Modern Star Wars vs. Westerns

Shockingly, I was reading Ain't It Cool today and Harry had some insightful comments about the Western genre over a historical period and how it evolved, which actually had some nice parallels to Star Wars EU these days:

Sounds actually very familar, no?

 

I think it's actually less about there not being a market for Star Wars fiction that is peppy and idealistic, than the fandom is being catered to. My father claims to have met Frank Miller once. Frank said something, and I'm paraphrasing what my father paraphrased, about this subject.

Comic books started to become increasingly dark because people realized that there were a lot of adults who read comic books, plus had disposable income to buy more than any kid could. Stan Lee sold to college age and plenty of authors were comic fans themselves who wanted to see characters in situations they hadn't been in before.

The "Aging Star Wars fan" is as much the issue as anything else. How many people complained a blue streak that the Prequels weren't some Shakespearian tragedy with blood on every street corner?

In the case of Westerns, we may simply have a larger number of fans that are interested in examining the genre from different angles. Westerns are a HUGE genre that only so many tales can be told in, yet you can tell different ANGLES of the tale to create something interesting. It wasn't Mel Brooks who first noticed the hypocrisy of the original Westerns and felt there were good stories to tell about the exact opposite of what people assumed.

 

But aren't the "older" star wars fans the one's clamoring for the "good old days"?

I consider myself on the "older" end of the spectrum these days, and I've always noted that the biggest supporters of the current "darker" turn are people 5 even 10 years younger then me. So does age = darker overtone really?

I think entertainment targeted at teens and college aged people has gotten increasingly dark in general, and SW has followed that trend.

Star Wars going goth? emo?

 

/wrists

 

I think the elements of the Western have always been glaring and obvious in the OT. This of course worked. Also escaping the Samurai movie is impossible.

One thing I find interesting is like the Western, Star Wars morality is more complicated than it used to be. The Western also got more morally ambiguous like The Searchers, The Wild Bunch and Unforgiven.

 

But aren't the "older" star wars fans the one's clamoring for the "good old days"?


Yes, but turn yourself back ten or so years ago.

You might find the reception a bit different.

Trends move very slowly.

 

Right, and that's widely credited with destroying the Western as a genre, for the most part as Harry argues...

 

There's other series, as well, not the least of which being the 1970s Pro-Indian movement that was especially critical of the American Western as an embodiment of racism. I mentioned Mel Brooks' Blazing Saddles as an example, as well of the Western being badly affected by the reality of the stories.

In truth, by the time the Western was "destroyed" as a genre, it had simply been replaced by Star Wars/Star Trek and Comic Book movies that occupy its exact same place. The Western isn't destroyed as a genre by any stretch of the imagination, it's just been reduced in size since colorful heroes are more available in contemporary settings thanks to the works of Stan Lee.

The Claim, Maverick, Wild Wild West, Firefly, Brisco County Junior, and other attempts to "revive" the genre all fail to realize that the prevelance that Westerns have existed in two "Golden Ages" (The Golden Age of Hollywood) that lasted for a few decades and later revived in the Spaghetti Western period.

Both times doing so because Westerns were, then, extraordinarily cheap to make.

 

I of course don't think the genre of the Western is dead. Even television has great sucess with shows like Deadwood.
Also mob movies took a certain audience the Western once owned. Movies like Kill Bill to Sin City also take that place the Western once dominated.

 

I pretty much agree.

 

Deadwood averaged 2.4 million viewers, which would be conisdered a dismal failure at the box office. The fact that only cable TV seems to support a Western -- although two very good and very different ones are coming out shortly -- would indicate a failure of the genre.

Of course, sci-fi was gangbusters at the movies and dead on TV until V aired, so maybe it's cyclical...

 

Counterpoint, comparing movies and shows is a bit foolish. Next, there's A LOT more to choose from.

 

Let's revisit this after 3:10 to Yuma comes out.

The Western died because the action movie evolved...westerns were the cheap and practical action movie...but as special effects, on-location filming, and film budgets increased, the western, an over-saturated product, began to be less desirable to both the viewership and to the studios and actors to make.

Today's westerns are not westerns, they are modern drama "period" pieces...with all the complexity that entails.

I watched Wyatt Earp last night...an underrated film in my estimation...and certainly not a western...even though it's about an icon of the old west.

 

It has heroes and villains though, doesn't it? Wasn't that a part of the charm?

(Tombstone, by the by, eats Wyatt Earp for breakfast. A CRIMINALLY underrated film.)

 

*cough*tombstone sucks*cough*

And yes, there are good guys and bad guys to an extent...though one of the points of the films is about how someone can go from good to bad to good to bad and on in a lifetime, and you never know just how someone will remember you when they hear your name.

 

Tombstone rocks.

Anyway, the Western fell into decline because there were too damn many of them. As has been pointed out, people simply moved on to new genres and new genres absorbed different elements of the Western. I can't imagine that by 2020 the "comic book movie" will remain huge, because people will be going "That's been done to death already." Modern Westerns emerge either as homages or as retakes on the genre, people looking back fondly at the Westerns they used to see and saying, "What if we tried this? What if we took a gritter look at this? What if we asked whether some guy riding into town and shooting it up makes him a hero? What if I tried putting a twist on it to make the genre fresh again?" It's much the same way that people still go back to film noir and say, "What would it be like if we made a film noir where they can use the F-bomb? What if I take the old film noir I used to love and put a twist on it to make it fresh again?"

You don't need clear-cut heroes and villains to be a Western. Just to be one type of Western, and if one looks more closely at the old-school Western, one will find heroes and villains can be a lot less clear-cut. In the same way, you don't need to endlessly remake John Wayne movies in order to have a Western. You can have your Wild Bunch and your Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid and your Unforgiven and your Seraphim Falls and still, fundamentally, be a Western. The old style should still have a place, but it is not the One True Way to do it.

 

Yes, that is rather shocking.

On the Western's "decline", we have to consider something more simple than any of the genre-replacement stuff -- Hollywood execs are, by and large, idiots. And by "idiots", i mean "businessmen looking at the bottom line above all else, regardless of any potential artistic value in a given work" (it's a little-known definition of "idiots" )

Execs don't think that Westerns will sell in our "modern world", that they're for the most part no longer relevant. Of course, this is crap -- it's the story and characters first, the setting second when it comes to connecting to a work/film.

There are recent exceptions -- but for the most part, the exceptions are for a reason -- typically that a "big name" actor and/or actress is attached to a project, or an uber-producer/uber-director is associated, or there's some other motivation or agenda at work (would "Brokeback" have been made but for the homosexual love story? unlikely; i'd also suggest even if it had been made sans homosexuality but still the same film, it would not have recieved all the critical praise because frankly it was just kind of an average film).

Now, i guaran-darn-tee that should "3:10 to Yuma" (which looks awesome, though i am admittedly a big Christian Bale fan) breaks box-office records/trends, we'll be seeing more Westerns in the theatres in the next couple years.

Of course, all this doesn't really account for the focus-shift in the Western genre, but that can be due to many many factors, not the least of which being an increased sophistication of the audience as a whole (the fundamental nature of movies in American culture is far different today than it was in the 1950s), as well as simple things like production costs, deeper storytelling, better filmmaking techniques, etc etc.

And just as a coda to my ramblings, i'll say that while the Eastwood/Leone "Man with No Name" trilogy are some of my favorite Western flicks, my all-time king is "High Noon" starring Gary Cooper -- ironically an "older" Western with a simple, yet deep story, and somewhat off the mold from its contemporaries.