What are your thoughts about George Lucas as a filmmaker?

[karelm 2,913]

I just watched Charlie Rose's recent interview with George Lucas and found it interesting though Lucas isn't the most articulate auteur.  I realized while watching the interview that my thoughts of him have changed over the decades.  To me he was a creative genius in the 1970's and 1980's, over rated in the 1990's and 2000's, and maybe just a fan of mythology and sci-fi adventure serials with lots of capacity to produce what he likes in the 2010's.  What is he?  Brilliant film maker?  Genius visionary?  Businessman?  Technical innovator?  Loser?  Sentimentalist? Rich fan of what he liked from his youth?  Too complicated to explain?  What do you think he is?  What is his legacy?

 

If any of you are interested in seeing the full interview, it is here:

 

 

 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

An outstanding businessman and a technical innovator first and foremost.

His early work shows the signs of a promising film maker (director/writer/producer), but his latter work undoes that.

 

Now he's someone who has left a great legacy (good and bad) on Hollywood and how films are made and sold. (ironic, considering he largely eschewed Hollywood)

But his role seems to have played out a long time ago. He never did make those low-budget art movies he said he was gonna make after ROTS.

 

[Lewya 360]

What Stefan said but not that he "undoes" that, his older work still exist, it is just that he messed up the PT way too much.

 

It is a shame that he didn't do anything between the OT and PT (and after 2005). I could have been without the PT, but the scores are more than enough the reason why i'm fine with them existing.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

18 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

He never did make those low-budget art movies he said he was gonna make after ROTS.

 

He has. He just doesn't want anyone to see them.

[karelm 2,913]

31 minutes ago, Stefancos said:

His early work shows the signs of a promising film maker (director/writer/producer), but his latter work undoes that.

 

 

Interestingly, the interview shows that his aspirations were to be a documentarian (like Michael Moore) and tone painter.  He claims his next chapter will feature this style and the famous works were more utilities.

[Red 75]

Lucas is an incredibly complicated and fascinating individual. There is virtually no one else in the movie business like him; the kind of person who, arguably more than any other single person, has shaped the ways movies are made in the modern age and yet has a reputation for being a hack. I'm not sure he was ever a truly talented writer and director. His earliest films are good but the success of Star Wars was in a lot of ways due to the collaborative way in which it was made. But it was Lucas' vision and it cannot be understated how great that vision was. He's one of the best idea men the industry has ever had; the lesson in his later downfall is that even creators with the best ideas need vetting and shaping from other talented minds. There can't be the kind of ego that refuses to listen to anyone outside one's own mind, no matter how much of an auteur the creator is.

[mrbellamy 6,278]

4 hours ago, karelm said:

 

Interestingly, the interview shows that his aspirations were to be a documentarian (like Michael Moore) and tone painter. 

 

Aesthetically, this is where his work as a director was always the strongest.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[A24 4,331]

Lucas' latter work makes me doubt his actual personal input in his early work. 

 

 

 

Alex

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

I reckon he's a top bloke, mate.

[mrbellamy 6,278]

I could never take those first three away from him, but we know of course he shifted to an entirely different working method altogether. 

 

I've always felt like he was never naturally as tenacious as his buddies Marty and Steven who have still shown signs of vitality in their old age. They thrive on having a movie always in production, it's who they are. Lucas on the other hand has often described himself as a lazy person, which I know is tongue-in-cheek and can't be completely true given his position, but he has always seemed a little on the lethargic side, personality-wise. In the 70s, circumstantially he had no choice but to push himself and give that 100%, no matter how exhausting. 20 years later, perhaps not so much.

[A24 4,331]

You think the problem is that he didn't push himself any more? That he became lazy? Hmmm ... isn't it possible that he was never a good director in the first place but that something or someone was able to mask it somehow? Maybe the people he worked with in the beginning were more experienced than him, less willing to accept authority, and ultimately more important to the end product than we realize. I think it's perfectly plausible that his later work, due to his all powerfulness, his god status, could indicate that what we are seeing is a Lucas without anyone doubting him. A lucas who is all on his own without anyone makes suggestions or contributions. Lucas is the master. The film crew and cast is only there to obey his instructions. At least, this is the feeling I get each time I watch a Skywalker Ranch video. Everyone is just trembling when he's around.

 

 

 

Alex

[Quintus 5,399]

This is how the apologists see Lucas:

 

 

This is how everyone else sees him:

 

[Thor 7,493]

Always liked his work, although he isn't terribly prolific, directing-wise.

 

Rather embarassing, though, that I still haven't seen THX.

 

Wasn't he supposed to focus his attention on more indie fare after he gave up  STAR WARS? Like Francis Ford Coppola? I'd certainly like to see that.

[Quintus 5,399]

I never did know whether or not you're a fan of the prequels, Thor. 

[Romão 2,274]

I honestly, I don't know. The quality is so inconsistent in his body of work, that one wonders what exactly were the crucial factors in the sucesses

[Quintus 5,399]

Collaboration and timing. 

[Jay 37,346]

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

6 hours ago, Quintus said:

This is how the apologists see Lucas:

 

 

This is how everyone else sees him:

 

 

With a fabulous head of hair?

[Quintus 5,399]

The quality of his hairline was never in question. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Spared no expense 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

5 hours ago, Quintus said:

The quality of his hairline was never in question. 

 

His is almost as good as yours!

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Lee is ashamed of his hairline 

[Quintus 5,399]

I shave my head Stefan, like Patrick Stewart does. Is he ashamed too? 

 

How's the whisp over going?   

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The talk out there now is that shaving your head is the new combover because it's just another way for a man to hide that he's losing his hair.

[Quintus 5,399]

Heh, bollocks to that. 

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

6 minutes ago, Drax said:

The talk out there now is that shaving your head is the new combover because it's just another way for a man to hide that he's losing his hair.

 

It is. Quite sad if you think about it.

[crocodile 8,000]

19 hours ago, Red said:

Lucas is an incredibly complicated and fascinating individual. There is virtually no one else in the movie business like him; the kind of person who, arguably more than any other single person, has shaped the ways movies are made in the modern age and yet has a reputation for being a hack. I'm not sure he was ever a truly talented writer and director. His earliest films are good but the success of Star Wars was in a lot of ways due to the collaborative way in which it was made. But it was Lucas' vision and it cannot be understated how great that vision was. He's one of the best idea men the industry has ever had; the lesson in his later downfall is that even creators with the best ideas need vetting and shaping from other talented minds. There can't be the kind of ego that refuses to listen to anyone outside one's own mind, no matter how much of an auteur the creator is.

Ditto.

 

I still firmly believe the ideas for prequels were not bad. I like a lot of stuff behind the film and how Lucas was trying to do something else and perhaps even offer a deeper commentary on the matters of politics, immortality, greed and "certain point of view". As a short treatment, that story must have felt like a terrific idea. Those seeds are more ambitious than anything in the original trilogy and could result with great films, with the right approach and execution. How it turned out, we all know.

 

Karol

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Although wearing a hat is acceptable. I like Jones Sr's hat in Last Crusade.

[Bespin 8,480]

He directed 7 feature films.

 

Was burned out after the third.

 

But top notch as a producer, except the movies where Rick McCallum was also involved, obviously.

[crocodile 8,000]

I thought he directed six?

 

Karol

[Bespin 8,480]

Red Tails 2012 (for the reshoots it seems).

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

He directed parts of ROTJ too I think 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Post production of Jurassic Park?

[#SnowyVernalSpringsEternal 10,265]

Yep

[Andy 4,120]

I don't think we'd be here had he never existed.

 

I guess I'll be the apologist and say I'm a big fan of most of his work.  Christ, I had fun watching and enjoying those Prequels.  I don't get all the fuss over them.  I mean, I do, but it's really remarkable just how much has been said about them.  Are they the most discussed films ever?  Is that a bad thing?  In the future, there will be a lot of fanboys on their deathbeds wishing for the time back that they'd spent criticizing or defending them on internet message boards, myself included.

 

If I could make a Trek analogy (since so many here seems to enjoy that more [except for TOS for some reason]), Flying the Enterprise requires collaboration and timing too, but it has to have a Captain.  Lucas is a fantastic Captain, and he did things the way he wanted to.  The problem is, he's also incredibly vulnerable, and I think he really took his share of lumps for the Prequels.  Didn't like it?  Fine, say your piece, make your critique, and get on with your life and the things you DO enjoy.

 

Of all the Directors I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human.  He wears his emotions on his sleeve.  He seems to be philanthropic, and supports progressive education.  He's a lover of art and a lover of film.   And he seems like a decent fellow who cares about humanity.  He has his own sense of humor, but that could also be said of everyone here.

 

George Lucas built my childhood.  So, yeah, I'm a big fan.  I'll distill it down in simplest terms.

 

No Lucas = No Star Wars and No Indiana Jones.

 

Do I think he's a great filmmaker and director?  Yes, yes I do.

[karelm 2,913]

23 hours ago, Drax said:

31 minutes ago, Hedji said:

I don't think we'd be here had he never existed.

 

I guess I'll be the apologist and say I'm a big fan of most of his work.  Christ, I had fun watching and enjoying those Prequels.  I don't get all the fuss over them.  I mean, I do, but it's really remarkable just how much has been said about them.  Are they the most discussed films ever?  Is that a bad thing?  In the future, there will be a lot of fanboys on their deathbeds wishing for the time back that they'd spent criticizing or defending them on internet message boards, myself included.

 

If I could make a Trek analogy (since so many here seems to enjoy that more [except for TOS for some reason]), Flying the Enterprise requires collaboration and timing too, but it has to have a Captain.  Lucas is a fantastic Captain, and he did things the way he wanted to.  The problem is, he's also incredibly vulnerable, and I think he really took his share of lumps for the Prequels.  Didn't like it?  Fine, say your piece, make your critique, and get on with your life and the things you DO enjoy.

 

Of all the Directors I've encountered in my travels, his was the most... human.  He wears his emotions on his sleeve.  He seems to be philanthropic, and supports progressive education.  He's a lover of art and a lover of film.   And he seems like a decent fellow who cares about humanity.  He has his own sense of humor, but that could also be said of everyone here.

 

George Lucas built my childhood.  So, yeah, I'm a big fan.  I'll distill it down in simplest terms.

 

No Lucas = No Star Wars and No Indiana Jones.

 

Do I think he's a great filmmaker and director?  Yes, yes I do.

He has. He just doesn't want anyone to see them.

 

I still think there would be a massive JW fan base because of Speilberg's work with Jaws, Close Encounters, etc. (minus Indiana Jones) but there would still be many great scores, just not his magnum opus. 

 

I think the PT is just seriously flawed whereas the OT are very, very good so the gap between these makes the PT seem even further astray.  Maybe what he created was beyond his skill to control. 

 

I get that he influenced many, many after him and was a great innovator in technology (ILM), production, video games, etc. 

 

I prefer TOS to all other trek.  I think what you are getting at with the Trek analogy is that Lucas is a visionary, but a visionary needs craftsmanship and execution skills too.  Steve Jobs needs Wosniak otherwise he is just a guy with ideas.  If you don't have a good way to execute the idea, it is meaningless.  Early Lucas had peers who challenged him...Kurtz, Kirshner, etc.  Without that, Lucas's weaknesses were exposed.  Lucas built my childhood too (maybe more of it was JW but still through Lucas's vehicles) but I might have overestimated the strength of his earlier visions.  They were the result of collaborations of demanding peers who collaboratively sculpted our childhood. 

[Datameister 2,042]

22 hours ago, Red said:

Lucas is an incredibly complicated and fascinating individual. There is virtually no one else in the movie business like him; the kind of person who, arguably more than any other single person, has shaped the ways movies are made in the modern age and yet has a reputation for being a hack. I'm not sure he was ever a truly talented writer and director. His earliest films are good but the success of Star Wars was in a lot of ways due to the collaborative way in which it was made. But it was Lucas' vision and it cannot be understated how great that vision was. He's one of the best idea men the industry has ever had; the lesson in his later downfall is that even creators with the best ideas need vetting and shaping from other talented minds. There can't be the kind of ego that refuses to listen to anyone outside one's own mind, no matter how much of an auteur the creator is.

 

That about sums up my views. I'll add that on the one hand, I owe him tremendously for some of the films (and film music!) that his ideas led to...and on the other hand, I find his comments about Disney being "white slavers" utterly tasteless and just generally uncool, regardless of his later apology.

[Gruesome Son of a Bitch 6,488]

As a filmmaker, he had an idea for a specific type of music score and the good sense to hire John Williams to deliver it. Can't fault him there.

[Red 75]

1 hour ago, Datameister said:

 

That about sums up my views. I'll add that on the one hand, I owe him tremendously for some of the films (and film music!) that his ideas led to...and on the other hand, I find his comments about Disney being "white slavers" utterly tasteless and just generally uncool, regardless of his later apology.

 

A lot of the comments he's made in recent years are just mind boggling. He often comes off as a petulant child.

[Datameister 2,042]

That really is the vibe he's been giving off. Granted, he's getting to watch other filmmakers receive high praise for handling his "baby" very differently than he has, and I can understand how that would hurt. But it's like...no one forced you to sell Star Wars, dude. You traded control of the franchise for a shitload of money. Now you get to enjoy that money, Disney gets to enjoy a box office smash, and moviegoers get to enjoy a new generation of movies that actually feel like Star Wars.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

2 hours ago, E.T. and Elliot said:

As a filmmaker, he had an idea for a specific type of music score and the good sense to hire John Williams to deliver it. Can't fault him there.

 

Imagine if John Williams took another gig and Jerry Goldsmith had an opening in his schedule in 1977...

[bruckhorn 105]

Considering how they ping pronged on Superman, it it an interesting thought puzzle.

 

As for Lucas, he seems to be a victim of his own success.  On the prequels, he should have taken the approach he had with Empire and Jedi: oversee the production.  Certainly by that time he was more fascinated by special effects and post production.  He was surrounded by people who were so awed by him that they dared not cast any doubt on anything that Lucas uttered.

 

The prequels have bad scripts, bad direction, but stunning special effects.  Thanks to Mythbusters, I know that shit can be made to shine, but it don't change what it is.

 

My problem with Lucas actually goes back to the "Special Editions."  I can understand wanting to clean up the effects.  Anyone who ever saw the old VHS versions understands.  But Lucas took it father by completely replacing all of the effect shots.  Star Wars won an Oscar for its special effects and replacing them to me is a giant FUCK YOU from Lucas to the people who worked on the original movies.  What would our reaction be if Lucas decided that the score was dated and needed to be replaced?  He owned the rights to the movies and could do what he wanted.   (Yeah, that inserted shot of Vader boarding his ship was worth it.) 

 

I can listen to Frank Sinatra's Capitol Years boxed set and marvel how he could sing.  And I remember seeing footage of him in the last decade or so of his life and thought he needed to hang up the mic.  It is possible to respect Lucas' early work while accurately criticizing his later work.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

The special effects in space in the prequels were marvelous. Those had essentially been perfected by that point. But the ground-level planetary effects generally looked awful, whether it was a scene in the Jedi Temple or wherever on Naboo or some other random rock.

 

One of the big advancements in SFX in TFA that was subtle but significant was the lightsabres and how their light shined on the actors on set. I saw a production still where the actors were being directed for the final duel and to my surprise, their lightsabre sticks were lit up! Apparently this was to ensure their blue and red colours would reflect off the actors' faces, creating a more realistic look. As opposed to all previous films where the actors were just using props with no light emitted from them, and of course the effects were just rotoscoped in post, but their light never really interacted with their surroundings.

[BloodBoal 7,538]

[A24 4,331]

4 hours ago, Drax said:

The special effects in space in the prequels were marvelous.

 

But the scenes themselves weren't marvellous so the payoff is small. Watching the slow Gothic images of the Nostromo in Alien has a lot more impact on me.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

11 minutes ago, Alexcremers said:

 

But the scenes themselves weren't marvellous so the payoff is small. Watching the slow Gothic images of the Nostromo in Alien has a lot more impact on me.

 

I meant marvelous as in they look believable, which is hard to achieve.

 

For example, space shots of ships in Star Trek II looked believable because the ships were self-lit. But that all changed in Star Trek III where the ships looked like they were stage-lit. Like, ew.

[Sharkissimo 1,973]

I never get why with all the cosmetic changes Lucas made to each special edition, he never fixed the shitty CG in this shot. I cringe every time I see it.

 

 

 

[A24 4,331]

31 minutes ago, Drax said:

 

I meant marvelous as in they look believable, which is hard to achieve.

 

For example, space shots of ships in Star Trek II looked believable because the ships were self-lit. But that all changed in Star Trek III where the ships looked like they were stage-lit. Like, ew.

 

What is the value of 'believable' if it's completely devoid of atmosphere and emotion?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

1 hour ago, Alexcremers said:

 

What is the value of 'believable' if it's completely devoid of atmosphere and emotion?

 

You're thinking too dramatically. The critieria for believable is simply that I believe it was shot with a camera in space and they're actual spaceships.

[Quintus 5,399]

Lol