logo Sign In

Is George Lucas a fan of Star Wars? — Page 2

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Imagine if Spielberg had made E.T. and then a sequel to E.T., then another sequel, then a trilogy of E.T. prequels that deal with E.T.'s dad and the birth of E.T. and how E.T. ended up coimg to visit earth and so on, then imagine Spielberg complaining about all these other movies he had wanted to make, yet was forced to do nothing but E.T. all his life. Nope, I can't imagine it either.


You forgot the part about how, in the prequels, E.T. never left "home" but ended up on earth precisely because he was searching for a new home. And how Spielberg subsequently made a second special edition on top of an earlier special edition (which he doesn't call a "special edition" anymore) that underwent an edit of E.T.'s voice to no longer say "home" but to instead say "mothership."

"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
If we have to wait until the hi-def release for Star Wars to get the proper treatment, then so be it. We've already had to do that with Close Encounters and Blade Runner. Why should Star Wars be any different?

In regards to the whole whether-or-not-George-is-a-fan question, there's something that occurred to me while at work yesterday. It never fails to amaze me how there's always yet another younger generation of kids who are fans of Star Wars. I mean, the last movie came out almost 3 years ago and I still see kids that can't be much older than 7 raving about Star Wars. I dunno, maybe it's not as common as I'm getting the impression it is. After all, there are a lot of kids out there besides the ones who stop by the Lego store. But if it is as common as I'm getting the impression it is, I'm wondering why. Maybe since their parents grew up with the originals there's just a carryover, who knows.

Anyway, the reason I bring all this up is that it really hit me today just how popular Star Wars still is among really young kids. I thought of all the extras I was watching on the new Blade Runner set and how that was just an R-rated movie that didn't do very well when it opened. Then I think of how everyone saw Star Wars when it was first released, and how Lucas - whether he even realizes it or not - still has a large audience due largely to the fact that so many young people saw it and fell in love with it back in '77 and eventually passed it on to their own kids, OOT or no OOT. I'm lucky to be part of that generation born in the years just after the OOT was released and that I first saw the movies many years before that night in November of '96 outside the multiplex when my mom told me "there was a trailer saying the Star Wars movies are getting re-released starting in January."

Here's my ultimate point with all of this: The fact that there are - even today - lots of kids who are into Star Wars doesn't help people (including Lucas) to take it seriously as a movie. Lucas hasn't shown it the proper respect because HE DOESN'T NEED TO. He has yet another generation of kids to make money off of before he worries about film fans, and no, I don't think that's being harsh of the guy. Not when we're carrying sets from The Force Unleashed and The Clone Wars many months in advance of their actual release and yet the best quality you can get the ACTUAL MOVIE in is 1993 am I being too harsh.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Imagine if Spielberg had made E.T. and then a sequel to E.T., then another sequel, then a trilogy of E.T. prequels that deal with E.T.'s dad and the birth of E.T. and how E.T. ended up coimg to visit earth and so on, then imagine Spielberg complaining about all these other movies he had wanted to make, yet was forced to do nothing but E.T. all his life. Nope, I can't imagine it either.
LOL, that is a great analogy. I wonder if that was E.T's Dad on the senate in TPM... Maybe E.T. was pals with Yoda when he was a kid.

War does not make one great.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Fang Zei
Here's my ultimate point with all of this: The fact that there are - even today - lots of kids who are into Star Wars doesn't help people (including Lucas) to take it seriously as a movie. Lucas hasn't shown it the proper respect because HE DOESN'T NEED TO. He has yet another generation of kids to make money off of before he worries about film fans, and no, I don't think that's being harsh of the guy. Not when we're carrying sets from The Force Unleashed and The Clone Wars many months in advance of their actual release and yet the best quality you can get the ACTUAL MOVIE in is 1993 am I being too harsh.



I think it comes down to Lucas being an insecure dick. Spielberg didn't have to release the original E.T. or Close Encounters, he was in the position to call the shots and even though people would protest the voices of dissent are comparitively low compared to Star Wars, so your average viewer would probably never even realise there was a controversy. But when Spielberg found out people were upset the original E.T. was not being included, he included it (with only a month to go before the release date, mind you). When he realised people wanted to see the original Close Encounters he let them. Its not just that Lucas can call the shots and get away with being a dick to us, its that he actually is being a dick to us.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: CO
A very interesting quote from 2004 on Charlie Rose with Lucas:

Lucas was asked about the financial stability of Lucasfilm after 1983. Lucas said, "In the early 90's, we were breaking even every year, and I was presented a proposal of how much money we could make if I made the Prequels. If I made the Prequels, I could be financially independent for the rest of my life, and make any movie or project I want through Lucasfilm, not the studio system. If I let SW go, and stopped after ROTJ, then every project I would do in the future would hinge on the studio system, as Lucasfilm was not some big money maker before the Prequels were made, where I could essentially do what I want now."
.



CO, I just watched the Charlie Rose show from 2004, and could not find this quote. Lucas says "I got a divorce, and that set me back quite a bit, and then I decided that one of the reasons to go back to Star Wars was that it would make me financially secure enough to where I wouldn't have to go to a studio and beg for money."

Are you just misremembering the quote I provided? The show is available online, running something like 52 minutes so I assume it is not an edited version.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: C3PX
Imagine if Spielberg had made E.T. and then a sequel to E.T., then another sequel, then a trilogy of E.T. prequels that deal with E.T.'s dad and the birth of E.T. and how E.T. ended up coimg to visit earth and so on, then imagine Spielberg complaining about all these other movies he had wanted to make, yet was forced to do nothing but E.T. all his life. Nope, I can't imagine it either.


LOL, exactly. I think Lucas' "career" is one of the biggest shame's in recent history, simply because it could have been really great.
Maybe. There was a time when I thought that GL was incredibly talented, and it bothered me that he didn't direct more. Now, I seriously doubt his talent as a director. Sure, Spielberg has had some klunkers, but the majority of the films he's directed have been fantastic. I can no longer say the same for GL.

Where I used to think that George was a great director who just didn't like directing very much, now I think that American Graffitti and Star Wars were flukes-- happy accidents that came out great due in large part to all of the other talented people involved with them.

Author
Time
Post link
Well as shocking as it seems, the first movie George directed since Star Wars in 1977 was a film that came out in 1999 called The Phantom Menace. I don't think Grafitti and Star Wars were flukes. 20 years can have a big impact on somebody. My take is that he went from a young ambitious director who wasn't afraid to go against the grain a little and do things that people told him he couldn't do. Over that twenty years of fame and praise, I think he got to the point where he felt he could do no wrong, which was bad mistake. If there was a way for young George to meet old George, I think young George would be pretty disappointed in himself. I honestly think he had some greatness left in him after Star Wars and that to quit directing at that point was a big mistake. 1977 wasn't the time to stop directing, and 1999 certainly wasn't the time to start again. Now out of the few movies he has directed, half of them suck, and that is only if you consider THX 1138 a good movie (to me THX 1138 is to Lucas what Duel was to Spielberg, something that was interesting and showed great potential for a new young director, a foreshadowing of great things to come, but certianly not timeless or destined to rake in mass home video sales for years to come).

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Here's the funny thing:

-The original Star Wars was a medium budget movie where Lucas had to direct everything.
-Empire and Jedi were both big budget movies where Lucas basically handled the special effects himself and let someone else direct.
-The prequels were big budget movies where Lucas had to direct everything.

I think it would've been cooler if Star Wars '77 had been left as Lucas' final directorial work forever. Then, every 15 years or so, he would get three directors and a handful of writers to make another trilogy. In spite of how the prequels actually did turn out,* I'm still hoping that he (or whoever ends up in charge of Lucasfilm) follows that pattern if more movies ever do happen.

*and that the special editions even exist and we still don't have the originals in good quality
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Well as shocking as it seems, the first movie George directed since Star Wars in 1977 was a film that came out in 1999 called The Phantom Menace. So, you're saying that he was out of practice, and that's why he sucks as a director now? It's a valid argument, but in my opinion it seems that his talent was more limited than he or any of us originally thought, and his revived desire to direct simply surpassed the limits of his directing ability.

Using Spielberg as an example- it's impossible to know what would happen if he stopped directing for 20 years and then decided to make another movie, but somehow I doubt whatever film he'd make would be his own 'Phantom Menace'. But, we'll never know that because at Spielberg's age, he can't really take a 20 year hiatus from directing.I don't think Grafitti and Star Wars were flukes. 20 years can have a big impact on somebody. My take is that he went from a young ambitious director who wasn't afraid to go against the grain a little and do things that people told him he couldn't do.

My take on it is the exact opposite- in the early days, he was a young, ambitious director who had less control over his films than he would have liked. As a result, the influences of others were allowed to come into play. Today, he has TOTAL control of his films, and we can see the results of that.



Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: Mielr So, you're saying that he was out of practice, and that's why he sucks as a director now? It's a valid argument, but in my opinion it seems that his talent was more limited than he or any of us originally thought, and his revived desire to direct simply surpassed the limits of his directing ability.


No, I don't think it was because he was out of practice. I think he is a very different person now than he was then. I honestly think had he continued directing, while a few stinkers would have been inevitable, we would have seen many great things from him. Surely you have read books by a writer where his earlier books are better than his later ones, it isn't because he is out of practice, it is just because he seems to loose whatever it was he had when he was younger. I think this is the case with Lucas. I think he lacks the same focus he had back in the 70s. Something that once came from his heart and an ambition to succeed, was now replaced by the idea that this could bring in a lot of dough and the feeling that he had already succeeded and was now a well known and well respected director who's name is often listed among and associated with the masters. In other words, going from the young, I want to be all I can be and really make some great films to the old I've got something that will rake in boatloads upon boatloads of cash, and who better to do it than myself, master director extrodinare, a one man creative team who knows no wrong.

To sum it up, I think ambition was replaced by pride, and the desire to make good movies was also replaced by other motives. Show me top director who has not ended up doing at least a few crappy films. George kind of top out as a high status director after just a couple of successes and never got around to doing anything that bombed so as to tell him he too was mortal and capible of bleeding. We learn through out mistakes. Failure can sometimes becomes a stepping stone to success. Nobody is perfect. We become wise by realizing we are fools with much yet to learn. The bigger they are the harder they fall. And so on.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Oh, I definitely agree that he's been corrupted, and all artists do seem to have a creative peak, but I believe that true talent endures and it's hard to imagine that the man who directed the prequels is the same person who directed SW and Graffitti - it's like he's been replaced by a pod person.

But, even when George was still considered to be a good director, he was never considered to be a good actors' director (we've all heard the "faster, more intense" line). So things like that make me think that maybe all his youthful hunger and creativity back then were enough to get him through those films without revealing his weaknesses as a director. Now that the youth and hunger is gone (replaced by "yes" men), this is what we're left with.

And yes, his directing a couple of box-office bombs would have been a healthy, humbling experience (and something that still hasn't happened yet).

Author
Time
Post link
He was a producer on a few stinkers (Howard the Duck) which clearly does not have the same impact.
I'd like a qui-gon jinn please with an Obi-Wan to go.

Red heads ROCK. Blondes do not rock. Nuff said.

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v72/greencapt/hansolovsindy.jpg