I think I'm going to throw up. I couldn't disagree more.
A great movie is great because of the impression it's capable of leaving on you, and that remains the same when approached from any era or context-- you don't need to put yourself in a certain era/context to appreciate them and things aren't merely great for the time that they were made in-- great movies transcend the superficial fashion/constraints that are common for their time, and movies that ACTUALLY become dated and require that context were probably never truly that great to begin with, IMO-- principles that are lasting work because they will always work, because it makes reasonable sense why it would work, not because they're simply fashionable for their time. Inability to appreciate movies that function in a context different from the one that's common to our own era is simply ignorance, superficiality, and narrow-mindedness-- something that we're capable of, we should, and is worth overcoming-- not anything that speaks to the actual potential of something.
A New Hope falls into this category -- great and innovative for its time, but not so great now.
It did for me. These are among my favorite moments of the OT. As a kid, I watched these scenes starry-eyed, as they seemed completely other-worldly. By the time we're introduced to Luke some twenty minutes into the film, as he runs from the sand crawler to Aunt Beru (accompanied by Williams' Force theme), I'm sold on the universe.
Moisture farming? Give me more!
That's the problem and the point I am trying to drive home. What once seemed "otherworldly" is now pedestrian. The entire appeal of the first film was its ability to take contemporary audiences to places they had never been before and offer them an experience unlike anything else. Audiences had the patience for what they saw on screen because it is what they were conditioned to see; it was also more exciting than other films of its era. There was no depth to the appeal beyond the fact that it was an unprecedented experience. It was a one-of-a-kind spectacle.
That appeal only exists for the generation that experienced it when it was state-of-the-art; the memory of that experience creates a powerful, unique bond between the original audience and the film in question.
That film will not evoke the same reaction out of anyone who has already been exposed to other, more exhilarating cinematic experiences. A New Hope does not leave the same impression on people who have been exposed to spectacles far greater. It is not the same wondrous experience to those growing up in this era with access to an entire catalog of acclaimed post-1977 spectacles that push the limits of imagination. We now see on-screen what we could have only dreamed of forty years ago;
A New Hope no longer excels in the area that made it famous. Most people's jaws dropped when they saw
The Jungle Book (2016) earlier this year. Hollywood's capabilities have far exceeded those of mid-1970s George Lucas.
I'll try to draw an analogous situation for those who grew up after the 70s. The film
Silent Running (1972) is often cited as one of the greatest science-fiction films of all time; it inspired many people -- the reason is that it was "ahead of its time." The film is thin on plot, but amazed audiences at the time with its effects. Ask anyone who watched it as a child, and they will tell you that it is a classic.
If you have never seen it before and grew up in an era with more advanced film-making techniques,
Silent Running might not impress you at all. Viewers who watched this film as children cried. It is beloved by those who watched it in the 1970s.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/markkermode/2011/11/silent_running.html
Silent Running
Mark Kermode | 12:15 UK time, Tuesday, 1 November 2011
Silent Running, one of my all time favourite movies and one of the greatest sci fi films ever, is about to be released on BluRay disc. It was made by Douglas Trumbull as a reaction to Kubrick's much more celebrated 2001 and for my money it's the superior film.
http://www.rogerebert.com/reviews/silent-running-1971
Silent Running
****
Adventure, Drama, Science Fiction
Rated G
89 minutes
| Roger Ebert
January 1, 1971 |
In the not very distant future, man has at last finished with Earth. The mountains are leveled and the valleys filled in, and there are no growing plants left to mess things up. Everything is nice and sterile, and man's global housekeeping has achieved total defoliation. Out around the rings of Saturn, a few lonely spaceships keep their vigil. They're interplanetary greenhouses, pointed always toward the sun. Inside their acres and acres of forests, protected by geodesic domes that gather the sunlight, the surviving plants and small animals of Earth grow. There are squirrels and rabbits and moonlit nights when the wind does actually seem to breathe in the trees: a ghostly reminder of the dead forests of Earth.
...
One day the word comes from Earth: Destroy the greenhouses and return. Lowell cannot bring himself to do this, and so he destroys his fellow crew members instead. Then he hijacks his spaceship and directs it out into the deep galactic night. All of this is told with simplicity and a quiet ecological concern, and it makes "Silent Running" a movie out of the ordinary -- especially if you like science fiction.
The director is Douglas Trumbull, a Canadian who designed many of the special effects for Stanley Kubrick's "2001: A Space Odyssey." Trumbull also did the computers and the underground laboratory for "The Andromeda Strain," and is one of the best science-fiction special-effects men. "Silent Running," which has deep space effects every bit the equal of those in "2001," also introduces him as an intelligent, if not sensational, director.
...
http://variety.com/1971/film/reviews/silent-running-1200422718/
Review: ‘Silent Running’
Variety Staff
Follow Us on Twitter @Variety
December 31, 1971 | 11:00PM PT
Silent Running depends on the excellent special effects of debuting director Douglas Trumbull and his team and on the appreciation of a literate but broadly entertaining script. Those being the highlights, they are virtually wiped out by the crucial miscasting of Bruce Dern. As a result, the production lacks much dramatic credibility and often teeters on the edge of the ludicrous.
Dern and three clod companions man a space vehicle in a fleet of airships containing vegetation in case the earth again can support that type of life. But the program is scuttled, all hands are recalled, but Dern decides to mutiny. In the process, he kills his three shipmates and goes deeper into space. His only companions are two small robots, whose life-like qualities are rather touching.
A modern review:
http://www.tvguide.com/movies/silent-running/review/117756
Silent Running 1972 | Movie
****
...
This was a directorial debut for Trumbull, who had previously worked with Stanley Kubrick on the special effects for 2001: A SPACE ODDYSSEY. Like that film, SILENT RUNNING concentrates heavily on special effects, resulting in some stunning imagery. Dern gives an engaging, against-type performance, though the script is stretched out very thin to support a feature-length film. The unusual score is by Peter Schickele, best known for his classical music parodies written under the pseudonym P.D.Q. Bach. Despite the presence of some very dated Joan Baez songs on the soundtrack, SILENT RUNNING has built up a deserved cult status over the years.
...
Today, you have people stating that
Silent Running is a bad film. It has a cult following, but not to the same degree that it would be protected against criticism.
Here is an eight-page discussion in which the consensus appears to be that
Silent Running is extremely dated.
http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0067756/board/nest/123144761?ref_=tt_bd_2
Our very own Osprey mentioned
Silent Running in his
The Wicker Man (2006) review:
The Wicker Man (2006) - 2/10 or 8/10, depending on how you look at it
Why did I wait almost 10 years to watch this? Well, I know the reason: it's a ridiculous remake that spits all over the 1973 classic... but, other than that, it's a masterpiece. I had far more fun watching it than I anticipated. I was tiring myself out from laughing. It's hilarious.
Bad writing and Cage's over-the-top acting are each one thing on their own, but marry them together and the result is marvelous to behold. Whether Cage is rudely barging in everywhere and demanding answers like he runs the island; pointing guns at simple, unarmed people and taking their things (at one point, commanding a school teacher to "step away from the bike!"); repeatedly raising his voice to soft-spoken women before they have any chance to respond; or running through the woods in a bear suit, punching women in the face, you'll be wondering who the real lunatic on the island is and laughing the entire time.
For the longest time, I've considered 1972's Silent Running to be the funniest film not intended to be funny that I've ever seen. This 'Wicker Man' remake might just be the first to equal it. This film deserves to be seen by everyone who considers himself (or herself) a connoisseur of laughing at films.
Sadly, believe it or not, there wasn't enough room for all of the absurd scenes that they filmed, so what might've been the funniest scene didn't make it into the film and had to wait until being included on the DVD to become internet legend...
Kids liked the PT. Does that make them good movies when looking at them critically?
That's a cop-out. How many people who were kids during the PT years and grew up still look at those movies with the same nostalgia that others did with the OT? I grew up in the 90s falling in love with the OT, and it still holds up as a great series to me.
From a contemporary critical perspective, those were not considered to be good movies. They were never good movies, so no sense of attachment could ever have been formed; older audiences who experienced the OT and felt attached to that experience also made sure that younger audiences knew that the PT films were unsatisfactory. Unlike a film that is at one point in time magical and then becomes dated, the PT films were always regarded as poor.
A New Hope was a charming spectacle. Without the spectacle, it's now just a charming film. Some of the moments that were included in the film for the spectacle that they provided, i.e., the 30 minutes of nothingness on Tattooine, are now dated and irritant.
