Have some fans come down too hard on Lucas about TPM?

--I'm also thinking about the huge losses that Lego suffered,--
Evidence? I think in another thread there's evidence to the contrary.

--and the gigantic drop in Hasbro's stock prices since TPM,--
Evidence?

--Pepsico's disappointing results from the TPM tie-ins.--
Evidence?

Lucas was done in by his own greed? How so? TPM grossed upwards of $400 mil at the box office and the DVD sold like crazy. The television broadcast got great ratings, though the bashers want to pretend it was because it didn't have any competition.

 

--Gotta come out of lurker mode in this discussion and address this. No, Shelley... Lucas in fact did not use any of Brackett's script for ESB. He didn't feel that what she did before she passed away fit in at all with where he wanted to go with ESB, and so he got Larry Kasdan in to write instead. He did give her a screenwriting credit, yes. He has said flat out that it was given as a tribute to her, and not because her material was used in the film.

So yes, in effect he HAS said "We didn't use any dialogue from her script, we just credited her to be nice.--
OK, thanks for the correction, Patrick, but actually that disproves the point Bud Frescoe was trying to make...that he used her dialogue and didn't give her proper credit.

 

Shelly, dont take this the wrong way, but you hardly ever (or i may miss it, which is very possible) post evidence for your stances. Instead of making an opinion and backing it up, you always refut and argue other peoples opinions. A few times it seems you just leave the discussion after a while making it seem like you can think of anything to say against an argument. I dont mean this as a flame, but what is your opinion and what evidence do you have in this reguard?

I believe that Lucas has been steadly going from more artest to busnessman since the begining. He was more of an artest in ANH, then had a ton of cash to play with for ESB, and maybe let it more go to his head, especally by TPM. This is just how i see it from the evidence that has been presented here, and my opinion of the movies.

And in response to the topic question, i believe that some have gone too hard on him, but others like to elavate him to god hood.

 

"The infallible filmmaker done in by his own greed. "

There we have it Case closed.
Every success Lucas had was because he planned it because he's such a good businessman. And every failure he had is because he's a greedy person who's not such a good businessman after all.

Of course, that ignores the fact that Pepsi, Hasbro, et all paid Lucasfilm a license fee - and he had his money Before and TPM
mechandise ever hit the stores. Could it possibly be that the expert toy company and the expert fast food multi-franchise overdid it, thinking that more is more rather than less is more?

Was it Lucas' idea to make the fans go back to KFC AND Taco Bell AND Pizza Hut Week after week over and over again? Was it Lucas who made the stores order way too much of the first wave of crap, there but screwing up all the people who DID try to go back to get he little Star Wars thingies?


------------


And since WHEN is Lucas Infallible? Does the Star Wars Holiday Special (1978) ring a bell?

What about Howard the Duck? (made by his friends who worked on American Grafitti, btw).

And I suppose the Radioland Murders was part of Lucas' grand design.

Like I said before he makes movies Some are successful some are not. Some are very commercial some are not. And the reason he became such a success is because of a combination of hard work, talent, working with good people and luck.

 

--Shelly, dont take this the wrong way, but you hardly ever (or i may miss it, which is very possible) post evidence for your stances. Instead of making an opinion and backing it up,--
Huh? How can I back up an opinion? An opinion is an opinion; it cannot be proved or "backed up," if you will.

--you always refut and argue other peoples opinions.--
Because they are presented as facts without being backed up.

A few times it seems you just leave the discussion after a while making it seem like you can think of anything to say against an argument.--
Huh?

--I dont mean this as a flame, but what is your opinion and what evidence do you have in this reguard?--
I'm not sure what you're asking.

 

Darth23, George Lucas developed an extremely sophisticated marketing plan, launching it with the special editions and culminating in the release of TPM. What he didn't bargain for, what the licensees all didn't realize, was that TPM might not be any good, that it might not capture the hearts and minds of little kids. GL oversold the license. Period. The price he charged made it impossible for Hasbro and Lego to turn a decent profit. It's not GL's fault that Hasbro and Lego bought into the hype, but it's Lucas's job to nurture the value of the brand, not squander it all in one huge multi-billion dollar blow that loses money for practically everyone involved. I'll look through the archives and find evidence for Pepsico, but what happened to Hasbro's stock price speaks for itself.

Lego is a more complicated story and Star Wars admittedly is only part of the reason for Lego's recent losses, but it is a contributing factor.

 

Jabbadabbado
But maybe it's more fair to say that he subordinates his artistic interests to the exigencies of his business empire. All the things he says are part of his pr machine, so why should he care whether they're accurate or not.

It is becoming apparent that some of us are unfamiliar with the nature of evidence. When we say, "Give us evidence," we are not asking you to draw conclussions based on your own assumptions. Evidence is factual information that is verifiable. Suitable evidence to back up your claims would be either direct quotes from Lucas himself, in context mind you, or direct quotes from a reliable source. Of course, it is not limited to that, but repeating the same assertation over and over again is not evidence.

Now that we have that cleared up, please, Jabbadabbado, provide us with some evidence to back up your claims.

Bud Frescoe
The "erasing the past" accusation stems from his recent claims that Greedo was always meant to shoot first (which is completely untrue...)

Ah, so now we're back to calling Lucas a big fat liar. Of course, you've been inside Lucas' head, so you know, without a doubt, that Greedo was never supposed to have shot first.

As I've said before, I have no reason to distrust Lucas, so if he says that it was always his intention for Greedo to shoot first but that it was unclear in the original cut, why should I disbelieve him?

and is contradicted by Kurtz and the editing team

First of all, there was no "editing team" on Star Wars. After firing the original editor early in the production, much of the editing duties fell on Lucas' wife and Lucas himself. So the "editing team" was, in fact, George Lucas and his wife. Secondly, I would like to see where Gary Kurtz contradicted Lucas on this matter.

his assertion that the original trilogy was always about Vader's redemption

Some evidence would be nice here, too. I don't remember him ever claiming that it was "always about Vader's redemption", only that that became the focus as the series progressed.

and his claims that Skywalking is completely false...

I've never heard him claim this, which doesn't mean he didn't, but much of what was reported in Skywalking was reiterated in the recent A&E Biography about Lucas' life.

[Edit]
Re: Merchandising

Well, too bad for Hasbro and Lego. But just because their junk didn't sell well does nothing to discredit TPM's extraordinary success. Every time TPM has been released, whether theatrically, on home video, or on television, it has taken in record numbers. You don't generate that kind of success unless a lot of people really want to see the film.

Bottom line: the film did extemely well regardless of how well a bit of chintzy tie-in merchandise sold.
[/Edit]

 

I am sorry, but Jabbadabbadoo's comments are WAY off base, and are quite obsurd.

In the A&E Biography, look at ssome of the shots ofthe inside of his house, of home movies of he and his kids. To me, for a billionair, that looked like a VERY modest house. And by looking at one's personal dwelling, should be able to tell you alot about that person.

In fact the look of his kitchen and family room, was a bit dissapointing, with me expecting it to look all lavish and all. And rich looking.

He finances his own movies. That in fact is one of the main peices of evidence that prooves that he not a greedy businessman. If he were greedy, he would work in Hollywood to make Star Wars, not pay from his own pockeyt to finance the movie (and let the big studio finance it for him), and sign on to a HUGE lucrative contract with Fox to serve as writer and director.

If you work for Hollywood, the big studio takes care of all of the financing of the movie for you, and if you are a big enough name doing a big enough movie, you will sign a $20-30 million contract no questions asked.

Lucas makes his Star Wars movies these days with the knowledge that no matter what, it is going to pull in TONS of money. So he just makes his movie the way he envisons. There is really nothing he can do (as long as he doesn't totally mess it up) that will make the movie flop at the box office. Had Episode I been as "cool" as the Matrix it still would have made a billion world wide. Instead he made a movie that didn't appeal to college age crowds as some previously thought.

Withe Episode II only 3 1/2 months away, and much of the plot already known, with the two recent script reviews being VERY positive yesterday. Right now this should be a non issue.

And Jabbadabbadoo, Lucas NEVER stated in the 60 Minutes interview that Jar Jar was in there for kids. And that article you posted about the SE marketing, was no evidence. You mean to tell me that the LFL marketing department isn't allowed to have a game plan for marketing into the future? Just because LFL has a marketing department, you think Lucas is a greedy businessman? The author of that article seemed to be writing more of a commentary on Lucas' marketing tendancies, than stating facts.

The same goes for every person who claims that TPM was nothing more than a 2 hour toy commercial.

Anyone who claims it is a 2 hour toy commercial, clearly missed most of the movie. Cuase most of the scenes do not have Ben Quadrinaros and the two headed pod race announcer in them. And if Jar Jar Binks toys are enough to keep Lucasfilm in business, I guess George has got some real problems then.

 

We need a transcript then to clear up who said what, because I remember GL stating he included Jar Jar to appeal to children. Or maybe someone else on his staff said it. It was, however, right there on the broadcast.

I'm not criticizing Lucas Licensing for maximizing the licensing take, I'm saying that in the end they went about it wrong. They oversold the license and devalued the currency. Also TPM itself devalued the currency. Lucas himself may have lost nearly $300 million when Hasbro stock plummeted, so because Lucas accepted Hasbro stock as a large chunk of his massive licensing payoff, Lucas screwed himself nearly as badly on the licensing deal as he screwed Hasbro.

I considered Lucas a marketing genius on the basis of the special editions, his video games, and his five year marketing plan that included the launch of TPM. But it all went south when TPM turned out to be such a merchandising debacle. Lucas could have saved the brand name if he had reigned in the licensing, kept it in check, held off on short term profit in order to build the long term value of the brand.

With Pepsico, Hasbro, Lego, et al, Lucas created the most lucrative, expensive licensing deal in history. People bet big on the value of Star Wars, but they never took into account the fact that TPM might not be very good, that its story really wouldn't appeal much to the imaginations of children. Of course the licensees accepted that risk and have only themselves to blame. But you know they'll know better next time around, and that means inevitably that the value of the Star Wars license is not what it was before TPM.

And finally, Lucas would have helped his business most of all simply by concentrating on making a better movie. Maybe he learned his lesson with AOTC. We'll see.

 

We need a transcript then to clear up who said what, because I remember GL stating he included Jar Jar to appeal to children.

I remember him saying something to this effect, but I think you are drawing a conclussion that is off base. Lucas added Jar Jar for a number of reasons, one of them being a fun character for the kids (and the kid in us as I happen to really enjoy Jar Jar) but nowhere has he said that this is the ONLY reason for Jar Jar's presence. If Jar Jar was created solely for marketing purposes then what about Darth Maul, Obi-Wan, and Qui-Gon as there is an equal amount of merhandise bearing their likenesses as there is Jar Jar's. It's one thing to say that the character of Jar Jar was marketed. It is quite another thing--and just plain wrong at that--to say that he was created solely for marketing.

And finally, Lucas would have helped his business most of all simply by concentrating on making a better movie.

Unfortunately, the logic doesn't hold here. The Phantom Menace is one of the most successful films of all time, so what lesson would he benefit from learning? For my money, TPM was a better movie, and Attack of the Clones will be even better.

 

You don't give up, do you, Jabba?

It keeps coming back to your personal dislike of TPM and how it's "proof" that Lucas sold out or cheapened himself or whatever. Well, guess what? Lots of people liked TPM just fine.

 

Lucas promised big things to the licensees, but he realized that his story did not really appeal to the demographics that went out and bought toys. So he dropped in Jar Jar. He cartooned up the podrace, etc. That was his payoff to the licensees. But on the other hand, you probably remember the rumors from the licensee screening of TPM in early Spring that the merchandisers were bitterly disappointed. They knew immediately that they were in trouble. Once TPM opened, Hasbro's shareholders knew Hasbro was in trouble too, and the stock tumbled.

 

Why is appealing to children a business decision? Where is the automatic link between the two?

He wants to appeal to children because he wants their money, or he wants to appeal to children because he wants to entertain children?


You don't think that R2 and Threepio were really big with the kids back in the late 70's? You could say that Young Obi Wan, or Padme, or Darth Maul, or Sebulba was put into the movie as a marketing decision. Not to mention a certain green muppet.

If anyone here actually knows Geroge Lucas, then I can accept their judgementas about "what he as become". If not then it's ALL speculation pieced together from various sources and NOT as clear cut and some would pretend.


------

"You know in a wierd way I think the bashers constant refrain that the gushers think Lucas is God, might reflect a bit more on their own perception of Lucas than they would like to think. "

I'll let you in on a little secret Trav...

(the bashers are the real gushers) I came to that conclusion long ago.

 

Lucas promised big things to the licensees, but he realized that his story did not really appeal to the demographics that went out and bought toys. So he dropped in Jar Jar. He cartooned up the podrace, etc.

Oh, he did that, did he? No offense, Jabbadabbdo, but you're a moron.

 

"I'm interested in the whole truth. But I admit the truth as I see it is filtered through my opinion, an underlying belief that nice people do not become billionaires. If GL truly cared more about movies than anything else, he never would have found the time or had the inclination to become one of the richest people on the planet. "


Ok, Check please.

(And watch your back, Mr. Speilberg)

Lucas became a millionare before he ver made Star Wars (thanks to American Grafitti) and he became a billionare for 3 main reasons:

1 - he retained the rights to the Star Wars sequels

2 - he retained the Star Wars merchandising rights

3 - the first Star Wars movie was extremely popular and successful as were the sequels.



He didn't cheat anyone he didn't rob anyone, he didn't hoodwink, flim-flam or con any one. What he did isn't supposed to happen, because the Sutdios are 'supposed to' control everything. they're supposed to own the marketing and sequel rights and they're 'supposed to' tell directors what to work on, when it's finished and be able to re-cut the film to their liking.


Luckily for Lucas he believed that his movies would be a success, while the studios thought they were getting a bargain by paying him such a small salary to write and direct, in exchange for worthless merchandising rights, sequel rights for movies that would never be made and non-existent profit points.

 

I think we're wasting our time. Jabbadabbado is obviously a stone deaf breed of flame warrior.

 

Wow.

When has Jabba EVER called ANYONE on this board a MORON?

Oh, that's right: NEVER. In fact, Jabba hasn't taken a single potshot at anyone in this thread. He also hasn't tried to legitimaze his view by making glib, sarcastic comments about the views of others, or tried to make this a personal "me vs. you" argument.

Some of you folks, and you know who you are, need to CHILL OUT and quit being so confrontational.

 

"his assertion that the original trilogy was always about Vader's redemption

Some evidence would be nice here, too. I don't remember him ever claiming that it was "always about Vader's redemption", only that that became the focus as the series progressed."

Well, as far as i remember, it was either in the THX version or the SE interview to Jedi where Lucas said that the overall story arc is the redemption of Ani skywalker. Then again, you will say that does not mean every single moment of the OT has to be dedacated to that part of the plot.

 

Ha, that stone deaf flame warrior is cute

 

>>>>There is plenty of evidence to support the idea that GL skimps on Star Wars special effects, borrowing heavily from the really hard work ILM does for other movies.

I think the gist of this statement is that Lucas doesn't start a new effects company from scratch for every film he makes. He just uses the same old ILM.

>>>>the matte lines in the ESB space battles are still there, proving my point about George releasing something before it was done.

You mean meeting the deadline?

That James Sterngold interview was quite amusing though. I like the way it ignores the minor detail that all the merchandising is done by third parties.

>>>>Indeed, Mr. Lucas's staff has produced a poster-sized, color-coded chart circulated among the hundreds of Star Wars licensees that details, month by month, every merchandising and marketing event related to Star Wars from early last year until the millennium.

ie. so many people wanted to sell their stuff with Star Wars written on it that Lucasfilm had to produce a big chart to let them know howmuch was going on and when they were stepping on each others toes.
Oooh! Evil!!!

>>>>He oversold the license by a gigantic margin. There's an epic tragedy. The infallible filmmaker done in by his own greed.

No- the licensees thought they had a licence to print money, and were done in by their own greed. As you pointed out with your talk of this uber-chart, they were all aware of how much Star Wars licensing was going on. But they still thought they could make a monstrous profit out of it.

Everyone is free to not buy the videos, toys, etc. And the licencees were free to turn down the licences.

>>>>Lucas promised big things to the licensees, but he realized that his story did not really appeal to the demographics that went out and bought toys. So he dropped in Jar Jar. He cartooned up the podrace, etc. That was his payoff to the licensees.

Ignoring the fact that Jar Jar was made by ILM before the Special Edition release (and the article quoted...)

>>>>What always frustrated me about the OT's return was that it was a limited run - that they didn't just let the movies play until they were done. ANH-SE made 138 million bucks in 1997!

What frustrated me was how hard the OT was to get hold of on video after it's 97 day rerelease!!!

When TPM was in the cinema, it was IMPOSSIBLE to get hold of the OT on video.

>>>>Maybe not on the big screen, but those films were released numerous times on video--at least two releases of ANH (one with Beru's original voice, one without?), followed by the THX version, followed by the THX widescreen version, followed by the Special Edition version, followed by the most recent release (SE + Episode II "footage").

So if you wanted to buy Star Wars, you could have a copy with the best possible recording.
The widescreen and pan and scan copies were released simultaneously (in England, at least.)
(By the way, it's not true about Beru's voice.)

 

Just to wade into the fray a little bit. I agree with the premise of the thread that many so-called "bashers" are too hard on Lucas. I don't attribute my problems with TPM to GL's greed, but rather too GL being so successful that perhaps he did not edit himself as well as he might have in the past. TPM had brilliant ideas, but I think that some of the nuts and bolts details of the script and storyline could have used another round of tightening up. GL admits that those areas aren't his strengths -- story ideas, visual storytelling and film editing are. Look at how many scripts and drafts the orginal SW went through. You have to believe that all that hard work was a big part of what made SW great. Almost no one is a genius in the first (or even 2nd and 3rd) drafts. I also think that the contrast between the light hearted innocence and tragic dramatic irony clashed rather than harmonized. But that is the result of ambitious art, not a compromise with the bean counters. You can disagree with GL's decisions, but I don't think they were based on profit maximazation. Brilliant marketing and artistic integrity do not have to be in conflict.

That said, I think that it is pretty obvious that GL's public comments are not always strictly accurate (truthful?). As for the debate on this thread about how many films were intended, and how much of the story was written pre-1977, see the following quotes (from the GL Pronouncements page):

No, no. [After Star Wars came out] somebody asked me if I was going to do a sequel. And I said, "I'm doing the other two parts to this one." And they said, "You're doing this trilogy-do you have any more?" And I said, "I've got a backstory, which I've got laid out. I could probably do that." And they said, "But are you going to do a sequel?" And I said, "I guess maybe I could do a sequel at some point." And that got turned into doing nine films. It's six films. It's really not nine films. It's extremely unlikely that I will go on and do any more.
-Premiere Magazine Online 05/99

When asked about there being material for twelve films:
GL: I cut that number down to nine because the other three were tangential to the saga. Star Wars was the fourth story in the saga and was to have been called "Star Wars Episode IV: A New Hope". But I decided people wouldn't understand the numbering system so we dropped it. For Empire though we're putting back the number and will call it Episode Five: The Empire Strikes Back. After the third film in this trilogy we'll go back and make the first trilogy, which deals with the young Ben Kenobi and the young Darth Vader.
BT: What is the third trilogy about?
GL: It deals with the character who survives Star Wars III and his adventures.
- from an interview in Bantha Tracks on the eve of release of TESB

The first quote makes it sound as if the media were responsible for the "9 films" story, when it was really GL's comments made while promoting ESB. This is where the accusation of mythmaking comes from.


This story was actually written 20 years ago and I kept it all pretty much the same. The first film is very similar to Episode IV in how it introduces all the characters and sets up what they're going to do. The plot doesn't start to thicken until the second film and the payoff is in the third.
- From the August 1999 issue of "Total Film" magasine, interview with Yael Shuv

Back when I was writing Star Wars in 1974, I didn't really flesh the storyline of the first three episodes. I had a rough idea of what happened and who the major character were, but I didn't include a scene-by-scene scenario of what happened in my treatment. That is what made writing the script in 1995 and 1996 more difficult because I had to go back to my sparse treatment of the prequel and greatly flesh it out. Some old ideas that really didn't work anymore were thrown out. And I added a great deal of ideas that have developed in my mind over the years to the script. Over the past 15 years since the release of Jedi, I have been jotti

 

JarJarGabor
When has Jabba EVER called ANYONE on this board a MORON?

Oh, that's right: NEVER.

Oh, now let's not pretend that Jabbadabbado has taken the moral high ground here. There are other ways of being confrontational than being outright confrontational. Jabba has made baseless allegations time and time again, and when asked to provide evidence, he just repeats his previous allegations and acts like he's proven himself. He's hardly the bastion of moral esteem you seem to think he is.

EnforcerSG
Well, as far as i remember, it was either in the THX version or the SE interview to Jedi where Lucas said that the overall story arc is the redemption of Ani skywalker.

Yes, that's what he said, but he never said that this was always the case. He was merely pointing out what the original trilogy was about in its current form.

Ransom
Finally, some actual quotes! But rather than being the smoking gun that Jabbadabbado was hoping for, we see only minor and reconcilable differences in the story over time which is consistent with average human behavior. Like anybody else, Lucas seems to have a tendacy to economize his stories, fleshing them out in order to make them easier to relate. Some of this due to the fact that it's difficult to remember exact details after 20 years, some of it is just filling in details that he has flat out forgotten, and some of it is providing a more concise version of a story that he's told thousands of times.

Being 30, I think back to my college days which are only 10 years ago, and some of the stories I tell about my years at the university probably aren't 100% factual and accurate but have instead been embellished for the reasons I stated above. Does this mean I'm trying to hijack the past and create a false legacy for myself? Is this what you're doing when you can't remember every single detail of a past experience? Of course not. Now imagine if somebody kept a log of what you've said over time. I am 100% sure that you'd find similiar inconsistencies in your telling of stories.

If you could provide several Lucas quotes that directly contradict each other then I'd be willing to say that there is definitely something there worth considering. But showing two quotes that have minor differences is hardly enough evidence to paint Lucas as a liar and a con man trying to manufacture his own legacy.

 

Here's the difference between ANH merchandising and TPM merchandising. ANH merchandising was an outgrowth of the unprecedented pop culture phenomenon of Star Wars. Kids clamored for Star Wars toys. They begged for Star Wars toys. They got them. Everyone involved made a ton of money, including, fairly enough, George Lucas.

For TPM, the value of the licenses was set in advance. It was purely speculative. George Lucas jacked up the price as high as the market would bear, which in a free market system we all agree is a fair thing to do, but "what the market would bear" was in part created by his own marketing hype. The chart described in that 97 NYT article was in effect a sales tool used to convince licensees of the market power of the Star Wars brand...that they were in good hands with Lucas Licensing.

So, George Lucas helped create the speculative hype through his five-year marketing plan that included the release of the special editions.

But it's not GL's fault the licensees were dumb enough to pay GL's profiteering price

Yes, but GL controlled the number of licensees he sold. And he had a long-term responsibility to the profitability of his own company to maintain the value of the brand rather than squander it through overselling and through prices that would make it impossible for licensees to recoup their investments.

If GL had been more careful, he might have been able to help Hasbro maintain the value of its stock, at least until the general recession hit.

So many companies lost money because of GL's licensing greed, including Sony for its record-breaking and foolish deal for the Phantom Menace soundtrack, including Lego, including Hasbro, including all those other dumb merchandisers who actually believed Lucas when he convinced them that Jar Jar was a goldmine.

Obviously, it's a two-way street. GL sold them the TPM hype, and the licensees bought into it. He walked away with trainloads of cash (except maybe in the Hasbro deal).

But he also helped create the media backlash against TPM by overselling the license. He helped tarnish the image of Star Wars in the public eye. He missed a chance to really create a movie that little children loved, or a movie that adults respected.

 

My child loved TPM, and I am an adult that respected and indeed enjoyed TPM.

And no Lucas did not tarnish Star Wars or the franchise.

 

So many companies lost money because of GL's licensing greed...

Hmmm, the word "evidence" comes to mind yet again. You can talk you want, but until you provide hard facts, it's just meaningless drivel.