You shouldn’t, because he’s right. Lucas deliberately patterned Star Wars after matinee serials, including the experience of having missed the first few episodes. To recreate that experience, he used the media res technique you described, but the inspiration for using it was precisely as DSYoungEsq described.
Except that neither he nor anyone else at that time thought there would be more installments of the series. He simply picked the best story line out of several he was considering and ran with it. No backstory other than the crawl was required to either understand or enjoy the film.
You haven’t really said anything about the plot or characters–just the setting–but it’s not clear that those rely on the science or space. If the same essential story could be a Western, or a swords-and-sorcery tale, it’s not hard SF. IMO.
How does that have anything to do with what I and Miller said? We didn’t say he intended more (actually, he may have, but that’s irrelevant). We said he patterned it off the concept of the serial. :smack:
The argument isn’t that he was trying to make a serial, the argument is he was trying to make a (singular) movie that recreated the experience of going to a matinee, and catching one episode of a sci-fi serial out of sequence. If there’d never been a second movie, it would only have enhanced this aspect of the film, by making it more like a middle piece of a serial where you never see the beginning or the end.
The plot is about the colony trying to survive on Mars. The incidents are nothing but hard science detailing the numerous ingenious ways that they have adapted their life to the demands of Mars. Difficult to imagine anything that could be harder, especially compared to other novels of the day.
You’re confusing incidents with story. All f&sf stories are in some way contemporary earth-based stories because they are written by contemporary earth-based writers. Just as all f&sf stories are about the present, not the future. The hardness of the science used is independent of the social structure of the characters. Those are almost always comparable to similar relationships in other genres or types of stories. They have to be: it’s all we know. In fact, that’s the big difference between realistic f&sf and space opera. In realistic f&sf the social structure is like the social structure in mainstream works. In space opera (or horse opera or even soap opera) the social structure is like the original definition of romance fiction, which basically included all adventure tales. That’s why these tales were called scientific romances before science fiction was coined for the genre.
Well, you do make a persuasive point, although I haven’t read those authors. Would you consider David Weber space opera? On the surface, he’s sort of hard science fiction, in that he rather clearly lays out the assumptions and physics of his universe, especially in respect to fighting. But there’s something in the casual way that the opposing forces come up with magical new technologies and bigger, badder fleets that makes me think “space opera”.
That was not my experience back in 1977. I saw it purely as a stand-alone feature film.
Later on, of course, I was thrilled when I learned they were making a sequel. But that’s not the same thing as “walking in in the middle of a serial.”
Thanks, now that’s the kind of example I was looking for.
Obviously, Star Wars is nothing like that.
I don’t know. Is “f&sf” meant to include all science fiction? can’t find much in, say, Greg Egan’s Incandescence or Orthogonal that is about present Earth.
*Empire *made an OK opera, at least according to Robot Chicken.
It’s about present-day Earth because the writer lives and thinks in present-day terms and his audience does as well. It may be set in the future, but that’s not how the future will be or how people in the future will think.
That all fiction is bound to its present is why older science fiction seems dated no matter what takes place in the plot or when the setting is; people thought differently back then and that inevitably crept into the writing. Attitudes about women, e.g., or the lack of minorities, or the assumptions about class, travel, communications, politics, religion, things that were absolutely invisible to them but now stand out. There are thousands of little things like this that make up every book ever written. They are inescapable. They can be overlooked or dismissed, certainly; many older books are still readable. We just read them in a different way than the writer could have imagined.
You’re just being dogmatic. The books I mention have no human characters, and one of them takes place in a universe with different physics.
You may not have grown up watching Saturday matinees, with the weekly serial short. I knew instantly what the movie was trying for. And it’s been documented over and over again that Lucas has said that’s what was up. 
I definitely agree that SW has nothing to do with the future, but I’d say it almost has more to do with the past than the present. The Saturday matinee feeling, the WW II dog fights, the wizards, the knights, the princess.
2001 was a lot closer to being in the future than SW, which is why so many people didn’t understand it.
There was clearly a lot of backstory not explained in this episode, and the ending didn’t really resolve anything. The only think missing from the serial experience was the cheesy cliffhanger.
I don’t recall anyone being shocked when the sequel was announced. It seemed quite natural.
Re: The ongoing Star Wars hijack.
There was a lot of talk during the original release about this being part of a series. One of the most telling parts within the movie was how blatant was Vader’s ship being sent spinning and him flying away to live another day. Everyone knew that that was a setup for a sequel.
And the box office numbers were so phenomenal right away you knew the sequel was going to happen.
If a western story can also be a sword-and-sorcery tale, doesn’t that mean it’s not a western? Or does only science fiction get to be “pure”?
I’m not talking about your “experience,” I’m talking about what Lucas was attempting to do when he was making the movie. I didn’t get it when I saw the film in 1977, either. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t there.
Sure, once everyone saw how much money it made, a sequel was a no-brained. But the fact that Star Wars made that much money in the first place surprised the ever-lovin’ shit out of just about everyone. Lucas was very aware, when he was making the film, that he was likely to never get a second shot at it.
Sure, because the past is part of the consciousness of present-day people. The nostalgic elements were known and appreciated by the audience, which heightened their love for the Star Wars experience. There is no nostalgia for the future. But *2001 *is just as much rooted in the present. The whole sequence on the PanAm space shuttle is meaningful only if you were aware of the experience of being on a PanAm jet. The spinning space station was featured in dozens of articles in the largest circulation magazines in the 1950s, especially a series called Man Will Conquer Space Soon! in Collier’s. Computers taking over mankind was as hot a topic in the 60s as Internet addiction is today. People may not have understood 2001, but it wasn’t futuristic or timeless; on the contrary it was so *timely *a movie that much of its impact is lost on modern audiences who have no good framework for many of its scenes.
It’s fairly well-documented that Lucas was inspired by space-fantasy serials like “Flash Gordon” when he developed Star Wars. In fact, he only turned to creating his own story after failing to acquire the rights to remake “Flash Gordon.”