Of course it is, among other timeless plots laced with sciency-things. "Star Wars" has a particularly aristocratic Space Western origin, since the writer of "The Empire Strikes Back," Leigh Brackett, also wrote a couple of classic John Wayne movies ("El Dorado," "Rio Bravo").
She was also a very successful science fiction author in the 1930s. The "science" is dated - nobody thinks humans could survive on Mercury anymore - but a good story is a good story, and a good story can be made into a successful movie.
ping
Star Wars is Science Fiction Fantasy. Star Trek is more Science Fiction as in “it could happen”.
ping
Just time travel, race and lots of kinky sex.
This somehow being more science-y then light sabers and space ships.
Butler’s main themes are race and sex, and in “Kindred” she wrote about a modern black woman who travels back in time to the antebellum South, where she is enslaved. The novel is regularly taught in classrooms and has made at least one list of “Great Books By Women.”
But Hollywood has yet to adapt it for the screen.
“How many of those white people are evil movies are they going to make”
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nN9hy4YNIv0 [language]
Interesting article, though I disagree with the premise. As much as I loved the original Star Wars films, I never thought (even as a kid) they were the end all, be all for science fiction.
Consider some of the really great sci-fi made during or just after the original trilogy of Star Wars flicks: Alien, Blade Runner, John Carpenter’s version of The Thing, Starman, etc. Later on, we’d also have the likes of Dark City, Gattaca, and so on.
Now, I *do* think there is a trend towards on over-reliance on action in the sci-fi genre. But that’s what sells summer movie tickets these days, and I don’t think Star Wars is to blame or even that sci-fi is the only genre to have this trend.
As for the author’s assertion that The Matrix is the most original movie of the last 25 years, well, each to their own. The first film was visually impressive, but I’ve never found the films that deep or inspiring. Gattaca left a much bigger impression on me than Matrix. And in the vein of virtual/alternate reality, I like Dark City and the low-bugdet eXistenZ (a birthday IS a special occasion) just as much, if not more, than Matrix.
Star Wars owes a lot to Jack Kirby, too. It’s not difficult to see the influence of The New Gods in the Star Wars mythology, and Dr Doom clearly influenced aspects of the Darth Vader character.
I don’t think Lucas ever owned up to that, but I confess I don’t know for sure
But Hollywood has yet to adapt it for the screen. Maybe if the lead character had a Wookie by her side...
Who knows, maybe Moochelle Obama is available?
Seriously though, that's his example of thought provoking science fiction? Sounds like Uncle Tom's Cabin with a time machine.
‘How ‘Star Wars’ ruined sci-fi”
It certainly increased the % of people who first think of movies or TV shows when they hear the term ‘sci-fi.’ I think of books first for sci-fi, but I think of movies and TV shows when I hear the term ‘western,’ as opposed to Zane Grey or Louis L’amour. I still think of books for the term ‘mystery.’
Freegards
This is silly. Star Wars is classic pulp magazine SF,aka Space Opera, in concept, if lately clumsy in execution. Space Opera WAS SF, or most of it, in the 1930s-50s.
This stuff was aimed directly at geeky boys and still is.
Some of the boys never grow up of course.
And some of the Space Opera did approach actual literature, as with Dune. But SF never needed to be great literature to be authentic or appealing to its target audience.
Octavia Butlers stuff is come-lately chick-lit junk.
The first Star Wars was epic, the sequel....trash.
what? no reference to babylon 5?
Don’t agree that Star Wars ruined anything, but I ‘d get a lot of agreement that CNN ruined news reporting.
what? no reference to babylon 5?
