How 'Star Wars' ruined sci-fi

CNN ^ | 5/2/2014 | CNN

[Dallas59]

Now that the cast of the seventh "Star Wars" movie has been announced, you can imagine the anticipation among the millions of fans of the film franchise. And why not? The six "Star Wars" films have been enormous successes: they have grossed over $2 billion domestically at the box office, spawned scores of books, comic books and merchandise (how many kids have their own light saber?) and made household names of characters like Darth Vader, Han Solo and Luke Skywalker.

[GOPsterinMA]

I disagree with the author’s premise.

There were plenty of sci-fi things (radio, TV, movies, comics, etc.) before and after Star Wars.

The marketing (which led to the cultural phenomenon) is what differentiates Star Wars, IMHO.

[tbw2]

I noticed that transition around the time “Earth 2” came out. The women were all empowered or strong or a woman learning to be empowered.
The men were:
* a former criminal, now cyborg, servant to the mother
* a space pilot who had time dilation and was trying to adapt to modern times, minor alpha male but inferior due to ignorance
* a total wuss married to a woman who was born on Earth
* a moderately strong male, whose redeeming quality was being a single father to a strong but young daughter.

No strong men in the group. And as the character set grew, you saw lots of evil white guys in corporate and on planet criminal roles.

[tbw2]

Especially with today’s modern view that homosexuality is somehow superior, along with genetic engineering / cloning as the next generation of human evolution.
The woman and man separated by light years and centuries would be horribly miscast today as archaic, instead of beacons of human ideals as society becomes alien.

[WhirlwindAttack]

I’d like Firefly back. They beat Trek & Star wars into the ground.

[cloudmountain]

Moochelle Obama can play Jabba the Hut’s daughter!!

[sickoflibs]

Speaking of ruining sci-fi, the sci-fi channel played what I considered some good movies and shows when it first started.

As time went on it got worse and worse then when it changed its name to sy-fy it was over. Its total crap.

I can guess what audience they play to.

[Impy]

I guess you’re right, it’s been a while since I watched that channel. I see commercials for their original movies, crap.

[BillyBoy]

I don't even count Star Wars as actual "science fiction". It's more broadly in the category of "epic space fantasy", and the setting is "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away", although superficially it does look like quasi-futuristic humans. It has more in common with say, "He-Man & the Masters of the Universe" than it does with a mainstream sci-fi movie set in outer space like "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Gravity". It annoys me when people confuse Star Trek and Star Wars. (and how come nobody lumps "Star Gate" in while they're at it... I mean it's another long running sci-fi franchise with the word "Star" in the title)

I wouldn't blame Star Wars for the more action oriented tone of most sci-fi movies today. Sadly that seems to have happened to every genre (they even turn a mystery genre like Sherlock Holmes into action now!) and it was inevitable with all the CGI and fast pace of movies now. What makes it really bad is they focus less and less on plot and characterization.

One thing Star Wars did unfortunately do to sci-fi and films in general however, is kill off interest in smaller, less flashy films. A good example of this is a film that came out a year before Star Wars: Logan's Run (1976). That's considered a great sci-fi novel and when the movie was released with Michael York and Jenny Agutter, it got a lot of attention and critical acclaim. The film had a BIG impact on sci-fi. Then Star Wars came out, and Logan's Run was simply neglected into the dustbin of forgotten 70s movies. In order to have staying power and get a modern audience to watch, movies from that era have to come from the same type of background as Star Wars -- i.e. Alien, Jaws, Blade Runner, etc., are familiar to people who weren't alive when they were made. A Clockwork Orange, Logan's Run, and Altered States are not.

>> Speaking of ruining sci-fi, the sci-fi channel played what I considered some good movies and shows when it first started. As time went on it got worse and worse then when it changed its name to sy-fy it was over. Its total crap. I can guess what audience they play to. <<

I agree, the Sci-Fi channel changing its name to "Syfy" was definitely a sign they had jumped the shark, and its been more damaging to sci-fi in the modern era than anything Star Wars did back in 1977.

[Oztrich Boy]

Watched The Big Sleep last night, and was quite surprised to see Leigh was one of the writers.

Howard Hawks had tapped William Faulkner and Jules Furthman as screenwriters, then realized he needed a crime writer to keep the arty types on point.

He thought of a writer whose first crime novel had been well received, so "Get me this Leigh Brackett guy!" When this Leigh Brackett guy showed up he turned out to be a chick in her twenties.

[Talisker]

Do to physics involved the sci-fi that depicts interstellar travel is not just fantasy, it is lunacy.

Maxwell's Lost Unified Field Theory

[MarkL]

Oh lord, with this conversation, I HAVE to post this...

“Lando Calrissian was a Black guy!”

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=pgTuarwFm6s

Mark

[MarkL]

I recall reading a review, where the writer actually said that "John Carter" seemed "derivative." I couldn't believe the sheer stupidity of the reviewer, given that it was one of the seminal series from which everyone else has borrowed!

Mark

[MarkL]

Heinlein & Herbert both postulated that islam would become the dominant religion in the future.

Mark

[MarkL]

I’d like Firefly back. They beat Trek & Star wars into the ground.

I was unhappy with how Serenity put the series out, but it's now been over a decade since Firefly, so it won't be back. But I still watch the episodes whenever the Science Channel runs them, or if I'm feeling nostalgic for Serenity and her crew. IMHO, that was one of the best written shows, and best casts, ever on TV, period.

Mark

[MarkL]

I would give just about anything to have Joel and the robots make a comeback just for "Sharknado!"

Mark

[GeronL]

Hulu has 14 episodes of Firefly, how many were there?

[Oztrich Boy]

Hulu has 14 episodes of Firefly, how many were there?

Eleven

[GeronL]

Eh?

[Vanders9]

"...I wonder if others have the same reaction to science fiction -- i.e., if you have read the big three, is anything else out there really new, apart from the special effects?"

Actually I think there has been. One thing I have noticed is that during the 'Golden Era' the science in science-fiction was very much hard physical science - engineering, astronomy, physics (or at least it was set in a context of hard physical science). Since then there has been a definite and quite marked shift towards the life sciences - psychology, ecology, genetics. Even though I'm a life scientist myself, I think it's a worrying trend, as it implies a society with a marked inward rather than outward emphasis.

As for sci-fi writiers transposing classic plots to new settings, you could argue they are hardly unique in doing that! Pretty much all writers of all genres are involved in doing that.

[Wonder Warthog]

"Look what they did to his Starship Troopers, and imagine what they would do with Time Enough for Love."

Look what they are already doing with "The Amazing Spiderman". No imagination necessary (and evidently our "entertainment industry" is totally devoid of that talent.