Beale: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci fi

[kythe]

What do you think of this opinion piece?

Opinion: How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi - CNN.com

I can see what he is saying about modern sci fi movies tending to be flashy but without much substance. But I don't believe Star Wars "ruined" anything, even though it did become a large phenomenon in itself.

Movies and books are different mediums. Modern movies do not detract from older, original sci fi. Or maybe I'm just speaking as someone who loves both Star Wars and classic sci fi books.

 

[Pyan]

Really? Doesn't like the Star Wars franchise because it's "left all too many people thinking science fiction is some computer graphics-laden space opera". so he's going to watch "The Matrix," and enjoy the most original sci-fi movie of the past 25 years." Does he think The Matrix is all real-life acting, and bullets really travel that slowly?

How many people read and enjoy SF (not "sci-fi") having had their first taste of it through Star Wars?

I love the Star Wars films, starting from queueing on December 28th 1977 at the Leicester Square Theatre (incidentally, one of the only two films I've ever been to where the audience stood and applauded at the end - the other being Jurassic Park), but it's never stopped me reading any kind of SF I can get my hands on. I'm afraid Mr Beale comes over to me as an SF snob of the first water...

 

[Jo Zebedee]

This is why sci fi turns people off, frankly. Star Wars is a great fun film, bringing a mainstream audience to sci fi. We should celebrate it.

It's the elitist side of sci fi I hate. Like people saying that by writing sci fi and not SF, or liking Bujold and not the hard stuff makes me less of a sci fi lover. It's a big genre, there's room for all of us, including Star Wars.

Makes me want to go and put Empire on, frankly.

 

[Parson]

What this article says to me is that if you're very successful and have even changed the way some people think about the world then you must be bad for everyone.

 

[Huttman]

The funny thing is, Star Wars really is not a true sci-fi film as it is more a fantasy film piece. Also, the layers of depth in these films is extraordinary, as complex, if not more so, than the Matrix. I posted this sometime ago: Star Wars - The Legacy Revealed - YouTube
and was amazed just how deep this fantasy film goes into things. What Lucas created is a real cerebral, timeless and entertaining masterpiece that continues to grow. Even the controversial prequels have so much going for them, story wise, but every one has opinions. I think the legacy Star Wars has created in the last 37 years kind of speaks for itself, though. May the 4th be with you...

I know, lets call it a Space Opera!

 

[alchemist]

That article is a perfect example of the sort of snobbery I detest. I know nothing of the author but I wouldn't be surprised if this was a trolling exercise. Amongst other things, he could try watching more films (Inception would be a good start, or Moon)

 

[MontyCircus]

He's basically saying "let's boycott these horrible new films" (that haven't even been MADE yet)...which is stupid.

He decries Star Wars' "whiz bang", "CGI to the max", and "plenty of explosions"...and then he holds up The Matrix as the template of choice? Riiiight

He mocks Star Wars' sequels as that they "tread water, give the hardcore fans the same old, same old."...did he see the Matrix sequels??? Reloaded had 3 excellent action sequences...but the third one (the name escapes me), was one of the worst movies I've ever seen. I laughed my way through it, and there were others howling along in my theatre. It ripped off more movies than that "Dungeons & Dragons" crapfest. Remember that one?

Reading his article, you would think there have been no noteworthy sci-fi flicks since 1999:

Inception
Wall-E
Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind
V For Vendetta
The Avengers
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Her
Donnie Darko
Gravity
Star Trek
District 9
Serenity
Moon
The Man from Earth
Avatar
The Iron Giant
Children of Men


A mix of the cerebral and the "whiz bang".

So he's crying out for the Foundation Triology, Forever War, and Neuromancer to be filmed. Well, The Lord of the Rings is apparently the 2nd best-selling novel ever written, and that took nearly 50 years to be filmed. Perhaps a little patience is lacking from Mr. Beale. Also, I've heard that Neuromancer is somewhat similar to The Matrix? Someone once said The Matrix made sense of whatever the hell was going on in Neuromancer.

Alright so let's see...sci-fi classics that have been filmed:
Dune
Ender's Game
Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy
1984
Fahrenheit 451
2001: A Space Odyssey
I, Robot
Starship Troopers
Brave New World
The Time Machine
The War of the Worlds - twice!
Slaughterhouse Five
Jurassic Park
20,000 Leagues Under the Sea
The Andromeda Strain
A Wrinkle in Time
Contact
The Day of the Triffids - three times!
A Clockwork Orange
Frankenstein
Flowers for Algernon
Journey to the Center of the Earth
A Scanner Darkly
The Handmaid's Tale
Sphere
A Princess of Mars
The Road
The Hunger Games
I am Legend
The Postman
Dr. Jekyll & Mr. Hyde
And Everything PKD has ever written

So waaah waaah waaah...a few haven't been filmed yet. So sad! And the ones that are made he'd say were "Hollywoodized". So it seems he's arguing himself in circles.

Star Wars ruined sci-fi like The Godfather ruined gangster flicks.

 

[MontyCircus]

The funny thing is, Star Wars really is not a true sci-fi film as it is more a fantasy film piece.

I've heard this all my life but I don't believe it for a second!

From Wikipedia:

Science fiction is a genre of fiction dealing with imaginative content such as futuristic settings, futuristic science and technology, space travel, time travel, faster than light travel, parallel universes, and extraterrestrial life. It often explores the potential consequences of scientific and other innovations, and has been called a "literature of ideas".[1] Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore politics, identity, desire, morality, social structure, and other literary themes.

Futuristic setting? Check! (Just imagine the opening says "A long time in the future, in a galaxy far, far away). Same difference.

Futuristic science and technology? Check!

Space travel? Check!

Faster than light travel? Check!

Extraterrestrial life? Check!

Authors commonly use science fiction as a framework to explore:
politics? Check!
identity? Check!
desire? Check!
morality? Check!
social structure? Check!

The only thing "fantasy" about it is The Force. If anything, I'd say it's more of a sci-fi film with fantasy elements.

Also, the layers of depth in these films is extraordinary, as complex, if not more so, than the Matrix. I posted this sometime ago: Star Wars - The Legacy Revealed - YouTube
and was amazed just how deep this fantasy film goes into things. What Lucas created is a real cerebral, timeless and entertaining masterpiece that continues to grow. Even the controversial prequels have so much going for them, story wise, but every one has opinions. I think the legacy Star Wars has created in the last 37 years kind of speaks for itself, though. May the 4th be with you...

I know, lets call it a Space Opera!

Thanks for the link! That was informative. Makes me want to read up on my ancient myths and legends!

 

[Null_Zone]

I'm hard pressed to take someone seriously who thinks sci-fi was somehow highbrow before Star Wars. It's almost like he never watched Star Trek, the Flash Gordon TV shows, et al.

 

[Huttman]

I've heard this all my life but I don't believe it for a second!

I saw it the first time on a really BIG screen when I was nine years old and thought it was the coolest science fiction film I'd ever seen. I got older and heard about it being considered a fantasy flick and found some merit to that as well. Semantics, perhaps, but you are right, MC. The great appeal of Star Wars is it has appealed to so many different cultures and peoples. I can see why people see one way or the other. I like it (more so now) because it has such a simple, honest belief system incorporated into it. Not enough Sci-Fi has been given a chance to have a debate about it being Sci-Fi or Fantasy. I can only think of a few that have become main stream, in Battlestar Galactica it was very integrated and Dune and the original Tron touched on it.

Thanks for the link! That was informative.

You're welcome! Best Star Wars documentary ever!

 

[River Boy]

Here's a writer who welcomes the new trilogy, but calls for a return to more traditional storytelling - although he thinks the only problem with Star Wars is its most famous line: Should George Lucas regret the line 'May the Force be with you'? - A writer's blog | A writer's blog

Personally I think claims like this are just jealousy that the story is so much more successful than anything else in the genre. I can't sit through the prequels though.

 

[steve12553]

First off, blame Hollywood and the capitalist system and human nature. Good Science Fiction is thoughtful and clever not flashy and popular. Occasionally someone will be able to sneak a thoughtful or clever Science Fiction concept into a film that might make some money but mostly not. Thoughtful Science Fiction fans might have a few films that they have gone back to see more than twice at a theater. Adventure fans will go back several times for the thrill and keep those big budgets supported. Lucas made two wonderful adventure films that had some very nice Science Fiction elements in them. You know the ones without Ewoks and JarJar Binks. They weren't really Science Fiction but they gave us hope that maybe some day. Teenagers with money for their third ticket to see a movie are not going to sit there and be blown away by a clever concept. It's gotta blow up or fly through a meteor shower or be attacked by a impossible monster. Lucas is and was a good technician. He was a visionary in presenting the movie going public with things they'd never seen before. But it had little to do with Science Fiction. The good Science Fiction will always be presented directly to the mind in words not picture. A picture may be worth a thousand words but the right picture to convey the thousand word is rarely there.

 

[JoanDrake]

I going to be real popular here and agree with Beale, not entirely but partially. When I first saw SW I recall everybody in the theatre laughed at the prologue unrolling on screen and the last line about the Death Star being "able to destroy an entire planet". Most everyone thought it was "camp", which, in 1978, was a type of parody. An exaggeration of "schlock", things and plots and stories which were old in your grandparent's time. "So bad it's good" was the basic idea.


And the thing that gets me is people saying SW "started a Revolutionu in SF. SW, IMO, ENDED the SF revolution that had started in the 1960's and 70's with writers like Dick, Delany, Vance, Zelazny, Moorcock, Ellison and on and on, the whole school of TNT (The New Thing) which was making SF about NEW Things, STRANGE developments and even a type of writing which was truly like nothing else. But was catching on


And then, suddenly, come this big blockbuster hit movie, straight out of the 1930's, kicking the whole genre thoroughly back into the Ghetto.


You think Star Wars did no harm to the Genre? You think I'm just jealous? Remember, if you can (and dare ) the FIRST version of Battlestar Galactica. Remember Buck Rogers. Real literary masterpieces, right.


Good SF took years to recover from SW. The first good film was Ridley Scott's Blade Runner in 1982.


And the whole thing of this deep underlying mythological story SW is supposed to have is ******** of the purest ray serene. Spielberg wrote ONE movie, which he thought might keep his career alive by combining high production values with low comedy and hit the Zeitgeist. He came up with all the Campbell crap AFTER he realized SW was a billion dollar franchise. How else do you explain the rather creepy cuddling of Brother Luke with his Sister Leia in the first picture?


Someday, if I ever find it on the Internet, I 'll show you the article that Psychology Today did on SW about 1-3 mos after it released. Besides specifically suggesting that Luke is Vader's son it pretty much outlines the entirety of the next few movies.


That being said, SW wasn't Waterworld either. The Second movie was very good, and the third prequel was okay too, if for Natalie Portman if nothing else. But this constant going on that SW I was "the greatest SF movie ever made' gets to me

 

[Bick]

Good SF took years to recover from SW. The first good film was Ridley Scott's Blade Runner in 1982.

Erm, not sure that's a very sound argument...

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Alien (1979)
Mad Max (1979)
Stalker (1979)
Outland (1981)
Escape from New York (1981)
Scanners (1981)
The Thing (1982)...

I think the proposition that SW "ruined" SF is laughable, tbh. There were less good SF films made in the years immediately preceding Star Wars in fact. In 1976 only "The Man Who Fell To Earth" comes to mind. I can't immediately think of any from 1975.

 

[JoanDrake]

Erm, not sure that's a very sound argument...

Invasion of the Body Snatchers (1978)
Alien (1979)
Mad Max (1979)
Stalker (1979)
Outland (1981)
Escape from New York (1981)
Scanners (1981)
The Thing (1982)...

I think the proposition that SW "ruined" SF is laughable, tbh. There were less good SF films made in the years immediately preceding Star Wars in fact. In 1976 only "The Man Who Fell To Earth" comes to mind. I can't immediately think of any from 1975.

You make a valid point and I will admit that, all in all, SWs great popularity probably helped the genre more than hurt.


Still, I wonder if those movies wouldn't have been made anyway, and how many other really good but more serious works went into permanent development hell because they didn't have light swords. I'm still waiting to see Lord of Light on the big screen. Even now it would be better than (gods PLEASE forbid) Jarjar's grandson.

 

[JamestheLast]

Hollywood's attitude towards science fiction did change after Star Wars. Before it there was Logan's Run, Westworld, Silent Running, the Planet of the Apes films, Seconds, Colossus the Forbin Project, Quatermass in the UK, and a few others that werent aimed at the Saturday matinee crowd. Some are much more worthy to revisit than others (Westworld could benefit from a remake).

The profile of science fiction increased after SW but went in a different direction and remains that way. No risks in terms of themes or characterization.

 

[Hardlight]

Beale might be considered more of a "die-hard," maybe basing it more on the older conventions about the genre. For example, sci-fi or science fiction is what it is because there is a scientific principle involved, which would be obvious or explained in the story. Star Wars is more of space fantasy than science fiction, since it's all about swashbuckling action than scientific principles. Still, it doesn't hurt that SW still drew attention to the science fiction genre itself.

 

[Michael Colton]

As others have mentioned, I myself have always considered Star Wars to be space fantasy. It is classic mythology combined with sword and sorcery (lightsaber and Force). There is very little in the way of science fiction themes in Star Wars besides, well, space.

 

[Deɑth.]

The guy doesn't even have real arguments other than a personal disdain towards the series, IMO.

 

[Michael Colton]

As others have mentioned, I myself have always considered Star Wars to be space fantasy. It is classic mythology combined with sword and sorcery (lightsaber and Force). There is very little in the way of science fiction themes in Star Wars besides, well, space.

After seeing this thread bumped again, I should qualify my statement by saying that I do not think there is anything wrong with space fantasy. It rarely interests me, but if others enjoy it than more power to them. Rereading my post, I realized it could come across that I think of space fantasy as a slur to be thrown at works. This is not the case.