Enough Lucas Bashing Already!

[lordofdamornin]

Apparently, the prophecy was never interpreted correctly in the movies. There are numerous interpretations right now, but so far, unless George has clarified exactly what it was supposed to mean, none of them are correct. So, either it was to destroy the Rule of 2, or it was to destroy the Sith, or it was to make it 2 and 2 or whatever.

 

Not sure, but so far word from Lucas has been Jack and Squat, and Jack just left town. George has a love of keeping things deliberately vague.

 

I wonder if he knows that is the source of rabid fanboys all saying their interpretations are correct, or the hate mail he gets if or when he finally does clarify something.

 

I get the feeling sometimes that George just makes it up as he goes, and doesn't even think of the long-term. Other times, I think he does it intentionally just to troll the fans or pull off a practical joke on them.

 

I went to a book signing once, to meet one of my favorite authors. I was excited to meet the man who had written such an amazing story, and thought that would correlate back to the man himself.

 

I was wrong. While they are decent people all-around, both he, and George Lucas, share a common set of traits when the topic is about their work (story).

 

Arrogant asses, who believe their own hype, and very much enjoy the power that their fans give them.

 

I can't tell you how disappointed I was, both after that book signing, and after some of the things George has done to his timeless story.

 

Riôt

[Velaran]

I went to a book signing once, to meet one of my favorite authors. I was excited to meet the man who had written such an amazing story, and thought that would correlate back to the man himself.

 

I was wrong. While they are decent people all-around, both he, and George Lucas, share a common set of traits when the topic is about their work (story).

 

Arrogant asses, who believe their own hype, and very much enjoy the power that their fans give them.

 

I can't tell you how disappointed I was, both after that book signing, and after some of the things George has done to his timeless story.

 

Riôt

 

Who was it?

[AttackAdaClones]

It is not really arrogant to do things your own way. Lucas did things his own way, take it or leave it. I think it is respectable.

[Eillack]

I went to a book signing once, to meet one of my favorite authors. I was excited to meet the man who had written such an amazing story, and thought that would correlate back to the man himself.

 

I was wrong. While they are decent people all-around, both he, and George Lucas, share a common set of traits when the topic is about their work (story).

 

Arrogant asses, who believe their own hype, and very much enjoy the power that their fans give them.

 

I can't tell you how disappointed I was, both after that book signing, and after some of the things George has done to his timeless story.

 

Riôt

 

Who else?

 

And...waht were you expecting haha? You'd be in denial to not get cocky a tad bit after creating one of the most well known, popular, world changing franchises ever.

 

I would be "Man...I did great. I own." All the time. And so would everyone else. Sorry the real world shocked you.

[Captain_Zone]

I went to a book signing once, to meet one of my favorite authors. I was excited to meet the man who had written such an amazing story, and thought that would correlate back to the man himself.

 

I was wrong. While they are decent people all-around, both he, and George Lucas, share a common set of traits when the topic is about their work (story).

 

Arrogant asses, who believe their own hype, and very much enjoy the power that their fans give them.

 

I can't tell you how disappointed I was, both after that book signing, and after some of the things George has done to his timeless story.

 

Riôt

 

The only author I ever met and had him sign my book was Richard Marcinko. The guy is about the most egotistical dude on the face of the earth. He, however, earned the right to be so. And even that didn't stop him from being extremely cool.

 

Unfortunately, not all authors can balance ego with cool. *shrug*

[SlaveToTheWheel]

So.... let me get this straight: You don't blame George Lucas AT ALL for his handling of the prequels, the fallout from the prequels, and any inability to take constructive criticism on his part? Are you blindly defending him in spite of how badly done the Prequels were and how he retconned himself with the latest release of the OT?

 

I'm just trying to get some clarification here.

 

Do you defend his hypocrisy at the 1988 Congressional Hearings where he argued against the very things he did to the OT with the subsequent re-releases?

 

Do you defend him refusing to give the Library of Congress original cuts of the Original Trilogy for their records? The old cuts he gave them are archive only, and he refuses to give them original cuts for viewing. When asked, he gave them the latest releases only.

 

Your post seems like another "LEAVE GEORGE ALONE!!!" post, tbh.

 

 

You're a lot more polite this time around... Did your original post get deleted?

Somehow, I'm not surprised - it was very rude.

 

The only thing you need to remember is that you are arguing - with yourself, predominantly, it seems - over children's movies.

That's all there is to say. Children's movies!

And your response is to attack a man until he leaves the arena.

 

THX-1138's reissue with extra scenes and editing is superb. It enhances the film in ways you, obviously, can't even understand.

That is the George Lucas I'm defending. The man who is a consummate filmmaker - a genius.

 

And just because you don't like what he did to some Children's movies, you and your like want him run out of town.

None of your arguments even remotely have merit for your actions when put into the perspective that you're talking about a human being.

 

Just grow up.

Star Wars is a franchise for children - I'm here for my son (who loves this franchise to bits, just as I did when I was a Child), not myself - and people like you have trouble separating a human being from some children's movies.

It's sickening.

Edited June 6, 2012 by SlaveToTheWheel

[Velaran]

The only thing you need to remember is that you are arguing - with yourself, predominantly, it seems - over children's movies.

That's all there is to say. Children's movies!

And your response is to attack a man until he leaves the arena.

 

THX-1138's reissue with extra scenes and editing is superb. It enhances the film in ways you, obviously, can't even understand.

That is the George Lucas I'm defending. The man who is a consummate filmmaker - a genius.

 

And just because you don't like what he did to some Children's movies, you and your like want him run out of town.

None of your arguments even remotely have merit for your actions when put into the perspective that you're talking about a human being.

 

Just grow up.

Star Wars is a franchise for children - I'm here for my son (who loves this franchise to bits, just as I did when I was a Child), not myself - and people like you have trouble separating a human being from some children's movies.

It's sickening.

 

Some, of the Star Wars movies aren't really supposed to be for kids you know. There's forced amputation in at least five of the movies, and the consistant lesson that if someone is faceless you can kill them with no repercussions.

 

Let's not even talk about the EU.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Velaran

[LoKiei]

Lucas is rolling around in a pool full of money, he really doesn't give a sht.

 

If I were him I might even make Holiday Special sequal, just to induce rage.

[Captain_Zone]

You're a lot more polite this time around... Did your original post get deleted?

Somehow, I'm not surprised - it was very rude.

 

The only thing you need to remember is that you are arguing - with yourself, predominantly, it seems - over children's movies.

That's all there is to say. Children's movies!

And your response is to attack a man until he leaves the arena.

 

THX-1138's reissue with extra scenes and editing is superb. It enhances the film in ways you, obviously, can't even understand.

That is the George Lucas I'm defending. The man who is a consummate filmmaker - a genius.

 

And just because you don't like what he did to some Children's movies, you and your like want him run out of town.

None of your arguments even remotely have merit for your actions when put into the perspective that you're talking about a human being.

 

Just grow up.

Star Wars is a franchise for children - I'm here for my son (who loves this franchise to bits, just as I did when I was a Child), not myself - and people like you have trouble separating a human being from some children's movies.

It's sickening.

 

Hmmmm. Well, now. Since you are on here arguing that we need to LEAVE BRITNEYGEORGE ALONE!!!, who's more childish? Those of us who have constructively criticized him in other threads about how he could have done it better, handled it better, and been a better person all around instead of the childish "NO MORE STARWARS FOR YOU!!!" garbage that he pulled? Or maybe George treating ALL the fans like crap because of a few rabids?

 

Personally, I would have settled for some decent dialogue in the prequels and maybe some filler for all the plotholes he left in the road. And honestly, you calling him a genius filmmaker made me ROFL for a few minutes. He used the extent of his "genius filmmaking" on the OT, mostly in ANH since he actually directed and wrote the script for that one instead of using script doctors and a different director for ESB and RotJ.

 

For storytelling on a grand scale, George did a great job. For interpersonal relationships, character development, and love stories, not to mention dialogue, he leaves quite a bit to be desired.

 

And as Vel said in an above post, Star Wars was not really for children. In fact, the only one in the theaters that would qualify was Phantom Menace. It was the most "kiddy" of the 6 movies. Simply because it lacked profanity? No. George wanted movies for the entire family, not just kids.

 

And saying his "enhancements" made the OT better is, quite simply, sheer ignorance.

 

Example: OT Han Shot. He killed Greedo in cold blood. That scene set the stage for the ruthless drug smuggler to start his journey to become a true hero by the end of RotJ. Han Solo was NOT a nice character. He was charming, charismatic, and had a complete lack of ethics or morals.

 

Re-release: Greedo shot first. Up in smoke with the setting showing how Han went from ruthless drug smuggler to true hero. He was acting in "self defense" and was easily excused for shooting Greedo. The original message has been lost to the new generation. George Lucas retconned himself. Only hack authors do that, man.

 

Next time, I suggest thinking before you defend someone like George without knowing all the facts.

[SlaveToTheWheel]

Hmmmm. Well, now. Since you are on here arguing that we need to LEAVE BRITNEYGEORGE ALONE!!!, who's more childish? Those of us who have constructively criticized him in other threads about how he could have done it better, handled it better, and been a better person all around instead of the childish "NO MORE STARWARS FOR YOU!!!" garbage that he pulled? Or maybe George treating ALL the fans like crap because of a few rabids?

 

Personally, I would have settled for some decent dialogue in the prequels and maybe some filler for all the plotholes he left in the road. And honestly, you calling him a genius filmmaker made me ROFL for a few minutes. He used the extent of his "genius filmmaking" on the OT, mostly in ANH since he actually directed and wrote the script for that one instead of using script doctors and a different director for ESB and RotJ.

 

For storytelling on a grand scale, George did a great job. For interpersonal relationships, character development, and love stories, not to mention dialogue, he leaves quite a bit to be desired.

 

And as Vel said in an above post, Star Wars was not really for children. In fact, the only one in the theaters that would qualify was Phantom Menace. It was the most "kiddy" of the 6 movies. Simply because it lacked profanity? No. George wanted movies for the entire family, not just kids.

 

And saying his "enhancements" made the OT better is, quite simply, sheer ignorance.

 

Example: OT Han Shot. He killed Greedo in cold blood. That scene set the stage for the ruthless drug smuggler to start his journey to become a true hero by the end of RotJ. Han Solo was NOT a nice character. He was charming, charismatic, and had a complete lack of ethics or morals.

 

Re-release: Greedo shot first. Up in smoke with the setting showing how Han went from ruthless drug smuggler to true hero. He was acting in "self defense" and was easily excused for shooting Greedo. The original message has been lost to the new generation. George Lucas retconned himself. Only hack authors do that, man.

 

Next time, I suggest thinking before you defend someone like George without knowing all the facts.

 

I'd suggest watching the episode of Prophets of Science Fiction where people like Ridley Scott, Roberto Orci and Lucas himself point out that the films were made for children who had lost hope and imagination after the Vietnam War.

 

You can rail against me all you like. You're completely welcome to.

But the fact remains we have different views on a person - the operative word being person - who you can't separate from films.

I note you decided not to mention THX after I had, quite pointedly, referenced that - I take it, you don't know the film?

Now, you'll say you do, after hastily looking up the storyline to try to rebut me again, but I quite sincerely suggest you look at his other work before declining the notion he was a genius.

So you don't like what he did with Star Wars, the point remains, why attack the man? why not restrict your vitriol to the films?

That's the point I'm trying to make... Stop attacking a human being for making decisions you disagree with about some kids movies.

 

I disagree with certain things done in relation to Pixar movies - ie: sequels to Cars and so forth - but I don't attack their producers, writers or the company, I keep it sensible and just say how much I dislike the film.

 

Attacking a human being over something so arbitrary is, quite frankly, stupid.

 

EDIT: Rereading what you had written, it occurs to me you didn't even know THX-1138 was a movie (I never once said anything about additions to the Original Trilogy) - you really believe it was the sound system! There is nothing more you could write that would allow me to take you seriously.

Edited June 6, 2012 by SlaveToTheWheel

[Captain_Zone]

I'd suggest watching the episode of Prophets of Science Fiction where people like Ridley Scott, Roberto Orci and Lucas himself point out that the films were made for children who had lost hope and imagination after the Vietnam War.

 

You can rail against me all you like. You're completely welcome to.

But the fact remains we have different views on a person - the operative word being person - who you can't separate from films.

I note you decided not to mention THX after I had, quite pointedly, referenced that - I take it, you don't know the film?

Now, you'll say you do, after hastily looking up the storyline to try to rebut me again, but I quite sincerely suggest you look at his other work before declining the notion he was a genius.

So you don't like what he did with Star Wars, the point remains, why attack the man? why not restrict your vitriol to the films?

That's the point I'm trying to make... Stop attacking a human being for making decisions you disagree with about some kids movies.

 

I disagree with certain things done in relation to Pixar movies - ie: sequels to Cars and so forth - but I don't attack their producers, writers or the company, I keep it sensible and just say how much I dislike the film.

 

Attacking a human being over something so arbitrary is, quite frankly, stupid.

 

EDIT: Rereading what you had written, it occurs to me you didn't even know THX-1138 was a movie (I never once said anything about additions to the Original Trilogy) - you really believe it was the sound system! There is nothing more you could write that would allow me to take you seriously.

 

Ok, it's getting late, so I'll keep this short. I don't care about "THX-1138". We were discussing Star Wars, and George's botching of said movies. I also know he made American Grafitti. Does that matter here? No. In THIS discussion, as in any discussions about George on this site, we have kept it to the Star Wars franchise exclusively. His other works don't even come into play here. Star Wars is what he is known best for, and what he botched the most. Like it or not, that's how it is, and that will be his legacy.

 

You trivialize his best and worst work, but they're one and the same. George Lucas created Star Wars. Hundreds of millions or even billions of fans worldwide, to some degree or another. Ask the average Star Wars fan what else George has done, and they won't be able to tell you. Why? Most don't care. Their fandom for Star Wars begins and ends with Star Wars. George is just the guy who created the movies.

 

What it boils down to is, Star Wars has outgrown George Lucas.

 

And seriously, you think him retconning himself is trivial as well? The cantina scene with Han and Greedo is just the tip of the iceberg there. If you can get your hands on them, I suggest watching the original OT and then watch the latest re-releases. When an author retcons his own work, that's like asking for a Mulligan in Golf. In amateur circles, that's acceptable. But with something like Star Wars in the Hollywood movie industry, that's like asking for a Mulligan at the Masters or US Open.

 

Ok, this post has gone on WAY too long if I'm using freakin' Golf analogies. Work in the morning. Need sleep.

[Maaruin]

I think we have been drowning this thread..hehe

 

Well, it seems others have taken it back again...

 

 

I looked at it as the Trade Federation isn't a military. They were some kind of "corporation". I may be wrong, but the simple fact they had the word "Trade" in their title had me thinking they weren't military. Therefore, they wouldn't have made trained tactical decisions.Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan seeing that they had "an invasion army" seemed to be a surprise to them, that's how I came to that conclusion. Maybe they SELL those droids as security tech?

 

True. On the other hand Captain Panaka says "Our security volunteers will be no match for a Federation battleharden army." Still, if their leaders were only business-men, your explanation is valid.

 

Was Yavin a gas giant? If so, then they may not have been able to blow it up. That would make sense. But idf you were to blow up a planet, the moons would be obliterated by the shockwave, even if only by meteorites. At least, that's how I would see it.

 

Yes, it is. Shockwaves in space are a complicated story, especially in Star Wars... Asteroids could do damage, but they could also miss.

But lets stay with the gas giant explanation

 

Even if you are talking about the hand itself being cybernetic, the glove on that hand would be damaged. Think about the damage to Luke's cybernetic hand when he got shot in ROTJ.

 

I think there was some kind of EU explanation that the fact his arms are cybernetic was why you never see Vader shoot lightning out of his hands because of what it would do to the electronics.

 

 

Some special blaster proven glove...

 

(I just don't like it to be a Force move. Not only because he should be able to block a lightsaber than, but also because this was my explanation when I saw it first. It's like a "Han shot first" moment for me, even if only my thoughts are retconned by the EU. Of course it is not as important as the Han retcon for me.)

 

Your explanation/the EU explanation is the canon one, I think.

 

 

I don't know. I guess if someone goes into the movie not knowing about the OT, hiding Palpatine's identity as Darth Sidious might work, but I think for the most of us, Palpatine being the ultimate bad guy would be obvious.

 

It would be more to hide it from the Neimodians. But maybe black robes don't indicate evil from an in universe and the Neimodians just wondered about Palpatines strange fashion choices.

 

So hide Palpatine from from the Nemoidians rather than the audience? I think I'm lost with what you are saying.

 

Exactly. It would have made Darth Maul a character as important as the fight against him indicates.

 

To me, bad dialogue is bad dialogue. There's a great story from Harrison Ford when there was an AFI Honors presentation for George Lucas where Harrison says to George during the filming of ANH, "George, you can write this stuff, but you can't SAY it...". The most cringe-worthy scenes to ME, were the scenes between Anakin and Padme trying to "fight their feelings" on Naboo and declaring their love for each other before they enter the arena on Geonosis. You just feel it in your gut when you hear them say it. As an actor, if you can't get the audience to feel what the character is feeling, then either YOU aren't a romantic, or the actors aren't projecting the feeling.

 

And so many people bith about Jar Jar in the Prequels, and I have to say HANDS DOWN, the most irritating scene in ALL of the prequels was C-3P0 using 70's slang while R2 was draggimng his head across the ground and he says, "Oh, this is SUCH a drag...". That was the WORST scene in the entire saga to me.

 

Probably I have to watch AOTC again and I will notice these things.

 

Once again, if you have an important mission to accomplish, you send the person with the greatest chance of accomplishing the job. If Jango is the best in the galaxy and the job is an important job, to send anyone else would be an illogical choice. Why would you deliberately send a 2nd or 3rd string assassin if you have access to the best?

 

That's true. But then Jango kind of ruined it with hiring Zam, I guess.

 

That's exactly what I got out of the movies, that Palpatine was a genius and master tactician, accompanied by his access to the force to see future events, makes him the perfect person to accomplish a power grab on this scale. As Sidious is so fond of saying, "Everything is proceeding as I have foreseen it..."

 

Okay, I think we can agree on this.

 

Remember that these aren't just regular Knights. They are trained with abilities that would allow them to kill someone with a thought, sway their choices, and kill most any other man one on one with their fighting skills alone. There is a much higher level of responsibility with training them. Attachments puts a risk into the equation that someone would willingly use these abilities (in a dark manner) to save those they love (family, lovers, etc.)

 

That's true. I can understand why the Jedi are a celibate order and why they have to cut their ties to their families. But avoiding attachments completly isn't possible. All Jedi would have to be hermits then.

Maybe it's just that they call it "no attachments", but the longer I think about it, the more it seems to be some sort of euphemism

 

They aren't emotionless, they are simply trained to NOT be emotional when making decisions. Think of how many awful decisions are made because someone was "upset at the time" (otherwise known as "temporary insanity")? It is the same as becoming a monk or any such other religion where you are trained to renounce "personal possessions". Why do they do that? Even consider military training, if you aren't properly trained, you can put the mission in jeopardy if you are more concerned about the life of your best friend who just got shot. You follow that training to accomplish the mission first.

 

Jedi are bonded to each other, and they are "compassionate" as Anakin explains to Padme. But it's a matter of accomplishing the mission first. And if you train someone to have access to all these incredible abilities, you have to take extraordinary precautions. "With great power, comes great responsibility", that sort of thing. Now whether or not personal attachments SHOULD be permitted or not is another debate entirely. For the sake of the story, it's the case.

 

In EU, I believe when Luke restarts the Jedi Order (after ROTJ) he permits personal relationships, as he gets married to the character of "Mara Jade" himself.

 

I view things the same way. Probably I don't like how it's formulated in the Jedi Code though.

But I don't know how far Lucas decided this, so it's probably off topic

 

 

He absolutely could, but why? We're into semantics here. there are infinite possibilites as to how the story could have gone and wwhat we would have personally liked to see. Part of understanding films is understanding the person behind them. We know that if we see a Tim Burton film, the movie is going to have a sort of "gothic feel' to it. If Terry Gilliam is going to make a movie, we can expect "surreal elements", if Quntin Tarantino is going to make a movie, it's going to have bizarre conversations and a 70's movie feel to it. George makes movies primarily to mirror the old action serial cliffhangers and films he grew up with. Akira Kurosawa (The Seven Samurai and Yojimbo) was one of his greatest influences. This is why Jedi are so similar to Samurai. George was mirroring classical storytelling such as King Arthur to tell the story of a "chosen one". It's George's style of storytelling.

 

Also, something else to consider is the possibility that Anakin WASN'T the "chosen one". Mace Windu, Obi-Wan and Yoda all have a conversation where Mace talks about how he doesn't trust Anakin, and Obi-Wan asks him, "Isn't he the chosen one who is supposed to bring "balance back to the force"? Yoda even admits that there is a possibility that the prophecy may have been "misread".

 

Aside from the story of Anakin EVENTUALLY returning to the light and destroying Darth Sidious making him the "chosen one", here are the two OTHER possibilities that I saw from this conversation:

 

1. Anakin IS the chosen, but the prophecy was misunderstood and he brought "balance" by his actions in the sense that after all is done, there are 2 Jedi (Obi-Wan and Yoda) and 2 Sith (Sidious and Vader) left in the galaxy. This creates an alternate form of "balance".
   
2. Luke is actually the chosen one as he is the one responsible for turning Anakin back to the light and destroying The Emperor.
   

 

Just something to think about.

 

Okay, I think your right. It seems to be my personal taste again. Since it is part of the movie I interpret the prophecy as fulfilled with the Emperor's death and the Sith destroyed, but I have to ignore some of the post-ROTJ EU for this.

 

But your idea of Anakin (and Luke) not being the chosen one and the prophecy just missunderstood... I have to think about this.

 

True, but there are many artists out there that make the art for themselves rather than what they think "might be popular". Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

 

And I think in this case it worked, but not as good as Lucas had hoped for.

 

I'm simply referring to the amount of information and development you can achieve in a book, compared to a 2 hour movie.In some cases, film might be better (for example, showing a building, rather than spending 3 pages describing it), but in many cases, you can get more "internal dialogue" and descriptions of a character's thought processes that aren't easy to represent on film.

 

Agreed.

 

Absolutely. I'm in many of those conflicts myself in the other forum. But the general gist of this thread was about the "Lucas-bashing" that goes on. And the "loudest fans" are the ones who get heard over the rest of us. Lucas has made a declaration that he won't be doing any more Star Wars films because of so many of the "loud fans" telling him what a horrible person he is. I don't blame him. Although I absolutely LOVE Star wars and will soak it up wherever I can get it.

 

You can be disappointed in a movie. You can even hate the movie, but if it gets to the point where you feel that you need to say the most horrible stuff (not YOU) about someone to express your disappointment, maybe you need to step back and re-evaluate yourself.

 

That's true. And I think I can agree with you now, that "Lucas-bashing" has gone to far and ask those who do it to tone it down.

(That wasn't my opinion in the first place, so congrats, you made me change my mind )

 

I think this is part of the problem. We, as fans, feel entitled in some way. As if George "owes us something" for making him a success. It's a weird way of looking at things. We didn't "make him a success" as some kind of favor to him. He got what he wanted and we got what we wanted. In both cases we got MORE than we wanted. It's not OUR place to "set the bar" for George to reach and demand he jump it. This is HIS original idea and he owns the franchise. His only responsibility is to make himself happy. If he is happy with the film and we aren't, that's too bad for us. It's BETTER for him if we like it, but do we expect him to make something PURELY for us? That seems selfish.

 

Once again, I'm not saying I agree with all of his choices. I'm pretty disappointed in quite a few things, most especially that he isn't releasing an unaltered theatrical version of The Original Trilogy. What seems the MOST disappointing to ME on this, is that it doesn't seem like something George would actually do. This is the guy who made a stand on "colorizing" black and white films because of the "historic quality" of the original prints, but he doesn't view his own film in the same way. That inconsistency makes me disappinted in George Lucas as a PERSON, more than anything.

 

Not that I'm saying he's "bad person", he is VERY active in charities and a supporter of improving education in this country. I think he is a great person, I'm just disappointed in his viewpoint of the historic quality of his own film, especially since he knows so many of his fans want it. it doesn't keep him from making any tweaks he wants to make. But it would be a "kindness" to his fans to release them if nothing else.

 

Agreed.

 

To me it's like slapping someone's hand when they pass you the broccoli because you HATE brocolli and didn't want it, and then are upset that you aren't allowed to continue the meal. It the over-reaction of the fans to a film they weren't happy with, so they are deliberately trying to HURT the creator. It shows a serious lack of character.

 

I wouldn't go that far. I think most "bashers" don't lack character. How you behave in fandom is not necessarily connected to how you behave in normal life.

 

I don't know. I don't really think of "subtle" when I see characters like "Salacious Crumb" laughing constantly for comedic value, the triple gainer flip that Luke pulls off to act like he's jumping in and jumping back out, or the flailing and screaming of Boba Fett when he slams into the sail barge and falls into the pit. And remember that the film may have seemed "subtle" by comparison due to the technical limitations that George had then as opposed to now. As once he was able to, he went back and made the Sarlacc look more like a living thing. If he had the CGI capabilites then, would he have made it a much grander action scene?

 

Sure there's an argument that the lack of technical capabilities may have made the OT better by it's restraint, but who's to say that the bigger and flashier action scenes wasn't ALWAYS his style and he was simply limited at the time? I often wonder what the Original Trilogy would have been like if he was less retrained. Did we like the OT by luck?

 

Actually, I was talking about the first half of Revenge of the Sith. It shows how Anakin takes more and more small steps towards the dark side. Compared to his "dark side jump" with the Sandpeople.

 

I am absolutely LOVING this series and it just seems to keep getting better the longer it goes. In some cases, it is making me like the PT more. One of my favorite episodes was the trap the Gungans laid out to take general greivous down and Grievous fight against Captain Tarples (The military Gungan from Episode I). I won't spoil it for anyone else, but I think they did a good job on it.

 

Also how they are developing characters that we only get a glimpse of in the films. Jedi council members and Commander Cody. It helps patch some of the development holes from the films.

 

What I didn't like about this episode was...

 

 

...that they exchanged him shortly after that. It made Tarples sacrifice almost meaningless. I think he should have remained captive for some episodes with some serious republic successes. Then make the Exchange a very difficult decision for the last episode of that arc. (It doesn't need to be Anakin, if he is not important enough.)

 

 

I'm not personally a religious person, so if you are, please understand that I'm not trying to be insulting. I know many people who are absolutely CONVINCED that they have had conversations with God. To me, it's unbelievable. I've never had that experience and I've never seen an instance where any proof of a God has ever been documented (Even though people say they have witnessed it). Therefore, i am NOT a believer although I know that approximately 90-95% believe in some kind of supernatural force. I consider myself to be fairly well educated, I just happen to belief in what I can prove or can see to be proven.

 

If Motti doesn't have regular access to seeing a Sith in action, he may believe that the people who are telling him these things are "superstitious". If he believed in the force, I don't think he would have been mouthing off to Vader like he did. he BECAME a believer shortly after.

 

I see your points. Still, Motti was in his late teens during the clone wars and for a coreworlder Jedi seem like public knowledge in the movies.

Since he doesn't seem to be the exeption among the officers, there probably were sceptics about the Force before the Jedi were destroyed. Something I would like to see explored more, but it's corellation with RL is probably to controversial

 

Haters gonna hate...

 

May I ask: If it was shown in the movies or TCW similar to what you described, would you see it as insulting for your RL opinion? Since in the Star Wars universe these position would be "wrong" and "used by Palpatine".

 

I've never been clear on that particular group that Dooku was working with. When they are introduced in AOTC, they appear to be "corporate interests" (Banking Clan, Techno-Union, Trade Federation) that are funding Dooku's Separatist Movement. I don't think they are the "leaders" of their worlds, just the secret organization ("Illuminati",if you will) that are pulling the strings for their own (and each others) benefits. I don't think the Republic is aware of this group being the "power behind the power", as they are never mentioned in the Republic's war plans. I could be wrong. But the only one they DO mention is Grievous, because they are aware that he leads the Droid Armies.

 

Sidious has Grievous moving the "Illuminati" around to "protect them" (until he no longer NEEDS them). Once Darth Sidious has his plan in motion, has his army, has the extended powers in the Senate and had the Jedi off balance and spread out throughout the galaxy, each with a platoon of Clone Troopers loyal to his orders, does he no longer "need" The Separatists that HE himself put together. So sending Darth Vader to "take care of them", makes Anakin feel like Sidoius is a brilliant leader who "found them" to end the war, when the Jedi couldn't. remember that Sidious was also the one who told them where to find Grievous. Sidious was cleaning house on the opposition he organized to wage a war HE created, to get the powers he needed.

 

You make a good point with the Republic not knowing about them but knowing about Grievous. It still doesn't make Grievous character necessary, but he is a product of this "action-trend". I think his four lightsabers alone support this.

 

The "muppet" worked for the time period he was originally introduced because they couldn't really do him any other way (except maybe a little person in makeup) but I think having him so small was a fun contrast to his BIG power and wisdom. Personally, I like the CGI better because of being able to see Yoda in action and how expressive his face could be. Even Lucas was hesitant to make a CGI Yoda in Episode I, because he didn't think it was being pulled off properly. So he was a muppet again (which looked awful for some reason) until Episode II. Then only recently, Lucas went back and put a CGI Yoda in Episode I (and we're all tense now, wondering if he's going to attempt to put CGI Yoda in the OT... I pray not)

 

CGi is in a strange limbo in film right now, Most people aren't sure if they like it or not. It's probably a generational thing. CGI allows you to create characters that you could never have done by a real person. But there is also something to be said for the "physical quality" of having something in the scene rather than having people act like something is there that isn't. It's hard for a lot of actors to act when they have nothing physical to react to.

 

During the last years it seems that there are some movies that just go full CGI, like Avatar. (The Producer even said something like "I don't care about if it doesn't help the acting.") And they make awesome action movies. And others tone down the CGI (maybe because of the budget) and make awesome story movies, like Hunger Games. (There are also not so awesome movies in both categories.)

In the time the Prequels were made, they tried to get both, and some movies did a fantastic job (LOTR). Others, like the Prequels, worked with flaws.

 

(These statements are opinions, not necessarily facts )

 

I don't know, I'd have to watch it again. I didn't get an initial impression of that. When Qui-Gon and Obi-Wan fought Maul together, they were a tighter fighting unit. When Anakin and Obi-Wan were fighting Dooku, Anakin wasn't really working WITH Obi-Wan. (Which is why Obi-Wan emphasizes to Anakin that they will take him "together" in ROTS). Dooku and Maul also have visibly different fighting styles and weapons, so i can imagine it would look different. Then again, they may have intentionally toned it down to create a greater difference when Yoda shows up and starts flying around the room on Dooku. Heheh

 

I have to admit, the more we discuss, the more I start to like AOTC. I have to watch it again, some time.

 

Yeah I've heard about directors who do that sort of thing like they feel the original story wasn't "actiony" enough so they changed it. My biggest ongoing complaint like this was "X-Men Origins: Wolverine". They introduced Deadpool as a character (one who has a PHENOMENAL fanbase - including ME) who is known as "The Merc with a Mouth" and not only changed his look at the end, but gave him powers he didn't have and literally "sewed his mouth shut". The "Merc with a Mouth" didn't have a mouth. There was absolutely NO reason for it unless Ryan Reynolds had quit the film before they made those scenes (which wasn't the case) and they were trying to explain why he didn't say any lines. And the full length swords in his forearms? How would he bend his elbows? It was absolutely unnecessary and lazy.

 

Nobody should be directing a film based on a book if they aren't even SLIGHTLY familiar with the material. It's a disaster every time.

 

I didn't know about Deadpool, but I see you feel the same pain as I

 

 

 

Those *red letter?* videos:

 

Guess what? I can make a video of me talking, slow it down so it adds to the *stupid* tone that I am going for, and edit a bunch of *random people's* (also known as my friends who agreed to help) words to emphasize the satirical slant that I am putting on my commentary. Sure can...easily. I truly feel sad for anyone whose thinking and/or opinions were moved in any way by those videos, or any others like them.

 

Videos like that use a special flavor of Kool-aid called *Sensationalism.*

 

Politicians use it, and entertainers like Jerry Springer and Doctor Phil use it, too. Do you know why?

 

Because stupid people, and sheep, eagerly guzzle it down, and ask for more.

 

Riôt

 

So I am a stupid sheep and you feel sad for me. Okay.

 

But I still think they are fun to watch and I still think some of his points are valid. (And you can always ask yourself how you would have answered the questions he asked his friends. I for once could probably describe Qui-Gon's character in TPM, but still get in trouble with the others.)

[Jorelle]

i think its freaking hilarious that all you people are getting all QQ and pissy over movies. Im gonna say this because its my opinion and i really dont give a crap what anyone thinks of me... i love star wars all of them who the Hell cares if the movies sucked or not if it wasnt for GL we wouldnt have had the 6 movies, the toys, the books, hell even the games. So GL i thankyou for that. Call me fanboi, yea it doesnt hurt my feelings or anything. Will it better off my living situation because some of the movies sucked no, but what it does it give both me and my son something to enjoy together and that is what is important to me.

[Captain_Zone]

i think its freaking hilarious that all you people are getting all QQ and pissy over movies. Im gonna say this because its my opinion and i really dont give a crap what anyone thinks of me... i love star wars all of them who the Hell cares if the movies sucked or not if it wasnt for GL we wouldnt have had the 6 movies, the toys, the books, hell even the games. So GL i thankyou for that. Call me fanboi, yea it doesnt hurt my feelings or anything. Will it better off my living situation because some of the movies sucked no, but what it does it give both me and my son something to enjoy together and that is what is important to me.

 

It's something to do during the day when work is slow. Bash on Lucas some. He created Star Wars, but he no longer contributes to it, and hasn't since the 6 movies. So we'll go ahead with our nerdfights in spite of your QQing over others QQing. I always love to read those.

[Jorelle]

It's something to do during the day when work is slow. Bash on Lucas some. He created Star Wars, but he no longer contributes to it, and hasn't since the 6 movies. So we'll go ahead with our nerdfights in spite of your QQing over others QQing. I always love to read those.

 

first off if you actually read my little paragraph there, i said it was freaking hilarious, not at any point am i QQing about those that are QQing. I just dont care, just think its funny thats it, basically same thing you just got through saying.

[Captain_Zone]

first off if you actually read my little paragraph there, i said it was freaking hilarious, not at any point am i QQing about those that are QQing. I just dont care, just think its funny thats it, basically same thing you just got through saying.

 

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have even posted in this thread.

[Jorelle]

If you didn't care, you wouldn't have even posted in this thread.

 

lol your funny one arent you, you know im not gonna fall in your little trap of giving you something to do. all i did was post my opinion like everyone else did and does. and second i can post here if i want just like you.

Edited June 6, 2012 by Jorelle

[Captain_Zone]

lol your funny one arent you, you know im not gonna fall in your little trap of giving you something to do. all i did was post my opinion like everyone else did and does. and second i can post here if i want just like you.

 

Ok, so if you were walking down the street and overheard a conversation in a group, you would poke your head into the group and say "I don't care"? That's pretty much what you did here. Just sayin'.

[Jorelle]

Ok, so if you were walking down the street and overheard a conversation in a group, you would poke your head into the group and say "I don't care"? That's pretty much what you did here. Just sayin'.

 

no i wouldnt because it would be none of my business

[RDeanOU]

Ok, it's getting late, so I'll keep this short. I don't care about "THX-1138". We were discussing Star Wars, and George's botching of said movies. I also know he made American Grafitti. Does that matter here? No. In THIS discussion, as in any discussions about George on this site, we have kept it to the Star Wars franchise exclusively. His other works don't even come into play here. Star Wars is what he is known best for, and what he botched the most. Like it or not, that's how it is, and that will be his legacy.

 

You trivialize his best and worst work, but they're one and the same. George Lucas created Star Wars. Hundreds of millions or even billions of fans worldwide, to some degree or another. Ask the average Star Wars fan what else George has done, and they won't be able to tell you. Why? Most don't care. Their fandom for Star Wars begins and ends with Star Wars. George is just the guy who created the movies.

 

What it boils down to is, Star Wars has outgrown George Lucas.

 

And seriously, you think him retconning himself is trivial as well? The cantina scene with Han and Greedo is just the tip of the iceberg there. If you can get your hands on them, I suggest watching the original OT and then watch the latest re-releases. When an author retcons his own work, that's like asking for a Mulligan in Golf. In amateur circles, that's acceptable. But with something like Star Wars in the Hollywood movie industry, that's like asking for a Mulligan at the Masters or US Open.

 

Ok, this post has gone on WAY too long if I'm using freakin' Golf analogies. Work in the morning. Need sleep.

 

I would argue that it's worse than a golfer asking for a mulligan.

 

I would argue that it's like a painter who decides to storm into the homes of the people who bought his work so that he can make further edits to the art that these customers had already bought. It's freaking insane. Can you imagine Vincent van Gogh deciding 20 years after finishing Starry Night that he wanted to paint some new details into the work? Can you imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci had decided to go into King Francis the I's throne room and say, "Hey King, I know you already bought that Mona Lisa painting, but I decided she needs some blonde highlights in her hair. I'm just going to take this brush in there and fix it to what I've decided it needs to be now."?

 

George Lucas was the creator of Star Wars, but it doesn't belong to him. It belongs to everyone who has paid over the years to enjoy it.

Edited June 7, 2012 by RDeanOU

[Setsugetsuka]

I would argue that it's worse than a golfer asking for a mulligan.

 

I would argue that it's like a painter who decides to storm into the homes of the people who bought his work so that he can make further edits to the art that these customers had already bought. It's freaking insane. Can you imagine Vincent van Gogh deciding 20 years after finishing Starry Night that he wanted to paint some new details into the work? Can you imagine if Leonardo Da Vinci had decided to go into King Francis the I's throne room and say, "Hey King, I know you already bought that Mona Lisa painting, but I decided she needs some blonde highlights in her hair. I'm just going to take this brush in there and fix it to what I've decided it needs to be now."?

 

George Lucas was the creator of Star Wars, but it doesn't belong to him. It belongs to everyone who has paid over the years to enjoy it.

That's a stupid metaphor.

 

George Lucas didn't walk into your homes and change the movies, he didn't personally go into every home, steal their Star Wars movies. He edited his own movie, then offered his edits to the world, it's a completely different scenario.

 

If a painter(Lucas) wants to change his painting, then by all rights he should be allowed to, it's his art, it doesn't belong to the people who paid money to go and see this art. If you go into an exhibition, and you don't like the art, you can't go to the entrance and demand a refund because it wasn't to your liking, you suck that **** up and move on with your life.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Setsugetsuka

[Hitomo_x]

That's a stupid metaphor.

 

George Lucas didn't walk into your homes and change the movies, he didn't personally go into every home, steal their Star Wars movies. He edited his own movie, then offered his edits to the world, it's a completely different scenario.

 

If a painter(Lucas) wants to change his painting, then by all rights he should be allowed to, it's his art, it doesn't belong to the people who paid money to go and see this art. If you go into an exhibition, and you don't like the art, you can't go to the entrance and demand a refund because it wasn't to your liking, you suck that **** up and move on with your life.

 

So why cant you get the original versions of the old SW movies anymore?

I am stuck with an old VHS record of the movies if I want to experience all the glory of the original.

 

Lucas childish edits are forced on us.

 

but one thing will remain clear to everyone just by watching. The new SW movies are downright the badest movies ever made when we talk about storytelling, characterdevelopment, coherence or style, quality and taste

[Maaruin]

So why cant you get the original versions of the old SW movies anymore?

I am stuck with an old VHS record of the movies if I want to experience all the glory of the original.

 

Lucas childish edits are forced on us.

 

but one thing will remain clear to everyone just by watching. The new SW movies are downright the badest movies ever made when we talk about storytelling, characterdevelopment, coherence or style, quality and taste

 

You obviously never watched Battlefield Earth.

[Captain_Zone]

You obviously never watched Battlefield Earth.

 

I second this^

 

As much as we might bash on George, his botches are NOTHING compared to the outright flaming poodoo that is Battlefield: Earth.

 

Comparatively speaking, The Prequels are masterpieces of storytelling, with Oscar-worthy acting and dialogue, and the plotholes are non-existent. Battlefield: Earth was, to put it mildly, the Worst Movie I've Ever Seen.

Edited June 7, 2012 by Captain_Zone

[Mordegrus]

I second this^

 

As much as we might bash on George, his botches are NOTHING compared to the outright flaming poodoo that is Battlefield: Earth.

 

Comparatively speaking, The Prequels are masterpieces of storytelling, with Oscar-worthy acting and dialogue, and the plotholes are non-existent. Battlefield: Earth was, to put it mildly, the Worst Movie I've Ever Seen.

 

So you liked Jar Jar?