Discussion So apparently Lucas started on the ST just before selling Lucasfilm

More than likely with ANH everyone was clueless as to what was going on because Lucas was doing something that was groundbreaking and original. Once it was there on the big screen in front of them it all made sense. To me it just seemed the PT was very effect driven, like it was the be all and end all. Everything else was secondary and that was a mistake. You can't deny that.

 

You're right I can't deny that at all.....infact I totally agree with you but in saying that GL is SW so his vision should really be the one and only, hey he did pay for it all himself so I think he earned the privilege haha

 

I have no wish to make you feel defensive, Aaronaman, but if anything, it's that sentiment that really exposes the gap between those who have issue with the PT and those who do not.

No critic, anywhere, ever, has decided that an artist cannot possibly go wrong with his own work. Artists have constantly claimed infallibility, but that doesn't mean they actually have it or that they deserve to be so considered. Critics do not judge artwork by the standard of whether it met the expectations of its creator or not; they judge it by whether it met the expectations of the audience, the people for whom the artwork was meant. If an artist has a personal vision, that's to be respected; but unless the artist intends to keep his entire body of work to himself for his own enjoyment (which is utterly foolish regardless of the art medium inviolved), that vision still has to form a proper piece of art - or, in this case, film entertainment - that properly communicates that personal vision to the audience, and the function of the critical community is to determine on behalf of an audience if that has been done or not - and if the answer is it didn't, the inevitable next question is why? What decisions were made, and by whom, that resulted in this artwork not living up to its maximum potential?

But of course, critics aren't perfect either. You may fairly ask: if critics are people too, and every critic has a personal opinion, then what makes them any better and why should I care what they say? The best answer is this: you do NOT give any single individual critic your sole attention. You have to sample multiple such critiques, AND (first and foremost) see the film in question yourself (possibly more than once sometimes) before coming to an informed opinion of what they have to say (and an opinion that is informed by fact is the only one that can have any legitimacy in a matter of this sort). If an individual critic does not respond to anything in a given artwork, then that can be written off as simple variance in individual tastes between people, but if a number of crtiics say the same thing with simple variance in language, then it means there's a problem with the artwork, not the critics or the audience.

As an instance, I have read numerous reviews from respected critics who state that the first film installment of The Hobbit was way too long (a realization I came to myself about halfway through without needing a critic to tell me); had there been but one or two critics making the point, that could have been written off. But it would be far quicker to list the critics who didn't say that about the film. And if what the critics said clicks with what you yourself saw in that film, then you're forced to concede that they may be onto something.

So then, again, the question becomes: why was it too long? In that case, it's really no question: the studio asked Peter Jackson to try to stretch the story out into three films; Jackson agreed to it and acted accordingly, but there's only so much story to The Hobbit, a far shorter book than The Lord of the Rings, and so in order to expand the length, a LOT of extra business was added from other Tolkien materials that detracted from the story rather than enhancing it. And not just that: even the action scenes were stretched out by adding as much shot footage as possible; a great deal of fat could have been trimmed off those sequences alone and the film would have been about a half-hour shorter and the better for it. That decision of a longer, much-expanded, three-film trilogy to match the LOTR trilogy constituted Jackson's vision for the film from that point onward, but objectively speaking, was what he was doing right for the film itself? No, not at all. So why did it happen? Long story short, Jackson did it because he answered to others. It happens a lot in Hollywood.

But now apply that to Star Wars and Lucas. Who did Lucas answer to in LFL? Anyone? Nope. He fought his whole professional life to make sure he answered to NO ONE. If every decision was his alone to make, and no one was above him to act as a filter for whether such decisions would work to communicate his vision properly, then there's simply no one else to point the finger at. A ton of people take issue with those of us who weren't blown away by the PT when we jump on Lucas for it, but we really aren't left with a whole lot of choices besides him. Who else exactly can we point to? There's no Hollywood big-shot in a suit to blame for interfering with Lucas' vision; nor can we entirely point the finger at, say, Rick McCallum because he was a subordinate and answered to Lucas. If you create an environment whereby you have total control, then you don't just have an environment where you alone get the credit for the success of your project; you also have an environment where you alone get the blame if it fails. That's what he asked for, and that's what he got: total control; and with it, total accountability.

I can't really speak to the conditions of other film directors of beloved franchises, but is there someone here on this forum willing to say that Jackson got no negative criticism for The Hobbit? None at all? And if he did, was there merit to it? And even if there was, how many other directors take it as personally as we assume Lucas does? And even if Jackson did take it personally, so what? Are the people who paid their money for a film that disappointed them just supposed to shut up and say "Thank you, sir, may I have some more?" No other director or film franchise is awarded such a hands-off approach to critical feedback, whether professional or amateur in nature; why should Lucas be awarded such rights? The man has already assured his place as a towering influence on cinema, and if I did see him in person I would shake his hand and tell him thanks for all the good stuff he's to be justly thanked for; but he is still, always and only, a fallible MAN, and while I may not stoop to just whipping them out right in front of him (because there is still such a thing as good manners), I won't just keep my criticisms to myself either; somewhere I'll be making my opinion heard. I'm a member of the audience; it's both my right and my job.

--- --- ---

Now, just so I don't bog the thread down with this particular line of discussion when it really doesn't impact the question at hand, I would like to suggest the following: like the thread in this forum concerning what factual developments have happened when, we really need to assemble a cohesive and detailed timeline of what happened when, and constantly update as new information becomes available. There was a thread before, or so I had thought, that was devoted to the question of when Lucas finally decided to put pen to paper and get on with the ST outline, but the original poster clearly wasn't thinking in those terms and meant something else entirely. We need to make one of our own out of this thread if it's to last any length of time. By that, I mean that every instance leading to the ST - including every quote of Lucas' repeatedly saying there would not be an ST - needs to be listed in detail and arranged in chronological order, beginning at the very least in May 2011, when Iger first approached Lucas about selling, if not as early as the release of ROTS in May 2005; a lot of ground needs to be covered to bridge the gap between "I'm not making any more" and "OK, I'll let someone else make more," and it can only make proper sense if we lay every fact out in proper context. Then it will be a LOT easier to determine if Lucas decided to start work on the ST - by which I mean actions rather than words - at this time or that, or if it was before considering the Disney sale or during the process, as the video at the top of the thread suggests.

Does anyone else agree with this, or am I being too anal about it? And you're quite allowed to say 'yes, Pfluegermeister, you're being anal,' if that's what you think; but be prepared to explain why.

 

Just about the Hobbit but I think Jackson's idea was 2 films which the execs asked if he could stretch to 3 and he said yes. If he had said No though they may have been disappointed I am sure they still would have gone with it, why argue with Jackson after all.
TBH though 2 films is still 1 to many. The Hobbit is a 1 book film kind of like how the Lord of the Rings books (each bigger than the Hobbit) are 1 book films (even if he missed out on the most important part of the story, the scouring of the Shire) and if just feels like Jackson is just making people to see the same film 3 times. He even had his own Jar Jar with Radagast (nothing like the Fellowship book version) who doesn't just step in the poop but decides to wear it too

 

Is George getting judged by the same standards as everyone else or is he being overly critised by certain circles and has actually no chance to release the 'perfect' SW movie in some fans eyes. I have no problem with people having an opinion on films they have seen, that's what being a paying customer is all about but what I can't seem to get my head around are the people who 'claim' to love a particular film or series but yet are hell bound to get on the Internet to vent how GL has ruined their vision of HIS film.

I'm not a fan of the LOTR movies or the Hobbit but I can appreciate the effort and work that goes into making them, am I going to rant and rave about how Sir Peter Jackson 'raped' my adulthood because he had singing Hobbits doing the dishes in his latest film....heck no.

I'm sure GL has no issue with a well thought out critisum of any of his pictures, what I'm pretty sure he has had enough of though are the personal attacks and Internet 'hate' campaigns that seem to go hand and hand every time he releases anything to do with SW. I don't think George is a god nor am I even a fan of the PT, I could probably count on one hand how many times I've seen PM and AOTC, but I'm also not calling for GL to be burnt at the stake for making them, he gave us the OT so in my book he can produce any other SW film he likes and take it in any direction he chooses because no one can take the OT away from me now!

BTW I'm not being defensive....honest hahaha

 

Oh, my God, if this were THAT kind of thread I could go into a novel-length discussion about what was right and wrong with that film. Alas, it's no Hobbit thread.

But just to keep us on topic here, anyone consider the idea I had written up (see above)?

 

No, I think he has respect for fans; he also knows you can't please EVERYONE. The way a lot of his fans acted towards him gave him little reason to respect them; how about a little respect toward Lucas?

I don't blame him for getting fed up with trolls. Yes, people lined his pockets paying for SW, but on the other hand, he created a huge and very enjoyable piece of our popular culture, give the man his dues. You don't like the PT, then fine, but some people do; take it or leave it, but there is no reason to be a schmuck about it to Lucas. He didn't betray you because you didn't happen to enjoy the PT; that doesn't make Lucas an oppressor in your life..

 

I liked the PT and I am really sick of bashers. Not everyone hated them and in fact most didn't but haters are always the nastiest and most vocal.

 

I would love to here your thoughts on the Hobbit film, please Inbox me