The Star Wars saga exists only to make money?

The Star Wars saga exists only to make money?

Earlier today we had a stand in teacher for Film, during the lesson he talked a little about Star Wars & how when George Lucas first created the movies, he chose to have a strong female as Princess Leia because that would attract women to see the movie -- when he chose Luke & Han, he did so because that would attract men to go & see the movie because of Luke & Hans "buddy, buddy" relationship -- the tutor said that it was such a cynical way to make a movie.

He then went on to say that in Ep.I he did the same again, choosing to have a young child to play Anakin to make kids go & see the movie, same with Jar-Jar -- he said the only reason for the Podrace was so he could make videogames.

Basically, he said the entire saga was manufactured to make Lucas lots of $$$$.

So, the whole point of this thread is to discuss that kind of opinion -- do you think he has any valid points? He obviously isn't a fan of the saga, what do you think of his opinion?

Discuss

 

He's probably the sort of person that thinks Lucas picked JEJ ahead of Prowse to do Vader's voice because he wanted a character to appeal to blacks

 

As your film teacher how many scripts he has had rejected.

Then, my friend, you will understand everything.

 

That is quite interesting, Bad_Feeling. I think that the point of view of the professor in question is actually rather parochial. In terms of developing archetypal characters on which to found a story, Lucas did what countless other writers have done, which is to make a story outline based on 'ancient' formulas. I guess that there is some basic truth in the filmic theory that a film, by its very nature, cannot exist without an audience between the projector and the screen, but to essentially imply that the movies are 'potboilers' is actually somewhat unfair. Movies are a financial as well as an artistic medium; if someone is going to invest millions of dollars in a particular film, they are understandably going to want a return. Major Hollywood studios today are far too concerned with test screenings and focus groups to determine the target demographic for a given project and as a result, we get assembly-line products like "Bad Boys 2" which adhere to the same principles and pander to low-brow audience tastes (and fail at doing so). So I guess that it's possible that Lucas concieved those characters with dollar signs in sight, but I somehow doubt that that was his primary concern. In "A New Hope", the audience was plunged into a completely alien universe and so Lucas was actually quite clever in having the story 'told' through the 'eyes' of two droids adorned with human temperments. Luke Skywalker really seemed to represent the audience's entry point into the story - objectively, he isn't particularly interesting as a character (adding unnecessary psychological complexity here would have been a mistake, I think), but he is human and a classical hero on a quest. Who cannot relate to Luke's desire and romanticism? He is us; the characters are us, and we look out at the story through them. The peripheral characters such as Princess Leia and Han Solo are actually phoned in from pulp serials of the 1930s and 40s - listen to their quasi-contemporary dialogue. By the time the "Star Wars" prequels came around, I don't think that Lucas had to be concerned as to whether or not his film would be a hit, although he continues to argue otherwise. In the case of Anakin, he's simply creating a parallel character arc/journey to that of Luke's; as a saga we are thus able to grasp larger thematic elements not readily apparent when considering the films in an individual manner. Don't get me wrong, here, I think that Lucas values his fortune and has obviously done many saavy things to protect it (no other director in history has ever been given as much control over a single enterprise or film since Orson Welles was given 'carte blanche' by RKO to make "Citizen Kane"), but I believe, as he himself states, that the story is the issue here. Yes, Lucas is a great visual storyteller who likes to design his films around grandiose setpiece action sequences, but that doesn't mean that his ability to develop a full and interesting narrative doesn't exist or should be in question. The bottom line is that although I think that what your professor said has some small amount of validity, the comments themselves have a rather pejorative odor.

 

Brilliantly well put Tyranus_the_Hutt. I've never thought about Lucas having the Podrace so "he can make video games", I think the only reason video games are being made from the Star Wars saga is because Lucas is able to create such amazing action set pieces that we WANT to take part in, hence the video games.

His comments did annoy me somewhat, the character of Princess Leia is your classic damsel in distress but he has given her a new interesting spin -- this Princess can handle herself!

If Lucas was interested in creating huge amounts of money, then he would've cast big named actors (which attract people to the theatre) to fill the roles of the characters.

 

Any movie shown on many screens at a multi-plex will exist only to make money. If the original trilogy had bombed, the prequels would not be made. Heck, if Episode 4 had bombed, that would have been it. To us, Star Wars is a way of life, but to an executive at 20th Century Fox it is an investement which will produce a high return. To Lucas, I believe it is more than money, it is his vision, his creation, but at the end of the day money talks.

 

Exactly, Bad_Feeling. Lucas cast Alec Guiness in the OT to lend an air of prestige to the saga; perhaps people would take the "Star Wars" films a little more seriously if they featured an internationally famous, Oscar-winning actor. I think that Liam Neeson was cast as Qui-Gon Jinn for a similar reason - although Neeson hasn't won an Oscar, he is a classically-trained, well-respected actor, who likewise brought significant gravitas to his role in "The Phantom Menace".

If you or I had a net worth of 3 billion dollars, then, unless we were completely out of our senses, we would do everything possible to protect that money. Lucas is a sensible business person who is acting in an intelligent manner. I don't blame him for making money off of video games, books, toys, comics, etc. His films have brought so much pleasure to me that I can't begrudge him turning a profit. Disgruntled, whiny, armchair critics can, though.

And no, I don't have a problem with the CGI.

 

Your Film Teacher needs to learn more about Film History. Before 1977, science fiction movies were not moneymakers. Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Jaws, and Coppola with Godfather were the first movies to make over $100 million in their first run. They revolutionized how movies are made and released. They may have led to other cookie cutter action pictures being made to just make money, but were not themselves cookie cutter action pictures.

 

I am sure SW exists to make money. The approach is to make one of the most substantial morality tales in film history.

People pay for quality art.

 

Well put. Also, let's face it, Star Wars is so different from other films of the time that it should by rights have failed. the thing that saved it was the fact that it is so good and original.

Plus, watch 'Empire of Dreams' and you'll see how Lucas resists studio suggestions which are geared towards profit over art.

 

"he said the only reason for the Podrace was so he could make videogames"

I think thats a bit over the top to be honest.

 

I'd just like to point out that I think my (substitute) tutor was wrong in what he said & I have lost some of my respect towards the guy.

Your Film Teacher needs to learn more about Film History. Before 1977, science fiction movies were not moneymakers. Lucas with Star Wars, Speilberg with Jaws, and Coppola with Godfather were the first movies to make over $100 million in their first run.

He touched on other Sci-Fi films before Star Wars, saying that there where a couple of big ones such as 2001 but they appealed to a mainly male audience (according to him) but Lucas saw a way to open up the genre & bring in virtually everyone to see the movie by including characters they could relate to & sequences they would like to see.

I think in a way, my teacher was criticising Star Wars for being successful, which is bizarre to say the least.

The approach is to make one of the most substantial morality tales in film history.

I agree

His opinion 'kinda shocked me in a way, I knew there where people who disliked the saga for various reasons but to say that it exists to solely make money and that Lucas chose the characters & storylines to attract everyone to see the movie, just to make money is ridiculous IMO.

 

Here's your teacher's problem! 2001. This damn movie is frustratingly slow, totaly inadequate regarding the book, and has little or no meaning to anyone that doesn't want to see over-philosophical sci-fi. Much like the 70's version of SOLARIS.

SW's success over that spiked a lot of egg-heads who think that fantasy is for the intellectual few. Much like old aristocrats who thought classical music was not meant to be played for the masses.Riiiiight....

 

The Star Wars saga exists only to make money?

No.

The heart, imagination and effort put into STAR WARS makes it obvious it does not exist only to make money.

 

Unfortunately, many critics and scholars of film really have it in for Star Wars. I believe this is because they are personally offended that what they see as a derivative, effects-driven spectacle film (series) is loved almost universally, whereas those films that they see as well made, intellectual and challenging will never have so many fans. And it's not about the financial success - it's all about the love!!

Star Wars wasn't just made to make money - it made (and continues to make) money because it is so well loved, which in turn is because it is so well crafted and has such a great story! As another poster pointed out, the only reason videogames and toys based on Star Wars are successful is because it touches something deep inside people which makes them want toys and games!

But the implication that Star Wars is simply a product, or the ultimate marketing gimmick, annoys me. And I'm afraid comments to this effect really wind me up, especially when they're coming from someone who is teaching others about film! To be too blinkered to see the true depth and beauty of Star Wars is understandable, and all too common. But to dismiss the social, historical and technological importance of Star Wars in this way is unforgivable!

 

The Star Wars saga exists only to make money?

Um, yeah. Why do you think movies are made?

 

True, films *financially* are for making money, and nobody doubts that's part of the goal of a director, but I think what he's saying is that there was more to it than just images of dollar signs in Lucas' mind when he made them. The fact that Lucas decided to release his movies in a time period when critically scorned genre says alot about the risks he was willing to take to tell his stories. He had a vision of an idea he wanted to put to visuals other than just reaping profits. Additionally, I find it odd that so many people accuse him of taking fast paths to people's wallets, when Lucas often does things with his films that aren't part of the blockbuster formula. He rarely uses big name actors, he's constantly using new SFX ideas in his stories even if they aren't perfected quite yet, and with the PT he took a major risk by completely changing the storytelling style of the movies.

I wouldn't doubt that Lucas is happy that his films are success and enjoys the money flow, but I generally think he would've launched ANH even if everyone in Hollywood told him it would fail. Even with the prequels, he's continued to make them the way *he* wants, despite all the bad publicity he's received for it. (And keep in mind, it's not *Lucas* who generates the money. *We,* the audience, are the ones that make him rich. If we weren't willing, he wouldn't be as big as he is.)

 

True. Who knows?Maybe after ROTS we'll see a greater design in the PT and stop bitching so much about it. So he made something that sells and inspires universaly?That's called success the last time I looked.

 

Unfortunately, EVERYTHING in the world exists to make money boys and girls.

Without a currency based 'motivation' program, NOTHING would get done.

On the other side of the coin, an artist is the ultimate EGOTIST, that seeks acknowledgement and gratification, usually through the massing of status, influence, control and wealth.

In BOTH cases, its human nature at its worse.

To aspire to become a God if you will.

George Lucas is an artist.
Ergo, and Egotist.

And a special one at that.

The bottom line is that Lucas has ALWAYS, 'told the story, he wanted to tell,'

MANY folks in Hollywood want to tell their OWN stories, but alas, hollywood big wigs and their consumer based allies all-too-easily step in and stick a price tag on a product, and change it to suit their MARKETING needs.

Lucas knew that back in the day. In his case however he realized something the others did not; And that was that if he could find a way to secure his own controlled source of income he could make his own rule, his own movies on his terms, and continue to build an economic empire to continue making his art.

Sequels, the Lucas Ranch, varied companies geared to promote the entertainment and educational medium and so forth were the direct result of Lucas securing his own power medium.

Quite frankly, the man's f%cking brilliant.

So, yeah; The Star Wars saga was created to make money.

It was just that the living force saw an opportunity to promote some moral messages about love, forgivness, resistance to oppression and a hope of peace and prosperity in a future not necessarily far, far away...

 

No.
George Lucas makes movies because he enjoys it. Also he likes to throw in a few more things so he will get more people to see it. You see it's more than just making money, George wants to have people relate to the character in the Star Wars universe. With the Expanded Univere, You can relate to just about anyone in a Galaxy far far away ...

 

This question is a catch-22. How could we be where we are if these films didnt make money?

 

The Star Wars saga exists only to make money?

Name me a film that doesn't! ALL FILMS are made for the money and have you seen Empire of Dreams, all that Lucas went through during the making of ANH he more than deserves the profit he made from SW. He makes the films for money but also for his enjoyment, if he just wanted the money he wouldn't put a day's thought into any of the SW films, just think how long it must of took him to think of all the planets, character etc. If he just wanted the money he would of just ripped something else off or made something with no real thought or story, look at Terminator 3 thats a film made just for money, all that film does is do what the second one does unlike what Cameron did with the first two.
So yeah Lucas did make the film for the money but without the money Lucas would not have army's of fans.

 

For Lucas, his art comes before profit.

 

He then went on to say that in Ep.I he did the same again, choosing to have a young child to play Anakin to make kids go & see the movie, same with Jar-Jar -- he said the only reason for the Podrace was so he could make videogames. Same argument could have been made for things in ANH, the trench run always made a good videogame, regardless if the video game graphics sucked then. C-3PO R2-D2 and all the ships and characters could and would/was to be good toy potentials.

Basically, he said the entire saga was manufactured to make Lucas lots of $$$$.With the prequels, Lucas already had tons of money, he could have just lived off the profits of the OT the rest of his life.

So, the whole point of this thread is to discuss that kind of opinion -- do you think he has any valid points? He obviously isn't a fan of the saga, what do you think of his opinion? I think it makes little sense. Especially to the fact that Lucas was already several lifetimes rich before the PT came out.

 

Your teacher is correct. He is correct at pointing out story componants that are actractive as well as nessessary to tell the type of story hes telling. Is old Ben there to attract the elder croud? Probably not, but the wise old man is a story componant to the type of adventure George is telling. A fantasy tale has a standard group of characters that different groups can all identify with. When Lucas did A NEW HOPE, he was working with a fantasy set of characters more so than they were tools to attract groups and generate money. He wasnt making the film for money and didnt think it would be very big. When things got bigger he kept the same characters and added Lando. Is Lando there to attract black fans with a popular black actor? Of course- But I think its more so of an appeal factor than it is a money move. The black community were already fans and didnt need Lando to raise an interest in the films.

The next episode would mark the most obvious attempt to lure a specific audeience. In this case, and continuing through the SE and into TPM, Children. Weather it was a grab at money or simply Lucas looking at things differently due to his own kids, is something we wont know. STAR WARS will genrate money no matter what and hes already rich. I believe his children are playing a part in his latest decisions. I do believe the PODRACE to be very blaitant in its videogame placement, but again, directing things toward kids here may not be totally for the dough. Hes raising his children and are considering them when he does things in the movies. Georges personal money-well is in the home versions of the films. He will milk that for all its worth and we'll have 6 different boxes before its all done.

But far as STAR WARS "existing to make money" I wouldnt sum it up simply as that. George wants to make money, yes, but he is making something he feels strongly about and takes care in what he wants to convey. Sure there is product placement and unessessary characters for coolness sake and action figures- but other films are worse in the fact that the creators and companies arent even trying to make films with any semblance of substance or to be remembered. One quick cash hit and even the creator tosses it to the side. Atleast Lucas cares about what hes doing. As a film maker he must follow proceedures to ensure profit as any other business man as it is only sensable.

Look at KING ARTHUR. They promoted this film with billboard ads and posters showcasing, not Arthur, but some skinny-ass crusty chick- smack dab in the middle of the poster and bigger than the other actors. The guy in which the film is titled is but a mere extra in his own ads. I hope she atleast brought in an even break for that flop. And thats what they get for insulting my intellegence. Or how about BLADE:TRINITY. The first Blade was Blade by himself ( save for Whistler ) as it should be. The next film tries to expand with this teamup thing with colorful videogame-like characters and a slight "hotchick" insertion. Get to the new film and they do it again. Blade is accompanied by a "badboy" type and *sigh* the go-to mid-drift chick to get our attention.

Lucas may have had Natalie Portman rip her shirt and put Leia in a Bikini, but hes far from trying to sell trash he doesnt care about. Making money is part of STAR WARS existance but not its only one. "I like STAR WARS"-George Lucas