Well, just one point on the small stuff: The special effects in the first couple movie are indeed amazing. Not for the light-sabers and force-levitation and glowy things on spaceships or (Ogg help us) muppet Jedi masters, but because everything --* everything* – you see in the first couple movies looks like it came from a real place. The vehicles, including spaceships, all have dings and dust and grime, like a real vehicle, not a model that just came out of the box; the buildings don’t look like architect’s drawings, but like places people actually live in and use (with garbage and everything); the chess-like game R2D2 and Chewbacca play isn’t perfectly rendered, but has scan-lines and glitches in its 3-D display. Sure, 2001 tried to go there, too, but the guys on Star Wars pulled it off so well that completely imaginary and alien places feel real when you watch them.
Plus the outer space scenes were done with a fresh style. Planets weren’t little balls against a black backdrop; in the first scene, a planet is visible, but only as an arc taking up the bottom of the screen. And when the Star Destroyer zooms past in tight perspective, the viewer is pulled right in. Even 2001 had nothing like that, IMHO one of the most inspired shots in all of moviemaking.
I saw the original Star Wars movie when it was in first run. I was about 25 at the time, a big science fiction fan, and loved Star Trek. I found it a major disappointment: a thin, cliched story and shallow characters. It seemed like a kids movie to me (and I mean children, not teens). I have not bothered to watch any of the Star Wars movies since.
I totally do not get the reverence for Star Wars. There are many, many much better SF movies out there, and there already were when it came out.
How is Star Trek (presumably, the TV show at that time) less cliched or characters less shallow? Roddenberry himself called it “Wagon Train in Space”.
Partly contra Miller, I think the kid argument is reasonable, but should be made a bit more nuanced. Star Wars is compelling if it is one of the first special-effects laden extravaganzas you see. This means either seeing it at any age in 1977, or seeing it as a kid at a later date. I was born in 82, and I saw the movies for the first time when I was 10 or so. I was hooked. I still get drawn in whenever I hear the opening theme or the Imperial March.
Nevertheless, I can easily see how someone in his 30s, having seen everything that came after, would find Star Wars cliched and uninspired. Never mind that it was the movie that inspired all the cliches. I find there is a similar effect with, for example, Pulp Fiction and all of its later derivatives.
The “cliched” aspect was largely deliberate, and with different expectations can be seen as a strength. It’s a myth; these resonate because of their repetition of archetypal figures and situations. The “tropes and themes” were far older than '50s serials.
While the “different world” and “real place” aspects mentioned above are accurate, and were large factors in the success of the movie, the important lines of the story could have been written with no “science fiction” elements at all.
The visual effects in Star Wars are considered groundbreaking because they were. The OP seems to be completely forgetting that almost 35 years have passed since Star Wars came out. But it was the first large-scale application of motion control photography, pioneered on a very small scale by 2001.
I hear you, njtt. I’ve always been much more a fan of Star Trek than of Star Wars. I think for me it boils down to the fact that Star Wars is set up from the beginning as a very black-and-white universe, and Star Trek, as early as “The Corbomite Maneuver” always seemed more complex than that.
Nitpick: “Wagon Train to the stars.”
I watched all three because I wanted to see what I had been missing. Even though I was bored with it, I figured at least by the time I was done I would at the very least finally understand the small references to the movies that have entered our culture over the years. Probably wasn’t worth it.
As I understand it, Star Wars was one of the first, if not the first, movie to have a big merchandising campaign. My guess is kids saw the movie when it first came out, convinced mom and dad to get them some action figures to play with, and so SW became a part of their childhood above and beyond simply a movie they saw. I think that’s why a lot of people who love Star Wars today were children/teens who were able to see it in the theaters.
Of course, I’m not a sci-fi fan. Never seen an episode of Star Trek, either. Saw the first Aliens movie years ago and didn’t think much of it. I’ve always been led to believe the SW films sorta transcends the “sci-fi fan” requirement to enjoy the films. I have seen the Harry Potter films, and do like those somewhat, but not a huge fan, and those aren’t what I would call sci-fi. I’m guessing the Potter films, and their cultural references will endure for many years. 20 years from now my kid will no doubt wonder what the fuss was all about.
It all makes sense now.
The hype was a big part of it all. A friend of mine and I drove to Madison (WI) from out of state to see it, because we wanted to see it in a college town. Unfortunately, it was shown in one of the first tinny box theaters, but it was still impressive. Very impressive.
You really had to be caught up in the times. There wasn’t much to be happy about in the late 70s and movies were a big escape. And look at the other technology of the times–cassette tapes, the beginnings of electronic TV, and cars that really sucked. Star Wars was the epitome of escape.
In my experience, anyone who tells you “you don’t have to like [genre] to like [genre film]” has lost some of their objectivity.
I have a really hard time believing the OP was so excited for movies in this genre that he delayed his gratification for 3 decades.
This opening scene is actually the brilliance of the movie. Thanks to the Apollo missions only a few years previous, we had a pretty good idea of what a planet should look like from space, so the effects team was able to build a pretty good presentation of what that experience might be like. Additionally, the first ship crossing the screen, as seen from a vantage point slightly below, was fairly unique in it’s own right. The effects team made the excellent decision to move the camera around the model, rather than the other way 'round, as had been done previously, which allowed for new angles (think of how the Enterprise was shot in TOS - mostly from the side, which was the case in almost all sci-fi up to that point). It also allowed for a more realistic impression of motion. All of that techical piece aside, the real brilliance is that showing us the smaller ship first, with laser blasts going to and from, was impressive all by itself, and we expected a similarly-sized vessel to be chasing it, since it looked pretty big to the audience already. Instead, what we got was a scene were the audience was watching an “8” and then the star destroyer just cranked it up to an “11” by being completely unexpected in size and scope.
Just for reference, what are some of your fave movies, now and from around then? I’m just curious.
Not the first. Planet of the Apes, though not nearly as big as Star Wars would later become, did spawn a bunch of toys and other merchandise.
Which is a bit odd when you think about it, since the premise of the series is that mankind has nuked itself into near extinction (or is about to do so, depending where you you are in your time travels). Not exactly the kind of world to inspire play in children, one would think.
That’s probably why I stuck with Legos.
My name is not Marge Innover, but I think there’s a problem with your statistical analysis. In 1977, the 7-18 y.o. kids would have been born from 1959-1970. The 1977 birthrate wouldn’t seem to be a factor.
And to say that there were fewer kids in America than ever before ignores the overall population growth. The chart you linked to shows (as you noted) births per thousand, but there were a lot more kids in 1970 than in 1920.
Agreed. If you are uninterested in sci-fi to the point that you’ve never even seen a single episode of any Star Trek incarnation, I’d be very surprised if you enjoyed Star Wars.
Additionally, I think that going into it already knowing the plot and all the good lines because they’ve become a part of pop culture, probably really reduces the enjoyment for a new viewer. I mean, “Luke, I am your father” is a good line partially because it is shocking! Holy shit! Darth Vader is his…dad? How does that even work?!
If you’ve been hearing “Luke, I am your father” your whole life then yeah, when you get to that scene you’re going to be like, “Yep, there’s that famous scene. Why was this such a big deal, again?”
It also suffers from the Hamlet problem (yeah, I went there with a Shakespeare comparison. want to make something of it?) that you can’t believe how ultra-clichéd the story is when you watch it these days, but you have to realize that some of those clichés were brand-new at the time. Like panning across a starfield, or the insanely-long shot of the ship flying overhead, or whatever. Although of course Star Wars did bring its share of clichés to the table to start with. It was supposed to be an over-arching epic with archetypal heroes and villains.
But if you don’t like sci-fi and you’re not even coming to it fresh anyway due to having been saturated with its themes and references and famous lines over the years, I think it’s highly unlikely you’ll enjoy it.
I saw the original 3 in the theater and, while if found them somewhat entertaining, I’ve never understood the hype and I don’t think I’ve seen any of them since then.
It may be because I wasn’t really a kid in '77.
I did go to see the first of the new ones. After seeing that I never bothered with the rest.
Like all such movies, it is a product of its time.
What looked fresh and new in 1977 is pretty dated today.
As for the story, it is the same plot used by thousands of movies:'Young pure man ndergoes trials and triumphs over evil".
What made it special was the special effects, the good looking cast (Carrie Fisher, Mark Hamill, Harrison Ford, and the charming robots).
That is the fate of all classic movies.
Of course, the “Godfather” will never go out of style, because it is not a movie about the future-it is msotly about the past.
And as was pointed out by the Pizza Rolls guy that opening scene shows the desperation of the Rebellion and the powerful reach of the Empire. That opening scene shows you all you need to know.
I wasn’t a kid in 1977. Started reading SF after I got hold of Foundation in second grade; obviously, it was beyond me–but I started looking for more of that stuff. By senior year in high school (1966), I’d progressed beyond Heinlein/Asimov/Clarke to the nascent New Wave; that subscription to Galaxy certainly helped. (Hey, where are the R A Lafferty & Cordwainer Smith movies?) Liked Star Trek in its original run although I considered Twilight Zone truer to “adult” SF. Came to love *ST *during its endless reruns in syndication–mostly because of the characters. (So I liked the recent reboot & hope for a better script next time.)
Star Wars was great, great fun. Obviously Space Opera (at that time an unfashionable subgenre), but I enjoyed the characters & the humor. The special effects were excellent for the day.
If I start watching (or reading) the first of a trilogy & don’t care for the first film/book, I stop. And do something else.