Joe, it was the poor decision-making on the part of the captain that caused Ray Gun to go down and end up in a POW camp. Lightning confronted the captain, not just because he had been drinking, but because the drinking was affecting his performance as captain -- he was putting them all in danger. Again, there were consequences to the drinking.
I agree with you that Lucas calling it a popcorn film isn't entirely accurate. If you were selling it, how would you describe it? Obviously, it's not trying to be Saving Private Ryan. I'm asking you because I have no idea how I would have sold it if I was Lucas. It's somewhere between popcorn film and Private Ryan -- but that's a big gulf.
Also, indulge me a moment by letting me throw my two cents in about the criticism many have made about the film using cliches: Like all Lucas films, it's rooted in old-fashioned Hollywood films. It's kind of hard not to fall back on ideas used before if what you do is at least partially a tribute to old Hollywood. Indiana Jones and Star Wars used a lot of ideas that had been used before -- so what? It's hard for me to understand how it is that if Tarantino appropriates ideas from other films, it's brilliant. JJ Abrams -- no problem. But with Lucas, it seems he is judged by a different standard. There's a popular film out right now called The Artist. The whole film is a collection of old Hollywood motifs. And everyone is praising it to the skies, saying how wonderful it is because it's like an old Hollywood movie. Does it not seem just a little unfair that when Lucas falls back on old Hollywood ideas, he's pummeled by fans and critics alike -- "WE'VE SEEN THIS BEFORE, GEORGE!" The first section of Tarantino's Inglorious Basterds is made to be exactly like a Sergio Leone film. That's praiseworthy, but what if Lucas had done that?
Let me try to be clear, I'm not saying Lucas' films are perfect. I don't think he'd say that. But he is a filmmaker like no other. As example, I love The Phantom Menace. I think the middle part of the film gets a little slow. I think the whole way we meet Anakin is terribly contrived. They need a part for their ship and Tatooine just happens to be there, and then the only way to get the part is if little Anakin participates in this wild podrace. It's all pieced together awkwardly. But despite that, the film has so much imagination on display that it's jaw-dropping to me. And it was unlike anything anyone had ever seen before. There's still nothing like the SW prequels in terms of visual imagination. Does Lucas not deserve some credit?
I just think people are a little unfair when it comes to Lucas. It's not that I want people to praise Lucas for Lucas' sake. I just think it's a shame for movie fans that they seem to have such a hard time enjoying his films anymore. They get nitpicky in a way they are not with other filmmakers. They seem to relish hating his newer films. Lucas recently announced he's retiring from features and stated that one of the reasons is everyone seems to hate his films. In my opinion, that's a big loss to film geeks like myself and many of you who come to the raven.
Lastly (I know -- sheesh!) for what it's worth, I took an 86 year old man to Red Tails with me. He was an aviation cadet in WW2. He's met some of the Tuskegee airmen in person. He loved the movie. Thought it very exciting and an appropriate tribute to the heroism those men showed.
I hope more of you will give the film a chance while it's in theaters.
