Original version of Star Wars Trilogy to be released on DVD

bklyndv said:
When was that?
Click to expand...

He made Citizen Kane and Magnificent Ambersons as his first two films... then
17 years later did Touch of Evil. There aren't all that many gems among
the rest and there are a whole lot of unfinished films in the mix. I'd
say that he 'peaked' at 24 with Kane.
 
I think that's the general consensus but I also feel its an unfortunate one. IMO Touch of Evil is a much better film than Kane, and I think Welles said the same, though his personal fav' was Ambersons IIRC. F for Fake is a hell of a good time, too, and a sort of look at what Welles' answer to the likes of Godard's work might feel like. I think his later mix of work shows a wider array of pieces that are very different from one another, but eachother's equal. Kane was more a show-stopping piece of bravura.

As for Lucas, I grew up loving his work as nearly everyone (every boy) of my gen did, and for that they have a special place in my personal history, but I don't really have much room for them in my adult life.

I also think it's entirely possible to make a critical assertion that he and Speilberg became exactly the opposite of the filmmaker they proclaimed to be at the outset of their careers ("We want to make films, not movies" was how Speilberg put it), without being lumped in with the "indie-who-slags-on-Lucas-as-a-subtle-mask-for-jealousy" crowd.
 
Last edited:
I always am fascinated by the people who take it personal when you have an opinion about George sucking. The only retort they can come up with is:

He has done so much for cinema! He is the most sucessful indie filmmaker !

Your just a low budget filmmaker !

Blah blah blah

It doesnt change the fact that the last 3 films sucked the big one.

What he's done and continues to do, is unique
Click to expand...

Unique ? Hashing and re-hashing the same thing over and over ?

George is a stud for creating the Star Wars universe. The first 3 films are a world and experience I will never forget. Unfortunately, he hasn't really done anything since. Forget abouthe economic and marketing wonder Star Wars has become; we're talking about the brass tacks of filmmaking. I don't care how much money the dude is making; even White Chicks made money.

Even Coppolla created beyond The Godfather. Spielberg is a god amongst the filmmaker. De Palma is a legend in some circles. Scorsese is the most disprespected filmmaker working (Lack of Oscar Nod).

Now, I found American Graffitti to be a fun flcik; but nothing that has any serious lasting power. Like Spidey says; this whole horse named Star Wars is glue. It died in 1983.

You can slam the films and its really easy to dislike the prequels
Click to expand...

It is wayyy too easy. But that's all were doing.

Relax people; don't be such Star Wars geeks. It's okay if we don't dig the new geek stuff.

-
 
John_Hudson said:
Now, I found American Graffitti to be a fun flcik; but nothing that has any serious lasting power. Like Spidey says; this whole horse named Star Wars is glue. It died in 1983.
Click to expand...
I thought I'd take a look at Lucas' career and point out something he's done since Star Wars that was good. Nope. He's made a career on the Star Wars and Indiana Jones franchises and their spinoffs in writing and producing. American Graffitti was done before Star Wars so it doesn't really count as something he's done since Star Wars.

I guess that's the long way around the barn to agree with you...:Drogar-BigGrin(DBG)
 
Are you kidding? Lucas is the only reason those films exist. I heard that there were a couple stunts that Ford was too scared to do, so Lucas actually jumped in and did them. Then he single-handedly created the technology and had ILM replace his face with Fords.

The man is a wonder, and it is right to give him thanks and praise.
 
George did give us "Young Indiana Jones." Anybody remember that one?

If only Lucas had gotten Speilberg to direct Episodes I, II, and III. George could've focused on the technology and let Speilberg handle the storytelling (ala the Indiana Jones franchise).
 
John_Hudson said:
I always am fascinated by the people who take it personal when you have an opinion about George sucking.
Click to expand...

For some of us, it is personal and not some 'fanboy' exercise.

I've worked on a ton of junk and a couple of box office bombs.. some of which
have been slammed here. Doesn't bother me, it comes with the territory.
The question remains, how do you define the success of a filmmaker?

You bring up an interesting point however. You mention Scorsese, Coppolla,
Spielberg and Lucas's works and discount box office and the oscars as an
indicator of success. So define success? I FIRMLY stand behind my statement
that Lucas is a Welles-ian filmmaker that really doenst give a flip if anyone
likes the films hes making. He's making them for himself and he's built a
system in which he can do what he wants, at his pace, self-sufficiently
and if 'one bombs' he can go on to the next one. Thats what Welles always
said he was striving for. Coppolla has his own 'mini-ranch' at the vineyard
a few miles down the road from skywalker. Spielberg (though Katzenberg
moreso) built up a little version of it with Dreamworks... though he gushes
all over lucus and mccallum when hes working up in marin. Rodriguez
looks up to and emulates the guy like he was his dad. When you see
other filmmakers around Lucas... they defer to him like he was Vito Corleone
and they all want into the family.

I passed on staying on up there, though Red Tails is going to be an
interesting project. I'm personally not a star wars fan.. I loved it as a kid,
but it was Raiders, Halloween and the Bond movies that got me into this
crazy industry. In end I left because I was reminded that I wanted to
be a filmmaker on my own terms. Thats what all those guys respect
him for. Thats why he's spoken of as having beat the system at its
own game. As for his movies... I sorta like a few of em.
 
dont you like it when people defend like that.

alos luca does care if people like what he makes he doesnt care about the about the fans

like

you better like my stuff even if it sucks if not you dont know what is good. thats what lucas believes.
 
For some of us, it is personal and not some 'fanboy' exercise.
Click to expand...

Don't take it personal unless you are George! And who is the fanboy ? It sounds if you are the only fanboy in here regarding Lucas. I can honestly say I am not a fan and 100% not a Star Wars geek. Give me Han Solo; Luke was a p*ssy!

You bring up an interesting point however. You mention Scorsese, Coppolla, Spielberg and Lucas's works and discount box office and the oscars as an indicator of success.
Click to expand...

Please do not put words into my mouth! When did I do this ? I never indicated that.

I mentioned the other filmmakers (who stem from the same class as George) to illustrate that they have done more films and have created a body of work that is generally accepted by audiences beyond one thing, other than Lucas, which has done nothing beyond Star Wars. Nothing unique, nothing new, nothing. Nada, Zilch. I don't care how many lunch-boxes the guy has sold.

I FIRMLY stand behind my statement that Lucas is a Welles-ian filmmaker that really doenst give a flip if anyone likes the films hes making. He's making them for himself and he's built a system in which he can do what he wants, at his pace, self-sufficiently and if 'one bombs' he can go on to the next one.
Click to expand...

It still doesn't change the fact that the last 3 films suck.

Thats why he's spoken of as having beat the system at its
own game.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure your point in this discussion (I don't mean that in a negative way. I just don't know what all of this has to do with the last 3 films sucking or not).

I am in reference to the business of actually making a good film or not. I don't care how rich he is getting, how much he is doing on his terms, what he has done for the indiependent filmmaker or how much technology he is responsible for. I came into this conversation by way of the DVD announcement. I aint giving George any more duckets for Star Wars. This new conversation is a result of your reference of it being fasionable to dislike Lucas. Fashionable ? Isn't that an attempt to discredit one's opinion ?

As for his movies...I sorta like a few of em.
Click to expand...

Yeah me too. The first three.

And Red Tails sounds just dandy.

http://imdb.com/title/tt0114745/

Can't wait for the Lucas' sugarcoat of magic.
 
I mentioned the other filmmakers (who stem from the same class as George) to illustrate that they have done more films and have created a body of work that is generally accepted by audiences beyond one thing, other than Lucas, which has done nothing beyond Star Wars.
Click to expand...

Oh man... lets not forget that that 'only star wars' thing is 6 features. Thats a
huge body of work in and of itself. You seem to be discounting the guy because
he doesn't have this huge, diverse library of work. He created a singular body of
work including 6 features, 4 of which he directed, that no one else has duplicated
outside of the Bond films and the 'Jason' movies.. and one can count a solid 8-10
Bond films that are totally forgettable.

It still doesn't change the fact that the last 3 films suck.
Click to expand...

I'll go you one further and say that 'Jedi' sucked too :)

I came into this conversation by way of the DVD announcement. I aint giving George any more duckets for Star Wars.
Click to expand...

Fine.. I dont own any of the films other than Ep2 which I needed to by to grab
shots for my reel. I'm not going to get em either.

I'll come to defense of the guy mainly because there is a pervasive additude
on the 'indie scene' that tries to put these white or black hats on specific directors
that are solely based on the films and their current state of fashion. Right now,
Tarintino automatically seems to get a white hat pass, and Lucas gets handed a
big black steson. Cameron and a few others seem to be the swing vote. Scorcese
has fallen in love with CGI so its gonna be facinating to see where he runs with it...
I predict a fall from 'grace'. Jackson now has the clout to do some vanity projects
so we can expect to see some slings and daggers aimed in his direction as well.
For some reason, Kurosawa is fading, but John Wu.. even with his current
hollywood tripe, is still respected.

Frankly, because its the indie scene, folks tend to get fixated on the whole director
as auteur thing and forget that this is a business in the end. Lucas gets the biggest
gold star there is when seen from the other point of view... Corman, Spike
Lee, Rodrieguez (for now) and recently Mel Gibson, are on a short list of other
'final cut' directors with 'screw you hollywood', clout. For the bulk of the rest, they
are prepetually on studio life support. Thats the crew that I respect. Heck, I'll take
the Andy Sedaris business model over Michael Bay's any day. I've been involved
in the financial politics on one of Bay's films (Pearl Harbor) and it wasn't pretty.
The guy doesn't know what hes doing either behind the camera or even further
behind the camera on the producing end. He's the poster child for bad hollywood...
not Lucas.
 
I see your point now, but I think it's still missing the forrest for the trees. The comparisons between Welles and Lucas should pretty much stop at the gut and beard.

The depth to which Lucas examines the world around him, as evident in his films, seems by comparison to Welles very shallow -- e.g. moral relativism: in the Lucas universe it's Han Solo drawing first on Greedo, a surprise -- and now retracted -- moment otherwise buried in an FX laden fairy tale pitting GOOD against EVIL; in Welles' universe, it's the entire premise of Touch of Evil, examined in its myriad and often muddied grittiness. With Welles, especially in his later films, technical excellence is still there but it is subservient to a greater goal, and evident of not only a life examined, but also of a richly nourished outlook.

This idea that "the maverick spirit" unites them is a bit of a stretch -- beyond directing all and acting in many of his films, Welles actually dirtied his hands painting and building sets, endured extensive makeup applications, co-wrote, (sometimes) shot, and (nearly always) had a hand in editing them. Lucas' interests as a "director" have generally put his energies elsewhere -- i.e. delegation.

For me, methodologies aside, the greater point is that Lucas creates the cinematic equivelant of exciting rollercoasters -- plenty of ups and downs but in the end you're right where you started; Welles, on the other hand, challenged us to rethink how we see our world.
 
Last edited:
Nice take bklyndv

-


I'll go you one further and say that 'Jedi' sucked too
Click to expand...

I can dig that; once the Ewoks showed up; I started tuning out. But to be fair on all counts, It was a nice ending to a wonderful fairy tale.

Anyways; no new cash for George out of this pocket.
 
well my man beef is you thought vader was the number one bad ass character of all time in the originals who had a change of heart (but was ruined in jedi no matter what be cause uncle fester was in the mask) in the prequel you ruin the attraction of evil. anakin "became" evil in a second and got a name and was like prince of the univerese in no time and it was stupid. like a stage play that sucks.

"Gouuuuod you will be named Darth Vader, now run along and kill people!"

anakin was a wuss he never looked angry to me.

so my beef is

-prequels sucked
-prequels suck so badly it effects the other film series.
-The shock in ESB "luke, I am your father" no longer means anything. becuase we know
-anakin is a cry baby not murderous as we thought he was protrayed.
-how people cant tell this is bad.

the movie should have been R and a horrible destroying mess of a movie and hate and vengence. not a cry babys' last chance.

lucas could have been great, hes not his series succeeded not him. and even that isn't very original so he sucks.


case and point.
 
1. Hayden crying and moaning for the last 2 films, the 1st film with that annoying kid racing around in Pods, the annoying kid flying a space ship, droids making stupid crying sounds when they get hurt, The ESPN anchors during the pod races, Jar Jar of course ...

The lack of any real sets and the waaayy overkill on the CGI

Hated it!

35295-1-2.jpg
 
Welles was raised on literature. Lucas and Spielberg were raised on comic books and tv. Welles made movies for adults--Lucas and Spielberg generally dont.
My biggest gripe with the prequels(beyond the fact that Lucas had 20 years and complete creative control and so no one can be blamed but him) is that some people defend them as being in the same league narrative-wise as the originals. This doesnt bother me because I regard the originals as great works, I dont--but story and character wise there was more coherence and entertainment value (even in the messy ROTJ) than what we have in the latest 3--and that is a major downturn in film literacy if people cant see it.

Plus Lucas spoke with contempt about studio chiefs not understanding art--but I really doubt that they could have done more of a hatchet job than Lucas did himself.

Beyond that though--technology eclipsed the novelty that the SW movies had in showing us something we hadnt seen before-and Lucas is probably right when he says the blockbuster is dead. But nothing can take away the experience of seeing ESB in 1980 and not knowing who Yoda or Darth Vader were and not expecting the cliffhanger ending. Williams' music was just great too.
 
kgg said:
Lucas and Spielberg were raised on comic books and tv. Welles made movies for adults--Lucas and Spielberg generally dont.
Click to expand...
:shocked:

Kiddie features?
Munich
Saving Private Ryan
Schindler's List
Minority Report
Armistad
Empire of the Sun
The Terminal
Jaws
Close Encounters of the Third Kind

 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top