ST George Lucas and the Mystery of the Treatment

Yes, it WOULD be the same. It doesn't matter if Thomas Edison lost faith in the electric light bulb; it matters that the thing works and generates light when you turn it on. It doesn't matter if Alexander Graham Bell lost faith in the telephone; it matters that the thing works and allows for two people not in the same room to talk to one another. And Michelangelo knew going into the whole Sistine Chapel commission that his work would be subject to alteration down the line, because he was himself painting over someone else's work on that ceiling. Plus, he was reluctant to even do the job; he only did it because Pope Julius insisted that he do it in addition to the sculptural work that he much preferred.

And anyway, to use an artist's reaction to alterations of their work as an argument is pretty farkakte considering Lucas had no qualms about altering his work HIMSELF.

These things are "personal tragedies" only to the biographers of these people, who seek out a dramatic arc to frame the telling of a subject's life (all stories, even biographies, require arcs for their characters); they don't impact the value of their creations. The light bulb works regardless of Edison's feelings, the telephone regardless of Bell's, the Chapel ceiling regardless of Michelangelo's.

 

Feelings very much can impact the value of things, sir.

 

I know it's not on topic, but I just have to comment on the Edison light bulb analogy.

The light bulb had actually been invented just before Edison by Joseph Swan, so we'd still have a light bulb regardless, just putting that out there

 

I'd be disappointed if TFA was genuinely great and yet Lucas couldn't get past how it differed from his vision, if only because it would indicate that his ego was getting in the way of seeing the film for what it is. It'd be a "tragedy" insofar as it would speak to Lucas' character.

But I don't see this happening.

 

Good point, Lucas changed many things of his own work but also that of Kershner and Marquand. In changing ANH his reason that they couldn't be done in 1977 was valid and surely if one wants to change something of ones own design one should have that right. But the majority of the changes made to ESB and ROTJ such as Vader's walk to the shuttle and Vader's "Noooooooo!" as the Emperor tortures Luke are flagrant violations of the narrative of Kershner and Marquand. Having said that Lucas being forced from the directors chair by circumstance could be argued as a valid excuse for such actions if it were not for his position in the editing of these films.

 

The technology to add "Noooooo" just wasn't there in 1983.

 

"Noooooo" technology has advanced by leaps and bounds in the last three decades.

 

Going back to your comment about artists being upset with their own works being altered, I'm not sure where, but there IS the phenomenon of fan edits and the like and Lucas HAS addressed them in interviews. I don't remember where, but he said he could care less what they do.

That's actually pretty consistent. One thing I'll give Lucasfilm under GL's tenure is they were definitely friends of the fanfilm/fan edit community.

 

i've never disliked the motion picture. it's just long.

 

If that did happen, it would mean that Lucas is actually closer to Roddenberry in character than I believe. The thing that made me not respect Roddenberry was not he disagreed with this or that direction, but that his disagreements were subsequently rendered invalid when the direction was proven to have been the right one. If you're disagreeable and what you say turns out to be right, then I should respect that opinion and care about what you have to say in the future; if you're disagreeable and what you say turns out to not only wrong, but CONSISTENTLY so, then your opinion has no value because it simply doesn't jibe with reality is telling me.

But Lucas ISN'T Roddenberry; as I've said before, their characters are quite different, and Lucas is quite simply a better, more giving PERSON than Roddenberry was. They both happened to establish lasting intellectual properties set in space and on other planets; after that the resemblance ends.

 

I think you are dead right. For me, films have to be assessed on their intent and the technical application. The Motion Picture is flawed, but still, they were at least attempting to make a smart science fiction film that had broad appeal. The concepts/ideas were great, the production designs were fab, the music class etc. etc. Ultimately, I think its biggest mistake is that its a too plodding (for several reasons).

 

I'd disagree. Lucas has as much artistic and legal right to modify his films, given it's really his "narrative" as Paul McCartney has to re-record or re-mix Let It Be... or Da Vinci had in deciding to re-paint a piece (which he often did)... but that's a different debate all together.

 

George Lucas to be honored at D23:



http://www.starwars.com/news/george...nd-during-d23-expo-in-anaheim?linkId=15529133

 

I think George's treatments have an unclear role. Many contradictory things have been said about them so far. What I'm saying is we can't judge anything fully until the whole trilogy is complete in this regard IMO. Plus George and/or LucasFilm would have to talk about it too. There was an interesting discussion in the PT forum about this very topic: boards.theforce.net/threads/do-jj-abrams-lucasfilm-or-disney-no-longer-consider-the-pt-canon-or-part-of-the-star-wars-universe.50032112/page-58#post-52604007 …

 

I'm pretty sure they were indeed largely binned. I don't think the VF article, nor George are lying on that front.

 

That could very well be the case. But George may have taken a few changes to mean that "they are taking it in a different direction," even though the overall story is still following his ideas. George, as we all know, has a reputation for exaggerating things he says in public.

 

That's also true.

 

I'm wondering how much really they're allowed/willing to talk about what ideas were used, modified, unused, etc

Just to say "We totally did away with it" is very hard to believe. Even the biggest detractors of the PT say that they think George can come up with a great story but they don't like his execution. I don't believe it for a second

 

If George hasn't read the current script he wouldn't know what was used and what wasn't.

 

He did say that he didn't want to know anything going in.

 

After the release of TFA SW fans and general movie goers will judge if it was the right or wrong approach to ditch Lucas' treatment. If some fans don't like the story or general tone of ep 7 I'm sure they'll argue it was a mistake for Disney/Lucasfilm to dismiss Lucas's vision for a third trilogy. I'm sure Mr Lucas won't rock the SW franchise boat and say anything negative about ep 7 but as the years go by he may open up and say "I liked this bit of ep 7 but I wish they hadn't done blah blah blah..."

I'm sure JJ Abrams has huge respect for George Lucas and all he's achieved but he may have looked at his story outline and thought "nope, I don't wanna make that!" Film making can be a very brutal business and sentiment goes out of the window. I think it's a pity George Lucas hasn't contributed to the story. It would be nice if the credits were

Story by George Lucas, JJ Abrams and Lawrence Kasdan

I think some sort of compromise might have worked but my gut feeling is GL didn't want to make a third trilogy:



Near the end of that video he says:

I think deep in his heart he didn't want to continue the saga but felt obliged to prior to the sale of Lucasfilm. He wrote an outline hoping it would be used. But I don't think he had the same creative passion as before. He's said each trilogy is a decade of his time and he wouldn't want to commit to another ten years, and as he says in that clip, "The saga is now finished." Any new trilogy would feel like adding to something that had a natural end. In this respect, Lucas would feel less interested in revisiting the saga, I reckon. Perhaps a third trilogy was never meant to be done by George Lucas. I think fate has shown its hand. We'll find out in December if ep 7 was the right or wrong decision but I'm sure it will be an entertaining adventure.

 

George has a tendency to make mountains out of molehills. It's one of the things that makes his creative genius great but also makes his interviews so unreliable.

However, the EW writer who talked to the RFR podcast guys said he talked to the Lucasfilm folks at D23 and the impression he got from them was that they didn't use much. Now, what does that mean? Does that mean even the basic storyline of Lucas' was jettisoned? I don't know.

A basic storyline can be written out on a napkin. In the context of a shooting script, perhaps that isn't much. But, it does have a beginning. middle and end.

 

I'd love to know if Lucas' outline was about the Empire as the main enemy. I'm guessing the Empire would still exist in some form 30 years on, but, given Lucas strong attention to visual detail, I think the Empire would look different. I don't think he'd use 1977 visuals in a 2015 SW film. Just my gut feeling.

I suspect some younger family members of the original cast would lead the new adventures. Han/Leia/Luke's son/daughter. Perhaps a GL episode 7 film would start with Luke's son leading a new Jedi Order? I think ep 7 would look and feel different to what we will get in TFA.

TFA seems a homage to the past. My impression is George Lucas wouldn't want to to make a new trilogy as a homage to the past. He would want to move on with a fresh look, not looking back. It's clear Abrams and Kasdan love the original trilogy and will reference bits of it in the new film but George Lucas wouldn't have that mindset. He wouldn't say "I love my original trilogy so much I want to reference it again!" That would be a tad incestuous, perhaps, or narcissistic. Lucas would go with his new vision and if some fans disliked it - as was the case with the prequels, some SW fan just can't get to like them! - so be it.

I think Lucas would take more creative risks than Abrams/Kasdan and that may be the one drawback of the new trilogy. A lack of creative risk because Disney want to market the third trilogy as a retro-reboot of the first trilogy.