OmegaSeamaster
New member
Does anyone here (besides me) think Lucas has gone senile?
Lucas: "Yeah, well, this one, we know that for the fans it won't be the movie that they have been making in their minds for the last 19 years, so they all get bent out of shape. A lot of the critics forget that they didn't like the first three, and so they get off on this one, too — or it's not the Second Coming. And, yeah, we didn't make it bigger and better, we made it exactly the same. So if you loved the other ones, you'll love this one. But if you expect to have F-14s flying under freeways — that isn't there. It's just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist. It's funny. I think it's funnier than the other ones, and it's exciting. So it's got all the stuff that all the other ones have. And Harrison's great in it."
1. So essentially, he's saying the fans won't like it because it won't be what they wanted to see, yet the people who loved the last three (wouldn't that be the fans?) will love it because they made it exactly the same.
2. A lot of critics forget that they didn't like the last three?!?! Umm, what critics would those be George, besides Pauline Kael? Raiders - 95% FRESH on Rottentomatoes, Temple of Doom - 91% FRESH, Last Crusade - 93% FRESH.
3. There's a lot of words I'd use to describe Indiana Jones...but WACKY?
4. I don't think any of the fans expect F-14s to fly under freeways - just perhaps the occasional UFO flyby or spur of the moment fridge-fallout shelter nuclear bomb escape.
This guy has become so out of touch with film-making in the last two decades, it's scary. Check the link out below, it's a good read. In the article, he really doesn't hold back when talking about his disdain for critics - he's made it personal. He's become so enamored of his own "legend" that it feels like anything he does is above criticism, even when most of it is valid (example - Jar Jar).
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2000/03/22/lucas/index.html
Lucas: "Yeah, well, this one, we know that for the fans it won't be the movie that they have been making in their minds for the last 19 years, so they all get bent out of shape. A lot of the critics forget that they didn't like the first three, and so they get off on this one, too — or it's not the Second Coming. And, yeah, we didn't make it bigger and better, we made it exactly the same. So if you loved the other ones, you'll love this one. But if you expect to have F-14s flying under freeways — that isn't there. It's just another period adventure movie with this wacky archaeologist. It's funny. I think it's funnier than the other ones, and it's exciting. So it's got all the stuff that all the other ones have. And Harrison's great in it."
1. So essentially, he's saying the fans won't like it because it won't be what they wanted to see, yet the people who loved the last three (wouldn't that be the fans?) will love it because they made it exactly the same.
2. A lot of critics forget that they didn't like the last three?!?! Umm, what critics would those be George, besides Pauline Kael? Raiders - 95% FRESH on Rottentomatoes, Temple of Doom - 91% FRESH, Last Crusade - 93% FRESH.
3. There's a lot of words I'd use to describe Indiana Jones...but WACKY?
4. I don't think any of the fans expect F-14s to fly under freeways - just perhaps the occasional UFO flyby or spur of the moment fridge-fallout shelter nuclear bomb escape.
This guy has become so out of touch with film-making in the last two decades, it's scary. Check the link out below, it's a good read. In the article, he really doesn't hold back when talking about his disdain for critics - he's made it personal. He's become so enamored of his own "legend" that it feels like anything he does is above criticism, even when most of it is valid (example - Jar Jar).
http://archive.salon.com/ent/movies/feature/2000/03/22/lucas/index.html
Last edited: