Saga The greatest misconception about the OT

I've been thinking about this for a long time but what I am about to say is a tad controversial but hear me out as they say.

Imo the greatest misconception about the original trilogy is that they are very character driven in depth movies... They really aren't. As much as I love the films these would never win any academy awards for acting or being in depth character studies.

Casting your mind back to the making of the original movie Ford regularly complained about the stilted dialog saying you can type this ***t but you sure can't say it. The characters were there they delivered their lines but against the backdrop of great set pieces and for its era special effects it worked.

Using solo again as an example in the years after jedi Ford would regularly say that solo was a one dimensional character and he was glad to see the back of his uniform. None of the characters are particularly deep or multi dimensional. We just think they are from all the books comics that we have read featuring these characters and we know them but from a strictly movie pov they were just there....

Sacrilige I know but the ST really is no different. Again these characters are largely one dimensional and in the case of Finn underused and yet we complain about this when the ot was quite similar. Stilted dialog, wooden performances and largely one dimensional. We just know these characters far better because we've had 43 years countless books and comics to properly flesh out these characters.

Look I adore the franchise but they are no Shakespeare, no character driven movies just very entertaining fun films.

 

You’re completely right—all the SW characters are cardboard “tropes,” or archetypes if you will. That’s by design. Anakin is the only one who almost isn’t.

 

ANH won 7 Oscars and was nominated for best actor (Guiness) and screenplay and director (Lucas). And best picture. Back when there were only 5 nominations in each category. And ESB regularly appears on top 100 movies ever lists.

 

What do I believe was the greatest misconception about the Original Trilogy? I believe there are two misconceptions - that it was perfect and featured the best films in the Star Wars saga. And I've loved those films since I was a teenager or in my early 20s.

 

Agree. Ive said before I think SW fans care more about if the characters check off a list of likeable archetypes over complex, dynamic characters.

Its like when people on this board were so adamant that Rey, Finn, Poe, and Kylo were the greatest SW characters since 1983 after TFA came out, even though it was only one movie out. That was a good sign that as long as ya spit one-liners and are sarcastic, you will on average likely be a fan favorite in some capacity. Especially if ur a soft combination of the OT3.

 

Agreed. I'm glad you guys haven't crucified me for the observation. It's appreciated

I think it was always meant that Finn rey and Poe were to replace the original trio of luke han and leia. The original actors were trotted out to connect the two trilogies which for some didn't work.

Rey was a super powered female luke, finn was a male leia in terms of a few wise cracks and Poe was han solo but in an x wing who even had a smugglers past as revealed in ROS.

As a side note both palpatine and snoke were the same if we compare the OT and ST. And yes they are the same kinda but how they were portrayed was the same. Palpatine first appearance in empire was a hologram and snokes was a giant hologram. Both retreated to their respective throne rooms when we see them for real and both had the lead protagonists brought to them. What happened in the last jedi was something that in the old EU mara jade thought had happened to the emperor, namely luke and vader combined to take him down. In the last jedi ren and rey combine to take down snoke and his guards. Just an observation.

The two trilogies are very vey similar not just in the fact that the force awakens was a new hope redux. Story beats throughout the ST have been done in the universe before. Very similar acting, very similar scenarios and very wooden one dimensional acting at times despite the great actors that we had in sir Alec Guinness, Peter crushing and Sir Christopher Lee in the prequels.

It doesn't stop me from being a massive fan of the saga though. It's just the OT and ST are more similar then we like to admit.

 

All opinions are welcome. I just think ANH gets the short stick by some newer fans but that's okay. Being older and being around in 77 I like to remind people of how big an impact ANH had. It may seem tame now but in 77 no one had had seen anything like it. It was everywhere. It was like cinema advanced a decade instantly. The sci fi before that seemed prehistoric. The idea that SW got bad reviews is a bit of an urban myth. Nearly every critic loved it, except for a few highbrow ones like the woman from the New York Times.

 

To be fair to the OP, I dont think they are denying SW's impact or saying it's "bad." Every SW (especially the Lucas Saga) innovated in multiple ways, from effects, to locales, etc. I think they are just saying characterization and complexity of character dynamics are not as prevelent in the franchise and it is well-known SW characters are based heavily on one or two archetypes per character.

But comparing, let's say, Game of Thrones characters to SW characters on average, there is much more complexity and moral dynamics in play for characters to make choices in the former.

 

I agree to some extent. SW may not be this super in-depth character study exploring every psychological nuance to these archetypal characters; they're suited for a classic, campy, sci-fi adventure soap opera epic; but I don't agree that the OT characters are all "cardboard" or "one-dimensional". It's all subjective of course, but to just call the OT "entertainment fun films" devoid of any depth doesn't really sit right with me.

I don't think the ST characters lack any depth whatsoever, but I do think they feel more shallow overall, probably largely due to their "copy+paste" vibe. And regardless, characters don't have to be complicated to just be written well.

 

Absolutly no way I'm denying the impact of this franchise or the original film on pop culture or society and maybe I'm a bit unfair to say all the characters in the OT are wooden or one dimensional. They just aren't as developed as we tend to think at least initially. Reading the original marvel comics or books in the old EU helped expand on what we saw on screen and I feel if fans want to know more about the ST characters then the marvel comics are the way to go too as are the books.

I was around when star wars hit cinemas. Actually we didn't see it here where I am until January 1978 as opposed to May 77. I was a bit young for it then but not for empire or jedi. I'm aware of what it achieved and that it changed the industry for all time. Brilliant set pieces, brilliant moments and characters like vader chewbacca the tusken raiders and the droids all stand out on screen. The actual acting is okay but it's not great. The characters are either on one side or the other for the most part. It's characters that occupy the grey area like Boba fett that stood out for fans but again the costume does most of the heavy lifting. Lucas didn't give too much direction usually saying faster more intense and he just observed all that happened. He was and still is a visual man, a visual director but not maybe an actors director.

 

IMO I feel the whole "SW is a western" idea is a misconception. I've always disagreed with that perception. I SUPPOSE I can see how certain people may view some of ANH as having a western sort of tone, but when taken as a whole-especially in the context of the entire saga, or even just the OT alone, IMO that goes away quickly. Sure there's desert, and sure there's ruffians and shootouts and there's even a saloon for crying out loud. But once the main characters reach the Death Star, and the GFFA begins expanding from that point, IMO it's way more fantasy/sci fi than western. I don't know...Perhaps it's cos I am looking at it from the perspective of the saga as a whole, since I wasn't able to experience ANH just by itself, as the only film of its kind.

 

I always saw the tie fighters as the Indians and x wings as cowboys. Chalmuns cantina in mos eisley was like a tavern in mid Western America. It was a modern update of the classic Western with han solo as the gunslinger. Leia was as Carrie herself put it the distressing damsel.

 

Right-and I agree...but then after that??? That's my point-what you described there is basically just the first half of that one film, mostly on Tattooine (with exception of your starfighter comparison, which I respectfully feel is a bit of a stretch, as many film genres have bad groups fighting good groups). As far as the damsel in distress thing, that concept is also not singular to westerns. Many very different film genres involve an idea like that-the concept can be traced all the way back to ancient mythology (which GL drew heavily from). I would agree that the scenes on Tattooine specifically shares certain similarities with a western feel, but not any of the rest-of ANH, let alone the rest of the OT (or saga).

NOW...If we're talking about the Mandalorian, then I will fully agree it has very strong Western feel throughout (with the exception of a couple episodes). And I believe that is fully on purpose (can't remember if they said it or not). As for the OT, GL was trying more to make those films like the old Flash Gordon serials (sci-fi to the core), more than westerns.

 

The Tattooine scenes are definitely western like. Esp. the cantina/saloon. The Death Star scenes are like the Hidden Fortress. The lightsaber scenes are Zorro/Robin Hood. Everything I know I learned from the SW Storybook as a kid.

 

'Space western' wouldn't be too off the mark. Also there's the fact that these films can't seem to stay away from desert planets.

 

This sounds like the fans of the MCU as well. And the media.

 

Agreed-it seems witty banter and one liners-more than anything-is mostly what makes a popular character nowadays. Personally I call it shallow. I tend to enjoy characters that have more depth-whose choices are more realistic, and have flaws. A character I can relate to.

 

I'm hardly a Marvel fanboy but I have to say Marvel is very good at this sort of thing. The way they have Captain America and Iron Man play off each other, for example, turned what could have been a very square, boring character into a fascinating one.

 

Desert planets don't dominate in any one of the episodes. Just check screen times. Desert planets happen to be a likely occurrence in the galaxy, while moist fertile ones are much rarer. Also, Tatooine played a pivotal role in the saga, so naturally it's featured more often. It's not that they introduced some random desert planet all the time. The only one besides Tatooine I can think of is Jakku, maybe Geonosis. Otherwise we have ice, swamp, gas, forest, city, volcanic, ocean planets, not to mention green fertile Naboo, an underwater world and Yavin IV. Nope, no particular focus on deserts at all. And to equate a desert environment with the Western genre seems extremely far-fetched IMO. Besides, I still happen to see the biggest inspiration for Tatooine the planet Arrakis of Dune, written 2 decades before SW. Nothing Western about that but pure straight sci-fi.

 

Mos Eisley in a ANH is very western like. With a future twist of course. Boba Fett is the classic gunslinger. As is Han.

 

I remember reading that fett was loosely based on the classic Western a man with no name. That's years ago though.

 

It doesn't matter so much how much screen time is spent on the locations, but the impact, and like you said, Tatooine plays a big role and is one of, if not the most, iconic and important of locations in SW. Sure, there are other genres that can use desert settings, but that's kind of the most cliché setting of westerns. And like it's been mentioned, all the gunslinging and cantina stuff is pretty western-like.

I'm not saying "western" describes SW as a whole, but I don't think it's hard to see the influence of it, particularly in ANH.

 

In general when you're talking about whether something is more character driven vs plot driven, it's an issue of whether the plot hinges on character choice or mechanics. Star Wars has always presented a balance of the two.

For example, in A New Hope, the climax of the movie, the thing that is needed for the good guys to win, is they have to get a proton torpedo down the exhaust port before the Death Star blows up Yavin. That's all mechanics. The thing must get to the thing before the clock runs down. It's sports. It's plot driven.

The how and the why the feat is ultimately accomplished that's character driven. Luke has to finally believe in his own innate special skill in order to successfully do it. He must take on his father's legacy. And it also requires his best friend to come around to work for the common good as opposed to his own personal interests. The solution is a result of relationship building. Character choice.

The bad version of that you can see in a lot of other movies. Well The Force Awakens for one. How does Poe blow up Starkiller Base? He just keeps shooting the thing until it happens. He doesn't have to realize anything about himself or grow as a character. He just does the thing he's always been good at.

Do we really need to go into all the other places where the Lucas saga is all about character? Alright let's.
1. Luke taking on his father's legacy has a price because his father also was seduced by the dark side. His father wants Luke to join him and Luke struggles with the allure of it.
2. Han Solo can't devote himself wholly to the worthy cause until he resolves a problem from his past.
3. Princess Leia values the worthy cause so much that she lets it get in the way of her personal relationships.
4. Anakin is too unwilling to accept that death is a fact of life. He embraces the empty promises of the dark side on the belief that it will allow him to cheat death.

 

Though I don’t think the Academy hands out awards for in-depth characters studies per se, they do hand out awards for acting and writing. And though ANH didn’t win those awards, it came pretty darn close — they were two of the many categories it was nominated for

 

ANH was nominated for best picture and best supporting actor for Guiness. And they only nominated 5 movies back then. ANH won 7 Oscars and was nominated for 11.