Was George Lucas a trickster the whole time? — Page 3

CO said:

Hoth-Nudist said:

Im right there with ya GF. I dont really think Luca$ is a trickster, just an overrated, talentless shmo that got lucky and made lots of shrewd business decisions.  Personally I dont hold Luca$ in the same light as I did from 77'-99'.  I used to think the world of him.  For the past 13 years Ive learned the UOT to be a collaborative effort, but with Luca$ name on it.  Originally George just wanted to make a Flash Gordon film, when that was rejected, he cobbled a bunch of space characters/ideas around on paper, and with TONS of collaborative help and editing and direction from REAL creative minds, we got ANH in 77.  Years ago at TF.N we had a forum called the "bashers sanctuary", which was created at the time of TPM, for obvious reasons.  Its shut down now, but I do recall there being many articles posted on Luca$'s original unedited scripts for the OT.  They were as circus-bad as the writing for the prequals.  I find it a blessing that Luca$ had executives telling him what he can't do and honest colleagues standing up to his silly ideas.  All in all I dont think Luca$ a trickster, but I do think he has held a grudge against all the people REALLY responsible for making the UOT spectacular, and has gone to great lengths to change and distort the UOT in order to avoid paying royalties and to thumb his nose at them.

 HN, we go back to the TFN days at the Bashers Sancttuary, and I think both sides goes too far in praise and criticism of Lucas.

I think the Pro-PT think Lucas had EVERYTHING to do with the success of SW, and think of him like a God and state that when they say, "Its his movies, so he can do what he wants with them."  So in that respect, they're wrong as they were more collaborative and there were others should be acknowledged for the success of SW.

But I think our side is wrong sometimes when they say Lucas is a talentless hack.  You can make that argument today, as I believe once he built Lucasfilm he was never going to be that renegade director who tooks chances.  But we must acknowledge whether it was collaborative or not, that he deserves alot of credit for the OT movies.   Of course Kersh, Kasdan, Kurtz, Hirsch, Marcia Lucas and others should get credit, and the 7 Academy Awards will always make that point.

I have always said Lucas is a like an athlete or musician and he was making SW in his prime, and making the PT well PAST his prime.  I mean Jedi isn't as great as SW and ESB, but that happens in every movie series.  Lucas isn't a GOD, but he's not a hack either.  He just a jerk for not releasing the OOT.

I see your point GF, W_C and CO, and appreciate your opinions.  I agree that both sides do go too far, and Ive been guilty of that every so often.  Currently , Im trying to accept the fact the Luca$ did what he did, they're his movies.  But after all Ive read the past 13 years, and observing Luca$'s behavior, not to mention the shoddy prequals,  I stand by my earlier post.  But, my main frustration is from his not making the UOT on bluray.

generalfrevious said:

Alright, he may have not have been a trickster the whole time, but I still think he didn't care about the continuity of the six films at all, and he has contempt for SW being successful from the beginning. Does that opinion make sense?

No it still doesn't.  He worked very hard to get SW made and to get buy-in from so many people.  It was his baby, and he was making other good movies at the time too.  I think it's a lot simpler and more believable that as he got older, all the success and accolades went to his head.  He isn't the first artist to have lost his edge, and he also isn't the first artist to get all full of himself.

You're trying to make up a bunch of backstory and turning it into some sort of saga, when really he's just become a rich old miserly curmudgeon.

generalfrevious said:

Alright, he may have not have been a trickster the whole time, but I still think he didn't care about the continuity of the six films at all, and he has contempt for SW being successful from the beginning. Does that opinion make sense?

Not really. I'm going to throw out an alternate explanation that might appeal to you. It's not completely unheard of for someone integrally involved in the creation of a piece of art to completely fail to grasp its popular appeal. To borrow from another fanboy bucket, I've seen interviews with Sarah Michelle Gellar that make me think she just has know clue what Buffy the Vampire Slayer was even about. And yet she still made it come very much alive.

Same with Lucas, really. Maybe Lucas WANTED to make a trashy slapstick derivative space adventure with terrible dialogue and a backstory that's somewhere between inconsistent and incomprehensible. Honestly that DOES describe Buck Rogers, oft-cited as a SW inspiration. Maybe that WAS the "original vision" he's always going on about. But that's not what ultimately got created. I think it goes without saying that the influence of others brought a lot more gravity to at least the first two films, and made them much better movies.

So when Star Wars became a huge phenomenon, Lucas thought it was a validation of his "derivative slapstick" philosophy. He completely failed to grasp that it was the other stuff people liked. It's not a matter of his having hated Star Wars all along, it's a matter of him never comprehending what Star Wars was about to begin with (as far as its fans were concerned). Add to this the fact that he's a serial fiddler (look at the audio mixes for crying out loud), and it's only surprising the trilogy lasted as long as it did before he ran it into the ground.

It's not a pathological drive to destroy art, it's a pathological ego-driven failure to understand its value.  The result is the same.

CatBus said:

Same with Lucas, really. Maybe Lucas WANTED to make a trashy slapstick derivative space adventure with terrible dialogue and a backstory that's somewhere between inconsistent and incomprehensible. Honestly that DOES describe Buck Rogers, oft-cited as a SW inspiration. Maybe that WAS the "original vision" he's always going on about.

yes but the real reason he wanted to make a trashy derivative poorly scripted film is not because of some sentimental attachment or homage. its because it requires less work and less talent - 2 requirements for anything lucas is involved with.  later on, after the TPM backlash, he did it intentionally to spite the fans.

So when Star Wars became a huge phenomenon, Lucas thought it was a validation of his "derivative slapstick" philosophy. He completely failed to grasp that it was the other stuff people liked. It's not a matter of his having hated Star Wars all along, it's a matter of him never comprehending what Star Wars was about to begin with (as far as its fans were concerned).

 not really, he knew all along.  His closing comments in the Making of TPM book prove he knew he was making a worthless movie.  for the OT, he just internally and publicly accepted credit for it.  and its also one thing to know and recognize a good thing and entirely another to try and recreate it yourself if you dont have the talent.

Really?  This thread is still open?  This was pointless from the first post.

More like the OT is no longer the great films they once were

What's to discuss? That's so self-evident, it's practically tautological.

generalfrevious said:

none said:

generalfrevious wrote: Let's discuss the third question I made three posts ago about the stature of the OT.

Is where we begin to use the phrase 'George Lucas unraped my childhood'.  Or is the official sanctioned phrase now 'George Lucas unraped my adulthood.'  'Lucasfilm unraped my personhood'.  Admiral Ackbar unraped my trap?

More like the OT is no longer the great films they once were, or what PT defenders say about the OT.

 

LOL!

More like you have watched Star Wars so many times that you can no longer enjoy it.

That may apply to a lot of people here.

Maybe not in our lifetime. Ziggy will probably get to see it when it airs in the old folks' home...