Jackie M. | October 11, 2006 12:29 PM

Now that's entertainment.

Sim | October 11, 2006 12:33 PM

Very perceptive.

I would change just one word:

"After a decade of this ... Star Wars feels like a breath of fresh air."

Not feels, felt.

Kevin Downing | October 11, 2006 12:36 PM

I distinctly remember the moment of the "collective sigh" when Jar Jar appeared. The entire audience started groaning and laughing AT the movie. After so many years of anticipation, all of us dorks that grew up with Star Wars were kicked in the groin by the supposed master and visionary.

Your post has clarified years of unease. Thanks for providing the Star-catharsis.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 12:41 PM

Sim:

Already fixed it.

Gabriel Malor | October 11, 2006 12:51 PM

I think you misunderstood her point. Her point is not about the attractiveness of the Star Wars movies as entertainment (or even some "apex" of artistic aspiration), but rather the success of the Star Wars novels in both sales and capturing shelf space.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 12:55 PM

Gabriel: No, she's saying that Star Wars is in itself entertainment, and thereby, its success as such is fueling sales and shelf space.

Pigeonhed | October 11, 2006 12:55 PM

Two thoughts on Star Wars:
1) What is the difference between a bunch of rebels destroying a construction central to the Government (ie the Death Star) and a bunch of rebels destroying a construction central to the Government (ie the World Trade Centre)?

2) Does Jar Jar remind anybody else of the 'comic negro' such as Missy in Gone With the Wind?

Tom Lichti | October 11, 2006 12:56 PM

Funny you should mention Battle Beyond the Stars, since that is one movie from my childhood that I really remember enjoying. Of course I saw episodes IV, V and VI, but I don't recall if I enjoyed them all that much, whereas I think I will always remember Battle Beyond the Stars, and now I know why. I watched episode I, and honestly have very little desire to see II and III.

Thanks for shining a light on that difference, it is appreciated!

Tom

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 12:58 PM

Pigeonhed:

If it's all the same I'd rather not have a discussion as asinine as comparing a fictional space station with a building filled with real live humans in this thread, so I'm suggesting that people don't have that conversation here.

MoXmas | October 11, 2006 01:04 PM

I think an interesting comparison point might be between the Star Wars films and the Peter jackson Lord of the Rings films. The original books are obviously almost pure mythology, and many of the characters are even more purely archteypes than the ones in Star Wars.

But when Jackson made the movies, he strove very very hard to make them entertaining. The changes to the Aragorn character are probably the most obvious, but giving good actors good lines also helped a whole hell of a lot.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 01:06 PM

MoXmas:

Indeed, and I also wonder how much it matters that the "mythology" in this case was already created -- ie, Jackson was working with an already established source rather than making it up himself.

Harry Connolly | October 11, 2006 01:06 PM

This is a Heinlein fanboy thing, isn't it? This disgust with STAR WARS?

The first movie had lame dialog, yeah, but it was lots of fun. The second movie was actually pretty good. The rest were varying degrees of shithole awful--so mind-bogglingly dull they tarnished those first two flawed but fun movies.

And Lucas can bloviate as much as he wants, but his usual line of fatuous crap does nothing to dim the memory of that first film. I don't care if he thinks on the films in terms of his mythology; his intent doesn't affect my reaction to his work.

I was entertained. Still am whenever I see it.

And yeah, BATTLE BEYOND THE STARS was fun stuff.

Nomie | October 11, 2006 01:13 PM

MoXmas, you've made a very good point. Tolkien was clearly setting out to create a mythology of western Europe, and gave a lot more attention to his languages and worldbuilding than his characters and their interactions and motivations.

Aragorn's changes are good, but - and I know a lot of people would crucify me for saying this - I do love that he gave more attention to the women. Eowyn was always my favorite, but in the films she's a total badass.

John, I went to see all three of the prequel trilogy because they had Ewan McGregor. I'm shallow, but at least I acknowledge it rather than pretending I'm going because Lucas is a genius auteur.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 01:15 PM

Harry Connolly:

"This is a Heinlein fanboy thing, isn't it? This disgust with STAR WARS?"

Is there supposed to be some sort of opposition?

No, it's just the realization that the SW films just aren't that good, excepting Empire. I fully concede the first Star Wars is an immensely important film -- it would be stupid to suggest otherwise -- but it's not a film that I'd watch as an adult, save through the lens of first seeing it when I was eight.

mythago | October 11, 2006 01:19 PM

John, your definition of 'mythology' is kind of weird. Mythology isn't a chronicle of old, dead stories. What's weird about building a mythology isn't that it's necrophilia; it's that it's artificial.

Can't really disagree too much otherwise, although I was always under the impression that the chronologically-first two movies were made before Lucas got, like, a vision.

Tripp | October 11, 2006 01:21 PM

Pigeonhed,

Yes, JarJar definitely had similarities with the caricature roles African Americans played in early movies. Heck, one look at the Naboo celebration at the end of the film (Naboo was JarJar's planet) and you could see a blatent ripoff of the Grambling State University Tiger marching band's high-stepping style.

Frankly I was a little surprised Lucas got away with including what could have been seen as a negative stereotype from early movies.

I know in the first Star Wars he wanted the style to look like the old movie serials thay played every week, and if you watch the cut scenes they come right from the serials. That worked, but including the goofy ethnic sidekick JarJar did very much NOT work.

Erbo | October 11, 2006 01:21 PM

Dude, Battle Beyond The Stars rocks. I mean, never mind ol' John-Boy; you've got Robert Vaughn as the hard-bitten Gelt (essentially the same character he played in The Magnificent Seven), you've got George Peppard as the colorful Cowboy standing up for all us Earthlings and doing it in style, you've got drive-in ripaway-bra queen Sybil Danning as Saint-Exmin of the Valkyrie, you've got John Saxon chewing the scenery as the bad guy Sador, you've got Nell the snarky shipboard computer (who I suspect could take on both Eddie from Hitchhiker's and K.I.T.T. and give each of them a swift kick in the databank), you've got a kick-ass score by James Horner (who would go on to give us the music for Apollo 13 and Titanic), and, working down there as an art director, you've got a guy by the name of James Cameron, who clearly learned a thing or two here...

Okay, yes, it's cheese. But it's my kinda cheese.

Vicki | October 11, 2006 01:22 PM

I wonder idly whether we can take Lucas's word for this: more precisely, whatever his motivations by the time he made the prequels, I suspect there was a chunk of, simply, "what would a Saturday morning serial look like with modern special effects?" in the original _Star Wars_. (This may well be answerable, if someone were to go back and dig out old interviews to find out, for example, when he started talking about Joseph Campbell.)

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 01:25 PM

Mythago:

"Mythology isn't a chronicle of old, dead stories."

Didn't say it was. I said it's the stories of dead teleological systems; stories from a dead way of life (or way of understanding life).

Jackie M. | October 11, 2006 01:30 PM

I think the other person who deserves credit for setting The Empire Strikes Back apart from the other movies is Irvin Kershner.

I'm willing to believe, actually, that the fun of the original Star Wars wasn't necessarily accidental... First off, I did enjoy American Graffiti. You can see Lucas moralizing away in that one, too, but if you haven't yet had time to develop an allergy to his particular brand of soapboxing, it doesn't interfere with the entertainment value. Second... there's that whole "Han shot first/Greedo shot first" thing. To me, the re-ordered events in the cantina sequence are the moment when Lucas annoucnes that he's inverting his priorities: from then on, he will be more concerned with the poorly thought-through ethics of his characters than with actual storytelling.

(Though, okay -- I think you're right to harp on Lucas' "mythbuilding" obsession. The problem with Lucas spending a decade-plus pondering the creation of his "Star Wars mythology" is that, in the end, Lucas became his own biggest fan.

Which makes the prequels the world's most expensive exercise in fanfiction.)

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 01:34 PM

Jackie M.,

Well, there's also the moderating factor in the first film that it's the one film in the series where Lucas had to please a studio. It's also a complete story in itself, which I think is a good thing. I do think his going back and fiddling with little details in the re-release is evidence that the mythbuilding is more important than the movies; we all know Han shot first.

Haddayr | October 11, 2006 01:36 PM

This is very well thought-out. But I really liked the first two. I mean the fourth and fifth, I guess. I disagree with you.

What I'm astonished by is your assertion that it is possible to definitively say whether or not something is "entertaining." How can this be?

Scott Elyard | October 11, 2006 01:37 PM

Make no mistake, I love Star Wars.

But this was dead on.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 01:39 PM

Haddyr:

"What I'm astonished by is your assertion that it is possible to definitively say whether or not something is 'entertaining.' How can this be?"

Why, because I'm a professional critic, of course!

More seriously, it should be understood this is an opinion piece. I could be wrong as toward what it entertaining and what isn't. But I feel generally confident I'm on the right track.

Tripp | October 11, 2006 01:40 PM

Vicki,

I specifically remember Lucas stating he wanted to make a modern serial. I also remember him saying he studied WWII dogfights to copy in his movie. I don't remember any of this mythology stuff at the very start, even when he mentioned the original was four of nine. I'm pretty sure he talked about giving people the old-fashioned entertainment of the Movie serial, complete with cliff hangers and orchestral music and obvious villians and heros.

Janice in GA | October 11, 2006 01:44 PM

My sister and I went to see Battle Beyond the Stars in the theatre, lured by the chance to see another sci-fi movie. I think we were the only folks in the audience at that showing. But I still remember (and laugh!) at some of the scenes. Great fun.

And I think you've nailed the Star Wars stuff. I too am happy the slog is over and I never have to see them again.

Tony Dismukes | October 11, 2006 01:45 PM

I'm going off of old memories here, but yeah, Battle Beyond the Stars was much more entertaining than the Star Wars prequels. (At least the first two. After those, I gave up and didn't bother watching Episode III.)

Harry Connolly | October 11, 2006 01:47 PM

Is there supposed to be some sort of opposition?

One of the groups big on bashing STAR WARS seems to be Heinlein aficianados. At least, it's something I've noticed many times before.

Another group big on bashing SW is "people who think movie dialog should sound like something people would actually say."

Of course, this was before the third movie. After that, all the kids were doing it.

Tripp | October 11, 2006 01:54 PM

Janice,

And I think you've nailed the Star Wars stuff. I too am happy the slog is over and I never have to see them again.

I think we need to make a distinction between the first Star Wars movie and what followed.

The orginal Star Wars was wonderful when it opened. As John says, much of that is because it came at the tail end of a completely depressing time in US history and people were starving for some good old-fashioned entertainment.

As a college student I stood in line around to the back of the theatre to see Star Wars, and this was NOT at the premiere. This was on a weeknight the second week after it opened. People were crazy for the movie.

I think it holds up pretty well viewed 30 years later. It is pretty good. Maybe not great.

As for the follow-on movies - they were one big let down. The first movie was incredibly entertaining - the rest not at all.

JimW | October 11, 2006 01:56 PM

John - While I agree with much that you say here, I'll admit that if Episode VII were released tomorrow, I'd be in line at the theatre to see it. SW may not have been great Cinema, but I was entertained and do not regret spending my money to see them (and I was out of college when they started).

Tripp - I thought I was the only one who remembered that SW was originally supposed to have 9 episodes.

Nathan | October 11, 2006 02:00 PM

I saw the first three released and haven't seen any of the others. I've never felt particularly deprived, but thanks for giving me another reason not to regret missing them.

and...

"They are the selfish, ungenerous, onanistic output of a man who has no desire to include others in the internal grammar of his fictional world."

That sentence is a masterpiece.

mythago | October 11, 2006 02:04 PM

I said it's the stories of dead teleological systems; stories from a dead way of life (or way of understanding life).

Even so, that's not correct; a living tradition's stories can be 'mythology' (without meaning false or dead; I once almost got attacked by a co-student when I referred to the body of Judaic religious stories as 'mythology'). I know what you meant in regard to Lucas, but I would still argue that his strange world-construction is strange because it's trying to impose a single, artificial cohesiveness on the world. Mythologies tend to be more organic and, well, human, and I don't want to hear any lip for the Tolkien fans, so there.

KL | October 11, 2006 02:06 PM

Heh.

Lucas has claimed that he was misquoted and that he never intended to write 9 parts. Given that parts 1-6 are all about the life and death of Anakin/Vader, that seems quite reasonable.

If you're interested in Episodes 7-9, however, some young feller name of "Timothy Zahn" wrote those things already.

Since they're unlikely to match Lucas' vision, I figure there's about a zero percent chance that they'll be made during Lucas' lifetime.

Tim Morris | October 11, 2006 02:07 PM

Pigeonhed (And anyone else who felt a momentary shock of recognition at the analogy between the WTC attacks and the Rebels in Star Wars):

You should check out http://www.adpov.net/

Go to the mp3 archives and listen to a VERY different point of view.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 02:09 PM

Mythago:

"Even so, that's not correct; a living tradition's stories can be 'mythology' (without meaning false or dead; I once almost got attacked by a co-student when I referred to the body of Judaic religious stories as 'mythology')"

Heh. This is why it's easier to call a living tradition's mythology "religion."

Doctor Memory | October 11, 2006 02:13 PM

Just to put a fine point on what Mythago and a few other folks are getting at: the Lucas and Campbell mutual love-fest came after the success of Star Wars and Empire, not before.

It was and remains a loathsome little circle-jerk: the hack scholar gave a stamp of academic respectability to the hack filmmaker, who in turn gave the hack scholar the sheen of Hollywood fame and made him a household name, while hack reporters the world round (I'm looking at you, Bill Moyers) took the both of them at their word that the it had all been some carefully conceived master plan rather than the slapdash retcon job that it obviously was.

Meanwhile, Leigh Brackett's name is a footnote. Like some old guy once said: there ain't no justice.

Adam Rakunas | October 11, 2006 02:19 PM

Star Wars is George Lucas masturbating to a picture of Joseph Campbell and conning billions of people into watching the money shot.

...and I hope to God Kenner never tries to make an action figure playset out of that.

Electric Landlady | October 11, 2006 02:20 PM

They are the selfish, ungenerous, onanistic output of a man who has no desire to include others in the internal grammar of his fictional world.

That was awesome. In fact so was this whole post.

I wanted to like Episodes I to III. I really did. But they were so painful to watch! It was as though George Lucas had put all his plot points on cue cards, put them in order, and then just gone out and shot the movie without bothering with dialogue or character development or anything else. The bones of a decent story were in there, but at every opportunity to do something cool or emotionally meaningful, he chose Option B. Arrgh. I could go on for hours, but I'm supposed to be working...

Greg Morrow | October 11, 2006 02:20 PM

Technically, it's Akira Kurosawa.

Steve Buchheit | October 11, 2006 02:21 PM

Scalzi, I agree that at least Episodes 1-3 aren't about being entertaining, it was pretty distracting with the machinery of plot banging and groaning in the background. I'll also agree that Lucas can't write dialog to save his life, the man has a true tin-ear when it comes to the spoken language.

But I have to disagree with the mythology angle. Lucas (at least at first) was trying to update the mythology for the modern day in a way that exceeded the vision of Tolkien (yes, I can hear you all scream, but go read the Swedish Volsung Saga and the real mythology of pagan western Europe, not the Disney versions, and you can see the pillaging Tolkien did, at least for LotR). That Lucas' product was less than Professor Tolkien's there is no argument (at least from me).

I think saying that mythology is something from a dead culture is misleading, but comes from how we teach and look at it. That is, "here is the mythology of (insert culture here) and here are some ties into Modern Western Christian Culture to help you understand these stories." The whole discussion, because of the contextual frame, appears to be a dissection of something long dead while neatly ignoring the structures, meanings, and psychological yearnings. All this then leads us to laugh and think "how silly the ancients were, to believe that Zeus threw thunderbolts or that dwarves were bowling, and that the world was flat," etc.

We think that there is no modern mythology because we live in a technological world. Just to be clear, mythology does not equate religion, unless you squint your eyes and look at religion sideways. There are plenty of mythological stories playing out before our eyes everyday. This includes the morality-play that the lives of Paris Hilton and Brittany Spears have turned into.

With the latest release of the "Original" movies on DVD, which I distinctly remember Mr. Lucas saying there were forever lost and would never happen, I think we can say for certain that George traded in his robes of being an acolyte of Campbell for the green shade visor of an accounting clerk.

ling | October 11, 2006 02:21 PM

I have to admit to enjoying Return of the Jedi. I mean, I was all of 6 years old and I wanted an ewok for a pet. Then again, I also enjoyed Ice Pirates too, which, in retrospect, was a totally awful film.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 02:26 PM

Well, Ling, Ice Priates was also pretty awful at the time. Although it did have Mary Crosby. Gosh, she was cute.

OneBallJay | October 11, 2006 02:26 PM

While I by no means felt the new trilogy were great movies, I was entertained by them, and really think the whole "Lucas raped my childhood" crowd is taking things to extremes. I agree with Scalzi that Lucas's intent all along was to create (or appear to, at least) a mythology rather than a series of good movies, and that Lucas doesn't care much what other people think about it, but I admire Lucas in a twisted sort of way for that. He made his original movies pretty much how he wanted them, made a shit-ton of money and got the clout with the industry that allowed him to do what he felt he needed to to flesh out the story. He also has shrewdly milked his audience for everything he could get out of them, and while I'm a bit bitter about that, there's no doubt that it has benefited the only person Lucas seems to care about. Good for him. His works aren't public domain, and he is right to do whatever he wants with them.

But I agree that it's telling that there's far more 'entertainment' to be found in Ep. V, the Clone Wars Cartoon Network spots, and large portions of the novels that use the setting than the sum total of the rest of Lucas's body of work combined.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 02:30 PM

OneBallJay:

"But I agree that it's telling that there's far more 'entertainment' to be found in Ep. V, the Clone Wars Cartoon Network spots, and large portions of the novels that use the setting than the sum total of the rest of Lucas's body of work combined."

The general rule of thumb is that a Star Wars property's entertainment value is in inverse proportion to Lucas' own direct involvement.

CaseyL | October 11, 2006 02:36 PM

I think Lucas' problem with telling a story that matches his interior vision is the same that (IMO) Marion Zimmer Bradley had. Briefly: Fine ideas, not enough of the right talent to make the idea come to life.

I don't mind Lucas stretching towards mythological archetypes. I think his goal was a worthy one: dress ancient archetypes in new clothes, to hit the same buttons in people that the archetypes are designed to hit.

But Lucas either isn't sufficiently deep thinking or doesn't know how to get from internal concept to screenplay. It's as if he had a Platonic vision in his head of true agon, where people wrestle with their own animas and cosmic fate, have impassioned arguments with themselves and their gods, and fail to escape (or even recognize) the moral and logical traps laid for them - but what we got was a kind of nickel tour version, where the personal revelations, shocks of recognition, and transformations come at a quick pace accompanied by comic opera dialog.

John's contention that Lucas is motivated by a deep contempt for his audience is, in a way, that's more flattering than my contention - which is that Lucas just didn't have the chops to do it right.

WizarDru | October 11, 2006 02:44 PM

Hmmm. Well, I knew there'd come a time when I disagree with you, Scalzi, old bean. And now we come to it.

First off: Battle Beyond the Stars? Really? Entertaining? In a South Park sort of way, I suppose. Directed by the man who brought you the added sex scenes to "Humanoids from the Deep"! Written by the Man* who wrote "Piranha", "Alligator" and "Jurassic Park IV"! The number of second-string stars...well, let's leave that alone. And for the record, I've never been entertained by anything Roger Corman has ever done. BBTS isn't just cheesy, it's intentionally aware that it's cheesy and intends to be. It's not so much an SF movie as someone's interpertation of what 'skiffy' was supposed to be. Which, apparently, is a ship that looks like a woman's bosom.

I won't even consider defending the second trilogy, though I disagree that PARTS of them have charms. Clones, for example, was awfully fun when it was just about Obi-wan. Remove the Annakin/Padme material and it's much more enjoyable. But I'm in total agreement that the second trilogy is basically Lucas engaged in onanism.

But the claim that original trilogy was "the selfish, ungenerous, onanistic output of a man who has no desire to include others in the internal grammar of his fictional world." is, IMHO, demonstrably false. What is Boba Fett, if not the inclusion of others into his fictional world? To this day, Lucas doesn't understand the appeal of the character, who got a much larger part in Jedi after fans fell in love with him. Jango Fett's presence in the prequels is the same. Lucas may not always enjoy such deviations from his audience, but he hearkens to entertain them. And I don't think I've ever seen anyone intimate that any of the SW films weren't the result of Lucas employing huge teams of people to collaborate with him on his designs and results.

In fact, Lucas is emboldened by fan reaction to act exactly the way he has. I mean when you make a movie that's SO phenonmenally popular, that would seem to me to send the message: keep doing what you're doing. For that matter, how exactly IS Lucas to include me in his world, if not by producing a film for me to watch? Is he supposed to consult his contentious and fractured fan-base? Where does his obligation to his fans begin and end? What makes "Revenge of the Sith" Lucas' equivalent of "Dodesukaden"? When is it OK for Lucas to profess a grand vision and when is it not? I tend to think that if we were talking about Scorcese or Coppola, different standards would be applied.

I'm not trying to support Lucas here...but what I am saying is that Lucas' failings are for forgetting what made the first films so entertaining, to me. He combined disparate elements together and made them work. I get swept up in the epic struggle and the larger than life characters. Childhood nostalgia isn't what keeps me riveted to that screen whenever it appears (nor what keeps my son riveted now, a generation later). Star Wars delivers on movie magic. Is it great art? No. Is it an example of cinematic achievement? Perhaps, perhaps not. Does it gel to become one of the most entertaining movies of the 20th century? I would say, without a doubt, yes. And if BBTS is your counter-argument, then the terrorists have already won. :-)

*- OK, I'm being facetious there. Sayles is immensely talented, but he's worked on some really diverse projects, quality-wise. I mean, for every "Secret of Roan Inish" and "Matewan", there's a "Men of War" or "Clan of the Cave Bear". Of course, he was also responsible for the movie, "The Challenge", which really isn't that good of a movie, but it has Toshiro Mifune and there's ninjas and samurais and I really like it anyways, 'cuz it enterained me so nyah-nyah at you, John Scalzi.

Patrick Shepherd | October 11, 2006 02:46 PM

Sf/fantasy can possibly be defined (out of the thousands of definitions of the genres) as the world of the imagination. As imagination happens on the inside of one's skull, this leads to a problem with movies within these genres: one man's imagination becomes the only vision, and viewers of same must kowtow to that singularity. Whereas the written form of these still allows for each individual to form their own vision of whatever is being talked about.

Star Wars is clearly a Lucas only vision, and its entertainment factor is only as good as how well his vision matches up with the movie-going populace's vision. IMO, it doesn't match very well, with an E! factor that's pretty low, once you take away all the pretty pictures. I made the mistake of reading the novelized version of the first SW movie, where this becomes painfully obvious. But I couldn't convince my kids that the SW thing wasn't very good - they never got beyond all the pretty pictures to what story was really there, and I imagine that's true for the majority of SW fans.

Dr. Phil | October 11, 2006 02:52 PM

I saw Battle Beyond the Stars for the first time as a double-feature in a crummy little Northside Chicago art theatre with Dark Star.

Talk about entertaining cheese! (Frightening to realize that BBS had bigger and better production values than DS, but the latter has more ridiculous killer lines...)

Dr. Phil

Scraps | October 11, 2006 02:52 PM

Ugh, that Rusch piece is just the tired old "what's wrong with you so-called arteests, don't you know all the public wants is a Good Read" complaint, only lamer.

It's not like there's any shortage of fiction that wants only to entertain.

Jose | October 11, 2006 02:52 PM

John I think you make the mistake of taking Lucas' commentary about his work at face value. They are in fact complete self aggrandizing rubbish. Most of the good ideas that made the first three movies worked from a storytelling perspective were probably someone elses. The creation of those movies was a colloborative effort involving several people. Lucas has sidelined his co-contributors and set himself up to be some kind of prophetic genius with the commentary you're referring to. It's crap, don't take it seriously.

If you want to see Lucas storytelling at its purest take a look at episode 1, 2 and 3.

Aaron Burr | October 11, 2006 02:56 PM

I'm a big Star Wars fan, first of all.

I have to admit I don't really understand your definition of 'entertainment' in your denial that Star Wars is it. Isn't entertainment just something you put in front of a person and they enjoy? Why does Lucas's motivation in creating it have anything to do with that? Why does your reason for enjoying it have anything to do with that?

The dialogue in the Star Wars movies is generally wooden and cheesy. The acting is clumsy and unbelievable. The movies were modeled after '30s serials that were the same way- is this a surprise? I think for most of the people who love the Star Wars movies, the crummy dialogue is part of the fun. This isn't art we're talking about- it's entertainment.

My response upon leaving Episode III was indeed a sigh of relief. I then whispered to myself, "Holy crap, the sonofabitch pulled it off." Episode III was a triumph, full of exciting moments that, yes, closed the gap on the mythology but also recalled the energy and spirit that drove the original Star Wars film. Episode I is almost wholly un-entertaining, but I still get a rush every time I watch the Duel of the Fates.

Tripp | October 11, 2006 02:59 PM

In case anyone else is interested, I was curious about "Battle Beyond the Stars" and it looks like it is out of print and a copy will cost $50 or so?!

Geez, I doubt I'll spend that kind of money to watch it. Speaking of obscure SF video - can anyone else recall a movie about a kid who lived in a trailer park and who's video game skills got him abducted by aliens to be a spaceship pilot and win a war?

Dr.Dr. Phil | October 11, 2006 03:01 PM

The Last Starfighter -- SFX done on a Cray supercomputer.

Paul Riddell | October 11, 2006 03:03 PM

I've been saying it for fifteen years, but nobody wants to hear it, so I keep saying it: George Lucas had a better special effects budget, but Ed Wood always was and always will be the superior writer and director.

David Goodman | October 11, 2006 03:03 PM

Tripp, that'll be The Last Starfighter. Good post John - waiting for a Digg or Fark link to bring down the rabid fanboys though!

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 03:04 PM

Aaron Burr:

"Isn't entertainment just something you put in front of a person and they enjoy?"

That's one way of looking at. In which case my cat running headlong into the sliding glass patio door is sparkling entertainment, because, really, that never gets old.

However, in this case I'm discussing the issue of whether there is intent to entertain. My cat bonking into glass is entertaining, but it's not intended to be entertainment. Likewise, as I note, it's possible to be entertained by the Star Wars films, but I don't think Lucas' primary goal is to entertain others with the films, its to realize his own personal goal which doesn't have much to do with anything outside his own whims.

I mean, if you're entertained by the Star Wars films, good for you. I'm not saying there's somethng wrong with you if you are. I am saying I don't think Lucas puts much thought into whether the films are genuinely entertaining to others, however.

David "The Longtime Lurker" | October 11, 2006 03:05 PM

I just wanted to mention that mythology is only dead for a dead culture... a culture that is alive will have a living, growing mythology... In this case I would call Tolkien's work as part of a living mythology- of Great Britain...
Even though the people living at the time (like the Greeks) would not call it mythology themselves (actually, I guess they would, that's a greek word after all)... they would think of it as their actual reality, or at least a facet/important part of it.

Hilary | October 11, 2006 03:16 PM

Ok – I have never thought of Star Wars as real science fiction, over the top space opera yes but science fiction please, where is the science, where is there any original thought? In an attempt to intercept the hands about to spank me I acknowledge the place of space opera in traditional SF. Beowulf in the original verse has it’s place as well.

To me SF is about looking forward at the possibilities and how they modulate the behavior and culture, not merely the re-rendering of traditional tales in a galaxy far far away. It is one of the reasons I have a bug up my ass about SF and Fantasy genres sharing shelves in bookstores. Fantasy is fine I have read my share, but there is little that departs from existing fiction and lore. Good SF starts with a novel premise, a quantum leap of science, aliens that are alien, not just a hyped up katana and aerodynamic flight paths in vacuum.

I enjoyed SW IV and V and found myself Muppeted out in VI (nicely offset by Leia in a brass bikini). I, II, and III well…nice eye candy is the best I can come up with. Star Wars maybe Lucas masturbating, but masturbation can be quite entertaining, but it need not be called science fiction. I do enjoy the films; I have an 8 year old son and a DVD player need I say more. I am currently trying to wean him (and his twin sister) off Chewbacca to better SF (John sent you something about that and didn’t get a harrumph out you).

I was going to leave it at that but I thought of an applicable analogy. Star wars is to Science frication as Amazon is to hi-tech. As an engineering physicist who worked in real hi-tech (lasers), it used to drive me nuts when the media (particularly the financial folks) labeled Amazon as hi-tech during the dot com bubble. Innovative yes, leveraging a recent technology yes, but it was still a product catalog and don’t get me started on patenting one click shopping. Old ideas in a new wrapper, fine idea, outstanding implementation, but Amazon is not a hi-tech firm any more that it is a chocolate manufacturer. Star Wars is legitimately space opera, but let’s really put the emphasis on opera please. Fini.

Zeynep | October 11, 2006 03:19 PM

As others said before, pretty perceptive. And I also felt the shadow of the word "Tolkien" lying all over the entry---but since it's already shown up in the comment threads I won't touch it.

There are a couple of points I wonder about, though---
* I think you're dead-on about Lucas' almost-exclusive focus on myth-creating, but he did occasionally try to be enteratining, I believe. Jar Jar and the endless podrace were attempts at entertainment. Misguided attempts, but attempts nonetheless. (I'm not touching some of the later such elements, because there is a difference between trying to pander to fans and trying to entertain people...)
* I am not sure if Lucas himself was aware of the narrowness of his focus. Tolkien certainly knew (OK, so I can't not refer to him); in his Letters he mentions writing Lord of the Rings the way it is partly because he wanted to show a world where it is expected to say "the stars shine on the hour of our meeting" as a greeting, except in Sindarin.
* The entire stuttering, lurching flow of the prequels couldn't be because he gave his cast no leeway to be anything other than intoning archetypes; at some point it has to be that he didn't know how to give his cast that leeway. But that's already been discussed, at length and at many elsewheres.

J. Cheney | October 11, 2006 03:20 PM

I saw the original 26 times in the theatre. (I was in 7th grade, so don't mock me too much).

You are ABSOLUTELY right about the three latest installments. I slogged through each one, waiting for Anakin to stop whining--which he never did. That alone made all three movies unbearable for me.

Josh Jasper | October 11, 2006 03:24 PM

I swear to god I've read the same critique of Steven King, only with a differnt paint job.

Annalee Flower Horne | October 11, 2006 03:26 PM

I adore Star Wars (in the way only someone who grew up on worn-down tapes of the original trilogy can), but honest to dog, I can't defend George Lucas even for a second.

This is a man who said in an interview that he considered dialogue just more sound effects. And he meant it. As a writer, my reaction was "...buh?" As a Star Wars fan, it was "well, that sure explains a lot."

If you've seen the cut scenes from Episode III and some of the abandoned plotlines, it becomes painfully obvious that he intentionally sacrificed good story in favor of those ten-minute long "you're pretty!" "Nuh-uh-- you're pretty!" scenes. (Padme was supposed to try to kill Vader. And start the rebellion. And generally not be a whiny prat who died for a stupid reason).

But hey, I'm a Star Wars fan, and as we all know, Star Wars Fans Hate Star Wars.

JT | October 11, 2006 03:26 PM

I saw episode one mainly because I was in college, and it was at the buck-and-a-half theatre. My neighbor had seen it 17 times already, and dragged me to it one night. I saw two and three praying to see Jar Jar dead...

Personally, I think they are entertaining if you can sink into the story and keep the dialogue from jarring you back into reality. The originals were far more entertaining than the prequels, I think. And episode three really didn't connect the six episodes for me. It just didn't seem to line up between two and four, but that's just me.

I'd have to say you're right, though, they don't seem to have been made to be entertaining to everyone, they just are entertaining at points. For myself, I think 4, 5, and 6 possess more entertainment value of their own, with 1, 2, and 3 being somewhat the same ideas told with different characters. I understand that this may have been, from what I've read, Lucas's intention, to show life as a cycle or some such.

I've added Battle Beyond the Stars to my to-watch list. It's got Hannibal from the A-Team in there, it's gotta be worth watching, right? Sounds like an entertaining flick, and it can't be any worse than some of the movies SciFi Channel tosses out there.

I had a crazy old professor for an Eastern Civilizations class (grades were based entirely on arguing about the assigned readings - I loved that class) who suggested Kurosawa's movies one time. I wasn't too enthused about reading subtitles for an entire movie, but I picked up one called The Hidden Fortress, and was strangely entertained by it. It seemed to run something of the same course as Star Wars, though. I kept seeing R2D2 and C3PO when I looked at the peasants. I've kinda wondered if the Lucas saw watched the movie before Star Wars came together in his mind, and how much it might have influenced him.

Nathan | October 11, 2006 03:32 PM

Tripp

BBS is available from netflix

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 03:36 PM

Josh Jasper:

"I swear to god I've read the same critique of Steven King, only with a differnt paint job."

Really? That's interesting. And I wouldn't agree with it much; I think King has a good grip on the fact that he writes to entertain (I think he also hopes that his writing is seen as more than mere entertainment, especially as he goes along -- and I think he's got a right to want to be seen as such, because he's a good writer).

Lurks-no-More | October 11, 2006 03:38 PM

Actually, I liked and was entertained by RotS, and AotC was great fun whenever Anakin and Padme weren't talking.

But I have absolutely nothing good to say about Phantom Menace. It's a movie which turns worse and worse the more times you try to watch it.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 03:41 PM

Lurks-no-More:

I suspect you could boil down the prequel trilogy into one kick-ass two-and-half hour film, with lots of action, and judicious cuts to embarrassing dialogue.

Incidentally, I feel the same way about the second two Matrix films.

Avdi | October 11, 2006 03:42 PM

What baffles me is that I, II, and III seem almost expressly designed to destroy any mythic sensibility that IV, V, and VI might have created. Everything in them conspires to scale down the "epic" feel of the originals. Characters and locales from the sequels are improbably reused (pre-used?) so much that the Star Wars universe starts to feel cramped in comparison to the diverse galaxy that we caught a glimpse of in the the original trilogy. It goes from a million worlds to a few dozen, populated with the same rotating cast. Anakin Skywalker goes from the legendary star pilot of Obiwan's remembrances, to a whiny kid piloting the interstellar equivalent of a Honda civic with a really big spoiler on the back. The Clone Wars turn out not to be some cataclysmic confrontation with a galactic menace, but petty insurrection headed by villains so laughable (Dooku and the unbelievably pathetic Gen. Grievous) that the whole thing is hard to take seriously. The Jedi Council, "Guradians of Peace for a Thousand Generations", turns out to be a tiny cult of halfwit ditherers. And perhaps worst of all, Yoda, that venerable font of inscrutable wisdom, dicards all semablance of dignity to become a yelping inneffectual hop-frog.


So if Lucas made the prequels solely to shore up his private mythology... what the hell went wrong?

albo | October 11, 2006 03:51 PM

Incidentally, I feel the same way about the second two Matrix films.

Amen. What an incredible waste of the seemingly limitless potential of the first one.

My solution: Producer gets script for SF film from average Hollywood screenwriter. Producer sends script plus check for $200,000 to actual SF writer--perhaps picked randomly--for a critique and suggestions. Producer receives report, makes changes, improves film. SF writer pays rent, buys Hummer. Everybody happy.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 03:54 PM

Avdi:

"So if Lucas made the prequels solely to shore up his private mythology... what the hell went wrong?"

Lucas can't write.

Ian Mathers | October 11, 2006 03:54 PM

"His works aren't public domain, and he is right to do whatever he wants with them."

Woah, now. Can we please distinguish between "he has a right to do whatever he wants with them" and "he is right to do whatever he wants with them"? The former is descriptive, the latter is normative, and it makes you sound as if you heartily endorse the last three SW movies as quality.

Lis Riba | October 11, 2006 03:56 PM

(1) Lucas stopped using outside directors and writers after he ran into problems with the Directors Guild over credits to ESB. Since then, he's been strictly non-union, and that's cut into the quality of talent he could get.

(2) The best part of EpI was the 20th Century Fox logo and "A long time ago in a galaxy far, far away..." It was downhill from there.
I was so disappointed by Ep2 (particularly the antisemitism inherent in the portrayal of Watto, whose appearance totally killed any enjoyment I'd had until that point) that I still haven't seen Ep3.

PixelFish | October 11, 2006 04:01 PM

Annalee Horne: Oooo, that's a Padme I can get behind. The Vader-killing, rebellion-fomenting, girl on the run sort of Padme. Not the wimpy "Boohoo, my hunny bunny's a psycho, so I must now expire in grief" Padme. (I rewrote number three in my brain so she takes the kids and runs...)

Also her pregnancy in SWIII: the inanest movie pregnancy ever, lasting about as long as your average fruit bat's. (90 days, in case yer interested.) She goes from "Hey, we're preggers," to "Ooops, honey, can you stop strangling me, I think I'm in labour," in no time at all.

I always wondered how you could take such an easily cool and fun setup and extract all the fun from it, as occurs with the first three movies, and I think you'v explained it here. I honestly feel once Mr. Lucas had his story populate his head, he felt he couldn't deviate from it even if it wasn't good, even if it didn't entertain. It was his goddamn vision, after all.

(I heard once that each of the first three movies has a different director because each director was just so worn out after working with Lucas. Any body else hear the same thing, or is it just rumour?)

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 04:03 PM

I suspect the first three movies have differing directors because Lucas didn't want to direct again after the first one; remember at the time he was also busy producing the Indiana Jones movies.

pigeonhed | October 11, 2006 04:05 PM

John, I won't block your thread up with discussion of something I don't consider asinine, but if its okay with you I would like to refer people to http://www.pigeonhed.livejournal.com instead.
Thanks.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 04:08 PM

No problem, Pigeonhed. I have no problem with people discussing it elsewhere, and even if I did, who cares?

Jeff Hentosz | October 11, 2006 04:11 PM

Coincidentally, I heard a storyteller speak this past weekend who, when asked about the importance of point-of-view in story construction, mentioned Eps. 1-3. A big reason it all went brown and squishy was that, he said, it should have been Obi Wan's story, not Anakin's.

Yosh | October 11, 2006 04:12 PM

I had a theatre professor in college who defined good, meaningful theatre as theatre that is both entertaining and enlightening. That definition has stuck with me, and I apply it to the books that I read.

Take Starship Troopers, for example. That book really stands out as an excellent example of GOOD literature. Although it can get pedantic at times, it is a story that engrosses you while at the same time forcing the reader to think.

When applied to the sci-fi genre in general, I would say that "good" sci-fi is that which utilizes a future vision of science and/or society to shed light on some aspect of the human condition.

Does this mean that books that simply entertain are "bad"? Not in my opinion. OMW (with regards to Mr. Scalzi) is an intensely entertaining book that nonetheless lacks an overt moral or philosophical theme. That hasn't stopped me from reading OMW and GB multiple times, because it is the spectacular imagery evoked by the rich dialogue and settings that provoke my imagination, and hence my interest. OMW and GB stays on my bookshelf and in my mind because it is well-written, imaginative, and entertaining that gives the reader insight (through good storytelling) into what makes people tick.

Applied to SW, it is tough to draw out meaningful conclusions as to the "human condition", because the storytelling is so awful (Empire Strikes Back being the notable exception). Does that mean it is not entertaining? No, I think that you can definitely call it entertainment. Is it enlightening? Only if you look at the movies as a window into the mind of the Asperger's-like persona of George Lucas.

Anonymous | October 11, 2006 04:21 PM

MoXmas wrote:

"I think an interesting comparison point might be between the Star Wars films and the Peter jackson Lord of the Rings films. The original books are obviously almost pure mythology, and many of the characters are even more purely archteypes than the ones in Star Wars.

But when Jackson made the movies, he strove very very hard to make them entertaining. The changes to the Aragorn character are probably the most obvious, but giving good actors good lines also helped a whole hell of a lot."

I don't think that Peter Jackson strove to make his LOTR trilogy any more entertaining than Lucas meant to make Star Wars, Episode IV. What Jackson did may not have been "mythmaking," but it definitely was myth-regurgitating. To say that giving the characters better dialogue and putting more effort into the sequels speaks to difference in talent between Lucas and Jackson, but not their intent.

In any case, I think the premise of the article is wrong. Star Wars (even the horrible prequels) does attempt to entertain. Whether it's any good at it is subjective, but the intent (as half or quarter-assed as it is in spots) is still there. Yoda hopping around and waving a lightsaber like a meth-addled tree frog in Episode II has nothing to do with myth, that was there for pizzazz. Darth Maul? That was cool factor. The marketable little Ewoks in Episode VI? Okay, that was more an attempt at money-making than myth-making, but still. Heck, C3-P0 and R2-D2 were strictly there for entertainment.

This has nothing to do with how I feel about Star Wars (which I loved as a kid but can't watch now) or Jackson's Lord of the Rings trilogy (which I think more fits the rubric of impressive special effects overwhelming it's deficiencies in other areas--in about ten years, you aesthetic elitists will be agreeing with me here), but rather the difference between the creator's intent and how well they pull it off.

Was Lucas trying to cash in on his myth with Episodes I-III? Undoubtedly. Did he not try to entertain along the way? He did.

Mone Peterson | October 11, 2006 04:23 PM

The previous comment was mine. Sorry, forgot to sign it.

Moné

Tripp | October 11, 2006 04:26 PM

John,

Based on the things I heard at the time I think Lucas intended the first Star Wars to be entertaining - even escapist entertainment. I think the success of it enabled him to try for something which was more important to him.

I don't have much hard data to back this up, but it seems to make sense to me.

Kendoway | October 11, 2006 04:34 PM

Blockbuster Story :

This happened right here in good ole’ Virginia back in 97 (might be off a year on that) when Lucas re-released episodes IV, V, and VI with "updated special effects". Anyhow, I’m at Blockbuster with the wife we are doing the normal troll around the inside of the store, and I’m desperately trying to float away from her as she peruses the selections. This of course prevents the standard “Honey, what should we watch tonight?” conversation. Always better to let her pick something out.

I finally make my escape - and as I approached an end-cap proudly displaying the updated Star Wars movies, I see two red-necky looking guys scanning them. One of them picks up Episode IV, and this was their conversation:

“Hey Red, lookit here, they got thu new Star Whars”

“I ain’t watchin’ no Stars Whars”

“How come?”

“They got them little words an’ shit. Thet Harrison Ford guy goes into some gay bar fulla blue puppets made outta’ rubber, and then they had some wurds on the screen lahk one of them there French movies. I ain’t readin’ no little wurds.”

At this point I decided that it was better to go back and argue with my wife. So I think America is in agreement with you John, “Star Wars is not entertainment”.

Nathan | October 11, 2006 04:34 PM

Yosh

OMW "lacks an overt moral or philosophical theme"?

Well, maybe, if you mean in the sense that our host has the respect for his audience to refrain from hitting us over the heads with them?

How about asking the question, "Just what would a man be willing to do to regain his youth?"

And then there's that whole theme of "What is the Colonial Union really up to?".

I suspect we'll be learning a bit more about these questions in forthcoming installations.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 04:35 PM

Anonymous/Moné Peterson:

"In any case, I think the premise of the article is wrong. Star Wars (even the horrible prequels) does attempt to entertain. Whether it's any good at it is subjective, but the intent (as half or quarter-assed as it is in spots) is still there. Yoda hopping around and waving a lightsaber like a meth-addled tree frog in Episode II has nothing to do with myth, that was there for pizzazz. Darth Maul? That was cool factor. The marketable little Ewoks in Episode VI? Okay, that was more an attempt at money-making than myth-making, but still. Heck, C3-P0 and R2-D2 were strictly there for entertainment."

I see where you're coming from, but I have a tendency to see things like this not as much an attempt to entertain as simply the throwaways Lucas gave out as if to acknowledge that, yes, some people won't be down with his myth thing, so here's Yoda and his dinky green saber for you cretins. And to be sure, Yoda and his little saber were cool, but that's a minute out of a two-hour movie. Meanwhile, there are endless scenes of Anakin comparing explaining to Padme why she's not like sand, and so on.

Also, of course, Lucas is not stupid. C-3PO and R2D2 were hugely popular; it's not hard to put them in again (although making 3PO made by Anakin was a bit of a stretch, I thought). Likewise, when the hideous Jar-Jar was quite rightly reviled, his role in the two other prequel films vanished to almost nothing. Also, having Yoda visit the Wookiees was total fan service; it really didn't do much of anything other than give the fanboys a moment to enjoy the return of Chewie.

All this is canny, but is it actual entertainment, or merely good manipulation of fan? It's like Lucas pulling a Jedi Mind Trick: "You've seen Yoda with a lightsaber. You have been entertained." To which the fan says: "Dude, Yoda kicked ass with his little saber! That rocked!"

Your mileage may vary, of course.

Bensdad00 | October 11, 2006 04:36 PM

Mayhap I missed it somewhere in thr lengthy comments or the original post, but I just finished reading a book focused on this _ Star Wars on Trial _ with major contributions by Matt Stover and Ben Bova and while many of the essays it included were repetitive, some - in particular those focusing on the publishing industry, were enlightening. Did no one else read this or am I a moron? (And for the moment we will treat these possibilities as mutually exclusive, ya pranksters)

bensdad00 | October 11, 2006 04:38 PM

edit - David Brin, not Ben Bova in the above comment.

robert landrigan | October 11, 2006 04:38 PM

I loved the Ewoks, screw you all:)

The really interetsing thing about Star Wars(and also Trek) is that the universe is so bloody compelling despite it's creator. Lucas is a git, but I love the storytelling potential of the SW universe. Yes, it's often trite, and really silly, but there is something to be said to the immense time commitment that millions of fans have put in to create waht Lucas thinks he made single-handedly.

Star Wars, in it's present form, probably owes more to us lost pen-and-paper gamers and the silly stormtroopers than Lucas.

And forget the Han shooting first. Lucas spends eternity watching mothing but Perfect Stangers reruns in esperanto for changing the original Ewok song in Jedi to english.

robert landrigan | October 11, 2006 04:41 PM

Also -

Yoda.

The Master does not come down off the mountain...I HATED the Yoda fight scenes - it cheapens everything in the later films.

Lenny Bailes | October 11, 2006 04:57 PM

John, I'm tickled to see you uncork a righteous rant against the naked emperor Lucas -- with its passing acknowledgment of vapidity from someone who contributed to one of the many deaths of science fiction (tying cute bows around a live prozine back in 1996).

But, I think there might be room to take issue with this:

What's interesting about mythology is that it's the residue of a teleological system that's dead; it's what you get after everyone who believed in something has croaked and nothing is left but stories. Building a mythology is necrophilic storytelling; one that implicitly kills off an entire culture and plays with its corpse....

I think Neil Gaiman works with mythologies in "Anansi Boys," "American Gods," "Sandman," and other stories, by showing us that the mythmaking culture is still alive in us. Making note to play with the "corpus" of your essay in a panel, somewhere. Thanks for cutting loose. SF criticism can always use more of that, when it's done coherently. (I've already bookmarked Ian's LJ entry.)

Yosh | October 11, 2006 05:00 PM

"Yosh

OMW "lacks an overt moral or philosophical theme"?

Well, maybe, if you mean in the sense that our host has the respect for his audience to refrain from hitting us over the heads with them?

How about asking the question, "Just what would a man be willing to do to regain his youth?"

And then there's that whole theme of "What is the Colonial Union really up to?".

Good points, Nathan. While I agree that the theme of "just what would a man..." exists in the book, I don't agree that "what is the Colonial Union up to?" is a thematic device; rather it is a plot device IMHO.

As to the books lacking an overt moral/philosophical theme, I think I can stand by that. OMW is an action-filled love story. It doesn't seem (to me, at least, although I could be mistaken) that it makes an attempt to explore the implications of "just what would a man do to regain his youth"; that is rather the premise for the story I think. I also don't think that the book was intended to have a grand lesson in philosophy or morality, but rather was intended to be, as Mr. Scalzi puts it, "the kind of book I like to read". This is not a criticism of the abilities of Mr. Scalzi, but rather my observation as to his choice for this particular set of works. I DID feel that GB raised some excellent questions about how people's personalities are affected by their environments. I felt that the author made a conscious choice not to delve too deeply into that realm, because to do so would distract from the story - not a bad choice, again IMHO.

I have observed many times in some really excellent books the choices authors have made on whether to explore and develop a thematic point or to just get on with the story, and it is probably a difficult choice to make. How the author chooses to present these themes distinguishes stellar writers from the merely talented.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 05:08 PM

Lenny Bailes:

"I think Neil Gaiman works with mythologies in 'Anansi Boys,' 'American Gods,' 'Sandman,' and other stories, by showing us that the mythmaking culture is still alive in us."

I think Neil Gaiman is actually very interesting in how he plays with mythologies, partly because he views them as subset of a currently existing -- and continually generating -- teleology. I don't know that the way Gaiman sets up his universes is a refutation of my general statement so much as a very clever way of getting around it, but I certainly agree he's proof that you can do play with mythology and make it vibrant and engaging for the audience. Gaiman rocks, basically.

Carol Elaine | October 11, 2006 05:10 PM

Thank you, John. You're absolutely spot on.

The Star Wars Universe has incredible potential. Too bad Lucas couldn't just create the universe and let non-hacks handle the writing and directing. I've had this argument with a couple of Star Wars fanatics of my acquaintance, one of whom is a filmmaker and can only see it from a filmmaker's perspective (the other is my roommate). They now refuse to let me talk about Star Wars at all.

I enjoyed the original Star Wars movie well enough and I'll watch it over and over again, but only because I'm a big Peter Cushing fan and I used to know Mark Hamill's brother in the late 70s, plus, hey, Harrison Ford. Yummy eye candy. And yes, Empire Strikes back is too much fun.

But I only watched the first half of Episode One through DVD glasses while my dentist was working on my mouth. Despite the very pretty Liam Neeson, I couldn't figure out whether the movie or the dentist's drill was worse torture.

I saw Attack of the Clones only for the presence of Christopher Lee, whom I've adored since I was five. I cursed the fact that Count Dooku lived because I realized I would have no choice but to watch Episode III. I still haven't seen the last one, but I know I will at some point. At least this time I'll have the luxury of only watching Dooku's scenes.

BTW, Ice Pirates also had a score by Bruce Broughton. I love me some Bruce Broughton.

Aaron Burr | October 11, 2006 05:35 PM

John, I understood you to be talking about intent to entertain. I simply don't understand why intent to entertain is relevent to anything whatsoever. Something is entertaining or it isn't. Many things intended to be entertaining are horrible wastes of time.

Cambias | October 11, 2006 05:38 PM

I am with the "don't believe Lucas" camp when it comes to the whole mythology angle. When you watch the original Star Wars it's obviously a fun Kurosawa pastiche intended solely to entertain. There's no mythology -- there is an attempt to imply a history -- but it's all on the same scale as, say, The Hidden Fortress. Just to pick a random movie. A "historical epic" about an imaginary history.

But then Star Wars made more money than anyone had ever conceived of, and Empire made as much or more. And suddenly Lucas is getting all Campbellian. As others have posited, I think it gave him the solace of intellectual respectability -- because otherwise he would be remembered only as the most successful "popcorn movie" maker of all time, a mere "entertainer," and evidently that rankled.

I can remember the moment it all started to go bad for me. Halfway through Return of the Jedi. As soon as Carrie Fisher got back in clothes and the Empire's big new sinister plot was revealed: another frickin' Death Star.

That's it? I said inside my head. That's all?

And since then, as John says, each movie of the prequel has been a horrible disappointment. Again, my reaction has been That's it?

That's what took down the Republic?
That's the Clone War?
That's what turned Vader to the Dark Side?

The universe and backstory that all of us constructed inside our heads while watching Star Wars and Empire turned out to be a lot more interesting and exciting than what was inside George Lucas's head.

Alas.

Janis | October 11, 2006 05:47 PM

Guys, there was one reason and one reason alone to see Ep I: Liam Neeson in a cloak with a ponytail. Once Qui Gon kicked it, there was nothing on the screen worth looking at ...

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 05:51 PM

Aaron Burr:

"I simply don't understand why intent to entertain is relevent to anything whatsoever."

It's probably a good thing that you're not a studio executive, then, Aaron. They generally prefer to spend their money on things intended to entertain.

Intending to entertain is relevant to releasing something as entertainment basically for the same reasons intending to hit the baseball is relevant for a baseball game -- there's no guarantee you'll hit the ball, but if you intend to do so, there's a rather better chance than if you don't. George Lucas being fundamentally disinterested in entertaining others than himself makes it rather more likely that others won't be entertained.

Anonymous | October 11, 2006 05:53 PM

It's synchronicity day for me. In an interview I read yesterday at Bookslut, Gaiman weighs in: "Mythology tends to be what religion decays into. A sort of second stage religion. Or it’s the bits of religion that won’t get you shot or harmed if you don’t take them seriously enough."

Nathan | October 11, 2006 05:54 PM

Yosh

I'm talking out of my ass here(around the flying monkeys), since I haven't gotten my sneak peak at The Last Colony, but I wouldn't be surprised if somebody in the book didn't find him/herself facing a (DA, DA, DAAAA)(beat) MORAL DILEMA when the true nature of the Colonial Union is revealed.

Or, I could be totally wrong and just find out that its a book about a colony of shoemakers.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 06:00 PM

It's about shoemakers, actually.

CJ-in-Weld | October 11, 2006 06:08 PM

David Brin also has his rants against Star Wars at his website (http://www.davidbrin.com/fictionarticles.html). They originally appeared in Salon. The thrust is a little different - "Star Wars is an assault against Western Enlightenment values" instead of "Star Wars is narcissistic tripe" - but they supplement Scalzi's piece pretty well!

Josh | October 11, 2006 06:09 PM

Reading this little diatribe reminded me of this:

http://foxvalleygeeks.blogspot.com/2006/09/lucas-is-right-and-fanboys-are-wrong.html

Which I wrote, but no matter.

(For those that don’t want to click, my little essay essentially points out that Tolkien ALSO revised his works, over and over again, and no one whines about it today.)

I think the only way to discuss this argument is to divide it into smaller bits:

Were the Star Wars movie meant to be entertaining? Well, I’d certainly say the first trilogy was. Pause for a moment and consider something – George Lucas already made THX 1138. He’s very capable of making a plodding, obtuse story that most people won’t be interested in seeing.

Someone else here already stated that Lucas said, in the early years, that the Star Wars movies (as well as the Indiana Jones movies) were designed like the movie serials of old. Which is to say, they were entertainment.

It was only when he started making Episodes I-III that he really started talking up the idea of myth, and how it tied into the movies.

My pet theory (which has never been proved, and probably can’t be proved) is that the reason Lucas ended up writing and directing the movies himself is because nobody else wanted to be the person who took the fall if the movies were bad. I love the Star Wars movies, truly, but if Lucas had called me up and said, “Hello award-winning but unknown screenwriter. Wanna help me write the Darth Vader story?” I’m about 99% sure I would have said no, out of pure terror of screwing up.

All things considered, though, I think he intended I-III to entertain as well. He clearly wanted people to see the movies, or he would have done even more love story and politics, and left out all the “stuff goes boom and people go slash” parts of the story.

As for the second part of your thoughts – are the Star Wars movies not-good movies?

Well, compared to what? Apparently, compared to Battle Beyond the Stars, but I haven’t seen it, don’t have Netflix, and I’m not certain it’s going to be available in any of my local video rental spots.

Not-good movies make money all the time. Da Vinci did. The Grudge did quite well. I’d say Star Wars I-III was better than both of those movies. Combined. And then doubled.

And yes, there are those who didn’t see III. And there were those that didn’t buy the new movies on DVD. But clearly someone is. A lot of someones.

More importantly, when it comes time to consider movie series that fall apart, consider the fact that if Episode I was really all that awful, II wouldn’t have made the money that it did. People would have given up and walked away. And if you don’t buy it, think about how badly Matrix III crashed and burned.

As to whether or not sci-fi should aspire to be as good, or as entertaining, or as… well, whatever, as Star Wars, I can’t really speak to that.

I mean, Orson Scott Card referred to Serenity as The Greatest Science Ficiton Movie Of All Time, and that movie didn’t manage to break even at the box office. On that level, “fun and popular” does seem to win out over “great story, great dialogue, so aim high little skiffys.”

Patrick | October 11, 2006 06:30 PM

It has always been my contention that the original Star Wars was titled "Episode IV" because Lucas wanted to make it feel like an episode in a serial, and not because he started out with a grand plan to write six (or nine) screenplays.

To me, the saddest thing that happened when the prequels were made was that the Clone Wars Plot Device suddenly didn't work. Rather than a throwaway line that gives a character more depth than the time should allow, it refers to a really bad movie made after the original.

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 06:47 PM

Josh:

"More importantly, when it comes time to consider movie series that fall apart, consider the fact that if Episode I was really all that awful, II wouldn’t have made the money that it did. People would have given up and walked away. And if you don’t buy it, think about how badly Matrix III crashed and burned."

Actually, Matrix Revolutions made $424 million worldwide and was the 9th highest-grossing film of 2003 (domestic), so the suggestion that it "crashed and burned" from a fiscal point of view is wildly incorrect; it simply made rather less than Matrix Reloaded. (although, notably, not that much less than the original film).

Now, as it happens, Episode II is the least-successful of the Star Wars films when adjusted for inflation, and brought in about $120 million less (unadjusted) than Episode I. So if you want to suggest Matrix Revolutions was punished at the box office for Matrix Reloaded sucking, I think you'd also have to agree that Episode II was punished for Episode I sucking as well.

I think you also rather minimize the effect being a long-time fan has on entertainment purchases. Star Wars fans had invested far too much time/energy to stop going just because Lucas stopped caring about them, if indeed he ever had cared about them at all.

"The Star Wars movies not-good movies? Well, compared to what?"

Compared to a vast number of movies actually, and a large number of science fiction films as well. I'm qualified to make an informed opinion on both because I've been a professional film critic since 1991 and the author of a book on science fiction film. You're free to disagree, of course, but I feel comfortable making the assessment.

Carol Elaine | October 11, 2006 07:02 PM

Janis:

Guys, there was one reason and one reason alone to see Ep I: Liam Neeson in a cloak with a ponytail. Once Qui Gon kicked it, there was nothing on the screen worth looking at ...

Amen. Luckily, I get to look at that every day without resorting to watching Episode I.

What? My roommate has a life-sife cardboard cut-out in our living room. It's nice eye candy for me, so I'm not booting it out of there.

Yes, our apartment is a geek apartment.

Soni | October 11, 2006 10:14 PM

But this most definintely is entertaining:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1Es5HV529xI

(Weird Al summerizes the whole young Anakin saga with song)

PS - is it just me or is Weird Al getting demonstrably better looking with age? And does it make me weird that I notice?

Eric | October 11, 2006 10:32 PM

1) John, you have some good points. Lucas is an egotistical twit who has been masturbating for 20 years, and it probably would have been nice if he'd turned the reins over to someone who would have made better prequels.

However:

2) In spite of everything, I was entertained by Episode II. Let's get that out of the way. I'm at least one person you can find who liked it. Wasn't perfect, but the Fett/Kenobi chase through the rings was fun (yes, I know the "physics" were bullshit) and I chuckled with joy watching little Yoda whip out a lightsaber and start kicking Christopher Lee's ass. I can forgive the chunky dialogue.

3) I enjoyed parts of III. Not many. Few, in fact. But there you are. And moments, albeit even fewer, of I.

4) Lucas is a liar. Someone else in the thread (tactfully) alluded to it earlier by pointing out that Lucas didn't mention the Campbell-fetish at first and claimed he was misquoted about nine chapters in the saga. No. After the first movie, Campbell mentioned Star Wars as an example of his--well, theories, if that's what you want to call his schtick--and suddenly Lucas was all over how important he was.

Here's what Lucas said in 1977, specifically in the liner notes to the vinyl double-album soundtrack LP put out by 20TH Century Records (Fox's long-defunct soundtrack label):

"I've always loved adventure films," commented writer-director George Lucas. "After I finished AMERICAN GRAFFITI, I came to realize that since the demise of the western, there hasn't been much in the mythological fantasy genre available to the film audience. So, instead of making 'isn't-it-terrible-what's-happening-to-mankind' movies, which is how I began, I decided that I'd try to fill that gap. I'd make a film so rooted in imagination that the grimness of everyday life would not follow the audience into the theater. In other words, for two hours, they could forget."

In other words--and this is why the Lucas-written and directed "Episode IV" is better than the Lucas-written and directed Episodes I-III--Lucas wasn't obsessed with Campbellian twaddle in '75 or '76 or even after the movie came out in '77: he was interested in entertaining people, exactly what you accuse him of not knowing how to do.

The point isn't that you're actually wrong: the point is that you're pretty spot on re: the self-mythologized, egotistical "Lucas Now" but "Lucas Then" was a different cat, a naive and somewhat aimless and overly-intellectual film-student who decided to do something "gee-whiz fun" and suddenly had astronomical box office receipts and a lot of critics hailing him as a genius. They're different guys, and "Lucas Now" is full of crap and says a lot of things that contradict things he said 10 or 20 or 30 years ago--if you're judging "Lucas Then" by what "Lucas Now" says on DVD commentary tracks, you're making a huge mistake.

5) On that note, Star Wars--the 1977 movie that was later re-titled "Episode IV" and A New Hope (part of that revisionary thing that goes along with Lucas' self-importance and essential dishonesty)--has some magical moments that do swallow the viewer. The single best scene in the entire movie occurs early on (and Lucas, happily, hasn't changed it): Luke Skywalker, having fought with his uncle and bitter about his life, walks outside and watches the suns set as John Williams' score swells. A simple double exposure takes the viewer to a faraway and amazing place. It's a better scene than any of the wonderful space battles following, and maybe worth watching again just to see what "Lucas Then" used to be capable of pulling off.

6) Citing Roger Corman as an example of someone whose main goal is to entertain (as opposed to making a buck) is a bit ironic. Sure, Corman can be entertaining--he can also be pure agony to watch (oddly enough, earlier today I was reading a review of his unreleased-often-bootlegged version of Fantastic Four which apparently is quite firmly in the latter camp, not even bad enough to be entertaining). Corman's Battle Beyond The Stars wasn't merely a pastiche of Kurosawa--it's a remake of The Seven Samurai, and it's not a particularly good movie (it's biggest claim to fame might be launching the career of James Cameron, who accidentally took over the special effects department during the production). I will speak no ill of John Sayles (whose story about re-writing the film's last scene after the shooting schedule was finished is quite funny), but I will note that I'm under the impression he's not especially proud of his mercenary work on Battle. At any rate, Battle was nothing more than an attempt to cash in on Star Wars, and Corman's been honest enough to admit it.

6a) BTW, mentioning Sayles' Oscar nominations was a little clumsy in my opinion. It's an appeal to authority ("You should like him, he's been nominated for prizes), but an ironically ineffective one: the Oscars are notoriously popularity contests, not awards of merit, and the fact that a talented writer like Sayles hasn't won one after being nominated is itself evidence of how valueless the nominations are in assessing merit--if they rewarded merit, he would have won one.

6b) Unless you're so distracted by the cheesy special effects and the fact that John Boy Walton is the star that you simply can't go on, I expect you'll admit you were more entertained by this little flick than all that Star Wars mythology, is a straw man full of gunpowder. The "Star Wars mythology" is something different from "the personal experience of sitting in a theater and watching Star Wars movies." The experiences might overlap--perhaps the mythology obstructs ones view of the film (or enhances it for another), but the mythology is nonetheless a seperate creature. Lucas doesn't understand that anymore, but (sad to say), he's not that bright when it comes to that kind of thing and is so immersed in it at this point he has no objectivity anyway. I'd assume that you can see the difference.

I enjoyed watching Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back and Attack Of The Clones more than I enjoyed watching Battle Of The Planets. The "Star Wars mythology" I can take or leave--there are some video games where it's been put to good use and the Genndy Tartakovsky cartoons were quite fun. As far as I can recall the "mythology" presented in Battle Of The Planets' backstory, it was crap as it came out--I believe I read an interview with Sayles awhile back where he mentioned some things that might have made the BOTP universe more interesting, but apparently all that got cut because it was too expensive to schedule. (The film's budget and abbreviated production schedule was more importatant than the story, funny that.)

7) Just because someone mentioned them: The Lord Of The Rings movies by Peter Jackson are awful, unwatchable, cliche-ridden, pretentious crap by a guy who was so stricken by Tolkien's supposed "epic grandeur" or whatever that he totally failed to get that Tolkien's heart was in the Shire (specifically, in the countryside of his childhood) and not in some huge battle. Abusing slow-motion, turning Gimli and Legolas into Hollywood buddies, and actually shooting a scene where the cavalry rides out of the sunrise didn't actually help any, adding insult to... well, lots of previous insult along with some injury. I don't care how many tickets Jackson sold, his Rings movies were garbage. (The two I could watch, anyway: I never saw the third. I actually walked out of the second regretting that I hadn't seen Star Trek--Nemesis instead, and that regret didn't abate when I finally saw Nemesis, which actually says a great deal considering what a turd that was.)

Ack. A rant. I'll post it anyway.

Scorpio | October 11, 2006 10:54 PM

I never did bother to see "Episode III" -- the idea of seeing Whiny Christian doing his thing again was more than I could stomach.

Steve Buchheit | October 11, 2006 11:05 PM

Okay, well, I think the "is Star Wars entertainment" has been pounded into the dust, but I'm slightly more interested in the implications Rusch brings up about the Science Fiction culture as it's one I've also seen and felt. That is her discussion of the "Village" as an insular group, which consciously keeps "the proles" out.

As an author at the start of my fiction career I can say that I have run across "writer help" websites, books, and online blogs from Big Time authors who talk about the science and not the story. I've read, even in Year's Best anthologies, stories that were little more than, "look here, there's this corollary to this mathematical proof (done by people you've never heard of) that says this could happen. See, see as the permutations work their way out." Zzz, zzz, zzz. I used to study these stories for their story-telling techniques until I realized there wasn't any and that I should be studying the stories I actually liked reading. I'm not saying that you can't incorporate these great ideas into the stories, or even weave a story around them, but they aren't the story, at least not outside Science News Weekly.

There is also this ongoing concern/belief that SF is graying/dying. While more new titles are being published every year, and there is a rise in small press operations, the backlist and mass-market sales (once the mainstay of SF) are disappearing. I've seen various discussions of sales numbers but I've seen very little done on actual readership. Is the readership growing? Are we able to convert those who may start off with SF Lite/Media and bring them into the richness that SF can offer, or are we saying sink or swim as the media tie-in section slowly eats away at the shelf space>

So is there something to her claim that there is a larger potential market out there for SF which is being ignored because we're too busy talking with each other, being "literary," or critiquing authors on their science acumen instead of asking if it the work is accessible, a "good romp," or simply a fun story? There was a Big Time Author™ that stated since the reading public had the bad taste to prefer fantasy, which he thought was navel gazing, over SF, which according to him drives us toward a brighter future, that he was going to stop writing for a time. He attributed this "bad taste" among the reading public to the lack of science education and intelligence. My response was maybe Fantasy is giving them something they want. It may be Bread and Circuses, but it works for them. As "entertainers" shouldn't we be working toward that market? Or are we going the way of Cyberpunk, which started out with interesting tales and devolved into brand-name deus ex machina?

John Scalzi | October 11, 2006 11:10 PM

Eric:

"6a) BTW, mentioning Sayles' Oscar nominations was a little clumsy in my opinion. It's an appeal to authority ("You should like him, he's been nominated for prizes), but an ironically ineffective one: the Oscars are notoriously popularity contests, not awards of merit, and the fact that a talented writer like Sayles hasn't won one after being nominated is itself evidence of how valueless the nominations are in assessing merit--if they rewarded merit, he would have won one."

I'm not entirely sure I follow your logic on this one, Eric. For one thing, while not at all disputing the general assertion that Oscars are popularity awards -- as are nearly all awards, in one form or another -- it's worth noting that with the Oscars the category nominations are made only by Academy members in that particular branch; i.e., only Academy screenwriters can nominate in the category.

So, even factoring standard politics, an Academy nomination is in fact a reasonable estimation of value and competence from a writer's peer group -- indeed, in some ways a better metric than an Academy win, because the nominees on the final ballot are voted on by the Academy in general, not only those members in the category. So as an appeal to authority, an Oscar nomination is entirely reasonable.

But having said that, I'm not entirely sure I agree that not winning shows the inherent valuelessness of an Oscar; in the years he was nominated, Sayles lost to the Neil Jordan (for The Crying Game) and to the Coen brothers (for Fargo). In both of these cases the Oscar choice has merit, in my opinion; Sayle's scripts for Passon Fish and Lone Star were good, but Jordan's and the Coens' scripts were better.

Now, speaking as a longtime professional observer of the Oscars, I'll note that popular award or no, the screenwriting Oscars do tend to go to reasonable nominees. Part of this is due to the initial category screening -- Academy screenwriters do a pretty good job in not nominating crap -- and part of this is due to the fact that to most people, it's clear when you have a good screenplay. There is some calculus you need to factor in, of course; primarily that Screenplay Oscars are often given as consolation prizes to directors who won't get the Best Director Oscar that night; this has happened to Orson Welles, Quentin Tarantino, Jane Campion and the aforemention Neil Jordan. But given the screenplays in question (Citizen Kane, Pulp Fiction, The Piano, The Crying Game), this is a generally tolerable factor.

I'm sort of vaguely surprised that this is the objection to noting Sayles' Oscar nominations; a more pointed objection would be the one that noted that George Lucas has two screenwriting nominations, one for American Graffiti (which I think is deserved) and one for Star Wars (which I think really is not). Lucas was beaten out in the first by The Sting and in the second by Annie Hall, and it again it's hard to gainsay those particular choices over Lucas' work in those years.

Dave | October 11, 2006 11:13 PM

If anything, you're praising the series with faint damns. Ignore the writing. This is an incredibly long series of movies without barely a sentence of worthwhile dialog, not one scene of decent acting, and characters that run the full gamut from boring to annoying. There are some aspects of the original Star Wars trilogy that were top-notch for the time (special effects, score) and some that were pretty good (set direction, fight choreography), but when it comes to be basics of good entertaining moviemaking there's just not a lot there. For the second trilogy, there's just no aspect of them that rises even to the level of mediocre.

If you want to see what a great movie-maker can do with the idea of redoing the 1930's serials on a huge budget, watch Indiana Jones. If you want to see what a great movie-maker can do with myth on a huge budget, watch Lord of the Rings. Either of them packs more entertainment in any given scene than Lucas managed in the entire series.

Anonymous | October 12, 2006 12:20 AM

Cambias,

The universe and backstory that all of us constructed inside our heads while watching Star Wars and Empire turned out to be a lot more interesting and exciting than what was inside George Lucas's head.

Rock on, dude.

Ciara Morgan | October 12, 2006 12:27 AM

You can't forget the thousands of people who are loyal fans...the ones who worship Lucas. I'm convienced the only reason StarWars is still going strong (recently heard news of a StarWars new TV series coming out) is becuase of the huge fan base Lucas has built. But what i don't understand is how Lucas built such a huge, fanbase on episodes IV and V alone?(assuming your right, and episode VI was a huge letdown) Was it just a boxoffice hit? (you can tell i wasn't around in the 80's) I know he lost a ton of his fans after episode I and even more after II. If its not enertaining, why is it so popular?

I think it can be said that Star Wars is enertaining, not to the general public. But then, what is? Judging something by how enertaining it is an opinon. There is no way to come to an absolute truth in this, but i wish there were, becuase it would spare us from watching a bunch of horrible movies.

As far as Lucas not making the SW films to enertain people, i agree with that. I never could figure out what i didn't like about the Starwars films and i think thats it.

joshua corning | October 12, 2006 01:20 AM

Star Wars is not entertainment. Star Wars is George Lucas masturbating to a picture of Joseph Campbell and conning billions of people into watching the money shot.

Scalzi, you are one beautiful son of a bitch.

Thank you.

jess | October 12, 2006 01:24 AM

I find it very ironic that while some may argue that Scifi isn't entertaining any more there are plenty of people who would argue that the entire genre is just popcorn literature/movies, existing only for entertainment. I certainly don't agree with that but I wonder if the effort by some to legitimize the genre is alienating some its accesiblity to casual fans.

Aaron Burr | October 12, 2006 01:35 AM

Here's the thing: I'm not a studio executive. Neither are you. Why is your criticism of Star Wars from that perspective?

That's the thing I can't understand. I've heard plenty of criticism of Star Wars, and plenty of it is valid. But you've adopted a strange point of view in order to deliver your criticisms.

Mitch Wagner | October 12, 2006 03:52 AM

Tripp:Speaking of obscure SF video - can anyone else recall a movie about a kid who lived in a trailer park and who's video game skills got him abducted by aliens to be a spaceship pilot and win a war?

As others already noted: The Last Starfighter I was actually thinking about that movie when reading John's post, as another example of a crappy sf movie that was nonetheless surprisingly entertaining. Starfighter had one terrific thing going for it: Robert The Music Man, Victor/Victoria Preston, as, if I recall correctly, the Second-to-Last Starfighter.

Another example: Dance of the Dwarfs.. Think The African Queen, only instead of Africa, it's the Phillipine jungle. Instead of a boat, it's a helicopter. Instead of Bogey, it's Peter Fonda. Instead of missionary Katherine Hepburn, it's anthropologist Deborah Raffin. John Good Times Amos plays a fearsome-looking shaman. Also: Man-eating dwarf-sized lizards. Great fun. Haven't seen it in 20 years, would like to see it again.

Mitch Wagner | October 12, 2006 03:58 AM

Argh. Sorry about the messed-up href in my previous post.

Soren | October 12, 2006 04:06 AM

As far as Ms. Rusch's argument goes, I should probably note that I have a friend who has been subjected to pretty much nothing but media science fiction all her life, and she hates it. Absolutely refuses to have anything to do with science fiction. She's a pretty bigger reader and a bit of a writer.

I lent her Eleanor Arnason's _Ring Of Swords_ a while back, and I've made a science fiction fan of her. She's even thinking about writing something for Asimov's now. So as far as I'm concerned the 'written SF should be like Star Wars' crowd can suck it.

Scott Elyard | October 12, 2006 04:08 AM

Robert Landrigan (re: Yoda's fight scenes):

"The Master does not come down off the mountain..."

So how does the Master get to the top of the mountain in the first place?

Scott Elyard | October 12, 2006 04:24 AM<