Originally posted by: Go-Mer-Tonic
I have just seen a lot of people (not here really) accuse McCallum of being a mindless yes man.
I wouldn't say that he's totally a "yes man," because I'm sure he brings his expertise to the table and offers Lucas suggestions when he thinks things can be improved. But Lucas today is a much different person than the Lucas of 1972 who first hired Gary Kurtz--that was more of a partnership, and because the two knew each other so early in life and experienced the rags-to-riches thing together, Kurtz didn't see Lucas as anything special, in fact he probably knew his faults better than anyone else and really helped Lucas where he saw him weak. McCallum however was hired under a totally different context--he was brought on when Lucas was already a legendary billionaire "genius," and his purpose literally is to make what Lucas wants to happen happen. So I suppose he's a yes man in the sense that his ultimate purpose is not to bring anything creative to the table but to simplyu carry out the tasks Lucas commands. And thats what many people feel one of the biggest problems with Lucas today is--the whole absolute power that corrupts absolutely thing. Because he's simply too powerful, he can just dispense orders. Luckily the art department at least gets pretty free reign to have their own creative input. But as far as McCallum goes, he's not there to question Lucas or give his opinions in to what will make a shot or a scene better--he's there to manage and carry out Lucas' orders. And publicly, he is the primary Lucasfilm spokesperson. These two things together contribute to the "Yes man" image he has, which i don't think is 100% accurate but certainly its not at all out in left field.
See, i don't know where you come up with this conclusion. The press crucified the film. The critics hated the film. The public was annoyed by the film. Fans hated the film. So then who the hell is left that matters?? Lucas-worshippers? 5 year olds? If Lucas made a film for five year olds then i guess he is a success--but Star Wars was not a childrens film. It was a film that was made to be enjoyed by children, but equally by adults. If he was making strictly a childrens film then why the hell would he put all that intellectual stuff about politics, about midichlorians, about prophecy, about governmental issues? The answer is that he was not making a childrens film. He was trying to make a film for kids and adults alike, a family film, like the original Star Wars--and while TPM is not a bad movie at all, i would say that if those were his intentions then he didn't know what he was doing and thats why he failed.
Just like the people who didn't agree that the original Star Wars would make any money were wrong.
I have just seen a lot of people (not here really) accuse McCallum of being a mindless yes man.
I wouldn't say that he's totally a "yes man," because I'm sure he brings his expertise to the table and offers Lucas suggestions when he thinks things can be improved. But Lucas today is a much different person than the Lucas of 1972 who first hired Gary Kurtz--that was more of a partnership, and because the two knew each other so early in life and experienced the rags-to-riches thing together, Kurtz didn't see Lucas as anything special, in fact he probably knew his faults better than anyone else and really helped Lucas where he saw him weak. McCallum however was hired under a totally different context--he was brought on when Lucas was already a legendary billionaire "genius," and his purpose literally is to make what Lucas wants to happen happen. So I suppose he's a yes man in the sense that his ultimate purpose is not to bring anything creative to the table but to simplyu carry out the tasks Lucas commands. And thats what many people feel one of the biggest problems with Lucas today is--the whole absolute power that corrupts absolutely thing. Because he's simply too powerful, he can just dispense orders. Luckily the art department at least gets pretty free reign to have their own creative input. But as far as McCallum goes, he's not there to question Lucas or give his opinions in to what will make a shot or a scene better--he's there to manage and carry out Lucas' orders. And publicly, he is the primary Lucasfilm spokesperson. These two things together contribute to the "Yes man" image he has, which i don't think is 100% accurate but certainly its not at all out in left field.
Or say that there is nobody there to question Lucas' artistic choises like Kurtz did.
There isn't. Lucas is so powerful, famous, rich and respected that nobody he works with questions him, beyond the little details at least. Can you imagine any of his producers reading Phantom Menace and going "George, i have to tell you, this script needs a lot of character work"?
He did think as much, and i don't know if that makes him crazy because i think he knew that adults would be a bit annoyed but certainly he didnt purposely design a character that audiences would hate so much. I will say, however, that he is very in touch with what children want, i guess because at the time he wrote and made TPM his kids were all 2-9 years old. That, however, can be seen as the primary fault of the film--its mostly a kids film, as opposed to a family film, as others pointed out, although this doesn't hold true for the entire movie.
Lucas knew exactly what he was doing, and in the end the people who didn't agree with him didn't matter.
There isn't. Lucas is so powerful, famous, rich and respected that nobody he works with questions him, beyond the little details at least. Can you imagine any of his producers reading Phantom Menace and going "George, i have to tell you, this script needs a lot of character work"?
I have also seen people assume Lucas thought everyone would love Jar-Jar, but is crazy and out of touch with what audiences want.
He did think as much, and i don't know if that makes him crazy because i think he knew that adults would be a bit annoyed but certainly he didnt purposely design a character that audiences would hate so much. I will say, however, that he is very in touch with what children want, i guess because at the time he wrote and made TPM his kids were all 2-9 years old. That, however, can be seen as the primary fault of the film--its mostly a kids film, as opposed to a family film, as others pointed out, although this doesn't hold true for the entire movie.
Lucas knew exactly what he was doing, and in the end the people who didn't agree with him didn't matter.
See, i don't know where you come up with this conclusion. The press crucified the film. The critics hated the film. The public was annoyed by the film. Fans hated the film. So then who the hell is left that matters?? Lucas-worshippers? 5 year olds? If Lucas made a film for five year olds then i guess he is a success--but Star Wars was not a childrens film. It was a film that was made to be enjoyed by children, but equally by adults. If he was making strictly a childrens film then why the hell would he put all that intellectual stuff about politics, about midichlorians, about prophecy, about governmental issues? The answer is that he was not making a childrens film. He was trying to make a film for kids and adults alike, a family film, like the original Star Wars--and while TPM is not a bad movie at all, i would say that if those were his intentions then he didn't know what he was doing and thats why he failed.
Just like the people who didn't agree that the original Star Wars would make any money were wrong.
Most people agreed it would be quite profitable. In fact, Lucas' rejection memo from United Artists in 1973 even states that the film would be successful if done right, but they just couldn't afford to chance all the money on it because it was such a big budget film. People just didn't expect Star Wars to be such a huge mega-success, which is a pretty reasonable excuse.