Who else thinks that Star Wars never that good?

[BrokenBoy]

OK so I didn't grow up with it like literally everyone else in the universe apparently. The chance never came up I suppose. I saw episode 4 last year and thought it was mediocre.

The special effects haven't aged well and look horrible. I found the story to be very boring until Obi Wan showed up. There's also tons of nonsense technobabble. The fight scenes are terrible because they rely solely on constant flashing lights to artificially and cheaply create "excitement" instead of actually having interesting choreography. It caused me to constantly be spacing out throughout all of the action scenes.

I hardly remember anything the big climatic scene where the death star explodes. (BTW am I the only one who finds it funny that it took them 43 years to explain the massive plot hole in that scene?)

The sole redeeming qualities of the film are the snappy dialogue and comic relief. Also the character C-3PO. He's my favorite character and definitely the most likeable.

I don't understand why people hold the series to high regard. Does anyone else here agree?

 

[Suzanne]

Never even watched it.

I did watch, however, star trek and rather enjoyed it, but not obsessed ( amazingly for me).

 

[Tom]

I remember when it first came out. It was actually a bit difficult to get to see because for a while there were huge lines and the showings selling out. My impression then was it was fun entertainment in my favorite genre and had taken things up a notch or two in special effects. It lacked depth, but I don't believe it was really trying to be deep. I think it reflected the fact the writer was primarily a director/film maker and not professional writer.

I think some interesting ideas have been added in the years and films since, but it still is primarily a 'big show' franchise. Contrary to the prevailing current I actually liked the 2nd set of 3 prequels and thought them a bit more matured story-wise. I would have liked to have seen Lucas do the last 3 he's planned. I have seen some of the Disney stuff, not all. I feel the thread that connected everything has been lost and the story drifts. It has it's moments but I feel less connected to it.

 

[BrokenBoy]

My impression then was it was fun entertainment in my favorite genre and had taken things up a notch or two in special effects. It lacked depth, but I don't believe it was really trying to be deep.

My problem isn't that it wasn't trying to be deep. I can watch a movie without it trying to be intellectual.

My issue is that it fails at being "fun". It's just that I don't think it's good at being a action spectacle film or whatever. I talked about that when I criticized the action scenes. They failed at doing what they were trying to do.

 

[Misery]

The special effects I can honestly forgive... it's an *old* set of movies after all.

But other than that.... eh. Yeah, my opinion of it has always been "it's okay".

Sometimes it seems like it's trying a bit too hard, if that makes sense? And there were some aspects of the lore that just seemed bloody stupid to me. Particularly the way the Jedi are classified: You're either fully on the light side... like a pure white mage... or you're fully on the dark side, like some sort of awful necromancer. And if you use even one "dark" power (like the lightning blast) you're too close to the edge, OMG. Despite that something like that is a legitimate combat move and unlike traditional white mages, the light side guys do genuinely fight, and the lightsaber attacks are definitely quite destructive. But yeah, that absolutely binary divide has never seemed very well thought out to me. Like it's there just to create nonsensical drama.

Not to mention that the whole thing is just overly serious. And drab. You never really see what would be considered a "normal" place, like the equivilent of a typical suburb. It's always dark, soggy cantinas or beat up rusty fortresses.

There are some other things that seem shoehorned in, like the series' version of mechs. The big ones are stupidly slow (and why they're on legs instead of wheels has always baffled me) and the small ones look like they'll fall over if hit with a gentle breeze.

I honestly think the series mostly rides on memorable characters and good dialogue/interactions. It's not like the whole thing is unlikeable either. Sometimes a kinda "dumb" bit of entertainment is good.

But I've always been more of a Star Trek fan. Yeah there's alot of technobabble, but for those that like to dive deep into things they watch the explanations ARE all there, and there's just more overall coherence to it. It's also not super serious all the freaking time. Heck, there's one episode I always liked in Voyager, where they go on a dangerous mission into this nebula entirely because they ran out of coffee. Which sounds bloody stupid but they actually did a good job of having it make actual sense (caffeine withdrawal is *nasty*, after all). A good lighthearted episode, that. As opposed to Star Wars and it's constant "everything is a struggle against evil" style. Not to mention that characters/groups usually arent just the binary pure good or pure evil (with occaisional exceptions). Seriously when writers do that one it just inherently bugs me.

So yeah, that's my thoughts on it. I dont think Star Wars is bad, I do kinda like it, but because of all those reasons I never get into it all that much.

 

[Fino]

I agree. I have genuine difficulty sitting through one and usually don't accomplish the task. And I've had many attempts because of being dragged along to one. I can't explain specifically why, but I just don't care to find out what happens next.

 

[BrokenBoy]

Particularly the way the Jedi are classified: You're either fully on the light side... like a pure white mage... or you're fully on the dark side, like some sort of awful necromancer. And if you use even one "dark" power (like the lightning blast) you're too close to the edge, OMG. Despite that something like that is a legitimate combat move and unlike traditional white mages, the light side guys do genuinely fight, and the lightsaber attacks are definitely quite destructive. But yeah, that absolutely binary divide has never seemed very well thought out to me.

Actually, there exists what is called "gray jedi" who walk the line between "light" and "dark" and who typically use both light and dark side force powers.

Though it's a thing that only really comes up in the "expanded universe/legends" media and not the films themselves.

Gray Jedi

The big ones are stupidly slow (and why they're on legs instead of wheels has always baffled me)

Don't watch Transformers.

 

[MrSpock]

I was eight years old when my mum took me and a few friends to see it in the theatre. It was just the greatest at the time, and I suppose I was born at exactly the right time to think so. It continues to be less impressive as I get older, but then so do many other things. I think it is aimed at a younger audience.

As for the special effects being poor, this is the movie that set the bar for special effects. Forty years on it's not the best... well of course not. Look for sci-fi that came out earlier, give it a watch and compare.

You can easily find movies with better special effects, but you will not find a movie with special effects that are that much better than everything that preceeded it. Correction - you will not find a more recent movie with special effects so much better. I suppose the first talkie might have been a bigger improvement. First colour movie. But that's the sort of level we're talking about when Star Wars effects are mentioned.

 

[Wolfsage]

You ever read the books? I think they might be more of what your looking for. I watched them so much they imprinted in my mind. So now I know the entire seen back and forth. Question. Did you go into it planning to enjoy it? Or were you kind of exaiming each scene and noticing things? Just curious.

 

[Wolfsage]

I was eight years old when my mum took me and a few friends to see it in the theatre. It was just the greatest at the time, and I suppose I was born at exactly the right time to think so. It continues to be less impressive as I get older, but then so do many other things. I think it is aimed at a younger audience.

As for the special effects being poor, this is the movie that set the bar for special effects. Forty years on it's not the best... well of course not. Look for sci-fi that came out earlier, give it a watch and compare.

You can easily find movies with better special effects, but you will not find a movie with special effects that are that much better than everything that preceeded it. Correction - you will not find a more recent movie with special effects so much better. I suppose the first talkie might have been a bigger improvement. First colour movie. But that's the sort of level we're talking about when Star Wars effects are mentioned.

I'd say Rogue One nailed the special effects. But I prefer the older ones for nostalgia.

 

[Mia]

You have to think about it in the context of 1977, the year it was released. The only other somewhat similar movie that released that year was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." That might be considered science fiction.

Science fiction rarely made it to the big screen (with the notable exception of 2001 Space Odyssey in 1968). As the first Superman was released in 1978. Star Wars was one of the first sci fi stories to actually get full theater treatment. Most of the other sci fi movies were horror, in effect 'B' movies, low budget, cheaply filmed, poorly acted. With cardboard monsters and crummy sets. With the exception of Cronenberg's 'Rabid' and the redo of "Island of Doctor Moreau" that year.

The first Star Wars (now lV) was entirely different from anything that had come before it. It had a big budget which was unusual for sci fi, good sets, somewhat original music, decent actors. At the time the special effects were the first of their kind. I saw it at one of the last large screen movie theaters, with a real sound system and it was incredible. The special effects were all new to us then.
I think you had to be there at the time to get a sense of how entirely different it was from all the other movies that released to the theaters that year.

That year there was another war movie, a bond movie, a disco movie, and several horror movies and another disaster movie. That year seemed to be the beginning of decent science fiction movies, that we have grown accustomed to now, but back then it was unusual. Science fiction fans had no real power and bought books and comics instead, and watched some terrible 'B' movies, that were considered fringe movies.

 

[BrokenBoy]

You have to think about it in the context of 1977, the year it was released. The only other somewhat similar movie that released that year was "Close Encounters of the Third Kind." That might be considered science fiction.

Science fiction rarely made it to the big screen. And the first Superman was released in 1978. Star Wars was one of the first sci fi stories to actually get full theater treatment. Most of the other sci fi movies were horror, in effect 'B' movies, low budget, cheaply filmed, poorly acted. With cardboard monsters and crummy sets. With the exception of Croneberg's 'Rabid' and the redo of "Island of Doctor Moreau" that year.

The first Star Wars (now lV) was entirely different from anything that had come before it. It had a big budget which was unusual for sci fi, good sets, music, decent actors. And at the time the special effects were the first of their kind. I saw it at one of the last large screen movie theaters, with a real sound system and it was incredible. The special effects were all new to us the time. I think you had to be there at the time to get a sense of how entirely different it was from all the other movies that released to the theaters that year.

That year there was another war movie, a bond movie, a disco movie, and several horror movies and another disaster movie. That year seemed to be the beginning of decent science fiction movies, that we have grown accustomed to now, but back then it was unusual. Science fiction fans had no real power and bought books and comics instead, and watched some terrible 'B' movies, that were considered fringe movies.

Star Wars is not sci-fi at all.

 

[Tom]

... and watched some terrible 'B' movies, that were considered fringe movies.

I have gone back and watched nearly all of those in recent years. Mostly for nostalgia's sake (or laughs basically making our own Riff track if my daughter is watching with me). But there are a few little gems that have still held up.

Like 'Creation of the Humanoids'

 

[Thinx]

Star Wars is not sci-fi at all.

Why not?

 

[BrokenBoy]

Why not?

It's only "sci-fi" is the most base, superficial way possible. What I mean by this is that the only sci-fi stuff in Star Wars are the spaceships and other futuristic looking things. It's also not very interested in exploring any science-y aspects of the setting. Even George Lucas said Star Wars isn't sci-fi, but fantasy.

 

[Thinx]

It's only "sci-fi" is the most base, superficial way possible. What I mean by this is that the only sci-fi stuff in Star Wars are the spaceships and other futuristic looking things. In terms of actual storytelling it uses almost exclusively fantasy tropes. It's a fantasy story in space. Even George Lucas said Star Wars isn't sci-fi for this reason.

I see. So what would be in a more truly sci fi film that isn't in these?

 

[BrokenBoy]

I see. So what would be in a more truly sci fi film that isn't in these?

A lot of things. Star Trek is an example mentioned in this thread.

 

[Thinx]

Ok. Star trek set out to be a space exploration, I guess, and has many plots based on finding and experiencing new life forms etc. That's probably what you mean, with lots of new species and new physics etc?

I always thought the the male dominated delivery and facile liaisons of Capn' Kirk with a series of women portrayed as barbie dolls, let it down though, and was similar to the way Star wars depicted the developing relationship between the Princess and Han Solo, for example. Typical of it's time and of the genres I guess.

 

[MrSpock]

I do get that Star Trek has depth that Star Wars never tried to have on more than one level.

I don't see how this is relevant to the original post. The first criticism (as opposed to general complaint) about the movie is the special effects, which are, as you say, "...the spaceships and other futuristic looking things." That was the big deal.

I don't think many stage actors quit learning Shakespeare to do stage adaptations of Star Wars, and few philosophers changed their outlook on life. Most people don't apparently ask much of a movie, but Star Wars changed what they ask of a particular genre, one that makes big bucks. I doubt Blade Runner would look as good were it not for Star Wars. Blade Runner surely qualifies as sci-fi, a very thought-provoking movie.

 

[MrSpock]

I always thought the the male dominated delivery and facile liaisons of Capn' Kirk with a series of women portrayed as barbie dolls, let it down though... Typical of it's time and of the genres I guess.

Actually not typical. A black woman on the bridge was real progress. Some of those barbie dolls were officers who ordered men around. American cooperating with Russian and Japanese. It's good that you see what is wrong, but you ought to know that this show was exposing what was wrong once upon a time. If you try to expose everything that's wrong with the world all at once it becomes unrelatable.