One of the reasons

[taraswizard]

Remembering I'm the guy who does not go all 'non-verbal' and googly eyed over Star Wars.

One the issues I have with Star Wars is it gives the WRONG idea to the non-aficianado, or maybe just the non-discerning movie viewer, about what a SFnal film is. It leaves people with the idea that SFnal movies are about hairy aliens, aged and wise mentors, princesses that are rebel leaders, etc. IOW, it gives everyone the idea, even those who should know better, that SFnal movies are spectacles. So much so that when you need to tell someone Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a SFnal movie, they look at you like you've become a Wookie before their eyes. They'll retort that it cannot be SFnal because it doesn't have Wookies, or spaceships, or ray guns, but then one'll further explain that the tampering with peoples memories is a SFnal trope. Then they'll grudgingly agree.

[matrixman]

Believe it or not, taras, I agree with you quite a bit.

I think anyone with any glimmer of understanding about what science fiction is would acknowledge your point wholeheartedly. (I hope I have some rough idea, or else I'm in trouble.)

Sure, I love Star Wars, and I can see how it has come to define the sf genre for moviegoers-at-large. Yes, it's a shame that people may feel disappointed by a sci-fi film (or avoid it altogether) just because it doesn't have aliens galore, or big space battles.

I think that was why another gem, Gattaca, got lost in the shuffle (or one of the reasons why). Moviegoers weren't able to accept a sci-fi movie that didn't rely on how many spaceships or aliens it had, but instead on the strength of its story and characters.

Even Solaris, a sci-fi film with spaceships, just didn't cut it for the public. This film is a personal favorite. (I'm referring to the George Clooney version.) Just guessing, but I think the film's ambiguity annoyed those who were expecting or wanting a simple "good guy Clooney vs. bad alien" space action flick.

I think it's hard to say whether or not the "dumbing down" influence of Star Wars really had anything to do with the box office fate of Gattaca, or Solaris, or Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, but yes, you could make a case for it.

[aTOMiC]

I'm not sure I'm entirely on board with what has been suggested here. It may be me and the people I spend time with, but in my world there is no blurring of lines when it comes to aspects of science fiction. I'm willing to accept that the non fan that entertains the idea of viewing a particular story might have a preconception due to exposure to Star Wars or even Star Trek. In this I would be hard pressed to argue. Most everyone I know, fan or not, are able to freely and confidently admit that all science fiction is not about aliens or space battles. Just about anyone who has been exposed to the Twilight Zone or is a thorough fan of the X files, for example, has been shown a vast and varying variety of stories dealing with the fantastic. The film Matrix mentioned, Gattaca, seemed very much like a TZ story, epanded. Ditto with Solaris. Science Fiction but dealing with concepts that are mysterious and fantastic but don't involve exploding space stations for the most part. I agree that if a person has shown no interest in Sci Fi in the past, prefers stories based in the real world, and then gives a Sci Fi film a try with only the pop culture as a guide then I would have to agree. I don't blame Star Wars, its wild popularity has made it an inescapable part of our society but there is no denying that films like The Matrix series has added a more thought provoking dimension to popular sci fi and the culture at large that has changed how the general public views sci fi in general.

[Zarathustra]

I loved Gattaca. I REALLY loved Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Solaris was okay.

I'm not sure if this helps or if it contributes to the points made here. Just thought I'd chime in.

It is fruitless to base our expectations or definitions on the lowest common denomenator . . . unless we're only interested in box office take.

[Cail]

Star Wars (and Trek too for that matter) are just barely SF. Sure, they're set in the future (or the past), they have spaceships and other WOW technology, but they are basically stories that just happen to take place in space (sort of like how Cheers just happened to take place in a bar).

[danlo]

It's all good except for Attack of the Clones **fights the urge to re-rent Event Horizon **

[aTOMiC]

It's all good except for Attack of the Clones **fights the urge to re-rent Event Horizon **

Event Horizon eh? I watched it once. Interesting concept but rubbed me the wrong way. Became a sick mess too quickly. I much prefer things to build with more subtlety. I may give it another go at some point.

[CovenantJr]

Remembering I'm the guy who does not go all 'non-verbal' and googly eyed over Star Wars.

One the issues I have with Star Wars is it gives the WRONG idea to the non-aficianado, or maybe just the non-discerning movie viewer, about what a SFnal film is. It leaves people with the idea that SFnal movies are about hairy aliens, aged and wise mentors, princesses that are rebel leaders, etc. IOW, it gives everyone the idea, even those who should know better, that SFnal movies are spectacles. So much so that when you need to tell someone Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind is a SFnal movie, they look at you like you've become a Wookie before their eyes. They'll retort that it cannot be SFnal because it doesn't have Wookies, or spaceships, or ray guns, but then one'll further explain that the tampering with peoples memories is a SFnal trope. Then they'll grudgingly agree.

Good post. I'm inclined to agree with much of this.

[taraswizard]

These gems were to irresitable to pass up con.

Courtesy of SF Signal weblog found in their review of Star Wars on Trial coneditors David Brin and Matthew Stover

*The politics in Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.

*Star Wars portrays no admiral religious or ethical beliefs.

*Star Wars novels aren't real SF and are driving SF off the shelves.

*Because of Star Wars, all SF movies are nothing more than empty SFX showcases.

*Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of SF in the popular perception.

*Star Wars is really science fantasy and not SF.

*Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

*The plot holes and illogical gaps make Star Wars ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.

At least two of the points mentioned above coincide very well with my original message and maybe one or two others do, too; FWIW, I had no knowledge of this book before I wrote my original message.

[matrixman]

I noticed that book on store shelves a couple of weeks ago and flipped through it, but haven't bought it yet. I know that David Brin is playing prosecution while Matthew Stover is defending Star Wars. Should be a very amusing read. Gotta say, I couldn't have asked for a better defender than Stover, after reading his superb novelization of Revenge of the Sith. It will be interesting to read his rebuttal against those points you listed, taras.

As I said, I more or less agree with the points in your initial post, but that doesn't mean I'm going to abandon Star Wars anytime soon. Looking over the replies here, it doesn't take much to start an anti-Star Wars tirade, eh?

Well, as much as serious SF fans love to hate Star Wars, the fact of the matter remains that my love of science fiction - and love of movies in general - began with SW. And many others of my generation would probably say the same. Arguing over and over that SW is science fantasy and not science fiction is exactly the kind of hardcore attitude among SF fans that makes me throw up my arms and avoid SF conventions altogether. Fine, you can have your "fiction" and I'll keep my "fantasy," thank you very much.

[Avatar]

Wonder why I haven't posted in this thread yet?

Oh well. I love Star Wars. I didn't like Gattaca. I did like Eternal Sunshine. I haven't seen Solaris.

I think I'll take the points Taras shared from Signal one by one, anybody who disagrees is welcome to point out what I'm missing.

*The politics in Star Wars are anti-democratic and elitist.

So? It's meant to demonstrate the fall of a democratic republic that has become so entrenched in its processes and so weighed down by itself that it collapses.

The subsequent rise of the empire shows equally well how dangerous that type of government (and elitism) can be.

*Star Wars portrays no admiral religious or ethical beliefs.

I assume the authors meant admirable, and again I'll say "So?" Anyway, is their nothing admirable in the beliefs and ethics of the Jedi?

*Star Wars novels aren't real SF and are driving SF off the shelves.

What exactly is the definition of real sci-fi?

*Because of Star Wars, all SF movies are nothing more than empty SFX showcases.

Hmmm...I dunno if I'd blame SW for that, or suggest that all sci-fi movies are empty. That said, I don't watch many sci-fi movies. (Or any movies really, but you know what I mean.)

*Star Wars has dumbed down the perception of SF in the popular perception.

Maybe so. Maybe so. As Tom pointed out though, perhaps only in the perception of people who don't like sci-fi anyway, and wouldn't watch/read it in the first place.

*Star Wars is really science fantasy and not SF.

Probably.

*Women in Star Wars are portrayed as fundamentally weak.

Hmmm...are we talking just the movies here? Certainly the storyline doesn't really stick to that. Mon Mothma springs to mind, as of course does Mara Jade.

*The plot holes and illogical gaps make Star Wars ill-suited for an intelligent viewer.

This was the one I really wanted to ask about though...which plot holes and illogical gaps are they talking about? No doubt there are plenty, but sombody remind me of them? (I won't say anything about suspension of disbelief, because I think logical coherence is important, but I am interested in what people saw as such.)

--A

[Zarathustra]

Plot holes: I think that many of these have been filled in with EpIII. I remember people talking about plot holes before EpIII, but not much after. Things like: if the droids were involved in so many prequel adventures, how come they don't remember? Easy solution: have their memories erased in ROTS. (However, I'm still not comfortable with a flying R2D2, who flies in one movie only, never to fly again. Was his ability to fly erased from memory, too?)

I'm sure there are more. I'm not really inclined to try to think of them, though.

[Nav]

I wasn't especially thrilled with Artoo flying. The way I interpreted it though, was that although he was constructed as a top-of-the-line astromech droid, he likely spent the next 20 years following RotS as some kind of house robot. I think it's fair to assume that his flying jets could've broken in the intervening time and it was decided that it wasn't worth replacing the (no doubt) expensive parts.

Alternatvely, Uncle George might have said "To Hell with continuity, give me a gimmicky CGI scene to distract the audience from this meandering plot!"

[Avatar]

I must say I didn't like the flying either, now that it's been called to mind, although Nav's explanation could be an acceptable one. But even without it, it's not a glaring error or anything.

As for the memories, in the very first movie, (Ep IV), when Luke's uncle buys the droids, his instruction to Luke is to wipe their memories...standard procedure with new droids apparently.

--A

[taraswizard]

OMG, you've exposed the Lucas rule of movie writing, you should be afraid, Lucas Entertainment will be after you for giving away their trade secrets. Nav wrote

Alternatvely, Uncle George might have said "To Hell with continuity, give me a gimmicky CGI scene to distract the audience from this meandering plot!"

IMO, the intro to your sentence could be expanded to say 'to hell with continuity, plot, story or character...'.