Q: 1st SF movie artistic/financial success following Star Wars success? (broad cat.)

Star Wars opened in a relatively small number of theaters on Wednesday, May 25, 1977. At a certain point, I'm sure studio executives thought to themselves, "Holy Shit!"

So, what was the first science fiction movie entirely written, cast, and directed post-Star Wars? And it might be interesting to talk about a film which was either artistically successful or financially successfully, but I'm really looking for the first Sci Fi film which was both. Even though I know this is something we can't entirely nail down.

I might say Alien in Spring of '79?
 
Last edited:

jahenders

Banned
Star Wars opened in a relatively small number of theaters on Wednesday, May 25, 1977. At a certain point, I'm sure studio executives thought to themselves, "Holy Shit!"

So, what was the first science fiction movie entirely written, cast, and directed post-Star Wars? And it might be interesting to talk about a film which was either artistically successful or financially successfully, but I'm really looking for the first Sci Fi film which was both. Even though I know this is something we can't entirely nail down.

I might say Alien in Spring of '79?

LaserBlast came out in 78 and was at least partially inspired by Star Wars.

Alien had been pitched before Star Wars, but the studio wasn't enthusiastic. After Star Wars, they wanted SOMETHING SF and Alien was what they had lying around, so they did that.

It was after Alien, but Star Trek: The Movie was pretty quick (late 79). Paramount was considering a movie in 75, but cancelled it and was going to do a TV show. After Star Wars, they redid the TV pilot as a movie.

Black Hole also came out in late 79. Disney used some equipment from Star Wars and made Black Hole their first PG movie.

Time After Time also came out in 79.
 
Battlestar Galactica came out in '78 and was pretty obviously inspired by Star Wars. Isaac Asimov even commented on it.

I don't Alien really qualifies though. It was probably Mae because of Star Wars, but doesn't really have anything other than general genre in common with it.
 
I mean simply within the broad, general category of Sci Fi, have changed title of post.

And since Hollywood (and other film capitols!) always have a lot of potential projects lying around, maybe we can use the beginning of filming to determine if something is post-Star Wars?
 
Last edited:
I mean simply within the broad, general category of Sci Fi, have changed title of post.

And since Hollywood (and other film capitols!) always have a lot of potential projects lying around, maybe we can use the beginning of filming to determine if something is post-Star Wars?

Eh, in That case I'm still putting Galactica forward as the first I know of. It was released about a year and four months after Star Wars, which is about enough time to knock out a couple of scripts, talk the studio into giving you a chance, and ultimately taking a lot of elements from the film.

There might have been a few others before it but, well the fact they are so obscure would IMO diminish how well they fit. But, well by broadening the topic to any SF movie made after Star Wars I kinda don't see the point. Virtually EVERY SF movie made after '76 has some tie to Star Wars then, so it just comes down to how you define success.
 
What I have in mind is that post-Summer '77 some promising but risky projects may get the green light when they otherwise would not have.
 
STARCRASH by Luigi Cozzi

yes the scrip lies at Cinecittà Studios, Italy. until STAR WARS hit the cinema
they rush it in production with minimal budget, made it in 84 day and it hit cinemas 18 month after STAR WARS

making Starcrash a masterpiece of unintentionally bad filmmaking
today it consider a campy cult movie, that gave us "the Hoff" first role before get in car called KIT2000...

Irony, Starcrash was financial successful for Cinecittà Studios,
so they rip off there own movie and recycle it reedit into STARCRASH 2:Escape to Galaxy 3
Today consider the most infamous rip off of a rip off movie ever made...
 
I like all of the above! :)

LaserBlast, STARCRASH, and Battlestar Galactica which was a TV show in the late '70s(?)

Michel, you say "making Starcrash a masterpiece of unintentionally bad filmmaking" Ah yes, the film so bad it's good! And the interesting thing, the filmmaker can't really fake this or it falls flat. It kind of has to be an honest mistake and unintentionally done.
 
I like all of the above! :)

LaserBlast, STARCRASH, and Battlestar Galactica which was a TV show in the late '70s(?)

Michel, you say "making Starcrash a masterpiece of unintentionally bad filmmaking" Ah yes, the film so bad it's good! And the interesting thing, the filmmaker can't really fake this or it falls flat. It kind of has to be an honest mistake and unintentionally done.


Battlestar Galactica was show first in US on TV, but in Europe countries is was first show in Cinemas before local TV !

Starcrash is masterpiece of Trash cinema
alone this Villain !
starcrash-zarth.jpg

if you think thats bad, look at villain of Starcrash 2: Escape from Galaxy 3
3075818232_2d9d79875e.jpg


but the guilty pleasure to watch Starcrash is because of her
caroline-munro-hot-starcrash-02.jpg
 
wasn't she briefly held as a prisoner working in an uranium salt mine, something like that? and then after a couple of days, her friends helped her to escape?

I mean, the movie so bad it's good! :eek:
 
I would argue Star Trek because it lead to a series of movies that did quite well and eventually another TV show which then led to more movies and TV shows..
 
I would argue Star Trek because it lead to a series of movies that did quite well and eventually another TV show . . .
I'll acknowledge that the Star Trek franchise eventually was better than the Battlestar Galactica franchise. But Galactica came first and was plenty successful. To my mind, it met the threshold.
 
I'll acknowledge that the Star Trek franchise eventually was better than the Battlestar Galactica franchise. But Galactica came first and was plenty successful. To my mind, it met the threshold.

i not understand
Star Trek was in 1966-1969 on TV
Battlestar Galactica was in 1978 and 1980 on TV. (original series)
or imply that on Cinema version ?
 
Star Trek: The Motion Picture was released Dec. '79. That was the flat, boring, 'perfect" one. But then Star Trek II: The Wrath of Khan was released June 1982. That one was kick ass, it had story, was scary, and had a lot going for it. And the sequel TV series to the '60s series was Star Trek: The Next Generation which began Sept 1987. So eventually, the reboot was both artistically and financially successful. And it may have gotten a green light because of how big a success Star Wars was.

But Battlestar Galactica, which was a TV series which started on Sept. 17, 1978, was first.
 
Last edited:
Top