Saga Point of view - George Lucas was right not to listen to the embittered fans

So now you think Rick McCallum was lying when he said: “George doesn’t really like directing,” “He hates writing – just gets no satisfaction from it at all – but he doesn’t like directing either."

McCallum's only experience with Lucas in terms of writing & directing was the Prequels. And he said that after the Prequels. Then there are all of the other statements from Lucas & his close friends over 40 years. Yet you still think he enjoyed directing the PT. Which means you know more than his producer working on those movies. I think what you're saying is you need Lucas to come to your house, knock on your door & scream at you through a megaphone "Just to be clear Marc...I didn't like making the Prequels!!". Even then I think you'd ask him to say that on a polygraph & submit to a dna test to really be convinced.

I think a clue to your question can be found in this quote from him: "I'm not having fun. I smile a lot because if I don't everyone gets depressed. But I'd rather be home in bed watching television. I'm only doing this because I started it and now I have to finish it. The next trilogy will be all someone else!".

Now that was back during production of RotJ, yet he makes a reference to the future PT. As we know he retired from writing & directing all through the 80's & most of the 90's. On & off he had ambitions to make eps 1-3. After all he deliberately named the OT eps 4-6 so ideally the plan was to do the first three some day. Sure enough, true to his word when the time came he did try very hard to get someone he knew & trusted to direct the Prequels. He wasn't able to. So the reason that he made them himself can probably be traced to that earlier comment. He did it to get it done. To finish this thing. Perhaps also the 22 year break he had from directing dulled his memory in terms of his dislike for that job. Seems according to McCallum he still greatly disliked the process. No surprise that he's written & directed nothing since.

I strongly disagree with ol' George there. The Midichlorians were not a metaphor for a symbiotic relationship. In fact they're the opposite of a metaphor. They're literally part of a symbiotic relationship. As GL's own script states in TPM, they are symbionts with all organisms & the literally do allow life to exist. That's no metaphor. Strangely what would've been far better IMO is if he did use a metaphor instead of such a literal creation as the Midis. He should've just said that the Force works in harmony with life, makes it grow & allows it to exist. In more of a spiritual sense. That's a metaphor. It's what we had in the OT. He cast aside the metaphor & introduced cellular biology to explain the mechanics of how the Force works. Yet he still thinks it was metaphorical & not literal. Very odd.

 

Darth Downunder It seems like you are trying very hard to prove that he didn't like making the prequels. It may be that he didn't enjoy some parts, but without any concrete quote of him saying it, it is safe to assume he made those movies cause he wanted to. He certainly put a lot of time and care into them. I don't work that hard on things I'm not passionate about.

Of course, I don't have any concrete evidence either, so either one of us could be right. It just seems to me, when I watch the prequels, that they weren't made by someone who didn't enjoy the process. They are too intricate and well-done.

That's just my opinion though.

 

I'm not saying anything. We're just looking at the facts, in this case a host of statements from him & those who worked with him over 40 years. What we can say for sure is he didn't like writing & directing the Prequels, as confirmed by McCallum. Maybe by "directing" he was referring to all of the shooting on set. Lucas isn't a people-person. He doesn't like being the general & bossing people around. He apparently does like editing & other technical aspects of filmmaking. So it seems he's a fan of the post-production process, where he doesn't need to deal with so many people, particularly the actors. There was plenty of that during the making of the PT which he may well have enjoyed. In fact we can be almost certain that he did.

 

You can't say "I'm not saying anything."

You just used a bunch of facts to attempt to prove to MarcJordan that Lucas didn't like making the prequels. You might be right about that, there's a good chance of it.

But whether you are wrong or right, you are saying something. You are saying Lucas didn't like making the prequels. I think you want to believe too.

 

I'm quoting Lucas himself who's said repeatedly that he dislikes writing & directing in general. Also a host of people who know him well & have worked with him who confirm that. Finally the producer of the Prequels, who's only observed Lucas writing & directing once - on the PT. He described how Lucas hates writing & dislikes directing. So again, I'm not saying anything. I don't know the guy, & neither do you. We rely on the people who do know him & on comments from George himself.

 

No I don't say Rick was lying. Perhaps you need to take this down a notch assuming to believe what I think. Now that quote you gave is from 1982. Old story everyone knows. Now, where is GL's quote about the prequels? Im still waiting.

Btw GL did say he it would be fun infact to go do the prequels "without the frustrations.....". Im sure you can find that quote.

MJ

 

Okay you win. Despite 40 years of evidence including comments from Lucas & his friends & colleagues & McCallum, Lucas inexplicably liked writing & directing the Prequels. Quite amazing really, they're the only movies he's ever enjoyed writing & directing. They're special

 

Of course they should be special... for him, as well as the originals, since they are his movies. He even said in the interview with Charlie Rose that he considers all the Star Wars movies he's been involved in as "his children".

 

After what he did with the SE's, I think it's safe to say he is an abusive parent.

 

How exactly?

 

Abusive...

 

I'm an embittered fan of this thread.

 

Lucas is saying that it is taking itself seriously enough, without being campy. Camp is the 60's Batman series. This is not.

Right, so why did Yoda say that arrogance was a flaw more and more common among the Jedi? Especially those who were older and more experienced? Why did Palpatine say that Yoda's arrogance blinded him? What, were they talking out of their ass? Mace says that the Sith could never return without their knowing it. Isn't that arrogance? Mace and Ki-Adi say that Dooku is a Jedi and could never take part in an assassination, but isn't that also arrogance?

Yoda is talking about all of the Jedi. Including himself, though he doesn't realize it yet.

Anakin's actions make Mace doubt that Anakin is the Chosen One. Before, he was confident in Anakin. Now he's not because of his arrogant behavior.

 

Well.... Before I get rolling, let me say how much I respect your posts Hevy! I put you in the top tier of the elite posters here, not because I often find myself agreeing with you, but, because you are about as balanced a poster as any on these boards. You praise and criticize the PT with what seems zero flag waving, zero rhetoric. While I may not agree with your criticisms, the way in which you articulate them, shows that you are in fact a PT fan that is here to discuss the movies for the sake of discussion, and not to antagonize others!

With that said, I have to say, I disagree with your conclusion here. I don't think it's so cut and dry. Unfortunately, as is in most cases when it comes to Lucas, it seems opinions are based on fulfilling an already established narrative that people want to maintain (not saying that is what you did here!).

For example, many people used Lucas's quotes that he didn't like directing as to the reason why he had such a large hiatus from directing after the OT. However, the truth coming right from Lucas is that he stopped directing because he decided he wanted to focus on his family, specifically being a father. When I introduced that evidence, those that don't want their narrative to change, simply ignored the quote from Lucas.

The same thing is happening with the debate into whether Lucas likes directing. Yes, there are quotes that say he didn't "really like directing". However, as others have said, it seems this issue and his quotes are being used to fulfill a narrative, rather than looking at all information and trying to figure out what may be the closest thing to the truth that we can possibly get to without actually having Lucas sitting next to us to ask.The obvious narrative being that because Lucas wrote and directed the PT, and because he hate or dislikes writing or directing, than that is the reason (in part) why the PT sucks. It's no surprise that this narrative is coming from the same people we see complain about the PT quite regularly here.

Now, I am not saying that they are completely wrong. Obviously Lucas has said it. However, here is where we see whose is more interested in truth, compared to being more interested in pushing rhetoric to fulfill their narrative.

I presented a quote, from Lucas, in which he says he "gave up" directing, he gave up what he liked, in order to be a dad. Obviously when someone says they gave something up, it's usually in the context that the thing they gave up was something they liked.

Now we know he wrote during those years, he also produced during those years, so what was he not doing that he relly liked that is considered film making? Directing..

However, that quote was ignored by some in the interest of pushing rhetoric to keep a narrative alive, with no discussion as to why all these quotes, which seem to contradict one another, can exist from the same person. I started to discuss it with Maestro, and I thought it was a constructive discussion.

My thoughts, my conclusion is that these seemingly contradictory statements can exist in the same person because it seems to me that there were parts of directing that Lucas did not care for, that he didn't like. Those dislikes always seemed to hang on the things that would go wrong on a movie production, of which the responsibility of fixing it fell on the director.

As Macallum said, Lucas wasn't a rally the troops type person. When would a director need to rally the troops? When things went bad, or wrong, and everyone looked to the director for well... direction... That wasn't his thing, speeches, ordering people around etc etc.. It also seems from those quotes, he was mostly always griping about problems that would happen on set. How he would dream up this great scene, but, once on set everything would go wrong, and he couldn't get what he wanted. I said it earlier, it seems Lucas just doesn't handle problems on the set well. When things go to hell, he takes it very personally and to heart, to a fault.

However, there are obviously things that Lucas liked about directing. As I said, he says he gave it up, again the context being that when someone gives something up, the thing is something they liked. He says he was not doing what he liked to do, which was making movies. So again, it seems clear that there were aspects of directing that he liked. However, as we see with Lucas, especially when talking about those early years and with the OT, he seems to really want to talk about the bad things he had to work through.

To me, it is much more feasible to believe that Lucas likes certain aspects of directing, hated other aspects of directing. That back in the says of Graffiti and the OT, he had miserable experiences with the studios, with things going wrong, with not being able to fully capture his vision whether it was because of unseen circumstances of technology, it left a bad taste in his mouth. So much so he wasn't willing to go through it again, even though when ROTJ rolled around, he pretty much ended directing it anyway. Which, in fact he wanted too, but, decided there was too much work to be done. Another quote ignored by those wanting to push a narrative.

So isn't it feasible more feasible that with his experiences in those years, he just didn't want to put himself through the negative aspects of directing for ESB and ROTJ, and this led to the quotes, which most of which are centered around that era, but there were aspects of directing that he did like? How feasible is it to believe that someone that sits and dreams up scenes and shots all the time, which is in part directing, hated doing that? It seems he liked doing that.

Isn't it more feasible that when it came to the PT, he was a little hesitant about directing and again putting himself though those negatives, that he tried to find someone else to do it, but, after doing TPM, seeing how much things had changed, he decided that things had gotten better and decided to do AOTC and ROTS.

That's why I think that the people that says they have supplied "dozens" of quotes, when in fact it was only 6-8 quotes, people that are ignoring other quotes from Lucas that contradict their quotes, with no discussion as to what the contradictions mean, are doing so only to push an already established narrative in order to poo-poo on the PT, yet again.

To me, I think Lucas likes directing, but wasn't willing to put himself through those negatives that he clearly hated. It wasn't worth it to him. It seems he learned how to get around it for the most part in ROTJ, by having Marquand be the "director" that is the one that everyone goes to when there was a problem, and than we see that Mccalum takes that responsibility during the Prequels. I always thought it was weird that Mccallum was on set all the time, every day. It seems to me, in hindsight now, that Mccallum filled the role of Marquand during the PT.

heels1785 I see your warning, and I apologize. I had been working on this post on and off in my free time since yesterday. So I needed to post it.. I throw myself on the mercy of the mods...

 

So, now the new trend in the thread is to prove that Lucas hates directing (of course, while skipping the fact that Rick Mccallum said 'because he is shy" i.e. he dilsike to order to others what to do, but actually we see in the documentaries that he is doing that because thius is part of the director's job).. Anyway, so the new trend is actually that the PT suck because he hated making them.. Is not very convincible for me, for the mere fact that he did almost everything: writing, directing, producing, etc. If we follow this logic I would conclude that he hated OT even more because he was only fixed on the production... Well, I don't think so. He participated in everything, even in the concept designs, personally, so he actually gave everything to these movies. So is not the problem that he disliked making them ( I think it is not true at all), the problem is that some fans hate them for several reasons, but Lucas personal feelings to that has nothing to do with it.

One thing that amazes me is how people are surprised that he makes the things exactly the way he wants them: come on, it is essential part of the director's job and even more, he is not just the director, but he is the maker of this universe and 1-6 episodes are independent movies. That doesn't mean art house movies, it means that Lucas is the master: there are no people of the studio on the set saying to him: do this and cut that. So, yes Lucas made his own movies (impossible dream for many other directors) and I should say that I like them.

Here I'll use the opportunity to respond to some old issues that I discussed before with other fans.
First, about how Lucas saw the things and how the viewers saw them. Kuro said that Vader in OT was intimidating and charismatic. I would say that for me those are mutually exclusive qualities, anyway, I admit that he is indeed menacing villain... but charismatic? I don't see why. Many viewers see him as a leader, even as Hitler. I don't understand why exactly because Hitler was a leader and Vader was not. He was more like Himler, the Gestapo chief. Also, 'What is thy bidding, my master', 'as you wish', etc, this is the typical Vader's speech. He even doesn't serve as Anakin did, he obeys. Till the end of Empire the only interesting thing about Vader for me was the question: why on Earth he is wearing that mask and why he is breathing like that? I should say that SW in my country came without any additional information (during the OT era), so I couldn’t know what is behind all this; anyway as character he was pretty uninteresting, till the end of Empire, of course, when I understood that he was in fact man, real person, who had family ad who loves his son. And I saw that in PT. Now I understand his obsession with Luke: is not psychotic or maniacal, is just desperate: he is desperate to find the only thing that left from the love of his life he is desperate to know that he didn’t kill his wife. So, should Lucas listen to the fans and make a Rambo/Superman/Mr-the-cool-guy Anakin? No, no, and no.
The contrast and in the same time the common characteristics between both personas of this man makes the Saga interesting. Anakin was rebellious, Vader is ruined and obeys. Anakin was optimistic with some negative thoughts and mad moments; Vader is full with hatred and anger. Anakin was in love . Vader is in hate and despair. Anakin was naive but intelligent; Vader is smart, but evil. Anakin was weird but interesting young man, Vader is twisted. Anakin and Vader served, but Anakin did it for his ideals, Vader for staying close to the source of power. Yet they share a common thing: the (forgotten) love to Padme. That is what lights up some sparks in Vader's soul again.
There are of course many other things, but especially the complexity of Anakin's character would be lost we he was made as some typical quarterback loved by all his schoolmates (metaphorically speaking, of course).

 

This thread has completely wiped me out.

I have a lengthy response drafted up -- and in a rather inchoate form -- for remarks made around, erm, Page 70, I think it is? And this thread is already on Page 90???

Anyways, just to jump in here, I think a better and more rounded quote from GL on the "Golden Braid" of writing/directing/editing comes from "The Making Of Star Wars: Episode I - The Phantom Menace" by Laurent Bouzerau and Jody Duncan (p. 76):

"The parts of making a movie that I like best are the writing and editing, and I've been doing those all along. It's like building a house. I've been involved in doing up the plans and blueprints, and I've been in on the process of actually constructing the house. The part I haven't done is actually go out and collect the material. I haven't cut down the trees and milled the wood and put it on a truck. That's the way I see my involvement in the filmmaking process for the past twenty years--I've skipped the part where you collect the material, because it's not as much fun."

Yet he became a miller again with the prequels because:

a) It was easier for him to gather the material himself; rather than dictate to someone else what to do and constantly worry that things were taking too long or that he wasn't really getting what he wanted. The "expeditious" motivation.

b) He seems to have placed incredible faith, firstly, in his actors, and secondly, in all the digital technology available to him to radically re-arrange and alter things to his personal satisfaction; without being bound to the fossilized remnants of raw material gathered on set. The "plasticity of digital/editing" motivation.

Plus:

c) He wanted to prove to the world and to himself that one needn't be a "great" director of people to achieve a great result; even if there remains a slightly cold, off-kilter quality to the material as a result of the director's personal limitation and distance with his cast. The "esoteric" motivation.

All in all, given the kabbalistic, elusive, and manifestly arcane aspects of the prequels, I'd say Lucas' choice to direct worked out really well. They are much weirder and personal films than the OT and other blockbuster offerings -- indeed, as Jar Jar metaphorically suggests, they are unique amongst their kind. That, and well, you know, a lot of screen performances in other films are too polished, overdone, and fake, to me. TPM, for example, exhibits a pleasing, muted realism, in my opinion (controlled "plainness" -- with Jar Jar as the ultimate foil). The world, to me, is much more believable that way: I can invest more fully in it. In fact, such an approach leads to a dazzling film texture that takes my breath away. All of GL's movies are dense, habitable macrocosms: island universes. Lucas' approach is a true revelation in "architecting" a story (with the architectural approach far surpassing the story itself). If you want film lyricism, Lucas offers it to you (just open your mind to it). As MSTRMND has noted, Lucas constructs his stories around/inside of worlds; which is the opposite of your typical blockbuster director (Lucas is atypical in so many ways), and suggests a deep strain of inverted thinking that, in my estimation, is a true mark of intellectual and artistic genius.

 

Well maybe this is the ultimate point of the thread that you hit on that we have been dancing around.

Some fans wanted a trilogy of "epic blockbusters" and from that regard only ROTS does so in the way they wanted them only ROTS fulfills that.

The other two are just kind of a "silly blockbusters" because "not much" happens in them and then ROTS therefore has "too much" of the "real story" to cover.

Characters are at the center of Lucas' story but there is so much else going on.

I find that one of the frustrations for those is encapsulated in the opening of ROTS where they would like to have the full scope of the epic open battle and not just have it in the background while Anakin and Obi-Wan are trying to get to the Invisible Hand.

 

Well, to revisit a recent post of Pyro's:

The opening shot of ROTS functions as the colourful clone of ANH's opening shot (which is static and almost monochrome in comparison). They both indicate that you can't understand these "star wars" at this rambunctious, comically-hot "period" ("Wars!", "war."); whether you dive right into the middle of one period (ROTS: the exclamation mark) or watch an antecedent/descendent one from more of a distance (the full-stop). What you need is the open-ended, "Oddball" (--"do you copy?") backstory.

Episodes I and II are, in Lucas' own words, trenchant character studies and exhibition pieces on politics -- visual meditations on slavery, destiny, language, culture, action/inaction, etc. In order to grasp Star Wars (even if imperfectly, incompletely), you need to adopt an exploratory mindset. In many ways, the backstory is the real story; because that's where much of the world is -- the gorgeous immanence is the trashy transcendence.

And yes, you hit upon something key there: Notice how Lucas, who seeded into these films an explicit theme concerning "balance" on a cosmic scale, made a trilogy with cosmic aspirations that is deliberately unbalanced? 10-20% of the original backstory is sedimented into TPM and AOTC; while ROTS is bursting with 60-80% of that same backstory. It is the one that "shines" (note the shining effect at the very start). But that "shining", of course (*cough* Kubrick *cough*: TESB and "The Shining" were released days apart), is also blinding. People think that most of the substance of the prequels is in ROTS; but they are blinded by their own addiction to plot/drama. The epic unfolding of a cosmos actually takes place in the preceding episodes. As Pyro has suggested, the prequels seem designed, on a sneaky (but also rather obvious) level, to be watched in reverse. They function as a complete unit craning up to a striking revelation. And all the prequels, of course, are epic in tone. They have an explosive sense of grandeur about them. A grandeur that arguably finds its fullest expression when the tape is put in reverse and the regal, storybook brilliance of TPM -- paradoxically: the most and least Star Wars-y -- is experienced last.

 

mikeximus Great analysis there! You've managed to express perfectly what many of us, including myself, have tried to say.

 

Was Lucas right not to listen to embittered fans? Of course. People of course should listen to reasonable criticism, not weirdly embittered criticism. And George Lucas created a set of movies that were financially successful and polarizing enough to keep the Internet hopping 11 years after the last one premiered. Not many artists can say that. Who's talking about Avatar with this much vigor?

I can't really say anything but bravo to some of the posters of this thread who have shown over and over again that Lucas put an excessive amount of thought and passion into this project, and he is the reason why it's still successful today on a lot of levels.

I think about the story tumblr bandies about in regards to the hair for Anakin Skywalker complete with photos of Lucas meeting with Hayden Christensen over and over again and creating concept after concept where he would test it out with a group of designers. And it's a cute story, especially with the pictures of Hayden modeling these hairstyles as George fixes it like a mom with a kindergarten girl on the first day of school. But if Lucas was this intense about something as basic as hair, and we know he was about 5000% more interested in special effects and world building, the very idea that he skimped on anything for these movies is far fetched in the extreme. Here is the quote:

 

Yep, yep, yep! Great extract.

And I'll add to that: George seemed happier and looser as he went along.

You can also see, while he may be something of a distant/quiet director, he seems to have had a good rapport with many of his actors.

Indeed, in "The Making Of Revenge Of The Sith" by Jonathan Rinzler, he even reminisces at one point (p. 163):

"I loved working with Bobby [Robert Duvall]" (on "THX-1138")

The idea that he despises directing, or just sees it as a slog, is not entirely correct. In my view, it lacks for a more nuanced understanding of the man.

 

Not to belabour this any further but I don't think it is inexplicable. GL's interview regarding "frustation....." dealt with the medium's technology was THE problem for him. Thus when it came to the prequels GL actually did have fun directing and writing unlike the last time (15 years and more prior).

Cryogenic: The idea that he despises directing, or just sees it as a slog, is not entirely correct. In my view, it lacks for a more nuanced understanding of the man.

Sounds fair.



MJ

 

Very well said Sepra and great finding there!