Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

The People vs. George Lucas To Premiere At SXSW

Soulskill posted more than 4 years ago | from the bringing-balance-to-the-nerdrage dept.

Movies 149

skatepark builder writes "David Prowse, the 74-year-old actor who has enjoyed a long and varied career filled with roles such as Darth Vader (Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI), is starting 2010 off with two major accomplishments. His victory over colon cancer earlier this month means he'll live to see his top billing in a film premiering next month at the South by Southwest Film Festival. The People vs. George Lucas is a documentary attempting a balanced examination of the love/hate relationship Star Wars fans have developed with the filmmaker and his work over the past three decades. Director Alexandre Philippe distances his film from the one-sided fan rage films that lambaste Lucas, even though the title would suggest otherwise. According to the trailer, The People vs.George Lucas exposes the full spectrum of opinions on Lucas, including those like Prowse, who still refers to him as a 'master.' Philippe captures these opinions through filmed interviews, but perhaps more interestingly, he crowdsourced the commentary by soliciting fan submissions over the internet. The clips seen in the trailer appear to be funny, highly inspired, and are probably more concise than the recently released 70-minute YouTube evisceration of Episode I."

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Re-re-re-release of Star Wars Episodes V! (1, Funny)

sakdoctor (1087155) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053666)

"Wookiee" has been changed to "hair challenged animal" and that the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.

Re:Re-re-re-release of Star Wars Episodes V! (1)

FatdogHaiku (978357) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054082)

"Wookiee" has been changed to "hair challenged animal" and that the entire cast has been digitally replaced by Ewoks.

DAMN IT! Why can't they just leave stuff alone.

"Ewok sex" is not nearly as much fun to say as "Wookiee Nooky"...

Re:Re-re-re-release of Star Wars Episodes V! (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054500)

You're right, however there's one thing more amusing.
Ewok Koma... I better post anon, it's starwars thread

More concise... (2, Informative)

dirtygremlin (140876) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053668)

Yes, quite possibly. More hilarious? No. Where are my pizza rolls?

Re:More concise... (1)

chickenarise (1597941) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053680)

Send me an email and I'll mail you a pizza roll. Leave a comment and I'll mail you a pizza roll.

Re:More concise... (4, Insightful)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054016)

I second this. It seems possible that the submitter hasn't actually watched the Episode 1 review he linked to. Anyone who thinks it couldn't possibly be worth 70 minutes of their time will realize they are mistaken after 5-10 minutes.

Re:More concise... (5, Insightful)

skatepark builder (1739630) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055702)

Simon,

Actually, I watched that review a week ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. That guy echoes a lot of observations I had quietly held as my own, but also provides very tangible explanations of where George Lucas utterly failed to craft a proper story. It's so much more than a "What were you thinking, man! Jar-Jar?!?! You IDIOT!" rant. I think it's kind of funny that this commentary piece is nearly identical in size to the subject it's based on, and that's why I made the "concise" reference. But I agree it's fully worth watching for anyone who is interested in films as more than an excuse to eat popcorn in the dark. It's one reason I'm eager to see the People vs George Lucas.

Skatepark Builder

Re:More concise... (1)

Simon80 (874052) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055838)

Well, that's cool, I think we're in agreement. To be fair to your choice of words, I can't deny that that review could have been more concise, but that would mean removing all the stuff that made it entertaining and awesome.

Re:More concise... (5, Informative)

ThisIsForReal (897233) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054134)

Yeah, definitely worth your time. Vastly more entertaining than actually watching one of the prequels. If you have not yet seen the 70-minute review, make plans to watch it. Bookmark and come back to it. Don't let the annoying voice make you stop after 2 minutes - once you get about 5 minutes in, you're gonna thank me.

Re:More concise... (1)

nanospook (521118) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056314)

Maybe we can get James Cameron to redo it in 3D!!!! He can make anything look sexy :)

He still hasn't seen royalties from ROTJ (4, Interesting)

SOOPRcow (1279010) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053698)

http://entertainment.timesonline.co.uk/tol/arts_and_entertainment/film/article6024677.ece [timesonline.co.uk] Pretty sad that they're even able to make that argument.

Re:He still hasn't seen royalties from ROTJ (2, Interesting)

blackraven14250 (902843) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053740)

You know, I might be able to see them making the argument very early on. It's the fact that 30 years later, with the movies still selling copies, they haven't exceeded their original numbers given 30 years ago when they said "no money for you, we didn't exceed the X dollars it cost to make the film". Any additional expenses later on, such as marketing costs, remastering costs, etc., should not be allowed to factor in when this guy's royalties are calculated, so that he's guaranteed to get something once the original number for cost is surpassed.

Re:He still hasn't seen royalties from ROTJ (1)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053804)


Any additional expenses later on, such as marketing costs, remastering costs, etc., should not be allowed to factor in when this guy's royalties are calculated, so that he's guaranteed to get something once the original number for cost is surpassed.

It's all about the wording in the contract, and gross vs. net, and whatever accounting tricks can get pulled behind the scenes. You'd have to be part lawyer, part accountant to really understand what's going on and if it's legal or not. It might be completely illegal and high trickery, but the cost of litigating it vs. the returned value isn't worth it. Who knows?

The real lesson learned is to be wary of what's really going on, and not just trust you'll eventually get a fair deal. It's pretty obvious to anyone looking at the original "And you'll get a percentage of the profits" idea for ROTJ and seeing someone screwed over this guy somewhere. Unfortunately business dealings aren't always about fairness or justice, but about what you can get away with.

Re:He still hasn't seen royalties from ROTJ (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054252)

Same thing happened to Peter Jackson with Lord of the Rings, although he received substantial money in addition to the percentage of net profits he thought he was going to be getting.

Raping our childhood wasn't enough (1, Funny)

l0ungeb0y (442022) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053758)

He had to rape Darth Vader too

Re:He still hasn't seen royalties from ROTJ (3, Informative)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054148)

That article, I like the author of Gump's take (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055028)

Just looking at that wiki article you posted I saw the reaction that the author of Forrest Gump had. He wouldn't give the rights to the sequel since he "cannot in good conscience allow money to be wasted on a failure". (Guess the film company kind of shot themselves in the foot over that one.)

Who cares? (4, Insightful)

isaac (2852) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053754)

The franchise is dead. Lucas killed it. Not worth the emotional investment to lament or analyze.

Move on, people.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054034)

The franchise is dead. Lucas killed it. Not worth the emotional investment to lament or analyze.

Move on, people.

Not quite that simple.

I want the Original Theatrical Release of Episodes IV, V, and VI in stores, along with a promise from Lucas and his estate that these films will always remain untouched and available alongside any 're-mastered' versions.

Re:Who cares? (2, Informative)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054160)

makes me wonder if i should put those vhs's i got into a safe, or maybe i should dump them to hardrive and make them available via torrent tracker?

Re:Who cares? (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054332)

Why? They released the unedited versions to DVD. Granted that weren't cleaned up or anamorphic, but certainly will be better quality than your VHS transfers.

Re:Who cares? (2, Informative)

PCM2 (4486) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054520)

Why? They released the unedited versions to DVD. Granted that weren't cleaned up or anamorphic, but certainly will be better quality than your VHS transfers.

Even before that, very high-quality DVD bootlegs were available that were mastered from laserdisc versions of the films. I still watch these when I want to revisit the trilogy, rather than pay Lucas for copies of the worthless "special editions" just to get "official" versions of the unmolested films that look little better than the bootlegs.

Re:high quality bootlegs (1)

Cowclops (630818) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054954)

You're welcome.

Re:Who cares? (1)

grumpygrodyguy (603716) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054174)

From another thead on this topic:

The prequels, and especially the replacement of the original trilogy with the "re-mastered" Lucas-edited crap are great examples of how destructive exclusive IP can be to creative works.

"The ultimate single-minded, self-centered creature is a cancer cell."

That is what George Lucas became to his own films. After a great piece of artwork has become culturally accepted, it should be cast in stone, and be preserved as it is.

Re:Who cares? (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056248)

>That is what George Lucas became to his own films.

You're ignoring The Process.

Lucas' re-editing of the original films was not a grand masturbation of his ego as has often been portrayed in the press. Rather, it was the process of coming to grips with new digital effects that Lucas believed would become dominant (witness Avatar).

In short, the process is this: Start by applying digital effects to sample media that is well-understood (the first trilogy). Next, craft a fully-digital actor, however forgettable (Jar-Jar). With proof-of-concept, the following two films (Clones and Sith) are about as perfect as can be imagined for sci-fi animation. In particular, Clones was basically a Disney film, oriented towards kids. (Revenge of the Sith was a little more adult.)

When you realize that Jar Jar is more like a prototype electric car than a failed work of art, the logic of casting such a character can be seen in plainly practical terms.

When Avatar wins Best Picture this year, remember it was George Lucas who heralded the coming of the purely-digital actor.

Re:Who cares? (2, Insightful)

AbRASiON (589899) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054786)

Yes but they've been cheapened and reduced to just a product now thanks to his fiddling.
They always were a product but the illusion was there initially.

The Matrix sequels ruined the Matrix for me, I'm one of those people who gets invested in a universe and imagines things about it, Matrix is mostly dead to me and Star Wars hasn't been the same, between the editing of the originals and the prequels.

GP was correct, forget it and move on and if you haven't seen Indy 4, don't (so I hear, I refuse to watch it!)

Re:Who cares? (1)

PaganRitual (551879) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055920)

Sorry about the random Australian store link but this is exactly what you want

https://www.jbhifionline.com.au/dvd/dvd-genres/sci-fi-fantasy/star-wars-trilogy-episodes-4-6-6-dvd-set/362116 [jbhifionline.com.au]

6 discs, two disc for each movie, first disc is the remastered, edited crap, the second is the original release. I watched the original release of IV a couple of weekends ago and it's still brilliant fun, even if you can clearly see that everything is plastic in the trench run.

What really needs to be released on DVD is the remasted but non-edited versions. Where the look has been cleaned up but the content is untouched. Han shoots first in remasted form. There were those blue (PAL at least) VHS tapes that I used to have but accidentally sold, because, you know, who's going to keep VHS over the gold boxed DVD version, right? Damnit.

Re:Who cares? (1)

El Lobo (994537) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054226)

Tell that to my 6 y.o.s son who is (as many of his school friends) obsessed with SW . It may be dead for you and the other bunch for which the new films didn't correspond the pink-colored idealized image of what the franchise must be in their brains. I liked the old films since I saw them back in the 70-80s. I immensely enjoyed the new ones as well. Ok, they may not be perfect (nor were the old ones), but I take them as what they are: escapist comic films for my enjoyment.... And now a whole new generation is learning to love those films as well...

A fandom i'll never understand (4, Insightful)

grapeape (137008) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053756)

I've never really understood the hatred of George Lucas. I was a Star Wars fan like most kids growing up in the late 70's had the action figures, the underoos, bed sheets, posters...all that crap and when the second trilogy was released I was excited about it. I took my kids to see the newer ones and they loved them like I loved the originals. I never expected the second series to have the same appeal because Lucas was farily consistant and aimed the new trilogy at the same age group he created the original for. The problem I saw was that many fans expected him to create new stories that were aimed at the now 30 year olds who watched the originals as children. I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids. What I really dont get is the hatred over the inclusion of jarjar as if Lucas had never stooped to funny critters to appeal to kids in the first trilogy, but I can remember by father rolling his eyes at Ewoks.

I will admit to being irritated by the policical correctness of Greedo shooting first, but welcomed most of the other enhancements of the special editions, the xwing segment in episode 4 was particularly satisfying. I was equally upset with the guns being edited out of ET but I figure it just a sign of the times and it will likley correct itself in the future.

On a side note Lucas has done something excellent for grown up's recently...check out the book Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success, its fantastic.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (2, Interesting)

Jackie_Chan_Fan (730745) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053928)

I think Lucas really fucked up the new trilogy, but I could never hate the man or ever think less of him. I know he has done so much for film making, not just in investing in technologies/techniques/artists/pioneers... but also by inspiring many filmmakers, children, adults.. .etc

I just think the guy has plenty to be proud of. If he hasnt earned your respect before Episode 1.... well you should really reassess your opinion of the man. I think he's done plenty to be placed in high regard.

Yes, Jar Jar sucks dick. Poor Jake Loyd was a bad casting decision. Natalie Portman wasnt even good. and "NOOOOOOooooooooooooooooooooooooooo" was just silly...

But come on.. The guy is George Fucking Lucas! :)

BTW I think the biggest problem with the new trilogy is that George was surrounded by a lot of yes men who were the "happy to be there" kind of folks. I dont think any of them had the balls to say "george.. uh... that sucks" when making the new films.

Film making really is by committee. It takes lots of input, some fighting and some gut checking... I suspect too many people were just happy to be apart of history making, rather than trying to make history.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

Gr8Apes (679165) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054036)

The hatred is pretty easy to understand, if you think about the movies when they came out. Ep IV was decent, had a great story and was entertaining for the times. Ep V was most definitely not aimed at children. Ep VI was where a lot of fans went "WTF?" when the ewoks came out, but watched it anyways because they wanted a completed story arc.

The "enhanced" episodes are a degradation of the original movies in almost all ways. The new scenes almost all detract from the story or, worse yet, inject crap to bring them on par with the new trilogy.

Then there's the new series. Ep I was so bad I turned it off. It reminded me of The Goonies or other movies where children are screaming throughout a plotless movie. Ep II was worse. Ep III, despite terrible acting (really, Lucas, you couldn't hire someone that could at least have a smidgin of talent to play the flawed character that was to become the most evil villain in your universe?) was almost the equivalent of Ep VI which was, as stated before, the worse of the first three.

In all honesty, I expected Ep I to have been comprised of all three movies edited together to produce a less than 2 hour introduction to Ep II and III. (The part where he turns into Vader would have been in Ep II, leaving Ep III to showcase Vader's destruction of the Jedi and entire worlds that stood in his way, showing the beginning of Ep IV (such as the scene where Leia creates the video in R2D2).

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

IntlHarvester (11985) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056196)

In all honesty, I expected Ep I to have been comprised of all three movies edited together to produce a less than 2 hour introduction to Ep II and III. (The part where he turns into Vader would have been in Ep II, leaving Ep III to showcase Vader's destruction of the Jedi and entire worlds that stood in his way, showing the beginning of Ep IV (such as the scene where Leia creates the video in R2D2).

I agree that would have made more sense.

The root problem I think was that Lucas simply didn't have the plot material to fill three prequel films. Rather than making one movie with a strong story that culminated in the birth of Darth Vader, he threw in all sorts of random battles with irrelevant characters that served no other purpose than to pad-out the films and introduce new action figures. One review I recall called it "video game filmmaking" - just random action sequences strung together one after another with hardly any plot logic.

In the original trilogy, there wasn't a light saber battle until the end of ESB. In the prequels, there were so much light sabering I could barely bring myself to care when they came to the ultimate battle between Obi Wan and Anikan.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

16K Ram Pack (690082) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056742)

In the original trilogy, there wasn't a light saber battle until the end of ESB. In the prequels, there were so much light sabering I could barely bring myself to care when they came to the ultimate battle between Obi Wan and Anikan.

And if you watch the one in EPIII, it goes on... and on... and on...

Vader vs Luke in ROTJ, a highly emotionally charged Lightsabre fight lasts 3.5 minutes. You watch it and you think "what could I cut from this without damaging the film" and the answer is "not a lot".

Too many films forget this. Action sequences aren't supposed to be an end unto themselves, they're about the characters going somewhere. That doesn't mean that you can't put the sugar icing of them being cool on top, but there has to be a point. Oh, and you have to give a damn about the characters involved in them.

I'm convinced there's a way to do the prequels but to make good movies. Firstly, you'd need someone who would take Anakin's journey to Darth Vadar and make it plausible. That's the key story throughout and everything should follow from that. What happened in EP3 was just ridiculous.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056318)

>Ep IV was decent, had a great story and was entertaining for the times.

Actually, Ep. 4 is known in Hollywood as one of the most sublime John Galt productions of all time, an example of a shepard willfully turning his back on his flock and producing a film *intentionally* of bad quality...After getting ass-raped on THX-1138, Lucas' goal in American Graffiti and Ep. 4 was nothing less than to show the American public just how low their standards are.

It's a testament to Lucas' skill that in making a deliberately-bad film, he made a classic. Even he could not dumb himself down enough to fail.

>Ep V was most definitely not aimed at children.

Except for the constant presence of Yoda, preaching at a 16-year-old Luke. Easily as distracting as Jar Jar and just as worthy of fast-forwarding through.

I could go on. I think you are an example of the type of fan that Lucas has little regard for.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (3, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054064)


I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids.

The difference is that the original movies weren't just designed to appeal to kids, and stood up on their own. Plenty of kids grow up liking a certain movie as a child, but later grow out of it and realize it's a crappy kids movie. Is their a real cult following for the Beethoven (the dog) movies for instance? It looks like they made 6 of the things, but I've never heard there's a serious collection of adults that love those movies on the scale of Star Wars. There's plenty of stuff I loved as a kid, but later realized just how terrible it really is. Buck Rogers comes to mind. So I don't agree with your idea that the original Star Wars movies were just kid movies.

The hatred comes from just how bad the new movies ultimately were. Lucas just made a kids movie in space and forgot to hire decent actors, give them good direction, provide a decent storyline, etc. Jar Jar is merely the undeniable representation of this. I think a lot of the more extreme reactions come from some feeling of betrayal. Some people feel like Lucas was "one of them", and the new movies are a complete rejection of that perceived relationship.

I'm really interested in the movie, as I'm fascinated by the whole love/hate relationship people have with Lucas. The only thing that really pissed me off was Han not shooting first. That's just utterly wrong as it changes the character of Solo (which is just a big no-no). You don't mess with character development after the fact. The FX changes I didn't really care about to much, though most of them looked like crap.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

aztektum (170569) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054152)

I think it's part of that whole "Without the fans, he wouldn't have had the money to make the new trilogy." mentality.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

hitmark (640295) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054200)

heck, if one check out the new clone wars computer animated series, its clear its gunning for the flash gordon style entertainment that lucas himself grew up with, complete with grand storyteller opening of each episode.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054232)

My personal hatred of Lucas includes but is not limited to: 1) Destroying all the suspense of the original trilogy by revealing in Episode III that Luke and Lea are siblings potentially ruining the quality of Episodes 4-6 if they aren't watched first and making the ending of 3 heavy handed and useless if they are.

2) Name dropping Chewbacca for the sake of action figure sales, unless you're implying that Chewbacca simply forgot that he knows Yoda and it never came up in conversation.

3) Giving R2D2 a jet pack and lightning gun. (What the fuck?)

4) Making almost everyone in 1-3 speak English. So everyone could speak basic just fine under the Old Republic and simply forgot while they were being crushed under the xenophobic galactic Empire?

5) I can't even explain the crazy conspiracy theories that have to be involved with the clone wars and the Death Star. If Palpatine can clandestinely have an army of hundreds of thousands of clones and star ships built with absolutely no one knowing about it why does he need to use Lord Dooku to be the puppet-master of the Trade Federation (who apparently weren't important enough to mention in the original trilogy) to design the Death Star and shit why wasn't that conveniently waiting to roll out as well? Why did it take 15 years from Palpatine gaining supreme authority to dissolving the senate? How does someone create three movies with more plot holes than quality acting performances?

I stop here because the case in point isn't that he changed his audience, it that he made blatantly shitty movies with no respect to even his own previous work. I understand time passed between creating the two but I can't imagine that he forgot one of his greatest successes to the point that he couldn't spot massive continuity errors. I was personally a large fan of the expanded universe, and it's certainly well within Lucas' right not to honor the creation of others but for Christ sake they did a much much much better job respecting the canon that Lucas had laid down.

It's not about age group (1)

syousef (465911) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054354)

It's about ruining the first trilogy with idiotic premises and horrible acting among other things.

The first group of movies was enjoyable by children and adults alike. Granted Jedi pandered to children with the whole Ewok thing but by and large the stories had universal appeal.

The second set of movies I've seen children fall asleep in. I took my then child cousins to the first movie because they'd never been to the cinemas and they said "Next time can we watch a good movie". One of them fell asleep in the second half. This is from children who'd never been to the cinema!!!

No, your kids did NOT love them. (4, Interesting)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054414)

Episode 1 is now 11 years old, meaning your kids should be teens by now. Do they quote the movies? Has it seeped into every part of culture? Is it everywhere you can look?

The toys you remember did NOT come out directly after the first movie, a lot of the merchandising you dismiss so easily came out DECADES later and was gobbled up. It is what makes Star Wars still the biggest earner out there.

The entire proof that the prequels sucked can be found in the fact that TWO MMO's have skipped the era. Bioware wanted to do Star Wars, but were so desperate to stay away from the fall out that they invented an entire new era set so far apart (thousands of years) that they could completly distance themselves from it.

If you study movies, Star Wars: A New Hope, must be included. It MIGHT be a simple story but its impact on society was enormous. If it had not been for Star Wars we would never have had Star Trek: The Motion Picture, but rather a new series. (Okay, so that is another thing we can blame lucas for).

Kids now quote the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. Episode 1 was just another blockbuster, made a lot of money but it has no lasting impact. It is the difference between Michael Jackson and McHammer... who?

I enjoyed the blackhole as a kid too, but for the life of me I could not quote anything from it or even name the characters.

My mom took me to see the first movies and she enjoyed them herself. Did you enjoy them? Really? The bit with the small droids on the fighter aircraft? Then there is no hope for you.

Re:No, your kids did NOT love them. (3, Funny)

spud603 (832173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054966)

McHammer... who?

Indeed. Is McHammer some sort of Irish rapper who wears a super baggy kilt?

Re:No, your kids did NOT love them. (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056430)

>Kids now quote the Matrix, Lord of the Rings, etc. Episode 1 was just another blockbuster, made a lot of money but it has no lasting impact.

It's true, when I saw Episode 1 in the theater, I was immediately struck by how awful it was.

And yet, years later, it seems an almost perfect mirror-image of Episode 4. The princess running for her life. The hero growing up and being abandoned. The award ceremony at the end.

There's quite more depth to the pod-racer scene, when you drop the idea that it's silly action nonsense, and focus on the fact that a 10-year-old kid had to engineer and pilot his own craft, just to win his freedom. The adults (including a Jedi) could do no more than cheer him on. It's like a kids' soccer tournament to the death. Nothing could be blacker or more desperate.

When you consider that Lucas actually cares about his franchise, that he thinks about this stuff way more than you do, whole new worlds open up in the imagination.

Re:No, your kids did NOT love them. (1)

mgblst (80109) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056502)

To be fair, there wasn't much competition to Star Wars at the time, and it was the first big Space opear. Now, there is loads of competition, lots of movies with great effects that get kids going, and loads of different franchises.

You can't fairly compare Star Wars and Ep 1.

That said, I think ep1 was a pile of garbage. Never have kids in sci-fi movies, nobody find that cute.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

V50 (248015) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054834)

I agree. I can't really comprehend the sheer hatred of Lucas by some members of the SW Fandom. I liked Original Trilogy. I liked the Prequel Trilogy. I didn't like the Prequel Trilogy as much as the Originals (although I do like RotS more than RotJ), but I still like both. As do most people I talk to who would count as "people who like Star Wars", if not "SW Fans". They just don't go on the Internet and post incoherent rage filled rants.

I was 11 when I saw The Phantom Menace in theaters. I liked Jar-Jar then (although these days I'm sort of embarrassed to admit it), as did most of my mildly nerdy 11 year old friends. I know many people (kids and parents of kids, mostly) who still like Jar-Jar. It's not like Lucas thought "You know who I hate? MY FANS!" and decided to do everything possible to make them hate Ep. I-III. A lot of the stuff that people don't like about Ep. I in particular (pod races, and such) I remember really liking when I was a kid, getting my parents to buy me toy pod racers, and spending hours playing the N64 pod racing game with my friends. While 11 years later, I no longer like Jar-Jar and think he was a mistake, I can see where Lucas was coming from. I'm fairly confident he was trying to recreate his success with making C3PO and R2D2 as comic relief characters. Actually, to be honest, I'm not really sure if I'd dislike Jar-Jar so much if I hadn't have ended up learning how much other people hated him.

Also, with the exception of the Greedo shooting thing, I really like the Special Editions. They came out a year after I saw VHS versions of the original movies, let us see the movies in theaters, made my brother and I buy a ton of Star Wars toys (which we still have), and hyped us up for Ep. I. They seemed to have served their purpose. I didn't even learn about the Greedo thing (and hence never cared) until like three years ago.

Either way, I agree with you on pretty much every count. Plus, from a sheer monetary point of view, my brother, me, and my friends were made to like Star Wars because of the Special Editions and the prequel trilogy. We bought toys, video games, other mechandise. Many of us still buy Star Wars stuff. (KotoR, Force Unleashed, Lego Star Wars, Thrawn Trilogy). I'm hesitant to call myself a Star Wars fan, if only because my view of a fan of anything (SW, Star Trek, Comics, Transformers, Fallout) is someone who goes on message boards and complains about every single change and rants about how much they hate every aspect of what they are a fan of. Hence, I try not to ever call myself a fan of something. Just "someone who enjoys X".

Oh, and I'm fully expecting some AC to call me worse than Hitler or something because I liked Jar-Jar when I was a kid. And bought Ewok toys when the Special Editions came out.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (2, Informative)

Hardtrance (55355) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054976)

The first trilogy appealed to "Children of all ages." The prequels just appealed to children.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056462)

>The prequels just appealed to children.

Including Sith?

I remember seeing Sith three times in the theater, and being struck by how much effort was put into being better than the Matrix. Not to mention the overt political dialogue.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

gad_zuki! (70830) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055152)

I agree. The Lucas hate is just a fanboy fringe thing that gets too much play on the internet.

I didnt expect episodes 1-3 to be any good. You cant take a director who hasnt directed in 30 years and suddenly expect him to be in peak form. If you have realistic expectations in life then you'll find yourself less outraged. Creative people often peak, usually early in life.

I also think its important to remember that Lucas is one of the few owners of a popular franchise that didnt turn it into crappy licensed videogames. A lot of my Star Wars nostalgia has to do with the excellent games put out by Lucasarts as much as the original movies.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

mqduck (232646) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055484)

The love/hate relationship obsessive fans have with their objects of devotion is indeed worthy of investigation. I looked through the archives at snpp.com, which record comments on/reviews of Simpsons episodes on the Simpsons newsgroup. The first episode they record any real reviews for, Radio Bart, is episode 13 in season 3. It got great reviews. With the very next episode, you start getting reviews saying that the Simpsons had lost its way, become crap, etc.. Obsessed Simpsons fans have been saying that over and over to this very day.

Star Wars is a little bit different, though. The prequels just sucked. There's no psychological analysis necessary. They were just lame movies.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31056042)

Of course you don't understand it. You grew up and had kids. Many SW fans didn't.

That aside, the original trilogy had an adult quality to it that the prequel trilogy does not have. Yes there were ewoks, but the general level of infantile humor and logic are much higher in the prequel films.

This is because Lucas was making them unchecked by any other creative minds. The original films bear the unmistakable imprint of talented filmmakers like Gary Kurtz, Irvin Kershner, and Lawrence Kasdan.

Lucas has gone on record saying that he feels Empire is the worst film because it's too dark. Can you imagine that? Empire is the worst? He actually said that. Wow.

Read Dale Pollack's book Skywalking and you'll see that it was a tug of war between Lucas' kid-centric aims and Kershner/Kasdan/Brackett wanting to make a great film as opposed to a nursery rhyme.

In the end, there were some checks and balances on Lucas in the original trilogy. There were no such checks and balances on the prequel trilogy and the result is a group of films that plays much younger (and arguably reveals him to be a hack of a director who wasn't surrounded by yes-men on the original films).

Chirp on all you want about how the original trilogy was for kids. Reality paints a different picture.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056528)

>(and arguably reveals him to be a hack of a director who wasn't surrounded by yes-men on the original films).

Actually, I got the sense in Sith that there were 2 groups who made the movie: Lucas, who wrote the script, and dedicated legions of special-effects artists who were intent on "besting" the Matrix for most-immersive graphics.

I won't argue that Lucas is the most lyrical of directors. I would argue that he knew exactly what he was doing, and did it for a reason, often for practical reasons and in tenuous (but self-serving, and ultimately redeemed) relationship to art.

I think you have a hard time proving that Sith was a "kid's film," and that Clones was anything but the most complex, baroque, and complicated "kids film" of all-time.

Maybe that's "fail," but we can argue over Lucas' intentions more easily than his accomplishments.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand (1)

_Sprocket_ (42527) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056776)

The problem I saw was that many fans expected him to create new stories that were aimed at the now 30 year olds who watched the originals as children. I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids.

Whenever the conversation turns to Star Wars, there's always someone who brings up the theory of target audiences and nostalgia-tinted sunglasses. We are lead to believe that being kids greatly influenced our perception of the first 3 Star Wars movies and later it is nostalgia that continues to make us hold them in high esteem. I don't buy it.

As an adult, I've watched all the Star Wars films a few times. Heck, I even went to the theater to watch the re-released original series. And whenever I do, I notice that there was something to the first 3 films that the latest 3 films miss. At this point, we come to nostalgia. Can I be sure that nostalgia doesn't affect my judgement by giving more credit to the works from my childhood? I'm pretty sure. Nostalgia is a big thing right now. You can go back and watch all manner of old TV shows that I grew up watching as a kid. And while some are still entertaining, few meet my memories. I can now see why my father would roll his eyes when I dropped down in front of the A-Team each week. I can recognize that the original Star Wars films aren't quite the amazing works that I saw them as a kid. But as an adult, I still find them to be fun with a lot of that initial charm in tact. And that charm is lacking in Lucas' recent works (including Indiana Jones).

70-minute evisceration (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31053822)

It was awesome and accurate. Lucas blew it on the first 3 films.

If you don't like it... (3, Insightful)

British (51765) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053840)

..don't watch it. I don't like how people think they can call changes to SW eps 1-3. As soon as you start making changes(remove Jar Jar, etc) it ceases to become Lucas' artwork, and moreso a "design by committee". Sure, this happens in meetings for filmmakers all the time, but I don't see how the fans have a say in someone else's art.

Re:If you don't like it... (2, Insightful)

ClosedSource (238333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053892)

On the other hand, the changes made to episodes 4-6 ceased to be young Lucas' artwork too. I'm not confident that the 2010 version of Lucas could have made those movies.

Re:If you don't like it... (1)

hedwards (940851) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055540)

I've said it many times, and it continues to be true, in the 70s and 80s, George Lucas just didn't have the technology to ruin Star Wars. The effects being bad by today's standards was part of what made the original trilogy so fun. It deliberately deviated from what most people know about science to make an interesting sort of campy story. Nobody in the 70s or 80s seriously expected to be able to go around all those weird planets without space suits or at least ventilators and parkas.

Re:If you don't like it... (1)

alvinrod (889928) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053980)

We don't have a say in someone else's art if that other person doesn't want us to have one, but regardless we can be critical of it. If you happened to see it, feel free to critique it. A natural part of that may be suggesting how it could have been done better.

Also, how are we supposed to know whether or not we'll like something until we actually see it? We might have past experiences that can lead us to form an impression, but until we actually see it for ourselves our assumption is based on second hand opinions and our own preconceived notions. Sometimes those are horribly wrong. For example, based on the original trilogy, people would have good reason to think that they would like Episode 1. Many of those people found out that they thought wrong.

Re:If you don't like it... (2, Insightful)

Vellmont (569020) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054122)


As soon as you start making changes(remove Jar Jar, etc) it ceases to become Lucas' artwork, and moreso a "design by committee".

I think that's kind of the point.


but I don't see how the fans have a say in someone else's art.

Heh. There's an old cliche. "Good artists borrow, great artists steal". Obviously nobody has any legal rights to be able to take SW and change it around to their own pleasing. But you sound like you're going beyond that and claiming nobody should do this on some sort of moral or ethical grounds. If that's the case, all art is guilty of the crime you describe. I'd go so far as all creative works are guilty of it. If you think creation comes out of a vacuum, think again.

Re:If you don't like it... (1)

Neoprofin (871029) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054240)

I don't, but last time I checked there's nothing wrong with telling an artist that his "Jar Jar Binks" phase of work was absolute shit. I don't want him to change them like he did with 4-6, I want him to go back in time and do them right before I ever watch them the first time.

Re:If you don't like it... (5, Insightful)

Vintermann (400722) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054690)

Let's forget George Lucas for a moment, and focus on another filmmaker who was in the news recently, James Cameron. Now tell me: Are you of the school of thought that James Cameron is the greatest filmmaker of all time, or do you think that perhaps the fact that he gets to play with new toys before everyone else has something to do with his success?
How about Madonna. How about J.K. Rowling. Success may involve a lot of perspiration, but so does failures. Dumb luck is a far bigger part of it. Once you are established, you don't have to make the insane grab for people's attention again - they've invested in you, got to know you and your work, and they will want more - even if you strictly speaking don't deserve it.

Commercial artistic success is rarely something people deserve. Certainly they don't deserve the insane compensation - if art worked as any other market, you could look at the huge number of would-be supplyers, and the ease of reproduction, and conclude art would be essentially free. The reason it isn't, is _not_ that George Lucas or J.K Rowling or Mick Jagger or bloody whoever is that much better than all the wannabees. Think about it: if you gave 10000 people James Cameron's resources and opportunities, set them to make movies, did a blind test, you think Avatar would stand out as clearly the best?

Most successful artists think that they live by their art. They are wrong. They live by social inertia and network effects - lots of people wouldn't mind being obsessed about a film, few people would want to be obsessed about a film no one you care about has heard of. There can only be so many stars. What this means is this: Star Wars the movies, may be Lucas' work of art, but no one really cares about the movies. Star Wars the phenomenon is what people really pay for, and Lucas' role in creating that is small. It's almost non-existent. If Star Wars hadn't been created, we the people would have found something different to obsess about.

This is why fans should "have a say in someone else's art". In fact, fans are way too subservient, and our culture is hopelessly locked into a view of "the artist" which appeared in the romantic period, and should have died a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, it became institutionalised (in large part through copyright legislation) and walks on as a ravenous zombie.

That is all.

Re:If you don't like it... (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31056128)

This is absolutely correct.

Lucas is one of the least talented artists to work on the Star Wars license.

I don't give two shits that he came up with the original idea. Many of the novels and comic books written using his universe as a backdrop are vastly superior to anything in his filmography.

This is my bone to pick with Lucas apologists. I can deal with the prequels. The geek in me likes parts of them, but the reality is that they are shitty, low-quality films made by a hack who is more interested in technology than storytelling.

  The original trilogy films were stories first (thanks to Kurtz/Kasdan/Kershner and others). This isn't debatable. If you think it is, take a film class and lose some of your ignorance.

Re:If you don't like it... (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056582)

>Star Wars the phenomenon is what people really pay for, and Lucas' role in creating that is small.

Actually, you're wrong. Lucas is known in Hollywood as being among the first directors to demand payment for marketing, including toys. If you've ever seen a videogame released with a movie, Lucas invented that. He invented the idea of the Han Solo "toy" as important as the movie.

So, while your post is well-written, I have a tough time discerning the point. If nothing else, Lucas' role in history has been to create, via marketing deals, Star Wars as "a phenomenon."

I can only hope you're a troll.

Cancer of the what? (0, Redundant)

Pogue Mahone (265053) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053898)

Can't help noticing that the linked Express article says he has beaten prostate cancer, not colon cancer. For the anatomically challenged among you, it's the hole you pee through, not the one you sh1t through.

Just thought I'd mention it.

Re:Cancer of the what? (1, Interesting)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054440)

But for both you only find out with a finger up your butt!

Re:Cancer of the what? (2, Informative)

bill_mcgonigle (4333) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054582)

For the anatomically challenged among you, it's the hole you pee through, not the one you sh1t through.

You pee thorough your urethra. Your prostate makes semen. The above reads like 'you digest food through your lungs' (because they both connect at the throat).

How about space opera that doesn't suck? (4, Interesting)

Animats (122034) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053974)

Look, everyone agrees Lucas should have stopped after three films. The Star [Wars|Trek|Gate|Craft] franchises have been done to death. Now a rehash of "Dune" is in production. Please.

At least we have James Cameron's "Avatar". Cameron is a master of production value. He spends a lot of money, but it pays off. Unfortunately, everything he does looks too much like a "Terminator" movie.

A film based on David Weber's work might be an improvement. But Hollywood would go for "March Upcountry", not the Honor Harrington novels.

Of course, the fundamental trouble with space opera is that it's no longer a plausible future. Space travel hasn't improved much in 40 years.

Re:How about space opera that doesn't suck? (1)

Dragoniz3r (992309) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054120)

I suggest you look into the Revelation Space series, by Alastair Reynolds. A rather fascinating set of reading, and could make excellent films, if done properly.

Re:How about space opera that doesn't suck? (1)

phreakincool (975248) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054592)

StarCraft done to death? Please, it has not been given its due dilignence. I eagerly await the upcoming release of StarCraft II, and any StarCraft related MMO, TV series, movie franchise.

Re:How about space opera that doesn't suck? (2, Interesting)

hey! (33014) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054614)

I think Lucas nailed space opera in "Star Wars" (now retro numbered as "Ep IV"): the sense of wonder, the exuberant, don't look too closely at the seams where I stitched the archetypes together pacing. In large part its because he didn't have the budget or time to make it smooth and show you all the details. You'd see something just long enough to be interested (the Benny Goodman clarinet players in the cantina) then cut away before you had a good look.

But he couldn't keep it up.

Genres come and go in movies like any other kind of fashion. Once Hollywood turned out western after western. Most of them were dreck, a few are among the best and most thoughtful movies ever made (*The Searchers*). Space opera went from a new, full-blown maturity in Star Wars Ep IV to decadance in record time, driven by technology and vast amounts of money funding people who *could* be creative, but not on somebody else's hundred million dollar budget.

If there is any hope, it's in the kind of people who make fan films. Bad as they are, they aren't ashamed to take risks because everyone *knows* they're probably bad.

Re:How about space opera that doesn't suck? (1)

Shoe Puppet (1557239) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055456)

(now retro numbered as "Ep IV"):

That "now" was 1981.

How are they going to redo Dune? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055056)

I mean the first time they had guys running around in sand wearing wet suits. The SciFi redo had the Arabian Ninjas so I can't imagine what this remake will have. (I guess they come out dressed up like clowns.)

Re:How about space opera that doesn't suck? (1, Informative)

mr.dreadful (758768) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056552)

feh -- I was right there with you until you mentioned Avatar. Avatar is technically beautiful, but the storyline is regurgitated tripe. I won't even bother with the usual "the movies is just Pocahantas/Ferngully/etc" explanation, since it's easily found. Technically beautiful but weak story..? Hmmm... that sounds familiar....

admire lucas for the original star wars (4, Insightful)

circletimessquare (444983) | more than 4 years ago | (#31053978)

because even if he made 20 movies after star wars and every single one were the most puerile piece of uwe boll crap... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration

if einstein became a creationist after his exposition of relativity, does that detract from his earlier genius?

if edmund hilary fell down a flight of stairs, does that detreact from the fact he climbed mount everest?

i don't understand a way of evaluating people that somehow their accomplishments are diminished by later missteps

as if we only get better with every year, as if no one ever makes mistakes

"what have you done for me lately" is a pretty selfish crude shortsighted and hypocritical way to evaluate people

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

MyFirstNameIsPaul (1552283) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054298)

I wholeheartedly agree. And rest assured, some day, hopefully in the very distant future, /. will be reporting on the man's obituary, and all these same critics will be commenting on how much they enjoyed growing up in the universe that he created and how grateful they are that such a man ever lived.

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

lennier (44736) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054640)

I read this as "in the very distant future, /. will be reporting on man's obituary"

and thought that was a frightening posthuman scenario.

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054780)

how grateful they are that such a man ever lived.

Not really.

I liked science fiction long before 1977, and I think Lucas' influence ruined the genre for several decades.

He could FOAD, but I know he won't.

A lot of us who were SF fans before Lucas came in and crowded the good stuff out with his space western feel that way.

Yes, there was terrible Science Fiction before and after Lucas. That doesn't excuse the damage he has done.

So, George, take your burger wrappers and crummy plastic toys and bitmaps on McDonald's soda cups and shove them. Thanx.

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056656)

>A lot of us who were SF fans before Lucas came in and crowded the good stuff out with his space western feel that way.

Oh right, because Lucas really stopped from getting made Silent Running, Tron, Brainstorm, and the Star Trek Motion Picture (aka Spock's decision to become human).

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

Noelnonymous Coward (1725914) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054604)

because even if he made 20 movies after star wars and every single one were the most puerile piece of uwe boll crap... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration

I'd except that argument, if the bastard didn't make it nearly impossible for the average American to find a copy of the Original, non-edited/revised/updated Star Wars. Everyone's a critic, and George Lucas doesn't even like Star Wars.

Eh no, you are wrong (1)

SmallFurryCreature (593017) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054790)

Because this would NOT be like Einstein becoming a creationist. This would be like seeing Einstein decades later doing an experiment on his own and making a complete and utter mess of it and then people slowly realizing that his original work was not his own work at all but that of the people around him.

If you are willing to read into the development behind the original movie, then you notice that Lucas had far less to do with that movie and had more people around him who were willing to oppose him, who he was willing to listen to and frankly Lucas knowing he could NOT do everything.

For instance it is recognized that a lot of the writing was in fact done by his then wife. That does not say that was Lucas did with A New Hope was not amazing, it was, but the amazing thing he really did was get a team together, lead them and then allowed them produce this movie that had such an imprint on society that it has become part of western culture.

With the prequels, he took far more control and surrounded himself by a 2 yes men. You can see it in the documentaries, you can see nobody willing to say "this doesn't work" even when Lucas himself is clearly uncomfortable with the results.

And so, we do NOT say "oh he sucks because of those prequel movies" but "he sucks because it turned out it was the team that made the original movies and now he is a big shot and can do it all himself, he blows chunks".

In a way, the fans may be to blame. How many times have we called out to Lucas as this great filmmaker and given him an ego, rather then saying "wow, all those people that worked on it, made a fantasic movie of which Lucas was the producer?". The fans and George Lucas have come to believe that he could make a movie all alone. He can't.

And part may also be tech limits. I get the feeling that if Lucas had had the budget and credit, he would have made A New Hope in the same way, with a leaping Obi-Wan and a flying Artoo and god knows what more.

Ultimately, A New Hope might just have been an accident. A producer new enough to still listen, actors willing to risk talking back because they weren't to much in awe of either the man or the money. Tech which prevented to much slapstick in the mids of combat and a wife would could actually write. And that is a pretty sad conclusion, because there really hasn't been anything close to Star Wars. Well, the Lord of the Rings, but that was based on an existing book. Were is the next George Lucas who can have an entire audience love a simple fairytale for decades?

I wish he hired his wife to write the final fight (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055332)

Of Anakin Vs. Obi Wan. I mean when I was watching it the first time I figured he was going to have an allusion to Othello or something. (Ben tricking what's her face to bring him to Anakin. Anakin loses because he goes batshit crazy at what he thinks is the betrayal of his wife by his best friend which is just the last step in a long line of things that tried to manipulate him. Later Ben realizes the folly of blindly following the light side of the force since his actions were ok as far as the light was concerned yet gets one person killed and twists another into an agent of the dark.) Nope, we get that stupid thing "Oh I'm 2 feet higher so I win" nonsense. (And Darth feeling bad right afterwards.) A decent writer could have done that scene far better than Lucas.

Re:Eh no, you are wrong (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056700)

>This would be like seeing Einstein decades later doing an experiment on his own and making a complete and utter mess of it

Einstein hated quantum mechanics, which came of age in the 1930's. Einstein was totally wrong. And yet we would have no universe without him.

>even when Lucas himself is clearly uncomfortable with the results.

I'm comfortable with the results. The results include Sith, one of the greatest sci-fi movies of all-time. What are we arguing about?

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

Jartan (219704) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055004)

It's not that anyone hates Lucas for making crap. It's that we hate him for not allowing other people to make decent stuff out of Star Wars since then. Frankly the concept that someone can still retain copyright on heavily derivative works even after making so much profit already is just stupid. Nothing illustrates this fact better than Star Wars.

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31055558)

I somewhat agree with what you are saying. However, look at his record

http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/ [imdb.com]

He is an excellent producer. Has only directed a handful of movies (mediocre movies at that, blockbusters but mediocre). It shows someone who wants more control over his product but is suffocating the product because of this. He needs to learn to delegate better. Most of his work is on basically 1 project star wars. Now not to take away from him he has created what is arguably one the premier special effects houses around and a decent video game studio.

Now take what is basically one of his good friends and piers Steven Spielberg. http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000229/ [imdb.com] A well rounded carer. Way more directing gigs. Tons of producing gigs. I would also say a much better director.

George Lucas *IS* a good director/producer. He is also stuck in a creative rut. He got lucky with star wars. Then proceeded to beat that horse to death by taking away the very mystic the movie had by filling in every possible niche in the sw universe with something. Up until star wars he was directing very interesting and varied movies. He had a very promising directing carer. Star wars in many ways took over his life and never let go. I wonder what sort of movies he would have made if star wars had not taken over his life?

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

OrangeCatholic (1495411) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056790)

>I wonder what sort of movies he would have made if star wars had not taken over his life?

Excellent point.

Steven Spielberg is not known as a great artistic director. Adventures like "Saving Private Ryan" and "AI" are looking increasingly grim. But he *is* known for getting along with everybody to the point where movies get made.

My main complaint with George Lucas is that he is 65 years old, and he doesn't have much time left. He basically spent his entire life on Star Wars, to middling acclaim.

What else does George Lucas want to accomplish? I'm with him, if he can rally a call.

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars (1)

Xaemyl (88001) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056250)

... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration

Fuck you, fuck George Lucas, and fuck Jar Jar Binks. The best one of the original trilogy (Empire) was the best one because it wasn't directed by George Lucas.

I like the font and the uniforms used by Nazi Germany (and fuck them, too). That doesn't mean they deserve my admiration.

Lucas's only mistake was (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31054168)

ever trying to give people what they want

And people should also look at... (3, Informative)

JoshuaZ (1134087) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054316)

For people interested in the larger implications of Star Wars including the role of fans and other issues such as whether Star Wars has literary merit, and whether the philosophy is intellectually coherent or morally defensibl, I strongly recommend "Star Wars on Trial" edited by David Brin and Matthew Stover. The book is a series of essays by sci-fi authors, literature professors, and others discussing Star Wars in detail. The boo is tied together with an overarching narrative with Brin as the chief prosecutor and Stover as the chief defense attorney in a trial of Star Wars as a whole. Quite fun and and surprisingly stimulating.

Re:And people should also look at... (1)

that this is not und (1026860) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054864)

surprisingly stimulating.

That would be surprising. But we're pretty cynical. The stuff is already way over-analyzed. Too many nine dollar words have already been spent on the subject.

whether the philosophy is intellectually coherent or morally defensibl

No. It isn't.

Re:And people should also look at... (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054970)

Worth noting: Matthew Stover wrote the novelization of "Revenge of the Sith".

Title got my hopes up (1)

Anarchitektur (1089141) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054638)

The title of the movie made me think, "At last, we'll get a Supreme Court ruling over whether or not Han shot first."

Re:Title got my hopes up (2, Funny)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055862)

No. Unfortunately, the Court refused to hear the case for lack of standing.

Interestingly, Mos Eisley does not have a criminal code, only a civil code. Han and Greedo's estate have settled the matter for an undisclosed sum, and have both launched a lawsuit against the Hutts for providing unsafe working conditions for both bounty hunters and their marks.

Hmmm... (3, Funny)

Black Parrot (19622) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054916)

the full spectrum of opinions on Lucas, including those like Prowse, who still refers to him as a 'master.'

So the retired Darth Vader refers to him as 'master'... can there be any further doubt that he's evil?

Patton Oswalt (1)

lyinhart (1352173) | more than 4 years ago | (#31054982)

The film looks good, but Patton Oswalt best sums up the feeling of almost every single jaded Star Wars fan: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LDCjIjsZp_Y [youtube.com]

That reminds me,what's the deal with being higher? (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055416)

I mean in RotS. In that last fight Ben says he wins because he's higher but it made no sense that it would make that much of a difference. (Especially given how much they're flipping around and everything.) I'd expect being higher makes a difference with distance weapons. (Since you'd be able to shoot farther.) Also if reality is anything like a FPS it's easier to hide if you're above your opponent for sniper shots. Finally I could seen that with a weapon with weight being above would have gravity help drive your weapon through your opponent. Unfortunately none of those were true and I'd think the fact Ben would have to reach down to get to Anakin's head yet Ben's legs were rather vulnerable would mean you're better of being low in that case.

Re:That reminds me,what's the deal with being high (1)

guyminuslife (1349809) | more than 4 years ago | (#31055956)

It's a metaphor for being more righteous. He has the higher ground, because he is following the Jedi teachings, whereas Anakin is an apostate.

That being said, it's still totally retarded.

Those the same feeling that say it's ok (1)

NotSoHeavyD3 (1400425) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056132)

To you know leave people in slavery let alone having no problem with anybody creating a race of slaves, intentionally tricking civilians into a war zone, judging people in large part on accidents of birth and on top of this their opinion that feelings aren't worth the trouble? (Ok, so I thought Lucas made the light side seem coldly brutal at times but I don't think that was his intention since he's not that good of a writer.)

Prostate cancer (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31055958)

It's recovery from prostate cancer, not colon cancer. Read the article.

i wonder.. (2, Interesting)

jarong (1731734) | more than 4 years ago | (#31056018)

i was indifferent about star wars growing up until i read dune. and then after thinking about it, realized that george lucas had ripped off a lot of his ideas from frank herbert. now i can't really enjoy the films at all. i wonder if there will be any commentary in the movie about that?

decent promo site (0)

Anonymous Coward | more than 4 years ago | (#31056564)

great website for the film actually. the anti-flash bitches seem to have quite their whining for the time being!

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?