This is such a hipster article.
What George Lucas did with Star Wars is make science fiction marketable. The author's contention seems to be that because Lucas made a sci-fi film franchise that was a hit, and because later, "purer" sci-fi films weren't, that Lucas spoiled the genre. Balderdash. Were there any great sci-fi film productions before that? He cites books. Of course, and especially to a hipster, a book is going to be better than a movie. You don't have to actually make it look realistic in a book, just write it down.
This guy is comparing apples to oranges. Of course Lucas sold out and created lousy characters that were meant as merchandising gimmicks (Jar Jar Binks, I'm looking at you). It comes with the territory; sci-fi is expensive, and no matter what the story is, you have to make your money back somehow if you want to make a realistic looking film. It's not as if before Star Wars was some golden age of sci-fi film. You had a few TV shows that dabbled in sci-fi, but of course TV has lower budgets.
