Saga What factor makes a Star Wars film for you?

Alexrd I ask because you seem to believe the people who made Star Wars were nothing but drones controlled by Lucas, that they had no imagination or creativity themselves, that they deserve no credit or respect for making Star Wars because they got PAID for it.

The fact is that many of the same people who made the OT and PT what they were, are still making the Star Wars movies today.

 

If a Star Trek Movie made after Roddenberry died can still reasonably be seen by many Star Trek fans as being "Star Trek" despite no input from Gene Roddenberry - why can't a Star Wars movie be one with no input from Lucas?

 

While I am interested in other characters, my main interest in Star Wars is the story about Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader.

Besides all the stuff I don't like about TFA, it does not contain that story.

To me the SW Saga is about Luke and Vader.
I would have like more movies expanding on that story and I think it could have been improved.

 

For me it is the sound effects, music, 1940's WWII air combat physics in space, and all the alien species that make Star Wars. Being very used to the old EU though, I'm very open to new genres of Star Wars movie with new ideas and directions (all except full comedy, we have Lego Star Wars for that). I was a bit disappointed Rogue One wasn't more a war film, I half wanted the soundtrack to be more daring too.

 

It is hard to say what made Star Wars for me as so little of my life had a life without Star Wars. So seeing it at such a young age, I'm going to say the original hook would be the visuals.

And those would be three important visuals in the order they appeared.
1. Star Destroyer
2. Stormtroopers
3. Darth Vader

If that Star Destroyer didn't look as intimidating as it did, illusion broken.


If instead of Stormtroopers, the first Imperial troops looked like these dudes:

meh. Just another scifi movie

If Darth Vader looked like this

I would have probably grabbed my blankey and told my mom and dad "I'm outta here."

And if I had to pick one out of all those, it would be Stormtroopers

 

Theoretically, they could, but so far both movies have failed to register as such, imo.


To sorta modify something from Alex:

Yes, many artists contributed to I-VI, and their contributions are part of what makes Star Wars itself, but one major constant was Lucas, and maybe his guiding presence was what really made Star Wars identifiable as itself. I can also see a lot of what makes Star Wars what it is to me in Indiana Jones, as well, which is also heavily influenced by George Lucas (there's also some crossover between the franchises, such as Kasdan, I believe).

So maybe what makes a Star Wars movie a Star Wars movie is George Lucas, while Roddenberry wasn't really an inherent factor in Star Trek.

Alexrd

I'm slightly confused. Let's clear something up. Try to be clear on your thoughts in your response, even if only for the record.

I made this comment in response to Kathleen Kennedy's firings:

I meant it ironically, not seriously. It was a criticism.

You gave it a "like" and responded "bullseye!"

Then you made this comment in this thread:

Here, you seem to advocate that a movie actually needs construction workers to follow someone's orders. Since KK is the new person in charge of Star Wars, the one deciding what the movie is, I'm wondering if you took my comment on KK needing to hire construction workers as a serious recommendation. Or does it not apply to KK, only to Lucas? I think we know it doesn't only apply to directors, because Lucas didn't direct ESB or ROTJ, and I'm pretty sure you appoint Lucas as the one in charge of those movies, with the directors as people who are paid to work for Lucas.

 

I'm thinking of every Trek movie after The Undiscovered Country.

 

First Contact was pretty good.

 

I figured they meant the two "Disney" Star Wars films.

 

Yup, and they're wrong for the vast majority of the audience.

 

For me is the lore, new characters, new planets and the music

 

Engaging heroes with bonds forged over the course of the adventure.
Engaging villains, that are terrifying to take on.
Good vs evil.
Stories that take advantage of the billions of years of history in the SW universe.
New and engaging planets, aliens, groups, animals, weapons, droids, etc.

 

This is a quote from the other thread concerning this topic that ezekiel22x made that resonated with me somewhat.

The points highlighted are what particularly concern my opinions on this matter. As I've developed my tastes towards to what is commonly referred to as the "space opera", I've grown to prefer those same formalized versions with other shows and films (like Legend of the Galactic Heroes, for example). Even as a child, the epic and grandiose nature of the actual duels and space battles, intense bonds between master and student and father and son, dilemmas of morality, political maneuvering and scheming, the grand ideals of honor and tradition, etc. seemed more interesting and exciting. Heavy themes with a setting that suits them. It's not something that appeared trivial (like the aformentioned bicker flirting). It seemed larger than life. This is the very reason why fantasy, as a genre, exists.

It's why, despite its flaws, Revenge of the Sith ends up being one of my favorite films in the saga. It literally embodies many of my favorite aspects of the Star Wars universe and made me interested in reading/watching/playing more very early on and made me a fan. It's why my absolute favorite moments in the original trilogy mostly take place in The Empire Strikes Back and the second half of Return of the Jedi.

The Force Awakens is a film that I expected would at least try to deliver more effectively upon the themes that were introduced in prior material that had been released since 1999 and fuse it with what people liked from the original trilogy. Be a fleshed-out experience in setting, story and characters so that a proper foundation would be set for something that could possibly manage to exceed both of the previous trilogies. It didn't do any of that. During Episode VII's production, they simply opted to drop everything and just go back to what "works" (i.e. emulating someone's childhood memories at the expense of creating an exciting chapter of a saga with new possibilities). It became a film that felt like a fan film (with all the negative connotations that brings) which is why J.J. Abrams was the last kind of director you would want for the job.

To me, it simply seemed like a bunch of industry veterans leading a bunch of new blood into an decades-old franchise with the opportunity to make something off of the foundation Lucas set with their own ideas and instead, they just said cynically flung their hands in the air and said, "**** it", leaving Rian Johnson to have to pick up the pieces with the hopes that something marginally better comes of it.

I mention this primarily due to the fact that a lot of what makes Star Wars for me makes a lot of the new material coming out to be really disappointing in its misguided conservatism.

Those are also things I look for.

 

For me Star Wars is a fairy tale set in space. It should contain tales about morality, characters with well defined traits, among them strange fantasy characters, and a whiff of magic...

O, and spaceships, it should have spaceships.

 

Alex has a tremendous point. George Lucas was a pivotal aspect in SW as to why it is today. Because of him, that is how we received the themes, motifs, the use of colors and designs. We *could* possibly deduct that the factors of what makes SW is the far far away future but how made this universe? Who was the one who concluded the entire in-depth universe?

 

Of course Lucas is pivotal in the creation of Star Wars. Still,no two Star Wars films are exactly alike, and Lucas' vision evolved over the years. More importantly, Lucas does not determine what you personally like about it (or don't like about it). This thread is not a discussion about what someone else says is Star Wars, in this case the original creator. It is about what factors make a Star Wars film work for you.

 

Dr Dre Are you surprised?

"What factor makes Star Wars for you?"

"Whatever George Lucas says."

 

I'll add my two cents and say that GL showed the world what Star Wars is. Everyone hasn't truly understood what it is that makes it Star Wars, but he's had plenty of apprentices over the years who have learned directly from him, come to understand why he did things the way he did them and are now passing on what they have learned to a new generation, keeping the spirit of Star Wars alive.

It's the George way that's important in this context, not the George person.

...and I guess that's the factor that makes it Star Wars to me. Do I get a GL vibe? Then it's Star Wars

 

And what's so hard to understand that some people may take the creator of this fictional universe as the deciding, working factor on what makes Star Wars, well, Star Wars? For some people it may be the space battles, for others it might be the characters, or the lightsaber duels, or the banter, or the humour, or all of the above. It might even be just having the words 'Star Wars' in the title. Not to me.

 

To me stating George Lucas is THE factor really doesn't provide any answer to the question what you personally think makes a Star Wars film a Star Wars film. It's analogous to answering the question "What is the factor that makes the Whopper a tasty burger to you?" with Burger King. I think the idea is to dissect what unique flavours George Lucas added to the Star Wars recipe over time, that makes it a Star Wars film for you, and in what respect, or to what extend each of the films released thusfar, including those not created by Lucas adhere to this recipe.

 

It does. Some people understood and got the answer.

I don't claim to know the Star Wars recipe. And the ingredients in and on themselves are not the answer to me.

None do, as I've stated in my original post. Hence my answer.

 

You seem to misunderstand the question. The question is not about knowing the Star Wars recipe, as there is no unique Star Wars recipe, since then all eight films released in the saga thusfar would be exactly the same. Each of the films have unique characteristics, and even for those created in the George Lucas era, not every ingredient was added by him.

Your answer seems to be whatever George Lucas throws in the kettle. If he calls it Star Wars, it's Star Wars to me, and by extension if somebody else throws the same stuff in a kettle, it's not. It's the cook that makes it Star Wars for you, not the flavours or the ingredients. Yet, I would say anyone can make mince pie. It might be more tasty coming from one cook, compared to the other, but a mince pie is defined by the flavours, and ingredients, not by the cook.

Now, you evidently feel George Lucas makes better mince pie than anyone else, but what does George Lucas do to make his mince pie better than others in your opinion? This is the topic of this thread methinks, and I would be interested in discussing that topic.

 

To answer the OP.

To me, first and foremost is characters. People I care about, are interested in, want to keep watching and are engaged in.
The OT films had fun and likable characters. Simple perhaps but simple does not mean bad.
Also characters that grow and evolve on screen.

The setting and environment, the "used future" was a thing I liked and it made the universe feel "real".
The setting is fantastical but still in some ways grounded.

Excitement sure, music yes.

There is probably a lot more but I'll stop there.

About Lucas, I do think that one can compare him and Gene and Star Trek.
Both are creators, without whom this would not exist.
And both have many great ideas.
But both also have some less than great ideas.

Sure with Gene he never had the control that Lucas did and there is a lot more Star Trek that was made without Gene than SW without Lucas.
But to me, some of the Trek that was made without Gene is good, even great. And some have ideas that run totally counter to what Gene said Trek was all about.
Sure there has been a lot of terrible Trek as well. Some that adhered too closely to the "Roddenberry Box." and some that did not.

My overall point is that give creative people some room to play in the universe that Gene and George created.
Don't chain them to what SW or ST "must be" or put too many limits on creativity.
That is what, to me, hampered Voyager and Enterprise, being too afraid to take chances and using the "magic reset button".

Like him or not, JJ did make some changes with his first Trek film and he wasn't afraid to take chances.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor