I agree, it’s Han. Patrick McLean’s podcast, The Seanachai has a great episode where he explains how Han is the character we all identify with.
http://rapidlibrary.com/files/patrick-mclean-the-seanachai-han-solo-mp3_ul9rmbtvi88on.html
Besides, Harrison Ford was far and away the best actor in any of the movies.
I really enjoy Harrison Ford’s acting, but Alec Guiness did a lot better with the material he had in Star Wars, A New Hope. And Ian McDiarmid in ROTJ was scene chewingly good, as he was in the prequels.
What made SW great?
Lucas freely cribbing from Jungian archetypes and popular serials gave it a greater weight and better flow than it would have if he’d been writing original work. His “grown up” work in the prequels shows that when he’s not copying and adapting, he’s pretty shit as a writer.
He also, apparently, started to have a compulsion about explaining everything. Instead of giving you a sketch of the background with minimal exposition, he started trying to explain everything. The midichlorians, huge amounts of political exposition, stilted dialog, excessive “love” scenes, etc. in the newer movies are all a result of this. In the older movies, the details of how things work weren’t glossed over so much as ignored, similar to how fiction set in contemporary settings don’t explain in detail how electric lights or internal combustion engines work.
The movie props and settings, with scuffed, slightly junky, used-looking stuff everywhere gave everything in the original trilogy a feeling of alternate reality. Many things in the new movies are shiny and fake feeling, with nothing other than a few of the palace settings and Amidala’s costumes having a feeling of solidity and weight. No surprise, those settings and costumes from Phantom Menace were adapted from real-world analogs, not created wholesale like almost everything in the latter two films.
The only one of the original trilogy Lucas directed was the first one. Empire was directed by someone else and Lucas’s interference was apparently minimal. Jedi was a mixed bag, and you can see the beginnings of Lucas’s degeneracy, as well as the marks of his heavy fingerprints in some of the character design and particularly in the mid-section of the movie. The beginning and end of the film are pretty solid. Everything with the Ewoks has the feel of an inserted story line.
It doesn’t matter when you first saw the films. Most people are quite capable of being critical of movies they saw when young. I only like a handful of the things I liked when I was a kid, and believe me, I’m quite aware of when nostalgia is the only thing making a movie watchable. The original trilogy holds up much better than the prequels. There were a few elements of the prequels that were interesting, but so much of that potential was squandered in muddied plots, pointless exposition, and ham-handed physical comedy. I’ve seen the Phantom Edit and man, does a little bit of trimming and timing make such a difference.
SenorBeef, if you thought Avatar was better storytelling than the first Star Wars movie, there’s something wrong with your critical faculties. Don’t get me wrong; I liked Avatar. The settings were absolutely beautiful, the world-building was pretty solid and well thought out, and the 3D effects were used well. But the story was tripe. There were so many loose ends in the plot that I had to force myself to not think about them so that I could enjoy the visuals.
Its biggest failing, in my opinion, was in making the hero a jock who thinks with his [del]dick[/del] pony-tail. Instead of an intellectual (his twin brother) learning that feelings, physicality, and risk-taking are worthwhile, we got a former soldier who gets the use of his legs back and immediately starts acting like a frat boy who gets to play Indian for a while.
I was 16 when Star Wars was released.
I still watch it about once every 2 months.
Okay, I read thru this thread and I didn’t see what to me is an incredibly important part of what makes good fiction great: the current setting must have a history.
One of the things that made Star Wars great was that there was a past that existed in the film’s mileau. While we as viewers didn’t know that past, the characters in the film certainly did, and they talked about it all the time. When this is done in fiction, it helps us perceive the fiction as “real”; it conveys depth in general and offers weight to the characters actions. That’s why so many action heroes have a sob story in their background, why the hooker has a heart of gold, etc. In Star Wars, that history, glimpsed through brief references in dialogue, provided us with tantalizing tidbits about the Empire, the Rebels, the main characters, the ships, etc. That made us want to know more about the people we were watching and the things they were doing: how did Han & Chewbacca become partners? Who is Luke’s father? Why is Ben Kenobi on a backwater planet? Why is a princess involved with rebels? Why is Jabba after Han? And on and on and on… the movie (and ESB to some extent: Why aren’t Han and Lando partners anymore? How did Lando stop smuggling and become a planetary big shot?, etc.) is filled with allusions to a past that seems concrete, even tho we have no idea what that past is.
One of the reasons the “prequels” failed is because they were made to answer those questions, but without providing us with “new” history in the same manner or quantity as Star Wars did.
The fact is, typing up loose ends, even chronologically “before” loose ends, kills some of the magic by solving the mystery.
The prequels lacked a Han Solo character - a devil-may-care, cocky, hard-assed stud who also had a sense of humor and a good heart. He was a complex and well-acted character. The prequels had nothing like him.
The whole prequel trilogy managed to seem too childish and too serious at the same time, a pretty remarkable feat. The humor in them was a child’s kind of humor, whereas most of the humor in the original films, especially Han and Leia’s banter, totally went over my head as a kid. At the same time, the prequels had all kinds of really dry, boring, heavy-handed political and philosophical shit.
The original trilogy had real chemistry among the characters; a compelling, rich universe (Ralph McQuarrie deserving huge credit for fleshing out the look); a focused, operatic story and pulp-like bombast with visual/sound effects that supported and enhanced the film, rather than become the center of it.
If there was any remaining doubt, ESB gave the trilogy weight and really exposed how much you cared what happened to Luke, Han, Leia, etc. ROTJ seems the least favorite among fans, but I don’t mind. I know Lucas’ original intention was to have the Death Star shield based on Kashyyyk, so we would have had Wookies in stead of Ewoks, alas the cost would’ve been prohibitive. Yet, despite the cuteness in this one, it’s still a good chapter with classic Star Wars moments.
The prequels were the opposite of all the above. On top of that, I think for the majority of the fans of the originals, it didn’t meet story expectations that were hinted at in the original trilogy. You never once got a sense of any deep friendship between Obi and Anakin. The actual details of the clone wars was a huge bore. The audience should have been set up to like Anakin, in the same way we like Han Solo. A cynical bad ass, with a heart always grounded by Obi’s zen-like wisdom. So, when he turned to the Dark Side, it would’ve hit a huge nerve, because although we knew what he’d become, they’d have the real chemistry of friendship being completely torn. On the same note, The forbidden love between Anakin and Padme never rang true—again, in comparison to Leia and Han. Ugh.
I think the only part of the prequels that felt right, and paid off on any initial set up was Obi and Anakin’s dual on Mustafar.
Because Star Wars wasn’t the future. That was one thing that immediately set the films apart literally from the very first line of text: this is not the future. This is the past, in a completely different galaxy. This universe has nothing in common, historically or culturally, with the one we live in.
wut?
After reading Untoward_Parable’s brief post in reply to this, I have to chime in as well.
Avatar, it’s true, is a movie that set out to tell a story using groundbreaking technology. The technology came first and was obviously the most important thing.
Star Wars, however, is a movie that set out to tell a story and which then used the best technology available to do so. The story came first, and was obviously the most important thing.
There’s a big difference in those two situations (i.e. Avatar placed the cart before the horse).
Lots of good points above.
I wonder if the Lucas of 77 would have been able to make good use of a larger budget and better effects technology, or if the story and character development would have suffered as a result of adding more effects shots.
I think it would have been a mess filled with shots showing off unnecessary special effects.
Interesting question the way you framed it. That George Lucas seemed to have a better handle on telling stories (THX 1138, American Graffiti). He seems to have understood that the setting is the backdrop, not the focus, no matter how vividly realized. I’d like to think that he would have been keen to use the money and effects as necessary and not as gratuitous aggrandizement.
\I don’t agree with everything “Mr. Plinkett” says and find these reviews unwatchable now, but this is probably the best example of the difference.
“Star Wars” is a really, really good movie, by any reasonable standard. It is just a damned well made movie. It’s not just the special effects; it tells a story that is mostly logical and coherent (it does have a big plot hole but it’s easy to miss*) with clearly defined characters and, most importantly, it’s a really well made MOVIE. The opening shot is lovely, but there’s other examples of artistry in the film. One of my favourite shots is the very quick shot where Tarkin, when the Rebel base is finally in sight for a shot, turns to an officer and quietly says “You may fire when ready.” They chose a long, wide shot from behind Tarkin, with a computer model of the firing solution in front of him. The room is massive, cold, and seemingly unoccupied by anyone by Tarkin and whomever has business with him at that moment. It contrasts perfectly the the shot of Leia and the Rebel officers in their planning room, which is shot in closeup, and people are standing close together.
There’s no way they would have had a shot that clever in the prequels. To be honest, I thought the prequels were weird; it seemed like an interspersing of CGI shots and shots from soap operas, with people sitting around in very stale-looking rooms talking to each other in flat, conventional shots.
Really, though, Ithink the movies should be grouped as:
The First Two: Star Wars and The Empire Srikes Back
Return of the Jedi
The Prequels
The prequels are awful. The first two are great. “Return of the Jedi” is a mixed bag; it has a lot of the strengths of the first two movies but it suffers from a lot of weakneses they don’t; an unfortunate decision to repeat the Death Star thing, the Ewoks, the coplete disconnect between the movie’s first act and everything that happened afterwards, and the revelation that Leia is Luke’s sister, which really was pointless.
I’m not convinced this is really a plot hole, or at least not a major one. If the Rebel’s were sensible, they would have been organised on a cell basis. Leia really might have had no option but to carry our her original mission, taking the plans to the main base, where presumably the expertise required to analyse them was present. Or, she might have known the rebels would have had the option of evacuating. Even after the destruction of the Death Star, the rebels would have had to clear out pretty quickly, as they could not challenge the imperial fleet head on. The latter explanation is a bit of a fanwank, as it’s not stated explicitly in the film that the rebels chose to make a stand.
While it can be seen as attempting a reprising the twist of Empire, it does serve an important purpose in the plot. Luke finally attacks Vader when he learns of her existence and threatens to turn her instead. It gives Luke a believable reason to give in to his rage, and as a consequence shows he is in real danger of turning to the dark side himself.
I like RofJ myself. If you can get over the fact that fact that the Ewoks look like fucking care bears, it compares well with the first two. Yes, it’s Death Star mk2, but with the twist that the Emperor uses it as bait to trap the rebellion.
What made the Star Wars Trilogy great?
Two words: Harrison Ford.
The same two words describe what made the Indiana Jones movies what they are.
One must never underestimate the importance of the character of Han Solo on those movies.
In that era Ford starred nearly all of the top grossing movies of all time.
ETA: Star Wars, Empire, Jedi and Raiders of the Lost Ark are still in the top 20 when adjusted for inflation.
I agree that Harrison Ford was the best actor in the entire cast.
It would be really difficult to imagine A New Hope without him.
Not just Han Solo, Harrison Ford.
Gosh, we were amazed at him. The last time most of us had seen him on screen was American Graffiti.
He was the ‘cool kid’ in the hot rod that challenged our buddy, Ronny Howard.
What an amazing transformation.
I have never met the gent, but if I every do, I will ask for his autograph (which I almost never do).
And yes, y’all, I know this was in 1977. 35 years ago +/- a few months.
Some of you think he isn’t a good actor?
You try it.
The movie in 1977 wasn’t called “A New Hope.”
Harrison Ford is certainly a good actor, but attributing the entire movie’s quality to one actor is, with due respect to VernWinterbottom, really silly. One good actor doesn’t make a movie great - indeed, can’t make a movie great, as demonstrated by the fact that Ford has been in terrible movies. Star Wars is a good movie because it’s well written, well photographed, brilliant designed in every way, has maybe the best musical score in film history, well cast… there’s a lot of things that make a movie good or bad.
I never got the cute vibe from the Ewoks. I mean, really, break it down. Their first response to encountering a strange new sapient species is to eat it. They’re dissuaded from this by the strengths of their religious convictions. Even an individual on his own has a stab-first, ask-later approach to anything remotely new or surprising. At the drop of a hat, they assemble a small army from what was seemingly an uninhabited forest, with the mechanical competence to wage somewhat effective guerrilla warfare against a small but overwhelmingly powerful enemy. At the end of it all, they throw an inexplicably cheerful celebration, making music with their grisly trophies of war, despite the shocking death toll that was just levied on their close-knit society.
I had pet hamsters. “Cute and cuddly” on the outside, maybe, if you didn’t know better, but they were vicious and cruel even to each other. That’s what I got from the Ewoks. Creepy, beady-eyed rodent savages.
Yes, they are basically tribal savages. It’s just the looks that are unfortunate.