What Star Wars Has Lost

delericho · Apr 26, 2016

Water Bob said:
I just saw the new trailer for Rogue One, and I'm excited. The film looks good. Heck, it may be better than The Force Awakens.

Star Wars Rogue One

I do like the direction of the new films, but....I feel that they haven't nailed it.

...

Although I don't want to go back to the atmosphere of the prequels, I'm thinking, "Where's the WONDER?"

At the moment, they're playing it safe. There was a huge backlash against the prequels, and there was the potential for an even bigger one here (because Disney bought the series and then they produced this?). So for "The Force Awakens" they went for "Star Wars Greatest Hits", and produced something that was much like the old trilogy, remixed. And for "Rogue One" they are revisiting the original trilogy directly, filling in the gaps around how the Rebels stole the Death Star plans.

I'd expect Episode VIII to take a few more risks, and then for the other anthology films to go still further afield. And I think that's a good strategy - build a solid foundation on which to work, and then expand. Just like they did "Iron Man" and "Captain America: the First Avenger", long before "Guardians of the Galaxy" and "Ant Man" - people enjoyed the latter two films, but the first two were the easier sell.

Umbran · Apr 27, 2016

Ryujin said:
But that's just it: Are you making anything new and deep in meaning if you're throwing existing tropes in a blender?

Flour, eggs, butter, brown sugar, and chocolate all exist alone. When you mix them up right, you get chocolate chip cookies. There's this thing call "chemistry", which can lead to the whole being different from the mere sum of its parts.

Or, to use the Vulcan term: IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

They were entertaining but, to me at least, they were never really anything new.

Yes, well, how old were you when you saw them? And how many of the prior things had you seen?

When I first saw Star Wars, I was a little kid. I hadn't seen Flash Gordon, or WW2 movies, or Samurai movies. To me, all these were new, and pretty darned awesome. And, while now that I'm older, when I see those other thing I can see the parentage, I really do not feel that Star Wars is "just" a samurai movie.

Ryujin · Apr 27, 2016

Umbran said:
Flour, eggs, butter, brown sugar, and chocolate all exist alone. When you mix them up right, you get chocolate chip cookies. There's this thing call "chemistry", which can lead to the whole being different from the mere sum of its parts.

Or, to use the Vulcan term: IDIC. Infinite Diversity in Infinite Combinations.

The diversity wasn't exactly infinite and I didn't exactly find them to be exceptionally nuanced

I did enjoy them as popcorn movies, but I've never been a slavering fan.

Yes, well, how old were you when you saw them? And how many of the prior things had you seen?

When I first saw Star Wars, I was a little kid. I hadn't seen Flash Gordon, or WW2 movies, or Samurai movies. To me, all these were new, and pretty darned awesome. And, while now that I'm older, when I see those other thing I can see the parentage, I really do not feel that Star Wars is "just" a samurai movie.

I was 14 when the first of the original trilogy was released. I've always been a fan of old movies, especially old black & white SciFi stuff. I'd seen plenty of cowboy movies and WW2 movies (especially those of John Wayne, Audie Murphy, and Roy Rogers), and Samurai movies, and Chinese dramas ("The Water Margin" being a personal favourite), though I didn't get into Kurosawa films until just before Episode 6 came out.

I'll definitely give them one thing though; they, along with "Battlestar Galactica", ushered in the age of the modern special Effects film. That's both good and bad.

Water Bob · Apr 27, 2016

I don't know about losing my sense of wonder just because I'm older. Right now, I'm reading the old Marvel Star Wars comic series from the 1970's and 80's, and it's full of wonder. I'm in volume three, and the book routinely strikes me with that innocent wonder that were the building blocks of the original trilogy. Those writers really "got" Star Wars. The story I'm reading right now sees Leia attempting to hide the main Rebel fleet in the corona of a star. Given Star Wars super-technology, it's believable. Or, at least, it suspends my disbelief as a Star Wars story.

These four massive constructs are made--much larger than any Alliance vessel. Once activated, they create a gigantic forcefield that covers all four sides of a three dimensional triangle. With the fleet inside, the device is flown into the local sun, thereby hiding the fleet.

The story then goes on with Threepio and Artoo taking center stage, but that's beside the point.

The story caught my sense of Star Wars wonder. To me, it feels like the original trilogy in a way that the new film doesn't.

MarkB · Apr 27, 2016

Ryujin said:
I'll definitely give them one thing though; they, along with "Battlestar Galactica", ushered in the age of the modern special Effects film. That's both good and bad.

That's true, but it's not just the special effects that Star Wars did differently - it was the set dressing, the backgrounds, the sense of place. Most Science Fiction and Fantasy movies before that had sets that looked like sets, and special effects that were visibly fake - the audience were expected to bring along their own suspension of disbelief. With Star Wars's "lived-in future" approach, there wasn't that sense - you could take what you were seeing at face value and still be drawn into the setting. I think that's one of the reasons it resonated with kids so much more than anything before it.

Ryujin · Apr 27, 2016

MarkB said:
That's true, but it's not just the special effects that Star Wars did differently - it was the set dressing, the backgrounds, the sense of place. Most Science Fiction and Fantasy movies before that had sets that looked like sets, and special effects that were visibly fake - the audience were expected to bring along their own suspension of disbelief. With Star Wars's "lived-in future" approach, there wasn't that sense - you could take what you were seeing at face value and still be drawn into the setting. I think that's one of the reasons it resonated with kids so much more than anything before it.

The set dressing was a factor of the budget, ie. most of the previous SciFi movies didn't have one. Ten+ million dollars went a long way back then.

Joker · Apr 27, 2016

Umbran said:
Flour, eggs, butter, brown sugar, and chocolate all exist alone. When you mix them up right, you get chocolate chip cookies. There's this thing call "chemistry", which can lead to the whole being different from the mere sum of its parts.

Again with the food analogies. First it was lasagna, now you're on desert. Are you being fed well enough?