Discussion of movies and ReelThoughts topics

It is currently Fri Dec 19, 2014 7:01 pm




Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next
January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)" 
Author Message
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ken wrote:
Boba Fett was a non-character until people decided he was so cool that he deserved a bajillion Expanded Universe stories about how cool he was.

Another example of Lucas' inability to develop characters.

Ken wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Ken wrote:
I've decided that the difference between fans and fanboys is that fans can separate their feelings about the work from their feelings about the people behind it. Fanboys can't, or at least won't.

Since enjoyment of films is an almost purely subjective matter, I don't see what your problem here is.

http://superfunadventuretime.com/2009/0 ... s-avenged/

This was hilarious, but I would say that that majority of people criticizing Lucas aren't the type to go as far as this guy did, much less further. If I had the opportunity, I would tell Lucas exactly what I think of the PT films and his abilities to his face, but I wouldn't go anywhere out of my way to create such an opportunity.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:50 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
I would hope that George Lucas wouldn't go out by himself into the company of total strangers who say things like "The only way I'll accept that Lucas is retired is when his corpse is lying in its coffin." I know I'd be freaked out if I were him.

Rob Liefeld can at least be confident that his pool of annoying, potentially psychotic fans is proportionately far, far smaller than Lucas's.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 5:59 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Besides its famous reviews of the prequels, Red Letter Media has a special episode of its film critic show "Half in the Bag" that talks about the "The People vs. George Lucas" documentary and about George Lucas and Star Wars.

Check it out:

http://redlettermedia.com/half-in-the-b ... iscussion/


Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:34 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ken wrote:
I would hope that George Lucas wouldn't go out by himself into the company of total strangers who say things like "The only way I'll accept that Lucas is retired is when his corpse is lying in its coffin." I know I'd be freaked out if I were him.

Rob Liefeld can at least be confident that his pool of annoying, potentially psychotic fans is proportionately far, far smaller than Lucas's.

You sound like those people who start moral panics with this statement. This disappoints me, because you've generally struck me as someone capable of critical thinking. There's a difference between stating that I will not truly believe that someone will stop fucking with his works until he's dead and stating that I'd like to shoot him in the eye and skull-fuck the bullet hole.

Lucas has stated before that he wanted to stop with Star Wars and concentrate on making smaller films without actually holding to it, so my statement was an extreme expression of skepticism. That doesn't mean I want to take a sniper rifle and put one into his skull pan. Lucas has shown himself to have such thin skin that criticism seems to have been enough for him to go further into hiding. That's too bad considering his chosen line of work (re: filmmaker).

P.S.: Rob Liefield can be confident of having a pool of "annoying, potentially psychotic fans" simply because fewer people in general know or care about his work. I myself am not a fan of his artwork, btw- he's not fit to clean the ink pens of the likes of Jim Lee or Brian Bolland as far as I'm concerned.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 6:38 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
You sound like those people who start moral panics with this statement. This disappoints me, because you've generally struck me as someone capable of critical thinking. There's a difference between stating that I will not truly believe that someone will stop fucking with his works until he's dead and stating that I'd like to shoot him in the eye and skull-fuck the bullet hole.
I know for a fact that you're capable of critical thinking, and I'm sure that skill extends to self-examination. You're just not doing it in this case.

It is not just the meaning of what you say, but the language that you use that indicates to me feelings that are unduly strong for a fan who is simply disappointed with a piece of work.

A thought experiment: your father, or your uncle, or your cousin (doesn't really matter which) tells you he's retiring, and you're skeptical. Do you use the same language, evoking imagery of their corpses in their coffins? Probably not.

So why would you do it with a total stranger, who has never personally wronged you, and, for all you know, might be as nice and personable a fellow as anybody you do know with whom you wouldn't use that sort of language?

My point isn't that I think you're a crazed Arthur Bremer nutcase in the making. My point is that people typically don't rationally talk about total strangers the way that fanboys talk about George Lucas. It's weird, it's annoying, and it shows both an abundance of self-entitlement and a lack of self-awareness.

Quote:
Lucas has stated before that he wanted to stop with Star Wars and concentrate on making smaller films without actually holding to it, so my statement was an extreme expression of skepticism. That doesn't mean I want to take a sniper rifle and put one into his skull pan. Lucas has shown himself to have such thin skin that criticism seems to have been enough for him to go further into hiding. That's too bad considering his chosen line of work (re: filmmaker).
Lucas has been the subject of an incredible public outpouring of fanboy hostility, yet that hasn't stopped him from making the movies he wants to make, his way, with the full knowledge that it will probably displease them further. To me, that doesn't qualify as thin-skinned by any stretch of the imagination.

Quote:
P.S.: Rob Liefield can be confident of having a pool of "annoying, potentially psychotic fans" simply because fewer people in general know or care about his work.
That's what I was getting at.

Quote:
I myself am not a fan of his artwork, btw- he's not fit to clean the ink pens of the likes of Jim Lee or Brian Bolland as far as I'm concerned.
Okay, Brian Bolland is a great example, but why'd you have to bring up Jim Lee? Guh.

Let's express it as a mathematical inequality: Rob Liefeld < Jim Lee <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brian Bolland

But I wouldn't dream of treating any of these people with anything less than the respect that they're due as human beings, regardless of what I think of their artwork.

Well, I might get kind of weird around Bolland, simply because his work is so boner-inspiring.*

(*Thanks, Frank.)


Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:11 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
The time you've spent in the Twilight film review threads defending them would give me that impression.


Care to quote me? As I have my own quote at the ready to show you how I've already made my feelings clear :)

Ragnarok73 wrote:
So you didn't, but the point stands. Nothing's wrong with good visual effects, as long as they are not the entire point of the film.


My point was on visuals, not visual effects. In response to this statement:

Ragnarok73 wrote:
For the average preteen boy, I'd imagine based on my own experience that fancy visuals and stereo explosions would be the big appeal.


There is a massive difference between 'visuals' and 'visual effects'. Sorry to nitpick!


Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:39 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ken wrote:
I know for a fact that you're capable of critical thinking, and I'm sure that skill extends to self-examination. You're just not doing it in this case.

It is not just the meaning of what you say, but the language that you use that indicates to me feelings that are unduly strong for a fan who is simply disappointed with a piece of work.

A thought experiment: your father, or your uncle, or your cousin (doesn't really matter which) tells you he's retiring, and you're skeptical. Do you use the same language, evoking imagery of their corpses in their coffins? Probably not.

So why would you do it with a total stranger, who has never personally wronged you, and, for all you know, might be as nice and personable a fellow as anybody you do know with whom you wouldn't use that sort of language

My point isn't that I think you're a crazed Arthur Bremer nutcase in the making. My point is that people typically don't rationally talk about total strangers the way that fanboys talk about George Lucas. It's weird, it's annoying, and it shows both an abundance of self-entitlement and a lack of self-awareness.

If you don't think I'm "crazed", you really shouldn't be using words like "psychotic" when describing me or others. I find that offensive particularly in terms of the level of ignorance it's showing. So what if I said I wouldn't really believe Lucas would stop screwing with his work until he was dead? It's almost like you're taking this personally rather than as another opinion.

FYI, your usage of the word "fanboys" is incorrect, since fanboys tend to *defend* the object of their affection. Perhaps you were looking for the word "haters".

Ken wrote:
Lucas has been the subject of an incredible public outpouring of fanboy hostility, yet that hasn't stopped him from making the movies he wants to make, his way, with the full knowledge that it will probably displease them further. To me, that doesn't qualify as thin-skinned by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah? So can you name the films that Lucas has done since making the original trilogy, before the prequel trilogy, or after? Red Tails is the only example I can think of so far. Also, what makes you think that his changes to the OT films is due to having a "thick skin" to criticism? Ever thought that perhaps Lucas feels he can do things his way because he's got the money and infrastructure and can therefore tell the fans go @$@# themselves? His retirement announcement could have itself been inspired by the same sentiment (re: the fans can go to hell).

EDIT: Let me be more specific- Can you name any films Lucas has *directed and/or written* since first doing the original trilogy or after the prequel trilogy? In that regard, I can't really count Red Tails despite the stories circulating about the amount of input Lucas had in the making of that film.

Ken wrote:
Let's express it as a mathematical inequality: Rob Liefeld < Jim Lee <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brian Bolland

But I wouldn't dream of treating any of these people with anything less than the respect that they're due as human beings, regardless of what I think of their artwork.

Well, I might get kind of weird around Bolland, simply because his work is so boner-inspiring.*

(*Thanks, Frank.)

So criticism is treating people with less than respect they're due as human beings? If I go up to Lucas and told him, "I think you've made some big mistakes with the prequel films and with the changes you made to the original trilogy films, and quite frankly, I won't believe that you'll stop messing with those films until you're in your coffin.", I'm disrespecting him? I'm being honest with my opinion, just like I would if I were to speak to Rob Liefield and tell him that I think his artwork is inferior.

If you think that my wording is extreme to the point where you'd consider me "potentially psychotic", then you need to develop a thicker skin yourself.


Last edited by Ragnarok73 on Mon Jan 23, 2012 8:36 pm, edited 2 times in total.



Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:42 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
The time you've spent in the Twilight film review threads defending them would give me that impression.


Care to quote me? As I have my own quote at the ready to show you how I've already made my feelings clear :)

I'll just concede this point, as people's opinions can change. However, that still doesn't really change *my* opinion of your tastes.

Dragonbeard wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
So you didn't, but the point stands. Nothing's wrong with good visual effects, as long as they are not the entire point of the film.


My point was on visuals, not visual effects. In response to this statement:

Ragnarok73 wrote:
For the average preteen boy, I'd imagine based on my own experience that fancy visuals and stereo explosions would be the big appeal.


There is a massive difference between 'visuals' and 'visual effects'. Sorry to nitpick!

You missed my overall point, which is that younger audiences tend to put more priority on eye candy (visuals, visual effects, whatever you want to call it) than on things like story, plot and character development, and underlying themes when deciding whether they like a film or not.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 7:46 pm
Second Unit Director

Joined: Wed Aug 03, 2011 10:11 pm
Posts: 484
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
The article was an interesting defense of George Lucas and I only agreed with two parts where he is not a monster and the works are his intellectually property to do with what he wants.Where I have a problem with him is that of a bad filmmaker who has lost his touch and a CEO who squeezes every last drop of blood from his franchise.I am not sure why he needs any kind of defense to begin with as he is an immensely wealthy man who is part of the 1% who seems to feel not without just cause they are immune to criticism and accountability.His threat to retire is a Machiavellian game he is playing with his audience to put the blame on them than rather admit to his own diminishing skills and not well received projects such as Indy 4(though it made money).

They say when you sign up to play for any sport franchise in New York whether it its the Yankees or Giants you sign up for great adulation or withering criticism that knows no bounds.Players have to know that going in and not cry when they get some.I would say the same for Lucas when he puts his projects out there he has signed up to take the kudos and the boos.He is more than happy to take all the adulation and demigod status but starts to whine when it goes south.That is where I give pro players more credit where they man up and admit to their lousy play not blame the fans for chasing them out of the game.

Even Spielberg has openly admitted he did not like the direction of Indiana Jones 4 and fought like crazy with Lucas to get rid of the McGuffin at the end.Spielberg more or less says that Lucas is infinitely stubborn and diplomatically adds you have to just trust your friend.Except that Spielberg and the audience agreed it was a bad idea though Lucas will make no such admission.

The idea that the prequels will be redeemed in time is unlikely as no one I have met likes them in the least bit.My guess is that the anonymous 9 years olds that are quoted as loving the films will grow up and watch them again and gape at how they could have thought such a thing was any good.Much like going back to elementary school and thinking the desks and rooms are a lot smaller than I remember. Time will not be kind to those prequels or the legacy of Lucas as compared to Kubrick,Hitchcock or John Ford.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:02 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
You missed my overall point, which is that younger audiences tend to put more priority on eye candy (visuals, visual effects, whatever you want to call it) than on things like story, plot and character development, and underlying themes when deciding whether they like a film or not.


In cinema and photography, the primary 'narrative' is visual. Otherwise what's the point? Read a book or listen to a radio play, right?

To base your judgement solely on the visual element however is bad, you're right about that.

Put it this way though; would the 'Amsterdam' exchange from Pulp Fiction still have been effective if it had taken place between two Badgers?


Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:05 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Dragonbeard wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
You missed my overall point, which is that younger audiences tend to put more priority on eye candy (visuals, visual effects, whatever you want to call it) than on things like story, plot and character development, and underlying themes when deciding whether they like a film or not.


In cinema and photography, the primary 'narrative' is visual. Otherwise what's the point? Read a book or listen to a radio play, right?

To base your judgement solely on the visual element however is bad, you're right about that.

Put it this way though; would the 'Amsterdam' exchange from Pulp Fiction still have been effective if it had taken place between two Badgers?

I see your point. When I use the word "visuals", I do so in a broad sense, so I include visual effects as well as the directorial style, cinematography, etc. My basic point stands: eye candy (visual effects, pretty girls, other elements) won't make a film good by itself.


Mon Jan 23, 2012 9:20 pm
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
If you don't think I'm "crazed", you really shouldn't be using words like "psychotic" when describing me or others. I find that offensive particularly in terms of the level of ignorance it's showing. So what if I said I wouldn't really believe Lucas would stop screwing with his work until he was dead? It's almost like you're taking this personally rather than as another opinion.
I didn't use it to describe you. You decided that the shoe fits in the first place, so don't get salty with me for engaging you on this.

Quote:
FYI, your usage of the word "fanboys" is incorrect, since fanboys tend to *defend* the object of their affection. Perhaps you were looking for the word "haters".
Wrong. You seem to have better than a basic level of knowledge about comics, so you of all people should know that the loudest, most venomous criticism often come from the most avid consumers of the product.

Quote:
Ken wrote:
Lucas has been the subject of an incredible public outpouring of fanboy hostility, yet that hasn't stopped him from making the movies he wants to make, his way, with the full knowledge that it will probably displease them further. To me, that doesn't qualify as thin-skinned by any stretch of the imagination.

Yeah? So can you name the films that Lucas has done since making the original trilogy, before the prequel trilogy, or after? Red Tails is the only example I can think of so far. Also, what makes you think that his changes to the OT films is due to having a "thick skin" to criticism? Ever thought that perhaps Lucas feels he can do things his way because he's got the money and infrastructure and can therefore tell the fans go @$@# themselves? His retirement announcement could have itself been inspired by the same sentiment (re: the fans can go to hell).

EDIT: Let me be more specific- Can you name any films Lucas has *directed and/or written* since first doing the original trilogy or after the prequel trilogy? In that regard, I can't really count Red Tails despite the stories circulating about the amount of input Lucas had in the making of that film.
Don't be sophist. You know Lucas's filmography as well as I do. I was referring specifically to the prequels.

Quote:
Ken wrote:
Let's express it as a mathematical inequality: Rob Liefeld < Jim Lee <<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<<< Brian Bolland

But I wouldn't dream of treating any of these people with anything less than the respect that they're due as human beings, regardless of what I think of their artwork.

Well, I might get kind of weird around Bolland, simply because his work is so boner-inspiring.*

(*Thanks, Frank.)

So criticism is treating people with less than respect they're due as human beings? If I go up to Lucas and told him, "I think you've made some big mistakes with the prequel films and with the changes you made to the original trilogy films, and quite frankly, I won't believe that you'll stop messing with those films until you're in your coffin.", I'm disrespecting him? I'm being honest with my opinion, just like I would if I were to speak to Rob Liefield and tell him that I think his artwork is inferior.
You don't think that talking to a total stranger for the first time and evoking imagery of that person dead in his coffin is the slightest bit disrespectful? Not even a teensy bit?

Quote:
If you think that my wording is extreme to the point where you'd consider me "potentially psychotic", then you need to develop a thicker skin yourself.
Your butt is stinky and so's your mom.

There. Now I've actually made an insulting statement that pertains directly to you, so there's no further need to imagine it.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:08 am
Producer

Joined: Tue Apr 14, 2009 11:04 am
Posts: 2307
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Evil_sheep wrote:
It is not just my or rabid fanboys' opinion that the prequels were inferior. It is the "popular" consensus which Berardinelli and Lucas lament. You can equally look at Rotten Tomato scores, which are generally a good indicator of how a movie is received. Eps. IV & V tower above the others at 94 and 97 percent, VI is strong but reduced to 79, III (80) opens up a gap over II (67), and I at 61% brings up the rear. Broadly speaking, in my experience, this is probably the order the average moviegoer would put them in.


How well the prequels were received is in large part determined by age and degree of passion. The inevitable media backlash that occurred at the time TPM came out has colored the popular perspective of the film.

The freshest perspective comes from those who were too young to see the prequels theatrically - those who were born around 2000 or later. (I'm sure there were some 5-year olds at RotS, but I doubt they really absorbed it.) Ask a 10-year old what they think of the series and, assuming they have seen it, you're likely to get a positive reaction and no specific differentiation between any of the episodes. They'll like some better than the others, but not for the same reasons that those of us who have lived through the series' history do.

I love Drew McWeeny's series about showing the STAR WARS films to his kids. I think this is highly representative of how the current young generation reacts to the movies. They come to them without baggage and end up loving them from start to finish. Here's a link to his RETURN OF THE JEDI piece, which is the last in the series, but includes links to the other five parts (at the bottom).



I was 16 years old when The Phantom Menace came out. And I saw not much of a difference in the quality of the prequels to the original trilogy. Still don't. I think they are more or less about equal. I love all six of them.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:54 am
Profile
Director
User avatar

Joined: Mon Aug 10, 2009 10:09 pm
Posts: 1343
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
ilovemovies wrote:
I was 16 years old when The Phantom Menace came out. And I saw not much of a difference in the quality of the prequels to the original trilogy. Still don't. I think they are more or less about equal. I love all six of them.


Indeed. I've already posted so much on this subject that I'm pretty much exhausted by it. Suffice it to say, in hindsight, maybe we put the OT on too high a pedestal to begin with... movies that were really just conceived more or less as a rich man's Flash Gordon serial. :| For the most part, movies don't change -- it's the times (and people) that do.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 5:03 am
Profile
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Quote:
I'll have you know, mister, that I really do like those movies now.

I went to see Breaking Dawn with a home made 'team Jacob' hat on. I made it from one of those Burger King crowns you find in their joints.

Who doesn't like a story about a controlling but romantic and well meaning figure like Edward? Sometimes I wish he'd watch me sleeping. I wouldn't get creeped out by that. And when he takes the engine from my car? I'd know he was really looking out for me :)

Clearly he is the guy to be with. After all, he isn't a savage descended from a Wolf who is also a Werewolf right? Actually I think I'd love to be a Native American who can transform into a giant Wolf; then I'd just savage all the haters.

People who hate Twilight just don't get how awesome the whole thing is. Mormonism? Racism? Sexism? Well these are all just things we have to do in real life, amirite? :)

And sparkling; man, it gives me such a boner to think that Vampires could sparkle instead of burning to a crisp.

I thought about re-writing the lyrics to 'Moves like Jagger' so it was called 'Moves like Edward' because when he runs about like Clark Kent, it just sends shudders to my genitals :)

You are such a mean spirited guy, Vexer, for hating on these movies :P


For Ragnarok's benefit more than anything. I hope this clears up the matter of 'my tastes', since I'm rather miffed at being called 'a fan' :P


Tue Jan 24, 2012 10:59 am
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3203
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
Ragnarok73 wrote:
James Berardinelli wrote:

Out of curiosity, JB: did you ever watch the RedLetterMedia reviews of the PT films? If so, what were your thoughts on the points brought up by the reviewer?


Haven't read them.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:06 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3203
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
ck100 wrote:
James,

I have two questions for you:

1. Have you seen the "The People vs. George Lucas" documentary? If so, what do you think of it?

2. What do you think of Steven Spielberg recently indicating his regret over making changes to "E.T." back in 2002?

I'm asking this because it relates to the topic of Lucas and his changes to his films. Spielberg's reason for regret is he felt he was robbing people of their experience of seeing "E.T" by making changes to it. Spielberg has said when "E.T." comes to blu-ray it will at least have the theatrical version attached to it. When he first made his changes he at least made the compromise of having the 1982 version on DVD along with the 2002 version.


#1 - Haven't seen it
#2 - It was his right to change it and his right to regret changing it. It's his film. Lucas has never tried to take the original theatrical version away from the fans (in fact, he made it available - despite some misgivings on his part - on one of the DVD sets, albeit in non-anamorphic format). He simply hasn't provided it in a manner up to the latest, greatest technology. Keep in mind that the laserdisc version (which was used for the DVD transfer) is from the restored digital print that was used as the basis of the SEs. You're not getting an old, crappy, deteriorated print from 1977. You're getting something that was painstakingly cleaned up.

What (some) people don't seem to realize is that Lucas isn't trying to prevent the fans from having access to the theatrical versions. He's simply not putting his time and money into upgrading them to HD; that effort has been reserved for the Special Editions.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:14 pm
Profile WWW
Site Admin

Joined: Thu Jan 22, 2009 10:55 pm
Posts: 3203
Location: Mount Laurel, NJ, USA
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
ck100 wrote:
I also thought the whole Jango Fett storyline kind of ruined some of the mystique of Boba Fett.


You are referring to a character who made his debut in the infamous Holiday Special and existed largely as a means to provide an action figure before EMPIRE was released. (I think it was available for free if you mailed in a certain number of proof-of-purchases.) How is that "mystique?"


Tue Jan 24, 2012 12:20 pm
Profile WWW
Director
User avatar

Joined: Sun Jun 20, 2010 4:04 pm
Posts: 1795
Location: New Hampshire
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
James Berardinelli wrote:
Ragnarok73 wrote:
Out of curiosity, JB: did you ever watch the RedLetterMedia reviews of the PT films? If so, what were your thoughts on the points brought up by the reviewer?


Haven't read them.


You should take the time out to watch them. The guy's style is pretty weird, but pretty much all of the points he makes are spot-on.

_________________
Death is pretty final
I'm collecting vinyl
I'm gonna DJ at the end of the world.


Tue Jan 24, 2012 1:12 pm
Profile
Post Re: January 22, 2012: "By George! Defending Lucas (Part 1)"
James Berardinelli wrote:
What (some) people don't seem to realize is that Lucas isn't trying to prevent the fans from having access to the theatrical versions. He's simply not putting his time and money into upgrading them to HD; that effort has been reserved for the Special Editions.

How do you know Lucas isn't trying to prevent access to the theatrical versions? It could simply be that he knows that people will preserve copies of the originals, and is aiming at future generations with his current version of the trilogy. I understand that you're trying to defend him, but putting in a point that is based on his inner thoughts is a bit presumptuous, not to mention likely incorrect given his actions in recent years.


Last edited by Ragnarok73 on Tue Jan 24, 2012 4:58 pm, edited 1 time in total.



Tue Jan 24, 2012 3:56 pm
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 135 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Big_Mike, Jeff Wilder and 0 guests


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