George Lucas Retires from Star Wars

[Kairyssa_Wylok]

I don't agree with y'all. I loved the prequels...and the originals. I'm sad to see him retire, but I'm happy for him that he got to finish up everything he set out to do. Not a lot of directors/writers/creators/authors can say that.

 

I'm honored that I've had a chance to be part of the Star Wars Universe and I'm thrilled that even with Lucas retiring, it probably wont stop "Star Wars"

[Keihryon]

Yeah, you got me. One has only to look around and see how miserably Star Wars is failing. It's such a barren desert out there.

 

back at ya.

 

You realize that for all intents and purposes SW was a dead franchise until the release of 'Heir to the Empire", right?

 

Like it or not, a trilogy set in the universe that wasn't written by Lucas brought the franchise back from cult classic obscurity.

[priest]

This article made me rethink some things.

 

am I upset that the ewoks blink? yes. Darth Vader screams NOOOOOO!? yes. Jar Jar Binks? Yes. Greedo shooting first? Yes.

 

But I never thought about what it would be like to be George Lucas. Can you imagine how much it would suck to be constantly harassed about the treatment you make on your own idea? I think sometimes Fanbois can go over the top, and need to gain a little perspective.

[Jmannseelo]

You mean we're all entitled to our own opinions, whether we agree with them or not? To include Plinkett?

 

Thank you. I've only been trying to get you to admit that for a page and a half now.

 

I don't have a problem with Plinkett's opinions. But if we're going to call it a legitimate "review," which I don't, then I have a serious problem with the dishonest and underhanded way he tries to establish those opinions as facts. I've been saying that for a page and a half too.

[PeepsMcJuggs]

Not going to quote the above post, but you seem to have a case of selective reading. Whether or not Star Wars was intended as a trilogy, and whether any of the directors stated that Lucas gave them free reign over directorial work is irrelevant.

 

The main point, as Jmannseelo stated very well, is:

 

"Lucas did a LOT more than just advise. Do I really have to go through the list again? At every stage, on every level, he made sure that the movies he wanted to make were made. Financially, artistically, from start to finish the Star Wars saga has been his vision."

 

Lucas MADE Star Wars, and pretty much IS Star Wars. He formulated the core ideas that created the entire saga. To have the lack of understanding that he was the creative force and that none of it would have happened to begin with without him, and to insult him time and time again over details is, quite simply, completely ignorant.

 

Not that I am accusing you of this, as I realize your criticisms are not the same as most others, and I understand and appreciate what you are saying.

 

Just trying to point out that in this case, the director FAR from "made the film". I mean would anyone sane REALLY say that the original trilogy would not have been made without Kirshner and Marquand? Lucas could very well have directed the other two, but Kirshner and Marquand could NOT have created Star Wars. So yeah, their involvement was pretty much that of filling in the technical role of director, not that of visionary and creator.

 

I do not, nor ever have, argued that Star Wars would exist without Lucas, nor have I made any comments about Episode IV beyond my personal feelings that not allowing distribution of the uncut originals does a disservice to those SFX pioneers that won Oscars for their work by preventing current and future generations from seeing it. I also do not argue that Lucas has every legal right to change the movies.

 

What I argue is that, as a matter of convention and principle, changing another director's work without collaborating directly with them is highly disrespectful, and hypocritical of Lucas considering his congressional statements in the 80s. While we can continue to argue how much involvement he had (and you can continue to ignore my direct quotes on how much he was actually involved), the bottom line is as a matter of respect, he should never have touched ESB or ROTJ without their directors' explicit permission. Meaning out of respect for the dead, ROTJ at the very least should have been left untouched.

Edited February 3, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs

[Keihryon]

This article made me rethink some things.

 

am I upset that the ewoks blink? yes. Darth Vader screams NOOOOOO!? yes. Jar Jar Binks? Yes. Greedo shooting first? Yes.

 

But I never thought about what it would be like to be George Lucas. Can you imagine how much it would suck to be constantly harassed about the treatment you make on your own idea? I think sometimes Fanbois can go over the top, and need to gain a little perspective.

 

I don't rage that he did these things. I have the versions of those films that I like, and I don't acknowledge his revisions, like he doesn't acknowledge the work of other authors in his universe.

 

I will always be grateful for his idea of the star wars universe, it is an awesome universe. But, I think he should acknowledge the work others did that kept his universe alive for over 30 years now, and will probably keep it alive even longer than that.

[Jmannseelo]

 

Like it or not, a trilogy set in the universe that wasn't written by Lucas brought the franchise back from cult classic obscurity.

 

I'm glad it did. It was the spark needed to revive the franchise. It was still the Special Editions and Prequels that really blasted SW back into the public eye, and the Star Wars franchise still belongs to George Lucas.

[PeepsMcJuggs]

I'm glad it did. It was the spark needed to revive the franchise. It was still the Special Editions and Prequels that really blasted SW back into the public eye, and the Star Wars franchise still belongs to George Lucas.

 

I wholeheartedly disagree. After the Thrawn Trilogy, Star Wars was back in full force in the public eye well before the Special Editions and Prequels. Action figures and Micro Machines were all over the place again, comics in the aisles, kids dressing up as Star Wars characters for Halloween, video games like Super Star Wars and X-Wing...

 

In fact, it's safe to argue that the explosion of Star Wars fandom in the early 90s prompted Lucas to go back and make the Special Editions, and from there, the prequels.

Edited February 3, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs

[Keihryon]

I'm glad it did. It was the spark needed to revive the franchise. It was still the Special Editions and Prequels that really blasted SW back into the public eye, and the Star Wars franchise still belongs to George Lucas.

 

Actually, it was the Thrawn trilogy, that sat at the top of the best sellers list for each book released that put it back into the public eye. The renewed interest from the books and the comics is what brought SW back from the tragedies that were the Ewok TV movies that nearly killed the franchise.

 

I know our opinions on it differ...you say it was the re-release, I say it was the new stories.

[priest]

I don't rage that he did these things. I have the versions of those films that I like, and I don't acknowledge his revisions, like he doesn't acknowledge the work of other authors in his universe.

 

I will always be grateful for his idea of the star wars universe, it is an awesome universe. But, I think he should acknowledge the work others did that kept his universe alive for over 30 years now, and will probably keep it alive even longer than that.

 

If more people acted like this...perhaps Lucas wouldn't feel the way he does. But his words in this article display the fact that he truly is hurt by some of the stuff that people have said to him on the subject. Why would George Lucas want to give the world more Star Wars, when his fans are********to him?

Edited February 3, 2012 by priest

[PeepsMcJuggs]

If more people acted like this...perhaps Lucas wouldn't feel the way he does. But his words in this article display the fact that he truly is hurt by some of the stuff that people have said to him on the subject. Why would George Lucas want to give the world more Star Wars, when his fans are********to him?

 

And yet he did it to himself by deliberately ignoring his fans and preventing the rerelease of the originals. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy when people insult him for choosing to be a selfish a-hole.

Edited February 3, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs

[RagnarokJC]

I do not, nor ever have, argued that Star Wars would exist without Lucas, nor have I made any comments about Episode IV beyond my personal feelings that not allowing distribution of the uncut originals does a disservice to those SFX pioneers that won Oscars for their work by preventing current and future generations from seeing it. I also do not argue that Lucas has every legal right to change the movies.

 

What I argue is that, as a matter of convention and principle, changing another director's work without collaborating directly with them is highly disrespectful, and hypocritical of Lucas considering his congressional statements in the 80s. While we can continue to argue how much involvement he had (and you can continue to ignore my direct quotes on how much he was actually involved), the bottom line is as a matter of respect, he should never have touched ESB or ROTJ without their directors' explicit permission. Meaning out of respect for the dead, ROTJ at the very least should have been left untouched.

Kershner is actually among the deceased as well now and has been since 2010, so put ESB onto your list.

[priest]

And yet he did it to himself by deliberately ignoring his fans and preventing the rerelease of the originals. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy when people insult him for choosing to be a selfish a-hole.

 

Its his world, not ours. He has no obligation to us.

[PeepsMcJuggs]

Its his world, not ours. He has no obligation to us.

 

You're right: he has no obligation, and he can do whatever makes himself happy, even if it knowingly pisses off others.

 

I'm pretty sure that defines "selfish a-hole."

 

Kershner is actually among the deceased as well now and has been since 2010, so put ESB onto your list.

 

That is true, in that if he were respectful, he'd stop changing it now. But we all know that's not going to be the case.

 

I wouldn't be surprised if he made more changes now that Kirshner's not here to voice his disapproval.

Edited February 3, 2012 by PeepsMcJuggs

[priest]

You're right: he has no obligation, and he can do whatever makes himself happy, even if it knowingly pisses off others.

 

I'm pretty sure that defines "selfish a-hole."

 

I disagree. If I have an Aston Martin and I let you look at it, sit in it, play with the radio, but not to drive it...I can. It doesn't make me selfish; it just means it's mine. I don't think he's selfish- He's just confident in what he wants to do with what is his. I have every right not to like it...but it doesn't make him selfish.

[Keihryon]

I wish he'd stop messing with the OT. I do wish he would allow others to continue movies in his 'verse. I would love to see the X-wing Series books on the big screen.

 

Mainly because Wedge is the true hero of the Rebellion

 

Nathan Fillion as Corran Horn.

[Emeda]

Even George Lucus doesnt like SWTOR that he retired.

 

Dont tell me his retirement and the release of SWTOR being this close together doesnt mean anything

[PeepsMcJuggs]

I disagree. If I have an Aston Martin and I let you look at it, sit in it, play with the radio, but not to drive it...I can. It doesn't make me selfish; it just means it's mine. I don't think he's selfish- He's just confident in what he wants to do with what is his. I have every right not to like it...but it doesn't make him selfish.

 

Bad analogy. Really bad analogy. Let me fix it for you.

 

Let's say he came up with the design for the aforementioned Aston Martin, then got a team of experts to get together and, using the technology at the time, make it the most amazing, memorable car of its era, whereby while he had the idea, the designers and engineers he hired are the ones that actually made it work. You bought this car, thinking it was the most amazing thing ever.

 

Then, years later, he takes your car, removes a bunch of the features that its designers received Automobile of the Year awards for and adds oversized spoilers and a giant wing on the back. You say "Wait, I liked my car the way it was," and he says "I didn't like the old one, and this one's better. And it was my idea, so I can do what I want."

 

Then he charges you a processing fee for a bunch of crap you didn't want and drives off.

 

Nope, that's not selfish.

[RagnarokJC]

I disagree. If I have an Aston Martin and I let you look at it, sit in it, play with the radio, but not to drive it...I can. It doesn't make me selfish; it just means it's mine. I don't think he's selfish- He's just confident in what he wants to do with what is his. I have every right not to like it...but it doesn't make him selfish.

Since you seem to at least be trying to understand, I'm going to explain this one more time.

 

Sure, Lucas has the *legal right* to do whatever he wants to the OT films. The point of contention for Peeps, myself, and others is that in making changes, he is insulting the memory of the men (Marquand and Kershner) who helped make those films successful. Lucas is also insulting the older fans who made the OT films financially successful by implying strongly that the films they liked were inferior to the versions he is now releasing with all their changes.

 

There was an analogy brought up by Alexander Philippe, the director of The People vs George Lucas, that is quite apt for this. It would basically be like Leonardo Da Vinci coming back from the past to tell everyone, "You know the Mona Lisa, considered to be one of the great works of art in history? Well, you were all wrong to like it, since I really wanted it to be like this!". Leonardo then paints a mustache on the Mona Lisa's face. Sure, it's his painting, so he's got every right to make that change. But should he, given that so many people throughout history enjoyed that piece of art *exactly as it was*? Think about that for a bit.

[Cancrizans]

I do not, nor ever have, argued that Star Wars would exist without Lucas, nor have I made any comments about Episode IV beyond my personal feelings that not allowing distribution of the uncut originals does a disservice to those SFX pioneers that won Oscars for their work by preventing current and future generations from seeing it. I also do not argue that Lucas has every legal right to change the movies.

 

What I argue is that, as a matter of convention and principle, changing another director's work without collaborating directly with them is highly disrespectful, and hypocritical of Lucas considering his congressional statements in the 80s. While we can continue to argue how much involvement he had (and you can continue to ignore my direct quotes on how much he was actually involved), the bottom line is as a matter of respect, he should never have touched ESB or ROTJ without their directors' explicit permission. Meaning out of respect for the dead, ROTJ at the very least should have been left untouched.

 

See I understand and agree with the general gist of what you are saying, but you totally threw me at the last line. Why should a movie that stemmed mostly from Lucas' ideas be off limits for him to make changes to simply because the director he chose to direct it has died? You seem to be single mindedly clinging to a particular vision of what a film director is, which while it may be somewhat traditional is not always the case-and is certainly not the case with the Star Wars films.

 

There are two separate identities, the director as what the movie making process defines that role as, and the director as creator, visionary and leader. While the two identities often coincide, they don't necessarily have to, and I think you either fail to recognize that(which I kind of doubt) or you are kind of crusading for one vision of a film director because it is preferential for you.

[Cancrizans]

And yet he did it to himself by deliberately ignoring his fans and preventing the rerelease of the originals. It's hard to feel sorry for a guy when people insult him for choosing to be a selfish a-hole.

 

See here is the attitude...it was HIS fault that HE, the guy who created the entire thing, didn't do what WE wanted, so he is wrong and we are right.

 

Nevermind that the "we" didn't have a single damned thing to do with creating ANYTHING, and are not the ones who would be spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to rerelease the films that way...I mean the arrogance of this position is beyond preposterous.

 

You really can't see how that is incredibly insulting in itself? It is just insane to assert any control over another person's creative work, and it really makes me question your high principled defense of the right of a director to control the integrity of his output when you don't even care about the right of the creator to control his and do with it what he wants.

[RagnarokJC]

See here is the attitude...it was HIS fault that HE, the guy who created the entire thing, didn't do what WE wanted, so he is wrong and we are right.

 

Nevermind that the "we" didn't have a single damned thing to do with creating ANYTHING, and are not the ones who would be spending MILLIONS OF DOLLARS to rerelease the films that way...I mean the arrogance of this position is beyond preposterous.

 

You really can't see how that is incredibly insulting in itself? It is just insane to assert any control over another person's creative work, and it really makes me question your high principled defense of the right of a director to control the integrity of his output when you don't even care about the right of the creator to control his and do with it what he wants.

When an artist's work is admired by many, particularly when those many paid to view it, does it really belong to him/her at that point? This is a debate that could rage forever, but I'd like you to at least look at *both* sides.

 

On the one hand, the work could obviously be said to belong to the artist that created it. I'm going to apply this to Lucas, though the OT films were not entirely *his* work. He owns the legal rights to the films, so he can do what he wants with them. Indeed, Lucas can make any changes he likes, and the public can choose whether or not they will continue to pay for the new versions.

 

On the other hand, when so many people have enjoyed the work of that artist, it could also be said to belong to them. This should hold particularly true when those people paid to view that work. The people who loved the OT films *in their original format* want Lucas to keep that version available even if he makes changes to those films as he re-releases them. There is also the fact that the OT films have been registered into the Library of Congress, which is like being officially recognized as being a highly influential work in culture. Does Lucas really have the right in that case to change those films from their original format?

[Midasear]

Why should a movie that stemmed mostly from Lucas' ideas be off limits for him to make changes to simply because the director he chose to direct it has died?

 

Because Lucas himself has claimed that the one altering the film under such circumstances is a horrible barbarian and cultural vandal when he was testifying before Congress. He had the right of it then. He's a hypocrite now.

 

Personally, I don't care that he's making changes to the film. What makes him an obnoxious *** is his deliberate decision to withdraw access to the original theatrical release from the public. He's afraid to let people make direct comparisons between the original and his "improvements".

[Jmannseelo]

Because Lucas himself has claimed that the one altering the film under such circumstances is a horrible barbarian and cultural vandal when he was testifying before Congress. He had the right of it then. He's a hypocrite now.

 

He really truly isn't. His congressional testimony involved altering other people's movies. He is altering his own. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

Personally, I don't care that he's making changes to the film. What makes him an obnoxious *** is his deliberate decision to withdraw access to the original theatrical release from the public. He's afraid to let people make direct comparisons between the original and his "improvements".

 

Except when he released the original theatrical versions on DVD as bonus discs you mean?

 

All he's refused to do is spend millions of dollars restoring the originals, as is his right. What makes many so-called Star Wars "fans" obnoxious ***** is them trying to dictate to him how to spend his own money.

[Midasear]

He really truly isn't. His congressional testimony involved altering other people's movies. He is altering his own. You're comparing apples to oranges.

 

What a load of horse manure.

 

Lucas is in exactly the same legal and creative position as the old studio chiefs he was denouncing for doing the same things he subsequently decided was perfectly FINE when he wanted to do much more.

 

Under the old studio system, the studio chiefs MADE the films he was claiming needed to be protected. They had scripts delivered up to order, made all the casting decisions, told the directors what to do and how to do it. Those films were the products and sole legal property of the studios he was denouncing as barbarians and vandals because they were colorizing movies and touching up an odd shadow here and there digitally.

 

Lucas has gone so far as to replace actors performances from his films....something he specifically denounced...but was apparently ok the minute he realized he could do it. And his alterations to movies OTHER PEOPLE DIRECTED go way beyond adding a bit of color.

 

This is not an apples/oranges comparison. It's more along the lines of pile of peeled apples/great big barrel of rotten apples comparison.

 

But in Lucas' mind its all good - they are HIS films after all. Its not like anyone else, such as the cast, directors, or original effects crew, has any stake in things. He owns the copyright after all...JUST LIKE THE STUDIOS HE $%^&ing denounced.

Edited February 3, 2012 by Midasear