ST George Lucas and the Mystery of the Treatment

Not if you're pissed off.

I think you meant to say 'a GOOD script over a long weekend would be some effort'. Hell, I've written 120 pages of prose in 3 days....but it certainly wasn't any good.

 

I'm holding out hope that Satipo is right in this regard. I'd like George's DNA and storytelling ability there, carried out through a new set of actions brought on by the fresh perspectives of Mickey Mouse and JJ Abrams.

 

It sounds like the DNA is missing Luke and the Excalibur saber floating through space.

Interesting how missing Luke can also serve as a metaphor for missing George.

 

I think so too.

 

Nothing to see here...

 

Well, Luke has always been sort of an idealized version of Lucas (or his self-image, anyway), so I can see where that parallel would seem attractive. However, looking at the story the way it seems to have shaped up, I do wonder, if this story is true, whether that had something to do with what seems to be the big thematic underpinning of the film, which is the children of the previous generation having to separate themselves from their parents, overcome their mistakes, and move forward without them towards something better.

Like I said in the Rumor Depository thread, it's not only a compelling theme that is really identifiable for a lot of people, but it's a nice bit of metatextual commentary on Star Wars itself. This is now a series that has to be its own thing now. Can't deny the parentage, but it can't always follow in those footsteps, and not in the same way, either. Similarities can be championed and appreciated, but these are different people, with different goals. Both in front of, and behind the camera.

Also, because I like doing it: Disney is not Lucasfilm. Lucasfilm is not Disney. A lot of people are ascribing decisions to the one and acting as if the other isn't in creative control.

 

Well if that scenario is true it paints the handling of development by Disney and KK in an even poorer light... not that I believe it.

 

Lucasfilm.

 

All Star Wars has Lucas' DNA in it. I fail to see what that matters.

 

The truth can't be repeated enough. One of the rhetorical tactics of the angry George camp is to stress as much as possible Disney as the evil corporate exploiter of SW. And to ignore who exactly sold SW to them.

 

If true, there has been some drama going on.
Writing a feature film script in 3 days is pretty desperate.
Looking at Michael Arndt`s IMDB, he has nothing coming up - and Star Wars was probably his dream come true. Then he gets rejected...

 

I wonder if it was anything like The Shining...

 

So whatever Disney/newLucasfilm does is George's fault. Got it. Everything is George's fault. Makes sense to me.

 

It's not about faults! This is not good vs evil!

It's differing and subjective creative and business decisions (and I believe predominantly creative) over how to make the best SW film. We will only get a sense of whether or not the team succeeded when we see their efforts in the context they intend them - i.e. - a finished film.

 

It's George's fault we're getting more SW. What a ****.

 

The point is this: Disney is not making TFA. Lucasfilm, as a largely autonomous entity, is making it.

"Disney" is often used rhetorically to suggest faceless corporate suits making a soulless product, when in reality it's a film made by people who love SW and were put there by Lucas.

 

Without Lucas though LF is just another corporation, and I think it would be a stretch to say they have full creative freedom.

 

Obviously Disney has some oversight. But as with Pixar and Marvel, they also know that these companies function best when left to do what they're best at.

And what, you think LFL is some sort of capitalist, Monsanto-style boogeyman now that Kennedy's in charge?

 

it's not lucas's "fault", but you can't blame JJ/KK/Disney for making certain decisions when Lucas handed them the keys and said, "you drive".


You're free to dislike the finished product, obviously, but this new team doesn't deserve certain criticisms (note, I didn't say ANY criticism) when the decision-making has been placed in their lap.

 

Whatever they do is their responsibility. Just like when you hand the keys to a 16 year old. It's not like they were drunk. I think.

I don't think Marvel or Pixar have creative control. Creative control means nobody can tell you what to do within your budgets. I don't think Joss Whedon thinks Marvel had creative control on the Avengers movies.

 

Perfectly said.

Moreover, Lucas evaluated Disney as a good caretaker of Lucasfilm and SW. Yet many who proclaim themselves his most ardent supporters act as though Disney is, as you said, a soulless corporation (based on a false, simplistic binary: corporate or not corporate). Although they are unwilling to explicitly say this, they are the ones condemning Lucas's wisdom whenever they attack Disney in this way, but they are also rhetorically disingenuous not to mention his evaluation and act as though Disney somehow forced Lucas to sell or stole the company from him.

I think Lucas made a wise choice in selling to Disney. If anything is his fault, it's a good fault. But yes, we can't and shouldn't ignore cause and effect here. Disney didn't put a gun to George's head. Or did they?

 

Not saying Disney is interfering in their every move in the making of the film, but of course they have meetings. And if say KK had said we are going for an R rating with TFA, I'm pretty sure some Disney execs would say "that's not going to happen".

I think the only difference in principle between LF and Monsanto is that LF was a privately run company. Where the boss, ie Lucas, could take certain risks and choices because in the end it was his money. Now they are just a company being run for profit, like Monsanto.

 

There are fans with stocks riding on this. They don't want to hear anyone say they think it's going to suck. But they should know, it doesn't matter if it sucks. It will make even more money if it sucks. They're getting their money no matter what naysayers like me might say. If you want to make money in the stock market, you put your chips on lowest common denominator stuff.

 

What a weird hypothetical, though. Why would that be a possibility? Yeah, Disney might say something if word of an idea that seemed to be 100% antithetical to the tone/tenor/reach of Star Wars was being pursued with their money. Sure. But that's not a thing that's happening, so there's no reason for any of the executives there to step in, and even if they *did* step in, it's not as part of the creative team. It's simply saying "We're not spending money on that. Come up with a better, more palatable idea for the property."

Lucasfilm & Monsanto are really terrible choices of comparison, also.