What IS Star Wars?

[Kaeb]

I'm bored.

So lately, in a lot of threads examining PT problems and the future of the ST, other people and I have been talking a lot about the essence of Star Wars, specifically what makes it distinct from other works of both Science Fiction and Science Fantasy.

My main ideology is that we can credit this to it's insistence in making it's stories inherently human, grounded, believable and immersive. There's always been an air of mystique hanging over this as well. To me, Star Wars reminds me more of hearty old Western flicks about families and lone people attempting to survive their harsh circumstances along with attempting to survive their relationships with other characters. It also reminds me of the more natural and grounded aspects of both World War I and World War II movies, it very rarely reminds me of other works within it's genre, because it barely feels like it's part of those genres because it's more operatic than most of that ilk.

I'm only a small part of this largely undefined and disparate fandom however, and it's only natural that I would apply my own view of the original ethos of the franchise towards what I think the future should hold through my own loose connections to the fandom and the franchise as a whole.



My question, in essence, is what do YOU think Star Wars is? And what do you think it should be going forward?

 

[jpchewy01]

You're, as always, pretty spot on with your definition. But I'm curious to know why you left out the Eastern influence, from martial arts films to Eastern philosophy as a whole.

 

[Kaeb]

I think I was trying to be as succinct as possible with this initial opening post, I figured once people post their own views I could eventually expand more on the inherent details of the films which I've interpreted and perceived, whether they be their influences, their thematic tendencies or the overall narrative style.

In essence, drooling over it's Throne of Blood influences comes later, first we begin the discussion.

 

[jpchewy01]

I will say this for the thematic and narrative tendencies of the original films: there is a certain approach to the material that the films take that I describe as the "USC grad style", a style of filmmaking that reigned in Hollywood from 1977 through to the end of the century. It's a style of humour, pastiche, and even visual design that was introduced and perpetuated by USC grads like George Lucas, Ron Howard, and Robert Zemeckis, and eventually others like Steven Spielberg (who would eventually evolve past the style) and Jim Henson that was really lost in the Prequel Trilogy.

 

[Kaeb]

It was classic in it's machinations, whereas films in a post modern context now feel largely artificial, manufactured and corporate, there's very little vision or consequence, there's no heart and almost no drama, at least in "genre" works anyway.

 

[jpchewy01]

It was classic in it's machinations, whereas films in a post modern context now feel largely artificial, manufactured and corporate, there's very little vision or consequence, there's no heart and almost no drama, at least in "genre" works anyway.

Agreed. There is a manufactured quality to the films that I've described but they never lost sight of the reasons that they loved the things that they were ripping off. Now, the approach to filmmaking as a whole is a hyperbolised version of the approach to the prequel trilogy. People see elements of films that they enjoy and then just reproduce them without much effort, creating mindless, formulaic outings and are largely unsatisfying. It's also kind of heartbreaking as a USC student that what used to be the trademark USC style has largely gone out of practice even within this institution. People are simply taught how to make a movie look really good when almost no time is spent on giving it heart.

 

[Kaeb]

They lack essence.

Essence in film has many elements, but largely the most important (in this particular aspect anyway) is tone, story and aesthetic. All three have to be engaging and in the case of following a pre established work, they have to be consistent. The ST has to follow that were the PT didn't, OT just for our objective film fanatic perspective but from a point of following that previous work.

A silly campy but still relevant genre example, is the movie Blade II versus the first Blade , the sequel follows the established elements of the first film, but instills it with an evolutionary identity, not just in terms of scale but in terms of style.

The ST is not a sequel to the prequels, it's a sequel to Star Wars, which means it needs to follow those specific elements meticulously, despite outside cultural views and perceptions. It simply has to be consistent and evolved. It has to be both consistent and refined given modern capabilities.

Which is why, hopefully, everything will both look like the original trilogy, but with a higher caliber and quality of work, in every single aspect of it's machinations.

 

[Ser Yorick]

A movie franchise.

 

[BLADE]

Imperial apologetics and an American recapitulation of simple-minded liberal moralism to deflect and deflate Western exhaustion in the Detenté era suffused with an appropriation of Eastern philosophy all imbricated with a self-consciously Gilgameshean approach to narratives and mythopoetics.

Also movies about lasers and swords.

WHOOSH WHOOSH ZOOM BOOM

 

[Phil]

It's Entertainment to me, a film, video game and book franchise. Some of it I like and love, some of it I hate.

 

[Cainhurst Crow]

For me its a fantasy story with a coating of sci-fi paint. You have a lot of iconic stuff you see in your usual fantasy stories or even comic books. The rag tag group from different walks of life who somehow rise to be the most elite fighters of the galaxy, magical and mostly unexplained magic that only a select few can use, an evil ruling power complete with evil council meetings and a cloaked wizard and black clad knight at the head of it all, a market chase, a prison break to save a princess, a weird guy to serve as a strange foreigner of undecernable origin who keeps slaves and is fat, giant monsters, sword and sorcery battles, and a big scale battle between good and evil.

What sets it apart really is just that star wars seemed to get the right balance of those elements, as well as having a general sense of quality and heart to the storys presentation.

 

[Oncaro]

I've always seen Star Wars and the rest of the OT as a simple, yet highly effective tale of good and evil, and despite all the trouble the heroes go through, they ultimately persevere and defeat the evil Empire in order to give freedom back to the Galaxy. As a guy that has always liked happy endings, I think that's a big reason I like the movies so much, in addition to the colorful characters and the action.

 

[Kaeb]

I hated the OT ending.

 

[Oncaro]

I hated the OT ending.

How come?

 

[Brandon Rhea]

I hated the OT ending.

With all due respect, Mr. President, you are being a pedantic piece of shit.

[video=youtube;cYQdogPMuRc]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cYQdogPMuRc[/video]

 

[BLADE]

[YOUTUBE]VyqzPu5pX6U[/YOUTUBE]

'Unfunded Mandate' is two words, Governor.

 

[Blaxican]

Star Wars is a fantasy franchise that is so massive at this point as to embody pretty much every facet of fiction. Just about any sci-fi/fantasy trope and influence can be found in the mythos.

In its original incarnation, Star Wars is a popcorn flick about Good beating Evil over the head despite being massively outgunned and out-manned because the power of Good conquers all. Also explosions and eye-candy.

 

[Kaeb]

How come?

It didn't make any sense.

 

[Ser Yorick]

It didn't make any sense.

Perfect answer! Very succinct, no elaboration needed.

 

[Oncaro]

Perfect answer! Very succinct, no elaboration needed.

Indeed, I'm perfectly satisfied with that answer.