Comments on: Star Wars: A New Heap

Star Wars: A New Heap

vronsky — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:01:03 -0800

By: yhbc

yhbc — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:07:43 -0800

Okay, there's a lot of reading in that second link there. Got any flash animations of Boba Fett instead?

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:12:32 -0800

The writer in the second link raises some interesting issues, but on every page I couldn't help but think that the human brain likes to make associations and patterns out of things that really aren't that similar in essence. And, to nitpick: Lucas envisioned a World of Tomorrow dominated by black, white, and gray;2 hard-edged, massive, and inorganic forms, covered with a salty acne of apparatus It was a long time ago (in a galaxy far, far away), man.

By: vronsky

vronsky — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:16:46 -0800

No, but I do have this : )

By: KokuRyu

KokuRyu — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:17:48 -0800

This post is so cool, especially the second link.

By: netbros

netbros — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:19:53 -0800

Welcome to Now

By: Burhanistan

Burhanistan — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:24:56 -0800

Welcome to Now You mean "welcome to 2006 estimates divided by seconds in the year".

By: vronsky

vronsky — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:29:35 -0800

I do remember playing an old N64 game where you fought Boba Fett with a jetpack. You also fought a robot called IG 88 I think. It was a great game. There was a section where you jumped trains near the end that was ahead of its time.

By: OverlappingElvis

OverlappingElvis — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:33:31 -0800

By: nicwolff

nicwolff — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 21:42:22 -0800

Hey you know what good UI designers do? They tell you how many pages long a flipbook is, and what page you're on. tmanyfootnotes;dr

By: nickyskye

nickyskye — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 22:04:07 -0800

Really enjoyed the premise of the article. "the brand new idea that the future could be gritty, worn, dilapidated and a mixed bag of modern and ancient. The "used future" of Star Wars was entirely new to me, and liberating. The heterogeneity of old and new felt absolutely real in a profound way, and the future has not been the same since. This "Star Wars esthetics" has influenced not only all of science fiction since, but also the design of cities, fashion, literature, industrial design, and design in general. In short, Lucas's vision of a used future has shaped our own future." This was very much the allure for me of Blade Runner and before that Robert Sheckley's brilliant short stories in his Omnibus collection and before him Ray Bradbury. I think that's part of my love of NYC, the used future. India too has some of that, a surrealist flux collage of time and culture frames. and now that I think of it that was the fun of Back to the Future as well as Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure.

By: ducky l'orange

ducky l'orange — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:17:00 -0800

Though I have a hard time believing that someone as indebted to his influences as Lucas can really be credited with "inventing" the used future as a trope, the second article does make a good case for Star Wars as a serious piece of science fiction (rather than simply a re-heated samurai adventure with space ships, which is the way I usually think of it).

By: sien

sien — Thu, 04 Dec 2008 23:18:11 -0800

In the second link the picture of the death star's explosion looks like it was from the redone effects. It says 1977. I will return to my original in box storm trooper now. (nice post)

By: empath

empath — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:22:11 -0800

Could anybody say anything remotely as interesting about the prequels?

By: autodidact

autodidact — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 00:24:05 -0800

This is why I come to Metafilter.

By: bardic

bardic — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:17:50 -0800

Even for non-nerds unlike myself, I think most people would realize the very different "futures" American pop-culture witnesses in Star Wars and Star Trek. My favorite anecdote was always food. Star Trek TOS? Why, use the nutronium foodilator and make anything you want! Star Wars? Well, it's probably in one of those bulky industrial canisters, next to the broken down robot. Two interesting ends of the futurism spectrum.

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:52:17 -0800

Though I have a hard time believing that someone as indebted to his influences as Lucas can really be credited with "inventing" the used future as a trope Yes and no. Apple didn't invent the multi-gigabyte pocket mp3 player, but as far as Joe on the street knows or cares, they did. Before Starwars, science fiction was shiny phallic rocket ships, and afterwards, you couldn't find a shiny rocket ship if you tried. And you still can't today. It wasn't just that Star Wars introduced this new thing, it was that - in a matter of minutes - Star Wars killed the existing style of science-fiction stone dead, and it has never recovered. The only other aesthetic annihilation I can think of that comes close to the totality of what star Wars did to the trope of its day, is what Hitler did to the pencil moustache. And that took him years. I just compared Star Wars to Hitler

By: -harlequin-

-harlequin- — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 01:55:26 -0800

is what Hitler did to the pencil moustache Er, I meant toothbrush moustache.

By: le morte de bea arthur

le morte de bea arthur — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 02:39:02 -0800

I don't think Lucas can really be said to have invented this 'used future'; he may well have been the first filmmaker to have brought to life such a detailed and consistent depiction of an imagined reality, in the SF genre at least. But descriptions of civilisations where technology is no longer shiny and new, or has even lapsed into decay, are extremely common in science fiction literature from the 50s onwards - Vance's 'The Dying Earth' (1950), and Brian Aldiss's Hothouse (1962) are two examples which come to mind.

By: kzin602

kzin602 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:03:31 -0800

I see where he was going with the comparison of the deathstar explosion (that he tagged as Explosion of the Death Star, Star Wars, 1977) to a building implosion. blue shockwave = dust cloud / vietnam footage of carpetbombing Saying that shockwave reflected the Vietnam war and contemporary building implosions isn't accurate, as that blue shockwave was added in the special edition re release in the 90's. First place I recall seeing that effect was in videogames like Descent: Freespace. Holy crap, I'm a nerd. I dd really dig the look of Original trilogy ships, with all the exposed piping and antennae, however i think it was more that Ralph McQuarrie seemed to like strange spikey shapes and profiles; more than any kind of "statement".

By: kzin602

kzin602 — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 03:27:42 -0800

In the second link the picture of the death star's explosion looks like it was from the redone effects. It says 1977. posted by sien at 11:18 PM on December 4 Totally missed your post, sorry.

By: i_cola

i_cola — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 04:54:54 -0800

Could anybody say anything remotely as interesting about the prequels? Oooo. 20+ comments in and that's the closest we get to a 'Waaaahh! Lucas stole my childhood!'-type weenieism. Not bad at all. In answer to your question, yes I could but I really don't think you deserve it. Also, I can't be arsed to type it all out (and serious kudos to the writers of he two linked articles for their effort). I will be in NYC next Feb and may call a meetup so that could be your only chance.

By: roygbv

roygbv — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:37:04 -0800

For more on postmodern art of the 1970s, read this.

By: roygbv

roygbv — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:39:17 -0800

Er, rather, read this.

By: ricochet biscuit

ricochet biscuit — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:54:53 -0800

Before Starwars, science fiction was shiny phallic rocket ships, and afterwards, you couldn't find a shiny rocket ship if you tried. And you still can't today. It wasn't just that Star Wars introduced this new thing, it was that - in a matter of minutes - Star Wars killed the existing style of science-fiction stone dead, and it has never recovered. Quoted for truth. Although there are a LOT of things wrong with Star Wars, let us not overlook this virtue. The set design of the Alien movies and Firefly/Serenity and Blade Runner and Pitch Black and a whole bunch of other stuff owes a debt to the "used future" look, which had barely been seen on screen before (Silent Running, maybe, but nowhere near as pronounced as this).

By: caution live frogs

caution live frogs — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 05:58:49 -0800

ducky l'orange writes "the second article does make a good case for Star Wars as a serious piece of science fiction" The bit that surprised me was the statement that Lucas intentionally envisioned the Empire as America and the Rebellion as the North Vietnamese. I mean, if it's true, it's a brilliant bit of subversion. It makes me appreciate the film that much more, rather than simply liking it because I was a wee kid when I first saw the cool spaceships and lasers. empath writes "Could anybody say anything remotely as interesting about the prequels?" Not really, no. But the design aesthetic... in the prequels, the good guys get the "shiny phallic rocket ships" (as -harlequin- wrote, and there's a progression of increasingly utilitarian vehicles in the Empire-to-be as the internal takeover begins. You can see where things are headed. From what I've read, this was intentional, a return to the Buck Rogers-like vehicle design to create a feel of an earlier age, while the newer assault vehicles used by the troops were meant to foreshadow the minimalist utilitarian Empire world to come. The vessels left for the resistance movement were the leftovers of this earlier age, patched up discards of outdated design. If you can step outside of your distaste for the storyline or acting, you have to admit that Lucas does do visuals quite well, despite his penchant for retroactive editing and failure to realize that visuals alone do not a movie make.

By: Pollomacho

Pollomacho — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:21:07 -0800

Before Starwars, science fiction was shiny phallic rocket ships, and afterwards, you couldn't find a shiny rocket ship if you tried. The used future look I'll partially give to Star Wars, but I think the phallic rocket was on its way out once the Apollo lunar module and 2001 hit screens. The (lunar dust) dirtied space suits and the non-linear design of the LEM certainly had a lot to do with the used future look as well though.

By: dellsolace

dellsolace — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:25:31 -0800

In all seriousness, where do the Mon Calamari crusiers in "Jedi" fit into this design aesthetic? On the one hand, they are obviously not part of the modernist/minimalist Imperial design scheme, but they seem to be a lot clearner and tidier than most of the rebel fleet. Leftovers from the pre-Imperial era? Some new third way?

By: schwa

schwa — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:36:59 -0800

By: doobiedoo

doobiedoo — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:40:13 -0800

what do people mean when they say that "The heterogeneity of old and new felt absolutely real in a profound way"? i don't think kevin kelly's alone in finding the mix of old and new a more compelling reality than comprehensive systems of total newness, but if we just leave it at 'it looks cool' then i think we've not only missed the point, but also consigned whatever genuine ambitions and desires in the schools of total newness to that familiar trashcan, our quaint and delusional forebears, thereby replaying the same historical alienation that total newness started in the first place.

By: doobiedoo

doobiedoo — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 06:48:00 -0800

incidentally if the prequels took inspiration from any particular style i'd say it was baroque

By: AdamCSnider

AdamCSnider — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:17:14 -0800

you have to admit that Lucas does do visuals quite well I will cheerfully posit that if you turn off the sound and watch the prequels, they're actually quite good. Lucas is an excellent artist, he's just a crap screenwriter. I can still remember seeing Star Wars for the first time, and comparing it to the Asimov stuff I'd been reading (mostly Foundation, some of the short stories). It did give off a feel of being worn, used - and also diverse (and I'm not talking about the abominable Jar-Jar Binks and his ilk), which was a nice change from a world in which everything was basically America with better rocketships. The weird made up languages, the bizarre cultures and creatures, the existence of a criminal underworld, were all elements that struck me as making Star Wars (and I cringe a little saying this, but I was young) much more real than the Foundation, or the canyons of steel. Now, of course, we have had Neuromancer and Blade Runner and Snow Crash and the Kovacs novels, and Star Wars looks a lot more hokey. But yeah, I can get this guy's point that it broke some ground. It certainly felt that way to me.

By: BeerFilter

BeerFilter — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 07:56:38 -0800

'Like the minimalist art it resembles, the Death Star is a utopia stripped of all progressive justification: It has monastic barracks, its sexuality is defined negatively (see Darth Vader's masochistic garb), and its entryway is a breach in the "equatorial trench."' I love it. :)

By: nushustu

nushustu — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 08:02:19 -0800

nicwolff nailed it. Reading a paper in this format is like watching the ASCII version of Star Wars. It's neat for three minutes, and then it's just obnoxious and I want to read/watch something in a more normal format.

By: happyroach

happyroach — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:38:46 -0800

Well, it's nicely long and pedantic as an art analysis piece should be, but it's taking a lot of words to say...well, nothing new. There's been commentaries on the importance of the "lived in" aesthetic of Star Wars and its place in popular culture for decades. I even recall one from the 1980s that did a nice progression analysis of the appearance of the improbably minimal and stylized Buck Rogers spaceships, the realistic extrapolation of 2001, and the junky appearance of Star Wars. In other words, this boils down to yet again another commentator saying "Yeah, that Star Wars, it really changed things."

By: blue_beetle

blue_beetle — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 11:53:45 -0800

I blame Apollo 13, especially that Tom Hanks kid.

By: DevilsAdvocate

DevilsAdvocate — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 12:14:49 -0800

Obligatory TV Tropes link. Including several pre-Star Wars examples. (Although I agree Star Wars did much more to popularize it than any of the examples that came before.)

By: Ironmouth

Ironmouth — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:48:27 -0800

It wasn't just that Star Wars introduced this new thing, it was that - in a matter of minutes - Star Wars killed the existing style of science-fiction stone dead, and it has never recovered. That first shot of the blockade runner passing, taking up a huge part of the screen totally grabbed me when I was 8 years old. Seconds later, the Star Destroyer, dwarfing the rebel ship just filled the entire screen and went on and on. You were immediately served notice that this was not a normal science fiction movie, that this guy was thinking on scales that nobody had put into visual practice. Could anybody say anything remotely as interesting about the prequels? I've been watching them again as they come on Spike and I have to say that they are, surprisingly, growing on me. Frankly, I resented some of the mystery being filled in, but when you start to look at things as a whole, you realize nobody ever thought that big before and added everything into the picture--not just ray guns but religion.

By: tehloki

tehloki — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 13:54:50 -0800

Star Farts: A New Poop Before you start, I must inform you that I am already very ashamed of myself, and I will never do it again.

By: ducky l'orange

ducky l'orange — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 16:07:08 -0800

Harlequin - I agree that a) being first person to do something and the first person to get famous for it are two different things, and b) the average fan on the street doesn't give a flip. Yes, Star Wars was hugely influential. Looking back to my childhood, I remember remarking to my dad that what I thought was so neat about the spaceships in Star Wars was that they were "bumpy and dirty and realistic," unlike the silly teardrop-shaped spacecraft envisioned by earlier generations of science fiction art directors. But for the sake of discussion, there are tons of precedents for the "used future" trope, and I don't just mean Phillip K. Dick or Dr. Who. Looking back to the start of the early 20th century we see the dada movement critiquing Italian Futurism and it's techno-fetishism even as it was happening, and see recycled consumer objects incorporated into "primitivist" avante-garde assemblage... We hear folk-songs about airplanes and railroad strikes, and see revivals of outdated music and fashion thrive in the name of retrieving some lost, lamented authenticity... Basically, skepticism about flashy new stuff, cultural recycling and tales of heroic individuals using out-dated technology (religion!) to stand up to technologically superior foes are as old as dirt. It isn't that I don't think Star Wars is awesome - I just think that the idea of the "used future" is bigger and more interesting than any one movie. Star Wars had visionary art direction, but good art doesn't spring fully-formed from one person's imagination - it's shaped by the times. I think the general public cynicism about technology and social progress in the 1970's was bound to produce entertainment that reflected those feelings. Star Wars is a particularly impressive, era-defining example, but by no means the only one worth talking about. And as for the supposed death of the sleek, modernist teardrop aesthetic, I just came back from the Apple Store where mid-century science fiction design appears to be alive and well!

By: empath

empath — Fri, 05 Dec 2008 17:11:19 -0800

In answer to your question, yes I could but I really don't think you deserve it. What a stupid response.

By: Powers

Powers — Tue, 23 Dec 2008 07:47:54 -0800

Well, it's nicely long and pedantic as an art analysis piece should be, but it's taking a lot of words to say...well, nothing new. When I was working on the essay I looked long and hard to find any serious writings on Star Wars. I wrote it because I didn't find anything that made any links between the film, art and architecture - much less the particular links I made to Utopia and modernity. I would be very interested to find anything written on the visual program of the film, and would appreciate seeing the piece you mentioned if you were able to dig it up. Some of the comments on this thread point out that there are earlier precedents of the used future, many of then literary (I haven't seen any of the films discussed - but I will check them out). I started this essay after watching a show about the origins of Star Wars with my nephew. The show rehearsed the same tired narrative of archetypal "Hero with a Thousand Faces" that I have been hearing since I was in grade school. That is why the essay treats the film as an object - not as literature. The Joseph Campbell angle is well trod ground. I tried to go beyond saying "Star Wars changed things" and say why and how I thought things had changed. It is true that Star Wars did for flying sauces what Hitler did for the toothbrush mustache. That is an extraordinary thing - and a great way to say it. I think because Star Wars was a "blockbuster," and is an on-going commercially successful "franchise," it is avoided by academics, which is too bad.