Sign In

Episode IX: The Rise Of Skywalker - Discussion * SPOILER THREAD * — Page 117

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

I don’t really agree, since Lucas is more than just "a previous storyteller, and I think the creator of this universe has a special place. In other words if major changes are made to the context of his story, I think he should be oke with it.

I value the story’s quality over the hypothetical hurt feelings of one of its previous contributors. I don’t understand the unnecessary complicating of enjoying the story itself by introducing this metatextual and behind-the-scenes drama to the proceedings and then hinging your ability to enjoy what happened to it. There’s no reason for me to put that skin in the game, I don’t get anything extra by doing so.

The second he sold the whole thing for four billion to a completely separate corporate entity, his feelings became a tertiary concern at best. It speaks well to people at Lucasfilm that they’re still involving him, despite prior complications and hurt feelings. But if he’s fine enough with still hanging around and helping when they ask, that should probably be all there is to it from my perspective.

Again: That’s part of why stories are so amazing. Their malleability, their freedom to change shape in order to get across the ideas and feelings of the people telling them. That’s a huge part of why the fan edit community has such an important place here, too. The consideration for other creator’s feelings isn’t taken into account too much, and I don’t know that it should be, because the aim isn’t to make prior creators thrilled or happy, it’s to try and figure out how to make the story work to express the ideas YOU want it to.

Well for me Star Wars and Lucas are indelibly linked, far beyond any monetary concerns. A good story with the Star Wars name attached to it isn’t automatically Star Wars for me, particulary if it doesn’t stay true to the spirit, and the intent of its original creator. If the new owners of the Coca Cola company alter the recipe, it isn’t Coca Cola, just because they slap a name on it, that they paid a gazillion dollars for. Coca Cola is that taste, and recipe, not any drink with the name attached to it, no matter how good it tastes.

Author
Time

But Star Wars isn’t a soft drink. It’s a story with multiple authors created in a highly collaborative medium. And the quality of that story and the execution in its telling is leagues more important to me than whatever concerns there may or may not be regarding the notion of proper respects being paid to a person I literally don’t know, have never met, and am completely unfamiliar with in the way they think, feel, and operate as people. It’s literally none of my business, really. The only thing that IS my business is how the story, whoever created and executed it, resonates with me.

If JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio, with the help of John Williams, the actors, cinematographer, editors, and myriad other storytellers and technicians (who are storytellers in their own right) come together to realize a way to recontextualize the prophecy for the ST, and it works, I’m not going to discount that effort and successful execution because I think that maybe George Lucas could possibly consider it “disrespectful” to him. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t get anything good out of that.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

But Star Wars isn’t a soft drink. It’s a story with multiple authors created in a highly collaborative medium. And the quality of that story and the execution in its telling is leagues more important to me than whatever concerns there may or may not be regarding the notion of proper respects being paid to a person I literally don’t know, have never met, and am completely unfamiliar with in the way they think, feel, and operate as people. It’s literally none of my business, really. The only thing that IS my business is how the story, whoever created and executed it, resonates with me.

If JJ Abrams and Chris Terrio, with the help of John Williams, the actors, cinematographer, editors, and myriad other storytellers and technicians (who are storytellers in their own right) come together to realize a way to recontextualize the prophecy for the ST, and it works, I’m not going to discount that effort and successful execution because I think that maybe George Lucas could possibly consider it “disrespectful” to him. That doesn’t make any sense to me. I don’t get anything good out of that.

You can get something good out of a drink, that isn’t coca cola. Like I said it may taste good, and I may enjoy it, but it isn’t Coca Cola. To me Star Wars is more than the sum of a brand name, a good story, and similar aesthetics.

Author
Time

Even if we pursue this Coca-Cola analogy, the recipe for coke as it currently stands isn’t the same as it was when Coke was invented. Coca Cola isn’t Coca Cola anymore either. Things change and evolve and those evolutions tend to be accepted for what they are and the definition of what a thing is (and can be) get expanded accordingly.

For the purposes of this comparison, Coca Cola is still, like Star Wars, about 95% the same thing it always was. There are changes and differences. Your argument falls apart because it needs for there to be the idea that only the name has survived, and everything else that makes up its substance has been jettisoned and replaced, and that’s a pretty alarmist and inaccurate representation of Star Wars and the Sequel Trilogy’s contributions to it.

You’re essentially saying you care more about how a thing is made then whether it’s made well.

The idea that the stories aren’t being executed well and are failing or succeeding on their own merits, I have no problem with that. It’s pretty much the point of interacting with art - you judge the works based on how they worked or didn’t ON YOU. But when your interaction with art tends to hinge more on things like “what brush did they use” “whose canvas is that” “where did they source the paints from” and less on “how did this make me feel” then I feel like you’re not really giving the art itself a chance to work, because you’re more concerned (or distracted) with the trivia behind its creation than you are experiencing the ideas its trying to communicate.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

Even if we pursue this Coca-Cola analogy, the recipe for coke as it currently stands isn’t the same as it was when Coke was invented. Coca Cola isn’t Coca Cola anymore either. Things change and evolve and those evolutions tend to be accepted for what they are and the definition of what a thing is (and can be) get expanded accordingly.

For the purposes of this comparison, Coca Cola is still, like Star Wars, about 95% the same thing it always was. There are changes and differences. Your argument falls apart because it needs for there to be the idea that only the name has survived, and everything else that makes up its substance has been jettisoned and replaced, and that’s a pretty alarmist and inaccurate representation of Star Wars and the Sequel Trilogy’s contributions to it.

You’re essentially saying you care more about how a thing is made then whether it’s made well.

The idea that the stories aren’t being executed well and are failing or succeeding on their own merits, I have no problem with that. It’s pretty much the point of interacting with art - you judge the works based on how they worked or didn’t ON YOU. But when your interaction with art tends to hinge more on things like “what brush did they use” “whose canvas is that” “where did they source the paints from” and less on “how did this make me feel” then I feel like you’re not really giving the art itself a chance to work, because you’re more concerned (or distracted) with the trivia behind its creation than you are experiencing the ideas its trying to communicate.

No, I’m saying I care about whether it is made well, who made it, and how it fits with what has been previously established. I think the word art is thrown around much too easily. Lucas created something, that by most standards would be considered unique, and original. It is instantly recognizable, and it resonated with a lot of people. Lucas is the main artist, and creative force behind it, and Star Wars is his work of art. Taking somebody else’s work of art, and mass producing it with some tweaks to me isn’t artistry, no matter how well it’s made. It’s at best a good product, that involves storytelling, and craftmanship, that can be admired, and enjoyed, but art to me is on a whole other level.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

This gets into a big philosophical question but Star Wars is simultaneously both a work of art and a product. George wanted to tell interesting stories while simultaneously selling toys. That’s clear from the beginning, when Lucas bargained for full merchandising rights for the first film, which continued into the other films (what is that Lucas quote about Ewoks and Benji?) as well as the prequels. So are you saying the new films are more product and less art than George’s films, which were more art and less product? I think that’s splitting hairs, and a bit unfair to the new storytellers who might being in fact trying to tell interesting stories despite it still being a product.

EDIT: Is there a difference in the apparent legitimacy of the Disney-era films between a scenario where Disney takes Star Wars from Lucas’ cold, dead hands, and Lucas giving Star Wars to Disney with the knowledge they would continue the story without him?

The writer gives a story to another storyteller knowing they will continue that story without him. Is that consent irrelevant to the validity of the stories post-Author?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RogueLeader said:

This gets into a big philosophical question but Star Wars is simultaneously both a work of art and a product. George wanted to tell interesting stories while simultaneously selling toys. That’s clear from the beginning, when Lucas bargained for full merchandising rights for the first film, which continued into the other films (what is that Lucas quote about Ewoks and Benji?) as well as the prequels. So are you saying the new films are more product and less art than George’s films, which were more art and less product? I think that’s splitting hairs, and a bit unfair to the new storytellers who might being in fact trying to tell interesting stories despite it still being a product.

Star Wars was always both art, and product before Lucas sold his company, but the only thing that was sold was the product, and the brand, not the artistry. Art, and the artist in my view are always indelibly connected. There’s a uniqueness, and style to art that flows directly from the artist. The current creators attempt to emulate that style, but uniqueness is not really part of the equation, because the brand has to stay recognizable. Now, it may be possible to do something truly unique within this universe, or add some style, that separates it enough from Lucas’ work, that it would be considered a true work of art in its own right, like Kubrick’s adaptation of the Shining, or Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings (you will note, that this is often in another medium, that the original work the more modern artist adapts), however the ST to me at least doesn’t fall into this category. It’s far too obsessed with nostalgia, and recycling Lucas’ work to be considered art in my view. Disney is a cover band playing Lucas’ songs with some updated arrangements, but they’ve yet to release a truly original song, that manages to incorporate elements of Lucas’ work, whilst also having a unique voice of its own, that touches us in a way we didn’t know was possible. True art resonates with us, because it touches us in ways we never expected, not because it reminds us of how a past work of art resonated with us.

Author
Time

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RogueLeader said:

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Yes, I think if the right artist comes along that truly adds something unique to the tapistry, that shares enough elements with Star Wars to be considered part of that universe, whilst introducing elements, and nuances, that make it truly stand on its own, than that to me would be art. People would essentially be saying, this would still be equally great, unique, and inspiring, even if it didn’t carry the name Star Wars.

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Isn’t that what Rian Johnson tried to do? RJ may be the most “auteur” of any director to helm a Star Wars movie; he did something quite different and people hated it.

DrDre said:

You can get something good out of a drink, that isn’t coca cola. Like I said it may taste good, and I may enjoy it, but it isn’t Coca Cola. To me Star Wars is more than the sum of a brand name, a good story, and similar aesthetics.

Dre - You seem to know what doesn’t constitute “Star Wars” in your own personal view. But what does? You’ve implied that Star Wars is more that just a sum of its parts; something more intangible. How can a SW movie ever be made to your satisfaction if that’s the case?

Author
Time

pleasehello said:

RogueLeader said:

I think that is a fair view, basically an auteur theory perspective.

So, do you think it is possible for future films/shows made under Disney-Lucasfilm could be considered more artistic if the right artist came in and had enough creative freedom to create a unique, new story?

Isn’t that what Rian Johnson tried to do? RJ may be the most “auteur” of any director to helm a Star Wars movie; he did something quite different and people hated it.

He did something unique from a certain point of view, by assessing what people expect, and then doing the opposite, but isn’t the negative image of the OT not still the OT in a sense?

DrDre said:

You can get something good out of a drink, that isn’t coca cola. Like I said it may taste good, and I may enjoy it, but it isn’t Coca Cola. To me Star Wars is more than the sum of a brand name, a good story, and similar aesthetics.

Dre - You seem to know what doesn’t constitute “Star Wars” in your own personal view. But what does? You’ve implied that Star Wars is more that just a sum of its parts; something more intangible. How can a SW movie ever be made to your satisfaction if that’s the case?

Well for me Lucas’ story is precisely that, Lucas’ story. If your going to expand on it, I feel you must stay true to his vision, and intentions. Now, if they create a completely new story in that universe with new characters, it’s a different matter. I think it would still need to somehow introduce a unique style, and voice to be considered a work of art in its own right, but I would not say it’s impossible.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

DrDre said:
Star Wars was always both art, and product before Lucas sold his company, but the only thing that was sold was the product, and the brand, not the artistry.

This seems REALLY un-generous to me, and more than a little inaccurate (and very dismissive) on top of that.

It’s far too obsessed with nostalgia

But your entire read on what gets to qualify AS Star Wars seems inherently rooted in nostalgia. Its your reluctance to allow for other voices aside from Lucas’ that is dominant in your view as to why things might not be “good” Star Wars or “bad” Star Wars, but disqualified from being Star Wars at all. It’s a fundamentally unfair argument at its core, because it seeks not to critique the art on the arts terms, but redefine what art actually is so that the thing you don’t like is delegitimized as being art at all.

Lucas chose to sell his company to Disney. He chose its current President knowing she was going to have to be in control of the story once he sold the company. To suggest that everything done after the sale is being done for the sole sake of commerce, with no intent to create legitimate art that builds from what came before, isn’t a very realistic take, I don’t think. That’s not to say you have to like what was created, much like people don’t have to like the prequels, or really, ANYTHING with the words Star Wars on it.

But to suggest that post-sale Lucasfilm is no longer making Star Wars simply because you feel Lucas is being disrespected in some way… that just doesn’t make any sense to me. It dismisses out of hand all the effort, care, and time the people still at the company are putting into making these movies and shows, for the sake of protecting the feelings of a person you don’t even know and have no legitimate connection to. Again, you’re prioritizing HOW the art was made, and the hypothetical feelings of a previous contributor, over whether the art is actually doing what it was created to do. You’re judging everything that gets made through the prism of whether it’s “Lucasian” enough for you when the definition for that particular term is, itself, pretty fluid and weird and not particularly easy to discern even IF you actually knew the man.

Chaining what Star Wars can be to the narrow definition of what its previous owner may or may not have done with it is needlessly limiting, I think.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
Star Wars was always both art, and product before Lucas sold his company, but the only thing that was sold was the product, and the brand, not the artistry.

This seems REALLY un-generous to me, and more than a little inaccurate (and very dismissive) on top of that.

No, I’m saying that the people, that buy the brand have to work hard, and be creative, and original to earn the term artistry, whilst respecting the integrity of the original work. In my view the current Disney films are the result of hard work, and display craft, but lack creativity, originality, and a voice, and vision in its own right to be considered art.

It’s far too obsessed with nostalgia

But your entire read on what gets to qualify AS Star Wars seems inherently rooted in nostalgia. Its your reluctance to allow for other voices aside from Lucas’ that is dominant in your view as to why things might not be “good” Star Wars or “bad” Star Wars, but disqualified from being Star Wars at all. It’s a fundamentally unfair argument at its core, because it seeks not to critique the art on the arts terms, but redefine what art actually is so that the thing you don’t like is delegitimized as being art at all.

Lucas chose to sell his company to Disney. He chose its current President knowing she was going to have to be in control of the story once he sold the company. To suggest that everything done after the sale is being done for the sole sake of commerce, with no intent to create legitimate art that builds from what came before, isn’t a very realistic take, I don’t think. That’s not to say you have to like what was created, much like people don’t have to like the prequels, or really, ANYTHING with the words Star Wars on it.

But to suggest that post-sale Lucasfilm is no longer making Star Wars simply because you feel Lucas is being disrespected in some way… that just doesn’t make any sense to me. It dismisses out of hand all the effort, care, and time the people still at the company are putting into making these movies and shows, for the sake of protecting the feelings of a person you don’t even know and have no legitimate connection to. Again, you’re prioritizing HOW the art was made, and the hypothetical feelings of a previous contributor, over whether the art is actually doing what it was created to do.

No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic. I think the standard should be a little higher than that, no matter how entertaining the movies are. I’ve long since considered the ST to be an adaptation of the OT, an OT for the new generation. However, in my view the ST lacks the style, voice, vision, and cohesion for it to be considered an artistic endeavour in the vain of Kubrick’s adaptions of well known books, whilst adding his own unique style, voice, and perspective.

Author
Time

DrDre said:

No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic.

But that’s often how art is actually made. There’s an entire subforum of this very site that is dedicated to pursuing that ideal, in fact. You CAN take someone’s art, tweak it, and claim you’re being artistic, because that IS a valid artistic expression. Andy Warhol is probably the most famous example of that principle being accepted as truth.

And you’re still belittling the act of creation being done on the part of creatives who have been working at Lucasfilm since 2012 (many of whom have worked with Lucas both before AND after the sale) as mere “tweaking” when their contributions and execution is quite a bit more than simply “tweaking” something. You’re more or less just doubling down on the endeavour of disqualifying something as art rather than accepting it for what it is and judging it accordingly. It’s more than enough to simply not like the art being made, if that’s all there really is to it - there’s no real reason to go out of your way to suggest it shouldn’t be qualified as art to begin with. I think Attack of the Clones is a genuinely horrible movie on its own merits - I wouldn’t ever think to say it’s not really a Star Wars movie, or further, not really a movie at all because it sucks. It’s just a bad Star Wars movie. Going the extra step to disqualify its existence is sort of absurd, really.

I apologize if this reads as out of line, especially since I don’t actually know you at all and aren’t familiar with you outside of the posts I’ve seen of yours in this forum, but might I suggest that it’s at least POSSIBLE you’re a little more accepting of other people’s artistic “tweaking” of pre-existing texts and works (The Shining, The Lord of the Rings) partially because there isn’t as strong an emotional or historical connection with those works and creators as you consistently work to maintain with regards to Star Wars?

Because it feels like there’s an idealized, romanticized version of Star Wars you’re using as the measuring stick by which the Sequel Trilogy must be judged, and that version of Star Wars doesn’t necessarily exist in any quantifiable way outside of your own head and heart. Which might be why I’m reacting to the notion that there’s a fundamental betrayal of Lucas being perpetrated in the way I am, because I genuinely do not see evidence of that in the work itself. The Sequel Trilogy feels like an artistically valid continuation of the story he started telling in 1977, and on a general filmmaking and storytelling level, the films as created under Kennedy’s leadership at the studio are, on average, better made, more compelling, and more INTERESTING as a collection of films than what Lucas turned out when he had sole control of the studio.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:

No, I’m saying you cannot take somebody else’s art, tweak it a bit, and then claim you’re being artistic.

But that’s often how art is actually made. There’s an entire subforum of this very site that is dedicated to pursuing that ideal, in fact. You CAN take someone’s art, tweak it, and claim you’re being artistic, because that IS a valid artistic expression. Andy Warhol is probably the most famous example of that principle being accepted as truth.

And you’re still belittling the act of creation being done on the part of creatives who have been working at Lucasfilm since 2012 (many of whom have worked with Lucas both before AND after the sale) as mere “tweaking” when their contributions and execution is quite a bit more than simply “tweaking” something. You’re more or less just doubling down on the endeavour of disqualifying something as art rather than accepting it for what it is and judging it accordingly. It’s more than enough to simply not like the art being made, if that’s all there really is to it - there’s no real reason to go out of your way to suggest it shouldn’t be qualified as art to begin with. I think Attack of the Clones is a genuinely horrible movie on its own merits - I wouldn’t ever think to say it’s not really a Star Wars movie, or further, not really a movie at all because it sucks. It’s just a bad Star Wars movie. Going the extra step to disqualify its existence is sort of absurd, really.

I apologize if this reads as out of line, especially since I don’t actually know you at all and aren’t familiar with you outside of the posts I’ve seen of yours in this forum, but might I suggest that it’s at least POSSIBLE you’re a little more accepting of other people’s artistic “tweaking” of pre-existing texts and works (The Shining, The Lord of the Rings) partially because there isn’t as strong an emotional or historical connection with those works and creators as you consistently work to maintain with regards to Star Wars?

Because it feels like there’s an idealized, romanticized version of Star Wars you’re using as the measuring stick by which the Sequel Trilogy must be judged, and that version of Star Wars doesn’t necessarily exist in any quantifiable way outside of your own head and heart. Which might be why I’m reacting to the notion that there’s a fundamental betrayal of Lucas being perpetrated in the way I am, because I genuinely do not see evidence of that in the work itself. The Sequel Trilogy feels like an artistically valid continuation of the story he started telling in 1977, and on a general filmmaking and storytelling level, the films as created under Kennedy’s leadership at the studio are, on average, better made, more compelling, and more INTERESTING as a collection of films than what Lucas turned out when he had sole control of the studio.

I disagree they are more compelling, and more interesting. I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry. The main driving force is a return on investment on 4 billion dollar’s worth of IP, and so one Star Wars movie a year had to be made. That’s putting the cart in front of the horse. Contrast this with Lucas waiting sixteen years to finish his story, and in his case there actually was a story to be told, even if the execution was lacking. I just don’t believe a return on investment, market research, a time line, and preset release dates are a prerequisite for artistic expression. They are a prerequisite for a product, that hopefully will have entertainment value, some artistic elements, some creativity, hard work, and craft. I think it is very telling that after two ST films the main draw is the resurrection of one of Lucas’ long since dead characters. I think that speaks to the lack of narrative, and artistic purpose of these films.

Author
Time

DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.

Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.

I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.

Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.

I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.

Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion. These people should be admired for the hard work, craft, and creativity they put into their work, and their product, like any other person that puts their best foot forward, but artistry is not and should not be a qualification that is so easily bestowed. In my view true artistry is a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing.

No apology is needed. I think this is an interesting discussion, where it is perfectly fine to vehemently disagree.

Author
Time

People having a civilized conversation in this thread? What sorcery is this? 😛

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time

For real. BroomKid, Dre, y’all are great and I think it is important that the community has these different perspectives and we can have actual conversations about them. If we all had the same opinion it wouldn’t be the same.

Author
Time

I may not fully see eye to eye with Dre’s points, but do agree to some level that the direction of the ST is lacking… an artistic soul? I think that’s what Dre is getting at. There’s a ton of people at helm of the ST, wearing and carrying the Star Wars mantle but for almost different reasons than originally intended pre-Disney acquisition. TFA may had been, an arguably, solid opening for the ST, more so than how the PT started with TPM. But, after TLJ and a few side stories, it feels like a game of throwing darts on the idea board with buzzwords of iconic OT characters/stories. As a result, it’s a matter of using these ideas/concepts to draw people in on the surface, but very little to take away from.
What I mean is, there’s some level of resonance when you see Luke stare into the binary sunset, feeling the internal guilt of wanting more than being a desert farm boy but not wanting to let down his uncle and aunt. TFA captured a tiny bit of this similar aspect with Rey, but the following movie, I think, just squanders it all into some weird kind of mess due to a result of rushing into meeting deadlines.
But to take a step further back, despite how magically Star Wars began, it’s not like Lucas is some masterful “artist.” He took many ideas from other sources and put them together in a very creative and successful way. That is admirable. But the success of Star Wars was more so the other people involved. It was a different time, a time where they had to prove the story was worth its salt.
Nowadays, everyone knows the value of it. The true loss of an artistic soul happened when we have the higher ups trying to keep Star Wars relevant. All the tools are available, which is totally different from when LucasFilm had to work its way from the ground up.

The Hope Awakens

Author
Time
 (Edited)

NeverarGreat said:
I’d argue that actually trying to recontextualize elements of the PT would be more respectful than outright ignoring them, which is what the ST has essentially done.

But what is the difference if you end up in the same place, the total crapping on George’s storyline?

DrDre said:
Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion. These people should be admired for the hard work, craft, and creativity they put into their work, and their product, like any other person that puts their best foot forward, but artistry is not and should not be a qualification that is so easily bestowed. In my view true artistry is a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing.

I agree. 100%.

“Anakin had those qualities so rarely seen, exuding an unmistakable confidence and yet still able to touch one’s heart in simply knowing how he was so flawed… wounded.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

pleasehello said:
Isn’t that what Rian Johnson tried to do? RJ may be the most “auteur” of any director to helm a Star Wars movie; he did something quite different and people hated it.

I think there is a fine line there. With Star Wars, you can take some chances.

But there is a big difference between that and going off the reservation.

Johnson went way off the reservation.

“Anakin had those qualities so rarely seen, exuding an unmistakable confidence and yet still able to touch one’s heart in simply knowing how he was so flawed… wounded.”

Author
Time

DrDre said:

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.

Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.

I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.

Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion.

So by that logic Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel can’t be considered art because it was comissioned by the church? Some of history’s most famous artwork could be considered “commercial” or “corporate” as they were partially, or completely, dictated and funded by one or more patrons. Even art house films exist to make money. Although I don’t dismiss auteur theory, I do think it’s highly overrated since even the smallest, most independent films are a collaborative and commercial venture.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

ZkinandBonez said:

DrDre said:

Broom Kid said:

DrDre said:
I agree they are better made in some respects. However, the main driving force behind these films is not artistry.

Again, I think it’s really unfair and unrealistic of you to say this. Borderline disingenuous, really. Especially considering many of the arguments you’re currently leveraging against this version of Star Wars were leveraged against it in the '80s, '90s, and '00s. I fundamentally disagree with any attempt to somehow strip the legitimate, and easily observable intent to create art from the finished films, or to attempt to redefine their existence AS art based on a romanticized notion of what George Lucas is, was, and would have done had he not decided to sell everything. George Lucas is not an island, and his “vision” is not as all encompassing or unfiltered as you consistently describe it to be. The work stands for itself, and your criticisms of the work are primarily rooted in a somewhat cruel appraisal of its artistic intent first and foremost, one that I don’t think stands up to scrutiny at all.

I apologize for dragging this out as long as I did, and I thank you for being very civil and patient with me. Obviously we’re not going to agree, but hopefully some measure of understanding (not agreement, of course, but the two aren’t synonymous anyway) was reached.

Well, I don’t see why any and all forms of corporately driven expression should be considered art, just because a group of people put a lot of effort, work, and craft into it. A lot of people work hard, and are creative in developing products, doing research, motivating people, etc, etc. Yet, these people are not considered artists. However, if the product you’re working on is a movie, you’re automatically labeled an ARTIST with a capital A. I reject that notion.

So by that logic Michelangelo’s Sistine Chapel can’t be considered art because it was comissioned by the church? Some of history’s most famous artwork could be considered “commercial” or “corporate” as they were partially, or completely, dictated and funded by one or more patrons. Even art house films exist to make money. Although I don’t dismiss auteur theory, I do think it’s highly overrated since even the smallest, most independent films are a collaborative and commercial venture.

I never stated art can’t also be commercial. I’m simply arguing, that I don’t agree with the idea of the designation art being automatically attached to a movie like a toy in a box of cereal, simply because people put effort into it. A lot of people put great effort and creativity into their work, or product, and they don’t get some automatic lofty term to describe it, so why should a product from the entertainment industry be any different? In my view there are other factors that come into play, which I’ve stated are a rare, and unique combination of imagination, creativity, originality, perserverance, circumstance, context, and timing. The Sistene Chappel has all of the above. I don’t think the ST qualifies. In my view the films lack imagination, creativity, and originality. They lack a unified creative vision, and seem content to mostly ride Lucas’ coattails. As such, I see the ST thusfar mostly as successful products, that attempt to emulate Lucas’ (and his collaborators’) most successful and beloved works. There are creative elements, but not enough for me personally to consider them works of art in their own right. To me these films thusfar are not much different from the Roman marble copies of famous bronze Greek statues. They are a different material, and it takes craft to make them, but in the end they are mainly a modernized commercial product based on somebody else’s artistry.