logo Sign In

It's Official: George Lucas hates his fans :P — Page 8

Author
Time
Post link

zombie84 said:

His rather advanced state of knowledge about all of this alone shows that he does keep tabs on all of these things.

 you said a lot of things in your last couple posts that I agree with and have also said at one point.  But this deserves special mention. For someone who claims to not care or pay attention to what critics say, lucas seems quite knowledgeable of what they (people who criticize the movies) are saying.  im not sure if even nixon was as thinned-skinned.

and in the docs and books, he is blathers about critics, movie goers feelings, box office returns, 'marketers', 'studio suits'.  of course, most of the time he is doing it to pre-emptively frame an argument for the apologists and also to test the sycophancy of his followers.

so he says 'everyone' yells at him and calls him a terrible person. well lucas, you are profoundly childish, lazy and you lie just about everytime you open your mouth.  not really traits you'd find in someone thats on the level.

click here if lack of OOT got you down

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Harmy said:

What else do you think it's about then?

As he says, people who say what a terrible person he is. Or people who offend him as a person. Offense is not constructive criticism, and it definitely has nothing to do with film critics.

Author
Time
Post link

http://www.georgelucasusenetarchive.com/Default.asp?article=1999-10-18&title=George-urges-fans-to-destroy-his-critics

I call upon you, the dense core, to shout down all those who criticize me. Only a bloodbath of revenge will now satisfy me. Only a holocaust of bloodletting will restore me to calm. Only the maddening butchery as grotesque and insane as a thousand wars will sate my bloodlust. Only a horrifying, senseless monsoon of blood and an unholy avalanche of carnage can satisfy my perverted desires. (Please skin Robert Ebert alive first.)

 

http://www.filmschoolrejects.com/features/boiling-point-why-does-george-lucas-hate-star-wars-fans-and-history.php

You know what the worst part of all this is? In a few years, some kids are going to watch the Star Wars movies for the first time, having heard about how instrumental they were, how popular they were, and how amazing they were and this kid is going to watch these Blu-rays and say to himself “What’s the big fucking deal?” at best and “Wow these kind of suck” at worst. The films have been chopped and glued and amended like some piece of shit Toyota that refuses to die, rather than being tended to like a classic Corvette. The movies we loved are dying, bit by bit, sound by sound, scene by scene.

Fuck you, George Lucas. I loved you once. Now all you do is push me past my boiling point.

 

http://acertainpointofview.net/?p=965

What the hateboys want to DO is ruin other fans’ good time.

 

http://io9.com/5881828/phantom-menace-3d-trailer-robs-star-wars-of-its-last-shred-of-dignity

Not surprisingly, George Lucas is courting the only audience he can: little kids. In this ridiculous trailer, a narrator desperately tries to Honey Badger his way into making this movie kid-friendly. Can't wait until the kids get a load of Qui-Gon Jinn's hilarious Trade Federation banter! Watch this trailer, and weep for future generations.

 

http://jam.canoe.ca/Movies/Artists/L/Lucas_George/1999/05/10/759965.html

"It's only a movie. Get a life."

These were the first words out of Lucas' mouth when he took the podium at his press conference at the Regency Hotel yesterday.

 

http://www.booknoise.net/johnseabrook/stories/culture/force/index.html

Here, at this first screening of "Star Wars," a group of writers, directors, and executives, all with ambitions to make more or less artistically accomplished Hollywood films, were confronting the template of the future--the film that would in one way or another determine everyone's career. Not surprisingly, almost every one of them hated it. Polite applause in the screening room, no cheers--a "real sweaty-palm time," Jay Cocks, who was also there, said. It's possible that, just this once, before the tsunami of marketing and megatude closed over "Star Wars" forever, these people were seeing the movie for what it really was--a film with comic-book characters, an unbelievable story, no political or social commentary, lousy acting, preposterous dialogue, and a ridiculously simplistic morality. In other words, a bad movie.

 

 

Author
Time
Post link

AWN article; "Because of the Northridge quake, a lot of the original footage was water damaged. That’s why we knew when we went in that we were going to have to do some extensive restoration work....George went through with the editor, picked a bunch of stuff and re-edited it slightly, just to make it more what he wanted. He realized that there were scenes he wanted to expand upon… at the time with the budget that he had,"

 

Honestly.   Lucas' continued use of  - the originals were damaged, I mean it was the limited budget, I mean it was my Original Vision.  Good God, man - pick one lie and stick to it.  It's the same set of pat answers he trots out for repressing the original version of Star Wars. 

All kidding aside, the man needs an intervention - or he needs to be institutionalized. Anymore these days, he seems to have fluid stories for every project he's involved in.  He's already started it with the Red Tails promotional junkets - it was the studios trying to suppress history\me\my project - it was the critics, I mean the fans. The guy is a pathological liar.

Forum Moderator
Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

It highly probable that George straddles a variety of divergent universes in which case he may be telling different but equally inaccurate truths without actually stating falsehoods.

This sort of thing happens to me all the time.

Bob Peck did turn into a tree at the end of Edge Of Darkness.

I remember my father telling me about it and reading about it in the tabloids of the day.

I remember seeing it on a copy taped off the television on VHS with a friend as a witness.

When I purchased the official tapes the scene was missing both my friend and myself were convinced the tape had been edited.

I then located a magazine published around the time of broadcast which stated Bob was meant to turn into a tree but he refused to let the writer and production team to do that to a character he was attached too.

Now you may say the memory has cheated there.

It's a group delusion backed up by nothing more than the plasticity of organic memory some may say.

Well I evoke brane theory and the many worlds theory of cosmology.

The universe I'm in has adjusted itself around me and I refuse to yield to the shifting shingles.

Physicists have just not caught up with George's unique position in the multiverse.

He hasn't just crossed over into a universe within which he is an anachronism, he is a fixed point in matrix of conflicting timelines all of which have their own reasons for confusing him.

Or maybe he is just getting old.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Alexrd said:

georgec said:

Alexrd said:

Because you are the one who decides what Lucas means with what he says, right?

And you're the one who decides?

No, I never claimed that.

So you think George always says the truth? Like how he's changed his story multiple times about why he "can't" restore the UOT? And you're saying there's never been a difference between what he says/does?

You should give up your childhood ideal of him being the benevolent creator of Star Wars. He is a shrewd businessman.

Stop using straw men, please. It only shows your big lack of arguments and a very childish attitude.

georgec said:

It's funny that Lucas apologists like Alexrd

So, now that you can't refute my arguments, you call me a "Lucas apologist".

Alexrd will be here soon to post more straw man arguments because he has an unhealthy obsession with doing so

No, but the same can be said about you, as your posts have proven.

You haven't proven anything, other than you enjoy trying to argue against criticism of Lucas, who has time and time again said that critics hate Star Wars. Just because Lucas doesn't explicitly use the term "critics" doesn't mean that he's not referring to them.

I've refuted your silly arguments, and I've pointed out that your posts are childish drivel. If I snipped the bud at the root, no need to deal with the thorns. :)

Honestly, step away from the computer. You have a cute way of cutting up my posts and only responding to the parts you can misinterpret and skew with some effort. By misrepresenting my words cutting out parts of sentences, it shows you can't respond to the whole post. Only to select phrases that lose context when you edit them.

Counter accusing me of things I say about you, such as you being childish, is the only thing you can do. In reality it actually shows your lack of argument and your irrationality. It's ironic, actually.

A child uses the "No, you are!" argument. Ergo...

This site is full of people who see Lucas for who he is - a greedy, dishonest, arrogant businessman. Yet, you've been obsessed with my posts for months now and constantly thread crap. Your only method is to try and say what Lucas really meant with his words, or what he was really thinking when he said them. It's the very definition of a straw man argument, the one you like to accuse others of using.

I guess you're okay with people saying Lucas raped their childhood, but when people point out the quite obvious insecurity complex of Lucas you start to whine and make baseless attempts to "refute" well-documented information. Even within this thread many others have agreed on Lucas' whiny attitude about people not appreciating him. You focus on my post because you have an unhealthy, irrational obsession.

Go read zombie's website and inform yourself before trying to act like a hardass on here.

Better yet, put me on ignore and save yourself the heartache, or otherwise stop asking such nonsensical questions and trying to refute every single thing for the sake of refuting it (when you can't even do that correctly).

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time
Post link

No hostility on my end. But when someone cuts up and edits my posts then makes silly arguments, I'm going to point it out. Otherwise he's misrepresenting what I've said.

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Anchorhead said:

AWN article; "Because of the Northridge quake, a lot of the original footage was water damaged. That’s why we knew when we went in that we were going to have to do some extensive restoration work....George went through with the editor, picked a bunch of stuff and re-edited it slightly, just to make it more what he wanted. He realized that there were scenes he wanted to expand upon… at the time with the budget that he had,"

 

Honestly.   Lucas' continued use of  - the originals were damaged, I mean it was the limited budget, I mean it was my Original Vision.  Good God, man - pick one lie and stick to it.  It's the same set of pat answers he trots out for repressing the original version of Star Wars. 

All kidding aside, the man needs an intervention - or he needs to be institutionalized. Anymore these days, he seems to have fluid stories for every project he's involved in.  He's already started it with the Red Tails promotional junkets - it was the studios trying to suppress history\me\my project - it was the critics, I mean the fans. The guy is a pathological liar.

Exactly.

I pointed this out earlier and, well, you know...

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time
Post link

walking_carpet said:

 For someone who claims to not care or pay attention to what critics say, lucas seems quite knowledgeable of what they (people who criticize the movies) are saying.  im not sure if even nixon was as thinned-skinned.

As GL is threatening to take his ball and go home, he seems to forget one thing. Star Wars was probably the most broadly well-liked movie in the history of....ever. Obviously nothing makes 100% of everybody happy but no movie may ever get that close again. And Raiders was probably very high on that list too. Add to that a good 17 years of unmatched loyalty  and positivity, through Howard the duck, Ewok Adventures, Radioland, unheard of for a director. Not good enough! Not for the creepy new fans or their leader, L. Ron Flannel.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

georgec said:

You haven't proven anything, other than you enjoy trying to argue against criticism of Lucas, who has time and time again said that critics hate Star Wars. Just because Lucas doesn't explicitly use the term "critics" doesn't mean that he's not referring to them.

And because he doesn't use the term critics, doesn't mean he's referring to them. Besides, when did the critics said that Lucas is a terrible person?

I've refuted your silly arguments,

No, you haven't.

Honestly, step away from the computer. You have a cute way of cutting up my posts and only responding to the parts you can misinterpret and skew with some effort. By misrepresenting my words cutting out parts of sentences, it shows you can't respond to the whole post. Only to select phrases that lose context when you edit them.

No, I've cut one of your posts because I only wanted to adress your comments about me. But feel free to point out where did I misinterpret your posts.

Counter accusing me of things I say about you, such as you being childish, is the only thing you can do. In reality it actually shows your lack of argument and your irrationality. It's ironic, actually.

If that was the only thing you read on my posts, then it only shows you are the only one ignoring what I wrote.

A child uses the "No, you are!" argument. Ergo...

Ergo nothing. When did I use anything close to "no, you are"? But you, on the other hand,  did use strawman and logical fallacies on your arguments.

This site is full of people who see Lucas for who he is - a greedy, dishonest, arrogant businessman. Yet, you've been obsessed with my posts for months now and constantly thread crap.

Months? I've quoted you yesterday and I'm certainly not obsessed with anyone.

Your only method is to try and say what Lucas really meant with his words, or what he was really thinking when he said them. It's the very definition of a straw man argument, the one you like to accuse others of using.

Are you kidding? I never used that method anywhere, but as I've pointed out earlier, you did:

georgec said:

Saying he doesn't care about critics doesn't mean he actually doesn't care.

And now you're accusing me of doing that? There is no need to lie. The posts are here for everyone to see.

I guess you're okay with people saying Lucas raped their childhood,

You guessed wrong. And by the way, what made you guess that?

but when people point out the quite obvious insecurity complex of Lucas you start to whine and make baseless attempts to "refute" well-documented information.

What well documented information? You claimed that when Lucas says he doesn't care about critics, he doesn't mean it. Do you have a source, then? Because there are many sources proving that he doesn't care. Some of them already shown on this thread. But you didn't refute my argument with a source. I've asked you who are you to decide what he means or doesn't with what he says. Then, you used a fallacy by asking if I was the one who decides that. Since you are the one with the burden of proof, I'm still waiting for it. All you've been giving was a mindless rant about how I'm obsessed about you, how I use fallacies (which I'm still waiting for a proof), and some ad hominem by calling me "mental" and "Lucas apologist".

Even within this thread many others have agreed on Lucas' whiny attitude about people not appreciating him.

Not appreciating him doesn't mean offending him.

You focus on my post because you have an unhealthy, irrational obsession.

No. if you had used valid arguments from the start we wouldn't be having this discussion. And you making stuff up (like you're doing) doesn't help either.

Go read zombie's website and inform yourself before trying to act like a hardass on here.

You are the one who needs to inform. You make claims which have been refuted and now your trying to argue with strawman and false dilemmas. Reply back with facts and proof of your claims, if you can. Otherwise, admit that you're wrong.

Author
Time
Post link

I really don't know why this is being debated still. There were plenty of quotes and arguments presented in the previous page that shows, yes, Lucas does feel the sting of critics sometimes, but he looks at it as being part of the job so tries not to focus too much on it. But he still is affected by criticism. I don't know how you could take a quote where Lucas flat out says "everyone criticizes the movies I make so now I'm not going to make any more" and somehow try to paint a picture of a man stoically ignorant to critics.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

zombie84 said:

I really don't know why this is being debated still. There were plenty of quotes and arguments presented in the previous page that shows, yes, Lucas does feel the sting of critics sometimes, but he looks at it as being part of the job so tries not to focus too much on it. But he still is affected by criticism. I don't know how you could take a quote where Lucas flat out says "everyone criticizes the movies I make so now I'm not going to make any more" and somehow try to paint a picture of a man stoically ignorant to critics.

I never said he was ignorant to critics, I said he doesn't give them importance (doesn't care).

What Lucas said was:

“Why would I make any more,” Lucas says of the “Star Wars” movies, “when everybody yells at you all the time and says what a terrible person you are?”

Now, how can you say that he's talking about critics? I don't recall critics attacking him as a person and saying what a terrible person he is. Right? But feel free to show me otherwise. I'm not the one with the burden of proof.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Well, maybe not in so many words but have you seen the RLM prequel reviews? And there were others. The point is that if he says that he's not going to make any more SW films, because everybody yells at him all the time and says what a terrible person he is, then if he isn't speaking about people who criticized his films, there is no logical connection there. In other words if he is not speaking about people who criticized his films, he's just rambling incoherently...

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Harmy said:

Well, maybe no in so many words but have you seen the RLM prequel reviews? And there were others. The point is that if he says that he's not going to make any more SW films, because everybody yells at him all the time and says what a terrible person he is, then if he isn't speaking about people who criticized his films, there is no logical connection there. In other words if he is not speaking about people who criticized his films, he's just rambling incoherently...

Why? Can't he be speaking about people in the internet who can't offend him enough? Or people who went to her daughters' twitter or facebook account to offend her father (and forcing her to shut down the account)? It's seems to be a more logical assumption than to say "he's talking about critics". I don't recall any film critic offending him, so...

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Why? Because, and I'll be repeating myself here, if so, then there is no logical connection to making more SW films.

Also there is a difference between the critics (and I use the term in the broad sense of anyone making a critique publicly) making an intentionally offensive comments and GL taking offence at their comments, when they dare point out all the reasons why his new films are bad films and then putting it together with fans' online statements motivated by his constant lies and active efforts to change history, and making this comment.

Author
Time
Post link

You don't think critics calling him a hack, Rolling Stone saying his screenwriting would induce projectile vomiting, saying he has nothing of substance to say, that he his films are not worth your time, that he is a greedy businessman trying primarily to sell toys and not make art--you don't think that would be seen as something personally offensive to him? If that isn't, I don't know what would--newspaper critics aren't going to tell him to go jump off a bridge or anything that harsh, and most people online aren't that harsh too, they mostly just stick to trashing his attempts and critizing his motives and saying he is greedy, sell-out, etc., pretty similar to what some of the harsher proper-media says. 

And, I also don't think he is talking about any one group of people in that quote. He doesn't say "fans" or "audiences" or "people on the internet" (a group he has specifically called out for their complaints on more than one occassion). Critics in newspapers trashed him and his films. Fans on websites and forums trashed him and his films. General audiences had some criticisms for him. And people writing reviews and pieces online trashed him and his films too. But these are all "critics", they are people giving him criticism, not just newspaper writers--the internet changed a lot of things compared to 1983. Lucas knows all of this because he has shown that he is well-aware of these activities--he's even made an ambiguous possible reference to OT.com in the last months.

So that's why he says "everybody" criticized the films. He's right. His critics weren't just those writing in newspapers, there is a whole other world where people have a publishing medium for criticism, with actual print media just being one component of a much larger picture of widespread criticism. Fans, audiences, newspaper writers, critics online and in websites. That's why he doesn't say "online fans" or "newspaper writers", he says "everyone", he knows that there was pretty widespread and wide-ranging criticism and he knows it wasn't confined just to print media, especially today. And, of course, all that criticism does hurt on some level, because people are saying not only are his films not enjoyable but that he has no talents. I'll re-quote the 60 Minutes interview from 1999:

Leslie Stahl: When critics go after your directing, your writing--it has to hurt.

George Lucas: Oh it hurts. It always hurts. It hurts a great deal. But part of directing is that you get attacked, sometimes in very personal ways. [goes on to his green-house/white-house analogy]

So, yes, while I don't think he necessarily thinks critics are important, he clearly doesn't think they are unimportant, and the picture you are trying to paint about him being stoically unaffected by critics is not accurate. Clearly, criticism from people, whether they are writing in a printed magazine or simply posting stuff online, is important enough to him that he is using it as an explanation for his retirement. Whether you believe that or not--I don't really--the fact that he would state it in the first place shows how much the criticism irks him personally.

Author
Time
Post link

Harmy said:

Why? Because, and I'll be repeating myself here, if so, then there is no logical connection to making more SW films.

Why make films to people who say that I'm a terrible person? It seems to be a logical way of thinking to me. (not that I agree with it, though)

Also there is a difference between the critics (and I use the term in the broad sense of anyone making a critique publicly) making an intentionally offensive comments and GL taking offence at their comments, when they dare point out all the reasons why his new films are bad films

Indeed there is a difference. Critics wo don't like their movies are criticizing the movies, or his job, not him as a person (and if they do that, then they are not doing their job). And that's what he's saying.

and then putting it together with fans' online statements motivated by his constant lies and active efforts to change history, and making this comment.

Motivated by his lies, or by their personal tastes and assumptions? Because there are these people too, and by watching many online comments, that's what I see the most.

In the end, all we have is what he said in the article: "people who say what a terrible person he is". I see no connection to film critics (those whom he doesn't care about).

Author
Time
Post link

This thread is beginning to give me a migraine.

And we're supposed to believe that Lucas actually posted to Usenet?

Forum Moderator

Where were you in '77?

Author
Time
Post link

When reading this thread I have to wonder if good ole GL has an account here lol.

Luke threw twice…maybe.

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Guys, that single quote by Lucas is the only one ever spoken in reference to him being offended by criticism. Lucas has never uttered thoughts about critics not liking his movies at any other time.

Oh...wait...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SC17psKGg3k#t=2m35s

Lock the thread!

edit - zombie beat me to it

The entire crux of Alexrd's faux argument is meaningless and, well, dumb. Lucas said one thing, and he's interpreting it in a very isolated manner regardless of the decades of context surrounding it. Epitome of straw man.

I've pointed out the fallacies in his posts and he mimics that in his responses. Again, he uses the, "No, you are!" argument that a child, unwilling to cope with truth and facts, uses.

Move along.

“Grow up. These are my Disney's movies, not yours.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)
Post link

Alexrd said:

Harmy said:

Why? Because, and I'll be repeating myself here, if so, then there is no logical connection to making more SW films.

Why make films to people who say that I'm a terrible person? It seems to be a logical way of thinking to me. (not that I agree with it, though)

Well, being one of those people, I can assure you if he was to make those films, he wouldn't be making them for me or others like me, he'd be making them for you and others like you, so that argument doesn't stand IMO.

Also there is a difference between the critics (and I use the term in the broad sense of anyone making a critique publicly) making an intentionally offensive comments and GL taking offence at their comments, when they dare point out all the reasons why his new films are bad films

Indeed there is a difference. Critics wo don't like their movies are criticizing the movies, or his job, not him as a person (and if they do that, then they are not doing their job). And that's what he's saying.

Well, IMO a good critic not only says that something is bad but also looks for a reason why it's bad and if the reason is the personality of the creator, then the critics are doing their job, if they point it out.

and then putting it together with fans' online statements motivated by his constant lies and active efforts to change history, and making this comment.

Motivated by his lies, or by their personal tastes and assumptions? Because there are these people too, and by watching many online comments, that's what I see the most.

It seems to me that you get this impression because you don't have all the information, or refuse to acknowledge it and therefore people criticizing Lucas seem like they base it on "assumptions" where in reality, they simply have more information than you do. I recommend reading The Secret History of SW.

 

Author
Time
Post link

@georgec: Oh, man that interview always cracks me up. That is exactly Goerge Lucas of today, he wants it to be a white house and no matter how many people who know what they're talking about tell him it should be a green house, he's gonna paint it white. When George was writing the script for the original SW, he'd show it to his friends and they'd tell him, George this and this is crap, you have to rewrite it and he listened to them and that's why SW was such a success, he didn't yet become arrogant and he was willing to listen to other people's opinion.

Author
Time
Post link

It is to be expected that some aspects of this thread would go a bit barmy going by the thread title.

Almost every time we have a thread with an incendiary title (and it survives long enough) the content within gets a bit hot and spicy.

I'm not saying that the underlying issues aren't pertinent and people are clearly passionate about what they are saying but aspects of this sort of discussion are exactly the kind of material the more zealous devotees will drag out to prove Mr Lucas right.

Some of what George is reported as saying in all seriousness is almost as potty as what I say in jest so we can be at least united in a bit of a giggle even it comes at the expense of the calamity of cultural vandalism.