George Lucas Retires from Star Wars

[Pwny_Express]

In the interview he just sounds burned out. Oh well, the rights will be bought by some company in the future and there will continue to be new Star Wars materials, because there is still a huge cash cow there waiting to be milked. I'm not even sure I buy Lucas's statement anyway...who's to say 10 years from now he'll wake up with some idea and say, "Heck with it, I'm making another one."

 

I really don't care if he does. I didn't think the prequels were that great so I'd rather see what somebody else does with the universe for a change.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Pwny_Express

[XiliX]

George Lucas is a child. Worse, he's a child throwing a temper tantrum.

 

Fact is, he made up an awesome universe, and, when there were people to reel back his more stupid ideas, he made a decent movie (The Empire Strikes Back, ftw!).

 

But then a bunch of far-more-talented writers started playing in his universe and doing MUCH better jobs at it (Timothy Zahn, Mike Stackpole, Aaron Allston...). Those guys, the authors of the EU made Star Wars the mega-awesome, incredibly alive, and amazing universe that it is today. Those guys are why people are still hard-core fanatics about Star Wars.

 

Most Star Wars fans will tell you they hate George Lucas. Why? Because he has a lot of really stupid ideas, and he's completely disconnected with his audience (i.e. - Gungans, Ewoks, and Midichlorians).

 

He was throwing a tantrum with the prequels. He was basically saying, "No! These are my toys! And, I don't care that you've all done amazing things with them, they're mine. And, I'm going to do what I want with them! And, there's nothing you can do about it! Neener, neener, neener!"

 

And, nobody could reign him in this time.

 

He's the worst kind of "artist." He's the kind of artist who doesn't trust his audience, who doesn't think his audience is smart enough to get his story. He doesn't realize that once you publish or produce a work it's not "yours" anymore. Not in the strictest sense, anyway. Good writing will mean something slightly different to each person experiencing it. With the prequels, we got to see just what kind of writer Lucas was with such wonderfully cardboard lines as:

 

"...I have trained you since you were a small boy." Obi-Wan says this to Anakin in ROTS, like he's talking to a stranger. Like he has to explain to Anakin that they've been hanging out for the past 20 years, practically living together, forming an almost father/son relationship. Like Anakin doesn't know who Obi-Wan is or why he should listen to him.

 

or

 

"My powers have doubled since the last time we met, Count." Are we watching DragonBall Z? Does Anakin have some kind of Force-o-Meter to tell him how good he is? Nobody would say that!

 

Mr. Lucas is breaking a fundamental rule of good writing. He's using dialogue for exposition. His characters are literally describing things in their world for the audience. Instead of letting the action tell us how ****** Anakin is, he has his character come out and quantify it for us. Instead of trusting the audience to know who Obi-Wan and Anakin are by the time ROTS comes out, he has one of his characters come out and say it. This is stuff you learn in Creative Writing 101. One doesn't use dialogue for exposition. It's bad writing, and it's insulting to your audience.

 

It's not enough that he makes boatloads of money off of every book/toy/videogame/comic/idea that has anything to do with Star Wars, he has to pull his wang out and remind everyone that it was his idea to start with. It's not enough that he's raking in cash off of people far more talented than he. It's not enough that people still love Star Wars because of these more talented people and the stories they've told within that universe. He can't just sit back and watch this beautiful universe unfold and grow and expand. He's got to remind everyone that it's not how he would have done it, and therefore, it's not "official."

 

Well, Mr. Lucas, if you had kept it all to yourself; if you had told the story the way you wanted to, nobody would ever have read/watched it. You wouldn't have an infinite revenue stream. You wouldn't have Skywalker Ranch. You wouldn't have everything you have now. You'd be that nerd in a basement writing stories and making movies for his Mom as she reads and watches patiently, knowing they're terrible but massaging your ego anyway because you don't have any friends.

 

Good, you're "retiring." Maybe now the universe will be just a little less stupid. Maybe now we won't have to endure things like beloved characters being killed off because you don't trust your audience to know the difference between Anakin Skywalker and Anakin Solo (because no two people in any universe have ever shared a name, George /sarcasm). Maybe now we won't have to endure gungans or the idea that teddy bears with sticks and rocks could defeat an army of trained and battle-hardened STORMTROOPERS wearing armor designed to deflect small-grade blaster fire.

 

You know why you get hate-mail George? It's because you're that spoiled kid everyone knew growing up. You're the kid nobody wanted to play with after about half an hour because nobody would play the way you wanted them to. You get hate-mail because even though you're that jerk, you make unlimited amounts of money. You reap the rewards of those better suited to tell this story than you, and you're upset about it! You sit on a pile of money that you don't have to work for and then have the audacity to complain about and degrade the way that money gets there.

 

Sure, you created the universe, bully for you. We'd like you better if you weren't such a dick about it.

 

Sincerely,

 

Myk

 

This ^

Find it amusing that Lucas has to re-release movies now in 3D. More than likely it will be just like most of the other 3D movies that have been released in the past year or so, where there will 2 or 3 short scenes where you can actually tell it's 3D. Hollywood pushes this crap out like it's all brand new technology & we should all be amazed.

What is even more amusing, there are too many people that fall for the marketing ploy & will pay those outrageous ticket prices.

Those prequel movies were horrid. I'm glad Lucas is finally out of here.

[Myk-Ron]

I think a lot of people are projecting a little bit here.

 

Any "anger" I've been attributed in this conversation is more likely just frustration, and not directed at GL so much as it’s directed at the fact that most of what I've been saying is either being misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented. Seriously, there's no real anger on this end of things. I'm just trying to have a discussion. But, this is the internet...so, maybe my hopes were a little too high.

 

Most (not all) of the responses in this thread don't address anything I've actually said, and instead just throw out a vague "George Lucas is awesome" or "George Lucas sucks." Or, “That Myk guy is sick,” which is…confusing. I’m not sure where the evidence for that statement is, but to each their own, I suppose.

 

I've got no hate for the man, but I wouldn't say I've got much love for him either. Purely on a story-telling basis, he's just not very good. And, by his own admission, he's got almost no respect for the EU when a large part of "his" fanbase are such huge fans BECAUSE of the EU. He can do whatever he wants to his movies. And, I just won't buy them. I've got the originals on my shelf at home. I'll watch them, and I'll keep reading the EU.

 

I'm merely trying to illustrate why a fan might feel frustrated or even angry with the guy. Fact is, it's a little unnerving when you've invested so much time into the EU knowing that the plug could be pulled at any time without any notice by someone who just doesn't care. I don't think that's going to happen, because he still makes buckets and buckets and buckets of money off the EU. But, every time he says something derogatory about it; every time he changes something that sends ripples out into it, the fans of Star Wars feel a twinge of fear that he's just going to pack up all his toys and take them away.

 

Yes, it's his sandbox, but there are some fantastic sandcastles in there; Sandcastles that he did not build, but he's got the power to destroy them all without a second's thought and nobody can say anything about it. And, sure, even then, it's not like he's going to go to everyone's houses and take all their EU stuff away, but he can end it. And, I think that's the biggest concern with fans of the EU. We love Star Wars so much that we don't ever want it to end. It is a GALAXY, after all, and we're ready and willing to explore it all.

 

This whole "ownership" discussion is tricky because when you remove the “legality” of the issue from the discussion and look at it from a moral standpoint, things get blurry and grey. Yes, the universe of Star Wars technically belongs to George Lucas, but does that necessarily mean he “owns” all of the stories and information set within that universe that he had no part in creating? For example; Timothy Zahn named and created Coruscant. Without Tim, there would be no Coruscant as we know it today. (It was a rare moment when the EU pressed its way into the films, and the people rejoiced.) So, who gets credit for Coruscant? The planet exists in George Lucas’ galaxy, but it was created/dreamt up/made by Tim Zahn. Remove the “legal” answer, and I think things become a lot more complicated.

 

If I use your tools and your workshop to build a boat…do you get to claim ownership of the boat? It was my work. I made it. You may not have even thought about building a boat. I couldn’t have built it without using your workshop and your tools, but, still, I built it. I’m eternally grateful for you letting me use your shop, but does my using your shop give you the right to come back and make changes to or erase my boat altogether?

 

All things being perspective, I don’t think there can be a solid right or wrong answer to that last one. But, any human should be able to see both sides of the argument, and understand them. Anyone with a little empathy can at least see why someone might be a little miffed.

 

~ Myk

[Myk-Ron]

I have nothing but respect for George Lucas.

 

It's not just anybody that can, no matter their luck or their genius or their creativity alone, do what he's done. It's not just anybody that can create a mythology and a piece of cultural art so impactful and so permeating that its absolutely homogenized its terms, its phrases and its concepts into everything from language to several varieties of artistic expression.

 

Did Mr. Lucas do it all and dream it all single-handedly? No. Star Wars became what it did on the backs and shoulders of many, and benefitted on the minds of many.

 

But, Mr. Lucas supplied the dream, and no small amount of his own expertise and acumen, dedication and determination along with it.

 

It is with pity that I regard all of the 'fans of Star Wars' that decide they hate, or cannot even find it in themselves to respectually acknowledge, Mr. Lucas as being what he is.

 

He is a man that had a dream, and he led, over decades, that dream into becoming one of the most singularly definitive expressions of modern mythology existent in these present times.

 

His dream and the execution of that dream on both his own and many others' parts have given to the human race iconic figures that are, at a glance, recognizable around the world.

 

The hiss-drone of an igniting lightsaber; a simple piece of audio; has become a sound that, with no forewarning or presaging, could easily be recognized throughout the majority of nations and cultures existing in the world today.

 

Mr. Lucas' dream changed not just the shape, nature and direction of his industry, but the human race.

 

If all you see when you look upon Mr. Lucas' works is the failure of his dream, still his and still an expression of himself, to be just as suited to now as it was in the late 70's and early 80's, I pity you.

 

I pity you in a fashion I pity few and rarely, because there is a man that changed the entire human race unto its vernacular, its languages and its very way of thinking; has embedded his words, his icons, his symbols and the artifacts of his dream so firmly into human consciousness that they have become modern day allegories to pantheonic, religious myths and fables.

 

And all you see is someone that put an annoying Gungan and pseudo sci-fi midichlorians and blinking ewoks into your...what exactly?

 

Does it tell you nothing, if it is hate you feel, how strongly you felt and feel still because of Mr. Lucas' dream?

 

Pause on that supposition of hatred. Peel back the 'nerdrage' about what he did to 'ruin the remasterings' and whatever else. Peel that back; peel it all back.

 

What's left?

 

Chances are, there's a little boy or little girl under there dreaming still of Jedi and Sith and beleaguered heroes and menacing, glossy black respirator masks, with the voice of James Earl Jones as the voice of Vader coldly echoing around the spark and crackle of clashing sabers.

 

It was you on that screen, mm? In so many ways, they were all you. Parts of you, things you could identify with, things that felt personal.

 

You wouldn't feel so betrayed or spiteful if something didn't dislodge you from that relationship. And you might be quite right in making a case for why things like Jar-Jar and 'Greedo shoots first' and the blinking ewoks and whatnot else punched holes in, more than the imagery, the feeling.

 

The worst Mr. Lucas can be reasonably accused of is being human.

 

The best he can be attributed with is the like of which very, very few humans in any generation can claim to have dreamed into being, and it has been a damned fine dream.

 

A dream of hope and heroes, heroism and good versus evil, of space and spaceships and laserwords and blasters that go pew-pew-pew even in the near-void of space just because it's -boring- if its silent.

 

There is an amazingly good chance I will never do anything to touch the human race in so singular and defining a way even if I spend the rest of my life attempting, with ever fiber of my being, breath in my body and moment of my time to trying to do so.

 

None of us will in all likelihood.

 

So please, let go of hating a man who's gravest error is being fallible and try to at least afford him some measure of respect.

 

It would, in fact, be a different world as we know it without what he's given to it.

 

Well written, and excellent points, indeed. For the most part, I'm in agreement. It was his idea originally, and it changed the world. Without that spark, none of this would exist, and I respect that, and respected him for it. Also, I'm eternally grateful that he made the original in the first place, and shared his vision with the world.

 

I would argue though, that no amount of good done will ever make a man exempt from criticism or reproof from anger. Humans are fallible creatures, and they make mistakes.

 

I would also argue that respect is not something that is indefinite. Earning respect doesn't mean you are now respected forever. Respect must be earned, and it can be lost.

 

I believe there's a middle ground to be reached in this discussion. I really do.

 

- Myk

[Pwny_Express]

Lucas made a great case for why he shouldn't butcher up the negatives to the originals (which is what he said he did to create the 1997 SE Trilogy).

 

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

 

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I've come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

 

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

 

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

 

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as "when life begins" or "when it should be appropriately terminated," but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

 

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tommorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with "fresher faces," or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor's lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new "original" negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

 

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be "replaced" by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

 

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

 

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

 

The public's interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

 

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That's an outrage! It's not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of "The Maltese Falcon?" Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

 

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art--as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities."

 

*Citation: Lucas' statement comes from pp.482-490 of a document bearing the title The Berne Convention: Hearings Before the Subcomittee on Patents, Copyrights and Trademarks of the Committee on the Judiciary United States Senate. One Hundreth Congress. Second session on s.1301 and s.1971. February 18 and March 3, 1988. The statements from Spielberg and Goldman come from the same document. 'Documents provided by the U.S. Government Documents Collection federal depository at New York University Bobst Library'.

 

Wish he'd have listened to his own advice. He has really changed over the years.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Pwny_Express

[Lordgeneral]

Can we have a cleanup of the thread? or put a rule in such as

 

Any comments saying "i hate the moves or i want to slaughter jaja" are not allowed, keep this a proper discussion and no hating? wishful thinking on my part. Please try people

[Smackwell]

If I use your tools and your workshop to build a boat…do you get to claim ownership of the boat? It was my work. I made it. You may not have even thought about building a boat. I couldn’t have built it without using your workshop and your tools, but, still, I built it. I’m eternally grateful for you letting me use your shop, but does my using your shop give you the right to come back and make changes to or erase my boat altogether?

 

Arg, sometimes I hate analogies. The way I see it is that Lucas had a yacht, and you asked if you could build a shuffleboard on his yacht. He says "Yeah, sure, go for it, that'll be great." Then later on he's like "You know, shuffleboard is great but I'm like, so into foosball right now. I'm not gonna throw your shuffleboard overboard, though. You can keep it and play with it, but now we're gonna have some foosball on the yacht."

 

See, the shuffleboard still exists, but it just isn't part of the yacht anymore. It can still be played on, and it's still fun, but it's just not on his boat.

 

And regarding ownership? He gave you permission to build on his boat, right? You can't claim partial ownership of the boat just because you built a shuffleboard on it. That's goofy. If he wanted to paint the boat pink, you can't be like "Hey, you have no right to paint the boat pink; my shuffleboard is on your boat."

 

 

Regarding Coruscant - he could have used any planet. Made up any stupid old thing. If anything, it was a nod to the Expanded Universe. He didn't need Coruscant in order for anything in his movies to work. He could have retconned Coruscant into a gas planet with flying Ewoks if he wanted to.

 

 

I know I'm sounding like I'll just defend everything the guy does but that's really not the case. I do think many things he's done are stupid (Krayt yell and Nooooo! to name some of the more hilariously stupid decisions), but I just don't place such importance in them as to say "How dare he do this to us?!" Note, I also don't mean this as a way to diminish your guys' standpoint - it's just my own personal opinion.

[Kharnis]

Lucas made a great case for why he shouldn't butcher up the negatives to the originals (which is what he said he did to create the 1997 SE Trilogy).

 

 

 

Wish he'd have listened to his own advice. He has really changed over the years.

 

You should probably re-read the third and fourth paragraphs of his speech. You would find that he is talking about the rights of the individual artist while he or she still owns the works, and the later changing of those works after they enter the public domain (hence, why Turner could add colour to previously black-and-white movies). "American works of art belong to the American public" has nothing to do with art being untouchable after they're created; it has to do with art being untouchable by others after those works enter the public domain once the copyright has expired.

[RepublicGurl]

... Is this true? If GL is retiring from Star Wars, does that mean there can still be books and (maybe even!) new movies?

 

For all the moaning and groaning we have done, without GL we would have never had Star Wars.

 

That has to count for something.

 

EDIT:

 

P.S.

 

Seriously, though, I would totally pay to see a movie featuring in the Old Republic Era with canon characters. Or, even, a small animated series (similar to the cinematic trailers) of Old Republic events.

 

If I ever turn on the TV and see commercials talking about an upcoming movie or series set in this timeline, I know I would watch it.

Edited January 26, 2012 by RepublicGurl

[Uruare]

Well written, and excellent points, indeed. For the most part, I'm in agreement. It was his idea originally, and it changed the world. Without that spark, none of this would exist, and I respect that, and respected him for it. Also, I'm eternally grateful that he made the original in the first place, and shared his vision with the world.

 

I would argue though, that no amount of good done will ever make a man exempt from criticism or reproof from anger. Humans are fallible creatures, and they make mistakes.

 

I would also argue that respect is not something that is indefinite. Earning respect doesn't mean you are now respected forever. Respect must be earned, and it can be lost.

 

I believe there's a middle ground to be reached in this discussion. I really do.

 

- Myk

 

 

 

An entirely reasonable position, Myk. And in kinda lumped-together answer to this and your prior post in answer to someone else, I, for one, don't blame anyone at all for not being too happy with the EU being quite so marginalized and segregated away, as it does indeed have a lot of peoples' additions to Mr. Lucas' dreams taking the galaxy far, far away into places George himself almost certainly couldn't and wouldn't alone.

 

I wouldn't even disagree that he's, for whatever reasons, put the damper on the fruition of the dream he started by not working more closely with, and not sharing more inspiration back and forth with, at least some of the creative and hugely respectable EU authors and artists.

 

I simply wanted to remind those that were over-focusing on the failures of a man that those failures are, while unfortunate and certainly undeniable (there could be much debate on their nature and extent, though not much on that there've been a few), what it's become is nothing short of extraordinary.

 

If I were given to being miffed about anything, it is that Mr. Lucas didn't embrace just a little more of the EU writers, didn't collaborate with them more; didn't let the dream evolve like, perhaps, it could have continued to do.

 

I could be wrong on that generalized speculation. Right or wrong or accurate to whatever degree it might be, I look around me in a digital place like this and I, at least, cannot feel angry at Mr. Lucas for his failures, whatever they might be outside my own opinions.

 

 

The dream is still alive. Its still fighting to grow and evolve. It's not just the EU authors expanding on and adding their own sometimes-wonderful and sometimes-silly and sometimes-ugh-bad additions to the galaxy far, far away.

 

The story of Star Wars ain't over yet. The dream lives on.

 

And by the look of things, its in some pretty decent hands, at least in this neck of the woods. Peel away the details of bugs and customer service staffed by 'Out to Lunch' signs and imbalanced PVP and people throwing dead cats at eachother over the fence of "L2P and stop being lazy / I don't wanna work in a gorram game" (amongst others), the dream's alive and well.

 

It's in, here, rather more competent than less hands. They will infuriate somebody sooner or later, and there will be someone or group of someones declaring that they've destroyed Star Wars and killed it dead.

 

Heck, they infuriated me with the Inquisitor storyline. I still want to give its writer a piece of my mind, and possibly a hug, because I suspect she's human and would probably sob in her closet if millions of people hate, are bored by or find merely annoying what she probably tried very hard to make be a good story.

 

It's an important thing to remember, that we're all human. Mr. Lucas, the SI class story writer, you, me, the people we might respectively hate the most.

 

Not a thing more, or less, with all the potential to dream dreams that change the world and pull stupid human tricks all in the same lumpy packages.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Uruare

[Pwny_Express]

You should probably re-read the third and fourth paragraphs of his speech. You would find that he is talking about the rights of the individual artist while he or she still owns the works, and the later changing of those works after they enter the public domain (hence, why Turner could add colour to previously black-and-white movies). "American works of art belong to the American public" has nothing to do with art being untouchable after they're created; it has to do with art being untouchable by others after those works enter the public domain once the copyright has expired.

 

My point wasn't to show that he had no legal right to change them, because he obviously does and I haven't claimed otherwise. My point was to show that George has pretty much done to the movies all the things he was railing against in the rest of the speech.

Edited January 26, 2012 by Pwny_Express

[Kharnis]

My point wasn't to show that he had no legal right to change them, because he obviously does and I haven't claimed otherwise. My point was to show that George has pretty much done to the movies all the things he was railing against in the rest of the speech. Thus, he made a great case for why works of art shouldn't be altered, whether the action is legal or not.

 

And my point is that he hasn't done any of those things. The movies are still his, and he is the original artist. He (very clearly from the speech he gave) believes that he, as the original artist, has every right to do with his own works as he sees fit. The only time a work of art cannot be altered is once it enters the public domain. The alterations he was aghast at were done on works that were already in the public domain, done by people who altered them "just because," whether that "just because" was to make more money, to more reflect what they thought is more appropriate for the day and age, or whatever excuse you want to come up with.

 

At no point did he say "art shouldn't be altered." What he said was, "once the art is no longer under copyright protection, no one should be allowed to alter it." His stance was, and is, consistent.

[Bonquchko]

If that's greed then please allow it to continue indefinitely. The Star Wars saga in 3-D, a bad thing? You have got to be joking. That is excellent and exiting news. Personally, I can't wait.

 

It never ceases to amaze me that so many so-called "fans" are the most cynical and hateful when it comes to the fictitious universe they claim to love. Small wonder that Lucas is getting fed up with it. With "fans" like these, who needs haters? Thank goodness for the casual viewers who actually appreciate and support what he does. They're better fans than most of the hardcore base and it is they who will keep new Star Wars developments viable. Mr Lucas, you are doing the right thing and many of us appreciate your efforts. Let the bitter pretenders disappear in a puff of EU nerdrage, and keep doing what you're doing. In time their endless whining will disappear while your legacy endures.

 

Ok, right. There will be one or two parts in the movie that you MIGHT be able to tell that it's 3D, like the Pod Racing or the Duel. But 3D movies are MADE to take advantage of the 3D camera, that's why in those movies theres always something going directly at the camera. You can't just say you're not doing anything else with that universe and then turn around and put all of them in 3D.

 

And it's not just going to be Phantom Menace that gets the 3D treatment, apparently he's 3D-ing ALL of the movies. I-VI. Phantom Menace to Return of the Jedi.

Do you really need 3D Ewoks? I don't think so.

 

That being said... I don't necessarily RESPECT Lucas, but I do thank him graciously for providing this universe, and if I had the choice I would rather have the ****** Star Wars prequels than no Star Wars at all.

[RepublicGurl]

I think a lot of people are projecting a little bit here.

 

Any "anger" I've been attributed in this conversation is more likely just frustration, and not directed at GL so much as it’s directed at the fact that most of what I've been saying is either being misread, misinterpreted, or misrepresented. Seriously, there's no real anger on this end of things. I'm just trying to have a discussion. But, this is the internet...so, maybe my hopes were a little too high.

 

Most (not all) of the responses in this thread don't address anything I've actually said, and instead just throw out a vague "George Lucas is awesome" or "George Lucas sucks." Or, “That Myk guy is sick,” which is…confusing. I’m not sure where the evidence for that statement is, but to each their own, I suppose.

 

I've got no hate for the man, but I wouldn't say I've got much love for him either. Purely on a story-telling basis, he's just not very good. And, by his own admission, he's got almost no respect for the EU when a large part of "his" fanbase are such huge fans BECAUSE of the EU. He can do whatever he wants to his movies. And, I just won't buy them. I've got the originals on my shelf at home. I'll watch them, and I'll keep reading the EU.

 

I'm merely trying to illustrate why a fan might feel frustrated or even angry with the guy. Fact is, it's a little unnerving when you've invested so much time into the EU knowing that the plug could be pulled at any time without any notice by someone who just doesn't care. I don't think that's going to happen, because he still makes buckets and buckets and buckets of money off the EU. But, every time he says something derogatory about it; every time he changes something that sends ripples out into it, the fans of Star Wars feel a twinge of fear that he's just going to pack up all his toys and take them away.

 

Yes, it's his sandbox, but there are some fantastic sandcastles in there; Sandcastles that he did not build, but he's got the power to destroy them all without a second's thought and nobody can say anything about it. And, sure, even then, it's not like he's going to go to everyone's houses and take all their EU stuff away, but he can end it. And, I think that's the biggest concern with fans of the EU. We love Star Wars so much that we don't ever want it to end. It is a GALAXY, after all, and we're ready and willing to explore it all.

 

This whole "ownership" discussion is tricky because when you remove the “legality” of the issue from the discussion and look at it from a moral standpoint, things get blurry and grey. Yes, the universe of Star Wars technically belongs to George Lucas, but does that necessarily mean he “owns” all of the stories and information set within that universe that he had no part in creating? For example; Timothy Zahn named and created Coruscant. Without Tim, there would be no Coruscant as we know it today. (It was a rare moment when the EU pressed its way into the films, and the people rejoiced.) So, who gets credit for Coruscant? The planet exists in George Lucas’ galaxy, but it was created/dreamt up/made by Tim Zahn. Remove the “legal” answer, and I think things become a lot more complicated.

 

If I use your tools and your workshop to build a boat…do you get to claim ownership of the boat? It was my work. I made it. You may not have even thought about building a boat. I couldn’t have built it without using your workshop and your tools, but, still, I built it. I’m eternally grateful for you letting me use your shop, but does my using your shop give you the right to come back and make changes to or erase my boat altogether?

 

All things being perspective, I don’t think there can be a solid right or wrong answer to that last one. But, any human should be able to see both sides of the argument, and understand them. Anyone with a little empathy can at least see why someone might be a little miffed.

 

~ Myk

 

I totally see where you are coming from. I respect GL, for both his innovation in creating Star Wars and having the guts (even if he is condemned by many for it) to change what many fans saw as established.

 

And I do agree that there are many other writers out there who have written books and created details that have drawn in countless fans. (Me being one of them thanks to Matthew Stover... ahem.)

 

In fact, when I read about how GL didn't see anything EU as part of "his universe", I was actually... kind of happy in a weird way. Because, in my mind, I could imagine all of the characters, events and places I love that have been worked on by others aren't being trashed or completely ignored in GL's canon.

 

But maybe that's just me.

Edited January 26, 2012 by RepublicGurl

[GellonSW]

I love George Lucas. A man who stands by his belief as an independent filmmaker who despises the commercialism behind Hollywood yet has no problem appealing to the commercial masses with toys and game spinoffs!

 

Regarding his retirement, good riddance.

Edited January 26, 2012 by GellonSW

[TheHauntingBard]

Think some writers just want SW to be more than what LG intends with it, that's where the split comes.

GL made some great movies and well SW is one of them.

 

How ever what people forget is that next to the serious parts GL also likes the more silly things.

Argue all you want but Ewoks taking on troopers is hilarious , but after that I can't take the movie all that serious.

Jar Jar Binks is well pure GL if you ask me ,this is also Star Wars.

 

People like to cut out the 'kiddie' stuff because it's silly so SW is all serious and well written.

But you know what SW was never that serious to begin with.

It's fun for sure (I love the old movies) but let's not make more out of it than it really is.

 

Other writes made it more serious and fans want it to be like that.

But in some ways that's not appreciating what it was meant to be.

 

 

Same with the old Star trek, no matter how much other writers would try to write more serious stories.

Star trek with Kirk was pretty much slap stick in space.

The guy wit the red shirt dies and Kirk tries to nail an alien chick.

 

 

I prefer the old wacky SW myself, though I can understand why people like the more serious stuff.

[Myk-Ron]

An entirely reasonable position, Myk. And in kinda lumped-together answer to this and your prior post in answer to someone else, I, for one, don't blame anyone at all for not being too happy with the EU being quite so marginalized and segregated away, as it does indeed have a lot of peoples' additions to Mr. Lucas' dreams taking the galaxy far, far away into places George himself almost certainly couldn't and wouldn't alone.

 

I wouldn't even disagree that he's, for whatever reasons, put the damper on the fruition of the dream he started by not working more closely with, and not sharing more inspiration back and forth with, at least some of the creative and hugely respectable EU authors and artists.

 

I simply wanted to remind those that were over-focusing on the failures of a man that those failures are, while unfortunate and certainly undeniable (there could be much debate on their nature and extent, though not much on that there've been a few), what it's become is nothing short of extraordinary.

 

If I were given to being miffed about anything, it is that Mr. Lucas didn't embrace just a little more of the EU writers, didn't collaborate with them more; didn't let the dream evolve like, perhaps, it could have continued to do.

 

I could be wrong on that generalized speculation. Right or wrong or accurate to whatever degree it might be, I look around me in a digital place like this and I, at least, cannot feel angry at Mr. Lucas for his failures, whatever they might be outside my own opinions.

 

 

The dream is still alive. Its still fighting to grow and evolve. It's not just the EU authors expanding on and adding their own sometimes-wonderful and sometimes-silly and sometimes-ugh-bad additions to the galaxy far, far away.

 

The story of Star Wars ain't over yet. The dream lives on.

 

And by the look of things, its in some pretty decent hands, at least in this neck of the woods. Peel away the details of bugs and customer service staffed by 'Out to Lunch' signs and imbalanced PVP and people throwing dead cats at eachother over the fence of "L2P and stop being lazy / I don't wanna work in a gorram game" (amongst others), the dream's alive and well.

 

It's in, here, rather more competent than less hands. They will infuriate somebody sooner or later, and there will be someone or group of someones declaring that they've destroyed Star Wars and killed it dead.

 

Heck, they infuriated me with the Inquisitor storyline. I still want to give its writer a piece of my mind, and possibly a hug, because I suspect she's human and would probably sob in her closet if millions of people hate, are bored by or find merely annoying what she probably tried very hard to make be a good story.

 

It's an important thing to remember, that we're all human. Mr. Lucas, the SI class story writer, you, me, the people we might respectively hate the most.

 

Not a thing more, or less, with all the potential to dream dreams that change the world and pull stupid human tricks all in the same lumpy packages.

 

You're awesome! =)

 

I don't think I could say it better. Nor will I try.

 

Thanks, all, for the discussion. In the end, I think I could stand to be a little less harsh on the guy, but I don't feel I'm entirely wrong in my presentation of why SW fans would be upset with him. I think the fans that are miffed are justified in being miffed, but maybe not to the extent at which they are miffed.

 

He's not going to kill the EU entirely, and even if he does, it's had a hell of a run. Plus, we can always go back and re-read the books.

 

~ Myk

[Smackwell]

He's not going to kill the EU entirely, and even if he does, it's had a hell of a run. Plus, we can always go back and re-read the books.

 

Is there any evidence that he was ever going to "kill" the expanded universe? I'm asking of genuine curiosity. From what I read he's just quitting the blockbuster movie scene. I don't know if people heard he's retiring and came to the conclusion that Star Wars is over, or what.

 

He's probably still going to have the same involvement in Clone Wars as he did before.

[Rhysling]

It's too bad the final movie he made is so terrible.

[Jmannseelo]

And it's not just going to be Phantom Menace that gets the 3D treatment, apparently he's 3D-ing ALL of the movies. I-VI. Phantom Menace to Return of the Jedi.

 

I know. And I am beside myself with excitement. It's like a dream come true. The Battle of Geonosis. The duel on Mustafar. The Death Star trench run. The Millenium Falcon chased through the meteor field. Speeder bikes on Endor. And these are just a few of many fantastic, fun-filled moments we are going to be able to see on the big screen in 3-D. If there were ever six 2-D movies that were absolutely perfect for 3-D, the Star Wars saga is it. It's like 2000 Christmases all rolled into six movies. I honestly can't even begin to fathom how any Star Wars fan could fail to be excited, let alone so cynical and bitter, by such a wonderful occasion.

Edited January 27, 2012 by Jmannseelo

[Darth_Vampirius]

You, sir, have missed the point.

 

Good writing is "owned" by those who read it. That's why there are classes on Hemingway, and Faulkner. Those guys understood that once a story leaves your desk and is released unto the masses, it is no longer "yours" any more than it is "theirs." Those two would never come out and say, "But, I meant for it to be _______ " or "This is what I wanted for _______ ." They understood that a good story will mean any number of things dependent upon the person who reads it. Lucas does not. It's his thing, and nobody is playing with it the way he wants them to.

 

I never claimed ownership of anything, and you obviously only read what you wanted to of my post. It's not about fan ownership. It's about a man who let other people play in "his sandbox" and then got upset when they made a better sandcastle than he did. It's about a man who, like a spoiled child, threw a tantrum about it.

 

I got this impression from the interview as well. Beauty is in the eys of the beholder. If Lucas were a D&D DM, he'd be the kind of guy that says "No guys, you can't open door #2 yet because there is a terrible monster. Open door #4 instead."

 

Seriously, how ungrateful is he? You don't see Ozzy Osbourne changing his song lyrics because fans don't act how he wants. Lucas is famous because the fans found art in his original works. How dare he change them!

 

I had nothing but love for Lucas and I tolerated the changes well until I read this. Now after seeing him act like an eight year old over it, I don't care if he dies in a fire tomorrow. George Lucas, WE made YOU a billionaire. Stop whining about it!

Edited January 27, 2012 by Darth_Vampirius

[Myk-Ron]

I know. And I am beside myself with excitement. It's like a dream come true. The Battle of Geonosis. The duel on Mustafar. The Death Star trench run. The Millenium Falcon chased through the meteor field. Speeder bikes on Endor. And these are just a few of many fantastic, fun-filled moments we are going to be able to see on the big screen in 3-D. If there were ever six 2-D movies that were absolutely perfect for 3-D, the Star Wars saga is it. It's like 2000 Christmases all rolled into six movies. I honestly can't even begin to fathom how any Star Wars fan could fail to be excited, let alone so cynical and bitter, by such a wonderful occasion.

 

Have you ever seen a movie that was never meant to be 3-D, converted to 3-D? It's kinda awful.

 

The movies that look good in 3-D were shot on specialized 3-D cameras.

 

So, how do they make old 2-D movies into 3-D movies?

 

Well, basically, they copy each frame twice. You have the original frame and two copies. One copy gets a red tint and is shifted slightly to the left. The other copy is given a slightly blue tint and shifted to the right. They then layer those copies on top of the original. Without the glasses, you get a picture with blue and red fuzzy outlines. With the glasses, you get something that has illusion of depth, but is kinda blurry and ends up giving you a headache.

 

I wouldn't get too excited about it, if I were you. Unless George has a time machine, and goes back and shoots all the movies on the new 3-D cameras, it's not gonna be the 3-D experience you're hoping for...but, maybe he's got a time machine. Who knows?

 

More than likely, though...

 

You'll be so super excited that you'll wait in line for HOURS on end just to get a ticket. Then the day will come, and you'll camp out at the IMAX the night before just to make sure you get a good seat. You'll make an entire weekend of it. It will be the single greatest thing you've ever wanted to see...ever! And, then you'll see it, and it won't even come close to the vision you had in your head. And, you'll be so disheartened. You'll wonder if all that effort was just a big waste of time. What happened? You'll ask. It was supposed to be the best thing EVER, but it was a big dud.

 

You'll go home, dejected. You'll tell yourself, "okay. it was just the first one. He's trying something new. The next one will be better! The next one is gonna be AMAZING!"

 

Only it won't be. You'll repeat the same setup, you'll wait in excited anticipation, building it up in your head, only to be sorely disappointed. So dissapointed, you're actually kind of bitter about it. C'mon! After all that hype! It was supposed to be amazing!

 

Then, after you've seen them all, each a little worse than the last, you'll be griping about what COULD have been, and some kid will run in and say "it's his movie, he can do whatever he wants!"

 

=P

 

- Myk

[Myk-Ron]

Is there any evidence that he was ever going to "kill" the expanded universe? I'm asking of genuine curiosity. From what I read he's just quitting the blockbuster movie scene. I don't know if people heard he's retiring and came to the conclusion that Star Wars is over, or what.

 

He's probably still going to have the same involvement in Clone Wars as he did before.

 

I use hyperbole too much, I think. I need to stop that.

 

"Kill the EU" there means retcon things to the point of no return. Or, worse, stop allowing other authors/game designers/etc. to play in his universe because he's tired of the complaining. The fear, I think, justified or paranoid, is that he's so...uninvolved with and uncaring about the EU that he'd just pull the plug one day because he feels like it.

 

It's not hinted at directly, but with all the changes he makes to his own works...what's stopping him? He's flat out said that it's not his ball of wax...that he doesn't particularly care about the EU or what effects his changing his movies has on them. What if, in another ten years, he goes back and changes the movies again, and it completely alters the SW reality? Does the EU just get a reboot? Does it stop altogether? Do we get seven books that do nothing but try to explain why R2D2 never says anything to Luke (Like, "hey, I was your dad's personal astromech droid and I watched him slaughter children!") or Obi-Wan ("Hey, Bud. Long time. How's that whole maiming your former student/friend, splitting up his children, and living like a hermit plan going? Good?").

 

Maybe that's it...maybe that's what bugs people. I don't know. He makes a change in the foundation, and suddenly the authors in the EU have to try to figure out a way to make it make sense. Maybe if the EU had free liscense to say, okay, we're basing this over-arching storyline on the movies circa (insert year here) and any future changes will not affect it...but, I think, currently, they HAVE to incorporate those changes...I don't know. It's getting late. I'll think more on this after I sleep on it.

 

- Myk

[Bonquchko]

 

Then, after you've seen them all, each a little worse than the last, you'll be griping about what COULD have been, and some kid will run in and say "it's his movie, he can do whatever he wants!"

 

=P

 

- Myk

 

Thank you, Myk. Couldn't have said it better myself

[Tuscad]

You'll be so super excited that you'll wait in line for HOURS on end just to get a ticket.

- Myk

 

Now I can experience the rage from the original launch of the Phantom Menace all over again!