Why was Star Wars so loved?

[daveblackeye15]

> . I feel sorry for young people now, because there doesn't
seem to be anything these days to inspire any awe in them.

Hey man, I'm sixteen and those movies "awed" me plenty and I still love them.

[AndyC]

A revolutionary movie for its time. Up to that point, not much had changed in the fundamental way sf movies were made - or viewed, for that matter. Whole new special effects techniques were developed for Star Wars. Things were done that had never been seen on screen before, and this was combined with an epic story, rooted in classic adventure movies of several genres, and in the sort of universal story elements that have been a part of drama and literature throughout history. All this was put into a universe more complex and better thought out than you'd be likely to find in a space movie prior to that.

A lot more effort went into Star Wars than would previously have been considered worthwhile for silly kids' stuff. To compare it to the success of The Lord of the Rings (books), try to imagine yourself in the 50s, having heard a few children's  fairy tales about elves, dwarves and the like, and then getting your hands on something like LOTR. It would blow your mind. Even for those of us who grew up with stuff like D&D, it's a damn good story, but back then, there was nothing like it.

Star Wars is the same in that respect. It defined what science fiction movies would look like for years, and its commercial success paved the way for everything that followed. Without it, we'd probably have no Star Trek movies, no Alien movies, none of their imitators, and a lot fewer sf TV shows. It is because of Star Wars that SF started to be taken more seriously. The money was there, and more movies were getting made. Not to mention that Lucas and his competitors continued to push the boundaries of special effects, giving us everything that we now take for granted.

Something that really impressed me about Star Wars was that when Canada got its first premium movie channel, First Choice, in 1982, it came on the air with Star Wars. Five years after I saw Star Wars at the drive-in, and it was still the only choice to make a grand entrance. I can't think of a movie made five years ago that would warrant the same treatment. Granted, without home video, most people hadn't seen Star Wars in years, but it's interesting that nothing came along between 77 and 82 that could overshadow it.

I guess Star Wars has to be approached like a war veteran. He might be getting old, he might not move around like he used to, and you might have heard his stories a dozen times. But he kicked ass once, and did some very important things that are worth remembering and passing on. He's an important part of history, and we owe him a lot.



Post Edited (04-17-04 08:56)

[dean]

>>>Back in the 70s - "Oh, man. That movie was incredible."

2004 - "Those storm trooper outfits look stupid . . . and the special effects look fake . . . and Mark Hamill is a terrible actor . . . "

I guess times change . . .<<<

Mark Hamil used to be a good actor?  Must've missed all his good stuff!

I'd definitley say that LOTR is probably the only possible comparison one can make with Star Wars in terms of impact.  When Star Wars came out:  wow that's cool.  When Lord of the Rings came out: wow that's cool.  Simple, I guess.

Also what have people got against the Ewoks?  I actually liked them.  Comparisons with Jar Jar are really unfair [Jar Jar was terrible, at least I was entertained by the Ewoks]

For some reason I also liked the Caravans movie they made with pretty much the Ewoks as main characters.  Anyone see that?  I never really hear much about it anywhere [although it was bad, this is the appropriate place to talk about it]

[ulthar]

AndyC wrote:

>
> I guess Star Wars has to be approached like a war veteran. He
> might be getting old, he might not move around like he used to,
> and you might have heard his stories a dozen times. But he
> kicked ass once, and did some very important things that are
> worth remembering and passing on. He's an important part of
> history, and we owe him a lot.
>

What a cool analogy!  Thanks.

[Gecko Brothers]

Yeah, what about these cartoons most of them where supposed to suck (killing people is not nice, a.k.a. GI Joe!) I saw those clone wars cartoons they were given high praises but I watched them. It had the brains and action of VanDam (that is very, very bad). The art and characted design was, ohh..how do I put this are pieces of smelly crap coming from a guy who ate guacamole, corn, and well beef. They are not great and do worst to advertise the movies. Therefore I will stick with Star Wars comics and will probably watch only the Empire Strike Back from thence on. Good-bye Lucas thanks for making craptacular creatures for us to watch in what would have been great movies. Wait I've got it now. The origional two were pretty good, especially the second. The third one and hence sucked becauses they where more aimed for kids. This is why Star Wars is failing now. It is because of those stupid creatures (except JAWAS and Tunsken Raiders you have to admit they are pretty cool they have guns.)

[JohnL]

The first Star Wars movie I saw was actually The Empire Strikes Back. I knew the story of the first film from books, magazines etc, but had never seen it. My parents took me to see TESB, then I saw Star Wars on TV, then eventually in the theater. I think I saw Return of the Jedi in the theater, but I honestly don't recall. I didn't see either of the new films in the theater.

[peter johnson]

A lot of good points raised here.  My 2 cents:
I saw Star Wars in Cinemascope when it first came out in D.C., before I left for a 2 year trip to India.  At the time I hated the wooden acting of the entire cast, with the 2 notable exceptions of Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing, who, at least in England where it was filmed, were indeed "big-name stars", so I've never really gotten the oft-repeated bit about there being no "Stars" involved.  Also, what's James Earl Jones:  Chopped liver?
A scant 11 years earlier we had all seen what is still an unequaled Space Movie:  Stanley Kubrick's 2001.  As a film it was superior to Star Wars in every way, but I suppose the "moralizing" criticism holds weight here, and maybe people responded to the escapism.
I really really really hated the "noise in Space" that Star Wars ushered in in a big way, and blame its popularity to this day on the fact that you can't watch ANY movie these days about space without hearing rocket noises, meteors whooshing past, etc. etc.   There is no noise in space, and there shouldn't be any in make-believe movie outer-space either.  Kubrick understood this, and Lucas didn't.
I agree that the second one, Empire Strikes Back, is the superior film over the new ones and the first 3 old ones.  This is still the only one I can watch and enjoy, even without Christopher Lee.
Star Wars owes its popularity to its retelling of The Hero's Journey, as defined in the writing of Joseph Campbell.  According to Campbell, there are only 4 stories to tell, and they are only retold in different versions throughout history.  Lucas got this right in a big way, knowing that he was consciously retelling a classic mythic formula.  Audiences respond to this mythic resonance and ignore things like how very bad Harrison Ford's line-readings are.
As for mere oldness being the reason to blame for the decline in Star Wars' stature among (some) audience members, I couldn't disagree more.  If you really bother to watch old silent films, for example, the best ones still possess the power to mesmerise, and the bad ones don't.  Just like modern film.  Newer ain't necessarily better.
peter johnson

[ulthar]

peter johnson wrote:

>  At the time I hated
> the wooden acting of the entire cast, with the 2 notable
> exceptions of Alec Guiness and Peter Cushing, who, at least in
> England where it was filmed, were indeed "big-name stars", so
> I've never really gotten the oft-repeated bit about there being
> no "Stars" involved.  Also, what's James Earl Jones:  Chopped
> liver?

As one who made the 'no stars in Star Wars' comment, I'll respond here.  First, I was over generalizing and speaking in terms of the three MAIN characters, Luke,Han and Leia.  Obi Wan is one of those characters I view as somewhere between main and supporting (but that's just my opinion).  His character is central to the story, but mostly for exposition (in Episode IV, anyway).

Peter Cushing as Grand Moff Tarkin was good, but again, imo, supportive to the Vader Character as the 'main villian.'

James Earl Jones was not actually shown *IN* the movie..he supplied voice talent.  IIRC, I once heard or read the Jones did not want to be credited for this voice work, sinc e he thought it was going to be a dud film.  At the time, I doubt many people went to see SW because it starred JEJ's voice as Darth Vader.  I could be wrong.

So, my apologies to Alec, Peter and James.  I did leave them out in a sweeping generalization meant only to convey that Star Appeal is *NOT* what got butts in the seats in 1977, nor for many years after, it was good story told well enough.  Just my opinion, tho. You contrast that with how movies are marketed lately, the Star's Name is almost (or more) important than the title of the film in the marketing.

[Eirik]

Because it struck chords on so many levels.  Some of those levels are now irrelevant...

1970s:  Blonde haired surfer dude heart throb with a way-cool car masters a new-age sounding system of mind over matter.

Cold War:  Unstoppable monolithic soulless evil empire trying to drop the iron curtain over everyone.

Technology:  Look at all the neat gadgets - like a video message stuck inside a robot!  Or a computerized form of chess!  Or chck out the teriffic graphics on the targeting computer!

And some are timeless...

A space pirate with his own laser gun and a spaceship that has secret compartments?  Han was the prototypical rough-edged hero and I bet his character still strikes a chord with kids today.  Having Greedo shoot first was freaking fatal.  I refuse to watch Lucas's rerelease for that reason alone.

Mysterious places and people.  Just like Lord of the Rings, the planets and people who inhabit them are generally very original, interesting, and rooted enough in real life examples as to be believable.  (Glaring exception: Ewoks)...  Lucas failed in this point in the second set of movies, especially with the (ugh) Sportscenter-Cheeseball race announcers in Phantom Menace, and the overly familiar diner waitress and short order chef.

The Arthurian plot line (old wizard takes young nobody and shows him his destiny as a great warrior) is timeless and has tremendous appeal, especially to kids.

Luke's last minute run at the death star with the last two torpedoes and enemies swarming after him and the survival of millions of people on the line gives me goosebumps everytime I see it.  I respectfully submit that anyone who doesn't find that scene thrilling is made of stone.

The effects were - and still are - very good.  They do lose something on the small screen however - no doubt of that.

[Desslar]

"The effects are cheesy by TODAY'S standards, but not by those of 1977. "

I must disagree.  Sure the effects of Star Wars are not cutting edge by 2004 standards.  The best of today's scifi/fantasy films, such as the Matrix and LOTR series, boast far superior effects.  However, that doesn't mean Star Wars' effects look bad by today's standards.  They are still better than anything on TV or DTV, and continue to hold their own with major theatrical releases like Star Trek Nemesis.  That's pretty damn impressive for a 27 year old film.

If you wnat to see some dated special effects, check out Logan's Run, perhaps the last major scifi film before the Star Wars revolution.

[FearlessFreep]

There is no noise in space, and there shouldn't be any in make-believe movie outer-space either. Kubrick understood this, and Lucas didn't.

Arguably, Lucas thought there shuold be, and arguably, he was right.  Not that there should be noise in space but simply that for the story telling it worked better to have it in.  For better or worse, Lucas has never let logic get in the way of the story.  Star Wars wasn't the first btw, to do this. Star Trek has years before, for example.


One thing that I think *really* made Star Wars work was John William's score.  It worked so well  with each scene.  That's something that hasn't faded with time.

[ulthar]

Given the mindset of today's Hollywood producers seems to be 'bigger, better more exciting than the last one,' and seems to believe that the youth of America must constantly be stimulated more than the last time, we are saying the same thing.

SW fx fit well with the story.  But, as an overall display of fx, it falls short.  When Aalderan explodes, for example, it looks pretty 'old fashioned.'  Ditto the explosion of the Death Star.  I think most people watching this movie for the first time having seen "The Matrix," "LoTR," and explosion laden movies like modern action films would find a lot of SW a bit lacking.  

Also, there were a lot of standards set with Star Wars.  A lot of movies since have used ideas and underlying fx design from SW; to someone seeing such a modern film who had never seen SW, SW would seem like a cheap rip-off.  I've read stuff on the Internet to this effect, where younger viewers were complaining about SW in comparison to modern flicks.  Never mind the film they were complaining about was the one that set the standard for the modern ones to exist as they do.

[ulthar]

FearlessFreep wrote:

> There is no noise in space, and there shouldn't be any in
> make-believe movie outer-space either. Kubrick understood this,
> and Lucas didn't.
>
> Arguably, Lucas thought there shuold be, and arguably, he was
> right.  Not that there should be noise in space but simply that
> for the story telling it worked better to have it in.  For
> better or worse, Lucas has never let logic get in the way of
> the story.  Star Wars wasn't the first btw, to do this. Star
> Trek has years before, for example.
>

IIRC, this sort of thing was mentioned on the Commentary of the "Space Cowboys" dvd.  The issue of 'noise in space' is understood by modern directors/producers, but in the case of SC at least, they thought it made the space scenes a little too 'boring' for the average audience member.

Kubrick used the 'silence' to great effect in 2001.  But, then again, far fewer contemporary new viewers like 2001 than compared to SW.  2001 is considered by many as more artistic, SW is just plain entertaining.  To those not wanting to think deeply about the film they are watching, 2001 is not so great a choice.

Also, I would argue on a technical note that there is "no noise in space."  I agree that you would not hear things like ships flying past (wing turbulence, for example), but engine noise?  Screams?  Why not?

Sound is moving air.  In space, there is no air, so the arguement goes, no sound.  But, a rocket engine is releasing gas, which creates a local high pressure; same for a scream - you are releasing gas when you blow air across your vocal chords. To an 'ear' or microphone nearby, this localized high pressure would certainly be detectable as it moves past (and dissipates).  Would these 'sound' like they do here in the earth's atmosphere?  No, probably not.  But certainly detectable.

[Flangepart]

Intresting note : In one of the novelisations, they explain the noise as a part of the targeting system of a ship.
I gather that in the gun stations, Han and Luke were hearing sounds generated by the sensors, as a que to where the TIEs were, in relation to the Falcon.
Kinda like a "Non verbal/visual que" to help them keep track of where the TIEs moved, with a doppler shift for "Away" and "Towards."
If you hear the que, and it sounds like a howl comming "UP' and "Over" the Falcon, you can instinctivly know where to look, and lead the TIE as he comes into view.
I think its a way to make for a, well, more Instinctive , intuitive use of the senson imputs.
Thats my rationlisation, and i'm sticki' to it....