h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

This thread is being instigated to see if anyone else out there is interested in discussing the following concepts. It is strongly encouraged that only people who have seen the new movie read this thread. Those who have seen the movie are strongly encouraged to place Spoiler Warnings on anything that might upset those on the eastern side of the Atlantic Ocean, and anyone else who hasn't seen it yet.

READ AT YOUR OWN RISK. POST AT YOUR OWN RISK.

The premise of this thread is this:

George Lucas reportedly immersed himself in folklore and mythology prior to creating this tale. The Star Wars saga owes much to everything from greco-roman mythology to 20th century commercialism. There are archetypes in the saga which can be seen elsewhere throughout the culture and history of this world. Joseph Campbell's research and many books on this topic comes to mind.

There is more than just a cute fuzziness to Star Wars that makes it appealing. There is more than just a looming sense of doom and a struggle between the good guys and bad guys here. Many critics have denounced Star Wars for being such a blatant tale of good vs. evil and questioning why there's not more depth and believability to the characters. The answer is because it is unecessary. It speaks to us all.

But what is it about this tale that pulls on the nervous systems of so many throughout the world? What makes it tick? What do YOU get from it? Why does this tale work so well for so many when other stories with similar themes and concepts and images are less appealing?

Are there a finite number of elements that any story must have in order to achieve mythological status? Are there limitations to the variables and structure of said stories? Can you see correlations between the Star Wars saga and other successful or unsuccessful works of world history?

Roger Ebert recently said that Jabba the Hutt has always seemed to him almost "Dickensian" meaning if you take away the fact he's a thirty foot long slug, his personality and demeanor could fit well into Charles Dickens books "Great Expectations" or "A Tale of Two Cities" or perhaps "Oliver Twist."

Are there similarities in Star Wars and other classic works of literature? Does it excel or far short of Mark Twain? Johnathan Swift? H.G. Welles? Jules Verne? Is there no comparison?

And other movies of the 20th century, do you see shades of the movie Metropolis in Phantom Menace? How about the works of Hitchcock? Do Darth Maul and Darth Vader tower over the great monsters of film history like Frankenstein and Dracula, or are they dwarfed by them?

What makes Star Wars tick? And for that matter, what makes any attempt at cinematic art succeed or fail? Is it pure luck, or is there a pattern to it?

What do you think?

a disclaimer. I can already hear the potential rebuttals before we begin. This thread is not intended to start a fight over whether or not Star Wars is good or bad, or whether it deserves comparison to another work of art. If we get lost in that we'll lose sight of the potential for this thread.

For those who would argue that Star Wars is not cinematic genius or certaintly not something as well writ as the works of Shakespeare or Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, I'm not asking anyone to compare Star Wars to anything else just to say what "rocks" and what "sucks."

Can we go deeper than that?

Admittedly, there's going to be a little of that if this thread takes off. What I'm asking is, what makes successful storytelling work and what doesn't?

Why has the Star Wars saga entranced so many despite the fact critics who spend their lives analyzing works can't see why more acclaimed and deserving material is treated with much less fanfare.

Is it just good marketing? Is it sheer luck? Or is there a method to the madness?

What MAKES a story rock or suck?

The story is full of technological wonders; lasers and spaceships and droids and light-speed travel and, and, and... Yet it is set "Long, long ago in a galaxy far, far away." Lucas plays with the timeframe, which is a huge part of why this story works so well. He didn't try to make it futuristic when he could only guess what the future would hold. We have Jedi Knights fighting with laser versions of swords, and Droids who speak in beeps and whistles. We have people walking around in robes and kimonos on space ships capable of light speed.

While watching the original trilogy, I realized that the only things that set Star Wars: A New Hope in the '70s was Leia's lipgloss and Luke's haircut. They don't use slang from the era in which the movie was made, they're dressed in timeless costumes, and even the technology isn't too outdated because it's based on familiar scenarios. For example, we recognize the clear plastic panel with green lines in the Rebel Base as they're attacking the Death Star. There are no computer terminals which require punchcards (unlike THX1138) or enormous rooms to house them. And in Episode I he does the same thing. Queen Amidala's costumes seem to be blends of Victorian clothes from Europe with Asian styles. They didn't rely on making them look otherworldly; instead, they blended different eras and regions to come up with something believable. The Battle Droids work because they're humanoid, and that will never go out of date.

Just one of the many reasons why Star Wars (any episode) "ticks."

I would also say that the Force is another reason Star Wars ticks. It's simple, yet can do just about anything. Little old Yoda lifting the X-Wing out of the bog, or of the emperor zapping Luke are scenes that have nothing to do with time and could happen anywhere.
That's what makes SW ao timeless to me.

So is Star Wars popular for the same reason Shakespeare has been popular all these centuries? Star Wars is timeless? Even the "70s" affectations of Luke and Leia can be overlooked. To be honest, I've never noticed them before...

Is that it? Or is there more to it than that? Other classic works are not timeless yet they are still just as memorable. Sherlock Holmes, Moby Dick, and the tales of Flash Gordon are just a few examples that come to mind. They each are strongly rooted to a time period, yet they too are memorable and still have many fans long after their novelty wore off.

Is it somehow a combination? Not only are the concepts suggested by the force timeless ones (good vs. evil, taking calculated risks, daring to excel and better oneself, the concept of there being one source of energy in all things), but the Star Wars universe itself has a certain distinctiveness and consistency to it.

It's timeless in the same way that Shakespeare's A Midsummer Night's Dream is timeless. MND doesn't take place in any particular time period, but it does have a very distinctive and magical world all its own.

Your thoughts?

Shakespeare is timeless because he told traditional stories in the most beautiful way. Just listening to Shakepearian dialogue spoken by good actors is a tremendous thing. It's poetry in all the good senses of the word. The stories were the bedrock about which he wove his verbal magic.

I think that Lucas does the same thing visually. In Star Wars he took the Hero myth as his bedrock and wove a visual magic around it. He was also canny enough to make it as timeless as possible, as you and others have said. But it's interesting to note that merely using the Hero myth in any setting will not necessarily work. Willow was much criticised for being a shallow attempt to use the myth again, this time in a fantasy context. It failed (although I personally love it). But that might be because the trappings surrounding it (sword and sorcery) aren't as acceptable to modern audiences as Science Fantasy.

The whole "long time ago in a galaxy far far away" setup is what sets that up I think. He doesn't have to worry about continuity. He doesn't have to worry about what people believe existed on Earth in the past. If he wants magic to be there, it's there. If he wants to explain the magic scientifically, that's his option.

With sword and sorcery, there are so many purists on many levels of the spectrum. Those who insist we shouldn't glorify the dark ages like the tales of King Arthur, when the historical accuracy of Atilla the Hun is more realistic. People who insist there could be no such thing as dragons or elves or fairies.

By setting the Star Wars mythology in a completely different galaxy and time, there's no way someone could argue such silly things. If Lucas wants to put a dragon-like thing in the picture, it's his prerogative. If he wants there to be scientific technology AND mystical powers AND psyonics, he can play with all those variables.

So long as the tale is true to its own perception of reality, the average audience will buy it.