George Lucas

MaxPhactor23

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I don't think he sold it, any more than any other director out there has.
George's problem, I think, is that these days he has more of a CEO mentality than a young hungry artist mentality. It's evident in the Ep. 1 making of that he's got a very very hands on approach and views it in sort of a business like way. Also, on the prequels, every decision was approved by him, while on the originals I've heard it was more or less a collarative process.

I'm pretty much with yah here. It's really rather annoying. That is a lot of the problem in my opinion. No one has the balls to speak against Lucas these days. The halls of ILM and his other offices are filled with sycophantic suck-ups. Somewhere along the like he developed this sort of god complex and demanded a sort of superiority. As far as I’m concerned, films greatly benefit from more then one mans narrow-minded vision. A collaborative process is how to get it done. A diverse flow of ideas can only improve. You don’t run your film like an office, and as a result the prequels were almost unanimously lacking. Lucas has derailed into some sort of self-absorbed fan boy himself. It’s all about the “me me me” mindset he’s got going. I’d much rather someone that cared about the fans and showed his appreciation. Films always come out superior that way. Always! It’s really rather sad compared to what he once was. The man was my hero, one of my main inspirations. Now he’s what I dread becoming the most, a greed-consumed Hollywood director more concerned with turning a profit then making art and telling a story.
 

Raiders90

Well-known member
MaxPhactor23 said:
I'm pretty much with yah here. It's really rather annoying. That is a lot of the problem in my opinion. No one has the balls to speak against Lucas these days. The halls of ILM and his other offices are filled with sycophantic suck-ups. Somewhere along the like he developed this sort of god complex and demanded a sort of superiority. As far as I?m concerned, films greatly benefit from more then one mans narrow-minded vision. A collaborative process is how to get it done. A diverse flow of ideas can only improve. You don?t run your film like an office, and as a result the prequels were almost unanimously lacking. Lucas has derailed into some sort of self-absorbed fan boy himself. It?s all about the ?me me me? mindset he?s got going. I?d much rather someone that cared about the fans and showed his appreciation. Films always come out superior that way. Always! It?s really rather sad compared to what he once was. The man was my hero, one of my main inspirations. Now he?s what I dread becoming the most, a greed-consumed Hollywood director more concerned with turning a profit then making art and telling a story.

I wouldn't say he's more concerned with profit than telling a story. He spent 5years of his life working on the prequels. He wanted to tell a story, but it's not the story that people wanted to hear, or not told as well as most people would like.
It's not that he's greedy, it's just on the prequels he should've let go of some of that creative control. The problem is, he was so used to other's editing his vision and changing it onhim that in retaliation he now finally had total creative control and was going to keep it. He wanted to prove with the prequels that he could tell a story on his own, and he wanted the prequels to be his versions, 100%, whereas he viewed the original Star Wars releases as only 70% of what he had envisioned.
 

MaxPhactor23

New member
Raiders112390 said:
I wouldn't say he's more concerned with profit than telling a story. He spent 5years of his life working on the prequels. He wanted to tell a story, but it's not the story that people wanted to hear, or not told as well as most people would like.
It's not that he's greedy, it's just on the prequels he should've let go of some of that creative control. The problem is, he was so used to other's editing his vision and changing it onhim that in retaliation he now finally had total creative control and was going to keep it. He wanted to prove with the prequels that he could tell a story on his own, and he wanted the prequels to be his versions, 100%, whereas he viewed the original Star Wars releases as only 70% of what he had envisioned.

I think you're somewhat in denial here. I can list off entire characters and plot directors in the prequels that almost irrefutably point to his only motive being for marketing. I don’t doubt that the money aspects were ingrained into the story-making process. It's blatantly obviously with a bit of analyzing. When you have a pre-established surviving villain, already fulfilling the required role of leader of the separatist army, you don’t kill him off in the first ten minutes of the next film, replace him with a gimmicky four-armed CGI cyborg, because it's the right move for the script. You don’t purposely eliminate any chance of giving your character some amount of relevance to the story at hand. Yet Lucas continued the long lineage of lavishly cool-looking but expendably useless and one-dimensional prequel villains. The fact of the matter is that an asthmatic android with an addiction to collecting lightsabers would sell more action figures then crusty old Chris Lee. That's the only reason the geriatric dark jedi lost his head so quick. Telling yourself differently would only confirm you're in denial. Once you start specifically axing the depth and psychology of your script, drastically altering it's direction to make room for fast food endorsements and subliminal product placement…you’ve sold out.
 
Last edited:

Benraianajones

New member
Though I don't hate George, I would like to have a word with him concerning the Star Wars prequels... Boba/Jango Fett involved with clone wars..George..come on over here...a minute...
 

indifan101

New member
I'm a big George Lucas fan of course but I think he's starting to lose his touch a little. I don't know if I'd say "lost it" he's still a great director I just think he's turned away from some of his older movie styles like Raiders and Star Wars (the classic films). His movies these days, I don't know I think he's becoming way to obsessed with CGI when it comes to Star Wars. There are parts in episodes 1-3 where a stunt man could of been used easliy.
 
Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal. Take it for what you will

Ben Mankiewicz (co-host of ?At the Movies?) sat down with George Lucas, famed director of such blockbusters as the ?Star Wars? and ?Indiana Jones? series who has his own company, San Francisco, Calif.-based Lucasfilm Ltd.

Much of the panel was devoted to Mr. Lucas?s past ? how the son of a shop owner got his start in film (?by accident? when he discovered cinema in college) and became a box-office sensation, despite railing against the ?used-car salesmen? in Hollywood over the years.

(Mr. Lucas?s response: ?Yoda would say ?be careful what you hate, for you may become it?,? he said, drawing laughs.)

But this exchange caught our attention, given Hollywood?s struggles amid the recession and the long-term revenue shift from ticket sales to DVD sales to?iPhone sales?

Ben Mankiewicz: Now?some of these people are gonna watch movies on their iPhone ? I worry?that loses part of the shared experience, but it?s also a delivery system that will enable people to see a lot more of your movies.

George Lucas: I make movies, I don?t care where they are shown

BM: You don?t care if somebody watches your movie on an iPhone?

GL: I design my films to be shown in one place?it used to be that it was the movie theater?in those days there was no other alternative. [?] Now, I make films primarily for DVD.

BM: So five, two years from now, you might produce something where the primary delivery system could be the iPhone?

GL: Yeah?it does come to be like Michelangelo, who loved sculpture but had to paint too ? and who?s to say what?s better? ?you work within the constraints you?re given.
 

emtiem

Well-known member
It's a point of view. Makes sense as that's where they'll be seen the most. And there are less differences between a cinema and the home now anyway.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Well, I remember a time (pre-1980) when George said that "Star Wars" would NEVER, EVER be shown on TV or released to home video! Oh my, how things have changed...
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Ben Mankiewicz (co-host of “At the Movies”) sat down with George Lucas, famed director of such blockbusters as the “Star Wars” and “Indiana Jones” series who has his own company, San Francisco, Calif.-based Lucasfilm Ltd.
Hard to take it for much, since the first paragraph already reveals that the writer did not do his homework.
 
Finn said:
Hard to take it for much, since the first paragraph already reveals that the writer did not do his homework.
Regardless of the reporters understanding, a quote from Lucas is a quote from Lucas.
 

Junior Jones

New member
Rocket Surgeon said:
Here's a piece from the Wall Street Journal. Take it for what you will

...

GL: Yeah?it does come to be like Michelangelo, who loved sculpture but had to paint too ? and who?s to say what?s better? ?you work within the constraints you?re given.

Did he just compare himself to Michelangelo? I'm not a Lucas-hater, but... wow.
 

DocWhiskey

Well-known member
Junior Jones said:
Did he just compare himself to Michelangelo? I'm not a Lucas-hater, but... wow.

I bet you a majority of the general public could name more movies Lucas was involved in rather than any works by Michaelangelo.
 

Attila the Professor

Moderator
Staff member
Junior Jones said:
Did he just compare himself to Michelangelo? I'm not a Lucas-hater, but... wow.

Would you rather he compare his artistic dilemma to that of the muralist who only does restaurant walls when he'd rather do public works projects? Michelangelo is probably the most compelling example of an artist forced to work in a medium he'd rather not. So why not use that one?

DocWhiskey said:
I bet you a majority of the general public could name more movies Lucas was involved in rather than any works by Michaelangelo.

I've read a book on the Sistine Chapel, know about the project for Pope Julius II's tomb, have had to compare Michelangelo's <I>David</I> to those done by other sculptors, and consider myself at least moderately well-versed in art...and I can still name far more films Lucas was involved in (15 are coming to mind). And I'd say that most of the general public can probably come up with either 10 or 11, depending on whether they remember <I>American Graffiti</I> or not.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
DocWhiskey said:
I bet you a majority of the general public could name more movies Lucas was involved in rather than any works by Michaelangelo.
We'll have to wait and see if people still marvel at them in 500 years. That's the true test. My guess is probably not (and we'll all be dead so we'll never know, unfortunately).:(
Attlia the Professor said:
And I'd say that most of the general public can probably come up with either 10 or 11, depending on whether they remember American Graffiti or not.
...or "More American Graffiti", "Howard the Duck", "Tucker", "Radioland Murders", "Kagemusha", etc.

I went to Rome for the 1st time last summer and Michelangelo's scupltures put everyone else's to shame. Never mind the Sistine Chapel.

P.S. Silver screen or iPhone, he's still working with the same medium (motion picture) so the comparison is rather silly (although I do understand his point).
 
Last edited:

Violet

Moderator Emeritus
Lucas is right. As someone in the working class, especially in this recession, families rent and buy DVD's because going to the movies is way too expensive. The family and I went to the cinema a couple of mouths back and it was 50 bucks for all of us.

Now, if you buy the DVD you have better value for money- $25 bucks when it first comes out and it goes down in price as it continues to get sold (usually to about 15 bucks or even 12 bucks, the same as an adult ticket at the BO).

So in which case, you buy a nice HD TV and you buy the DVD's and 80c worth of pop corn and there's your basic home cinema.

The fact is the studios get their majority of returns from DVD sales NOT the cinema. If you want to see the true popularity of a film in terms of sales, you go by rental sales and DVD sales. Of course, now you would probably also go by downloads.

There's change in the air, and the industry has to change their focus and go with it because as usual, there's money to be made from it!
 

HovitosKing

Well-known member
Still, it would be nice to see someone take a stand against the erosion of the immersive, often mind-blowing experience you get when watching a film on a huge screen with great surround sound for the sake of convenience and increased profits. Sometimes art needs a grand presentation to be truly appreciated.
 

Finn

Moderator
Staff member
Violet Indy said:
Of course, now you would probably also go by downloads.

There's change in the air, and the industry has to change their focus and go with it because as usual, there's money to be made from it!
The two things that are in fact negating each other.

Nowadays, you can get a DVD-quality file delivered into your hard drive in a matter of mere minutes, without paying a dime for it. Yes, this is illegal in most parts of the world, but the effect is kind of dampened in people's moral compass because you're simply making an identical copy without retratcing from the number of the originals. This, and the fact it's technically impossible to get caught.

For the time being, people still buy DVDs, but the habit described above is getting more and more common since the technology turning people into thieves by opportunity is spreading further and further. So to say money can be made from this now doesn't mean it can be made from it in the future.

In fact, if I was a movie maker, I'd take the complete opposite route. Enchance the theater experience, since this is something most people can't fit into their flats any time soon... if ever.
 
Junior Jones said:
Did he just compare himself to Michelangelo? I'm not a Lucas-hater, but... wow.

Neither am I, but it sounds like he's been drinking his own Kool-Aid! He's obviously got some sack!

I think originally he was motivated by art and expressing himself that way...but change is inevitable. He became a mogul and found other things he enjoyed and other ways of expressing himself.

Unfortunately I don't appreciate his focus on DVD sales. I still enjoy the cinema experience and think his "artistic" shift is a symptom of the problems with SW I-III, Crystal Skull...ect.
 

Stoo

Well-known member
Rocket Surgeon said:
I think originally he was motivated by art and expressing himself that way...but change is inevitable. He became a mogul and found other things he enjoyed and other ways of expressing himself.
During the build-up to "Phantom Menace", 60 Minutes did a segment on him. It featured an interview with Coppola where he said, "I feel Star Wars has robbed America of one of it's greatest directors." I'm pretty sure it was in the same segment that Lucas said that after Episode III was done, he would finish with Star Wars and move on to make "more arty-type" films. Hasn't happened yet...(For the record, I'm not a Lucas hater either.;))

Has anyone here ever seen his *student* version of "THX-1138"? It F-R-E-A-K-I-N-G ROCKS!
 
Top