Umbran said:
The proof is in the pudding - and the pudding he's created is among the best loved of all genre films. Darned hard to call that "incompetence". Mind you, I avoid the school of critique that claims that quality can be measured without reference to the audience.
Yes, the original trilogy. The newer movies have been markedly less successful financially, even in absolute terms, to say nothing of normalizing to take into account inflation. It seems much more likely that the newer films are coasting on the success of the franchise rather than that their relatively more limited success is evidence of competent film-making. Of course, I never claimed that he was completely incompetent; some success can also be attributed to his visuals, special effects, etc., and I've said all along that the stories themselves aren't bad. Being incompetent in a few areas doesn't equate to being completely incompetent across the board, and a movie can float on it's strengths to a certain extent despite incompetent handling of other areas. And looking at the financial results of the Star Wars prequels, I'd say that's exactly what's happened; they've floated on the strengths of 1) franchise, 2) special effects, 3) decent story, 4) halfway decent characters, and 5) cultural impetus, yet have spectacularly failed to achieve the same success as the original movies due to the incompetent handling of dialogue, directing and editing (i.e., pacing, tension, chemistry between characters, etc.)
Umbran said:
Don't confuse "incompetent" with "some folks don't like it" or "doesn't fit my pet criteria". True incompentence shows in the abysmal failure of the products it produces. In the movie marketplace, his films have not generally been failures. Ergo, as a practical matter, he's not incompetent.
I have not so confused the meaning of the word incompetent. Features such as dialogue, pacing and tension are subjective, yes, but not completely so. The prequel trilogy shows a noticable level of incompetence in those areas. Also see above. I never said he was incompetent across the board, so yeah, you'd expect the films to have
some success.
Umbran said:
I think the problem we have is that the films are designed (intentionally or not) for a young audience, and folks critique it as if it is designed for a mature audience.
How do you design something unintentionally for a different audience? That statement doesn't make any sense. Rather, Lucas is
also incompetent in gauging the audience reaction; in other words, he's completely confused about who is target audience really is. He's belatedly said that the movies were always for children (which I think is patently untrue of the original trilogy, and he's only said so after tPM got a lot of criticism for it's infantile attempts at humor, Jar Jar and kiddie Anakin) but then he comes out and makes
Revenge of the Sith which will probably get a PG-13 rating, and if not, is at least very dark in tone and events, and has thematic material that is arguably unsuited for children. He's either back-pedalling and making excuses for his failures, or he's completely confused about who his target audience is. Or, quite possibly, both.
Umbran said:
Well, I remember hearing Lucas' touting of the Campbell thing back in... oh, 1989, when I first encountered Campbell. 15 years ago isn't "just lately".
That's relatively recent.
Jedi was released in theaters in 1983. Back in the documentaries that were aired during the actual initial run of the movies, I don't recall him mentioning much of Joseph Campbell, but rather serials like Buster Crabbe's
Flash Gordon and
Buck Rogers. It's certainly possible that Lucas was aware of, and consciously utilizing Campbell's theories when he wrote the original screenplays, but if so, he was remarkably quiet about it until someone else pointed it out first. Then, suddenly, that's what they were always all about.
