What if Star Wars wasn't made in the 70's?

[enterthemadness]

What if Lucas didn't make the 3 flicks in the 70's and 80's...and started with Phantom Menace in 1999? Would it had still made a lot of money? Would we get anymore SW flicks?

 

[Rez]

Yes. I'm willing to bet it would have done far better critically as no one would have been "dissapointed" and the biggest complaint would be that a few things were annoying, like Jar Jar's voice. It still would have done good buisiness, enough to warrent sequels.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Good Question. I think it would be succesful on some level. Star Wars A New Hope was supposed to be junk back in the 70's. Then it turned into a huge movie with two sequels. So yes, i think that The Phantom Menace would have been a hugh hit.

 

[enterthemadness]

Another interesting question...would 4,5,6 be made? Since we know who the babies are at the end of 3. Kinda would ruin the surprise towards the end of 5 (Empire strikes back)

 

[Rez]

It would certainly change the structure. I'm willing to bet that the death of Anakin and the creation of Darth Vader would have been far more ambiguous, so you could still have the "I am your father" reveal.

 

[NewYorkSpider]

Well in that case the movies would me different. Maybe at the end of 3 have it where you see just one baby being born.

 

[Secret_Riddle]

If the phantom menace had been released in 77 it would have had the same impact as the original, would have probably had all 5 sequals. and we might even be complaining that 4,5,6 were not up to snuff.

 

[Dan33977]

I don't know.

 

[Road Warrior]

It depends on whether or not George Lucas would have done a good job. "A New Hope" was great because Lucas still cared about storytelling.

 

[Agentsands77]

If the EPISODE ONE that was released was the exact one we saw in theatres, it would tank.

 

[FaT_tONle]

movie would have been a joke... agreed...

 

[GoldGoblin]

It would make sequels probably,but it defintely wouldn't make Lucas a billionaire.

 

[enterthemadness]

I think the only good thing people would like out of it...would be the lightsabers and Obi-/Gunn vs Maul Fight.

 

[huskerwebhead]

If GL had made only TPM in 1999 it would NOT have made as big an impact as ANH did back in the 70's. Keep in mind that when ANH was released there was nothing else like it...The special effects itself was something that people had never seen and were blown away by it. By 1999, there have been plenty of movies with amazing special effects and great stories. TPM would not have broken any new ground and would have been simply another Sci-Fi/Fantasy movie...nothing special.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

Yes, let me explain to some of you youngsters.
Star Wars was a first.
There were other Sci-Fi movies that came out that same year that were still "model rocket hanging from a string" - style effects.
Star Wars blew all of that out of the water.

In '99, TPM would've been just another cute CGI fantasy thing, and people would have been W.A.Y. less forgiving if it didn't have a classic past to harken back to.
W.A.Y. less.

Which is funny, 'cause Prequel-Lovers always say, as their mantra, "TPM was Brilliant. You just didn't like it because you're not a kid anymore. You're jaded and there's no way it could've lived up to such huge expectations (which is ******ed, 'cause there were never any expectations as huge as those of us kids, waiting to see "Star Wars 2", and Empire didn't live up to our expectations, it totally surpassed them in every way. ).

When in reality, the nostalgia for the 70's/80's Star Wars was the biggest thing that made the prequels even watchable.

 

[Matt]

If released in 99, it would bomb like Serenity, Riddick, and the countless other "Sci-fi epics" that come out every year and bomb.

Star Wars succeeded in '77 because it was as Wilhelm said, a first. The prequels succeeded in 1999, 2002, and 2005 because they were sequels. They would've failed as stand alone movies. Why?

1) The special effects would've been nothing new.
2) Sci-Fi movies are pumped out of studios every few months.
3) The plot was boring, the acting was bad, Jar Jar was annoying, and the only decent part is the saber fight.

Much better movies than TPM bomb (I again, cite Serenity). This would've been no different.

 

[chamber-music]

What made Star Wars different in 77 was that it was new and epic and there was nothing else like it around that time.

 

[Strange]

I think if TPM was the first Star Wars movie made and we knew nothing about the Jedi and the Sith, it would have still been a very popular franchise. I don't think it would have been as big as it is now but it would still do very well. Again Star Wars perfected the whole space mythology thing, if we knew nothing about Star Wars then it would all be new and we would have nothing to compare it to. And Star Wars pretty much set the bar as far as major franchise movies go, if there were no Star Wars in the 70's imagaine what else we would be without today.

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

What on Earth could I have played with if I didn't have Star Wars action figures?
What, "skiprope", "horseshoes", "yo-yo"?

 

[Erzengel]

Even GI Joes were minaturized because of Star Wars figures. We would have been playing with f'ing GI Joe dolls.

 

[SolidSnakeMGS]

I agree that it wouldn't have had anywhere near the impact, however, let's look at how Star Wars absence from that period would have affected filmmaking now. Perhaps it would have taken longer for that type of entertainment to become not only popular but marketable. Without Star Wars, there would be no Raiders, and without Raiders, who knows what we would be missing. Would we have Back to the Future or LOTR or any other sci-fi/epic/fantasy films? Or would we still have those films? Would they be as popular? Would they even have a chance of being made?

I think a more interesting question is what if Lucas started with Phantom Menace back in the late 70s and made the OT in 99. You can see the pandering starting in ROTJ, and its full blown effect in the PT and beyond. Lucas was a rebel when he made Star Wars and ESB, but he started to become the greedy, studio executive that he rebelled against in the 70s, obsessed with marketing and gimmickery like special effects over story.

 

[Mr. Credible]

i honestly can't see how everyone talks so much crap about the prequels, then praises the original trilogy. they all have their corny parts, and a lot of the acting is bad all around. not just in the prequels.

so, to answer the question, i don't know. i don't get the big deal about the original trilogy in the first place, other than the special effects being extraordinary for their time (which the prequel trilogy did, too.)

 

[3dman27]

good question

 

[Wilhelm-Scream]

i honestly can't see how everyone talks so much crap about the prequels, then praises the original trilogy. they all have their corny parts, and a lot of the acting is bad all around. not just in the prequels.

That argument is like saying saying "Clare Danes has a big nose, Barbara Streisand has a big nose".
Yes, they both have big noses, but which one would you rather f***?

 

[Mr. Credible]

That argument is like saying saying "Clare Danes has a big nose, Barbara Streisand has a big nose".
Yes, they both have big noses, but which one would you rather f***?

no... what i'm saying is that what people complain about regarding the prequel trilogy, the original trilogy is guilty of just as much.

it's like saying "claire daines has a big nose now, but i would have F'd the S out of her back in the day."