Lit What exactly IS Star Wars? The structure and tropes of A Galaxy Far, Far Away

There is an aspect of Star Wars media and fiction that has nagged at my brain for literally years, but which doesn't often come up in conversation, for one reason or another...

What exactly makes something a Star Wars story? Is it the themes? Is it the blending of different genres? In thinking about the uniqueness of Star Wars over the years, I'd often think...What exactly makes it unique? It has space travel and battles, just like tons of other Sci-Fi. It has multitudes of planets and aliens, which is nothing terribly special. Lots of action, intrigue, and overall fun and engaging storylines. But what makes it fundamentally Star Wars? One of the primary conclusions I have come to, is that you can literally lift any genre story and place it in Star Wars without too much trouble. Mystery, romance, action, comedy, philosophical, or poetic. As long as you throw in references to familiar Star Wars locations, characters, vehicles, or events, that familiarity will automatically transfer to the reader, and they will immediately see it as part of being a part of the whole.

Another uniqueness/difference is that (despite using the Skywalkers for a good portion of movies/media), Star Wars isn't tied down into using characters only connected to that family. Lord of the Rings and Dune can certainly, occasionally, feature stories outside of those connected to the main characters, but as they do, those universes suddenly seem disconnected from the main sweep, and feel like just generic and unrelelated Sci-Fi and Fantasy. Star Wars seems to be a bit more fluid and elastic, able to jump around from any character and location and (as long as you leave those recognizable signposts -- Wookiees, droids, Star Destroyers etc.), it is encompassed into the larger tapestry without issue.

Another strength and huge factor as far as storytelling in Star Wars comes from what I call the "Ball of Tinfoil" approach, which was really set down by George Lucas himself, and unconsciously carried forward as one of the defining characteristics of the Saga. When George used world-building concepts and little references to things that took place outside of the main scope of the story (Kessel, Ord Mantell, Sullust, the Clone Wars, Jabba the Hutt etc.) it invited your mind to imagine those locations and scenarios. It caused all of us to wonder, Where is that? What was involved in those wars? Who exactly is Jabba, and why does Han owe him money? This was a staple that was carried forward to a small degree in the 70s and 80s, but became much more significant after 1991, as those of us who grew up with the Classic Trilogy all got older and more serious in our fandom, looking at it through the eyes of a teenager or adult. We wanted to discover who stole those Death Star plans, what the spice mines of Kessel were like, and exactly why there was nothing of significance in the Anoat System. As the Expanded Universe went forward, this kind of "Hot Potato" referencing was almost like a cult fandom buried underneath the surface of "regular fandom." As we read the comics and novels and played the games, we got little smiles of joy as we read about the mines of Gromas, Keyan Farlander flying his Y-wing away from the exploding Death Star, and a certain charismatic gambler and rogue making a holo-recording about his adventures in the Sharu ruins in Solo. And literally thousands of more examples.

So. The tropes of Star Wars. Let's talk about these things. Forget the Legends, Canon, and all of that other garbage. Those discussions have been done to death. Let's analyze and dissect the unique creative and storytelling style of a Galaxy Far, Far Away.

 

I'd say the setting of the GFFA is required for something to be a "SW story" doesn't matter if it has extragalactic aliens or extradimensional force entities or even references to earth. It must be in the established setting.

In terms of genres-SW is very soft science fiction to science fantasy. The science aspect can be "hardened" to some extent and hard sci fi elements such as AI, cloning, enhanced cognition, physical augmentation, etc... Are not out out of place.

Also the mysticism and high tier fantasy/anime/D&D level force powers we see, alongside magitech items such as holocrons, and of course the force itself also are a part of the SW setting.

In terms of what genres can work-space opera for sure, romance, crime/legal serials, political intrigue, war stories, even horror and comedy can all fit in the setting.

Thing with SW is while the infrastructure or furniture of the setting is well established, it is actually quite flexible and elastic. It's not like some settings which are limited in the sort of stories you can tell without either breaking the setting or at least breaking immersion.

As for the worldbuilding elements you bring up-Lucas does a good job of introducing locations, characters and events in the background-and structuring them in such a way that they grab the interest of the viewer. Even if they aren't significant to the surface plot. The EU in a lot of ways deals with exploring these background elements.

Anyway that's my take.

 

I think what a lot of people think about when they think of the core influences of Star Wars, they're really thinking of ANH specifically - The Hidden Fortress, Battle of Britain, Triumph of the Will, Flash Gordon, Hero with a Thousand Faces, Dune, Lensmen. Even by the time he got to ROTJ, Lucas was clearing drawing on some different sources, with different goals like making critiques of Vietnam and Nixon. Let alone the prequels when he's going in a completely different direction, one I would argue is more directly a mix of directly commenting on modern politics (Clinton scandal, Iraq invasion) and Americana nostalgia.

I guess this is more visual than thematic, but I'm a big fan of the art books for the new movies, and in each one those involved - directors, artists, writers - go into a lot of detail about how they were trying to draw from the same influences as Lucas, and in all four, they go in completely different directions. A few similarities (Apocalypse Now for example is there in each of the four) but TFA and TLJ still took from Kurosawa when Rogue One and Solo don't; Solo is more Americana focused than the others; TLJ and Rogue One go most for WWII, etc.

It is interesting to look at the earliest TFA concept art, before the script was even finalized or anything concretely nailed down, to see what they potentially had in mind. Some of the stuff was really out-there in terms of looks, and notably this was stuff being done by Lucasfilm long-timers like Chiang and Ian McCraig and even Filoni, while Lucas himself was still supervising the project. Yet by the end of TFA's development, it was all consciously scaled back to very specifically look like the OT. And it's not like Abrams didn't let artists experiment; for example at one point Abrams considered having red star destroyers that looked like a cross between the Trade Federation ships and the Executor, at one point Kylo Ren was going to look totally different, and at one point the new stormtroopers were going to have almost an insectoid look. But eventually the star destroyers looked close to the OT one, Kylo Ren was made to look like Vader (I think his final design was even a concept art piece initially identified as "Vader 1/2" or something like that) and the troopers were made again very close to OT.

On the one hand, I think at least a very vocal segment of the fandom probably would have not been happy if those designs ended up being so radically different, but at the same time I think it shows the different between creators who draw inspiration from the same types of works that inspired Lucas, versus those who taken their inspiration almost entirely from (a narrow range of) Lucas's own finished works.

In terms of actual storytelling and theme, I would saw that at its broadest Star Wars has to contain some mix of samurai, western, World War II, and Golden Age pulp space opera, with an overlay of mysticism and set firmly in a "used future" aesthetic where the 1970s are still the cutting edge. I think Stover, Filoni, and Johnson are among the few who really get that.

 

One of the elements I'd go with is a deceptively complex moral structure of good and evil. It's made quite clear what constitutes those so they're not empty labels, but what is understood is that people's choice of one over the other isn't simple. That Darth Vader was once Anakin Skywalker embodies that complexity - the prequels went to expand and build on what was already in the OT. At its best there is a sense in the PT of characters doomed, but not necessarily in a way they could have easily avoided, thus the tragedy of it all.

 

So far there a few tropes that every Star Wars movie has in common. They are thus:

1. Mysticism or reference to such. This being the Jedi, the Sith, the Force. Even in anthology movies there is an element of mysticism to the proceedings: Jyn's kyber crystal necklace, the guardians of the Whills and Jedha, Darth Maul as a presence behind the Crimson Dawn.

2. A strong underworld element or a general seediness. Bounty Hunters, Hutts. Episode 1 has podracing, 2 has Jango and Zam, etc.

3. A large monster if some sort. The planet core creatures, the Arena monsters, Bor Gullet, the Leviathan, Dianoga, Wampa, Rancor, Rathtars, etc. Creatures can, on rare occasion be friendly. Obi-Wan's lizard friend in Episode 3 (can't remember what it is called off the top of my head) and the Fathiers.

4. Starfighter shenanigans. A dogfight of some kind. Every movie has this.

5. The under dog element. The Naboo Resistance fighters, the Republic under siege by the Confederacy, the Rebellion, Leia Organa's Resistance.

6. This last one isn't necessarily in all Star Wars films but there is a general weirdness or quirkiness to the proceedings. The Jawas, Ewoks, Lady Proxima. You can't forget the elements that are really out there, especially when repkicating that great late 70s, early 80s film making. They were doing some weird stuff back then.

 

Aside from all the thematic and narrative stuff already mentioned, I'd say that a vital part of what makes a Star Wars movie a Star Wars movie is being on the cutting edge of filmmaking innovation. Arguably this factor may not be as important nowadays, where CGI spectacles are a dime a dozen. Back then however, the OT's special effects (which included everything from spaceship sequences to the Yoda puppet and let's not forget the iconic sound design) helped make it stand out from all the other cheesy sci-fi films of the era, thus letting it stand the test of time. Then you had the PT and the Special Edition to a lesser extent, which among other things served to advertise the potential of CGI, even if those films were limited by the technology of their time.

While there isn't as much new ground to break with the ST as before, there's still room for minor triumphs here and there (like making BB-8 a functional prop able to be filmed). Make no mistake, it will be hugely disappointing if the SW films ever gave up the quest to remain at the technological forefront of filmmaking.

 

Star Wars really is a big box of influences, you go back to the original movie and it's a hodgepodge of World War II and westerns and samuari movies and fantasy with a sci-fi sheen ontop of it (the science fiction part of Star Wars I always find is the least important aspect) so basically anything can be Star Wars as it is really just a bunch of genres slapped on top of each other but they have lazers instead.

 

An absolutely delightful melting pot of every genre under the sun. It's as futuristic as Star Trek, as old-fashioned as Lord of the Rings, and borrows liberally from World War Two movies, Westerns, film noir, fighter pilot movies, conspiracy thrillers, historical epics, Samurai movies, medieval chivalry, religious mythology, and probably a hundred other things that aren't coming to mind right now.

It's part of why the worldbuilding works so well right from the start. The real world doesn't conform to one "genre," or to the kind of cause-and-effect narration that stories rely on; the real world is a goddamn mess created by the confluence of about a million different things that don't always mesh well together because in the real world, things don't have to Make Sense or provide Thematic Resonance or whatever. And Star Wars imitates that feel pretty well. You know how, say, Firefly, is a space western, so the main characters literally wear the old-fashioned longcoats, literally shoot late-nineteenth-century pistols, and literally use horses? Star Wars has a space cowboy character too, who's instantly recognizable as such, but this one packs a Mauser, flies a B-29 crossed with a flying saucer, and is best friends with a yeti. The end result makes the universe he lives in look much more like its own thing with its own identity, and not just "X in space."

 

Crap. I swear to God your post wasn't there when I started working on mine.

 

I will say thematically in about all the Star Wars products, the protagonist is always fighting against a largely powerful thing that has multiple ways of attack but they draw on their inner strength to overcome it, which is way back to in Star Wars the ghost of Obi-Wan telling "Use the Force, Luke." Heck even the Vader comics he's an underdog in his own story (he just handles in a very badass manner)

 

Great thoughts and comments, guys! A lot of stuff I hadn't really considered before.

One other thing that commonly comes up in Star Wars (in particular, as a focus point) is the running theme of "Action Set Pieces." That is, a location or setting that is usually used as a background or obstacle to avoid during a chase scene. Think the Trench Run. The Hoth asteroid field. The forests of Endor. The shield gate over Scarif. The Kessel Run in Solo. As part of the "silent film" appeal of Star Wars, it has always been a visual story first, and something that George Lucas has mentioned in several interviews over the years; i.e. the fact that you can watch the films with no sound, and still have a basic understanding of the story. Star Wars really utilized the advent of visual action better than anything else had up to 1977, and with the special effects breakthroughs that ILM established, it was easier than ever to do quick pans, POV flying, and have some overall great visual flair. Something that has certainly been one of my biggest appeals since I was a young kid, because I have always been a huge fan of the vehicles, battles, and explosions.

This theme of fast-paced chase scenes certainly wasn't limited to Star Wars, with Lucas (himself being a race car and speed enthusiast) putting many fast-paced speed scenes in American Graffiti, Willow, and the Indiana Jones films. Even THX-1138 (retroactively, in the 2004 DVD) had a CG chase scene added into an otherwise slow-paced and more cerebral film.

 

To me, Star Wars is about the setting. Its not about the kind of stories told, its about if they're told within the setting of Star Wars or not. You can tell an unlimited range of stories within the Star Wars Universe, and I think the sky's the limit on what could be considered Star Wars. If its set in the universe, if it has the Force, if it has the planets of the Star Wars Galaxy, then its Star Wars. Everything else is semantics, and an excuse to keep rehashing the same stories and hoping they'll still sell.

 

The story of a Boy, a Girl and a Galaxy.

Horror, mystery, steam punk, documentaries, fables, tragedies, myths, etc. The only one that would be questionable would be erotica and the like.

 

hah now I want a mockumentary set somewhere in Star Wars. Sounds great for a one-off on the Disney+ streaming service. Get Christopher Guest! (although apparently improvising in Star Wars setting didn't go too well with Lord and Miller but I'm sure it'll be fine). Max Rebo Band, the post Jabba's Sail Barge explosion years!

 

I would say the mystical elements which have been touched on prior, I would say these are crucial.

 

Anyone notice this recurring theme in the majority of Star Wars films? Essentially, the idea that "You can't not fight." When some power is around that is truly, utterly evil, call it the Sith, the Empire, the First Order, or whatever, you are going to get sucked into the fight against it, even, perhaps especially, if you go out of your way to try to stay out. You can see this in ANH with Han and the Larses, in ESB with Lando and Bespin, in TPM with the Gungans, in AOTC with the Republic as a whole, in ROTS with the Utapauns, and in TFA with our leads, Rey and Finn, themselves!

 

That is a really great example, Hamburger_Time. I had definitely noticed those things, but never quite in that light. Interesting.

 

After the Solo fiasco, where Kennedy and Kasdan were upset at the comedy directors they hired to do the film about comedic characters having a comedic tone, and after Detours, the first explicitly comedy Star Wars production, was iced virtually the moment Lucas let go of the reins, I don't think we're going to see another explicitly comedic Star Wars production any time soon. I'd love to see a romcom or workplace drama with the GFFA's average Joes but I think those tropes are even less likely.

 

For myself one of the biggest elements of a good Star Wars story is the space adventure aspect. Following a group of heroes on some sort of quest, adventure, mission, etc...

The original trilogy of course is the best example, but take Solo for example. I thoroughly enjoyed the film, somewhat unexpectedly. It was just a good fun space adventure story with cool characters. Big aspects of previous SW films like the force/Jedi/Sith stuff or the Empire vs Rebels don’t play a big part in the story.

I guess Maul showing up sort of counts but whatever.

The Empire is just a presence that the characters encounter, which makes sense the Empire is a dominant presence in the galaxy at the time, so even a story that follows scoundrels and smugglers is going to include encounters with the Empire, whether it’s the imperial academy or a star destroyer while traveling through the maw. But I liked that Solo limits the Empire to these simple appearances.

I think Solo is a good example for future Star Wars films that maybe take place either the distant past or the future where we won’t have the same familiar settings and aspects. As long as it’s a fun space adventure film, it’ll most likely work for me.

 

Something I don't think have been mentioned that I think is a part of SW, a small part maybe but an important part, is the old fashion theatre/movie series style dialog the characters sometime talk in.

I think I'm probably alone in this but I really like that the character slip into it from time to time and I miss it when it dose not appear.

 

Well, I'd change that to "defy" instead of "fight."

Think of Luke. He won in ROTJ when he stopped fighting, but remained defiant.

That's also how Luke won in TLJ. He didn't really fight, he just stood there, defiant, and that was all he needed to do to give the Resistance a chance to escape alive.

 

"Fight" in the figurative rather than literal sense. Nonviolent protests in the real world are still called "fighting," for instance.

 

Yeah I just wanted to make that understanding more explicit.

 

You nailed it right on the head, starfish. Those relatively simple adventure/popcorn-flick aspects of Solo is what made me love the movie, immediately. It was FUN, and quickly became my favorite of the Disney movies (nearly tied with Rogue One.)

Also, between all of the wisecracks, banter between characters, a love interest, chases, explosions, and action set-pieces, Solo really had the tone and feel of an Indiana Jones film. The coaxium was the MacGuffin, which is right in line with the Ark of the Covenant, the Sankara Stones, the Holy Grail, or the Crystal Skull.

 

Does anybody have any new ideas to add? I just realized this thread is from...nearly five years ago, when I could have sworn it was just from about 2021-22. Tempus fugit.