# [Star Wars] Salon.com Article: "Galactic gasbag"



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

Interesting article about the many inspirations of George Lucas over at Salon.com --

http://www.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2002/04/10/lucas/index.html


----------



## Ashtal (Apr 10, 2002)

I think the Salon guys have to stop looking down their noses and taking themselves (and everyone else) WAY too seriously...


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 10, 2002)

Wow, what cycnical crap. . . 

Isn't it possible that both are true. . .?

I hate idiots like that. . .


----------



## Tom Cashel (Apr 10, 2002)

On the contrary...seems like the author is asking people NOT to take Star Wars so seriously.  He claims that it's just pulp action stuff, not archetypal myth.

I don't find it cynical, just a different viewpoint.  Quite a refreshing change from the tendency to elevate Star Wars to the canon of Great Works.  Especially when that elevation makes George Lucas seem like a scholar of myth (which he may be) and unlike a collector of film motifs (which he definitely is).

I mean, Star Wars is a great flick.
_The Odyssey_ is a Great Work.


----------



## Vuron (Apr 10, 2002)

So it's not ok for people to point out that George takes his "holy" trilogy + 2 a little too seriously? Besides the article only points out a more likely source of inspiration rather than completely debunking the Campbell mythology tie. Honestly I think it's much more reasonable to look at aspects of Star Wars as being an adaptation of space opera of the 1950s with the framework of Akira Kurosawa's plot


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

I thought the article was pretty insightful.  George Lucas himself has admitted that he takes inspiration for the titles of his Star Wars movies from pulp sci-fi literature, so why not also admit that the literature is also an inspiration for the Star Wars stories as well?  The author's comparison of the Jedi to the Lensmen is also pretty telling.

I do think that Star Wars touches on some mythical elements as well (Luke and Vader's relationship, the Force, the seperated siblings, etc.), but I also think that it is fundamentally a pulp action story--albeit one that has touched a lot of people deeply.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

when are people gonna learn....



salon.com just plain sucks. end. of. story.



this was telling (from the end of the article).....

"About the writer
Steven Hart is a freelance writer and novelist based in New Jersey." 

uh huh. those who cannot do, teach. and those who cannot write, critique. am i the only one that smell sour grapes?


----------



## el-remmen (Apr 10, 2002)

Thus, my assertion that it is both. . 

I don't think he has ever denied that pulp action aci-fi and such was a great inspiration for Star Wars. . . but that stuff touches on certain archetypes as well. . .


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

and let there be no doubt, the article WAS a hatchet job on george lucas and, to a lesser extent, lawrence kasden. the guy went out of his way to take swipes, in fact.

anyone that doesn't think so is lucas-hater-one-week-boycotter.


----------



## Van Dyksun (Apr 10, 2002)

I'll gladly take the role of Lucas-hater, although I consider myself more of a Lucas-disdainer.

Yes, I've seen all the movies, and I still think the first trilogy was a great achievement in film.

But the new trilogy lacks a lot of what made the first trilogy good.  Some of these things are just the nature of prequels--there's no real surprises in Phantom Menace/Attack of the Clones simply because we know where the story is going to go in the future.  Lucas based the first trilogy on pulp fiction/film, which is known for cliffhangers--something sadly absent in Phantom.

The bad acting (not just from the inexperienced kid, but also from the "star" names) cannot be excused, and has to be attributed to Lucas, because these actors have acted better in other films.

Visually, the films remain stunning.  In fact, the second time I saw the Phantom Menace (I had promised my class that I would take them before I found out how bad the film was), I simply turned my ears off and simply watched the film for the backgrounds and the effects.  There are so many shots that seemed to have jumped right off the cover of _Amazing_ magazine, but yet are "realistic" in the context of the world.

Story-wise, the new stuff just doesn't match up.

I truly hope that Attack will be better.  But I don't plan to see the film the first week for sure, and people are going to have to come back from it and let me know that there's more of the kind of stuff shown in the second trailer than the first to be able to convince me to go.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> salon.com just plain sucks. end. of. story.







> anyone that doesn't think so is lucas-hater-one-week-boycotter.








> Thus, my assertion that it is both. .
> I don't think he has ever denied that pulp action aci-fi and such was a great inspiration for Star Wars. . . but that stuff touches on certain archetypes as well. . .



And this is my feeling as well, as I said above.

You have to admit, though, that the author makes a great point about how the trash compactor scene was interpreted and how it really is just an action story/movie staple....

Also, I think the author is dead-on when it comes to discussing George's tin ear when it comes to dialogue.  Bashing?  Perhaps.  

But is it bashing if it's true...?

HOWEVER...bad dialogue aside, Star Wars is famous for its great one-liners....

Hmmm...I'm of two minds here....


----------



## CrusaderX (Apr 10, 2002)

I loved the article, and I think it's dead-on.  Star Wars was, is, and always will be the ultimate B-Movie.  Nothing more, nothing less, and there's nothing wrong with B-Movies at all.  But to say that the films satisfy "the hunger for spiritual experience (which) was no longer being satisfied sufficiently by the traditional vessels of faith" is just plain silly.



> The original "Rocky," released the year before "Star Wars," follows Campbell's mythic template much more closely than "Star Wars": just imagine Burgess Meredith as the wise old sage, Burt Young as the guardian of the threshold and Carl Weathers as Darth Vader.




LOL - I loved this example in particular.  Because it's so true.  Star Wars fans waving the banner of "spiritual experiences" need to realize that MOST films and stories can be shoe-horned into a mythic template, if you press hard enough.  This certainly isn't unique to Star Wars.


----------



## Ashtal (Apr 10, 2002)

I don't think Star Wars is the second coming in film, don't get me wrong, but I also despise the snearing attitude the writer takes in article as he bashes just about everything he can get his hands on. Which is why I wrote "stop taking himself, and everyone else, so seriously."  I don't think the majority of Star Wars fans get as worked up as he imagines, or that they give Star Wars as much blind worship as he thinks they do.

This article wasn't a critical discussion; this was an attempt to piss on something because it's 'kewl' even though he doesn't like it.   A lot of folks are guilty of that.  And certainly Star Wars isn't the only thing out there that gets analyzed to both depth and death.  Welcome to academia, where if you look hard enough, you invariably find what you're looking for.

Star Wars is pulp space opera.  I don't think anyone really denies that.  It's fun and it may or may not have some myth reflected and/or imbeded in it, consciously or unconsiously.   Everything comes from something.  All stories have been told.  We just have different characters and different scenery.  Sometimes stuff has deeper meaning and sometimes it was just plain cheaper to go with this over that when it came down to filming.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> LOL - I loved this example in particular. Because it's so true. Star Wars fans waving the banner of "spiritual experiences" need to realize that MOST films and stories can be shoe-horned into a mythic template, if you press hard enough. This certainly isn't unique to Star Wars.




Yeah, I loved that example, too.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

a few quotes from the article:


First, if knowledge of "man's oldest stories" underlies the popularity of "Star Wars," then why is Lucas' non-"Star Wars" résumé so dismal? Apart from conceiving the "Indiana Jones" films, which owe their box-office impact to the kinetic genius of director Steven Spielberg, Lucas has produced an unbroken series of flops. Anyone here remember "Howard the Duck"? Or "Tucker: The Man and His Dream"? "Radioland Murders," anybody? And let us not forget "Willow," which is a virtual textbook of Campbell's mix 'n' match approach to mythology.
=============================================

nice swipe there.....


"The scale of the action in the Lensman books is broader than anything in the Lucas universe -- not content with wiping out whole planets, Smith's Lensmen detonate entire solar systems without breaking a sweat -- but the quality of the writing is about the same, which is to say awful."
==============================================
ahh, the voice of a frustrated writer.



Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials
==============================================now accusing lucas of lying? what proof is offered?



Obi-Wan dies midway through the first film and reappears later only as a hologram offering supremely unhelpful advice, such as "Trust your feelings." If the Force already resides within the hero, what need then for sage advice -- especially when Obi-Wan sees no need to advise Luke that he is going off to duel with a villain who is, in fact, his father? That's a bit of information any idiot, let alone a wise old sage, might consider just a wee bit important.
==============================================
any moron knows that ben was appearing as a spirit....not a hologram. a hologram? that, as well as the rest of the crap is proof that this guy has a bug up his butt about george lucas, probably due to the fact that he thinks he is more talented than george but will never achieve any of lucas' success.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

*grumbles*

I just need to learn to keep my trap shut....


----------



## Wild Karrde (Apr 10, 2002)

You can tell by the mere timing of this article that it's an attempt to bash.  He's talking of things from an interview and T.V. program two to three years ago and AToC is right around the corner. 

I'm a huge Star Wars fan and I don't buy into all the overly significant religous mumbo-jumbo either.  I do think that it tapped into something common in the human psyche (whether on purpose or not I have'nt a clue).

But the fact, that this article is on Salon negates it alone.  They always seem to enjoy bashing Star Wars or anything to do with it.  And it's Salon...it's like the "E channel" of the internet.

And why, oh why, Wolfspider are you always posting things about Star Wars if you dislike it so much?  Why are you always the first one to give your two cents into a thread about how much you dislike it?  We all know you hate it.  We all know you're gonna boycott it the first week (although I actually thought I had talked you into boycotting it in it's entirety a few months ago).

I can't stand Star Trek but I don't go around posting threads on it to let everyone know how much I think it sucks.  If you don't like it don't watch it, don't buy it, don't support it.


----------



## EOL (Apr 10, 2002)

King_Stannis said:
			
		

> *a few quotes from the article:
> 
> 
> First, if knowledge of "man's oldest stories" underlies the popularity of "Star Wars," then why is Lucas' non-"Star Wars" résumé so dismal? Apart from conceiving the "Indiana Jones" films, which owe their box-office impact to the kinetic genius of director Steven Spielberg, Lucas has produced an unbroken series of flops. Anyone here remember "Howard the Duck"? Or "Tucker: The Man and His Dream"? "Radioland Murders," anybody? And let us not forget "Willow," which is a virtual textbook of Campbell's mix 'n' match approach to mythology.
> ...



So even if something's true it's still a swipe?




> *"The scale of the action in the Lensman books is broader than anything in the Lucas universe -- not content with wiping out whole planets, Smith's Lensmen detonate entire solar systems without breaking a sweat -- but the quality of the writing is about the same, which is to say awful."
> ==============================================
> ahh, the voice of a frustrated writer.*



You appear to be using this frustrated writer label fairly liberally.  What part of this statement is untrue?  I've read Lensmen and while cool, the writing was very pulpy, the same can be easily said of Lucas.  As far as him being a frustrated writer, he was published in Salon, which whatever you might say about it is still a very respected internet magazine.





> *Obi-Wan dies midway through the first film and reappears later only as a hologram offering supremely unhelpful advice, such as "Trust your feelings." If the Force already resides within the hero, what need then for sage advice -- especially when Obi-Wan sees no need to advise Luke that he is going off to duel with a villain who is, in fact, his father? That's a bit of information any idiot, let alone a wise old sage, might consider just a wee bit important.
> ==============================================
> any moron knows that ben was appearing as a spirit....not a hologram. a hologram? that, as well as the rest of the crap is proof that this guy has a bug up his butt about george lucas, probably due to the fact that he thinks he is more talented than george but will never achieve any of lucas' success. *



This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong.  So what?  That does not immediatly invalidate everything else, and once again you use this frustrated writer argument which you seem to apply to everything without any evidence of it's existance.

Besides when all is said and done Salon publishes "This Modern World" sure it's not KoDT but it's good enough for me


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> And why, oh why, Wolfspider are you always posting things about Star Wars if you dislike it so much? Why are you always the first one to give your two cents into a thread about how much you dislike it? We all know you hate it. We all know you're gonna boycott it the first week (although I actually thought I had talked you into boycotting it in it's entirety a few months ago).




Like I said, I need to learn to keep my trap shut.

Seriously, I never said that I disliked Star Wars.  On the contrary, I LOVE Star Wars.  I've still got all the action figures from when I was a kid.  I own all the movies.  I've got the role-playing game and every suppliment for it.  I even had a subscription to Star Wars gamer before it went belly up.  I absolutely LOVE Star Wars.  The original trilogy is a fun and exciting set of movies, although I do think that Episode I was a let-down.  But that doesn't stop me from watching it almost every week with my six-year old daughter, who absolutely loves the movie (but hates Jar Jar with a passion).

I saw the article this morning and read it completely, enjoying the points that the author made and generally agreeing with them.  Knowing that some people on the board read Salon.com, I scanned the topics on the front page to make sure the article hadn't already been mentioned, and then I started a thread of my own.  I had no intention of bashing Star Wars myself, since I think so highly of Star Wars myself.

The world would be a much less glorious place to be without Star Wars.



> I can't stand Star Trek but I don't go around posting threads on it to let everyone know how much I think it sucks. If you don't like it don't watch it, don't buy it, don't support it.




Where have I said in this thread that Star Wars sucks?  In fact, where in ANY thread here at ENWorld have I said that Star Wars sucks?

I still plan on boycotting the first week of AotC, but mainly so I can get a good feel of the movie from reviews and from comments here.  Plus, the more that I think about it the more I realize that it was really unpleasant being in a packed movie theatre a few years back when i saw Episode I....


----------



## Wild Karrde (Apr 10, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Where have I said in this thread that Star Wars sucks?  In fact, where in ANY thread here at ENWorld have I said that Star Wars sucks?
> *




I never said you said it sucked.  I was simply trying to illustrate the point that if you don't like something then why wear it like a badge, why constantly bring it up and keep talking about it?  Life's to short man let go of some of that baggage.

I'm glad to hear you like Star Wars I guess it was just hard to figure out because typically you always seem to be this negative voice that keeps creeping up whenever the subject is raised.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> I'm glad to hear you like Star Wars I guess it was just hard to figure out because typically you always seem to be this negative voice that keeps creeping up whenever the subject is raised.




Naw.  I'm just afraid that Episode II will be as big a disappointment to me as Episode I was.  I just hate to see such an interesting setting wasted.

By the way, anyone else eagerly awaiting Star Wars Galaxies as much as I am?


----------



## Wild Karrde (Apr 10, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *
> 
> By the way, anyone else eagerly awaiting Star Wars Galaxies as much as I am?  *




Can't freaking wait


----------



## Oni (Apr 10, 2002)

While I thought the article was a little acrid, I agree with quite a bit of it.  The need to elevate things above what they are just to justify enjoying them has always been a pet peeve of mine.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

When?  When will it be out?!?


----------



## Wild Karrde (Apr 10, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *When?  When will it be out?!? *




Not soon enough.  I've been waiting forever.  It's almost as bad as the wait for HERO Fifth to get made (at least that's over).


----------



## mmadsen (Apr 10, 2002)

I think it's hard to deny the central thesis of the article:







> ...the real roots of "Star Wars" are obvious to anyone not blinded by snobbery or the need for self-inflation. They lie not in "The Odyssey" or the "Upanishads," but 20th century science-fiction magazines such as Astounding, Amazing Stories and Galaxy. The "true theology" of "Star Wars" was written not by Virgil or Homer, but Isaac Asimov, Robert A. Heinlein, Frank Herbert, E.E. "Doc" Smith and a host of other S.F. writers.




It's not a "Star Wars sucks!" piece, but an "Emperor's New Clothes" piece.  An enjoyable -- even, extremely enjoyable -- space opera doesn't need a deep philosophical underpinning to be fun -- and you're acting like a pompous "galactic gasbag" if that's why you say you like it.  That's his point, I think.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

EOL said:
			
		

> *This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong.  So what?  That does not immediatly invalidate everything else, and once again you use this frustrated writer argument which you seem to apply to everything without any evidence of it's existance.
> 
> Besides when all is said and done Salon publishes "This Modern World" sure it's not KoDT but it's good enough for me  *





i guess we can just go ahead an use holograms for the ghosts of christmas past, present and future in dickens' christmas carol, too. besides, to me it shows a shocking lack of knowledge for a subject that he is blasting. is it geeky to realize that someone is dead? or what a spirit is? if you're gonna blast material, as this guy did, you should at least know it.

as for your earlier comment, you ask what is wrong when i say that the writer is frustrated. he called the writing awful. you said it was "pulpy". does "pulpy" = awful to you? apparently to you and him it does. this writer IS a frustrated hack who thought he'd generate a little buzz on the internet by people talking about his half-baked article. hooray for him. in other news, george lucas yawns and makes another $1 million.

as for salon.com, if you like your news....shall we say, slanted, then they're perfect. personally, i think they suck. 

so do plenty of others.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

EOL said:
			
		

> *This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong.  So what?  That does not immediatly invalidate everything else, and once again you use this frustrated writer argument which you seem to apply to everything without any evidence of it's existance.
> 
> Besides when all is said and done Salon publishes "This Modern World" sure it's not KoDT but it's good enough for me  *




i also saw that you left out my original excerpt where the author all but accuses george lucas of stealing the screenplay for "empire". with absolutely no proof, i might add.

by your omission of that excerpt and the inclusion of the others, you must find that position indefensible. so would i.


----------



## Ristamar (Apr 10, 2002)

EOL said:
			
		

> *This is a pretty geeky nitpick, yeah he got that wrong.  So what?  That does not immediatly invalidate everything else...
> *




I wouldn't call it a 'geeky nitpick.'  While it might be a stretch to call it common knowledge, it certainly doesn't qualify as obscure trivia.

Regardless, if one is going to dissect and lambast Star Wars, its orgins, and its influences, it would be wise to at least get the simple facts WITHIN the movies correct.  The error does not immediately invalidate the arguments presented, but it doesn't lend to his credence either.  Admittedly, he raises some good points, but it's hard not to be a bit suspicous of the author's intentions after such a sloppy oversight.

And yes, some people do take Star Wars way too seriously.  Hell, I know I have my moments.  I think Mr. Hart might be taking it a bit too seriously, too.


----------



## mmadsen (Apr 10, 2002)

> Overshadowing all of them in terms of influence on "Star Wars," however, is E.E. "Doc" Smith, whose mastery of galaxy-spanning space operas made him one of the most popular writers of pre-World War II science fiction. Starting in the 1930s, Smith began writing a series of space adventures set against the backdrop of an eons-long war between a race of benevolent aliens called the Arisians and their enemies, the evil Eddorians. During this proxy war, in which civilizations and races are pawns in an infinitely long chess game, the Arisians use Earth and other planets to breed a race of super police, the "Lensmen."




Out of curiosity, who here has read Smith's Lensmen stories?  EOL and Wolfspider?  Anyone else?

I have, and I suspect your take on the article hinges more than a bit on whether you've read them or not.  Star Wars is _extremely_ derivative -- particularly the psychic good guys and the moon-sized Deathstar (that's small compared to the sequel's even bigger Deathstar) -- and it's extremely derivative of Smith's very "pulpy" fiction.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> Regardless, if one is going to dissect and lambast Star Wars, its orgins, and its influences, it would be wise to at least get the simple facts WITHIN the movies correct. The error does not immediately invalidate the arguments presented, but it certainly doesn't lend to his credence either. Admittedly, he raises some good points, but it's hard not to be a bit suspicous of the author's intentions after such a sloppy oversight.




I don't see this as a sloppy oversight.  I'm sure that I might make a similar mistake even though I've seen the movies a hundred times.  I don't think it invalidates the author's claims at all.  

Besides, why be "suspicious of the author's intentions" because of a mistake?  

To be fair, ol' dead Obi-wan does look a lot like (in fact, exactly like) the holographic images that are used as communication devices throughout the films.  I'm sure the same special effect was used to render both the holograms and Ben's ghost.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

for those of you who think this article has some good points, i will again post this quote below:


=============================================
"Though the film's credits list her as screenwriter along with Lawrence Kasdan, Pollock says Lucas had to throw out her draft and start from scratch with Kasdan's help. This is hard to swallow, bearing in mind that Lucas and Kasdan also co-wrote "Return of the Jedi." The strengths of "The Empire Strikes Back" echo those of Brackett's own work as surely as the mediocrity of "Return of the Jedi" matches that of Kasdan's subsequent films, all built from secondhand materials" 
==========================================

this writer is accusing george lucas of STEALING someone else's screenplay and calling it his own. with no proof at all, other than a hunch.

i ask, not that the other stuff he wrote about in the article was terribly interesting anyway, but how can you take the rest of the article seriously when he makes these kind of accusations?


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> this writer is accusing george lucas of STEALING someone else's screenplay and calling it his own. with no proof at all, other than a hunch.



The author, having read Bracket's works and also knowing how much Lucas borrows from other sources, finds it "hard to swallow" that Lucas wasn't in some way influenced by the original script.  I don't find anything wrong about this assertion, especially considering that Lucas didn't have to steal anything since Bracket was one of the film's screenwriters.  The author is countering Pollock's assertion that Bracket didn't have any influence, NOT saying that Lucas was stealing anything.  The author has more of a bone to pick with Pollock, I think.  Reread this section again and see if you see what I mean.

Although, considering the Dinotopia incident, I wouldn't doubt that Lucas has blatantly stolen ideas....

Whatever happened with this?  Was the Dinotopia creator properly compensated?


----------



## Ristamar (Apr 10, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *
> Besides, why be "suspicious of the author's intentions" because of a mistake?
> 
> To be fair, ol' dead Obi-wan does look a lot like (in fact, exactly like) the holographic images that are used as communication devices throughout the films.  I'm sure the same special effect was used to render both the holograms and Ben's ghost. *




Yes, he does look very much like a hologram.

Still, it's a dumb mistake.  And to anyone that's even a casual Star Wars fan, it's a REALLY dumb mistake.  Even my mother would know that Kenobi was a ghost (or spirit, if you prefer) and not a hologram (though I might have to present the question to her as multiple choice just to jog her memory  ).

Look at it this way...  if someone started criticizing something of which you are a big fan (a novel, a movie, etc), then blurted out a statement so obviously wrong (or misinterpreted) about a simple aspect of the object he was critiquing, wouldn't that raise a few warning flags in your head?

Anyway, as I said, he made some good points, and the error doesn't automatically invalidate his arguments.  It is a bit odd, though...  *shrug*  ...take that for what it's worth.


----------



## mmadsen (Apr 10, 2002)

> Look at it this way...  if someone started criticizing something of which you are a big fan (a novel, a movie, etc), then blurted out a statement so obviously wrong (or misinterpreted) about a simple aspect of the object he was critiquing, wouldn't that raise a few warning flags in your head?




I still don't see why anyone is taking this article as an attack on Star Wars.  It's an attack on the pompous stance that Star Wars descends from literary/religious classics, when it quite obviously descends very directly from earlier 20th-century pulp sci-fi.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> Still, it's a dumb mistake. And to anyone that's even a casual Star Wars fan, it's a REALLY dumb mistake. Even my mother would know that Kenobi was a ghost (or spirit, if you prefer) and not a hologram (though I might have to present the question to her as multiple choice just to jog her memory).




Oh, I'll agree.  It's a dumb mistake.  I'm surprised it got by the editor.  All I can think is that maybe the author was trying to be facetious...I dunno.

Why, it would be like calling a light saber a "laser sword" or calling the Enterprise a "space ship" instead of a starship.... 

Heh.  Sorry.  I mentioned the word facetious and then decided I'd be a little bit difficult myself.  It's a disease I have....



Carry on....


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I still don't see why anyone is taking this article as an attack on Star Wars.  It's an attack on the pompous stance that Star Wars descends from literary/religious classics, when it quite obviously descends very directly from earlier 20th-century pulp sci-fi. *




that may be so, but all of the pot-shots he takes at lucas only obscure that message and turns it into an anti-star wars article. that's why it's such a poorly written article. the author can't even hold back his personal contempt for lucas. funny, but his article comes off sounding just as pompous as the people he is criticizing.

for the record, yes, i believe too many people take star wars way too seriously. and also for the record, too many people like to think that they are "above" a good old fashioned action adventure - so they take cheap shots at the movie and its fans.


----------



## Henry (Apr 10, 2002)

*My review of the article, for anyone who cares...*

I apologize for the long post, but I want to point out, as Nemmerle did, with evidence, that pulp inspiration and mythic values are not mutually exclusive; in fact, one must include mythic archetypes to do it correctly.

I find some of the things he says true, but at this same time it does not obviate what makes star wars great. What the author misses here is that, while Star Wars incorporates much of what came before in 1930's to 1950's pulp fiction and movies, THOSE sources themselves are great models for mythic heroes and ideals.

What fan of Star Wars DOESN'T recognize the inspiration for the Death Star Trench run? Who DOESN'T by now recognize the inspiration for the basic plot of "Rescue the Princess from the Evil Wizard in the Fortress?" (And trust me, it wasn't original with _The Hidden Fortress_, either.)

The magic of Star Wars is, I think, as uncapturable as our childhoods, or our first loves, or even our first gaming sessions. 

Notice the writer's pointing to "Rocky" as a better example. Rocky is a clear indicator that a change was already brewing in the 1970's culture. Where "The Godfather" was the most popular movie just a few scant years before, the debacle of Viet Nam, Watergate, and more problems and scandals than I can remember right now, gave people a desire for two things: (1) Identifiable Heroes, (2) Escape. Rocky fits these two themes to a "T". Star Wars, however, fits them even more. The good guys wore white (or Gold or fur), the bad guys wore black, and there was victory in the end.

On the point of the Indiana Jones films, OF COURSE they also had pulp values and elements, and OF COURSE Spielberg's dynamic direction helped this movie. But if he had directed it any other way, he wouldn't have done justice to the genre, and I believe it wouldn't have turned out successfully at all. (The fact that Harrison Ford, with his charisma and mannerisms,  was the only character who could have been Indiana Jones, should go without saying.)

One last point: Star wars was a distilled brew of "firsts." This contributed to its popularity.

No other sci-fi film of its production quality existed at the time; anyone saying _Star Trek_ is missing the point. Star Trek could not hold a candle to the photo-realism and action of the period; the original Star Trek was too sterile and staid in its look to be "real." No film or series had its level of production value.

Star Wars was the first to use new filming technology (such as the hideously over-budget Dykstra-cam) to capture detail. It also had a very dedicated staff of modelling personnel that created wizardry with very frugal resources.

As said before, it was also among the first films of the decade to develop simpler, "pulpish" core values at its story's center.

Its main cast of characters were almost complete unknowns. The most publicized one I think was Harrison Ford; despite Carrie Fisher having a famous mother, I don't think she had appeared in any filmwork before, although I could be mistaken on this point.


----------



## Some guy from Ohio (Apr 10, 2002)

> And why, oh why, Wolfspider are you always posting things about Star Wars if you dislike it so much? Why are you always the first one to give your two cents into a thread about how much you dislike it? We all know you hate it. We all know you're gonna boycott it the first week (although I actually thought I had talked you into boycotting it in it's entirety a few months ago).



Wolfspider,
I always keep an eye out for your Star Wars theads.  I don't usually agree with you, but I do like the converstations you spark.  Is it me, or does it seem that six months ago you could could only find posters that would flame Star Wars and now the tide seems to be going the other direction? Do I hear "bandwagon (with Wild Karrde being an exception, of course)?


----------



## mmadsen (Apr 10, 2002)

> for the record, yes, i believe too many people take star wars way too seriously. and also for the record, too many people like to think that they are "above" a good old fashioned action adventure - so they take cheap shots at the movie and its fans.




I don't mean to offend, but I think you're _really_ missing the point of the article then.  He's attacking the people who consider themselves "above" a sci-fi movie, and who pretend Star Wars _must_ be something "above" a sci-fi movie, since they enjoy it.


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

Wolfspider said:
			
		

> *
> 
> 
> ...Why, it would be like calling a light saber a "laser sword" or calling the Enterprise a "space ship" instead of a starship....
> ...




actually, it's probably more like calling a toaster a cat, or a computer a lamppole, or salon.com a legitimate magazine.


----------



## Henry (Apr 10, 2002)

Oh, my goodness! I almost missed this line completely (I glossed over the "lensmen" part



> There are even hints that Lucas has worked a Lensman-style breeding program into his saga, judging from the story of Anakin Skywalker's immaculate conception in "The Phantom Menace."




I suppose the words "virgin birth" never rang a bell...


----------



## King_Stannis (Apr 10, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> I don't mean to offend, but I think you're really missing the point of the article then.  He's attacking the people who consider themselves "above" a sci-fi movie, and who pretend Star Wars must be something "above" a sci-fi movie, since they enjoy it. *




perhaps. but i think you missed my main point, which i will reiterate. the author, in my opinion, took wayyy too many potshots at lucas along the way for this article to be taken seriously.

whatever the intention, for me the result was just of an author who was trying to generate some publicity. quite frankly, aside from the excitement that the cheap shots generated, the article was pretty boring.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

*shrugs*

I thought it was pretty entertaining myself, but then again, I'm not the most exciting person in the world.  I have simple, rather boring tastes, I guess.....


----------



## bwgwl (Apr 10, 2002)

maybe i'm mistaken, but i don't think Lucas has ever _denied_ that he drew inspiration for Star Wars from Kurosawa films or pulp sci-fi. in fact, i'm pretty sure he has stated on several occasions that they were sources of inspiration, _along with_ Campbell's theories of the monomyth.

so is this article only attacking the fans that won't admit to themselves what the creator of the work has already said?


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

> so is this article only attacking the fans that won't admit to themselves what the creator of the work has already said?




Yes, I think so--the fans AND the critics.  The article seems to be arguing that a lot of people focus on the academic work of Campbell without acknowledge the pulp influences as well.


----------



## Hawkshere (Apr 10, 2002)

While I'm not prepared to throw the baby out with the bathwater, ala King_Stannis, I do think he has a point.  The article was okay, and it did have some interesting ideas.  I thought some of the alledged cynicism was actually healthy skepticism - unfortunately there was enough true cynical vitriol mixed in that it takes real effort to filter out the good from the bad.  In the end, I'm still not sure what the point of this article really was.  /shrug

However, if you want a really interesting take on Star Wars to debate, just look at the Salon article links sidebar for some older peices on their site.  They include a far more provocative take on Star Wars by one of my fave SF authors, David Brin.  He's got some ideas there some of y'all will *really* object to, hehe.  Way, way better reading than a hipper-than-thou nitpick article on the Star Wars literary pedigree.


----------



## Wolfspider (Apr 10, 2002)

Heh heh heh. 

I really enjoyed that article, too.


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> I still don't see why anyone is taking this article as an attack on Star Wars.  It's an attack on the pompous stance that Star Wars descends from literary/religious classics, when it quite obviously descends very directly from earlier 20th-century pulp sci-fi. *




It can descend from both.


----------



## MulhorandSage (Apr 11, 2002)

Hawkshere said:
			
		

> *However, if you want a really interesting take on Star Wars to debate, just look at the Salon article links sidebar for some older peices on their site.  They include a far more provocative take on Star Wars by one of my fave SF authors, David Brin.  He's got some ideas there some of y'all will really object to, hehe.  Way, way better reading than a hipper-than-thou nitpick article on the Star Wars literary pedigree.   *




This was a pretty neat article I'd never seen before. Brin overgeneralizes so much it's occasionally painful, but it's still a good read. Thanks for pointing it out.

Scott Bennie


----------



## Caliban (Apr 11, 2002)

mmadsen said:
			
		

> *
> 
> Out of curiosity, who here has read Smith's Lensmen stories?  EOL and Wolfspider?  Anyone else?
> 
> I have, and I suspect your take on the article hinges more than a bit on whether you've read them or not.  Star Wars is extremely derivative -- particularly the psychic good guys and the moon-sized Deathstar (that's small compared to the sequel's even bigger Deathstar) -- and it's extremely derivative of Smith's very "pulpy" fiction. *




I've read them.  To me they had a different feel than Star Wars, although there are certainly some similar themes.   I don't think it's as derivative  as the article tries to indicate though. 

Lensmen was all about square jawed heroes fighting galactic criminals and ultimately intergalactic conquerers.  Early in the series the Lenses were primarily a form of unforgable identification and communicators.   They also granted/amplified psionic abilities, but it didn't become prominent until later in the series.   

Star Wars was about rag-tag bands of rebels fighting the empire, and a farm-boy learning that he has a greater destiny than he ever dreamed off.   

I think they both drew from the same sources.  Star Wars probably was influenced by the Pulp Fiction era, but then Pulp Fiction was influenced by ancient myths as surely as the rest of literature is.


----------



## Hawkshere (Apr 11, 2002)

Hah!  Even better!  There's a link to yet another Star Wars article by Brin on Salon.  This one is an analysis of Phantom Menace - its totally worth reading.  Pretty funny, too.  Bashing Ep1 is something we can all relate too, lol.


----------



## Wild Karrde (Apr 11, 2002)

Hawkshere said:
			
		

> *Pretty funny, too.  Bashing Ep1 is something we can all relate too, lol.   *




For better or worse


----------



## hong (Apr 11, 2002)

Wild Karrde said:
			
		

> *[Bashing Ep 1]
> 
> For better or worse *




For richer or for poorer,
Till death do us part, Amen.


Hong "do you take Ep 1 to be your lawful wedded b*tch?" Ooi


----------



## Black Omega (Apr 11, 2002)

Henry said:
			
		

> *Oh, my goodness! I almost missed this line completely (I glossed over the "lensmen" part
> I suppose the words "virgin birth" never rang a bell...  *



Though since immaculate conception refers to Mary being born without the burden of original sin, this always puzzles me.  But yes, the whole Anakin/Jesus link is inescapable.


----------



## Kwalish Kid (Apr 11, 2002)

*Hmmm..*

I think the guy has a point.


----------

