Does anybody still think that George Lucas is a genius?

Genius? No.


Brilliant? Great filmmaker? Storyteller? Director? Writer? Visionary? Yes.

 

I think GL should give the Tunisian people some revenue for this "Original" idea.

j/k.


Actually I think GL is awesome, Genius even.

 

Kurosawa was a genius.
John Ford was a genius.

George Lucas is not a genius, on any level but his skill to make billions from the fans of his creation.

He has no style of his own, his artistic/visual skills are in fact stolen from others, and his storytelling has become so dire that it leads me to think that he just doesn't give a rat's ass about SW.

Kurtz sums it up perfectly with his "it's good enough" observation, that GL just wanted a rollercoaster summer blockbuster rather than an epic and poignant story...

 

He has no style of his own, his artistic/visual skills are in fact stolen from others,

Who "stole" them from still others, if you choose to look at it that way.

and his storytelling has become so dire that it leads me to think that he just doesn't give a rat's ass about SW.

Never mind that he spends 10 years of his life and a good chunk of his own money to make the prequels. Which has been pointed out umpteen times before.

That Kurtz quote, if genuine, was in reference to a special effect, not a story point. Which has also been pointed out umpteen times before.

How many more times will these two things have to be pointed out before they sink in?

If you don't give a rat's ass about SW, fine. But I ask that you at least not project your apathy onto Lucas. And anyway, why reward what you consider his apathy, thievery, and dire storytelling skills by spending your time and your money on his movies?

 

To me, a genius is someone who possibly takes ideas from others and learns from them, but then he builds on those ideas in ways that nobody else ever has. Isaac Newton, for example was a genius because he took what others have done in math at that point and then he basically invented calculus. That's genius...

Bjorn Borg is an example in tennis. Others had used topspin before, but he changed the game forever by using excessive topspin. He was so successful with it, that he forever changed the game and now thirty years later, everyone is using it. That's genius...

I've yet to read a good argument as to why Lucas is a genius at story telling or directing.

 

I wouldn't call him a genius...yet, but I would say that Lucas is an excellent visionary and writer. I'll see what he does with Episode III before calling him a genius.

 

*shrugs* An $11m film that opened in 32 theatres back in '77, that's turned into a franchise worth over $3 billion in world box office alone.

Why do people think being a genius is about getting every single thing right? No-one has ever done that. But if someone can do what I noted above, that marks them down as a genius in my book.

Trying to break it down is pointless.

 

GL just wanted a rollercoaster summer blockbuster rather than an epic and poignant story...

Wow, if that's what he wanted, then he failed, since what he gave us was an epic and poignant story.

A genius is someone who leaves his field different than it was when he came in. Lucas has already done that.

 

Hmm..I don't see anything wrong with creating a story which exists in an environment completely different from our own and yet incorporating various familiar references...if you're going to tell a story which features aliens, moon-sized battle stations which destroy a planet in one shot, armies of clones, and Jedi abilities, what's wrong with throwing in elements we can relate to?

-Tim

 

The Hidden Fortress DVD available in the U.S. includes an interview of Lucas, but what an interview it is! The whole point of the interview is Lucas's desperate attempt to downplay the influence of Hidden Fortress on Star Wars. It is an amazing public relations piece, but it has nothing to do with the actual movie and an in-depth comparison of the two films.

To me, Lucas's genius is in self-mythologizing. How he managed to insert that self-serving interview into the Hidden Fortress DVD is itself a PR coup of immense proportions. What many fans don't understand is that the Lucas we see in all his interviews is a carefully crafted PR creation that has nothing to do with George Lucas himself. The Lucas we see in interviews serves the interests of Lucas's business holdings, not the interests of historical accuracy.

 

Jabba, does it occur to you that the reason it's allowed on the DVD is that the people involved in Hidden Fortress DON'T MIND THIS ONE LITTLE BIT? That this is the way things are done?

 

"*shrugs* An $11m film that opened in 32 theatres back in '77, that's turned into a franchise worth over $3 billion in world box office alone."

Making billions of dollars doesn't qualify a person for being a genius. Brilliance and/or talent is what defines genius...

 

Furthermore Jabba, Lucas isn't even that good of an actor. All of his interviews and appearances ring of incredibly scripted falsity. Much like his recent films, there isn't a single frame of Lucas that hasn't been spliced, recomposed, digitally altered, or labored over.

"I AM THE GREAT AND POWERFUL LUCAS!"

 

Furthermore Jabba, Lucas isn't even that good of an actor. All of his interviews and appearances ring of incredibly scripted falsity. Much like his recent films, there isn't a single frame of Lucas that hasn't been spliced, recomposed, digitally altered, or labored over.>>

Neither is there a single frame nor word from TPM and AOTC that hasn't been nitpicked, criticized, or in some way found fault with.

-Tim

 

Okay, modding time: We're getting personal. Jabba and Tokyo, there's a difference between criticizing Lucas as a director/producer ("He's non-original!") and criticizing him as a person ("He's a publicity monger and a self-mythologizer!"). And Tim, while I understand the frustration level, we should refrain from making comments about people "pretending to be SW fans."

 

Ack! Mea culpa.

-Tim

 

This thread has given me a great idea!

I'm going to take a older movie, one that has critical/film buff props, but isn't well known and remake it with my interests in mind, add a dash of mythology, history and theology... infuse my art design with work from ancient cultures and create my own companies in order to have control over the process.
I'll study photography, editing and anthropology, BUT I'll come up with the orignal story which I'll hand off to a PROFESSIONAL & RESPECTED WRITER. Eventually I'll make sequels and discuss my backstory... then I'll leave the work alone for a few years...

I'll return to my story after my companies have garnered respect, created new technologies and a sizeable income. My backstory films will have slight reference to the backstory I had spread (I didn't create it, my people did it without my knowledge) in the interm. The films will have controversy, but follow the pattern of the original works loosely and be more um.. child frinedly, but with a eager fanbase to defend them, but I'll make lots of money and retain my celebrity status.

Then I WILL BE A GENIUS!!!
AHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!

 

Unofficial Moderating time.... people "pretending to be SW fans"?

Tsk, tsk.

I'm a fan, I find enjoyment in SW films... I don't loathe the prequels, I think they are a wasted opportunity, but I don't go on & on about how much genius it takes to make a film series that people like!
James Cameron has good films... is he a genius? Speilberg? What about Fritz Lang?

What about the studio owners that give these guys the opportunity to make these films?
What about their collaborators? Their art/design teams their casts and crews?

Yeah, I'm a pretender because I don't kiss the *** of the creator of the SW films!?

Gimme a breaak!

 

Warning #2: Don't get into this.

 

Your posts as of late Punisher are becoming more and more sarcastic. I'd hate to see you leave.

 

HAHAHAHA!

Anyone that's been on this board for any amount of time could have predicted that this thread would degenerate into a Basher/Gusher thread... the title is asking for it!

Personally, I'd have locked it once it was posted.

Good thing I'm not a moderator.

 

It was a bit sarcastic, and certainly disrespectful both of Lucas and of people who disagree with him. However, sarcasm isn't a bannable offense, and reductio ad absurdum arguments seem to be accepted in internet debate. Personally, I don't think they make a compelling logical case, but being non-compelling isn't against the rules.

Personally, I'd have locked it once it was posted.

Alas, I have an endless supply of optimism about SW fans, and the question of influences is interesting, and of the different ways people see them--as someone who's studied fairy tales and myths, one of my greatest pleasures is looking for these old familiar patterns and seeing how they've been re-worked, while apparently others find that detrimental. But if it doesn't shape up and get back off the basher/prequel fan screaming match, I will lock it.

 

>>>> Jabba, does it occur to you that the reason it's allowed on the DVD is that the people involved in Hidden Fortress DON'T MIND THIS ONE LITTLE BIT? That this is the way things are done?

Galadriel, you have to realize that the Criterion Co. owns the distribution rights to The Hidden Fortress, and they are an extremely small company. They jumped at the chance to get that Lucas interview on the disc because it would sell more copies of the DVD. I?m with Jabba on this one?Lucas does seem downright disrespectful to Kurosawa in that interview. The similarities between ANH and TPM to THF are ridiculous. Did you know that Fox tried to buy the rights to The Hidden Fortress right before SW came out in ?77? They were so afraid that they were going to get sued if they released SW. Not to mention that one of the reasons Fox financed Kagemusha was probably because Lucas felt so damn guilty that he achieved commercial success?which was due to Kurosawa?and all the while Kurosawa was struggling to get money to make his movies. He convinced Fox to back Kagemusha, and would later convince Warner Bros. to fund Dreams.

Lucas even steals from [a biography] of Kurosawa:

---

It is the sixteenth century, a period of civil wars. A princess, with her family, her retainers, and the clan treasure is being pursued. If they can cross enemy territory and reach a friendly province they will be saved. The enemy knows this and posts a reward for the capture of the princess.

? Donald Richie, [i]The Films of Akira Kurosawa[/i][hr]
[hr]It is the thirty-third century, a period of civil wars in the galaxy. A rebel princess, with her family, her retainers, and the clan treasure, is being pursued. If they can cross territory controlled by the Empire and reach a friendly planet, they will be saved. The Sovereign knows this, and posts a reward for the capture of the princess.

? George Lucas, [i]The Star Wars[/i] Story Synopsis[hr][/blockquote]George claiming rights over [i]SW[/i] would be analogous to Disney claiming they own the Brothers Grimm.

 

Look I like watching films and reading a good story, but I don't think the word "genius" should be thrown around like it has been.

I enjoy the influences in the SW films, but how much is influence and how much is theft?
I think the PT has ruined the "influence" angle... when you are "referencing" your own work and that old work is a relatively small body to begin with, I don't think "genius" is the right word.

I'd say "desperate" is more like it.

That isn't a personal attack on Lucas, but I'm sure it will be perceived as much.

 

No, it's more like Disney claiming that they own the rights to the song "Once Upon a Dream." It's all in the expression.

(Genuine confusion, not a flame... you wrote "Lucas even steals from an autobiography of Kurosawa:" then went on to quote something written by a different author. Is this guy the translator of the autobiography?)

That isn't a personal attack on Lucas, but I'm sure it will be perceived as much.

No, actually that was at least addressing professional concerns and not making judgments about his motives, though I question the use of the word "theft," which is being used way too liberally here.

Nothing that's been shown so far even suggests "theft," any more than Stephen King's use of the exact structure of Dracula in 'salem's Lot was "theft" (then again, it wasn't an amateur who came up with the old chestnut, "Amateurs borrow, professionals steal" ). It's just transplantation into a new milieu, and the prequels particularly use so many sources and synthesize them so seamlessly that they are a new thing, as much as anything can really be new. I see all the issues you're bringing up, but I don't see them as even remotely problematic.