Saga Did Star Wars "ruin" Hollywood?

I came across this short video in which a film critic explain how Star Wars has somehow initiated the culture, or the age of sequels, in the movie industry, and how, today we see very few original ideas or movies without being a sequel, or a prequel, to an already existing franchise. It also explains how in each sequel and prequel, Hollywood decided to play it safe in terms of story telling and ideas, instead of pushing boundaries.



Before some of you may retort to that critic as some people did in the comments section on Youtube, I will also remind that George Lucas said more or less the same thing back in December 2015 in an interview with Charlie Rose. He also said that Star Wars "has changed the movie industry for the good and the bad" when he took the time to look on how Star Wars has modified the movie industry during the last decades. He said that people "tend to overdo it and abuse it" when new things are created.



So my question is: what do you think about this? Share your thoughts.

On my side, I really don't know, and I really don't think that this "sequel age" in the movie industry is the sole responsibility of Star Wars. There must be a set of factors. But certainly, Star Wars has somehow sparked this culture of sequels over originality.

 

This is going to be rambling, I'm really tired:

Honestly? No. I don't think Hollywood is ruined, for one thing. Sequels, prequels, remakes, and alternative takes on stories have existed not only for as long as movies have been an art form, but for as long as humans have been telling stories in any medium. If you really want to point fingers, I think a far greater case can be made that the horror genre "ruined" Hollywood. The Universal Monsters series produced endless sequels beginning in the 30s, started the "shared universe" concept by the early 40s, and led to the Hammer Horror remakes/reboots by the 50s. Then you see the endless string of slasher sequels that ensued by the 80s, with Freddy and Jason returning to the screen year after year, and I don't think a connection can be drawn between that and the comparatively scant three Star Wars films made between 77 and 83. But even that's a facile argument, as you'll find sequels and remakes in various genres. Hollywood has, and will continue, to produce movies that directly appeal to the wants of the market. Look at the Western genre in the 50s; over a hundred westerns were made in 1950 alone, and that number increased annually as the decade went on. That's why it kind of annoys me when people look at, like, four or five superhero films being released in a single year and declare that film is dead as an art form, because we've been hearing that argument since last decade and it's no more true in 2017 than it was in 2007.

I don't think the blame can be pointed at any one single thing, if blame is to be pointed anywhere at all, since "blame" indicates there's something wrong in the first place. Star Wars is simply an easy target to aim the finger at, since it's such a culturally monolithic entity, and as such I think "Star Wars ruined movies!" is an exceptionally lazy and narrow argument to make. Returning to the Universal Monster sequels, they're all (save for a few exceptions) pretty much identical; they were safe cash grabs. The Hollywood system has always functioned like that, because while it's a business that produces mass-consumed art, it's still a business. Sometimes risks pay off extraordinarily well, but other times they fail spectacularly, and that can take a massive toll on a studio and encourage them to play it safer in the future. It's a mixed bag. Even the films of the 70s that people frequently call "daring, gritty, they don't make 'em like they used to," and so on and so forth... if there are so many films like that, I struggle to call them "daring," as they were clearly meeting market demands if so many were released to routine success.

There are great, original films made every year, and those are by and large the movies we'll remember ten, fifteen, twenty years from now; we tend to remember both the great or iconic and the truly terrible, while the middle ground films (most movies, honestly) get forgotten. These great, original films are just being made at a much lower cost, and that lower cost encourages studios to give the greenlight to certain outré ideas, because the financial side isn't so much of a risk. Are these the movies that people are paying $15-$20 a ticket (plus concession expenses) to see on a big screen? No, because it's cheaper and more convenient to see them at home on a massive flatscreen on Netflix, while you're going to want to save your expensive trip to the movie theater for something that looks and sounds truly exceptional on the silver screen, something that gives you "bang for your buck." That's simply the reality of a changing market with different demands and new modes of consumption.

I think, if anything, Star Wars benefitted Hollywood in the long run. Think of how many people, each with their own unique voice, were inspired to become filmmakers because they saw Star Wars when they were kids? We wouldn't have those people today if it wasn't for this series, and especially and particularly the original film. And as for Lucas' stance on this, I'm going to paraphrase something he said a couple of years ago: young people should never trust their elders. God knows that in fifty years I'm going to look at the movies my grandkids are watching on their holographic displays and think, "What a shame; they don't make 'em like they used to."

 

Hollywood has been ruined for decades if we're counting the inverse, messed up "society" that envelops it. Truly if we look at it, it consists of egotistical men and women who further put down others, in order to gain superiority. Then the cycle continues once again.

I assume we aren't speaking of that so I'll just move on

I wouldn't say ruined, but "boosted" should be the correct term to express it. Pym is right that storytelling has had pretty much the same form for a long time, and humans repeat and/or remake materials constantly. Although, I believe that it was Star Wars that gave Hollywood more options to abuse the popularity and marketing of filmmaking. It's happened before that sure, but Star Wars did help it greatly.

Art will never die out from humanity(it's ingrained into our core humanitarian DNA. How else are we supposed to fully express the suppression?) , and will always be subjective to one another.

P.S. SuperHero films do need to talk a breather, or get more creative. One after the other, the same consistent tone is being utilized.

 

No. Overeliance on special effects and multiple sequels and prequels existed before Star Wars, and will always exist. As much as I disagree with some of Lucas's decisions in all 6 films, at least he got to have the final say or even a major say in many of them. How many blockbuster films have that distinction? Many films have to be changed from the writer or director's vision because of focus groups, or executive's choices. Lucas holds the distinction of executive producing, writing (uncredited in ESB), and developing the story for all 6 of his Star Wars films.
He put some power back into the auteur of the film, even if that meant not enough people challenged him.

 

I'm going to be contrarian and say yes. But not Hollywood alone. There are a lot of people in power who adapted the rhetoric of "Rebels fighting against the Evil Empire" who were more akin to Vader and Tarkin than they would ever have liked to think.

 

Actually, Hollywood ruined Star Wars.

 

No, wrong target.

It's the Lucas-Spielberg collaboration with Raiders of the Lost Ark that profoundly changed the ways movies would be made, IMHO, i.e. with an obvious emphasis on thrill-ride spectacle and the main protagonist displaying superhuman endurance.

 

I would definitely say no. On the contrary, SW was one of the 70s movies that actually produced a good sequel, unlike some other 70s hits like Exorcist or Jaws. As far as I know those were the most successful films of the decade besides ANH, and they managed to come up with extremely inferior sequels. ANH was the only really huge hit that had a sequel that was mostly regarded as at least equal, sometimes even superior to the original. I'm not sure if that was what the OP meant however. I know it was based on earlier movies or TV series, but in its time, the late 70s, ANH was pretty original and went against the trend. Correct me if I'm wrong. Though Alien may have been just another 50s space monster movie with better effects, it was pretty unusual and fresh, different enough to be much more than just another monster movie. It could easily have flopped but didn't. The same could be said of Close Encounters. Those were pretty original in their time. That's more than can be said for some of the newer Hollywood movies. The last one I found really original was Avatar, though it got much criticism for being some kind of "Pocahontas" in space or whatever. I found it different and fresh enough anyway.

 

Sith Lord 2015

I wholeheartedly agree with your observation (except for the Avatar part) and you hit the nail right on the head by mentioning CE3K and Alien. Both were truly fresh, i.e. finally a flying saucer film with no 'U-Foes' and a film about a terrible alien where nevertheless the sequels (e.g. Aliens) suggested than man might still be worse than the relentless alien creatures that just followed their instincts.

IMHO, Avatar is the lamest of all Cameron films. The main character really hasn't anything to lose (on the contrary) by "turning Indian", and just our sympathizing with the natives in the film won't do the real natives in our world much good if the first thing we ate after the film was beef from South America (heck, I'm guilty myself, my family's favorite beef jerky comes from Brazil... ).

In contrast, the latest science fiction films I truly enjoyed (e.g. Oblivion, Passengers) seem to follow some kind "Twilight Zone" formula.

 

You do have a point with Avatar. To be honest, the story isn't that great, and I guess we have seen the "good natives vs. bad white invaders" scenario many times before. I mainly liked it for being visually fresh. I'm kind of a visual viewer, and tend to overlook plot shortcomings when a movie looks good. Whatever its weaknesses, the world of Pandora with its natives and animals looks pretty impressive, don't you think? I can't remember having seen anything similar before, and it is so far the only movie I have watched in 3D. That being said, it does copy a few elements from Aliens, apart from the other issues. That "loader" Ripley used to fight the Alien queen was pretty much re-used in Avatar, also other military and technical aspects. Let me think, if I had to pick my least favorite Cameron film it would have to be Titanic. The Terminator movies, especially the sequel, The Abyss and of course Aliens were pretty good movies. If we look at Alien, plot-wise it isn't all that special either, but again the way Ridley Scott filmed it, the sets, the Alien itself, the Giger-designed alien ship etc., were all visually pretty stunning. Some people call it just another "haunted house story" in space, but I think that doesn't give the movie enough credit. It was designed in such a way that it felt and looked completely new, and many elements had really never before been seen in a movie.
Haven't seen Passengers but Oblivion was pretty good, even though I wouldn't necessarily have cast Tom Cruise.

 

Star Wars saved Hollywood. Wasn't the film industry going through a rough time in the 70's, only for blockbusters like Star Wars and Jaws to breath life into it?

 

Well, most of my (extremely limited) understanding of film comes from these forums. So I am not educated enough to add a lot... but I think Lucas's own admission that it was a double-edged sword kind of sums it up.

To say it saved Hollywood would imply that recession would have been permanent, which I find hard to believe - there will always be ideas that people want to get out there, and film is a very broad medium.

 

I will just add a little bit to the debate: personnally, I don't think that Star Wars "ruined" Hollywood. In fact, when we look more closely, Star Wars was created outside the "Hollywood circle" if I can call it this way. Movies like Star Wars, American Graffiti, THX-1138, Jaws, E.T., etc. were all created by new, young and creative people like Lucas and Spielberg who have just jumped in the film industry in the 1970's and 1980's and were thinking outside the box.

Did it benefit Hollywood? Yes a lot.

I think the misunderstanding from this critic above comes from what Hollywood does mean. In fact, the real question he should have asked is how "Hollywood transformed itself and how it transformed Star Wars". I also think that the misunderstanding from that critic comes from the fact that Hollywood is an entity which promotes and encourages art and expression, while the reality is very different.

Let be straight about this: Hollywood is today not just a film industry encouraging young and talented people to create movies. It's a gigantic corporation for whom its main objective is profit, not art. That's the reality of our capitalist society.

I may be adding something a bit controversial here and I'm sure many people will disagree with the post below, but there's a very interesting and thoughtful documentary which has been published recently talking about the debasement of cinema as an art form under Hollywood:

 

Avatar also suffered by having this white Earthling guy turn out to be the destined hero/savior of the alien people. It's an old trope, but a rather ugly one with disturbing implications, as we know from our own history. Heck, David Lean was deconstructing it to some degree in Lawrence of Arabia 50 years ago.

 

In the sense that corporations came to realise how much money was out there to be made and from whom, and figured out somewhat how to make it - yes.

 

Nah, Hollywood just mostly learned the wrong lessons from it. People like to think of Star Wars as a huge Hollywood blockbuster, but forget that it was also a deeply personal piece of filmmaking.