The Problem with Star Wars

[Berandor]

Let me explain something. I'm an artist AND a conceptualist.

I'm going into college as a computer programmer/musician/teacher, and I'm arguably the best flutist (for the high school level) in the state, which makes me good enough to be professional. I've taken art lessons since I was six, danced since I was four, been writing as a hobby since I was seven, and I've been acting for three years

That explains so much.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Let me explain something. I'm an artist AND a conceptualist.

So am I.

I'm going into college as a computer programmer/musician/teacher, and I'm arguably the best flutist (for the high school level) in the state, which makes me good enough to be professional. I've taken art lessons since I was six, danced since I was four, been writing as a hobby since I was seven, and I've been acting for three years. I think I know a little something about concept creation.

Good for you, I've done a bunch of things too, but they have nothing to do with this. This isn't an "I know more about art that you do" thread. I never liked that crap when I was in High School, and I'm not about to get involved in another one of those now.

I know my opinions aren't fact, but at least I have more to back them up than, "Oh, well, the movies made a lot of money."

What more do you have? There's only really one non-subjective way to judge the success of a movie, and that's by how much money it makes. Over and over, people have said that Lucas is a bad director, can't do this, can't do that, etc etc. Well, if it was so bad, the movies wouldn't be AS successful as they are. THAT is my point.

I HAVE brought up many other things, but when I see people commenting on how Lucas is a bad director, inept, bad at casting, and the like, I'll point them to the fact that if he was so bad, Star Wars would not be making the kind of money they are. Bad movies DO make money. But, yet again I'll say it, bad movies do NOT making the kind of money that Star Wars films do. If they were so bad, people wouldn't go and see them on the scale that they do.

I already SAID that bad movies can make a lot of money. I also, if you actually read the whole thread like I did before posting, I said that Lucas isn't the worst. In fact, I accentuated it by making it the last thing in my post.

I did read the whole thing. Heck, I've been with this entire thread since the beginning. Why? I'm bored and I love the Star Wars movies. So I'll stick here and stand my ground just as those who are against it will. I also never claimed you said Lucas is the worst.

And yes, I know this wasn't directed at me, but the same thing has been said in replies to me and I thought I'd make it absolutely clear for those of you who seem to not be able to read.

I can read just fine, thank you. This doesn't need to be brought down to insults just because I don't agree with you. You are the one who accussed Lucas of having a huge ego, which, IMO, was a sign of you showing off your own ego. True or not, that was how it was read by me.

Please don't reply to my post without examples. It just makes you look silly.

We're on a D&D messageboard. On the internet. Talking about Star Wars. To make it worse, we're talking about George Lucas. We all look silly already.

What kind of examples would you like me to present?

I've made movies. Not professionally, but I know how to handle a camera. But you don't have to make movies to know good movies. You just have to a) have eyes, b) have ears, c) have some kind of intellectual refinement, and d) know what to look for. It's not so hard, it just takes a little time and effort.

There is a HUGE difference, though. I've made movies, too. Heck, I spent a huge amount of time in High School jumping between the TV Production classroom and the Art Department. But the problem is that 'good' and 'bad' are subjective.

Its EXTREMELY pretentious to claim that you have to have 'some kind of intellectual refinement' to know what a good movie is. What makes a good movie is different for EVERYONE. Perhaps I should just keep using the terms successful and unsuccessful, but I'm lazy and 'bad' and 'good' are easier to type. The point is that there are no other ways to judge movies without being subjective.

Maybe you do know what a good movie is. But what if I don't like that movie? Does that mean you're better than me because you know what to look for and I don't? Or maybe you're just smarter than I am, and I couldn't possibly understand what a good movie is.

I know enough about psychology to pass a junior-year college exam on mood disorders (actually, that's an area I know less in than the others; my specialty is anxiety disorders) I can usually accurately diagnose a person long before they tell me what the actual diagnosis is. Does that give me the right to hand them a pill bottle? No. But it does give me the right to give them some advice, as a friend, on how to help them.

Good for you. But again...why does that matter here? In this case, you're example doesn't really fit because Lucas hasn't called you and asked for your advice. If he did, sure, go ahead and suggest. While Lucas may be the person to have the final word on things, there ARE people that have input in it. They aren't all just him, despite what some people seem to believe.

I do know movies. I know how hard it is to make them, to produce them, etc, etc. There's people out there that can do it. Lucas is close, he just needs someone else to be there to "edit" his works. Think of it as a kind of newspaper system; he's the journalist.

Wait...so Lucas is only close to knowing how to make movies even though pretty much everything he's been involved in have been HUGE successes and well received by the movie going public AS A WHOLE, and yet you know how to do things right? Get out there now! Go make us some good movies!

Lucas is definitely well beyond 'close'. If he was just 'close' Star Wars wouldn't be what it is, plain and simple.

And I'm amazed that you know people don't edit his works! Have you been there to see? All of these claims by many, many people that Lucas needs help in one form or another and yet no one seems to think that he might actually HAVE that help. The art department has given a look to Lucas' vision, Nick Gillard(stunt guy) has designed the ligthsaber duels beyond simple words on the page, and a huge amount of other people are involved in these films.

These are not just George Lucas movies. He has the final word, but how can anyone say that he hasn't been persuaded to change things based on what others working with him have suggested?

Oh yeah, and I enjoyed American Graffiti. I really did; Lucas has some talent. And he did create a magical world that people will emulate for a long time. I'm asking about improving, not deleting. There's a difference. Don't let your idolation keep you from seeing otherwise.

I've never once said the movies were perfect. Yes, there are things that can be done better. But they aren't. Why? Because its how Lucas wants it done. And you know what? I enjoy them. Despite anything that may be wrong with them, I still enjoy them. Not because I idolize them, because many people that 'idolized' the movies have been turned off by the Prequels. I simply enjoy the movies.

I've never said there's anything wrong with NOT liking them, either. But saying that Lucas is doing things 'wrong' and needs more input is a completely different step to take.

 

[Berandor]

Oh, and just because this thread is already full of tangents:

don't criticize unless you've done it yourself.

This way of thinking is fundamentally flawed and downright silly. It means I can't say my father is a good cook just because I've never cooked, or that his wife is an abysmal cook.

Or I can't say that Ashlee Simpson is an awful singer (without computer aid), just because I don't have a hit single.

The concept of critically and objectively assessing quality has nothing to do (or not much, at least) with your own ability to do so.

Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.

That's an exception.

 

[Vigilance]

Just because I'm not a baskeball player doesn't mean I can't appreciate Michael Jordan.

This is true.

However people in this thread are going WAY beyond that level. What they are doing is tantamount to sending Jordan a letter that reads like this:

Dear Mr. Jordan, I played basketball in junior high, and I have some comments.

First, post up more. You're a big guard, use that size. This whole high rising dunking thing just doesn't really show off you're pure skill.

And late in the game, pass the ball. Dont rely so much on your self! Trust your teammates!

Lastly, that whole tongue hanging out thing is just showboating. Contain your ego.

{Weeks later when no reply has come in and Jordan hasn't changed his style of play.}

God what an egomanic Jordan is! Sure he wins almost all the time, but I'm a PURIST.

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Yes, you state it in every post. And then you proceed to bring up the fact that Lucas produced his own films and "THAT is why he has the right to make these movies any damn way he wants" as if that invalidates my criticism.

No it doesn't invalidate your criticism. Or mine. Or the other 5 Billion opinions out there in the naked city.

I just makes all 5 Billion or so opinions equally second to the ONE guy whose opinions matter more. The boss. The guy CREATING.

He can make any film he wants and I'm free to talk about what I think are his weaknesses as a film maker. And, at no point have I said that you don't have a right to like them. Buy a thousand copies of the DVDs, I really don't care. I don't know why you're so obsessed with my opinion of them.

I responded to you, you responded to me, I responded back. That's what this whole message board thingie is for isnt it? I don't think you're obsessed with my opinions lol. I thought we were having a discussion along with all the others in this thread. I have responded to others' statements and posted thoughts of my own.

I'm done with this thread. Post away, but I'm not going to bother reading it anymore. It's pointless to respond since it's just going to go around in circles. Clearly, any work I've done in the television industry is no match for your mighty house painting analogies...

Actually it was George Lucas' analogy, I just liked it.

And I'm a professional writer who hasn't held a day job in over 3 years. Are we equals again now?

Chuck

 

[Vigilance]

Oh yeah, and I enjoyed American Graffiti. I really did; Lucas has some talent. And he did create a magical world that people will emulate for a long time. I'm asking about improving, not deleting. There's a difference. Don't let your idolation keep you from seeing otherwise.

Wow, if Lucas is close, a guy who had 12 Academy Award nominations for his first three movies and who won a Thalberg (the Academy Award for lifetime achievment) (and even Phantom Menace somehow snagged three Oscar nods) is just close... well, Im not sure we have the same definition of "close".

Chuck

 

[barsoomcore]

Lots of stuff I like doesn't make lots of money. Lots of stuff I think is stupid and peurile makes huge amounts of money. I've never been able to find a connection there, because plenty of stuff I like does make lots of money, and plenty of stuff I hate crashes and burns.

Because of this, I use two separate ideas -- "popular" and "good" -- and I distinguish between them. "Good" is stuff I like, stuff that provides me with thrills, be they intellectual, spiritual or physical. "Popular" is stuff that lots of people like, and that tends to make lots of money thereby.

Claiming that my opinion on the "good"-ness of something is more or less invalidated by its "popular"-ness is just flat-out silly.

So when I say that Star Wars movies suck and that Lucas is a sucky director and worse writer, pointing out that millions of people go to these movies and watch them doesn't do anything to convince me otherwise (that being a "popular" versus "good" argument). Pointing out things Lucas did and explaining why they're good is a MUCH better approach, IF your goal is to try and provide me with an understanding of your position.

Likewise, the facts about how a movie was financed simply don't enter into any discussion of that movie's merits. Crappy art gets financed in ways every bit as crazy and courageous as great art.

I guess for some people, saying that Lucas is a crappy director is offensive. For that I am sorry, as I have no wish to offend anyone. But I won't say that he's a good director, no matter how popular his films are or how he finances them. Because those facts have nothing whatsoever to do with the quality of his films.

 

[Wolv0rine]

I think the problem here is that some people are trying to compare the work Lucas did when he was 'young and hungry' to the work he's doing now. Sure American Graffiti was good, Star Wars through RotJ was great even. The man's done some fantastic stuff (and as many know, had a more hands-off approach to TESB and ROTJ), no doubt about that. But are we discounting the fact that with all these successes he's become more insulated from the public, the pedistal he sits on has risen ever higher as the legend of Star Wars has grown without any efforts from him (thus elevating his own status even when he was either idle or doing something else)? This is not the same man who did American Graffiti, or even the first three Star Wars movies. This is George Lucas the mega-legend, and that kind of thing does affect people. The odds are very good that every single person working on the prequels is in complete awe of him (Samuel L. Jackson and a few other of the big-name actors have stated at one time or another that they were reduced to slack-jawed fan-boys to be on board, in effect. What do you think the assistant editor or conceptual FX guy was feeling to be working with GEORGE LUCAS on STAR WARS felt?), so I think the odds that anyone walked up to him and said "Mr. Lucas, I think this is going in a bad direction here, it's hurting the overall production of the movie in the biggest franchise of all time that you're helming and paying for all on your own" are pretty minimal.
I don't doubt for a moment that Lucas had (maybe even has) great talent. But I see many signs that his position and prestige have clouded it greatly, and I think he lost touch with this particular franchise before he began making these prequels.

And really, of course they're making money. Star Trek movies can fail for being bad, we've had multiple TV series and multiple movies, it's not like as if we're all looking back at nothing but the original Trek series and saying "My god, Roddenberry's making 3 Trek movies after all this time!! And.. wait.. that's not right... oh hell!" No, we have the original series, TNG, Voyager, DS9, Enterprise, and the movies.. we've been getting our fix all along, and so aren't so hungry for something new to bring it back and make it shine again like it did when it broke out of the threatres and swept us away. Star Wars, on the other hand.. is kind of in that position. It is my firm belief that Lucas could have very well made these movies in his garage with leggo people and they would have made money.

 

[Orius]

This actually is what bothered me most about tPM. Everything is exactly as it seems. There's no "phantom menace" at all. Every villain is clearly defined. There is absolutely zero subtlety in the plot at all. Every line Palpatine delivers is filled with evil design, regardless of whether he's wearing his Emperor outfit or not. And when Yoda asks in the end whether the apprentice or the master was killed, there's absolutely no question that the apprentice was the one who got whacked.

It's called dramtic irony. The audience knows what's going on when the protagonists don't. I really don't see a problem with Lucas taking this approach anyway. It's not exactly a secret that Palpatine started out as a galactic senator; although he's never mentioned by name in the original movies themselves, the name does appear in the noveliztion for the original movie, and is well known to the fans. So while on screen he acts like a good guy, we all know what a bastard he is, because after all we've seen him in all his badness in Jedi. The whole "phantom menace" refers to the hidden threat posed by the Sith that have caught the Jedi by surprise, and which for them goes unresolved at the end of the movie. It doesn't help that at the end of TPM, their greatest enemy has become the highest ranked official in the Republic they're sworn to protect without them even knowing it.

The thing about TPM when compared to the original trilogy, particularly the first Star Wars movie, is that TPM is meant as part of a greater whole. Taken on its own it seems a bit weak, but I think it really needs to be viewed in the context of all the other movies, and we won't be able to do that completely for another 2 months. The original Star Wars, while it had a backstory in Lucas' mind, stands fairly well enough on its own.

And speaking of Darth Maul...what a waste of a great character design. When the new trilogy was first announced, I didn't think Lucas could create a villainous image as striking and symbolically powerful as Darth Vader. Then comes Darth Maul, and I'm pleasantly surprised. The Devil to Vader's Death. The imagery was powerful, the potential symbolism impressive. And then the character is wasted in a cheap death, and we get Count Dooku, the old guy with a bent lightsaber...?!

Yeah, Darth Maul is cool as far as appearance and style, but he really doesn't do much of anything to be seen as a threat. And he gets, what, one line in the entire film?