| that the application of the word "science fiction" to things like Star Wars and Star Trek is one of the greatest misnomers ever to occur on a large scale, and that "space fantasy" would be a lot better term | REGRET INDEX:
0a regret index of 1 is ultimate regret
this result collects the hard-earned
experience of 0 lifetimes of regret
permalink to this result comments"True" science fiction is meant to explore and question the relationship between human society and science, and in that spirit I think that Star Wars asks one of the greatest questions of all: Why is it that the "state of the art" special effects at the turn of the century seemed so much shittier than the special effects from twenty years earlier?
I have to be honest: I never liked that you could tell Yoda was a puppet. There would always be that behind the scenes stuff, and people explaining how puppets work to children generally, and it really took away from the experience from a very early age.
Also: you can totally see that Alec Guinness is holding a stick and not a lightsaber, and there's that awful jump cut when he first activates it.
When I was writing my comment, I intentionally included "seemed" because I think you can look back on them now and realize they weren't all that cool: But, when the first Star Wars came out, I wasn't alive but I believe that the special effects were dazzling enough to make people want to see it over and over and over. The prequels never even came close to that.
My experience has been that the younger viewers want to see all six movies over and over, even if they don't really understand the political aspect or the love stories.: The effects just need to be there, for them, and I always feel that Star Wars is very much for them, despite the number of adults it delights.
I guess I have never seen Star Wars with youthful eyes, either in the original trilogy or the prequels.: But I'll take your word for it.
Wait, seriously: Yoda is a puppet?!
comment on this regret |
| |
