Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Aug 01, 2014 3:34 am




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?" 
Author Message
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Dragonbeard wrote:
MrGuinness wrote:
Ken wrote:
Funny thing is, even though I didn't know anything about Star Trek, a lot of my preconceptions were pretty spot-on. Shitty special effects, lots of scenes of people standing/sitting around in a room talking, etc.


Oh no! Character development! Run! Hide! :)


It's a good thing the recent movie went and made Star Trek great again :)


Personally, I think they Star Wars-ified it too much. But I did enjoy it.


Fri Sep 23, 2011 11:57 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Personally, I don't like some of the changes (Greedo shooting first does change the characterisation of Han, which I didn't like), but at the same time, I don't mind most of them. I do think that once a work becomes as popular as Star Wars, the public does have a stake in it. At the very least, it's an emotional one. While Lucas certainly has a right to revise his work, I think we also have a right to deride them critically instead of shrugging our shoulders and go, hey, it's his work, he can do what he pleases!

On the subject of him being a childhood rapist: I think the phrase is a bit too strong; plus, the few changes to the original trilogy, as bad as they are, don't qualify Lucas for that. However the terrible prequels don't make me think very highly of him either...


Sat Sep 24, 2011 1:33 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
I firmly believe that Star Trek is the opposite (and hotter cousin) of Star Wars; Lucas seems to decide what happens to his 'intellectual property' but Star Trek has always been very much owned by it's fans (or such is my impression). I know many a Trek elitist who has denounced the '09 movie and I can see what they mean however I also feel that if this one hadn't been done the way it was, it would probably have been the last we ever saw of the franchise (look at how much of a fail the previous big screen appearance was).

Star Trek has been brought from out of it's parents basement and into the college dorms. Given time, it might even make it to affordable student housing and maybe a mortgage of it's own, as a respectable household name and not the 'geek fest' that it's been made out to be for the past 3 decades.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:08 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
"Owned by it's fans" - I mean, the movies have always been made with the fans in mind more than the general cinema going public, which was okay for a while I suppose but since LOTR pretty much helped the 'geek' culture lose it's 'virginity' (cinematically), people are becoming more accustomed to this sort of fare.

Maybe the movie isn't great (it is one of my faves though) but what it has done for the franchise certainly is.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 6:11 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
George Lucas probably raped Jake Lloyd's childhood pretty hard. But that's about it.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:37 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Dragonbeard wrote:
I firmly believe that Star Trek is the opposite (and hotter cousin) of Star Wars; Lucas seems to decide what happens to his 'intellectual property' but Star Trek has always been very much owned by it's fans (or such is my impression). I know many a Trek elitist who has denounced the '09 movie and I can see what they mean however I also feel that if this one hadn't been done the way it was, it would probably have been the last we ever saw of the franchise (look at how much of a fail the previous big screen appearance was).

Star Trek has been brought from out of it's parents basement and into the college dorms. Given time, it might even make it to affordable student housing and maybe a mortgage of it's own, as a respectable household name and not the 'geek fest' that it's been made out to be for the past 3 decades.



Im not going to argue that ST was bad, it wasnt, I enjoyed it, and it should def keep things moving along. (Personally, I dont think there is such a thing as an end of this type of franchise. It will always come back eventually)

It def lost a bit of what made ST great in lieu of making things more SW exciting, and that is acquiescing to me, and it kinda sucks. Its fun and its exciting and as an origin story, it had some really cool fun moments, but it is NOT a Gene Roddenbury production in any way shape or form.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 8:50 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
ST'09 could have easily ditched the manic visuals and injected a little more food for thought, and it would have still been exciting and engaging. If anything, the Abrams style tells me that they weren't confident enough in the strength of the material to just show it; they felt they had to gussy it up for the most ADD kids in the audience. I liked it, but--a few very effective moments aside-- it does not stand up to the best of TOS or the best of the previous movies.


Sun Sep 25, 2011 9:06 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
I liked "Star Trek" from 2009, but my complaints are it's trying too hard to be as fast and exciting as "Star Wars" and I wish it could be more intellectually and emotionally engaging like the best episodes/films.


Mon Sep 26, 2011 11:37 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 394
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
This article made me think of the first time I saw Star Wars.It was on my summer holiday from elementary school and I was looking around for something to do on a hot summer afternoon and I saw the marquee on the Roxy Theatre about something called Star Wars which I knew nothing about but the publicity photos in the window case on the street looked interesting.That theatre was the smallest and dingiest in our city and usually got the worst movies like Sinbad and the Eye of the Tiger which tells you what the distributors thought of this movie(sequels would all go to the largest theatres).Then I sat down in an almost empty theatre and then the scrolling prologue started one of the best experiences I have ever had at a movie.Probably saw it seven more times with buying the novelization and then the soundtrack.It was a pure brilliant diamond of a comic book movie.

Then George Lucas began grinding this diamond into dust.I have not watched any of the new editions of the movie and probably will not.He is the owner of his creation and he is within his "legal rights" to do whatever he wants to them but his credibility as an artist is completely suspect as the changes are pointless and detract from something nobody wanted changed.I think as fans we have the right to call him out on this as he does try to squeeze every cent he can from his franchise.What other cynical reason could he have for releasing all his movies into a 3D format for theatres.Could it be to get another 16 and 18 dollars out of the fan's pockets that are not old enough to remember the original movies so will gladly accept any kind of spam that Lucas pumps out .My real issue with him is his bad filmmaking and crimes against art in general as the second trilogy is nearly unwatchable with Phathom Menace being one of worst big budget movie I have ever seen to the point that I wanted to get to a phone and call the World Court in the Hague.The prequels are a complete failure at all levels of filmmaking with writing,acting and directing.Though his Vader's big "Nooooo" was so funny that I thought Mel Brooks had worked on the film for a minute.Even his vaunted CGI effects looked fake and animated while the 77 effects appeared more realistic with their appearance of solidity.Chris Nolan knew this and purposely used models instead of CGI for Inception for this reason.That is a real artist at work.If these films had beem the first ones out of the chute there would be no Star Wars franchise or Lucas empire. His real skill now is not as a filmmaker but as a movie merchandiser and a toy merchant and his films are just fancy infomercials for his products.There is an very long interview on IGN with a producer Gary Kurtz who worked with him on Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back and says that Lucas doesn't care about storytelling anymore just the rollercoaster ride and his priorities are in using movies to move inventory



http://movies.ign.com/articles/376/376873p1.html


http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010/08/12/star-wars-was-born-a-long-time-ago-but-not-all-that-far-far-away-in-1972-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/


Tue Sep 27, 2011 4:04 pm
Profile
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Once upon a time, George Lucas made excellent films. He may not be a great filmmaker now, but that does not mean he never was. He deservedly had a place alongside Spielberg as someone who made crisp, broadly appealing movies that shame modern snatch 'n' grab directors like Nolan or Greengrass.

I don't cotton to the fanboy bullshit that George Lucas is responsible for all of his failures but none of his successes. I think some people crave a villain on which they can pin their various dissatisfactions with life, which, to me, is a sign of emotional immaturity.


Tue Sep 27, 2011 9:57 pm
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3121
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
oakenshield32 wrote:
Then George Lucas began grinding this diamond into dust.I have not watched any of the new editions of the movie and probably will not.He is the owner of his creation and he is within his "legal rights" to do whatever he wants to them but his credibility as an artist is completely suspect as the changes are pointless and detract from something nobody wanted changed.I think as fans we have the right to call him out on this as he does try to squeeze every cent he can from his franchise.What other cynical reason could he have for releasing all his movies into a 3D format for theatres.Could it be to get another 16 and 18 dollars out of the fan's pockets that are not old enough to remember the original movies so will gladly accept any kind of spam that Lucas pumps out .My real issue with him is his bad filmmaking and crimes against art in general as the second trilogy is nearly unwatchable with Phathom Menace being one of worst big budget movie I have ever seen to the point that I wanted to get to a phone and call the World Court in the Hague.The prequels are a complete failure at all levels of filmmaking with writing,acting and directing.Though his Vader's big "Nooooo" was so funny that I thought Mel Brooks had worked on the film for a minute.Even his vaunted CGI effects looked fake and animated while the 77 effects appeared more realistic with their appearance of solidity.Chris Nolan knew this and purposely used models instead of CGI for Inception for this reason.That is a real artist at work.If these films had beem the first ones out of the chute there would be no Star Wars franchise or Lucas empire. His real skill now is not as a filmmaker but as a movie merchandiser and a toy merchant and his films are just fancy infomercials for his products.There is an very long interview on IGN with a producer Gary Kurtz who worked with him on Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back and says that Lucas doesn't care about storytelling anymore just the rollercoaster ride and his priorities are in using movies to move inventory


I think the initial round of changes Lucas made (those for the 1997 re-releases) were well-intentioned. In other words, George believed they actually made the films better. (And, as I recall, they were warmly greeted within fan circles - something that didn't change until he "pulled" the originals.) Ditto for the initial DVD releases with the prequel-influenced tweaks. After that, there was such an uproar among hardcore fans that I think Lucas is just goosing the die-hards. I'm not sure he believes that Vader shouting "nooooo!" is the best way for the scene to play, but it's a great way to get the hardcore fans, with whom he seems to have a love/hate relationship, up in arms and to remind them who's in control. Honestly, I haven't spoken to a casual SW fan who gives a shit whether or not Vader shouts "noooo!" They think the controversy is silly.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 12:14 pm
Profile WWW
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Ken wrote:
modern snatch 'n' grab directors like Nolan or Greengrass.


The director of The Theory of Flight and United 93 is a snatch and grab director?

The director of Momento and The Prestige is a snatch and grab director?


Wed Sep 28, 2011 2:30 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Yes.


Wed Sep 28, 2011 4:35 pm
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Ken wrote:
Yes.


All due respect, please show your working? Nolan is probably the director I respect most in the industry today. He just 'does' good things, unlike the colossal try hard that is Danny Boyle.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:14 am
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ken wrote:
Yes.


All due respect, please show your working? Nolan is probably the director I respect most in the industry today. He just 'does' good things, unlike the colossal try hard that is Danny Boyle.


However, when Boyle tries, he more often than not succeeds. The only times he's misfired have been with A Life Less Ordinary (an unsuccessful attempt at a romance/road picture) and The Beach (a failure overall. But an ambitious one). Other than that you have Trainspotting, Millions, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, Sunshine and 127 Hours. I'll argue that Boyle is one of the genuine auteurs working right now. He's better than Guy Ritchie who truly does try more often than he actually succeeds.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:05 am
Profile
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Jeff Wilder wrote:
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ken wrote:
Yes.


All due respect, please show your working? Nolan is probably the director I respect most in the industry today. He just 'does' good things, unlike the colossal try hard that is Danny Boyle.


However, when Boyle tries, he more often than not succeeds. The only times he's misfired have been with A Life Less Ordinary (an unsuccessful attempt at a romance/road picture) and The Beach (a failure overall. But an ambitious one). Other than that you have Trainspotting, Millions, 28 Days Later, Slumdog Millionaire, Sunshine and 127 Hours. I'll argue that Boyle is one of the genuine auteurs working right now. He's better than Guy Ritchie who truly does try more often than he actually succeeds.


I agree about Richie. Outside of Lock stock and Holmes, I don't much care for the guy.

I used to love Boyle's work right up until his abortion that was Beach. Having said that, I also liked 28 Days however that's pretty much it. I've long since gone off Trainspotting in a huge way in fact the only movie I ever watch of his is 'Shallow Grave'. Tastes change I guess.

I've not seen '127 Hours' yet but I just cannot muster the interest. This coming from someone who genuinely likes Franco as well!


Thu Sep 29, 2011 11:11 am
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ken wrote:
Yes.


All due respect, please show your working? Nolan is probably the director I respect most in the industry today. He just 'does' good things, unlike the colossal try hard that is Danny Boyle.

Not to derail this discussion into the same territory as a half dozen other threads, but Nolan is not a terribly adroit director. He is a good idea man, which I think is what impresses people. In terms of dialogue, characterization, and visual storytelling--the staples of narrative filmmaking--his method of executing those ideas is fairly one-dimensional. Stories told in glimpses or "snatches" rather than shots and other fully-developed elements--snatch 'n' grab fimmaking.


Thu Sep 29, 2011 1:20 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 394
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Quote:
it's a great way to get the hardcore fans, with whom he seems to have a love/hate relationship, up in arms and to remind them who's in control. Honestly, I haven't spoken to a casual SW fan who gives a shit whether or not Vader shouts "noooo!" They think the controversy is silly.


I would not consider it a controversy but saying Lucas is cleverly goosing the fanboys is a theory that gives him too much credit.I believe it more likely that it is an example of his horrible directing and writing.No one will confuse him with Aaron Sorkin and David Fincher for a second.The prequels are just terrible films made by an artistically bankrupt director that are tedious and boring at best then veers into moments that are groan or laugh inducing.Anything with JarJar or the frolicing and rolling down the hill with Haydensen and Portman which was removed in the Imax version.So the Nooo was just the cherry on the sundae. If the name Lucas and Star Wars did not have the hagiographic qualilty it does these movies would have been run out of town on the rail.He really needs the collaborators that he worked with in the 70's and 80's to rein him in or steer him better.Since his ego appears to big for that I am thankful that he appears to have no interest in finishing the 9 films cycle.


Fri Sep 30, 2011 4:57 pm
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Apr 06, 2009 5:07 pm
Posts: 1527
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
JB wrote:
I think the initial round of changes Lucas made (those for the 1997 re-releases) were well-intentioned. In other words, George believed they actually made the films better. (And, as I recall, they were warmly greeted within fan circles - something that didn't change until he "pulled" the originals.) Ditto for the initial DVD releases with the prequel-influenced tweaks. After that, there was such an uproar among hardcore fans that I think Lucas is just goosing the die-hards. I'm not sure he believes that Vader shouting "nooooo!" is the best way for the scene to play, but it's a great way to get the hardcore fans, with whom he seems to have a love/hate relationship, up in arms and to remind them who's in control. Honestly, I haven't spoken to a casual SW fan who gives a shit whether or not Vader shouts "noooo!" They think the controversy is silly.


So it brings us to the main issue. Is Lucas a director/screenwriter/producer or businessman? This illustrates a firm case for the latter.

_________________
This ain't a city council meeting you know-Joe Cabot

Cinema is a matter of what's in the frame and what's out-Martin Scorsese.

http://www.facebook.com/profile.php?id=1347771599


Fri Sep 30, 2011 7:14 pm
Profile
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3121
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: September 19, 2011: "George Lucas: Childhood Rapist?"
Jeff Wilder wrote:
JB wrote:
I think the initial round of changes Lucas made (those for the 1997 re-releases) were well-intentioned. In other words, George believed they actually made the films better. (And, as I recall, they were warmly greeted within fan circles - something that didn't change until he "pulled" the originals.) Ditto for the initial DVD releases with the prequel-influenced tweaks. After that, there was such an uproar among hardcore fans that I think Lucas is just goosing the die-hards. I'm not sure he believes that Vader shouting "nooooo!" is the best way for the scene to play, but it's a great way to get the hardcore fans, with whom he seems to have a love/hate relationship, up in arms and to remind them who's in control. Honestly, I haven't spoken to a casual SW fan who gives a shit whether or not Vader shouts "noooo!" They think the controversy is silly.


So it brings us to the main issue. Is Lucas a director/screenwriter/producer or businessman? This illustrates a firm case for the latter.


I think he got into filmmaking as the former. He has evolved to a point where he's in the latter camp. Considering that the prequels are actually expansions upon previous ideas and explorations of technology in film, how long has it been since Lucas has been engaged in a creatively interesting movie? The fire seems to have gone out after the first SW trilogy and RAIDERS. Since then, there's no indication he has been really passionate about any movies. His business savvy, which started with STAR WARS, has continued to expand. When it comes to selling and marketing, he's as smart as they come.


Sat Oct 01, 2011 1:59 pm
Profile WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 155 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group.
Designed by Vjacheslav Trushkin for Free Forum/DivisionCore.
Translated by Xaphos © 2007, 2008, 2009 phpBB.fr