Should old SciFi be judged by today's standards?

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

I didn't think the first scene in TLJ was really bad. Also not something really significant enough in the film to be emblematic of modern sci-fi standards. Star Wars is a hodgepodge of storytelling conventions and kinda exists on its own even when you grant it being among the medium of sci-fi.

The craft standard set by Lucas doesn't have much to do with Sci-FI. THX 1138 or Logan's Run probably, but as Mecha was saying, Star Wars is largely space fantasy. Star Trek included mythic elements, but we'd still call the prime universe Sci-Fi as the nature and environment is supposed to juxtapose how we see things today. Star Wars doesn't do that at all, save for, say, elements again, like the Casino planet. Much more discreet in the grand scheme of the movie.

Interstellar was pretty decent Sci-FI imo, as was Arrival.

[Admiral X]

What made that first scene bad was the fact that Y-wings existed in the same universe. I got what they were going for, and it just completely failed in that setting, in part because the rebels had been seen to have faster, more effective bombers in previous movies.

[Nealithi]

First off I think we do need at least some judging a movie by its time period. This is a bit fantasy not Scifi. But. Wizard of Oz. Entertaining. Pretty. The effects by todays standards and set design is deplorable. But only in comparison.
Certain effects and styles done in movies are tired tropes now. But look back to when they were made. Look at A New Hope. The shot of the star destroyer going overhead took people's breath away. Today it is parodied. But it had set the stage when it did it. Most of the effects still function and hold up well enough. Making it a blend of both. And says why it became a classic.

Now as to the bomber sequence in TLJ. B-17 bombers did not fly so low and so slow they would be caught in the explosions of their own weapons. So as an homage to old ww2 bomber work it was terrible and felt unrealistic because it acted like a suicidal design. And those bombers? Were not going to get away from any of those ships. Even if Poe did recall them. They were that slow. I could and did forgive the Leia, Mary Poppins in space thing because she is Luke's sister and Anakin's daughter. She should have some Force tricks under her belt by now. A throw away line about finally getting to use some of what she had been taught would have made it better. But it was passable within the lore. Those bombers and their use. Not so much. (And not getting into how low the bar on the villains went with being duped by a crank call.)

[Riedquat]

A key aspect is dissociating personally subjective feelings from the work, which becomes a bit oxymoronic considering it is entertainment, and perhaps a bit at odds with how a lot of people will judge anything tied pretty closely to their subjective experience anyway.

You can never leave personal feelings out of anything. Without them there are certainly things you can measure, and differences you can measure. But then all you can say is more or less. Whether more or less is better or worse (or irrelevant) is a function of subjective personal feelings, even if in some cases the value attribution is pretty much universal. That's true for everything, not just fiction.

As for the question itself (and I'm replying before having read the rest of the thread), in writing, generally yes although I'll make some allowance for changing values. Visuals, generally not. Poor visuals for the time, whenever that was, take away from a film or TV series, it's an area where they need to keep up to simply stay at the same level of acceptability. But that's a bit like I can be fine with a visual standard in TV that I'd be disappointed with on the big screen.

And there are some things that simply don't date well at all.

[Riedquat]

If I may add to that Star Wars has never been realistic and it was never meant to be realistic. It's science fantasy after all with space wizards, all that fantastic technology, all those alien races and story taking place in far away galaxy long time ago. It does bring question is that space battle in TLJ judged with today's standards and demands of realism or based on that fact that those judging it based on those standards just hate TLJ as movie and don't want to admit that original trilogy had similar things going for it and wasn't realistic either.

Sorry, no. It's too easy to handwave any complaint with that argument.

And "was never realistic" is not better than "it's science FICTION!" A lack of complete realism doesn't mean you can't cross the line into facepalming territory and TLJ's battle was so far across the line it was over the horizon. Suspension of disbelief can't get me that far. If they wanted the bombers it wouldn't have been hard to tweak them a little so that the things are actually projected - doesn't change the scene at all and doesn't make the filmmakers look so completely clueless.

[Elderdog]

Another thing about modern Science Fiction (and media in general) that probably needs to be said is that there seems to be a lot more emphasis on using concepts from old B movies. I say this because, while we should debate the merits of judging Old Sci-Fi I do not believe we should consider them any less valuable than newer movies.
For, example The Shape of Water; while it can be seen as a postmodern reinterpretation of old monster movies, Guillermo Del Toro also shows the audience that their is something of value in those old movies in spite of how much we have changed as a society.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

A key aspect is dissociating personally subjective feelings from the work, which becomes a bit oxymoronic considering it is entertainment, and perhaps a bit at odds with how a lot of people will judge anything tied pretty closely to their subjective experience anyway.

You can never leave personal feelings out of anything. Without them there are certainly things you can measure, and differences you can measure. But then all you can say is more or less. Whether more or less is better or worse (or irrelevant) is a function of subjective personal feelings, even if in some cases the value attribution is pretty much universal. That's true for everything, not just fiction.

My point wasn't so much about approaching it from a position of pure abstract, but instead employing more abstract into your consideration when you're watching something that you otherwise find, essentially speaking, dull on a subjective level due to contemporary standards and expectations.

[Fianna]

This is a bit fantasy not Scifi. But. Wizard of Oz. Entertaining. Pretty. The effects by todays standards and set design is deplorable.

I'm sorry . . . what?

The Wizard of Oz has "deplorable" set design? The gorgeous sets are half the reason to watch it!

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

The movie is so bad I haven't even seen it.

[Nealithi]

This is a bit fantasy not Scifi. But. Wizard of Oz. Entertaining. Pretty. The effects by todays standards and set design is deplorable.

I'm sorry . . . what?

The Wizard of Oz has "deplorable" set design? The gorgeous sets are half the reason to watch it!

Note the caveat. By today's standards. It does not look like another world or a mysterious land. It looks like a stage. And they filmed a play. Or at least the Oz scenes. Kansas is pretty good. And the tornado I gave my father nightmares and he thought they filmed a real one.