One problem I have with the whole "STAR WARS ruined SF movies" thing is the assumption that, if not for STAR WARS, we would be drowning in literate, cerebral SF films, as the studios fell over themselves to give us lavish cinematic adaptations of Gene Wolfe, Ursula K. Le Guin, Larry Niven, or whomever.
Greg, I don't believe that's the debate--or at least not the one made here. As another member mentioned, literate sci-fi movies already existed pre-SW, and in fact, between 1970 - 76 one could argue there there were more risk-taking, literate releases in that concentrated period than anytime since.
In the post SW era, for every serious attempt such Outland, CE3K, Alien, or Blade Runner (I leave ST: TMP off that list as it was trying too hard to be "important" and suppressed the heart of what made TOS tick), you had Flash Gordon, Krull, The Last Starfighter, Explorers, the Back to the Future series, Battle Beyond the Stars, The Adventures of Buckaroo Banzai Across the 8th Dimension, The Black Hole ('cause that was going to be "biggerer and betterer"). I include TV productions such as Battlestar Galactica and Buck Rogers in the 25th Century, since they were significant efforts to make SW lightning strike thrice.
The common link is that unlike the pre-SW 70s, the post SW period (where the majority of sci-fi films were barely above the maturity of a cartoon) had the full support of studios and in many cases, the creating by committee that has been so criticized (in irony that would quake the stars) by George Lucas.
What really happened, perhaps, is that Hollywood stopped churning out westerns--good, bad, and mediocre--and started churning out sci-fi adventures instead . ...
They could churn as much as they desired, but they had choices in the kind of content they wanted to develop, and post SW (see the films listed above) the choice was lowbrow spectacle.