Official George Lucas Discussion Thread (Now w/ Civility..?)

Which director made the best films, made the best visuals, or smelled the best? This is the forum to find out.

What do YOU think about George Lucas?

No Talent Hack
8
20%
One of the All-Time Best
15
37%
Grow up, fanboys.
18
44%
 
Total votes : 41

Postby DaleTremont on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:08 am

burlivesleftnut wrote:bulbuttl makes excellent points, and lady sheridan's sig image make me want to puke.


It makes me want to pounce.

Okay...I could be completely off-base here. I'm certainly no Lucas expert. But from what I've read it seems that he really was a part of the whole revolutionary film movement begun in that golden age of cinema, that he and Francis Ford Coppola had pretty high-minded ideals and wanted to explore them to their fullest point. They wanted to make something that pushed the boundaries of movies.

Star Wars did that. No question there. And I'm a pretty big Star Wars fan. And yet there is a sense at times that Lucas is a bit derisive of his own creation. The kind of religious fanatacism that surrounds all things Star Wars...well, as I understand it, Star Wars wasn't some kind of intricate story Lucas was dying to tell but just another movie, and it snowballed into something larger than he originally conceived and had to keep up with himself. So if there is a sense of bitterness it traces back to that- Lucas wanted to change cinema, and he did, but maybe not in the way he'd imagined. I'm taking a lot of liberties here and this is more conjecture than anything (but then, so is the rest of this thread), but it seems like Lucas has kind of been devoured by a monster of his own making. Where do you go from Star Wars? Virtually nowhere, apparently.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:20 am

I think a lot of what's being argued in this thread rests on a false assumption. Most everyone here is working from an argument that in making inferior prequels, Lucas somehow betrayed his best film, his masterpiece as LS called it.

He didn't. His best film is American Graffiti. A New Hope is just puff pastry and what came after is icing.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby thomasgaffney on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:25 am

DennisMM wrote:His best film is American Graffiti.


THX 1138 and NOT the new, fucked up version either...
find me: twitter and goodreads
find my book: amazon
User avatar
thomasgaffney
a might unpredictable
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:11 am
Location: lost in a book

Postby DennisMM on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:30 am

THX=dull after the first half-hour. Looks good, though.
"If we don't believe in freedom of expression for people we despise, we don't believe in it at all." -- Noam Chomsky
DennisMM
NOT PARTICULARLY MENACING
 
Posts: 16808
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 5:02 pm
Location: Watchin' the reels go 'round and 'round

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:34 am

I have a different slant on why George is mediocre. I think the guy knows that he's creatively bankrupt and that's why he depends on his few hits continually in order to feel some form of security. He only talks about his "personal" projects, because he doesn't want to face what he has become. I also want to hear why exactly everybody seems so keen on the guy. I seriously don't get it.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:41 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:It seems that everyone else involved in Star Wars were able break from their type casting and create their own success independant of the phenomenon.

I presume this is irony?

Also, the writing credits on IMDB, it should be kept in mind, are in keeping with WGA guidelines - if there are projects, tv shows or movies that use Lucas's Star Wars characters, or adapt his stories from other projects he gets a writer's credit. This doesn't mean he's the sole writer of creative contributor.

As for Lucas' 'avant guarde' projects - five years is a short time for a director / producer like him - it remains to be seen what, if anything, he'll make once he frees himself of the franchises he has had a hand in creating.
Last edited by tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:42 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:41 am

I think the difference between Spielberg and Lucas is their reactions to their overflowing coffers. Lucas used his money to hedge himself in "in his own private Idaho, underground like a wild potato", while Spielberg is one of those rare birds who never quite completely shrugged off childhood. Whatever place Lucas was in when he made American Graffiti and Star Wars, it's not signposted clearly enough for him to go back there. Which isn't surprising really, it happens to most artists....(although, considering we're talking about Lucas, maybe I should use the word "creators" instead).

EDIT: I haven't completely written the guy off yet, though.
Last edited by Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:44 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:44 am

Exactly - I think ILM is a pretty significant accomplishment though, and not far away from the plans and dreams he had for 'Zoetrope' with Coppola .


edit: you know what? there's not a single reason for this thread to be in the EFBR.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby DaleTremont on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:55 am

The potential for ugly was there...but people have been all level-headed so far. Stop being so saintly!



and ILM is a bastion of creativity...however it's not a movie. You know...umm...obviously. And as far as auteur theory goes...Lucas can't exactly claim it as his own. It's the collaboration of a bevy of talented people he's gathered around him (kudos!) but that's a rather different kind of vision.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:56 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:5 years?? You're saying it's only been 5 years since 1977? Or maybe you're saying that it takes someone 25 years to make 6 movies?? is that the batting average for film makers these days?? Why even waste 30 years on something when you'd rather be doing smaller movies?


It's been about five years since he made the comment regards plans for 'avant garde' projects in the interview I quoted earlier.

DaleTremont wrote:The potential for ugly was there...but people have been all level-headed so far. Stop being so saintly!


Up Yours! then.

DaleTremont wrote:and ILM is a bastion of creativity...however it's not a movie. You know...umm...obviously.


yeah, like, derr
DaleTremont wrote:And as far as auteur theory goes...Lucas can't exactly claim it as his own. It's the collaboration of a bevy of talented people he's gathered around him (kudos!) but that's a rather different kind of vision.


Ok, so, Auteur theory, which no one brought up but you, is kind of irrelevant, as far as I can see. Creating his own succesful studio complex is quite an accomplishment for a director / producer (again, see Francis Ford Coppola)
Last edited by tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:01 am, edited 1 time in total.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:04 am

James Cameron* is a good comparison. By that estimation, Lucas has another five years, not to mention he is involved with projects that are coming to fruition, Like the new Indy movie.

*I think we'll see the fruits of Cameron's labour in years to come - Stereoscopic cinema techniques, for one.
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:04 am

Retardo Montalban wrote:5 years?? You're saying it's only been 5 years since 1977? Or maybe you're saying that it takes someone 25 years to make 6 movies?? is that the batting average for film makers these days?? Why even waste 30 years on something when you'd rather be doing smaller movies?


To paraphrase Orson Welles in a conversation with Peter Bogdanovich about Greta Garbo.

Bogdanovich: "It's a shame she only made three classic movies."

Welles: "That's two more than you need..."


Not that I'm the biggest Star Wars fan, but if I hit upon that mixture of vision and success, I'd happily rest on my laurels too.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby tapehead on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:12 am

Retardo_Montalban wrote:P.S. no more side stepping with other non movie bullshit. There are plenty of film makers who do as much if not more side shit as George Lucas and still end up making the movies they want to. Peter Jackson did Weta and he has a more varied resume than Lucas in half the time.


ok, so, maybe Peter Jackson. Who else have you got?
User avatar
tapehead
BALLS!!!
 
Posts: 9427
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 2:13 pm
Location: OZ

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:13 am

Naw, I'm saying that just because he isn't prolific doesn't mean he's a waste of space.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:16 am

The Monkey Island games justify at least a decade of pigging out at the ranch.
Dale Tremont Presents...

Image
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby DaleTremont on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:22 am

tapehead wrote:
DaleTremont wrote:And as far as auteur theory goes...Lucas can't exactly claim it as his own. It's the collaboration of a bevy of talented people he's gathered around him (kudos!) but that's a rather different kind of vision.


Ok, so, Auteur theory, which no one brought up but you, is kind of irrelevant, as far as I can see. Creating his own succesful studio complex is quite an accomplishment for a director / producer (again, see Francis Ford Coppola)


Gahh I can't keep up with your post-editing!

Auteur theory is relevent if we're talking about the man as a filmmaker, as I thought we were. If we're talking about him as a mogul, or an entrepreneur, or an all-around standup fellow, then that's a different story. But all this talk about avant-garde projects and Zoetroppe...I'm judging Lucas here as a creator of films, to the point where he can claim creative authorship of the final product. And by that measure, he really hasn't done too much. He hasn't lived up to his own expectations, never mind those of rabid fanboys/girls like us.

Which goes back to the original point of possible bitterness. All's I'm sayin is I completely see what LS is talking about when she points that out.
Image
User avatar
DaleTremont
Loincloth Bronson
 
Posts: 3507
Joined: Thu Dec 14, 2006 2:51 am
Location: Москва, bitches!

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 2:38 am

Bluebottle wrote:
Lord Voldemoo wrote:Let me ask you one question: did you find the prequels to be well-written?


No, I thought they were dreck, but that's totally besides the point...


Not at all, it was a direct response to this point that you made earlier:

Bluebottle wrote:and they don't trust him with the materials that he created in the first place.


His last foray into materials that he created in the first place were the prequels...which, you admit, were dreck. Why then should I trust Lucas with Indy IV or anything else for that matter? It sounds harsh, I'll admit, but he made some semi-bad movies. Based on that experience, I'm not willing to trust him blindly now. It's as simple as that for me...

EDIT: btw, I voted "not teh suk"...I will never say that the man who created the most beloved films of my childhood (probably life, actually) "sucks"...I just don't fully trust him now to make great films at this point in his life.
Last edited by Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:23 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:33 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:
Basically, I resent his (and by extension, many in this thread) implication that I don't like the movies because there's something wrong with ME, the audience. That's what I said originally in this debate and continue to stand by. Lucas is continually hammering on this point--WE didn't like Jar Jar, God help us, so HE is *forced* to remove him. There's never a "My bad!"
I'm a writer too--I can understand hurt and disappointment that your vision made it across, but a true artist needs to look within themselves and find the reason WHY.


I think this is what irks me too, honestly. Lucas has, repeatedly, blown off the critics with a wave of his hand. "Oh they wont like it, they never like it". That's been going on since pre-Episode 1. What is bothering me is that he is now doing it with the FANS. The Vanity Fair article is a perfect example. I was beginning to feel this way a while back, and his decision to cut out Jar Jar pulled me back from being annoyed by it..."my god, he made a concession!" There was also virtually no mention of midi-chlorians after Episode 1, another sore spot with fans.

He DID try to make the films that the fans wanted to see, to a degree. I give him credit for that.

But now he sounds like he's sliding right back into that "i'll do what I do" mentality...between his quote about the fans and his insistence on his way or the highway with respect to the plot of Indy IV.

It's off-putting, honestly, and arrogant. It's his creation (along with Spielberg and Ford) and he can do what he wants, but as a fan, I can also get annoyed by his flippant dismissal of what I want to see. I know I sound like a total fanboy here...and I am, heh...but fuck it. :lol:
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:49 am

I'm still not sure why I've taken the pro-Lucas stance, but what the hey, I'll run with it.

I think people are so used to actors/directors/producers/PR men being fawning, obsequious shills for their latest projects, that they're starting to feel as if they're entitled to be entertained. I find it kind of refreshing that George Lucas can be so nonchalant about his own creations, when there are fans who've carved their whole lives around Star Wars or Indiana Jones. It shows that he's a surprisingly centred individual.
Last edited by Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:57 am, edited 3 times in total.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:49 am

As an artist I would rather he makes what he wants and then the audience reacts (yay or nay) instead of the fanbase's sense of entitlement that they somehow should be part of the creative process because they "made" him.

I see people constantly complain in the Zone about movies made by committees,studios, focus groups etc and this guy (in this case along with Speilberg and Ford) is just ignoring that and pushing ahead with what he wants. Now everyone turns around and wants things "for the fans". wtf
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:54 am

seppukudkurosawa wrote:I'm still not sure why I've taken the pro-Lucas stance, but what the hey, I'll run with it.

I think people are so used to actors/directors/producers/PR men being fawning, obsequious shills for their latest projects, that they're starting to feel as if they're entitled to be entertained. I find it kind of refreshing that George Lucas can be so nonchalant about his own creations, when there are fans who've carved their whole lives around Star Wars or Indiana Jones. It shows that he's a surprisingly centred individual.


I'm not really sure why I've taken such an anti-Lucas stance when I didn't even bother to see AOTC in the theatre and probably won't see Indy 4. I'm a LOTR kind of girl... :oops: I mean, I loved Indy but I walked away in the 80's. Our relationship was done except for visitation, you know?

But is someone who constantly tinkers with his work a centered individual? Doesn't satisfaction come from being able to let go and walk away from one's work?
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:59 am

I've never known any artist who is ever truly satisfied with their own work.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:04 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:As an artist I would rather he makes what he wants and then the audience reacts (yay or nay) instead of the fanbase's sense of entitlement that they somehow should be part of the creative process because they "made" him.

I see people constantly complain in the Zone about movies made by committees,studios, focus groups etc and this guy (in this case along with Speilberg and Ford) is just ignoring that and pushing ahead with what he wants. Now everyone turns around and wants things "for the fans". wtf


Of COURSE i want to see these films as I'd like them to be. Who doesn't?

I understand your point about the artist creating his vision and allowing the fanbase to react. As a paying customer, I also have every right to express my displeasure and MY wish as to what the film should be. At the end of the day Lucas is going to do what he does. The fact of the matter, though, is that film, particularly blockbuster film, is a hybrid of business and art. To pretend any different is to live with your head in the sand. The fact of the matter is...we DID make him. That's not to say he owes us anything, but it seems pretty goddamned unappreciative to completely dismiss us as well.

He has his money now, he could make anything he wants without regard to any fanbase. Instead he's still making these blockbusters that have long-standing, firmly entrenched, RABID fanbases. If the man wants to dismiss those fans...well I don't feel too badly for him if he gets flamed for it.

EDIT: The problem with these arguments is they are so POLARIZING...i'm coming off as way more anti-George than I really am
Last edited by Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:07 am, edited 1 time in total.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:06 am

I will suspend my criticism and say that Lucas has been very nice to costume groups like the 501st. For all his merchandising, he's allowed the sale of fan-made costumes to go on unmolested. So props to him for that.

There is good in him...I feel it. ;)
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Lord Voldemoo on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:08 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:I will suspend my criticism and say that Lucas has been very nice to costume groups like the 501st. For all his merchandising, he's allowed the sale of fan-made costumes to go on unmolested. So props to him for that.

There is good in him...I feel it. ;)


Same with fan-made film...I think. Is it still that way??? Lucas had always been very supportive.
Image
User avatar
Lord Voldemoo
He Who Shall Not Be Milked
 
Posts: 17641
Joined: Mon Jul 18, 2005 1:18 pm
Location: Pasture next to the Red Barn

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:09 am

I think as long as people aren't making fisfuls of money off fanmade stuff his company looks the other way.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby Seppuku on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:17 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:But is someone who constantly tinkers with his work a centered individual? Doesn't satisfaction come from being able to let go and walk away from one's work?


I think, at least as far as the SFX in the re-releases go, it's probably partly to do with an old man trying to seem less redundant in a computer-driven age by making his opus look less like a dated, camp cult film and more like a fully-realised world. You could probably extend that justification to the prequels as well. Sure, he botched it, but I can understand why he tried.

I'm genuinely not that bothered over the "Greedo Shoots First" changes. Just the mere mention of it seems to send most people off on a high-falutin', "...it's the principles!" rampage, but as far as the film itself goes, it's not such a big deal.


When you're talking about the man behind the most popular movies ever made, walking away from them just isn't an option. It's no wonder Luca$ feels the need to constantly revisit them, when everywhere he goes they're constantly brought up.

Think about how most of the cast of Lord of the Rings (with the obvious exception of Mortensen, Orlando Bloom and a couple of others) have pretty much slid into the shadow of those movies. The same's happened time and time again with franchises- to people who've worked on both sides of the camera. The sheer magnitude of their success just becomes a creative black hole which they find impossible to claw their way out from, no matter how hard they try. Considering we're talking about the most extreme example of this, Lucas has held up pretty well.
User avatar
Seppuku
SWINGING PLASTIC LION
 
Posts: 7872
Joined: Wed Dec 07, 2005 2:52 am
Location: Limeyland

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:02 am

I don't want to know where any of the stuff I like comes from. I just like the stuff I like and want more.
Lucas diminished the original trilogy - midifuckingchlorians for god's sake. He reduced the force to a damn virus. Lucas is not a genius artist or storyteller (genius businessman maybe) he got damn lucky with Star Wars and when he wisely passed the reigns of script and direction to others he ended up with what is clearly the best film of all 6 and a good film in it's own right. Star Wars may have been the first and therefore the phenomenon but it's not well written, the direction is pretty good but like the script it's an amalgamation of archtypes updated to space - Lucas may have ridden the wave of what he tapped into but, to stretch a metaphor, he didn't create the ocean.

He was hugely overrated after the OT. And the PT should have shot him right back down to a more fitting level of praise. I mean the PT is Lucas' real vision - he had TOTAL control of every part of it and look what happened.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 9:46 am

Chairman Kaga wrote:Wow Retardo, not even fucking close. There is a pretty big gap between what Lucas has done and "creatively bankrupt". His attention and creativity has obviously been focused elsewhere for years. Name me another film director/writer/producer who has built companies branching into Television, PC and Console gaming, audio engineering, digital FX, practical FX, film and projection systems (plus their installation verification) to name a few. You want him to crank out more movies on top of that.....And your saying his movies aren't very good to boot so why do you want more? PJ and WETA are great but have done nowhere near the amount work of Skywalker Sound, THX, Lucas Arts etc. The technical advancements his companies have produced for film making far outweigh any of his films contributions to the art by a long shot.


Precisely the reason why I'll keep defending Lucas. Keep the "creatively bankrupt" nonsense for the talkbacks. Anyone who sets up a global media corporation that truly has revolutionized filmmaking and a lot of other media outlets associated with it solely from the success of a few silly (yes, I said silly) science fiction movies is alright by me. It's not like he's sitting on a beach somewhere, popping OxyContin and drinking margaritas while the checks roll in, for chrissakes.

I've said it before - George is a mediocre director, and even on his best writing day, he needs a good editor to sit down with. Yes, he got lucky with Star Wars, and yes, I don't think the prequels were nearly as good as they could've been. However, I don't think that's a reason to endlessly shit on him and immediately dismiss anything he's associated with in the future. If he's bitter towards the fans, I can almost understand it. There are people out there that claim that Star Wars is their RELIGION, for fuck's sake. How do you honestly keep people from being disappointed in you from that point on? If he tries to please one fan, he's got to try and please them all.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Bayouwolf on Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:17 am

George has become a right unto himself. I loathe him and love him for it. He's not arrogant, just oblivious.

And as far as being lucky... Why does everyone keep bringing up Star Wars? If it hadn't been for "American Graffiti", The Whole 50's revival thing would never have happened the way it did. "Happy Days" was a shitty pilot that was rejected until AG came out and started a revolution. Hell sitcoms, as we know them today, would probably not exist had it not been for that singular pop culture phenomenon. (Imagine a world without Fonzie...... I dare you)
Maybe in 20 years he'll re-release the prequels and fix everything we (as fan-boys and girls) thought teh sux.
And I'll be right back in line to see it again.
I don't care how bad the movie ends up being, just seeing that giant "Lucasfilm ltd." on screen will always make me smile like a little kid again.
Image
User avatar
Bayouwolf
Country Bouy
 
Posts: 3247
Joined: Sun Nov 04, 2007 8:55 pm
Location: In the GTA, bitches....

Postby Retardo_Montalban on Thu Jan 03, 2008 10:36 am

Lets focus here. There's like 2 totally different arguments going back and forth. One is the argument that George Lucas can't make a good movie any more, and the other is that George Lucas is the greatest business man in the world, because he created ILM and makes video games. Does anybody else see this?

I concede, George Lucas can create and sustain a company like nobody's business. He puts Spielberg to shame. It still doesn't mean the guy can make a good movie anymore.
Image
User avatar
Retardo_Montalban
doubleplusungood
 
Posts: 3682
Joined: Sat Dec 10, 2005 12:28 am

Postby Dyno on Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:13 am

Spielburg is one of America's great directors. He's respected now but once he dies and the world goes five or ten years without a Spielburg movie people will get it. They'll finally consider him to be the grand master he is, up there with Hitchcock and Kurosawa. Amercians tend to overlook their best while they are alive. Norman Rockwell had a similar reception back home while he was being exulted as America's greatest painter at the Uffizi gallery in Italy.

If you look to his list of movies you can see the reason why our society feels so strongly about certain subjects is because of the films he's chosen to make. Shindler's List, Jaws, and Saving Private Ryan are three easy examples. So the 4th Jones movie is going to be good overall. Steven will make sure of that.

George Lucas is an uneven director and writer. He's very imaginative and his ideas have been strong enough to float entire movies but he's not tight with his craft. He's a better collaborator than a captain and fortunately that is his role in the upcoming Indy flick.

Historically speaking however no one person has had more effect on the movies than Lucas. His inventions have revolutionized the art more than one director ever could. Theatres are built to accomodate THX. Special effects moved light years ahead thanks to ILM. His passion for an unfading digital medium to store films brought the format to Hollywood. As well, the Skywalker Ranch is a completely alternative studio to Hollywood that has assisted thousands of moviemakers in one capacity or another, giving them chances they wouldn't have got otherwise.

Lucas is the greatest movie maker of all time. People don't accept that easily because of his writing and directing, but think of it this way: Lucas's company has made or helped make hundreds of amazing films, a very small amount of which the owner has written or directed.

When my favorite movies of all time, The Lord of the Rings was having serious technical trouble they went to Skywalker Ranch and Lucas sorted them out. There are tons of stories like that.
Dyno
PRIMITIVE SCREWHEAD
 
Posts: 75
Joined: Thu Dec 20, 2007 10:12 am

Postby TheBaxter on Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:45 am

Lord Voldemoo wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:
Ribbons wrote:
minstrel wrote: My point was that if a sequel (or prequel) comes out much later, after we've grown up, we aren't as easily wowed. The original still has the power to trigger the original emotions through our memories, but the new one doesn't.

I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.


Although I think the original trilogy will stand the test of time compared to the prequels, which probably will not. Then again, it's still hard to get a completely accurate read because if you go in thinking one's a classic and the other's not, it might influence how you see the film.


Well, I think accuracy can be found in looking at the generation who saw the prequels, quite possibly, before they saw the OT. I don't know a single child who idolized Anakin Skywalker or Obi-Wan Kenobi the way we did Han and Luke. They lacked the original attachment, but failed to make one with the prequels. I wonder if George "I made them for kids" Lucas even recognizes he failed them just as badly...

I'm sure he'd just say that it was "those darn kids today," totally dismissing the fact that they worship H@rry Potter, Aragorn and Jack Sparrow.


Odd from my experience any kids that like I've known who fit that bill are super obsessed with Obi Wan, Yoda and Anakin atleast as much as Potter et al. On top of that most kids I knew at the time enjoyed Jar Jar.


Not me, sadly my experience has been the same as LS's. My friend Angie, for example, has 5 brothers and sisters ranging in age from 24 to 10. None of them were into the prequels at ALL. I don't think they even saw RotS. They worship at Potter's feet and love Pirates, but Star Wars just doesn't resonate with them at all. I sat them all down once to watch Attack of the Clones (I know, bad example but still) and the youngest two fell asleep...

I've heard similar things from my friends with kids that are younger than 10. I don't really know of any kids that are into the prequels, sadly.


this has been my experience as well, and i speak here from personal experience. i have a 10-year-old niece, she was too young for Episodes I and II, but really got into star wars sometime between II and III. she's seen both the OT and the prequels, and though she likes both, she loves the OT much more than the prequels. the christmas after ep III, she wasn't asking for an Anakin action figure or a Jedi Fighter; she wanted Han and Chewie and C3PO and the Millennium Falcon. i had to go on ebay that xmas to find her a C3PO figure because we couldnt find one in the stores.

now, nostalgia can definitely make us adults think a movie was better than it really was (see: Goonies) but in the case of SW and Indy, at least, the difference in quality is real. it's not just our childhood imaginations that made us think they were better, these really are classics. even my 10 year old niece can tell the difference.
Image
User avatar
TheBaxter
Carlos Danger
 
Posts: 19239
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 5:00 pm

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 11:54 am

Lady Sheridan wrote:Basically, I resent his (and by extension, many in this thread) implication that I don't like the movies because there's something wrong with ME, the audience. That's what I said originally in this debate and continue to stand by. Lucas is continually hammering on this point--WE didn't like Jar Jar, God help us, so HE is *forced* to remove him. There's never a "My bad!"
I'm a writer too--I can understand hurt and disappointment that your vision didn't make it across, but a true artist needs to look within themselves and find the reason WHY.


Yes, I agree with you 100%.

BUT, I wonder how much of him hating on the fans is true and not "sound bites" and I also wonder how much of it is just him protecting himself.

How horrible would it be to have to admit to yourself that you've pissed off millions of fans, ruined your own franchise and are not a very competent writer/director?

I just think saying, "Yeah, I screwed up, it wasn't very good, I DID rape your childhoods" would be difficult for anyone.

You're a writer too, so though you know how to take criticism and notes, but you must also know that feeling of, "Well, they just didn't get what I was going for" - even though it's just being defensive, it's still a common and natural reaction.

edit: for the record, i don't anyone in this thread is saying the prequels were good.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:22 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:See, I don't entirely buy that. Why do people watch Raiders and the original SW trilogy over and over again if they've grown out of them?

Also, I still believe that if Lucas HAD, in some weird fit of creativity, actually had every Star Wars fan submit their version of what went down between Anakin Skywalker and Obi-Wan Kenobi, you would have had a very similar consensus. You could have filmed a movie out of it that would have charmed 90% of them.

I don't know how many conversations I've had with various Star Wars fans over the years--different ages, different levels of fandom, and they ALL come up with a remarkably similar "I thought..." story. It's quite fascinating. It shows the level of imagination and suggestion Lucas put into the OT to create a collective mythology.

It's more that Lucas KNEW (or quite possibly, knew and forgot) and blatantly tried to write a whole new story to "surprise" us, and ended up disappointing everyone. Saying that he could never have pleased fans is bullshit and the worst kind of excuse. I genuinely believe he could have pleased the majority.

Time is going to tell about Indiana Jones. The fact that Lucas is already hating on us and our potential reaction says he's learned absolutely nothing--but we knew that. Spielberg's involvement is the only thing that gives me any hope that it could be good. I'm admittedly a hard sell on Indy 4, but I wouldn't hate on a good film...and I resent the idea that Lucas isn't even willing to TRY to please me or anyone else. That kind of "fuck you" attitude makes me wonder why the fuck he insists on reviving these trilogies.


I agree 100%. The prequels should have illustrated established truths and filled in the gaps of our imagination, but they largely went their own way and tried to shoehorn themselves into the mythos. Lucas' biggest problem is his revisionist history that he stubbornly stands behind. That's what pisses people off.

No one expects all of their expectations to met 100% of the time. But people do expect subsequent installments to be made in the spirit of the films they adore and to fall in line somewhat with its predecessors. I didn't like Last Crusade as much as the others precisely because it was more of a father/son adventure comedy than a rollicking serialized adventure movie. It wasn't bad, but not as good as the others, IMO (and largely a retread of the first flick to boot). My biggest fear is how much different this new movie will be compared to the others. It can look the same and sound the same, but if they didn't tap into that spirit of the original trilogy, many people are going to be disappointed.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:33 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:
minstrel wrote:I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.


Now that I agree with.

I think there *was* hope for the prequels--but quite possibly, they should have just been done as books and not movies. Who knows.

But I think Indy belongs to the past. It's time for new heroes and new stories, not trying to revive the 80's. This just smacks of Rocky-Rambo-Die Hard to me--Lucas, Spielberg and Ford still trying to prove they've "got it" against the Peter Jacksons, the Christopher Nolans, the Christian Bales...

A new age has begun! And there's a lot to be said for recognizing it and bowing out gracefully.



I also think it's telling that Hollywood is ressurecting these '80s iconic franchises 20+ years later. Remakes or belated sequels, it all adds up to the same thing: Hollywood has run out of ideas and/or their formula is flawed. In order to ensure success, they must dust off past successes because they're finding it difficult (or too expensive) to craft new ones. The '80s sported a lot of action movie icons, but who fits that bill now? No one I can think of.
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Fawst on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:36 pm

I'm in the "Lucas fucked up, I'm not to blame for the PT sucking ass" camp. Why?

"I don't care what planet you're from, that's gotta hurt!"
"Wizard, Ani!"
Jar-Jar.

And my favorite of all from Episode I... the botched high-five between mini-Greedo and the black kid, where mini-Greedo starts dancing like a moron and leaves the kid hanging. And those are just from the first movie!

The PT isn't horrible because of high expectations. It's horrible because of bad acting, bad direction, bad writing, bad music (for the most part, sorry), bad sound design (as cool as the sound of it was, those gravity bombs in Ep II just made me think of V'Ger), and overdone FX work. It was all around BAD. How can anyone blame us for expecting something good? That was the limit of my expectations, SOMETHING GOOD. I expect that from ANY film, not just something from the GOD that gave us Star Wars.

Now I'll go back and actually read more than 15 posts into this thread.
Prince of the Land of Stench!
User avatar
Fawst
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3088
Joined: Thu Nov 16, 2006 6:11 pm
Location: MacLaren's

Postby bluebottle on Thu Jan 03, 2008 12:38 pm

RogueScribner wrote:I agree 100%. The prequels should have illustrated established truths and filled in the gaps of our imagination, but they largely went their own way and tried to shoehorn themselves into the mythos. Lucas' biggest problem is his revisionist history that he stubbornly stands behind. That's what pisses people off.


And I think what pisses off Lucas to some extent is fans who feel that he has no right his own creation and that the mythos belongs more to them than to him.

I'm not saying anyone on THIS board feels that way, but you know there are fans out there who would push him down a flight of stairs for making Greedo shoot first.
User avatar
bluebottle
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 5354
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:17 pm
Location: Canada

Postby TonyWilson on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:05 pm

The thing is I don't think Lucas has ever been that grateful to his fans. I think this because he really didn't have a clue what people who liked the OT wanted when he wrote and directed the PT.
The PT was just an almighty cashcow for Lucas and I think that explains why some fans are really pissed off with him. He took what they loved and made it a toy commercial, as much money as the OT merchandising made, Lucas didn't create Star Wars with the goal of selling toys. The PT is truly lazy wheras the OT was a labour of love.
Elitism is positing that your taste is equivalent to quality, you hate "Hamlet" does it make it "bad"? If you think so, you're one elite motherfucker.
User avatar
TonyWilson
No Less Liquid Than His Shadow
 
Posts: 9155
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 3:45 am
Location: A Drained Swimming Pool

Postby RogueScribner on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:08 pm

Chairman Kaga wrote:
Retardo_Montalban wrote:
Chair man Kaga wrote:Wow Retardo. There is a pretty big gap between what Lucas has done and creatively Bankrupt. His attention have obviously been focused elsewhere for years. Name me another film director/writer/producer who has built companies branching into Television, PC and Console gaming, audio engineering, digital FX, practical FX, film and projection systems (plus there instalation verification) to name a few. You want him to crank out more movies on top of that.....And your saying his mvies aren't very good to boot so why do you want more?


I don't want more. I'm trying to understand everybody's unwaivering devotion of the guy. You're also side stepping again. You're acting like the guy has been sitting in some work shop inventing all these processes, instead of using his wealth and hiring a bunch of talent to do it for him. The latter isn't all that time consuming.
Why is everybody so shit sure that he's going to come up with a bunch of personal projects when history tells us he isn't. What did he produce in the 15 or so years after Ep.6? Is there some magic movie that I haven't seen that ensures that the guy is worth betting money on? It sure as hell ain't ILM.

and the star wars games suck balls.


Who said he was going to make any of these other small movies? Are you imagining shit in here? Contrary to your belief running a huge media conglomerate such as the one he has built from the ground up is actually time consuming. If it wasn't more writer/producer/directors invariably would do the same thing to circumvent the "studio system". Look at Speilberg's attempt to do the same thing. He had to start it up with two other partners all of them well versed in their fields and the whole thing (aside from their animation department) is now essentially defunct. Dreamworks didn't even delve into half the shit Lucas' various companies do.



And yet he had time to make 3 prequel Star Wars films. No small undertaking that was.

He's been harping about personal projects for years. I think the most recent one he's been talking about is Red Tails about the Tuskegee airmen. He hired a writer last year (though he's been talking about it since at least 2005) but I don't think it's anywhere near happening yet.

Lucas has the resources to do whatever the fuck he wants. If he really wanted to make smaller, more personal films he could. But he's gotta keep that Star Wars money rolling in, so he's focusing his attention elsewhere.

I'm not saying he's bad, creatively bankrupt, or whatever. He's in a position to do whatever he wants and he earned it. But he's repeatedly dismissed "fans" and he keeps talking up doing other things, how he is so over Star Wars, but I don't see him doing anything else. James Cameron has taken some time away from the spotlight, but he hasn't been resting on his laurels and he certainly hasn't been dogging his fans or making public statements about wanting to make movies but never getting around to it. Lucas, I'm sure, has a lot of ideas in his head he'd love to explore, but he doesn't. His biggest output in the past 20 years is working on Indiana Jones on the big screen and small, and working on Star Wars on the big screen and small. And he's still doing that today. I find that curious, don't you?
My eye isn't lazy; it's ambidextrous!
User avatar
RogueScribner
The Dork Avenger
 
Posts: 9609
Joined: Tue Oct 04, 2005 3:52 am
Location: Melbourne, FL

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:21 pm

RogueScribner wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:
minstrel wrote:I think Lucas, Spielberg, et al should just leave these trilogies alone (Star Wars and Indy, I mean). The SW prequels shouldn't have been made, because the audience had grown up. Likewise, it's tough to sell a new Indy movie 20-some-odd years after the last one. The audience has grown up.


Now that I agree with.

I think there *was* hope for the prequels--but quite possibly, they should have just been done as books and not movies. Who knows.

But I think Indy belongs to the past. It's time for new heroes and new stories, not trying to revive the 80's. This just smacks of Rocky-Rambo-Die Hard to me--Lucas, Spielberg and Ford still trying to prove they've "got it" against the Peter Jacksons, the Christopher Nolans, the Christian Bales...

A new age has begun! And there's a lot to be said for recognizing it and bowing out gracefully.



I also think it's telling that Hollywood is ressurecting these '80s iconic franchises 20+ years later. Remakes or belated sequels, it all adds up to the same thing: Hollywood has run out of ideas and/or their formula is flawed. In order to ensure success, they must dust off past successes because they're finding it difficult (or too expensive) to craft new ones. The '80s sported a lot of action movie icons, but who fits that bill now? No one I can think of.


That's rather pessimistic, I think. Captain Jack Sparrow fits that bill quite easily, no matter what you think of all three movies as a whole. Iconic characters are coming in different packages nowadays, too. The Incredibles are a fine example of just that.

One of the reasons characters like those in SW and Indy and the like became so iconic was because they were things that we hadn't really seen before. Sure, they're basically reincarnations of past inventions of Errol Flynn and so on, but Lucas and Spielberg took that formula and made something larger-than-life out of them. To me, the newer action icons aren't as significant now mainly because they're just filling a slot, and not really creating that slot to begin with. We've all been there and done that, and while we can still appreciate that kind of character when it comes along, we're not nearly as wowed by them when they do.

As for me, I'm in the middle. I think Spielberg and Lucas will go down in history as two of the most innovative and revolutionary filmmakers of all time, but I'm not saying in any way that they each haven't had their respective failures. The prequels (even though I still enjoy them). Howard the Duck. 1941. Always. The Willow cash-ins. I think they've both reached a place where it's pretty much impossible for them to please everyone who has liked their past works, and when you get to such a place, when you fail, you fail HARD.

I don't think Lucas is the self-righteous monster some of you make him out to be, but what I do think is that he's just sick of people roasting him on a spit everytime something comes out with his name on it that isn't the original Star Wars all over again. Like I said before, he pretty much re-wrote the Bible back in 1977. What the hell is someone supposed to do to follow that? The ideal of 'Destroy your idols' just isn't something I subscribe to.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby Chairman Kaga on Thu Jan 03, 2008 1:30 pm

RogueScribner wrote:
Chairman Kaga wrote:
Retardo_Montalban wrote:
Chair man Kaga wrote:Wow Retardo. There is a pretty big gap between what Lucas has done and creatively Bankrupt. His attention have obviously been focused elsewhere for years. Name me another film director/writer/producer who has built companies branching into Television, PC and Console gaming, audio engineering, digital FX, practical FX, film and projection systems (plus there instalation verification) to name a few. You want him to crank out more movies on top of that.....And your saying his mvies aren't very good to boot so why do you want more?


I don't want more. I'm trying to understand everybody's unwaivering devotion of the guy. You're also side stepping again. You're acting like the guy has been sitting in some work shop inventing all these processes, instead of using his wealth and hiring a bunch of talent to do it for him. The latter isn't all that time consuming.
Why is everybody so shit sure that he's going to come up with a bunch of personal projects when history tells us he isn't. What did he produce in the 15 or so years after Ep.6? Is there some magic movie that I haven't seen that ensures that the guy is worth betting money on? It sure as hell ain't ILM.

and the star wars games suck balls.


Who said he was going to make any of these other small movies? Are you imagining shit in here? Contrary to your belief running a huge media conglomerate such as the one he has built from the ground up is actually time consuming. If it wasn't more writer/producer/directors invariably would do the same thing to circumvent the "studio system". Look at Speilberg's attempt to do the same thing. He had to start it up with two other partners all of them well versed in their fields and the whole thing (aside from their animation department) is now essentially defunct. Dreamworks didn't even delve into half the shit Lucas' various companies do.



And yet he had time to make 3 prequel Star Wars films. No small undertaking that was.

He's been harping about personal projects for years. I think the most recent one he's been talking about is Red Tails about the Tuskegee airmen. He hired a writer last year (though he's been talking about it since at least 2005) but I don't think it's anywhere near happening yet.

Lucas has the resources to do whatever the fuck he wants. If he really wanted to make smaller, more personal films he could. But he's gotta keep that Star Wars money rolling in, so he's focusing his attention elsewhere.

I'm not saying he's bad, creatively bankrupt, or whatever. He's in a position to do whatever he wants and he earned it. But he's repeatedly dismissed "fans" and he keeps talking up doing other things, how he is so over Star Wars, but I don't see him doing anything else. James Cameron has taken some time away from the spotlight, but he hasn't been resting on his laurels and he certainly hasn't been dogging his fans or making public statements about wanting to make movies but never getting around to it. Lucas, I'm sure, has a lot of ideas in his head he'd love to explore, but he doesn't. His biggest output in the past 20 years is working on Indiana Jones on the big screen and small, and working on Star Wars on the big screen and small. And he's still doing that today. I find that curious, don't you?


That's all valid. I was merely attempting to illustrate that Lucas didn't just sit around "creatively bankrupt" from ROTJ-PM, he was focused on other things. Hell he was focused on other things since '77.
Chairman Kaga
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 7660
Joined: Fri Dec 09, 2005 9:49 am

Postby thomasgaffney on Thu Jan 03, 2008 3:44 pm

Alright, peeps...The George Lucas Discussion Thread has been moved to the Movie Reviews Forum, where many people felt it should have been in the first place.

ALL EFBR-like posts have been split off (again) and sheltered away, much like the Arc of the Covenant. No posts have been deleted.

Feel free to keep discussion George's talents (or lack thereof, however you see appropriate), but keep in mind...the first foray back into EFBR material will result in a warning. Second will result in a ban.
find me: twitter and goodreads
find my book: amazon
User avatar
thomasgaffney
a might unpredictable
 
Posts: 6618
Joined: Sat Jul 16, 2005 11:11 am
Location: lost in a book

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:53 pm

Did any of the posts really get that nasty? I didn't think so. Heated, I suppose, but a long way from EFBR territory--and banning?
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Zarles on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:55 pm

Lady Sheridan wrote:Did any of the posts really get that nasty? I didn't think so. Heated, I suppose, but a long way from EFBR territory--and banning?


I think I pulled your hair and threatened to steal your boyfriend once or twice, but I'm not sure. Damn bourbon.
User avatar
Zarles
AIRWOLF PLUS
 
Posts: 3773
Joined: Thu Feb 01, 2007 9:52 am
Location: Bringing something to the table

Postby DinoDeLaurentiis on Thu Jan 03, 2008 4:59 pm

Zarles wrote:One of the reasons characters like those in SW and Indy and the like became so iconic was because they were things that we hadn't really seen before. Sure, they're basically reincarnations of past inventions of Errol Flynn and so on, but Lucas and Spielberg took that formula and made something larger-than-life out of them. To me, the newer action icons aren't as significant now mainly because they're just filling a slot, and not really creating that slot to begin with. We've all been there and done that, and while we can still appreciate that kind of character when it comes along, we're not nearly as wowed by them when they do.


Yes... you have a pretty much a hit a the nail onna the head, no? Alla you young putzes, you prolly too young a to remember what a the pictures, they were alla like inna the time before a the Star Wars, eh? It was a the throwback to a the Flash a Gordon only with a the special effects a the like a you never seen, no? You gotta to remember, after a the, how you say... "shlocky" sci-fi of a the 60s, with a their rockets onna strings anna bells anna whistles anna bright anna saturated colors, it was alla 'bout a the "realism" inna the cinema, no? Anna so's a you gotta the putzes like a the Francis anna the Marty making alla these gritty crime dramas with a the muted color tones anna actual dirt inna the streets anna such, eh?

Anna the Lucas, he say "Bah! I wanna my Flash a Gordon again!" anna he turn a the realism onna it's a ass, no? Anna he deliver something that a the audiences, they hadda never even a dreamed of a seeing, eh?

To hell with a the Jaws, eh? It was a the goddamn Star Wars that set uppa the goddamn summer block-a-buster, no? Anna we have a been inna the non-stop cycle of a the block-a-busters ever since, no? (Yes, yes... donna think a the irony, she is a lost onna the Old Man, eh)

It's a no wonder alla you putzes, you are alla jaded anna such... holy crappa. You been a complaining for a the years:

"Lucas is a doing a the prequels? Bah! Just a tell him a to go anna make a the goddamn Indy 4!!"

"Spielberg, he is a doing a the goddamn War of a the Worlds remake? Bah!! Just a tell him a to go anna make a the Indy 4!"

Anna now they making the Indy 4, anna alla you putzes, you STILL a complain, eh?

Bah!

The Dino, he say BAH!!
User avatar
DinoDeLaurentiis
SHE'S A THE SARAH SILVERMAN
 
Posts: 11284
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 12:15 pm
Location: Private Villa inna Santorini

Postby Chilli on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:08 pm

I'm all for admitting the next Indy film can be good, I just don't think its a certainty considering the crap Lucas has come out with for years (and his ridiculous opinions re: the fanbase).
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

Postby MasterWhedon on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:10 pm

What's funny is, I've been saying for years that they shouldn't make Indy IV, and now after that Vanity Fair article, I'm really excited for it.

Go figure. :oops:
User avatar
MasterWhedon
KEEPER OF THE PURSE
 
Posts: 9473
Joined: Wed Jul 20, 2005 9:07 pm
Location: Los Angeles

Postby Lady Sheridan on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:11 pm

Zarles wrote:
Lady Sheridan wrote:Did any of the posts really get that nasty? I didn't think so. Heated, I suppose, but a long way from EFBR territory--and banning?


I think I pulled your hair and threatened to steal your boyfriend once or twice, but I'm not sure. Damn bourbon.


Which you only said because I don't have a boyfriend. :P

It's ok, I'm pretty sure I broke the bourbon bottle and threatened to cut you with it before Moo took it away. :oops:

Let's kiss and make-up...Marion and Indy style...
User avatar
Lady Sheridan
RED
 
Posts: 5035
Joined: Mon Jan 09, 2006 6:09 pm
Location: Croft Manor

Postby Chilli on Thu Jan 03, 2008 5:13 pm

MasterWhedon wrote:What's funny is, I've been saying for years that they shouldn't make Indy IV, and now after that Vanity Fair article, I'm really excited for it.

Go figure. :oops:


I thought ROTS would rock, and I found it depressing; so I rationalise that if I just expect Indy to be disposable fluff, it has to rise above that expectation.
User avatar
Chilli
The Unfriendly Ghost
 
Posts: 6869
Joined: Sun Dec 11, 2005 10:13 am
Location: Wales

PreviousNext

Return to Director Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron