The Problem with Star Wars

[barsoomcore]

So, no "guilty pleasures" when you watch movies? I mean, I can say that Barbarian Brothers is a pretty darn bad movie, but I still like it.

There are many qualities a movie can possess that make it good. It's useful to distinguish between movies that possess certain sets of qualities, but I don't think the term "good" is the best way to do that.

There's "sophisticated" movies. There's "profound" movies. There's "silly" movies.

They can all be good.

But you don't have to use the same terminology as I do. That's okay with me.

 

[The Serge]

But everything RIGHT with the franchise has to be his too right?

I don't know that everything bad with the franchise is necessarily his fault, but I know that everything right about it can't be laid at his feet.

The Empire Strikes Back, arguably the best and most successful of the cycle, had the least of Lucas' direct imput... I think there's something to be said for that.

 

[barsoomcore]

Radical enough that only the influence of his mentor and big cheese Coppola allowed the movie to be made that way, how's that?

I absolutely agree that Francis Ford Coppola used to be a visionary and a great director.

 

[Vigilance]

They are less important films from the human drama element. True, the technical expertise in many films is essential for the kinds of films associated with "our" genres. LotRs would not have been as successful without the kind of technical talent needed to bring the world to life (whether visually due to costume design, CGI, etc., or through audio, like Howard Shore's phenomenal scores). However, these awards are simply "supporting casts;" yes, they are important, but the best technical skill will not help save a film floundering due to poor writing, acting, directing, and the like.

So what you're saying is, Lucas isn't perfect? I agree.

However you have to take the good with the bad. Lucas is what he is as a director and has CLEARLY decided he wants to helm his "baby" the rest of the way into drydock.

This is why Siskel and Ebert chose thumbs up or thumbs down as their way of judging movies, rather than stars.

No movie is perfect, and it either succeeds or fails, despite its flaws and because of its strengths.

In my opinion, the Star Wars movie definitely succeed, and millions agree.

Knowing that Lucas intends to make the movie, and knowing what his strengths and weaknesses are, it seems silly to complain about them again and again. You knew going in what the movies were going to be like.

Also, as to technical vs. character... like it or not movies are spectacle. You can wish for them to be stage plays all you want, but they are spectacles. Cleopatra had some dreadful acting, but the movie succeeded, and STILL succeeds, because of its spectacle.

Lawrence of Arabia succeeded because of the vista of the desert... a natural spectacle brought into the theater brilliantly by Lean. The story was pretty slow and plodding imo. But the movie is inarguably a success because it is still watched today.

The ultimate fate of any work of art is decided in one dimension: time. Lucas has already passed that test, or he wouldn't be worth all the time and energy people devote to his work, both FOR and AGAINST it.

Chuck

 

[Ankh-Morpork Guard]

They are less important films from the human drama element. True, the technical expertise in many films is essential for the kinds of films associated with "our" genres. LotRs would not have been as successful without the kind of technical talent needed to bring the world to life (whether visually due to costume design, CGI, etc., or through audio, like Howard Shore's phenomenal scores). However, these awards are simply "supporting casts;" yes, they are important, but the best technical skill will not help save a film floundering due to poor writing, acting, directing, and the like.

The 'technical' aspect is NOT just CGI and things from 'our' genre. Every single movie has an art department, set design, and costume design. Without them, movies would die in a second. They are just as important as acting, directing, and writing. Very few people seem to recognize just how important these things are, and they never get the credit that is deserved, even in movies that you'd never think would have much design to do.

However, when it comes to directing, writing, capturing the human elements/drama, he's abyssmal and incompetent.

Back to this again, eh? Look, I don't have any problem at all with saying you don't like how Lucas directs/writes/etc, but to say he's abyssmal and incompentent is a whole different level. I'll keep saying that if he was INCOMPTENT when it comes to those things, nothing could save the movies. Nothing could. Not even the Star Wars name and Lucas' vision.

I do not think he's the BEST director, but he is far, far beyond simply incompentent. If he was incompetent, people wouldn't continue to work with him and ENJOY working with him. And obviously people enjoy working with Lucas. Listen to interviews with Rick McCallum and others in the production crew that have been there for all the prequels.

 

[Vigilance]

Yes, it did. He was a great director at the time and was in touch with human beings and what drives us.

No lol. This is a clear case of seeing what you WANT to see in what someone else says.

Lucas used a CAMERA TECHNIQUE and MUSIC to make American Grafitti have a look and feel that resonated with viewers.

It was the writing or the characterization that made the movie a success, it was a TECHNICAL achievment.

He has ALWAYS been this way.

Yet his movies succeed. Sure they have faults, sure they're not Hamlet... but Hamlet has never translated well to the screen (despite my love for it). Could it be that this is because Hamlet has very little spectacle?

Many make the mistake of lumping movies and plays together. They're very different. Lucas' movies have already succeeded. No one spends this much time and energy arguing about the 6th installment of the Gigli saga now do they?

Chuck

 

[barsoomcore]

No one spends this much time and energy arguing about the 6th installment of the Gigli saga now do they?

If they made one, rest assured I would argue. Vehemently.

 

[Desdichado]

But people are going way beyond that and saying "Lucas is the problem, he needs to take a back seat".

Let's face it, is everything BAD with the franchise Lucas' fault?

Sure.

But everything RIGHT with the franchise has to be his too right?

Has anyone on this thread said that, really, or are you just reacting to "net opinion" in general? The Serge, or barsoomcore, or me, or anyone else who's been vocal in this thread have avoided making the argument that you're arguing against. So, it seems as if you're arguing with yourself a bit.

Besides, AMG and others on "your side" have consistently talked about Lucas and his level of control; how can everything bad about the franchise NOT be Lucas' fault if that's true? Indeed, it's his level of control that's the big problem, because he's unwilling to stick with what he is good at; conceptualizing, managing, pushing the boundaries technically, etc. and farming out the aspects that he's not good at; dialogue and pacing. It would still very much be his movie if he got another director and screenwriter involved, as he did on ESB and RotJ. And I'm not sure what his reluctance is, frankly. It's not like he's doing conceptual design artwork or anything like that. I assume he recognizes that he's not qualified or talented enough in that area to do the job justice, so he hires folks like Doug Chiang, who are brilliant.

But apparently, he doesn't see that he's also not talented enough to write really good screenplays from his really good sketches and ideas; his dialogue and pacing and general "human element" are weak. But I think that he thinks otherwise.

Beyond that, I'm not sure why you want to reduce movie discussion to "thumbs up" or "thumbs down." Sure, Siskel and Ebert used that as a summary, but at the end of the day, any meaningfulness to their reviews was in the discussion, not in the final judgement. I don't mind giving all the Star Wars movies a thumb's up, but that's not a very useful discussion, and it also hides the fact that with the more recent two movies in particular, that's a thumbs up, but with some serious reservations.

 

[The Serge]

So what you're saying is, Lucas isn't perfect? I agree.

Not just that he's not perfect. No one's perfect. My issue with Lucas is that he doesn't know his own limitations as a filmmaker and that this lack of self awareness has resulted in "subpar" films.

However you have to take the good with the bad. Lucas is what he is as a director and has CLEARLY decided he wants to helm his "baby" the rest of the way into drydock.

And scuff up the hull on the way in.

This is why Siskel and Ebert chose thumbs up or thumbs down as their way of judging movies, rather than stars.

Actually, I suspect this is as much an issue of marketability (c'mon, what's easier than a thumbs up or down?). Besides, the value of their "ratings" come from the conversations they have, not the "vote."

No movie is perfect, and it either succeeds or fails, despite its flaws and because of its strengths.

No, no movie is perfect, but some films come closer to succeeding than others. I think that the flaws in the prequels result in C work on average than anything else. While I enjoy the films, I am very aware of the flaws on the first viewing. This is never a good thing IMO.

In my opinion, the Star Wars movie definitely succeed, and millions agree.

I don't know that millions agree. As I've said before, SW is a cultural phenomenon and a spectacle. People watch it because of the hype, not necessarily because it's great movie making. Batman and Robin.

Knowing that Lucas intends to make the movie, and knowing what his strengths and weaknesses are, it seems silly to complain about them again and again. You knew going in what the movies were going to be like.

Not a complaint on my part as much as it's an issue of focusing on what has kept the films from being critical successes rather than monetary ones. Furthermore, I don't know that I'd agree with the idea that I, or anyone else, knew what they were going to be. I was expecting the quality of story and acting in The Empire Strikes Back. Didn't get it. From TPM to AotC, there was also a transition and my expectations weren't necessarily met (for good and ill).

Also, as to technical vs. character... like it or not movies are spectacle. You can wish for them to be stage plays all you want, but they are spectacles. Cleopatra had some dreadful acting, but the movie succeeded, and STILL succeeds, because of its spectacle.

Cop out. LotR succeeded largely because of the quality of the story (and there were plenty of errors here as well) in addition to the support of the technical aspects.

As for Cleopatra, I hated it as much as I hate The Ten Commandments. Spectacle has limited impact on me. I suppose a lot of people value pretty colors and images over quality substance. Good for them. This does not mean that just because they put money down for this that there is a translation to quality filmmaking.

The ultimate fate of any work of art is decided in one dimension: time. Lucas has already passed that test, or he wouldn't be worth all the time and energy people devote to his work, both FOR and AGAINST it.

There are many lackluster things that pass the test of time precisely due to their mediocrity. As for Lucas, his test was passed with the success of the first two original movies. The subsequent films will receive the same attention due to their association, not their success (except Revenge of the Sith to date).

 

[barsoomcore]

For the record, I'm not saying Lucas should or shouldn't do anything, and if I have, I have misspoken because that's not my belief.

He's not a very good director and he's a worse writer. He is, however, perfectly entitled to make all the films he wants to make. He can do whatever he likes with Star Wars.

He has revolutionized the business of distributing films. He has revolutionized so many technical aspects of film-making that it's hard to imagine what cinema would have been like without him. He has even made some good films. And a great TV show.

He still sucks.