Not a member? Sign up now
September 16, 2011
Five Ways Star Wars Hurt Science Fiction
Boba Fett lunchboxes make Isaac Asimov's ghost cry.
By Stephen Deusner
This week, George Lucas will release all six Star Wars films on Blu-ray, an event that fans are anticipating with a mix of excitement and abject dread. As with every big Star Wars rerelease, the director has made some changes, most of which — hell, all of which — add little to the story. The general attitude toward Lucas' tinkering may be best summed up by a newly expressive Darth Vader himself: "Nooooo!" But Lucas' constant updates and fans' heated responses only solidify the Star Wars franchise's status as the holy text of science fiction — arguably the most popular, profitable, and debated series in the history of the genre, if not in the entire history of cinema. Does Star Wars really deserve that mantle? The early films revolutionized science fiction with realistic effects and grandiose storytelling, yet its influence has proved both positive and negative. Here are five ways Star Wars has hurt, rather than helped, science fiction.
1. Star Wars ushered in a new era of ludicrous merchandising.
Before Star Wars, movie tie-ins consisted of one or two toys and possibly a lunchbox — maybe a T-shirt if it was a real blockbuster. But practically every single character and every single ship in the Star Wars movies, no matter how obscure or peripheral, has been converted into lucrative product. (If Lucas could have figured out a way to make a life-size action figure of the Force itself, I'm sure someone would be asking a couple hundred for it on eBay.) The massive profitability of Lucas's toys has had a pernicious influence on genre filmmaking; tie-ins have become increasingly central to movies, to the point where scripts are reverse-engineered from existing toy lines. And usually it's not even the right merchandise: you can buy a Willrow Hood action figure, but you can't even get a DVD of the original theatrical cut of Star Wars anymore.
2. It traded social commentary for grandiose mythmaking.
At a time when the Vietnam War was blazing and the country was fracturing into mainstream and counterculture, another long-standing franchise, Star Trek, used science fiction as a tool for exploring the collision of cultures and Americans' responsibilities to themselves and to other nations. In 1973, Silent Running set an urgent ecological parable in outer space, with Bruce Dern saving Earth's last wildlife. Filmmakers were using the idea of galaxies far, far away to tell stories much closer to home.
With his adherence to Joseph Campbell's writings on mythology, Lucas shifted those concerns and essentially erased science fiction's potential for social commentary. The Star Wars films are timeless to a fault, largely uninterested in casting any sort of critical eye on our own world. There are hints of Cold War politics in Star Wars, but the matter is dropped almost before it's even introduced. And Revenge of the Sith tries to drum up some subtext about democracy versus fascism, but even in 2005, during the Iraq War and innumerable terror alerts, it was so utterly disconnected from post-9/11 America that it came across as blustery pretension. Today, horror movies in general and zombies in particular have become the more efficient tools for exploring racism, consumerism, AIDS, social networking and pretty much any other contemporary issue. Science fiction, however, largely ignores the times, too often content to gaze at the stars and ponder escape.
3. Lucas's obsessive tinkering started a trend.
The upcoming Blu-rays aren't the first time Lucas has tinkered with his movies. When he re-released the original trilogy to theaters in 1997, he added deleted scenes and background action of questionable narrative relevance. In Lucas' wake, several directors retouched their greatest films — most notoriously Steven Spielberg, who notoriously redacted E.T. for its DVD debut in 2002. It's debatable whether Lucas can be blamed for the overabundance of completely unnecessary deleted scenes, alternate endings, and director's cuts during the DVD age, but he definitely pushed the limits of a director's authority (and not in a good way). As the man himself told Congress in 1988, "People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians."
4. Star Wars upped the ante on special effects for their own sake.
Explaining this year's poorly reviewed yet enormously lucrative summer movie line-up, Walt Disney Animation Studios chief Andy Hendrickson stated that spectacle was more important than story, citing the studio's own Alice in Wonderland as a prime example. Hendrickson's way of thinking has its roots in the effects extravaganzas of the Star Wars franchise, which emphasized realistic space battles and alien landscapes. Of course, the first two films — and arguably the third — made story a crucial part of that spectacle. Twenty years later, however, the second batch of films were glutted with CGI backdrops and creatures that looked like Thomas Kinkade painting the final frontier on the side of a van. Deployed without restraint, the effects became unimpressive, not to mention simply distracting and annoying.
5. Star Wars was like an invasive species, destroying the biodiversity of sci-fi and bringing in a monoculture.
Star Wars inspired countless knockoffs during the 1970s and 1980s, few of which enjoyed even a fraction of its profits, popularity, or cultural cachet. Viewers saw the movie over and over, as if ticket stubs bestowed bragging rights. Even thirty-four years later, while it's not the only sci-fi franchise in the discussion, it's by far the most dominant, a branding juggernaut that has taught viewers to define themselves by their nerdish devotion — to go deep into a single film or franchise, to argue over whether Han Solo or Greedo shot first or why Boba Fett's feet weren't singed by his jetpack. Star Wars didn't encourage fans to consume a wider diet of science fiction. It made them eat the same meal over and over.
Lucas himself has not escaped this compulsion. Once a promising, eclectic director who made the dystopian sci-fi standalone THX-1138 and the Altman-for-teens ensemble piece American Graffiti, he stopped directing altogether after the success of Star Wars. Instead, he produced other filmmakers' movies (we owe him for Raiders of the Lost Ark and a handful of late Kurosawas) and closed himself off inside the Star Wars universe. Even when he returned to the director's chair in 1999, it was not to tell new stories, but to flesh out (and diminish) old ones. He needs a new project. Maybe we all do.
Commentarium (46 Comments)
I agree on all your points, especially the last one. Other than Howard the Duck, has Lucas directed anything that didn't have Star Wars attached to it after it was released in 1977? He is a one trick pony, but I think he has it in him to do something else. The funny thing about Lucas, I think, is that he is a tech head who happened to direct a couple of movies instead of a movie director. He loves to tinker and get way into the detail of a scene.
And also, I got tired of "director's version" a long time ago. I am tired of a director adding 10 minutes of additional footage and producing a new DVD (i.e., James Cameron, T2 and its multiple versions and packaging).
Not to be a dick, but Lucas only produced howard the duck.
What about the messages of "District 9"?
Outer Limits also has some very biting,still relevant,even though I hate the word,social commentary and ideas. Oh yeah, how can anyone argue that District 9 is not a brilliantly done sci-fi/actioner social commentary.
Also, I think you have to look at TV - Battlestar Galactica for example. Agree 100% on District 9.
Moon has some pretty deep social implications also.
I agree with almost everything. I like Star Wars I do. I also Lucas is an all around creative guy,but Star Wars overshadowed everything else he wanted to do. Whole other story,but seriously, he had other creative ideas,ambitons and projects that went beyond just star wars. The points I agree with the most are points 5,3 and 2.
Point 2: While I definitley prefer sci fi with more philosophical,social commentary take on the genre,POTA,Star Trek,Dr.Who,Solaris,2001,Blade Runner,Moon,Inception,The Matrix,hell even Firefly which suffers from the sort of fanboy over obsessing and rating as Star Wars, it's not the only example. I hear and toally agree with what you're saying, but Star Wars I would say, is a good take on the more, as you said,fantasy/mythological examples of it. Did it really kill off the social commentary aspects as much? I mean, after and during it, we had Blade Runner,The Terminator,Videodrome,Scanners,The Fly, The Brood, Alien(s), Aliens is about Vietnam yes,one of my all time favorites, Robocop, Star Trek 4 The Voyage Home, maybe a bit of a stretch,but I thought I would mention it cause it's so great, Star Trek 2 Wrath Of Khan,The Thing, They Live,Escape From New York,The Running Man,Brazil,among others. I mean, the only 2 sort of Star Wars-esque neo-pseudo space opera like ones I can think are the Corman produced Star Crash and Battle Beyond The Stars and The Black Hole as mentioned in point #5. I mean, just those 2 next to the 16 I just mentioned? I've heard it before that star wars killed off the more serious fare in the genre, but other than the 2 I mentioned, any other examples? And back in the 90's, we had 12 Monkets,Gattaca,and The Matrix. Even in recent years, we've had a huge resurgence in more idea driven sci-fi over the space opera mythology fantasy perpetrated by star wars.
And for discussions sake, some have argued that star wars is a social commentary on the tet offensive in vietnam. Something to do with the death star attack at the end of the first movie. I forget the whole analogy off hand.
Point 3: Yeah. The special editions are fucking terrible. I remember being so excited when those came out when I was a kid. I was at the peak of my star wars nerdery. Watching them again years later, I realize how awful they are. Lucas and how he continues to fuck with things is a whole other thing. I mean, other directors who re-release there directors cuts,James Cameron, Peter Jackson,Ridley Scott,Francis Ford Coppola,but the different version(s) of AP NOW is another debate,I mean, at least they know how to go back and actually improve it and add more and not fuck it up. Tell me Cameron's extended cut of Aliens doesn't kick total ass,and the lotr extended editions truly are breathtaking.
Point 5: I strongly disagree that Star Wars encouraged all fans to keep eating the same meal over and over. While Star Wars has been undeniably successful and had an impact, good or bad different discussion, it's not the only sci fi series or type. I mean,star wars or other franchise fan nerds may only watch the entries in whatever that said series might be,some of which I like myself, I think people do have a more diverse taste and will go out of there way to see what else is out there.
I made some spelling errors on this one I know. I'm a bit tired. So sue me.
That was fucking impressive.
Thank you. Thank you very much.
Oh also,Roger Corman did not produce the black hole. That was a disney movie. I added black hole after re-reading the article and watching the link to the trailer.
I don't think spelling errors on a blog reply are actionable.
Oh and for point #1, who the hell is willrow hood, and star wars original theatrical cut is actually available on dvd. Should be easy to find as well.
"spectacle was more important than story" = The Matrix
= Avatar
= Deep Throat
I recommend anyone interested in this read the (fairly short) article "The Solitary Pleasures of Star Wars" by Jonathan Rosenbaum, available online. It's this idea, but written shortly after the release of the first movie. He saw most of this coming before the wave even crested (other than DVD re-releases and other things that can't be predicted in 1977). He didn't need the two sequels and subsequent three prequels to know where this was all going, and his critique still stands up over three decades later. Great man, great critic.
As for Star Wars itself, it's a decent mythology mix-and-match, but its influence has tarnished its simplistic beauty. It's hard to enjoy it knowing what it started.
The only film I saw was the first one. The technology may well be the stuff of sci-fi, but in terms of plot and characters, it could just as easily have been a western, or set in ancient or medieval times.
It did take Western,Samurai,and mythological/Arthurian tropes,but did it in a way that hadn't been seen before. I mean, the plot is basically the same as the searchers when it comes down to things.
"Star Wars didn't encourage fans to consume a wider diet of science fiction. It made them eat the same meal over and over."
Do you mean just Star Wars, or any sci-fi similar to Star Wars? (And what does /that/ mean?) If anything, I'd say that the success of Star Wars made Hollywood want to do more big-budget sci-fi because fans wanted more big-budget sci-fi. There's still plenty of good sci-fi out there, but you're no more likely to see it in wide release than you are to see a truly clever rom-com in wide release. Just because sci-fi makes up a big chunk of the pop culture mainstream doesn't mean that boundary-pushing sci-fi has ceased to exist. But you won't find it by simply walking into the nearest movie theater.
Totally agree. But I already said this.
The only one I'd really disagree with is No. 2. There's been a ton of great sci-fi with social commentary in the post star wars world. Alien(s), Star Trek The Next Generation, Battle Star Galatica (Ron Moore series, not the original SW ripoff), Blade Runner...even things like Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. The list could go on and on. Sure, big budget mindless sci-fi/fantasy/superhero flicks take up a good portion of the summer screen-time, but that doesn't mean the cerebral stuff has disappeared or diminished.
Didn't I already just say this?
Also Star Wars is more fantasy than sci-fi.
Oh man, where to begin...
1. Merchandising does not hurt science fiction. It is more an example of capitalism versus children. Star Wars is not merch-crazy because it is SF. It is merch-crazy because it is a kids' movie, and they are all merchandise crazy. I'm not disagreeing that Lucas has made millions selling plastic to children, but it's hardly something new in kinds' movies. Are you sure Star Wars started this trend? M-I-C-K-E-Y...
2. Star Wars was never meant to be social commentary. It was supposed to be a grand epic, so it's an unfair criticism. It's like criticizing The Odyssey or Beowulf because it doesn't have enough social criticism about ancient Greece or Europe. That's not the intent of these stories. Also, the grand epics win out over the social commentaries in the box office because they're often more entertaining. You have to be in a certain mood to watch something like _Silent Running_ or _Children of Men_. Social commentary SF films are often bleak and/or anxious movies.
3. I suspect that if DaVinci had Photoshop, we'd have several iterations of the Mona Lisa. Tinkering is as much a sign of the technology as the obsessiveness of the artist. Also, _Blade Runner_ and _Twelve Monkeys_: Lucas is not the only SF director who is nuts about iterations/"perfection."
4. I think the artists and programmers who worked on the special effects would disagree with you. Though you might not find the wallpapering to be important to the central narrative, the technical and artistic achievement in special effects has helped the movie industry as a whole. It's a cumulative, generational process. You might not like the effects in Star Wars, but they directly and indirectly led the way for the effects in LOTR and other movies that have special effects spectacles you probably do like. Also, there is value in the ability to create and execute these things, from a strict programming point of view. Good programming can be as elegant and satisfying as good storytelling--it's just has a different set of criteria and goals.
5. I'll give you this one.
I would argue that Gilliam's perfection obsession over 12 Monkeys is ALOT different from Lucas and his fucking up of Star Wars. Gilliam was perfectionist WHILE shooting it,and understandably so. But I mean, he didn't go back and give us a 12 Monkeys special edition with a bunch of uneccessary cgi shots did he?
James Bond also disagrees with Point 1.
Willow. I mean, it's a total Star Wars knock-off, down to the droids-as-sprites copy-over, but it is a Lucas film that's not Star Wars.
Think you've hit the nail on the head here with these. Turns out Lucas is more an astute eccentric businessman than a film director - the Willie Wonka of Hollywood. He's become trapped in the reliable, yet increasingly moribund 'universe' that he created.
'Star Wars' turned science-fiction (which, at the time ran the gamut from '2001' to 'Solaris' and back) into childish fairy tales. Which is why the numbnuts that run 'Big Bang Theory' (for example) still feel comfortable making Star Wars references without fear that the numbnuts that watch it will not get the reference. Ever hear references to Samuel R Delany or Philip K Dick? Not without at least explaining them to the audience. Popular culture turned its back on any sci-fi that wasn't either an adapted fairy tale for children or an excuse for many explosions a long, long time ago, and we're all the poorer for it. Face it, 'Star Wars' became popular in the first place BECAUSE it was made for people who thought that science fiction (or, heck, even science itself) was for nerds.
Not that I'm bitter or anything.
If you really think about these five points you will notice that most of the things you're blaming on the entire Star Wars series are more accurately aimed at George Lucas. He hurt the entire science fiction movie genre more than any movie could.
"Twenty years later, however, the second batch of films were glutted with CGI backdrops and creatures that looked like Thomas Kinkade painting the final frontier on the side of a van."
Best line I've ever read in a review!
Actually, I think that spectacle for spectacle's sake can be traced back to D.W. Griffith and the beginning of cinema. So not entirely Lucas' fault.
The original and the second one (the first second one) were all that was worth watching. Once the Ewoks were introduced it was all over. The storyline although always interesting became dumbed down, almost ridiculous. One small example was the Boba Fett character. Boba Fett was fantastic, a secondary character with so much depth and popularity. But for some dumb reason they had to tie his father into the story line of the prequels. I mean how many civilizations, people and creatures exist in that world and they had to drag out Boba Fetts dad into the story, come on! And how in the hell can those civilization be so advanced with the lasers and warp speed, intergalactic travel, yet they still battle each other like Roman legions, lining up and moving towards each other on the backs of beasts and large vehicles. It's crazy.
I think point five is the most telling. Whenever you mention Science fiction, people still automatically think "Star Wars" like it's the only show in town. However, the story and characters aren't even that good. There is so much better material out there. Just my opinion.
I guess George Lucas will have to live with this on his conscience as he falls alseep... with many beautiful women on a giant pile of money.
This may sound like something spoken by the Roman DeBeers character on Party Down, but Star Wars is not science fiction. It's space fantasy. The reason that is important is that, for many people, Star Wars (and Trek) is the 1st thing that comes to mind when SF is mentioned. That's a 6th way Star Wars has hurt SF. It has caused people unfamiliar with SF to dismiss it as shallow & juvenile.
Fantastic point. Space Fantasy. My fiancee asked if I wanted the Blu-Ray collection, I shrugged and replied, "The series pretty much sucks. I love the Universe, hate the stories." I ranked them once for my daughter: V, IV, VI, III, II, Titanic, I.
First of all, what exactly do you have against "ludicrous merchandising"? They're selling shit that people want. Also, it is not like without SW it wouldn't have come about ANYWAY. This just sounds like the usual shallow anti corporatism one hears from dreadlocked marijuana enthusiasts.
Secondly, "social commentary"? Who says social commentary is any better than myth making? Do you know why myths exists? Because they're tropes embedded into out collective consciousness. They're deeper and more meaningful to us that any social commentary could be. Even ignoring that, arguing for one over the other is just silly.
Oh now -- If ol' Dr A had found a way to market FOUNDATION, I bet he'd have loved it ("Get Your Seldon Crisis Vault Action Set!")
It's Star Wars. everyone and their mother knows about it. Of course its the most capitalized franchise in Sci Fi history and you can't really blame Lucus for making his millions as a "one trick pony." You would too and moon your fans while you do it. To say that Sci Fi lost its luster due to this series is pointless bickering and laziness on a fan's part to admit you don't seek out the good stuff in the rough. What happened is Sci Fi had a grandiose moment as a Hollywood spotlight and everyone crapped on our dreams like an abusive step dad coming into the picture. There's plenty of good Sci Fi out there. personally I'm of the opinion to leave it to books. Try adapting Peter F. Hamilton, one of my personal favorites :) , Issac asimov, or Joe Haldeman, or the other innumerable well respected writers of the genre and you will be right back here bitching about how much it sucks and how Hollywood and CGI ruined your good time. Guess who's not excited about a live action adaptation of Ghost In The Shell? This guy. Star Wars is what it is and Sci Fi writers are going to do what they are going to do. Some will sell out some won't. Pick your battles wisely.
I agree totally that the blame lies with Hollywood, sensationalistic American culture and the commercialization of the movie industry. In order to be succesful as a film you have to sacrifice faithfulness to literary works of science fiction, which are the true source of sci-fi, not the silver screen. Blaming Star Wars for ruining Sci-fi is like the saying "Once you’ve had filet mignon, it’s kind of hard to go back to hamburger helper". Once people realized they could have what they want the rest seemed less appealing. It's why the NFL is more popular than MLB. It's why Michael Bay was allowed to make Transformers. If you want to disect American cultural preferences far be it from me to stop you, but that's an entirely different discussion. It's not fair to make Star Wars the goat. It was just the first to finally deliver what people were looking for.
Wow... good thing Star Wars isn't science fiction or you would have some really valid points here. Outside of it taking place in space, Star Wars really isn't sci-fi, it's a fantasy, maybe even a "space opera," and the two are very different things.
You can get into it all you like about how he ruined the movies or whatever, but the lines at the theaters and the cash in his wallet tell a different story. Truly good science fiction is like indie music, it's really good and its out there, but the bands are dying in obscurity every day from lack of interest.
hyperbole. the idea that they are "dying" is based on the idea they were ever living in fame. the fact is that real sci if lives in infamy. i mean come on no one really knows who the best sci fi writers are of our time unless you start walking through a bookstore, which most people dont do. Most people who read sci fi are part of the sect that read sci fi written in the 60-80's. granted im totally soaked in Peter F. Hamilton right now. but i plan to troll the next great sci fi at my local store when i finish his series. Knowing full well ive read neromancer, foundation series, snow crash, forever war and many of the other crazy (but worthwhile) reads of old sci fi. lets move on shall we?