The Trek BBS

The Trek BBS (http://www.trekbbs.com/index.php)
-   Science Fiction & Fantasy (http://www.trekbbs.com/forumdisplay.php?f=15)
-   -   George Lucas - Why the Vitriol? (http://www.trekbbs.com/showthread.php?t=221188)

crookeddy July 29 2013 11:26 PM

George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
George Lucas created two of the most beloved film franchises of all time - Star Wars and Indiana Jones. Yet when his name gets brought up on the internet its usually to remind us what an awful writer/director/person he is. Why is that?

Also, objectively speaking - why is the OT better than the PT? (Jar-Jar notwithstanding)

Admiral James Kirk July 29 2013 11:29 PM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
No vitriol from me. I love the man. I named my son Lucas.

DalekJim July 29 2013 11:34 PM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
American Graffiti, THX-1138 and Star Wars are good movies. He hasn't done much worthwhile since, and is now an incredibly mediocre director and poor writer, but I don't hate the man. I can still watch the movies of his I like when I want to. He isn't really active enough for me to hate him, unlike the ubiquity of JJ Abrams.

I also rate Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith over a solid chunk of Star Trek movies. They're not very good, but still fairly enjoyable.

C.E. Evans July 30 2013 12:36 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
It's not just Lucas but also Roddenberry, Berman, Abrams, Moffat (current boss of Doctor Who), and anyone else that spearheaded a franchise. You'll find their detractors aplenty on the internet.

Meanwhile the rest of the world goes on about their business...

Personally, I'm grateful to Lucas for something in my childhood that I actually enjoy more now.

davejames July 30 2013 01:00 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
I might have been severely disappointed with the prequels (and Indy 4), but I've never hated him for it. I just think he started taking himself too seriously in later years and forgot how to tell a good story.

And the OT is better (as if it really needs to be said anymore) because it's fun and charming and full of dynamic characters that pop off the screen. Which is something you definitely cannot say about the prequels.

Shurik July 30 2013 01:07 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Quote:

And the OT is better (as if it really needs to be said anymore) because it's fun and charming and full of dynamic characters that pop off the screen. Which is something you definitely cannot say about the prequels.
This. Prequels are boring.

But I can't hate the man who supplied the material for 3 excellent Rifftrax commentaries and three Plinkett reviews. I had so much fun watching those.

Unicron July 30 2013 01:11 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Let's not forget another classic he worked on. :D


JiNX-01 July 30 2013 01:32 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
:wtf: I've never held anything against him.

The Wormhole July 30 2013 02:30 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Quote:

C.E. Evans wrote: (Post 8444284)
It's not just Lucas but also Roddenberry, Berman, Abrams, Moffat (current boss of Doctor Who), and anyone else that spearheaded a franchise. You'll find their detractors aplenty on the internet.

Exactly, George Lucas is The Man, and fans never like The Man.

Brolan July 30 2013 02:47 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
The prequels were a disappointment for many people. Lucas had nothing but yes-men working for him and he went right off the rails. But since he was kind enough to sell out to Disney we will get a chance to see another take on Star Wars. Looking forward to it.

Mister Fandango July 30 2013 04:57 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Because instead of improving his ability to tell a story, he devolved and ignored storytelling in order to advertise his special effects company. That's the main reason for me, anyway.

Frontier July 30 2013 06:48 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
First off, you're always going to hear more from the vocal opponents than anyone else.

Personally, I think anyone whose told they're "brilliant, a genius, a visionary" long enough lets it slowly go to their heads. So much so that they begin to believe their own shit doesn't stink. In Hollywood especially, people tend to shelter and not confront or question or challenge these people. When frankly, it's being questioned and challenged and confronted that made them good in the first place. Lacking that sounding board, lacking that challenge, they devolve into mediocre hacks.

Lucas, Roddenberry, Abrams... people of their ilk: they make good stuff initially. Then they make GREAT stuff. And when they've done that greatness, they start to think they've got the midas touch. And no one stops them and says "hey, this sucks, fix it" because... I dunno why. I don't know.

I think the reason Lucas gets so much more vocal hate than almost anyone else though is that... he really did change things. He really fought the good fight and beat the studios and the corporations at their own game and made a mint doing it. He came out of no where, changed things radically, and came out on top and was a lot of people's hero for it.

So when he suffered the same fate as the others, the effect just felt worse. Because what he had done had been so much bigger.

There are those who lament Roddenberry's flops and failures. There are certainly those who (validly, IMHO) critique Abrams for his many failings. But with Lucas... it feels more personal to so many people for various reasons. So the level of vitriol is proportionate to that, imho.

Look at any creative individual though, especially modern times, and you'll find the same thing. They rise, they become hailed as the greatest thing since sliced bread, and eventually they lose that spark and become more mediocre. It happens to everyone. Scorsese, Spielberg, Lucas, Roddenberry, Abrams, Woody Allen, you name it.

Creativity is everywhere. Channeling that creativity and making a good end-product from it takes pressure and challenge and drama and luck. Which is what a lot of the greats had at their heights. Once they've achieved success they didn't have to fight anymore, and without that fight and that challenge and the doubt and questioning, the pressure is off and the product is worse. *Shrug*

wildstar July 30 2013 07:29 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Check out a movie called The People vs George Lucas. It brings up some interesting points about how he views the Star Wars movies in contrast to how fans view them.
Also, the Half In the Bag review of Red Tails..

crookeddy July 30 2013 10:38 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
Quote:

Mister Fandango wrote: (Post 8445046)
Because instead of improving his ability to tell a story, he devolved and ignored storytelling in order to advertise his special effects company. That's the main reason for me, anyway.

Can't the same be said about Avatar? Yet James Cameron still seems to get praised for his vision. I think the PT was to CGI/green screen what Avatar was to 3D.... and it used just as much green screen while at it.

I did forget Red Tails - that was truly awful!

DalekJim July 30 2013 11:29 AM

Re: George Lucas - Why the Vitriol?
 
I've honestly never met anybody that didn't think Avatar was shit.


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 08:49 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.6
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
FireFox 2+ or Internet Explorer 7+ highly recommended.