JCC George Lucas is engaged

Discussion in 'Community' started by Ghost, Jan 3, 2013.

  1. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Alright, that's just factually incorrect. The target audience of the Clone Wars animated series is pointedly not the target audience of the 1976 film Star Wars.
    Ender_Sai likes this.
  2. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I thought you said that the PT was only popular with a "market segment too young to think critically"? They're not prone to strokes. :p Makes them finding the prequels entertaining a bit peculiar, I'd say.

    I'm guessing you're looking at it from the other end of the age spectrum. ;)

    In regards to this announcement, though, it's nice to see some good news.
  3. drg4 Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jul 30, 2005
    star 4
    What was the target audience in '77? The folks who were standing in line for Annie Hall?
  4. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    That doesn't capture the genuineness in a person who would like to do such a thing but is financially unable to do so. Moreover, the reason that charity is socially esteemed is not to encourage good character in and of itself*, but the act of charity in general. Why? Because we care more about the destination of charity than its source: it does not benefit a starving child, a victim of disease, or a disabled person any more whether the donation came from somebody who earned a tax break or whether it came from somebody who had to skip lunch for a day.

    Your objection is wrong-headed and born more out of a desire to be faint in praise for the wealthy than it is to encourage the goals of charitable giving in the first place. It is a misplaced criticism and I politely suggest that you recant.




    *NB, as a virtue ethicist I would agree that good character is an end in itself, but I categorize a trait as "good" that helps one's fellow man, society, or humanity in general.
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Jan 3, 2013
  5. harpua Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Mar 12, 2005
    star 8
    ****ing SW geeks... can't hear/see the name George Lucas without going all fanboy/basher. :p
  6. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    What? My approach does exactly the opposite. In using proportional rather than absolute measurement of the amount given, it better captures the charitable contributions of a poor person. A person who gives enough money to affect their own standard of living can fairly be said to have given more than those that do not. Each man is measured only against his own capacity to give.

    Not the point I was making. I wasn't--and am not--making global commentary on the act of charitable given. I am responding to a specific situation in which drg4 cited the scope of George Lucas's giving as evidence of his good character. I merely commented that if one is going to take such an approach, using a proportional metric yields a clearer picture than simply measuring the raw totals donated. He set the parameters of the discussion, not me; I merely found fault with his attempt at applying them to the case of George Lucas. While you are correct that charity should not ultimately be an ego-centric pursuit, a discussion about a given person's character must ultimately be about that person.
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Jan 3, 2013
  7. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    I don't know about that. According to Mark Hamill in this interview (skip to about 13:09), George Lucas made the original Star Wars for 5 year olds. Now, different people have different takes on this, but I don't think you can say that drg4's statement is factually incorrect.



    And as an aside, it's nice to Lucas smiling in the OP's photograph. He too often wears such somber expressions although Mellody Hobson has a pretty enough smile for both of them.
    Last edited by PiettsHat, Jan 3, 2013
  8. Point Given Mod of Literature and Community

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Dec 12, 2006
    star 5
    Whatever happened to a good old congratulations?
  9. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Wocky, I refer you back to my original point: you're still using harm to the person as the scale, which does not -- to use your own wording -- actually "capture the charitable contributions of a poor person." Does a poor person who runs a fundraiser for little league contribute less than a poor person who starves herself for a week? Again, harm to one's own wallet is not the proper metric.

    As far as the Lucas discussion here, the guy was rejecting the idea that Lucas was a tragic figure, not positing evidence of his "good character." In other words, the discussion was about his accomplishments and not his person: and donating vast sums of charity IS a socially esteemed accomplishment for the primary reason that society likes to encourage such donations.

    edit:

    That's for facebook. What, you're not fb friends with Lucas?
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Jan 3, 2013
  10. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    That's clearly a figurative expression meant to make his larger point about the critical response to the film. As much is as obvious in the lilt of his voice. He wasn't making a grounded statement that story, characters, and marketing were all geared primarily at 5 year olds. That's demonstrably untrue, as seen in the very existence of a thread like "misconceptions you had about Star Wars as a kid." Young children often find the plot too complex to follow completely. That besides, even by today's standards, the violence is far in excess of what is deemed culturally appropriate for that age group. The format is not particularly inviting. Part of their promotional campaign included a full length novel, even though 5 year olds typically can't even manage chapter books. The claim is just absurd.
  11. PiettsHat Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jan 1, 2011
    star 4
    @Jabba-wocky

    Unfortunately, your lack of evidence doesn't really give your arguments credence. At the end of the day, I'm still going to trust Mark Hamill's words more than yours unless you present something more substantial than saying something is "absurd."

    Also, having read the novel, I can say that it's certainly no more complicated or difficult to get through than the Harry Potter series or The Hobbit, both of which I and my brother read (or began reading) before we were ten. Mark Hamill may certainly have been exaggerating when he said "five year olds" but I think it's very clear that children were a large focus for Lucas. I've always personally felt that Star Wars is best described as a family movie.

    And tell me again who those action figures were sold to? Film connoisseurs in their 40s perhaps? :p

    Sorry, Jabba-wocky, while I agree that Star Wars offers entertainment for older individuals as well, I've always noticed that most of the mega-fans of the franchise here are people who saw the original trilogy when they were kids. So I don't think your statement that drg4 is "factually incorrect" holds water.
  12. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    While we often spoke in terms of financial donations because of the context of the thread, I have in every post made an appeal to a broader, non-monetary standard. In the second place, your example continues to ignore the specific parameters of my commentary, which was about using charitable activity as an indicator of the giver's personality. Whether the guy with the fundraiser "gave more" or not is irrelevant. If he, in organizing and executing the fundraiser, put himself at greater inconvenience to help others than did the man who only went without eating, then in this one instance he has manifestly demonstrated a greater willingness to inconvenience himself for the sake of others. It's a reflexive statement. It's a description of what literally happened. Whether we should understand this to be the "point" of charity or not has nothing to do with what we can learn about the people from their charitable activity.

    And I guess I would disagree with you about drg4's intention. As I understand things, while a tragic figure can do good things, a tragic figure can never be good. They are after all, somehow fallen, and that as a consequence of whatever flaw engendered the tragedy. In this framework, only one of the two argumentative strategies actually disproves the notion that Lucas is tragic. He had to, in my view, argue that Lucas is good.
  13. Souderwan Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Jun 3, 2005
    star 6
    I read the follow-on commentary and felt I had to go to the source comment, hoping there would be sense made. Alas, this was not to be. This is a silly comment.

    You are actually saying that doing good, because it does not really cost you much to do so, "isn't really that laudable". That's silly. Even for you.
    Summer Dreamer, eht13, Whitey and 3 others like this.
  14. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    Wocky, the very nature of a tragic character is that they are good and yet still managed to fall because of their ἁμαρτια (often poorly translated as heroic flaw, but perhaps better as "transgression"). That's WHY they're tragic -- otherwise they're just bad.
    Last edited by GrandAdmiralJello, Jan 3, 2013
    kainee likes this.
  15. Space_Caboose Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2009
    star 1
    He must have given her the classic I hate sand speech.
  16. Jabba-wocky Chosen One

    Member Since:
    May 4, 2003
    star 8
    Jello, I'm not even sure that's actually a disagreement with my point above. After all, I attributed the "fallen" nature of any tragic character to their "flaw." You have now followed on with a post explaining that tragic characters are those that have "managed to fall" because of their "flaw." We're even employing the same diction.

    In simplest terms, though, I guess we should reverse. In trying to answer the question "Who is most charitable?" I have responded that the sensible answer is "The person most willing to do charity." You have rejected this response. What possible replacement would you suggest? You've raised a lot of points about the efficacy of charity and maximizing the impact of one's giving, and a host of other good points. But none of them address how we judge a person's inclination to do charity. I simply see know way we can access such an internal state without using the direct testimony of what people have been historically willing to do (measured proportionally, to control for baseline differences in access to resources/wealth). Again, the comment seems almost reflexive.

    Souderwan: While all good is at some level praiseworthy, I absolutely feel comfortable making distinction between those good acts that deserve special acclamation and recognition and those that do not. Do you propose that no such distinction can be made? Are all good acts to be equally celebrated?
    Last edited by Jabba-wocky, Jan 3, 2013
  17. GrandAdmiralJello Community and Lit moderator person

    Manager
    Member Since:
    Nov 28, 2000
    star 10
    No, we're disagreeing because you're using those terms wrongly. We're using the same terms because flippin' Aristotle invented them and we both went to grade school. :p

    A tragic flaw is not necessarily a vice, though it can be (for instance, superbia can be a flaw); it may well just be a mistake, and even an innocent one. The important point though is that a thing is a tragedy when a hero (that is, a good person, more than just a protagonist) performs/possesses this flaw/fault/transgression and thereby falls. That's why it's tragic.

    Your assertion that a tragic person cannot be good misses the point of tragedy entirely. It is tragic when a good person falls; it is expected when a bad person does.
  18. JackG Force Ghost

    Member Since:
    Aug 15, 2011
    star 4
    lol wut?
    Ender_Sai and Summer Dreamer like this.
  19. jp-30 Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Dec 14, 2000
    star 9
    I'll marry you on one condition George. Get rid of all that Star Wars crap you own.
  20. Ender Sai Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Feb 18, 2001
    star 8
    ITT,

    1) Wocky once again saddles up Rocinate for a tilt;
    2) Lots of newbies
  21. VadersLaMent Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Apr 3, 2002
    star 9
    Wocky is way too Lawful Good for his own good.
    Ender_Sai likes this.
  22. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    -I think George Lucas should donate the vast majority of his wealth to charity and live relatively humbly. No, really, I do. No one should be a billionaire. A billionaire donating billions while retaining billions is like me donating snark. Really, is he going to miss it? (I only skimmed the wocky convo.)

    -I don't like the Prequels very much and I even question why I got the complete saga on Blu-ray instead of just the OT (because it was relatively cheap), but I'm over the traumatic experiences of "I don't like sand" and "UNLIMITED POWAH."

    -Congrats on robbing the cradle, Georgie!

    I think that covers it.
  23. Space_Caboose Jedi Master

    Member Since:
    Sep 14, 2009
    star 1
    Does Peter Jackson still own George Lucas at this point
  24. Darth Guy Chosen One

    Member Since:
    Aug 16, 2002
    star 10
    Not since the 13th Amendment.
  25. Healer_Leona Manager Emeritus

    Member Since:
    Jul 7, 2000
    star 9