|
Post by String on Aug 7, 2019 17:55:59 GMT -5
The other factor in the movies' success was John Williams' impressive music. Just as George Lucas pilfered action movies of the early 20th century, John Williams ransacked Western film soundtracks and modernist compositions by the likes of Holst and Stravinsky to assemble a stirring "best of early 20th century sounds" accompaniment to thrill and chill us along with the visuals. It's amazing how dissonant some of it turns out to be under analysis. Db/C chords and the like. I recall hearing somewhere that Lucas apparently previewed an early rough edit cut of SW for some of his Hollywood director friends including Spielberg. All of them were encouraged by what they had seen but none of them really felt all that excited about the project. After the film's release though, Spielberg changed his opinion and upon reflection, noted one difference why: John Williams' music. Lucas' rough cut didn't have any of the soundtrack with it. The addition of the music enhanced the excitement and adventure of the film. In today's social media blitz society, it's hard to properly relate just how much of a game-changer Star Wars (and the whole OT) was unless you lived through it. I was fortunate enough to have done so and there was nothing like it before 1977. The rumors and excitement surrounding the film were unprecedented. This just may be my imagination but I swear no TV ads for the film were ever aired till after 8pm. I got home from school, did my homework while watching cartoons and then spent the night diligently watching for those precious TV spots until I was able to see the film in the theaters. The tone, adventure, look, effects, music , I loved the whole trilogy. Later on, when Lucas was able to tweak the OT with added effects, I paid to see those 3 films again in the theater even though I had seem them a bazillion times by then (can even quote SW almost line by line). It was just wonderful to see them up on the big screen again. For me, Trek is science fiction with a touch smidgen enough of science to say that this may be what is possible at some point in the future. As for Star Wars, that's the universe I would rather live in though, actual science be damned.
|
|
|
Post by robsuperfriend63 on Aug 7, 2019 23:33:56 GMT -5
I recently watched a Partridge Family show that featured Mark Hamill getting a date with Laurie (Susan Dey) Partridge. Hamill also appeared in One Day At A Time.
|
|
|
Post by aquagoat on Aug 9, 2019 13:02:58 GMT -5
In today's social media blitz society, it's hard to properly relate just how much of a game-changer Star Wars (and the whole OT) was unless you lived through it. I was fortunate enough to have done so and there was nothing like it before 1977. I agree about the game changing nature of Star Wars, but there had been things like it before. Jaws had already invented the summer blockbuster. Star Trek and Lost in Space had brought sci-fi to the mainstream and the former stirred the beginnings of organised fandom. Planet of the Apes had a lot of merchandising, as did the 1960s Batman TV show. And in the 30s and 40s, kids flocked to see Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, King of the Rocketmen and others at the cinemas.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 10, 2019 4:17:43 GMT -5
In today's social media blitz society, it's hard to properly relate just how much of a game-changer Star Wars (and the whole OT) was unless you lived through it. I was fortunate enough to have done so and there was nothing like it before 1977. I agree about the game changing nature of Star Wars, but there had been things like it before. Jaws had already invented the summer blockbuster. Star Trek and Lost in Space had brought sci-fi to the mainstream and the former stirred the beginnings of organised fandom. Planet of the Apes had a lot of merchandising, as did the 1960s Batman TV show. And in the 30s and 40s, kids flocked to see Flash Gordon, Buck Rogers, King of the Rocketmen and others at the cinemas. And it ain't like the Star Wars/Jaws fueled emphasis on special effects driven movies with huge budgets has had an unequivocably positive effect on American cinema.
|
|
|
Post by tarkintino on Aug 11, 2019 13:54:57 GMT -5
I agree about the game changing nature of Star Wars, but there had been things like it before. Jaws had already invented the summer blockbuster. Star Trek and Lost in Space had brought sci-fi to the mainstream and the former stirred the beginnings of organised fandom. Despite being a cancelled TV series, the original Star Trek was already a merchandizing juggernaut that only increased as the series became a genuine cultural phenomemenon in syndication. That's how much Star Trek did for sci-fi to the general population. In fact, George Lucas watched the original series in the 60s, and has recently said: Lucas: "Star Trek softened up the entertainment arena so that Star Wars could come along and stand on its shoulders", he argued. "There was an effective group of people in the beginning who accepted it, that it wasn't that far out".20th Century Fox made a fortune on the merchandising from the original POTA movie series; for example, between late 1974 - 1975, Mego's line of 8-inch POTA action figures and playsets were among the most successful toy lines in America (and this is after the film series ended in 1973, and the live action series was cancelled in December of '74). POTA was another sci-fi phenomenon in popular culture and certainly paved the way for sci-fi films production and marketing--especially in the case of the original Star Wars.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 13, 2019 22:19:51 GMT -5
Speaking from my own memories, what I found different about Star Wars and Empire when they came out was that they were the first science fiction movies (other than Kubrick's totally different in every other way 2001) to successfully recreate some of the feelings I experienced when reading SF on the big screen. Older SF movies just never looked right to me, with their sleek, shiny rocket ships and their unconvincing aliens.
On tv, Star Trek and the Twilight Zone (and probably the Outer Limits, but we never saw that show at the time or in repeats on our channels) produced well-written, first-rate SF, but they never had the production values of the big colour movies and also pretty much stuck to the short story form. But Star Wars felt like a big space opera novel - I sometimes think of it as something like Dune as written by Edgar Rice Burroughs - and that was incredibly exciting to me.
As for the individual films, yeah, the acting is pretty much beside the point, just as it is for Buster Crabbe's Flash Gordon: what you want is someone who looks and feels right for the part and Hammill and Fisher are perfectly fine from that perspective - in contrast to the guy who played Anakin Skywalker in the prequels, who I think was a better actor than the young Mark Hammill, but totally unconvincing and miscast in the (admittedly badly written) role.
I go along with the consensus that the first two are the best by far, with Empire the best directed and best-looking of the films but suffering not really working as an individual film of its own: it feels more like an important chapter in the middle of a big novel than a novel in the middle of a larger series.
Return and the prequels are all deeply, even fatally, flawed by commercial, marketing-driven decision-making, poor writing and, in some cases, casting, but still contain many stunning visual sequences that make them all worth watching for any SF fan.
|
|
|
Post by Reptisaurus! on Aug 14, 2019 4:02:15 GMT -5
The bus driver on my bus to work thinks that the Star Wars movies connected so deeply because they deal with religion/spirituality and hit at a time when people were moving away from the Christian church.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Aug 14, 2019 16:07:12 GMT -5
Speaking from my own memories, what I found different about Star Wars and Empire when they came out was that they were the first science fiction movies (other than Kubrick's totally different in every other way 2001) to successfully recreate some of the feelings I experienced when reading SF on the big screen. I think you might have hit on why I find Star Wars so unsatisfying. I first saw SW in 79 or 80, when I was 18 or 19. By that time, I'd pretty much grown out of reading space opera type stories (though I retained, and still do retain, a great affection for both Heinlein's juveniles and EE Doc Smith's objectively dreadful Lensmen series), and Star Wars is (IMHO), unashamedly, at best, Space Opera, when it's not downright fantasy. As such, it looked and sounded absolutely nothing like the fiction that I was reading, which at the time was probably Niven, Laumer, etc which often had lighter moments but never were as half-witted as the plot & script in SW.
SW was enjoyable, though I've found it progressively less so over the years, but even through being amazed at the time at the advance in SFX, it still just felt really hokey.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 14, 2019 22:46:36 GMT -5
Speaking from my own memories, what I found different about Star Wars and Empire when they came out was that they were the first science fiction movies (other than Kubrick's totally different in every other way 2001) to successfully recreate some of the feelings I experienced when reading SF on the big screen. I think you might have hit on why I find Star Wars so unsatisfying. I first saw SW in 79 or 80, when I was 18 or 19. By that time, I'd pretty much grown out of reading space opera type stories (though I retained, and still do retain, a great affection for both Heinlein's juveniles and EE Doc Smith's objectively dreadful Lensmen series), and Star Wars is (IMHO), unashamedly, at best, Space Opera, when it's not downright fantasy. As such, it looked and sounded absolutely nothing like the fiction that I was reading, which at the time was probably Niven, Laumer, etc which often had lighter moments but never were as half-witted as the plot & script in SW.
SW was enjoyable, though I've found it progressively less so over the years, but even through being amazed at the time at the advance in SFX, it still just felt really hokey.
Yeah, I was a few years younger, 15 when the first one came out, and though already reading people like Niven and Herbert I was still able to enjoy that ERB-style space opera or SF-fantasy kind of thing probably a little more than I would have a few years later.
|
|
|
Post by thwhtguardian on Aug 15, 2019 11:54:03 GMT -5
I saw 2001 before I had ever seen or heard of Star Wars...and still thought it was a great movie. I don't think there's really a correlation between being introduced to "Hard" sci-fi first and not liking Star Wars.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 26, 2019 5:36:26 GMT -5
I saw 2001 before I had ever seen or heard of Star Wars...and still thought it was a great movie. I don't think there's really a correlation between being introduced to "Hard" sci-fi first and not liking Star Wars. Quite true! 2001 and Wars are like John Le Carré and James Bond... Not the same, but not mutually exclusive.
|
|
|
Post by berkley on Aug 26, 2019 11:12:56 GMT -5
I saw 2001 before I had ever seen or heard of Star Wars...and still thought it was a great movie. I don't think there's really a correlation between being introduced to "Hard" sci-fi first and not liking Star Wars. Quite true! 2001 and Wars are like John Le Carré and James Bond... Not the same, but not mutually exclusive. Yes, I had the same experience, seeing 2001 in I think the spring or summer of 1975 or 1974, when it must have been re-released to some theatres, and being totally blown away - if I had to name a single film as my all time greatest, it would still be 2001.
You could see its influence on Star Wars, of course, but as RR says, they were so different, it would never have made any sense to me to think of SW as an inferior 2001.
|
|
|
Post by Roquefort Raider on Aug 26, 2019 12:46:29 GMT -5
Quite true! 2001 and Wars are like John Le Carré and James Bond... Not the same, but not mutually exclusive. Yes, I had the same experience, seeing 2001 in I think the spring or summer of 1975 or 1974, when it must have been re-released to some theatres, and being totally blown away - if I had to name a single film as my all time greatest, it would still be 2001.
Same here.
|
|
|
Post by codystarbuck on Aug 29, 2019 19:56:49 GMT -5
The other factor in the movies' success was John Williams' impressive music. Just as George Lucas pilfered action movies of the early 20th century, John Williams ransacked Western film soundtracks and modernist compositions by the likes of Holst and Stravinsky to assemble a stirring "best of early 20th century sounds" accompaniment to thrill and chill us along with the visuals. It's amazing how dissonant some of it turns out to be under analysis. Db/C chords and the like. I recall hearing somewhere that Lucas apparently previewed an early rough edit cut of SW for some of his Hollywood director friends including Spielberg. All of them were encouraged by what they had seen but none of them really felt all that excited about the project. After the film's release though, Spielberg changed his opinion and upon reflection, noted one difference why: John Williams' music. Lucas' rough cut didn't have any of the soundtrack with it. The addition of the music enhanced the excitement and adventure of the film. In today's social media blitz society, it's hard to properly relate just how much of a game-changer Star Wars (and the whole OT) was unless you lived through it. I was fortunate enough to have done so and there was nothing like it before 1977. The rumors and excitement surrounding the film were unprecedented. This just may be my imagination but I swear no TV ads for the film were ever aired till after 8pm. I got home from school, did my homework while watching cartoons and then spent the night diligently watching for those precious TV spots until I was able to see the film in the theaters. The tone, adventure, look, effects, music , I loved the whole trilogy. Later on, when Lucas was able to tweak the OT with added effects, I paid to see those 3 films again in the theater even though I had seem them a bazillion times by then (can even quote SW almost line by line). It was just wonderful to see them up on the big screen again. For me, Trek is science fiction with a touch smidgen enough of science to say that this may be what is possible at some point in the future. As for Star Wars, that's the universe I would rather live in though, actual science be damned. The story goes, he screened it for Spielberg, Millius, and maybe DePalma and a few others, with no effects shots, with dogfight footage from WW2 movies for the third act, and without the music and Millius was making fun of it and Spielberg expressed confusion, but figured George would make it work. Marcia Lucas helped George focus on fixing things in the editing, to speed it up and mix the effects footage, when it came in. She pushed heavily for reinserting scenes, like the good luck kiss, to humanize the characters. Thos around the Lucases felt that it was her feedback and editing that saved the film and refined it to what was seen. Her influence was also there in Empire, though George butted heads with Kirschner over the time he was taking on scenes, to get the emotional depth. By Jedi, they had adopted their daughter and Marcia was spending time at home and was not involved with Jedi; but, also, their marriage fell apart, as Marcia had an affair, while George was deeply immersed in his company. Millius has talked about how talented Marcia was, as an editor and the eye she had for film and talked about how she was frozen out of the film community, after the divorce, to stay cool with George (although the divorce was relatively amicable, by accounts). Scorsese worked with her and felt she was one of the best. That criticism is part of what made Star Wars and Empire work; but, by the Prequels (and Jedi, to a certain extent), George is insulated from criticism and has outright "yes men" working for him (Rick McCallum). Gary Katz had also been a sounding board and gave strong feedback and they were done. So, Lucas benefitted from their input, yet cut himself off from it later, when he desperately needed it. You even see behind=the-scenes footage of Spielberg visiting, not understanding anything of the story, and just saying George will make it work and people will go to it. The book Skywalking, by Dale Pollock, really gives a great peek behind the films and into Lucas' personality and working methods. Lucas gave him amazing access, then disowned the book, because it got too much into his personal side, showing how unplaned Star Wars and the sequels really were, how others helped him be a better director, and how running his company messed up his personal life and held back his creative life.
|
|
|
Post by rberman on Aug 30, 2019 11:06:39 GMT -5
A couple of germane videos. First one about how Richard Chew and Marcia Lucas turned Star Wars into a success by re-editing it substantially. They cut significant features (Luke's awareness of the battle above Tattooine) and introduced significant features (the Death Star attack on Yavin) in the editing bay.
JMS once said (perhaps quoting someone else) that every film is made three times. First on paper. Then when it's shot. Then when it's edited.
|
|