[Star Wars] Salon.com Article: "Galactic gasbag"

[Wolfspider]

Regardless, if one is going to dissect and lambast Star Wars, its orgins, and its influences, it would be wise to at least get the simple facts WITHIN the movies correct. The error does not immediately invalidate the arguments presented, but it certainly doesn't lend to his credence either. Admittedly, he raises some good points, but it's hard not to be a bit suspicous of the author's intentions after such a sloppy oversight.

I don't see this as a sloppy oversight. I'm sure that I might make a similar mistake even though I've seen the movies a hundred times. I don't think it invalidates the author's claims at all.

Besides, why be "suspicious of the author's intentions" because of a mistake?

To be fair, ol' dead Obi-wan does look a lot like (in fact, exactly like) the holographic images that are used as communication devices throughout the films. I'm sure the same special effect was used to render both the holograms and Ben's ghost.

 

[King_Stannis]

for those of you who think this article has some good points, i will again post this quote below:


=============================================
"Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials"
==========================================

this writer is accusing george lucas of STEALING someone else's screenplay and calling it his own. with no proof at all, other than a hunch.

i ask, not that the other stuff he wrote about in the article was terribly interesting anyway, but how can you take the rest of the article seriously when he makes these kind of accusations?

 

[Wolfspider]

this writer is accusing george lucas of STEALING someone else's screenplay and calling it his own. with no proof at all, other than a hunch.

The author, having read Bracket's works and also knowing how much Lucas borrows from other sources, finds it "hard to swallow" that Lucas wasn't in some way influenced by the original script. I don't find anything wrong about this assertion, especially considering that Lucas didn't have to steal anything since Bracket was one of the film's screenwriters. The author is countering Pollock's assertion that Bracket didn't have any influence, NOT saying that Lucas was stealing anything. The author has more of a bone to pick with Pollock, I think. Reread this section again and see if you see what I mean.

Although, considering the Dinotopia incident, I wouldn't doubt that Lucas has blatantly stolen ideas....

Whatever happened with this? Was the Dinotopia creator properly compensated?

 

[Ristamar]

Besides, why be "suspicious of the author's intentions" because of a mistake?

To be fair, ol' dead Obi-wan does look a lot like (in fact, exactly like) the holographic images that are used as communication devices throughout the films. I'm sure the same special effect was used to render both the holograms and Ben's ghost.

Yes, he does look very much like a hologram.

Still, it's a dumb mistake. And to anyone that's even a casual Star Wars fan, it's a REALLY dumb mistake. Even my mother would know that Kenobi was a ghost (or spirit, if you prefer) and not a hologram (though I might have to present the question to her as multiple choice just to jog her memory ).

Look at it this way... if someone started criticizing something of which you are a big fan (a novel, a movie, etc), then blurted out a statement so obviously wrong (or misinterpreted) about a simple aspect of the object he was critiquing, wouldn't that raise a few warning flags in your head?

Anyway, as I said, he made some good points, and the error doesn't automatically invalidate his arguments. It is a bit odd, though... *shrug* ...take that for what it's worth.

 

[mmadsen]

Look at it this way... if someone started criticizing something of which you are a big fan (a novel, a movie, etc), then blurted out a statement so obviously wrong (or misinterpreted) about a simple aspect of the object he was critiquing, wouldn't that raise a few warning flags in your head?

I still don't see why anyone is taking this article as an attack on Star Wars. It's an attack on the pompous stance that Star Wars descends from literary/religious classics, when it quite obviously descends very directly from earlier 20th-century pulp sci-fi.

 

[Wolfspider]

Still, it's a dumb mistake. And to anyone that's even a casual Star Wars fan, it's a REALLY dumb mistake. Even my mother would know that Kenobi was a ghost (or spirit, if you prefer) and not a hologram (though I might have to present the question to her as multiple choice just to jog her memory).

Oh, I'll agree. It's a dumb mistake. I'm surprised it got by the editor. All I can think is that maybe the author was trying to be facetious...I dunno.

Why, it would be like calling a light saber a "laser sword" or calling the Enterprise a "space ship" instead of a starship....

Heh. Sorry. I mentioned the word facetious and then decided I'd be a little bit difficult myself. It's a disease I have....



Carry on....

 

[King_Stannis]

I still don't see why anyone is taking this article as an attack on Star Wars. It's an attack on the pompous stance that Star Wars descends from literary/religious classics, when it quite obviously descends very directly from earlier 20th-century pulp sci-fi.

that may be so, but all of the pot-shots he takes at lucas only obscure that message and turns it into an anti-star wars article. that's why it's such a poorly written article. the author can't even hold back his personal contempt for lucas. funny, but his article comes off sounding just as pompous as the people he is criticizing.

for the record, yes, i believe too many people take star wars way too seriously. and also for the record, too many people like to think that they are "above" a good old fashioned action adventure - so they take cheap shots at the movie and its fans.

 

[Henry]

My review of the article, for anyone who cares...

I apologize for the long post, but I want to point out, as Nemmerle did, with evidence, that pulp inspiration and mythic values are not mutually exclusive; in fact, one must include mythic archetypes to do it correctly.

I find some of the things he says true, but at this same time it does not obviate what makes star wars great. What the author misses here is that, while Star Wars incorporates much of what came before in 1930's to 1950's pulp fiction and movies, THOSE sources themselves are great models for mythic heroes and ideals.

What fan of Star Wars DOESN'T recognize the inspiration for the Death Star Trench run? Who DOESN'T by now recognize the inspiration for the basic plot of "Rescue the Princess from the Evil Wizard in the Fortress?" (And trust me, it wasn't original with The Hidden Fortress, either.)

The magic of Star Wars is, I think, as uncapturable as our childhoods, or our first loves, or even our first gaming sessions.

Notice the writer's pointing to "Rocky" as a better example. Rocky is a clear indicator that a change was already brewing in the 1970's culture. Where "The Godfather" was the most popular movie just a few scant years before, the debacle of Viet Nam, Watergate, and more problems and scandals than I can remember right now, gave people a desire for two things: (1) Identifiable Heroes, (2) Escape. Rocky fits these two themes to a "T". Star Wars, however, fits them even more. The good guys wore white (or Gold or fur), the bad guys wore black, and there was victory in the end.

On the point of the Indiana Jones films, OF COURSE they also had pulp values and elements, and OF COURSE Spielberg's dynamic direction helped this movie. But if he had directed it any other way, he wouldn't have done justice to the genre, and I believe it wouldn't have turned out successfully at all. (The fact that Harrison Ford, with his charisma and mannerisms, was the only character who could have been Indiana Jones, should go without saying.)

One last point: Star wars was a distilled brew of "firsts." This contributed to its popularity.

No other sci-fi film of its production quality existed at the time; anyone saying Star Trek is missing the point. Star Trek could not hold a candle to the photo-realism and action of the period; the original Star Trek was too sterile and staid in its look to be "real." No film or series had its level of production value.

Star Wars was the first to use new filming technology (such as the hideously over-budget Dykstra-cam) to capture detail. It also had a very dedicated staff of modelling personnel that created wizardry with very frugal resources.

As said before, it was also among the first films of the decade to develop simpler, "pulpish" core values at its story's center.

Its main cast of characters were almost complete unknowns. The most publicized one I think was Harrison Ford; despite Carrie Fisher having a famous mother, I don't think she had appeared in any filmwork before, although I could be mistaken on this point.

 

[Some guy from Ohio]

And why, oh why, Wolfspider are you always posting things about Star Wars if you dislike it so much? Why are you always the first one to give your two cents into a thread about how much you dislike it? We all know you hate it. We all know you're gonna boycott it the first week (although I actually thought I had talked you into boycotting it in it's entirety a few months ago).

Wolfspider,
I always keep an eye out for your Star Wars theads. I don't usually agree with you, but I do like the converstations you spark. Is it me, or does it seem that six months ago you could could only find posters that would flame Star Wars and now the tide seems to be going the other direction? Do I hear "bandwagon (with Wild Karrde being an exception, of course)?

 

[mmadsen]

for the record, yes, i believe too many people take star wars way too seriously. and also for the record, too many people like to think that they are "above" a good old fashioned action adventure - so they take cheap shots at the movie and its fans.

I don't mean to offend, but I think you're really missing the point of the article then. He's attacking the people who consider themselves "above" a sci-fi movie, and who pretend Star Wars must be something "above" a sci-fi movie, since they enjoy it.