Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

With a lot of people contesting his bad decisions and other people having serious creative input his ideas were able to be shaped into brilliant stories. But when he has complete control......yeah.

ChocolateGork wrote:With a lot of people contesting his bad decisions and other people having serious creative input his ideas were able to be shaped into brilliant stories. But when he has complete control......yeah.

Even then, I wouldn't say they were brilliant. Starwars was a real marvel of technology at the time, and had a solid plot and some iconic characters, but hardly anything original or thought provoking.

sebster wrote:
So really, what's left for Lucas to do in the world of big budget movies for nerds? He couldn't

I could see him making 3 new lord of the rings movies that takes place after the 3rd one.

Frodo finds out his Father was Gandalf.











Or an Orc.

sebster wrote:I mean, I love what Lucas did in the early part of his career, with Star Wars and Indiana Jones, his flair for serial storytelling worked well there, but let's be honest, even in his best movies where the dialogue worked and the characters came to life it was rarely because of him.

This couldn't have been said any better!

http://redlettermedia.com/

Good. This is the moron who brought us Ewoks, Gungans, Hayden Christiansen, anti-Communist monkeys and giant ants. I will not miss him.

I mean he only wrote Episode IV which, don't get me wrong, may be good but it's pretty much 'Space Princess is kidnapped by Space Lord but gets saved by humble farmboy who finds out he actually has magical powers'.

My favourite of the films is Return of the Jedi and that, as well as Empire Strikes Back, wasn't directed by Lucas. Hell he didn't even write the second one (though I am not sure about the third). In short, before we started hailing Star Wars as his 'singular vision', he was moderated and not given total control. And that's how it should have stayed.

With the latest Indiana Jones, I like to imagine it was Spielberg doing all the work whilst Georgey, left in the corner with his crayons, just had an epic tantrum about wanting cute monkeys..

AustonT wrote:Add fethface from the prequels to RotJ as Lukes father instead of the original actor, feth why not put ewan macgraegor to replace Alec guiness.

Yeah that really confused me because Lucas did that BEFORE he made the prequals.

I am one of those old gits that can remember queueing round the block to see the original movies in the cinema. I have seen every single release of a Star Wars film in the cinema and the prequals are weak, limp wristed pieces of marketing toss by comparison to the originals.

4-6 had heart and soul poured into them 1-3 had their soul sold for box office cash. I sat in the cinema wondering how far Lucas had declined into dementia for episodes 1-3 to even seem passable to him.

I liked Episodes 1 and 3.

Although 1 could be dismissed, perhaps, as not being necessary.

3, despite Christiansen's best attempts to de-rail it with EPIC WHINING, was quite dramatic, even if it did feature that cringe-worthy scene with 'so this is how democracy dies...' (don't try to be profound, George).

2, however, was just utter mush and vomit-inducing. Sure we get a nice CGI fight at the end but up till then it's Lucas-tries-to-do-romance. IT'S LIKE YOU'RE TORMENTING ME!

I don't mind the new films, but the way he screws around with the old ones is a problem, especially when he won't offer us the choice of watching the old ones.

Okay, he did eventually allow the release of the original cuts of the films as a 'special feature' alongside the Special Editions of the films. But as they were 'special features' they were just transfers from previous releases and didn't have the restoration with to clean up a few of the issues and return them to the original quality.

Cleaning up the footage to restore the original look is not the same as filling the film with CGI clutter BTW.

Why can't he understand that people want the nostalgia value of seeing their films as they were when they were young? It's really not a difficult concept to grasp.

It is unlike Mr Lucas to miss out on a marketing ploy.

Why does he not just relase each edition in a separte box set and a huge big set?

There are a LOT of fans out there that would buy such things.

-Loki- wrote:So I sent this to my fiancee at work. Her response was priceless.

What a cry baby.

I'm a billionaire waaa!!!


Automatically Appended Next Post:

sebster wrote:Meh. The prequels were bad movies, but they'd done and can't be undone. Crystal Skull was also pretty lame, and sunk the other Lucas franchise that had goodwill left in it.

So really, what's left for Lucas to do in the world of big budget movies for nerds? He couldn't

I like his claim he's going to go do personal, arthouse films now. A bit like Michael Bay claiming the same thing in the wake of Transformers II. As if an arthouse film was just the bit with the actors, but none of the hassle about lining up CGI production schedules. It worked for Coppola, because even with his big budget films he was dealing with serious issues, and telling the story through fully developed characters.

I mean, I love what Lucas did in the early part of his career, with Star Wars and Indiana Jones, his flair for serial storytelling worked well there, but let's be honest, even in his best movies where the dialogue worked and the characters came to life it was rarely because of him.

I thought Spielberg did the Indiana Jones movies. Am I wrong in that?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Sonophos wrote:It is unlike Mr Lucas to miss out on a marketing ploy.

Why does he not just relase each edition in a separte box set and a huge big set?

There are a LOT of fans out there that would buy such things.

I see the 3 redo's are now coming out in 3D. Seriously count me out.

Fafnir wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:With a lot of people contesting his bad decisions and other people having serious creative input his ideas were able to be shaped into brilliant stories. But when he has complete control......yeah.

Even then, I wouldn't say they were brilliant. Starwars was a real marvel of technology at the time, and had a solid plot and some iconic characters, but hardly anything original or thought provoking.

A lot of people reckon Lucas's best film ever was "American Graffitti".

The best Star Wars is "The Empire Strikes Back", which he didn't direct.

It was Spielberg who directed all the Indiana Jones films so you can't blame Lucas for those.

You know, I really like George as an idea's kind of guy. He is generally a pretty strong producer, and is at his best when he gives other people the room to tweak and build on his ideas.

I think as a director and screen writer he has a lot of sharp edges. Also, he has grown rigid with age, and reluctant to let people play around in the owrlds he has created.

Plus, no one can claim that he doesn't understand the "business" of making movies. I think he was/is a pioneer in that regard.

American Graffiti was good, but I liked Hollywood Knights much more.

Yes Empire was the best.

I like the Indie films quite a bit (except Crystal Skull, that was just sad)

I think I am the only guy on the planet who honestly prefers Return of the Jedi...

Nothing happens in Empire! We get lovely Hoth and then some incredibly boring exploits on Cloud City whilst Luke plays around in a swamp... Finally Luke turns up at Bespin, gets the chance to have that immortal line delivered to him, reacts worse than Hayden Chrstiansen: NOOOOOOOOOOOO-NOOOOOO-NOOOOOOO! and the films ends with his kewl robotic hand.

RotJ all the way. Just pretend the Ewoks are Wookies or something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tell me the space battle at Endor wasn't epic... Just don't ask yourself how the Empire lost after the Death Star blew up (they could have gone... 'crap the Death Star blew up!' 'n' just charged in and pweened the Rebels before mourning for Palpy...)

Your arguments are compelling. ROTJ does have the best space battle.

I think the idea is that the Emperor was holding the fleet in thrall using the dark side. When he died they all thought WTF am I doing this is just a really bad idea.
Maybe Luke being the Jedi that he had just become got on the comms and said "These are not the ships you are looking for."
Either that or they should do a whole sequence where the rebels kick thier butts using all the fighters they have scrambled. The star destroyers kept thiers in the bays.

Henners91 wrote:I think I am the only guy on the planet who honestly prefers Return of the Jedi...

Nothing happens in Empire! We get lovely Hoth and then some incredibly boring exploits on Cloud City whilst Luke plays around in a swamp... Finally Luke turns up at Bespin, gets the chance to have that immortal line delivered to him, reacts worse than Hayden Chrstiansen: NOOOOOOOOOOOO-NOOOOOO-NOOOOOOO! and the films ends with his kewl robotic hand.

RotJ all the way. Just pretend the Ewoks are Wookies or something...


Automatically Appended Next Post:
Just tell me the space battle at Endor wasn't epic... Just don't ask yourself how the Empire lost after the Death Star blew up (they could have gone... 'crap the Death Star blew up!' 'n' just charged in and pweened the Rebels before mourning for Palpy...)

Unless I'm mistaken (I'm not a Star Wars nerd, I just like the movies and a few of the games), the expanded universe answers this question. It's not so much that the Empire falls because the Death Star blows up, it's that their leaders have both died, and the Empire is falling into chaos as more and more Imperials vie for the position of leader. IIRC, the war actually continues a good number of years because the Empire was so large and powerful.

On-topic, I seem to be one of the few who enjoyed all six movies. The fights were always good, the plots were dramatic, and the characters were interesting. I admit that I hadn't yet been born when the original trilogy was in theaters, but I have fond memories of watching all three original movies on VHS when I was a kid. I really didn't mind the changes he made to the movie - to be honest, I hardly notice them. The scene with Greedo looks a bit silly (Han seems to teleport when he dodges the shot) but all in all, it seems like people react as though he edited all of Vader's lines to be spoken by Gilbert Gottfried.

Maybe I just don't get it since I never saw them in theaters, but really. Some Star Wars nerds act as though it was a tragedy of epic proportions that Lucas retroactively edited his own masterpiece to make it look and sound better.

Kilkrazy wrote:

Fafnir wrote:

ChocolateGork wrote:With a lot of people contesting his bad decisions and other people having serious creative input his ideas were able to be shaped into brilliant stories. But when he has complete control......yeah.

Even then, I wouldn't say they were brilliant. Starwars was a real marvel of technology at the time, and had a solid plot and some iconic characters, but hardly anything original or thought provoking.

A lot of people reckon Lucas's best film ever was "American Graffitti".

As do I. Love that movie.

The war carries on, yes, and I think in the expanded universe it's stated that despite his 'distractions' with Luke 'n' Vader 'n' all the Emperor was using battle meditation.

He had ordered the fleet to stay back, too, though they were engaged by the rebels at close range to shield their cruisers from the Death Star.

What I don't understand is how the rebels successfully disengaged a fleet that they went into close-quarters with and was a lot bigger than them... this isn't a question of whether the war continued (it did, aye) but rather the result of a battle. The command ship was destroyed I suppose and the Emperor killed, I think the canon explanation is that the fleet retreats in panic... But darn it! The Impy officers were British! Stiff upper lips should have prevailed and discipline be maintained I am sure there was still a chain of command to follow...

I think the Empire splitting up into warring sects under the Moffs is fair enough, but that wouldn't have started happening during the battle itself would it? Or was there an awkward moment when three Impy officers realised they had the same rank?


Automatically Appended Next Post:
But surely, provided they didn't retreat and even without direction from superiors or battle meditation, the Empire's fleet was big enough that even in anarchy they could have pweened the rebs

RotJ was the best Star Wars movie. Episode 1 was ok (go Liam Neeson!), 2 made me cringe a bit, and 3 should have just been a 2 and a half hour movie about Jar-Jar dying, give the fans a some bang for their buck.

As far as I'm concerned the Star Wars series starts when Padme and Anakin land on the planet where that big fight takes place. Nothing before that really adds anything to the story.

And god did I feel bad for actors like Natalie Portman and McGregor when I watched that series. Excellent actors forced into bad acting by horrible directing and a horrible script.

I'm glad he's retiring. I'm over him destroying his work and the work of others that kept star wars alive between films.

Sidenote on the rebels winning at Endor. In the books the Emperor has for years been basically supplanting a large portion of the fleet and it's officers freewill with total obediance. He was also supposedley increasing their effectiveness and discipline. So when the Emperor died not only were the people missing that controlling presence but they weren't exactly on the top of their game like the rebels were skill wise. None of which matters since that was brought forth originally in the Timonthy Zahn series which Lucas butchered with his take on the Republic and the Clone Wars.

I don't get the love for ROTJ. That was just a preview for the prequels, IMO...creaky dialogue, wooden performances, strange lack of actual drama. Check out Ford's performance...even he can't rise above the script. But to each his own. It's interesting to me that the critics were lukewarm on TESB in 1980, and now most feel it's the best film (I think it is by far).

It kinda begs the question...do some writers and directors just get lucky early on and then coast? Look at Sly Stallone. Rocky is a terrific film, it really is. Stallone wrote a gem of a movie there...smart dialogue, great characters, and a fairly non-Hollywood ending (he loses). But all the sequels that came later -- although still crowd-pleasing -- were progressively worse movies (although Rocky Balboa was IMO a slight improvement).

I wanna know what happened to the guy who wrote Rocky just like I wanna know what happened to the guy who directed and wrote American Graffiti.

Thick Neck is not ruining cinema anymore? Oh thank god!

I'll take all the blame for him leaving, this one time....

Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Laurence Fishburne star in a film about The Tuskegee airmen about 20 years ago???

well I for one am not to blame. I like what he did with the movies. he took old stock and brought it up to par. whats wrong with that?

I plan on seeing red tails too. I happen to be an aviation buff (and former USAF)

Do_I_Not_Like_That wrote:Correct me if I'm wrong, but didn't Laurence Fishburne star in a film about The Tuskegee airmen about 20 years ago???

I'd check but Wiki is down for the day

http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0114745/

IMDB isn't down though. Tuskegee Airmen, 1995, Lawrence Fishburne.

Ahtman wrote:
If you missed the Daily Show interview you also missed a great moment where we found out that the impetus for him making Red Tails was to inspire black teens and that he is the first to make a movie about the Tuskegee Airmen.

There was a movie starring Laurence Fishburne about the Tuskegee Airmen before Red Tails (was about to say recent, because I just saw it earlier today but failed to remember the title, but apparently it was originally released in 95).. I *THINK* the thing that makes Red Tails much more important as a movie is that the cast is much more predominately black, and is not a "black comedy" (such as Tyler Perry movies and the like)

Initial reviews are few so far but strictly meh on Rotten Tomatoes. Now that Lucas went wa waing, I'm concerned the movie could suck, so want to see some good reviews before I spend ill gotten gains on it.

Ensis Ferrae wrote:

Ahtman wrote:
If you missed the Daily Show interview you also missed a great moment where we found out that the impetus for him making Red Tails was to inspire black teens and that he is the first to make a movie about the Tuskegee Airmen.

There was a movie starring Laurence Fishburne about the Tuskegee Airmen before Red Tails (was about to say recent, because I just saw it earlier today but failed to remember the title, but apparently it was originally released in 95).. I *THINK* the thing that makes Red Tails much more important as a movie is that the cast is much more predominately black, and is not a "black comedy" (such as Tyler Perry movies and the like)

To you and the posters above you, I have a direct link to the Laurence Fishburne movie at IMDB. It is right there in the quote and everything, though for some reason it has the picture of the PBS documentary on the page, but the rest of the info is for the movie. It isn't made up of comedians and is predominantly black.

Its also a fairly decent film