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

When is a rule a rule as opposed to an exception? You can't make up this kind of stuff as some sort of universal rule or law that could be applied to artists. Anecdotal evidence does not support your arguments in any way. I can easily throw out other examples of artists being widely lauded for works later into the career/life as you can throw up "evidence" supporting you. I mean, Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa towards the end of his career for crying out loud.

You made some problems in your reasoning.

1. Assume your view is somehow universial
2. Assume that everyone ( or an extremely wide majority) dislikes the prequels
3. Assume that this is due to the poorer "quality" of the movie
4. Assume that the reason for this is because Lucas has aged

All I need to do is to prove that your views isn't universal and your entire argument would collapse.

And seriously, stop trying to turn this thread into another "I hate the prequels" thread.

 

It's fine if you want to believe the artists have an infinite store of creativity that never dulls or withers with age, I just don't agree with that. Too many examples where there is a clear decline in multiple artistic fields.

There are some examples against it sure, but again I feel they are more of the exception rather than the rule.

Filmmaking/screenwriting in particular is such an exhaustive process, we've all heard stories of filmmakers even on highly successful films being driven to the point of physical collapse, depression, and even insanity, lol.

I suspect the 30s-40s are the peak period for directors in many cases because you have the life experience and knowledge, but still have youthful energy/zip. It's the perfect intersection between energy and experience. That's just my theory as to why that may be I don't know exactly why.

The film industry is also one of rejection, so what I think happens is budding filmmakers have to be incredibly hungry. You have to want your vision on the film, you have to be willing to suffer for it, lose sleep for it, starve for it. Maybe there just is something about being in that state that creates a focus or resourcefulness that is hard/impossible to replicate when you're 65 years old and you know you're going home every night at 6 PM for dinner in your multi-multi million dollar mansion.

 

Can you even prove this?

 

Francis Ford Coppolla
Brian De Palma
John Cassavettes
Roman Polanski

All did their best work in the 70s. There's a fairly large drop off afterwards.

Even directors who are still consistently doing good work today from the 70s like Woody Allen and Martin Scorcese ... I would say there's a decline there or at least a lacking of freshness.

Woody Allen of today couldn't make Annie Hall in the same way. It's a product of that time in his life. Ditto for Scorcese and Taxi Driver.

Artists age, they change, many for the worse. Saying there is no change and there is no difference whatsoever is more absurd in my mind. Of course age changes things.

 

Of course it's a generalization. What else would it be? That's why I said "a lot of directors" and not "all." And I certainly agree with you about Lean. He maintained his quality for his whole career. I disagree on Scorcese, and a bit on Kubrick. I think their creativity declined with age. Either that, or they simply became more "comfortable," and as a result, made films that were more comfortable as they got older. Nothing objectively wrong with that, but the original spark waned a bit with time,

 

Do you even understand what anecdotes is? You are trying to fit the evidence into your argument as opposed to trying to build an argument from your evidence.

 

I have an opinion. Lots of people share it, it can be supported by a large number of examples, in fact I would say it's much more difficult to find working artists from the 70s/early 80s who are still continuing to make equal quality art that they were 30+ years ago.

I think a lot of people don't really understand how exhaustive the filmmaking process is either. You're simply not going to be the same director or writer at age 60 that you were at age 38. No way. I'm sorry if that opinion strikes a chord with you that you don't like.

 

What are you talking about? This is a discussion involving subjective opinions about artwork and artists. It is not a legal case.

 

Opinions doesn't matter if you aren't trying to make an argument out of it. Using it as an argument to tell people the "right" way to understand creativity is wrong and not helpful to the process of having a good discussion. Constantly restating the EXACT same argument over and over again is not moving the direction of the discussion in anyway, it's just a place for you to vent your own thoughts.

Opinions /= fact

Constantly repeating it doesn't make it a fact.

It's like repeating the opinion that the world is flat doesn't make it a fact.

Then people need to stop trying to argue as if their subjective opinions should be treated as fact. Nor should he be trying to turn this thread into a debate about the nature of creativity and whether his "theory" of creative decline can even be used to bash the PT.

 

Even if you accept the premise that all of the directors you have listed experienced artistic/creative decline, it is pure conjecture to attribute this decline to age and comfort. It is better to simply argue that you personally prefer their earlier work. With George Lucas, there isn't a lot of examples. I personally prefer his earlier work: THX, A New Hope to his more recent work with the prequels. But I'm not going to prop that subjective opinion up with a general (and unsupported) theory that age has diminished his creativity.

 

Well, lol, everything is subjective. Can you "prove" the prequels are good movies? Can you "prove" Lucas is as good of director/writer at age 65 as he was during the period of time between 1975-1983? No. It's a subjective opinion that you have. Just like everyone else on this board.

Your opinions are not "facts" either. If someone says to me The Godfather Part III is the best movie Francis Ford Coppolla has made, I would just say I vehemently disagree, but it's still subjective.

Getting back the point of the thread, to me it's a multi-layered question because I don't view George Lucas in his 50s/60s/70s to be the same artist that he was in his 30s/40s, therefor the question of whether or not something can only be Star Wars if its authored by him becomes complex, because there isn't a "static" George Lucas here either.

 

Which is why I don't hide behind comments like all creative artists decline with age, and using that "theory" to prove that the prequels are bad. You don't like it, it is fine. Don't try and legitimise your view by coming up with some sort of theory.

Unlike you, I'm fine with it being my personal preference. It's you that have a problem with it "only" being your personal preference.

 

No I think you have a problem with my personal preference, but that's fine, it doesn't bother me, lol.

I'm citing reasons for why I have my opinion which is the opposite of "hiding behind" an argument. Hiding behind an arguement is just stating it and then running off with no discussion as to why you have said opinion.

It's at the very least a more nuanced approach than the "George Lucas sux" crowd, I don't think George Lucas "sucks". I admire him quite a bit actually. I just don't think he's the same writer/filmmaker that he used to be say 30 years ago, and that happens a lot in this line of work. It's not easy and time does IMO take a toll.

 

Fair enough, Hari.

 

I think George, more than anything else, wants it to turn out well so that he feels like he left the franchise in good hands.

 

I think this article nicely sums up the difference between Lucas Star Wars and non Lucas Star Wars, and from what I've seen, his absence is very apparent.
http://www.starwars.com/news/dave-filoni-on-the-lost-missions-yoda-arc

A big part of Star Wars is the philosophy. Perhaps it's the only thing that differentiates it from its many copycats. Highly individualist, independently thinking, anti-establishment people can naturally think the way Lucas thinks, which is why he was such a good resource for Dave Filoni. Since these people are so rare in the world, and even rarer to be given any power by studios, for various political reasons, I'm not expecting any stories like his any time soon, except where they are using his existing ideas, or making a conscious effort to stay consistent with his philosophies. This will be very difficult to achieve for any writer who is a team player.

 

The whole saga is the vision of Lucas. Was Star Trek not Star Trek after Gene Roddenberry died?

 

Taking new rumors into account, I wonder if things like how the Big Three are treated in VII had anything to do with some of the major changes between Lucas's Treatment and JJ's Treatment of the story. We've been lead to believe that JJ's story was more Big Three heavy in contrast to Lucas's more New Character focused script, but maybe it's really the other way around.

 

It's still based on Roddenberry's characters and ideas, but it's not the same Star Trek. It's got the same name, but I don't think anyone is talking literally about the title here, are they? Every single variation on Alice in Wonderland is Alice in Wonderland, but that's a non discussion. Is everything Star Wars as long as it bears the title?

I'm not disagreeing that Lucas originally envisioned other people would take off with it, and then he would come back and do the final one, like a friendly competition. He said that. And after he got so much negativity for his contributions, his vision did become that he would leave Lucasfilm behind and be creative consultant, with Disney/Lucasfilm producing his stories for 7-9. But that didn't happen for some reason. So I think one could say it's a different Star Wars, unless we're literally talking title, which is a non discussion.

One thing I think Lucas never envisioned was that they wouldn't want to use his stories for 7-9, given the fact that they were buying it and wanted to be successful. One would think Disney would see that Lucas had been successful thus far, and would value his stories enough to be smart and use them as a blueprint. Lucas had proven himself as a storyteller, and is the only figure central to the success of all the films. But he should have known they really valued the brand familiarity more than the story. Very few people understand that the storyteller is what made the brand so successful, and it's not easy to replicate. It's the height of hubris to credit the success of the prequels and Clone Wars with the brand familiarity or the story of 4-6.

Given that Lucas hates studio control so much, I really wouldn't be surprised if he went into this betting on Disney to fail, artistically if not commercially. It can only help his legacy and silence his critics to show the world what Star Wars is with studio control. In that way, a studio-controlled star wars can be said to be part of his plan, but only in regards to bolstering his artistic standing as a filmmaker.

 

Star Trek actually got considerably better with less/no involvement from Roddenberry. The best OT films are Wrath of Khan and Undiscovered Country, both of which were directed/co-written by Nicholas Meyer at the helm rather than Roddenberry.

Roddenberry was involved heavily with The Next Generation, but the weakest parts of it, the first season was mostly him, and most people agree the first season was the worst season of that show, even bordering on terrible at times. The show got much better once Roddenberry left it.

 

When I think of Star Trek, I think of the original series, not the movies. The movies with the original cast are extras, and I like them a lot. They are pretty close to the vision of the original series. I don't think it ever got better than the original series, but it did get as good at times. But the most consistent quality was all under Roddenberry.

As for TNG, it's a spinoff series of Star Trek. I see it as its own thing.

People may like something more, but that doesn't mean it's the same thing.

 

With the Original series, Gene wasn't the only writer, you had Gene Coon, D. C. Fontana, Jerome Bixby and others. Gene himself wrote fairly few episodes. He created Star Trek, no question, and was the driving force behind it.
But since it was network TV, he didn't have everything his way.
With the films, Gene had the most power with the first film, less so with the others and he objected to elements of both ST2 and very much over ST6.

The part of Star Trek were Gene had the most control was TNG, first season. So if you want as pure as possible what Gene's vision of Star Trek was like, then look at first season TNG.

To me, first season TNG was pretty bad, humans was supposed to be perfect, never grieving, never having any conflict between them etc. To me the came across as smug, arrogant and rather insufferable.

The first film, TMP, to me it isn't terrible, like ST V, but it is not good either.
I think that if Gene had maintained control over the films and TNG then there would be less good Star Trek and there would be less Star Trek period. A TNG similar to the first season, I would give it three seasons before it get's cancelled. The films? Maybe two more before the plug is pulled.

Some of what I consider the best Trek would never have been made under Gene, a lot of DS9, ex "In the Pale moonlight.", TNG "Chain of command." The films ST2 and ST6, which I consider the best films, would not be made like that under Gene.

It seems that I am throwing a lot of mud at Gene but I do like him and respect his work. He made some very good Trek as well, most notably in TOS. And he deserves major props as the creator of Star Trek

I think that Gene did change a bit from TOS to TNG. Compare TOS "The Omega glory.", which Gene wrote, containing flag waving American patriotism and Yangs vs Kohms. And first season TNG where the Ferengi, the despicable enemy, is likened to "Yankee traders."

Gene's ideas for TNG, while interesting, are not what I consider good for writing compelling drama. Gene wanted humans to be perfect, to have evolved beyond petty concerns like greed, grief, envy and the like. This created what Trek writers called "The Roddenberry box" and many of them found it hard to work inside this constraining box.
Later writers were able to move outside the box and created some very good things. Granted they have also created some rather bad things but TOS wasn't without it's clunkers either.

RE: Lucas and SW, I am prepared to give the creators of ST VII the benefit of the doubt. If I like the film and think it is good, then great. If they totally drop the ball and make a bad film, then that will be a pity. But I don't want to prejudge the film and I think it is possible to make good SW even without Lucas direct influence.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

I wonder if George Lucas would have done more to control the leaks of the storyline. Ep 7's plot leaks are out of control. Heck, at this rate the entire plot will be online before Dec 18th! Perhaps GL would have done more to stop the leaks. Without GL, it seems a bit out of control.

Time will tell if the actual storyline is not as chaotic!

 

There is still a possibility that most of the "rumors" are just hogwash made up by the imagination of some so called "insiders"

 

I say if Luke has been castrated from much of what his role was perceived to be in the ST, then yes, IMO, its not Star Wars because Luke was still central to the story.