ST Is it still Star Wars if it is not in line with the vision of Lucas?

Well, if we are going to use a very specific definition of "vision," I don't see any answer but no given Lucas's recent statement that they are not using his stories for the OT.

If we are using the general "feel of SW" that some are saying, then perhaps yes.

 

I will keep an open mind if they do a fourth trilogy since Lucas said that there were plans for 4 trilogies back in the 70's. Will they be Lucas' vision? No idea nut as long as I like them. it is good to me.

 

Being the creator of Starwars, it is logical that lucas is top authority to know what is star wars and no matter the quality of other creation, i will always see them as an alternate universe of Lucas GFFA.

 

I suppose it is down to the viewers opinion. For me it will depend how much it compares to the original trilogy, hoping that it will have that original trilogy feeling. Let us not forget that Lucas' vision is questionable itself with the so called improvements to the blu ray remasters of the original trilogy...

 

It becomes problematic if we rely on the OT to think what SW ought to be about. Before ESB came out, audience would not have expected ESB to take such a drastic shift in tone. The same applies to the PT, which few fans predicted it to be so political in nature.

The question is how do you make new SW movies that doesn't try to replicate the OT yet retains the "feelings" of the OT?

 

Regardless of what's been dumped the past few days in rumorville, I would say, yes, it is still the Star Wars universe without Mr. Lucas' input.

It is the same universe. If I can relate and get excited by the new characters, that will make me quite happy.

 

That is exactly why I was sceptical of a new trilogy with no Lucas at the helm, that it is going to be a nostalgia trip with almost nothing new. Say what you want about Lucas, but at least he tried to do something different and he did the movies he wanted to do. J.J, i guess it is a case of wait and see if he is able to do something different.

 

There are a large number of fans that doesn't see the problem with letting someone who is a fan to direct this movie, especially one that has very clear idea of the "right" Star Wars in his mind.

 

The thing that frustrates me the most (and my patience is beyond exhaustion at this point) is that their has NOT been a clear statement from either JJ or Lucasfilm about what this movie is even about, or what the real direction of the franchise is.

The secrecy behind this project is ridiculous, and it is what has allowed us to believe that George's stories where "dumped" as may be said- even If I think it's rather a ploy from George to prevent more social media attacks if the movie sucks, or prevent more journalists from asking him about the plot.

In fact, the huge pink elephant in the room when Celebration Anaheim opens and both JJ and Kathleen Kennedy are in the panel will be George's treatments. If those where indeed dumped, I can't help but think that several might even leave the panel booing.

I'm one of those fans who feels that his loyalty lies with GL. He made Star Wars, financed it, and has become to many (including me) a truly admirable and respectable filmmaker- a hero so to speak. Only he truly understands all the complicated rules of the mythology of Star Wars, so in essence, if it doesn't follow with those rules, or with that vision (especially if it pertains to the core story which he created) it's as good as fan-fiction to me.

So far, from what we know, their is a great possibility that this new film may be pale in comparison to what followed previously.

 

That's a perfectly valid perspective, Colombiano. But I think the majority of the Star Wars fanbase is happy that Lucas is not an important part of these films. The nerdrage against the PT is strong with this fandom. Committed PT supporters, by contrast, are a pretty small minority.

 

I'm happy that the Lucas of today is not involved. If you get into a time machine and bring back Lucas circa 1981 though ... then I would want him involved, but I think his skills as story teller detoriated over the years.

It happens. The Godfather I/II are masterpieces in my mind by Coppolla's more recent work is horrible. Happens to musicians all the time too.

That said I did like Toy Story 3 an awful lot, so maybe the Arndt draft could've turned out OK with a good director at the helm. Then again, the last Indiana Jones have Speilberg but it was just awful anyway. It couldn't overcome a lot of the structural problems in the story and a lot of those were due to Lucas (aliens? really?).

I do like George Lucas as a person though, he's a good guy, admirable. But I don't think he's some magic genius either. I think his creativity peaked in the early 80s and has been on a steady decline since.

 

I'm gonna have to disagree with the "majority" statement. I think most of us enjoyed Episodes I-III, it's just that the hater crowd is ridiculously loud and appears to be much bigger than it really is.

But anyway, thanks for the comments.

 

I think that's sadly true, and the case with a lot of directors. Though Scorcese has made some good films in recent years, I also feel that his work has diminished over time. My theory is that as popular filmmakers get older, they get further and further removed from normal human experience. And so the artifice in their films increases.

 

I like how you repeated the exact same argument that I have responded to earlier, without making any attempts to deal with my rebuttals. This is just a way for you to bash the PT once again it seems.

 

I got the impression that unicron5 was offering a measured and respectful opinion. Disagreeing with that is not a problem, but it seems a little harsh to label it "bashing."

 

Because he was making the exact same argument a couple of pages back to bash the prequels? Even if he did disagree with the quality of the prequels, this isn't the right thread for it.

 

Speilberg isn't as good as he used to be either.

You simply can't even the same creative "buzz" ... I think it generally peaks somewhere in the late 20s-40s. After that it declines.

 

Which you can't possibly prove.

 

^^exactly this you can say that for so many types of artists..great point

 

How many artists/musicians/writers/directors/comedians who were popular in the late 70s/early 80s are still as good today as they were back then?

*crickets*

We see this phenomenon all the time among even the most explosively talented artists. In the late 70s/early 80s Michael Jackson's creativity seemed boundless and his ability to craft a hit song unparalleled. By the 2000s the music was OK ... but that's all it was ... just "OK".

Lucas' own mentor is another pretty good example, compare Godfather Part III to the previous two films, the drop off is huge.

There's plenty of examples to suggest that aging does affect the creative process. I don't even view that as a controversial position to take, I think most people would agree with that.

 

I like how you ignore all the other reasons why artists aren't as popular as they used to. Let's completely ignore things like the audience themselves getting tired of the same artists, let's completely ignore the cultural shift in terms of taste. You are taking your own personal opinion and treating it as fact with zero research.

You are simply throwing around terms like creative decline as if you could even judge the value of creativity in an objective manner. Please stop turning this thread into another of your pet argument against the flaws of the PT.

 

Age impacts creativity, I don't think there's really a rational argument against that though.

Even if all the Beatles were all still alive, the album they would make together in their 60s/70s would be very different from Abbey Road, they could only make an album like that at that time. For every time there is a season.

The art that an artist makes in his/her 30s/40s is simply going to be very different from what they make in the 50s/60s. Tastes change, memories dull, energy shifts, priorities change, work ethic slips.

Directing/writing is a profoundly difficult experience too, the saying "to suffer for your art" ... well Lucas almost had a stroke making the first Star Wars, Coppolla had a miserable time making the Godfather, Spielberg slipped into depression while making Jaws. Maybe something is lost when it becomes too comfortable, too easy.

Beyond that I don't think you can take a 15 year sabbatical from anything and come back just as good as you were before. Screenwriting/storytelling is a craft, it's not like riding a bike.

I'm saying I view Lucas in his 30s/40s as a very different artist than the one that is around today.

 

That is such as sweeping generalization. Different artists come into their own at different points in their career. Alfred Hitchcock started directing in the 1920s but his best films are from the mid-1950s, early 60s. Martin Scorsese, David Lean and Stanley Kubrick maintained a consistency in the quality of their work. John Ford got better later in life than his earlier films.

Comparing musicians to directors is apples and oranges. If the Beatles were still making music today it would be different--a huge part of that is that vocals change with age. McCartney can't hit the same notes he used to.

 

I don't know if that's really accepted opinion. Most people don't view Eyes Wide Shut as highly as 2001 or Dr. Strangelove and quite honestly Kubrick's scriptment for A.I. was a bit of a trainwreck. A lot of the flak that Spielberg took for that film was actually because he followed Kubrick's concepts directly.

Some artists can pull it off, but they are exceptions, not the rule.

 

So you're only taking issue with the Kubrick example. I didn't say that Eyes Wide Shut is better than 2001. Just that he maintained a certain consistency in his work. The totality of all of his work. Can't just wrench two examples out of context and argue that it shows a downward trend. A.I. was largely Spielberg. Kubrick doesn't have a writing credit for it.