Saga MacLeans's article: "Star Wars sucks! There, we said it."

This article from the canadian journal, MacLean's" may raise a lot of fire here.

But I want to be clear immediately: I do not agree with the idea of this article that "Star Wars sucks", whether it is the OT or PT.

But I've found interesting that it has revealed that many critics, back in the 1970's and 1980's believed that the originals were bad just as many critics believe today that the prequels were bad.

This thread is not to bash the prequels or the originals. It's to discuss the content of the article and not its title.

Link: http://www.macleans.ca/culture/movies/star-wars-sucks-there-we-said-it/

 

whatever. don't spread this guy's stuff around.

 

Opinions are like- well, you know.

And who cares what MacLean's says about SW? Heck, who reads MacLean's?

 

I came accross this article on msn.com in which it has been published. It seems that this article is being referenced at many web sites since it has been originally published on MacLean's.

 

A lot of tired, worn, observations here.

If something should be criticized, and I'm not saying that it should or should not, how about the films that try to ape Star Wars?

Examine "culturally corrosive influence." How are we defining culture, corrosion, or influence? Corrosive in what way, and to whom?

If what is being criticized is film-makers and the film industry trying to capitalize on successes, and try to realize profits by following in the footsteps of previous "blockbusters," then surely we must go back far before the 1970's and Star Wars. Despite popular thought, a lot was going on in film and changing through the 60's and 70's. There is this sacred cow that in the 70's it was a nirvana of creative freedom for filmmakers to realize great cinema, only to have Jaws and Star Wars put us on the track where we are now of only getting big summer blockbusters. This is not only reductive but simply not what happened, nor does it really reflect the state of film today. It could be argued that independent, director-led cinema has never been at a stronger place than it is now. (In 2011, The Artist became the 20th non-studio film to win the best picture Oscar since 1980--now, I have my problems with the Academy Awards, but I find that illuminating).

Laying the sins and faults of modern hollywood and "tent pole" film making (and any and every other issue a writer may have in mind at the moment) at Star Wars's (and particularly GL's) door is silly, but pretty ubiquitous nowadays.

And the visual storytelling in Star Wars was influenced by far more than Kurosawa (who was in turn influenced by many things, including American Hollywood made westerns). Does this make Kurosawa a poor, creativity-starved artist that is responsible for all that is bad in modern media and civilization?

Are we to praise modern shows that are less-cynical in their approach to past references, or condemn them for lack of clear-sighted, rigorous, and honest, "growing-up," instead of staying in childhood? Never mind that shows that could be cynical about Star Wars in the 80's/90's could also contain fond references to things from the past.

And, please, I've heard more than I ever need to of Pauline Kael. I know that some people think she is the patron saint of all film criticism, the William Faulkner of the movie review, but I've read a fair amount of her, and the vitriol and mean-spiritedness she seemed to revel in dishing out to all and sundry I find distasteful to put it mildly. I had to read about 100 reviews to find a single one that was even neutral, let alone positive. So let's not conclude that what she said about Star Wars was in any way a uniquely negative review on her part.

 

People are allowed their opinions. Some don't like SW so what?

 

The point is that the article is right. The films have never really been that good in the sense of other Hollywood and Independent fare. And anytime someone says something ill, it gets trashed hard. The fact is that the films are both good and bad, and have had a lot to do with the change in Hollywood over the years. As is the differences between when the OT came out and when the PT did. Some people don't like to hear the truth.

 

I'm always puzzled that when a journal or website gives a critique of star wars it gets it's own thread.

What makes this person's opinion any more valid than anyone else's on this site?

maybe I should start my own blog anonymously and see if I get my very own thread and five minutes of fame (I joke of course)

 

I've known all these films were flawed from the beginning. In spite of how some harp that all see OT as flawless that's flatly wrong and someone not liking SW isn't a big deal it certainly doesn't need a new thread each time someone sees a 'negative' stance. Some like it, some don't. Live and let live. It's okay, people.

 

I'm regretting that I posted above at all. . .

I agree that any film or creative work is going to have something to praise and criticize, and that everyone can like it or not. If people make conclusions that something (a film, say) led to the state of current media, then people can refute that also.

Just because everyone can like or dislike something, and that works have good and bad points, doesn't mean those points shouldn't be discussed. I admit that sometimes I can become a little territorial about the things I like (I'm not apologizing for this).

I take no stand on whether or not articles should each have a thread.

 

I recently read something that apparently when Alec Guiness began learning more about the script and the story that he considered it rubbish and a totally fantastical and ridiculous story. Little did he know that Star Wars is what he would be most known for.

 

Oh, he knew that just fine in reality as time passed and it's fine he preferred other parts.

 

I think it should be perfectly possible to discuss this kind of thing in a civilised manner without having to become overly defensive and start labelling the other side and slinging mud.

I love SW and I always will, but I accept that in some ways it's comically bad - OT and PT!

 

MOC Yak Face: heresy! turn your mod badge in at once

 

Lol. Ok, I'll ban myself immediately!

 

That's why he was unhappy when fans would come up to him to talk about it. A number of actors had a hard time understanding, much less dealing with a fandom that could enjoy such fare. Newer generations of actors that have entered into the field have come to accept and found ways to try and make it work to their advantage.

 

One of the things I've found out was that when people are complaining about the dialogue and the acting in the PT, it is not very hard to see that the quality isn't vastly in the OT. Besides, the originals were never known, nor never have received an academy award for best acting or dialogue. The original Star Wars from 1977 was only known for best visual effects, costume and story line. Even Alec Guiness hasn't received an academy award for best actor during his involvement in A New Hope.

In some ways, this article has a good point when it is mentionned that the OT has some "very childish things", one of the things that many "older fans" (can I call them this way?) complain about it in the PT. But it doesn't mean that I totally agree with it.

 

Just because one isn't given an award doesn't mean quality's lacking, Saga Fan.

 

I know that. But all I wanted to say is that none of the Star Wars movies were meant to have Shakespearean dialogue.

 

If you're attempting to articulate that there's an element of "trash" to Star Wars, okay. I think that's the case; and that the series runs with it in a number of ways.

If, on the other hand, you're trying to say that the series itself is dumpy, or that one trilogy is inherently poorer than the other, then I have to say that these are strange assertions coming from you.

It also seems rather callow to lay the blame for the state of the contemporary cinematic landscape at Star Wars' door. If anything, it's a back-handed compliment to believe that one series -- or even just one movie -- could irrevocably alter entire decades' worth of movies: how they're conceived, how they're exhibited, distributed, marketed, etc. Lucas has certainly had an influence in these areas; but all the issues the author has with modern cinema are entirely down to Lucas and everything Lucas has done sums to bad?

"Tired, worn observations" (per jc1138) seems right. What are people afraid of here? That to like something is to love it; and that to love it is to be totally blind and insane? Even if love is blinding, I don't think it's mad to enjoy these films, or to esteem them as art. Articles like the one at the top seem almost like an attempt to shame people out of liking what they do.

The closing remark of that article is particularly amusing: "Lucas’s visual language and storytelling in Star Wars were inspired by Akira Kurosawa. Today’s blockbusters have the disadvantage of being inspired by George Lucas."

If they were inspired by George Lucas, one might hope to see a more artful blend of escapist thrills and mythological seriousness; as well as gorgeous colour palettes and clean compositions extending even to complicated action sequences; a rich assortment of imaginative characters, fantastic landscapes, vehicles, and creatures; memorable sound design and soaring orchestral music; a canny blend of dry, pithy humour and moments of stark, moving tragedy; denouements that unfold like pure tone poems; and sharp, nuanced edits and beats that establish fecund links between people, places, shapes, and moods that even children find arresting.

If other blockbuster films were half as stimulating as Star Wars, I imagine people would be frequently impelled to write and design things like the following:


http://www.lardbiscuit.com/lard/shroud.html

http://www.mstrmnd.com/log/1241

http://starwarsverses.tumblr.com/

http://www.canopycanopycanopy.com/contents/star_wars__a_new_heap

http://www.starwars-edifice.co.uk/

http://www.starwarsringtheory.com/


I mean, I know those links don't constitute objective proof of anything, but I'd like to see this same intellectual devotion to other entertainments.

Even if Star Wars is B-movie fluff, it's clear that some people read a lot into that fluff. And if it's causing people to open up to their own muse, can it really be the wretched, dismal thing the author makes it out to be?

Lazy, derivative hit pieces like that which began this thread are things I feel like chiding the most. Except I don't have the energy to even try. I think those links speak more loudly and more clearly than any arbitrary rebuttal ever could.

 

Thanks for the links, I hadn't seen all of 'em!

 

The original Star Wars, like the best pop music, was able to present itself in a "fluffy" package, with broad appeal, but still resonate with the audience on a substantial level. That's not something to be ashamed of. It's genius! Unfortunately, as is the case with the best pop musicians, Star Wars was the motivation for many inferior impersonators, who may have managed the fluff, but couldn't muster the underlying substance. Star Wars (and George Lucas) isn't responsible for Armageddon any more than The Beatles are responsible for The Monkees.

 

This isn't really a big news flash. As big as a phenomenon as the movies were, there were still detractors. I mean, of course there were. All you have to do is listen to old interviews with Mark, Harrison and Carrie (which, I admit, I love to do in my free time), and see how much they have to answer to different criticisms, or how they feel they need to defend the films.

But again…so what? I happened to love the movies. I can recognize they're not flawless, but for some reason that just doesn't matter to me. Things that I might take issue with in other movies get a free pass in OT. I can't explain it. Sometimes certain films/shows/music just hit the spot for you, and sometimes they don't. But fort the OT? My love runs deep, man. Flaws and all.

 

This article uses the opinions of professional film critics who want all films to be like artsy independent films. the majority of critics were never positive to star wars or any other scifi films, 2001 even got a lot of negative reviews and today it is considered a classic.