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)
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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*
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..
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!
I thought Avatar was good. Far from original, but it worked well. Also, it was the only 3D movie I've seen that I didn't suffer from (usually I try to avoid them a much as possible).
Avatar was a lot of fun, only among internet fan-bois does it get that much shit, thank goodness their opinions count for exactly that.
The only place I see hatred for Lucas is the internet. For me, the man made some good movies and made some bad movies.
Vitriol? Didn't know he had that problem. A bit too much information. They do say performance issues can happen. 1 out of five......