Again, Jenny--don't act like Chew and Marcia just swooped in and took the film out of Lucas' hands and then gave it back to him all giftwrapped with a bow on top. Lucas was in those cutting rooms right along with them, helping and directing as they were cutting, approving and disapproving when needed. And it's not as if he's trying to take away any credit. They got their oscars, they got their points, they got their credits. The guy was the FIRST director in the HISTORY of filmmaking to distribute his back-end percentage points to the crew. EVER. People never bring that part of it up. They don't bring up that he would finance people's films simply because they came over to his house and helped him make spaghetti on a summer night. because then it gets in the way of the weird half-ass psychoanalysis that belongs to a hack villain in a Soap Opera more than it actually does to George Lucas, based on anything we ACTUALLY KNOW.
The logical fallacy at the heart of all these types of threads is the one that says "When he changes something, he's trying to deny anyone else any credit."
one isn't the other. If I paint my computer desk a different color, am I trying to deny Belkin the credit for manufacturing it? That's silly. And that's not even a good analogy--if I add in another shelf or two and use roundtop screws instead of flatheads--am I trying to shut Belkin out of the picture? Because he drops in a CGI shot into the movie doesn't mean he's NOT saying it's a collaborative effort. That's a silly leap in logic to make. And everyone here is Carl Lewis style leaping right along with it. Where, in any of these interviews that we're bringing up, does he ever say "Good, now that I've put Red Leader's line about Anakin back in--Richard Chew and my bitch wife are idiots, and it was all me MUAHAHAHAHAHAHAAAA" When has any of this REALLY been about him trying to make it look like his movies AREN'T collaborative efforts? How does that even enter in without fan hysterics getting overblown on the internet? Those names still aren't on the credits? Those people still aren't getting interviewed for documentaries? Those people having their checks taken away? is LFL sending repo-men into their house every time a new shot is dropped in an OT film?
C'mon. Look at the silliness here. He should have turned down any and all nominations? I'm sure Marcia and Richard and Williams and Dykstra would have appreciated his saying "No--they can't be recognized by their peers because it'd be the right thing to do" I mean--that's sort of a contradiction, isn't it? either he's trying to diminish their contributions, or he should strip them of their recognition? What kind of deal is that? That makes absolutely no sense. The movies are classics that made a bunch of money, but he's an idiot because they're full of plotholes? If the plotholes didn't bother you when they were classics, why would they bother you any extra now? If it's about the story and the feeling, why is the first major gripe on the list about MATTE LINES? If you're going to use the billions of dollars the movies have made (without recognizing that the largest chunk of that change comes from the MERCHANDISING) as proof of how successful and wonderful the movie is, how can you then in the next breath call him moneygrubbing for making billions of dollars? Is it a reward or is it theft? If he's lost touch with the Star Wars base then why are the movies STILL making billions? Now--be careful. It's sorta hard to say money isn't a good indicator of quality when it's been used by the people PROPOSING this argument as EXACTLY THAT.
How can an opinion so ultimately contradictory, scattershot and diffuse try to correctly pin down the thought process of a guy who apparently doesn't even really exist outside of fan-fiction and paraphrased biography? Because this guy everyone's describing--sure as hell doesn't really sound like George Lucas. But then again, I don't know how many of you have actually read any of the books on the man, the books on his colleagues, the books on that period in film, watched the documentaries or read the interviews with all those involved to actually come close to maybe understanding the guy. It seems a lot of you are content to rely on supposition and stereotype and a few links to interviews that simply already back up what you've decided to believe BASED on those stereotypes. If you've put in the work to really find out what went down outside of a few google searches, and you still think that, hey. Diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks, perception determines reality and other hack dialog