StarDestroyer.Net BBS

In light of the new Star Wars trilogy that is in production and the fans general disappointment with the Prequel trilogy, I thought we can have a discussion on why you think the original Star Wars trilogy is so widely appreciated.

Everyone of us would have a different reason why Star Wars might personally appeal to you alone, but what do you think makes Star Wars so well liked? Is it because the story appeal to the audience at a right moment in time? Is it because the special effects and editing makes the cinematic experience so thrilling and cause a adrenaline rush among the viewers?

Personally, I believe that the technical achievement of Star Wars was one of the core reason why the OT was so successful. While the story element played a strong part in making Star Wars appealing to the general public, without the revolutionary technical approach in making Star Wars, it might not be as popular as it is today.

The vast majority of the films before Star Wars, especially science fiction films were generally quite slow in regards to pacing. Take away the dynamicity of the shots and the much quicker cuts, Stars Wars might simply end up as just another good science fiction film rather than a ground breaking movie. After all, like what people have said before, it is not as if stories similar to Star Wars didn't exist before the year 1977.

What do you think?

It is fun. It has good effects and great models which make the OT age slower. More importantly, the basic story and the characters are very well done.

Thanas wrote:It is fun. It has good effects and great models which make the OT age slower. More importantly, the basic story and the characters are very well done.

I am quite positive that if you were to watch an untouched BD of the OT, you'd be appalled at how fake everything looks now. I seriously doubt it has aged slower.

JLTucker wrote:

Thanas wrote:It is fun. It has good effects and great models which make the OT age slower. More importantly, the basic story and the characters are very well done.

I am quite positive that if you were to watch an untouched BD of the OT, you'd be appalled at how fake everything looks now. I seriously doubt it has aged slower.

Well I think was more that the OT effects were both good for their time and really ground breaking, where as PT effects while still pretty good weren't as clearly ground breaking.

It also helps that OT had fairly simple basic story and held it's story focus much better.

It has a really great texture. Especially when compared to the sterile PT, it was a low production, high detail movie that really had character.

It had an excellent environment and cinematography. Every set was carefully detailed, and the lighting (especially in ESB) was well done. It was a heroic fantasy story without pandering to children or being without serious elements. Ewoks aside.

The fantastic backgrounds supplemented characters and situations. Instead of BEING the characters and situations.

It's a fun way to spend time with some likeable and fun characters, and their friend Han Solo.

That's what it is at its simplest. If you're young, it's fun. If you're a bit older, you can appreciate it on a more thematic and technical level. People can and have grown up on it, and as such it has become woven into our pop cultural language.

Its a bit sad when people can't even talk about why people like Star Wars without saying 'people like Star Wars'.

I think I was inadvertently arguing why Star Wars the idea is widely appreciated as opposed to the actual films.

Oops.

Its valid to talk about how it has reached the critical mass to be popular and present in the consciousness almost independent of the actual movies. I mean when nobody watches the old movies anymore everyone will still know what a jedi is and what a beam sabre is etc.

There were other issues to consider as well. Fantasy/Sci-fi was boring and stagnant in the movies at the time. In the US people were pretty down from the last decade + or so, no one had seen the type of merchandising that came along with Star Wars so kids went absolutely ballistic.

I think it was successful because, while it was a simple story, it had powerful themes in it that were easy to pick up and sympathize with. Be more than a farmer, be a hero. Your dad was a hero, be a bigger one. Evil takes over the universe, rage against it. You don't fight evil with evil you fight it with love, friends, trust, loyalty. If you do it right, there is redemption. Oh, and even a farm boy can get the princess.

Simple but powerful themes with a simple story. Add a good cast who had chemistry with each other, some amazing special effects for that time, and some time to come really, and presto.

Knife wrote:I think it was successful because, while it was a simple story, it had powerful themes in it that were easy to pick up and sympathize with.

I thought the 70s were full of movies like this?

My opinion, disagree if you wish and educate me if you think I'm wrong:

Star Wars was not about scientific progress and it was not about humanity's advancement and philosophy of it: in Star Wars, science is clearly advanced, but it is in the background, used as part of the story and not being the story. Instead Star Wars is a clash of good and evil and as such it has a very "simple" core. But it gives everyone something: to younger audience it gives nice fights, strange aliens, spooky scenes and likeable heroes; to young adults seeking their own place it gives a sense of conflict between parent and child and the pain of growth to full adulthood; and to older audiences it is nostalgia, great themes and a very resonant hero's journey with some nice twists along the way. And it is not that black-and-white, although clearly there are elements of it: Vader's character becomes immensely nuanced in RotJ, at least, when a monster reveals that there is good inside of him, that not all has rotten away. It is a very much timeless tale of growing into adulthood, of confronting the outside world and your own personal demons, of fighting for what you think is right.

ray245 wrote:

Knife wrote:I think it was successful because, while it was a simple story, it had powerful themes in it that were easy to pick up and sympathize with.

I thought the 70s were full of movies like this?

Not quite. The 70s as a decade in film was defined by being fairly dark and introspective, attributed to the US' massive loss in confidence after losing in Vietnam.

Think of Taxi Driver, Deer Hunter, Dirty Harry, etcetera. Contrasted to that, Star Wars really hit people because of its upbeat and hopeful nature. The documentary Empire of Dreams goes into this a little more.

ray245 wrote:

Knife wrote:I think it was successful because, while it was a simple story, it had powerful themes in it that were easy to pick up and sympathize with.

I thought the 70s were full of movies like this?

Yes, and?

The thread is why it is so appreciated. It's appreciated because lots of people liked it. Lets see what else came out that year;

Close Encounters of the Third Kind came out in 1977. Good film, sci-fi. I would argue more complex and serious than the adventurism of Star Wars though.

Saturday Night Fever. Similarly simple plot, someone becoming more than he thought or people around him thought he could be, even if it's just love and dancing.

Smokey and Bandit. Another fun film with a simple plot and engaging characters.

Those three, plus Star Wars, were the top grossing films of that year, if my google fu is right. Other movies that year were Disney's Rescuers, another fun adventure film with a basic plot and powerful themes, Oh, God! simple plot with powerful themes wrapped in humor, yay George Burns, a 007 film, and a Herbie goes to... film. That's 8 out of the top 20 movies that year that were arguable light, fun, simple, and engaging. Even today, people want to go back and watch those films, hell I keep checking Netflix to see if Smokey and the Bandit is on there on occasion, as well as Cannon Ball Run.

Knife wrote:
Yes, and?

The thread is why it is so appreciated. It's appreciated because lots of people liked it. Lets see what else came out that year;

Does that explain why Star Wars was more appreciated than any of those films? Star Wars earned nearly four times of what every other movies during that year.

Even if we compare Star Wars movies' box office performance to other movies during the 70s and early 80s, Star Wars easily dominated other movies bar E.T.

Those three, plus Star Wars, were the top grossing films of that year, if my google fu is right. Other movies that year were Disney's Rescuers, another fun adventure film with a basic plot and powerful themes, Oh, God! simple plot with powerful themes wrapped in humor, yay George Burns, a 007 film, and a Herbie goes to... film. That's 8 out of the top 20 movies that year that were arguable light, fun, simple, and engaging. Even today, people want to go back and watch those films, hell I keep checking Netflix to see if Smokey and the Bandit is on there on occasion, as well as Cannon Ball Run

Well, then the question is why Star Wars was the movie that shaped pop culure history and not anyone of those movies? After all, if the stories and tone of those films were similar to Star Wars, then there has to be another reason why more people want to watch Star Wars.

It shaped pop culture in part because it was leveraged so effectively beyond the films themselves. Lucas used merchandising and promotion to turn it into an empire, and pioneer the way big blockbuster movies are sold today.

ray245 wrote:
Well, then the question is why Star Wars was the movie that shaped pop culure history and not anyone of those movies? After all, if the stories and tone of those films were similar to Star Wars, then there has to be another reason why more people want to watch Star Wars.

Are you sure they didn't? Plenty of people still want a black T top trans am.

Plenty of people still know the Close encounters little piano bit.

Plenty of people would love a laser in their watch or rockets in their car.

Plenty of people still think they dance like John Travolta.

Not sure why you think these movies didn't influence pop culture in the US.

Knife wrote:
Not sure why you think these movies didn't influence pop culture in the US.

I am not sure about how much those other movies have influence pop culture in those countries, but in some of the countries I lived in, those movies did not influence pop culture as much as Star Wars.

One big thing that stuck with me visually was how things looked real. Compare it to, say, Star Trek and look at how things look dirty and lived-in instead of artificially clean and bland. Yes, it still has spaceships and magic swords and all that, but there's still that recognizable element of "this could be my home" to it. Even though I didn't see the movies until special effects technology had moved well past that point there's still something to it that just isn't present in a lot of more advanced CG.

The other part of that is at the same time that Star Wars was revolutionizing the special effects industry there's still some level of restraint in it. Yes, the Star Destroyer is an impressive ship (and an impressive model in person). But when you first see it there's just the slow pass over the camera, not a hundred more of them in the background, explosions everywhere, etc. They had a vision for the scene and executed it without turning the whole thing into just a demo reel for the CG artists, and the result leaves a much stronger impression. The same is true of even things like colors, the OT is restrained and realistic, while the PT exaggerates everything just because they can. Technologically it's a lot more advanced, but artistically it's just a mess.

ray245 wrote:

Knife wrote:
Not sure why you think these movies didn't influence pop culture in the US.

I am not sure about how much those other movies have influence pop culture in those countries, but in some of the countries I lived in, those movies did not influence pop culture as much as Star Wars.

I would ask if that is just your impression, based on your preferences, or the actual case. I'm also trying to remember exactly where you live. Obviously, if you lived somewhere where Star Wars made it to and not any other major movie of that time, it would skew the perceptions of the effects of movies on culture.

Knife wrote: I would ask if that is just your impression, based on your preferences, or the actual case. I'm also trying to remember exactly where you live. Obviously, if you lived somewhere where Star Wars made it to and not any other major movie of that time, it would skew the perceptions of the effects of movies on culture.

I lived in Singapore. While movies like back to the future isn't unheard of, I'm not sure if I can really say any aspect of those movies have penetrated the local pop culture.

Nostalgia is a big part of it, I suspect, as well as the enviroment at the time in which it showed up. Its not as if sci fi was anywhere close to rare at that time, I think it was just present in certain formats that made it less.. accessible to a wider audience. Not everyone wants to read a book or watch old TV series about these things. Having it all on the Big Screen made a big impact on people and contributed to the 'cultural' element, I suspect. And when its people who were young when they saw it (and might have seen it many many times. Alot of people who talk about seeing Star Wars in the big screen I've noticed often comment on having seen it over and over again and being captivated) the nostalgia factor would be greatly amplified.
I think Tolkien kind of gets the same sort of treatment, really.

Part of it is how the movie defined a genre.

Is there a movie coming out that's a Space Adventure Film? You're going to pretty much draw a lot of star wars ties to it, pretty much no matter what, unless it's really bizzare. The visuals of 'hey, people in spaceships that can be dirty, utterly unaerodynamic, and not be either cheesy or magic or speculative' are pretty genetic, but doing it first and pulling it off well makes something take on more value than something done after the genre's established.