Line-camping for “Star Wars”: Super Fandom? Or Religious Devotion?
Joseph G. Champ
Assistant Investigator
Symbolism, Media, and the Lifecourse Project
Center for Mass Media Research
University of Colorado-Boulder


Introduction 23-year-old Danny Stanley, delivery man, aspiring film maker, modern day P.T. Barnum, ambles across the weedy ground past tents lined up in a haphazard row.1 Compact in build, sporting closely cut processed blonde hair, a pair of silver rings in each ear, tongue stud, knee- length baggy shorts, hiking shoes, and a t-shirt, his wrap-around blue reflective sunglasses finish off what might look appropriate in the pages of any skateboard magazine. Occasionally, as he counts heads, he stops to chat with other young people who seem quite willing to talk to him. They are because, at this time and in this place, he is ‘The Man’—the person responsible for setting off this whole local social phenomenon. Four days earlier, at two in the morning, Stanley had pitched his tent in this vacant field behind a large sign that says, “The line starts here.” He will be the first in line when go on sale at the neighboring multi-plex for the long anticipated opening of George Lucas’s latest episode in the “Star Wars” series, “The Phantom Menace.” Danny says it was something he had to do:

Danny gives a lot of reasons for wanting to control the line. He used to work for the theater owner and wants to help him out; he is going off to film school in a couple of months and he thinks the publicity might help his career; he wants to have fun; be a part of history; and to connect with his own history, “When the first one came out in ‘77,” he recalls, “my parents stood in line and held me. I was a 2-year-old.”

Danny keeps moving, past four shirtless teenaged boys playing hacky-sack in the sun, past a life-size cardboard cutout of Darth Vader standing watch outside a tent, past two more young men mock-dueling with toy light sabers. An odd assortment of grunge, hip-hop, and symphonic themes from “Star Wars” played on various boom boxes battle for our attention. A teenager with short blonde hair and a white t-shirt introduces himself to Danny who tells him to set up after the last tent in the line. The boy says he is not into “Star Wars” as much as other kids he knows, but “I just want to be part of the hype.” As the boy lopes off Danny says he loves getting the opportunity to meet people and seeing everyone having fun. Continuing down the line he advises people of the planned procedure to sell tickets. He also theorizes with them about future episode plots and swaps gossip about production of the latest movie, and the marketing of its myriad spinoff products. He relishes the ambassador’s role and says it is the way anything related to “Star Wars” should be. Director George Lucas, he earnestly explains, is a visionary who has tapped into something special:

This paper is based on a series of interviews and observations of people like Danny Stanley participating in a growing line of campers waiting for tickets to the anticipated summer blockbuster, “Star Wars, Episode I: The Phantom Menace”. Over the six day life of the line I stopped by to interview and observe the campers four times, with each visit lasting from one to four hours. In all, formal interviews were conducted with seven people (two women and five men--probably a representative gender ratio), along with a number of less formal conversations. While engaging in the act of paying attention to a single group of people may seem non- generalizable, and therefore not worthwhile, I am beginning to realize how this sort of research is generating important, new, emergent claims about human phenomena, helping to fill in our knowledge of human interaction with media. People like Danny Stanley, in more traditional media studies, and in mainstream culture, have historically been assumed to be ‘couch potatoes’—de-legitimatized dupes of dominant mediated discourse. As a result of my analysis, I will falsify that argument, demonstrating the way even these seemingly media suffused individuals are practicing a highly self-conscious and constructive engagement with the “Star Wars” phenomenon. “Star Wars” is a site of attractive symbols and meanings that these fans acquire and use in day-to-day existence. But as they integrate these symbols into their individual and social lives, they are always aware that a main mission of the source of these meanings is to sell products. Despite that, they ground themselves in these meanings and symbols, they use them in community with one another, and they just plain enjoy them. I am documenting a group of people letting themselves be carried away in the energy of a movie embodying the highest achievements of the media age.

A very important question, however, one I admittedly can only begin to answer in this brief paper, asks how we should represent what is happening here? Are these people loyal fans, acting the way enthusiasts of any culturally popular institution would? As we shall see, the line campers say no, that their experience is different than that of other fans. Is it possible then to conclude that their devotion reaches the level of religious significance? Again, the line campers, and almost anybody I have interviewed about their relationship to media, reject that interpretation. As this story is told, we must ask ourselves the question: what is the best way to represent what happened outside that movie theater in Fort Collins, Colorado, and indeed, at theaters like it around the world? And what might that representation suggest about the relationships to media of the people around the world who did not camp out to get the first tickets for “The Phantom Menace”? Before we re-visit the line-campers, we must spend some time making sense of the “Star Wars” machine.

What is the “Star Wars” phenomenon?

The movies
In the weeks, months, and years leading up to the long anticipated release of George Lucas’s ‘prequel’ “The Phantom Menace” (indeed, Janet Maslin of the New York Times described it as “pathologically” anticipated), a great deal of discussion focused on the “Star Wars” phenomenon as production achievement (Maslin, 1999). This would be the movie to set a precedent, wrote Chicago Tribune film critic Roger Ebert, “We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine” (Ebert, 1999) And “Star Wars” fans were ready. The original “Star Wars” opened in theaters in 1977, followed by “Empire Strikes Back” in 1980, and “Return of the Jedi” in 1983. The 1997 re-release of the re-mastered original trilogy inspired a new generation of followers, pushing box office totals for the three films to more than $1 billion (Hamilton, Gordon, Davis, 1998). In November 1998, hundreds of thousands of fans paid full price for tickets to see “Meet Joe Black,” though most didn’t come to see leading man Brad Pitt. They came for the two-minute trailer teasing “Phantom Menace”. “That was the best nine dollars I've ever spent,” said one satisfied fan (Hamilton, Gordon, Davis, 1998). They wanted a glimpse of the 2,200 special effects shots Ebert was alluding to, the throne-room dress worn by Queen Amidala that took eight weeks to design, and the 8,000 droids and Gungan warriors in the final battle scene (Corliss, 1999). Ninety-five percent of the frames in the film were digitally composed (more than four times the special effects in 1997 mega-hit “Titanic”). The effects were integrated with live-action, and actors performed before special backdrops that enabled Lucas to cut and paste images at will in a way no director had done before. “The result,” Andrew Clark wrote, “is the most fully realized fictional universe ever created on-screen” (1999).

The Business
“There has never, in the annals of entertainment, been a money-making machine with the staying power of this one,” wrote one industry analyst (Podheretz, 1999). Perhaps an equal amount of discussion concentrated on the management of the “Star Wars” effort. When the first “Star Wars” movie was released in 1977, George Lucas had given little thought to making money outside of the box office. That changed in a hurry with experts soon tracking his carefully planned worldwide movie distribution orchestrated to generate the greatest income. Corporations paid for the right to align their products with the film; and an army of spinoff toys crowded store shelves and Internet shopping sites. Estimates prior to the release of “Phantom Menace” had Lucas personally amassing $2 billion on the trilogy, the release of videos, and related licensing deals. By the end of 1999 worldwide gross revenues at the box office had hit $900 million, Star Wars toy sales were expected to hit the $600 million mark in 1999, with $400 million more sold in 2000, and multi-million dollar licencing arrangements with Pepsi, Kentucky Fried Chicken, Pizza Hut and Taco Bell.

The Cultural Metaphor
Thus, the appeal of “Star Wars” is no surprise for most people. Lucas and his team of artists, technicians, and promoters have figured out a way to turn Lucas’s wildest dreams into a reality, at least on the big screen, and to put his movies and merchandise virtually everywhere on the planet. “But,” we were reminded in Arts and Entertainment magazine, “according to most fans, it's the story line that keeps them hooked, as Lucas's pastiche of time-tested mythological motifs strikes a universal chord, especially among adolescents. Watching Luke Skywalker trace a path mythologist Joseph Campbell called ‘the hero's journey’ -- in this case, from bored teen to Jedi Knight -- they see their own aspirations spectacularly realized” (Hamilton, Gordon, and Davis, 1999). A simple commentary that summarizes the numerous academic and mainstream articles reporting on attempts to unlock the secret of this provocative media wonder.

Since the first film, analysts have regularly pointed to the religious themes, especially Judaeo-Christian ideas, prominent throughout the movies. Lucas himself reported drawing from religion. “I put the Force into the movie to try to reawaken a certain kind of spirituality in young people," he said. “I see ‘Star Wars’ as taking all the issues that religion represents, and trying to distill them down into a more modern and easily accessible construct” (quoted in Johnson and Oh, 1999). But he has also said (about his earlier films) it is not about religion. That ambivalence and contradiction is evidenced in the scholarly literature on “Star Wars”. Robert Pielke made it clear that “‘Star Wars’ . . . . is intended by Lucas to be no more than a fun-filled adventure; ultimate questions are deliberately excluded...” (Pielke, 1983, p. 145) He went on to pronounce that, “Science fiction is in no way a new religion; nor is it the vestiges of religion in an increasingly secular world. Religion depends on a transcendent...” And then, quoting Rudolf Otto who wrote in The Idea of the Holy, “There is no religion in which it does not live as the real innermost core, and without it no religion would be worthy of the name.” Thus, Pielke concluded, “It does not live in science fiction” (p. 153). “Star Wars”, Pielke said, like all science fiction, appeals to our human sensibilities. It touches our inherent “awareness of the inevitably of death, the threat of nothingness, and the apparent absurdity of reality” (p. 154)2. It is a humanist attraction. Martin Miller and Robert Sprich would differ with Pielke. They called any “dismissal of The Force as theologically trivial” a “faulty assumption. . . . The Force can be traced back to concepts in Hinduism, Buddhism, and Taoism, all those Eastern religions which view god as a reservoir of energy . . . In a specifically Western religious context, Luke (Skywalker) emerges as a Messiah- figure who takes over the power of the The Force...” (Miller and Sprich, 1981, p. 210-211)

Theories about the appeal of Lucas’s epic do not end with questions about religion. David Wyatt reminded us that the Bible is not the only place with stories of “falling, wandering, and returning.” These are also found in that “epic of tragic fall” the Iliad (Wyatt, 1982). Other scholars point to nostalgia for history in general, such as King Arthur’s court and the Crusades, and cinematic history in particular with discussions of Lucas’s penchant for mimicking movie styles, techniques, pacing, and storytelling back to the early days of the medium (Miller and Sprich, 1981; Wyatt, 1982). Still others point to the way the story assuages a psychological lack that grows steadily in this increasingly meaningless world. Much as fairy tales and art, Lucas’s films are believed to aid us in externalizing our emotions, and aiding in identity formation (Scibaj, 1981). In a related psychoanalytical approach, the protagonists are interpreted to serve the role of archetypal heros, a clear, positive restoration of the Oedipus complex and traditional morality (Miller, and Sprich, 1981; Lev, 1998). Other theories include “Star Wars” as “imperial myth” writ large (Kuiper, 1988); and “Star Wars” as ideology of the white, male dominant West (Taylor, 1988). Finally, J.P. Telotte describes the “polarity” of “Star Wars”, its “dominant structural principle,” where “paired concepts like feeling and thinking, life and death, good and evil are lined up here with disarming simplicity” (1983, p. 220).

All of these attempts to make sense of the “Star Wars” phenomenon are helpful to human understanding. In fact, George Lucas and his ever expanding circles of personnel have created a product that is connected to a seemingly insatiable desire on the part of his audience. Economic analysts can track the amount of money earned by “The Phantom Menace” effort, and attempts to generate more through increased marketing and product tie-ins. And, as we have just seen, Interpreters can come up with theories about what Lucas’s success tells us about broader culture and the psychology of our minds. And they can take note of the throngs of line-campers, as entertainment reporters Hamilton, Gordon, and Davis did for Arts and Entertainment Magazine:

But when all the commentary has been read, what are we left with? A series of educated guesses, a quote here and there, some passing observations perhaps. Until we spend time with the people who are actually using “Star Wars”, we can never say we have a helpful representation of the phenomenon. Filling that gap is possible with the right theory and methodology.

Symbolism, Media, and the Lifecourse

As an assistant investigator on the Symbolism, Media, and the Lifecourse Project under the direction of Dr. Stewart Hoover in the University of Colorado’s Center for Mass Media Research, I share the assumption of my colleagues that we are embedded in a swirl of mediated, social meanings (Gergen, 1991). But out of that we are seeking and questing, assembling worldviews, meaning systems, and identities (Giddens, 1991; Roof, 1993) in a process of “unlimited semiosis” (Jensen, 1995, p. 13). Our qualitative methods (depth interviews and observations) afford a sense of Dilthey and Weber’s notion of Verstehen (Dilthey, 1900; Weber, 1978). Utilizing the information-rich potential of cultural anthropological ‘thick description’ (Geertz, 1973), the ‘intersubjective’ sensitivity of symbolic interactionism (Denzin, 1992; Prus, 1996), and notions of ‘object’ handling (Csikszentmihalyi and Rocheberg-Halton, 1981), we are beginning to model the complexity of meaning-making phenomena that in the past has “traditionally been ignored or explained away” (Hoover, 1996, p. 4).

For this analysis, I will utilize one of the Lifecourse Project’s models—a discourse categorization system we call “three levels of engagement” with media. The first level, called ‘experiences in’ the media are our informant’s expressions that tell us they understand a media presentation in agreement with the way it was more or less ascribed by its producer. In other words, they ‘get’ it. We often relate ‘experiences in’ to competence and pleasure. ‘Interactions about’ the media relates to how individuals engage in discourse with others outside the context of media use that is related to previous, or anticipated usages. “These discourses,” Hoover wrote, “are the concrete mechanism whereby media objects become social currencies of exchange in social networks, but they also can have more manifestly instrumental functions, as when people talk about news or current events” (p. 17). ‘Accounts of’ media are the ways people locate media in relation to their greater meanings and value systems. Their expressions say something about their identity positions vis-a-vis media as well as greater cultural discourses. For example, our respondents will often suggest that media ‘should’ provide certain content, or ‘should not’ present other types of material. By staking their claim in this way in relation to these discourses, they continually re-ground themselves in time, space, and society. While they may seem complex in abstract form, in actual application, as we shall see, it is easy to grasp the meaning of these terms, and their significance for understanding audience-media relations.

‘Experiences In’ “Star Wars”

It is interesting that in the first stage of this analysis, the identification and description of ‘experiences in’ media, one can find examples of almost all of the categories discussed in the first part of this paper. Don, a 21-year-old college senior said the unprecedented technical aspects of “The Phantom Menace” was a big draw, “I mean, the highest movie so far was, I think ten or fifteen percent digital,” he said, “and this one’s supposed to be, like, close to 95. So, I mean, the special effects are supposed to be really awesome.” Nearly all of those interviewed mentioned Lucas’s vast marketing network as well. Danny summed up his feelings:

But 29-year-old Amy, a doctoral student, and 24-year-old Fau, a junior in college (who were interviewed along with Don) made it clear that what they consider the superficial aspects of “Star Wars”are not what ultimately attracts them. “Really, the publicity, the media-hype, and all that stuff, doesn’t have much to do with it, because if you’re a fan, you’re gonna be a fan no matter, you know, what ever stuff goes on,” Amy said. And they are fans because of what the story provides for them. Fau reminds us of the “epic of tragic fall” (discussed above) when he called Lucas’s tale “a perfect story, the perfect story.” Fau, Amy, and Don specifically connected “Star Wars” to historical themes:

In the discussion above I noted how fairy tales and art are believed to benefit the psyche by externalizing our emotions. Amy and Fau discussed the connection:

In another interview, 19-year-old Tony, who planned to attend film school with Danny Stanley, evoked the idea of identity formation and connecting with archetypal heroes:

The attraction of the white, male dominant ethos in the West comes to mind in a passage of the interviews in which Amy applauds Lucas for his creation of diverse races in his movies. Fau, who was born in Vietnam and emigrated to the United States as a young boy, gently reminded her that the principal characters in the first “Star Wars” movie were white. Further, he wondered whether the addition of Billy Dee Williams, an African American, in the second movie was a token gesture. Despite that, he said it has never tarnished the “Star Wars” experience for him, and he joked, “...if you think about it to, you know, Chewbaca is not exactly a white person either!”

Finally, the simplistic “polarity” of the story, highlighted by J.P. Telotte, is evident when Amy said, “it’s just like the whole thing of good versus evil.” Fau basically used the same words. Don did too. So did Tony (above). It is evident, then, that the line campers ‘experiences in’ “Star Wars” is consonant with many of the interpretations of the analysts discussed above. They ‘get’ it...with one exception. The campers I talked to for the most part squarely refused to associate their experience in any way with the concept of a religion, such as when I asked Fau and Amy if “Star Wars” would be considered a deep meaning system, or religion, to them:

None of the line-campers I interviewed is active in any sort of institutional religious practice, though Don considered himself Lutheran and said he has been looking around for the right church, while Fau’s father is a Baptist preacher. Most of the respondents seemed especially turned off by the notion of Judaeo-Christian belief. For example, Carson, a 21-year-old facility attendant at a senior center who interviewed in the group with Danny, Lia, and Tony, underscored his point by telling the story of his girlfriend’s cousin. The young man grew up in a religious household and was a gospel singer, he said, but when he told his mother, who is also religious, that he was gay, the mother rejected him and will not talk to him to this day. “It was religion that made that barrier,” Carson concluded, “that created it for her not to love her own child.” For Carson, the Bible is a just a “novel.” People who follow the Bible, he explained, are “basing their life on a book,” which doe not make sense to him. It was interesting that Danny was in full agreement, characterizing himself as “strictly non-religious” and saying religion can “cloud” people’s opinion:

But Carson and Danny do not condemn people for searching for meaning in their lives, to fill those holes. Carson said that especially now, entering the new millennium, many feel as if they need something. Danny added that “people feel alone,” the world is too “vast . . . there’s not people around you to help.” Danny gets his help on his own:


‘Interactions About’ “Star Wars”

As we move to an investigation of ‘interactions about’, we realize how the analysts discussed above cannot be very effective in describing how people are using the symbols and meanings available to them via a media presentation like “Star Wars”. They are working in a partial vacuum. Those who did talk with audience members for “The Phantom Menace”, the mainstream press who saw it as a good story, more often than not focused on frenzied loyalists from around the world, thus marginalizing and exoticizing the practice of being a fan. One story featured: the man who stole the “Phantom Menace” trailer and offered it on a Web site; people who spent not six days, but an entire month outside San Francisco’s Coronet theater waiting for tickets; and a Dutch priest who spent 18 months gathering information from the Internet to put together an illustrated rundown of the show’s plot for his own Web site. The priest was impressed with Lucas’s ability to promote values through story telling, “Jesus often did the same thing,” he said, “though his teaching didn't earn him the millions of dollars that Lucas is making” (Hamilton, Gordon, Rogers, 1999). Yes, as Gergen made clear, we are embedded in the symbols and meanings of the media age (1991). But applying Csikszentmihalyi’s notion of object handling to media (1981), and paying attention to the way this practice happens in people’s lived experience (Silverstone, 1981; 1992; 1993), we can begin to understand the way these symbols and meanings are used and traded in social interaction (Denzin 1992; Prus 1996). In that way, depending on who is handling it, the symbols and meanings change over time, and place. By being isolated from those who use “Star Wars”, the scholars who try to grasp its symbols and meanings are greatly limited.

A prominent ‘interaction about’ “Star Wars” for the line campers repeatedly surfaced in their stories about contact with the movies and merchandise as children. Danny recalled the many hours he spent with neighborhood friends playing together with toys, acting out scenes from the movies. The toys also often had a strong connection to family. Carson fondly remembered his great grandmother having a collection of “Star Wars” toys for him to play with when he visited. Lia and her brother played with the toys. The movies were also a natural site of interaction within families. Danny stood in line with his father for not just the first movie, but all of them. Amy told the story of waiting with her parents at the age of seven back in ‘77, and Fau remembered seeing “Empire Strikes Back” at the drive-in with his parents. He was five-years-old.

As I interviewed Carson, Tony, and Lia outside their tent (Danny had not arrived yet), other nearby line-campers are heard on the tape playing with toy light sabers, laughing, and having fun. It gave Tony and Carson the chance to reflect:

The exchange underscored the fact that perhaps the most representative and revealing ‘interaction about’ “Star Wars” was the line itself. “Our agenda,” Tony explained, “was to get here first and to set the precedent for the rest of the line.” Tony said it was very important to be organized, and orderly, to keep things peaceful, to provide a safe, fun experience for everyone, including families with children. Tony and his friends had already picked up trash in the field to “leave it better than when we came here, you know, and that’s the way it should be in life, you know? . . . Wherever you go you’d better leave something better...” I asked if “Star Wars” was a source of the values they are expressing in their approach to the line:

In this long interview passage, the expressed experience of Amy, Fau, and Don, who did not know each other prior to being in line, provides us with us evidence of Danny, Tony, Carson, and Lia’s good intentions: