaced by a thought provoking sci-fi drama. No way! It would have been replaced by a knock-off of whatever other genre were hot if it weren't Star Wars. So, in the big picture maybe it didn’t have much of an effect one way or the other.
Good points. I find myself somewhere in the middle on this one. I can vividly remember the hoopla surrounding Star Wars’ initial release. I waited in a line around the block for hours for my opportunity to catch this box-office phenomenon. I loved it, the special effects were like nothing I'd ever seen or imagined in a film.
As the years have passed I find that either my preferences have changed or the movie just doesn't hold up as well as I thought it would. It is a time capsule of serial fun and from that standpoint it shouldn't age, but I find myself enjoying it on fewer and fewer levels every time I see it.
I would say that it damaged the potential for more cerebral science fiction films, except that those are always a tough sell for studios anyway, so I'm not sure how many more would have been made regardless of Star Wars’ success. I mean, would 1980's Battle Beyond the Stars (a good example of a knock-off jumping on the Star Wars coattails) been replaced by a thought provoking sci-fi drama. No way! It would have been replaced by a knock-off of whatever other genre were hot if it weren't Star Wars. So, in the big picture maybe it didn’t have much of an effect one way or the other.
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
My first Star Wars film experience was identical, and it's opening shot on a huge screen - where we are first thrilled to see a rocket speeding away from us, and then discover this huge, vast ship trailing it, consuming the screen for, like, minutes and minutes.
That opening shot was staggering - even beyond James Bond-ian - "Make the opening moments SO exciting and then close with a bang, and everything in the middle can be fluff..."
But that scene does not translate into nearly as exciting on a TV screen. And all the slow and dull parts become more slow and dull with rewatchings. When films rely on effects for their grandeur, how long can they expect to live as hallmark films? I think Lucas agreed - "not very long" and that's why he spent - what? - $33 million? - on one film's effects updates.
Will those buy another 10-20 years of grace? He has to hope so, because the slow dull parts are still the same.
That opening shot was staggering - even beyond James Bond-ian - "Make the opening moments SO exciting and then close with a bang, and everything in the middle can be fluff..."
But that scene does not translate into nearly as exciting on a TV screen. And all the slow and dull parts become more slow and dull with rewatchings. When films rely on effects for their grandeur, how long can they expect to live as hallmark films? I think Lucas agreed - "not very long" and that's why he spent - what? - $33 million? - on one film's effects updates.
Will those buy another 10-20 years of grace? He has to hope so, because the slow dull parts are still the same.
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
Ollie,
You're right on about the "shelf life" of these films. Much of their appeal was the ground breaking effects that none of us had ever experienced. It seems now that the scale has tipped too far in the other direction, and we have too many films filled with CGI but have no heart or story whatsoever.
The other positive about Star Wars that I fondly remember when first viewing it in the theatre (before the days of intrusive call phones in every pocket) was how it was a community experience. Eveyone in the theatre was cheering and applauding in unison. I think this is one of the biggest losses to films these days is the lack of the feeling of a shared experience. We used to always discuss the movies we had just seen when walking out of theatres with complete strangers. And they were glad to talk about it. Now people barely make eye contact as they immediately get on their cell phones because they can't have a 2 minute gap of time without distraction. Ahhh, different times.
You're right on about the "shelf life" of these films. Much of their appeal was the ground breaking effects that none of us had ever experienced. It seems now that the scale has tipped too far in the other direction, and we have too many films filled with CGI but have no heart or story whatsoever.
The other positive about Star Wars that I fondly remember when first viewing it in the theatre (before the days of intrusive call phones in every pocket) was how it was a community experience. Eveyone in the theatre was cheering and applauding in unison. I think this is one of the biggest losses to films these days is the lack of the feeling of a shared experience. We used to always discuss the movies we had just seen when walking out of theatres with complete strangers. And they were glad to talk about it. Now people barely make eye contact as they immediately get on their cell phones because they can't have a 2 minute gap of time without distraction. Ahhh, different times.
Chris
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
The only bad movie is no movie at all.
Boy, is THIS a whole other topic, but one I totally agree with. Last year, our old downtown palaces had some 200-odd films showing, and we saw most of those, compared to only a handful of new films. Same with our friends, office mates and neighbors. And during the New Years' discussions, we all remarked how our 2007 Theater experience was "the best we can remember".
Why? Because we all saw about 95% old films. A good portion were films some of us had never seen before, or never seen on the Big Screen.
The fact that they were classics and were cherry-picked by various festival organizers meant these films had a leg up on probable quality - which isn't true for Modern Films. But the enthusiasm of an audience - knowing when they could laugh and cheer made us remark on the joys of being pawns to great filmmakers.
That first STAR WARS closes with audiences always cheering at the end - even now, in summer showings in outdoor city parks, it's amazing to hear the cheers and see the happy faces when Han Solo reappears to blast Darth & Co out of position, and then Luke blows the Death Star to bits.
That's one of those "Calvary Charge" moments.
I've often wondered if my lack of enthusiasm for all other Star Wars films isn't a reaction because none have matched those elements. Luke is dangling, one-handed in one film. A pathetic Darth is revealed in another. And none of those CAN have the same calvary-charge success. Not really. And I REALLY miss Peter Cushing... is there another Class Act after that first film? No more Cushing. No more Guinness except an occasional overlay?
Did Lucas paint himself into a corner with that first film? Were all others forced to become Effects Showpieces And Forget The Story?
Why? Because we all saw about 95% old films. A good portion were films some of us had never seen before, or never seen on the Big Screen.
The fact that they were classics and were cherry-picked by various festival organizers meant these films had a leg up on probable quality - which isn't true for Modern Films. But the enthusiasm of an audience - knowing when they could laugh and cheer made us remark on the joys of being pawns to great filmmakers.
That first STAR WARS closes with audiences always cheering at the end - even now, in summer showings in outdoor city parks, it's amazing to hear the cheers and see the happy faces when Han Solo reappears to blast Darth & Co out of position, and then Luke blows the Death Star to bits.
That's one of those "Calvary Charge" moments.
I've often wondered if my lack of enthusiasm for all other Star Wars films isn't a reaction because none have matched those elements. Luke is dangling, one-handed in one film. A pathetic Darth is revealed in another. And none of those CAN have the same calvary-charge success. Not really. And I REALLY miss Peter Cushing... is there another Class Act after that first film? No more Cushing. No more Guinness except an occasional overlay?
Did Lucas paint himself into a corner with that first film? Were all others forced to become Effects Showpieces And Forget The Story?
I'd apologize for my gutteral preference of Cushing over all those "great" Brit actors - Sir Alec, Sir Ralph, Sir Lawrence. I grew up on Cushing's films, hardly ever giving him much credit but later realized what a substantial figure he was in so many unsubstantial films. When I'd see Hammer/Amicus films later without him, I knew HE was the missing ingredient. And if I had my nights at a round table full of great Brit actors for chats, it'd be Cushing, Hawkins and Kenneth More as my top 3 choices, not their more heralded brethren. Throw in Jack Warner, too, eh?
I thought Cushing vs Carrie was a terrific scene. I wondered why Lucas didn't put Cushing in a larger role, one that would have continued with the series. I suspect Cushing's age, health or preference made that choice for Lucas, but I'd have loved to have seen the entire saga with Cushing strewn throughout.
I thought Cushing vs Carrie was a terrific scene. I wondered why Lucas didn't put Cushing in a larger role, one that would have continued with the series. I suspect Cushing's age, health or preference made that choice for Lucas, but I'd have loved to have seen the entire saga with Cushing strewn throughout.
Why no more Cushing? Well, I guess that gets us into the argument as to whether George Lucas actually intended to make any more "Star Wars" films after the first one, or did the huge success of "Star Wars" lead him to work up the others from his "world-building" notes for the first film.
Also, I read that Cushing hated the boots he had to wear as Moff Tarkin and told Lucas that he would wear them for one scene but no more. Cushing assured Lucas that he (Cushing) wasn't angling for more close-ups, but Lucas might have figured that Cushing was too bossy. (Certainly, Lucas seems to have had problems with Guiness as well.)
Also, I read that Cushing hated the boots he had to wear as Moff Tarkin and told Lucas that he would wear them for one scene but no more. Cushing assured Lucas that he (Cushing) wasn't angling for more close-ups, but Lucas might have figured that Cushing was too bossy. (Certainly, Lucas seems to have had problems with Guiness as well.)
-
cinemalover
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: April 17th, 2007, 10:57 am
- Location: Seattle, Washington
-
classicmonster
- Posts: 9
- Joined: March 13th, 2008, 7:25 pm
- Location: Morton, IL
Re: Star Wars
I think that Star Wars has been good for Science Fiction films.It brought Sci-Fi to the mainstream audience & proved to the studios that Sci-Fi if done well could sell tickets.Also if Star Wars bombed when first released, we maybe would not of had Indiana Jones,etc. in the 80's & beyond.Just a Thought.
As it so happened, I was re-reading a book about science fiction magazines of the 1970s, and they had a section devoted to the controversy over "Star Wars."
Basically, the split was the same then as now: some thought that Lucas was dragging the genre back to pulp fiction tropes that SF had only recently outgrown, while others were delighted to see things they had only imagined now made visible on the movie screen.
I was surprised at how nasty things got, however. Ben Bova, the Seventies editor of "Analog" science fiction magazine and soon to be the editor of "Omni" wrote that: "Star Wars has as much in common with science fiction as Hitler's invasion of Poland has with the Ten Commandments."
Nothing like keeping things in perspective, is there?
Basically, the split was the same then as now: some thought that Lucas was dragging the genre back to pulp fiction tropes that SF had only recently outgrown, while others were delighted to see things they had only imagined now made visible on the movie screen.
I was surprised at how nasty things got, however. Ben Bova, the Seventies editor of "Analog" science fiction magazine and soon to be the editor of "Omni" wrote that: "Star Wars has as much in common with science fiction as Hitler's invasion of Poland has with the Ten Commandments."
Nothing like keeping things in perspective, is there?
If I claimed any of my opinions could qualify as "universally good for everyone", then I'd dare to say that Lucas' DREAM of making a big, long, epic series that spanned decades is a worthy dream that everyone should applaud.
I certainly would pat him on the back for that goal. And perhaps no product could live up to that dream.
After seeing what Coppola's done to Gance's Napolean and steadfastly refused to allow Brownlow's good work to be delivered to the public, however, I wonder if FFC could get a hold of the STAR WARS property at some point and gut and castrate it, too?
We'd probably get all the good parts. Possibly. Maybe. Or at least we'd be told to shut up and not complain.
I certainly would pat him on the back for that goal. And perhaps no product could live up to that dream.
After seeing what Coppola's done to Gance's Napolean and steadfastly refused to allow Brownlow's good work to be delivered to the public, however, I wonder if FFC could get a hold of the STAR WARS property at some point and gut and castrate it, too?
We'd probably get all the good parts. Possibly. Maybe. Or at least we'd be told to shut up and not complain.
Intelligent science fiction films are out there. They just don't tend to get made in Hollywood.
One common misconception is that to be a science fiction film there has to be a bunch of spaceships loudly firing at each other in the silence of space. The Prestige is a science fiction movie from 2006 and it's a peach. I finally picked up The Fountain and am very much looking forward to it. Spirited Away could be seen as a science fiction film. While I'd love to see film versions of Ender's Game and The Stainless Steel Rat, I'd love even more to see a version of Bob Shaw's Other Days, Other Eyes. Slow glass appeals to me even more than big gleaming spaceships.
The one that's coming that I'm really waiting for though is Iron Sky (Iron Sky not Iron Man). The teaser trailer peaked my interest more than any other film I can remember. You can download it here: http://ironsky.net/.
One common misconception is that to be a science fiction film there has to be a bunch of spaceships loudly firing at each other in the silence of space. The Prestige is a science fiction movie from 2006 and it's a peach. I finally picked up The Fountain and am very much looking forward to it. Spirited Away could be seen as a science fiction film. While I'd love to see film versions of Ender's Game and The Stainless Steel Rat, I'd love even more to see a version of Bob Shaw's Other Days, Other Eyes. Slow glass appeals to me even more than big gleaming spaceships.
The one that's coming that I'm really waiting for though is Iron Sky (Iron Sky not Iron Man). The teaser trailer peaked my interest more than any other film I can remember. You can download it here: http://ironsky.net/.