Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Welcome! The TrekBBS is the number one place to chat about Star Trek with like-minded fans.
If you are not already a member then please register an account and join in the discussion!
I saw SW the night it opened. It was clearly a unique film, although the extent of that wouldn't be fully evident for four or five years.
People seem taken by Star Trek's uniqueness on several fronts, despite the fact that everything in it was lifted from earlier sources that weren't particularly obscure.
I wouldn't say Lucas created something unique, since he was just trying to do an homage to Flash Gordon and the serials and movies he loved as a child. The most distinctive thing about SW wasn't the storytelling, but the groundbreaking visual effects and high production values applied to a genre that had previously been the stuff of low-budget serials and B movies.
The most unique thing is that it's a pastiche so influential that it displaced the things it was pastiching in the minds of the public. The only reason people today think SW was unique or original was because they've forgotten all the older stuff that it was meant to remind people of.
Eehhh....sort of. For sure it was a revisiting of Flash Gordon and pirate swashbuckling stuff. Yes, the effects were groundbreaking. But he also introduced the philo-spiritual aspects of The Force. That in combination with the aforementioned sure makes it unique.
I think SW is so old hat by now we tend not to realize how groundbreaking and....yes....unique it was.
Was Star Wars groundbreaking? Hell, yes. But in execution, not concept. Conceptually, everything George Lucas has ever made, with the possible exception of THX-1138, is a pastiche of the stuff he liked as a kid. His whole career is one big exercise in nostalgia. The Force is just warmed-over Eastern spiritualism, perhaps novel to American audiences but presumably familiar to someone who liked Japanese cinema as much as Lucas did.
The reason Star Wars succeeded was not because it was some brilliantly new idea, but because it was a brilliantly executed reminder of familiar things from the audience's childhood. It went against the trend of SF films trying to be serious and intellectual and cautionary and just said "Hey, remember what it felt like to be 9 years old going to the Saturday matinee?" and recreated that experience with much, much more advanced special effects. It had a much more widespread appeal because it was elementary and uncomplicated and appealed to simple pleasures. Its only innovations were its revolutionary visual effects and inspired designs.
The "lived in look" helped a lot with Star Wars. Most sci-fi to that would was clean and futuristic. Star Wars had all the high-tech stuff, but make it look like it had been used for decades, without much cleaning, and with makeshift repairs. The aliens, when they got a closeup, tended to look more alive than some other productions. It just made the galaxy more believable on some levels.
"Screecher's Reach" and "Journey to the Dark Head" were my favorites, probably because they both dealt with what I think is the richest, but hardest to access, vein in Star Wars:
T intrinsic contradiction of Star Wars centers around a bunch of pacifists who go around getting in awesome sword fights chopping people up, which has been the fruit for Star Wars' most interesting storytelling, as well as how you deal with that, from copping out (Luke defeats the Emperor by refusing to fight anymore, but still needs someone else to do the dirty work) to showing how resolving that contradiction is the greatest act of a Jedi Master (Luke defeating an army without harming a hair on anyone's head).
"Screecher's Reach" presenting the ghost as terrifying, but also, even before the reveal that she was alive, as sort of pathetic, and then the bloodless way Daal executes her, and then slowly drawing closer to the robed figure, gives you ample opportunities to realize that this test in a cave of darkness isn't quite right, isn't what it should be based on Luke and Rey's encounters with similar spaces, and then the idea that it's a Sith who's the only one to care enough, in a perverse way, to rescue even one child from the workhouse, plays with our assumptions of the conventions of the Star Wars universe effectively enough to do in fifteen minuets what Lucas couldn't do in three movies; make evil seem like a reasonable choice. Without knowing the context of the universe, I can't point to any one thing Daal did that was wrong or different from if this was cosmology where monster-slaying was intrinsically heroic.
"Journey to the Dark Head" likewise showed light and dark as shifting and mutible, but more importantly, it set up the situation where the Jedi learned the only way to win was to sacrifice himself; when he struck the Sith at the end, it wasn't for anger or revenge or glory, because doing it meant he was sealing his own fate, something the Sith would never expect, because that's the bright-line different; Sith put themselves ahead of everything else, and Jedi put everything else ahead of themselves, at least as the ideal to strive for.
The "lived in look" helped a lot with Star Wars. Most sci-fi to that would was clean and futuristic. Star Wars had all the high-tech stuff, but make it look like it had been used for decades, without much cleaning, and with makeshift repairs.
Well, yes and no. There were basically two versions of the future in '70s cinema -- clean, sterile, high-tech dystopias, and post-apocalyptic squalor and decay. Sometimes both side by side, as in Logan's Run. I'd say Star Wars blended the two. It did have clean and sterile futuristic stuff like the Rebel Blockade Runner (retroactively named the Tantive IV) and the Death Star, alongside the grungier stuff like Tatooine and the Falcon.
The reason Star Wars succeeded was not because it was some brilliantly new idea, but because it was a brilliantly executed reminder of familiar things from the audience's childhood.
No, I was there. My childhood sci-fi was UFO, Captain Scarlet, Doctor Who, Ultraman, Speed Racer, Atragon... Star Wars was none of those. It was a cool space epic. People spent a lot more time comparing it to Close Encounters than talking about childhood scifi when talking about Star Wars.
So was I. I was 8 going on 9 when the first movie came out, smack in its target demographic. But how we perceived things as children is not the point. Perception does not create objective reality. The question is whether Lucas created something "unique" and unprecedented, and he objectively did not. He merely remixed old ideas in a fresh way, and if our generation of viewers perceived that rehash as something unprecedented, that merely illustrates our cultural illiteracy at the time.
The question is whether Lucas created something "unique" and unprecedented, and he objectively did not. He merely remixed old ideas in a fresh way, and if our generation of viewers perceived that rehash as something unprecedented, that merely illustrates our cultural illiteracy at the time.
I understand what you are saying. I would argue that, using your words, old ideas in a fresh way is unique. You're also forgetting the element of The Force from a philosophical quasi spiritual religious. That is definitely not something you found in that type of pulp scifi of yesterday. Had The Force not been part of Star Wars then I would be more inclined to agree with your perspective. It would have been simply Errol Flynn in space. And still it would have been quite a cinematic milestone.
"Screecher's Reach" and "Journey to the Dark Head" were my favorites, probably because they both dealt with what I think is the richest, but hardest to access, vein in Star Wars:
I rewatched Screecher's Reach after reading your review. You're absolutely on target. I don't want to comment much since the stuff I would talk about falls in your 'Spoiler Review' part but I agree that this ep did what GL couldn't do in 6 movies. This ep really did it in the last 2 minutes.
I like SW but I think it's been in a rut since those prequels. The prequels had an opportunity to show a more nuanced aspect of The Force, the conflict between good and evil via Jedi and Sith. Instead, GL delivered a more cartoonish view of the SWG. The Clone Wars did some exploration of these themes and Rebels even more.
There are so much better stories to be told and we're not really getting it.
Unfortunately, the negative reaction to the PT will always color the reaction to changes. Lucas had some ideas in the ST to explore the Force more, but all the reactions didn't really give the encouragement to try something different.
So, while I appreciate the idea that Star Wars could do something different I don't expect it.
Unfortunately, the negative reaction to the PT will always color the reaction to changes. Lucas had some ideas in the ST to explore the Force more, but all the reactions didn't really give the encouragement to try something different.
I thought midi-chlorians were the one really fresh idea Lucas ever had -- an inspired spiritual analogy for how mitochondria provide the energy for cellular biology. But everyone hated them, largely because they misunderstood them (for instance, thinking they were some kind of infection rather than an integral part of every living cell, or thinking they were "not spiritual" because they had a biological component, a prejudice rooted in Cartesian dualism and not found in the Eastern traditions Lucas was drawing on).
I thought midi-chlorians were the one really fresh idea Lucas ever had -- an inspired spiritual analogy for how mitochondria provide the energy for cellular biology. But everyone hated them, largely because they misunderstood them (for instance, thinking they were some kind of infection rather than an integral part of every living cell, or thinking they were "not spiritual" because they had a biological component, a prejudice rooted in Cartesian dualism and not found in the Eastern traditions Lucas was drawing on).
I didn't mind it, though I really didn't give it too much thought either. It just was. But, yeah it was completely hated, treated as a blood disease, and raised some questions that were never satisfactorily answered because of the pushback.
People hated midichlorians because midichlorians indicated some people were in the you can be a wizard club and some weren't. (Which was implicit in the OT but whatever.)
So was I. I was 8 going on 9 when the first movie came out, smack in its target demographic. But how we perceived things as children is not the point. Perception does not create objective reality. The question is whether Lucas created something "unique" and unprecedented, and he objectively did not. He merely remixed old ideas in a fresh way, and if our generation of viewers perceived that rehash as something unprecedented, that merely illustrates our cultural illiteracy at the time.
This is a usage of the word objectively that I'm unfamiliar with. Star Wars is both literally unique, as is every protected property, as well as literally unprecedented in its broad-based appeal. Its measure as a blockbuster is, ironically, an objective standard by which one can observe that Star Wars was unprecedented; people who recognize this accomplishment are the opposite of culturally illiterate.
I don't get why people get so hung up on midichlorians as a concept. The movie flat out says they exist within the cells of ALL living things. Everyone has midichlorians. It's not at all exclusionary, They're the mechanism that bridges the biological, and the intangible; they don't create the force, life does that. They just facilitate communication. That's it. It's as plain and uncontroversial as saying "neurons are how we tell out hands to move and how our hands relay sensations back to us."
Having a relatively high m-count just means a person is more pre-disposed towards force sensitivity than average. It's no different than someone having some genetic trait that makes them more able to master a given skill.
That doesn't make the person *better*. Indeed, some of the most skilled people in history got to that level in spite of their predispositions, not because of them. An unmotivated prodigy isn't likely to achieve much, where someone disadvantaged but driven (ofttimes because they're disadvantaged) can shake the very foundations of the world.
Even within the movie itself, Anakin having a high m-count is explicitly said to be unusual. No Jedi has a count that high. That's kind of the whole point of him being "The Chosen One".
Just from a practical worldbuilding standpoint though; did people seriously think that the only thing stopping literally every other OT character besides Vader, Luke, Obi-Wan, Yoda & Palpatine from making rocks float and people they don't like choking to death was just them *really* wanting to, plus a three day motivational seminar with a magical frog? Of course there needs to be a limiting factor, or else the special wizard powers wouldn't exactly be that special, would they?
Also worth noting that they were part of Lucas's notes as early as '77, and were probably at least in his mind for some time before. So just like with the kyber crystals, it's not like he made it up for the PT specifically. They were always there, but just weren't important enough to the story to mention.
"Screecher's Reach" and "Journey to the Dark Head" were my favorites, probably because they both dealt with what I think is the richest, but hardest to access, vein in Star Wars:
Yeah, I just re-watched 'Screecher's Reach' and it reaffirmed why I found it to be my favourite.
That inversion of expectation was masterfully pulled off.
Even the Sith Lord's design played into this by how she seemed outwardly almost angelic (maybe even literally an Angel of Iego) but also quite obviously sinister, which the "Ghost of Screecher's Reach" was outwardly horrific, but ultimately more piteous than minacious.
What's better is that it all makes perfect sense in retrospect; because of course a Sith would recruit like this!
'Journey to the Dark Head' is certainly up there for me too, but I need to go through it a second time to dig a little deeper into the underlying themes and subtext.
I don't get why people get so hung up on midichlorians as a concept. The movie flat out says they exist within the cells of ALL living things. Everyone has midichlorians. It's not at all exclusionary, They're the mechanism that bridges the biological, and the intangible; they don't create the force, life does that. They just facilitate communication. That's it. It's as plain and uncontroversial as saying "neurons are how we tell out hands to move and how our hands relay sensations back to us."
Having a relatively high m-count just means a person is more pre-disposed towards force sensitivity than average. It's no different than someone having some genetic trait that makes them more able to master a given skill.
Hear, hear! This explains it perfectly. Thank you.
Like mitochondria, midi-chlorians are an inseparable part of every cell of every living thing, except they're the source of living things' Force connection rather than the source of our metabolic energy. Heck, since the Force has been described from the start as an energy field linking all life, it's a natural analogy.
And you're right -- it's always been a given that some people are Force-sensitive and others are not. Midi-chlorian counts simply clarify why that's the case.
