logo Sign In

George Lucas and Ed Wood OR The Alignment of the Stars

Author
Date
Author
Time
Post link
Alright. Trying to inspire debate and conversation here, and it hopefully won't lead to Lucas bashing, since we've apparently had an overabundance of that lately. You see, tonight I started thinking about something, and for those of you who know what I'm talking about, it might seem weird, misguided, or even blasphemous. But I just can't help seeing a great deal of similarities between filmmakers Ed Wood and George Lucas. For those of you who don't know, Ed Wood is considered by many to be the worst filmmaker of all time. But stay with me here because I'm not trying to bash by comparing Lucas to him.

Specifically, I'm comparing the movies that are considered to be what these men are best known for. For Wood, it's Plan 9 From Outer Space, and for Lucas, obviously, it's Star Wars. Both are low-budget sci-fi films that nobody originally wanted anything to do with. Both are the authorial and directorial brainchildren of the men who made them. And later on, for Lucas, he started funding his own projects like Wood did his entire career. Admittedly by this point Lucas had much more clout and money than Wood ever did.

So Plan 9 is, um, well, something of a disaster. Star Wars becomes one of the greatest and most beloved films of all time. But I think that it would have been very easy for Star Wars to have become another Plan 9, but it seems that all the stars were in alignment for George Lucas. Lucas managed to get backing from a major motion picture studio. Most of that support came from one man, Alan Ladd, Jr. Had he not been there, well, maybe George could have gotten backing based on the success of American Graffiti, but, after all the complications during shooting, it most likely would have been pulled entirely if not for Ladd. Lucas managed to find all the right people who managed to make the special effects extremely believable. Maybe with a different effects crew, the effects would have turned out little better than the stuff from Plan 9. I could go on, but I think (and hope) that you get the point.

Obviously, I didn't mention Wood's lacking skills in the directorial department, like continuity, lack of reshoots, equipment in frame, and lack of believability in sets. But while George hasn't had problems as bad as those, I'm sure most people here would question, to a degree, the man's competence in directing.

So, please, feel free to drop your opinions or simply tell me how crazy I am for suggesting such hideous comparisons.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
I see what you mean.....my only question would be, was Ed Wood EVER a good director? Most people would say no. Was George Lucas EVER a good director? Most would say yes. Some would argue that GL had the benefit of being around many talented people which is why American Graffitti and SW came out so well, while the PT was more under his control, so the films weren't as good (or maybe GL's abilities declined over the years).

If Ed Wood had been given the benefit of a higher budget (I think the SW budget was considered sort of mid-level, wasn't it?) and talented EFX people, set builders, costume designers, cinematographers, etc., (like Lucas did) would they have been able to help the film transcend Wood's lack of directing skills? Quite possibly. There's also the issue of the scripts, though....most of Ed Wood's films had terrible scripts, while Lucas' films (the early ones, anyway) had good stories.

Author
Time
Post link
I believe Lucas is (or at least was) a good director, but he just doesn't have the ability to stick to a larger viewpoint. Beyond the time length of a movie and other simple elements, he seems to struggle for a proper perspective with things such as story. Everything with him is tunnel-vision and that's what leads to his latest movies being terrible. (I should say though, that I've never seen any of his non-Star Wars movies.)

In terms of acting, I'm guessing George is just a cold, withdrawn man who doesn't care about well-performed drama. He also needs others to help him make a story that reflects the softer or more humorous side of life. Alone, he makes something dry and dull.

How old was his kid when he made Episode One? Maybe that's why it's filled with juvenile humor. Perhaps that was what was influencing George at the time.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
I will say that Lucas never was a good director, but he was a brilliant conceptualist. THX 1138 shows remarkable visions and concept, and its strength lays in the way in which it is assembled in its esoteric and indirect manner. Graffiti on the other hand was simply a good idea to begin with, especially the rough and dirty way that Lucas photographed it; he also never directed actors and instead hired an acting coach on set while Lucas dealt with camera matters--the cast was simply talented. Star Wars of course was brilliant for its concept, and like on Graffiti Lucas was blessed with being surrounded by an immensely talent crew and a remarkable cast.

In all three cases Lucas was granted impeccable timing. THX was not financially successful but the very fact that it was made is an incredible feat in itself that only could have occured at that time, during the crisis of 1969-1971, and Graffiti of course spearheaded the "personal" films of the American New Wave and also happened to cash in on the growing "nostalgia" wave of films, among them Two-Lane Blacktop produced by Gary Kurtz the year before. Star Wars of course is probably the best timed release in history, giving the public exactly what they wanted and needed.
Author
Time
Post link
So what was Ed Wood's problem, then? Do you think he was simply a "bad" director? Or was it the fact that he had little experience, almost no budget, and felt compelled to add roles simply for star appeal? I mean, obviously Bela Lugosi belonged in Glen or Glenda and Vampira in Plan 9. Or did people simply not get what he was trying to do? In the last post, zombie84 mentioned timing was essential to George Lucas's success. Do you think the same could have been true for Ed Wood?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
I think Ed Wood was a bad director. So many talented directors have made great films with tiny budgets, so I don't think that that can be used as an excuse in Wood's case. Of course, it didn't help his situation that he didn't have the resources that Lucas had, but even that wouldn't have made him a good director. At some point, any competent director would have stopped and said "wait a minute- this isn't going to work, this is horrible", but he didn't.

I will say that Lucas' direction on the PT comes a lot closer to mirroring Wood's directing than at any other point in his career. It would have been interesting to see what Ed Wood would have come up with, with a multi-million dollar budget.

I agree with zombie that GL isn't a great director, but a talented conceptualist. GL was much better off having other people flesh out his ideas for him. Unlike Lucas, however, Wood didn't even seem to have any talent in that department.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
I will say that Lucas never was a good director, but he was a brilliant conceptualist.


Hmm, I'd say he is obsessed with concepts, and most of those concepts are good. However, I wouldn't say he's a "brilliant" conceptualist. If he were such, his concepts wouldn't so easilly contradict one another.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Interesting comparison.

I think Ed Wood saw things very differently to the rest of us. Whilst the rest of us might have gotten bogged down in seeing the scenery moving, or little details like that, he saw right past that to something else. Just what he was actually seeing, I can't imagine. To say he saw things through rose-coloured glasses is an understatement. I kind of envy him for that. Not sure that the Tim Burton film was terribly accurate, but it's a nice story obviously made with some affection and perhaps feeling of kinship for Wood.

He was still alive when SW was first released. I wonder if he saw it. I would think that if he was offered the chance at a budget like Lucas had, he would have rather made 50 movies than just put it all into one.






Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I would love to know how accurate the movie was. I'd love to read the book it was based off of, since it has a lot of interviews with the people involved. I'd like to think that the movie was (for the most part) accurate but just viewed through the same rose-colored glasses that you say the real Ed Wood saw through. I mean, I see a lot that could have been real and true to the real character but shown in a comedic and sympathetic light.

But interesting opinion about the budget, though. I don't know. It would have been interesting to see what Wood could have/would have done with a decent budget. Would he have made 50 low-budget movies, or did he only make low-budget movies because no one would give him a decent amount of money?

And we all know that George claimed the prequels would be low-budget movies, but look where they went. I mean, if you have those kind of resources, would you be able to keep yourself from going overboard?

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Maybe the star wars budget wasn't as much as GL would have liked, but I think it was pretty decent. They had enough $ to shoot in Tunisia, to build some fantastic sets on the soundstages in England, to hire some great talents- John Williams, Gil Taylor, Ralph McQuarrie, etc., so.......

Author
Time
Post link
I am of the opinion that Lucas would do better work if he was restrained by budget and technology like he was with the original Star Wars. In this way, he'd have to work a lot harder and do a much better job with the story to make it work.

For example: give a kid everything they could possibly want to play with and they tend to get spoiled and lose their imagination and creativity, whereas a poor kid with fewer toys has to use his imagination to create things out of what's within his grasp.

--SKot

Projects:
Return Of The Ewok and Other Short Films (with OCPmovie) [COMPLETED]
Preserving the…cringe…Star Wars Holiday Special [COMPLETED]
The Star Wars TV Commercials Project [DORMANT]
Felix the Cat 1919-1930 early film shorts preservation [ONGOING]
Lights Out! (lost TV anthology shows) [ONGOING]
Iznogoud (1995 animated series) English audio preservation [ONGOING]

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr
Maybe the star wars budget wasn't as much as GL would have liked, but I think it was pretty decent. They had enough $ to shoot in Tunisia, to build some fantastic sets on the soundstages in England, to hire some great talents- John Williams, Gil Taylor, Ralph McQuarrie, etc., so.......


Yeah, like I said, Lucas had major studio backing by an amazing chance. It was pretty low-budget, but if Ladd hadn't accepted him, he might not have gotten that much money and might have had to make his movie Ed Wood style.

And SKot, I definitely agree.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
I've wanted to post this link for a while, and it's kinda on-topic, considering that perhaps Alan Ladd Jr. 'gave' Lucas the money based on American Graffiti. Not sure how slanted the figures are because maybe more people saw AG after Star Wars was released. I know that my older brother took me to see AG at the drive-in on its first release, and that we drove 100 miles to get there, and then 100 miles after it finished. He was into cars in a big way, so AG was being praised in cars magazines that he was reading. We wouldn't have cared what the story was, the main attraction was the beautiful shots of all those fine cars. But I'm getting way off topic here.

Anyway, the numbers in this article are interesting, even if they haven't been updated for a while.

Returns on investment


Did GL select John Williams, Gil Taylor, Ralph McQuarrie, etc as the people he wanted to work with, or were those selected by Kurtz?
Author
Time
Post link
I know that Spielberg recommended John Williams to GL after he worked with him for JAWS. The others I don't know...

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: SKot
For example: give a kid everything they could possibly want to play with and they tend to get spoiled and lose their imagination and creativity, whereas a poor kid with fewer toys has to use his imagination to create things out of what's within his grasp.


Great point.

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: SKot
I am of the opinion that Lucas would do better work if he was restrained by budget and technology like he was with the original Star Wars. In this way, he'd have to work a lot harder and do a much better job with the story to make it work.

For example: give a kid everything they could possibly want to play with and they tend to get spoiled and lose their imagination and creativity, whereas a poor kid with fewer toys has to use his imagination to create things out of what's within his grasp.

--SKot


I think that’s an excellent example SKot.

Think about the PT in comparison to many of the movies that came out during the same (1999-2005) time period. Everything in the PT is CG; no miniatures, almost no sets and only a few crappy make-up jobs. I just wonder if 10 seconds of CG could’ve been spared from AOTC to get Ewan a decent fake beard for the Obi-Wan re-shoots? Even the big budget films of the era were restrained in their CG use compared to the PT. The LOTR series, Spiderman and the X-Men films all used CGI, but they used props and make-up and sets as well. Watching Coruscant in the PT hurts my eyes after a while because it’s just CG from a hard drive. Meanwhile I can look at Middle Earth all fucking day because I know it’s just New Zeeland. When I watch AOTC I can only think about switching the video signal and playing KOTOR. When I watch LOTR IF I think about anything beyond the story I think about buying real estate in Auckland. I only use big budget films to illustrate that one can still spend a great deal of money and not go to the ridiculous extremes of the PT films. When one compares quality low-budget films to the PT the difference is even more drastic.

"Look, going good against bashers/gushers is one thing. Going good against the living? That's something else."
- Darth-Adroit

“I also thought George could be turned back to the good side. It couldn't be done. He is more CGI now than story. Twisted and evil.”
- Darth-Adroit
Author
Time
Post link
"For example: give a kid everything they could possibly want to play with and they tend to get spoiled and lose their imagination and creativity, whereas a poor kid with fewer toys has to use his imagination to create things out of what's within his grasp."

I've read studies where kids are given a task to accomplish, and various random pieces and tools to accomplish the task. "Regular" kids will pick just the tools they need to get the job done, whereas "gifted" children attempt to use almost every single piece in Rube Goldberg-fashion, making the task overly difficult and time-consuming.

Hell, I recall my wife watching some reality show about teams looking for buried treasure around the world, and the "genious" team out-thunk themselves in one episode. They rationalized the completely opposite and wrong answer, whereas other teams found it an easy decision to make (I don't recall the specifics - I'm not a big "reality show" fan.)

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: Sadly, I believe the prequels are beyond repair.
<span class=“Bold”>JediRandy: They’re certainly beyond any repair you’re capable of making.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>MeBeJedi: You aren’t one of us.
<span class=“Bold”>Go-Mer-Tonic: I can’t say I find that very disappointing.</span></span>

<span class=“Italics”>JediRandy: I won’t suck as much as a fan edit.</span>

Author
Time
Post link
So I just watched Plan 9 last night. It really wasn't as bad as I thought it would be. I mean, yes, there were a lot of funny goofs and stuff, but it wasn't abysmally worse than your average B-movie fare or Saturday matinee serial.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Darth-AdroitWatching Coruscant in the PT hurts my eyes after a while because it’s just CG from a hard drive.

That's interesting- the PT films hurt my eyes too. I guess it's not just me, then. I wonder why that is? That's just another reason why I prefer non-CG efx (even the super-cheesy Ed Wood-style efx )