Is Star Wars Objectively Good?

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was revolutionary. The public had never seen anything like it. It had mind-blowing special effects, a creative aesthetic, and all kinds of new ideas. Because of this, it became deeply embedded in the popular consciousness, and took its place as a cultural icon.

Does it hold up today? I'm really not convinced. The original trilogy isn't bad or anything, but the script isn't anything really special, and there are so pretty bad ideas involved (like ewoks). Do you think the original Star Wars trilogy was objectively good, or did it just end up in the right place at the right time?

[Tiki Snakes]

The original, unaltered trilogy? Yeah, it's still a fantastic piece of cinema.

[Worira]

Yes. The Ewoks are the worst point of the weakest film in the trilogy.

[Axolotl]

If you assume that something can be objectively good (which you should since there's no discussion value in denying it) then I'd say yes. In fact I once wrote an essay saying it was the best film ever made.

It's pretty much pure cinema, drawing upon dozens of disparate sources and combining them near seamlessly. There are very few films that are as iconic as Star Wars and there's good reasons for that.

[DaedalusMkV]

I'm not sure that anything can actually be objectively good, since it's impossible to be truly objective about entertainment materials...


That said, the answer to your question is yes, the Star Wars movies are still excellent filmmaking. Sure, the special effects aren't as mindblowing as they used to be compared to stuff like Avatar and Prometheus. Yeah, there are some little niggling problems with the plot here and there. But, all told? It's still a defining moment for the science fiction genre, and time won't change that. The original trilogy is an excellent bunch of movies.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Yes.

The original movies are textbooks on how to do a spectacle movie correctly.

Also Ewoks are just fine. Yes they're funny little cute things, what of it? And before you say it, yes that makes perfect sense or at least enough to work for a movie.

[DiscipleofBob]

Ewoks are just a tribe of wookies that drink too much coffee.

It stunts their growth and makes them hyperactive.

[Otomodachi]

Yes. The Ewoks are the worst point of the weakest film in the trilogy.

Citation needed. :) I had a stuffed Ewok growing up and as an adult I don't have a problem with the little guys, still. Not saying you're wrong, just that I think we're both expressing personal opinion and encouraging you to elaborate.

I LIKE that they're a bunch of little midgets with primitive technology, and yet maintain a credible threat. 2M*Vsquared=dead AT-ST! I also think they're cool because they were planning TO EAT SOME MAIN CHARACTERS.

[The Extinguisher]

Maybe? The filmmaking is fine, not spectaular, and the plot is overdone but still relevant. The writing leaves quite a lot to be desired, but the acting was good

So I'd say I guess. I wouldnt call it the greatest film or anything drammatic like that but if I had to choose between "good" or "bad" I'd say it was good. Objectively speaking.

[Ravens_cry]

I think it was an important piece of cinema, but a lot of the acting and writing was actually pretty terrible. On the whole, I like the universe it is set in a lot more than the movies themselves.

[Traab]

I think its a bit unfair to try and judge it now, considering how old of a film trilogy it is. Its like saying casablanca sucks because its special effects are terrible in this day and age, and its story has been done a million times by now. The trilogy was an enjoyably excellent set of movies. Yes it has flaws, but everything does, that doesnt make the movie any less enjoyable.

[JoshL]

In Defense of Ewoks
(Disclaimer: I was 6 when Jedi came out, and I LOVED Ewoks. Still do. Enjoy the cartoon, the comics, the made for TV movies, but I accept that a lot of that is nostalgia. I was definitely in the right age bracket, and had literally grown up with Star Wars)

The point of the Ewoks is that even a primitive race in the middle of nowhere can realize that the Empire is bad and worth fighting against. That the lowest of the low (tiny fuzzy people with sticks and rocks) can win against great odds if they're clever. Star Wars loves underdogs, and the Ewoks are a prime example of it.

Now, the arguments against Ewoks seem to mostly be that a) they weren't Wookiees and b) they're cute. Wookiees wouldn't work, because the one established Wookiee is far more technologically advanced (which we see later, they are). Wookiees are involved in politics, if I recall, they are represented in the Senate in the prequels. And a race known for ripping the arms off people they lose chess games too aren't exactly underdogs. As to the cute argument, well, that's superficial and silly. There are lots of cute creatures in sci-fi and the narrative strength of the Ewoks I believe outweighs the marketing (which Lucas was not shy about even from day one!)

So, yeah, I like Ewoks.

[DJ Yung Crunk]

No.

Because it's a movie. Objectively good doesn't exist.

[Lamech]

E-Woks are wonderful. They are one of the best parts of the movie. Second only to slave Leia and nonsensical asteroid belts and giant worms.

[Friv]

Ewoks are cool. Anyone who thinks ewoks are cool is wrong. I accept that they have that opinion, but they're still wrong.

(I would say the weakest point in the series is probably when Luke blows up Jabba's barge for no good reason, killing dozens of innocent slaves and droids, and never looks back.)

Anyway. Yes, Star Wars is objectively good, both as a cinematic milestone and as a movie that modern children still like to watch.

[Eldan]

I always thought all three movies were boring front to finish. But I won't pretend that's objective.

[Emperor Ing]

The way I see it Ewoks are the "underdog" archetype taken to an absurd level. They aren't cute. At all. And their attempt at being cute comes off as pretentious at best, infuriating at worst. Not to mention their ability to take on The Emperor's "finest legion of Stormtroopers" seems to rely far more on plot armor with stormtroopers' incompetence taken to new absurdities, beyond the level of suspension of disbelief required in the audience. I mean how did they know that the AT-ST would be at that specific location and be THAT tall so the logs could crush it?! I guess it's partially the Empire's fault for trying to use a walker that's so clumsily designed. All things considered, however, I think that Ewoks are a minor annoyance in what is otherwise a fantastic movie that resolves all the conflicts set forth in the trilogy in a really compelling and satisfying way.

[tensai_oni]

The filmmaking is fine, not spectaular

I'm sorry?

Star Wars was made with a clear vision in mind - to homage classic cinema. The way it is shot, the way it is cut, even the cuts themselves, all was done to remind us of that. That the original trilogy is old enough nowadays to be considered a classic itself is a different thing together.

That's from an editor's point of view. From the screenwriter's, we have a classic Hero's Journey. It's basic, but it works. It's dramatic and emotional even nowadays.

Regarding acting, I think it holds up even nowadays. I'd take the simple but intense "a lot of almost no movement, followed by sudden clash of violence" type of light saber duels over impractically fancy acrobatic flips you see in the new trilogy any day. Even if the real reason the former was filmed that way was to accomodate for Alec Guiness' advanced age.

[factotum]

Yes. Yes, it is. It helps that they had some pretty awesome acting talent--Peter Cushing is amazing in the scene where he and Leia are discussing the location of the secret rebel base just before the destruction of Alderaan, and I'm not sure it's actually possible for Alec Guinness to turn in a bad performance (even when he's horribly and totally miscast, for example as an Indian fatalist in "A Passage to India").

Yes, people bring up the Ewoks as an example of how the original trilogy wasn't so hot, but even Return of the Jedi has some awesome moments, the battle around the Death Star being a high point.

[BWR]

I like Star Wars. I love the OT and do not think the PT is ****. Not as good as the OT but on the whole a decent trilogy.
I would in no way claim it is objectively good.

There are a lot of things you can say objectively about Star Wars.
It's a film, there are actors, they speak mostly English, it's in color, etc.

'Good' is a subjective concept.
You can set certain objective standards, like "must contain people" or "must have music", which are impossible for any person to seriously argue. If a movie meets these criteria, it is 'good'. But that's not really what people mean when they talk about 'good'.
'Good' merely means "I like it" or "It fulfills my criteria for good". You can try to analyze and identify what elements make something 'good' to a large number of people, but you will merely end up with 'a lot of people like X'..

I seriously doubt you will ever get everybody to agree on objective criteria for 'good movie'

[Soras Teva Gee]

The way I see it Ewoks are the "underdog" archetype taken to an absurd level. They aren't cute. At all. And their attempt at being cute comes off as pretentious at best, infuriating at worst. Not to mention their ability to take on The Emperor's "finest legion of Stormtroopers" seems to rely far more on plot armor with stormtroopers' incompetence taken to new absurdities, beyond the level of suspension of disbelief required in the audience. I mean how did they know that the AT-ST would be at that specific location and be THAT tall so the logs could crush it?! I guess it's partially the Empire's fault for trying to use a walker that's so clumsily designed. All things considered, however, I think that Ewoks are a minor annoyance in what is otherwise a fantastic movie that resolves all the conflicts set forth in the trilogy in a really compelling and satisfying way.

(Ah here we are knew this would show up)

Now then how about months of observation they've had of the Imperial presence isn't enough to do some basic measurements of height?

Seriously regarding anything involving that battle the answer is: The Empire Lost the Moment They Didn't Clear-Cut The Forest.

Everything else is pure details. Like a throwaway line like "these little guys must have been ready for months" or something to account for it all which when you are at that level is a nitpick.

Now for the Empire not doing that? Ehh mumble something about "Its an elaborate ruse" and how Palps has the villain ball hemorrhoids in his old age. Nothing to do with Ewoks. And honestly not even near the worst Hollywood tactics.



Regarding acting, I think it holds up even nowadays. I'd take the simple but intense "a lot of almost no movement, followed by sudden clash of violence" type of light saber duels over impractically fancy acrobatic flips you see in the new trilogy any day. Even if the real reason the former was filmed that way was to accomodate for Alec Guiness' advanced age.

I agree on the style, but I don't think Mark Hamill was ever more then "tolerable" as an actor.

(On screen)

[Ebon_Drake]

The Original Trilogy is a fine piece of family entertainment - full of action, cute characters, cool spaceships and slightly scary monsters for kids to enjoy but also has enough depth, quality production, wit and charm to appeal to adults as well. It isn't high art, but if you want that you can watch something like 2001 or Solaris instead.

In terms of it being a case of "right place at the right time", I suppose you could argue that Lucas was really just building on the work of people like Harryhausen (RIP) and that if he hadn't done it, someone like Steven Spielberg or Ridley Scott would have instead. However, if you look at the likes of the Flash Gordon and Battlestar Galactica movies then you'll appreciate just how superior Star Wars' effects were. The plot is basically what you'd get if Akira Kurosawa made a Flash Gordon/Dune movie, but it's a classic story and most of the actors do a decent job of selling it.

[Axolotl]

(Ah here we are knew this would show up)

Now then how about months of observation they've had of the Imperial presence isn't enough to do some basic measurements of height?

Seriously regarding anything involving that battle the answer is: The Empire Lost the Moment They Didn't Clear-Cut The Forest.

Everything else is pure details. Like a throwaway line like "these little guys must have been ready for months" or something to account for it all which when you are at that level is a nitpick.

Now for the Empire not doing that? Ehh mumble something about "Its an elaborate ruse" and how Palps has the villain ball hemorrhoids in his old age. Nothing to do with Ewoks. And honestly not even near the worst Hollywood tactics.They don't do it because the Ewoks aren't viewed by them as a threat, and I don't mean that the Empire thinks they can easily crush them. I mean that they're not even classified as an adversary just as part of the local fauna.

As for the Empire's bad strategy overall, well yeah they're a bloated, corrupt autocracy, bad military strategy comes with the territory.

[Emperor Ing]

As for the Empire's bad strategy overall, well yeah they're a bloated, corrupt autocracy, bad military strategy comes with the territory.

I understand this ordinarily, which is primarily how they lost the Battle of Endor Space Battle with the fleet of Star Destroyers plus the freakin' Executor with a bit of capital-ship-destroying firepower from the Death Star, but the ground battle just seems to take "pure incompetence" and push it into the territory of "trying to lose." It's like if the Battle of Yavin was won because the Death Star fell into and was crushed by Yavin's gravity well.

[Zevox]

I'm not sure that anything can actually be objectively good, since it's impossible to be truly objective about entertainment materials...

No.

Because it's a movie. Objectively good doesn't exist.

'Good' is a subjective concept.
You can set certain objective standards, like "must contain people" or "must have music", which are impossible for any person to seriously argue. If a movie meets these criteria, it is 'good'. But that's not really what people mean when they talk about 'good'.
'Good' merely means "I like it" or "It fulfills my criteria for good". You can try to analyze and identify what elements make something 'good' to a large number of people, but you will merely end up with 'a lot of people like X'..

I seriously doubt you will ever get everybody to agree on objective criteria for 'good movie'
I was basically coming to post this, but since I see several others have brought it up already, I'll just chime in my agreement with those points. "Objectively good" is simply an oxymoron.

For me, I definitely do like the original trilogy. Though I'm an oddball who has Empire Strikes Back as his least favorite of the three and Return of the Jedi as his most favorite. All are still plenty good, though.

[warty goblin]

Regarding acting, I think it holds up even nowadays. I'd take the simple but intense "a lot of almost no movement, followed by sudden clash of violence" type of light saber duels over impractically fancy acrobatic flips you see in the new trilogy any day. Even if the real reason the former was filmed that way was to accomodate for Alec Guiness' advanced age.

Fight choreography is not acting.

I'd rate the movies as tepidly decent, with Empire rising to actually pretty good. They're pretty good pulpy space opera filmed halfway decently, which puts them head and shoulders above most other pulpy space opera. On the other hand, I've got a bookshelf with a lot of really excellent pulpy space opera, which just goes to show it's not particularly close to the cream of the crop.

[Axolotl]

I understand this ordinarily, which is primarily how they lost the Battle of Endor Space Battle with the fleet of Star Destroyers plus the freakin' Executor with a bit of capital-ship-destroying firepower from the Death Star, but the ground battle just seems to take "pure incompetence" and push it into the territory of "trying to lose." It's like if the Battle of Yavin was won because the Death Star fell into and was crushed by Yavin's gravity well.You say that but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have to dig too deeply into RL history to find examples of stupidity that tower over anything SW has to offer. I mean the basic mistake the Empire makes with the Ewoks to my recollection is not considering them a threat initially and then when fighting breaks out they just have their troops blindly run in. Now considering that the Ewoks don't metalworking their assumption isn't totally unreasonable, I mean think about it would you really want to try and justify levelling the planet to your superior with the explanation being that you're worried about the teddy bears living there? I get that the Emperor himself will be ultra paranoid but in totalitarian armies most officers are the ones too stupid and cowardly to draw attention to themselves. As for their incompetence later, well there was a whole giant space battle going on that probably drew their attention.

I'm not saying it wasn't still monumentally stupid I'm just saying that's the point. The Empire sucks, in every way. Except style I guess.

[Otomodachi]

Yes, never in history has a native population managed to fight of limited numbers of strictly superior troops. (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Battle_of_Isandlwana)

Back on topic- the Star Wars trilogy (both in fact) are in a format that can perceived by human eyes; the sounds are in a frequency range we can hear. It doesn't cause any kind of physical or emotional distress outside baseline tolerances. Many people enjoy it; children especially. We're all using english here, so I'm going to go with Western civ; the Greeks used (roughly) the same word for beauty that they did for moral goodness. The Star Wars movies are, in fact, attractive to look at; there's interesting visual ideas, and there is slave girl Leie and Han Solo. Alec Guinness. Peter Cushing if your tastes run that way!

So, yes, Star Wars is, objectively, good.

[Chainsaw Hobbit]

I suppose I phrased the title and first post poorly.

I suppose, rather than objectively good, I mean good from a non-biased-by-nostalgia standpoint. How would would the direction and script hold up now if not for the massive amounts of fan love?

[Metahuman1]

You say that but I'm willing to bet you wouldn't have to dig too deeply into RL history to find examples of stupidity that tower over anything SW has to offer. I mean the basic mistake the Empire makes with the Ewoks to my recollection is not considering them a threat initially and then when fighting breaks out they just have their troops blindly run in. Now considering that the Ewoks don't metalworking their assumption isn't totally unreasonable, I mean think about it would you really want to try and justify levelling the planet to your superior with the explanation being that you're worried about the teddy bears living there? I get that the Emperor himself will be ultra paranoid but in totalitarian armies most officers are the ones too stupid and cowardly to draw attention to themselves. As for their incompetence later, well there was a whole giant space battle going on that probably drew their attention.

I'm not saying it wasn't still monumentally stupid I'm just saying that's the point. The Empire sucks, in every way. Except style I guess.

Cause in real world history there was never a case of an arrogant general going after an opponent with absolutely pitiable intel only to find out there numbers and weapons and capability's were far far greater then he'd ever believe and not only get wiped out but have the fact that he was wiped out be the only thing he's really remembered for. Or a case of an army being beaten by a force half or less there size because one side used sound tactics and strategy and the other didn't.

In case I was some how not obvious enough, look up Custard's last stand, look up half the battles Julius Ceaser and Alexander the Great and Myamoto Musashi and Sun Tzu were involved in, or Mary Queen of Scots attempt to dethrone Queen Elizabeth the first, or England's loss at the battle of Stirling Bridge.


The idiocy of some of the stuff that happens in these battles on the side of the ultimate looser would match or dwarf the empire at any stage of the original trilogy. So, I'll buy that if the Ewoks had time to prepare while being ignored by the empire they could use gorilla tactics to give the storm troopers a beat down. I'll buy that if the empire was so cocky, which they were, that they wouldn't waste time or effort leveling the forest simply cause they deemed no credible threat to reside there, there for no reason to take that precaution. Sorta like how every storm trooper doesn't have a fire extinguisher cause no one though that they'd ever have to deal with a fire that would be that problematic. And as for the space battle, maybe the empire could have crushed the rebel fleet, but they didn't for one or both of two reasons that I'll believe.

The emperor wanted Luke to have to watch them being decimated and crushed in a slow but steady stream simply to try and mess with his emotions in the hope of turning him.

And/or

The emperor/empire wanted it to be a slow, agonizing defeat so they could brag not just about crushing them like bugs but about making it as slow and painful as possible, so that between that and the new death star, the galaxy would be so scared and demoralized that it would finally just lie down and completely Cow to the emperor.

[SuperPanda]

Star Wars has a basic but largely coherent script. It is nothing to write home about but neither does it have any glaring flaws. The story has been told a hundred times (or more) before and since with different details. It is fantasy archetype cosplaying as a sci-fi script and to my knowledge, the first one of such in Cinema. Being the first is important, it raises the quality up a notch.

What was truely revolutionary in Star Wars were the effects.

A contemporary film which used an old, rehashed story set in a Science Fiction skin to disguise the old themes; and then covered in a skin of breathtaking special effects? Well, that also sounds like The Matrix and Jame's Cameron's Avatar. The script was more clever in Matrix and the acting was better in Avatar, but the selling point of both films was really the visual effects.

Objectively, I think you'll have a hard time making a case against these films being "Good." I think you'd have a horribly uphill battle arguing that they are "the greatest works of cinema" or the equivilent.

Citizen Cain was revolutionary in its time for its visual effects. What makes it remain a classic now is the quality of its story, acting, effects, and its place in history. Star Wars in contrast has a serviceable script and decent acting with fantastic effects and a very important place in history. Citizen Cain would be "objectively better" than Star Wars because it brought more elements of Cinema at their best to the table.

-----------

Now all of this is judging Star Wars by an older definition of Cinema: Performance, art, music, those sorts of things.

What Star Wars really did was change the game from Cinema being about creating a story to be about creating money. The aggressive marketing, the merchandising, the ewoks and Jar Jar being used to bring in new kids the splash over substance of the prequels - all points to Star Wars being first and foremost about the franchise, not the story. And the Franchise is a thing of terribly beauty, right down to the "official canon" separations. It becomes a perpetual cash machine. And that is "objectively excellent" marketing on Lucas's part.

So. Is star Wars objectively Good Cinema? Yes.
Is star wars objectively Great Cinema? I think it falls short there.
Is Star Wars objectively Good Art? Yes
Is Star Wars objectively Great Art? No
Is Star Wars objectively good Marketing? Yes
Is Star Wars objectively Great Marketing? Yes.

So, from where I sit: It is objectively good.

[Emmerask]

I suppose I phrased the title and first post poorly.

I suppose, rather than objectively good, I mean good from a non-biased-by-nostalgia standpoint. How would would the direction and script hold up now if not for the massive amounts of fan love?

Well even that depends on what you want, the new generation might find it to have too few "SPLOSIONS!!!!" and does not cut every ~1sec so that we all know "THIS IS ACTION!".
So the newer generation might find that boring, I personally like longer shots so I can actually see the scene ^^

Overall I would say its still a good movie not a 9/10 anymore but still a very solid 8/10.

[Razanir]

and there are so pretty bad ideas involved (like ewoks)

False. The ewoks were my single favorite thing in that movie.

My opinion:
The original trilogy did have its highlights. The ewoks, "No, I am your father," and "I love you" "I know," were certainly some of the best parts. But I do not think they're objectively good. To be completely honest, I found the plot boring. Partly because the only B-plot we ever got was Luke's Jedi training and Luke confronting the Emperor. Other than that, it was the one group experiencing everything together.

I will admit to only having seen them recently. Of course I knew the basics like Vader is Luke and Leia's father, but I'd never seen a full Star Wars movie until my first semester of college last fall. And my completely honest reaction at the end of the first– "That's it?" It just felt way too short to me. The other two were better, possibly because of the small B-plots.

Overall, I will agree that they're decent movies, but that they're overhyped.

EDIT: And before people claim I'm that new generation that only wants action. I'm not. I've actually sat through and enjoyed romantic comedies before. No, what I want in a plot is complexity. Which typically means either splitting the party or an emotionally complex story.

[leafman]

Cause in real world history there was never a case of an arrogant general going after an opponent with absolutely pitiable intel only to find out there numbers and weapons and capability's were far far greater then he'd ever believe and not only get wiped out but have the fact that he was wiped out be the only thing he's really remembered for. Or a case of an army being beaten by a force half or less there size because one side used sound tactics and strategy and the other didn't.

In case I was some how not obvious enough, look up Custard's last stand, look up half the battles Julius Ceaser and Alexander the Great and Myamoto Musashi and Sun Tzu were involved in, or Mary Queen of Scots attempt to dethrone Queen Elizabeth the first, or England's loss at the battle of Stirling Bridge.


The idiocy of some of the stuff that happens in these battles on the side of the ultimate looser would match or dwarf the empire at any stage of the original trilogy. So, I'll buy that if the Ewoks had time to prepare while being ignored by the empire they could use gorilla tactics to give the storm troopers a beat down. I'll buy that if the empire was so cocky, which they were, that they wouldn't waste time or effort leveling the forest simply cause they deemed no credible threat to reside there, there for no reason to take that precaution. Sorta like how every storm trooper doesn't have a fire extinguisher cause no one though that they'd ever have to deal with a fire that would be that problematic. And as for the space battle, maybe the empire could have crushed the rebel fleet, but they didn't for one or both of two reasons that I'll believe.

The emperor wanted Luke to have to watch them being decimated and crushed in a slow but steady stream simply to try and mess with his emotions in the hope of turning him.

And/or

The emperor/empire wanted it to be a slow, agonizing defeat so they could brag not just about crushing them like bugs but about making it as slow and painful as possible, so that between that and the new death star, the galaxy would be so scared and demoralized that it would finally just lie down and completely Cow to the emperor.

You could also frame it as the Emperor wanting to lose initially. The Emperor wanted Luke unharmed so he would turn himself over and so the "final" defeat of the Rebel Alliance would appear to be that much grander.

[Soras Teva Gee]

Now considering that the Ewoks don't metalworking their assumption isn't totally unreasonable

Of course this is focusing on the wrong thing entirely.

What a commander with a brain should have said was that unless Stormtroopers have visors including Superman style x-ray vision, threat anaylizing visual recognition computer support, and weapons that can shoot clean through a California redwood tree a forest fight means exactly one thing:

Death. Trap.

Throw in a native force that's going to know those woods better then you do, and you might as well equip yourself with rocks and pointy sticks for all the good it will do you. The forest nullifies all your advantages.

They should have cut the forest back in a broad swath around every installation, forcing any would be raider to have abandon the defining element of a gunfight (cover) and its suddenly WWI only with only one side having the machine gun.

And they were building a small planetoid above this moon that sort of labor would be nothing.

Clearly this was all a part of Palps ridiculously elaborate trap. Looking at it with the goal of seducing a vulnerable young boy by getting his hopes of victory up to lure him in with the easy candy at the backdoor of your van installation, it almost makes sense!

(Which is why I'm given to understand Thrawn being SW's resident "I am not a moron" member said they should clear cut)

[Gnoman]

In case I was some how not obvious enough, look up Custard's last stand, look up half the battles Julius Ceaser and Alexander the Great and Myamoto Musashi and Sun Tzu were involved in, or Mary Queen of Scots attempt to dethrone Queen Elizabeth the first, or England's loss at the battle of Stirling Bridge.


The idiocy of some of the stuff that happens in these battles on the side of the ultimate looser would match or dwarf the empire at any stage of the original trilogy. So, I'll buy that if the Ewoks had time to prepare while being ignored by the empire they could use gorilla tactics to give the storm troopers a beat down. I'll buy that if the empire was so cocky, which they were, that they wouldn't waste time or effort leveling the forest simply cause they deemed no credible threat to reside there, there for no reason to take that precaution. Sorta like how every storm trooper doesn't have a fire extinguisher cause no one though that they'd ever have to deal with a fire that would be that problematic. And as for the space battle, maybe the empire could have crushed the rebel fleet, but they didn't for one or both of two reasons that I'll believe.

It's "Custer's" last stand, not "Custard's", and "guerilla" tactics, not "gorilla".

[PlusSixPelican]

Yes. The Ewoks are the worst point of the weakest film in the trilogy.

Explain how they're bad? They're eccentric little bearfolk who prove rock beats laser.

[Jayngfet]

When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was revolutionary. The public had never seen anything like it. It had mind-blowing special effects, a creative aesthetic, and all kinds of new ideas. Because of this, it became deeply embedded in the popular consciousness, and took its place as a cultural icon.

Does it hold up today? I'm really not convinced. The original trilogy isn't bad or anything, but the script isn't anything really special, and there are so pretty bad ideas involved (like ewoks). Do you think the original Star Wars trilogy was objectively good, or did it just end up in the right place at the right time?

As far as these things can BE objective, it holds up pretty well. It's got some good pacing and the acting isn't bad, and the score still holds up as being pretty great. In terms of things we can judge that don't really change all that much over time, those things are well done.

Star Wars though, is also very much a cultural artifact of a specific place and time in media history. It either played with the common tropes of it's day or else popularized some new ones that got used through the late seventies to mid 80's. Even beyond tech or budget constraints, or obvious prop uses, it's something that could only really have been made in the era it was made, and if it was done a few years earlier or later it'd probably have wound up being a different thing altogether even assuming the cast and crew were identical.

The Ewoks get some flak, but they still fit in pretty well with what Star Wars was established to actually BE at the time. I mean I don't really see the problem with the Ewoks when there were hundreds of other rubber suit aliens and puppets spread through the trilogy, and they work within how things were said to work beforehand to a reasonable degree. The complaints often feel like they aren't so much against the way the Ewoks were done specifically, but because for some bizarre reason they assumed Star Wars was some kind of grittydark space drama where everything was constantly serious and nothing else like them exists at all, ever.

But that's never what the original trilogy was. George Lucas was making a movie that pretty much the whole family could enjoy, about a universe populated by funny aliens in makeup and weird suits, using mysticism and soft sci-fi concepts, where most of the gritty elements are partially sanitized(Drugs are now spice, slaves are pinup girls, gun battles and sword fights are done with energy weapons making weird sounds). Star Wars has always been a relatively light set of movies that happen to have darker bits sprinkled through it.

That's not to say that those elements couldn't have been done BETTER. I'd argue that some specific choices done with the Ewoks, maybe a couple of costumes for other people, but my gripes are relatively minor in the grand scheme of things and only done with decades of hindsight and years of watching and re-watching the films that the original crew didn't really have.




What a commander with a brain should have said was that unless Stormtroopers have visors including Superman style x-ray vision, threat anaylizing visual recognition computer support, and weapons that can shoot clean through a California redwood tree a forest fight means exactly one thing:


I think you're overestimating imperial military intelligence. Actual military history is full of leadership choices that were questionable at best and insane at worst. It's not hard for me to buy that a dude working in enemy terrain could make a couple of bad screwups and suddenly it all goes to hell and back.

[Axolotl]

Of course this is focusing on the wrong thing entirely.

What a commander with a brain should have said was that unless Stormtroopers have visors including Superman style x-ray vision, threat anaylizing visual recognition computer support, and weapons that can shoot clean through a California redwood tree a forest fight means exactly one thing:

Death. Trap.

Throw in a native force that's going to know those woods better then you do, and you might as well equip yourself with rocks and pointy sticks for all the good it will do you. The forest nullifies all your advantages.

They should have cut the forest back in a broad swath around every installation, forcing any would be raider to have abandon the defining element of a gunfight (cover) and its suddenly WWI only with only one side having the machine gun.

And they were building a small planetoid above this moon that sort of labor would be nothing.

Clearly this was all a part of Palps ridiculously elaborate trap. Looking at it with the goal of seducing a vulnerable young boy by getting his hopes of victory up to lure him in with the easy candy at the backdoor of your van installation, it almost makes sense!

(Which is why I'm given to understand Thrawn being SW's resident "I am not a moron" member said they should clear cut)Well yeah but people in tyrannical armies are that stupid, people in fairly modern armies are that stupid. I mean without wanting to get into real life politics the whole "Overconfident imperialist hi tech army gets beaten by natives they seemingly outmatch." it's pretty clear what it's referencing. George Lucas is very much a product of the hippies after all.

[Hopeless]

I understand this ordinarily, which is primarily how they lost the Battle of Endor Space Battle with the fleet of Star Destroyers plus the freakin' Executor with a bit of capital-ship-destroying firepower from the Death Star, but the ground battle just seems to take "pure incompetence" and push it into the territory of "trying to lose." It's like if the Battle of Yavin was won because the Death Star fell into and was crushed by Yavin's gravity well.

Hmm... I have to remember that idea...:smallsmile:

I agree about failing to clear cut the forest around the rear of that installation but its also possible it was left to hide the Imperial forces sent to counter the Rebel's raiding group.
Of course the Ewoks may have been spying and had that stuff set up in case these intruders came after their village so...

[Aotrs Commander]

I think you're overestimating imperial military intelligence. Actual military history is full of leadership choices that were questionable at best and insane at worst. It's not hard for me to buy that a dude working in enemy terrain could make a couple of bad screwups and suddenly it all goes to hell and back.

I'm not sure that Soras was so questioning the validity of the military incompetance as saying what, if they had a commander with a brain (and like a sad number of miliaries in history, they clearly didn't in this case!), they should have done1.

The level of incompetance of some military commanders throughout history is simply frightening, especially when you bear in mind the cost in the lives of ordinary soldiers that resulted from their ineptitude.



1I'll go one step further and say they shouldn't have laid that trap at all. They should have waited until the Death Star II was quietly completed, then lured the rebels out by placing the Emperor in some relatively unguarded location (maybe construction site of the "second" (i.e. third) Death Star) and then showed up with the Death Star II (and a bunch of Interdictors if no-one, for some unfathomable reason, thought to install G-Well generators on the Death Star.)

Waiting would also have allowed Thrawn to deal with Admiral Zaarin, thus giving the Empire access to his talents or at the very least more forces (and some with much more advanced fighters).

Even if history repeated itself and they still lost the third Death Star and the Emperor, the rebels would have been utterly annhilated.

[KillianHawkeye]

Good and bad are matters of opinion. There is no such thing as objectively good or bad. The Star Wars movies will always be judged in comparison to their contemporaries, or to other films in the same genre.

[Kyberwulf]

I think, the OP should have asked, Is Star Wars overrated? I think it is. When it came out yes it was good. But, It was a product of hype and now it is mostly about Nostalgia. I mean look at the new trilogy. I think this new trilogy is just as good as the original. We just don't have the whole, "It's the first of it's kind" of feeling to it. We have something to hold it up against, and to judge it by. Objectively, yes Star Wars is good. Is it worth the hype? I don't think so.

That being said, I like The Star Wars movies, I love the EU more. I just think people should take off the Nostalgia glasses and actually look at the films.

[Friv]

If you accept the first premise of the Battle of Endor, which is that the Emperor is an arrogant jerk who was convinced that he could destroy the Rebels in one fell swoop and also turn Luke to the Dark Side, everything else makes a lot of sense. As Luke said, his overconfidence was his weakness.

The rear entrance to the base wasn't clear-cut because it was supposed to be a secret, hidden entrance. Hidden entrances aren't so hidden when they're surrounded by several hundred yards of ravaged landscape on all sides. It was "hidden" because the Emperor wanted the rebels to land forces there, where he could trap and kill them as Step 1 in operation "make Luke sad".

Similarly, the Imperial fleet was slaughtering the Rebels, but was holding back so that the Emperor could fire off Death Star blasts, also as part of operation "make Luke sad".

And of course, that operation led to him betraying Vader, and then trying to kill Luke, and then dying.

[Emmerask]

While I agree that star wars is a bit overrated due to nostalgia I do not think that episode 1-3 are on par with the old ones

- the acting is worse
- the stupid moments they are everywhere (war droids with joke software?) etc
- there are two interesting characters in all the three movies Jango Fett, and Count Dooku (Christopher Lee is sooooo awesome ^^)
- the whole change from Anakin, friendly if annoying to kid killing murder hobo in a minute.

the old star wars does not have these cringe worthy moments imo, yes there is palpatines plot which kind of is stupid, then there are the ewoks some hate them some love them but thats it...

The funniest thing is the first viewing by George Lucas and his crew, everyone sitting silently (in shock of how bad it was) after it ends and Lucas saying "I may have overdone it" :smallbiggrin:

[Kitten Champion]

I think the original trilogy is on the level of a Kurosawa film.

1. You can understand what's going on with just the visuals. At least most of the time. The most effective parts of the movie are those with little dialogue and obvious subtext. This is what comics and movies should do as much as possible. It's what makes those opening scroll sequences sublime. They aren't, as in many SF movies, there because they think the audience is too stupid to pick up these facts through the course of the movie. In many ways what's written there isn't too comprehensible to someone jumping in, and they could be utterly removed without really hurting your understanding of the movie - but - they definitely set the tone of an epic and a sense that this a story with a history to it. In many ways more is conveyed with the use of the medium than the message.

Lucas' need to insert CGI into these DVD releases made me wonder what happened to him. It's not the practical effects versus CGI that gets me, but that Star Wars was excellent in its use of unusual and crisp camera angles and uncluttered visuals. I understand disliking CGI and I do at times myself, but it wasn't the special effects that won the day here, but the cinematography. If special effects was all we had here, it would've been overshadowed by its prequels. Kurosawa, which I'm drawing on for my comparison, has some of the most visually appealing films in the medium still and it's nothing to do with spaceships or aliens. When Lucas superimposes crap onto this footage it's just baffling.

I suppose it could have been worse though.

2. A universal and simple story. You don't have to know about feudal Japanese culture to understand a Kurosawa film, most of everything is conveyed naturally using imagery and dialogue which quickly puts it into a frame of reference we understood. Likewise here we're dealing with a familiar-yet-alien setting in the middle of a complicated political and social period, yet you're never asking yourself who, what, where, when, or why. Either its unimportant or quickly established (for instance, the Jedi order and its pseudo-Buddhism). You can quickly identify with Luke and chances are even if you didn't you did with Leia, Han, or the comic relief since they have a good mix of temperaments. This works as well as movies can accomplish it.

3. The action is less important than the build-up. This is something many incompetent film producers trying to string set pieces together forget. I'd go on but were so familiar with the poorly made action/adventure movies at this point the difference becomes obvious. It doesn't feel like it's being impatient and pacing around to get that boring stuff out of the way and get to the next action sequence. This is why, at least for me, the second movie was such a success - the addition of training sequence provided here what it does in many shounen battle manga - it let for some character and setting development, while keeping the hero out of the action to make it more dramatic for their return. In many ways missing that period where he finalizes his training and is rewarded with beating an established serious villain could have made the third one better, but time is not a generous commodity here like in other mediums. In Kurosawa movies, there is a staggering amount of tension, even if the fight is nothing more than a single sword slash at high noon, it's utterly riveting and completely fulfilling.

Even if you ignore the merits or flaws in the acting, dialogue, or plot specifics, these are well made films which deserve their longevity and general positive associations for their addition to the medium. They don't generally make you think too hard, they aren't high concept, and I wouldn't say they're life changing experiences unless you're a filmmaker who's just been inspired. I think you'd probably find them near Indiana Jones somewhere near the front end of any all-time greatest movies list, in the top 20 at minimum.

You can pretty much take the above three points to understand why I didn't like the prequels all that much.

[Raistlin1040]

Nah. The acting is decent and the special effects and cinematography are tops for the time. It does what it wants to do (tip its hat to classic cinema in a science fiction setting) very well, but the writing is average and the acting doesn't do enough to elevate it. It's a fun ride though.

[Axolotl]

Nah. The acting is decent and the special effects and cinematography are tops for the time. It does what it wants to do (tip its hat to classic cinema in a science fiction setting) very well, but the writing is average and the acting doesn't do enough to elevate it. It's a fun ride though.I disagree if the writing were average then the lines wouldn't be well known, but they are. Obi-Wan for example I'm pretty sure almost everyone I know can recite pretty much every line he has in the right context. And none of these people are what could be called Star Wars fans, none of them have ever read the EU, none care about the prequels either negatively or positively and aside from Battlefront and sometimes KotOR none have played.

They depth they're penetrated popular consciousness indicates that either the lines are good or that the acting made them good.

[Barsoom]

When the first Star Wars movie came out in 1977, it was revolutionary. The public had never seen anything like it. It had mind-blowing special effects, a creative aesthetic, and all kinds of new ideas. Because of this, it became deeply embedded in the popular consciousness, and took its place as a cultural icon.

Does it hold up today? I'm really not convinced. The original trilogy isn't bad or anything, but the script isn't anything really special, and there are so pretty bad ideas involved (like ewoks). Do you think the original Star Wars trilogy was objectively good, or did it just end up in the right place at the right time?What is "objectively good"? When the Wright brothers airplane made its maiden flight, it was revolutionary. It was a breakthrough. A milestone in history. Nowadays, is it usable for commercial flight? Is it "objectively good" when compared to other airplanes that are in use? Of course not. The comparison itself in unfair to the technological genius of the Wright brothers.

Similarly, as much as Star Wars was a grounbreaking achievement and a cultural icon, it's not really fair to compare it to modern movies (and even less fair to claim that any such comparison will be 'objective').

[DiscipleofBob]

Is Star Wars Objectively Good?

Well, it's unclear... but the protagonists are the rebels so we can probably say it's at least objectively Chaotic.

[tiercel]

I actually find that many of the (unremastered) special effects in the original trilogy are still actually reasonably watchable. (Most notable exception being some of the droids.)

As for plot/dialogue -- we aren't talking about a work of literature but a work of storytelling. Hence "objectively" is a hard word to apply because complaining that Star Wars isn't high cinema is like complaining that Stephen King isn't Jane Austen.

And frankly, how many sci-fi movies since the original Star Wars trilogy actually have had better (or even equal) plot and characterization (keeping in mind that Star Wars is very much in the action/adventure "space opera" genre, not "hard SF")? —I'm not saying there haven't been any, but far too many SF entries have been essentially "SFX only" productions with arguably thinner plot and characterization.

Sometimes simple, clean, fast-paced storytelling is a very effective form of entertainment.

But you don't go see Star Wars when you feel like The Godfather or Pride and Prejudice or Requiem for a Dream.

[warty goblin]

As for plot/dialogue -- we aren't talking about a work of literature but a work of storytelling. Hence "objectively" is a hard word to apply because complaining that Star Wars isn't high cinema is like complaining that Stephen King isn't Jane Austen.

If Stephan King is Star Wars, that would make Jane Austen approximately the overgod of everything forever.

[SaintRidley]

My only contribution to this thread:

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ewokline.jpg

[Porthos]

My only contribution to this thread:

http://www.giantfreakinrobot.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ewokline.jpg

I was born in 1970 and I think the Ewoks are just fine.

So I must be one of the flat end of the curve. :smallwink:

Actually, I'm rather pleased to see the Ewoks get a lot of support in this thread. I find the whole anti-Ewok thing to be puzzling in a large degree. I mean, they serve a narrative purpose. They have emotional scenes (when the Ewok tries to wake up his fallen companion? Man that just stings). Their tactics aren't horrible. And they worship C3PO as a god. What more do people want?

Also, I think people forget that at the beginning the Ewoks were getting routed. It's only after they fell back a bit and started to manuever the stormtroopers into their traps did the tide turn.

So, yeah, count me in the pro-Ewok catagory. As long as no one mentions the cartoon series that is. :smalltongue:

[Kitten Champion]

I don't mind the Ewoks, the scene with C3PO was possibly the best with that character in it.

I just wish they weren't so obviously merchandising hooks, but they're certainly memorable. The fact that Caravan of Courage and Battle for Endor exists does much to ruin that memory, but still.

[Forum Explorer]

Yeah put me in the pro Ewok categories as well. At first I thought they were just mini-wookies. Then I grew up and realized they are mini-wookies who ended up eating the flesh of all the stormtroopers who died.

[dehro]

the movies were so good because there was something in it for everybody.. Ewoks for them as saw the movies when they were little, badass saber-ing and top-gunning for those who were older, etc, etc.

as for the ewoks.. I now want a ninja ewok.. better still.. an ewok jedi...after all if Yoda can be badass, so should Ewoks be able to.

another side-note on the Ewoks, I have a hunch that their presence and the childishness it brings to the movie has a lot to do with how big the Muppets were back then... after all.. I mean.. I don't know that they'd have had Frank Oz if not for this reason.

[Ashtagon]

I see the empire's relationship with ewoks as akin to modern man and mosquitoes. Annoying, but not really worth the bother of eliminating. Then the rebels found a way to "weaponise" the ewoks, which took the empire by surprise.

For me, the worst bit of episode 6 was that they ignore the downer ending - the death star will crash into Endor and the explosion will virtually wipe them out.

[Doctor Foreman]

So, from where I sit: It is objectively good.

I'd just like to point out that that sentence is inherently self-contradictory.

[TheDarkDM]

Kitten Champion touched on some good points, but I'd like to go further both to satisfy Chainsaw Hobbit's curiosity. The short answer is that while there is no such thing as "objectively" good, Star Wars as a trilogy stands as the best executed film series of its genre, and Empire stands as one of the best fantasy films ever made.

And here's why:

1) Visual storytelling. Kitten Champion brought this up already, but some examples are in order to illustrate just how well the OT uses visual information to convey narrative information. Consider the opening scene of the first film (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=z33-qOXOWS4) - we already know that there's some kind of rebellion against some Empire from the opening crawl, but there's no real sense of the stakes. Then a ship blazes into frame, a ship we can assume to be the rebels because we know they're on the run, followed by another ship in pursuit. And that other ship is absolutely massive. In 42 seconds, the disparity in power between the Rebels and the Empire is communicated to the audience, and their defeat seems a foregone conclusion. This establishes tension, which is only made more palpable when the plucky rebels are slaughtered wholesale by an army of white armored, faceless soldiers who seem utterly unstoppable. If we're making a critical read of these films, we have to discard the decades of popular culture that has ingrained how useless Storm Troopers are and realize that at that moment in the film they personify the precision and training that Obi-Wan brings up later. Then Darth Vader appears, his importance immediately recognized by how he contrasts with the white armored Storm Troopers and by some classic cinematography tricks. This is just the opening sequence, and the same understanding of visual language. The use of light during the confrontation with the Emperor, Luke's face inside Vader's helmet in the cave, Luke's hand and its relation to Vader, the defining use of earth tones for the Rebels and star grey, white, and black for the Empire, all of these convey major themes of the films and are indicative of the trilogy's excellent production design and cinematography.

2) Direction. This is the claim most likely to draw criticism, and indeed the performances in the first film point to a lack of repartee between Lucas and his actors (thankfully, he had Guinness and Cushing to lean on). However, consider how every character is introduced. When we first see Leia, we can infer that she's the princess from C-3PO's comments, and that comes with a host of assumptions, especially in 1977. She slips into the darkness after implanting her message into R2, and we assume she's gone to hide. After all, these Storm Troopers are visibly deadly and are searching for her. But Leia defies the conventions, standing her ground and managing to kill one of them before being captured. Then she's brought to Vader and rather than swooning in fear she remains defiant. This immediately establishes the strength of Leia's convictions and her own personal strength, qualities that are proven again in her confrontation with Tarkin. Though she serves the role of the damsel in the first film, she is one of the few female characters in any science fiction or fantasy film to never lose her agency or betray that initial strength. Then consider Luke, whose motivations and arc are conveyed through action in his first few scenes. The first time we see him is on the farm, helping his uncle inspect the droids for sale. He's obviously skilled, intelligent, and dissatisfied, and simply by addressing Owen and Beru as aunt and uncle he introduces us to one of the trilogy's core secrets - the identity of his parents. And the importance of that secret is only driven home after the discovery of Leia's message, when despite everything else that has happened the thing to grab Luke's attention the most is the implication that someone knew his father. And then you have Han, whose introduction has entered nerd infamy due to Lucas' tampering. I'm sure you're familiar with it, but bear with me for a moment. Up until this point in the film, none of our heroes has raised a weapon in anger. Every incidence of violence has been begun by an obviously antagonistic force, while our heroes have reacted only in self defense. Enter Han, whose first instinct when faced with the possibility of violence is to shoot first and show no more remorse for doing so than a coin thrown at the bartender. Immediately we identify him as having fundamentally different morals than the rest of the characters, an impression he enforces with his clear skepticism of the Force. Han's path seems inherently separate from the path of Luke, the hero, and so it seems entirely in character for him to leave on the eve of battle and never return. This raises the stakes for the final battle, and makes his eventual change of heart a legitimate surprise. This in turn lays the foundation for his story arc in the later films as his roguish exterior begins to crumble. All of that shows a nuance of direction that people tend to forget when confronted with the awful ham-handedness of the prequel trilogy. And while the published scripts may be simplistic, the shooting scripts that included improvisation and adaptation contain some unforgettable character moments that were legitimately shocking before they came to dominate the entirety of geekdom.

3) Score and Sound Design. I think people claiming that Star Wars has anything less than a stellar score are forgetting the fact that every (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fzczg3MreZg) major (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7KBygZLzsbs) character (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BJob_-m-gDE) has (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pdoHAHKcNyc) a (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH6wXaLQIMQ) unique (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=--Y4NqTdfPE) leitmotif (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8H26Hdv3i0U), not to mention one of the most recognizable main themes in cinema history (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JG5OsfOuEy0). Most importantly, the music is only ever used to enhance a scene, something many films forget in their pursuit of bombast and excitement. And while the Star Wars score may not be the most musically complex, that is in service to its story. The same claim of simplicity cannot be leveled at its sound design, however, which like its effects broke new ground and have etched themselves on the cultural consciousness. Who here can't identify the hum of a lightsaber, the sound of a Wookie, or sound of Vader's breathing? Star Wars invented an entire aural landscape whose texture stood in stark contrast to the tinny sounds of its science fiction predecessors.

4) Story. Star Wars is simple, there is no disputing that. It is also one of the purest expressions of Campbell's Monomyth (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hero%27s_journey) that exists. That simplicity, that purity of narrative, makes Star Wars universal. Star Wars, unlike so many other fantasies, crosses effortlessly along cultural boundaries. Because everyone has a cultural perspective from which the core struggles of Star Wars can be related to. The first film even functions as a Monomyth on its own, due to Lucas' fear of it being a failure, yet it fits seamlessly into the Momomyth of the Original Trilogy as well. In addition, Star Wars restrains itself enough to take its time when revealing its mysticism, and thus manages to maintain a sense of mystery and wonder throughout. The Force seems like nothing but an ancient religion, until Vader chokes a man with a thought. Luke, despite all his training, cannot lift his ship from the swamp and despairs, only for Yoda to prove the power of the Force with a wave of his hand. And in the final confrontation of the trilogy, a feeble old man transforms into a terrifying enemy with powers beyond anything we'd seen. I think that is one of the qualities beyond nostalgia that has helped make Star Wars so enduring, its ability to convey wonder and terror in equal measure. It is the magic of Tolkien, rather that the functional magic of Dungeons and Dragons, and violating that spirit is one of the core weaknesses of the prequels.

5) Effects. In addition to all this, it must be conceded that the effects form a large part of Star Wars' appeal. However, while it easy to look back 36 years later and find them fairly mundane, the awesome impact of Star Wars' effects cannot be exaggerated. They were kinetic and dynamic beyond anything seen before, demanding sophisticated advances in effects cinematography and post processing. The techniques ILM pioneered have seen use in countless other beloved films, and the fact that they chose to use models has allowed the Original Trilogy to age with a surprising degree of grace.

[SuperPanda]

I'd just like to point out that that sentence is inherently self-contradictory.

:smallbiggrin: I'd really like to pretend that was intentional because it is very much something I would have done intentionally if I hadn't written that when I was a bit unfocused. Still, thanks for the reply it really made me :smallbiggrin:

[hamishspence]

It is the magic of Tolkien, rather that the functional magic of Dungeons and Dragons, and violating that spirit is one of the core weaknesses of the prequels.

I've seen other parallels drawn between Star Wars & Tolkien- in Michael Moorcock's "Starship Stormtroopers" essay. However, those are done to condemn rather than applaud Star Wars- since he disliked both.

[Mato]

Q: Is Star Wars Objectively Good?
A: As a popcorn flick, sure.

It came out in the late 70s when Scifi was a thing read or watched on the TV or in a movie theater. No one had ever seen or heard anything like it. The spurring tail of a young boy who leaves his farm life to join the military and become a hero was a creative original plot. As the watcher's proxy Luke asked all the key questions to prompt his father-like figures to explain everything we needed to know like why didn't they just fly head on firing rather than running the trench?

Watch as Luke masters The Force by stacking rocks, doing handstands, and by instantly overcoming his blindness with a sword. A tale so epic it takes three movies but the second movie feels like half done padding and the third is a parody of the first. See the future where the wheel doesn't exist unless you're a native to a 3rd world desert county, where robots drink alcohol but are not served in public bars, where the English language as drifted so much that measurements of distance can be used to explain how fast something goes, where high intensity laser swords capable of melting through steel saw off arms like a butterknife, where there is a conspiracy theorists claim blowing up the Death Star was an inside job by Vader and his offspring and that all photos were spoofed in underground facilities which is why no view port has stars unless they are entering hyperdrive.

Be aspired by the remarkable rolemodels in the franchise like Bobba Fett, a bounty hunter cleaver enough to realize the Galactic Empire crushes their trash in massive compactors so small there'd be no way a ship could hide in the debris. See him shoot a rope with no affect and fly into a boat shortly before falling to a fate worse than death. Watch Princess Leia, a planetary princess who doubles as one of the primary leaders of the rebellion captures the heart of women every where for her strong independent qualities, then watch as she gives up her leadership position, shirking all her duties, to save her one man. Watch her humility as she blows up a ship with her follow sex slaves and leaves any survivors out in the desert to die. See Henry Ford playing him self be butchered when Lucas figures out how to edit his performance to match the original idea of the Han Solo character.

The remarkable visual effects of this film will blow you away. See awe inspiring shots such the end credits tilted at a 45 degree angle. Green lasers illuminating rooms blue. Stop motion robots with poorly designed feet scaling mountainous terrain to reach a rebel base. Laser beams randomly vanish into walls while others cause puffs a smoke and invisible beams down random characters without any names. The Red and Gold squadrons helmt's holographic color changing abilities. And kids in furry suits winning against a superior army by using their homeland knowledge to create crude traps and ambushes, only so they in turn ambushed and trapped.

It's George® Lucas's™ Star Wars®©™. A series that lead thousands of fans hold in high regard to be exception in quality and original in making into the worst pit fall in the history of expectations. Because 70 poorly made games, nearly ninety rereleases, and the Indian Jones series, did a fine job suggesting the movies wouldn't be a giant joke to grab more cash.

[Eloi]

I believe that Star Wars as a whole is a wonderful setting with one of the best magic systems ever (The Force), and that Episode IV was the best film of the entire saga, serving as the heart of it. I have a theory based on this: the farther away you get from IV chronologically, the less good the given movie will be.

I II III IV V VI

So IV is the best, followed by V, followed by III, followed by VI, followed by II, followed by I.

Although you could be more systematic about it:

I (32 BBY)
II (22 BBY)
III (19 BBY)
IV (0 BBY)
V (3 ABY)
VI (4 ABY)

So that'd get you: IV, V, VI, III, II, I. Which seems to be more along the lines of the critical consensus as opposed to my opinions.

[Emmerask]

I II III IV V VI

We see that the episode number is directly proportional to the quality, except the last one ^^ :smalltongue:

[Eloi]

I II III IV V VI

We see that the episode number is directly proportional to the quality, except the last one ^^ :smalltongue:

Episode Five is vastly over rated. Many of the characters are introduced redundant, and it lacks a strong resolution considering it's a middle part. My theory is more of "the absolute value of a movie's difference from IV is inversely proportional to its quality".

[Soras Teva Gee]

V: Probably the best directed and acted with the most emotional content and tension.
IV: The original, the complete package, the one that changed everything.

Between those I consider pure personal choice. I like the original because I appreciate iconic value at least as much as that sort of purer art-house variety. Barring that inversion though I find that the movie's qualties obey IRL chonological order.

Yes I did just put that one in a number four slot leading the prequels. Search your feelings...

And the bottom of my list, and the realization of my list led me to cease self-identifying as a SW Fan.

[Eloi]

I just realized something terrible about my Episode IV as the Heart of Star Wars theory... The sequel trilogy! If it is correct, then the critical reception of Episode VII will be slightly better than or equal to Episode I, while Episode VIII will be worse than Episode VII. Finally, Episode IX will be the worst Star Wars film ever made. Perhaps permanently killing the franchise, even.

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Also, in support of my theory the Metacritic critical reception of the Star Wars movies are as follows:

91% Episode IV
78% Episode V
68% Episode III
53% Episode II
52% Episode VI
51% Episode I

In other words, that's IV, followed by V, then III, then II, then VI, then I. Exactly as I said using the IV-as-the-Heart theory.

So I think this is strong-ish evidence that the sequel trilogy will be pretty bad.

[Ebon_Drake]

I just realized something terrible about my Episode IV as the Heart of Star Wars theory... The sequel trilogy! If it is correct, then the critical reception of Episode VII will be slightly better than or equal to Episode I, while Episode VIII will be worse than Episode VII. Finally, Episode IX will be the worst Star Wars film ever made.


Isn't that what everyone (read: internet doomsayers) predicted as soon as the new films were announced? I'm willing to give the new films a chance, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

[warty goblin]

Isn't that what everyone (read: internet doomsayers) predicted as soon as the new films were announced? I'm willing to give the new films a chance, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

And even if somehow the new movies do kill the franchise (which they won't; there's too many Star Wars fans for that), it just means wait five years then reboot.

[Emmerask]

Isn't that what everyone (read: internet doomsayers) predicted as soon as the new films were announced? I'm willing to give the new films a chance, but I'm not getting my hopes up.

Well I do not think that J. J. Abrams new Star Trek was particularly good (though not bad either) and I do understand why stuff had to be changed to target a wider audience.

However what I thought watching the first new trek was that this could actually work pretty well as a star wars movie :smallbiggrin:

So I am cautiously optimistic regarding the new star wars movie(s) ^^

[Jayngfet]

I just realized something terrible about my Episode IV as the Heart of Star Wars theory... The sequel trilogy! If it is correct, then the critical reception of Episode VII will be slightly better than or equal to Episode I, while Episode VIII will be worse than Episode VII. Finally, Episode IX will be the worst Star Wars film ever made. Perhaps permanently killing the franchise, even.

I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Also, in support of my theory the Metacritic critical reception of the Star Wars movies are as follows:

91% Episode IV
78% Episode V
68% Episode III
53% Episode II
52% Episode VI
51% Episode I

In other words, that's IV, followed by V, then III, then II, then VI, then I. Exactly as I said using the IV-as-the-Heart theory.

So I think this is strong-ish evidence that the sequel trilogy will be pretty bad.

That is... a rather nonsensical theory overall.

[Mordar]

I think, the OP should have asked, Is Star Wars overrated? I think it is. When it came out yes it was good. But, It was a product of hype and now it is mostly about Nostalgia. I mean look at the new trilogy. I think this new trilogy is just as good as the original. We just don't have the whole, "It's the first of it's kind" of feeling to it. We have something to hold it up against, and to judge it by. Objectively, yes Star Wars is good. Is it worth the hype? I don't think so.

That being said, I like The Star Wars movies, I love the EU more. I just think people should take off the Nostalgia glasses and actually look at the films.

Let me spin your argument for a moment.

Is Jim Brown overrated? I think he is. When he played, he was good. But reports of his ability are a product of hype, and now it is mostly about nostalgia. I think Emmett Smith is just as good as Jim Brown. We just don't have the whole "He's the first superstar running back" feeling to it.

Now, if you (a) know who Jim Brown and Emmett Smith are; and (b) agree with the above, stop here and jump ahead to the next post. You simply cannot take away the context of "first of its kind" when discussing the quality of something like Star Wars, running backs, cave drawings or airplanes. It is not nostalgia to say something was groundbreaking - to suggest that the quality of subsequent works which built on the innovations/inventions it presented diminish the original is to suggest that the existence of Hemingway diminishes Shakespeare. Now, if you want to argue that the acting was hackneyed, the dialogue was strained and C3PO established the bar for "obnoxious character you wish would just go away", I would disagree (on two of the three, anyway) but understand.

Now, I'll take out my "I was there" card and highlight the part where it says I saw the film in the theaters over a dozen times in 1977 (in Hastings, MN). I don't remember much hype before I saw it, but boy do I remember the buzz afterwards...I believe it was foresight on Lucas' part to be ready for the marketing opportunity, but this was before the days of pre-packaged blockbusters. The toys weren't available 6 months before a release like they are today, and the advertising budget wasn't more than the production costs of major films (like John Carter, for instance). This was "earned" popularity, not bought-and-paid-for hype.


If Stephan King is Star Wars, that would make Jane Austen approximately the overgod of everything forever.

Definitely the most accurate funny thing I have read this month.

[Eloi]

That is... a rather nonsensical theory overall.

I don't think I've adequately explained it, thematically.

Episode IV was the climax of the entire story and it hewed the closest to Campbellian monomyth. A recently orphaned* farmboy under the tutelage of a wizened old wizard slays a dragon (Death Star) and saves a princess (Leia). It also introduces the strongest characters with the least amount of redundancy (Luke, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, Princess Leia, Han Solo, etc.) and features the most archetypal military conflict (Rebel Alliance v. Galactic Empire). For these reasons, I believe it is evident that A New Hope was the highest point in the plot of Star Wars.

(*Counting his adopted parents here.)

The prequel trilogy suffers badly from the lack of these archetypes. It feels too much like 'science fiction' and not enough like 'science fantasy'. The aesthetics of Coruscant and the entire Clone Wars- which also suffers from being a muddied military conflict (the Confederation of Independent Systems and the Galactic Republic are too similar in aesthetics, out of necessity in that the latter will become evil and the former is the current evil)- strays too far from mythic story structure and archetypes, which makes it far less dramatic than the original trilogy.

Episode III does well by switching it up by using the dramatic structure of a tragic downfall and not the hero's journey. The transition of Galactic Republic to Galactic Empire is much like that of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire with a dash of parallels to Nazi Germany. It is thus very classical, more so than II or I.

My overall point here is that Episode IV is the most mythologically resonant, as well as the climax of the story. The suspense and aura of fantasy fades the further away you get from it as a result.

[Jayngfet]

I don't think I've adequately explained it, thematically.

Episode IV was the climax of the entire story and it hewed the closest to Campbellian monomyth. A recently orphaned* farmboy under the tutelage of a wizened old wizard slays a dragon (Death Star) and saves a princess (Leia). It also introduces the strongest characters with the least amount of redundancy (Luke, Obi-Wan, Darth Vader, Princess Leia, Han Solo, etc.) and features the most archetypal military conflict (Rebel Alliance v. Galactic Empire). For these reasons, I believe it is evident that A New Hope was the highest point in the plot of Star Wars.

(*Counting his adopted parents here.)

The prequel trilogy suffers badly from the lack of these archetypes. It feels too much like 'science fiction' and not enough like 'science fantasy'. The aesthetics of Coruscant and the entire Clone Wars- which also suffers from being a muddied military conflict (the Confederation of Independent Systems and the Galactic Republic are too similar in aesthetics, out of necessity in that the latter will become evil and the former is the current evil)- strays too far from mythic story structure and archetypes, which makes it far less dramatic than the original trilogy.

Episode III does well by switching it up by using the dramatic structure of a tragic downfall and not the hero's journey. The transition of Galactic Republic to Galactic Empire is much like that of the Roman Republic to the Roman Empire with a dash of parallels to Nazi Germany. It is thus very classical, more so than II or I.

My overall point here is that Episode IV is the most mythologically resonant, as well as the climax of the story. The suspense and aura of fantasy fades the further away you get from it as a result.

I've always found the whole "mythic resonance" think to be both a gross oversimplification and horrendous misrepresentation of how myths work. Actual mythology tends to be varied and picks it's tropes not out of some vague monomyth but more often out of the idea that it in some way reflects the real life environment around them(Greco-Roman Gods are crazy abusive and considered invulnerable because other records show the contemporary power players to behave similarly; Norse gods are usually more vulnerable and in-the-moment and low key, because the nordic people at the time didn't belong to a vast empire and couldn't get away with or accomplish as much). That's also a gross oversimplification but I've seen enough records to say it's far more likely than the monomyth theory. I mean really, the overall issue is that Campbellian cherry picks specific stories then ignores the rest, distorts even those to a notable degree.

The episodes with the lowest scores are the ones who have poorest execution. The Phantom Menace wasn't bad because George Lucas showed chrome and big cities. It was bad because of it's inconsistent tone, poor casting choices, bad pacing, and generally questionable decisions. Likewise A New Hope wasn't good because it ties into some grand monomyth that either doesn't exist or is so minor in the mythological landscape attributing it to Lucas's success is rather nonsensical. It's good because it has good pacing, had revolutionary special effects and costumes and sets, the actors pulled great performances, and because it was something that was incredibly new at the time, at least to general audiences.

To say Lucas and co. only succeeded and were originally popular because they followed some kind of mythic formula is actually rather insulting, because it means that their actual performances and choices were less important than the broadest of archtypes being played.

[Eloi]

I've always found the whole "mythic resonance" think to be both a gross oversimplification and horrendous misrepresentation of how myths work. Actual mythology tends to be varied and picks it's tropes not out of some vague monomyth but more often out of the idea that it in some way reflects the real life environment around them(Greco-Roman Gods are crazy abusive and considered invulnerable because other records show the contemporary power players to behave similarly; Norse gods are usually more vulnerable and in-the-moment and low key, because the nordic people at the time didn't belong to a vast empire and couldn't get away with or accomplish as much). That's also a gross oversimplification but I've seen enough records to say it's far more likely than the monomyth theory. I mean really, the overall issue is that Campbellian cherry picks specific stories then ignores the rest, distorts even those to a notable degree.

The Hero's Journey pretty well describes the landscape of modern fantastical stories, and is a fairly solid structure for creating a narrative. Episode IV clearly features more fantastical tropes than the other films, and the prequel trilogy has the least amount of fantasy parallels than the original trilogy.


The episodes with the lowest scores are the ones who have poorest execution. The Phantom Menace wasn't bad because George Lucas showed chrome and big cities.

This wasn't my point. My point was that many of the characters don't have clear-cut functions and there aren't a lot of tropes commonly featured in fantasy as compared to the other movies.


It was bad because of it's inconsistent tone, poor casting choices, bad pacing, and generally questionable decisions. Likewise A New Hope wasn't good because it ties into some grand monomyth that either doesn't exist or is so minor in the mythological landscape attributing it to Lucas's success is rather nonsensical. It's good because it has good pacing, had revolutionary special effects and costumes and sets, the actors pulled great performances, and because it was something that was incredibly new at the time, at least to general audiences.


I think the plot is vastly more important than special effects, costumes, sets and even the actors, although all of those are important contributing factors.


To say Lucas and co. only succeeded and were originally popular because they followed some kind of mythic formula is actually rather insulting, because it means that their actual performances and choices were less important than the broadest of archtypes being played.

I disagree. Episode V was put together better than Episode IV, yet wasn't as skillful in its utilization of fantasy tropes. And I'm not deflating the importance of the unique vision that the Star Wars universe features, I'm just saying that these contributing factors are fairly crucial. Without that unique vision, Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars. But on that same coin, part of that vision is the inclusion of fantastical tropes and a streamlined mythic storytelling structure.

[warty goblin]

Not to mention it's perfectly possible to follow the Hero's Journey to a T and still suck harder than a Hoover in hard vacuum: c.f. Eregon, either the book or film.

And that's true whether you think it's a useful description of myth, or a collection of gross simplifications and generalizations tied to some seriously suspect psychology. I tend to fall on the 'nay' side of that; there's just too much mythology that doesn't fit. Beowulf, pretty much all of Homer, great whacking chunks of the Homeric Hymns and the Ulster Cycle all spring to mind immediately, and I'd be hard pressed to not count any of them as some sort of mythic.

[Starbuck_II]

Yes. The Ewoks are the worst point of the weakest film in the trilogy.

You were born before 1973 or after 1990? Because that usually determines if you dislike Ewoks.
http://www.cinemablend.com/television/Ewok-Line-Explained-By-Barney-Stinson-How-I-Met-Your-Mother-35922.html

[Eloi]

Not to mention it's perfectly possible to follow the Hero's Journey to a T and still suck harder than a Hoover in hard vacuum: c.f. Eregon, either the book or film.

And that's true whether you think it's a useful description of myth, or a collection of gross simplifications and generalizations tied to some seriously suspect psychology. I tend to fall on the 'nay' side of that; there's just too much mythology that doesn't fit. Beowulf, pretty much all of Homer, great whacking chunks of the Homeric Hymns and the Ulster Cycle all spring to mind immediately, and I'd be hard pressed to not count any of them as some sort of mythic.


Christopher Paolini's problem was taking the plot of the original Star Wars films and setting them on Middle-Earth, which sucks the novelty out of both (because Star Wars had an original setting and the Lord of the Rings had a fairly original plot in that they were trying to unmake a powerful artifact rather than retrieve one). I think pointing to the Hero's Journey was an untactful attempt cover his tracks.

And I'm not saying that's the ONLY reason why Episode IV was good. It was just an important reason why it was the *best*.

[warty goblin]

Christopher Paolini's problem was taking the plot of the original Star Wars films and setting them on Middle-Earth, which sucks the novelty out of both (because Star Wars had an original setting and the Lord of the Rings had a fairly original plot in that they were trying to unmake a powerful artifact rather than retrieve one). I think pointing to the Hero's Journey was an untactful attempt cover his tracks.

I don't think Eregon's problem was Star Wars' plot in Middle Earth. Eregon's problem was that it a dull ass story with lame characters and fermented writing.

I'd also shy away from laying too much originality at the feet of Star Wars. That sort of weird-ass space fantasy has been around a very, very long time.


And I'm not saying that's the ONLY reason why Episode IV was good. It was just an important reason why it was the *best*.
So if the Hero's Journey is such an important part of why (you say) Ep. IV is the best, how is it that Eregon - which as you point out is a boilerplate copy - sucks? Star Wars isn't any more original than Eregon, they're both playing in playgrounds and with formulae well established by the time they were made/written.

I'd argue that how close or how far one strays from the Hero's Journey or how closely one clings to it has ultimately very little bearing on quality; even for a genre piece. It's the execution that matters, not the recitation of Cambell's framework. If two things can execute exactly the same formula, and differ wildly in quality, the formula doesn't really have that much to do with how good the end product is.

[Jayngfet]

The Hero's Journey pretty well describes the landscape of modern fantastical stories, and is a fairly solid structure for creating a narrative. Episode IV clearly features more fantastical tropes than the other films, and the prequel trilogy has the least amount of fantasy parallels than the original trilogy.


You specifically said Campbellian and mythic. You didn't mention modern fantasy at all until just now.




This wasn't my point. My point was that many of the characters don't have clear-cut functions and there aren't a lot of tropes commonly featured in fantasy as compared to the other movies.


You mean The Phantom Menace, a movie centered around space queens and featuring an army that uses energy shields they physically hold like normal shields, along with slave economies and Jedi acting as space paladins, doesn't have enough fantasy tropes?



I think the plot is vastly more important than special effects, costumes, sets and even the actors, although all of those are important contributing factors.


Your beliefs are wrong. As far as these things go all of those are equal and some of them greater in addition to being inherently related to the plot itself.



And I'm not deflating the importance of the unique vision that the Star Wars universe features, I'm just saying that these contributing factors are fairly crucial. Without that unique vision, Star Wars wouldn't be Star Wars. But on that same coin, part of that vision is the inclusion of fantastical tropes and a streamlined mythic storytelling structure.

There is no mythic storytelling structure. It's a load of lies made up by lazy writers and pseudo-academics that has nothing to do with mythology except in the most circumstantial and broad sense. It's something the fantasy and sci-fi genre consistently trots out in an attempt to gain legitimacy while reusing the same list of tropes over and over. It's something that is by no means an accurate reflection of mythology as a whole and ignores vital factors in how myths get made. At best it's an oversimplification of a specific type of thing that's only one of dozens of mythological things. At worst it's a dangerous hypothesis that teaches young writers all the wrong lessons and directly contributes to a lot of the problems prevalent in genre fiction.

[Bulldog Psion]

I won't say Star Wars is objectively good or bad. Objective tastes are kind of an oxymoron, aren't they?

However, I think there are a number of factors why Star Wars is popular, most of which grab the human imagination:

Lightsabers, for the Force's sake. :smalltongue:

Mystical warriors set in space.

Feeling of freedom, adventure, and unlimited possibilities from having a whole galaxy sitting there just a hyperdrive jump away.

The menace of eerie, soul-sucking dark forces, set in space.

Monsters and more weird aliens than you can shake a stick at.

A feeling of non-stop freewheeling, splashy adventure.

The sheer scale of stuff -- a galactic Empire, a ten thousand year old Republic -- and yet one plucky hero or hideous villain can make a colossal difference.

"Farm boy fights dark overlord" theme.

Fighter starships that appeal to the fighter plane geeks. :smallwink:

Seedy Old West style cantinas filled with rowdy aliens. Mix of the familiar and the exotic.

Edit: there are a lot more, of course, but IMO these are all fairly important factors, too.

[Eloi]

You specifically said Campbellian and mythic. You didn't mention modern fantasy at all until just now.

Yeah, that's true. My mind has been changed from thinking that it has modern mythical resonance than classical mythical resonance.

I mean an Evil Empire versus a Good Rebellion is a pretty recent archetype, with roots in the U.S. War of Independence among others.


You mean The Phantom Menace, a movie centered around space queens and featuring an army that uses energy shields they physically hold like normal shields, along with slave economies and Jedi acting as space paladins, doesn't have enough fantasy tropes?


Pretty much. A lot of those aren't as iconic 'saving the princess' or 'wizened old wizard mentor'.


As far as these things go all of those are equal and some of them greater in addition to being inherently related to the plot itself.


Can you expound on this more? I'm not saying these factors aren't relevant, it's just not what differentiates the quality of Star Wars films, because they have consistently good sets, special effects, etc.


There is no mythic storytelling structure.

I said a streamlined mythic storytelling structure.


I don't think Eregon's problem was Star Wars' plot in Middle Earth. Eregon's problem was that it a dull ass story with lame characters and fermented writing.

I'd also shy away from laying too much originality at the feet of Star Wars. That sort of weird-ass space fantasy has been around a very, very long time.


So if the Hero's Journey is such an important part of why (you say) Ep. IV is the best, how is it that Eregon - which as you point out is a boilerplate copy - sucks? Star Wars isn't any more original than Eregon, they're both playing in playgrounds and with formulae well established by the time they were made/written.

I'd argue that how close or how far one strays from the Hero's Journey or how closely one clings to it has ultimately very little bearing on quality; even for a genre piece. It's the execution that matters, not the recitation of Cambell's framework. If two things can execute exactly the same formula, and differ wildly in quality, the formula doesn't really have that much to do with how good the end product is.

Well, if I was saying that Star Wars only successful because of this, than yeah, you'd have a point. But I'm saying that all Star Wars films have great special effects and sets and execution and directing and acting, etc. What really differentiates them between each other is their plots, characters and usage of tropes.

[Jayngfet]

Yeah, that's true. My mind has been changed from thinking that it has modern mythical resonance than classical mythical resonance.

I mean an Evil Empire versus a Good Rebellion is a pretty recent archetype, with roots in the U.S. War of Independence among others.


[QUOTE]
Pretty much. A lot of those aren't as iconic 'saving the princess' or 'wizened old wizard mentor'.


Which only became prominent maybe a few years before Star Wars. Remember Tolkien originally wasn't exactly that popular with general audiences and his clones weren't immediately turned into mass market phenomenons. Wizened Old Wizards owe much of their popularity, possibly even a slight majority, to Star Wars itself, and not because of some representation of an archtype; Obi Wan became an iconic Mentor because Alec Guinness is a damn fine actor who played that role better than most.

"Saving the princess" is also one of those things that's overly specific. The Damsel in distress is a common trope on it's own, but to say that it's elements just being there means that Carrie Fisher's playing the part the way she did is therefore incidental. Lucas didn't just go "Ok, there's a woman who's been kidnapped, and she has a royal title. I wonder if there's any homeless people who could sit there for two hours and read lines?"



Can you expound on this more? I'm not saying these factors aren't relevant, it's just not what differentiates the quality of Star Wars films, because they have consistently good sets, special effects, etc.


In a big way, those ARE what differentiates the films. The special effects were unprecedented, the sets were varied and had a unique feel to them, and they all played in perfectly to what Lucas and co. wanted to evoke for the sake of the story. They aren't incidental or separate, but major elements that need to be recognized because of the fact that they're so closely bound to the story itself that to change them may well change the story as well.

To say "the story is most important on a good movie" is like saying "the crank shaft is most important on a good pickup truck".



I said a streamlined mythic storytelling structure.

It's not even a streamlined one. Because it removes so much it's essentially a caricature that takes out everything important about mythology.

[Eloi]

Which only became prominent maybe a few years before Star Wars. Remember Tolkien originally wasn't exactly that popular with general audiences and his clones weren't immediately turned into mass market phenomenons. Wizened Old Wizards owe much of their popularity, possibly even a slight majority, to Star Wars itself, and not because of some representation of an archtype; Obi Wan became an iconic Mentor because Alec Guinness is a damn fine actor who played that role better than most.

"Saving the princess" is also one of those things that's overly specific. The Damsel in distress is a common trope on it's own, but to say that it's elements just being there means that Carrie Fisher's playing the part the way she did is therefore incidental. Lucas didn't just go "Ok, there's a woman who's been kidnapped, and she has a royal title. I wonder if there's any homeless people who could sit there for two hours and read lines?"

Rescuing the princess is a very common trope in fairy tales, even before Star Wars. As are the others I've mentioned. And I'm not saying that the acting isn't important, it's just that the acting is consistently good throughout the entire saga.


In a big way, those ARE what differentiates the films.

From each other though?


To say "the story is most important on a good movie" is like saying "the crank shaft is most important on a good pickup truck".


It's a more akin to having six more or less identical trucks with the crank shaft being the feature that differentiates them majorly in quality. That is to say, it's the story that makes the films different. I believe that the execution and acting of the entire sage is pretty even and solid throughout.

[warty goblin]

Pretty much. A lot of those aren't as iconic 'saving the princess' or 'wizened old wizard mentor'.

I'd actually put them as more iconic. Space royalty dates back to Edger Rice Burroughs, the wandering knights aiding ladies whose lands are under duplicitous assault is a staple of Arthurian romance, and special Boys of Destiny distinguishing themselves at a young age through a test of physical danger or prowess is only slightly younger than your average dinosaur.


I said a streamlined mythic storytelling structure.
So you take an already incredibly vague framework and streamline it. What the hell is left?


Well, if I was saying that Star Wars only successful because of this, than yeah, you'd have a point. But I'm saying that all Star Wars films have great special effects and sets and execution and directing and acting, etc. What really differentiates them between each other is their plots, characters and usage of tropes.
You're still trying to argue that Star Wars IV is the best because Hero's Journey. You can have terrible genre movies that use the same exact structure, and good genre movies that have nothing to do with it. I'm really not seeing a correlation - let alone a causation - here.

[Jayngfet]

Rescuing the princess is a very common trope in fairy tales, even before Star Wars. As are the others I've mentioned. And I'm not saying that the acting isn't important, it's just that the acting is consistently good throughout the entire saga.


Yeah, but that's one thing you listed out of all the tropes. Unless Luke has to rescue a different princess every movie it can't be reused anyway.



From each other though?


Absolutely. The first two prequels have dreadful acting and direction and questionable choices made all around. Their problems aren't about what tropes Lucas used. Likewise Episode 3 was slightly better, but was still VERY questionable. Return of the Jedi was the weakest of the original trilogy and had plenty of it's own errors, even if I'd put it above the prequels personally.

It's not because of tropes. It's because the movies lost their touch in terms of casting and camera work and innovative effects and good editing.


It's a more akin to having six more or less identical trucks with the crank shaft being the feature that differentiates them majorly in quality. That is to say, it's the story that makes the films different. I believe that the execution and acting of the entire sage is pretty even and solid throughout.[/QUOTE]

[Clertar]

Obi-Wan for example I'm pretty sure almost everyone I know can recite pretty much every line he has in the right context.

That's very odd and surprising :smalleek:

[Carry2]

I more-or-less enjoyed The Empire Strikes Back, but overall the acting in the series is mediocre (none of the leads today can stand to watch their original performances, apparently,) the plot and dialogue are pretty formulaic. None of which makes it actively bad, but it doesn't especially commend it either. On the plus side, the soundtrack is catchy, the SFX hold up pretty well, and in it's better moments it has strong characterisation and non-trivialised moral dilemmas.

What bothers me more are things like R2 and 3PO being casually treated as dispensable chattel, despite showing far more human qualities than robots in other sci-fi settings that agonise much more over the rights of artificial sentience. Plus, I'm pretty sensitive to plot holes, and I think Darth Vader looks like he's sucking on a lemon. But I'm odd that way, so I'm not sure I'm qualified to judge the quality of the series from a 'demographic appeal' standpoint.

(FWIW, I never had any particular problems with Ewoks beating a crack Imperial Legion... ...relative to the standard trope of Stormtroopers being inexplicably poor shots whenever Luke, Han and Leia were around.)

[Eloi]

I'd actually put them as more iconic. Space royalty dates back to Edger Rice Burroughs, the wandering knights aiding ladies whose lands are under duplicitous assault is a staple of Arthurian romance, and special Boys of Destiny distinguishing themselves at a young age through a test of physical danger or prowess is only slightly younger than your average dinosaur.

Sure, Phantom Menace had iconic elements. But not as many as A New Hope.



So you take an already incredibly vague framework and streamline it. What the hell is left?


A fairly sturdy framework that can be used to add a sense of direction and urgency to a plot set in a complex setting.


You're still trying to argue that Star Wars IV is the best because Hero's Journey.

And because it has the most iconic variants of all of its elements, and the best usage of tropes. (Among the other contributing factors that all Star Wars movie possess.)


You can have terrible genre movies that use the same exact structure, and good genre movies that have nothing to do with it. I'm really not seeing a correlation - let alone a causation - here.

I'm not talking about other movies. I'm talking about Star Wars movies, and why Episode IV is the best among them. Episode IV has a clearer structure and more resonant concepts than the rest.


Yeah, but that's one thing you listed out of all the tropes. Unless Luke has to rescue a different princess every movie it can't be reused anyway.

Indeed, Episode IV's magic couldn't be recaptured. The destruction of the Death Star II wasn't as satisfying as the destruction of the original, for instance.

Also here's more parallels: Obi-Wan is much like Merlin and Gandalf, Luke is a lot like King Arthur, and Darth Vader is pretty similar to many fantastical villains in aesthetics and function especially Sauron or Mordred. The entire saga is sculpted in the mold of mythology and traditional fantasy literature.



Absolutely. The first two prequels have dreadful acting and direction and questionable choices made all around. Their problems aren't about what tropes Lucas used. Likewise Episode 3 was slightly better, but was still VERY questionable. Return of the Jedi was the weakest of the original trilogy and had plenty of it's own errors, even if I'd put it above the prequels personally.


I'd say Episode VI was the second worst in the saga, and most critics seem to agree with me from what I can see. As well, I think most of the series had fairly mediocre acting, and the original trilogy was no different.


Also, why has no one touched my argument that Episode IV is the climax of the saga? =/

[warty goblin]

Sure, Phantom Menace had iconic elements. But not as many as A New Hope.

I find this claim dubious at best.




A fairly sturdy framework that can be used to add a sense of direction and urgency to a plot set in a complex setting.
The Hero's Journey, insofar as it even exists, is incredibly vague, and about as far from a robust framework as one can get. If I were to go explain the marvels of epsilon-delta proofs to somebody after my morning real analysis class, my average Wednesday would be a hero's journey, and my professor would be a wise old mentor figure. Never mind that we're essentially the same age.


I'm not talking about other movies. I'm talking about Star Wars movies, and why Episode IV is the best among them. Episode IV has a clearer structure and more resonant concepts than the rest.
For the argument that IV is superior because of the monomyth to have any compelling weight, it rather has to be referenced against other movies that use the same structure. Where we see using the monomyth makes not a dot of difference.



Also here's more parallels: Obi-Wan is much like Merlin and Gandalf, Luke is a lot like King Arthur, and Darth Vader is pretty similar to many fantastical villains in aesthetics and function especially Sauron or Mordred. The entire saga is sculpted in the mold of mythology and traditional fantasy literature.
Obi-Wan works OK as a Gandalf figure - as long as you ignore literally everything that happens after the end of the Fellowship of the Ring, but not so much as a Merlin. Beyond the fact that both are old dudes who occasionally advise young guys, they do completely different things. Last I looked for instance, Obi-Wan didn't get turned into a tree by a woman he had the hots for. Or make any prophecies involving conquests by foreign powers, appearance swap any lecherous kings for some queen-banging, and wasn't the offspring of a human and a supernatural entity.

Sauron never appears in LoTR, and is only described in passing as a great dark warrior with a burning touch when his form in the Second Age is mentioned at the Council of Elrond. He's more fully described in various forms in the Silmarillion, but that wasn't published until the same year as Star Wars IV released. It's hard to deliberately invoke the visuals of somebody who's never given any.

Mordred is just a knight; there's not really any specific aesthetics tied to him. Indeed in many depictions he's a regular looking guy in regular looking armor; it's not even consistently black (http://images4.fanpop.com/image/photos/16200000/The-combat-of-Arthur-and-Mordred-medieval-times-16207217-402-500.jpg). You can't even argue that Star Wars IV plays with Luke/Vader as an inverted Mordred/Arthur, since there's no indication in that film that Luke is Vader's son.

[Eloi]

Is it really so controversial and dubious a point that Star Wars has an abundance of mythic antecedents, Episode IV especially?

George Lucas himself said that the screenplay of Episode IV was intentionally patterned after myths, fairy tales, legends, etc. and Campbell's theory of monomyth especially? Here's him talking about it:

"it came to me that there really was no modern use of mythology...so that's when I started doing more strenuous research on fairy tales, folklore and mythology, and I started reading Joe's books. Before that I hadn't read any of Joe's books.... It was very eerie because in reading The Hero with A Thousand Faces I began to realize that my first draft of Star Wars was following classical motifs"- from page 541 of Joseph Campbell: A Fire in the Mind.

And this isn't a direct quote, and I'll try to find better sources to back this up, but:

"Lucas had already written two drafts of Star Wars when he rediscovered Joseph Campbell's The Hero With a Thousand Faces in 1975 (having read it years before in college). This blueprint for "The Hero's Journey" gave Lucas the focus he needed to draw his sprawling imaginary universe into a single story. [...]

Lucas has often cited The Lord of the Rings series as a major influence on Star Wars. Lucas learned from Tolkien how to handle the delicate stuff of myth. Tolkien wrote that myth and fairytale seem to be the best way to communicate morality - hints for choosing between right and wrong - and in fact that may be their primary purpose. Lucas has also acknowleged in interviews that the Gandalf and the Witch-king characters in the Lord of the Rings influenced the Obi-Wan Kenobi and Darth Vader characters respectively."

(Source: http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/History_of_Star_Wars)

[Philistine]

Is it really so controversial and dubious a point that Star Wars has an abundance of mythic antecedents, Episode IV especially?

I don't think anyone's saying GL didn't consciously pattern the story of ANH on Campbell's "monomyth." The question at issue is the actual importance of incorporating that framework given that use of that structure seems to be entirely unrelated to the quality of any particular film; and secondarily, whether the "monomyth" idea is even an accurate representation of mythology in general given the prevalence of myths which do not fit Campbell's mold.

[Eloi]

I don't think anyone's saying GL didn't consciously pattern the story of ANH on Campbell's "monomyth."

Among other sources, which is important to note.


The question at issue is the actual importance of incorporating that framework given that use of that structure seems to be entirely unrelated to the quality of any particular film; and secondarily, whether the "monomyth" idea is even an accurate representation of mythology in general given the prevalence of myths which do not fit Campbell's mold.

But the monomyth concept is not even most of why I think Episode IV is better than the other episodes. The entire iconography and use of archetypes is simply better employed in that film than the others, monomyth aside.

[Wardog]

Yeah put me in the pro Ewok categories as well. At first I thought they were just mini-wookies. Then I grew up and realized they are mini-wookies who ended up eating the flesh of all the stormtroopers who died.

The cinematic release is just Rebel propaganda.

In reality, it wasn't the Imperial's helmets that they used as drums.

[Darth Credence]

Wow, so much stuff here to talk about. I'll have to restrain myself to talk about just a little bit, or my entire weekend will be gone.


What bothers me more are things like R2 and 3PO being casually treated as dispensable chattel, despite showing far more human qualities than robots in other sci-fi settings that agonise much more over the rights of artificial sentience.

I've seen the droids as slaves arguments brought up recently, and the more I think about the movies the less that it holds true for me. We have no idea how they were perceived on the Tantive IV (first ship seen), other than Leia using them to carry out a mission. The Jawas treat them like property, but I think the Jawas would treat organics like property and sell them like slaves, so that is more the ethics of that species. Uncle Owen treats them badly, but he doesn't treat Luke really well. Luke treats them very well - the only time in the series that he treats them even close to dispensable chattel is as part of the plan to get R2 with his lightsaber into Jabba's palace. Other than that, R2 is one of his best friends and he treats 3PO as a person from the beginning, to the point of telling 3PO not to call him 'sir'. Leia and Chewie both show obvious caring for the 'droids, and Han even seems to warm up to them over time. If they were dispensable, they wouldn't have repaired R2 after the battle of Yavin, or 3PO in Cloud City. While 3PO is paranoid that he will be deactivated, I can put that down to a paranoid personality just as easily as to a reality of the lives of 'droids.

I am not accounting for the prequels here, obviously. Those droids are much more disposable, but I think there are different things going on. The Super battle 'droids and droidekas have no personality, and are basically just killing machines. They are no different than real world drones, and are every bit as disposable. The battle 'droids are a bit of a problem. Unfortunately, they were made to be comic relief, which required them to be given that ridiculous voice and saying stupid things. That makes it seem much more like they are human like yet disposable, which they never should have been. But, that came from TPM, which almost everyone agrees was a particular low point.


As to the original post, I will take the later restating of it of "does it hold up without nostalgia?" I give that an unqualified yes, because I have been lucky to be a part of introducing a number of young children to the saga over the past few years. I am the big Star Wars fan in my family, so when my nieces and nephews have gotten old enough, I've introduced them all to the movies. In every case, the sense of wonder that I've seen in them has been what I remember from when I first watched the movies, and my earliest memory is standing in line with my parents to see Star Wars at the big theater downtown on a Sunday morning. The way the kids react to everything up there is all the proof I need that the movies stand the test of time.

I will note that I think the order of the movies is important when it comes to that. I show them IV, V, II, III, VI. I leave out I completely, and let them watch that later if they want to, telling them it is the story of how Anakin first came to the Jedi Temple. This order (which I did not come up with, but it really is the best order IMO) preserves the surprises of the movies, and eliminates some problems. It makes a few others more pronounced, like Leia remembering her real mother, but the advantages outweigh the disadvantages. When the kids first get to the "I am your father" line, they are every bit as blown away as I was. We then go back and show them how Anakin became Darth Vader, and when it ends with the twins named Luke and Leia, they are blown away again. Perfect lead in to go back to Return of the Jedi and get the happy ending.