Star Wars

[Swank]

Lucas talked about other movies since 1980.
I know that after 1983 there was a lot of talk about him doing more films and people waiting and waiting and waiting and waiting.
And then SE versions came out and people were excited and then the first prequel came out and ...uhhh.

But I think if one takes a cinema archeologist view, what happened with Star Wars is that FX novelty wore off by the time of the prequels.

It's like this--in 1900, someone slipping on a banana peel on film would have been the talk of the town. It would be like Moses parting the Red Sea. Because no one had ever seen anything like a projected motion image before. It was bigger than the internet.
But eventually people get used to it. Someone slipping on a banana peel would not elicit the same reaction in the 1930s or 50s or 90s..
Not the WOW aspect.
The original Star Wars was able to do something cinematic that was entirely new in experience and that was the core of its appeal. And you just can't do it anymore.
So for movies like Star Wars today, the challenge is, how do you make the banana peel gag exciting?
I am skeptical it can be done.
Avatar was probably the last movie where they pushed the boundaries of visual experience but not enough or with too limited a story or characters to make it memorable.
In theory someone could do a Star Wars pastiche that makes some people go "hey that's neat" but it would never capture the same audience reaction because people have seen it already.

The Star Destroyer descending from the top of the screen had never been done--so that was amazing.
You can't do it now.

But maybe it is a good thing because some criticism of Star Wars were about story and character--and so you could have something similar with more of a dramatic depth maybe.
I have said it before--the real stars of Star Wars were the technicians. The FX crew, and especially Ralph McQuarrie. I think he put more butts in seats than anyone else by his costume and production design as well as the ship designers.
TIE fighter especially. There had never been a spaceship like that.
Maybe in a Japanese movie.
People who had zero interest in sci-fi went to see it because of the unique visual and sound experience.

I think this article's theory has a lot to do with what happened.

Star Wars kicked off the '80s, but this sci-fi show ended them

If 'Star Wars: A New Hope' is really an '80s movie, even though it came out in 1977, where do the real '80s begin and end?

www.inverse.com

But I heartily agree that the design of SW is the star. But not just the sets or the models - sound, music, wardrobe, plot, characters. Han Solo shooting first is character design. So is Luke's fearless enthusiasm. These characters are aliens surrounded by alien stuff in a very convincing way.


The type of earnest SF that died in the late '80s was reincarnated with Christopher Nolan and Denis Villeneuve. Or even Alex Garland and George Miller. It's too bad people like that weren't involved in the follow on films.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The effects brought people to the cinema, the blend of humour, action and characterd got them to stay. A fearless youth, a fiesty princess and a likeable rogue tee off against one of the most notable villains in screen history.

The prequels had none of this. I'm trying to think of a memorable character, and the only one that comes to mind ix Darth Maul, who hardly got any screen time. The 'goodies' are either uninteresting or annoying, the dialogue weak and humour just not funny.

When Sir Alec was delivering his lines, you believed them. When Neeson or McGregor were you didn't. The exuberance of youth of Luke is endearing, that of young Anakin is plain annoying. Everything about the original trilogy is matched in the prequels, but in a much poorer way.

The effects and visuals of the prequels is much grander than in the original trilogy (especially the pod race), but if it had bern Phantom Menace and not Star Wars that was shown in cinemas in the 1970s, it wouldn't be the success that it is to this day.

 

[Dave]

I might be reading this wrong, but I'm getting the impression that some people (and certainly the linked critics) think Star Wars in 1977 somehow broke Science Fiction at the Cinema. I wouldn't agree with that:-

• It did stop (for a while) that kind of literary and high concept SF. Films similar to Barbarella and Zardoz and The Fifth Element would probably have been rejected if pitched immediately afterwards, because studios were only looking for more science fantasy like Star Wars, but that had changed back by the end of the 1980's again.
• We did get Star Trek: The Slow Motion Movie rather than Star Trek: Phase II, however the later ST films were better and we still got Star Trek: The Next Generation, on TV eventually.
• While there was a lot more 'Space Opera', it didn't prevent further innovation or good SF films - we still got Alien only two years later and Outland was released in 1981. I could think of others too. Hard SF was still being made.
• There was a lot more young-adult-appealing science fantasy at the cinema, however there was also a LOT more science fiction at the cinema than we had ever had before. You just had to pick out the good bits. If you lived through the 1970's then having more choice was not a complaint that anyone made.
• Special effects have always driven the Cinema. From Talkies to Colour, mechanised props to pyrotechnics, multiple film exposures to scale model work. From Ray Harryhausen to the Matrix freeze time effects. Certainly, Star Wars was a great leap forward, but something like 'Industrial Light & Magic' was always going to happen because it was a time of great innovation, with computer technology becoming much cheaper at that time. Close Encounters of the Third Kind in the same years was probably as equally important in regards to SFX.

 

[paranoid marvin]

I would also argue that probably the most notable aspect of the original movies is the John Williams soundtrack. Arguably there has never been a better original soundtrack to accompany a movie (although his Superman runs it close).

 

[Pyan]

I would also argue that probably the most notable aspect of the original movies is the John Williams soundtrack. Arguably there has never been a better original soundtrack to accompany a movie (although his Superman runs it close).

Hmm. I have listened to a lot of classical music, and I'm not sure just how original a lot of his soundtracks are. I appreciate that all composers are influenced by their predecessors, but quite a lot of his themes seem to be borrowed, consciously or not, from others.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Hmm. I have listened to a lot of classical music, and I'm not sure just how original a lot of his soundtracks are. I appreciate that all composers are influenced by their predecessors, but quite a lot of his themes seem to be borrowed, consciously or not, from others.

Oh he certainly has been influenced by others, as to be fair have most composers overcthe centuries. Either trying to outdo each other, or borrow bits that they like.

I only say 'original', because there are other movies with better soundtracks that aren't original (The Wanderers and 2001).

 

[KGeo777]

I marvel at people who can compose music because it is probably the most pure and profound art form--nothing can stir emotion like music. Even wildlife can be affected by it.

I have heard bits of Korngold in Williams but to me it doesn't seem like copying if the melody is distinct on its own. More like "inspired by" IMO.
I don't understand how music analysis works with copying. The Jaws theme --the basic dununununu has turned up in other things.
The 1962 Phantom of the Opera has it during an opera scene and the Kolchak Werewolf episode has it too...but it is how it is used and adapted.
Another thing is that Williams had a couple of guys who arranged his scores--and they were responsible for how they are played in the movies.
The raw score is very different from the movie version.

Williams said music composition is like sculpting sound--so if someone does an Apollo statue do we just say the artist copied someone else? There is always inspiration and similarities.

 

[KGeo777]

As I type I am listening to Voyage To the Bottom of the Sea music
and I think the lack of ZIP in modern music is another reason for the strong meh factor.

The other aspect in sound is voice.
I have said this before--what happened to intense dramatic voices?
It used to be ubiquitous with the exception of some background players maybe--that people spoke with dramatic oomph.
I didn't even look at the images--I just listened to the sound here in this trailer

but they all talk like they are reading a telephone directory and I think that also accounts for the lack of excitement.
I guess that is considered overacting now if you speak in an intense or forceful way--but the voices also sound so uniform here except for the Yoda-sounding croaky voice. Lack of range in voice characteristics--where's the Ernest Borgnine type voices?

 

[Swank]

I might be reading this wrong, but I'm getting the impression that some people (and certainly the linked critics) think Star Wars in 1977 somehow broke Science Fiction at the Cinema. I wouldn't agree with that:-

• It did stop (for a while) that kind of literary and high concept SF. Films similar to Barbarella and Zardoz and The Fifth Element would probably have been rejected if pitched immediately afterwards, because studios were only looking for more science fantasy like Star Wars, but that had changed back by the end of the 1980's again.
• We did get Star Trek: The Slow Motion Movie rather than Star Trek: Phase II, however the later ST films were better and we still got Star Trek: The Next Generation, on TV eventually.
• While there was a lot more 'Space Opera', it didn't prevent further innovation or good SF films - we still got Alien only two years later and Outland was released in 1981. I could think of others too. Hard SF was still being made.
• There was a lot more young-adult-appealing science fantasy at the cinema, however there was also a LOT more science fiction at the cinema than we had ever had before. You just had to pick out the good bits. If you lived through the 1970's then having more choice was not a complaint that anyone made.
• Special effects have always driven the Cinema. From Talkies to Colour, mechanised props to pyrotechnics, multiple film exposures to scale model work. From Ray Harryhausen to the Matrix freeze time effects. Certainly, Star Wars was a great leap forward, but something like 'Industrial Light & Magic' was always going to happen because it was a time of great innovation, with computer technology becoming much cheaper at that time. Close Encounters of the Third Kind in the same years was probably as equally important in regards to SFX.

I'm not sure which linked critics you're referring to, but the article I posted is just saying that there is a certain emphatic earnestness, enthusiasm and lack of cynicism in the period of film immediately following Star Wars. A trend that was broken by STNG and other SF media that winked at the audience.

What was weird about SW was that it had absolutely no link to the present, and it wasn't at all dystopian. Nearly every important SF film we could talk about are about how the present does not turn into a happy future. There are a few exceptions from that era - Tron being the biggest one. Back to the Future if you include comedies. But both are firmly part of our world.


No one attempted to make a movie like SW. Other films attempted to tell more contemporaneous stories with SW elements, but seemingly no one really went for it with the exception of BG - which is unfortunately a TV show so the pacing is 'soap opera' in nature, and maybe The Black Hole - which sucked.

I don't think SW broke anything. For whatever reason, no one tried to top it. Maybe because Black Hole was cautionary tale. Maybe because other formats were a better bet, or less expensive, or what producers wanted to make.

 

[Swank]

Hmm. I have listened to a lot of classical music, and I'm not sure just how original a lot of his soundtracks are. I appreciate that all composers are influenced by their predecessors, but quite a lot of his themes seem to be borrowed, consciously or not, from others.

Not going to claim Williams is musically original, but what sets SW apart from other soundtracks is that it doesn't seem to have a theme to it. Other Williams soundtracks have an obvious heroic (Superman, Raiders) or terror (Jaws) theme, but SW's music is so dramatically atmospheric - swelling the events onscreen to heightened gravity and drama. It has this odd quality of fitting the relatively personal events of the the main characters into such an enormous context. The audience is left feeling like they observing the dramatic components of a much greater world.

 

[Foxbat]

The Star Wars theme employs the perfect or rising fifth. This gives it a sort of heroic or triumphant sound. If you ever listen to Bruce Dickenson's Iron Maiden singing, he often uses it in the melody for his vocals (think Run For The Hills). It's not really copying and is pretty similar to the way writers would structure a story using techniques known to work.

The Game Of Thrones tune does the fifth in reverse (called a descending fifth). If you listen to the first two notes of both GOT and SW, they are going in different directions (one rising, one falling) but the interval between the notes is the same (a fifth apart). It's a common technique in music and it can be pretty effective if done well.

 

[paranoid marvin]

There's a video on Youtube combining the theme tune of Superman with the opening of Star Wars. It's an interesting effect, and not entirely unsuccesful.

 

[HareBrain]

There's a video on Youtube combining the theme tune of Superman with the opening of Star Wars. It's an interesting effect, and not entirely unsuccesful.

The Auralnauts Star Wars parody uses the Superman theme in place of the SW one for the second(?) episode, and I hardly noticed at first.

One of the things that made Andor much better than Rogue One for me was the lack of Williams or Williams influence in the music. I admire Williams as a composer (the Schindler's List theme is superb) but his style didn't fit Rogue One's story IMO.

I have said this before--what happened to intense dramatic voices?

Lack of stage experience?

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Williams was sued by the Stravinsky estate for lifting wholesale from the Right of Spring. His work is self admittedly a patchwork quilt of different classical composers, stealing orchestration, melodies, chord voicings and so on. Williams explicitly said he wants his work to be a gateway to the masters. And he does it SO well. Instantly memorable melodies that perfectly fit the action. Fantastic use of Leitmotif. The closing credits to Close Encounters when it breaks into When you Wish upon a Star never fails to make me well up. I wish more composers were like Williams.


As a kid I watched Star Wars so much I'd memorized the dialogue. Even now, I can still recall sequences wholesale. Watching the Blue ray fan versions of the 35mm prints is a revelation.

 

[BAYLOR]

Williams was sued by the Stravinsky estate for lifting wholesale from the Right of Spring. His work is self admittedly a patchwork quilt of different classical composers, stealing orchestration, melodies, chord voicings and so on. Williams explicitly said he wants his work to be a gateway to the masters. And he does it SO well. Instantly memorable melodies that perfectly fit the action. Fantastic use of Leitmotif. The closing credits to Close Encounters when it breaks into When you Wish upon a Star never fails to make me well up. I wish more composers were like Williams.


As a kid I watched Star Wars so much I'd memorized the dialogue. Even now, I can still recall sequences wholesale. Watching the Blue ray fan versions of the 35mm prints is a revelation.

The number of notable films he's scored is astonishing. He's truly one the greats. Even the tuff that he did for Irwin Allen for Lost in Space and Land of the Giants stands out.

 

[Pyan]

Williams was sued by the Stravinsky estate for lifting wholesale from the Right of Spring.

Sorry, that's an urban myth. They could have done, because The Rite of Spring was still in copyright, but they chose not to - partly because the Rite itself is based on Russian and Lithuanian folk songs, and could be argued as not being entirely original itself.

Personally, I think Erich Korngold would have a better case...

 

[KGeo777]

Lack of stage experience?

I don't know if that explains it because emotional expression would be part of any acting training (or should be?) so I would think even if they never did it on a stage they would still be called on to have different states of behavior.

Sometimes when watching an older movie or tv show I think "man that guy is talking loud for someone standing right next to the other speaker" but some people do naturally talk loud. And it isn't just about loudness. Richard Basehart's voice isn't exactly loud, I would say it is rather mild in force and yet it projects clarity and intensity.
I don't know but the "phonebook reader" voice is so pervasive now.

 

[HareBrain]

Richard Basehart's voice isn't exactly loud, I would say it is rather mild in force and yet it projects clarity and intensity.

I'm no expert but I believe this "projects clarity and intensity" is precisely what stage training teaches (or used to, maybe less so now that stage actors are mostly miked up). The downside is it's less naturalistic.

As for lack of emotional expression in the voice even when not called upon to project it, I'm not sure I've noticed that generally. But maybe the actors in the productions where you've noticed it just aren't that good? Or maybe they're made to focus on too many other things by the director (the reason voice acting to animation can be more emotionally powerful and accurate than live-action). Plus there's the green-screen effect.

 

[KGeo777]

I'm no expert but I believe this "projects clarity and intensity" is precisely what stage training teaches (or used to, maybe less so now that stage actors are mostly miked up). The downside is it's less naturalistic.

As for lack of emotional expression in the voice even when not called upon to project it, I'm not sure I've noticed that generally. But maybe the actors in the productions where you've noticed it just aren't that good? Or maybe they're made to focus on too many other things by the director (the reason voice acting to animation can be more emotionally powerful and accurate than live-action). Plus there's the green-screen effect.

I think it is partly organic. Some people have stronger voices than others naturally.
There are people who have no acting theater experience and yet they have strong voices.
Some actors can come across as dull because they aren't motivated but yeah I agree there are a lot of bad actors it would seem.
And it isn't like directors care about it either.
Lack of professional skill, I think we have a reached a point where film is like an iphone video. It's so mundane.

 

[JunkMonkey]

I might be reading this wrong, but I'm getting the impression that some people (and certainly the linked critics) think Star Wars in 1977 somehow broke Science Fiction at the Cinema. I wouldn't agree with that:-

• It did stop (for a while) that kind of literary and high concept SF. Films similar to Barbarella and Zardoz and The Fifth Element would probably have been rejected if pitched immediately afterwards, because studios were only looking for more science fantasy like Star Wars, but that had changed back by the end of the 1980's again.
• We did get Star Trek: The Slow Motion Movie rather than Star Trek: Phase II, however the later ST films were better and we still got Star Trek: The Next Generation, on TV eventually.
• While there was a lot more 'Space Opera', it didn't prevent further innovation or good SF films - we still got Alien only two years later and Outland was released in 1981. I could think of others too. Hard SF was still being made.
• There was a lot more young-adult-appealing science fantasy at the cinema, however there was also a LOT more science fiction at the cinema than we had ever had before. You just had to pick out the good bits. If you lived through the 1970's then having more choice was not a complaint that anyone made.
• Special effects have always driven the Cinema. From Talkies to Colour, mechanised props to pyrotechnics, multiple film exposures to scale model work. From Ray Harryhausen to the Matrix freeze time effects. Certainly, Star Wars was a great leap forward, but something like 'Industrial Light & Magic' was always going to happen because it was a time of great innovation, with computer technology becoming much cheaper at that time. Close Encounters of the Third Kind in the same years was probably as equally important in regards to SFX.

I think I can hoinestly say I have never seen Barbarella refered to as Literary or High Concept before.