Star Wars: Obi-Wan Kenobi - Season 1: Part 6

[Swank]

Auralnauts' redub/re-imagining ep1 is now on YouTube. Purest joy from start to finish.

This is amazing. Right up there with "Obi Wan buys a car" and "5 second Titanic"

 

[Dave]

Andor’s great. But thankless and miserable with not one likeable character. I’ve watched it through twice but it’s quite a heavy watch compared to space wizards and B-wings.

Space Wizards, hokey religions and ancient weapons are no match for a good blaster at your side, kid!

 

[Swank]

I’ll write a novel about b-Wings so good that they’ll make a film about them.

I'm afraid you'll have some competition. My WIP is entitled B-wing squadron: No place to park.

"I'm sorry, captain. It is against space port policies to provide freighter sized berthing to single crewed vessels. May I suggest the space port over in Mos Eisley?"

 

[paeng]

Unlike the recent Star Trek shows, this one I managed to complete. I found it at best mediocre, but for now can't explain it in detail, and probably because it was not that memorable. I had a similar experience with Boba Fett.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

Just started watching this. I was entertained that the opening "Previously on..." managed to recap the entire prequel trilogy in under 4 minutes!

 

[KGeo777]

McGregor was an interesting choice because he is more of the romantic (in all senses of the word) leading man than Guinness but he was totally acceptable in the part. Kind of like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Not like the comic character at all but that romantic leading man quality glosses it over.


He was badly used in the prequels. In Jack the Giant Slayer he shows more of the type of personality you would have expected for a knight character.

The problem I see with Star Wars is that it was always dependent on the novelty of the spfx innovations and design and cinema spectacle more than story or character and the more you have of it, the less interesting it gets.
Star Trek didn't have this problem because it was focused on characters on a mission in space. It got eroded over time but the basic idea was sustainable much longer because it was character-focused.
Star Wars was never strong in story. It was mostly about the spectacle and fantasy experience. Throwing you into some incredible alien world for a quick visit--and then going off to another equally amazing unique venue. The mystery was so much a part of it. We don't see Bespin other than the cloud city, we don't see Alderaan at all. Or the spice mines of Kessel.

By the third movie it was used up if we are honest about it.

Disney is a problem because of their approach but even if they weren't involved, it would be in bad shape.
It just does not have legs (like an AT-AT) for the soap opera serial approach.

Less is more IMO.
The fact that they are talking about using a computerized Vader voice for future things.
Oh god.
Not a good sign.

Red Letter Media-I recall they predicted years ago that when Star Wars gets really tired they will truck out Vader for some attention.

 

[Swank]

McGregor was an interesting choice because he is more of the romantic (in all senses of the word) leading man than Guinness but he was totally acceptable in the part. Kind of like Hugh Jackman as Wolverine. Not like the comic character at all but that romantic leading man quality glosses it over.


He was badly used in the prequels. In Jack the Giant Slayer he shows more of the type of personality you would have expected for a knight character.

The problem I see with Star Wars is that it was always dependent on the novelty of the spfx innovations and design and cinema spectacle more than story or character and the more you have of it, the less interesting it gets.
Star Trek didn't have this problem because it was focused on characters on a mission in space. It got eroded over time but the basic idea was sustainable much longer because it was character-focused.
Star Wars was never strong in story. It was mostly about the spectacle and fantasy experience. Throwing you into some incredible alien world for a quick visit--and then going off to another equally amazing unique venue. The mystery was so much a part of it. We don't see Bespin other than the cloud city, we don't see Alderaan at all. Or the spice mines of Kessel.

By the third movie it was used up if we are honest about it.

Disney is a problem because of their approach but even if they weren't involved, it would be in bad shape.
It just does not have legs (like an AT-AT) for the soap opera serial approach.

Less is more IMO.
The fact that they are talking about using a computerized Vader voice for future things.
Oh god.
Not a good sign.

Red Letter Media-I recall they predicted years ago that when Star Wars gets really tired they will truck out Vader for some attention.

I generally disagree, because I think the characters are pure gold. Who they are and what they are doing grabs our attention, despite the lines they speak.


The prequels were a major missed opportunity. Instead of revealing something dramatic and nuanced about Ben and Vader's mutual history, we're just given a tour of banal events and totally unmotivated behavior. Then the later films are a mix of fan service and director of the week.

The SW universe provides amazing opportunity for drama, if the director doesn't feel they owe the audience - and sticks to the SW reality.

 

[KGeo777]

I generally disagree, because I think the characters are pure gold. Who they are and what they are doing grabs our attention, despite the lines they speak.

I said it before--Luke starts off as an Arthurian type--the young heir to some kingdom or great destiny. And Kenobi is a Merlin. But it quickly changes after the first movie to something where failure is the key quality.
Luke fails.
Han Solo fails. It drives me crazy when people say "Han Solo is so cool." Pay attention to what he does.
When we first meet him--he has lost the shipment of the biggest gangster in the galaxy. And then when he gets the money to pay him--he doesn't do it! Then he greatly misjudges the character of his old buddy Lando. Think about it. How cool is it that he goes and basically gets himself caught.
Sigh.


Kenobi fails too. At first he is the wise older knight with a fascinating history. Does he fight Vader to the death? No! He lets himself be killed. And then as a bored spirit--he reveals that he in fact was responsible for destroying the Jedi by his bad job training Luke's father.

Lando doesn't fail actually and he has a really cool servant, a remote control lobotimized Yul Brynner.

I guess Wedge doesn't fail but he's just that guy who comes in to help the gang at certain points.

It's not the traditional adventure story structure.
It subverts it.
And that is part of the problem. Once the pizzazz of the fantasy wears off-you notice it.

Star Trek wasn't so bad. Kirk was Hornblower originally.
But--same thing--by the time of the 90s movies, Kirk goes out in rather a feeble way.

And look how Han Solo ends up.

People complain that Disney made Luke a loser.
But really--they were following Lucas notes.
He would have done the same thing.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

Approximations aside (Han never lost Jabba's shipment not did he fail to pay it back nor did he misjudge Lando), if the implication here is that a good story is a story in which the characters don't fail, then I couldn't disagree more.

But no matter what you think about its flaws and qualities, the original trilogy never relied on their special effects, even if the latter did play a big part in how immersive an experience it was for the late 70s and early 80s crowds. Star Wars was always all about myth. And this means I somewhat agree with you too, Star Wars is not so much about developing characters and looking at things through their POV as it is about playing with archetypical figures like chess pieces on a board to tell a grander, ageless story. It's much closer to ancient tragedies and plays than it is to modern storytelling.

As for subverting the traditional adventure story structure, Lucas is known the world over for having taken Joseph Campbell's studies on story, myth and the heroic figure and putting them up on the screen practically as is, so I don't see how it subverts any of that. You could practically read Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces as you're watching Star Wars and tick off each step in the hero's journey beat by beat.

 

[Swank]

Approximations aside (Han never lost Jabba's shipment not did he fail to pay it back nor did he misjudge Lando), if the implication here is that a good story is a story in which the characters don't fail, then I couldn't disagree more.

But no matter what you think about its flaws and qualities, the original trilogy never relied on their special effects, even if the latter did play a big part in how immersive an experience it was for the late 70s and early 80s crowds. Star Wars was always all about myth. And this means I somewhat agree with you too, Star Wars is not so much about developing characters and looking at things through their POV as it is about playing with archetypical figures like chess pieces on a board to tell a grander, ageless story. It's much closer to ancient tragedies and plays than it is to modern storytelling.

As for subverting the traditional adventure story structure, Lucas is known the world over for having taken Joseph Campbell's studies on story, myth and the heroic figure and putting them up on the screen practically as is, so I don't see how it subverts any of that. You could practically read Campbell's Hero With a Thousand Faces as you're watching Star Wars and tick off each step in the hero's journey beat by beat.

The subversion is that Luke is not unsophisticated nor is he a scared or reluctant hero. He's looking for a fight, gets one, and loves it. He will never don the mantle of leadership. If anything, he dismantles the Jedi/Sith "kingdom" and lets it die off.

But it quickly changes after the first movie to something where failure is the key quality.

I do like the idea of failure or loss as an Empire theme. Ben and Yoda fail to train Luke, Luke loses his belief in Ben, Lando loses Cloud City, Leia loses her aristocratic emotional distance from Han, the Rebels lose their home, Chewie loses his best friend and Luke loses a romantic partner in Leia. By the end all the heroes have been reset to much more vulnerable and isolated versions of themselves, living as refugees. Great stuff for a second act.

 

[BAYLOR]

The subversion is that Luke is not unsophisticated nor is he a scared or reluctant hero. He's looking for a fight, gets one, and loves it. He will never don the mantle of leadership. If anything, he dismantles the Jedi/Sith "kingdom" and lets it die off.


I do like the idea of failure or loss as an Empire theme. Ben and Yoda fail to train Luke, Luke loses his belief in Ben, Lando loses Cloud City, Leia loses her aristocratic emotional distance from Han, the Rebels lose their home, Chewie loses his best friend and Luke loses a romantic partner in Leia. By the end all the heroes have been reset to much more vulnerable and isolated versions of themselves, living as refugees. Great stuff for a second act.

Empire is considered the best of the early films and, deservedly so .

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

The subversion is that Luke is not unsophisticated nor is he a scared or reluctant hero. He's looking for a fight, gets one, and loves it. He will never don the mantle of leadership. If anything, he dismantles the Jedi/Sith "kingdom" and lets it die off.

I'm not sure what you mean by "unsophisticated", but Luke is very much the reluctant hero that rose from humble beginnings if you look at the first (chronologically) three movies. He refuses to follow Ben on his adventure on account of the chores waiting for him back at the farm. He is itching for something greater, yes, but that's all a pipe dream of becoming some hero pilot at the academy, a dream that keeps getting pushed back year after year by his uncle. Luke is pushed on the path to adventure by outside circumstances, namely the murder of his uncle and aunt. This is Campbell's Hero Journey to a T.

If you take into consideration the entire saga (nine films), then sure, Abrams and co drifted away from the typical Hero Journey. My point was about the Original Trilogy, at the end of which Luke does accomplish his personal hero journey, because that's what KGeo777 seemed to be talking about too. But if you want to argue that the postlogy destroyed all this and made a mess of everything, you won't find me standing in your way.

 

[KGeo777]

The claim that the original trilogy did not rely on spfx innovation to sell the movie is utterly false. Harrison Ford, when interviewed in 1977--he focused on the novelty of the spfx and how no one had seen anything like the shot of the Star Destroyer descending from the upper part of the frame. He didn't say how amazing the characters were. If you lived at the time-there was no movie to compare it with for the spfx.

If they had used standard spfx-the film would have bombed.


But let's examine this in a more basic fashion.
What is Han Solo's job when we meet him?
A ship captain but also a smuggler.
What do we know about his smuggling?
He had to drop a shipment of a client to escape Imperial authorities.

The idea behind smuggling is that the people doing it are skilled enough to avoid being caught by authorities.
Right?
So for whatever reason, Lucas chose to have Han Solo be introduced as an unsuccessful smuggler who has ticked off the biggest gangster around.
And then, unlike your classic western shoot out, Han shoots Greedo from under the table. BTW--Greedo says "Jabba may only take your ship."
This makes Han hostile but from a business perspective, we assume that Han got paid for the smuggling in advance and didn't fulfill the obligation?
He could have chosen to introduce Han Solo as someone who perhaps defended a friend or was ripped off by the gangster or blamed for something that he had nothing to do with.
Also, when Han rescues Luke-he does it from behind. He doesn't attack Vader's ship from the front.
And the escape from Hoth--the chase sequence is about him running away. Escaping, hiding, fleeing.

Luke does take down the AT-AT by himself but that's classic David vs Goliath or Odysseus vs the Cyclops, it's not Errol Flynn dueling Basil Rathbone. The suspense of such a situation is that the fighters are equally matched so it could go either way. If Robin Hood does not fight with all his courage and motivation, he could lose. In the case of David and Goliath, the assumption is that Goliath should win and that expectation gets subverted.

But notice the contradiction.
We say Star Wars is all about mythology---traditional fantasy adventure. And yet it completely subverts the traditional elements of an adventure story. The hero's journey. It is total nonsense to say that it follows a traditional hero journey.

Does Han or Luke defeat Jabba?
Nope.
Leia does.

Does Luke defeat the Emperor?
Nope.
Vader does, and that is only because he sees his son in a state of mortal danger (and Luke pleads for help)..

Yoda's crazy dueling powers in Attack of the Clones--why did the audience laugh?
Because it's taking the David vs Goliath idea to a ridiculous level. This little guy with a cane--no he's not actually small and decrepit and uses the Force magic to overcome much bigger opponents without resorting to crude physical violence. Actually no, he's also a ninja.
It's a ridiculous gesture to try to equalize two unequal characters. Like we commonly see now (i.e. in Transformers, LaBouef jumps on Megatron and defeats him. Or where a small woman punches out a 200 pound man. Ninja Yoda is part of that advancing trend).

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

The claim that the original trilogy did not rely on spfx innovation to sell the movie is utterly false.

Correct, but I made no such claim. I'm not talking about promoting the movie to the audience, I'm talking about what Lucas set out to do with these films. He didn't wake up one day and thought "I'm going to make the ultimate FX movie" then started writing.

Story came first, the effects came later.

If they had used standard spfx-the film would have bombed.

Objection, Your Honor: Speculation.

And I don't know what "standard" VFX means. 2001: A Space Odyssey came out nearly 10 years before Star Wars. Not the same beast, certainly, but as far as picturing ships in the vaccum of space goes, I'd say 2001's VFX were just as good.

Han Solo is a bad smuggler [paraphrasing].

Look, Han Solo never looked cool to me so I don't even want to spend that much time defending him. But your claim that he sucks at being a smuggler because he missed one delivery for one important client is ludicrous. Solo's never been written or portrayed as a cool overachieving "hero" anyway. He's the down-on-his-luck charming rogue. That's his trope. His ship's hyperdrive never works, he's got half the galaxy looking for him, and he always ends up in trouble.

Bottom line: Characters are fallible. That is a sign of a good story, not a sign that there's no story.

But notice the contradiction.
We say Star Wars is all about mythology---traditional fantasy adventure. And yet it completely subverts the traditional elements of an adventure story. The hero's journey. It is total nonsense to say that it follows a traditional hero journey.

Based on your phrasing and the examples you mention below, I'm not sure what you call "the traditional hero journey" is Joseph Campbell's Hero's Journey, which is the one I'm talking about.

Does Han or Luke defeat Jabba?
Nope.
Leia does.

Jabba isn't Luke's nemesis. Vader is. Does Luke defeat Vader? Yes.

Does Luke defeat the Emperor?
Nope.
Vader does, and that is only because he sees his son in a state of mortal danger (and Luke pleads for help)..

The Emperor is not Luke's nemesis.

Luke's Hero Journey is his path to enlightenment, toward becoming a Jedi. To do that, he must defeat Vader without giving in to the Dark Side. Which is exactly what he does.

You missed something very important, which is that after he defeats Vader, Luke also defeats the Emperor. By refusing to join him. To defeat does not (always) mean to kill.

Yoda's crazy dueling powers in Attack of the Clones--why did the audience laugh?
Because it's taking the David vs Goliath idea to a ridiculous level. This little guy with a cane--no he's not actually small and decrepit and uses the Force magic to overcome much bigger opponents without resorting to crude physical violence. Actually no, he's also a ninja.
It's a ridiculous gesture to try to equalize two unequal characters. Like we commonly see now (i.e. in Transformers, LaBouef jumps on Megatron and defeats him. Or where a small woman punches out a 200 pound man. Ninja Yoda is part of that advancing trend).

I don't know what this is supposed to illustrate, but sure, Ninja Yoda is silly.

A small woman dropping a 200-pound man is nowhere near as ridiculous as your other examples. I've seen it happen twice.

 

[KGeo777]

A small woman dropping a 200-pound man is nowhere near as ridiculous as your other examples. I've seen it happen twice.

Yes and based on those two experiences, would you bet on average that a small woman can take down a 200-pound man? Can I arrange a money bet with you on this?

As for the general discussion, in 1977 Star Wars was criticized for weak dialogue and character. The aspect of the film that got people into the theater was the technological innovations. Ironic when you consider that Lucas says a message of the film is the importance of the organic and natural over the mechanical and technological.
Did he set out to make a SPFX--pioneering film? To some extent he did--because he hired people specifically for certain technical needs. They needed a laser sword effect and they needed specialized ship animation. And he founded ILM to provide spfx for other films.

Luke goes to rescue Han Solo. But what does he do?
He gets captured, gets R2D2 to throw him his light saber when he is about to be thrown into a pit--I am not sure why he decided on that plan but whatever.

I don't think the real issue is being fallible. It is a question of action and overall success.

Usually a hero is defined by their success rate or their good intentions if they do end up sacrificed for a cause.
I don't think Luke is heroic for not killing his father since he didn't want to join the Emperor.
That's the whole point--he has no intention of siding with the Emperor.
But then the Emperor opens a can of whoop ass on him and so what is he left with as an option?
Begging his dad for help.

It just doesn't sound heroic when you look at it outside of the whizbang stuff.

 

[The Crawling Chaos]

Yes and based on those two experiences, would you bet on average that a small woman can take down a 200-pound man? Can I arrange a money bet with you on this?

Irrelevant to my point, which was that this example was not "ridiculous".

As for the general discussion, in 1977 Star Wars was criticized for weak dialogue and character. The aspect of the film that got people into the theater was the technological innovations. Ironic when you consider that Lucas says a message of the film is the importance of the organic and natural over the mechanical and technological.

It sure sounds ironic, if true. But you're the one saying people flocked to the theater only to watch pretty VFX painted over a poor story. But really you have no idea about what drove people to watch the movie.

What we can observe is that those characters became pop culture icons. People spent billions on Boba Fett action figures and Chewbacca cookie jars, and in fact they still do today. And you assume that this is because the VFX were groundbreaking? Movies with pretty VFX and poor stories don't stand the test of time like Star Wars has.

Did he set out to make a SPFX--pioneering film? To some extent he did--because he hired people specifically for certain technical needs. They needed a laser sword effect and they needed specialized ship animation. And he founded ILM to provide spfx for other films.

Are we talking about the same thing? Because it sounds like we're saying the same thing but coming to two very different conclusions about it. Yes, "to some extent" Lucas set out to make a VFX pioneering film. But Lucas designed a story first and what really mattered to him was telling that story.

Usually a hero is defined by their success rate or their good intentions if they do end up sacrificed for a cause.

A hero is defined by their willingness to accomplish something in spite of overwhelming obstacles. That has nothing to do with success rate. Even if all heroes failed miserably, they'd still be heroes.

And that's how Luke defeats the Emperor. He knows he can't possibly win against him, and yet he chooses to stand up to him. Because he is at peace with his place in the universe. "You have failed, Your Highness. I'm a Jedi like my father before me." The Emperor can kill him if he wants, but he can never have him.

Anyway, I'm afraid this discussion is going stale, since I keep going on about how Luke's journey follows Campbell's Hero's Journey to a T and you keep replying that Luke does not correspond to what you think a hero should be and do. We're just talking past each other.

 

[Fiberglass Cyborg]

....and now I've finished watching it. (Off work with the dreaded C, bored to death.) Have to say, I enjoyed it a lot. (Curious how it feels necessary to apologise for that....) Kenobi and Mini-Leia had a really good rapport, and there were some memorable new characters - I liked Third Sister, the undercover resistance agent, and the fake Jedi. Decent plot, well paced across the six episodes - yes, there's the occasional "oh, come on" moment, but the storytelling was good enough to carry me past that. I also liked the way that, other than Vadertown and the blissed-out whiteness of Alderaan, most of the settings are understated by Star Wars standards. Ordinary backwater worlds, fairly normal-sized cities.

 

[KGeo777]

It sure sounds ironic, if true. But you're the one saying people flocked to the theater only to watch pretty VFX painted over a poor story. But really you have no idea about what drove people to watch the movie.

You aren't refuting the theory.
Did Harrison Ford say in 1977 that people were amazed by the characters?
No-he said they were amazed by the innovative FX. He was amazed by the FX. He wasn't amazed by the character he portrayed. Neither was Guinness. Did they advertise the movie with the main cast? No--they advertised it with Vader, the stormtroopers, the ships etc.
If you read reviews on the film, people talk about the impressive visuals (and sound).

The idea that audiences went to see Star Wars because it was optimistic is total spin. They went because of the whizbang Melies factor. Seeing something that they had not seen before. A new magic trick.

Just about every major box office hit other than comedies from Star Wars onward relied heavily on technical achievement, not writing or performance or star power. I recall James Caan being interviewed outside a theater after seeing Terminator 2.
He didn't say: "those performances were amazing." He said the spfx were incredible.

All the focus was on pushing the envelope for FX or stunts. This has come back to haunt Hollywood because it abandoned traditional theatrical structure and standards to the point where it has become banal. Even the FX side of things has become banal due to the mundane nature of creating it. It is paint by numbers.
People no longer were amazed by the technological innovations if there are any. Dennis Muren, one of the Star Wars FX people, said after Jurassic Park that it would be a long time before something came along that would be so amazing for pushing the envelope.
Avatar probably came the closest but it seems the story side of it is just too banal.


That's not to say that story or character mattered for nothing in Star Wars but it was not the selling point. The visual spectacle was. The unique design was. This is what separated it from other B movie sci-fi films of the time. They pioneered technical achievements that we take for granted now.
David Prowse said in 1978 that he felt Vader was the star of Star Wars.
In a way he is right. Vader was the most unique character. No one had seen anything like him before. Same with the stormtroopers and also the spaceship design.
If the film did not have that kind of technical skill, it would have sunk like a rock at the box office.
It doesn't matter that the actors were competent--the fx sequences were extremely important to the impact of the film for attracting audiences.

The added difficulty is that it is supposed to subvert traditional adventure and hero tropes and that is also creating problems. As we saw with the prequels and sequels and the negative reactions. If the fx were so innovative and distracting, it may have been less of an issue but then again Avatar had the same problem. The hero character was not shown to be independent or successful. No one is amazed by the characters. It is all about the fx and the artificial world created.

 

[Swank]

I'm not sure what you mean by "unsophisticated", but Luke is very much the reluctant hero that rose from humble beginnings if you look at the first (chronologically) three movies. He refuses to follow Ben on his adventure on account of the chores waiting for him back at the farm. He is itching for something greater, yes, but that's all a pipe dream of becoming some hero pilot at the academy, a dream that keeps getting pushed back year after year by his uncle. Luke is pushed on the path to adventure by outside circumstances, namely the murder of his uncle and aunt. This is Campbell's Hero Journey to a T.

If you take into consideration the entire saga (nine films), then sure, Abrams and co drifted away from the typical Hero Journey. My point was about the Original Trilogy, at the end of which Luke does accomplish his personal hero journey, because that's what KGeo777 seemed to be talking about too. But if you want to argue that the postlogy destroyed all this and made a mess of everything, you won't find me standing in your way.

He's not a yokel. He's already a first rate pilot and is not stymied from going to the academy, just delayed. Moreover, there is no point in the first film where doubt or fear overtakes him - which is pretty much necessary for the Campbell arc.

Which is not to say that the film serves as some sort of critique of the Hero's Journey. It just touches on it as it departs from it.

 

[Swank]

You aren't refuting the theory.
Did Harrison Ford say in 1977 that people were amazed by the characters?
No-he said they were amazed by the innovative FX. He was amazed by the FX. He wasn't amazed by the character he portrayed. Neither was Guinness. Did they advertise the movie with the main cast? No--they advertised it with Vader, the stormtroopers, the ships etc.
If you read reviews on the film, people talk about the impressive visuals (and sound).

The idea that audiences went to see Star Wars because it was optimistic is total spin. They went because of the whizbang Melies factor. Seeing something that they had not seen before. A new magic trick.

Just about every major box office hit other than comedies from Star Wars onward relied heavily on technical achievement, not writing or performance or star power. I recall James Caan being interviewed outside a theater after seeing Terminator 2.
He didn't say: "those performances were amazing." He said the spfx were incredible.

All the focus was on pushing the envelope for FX or stunts. This has come back to haunt Hollywood because it abandoned traditional theatrical structure and standards to the point where it has become banal. Even the FX side of things has become banal due to the mundane nature of creating it. It is paint by numbers.
People no longer were amazed by the technological innovations if there are any. Dennis Muren, one of the Star Wars FX people, said after Jurassic Park that it would be a long time before something came along that would be so amazing for pushing the envelope.
Avatar probably came the closest but it seems the story side of it is just too banal.


That's not to say that story or character mattered for nothing in Star Wars but it was not the selling point. The visual spectacle was. The unique design was. This is what separated it from other B movie sci-fi films of the time. They pioneered technical achievements that we take for granted now.
David Prowse said in 1978 that he felt Vader was the star of Star Wars.
In a way he is right. Vader was the most unique character. No one had seen anything like him before. Same with the stormtroopers and also the spaceship design.
If the film did not have that kind of technical skill, it would have sunk like a rock at the box office.
It doesn't matter that the actors were competent--the fx sequences were extremely important to the impact of the film for attracting audiences.

The added difficulty is that it is supposed to subvert traditional adventure and hero tropes and that is also creating problems. As we saw with the prequels and sequels and the negative reactions. If the fx were so innovative and distracting, it may have been less of an issue but then again Avatar had the same problem. The hero character was not shown to be independent or successful. No one is amazed by the characters. It is all about the fx and the artificial world created.

This would make sense if Bladerunner was a hit. Clearly spectacle alone doesn't drive ticket sales.