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

Is that accurate? I always thought the PT visuals were well-recieved.

A few examples from contemporaneous reviews for TPM:

The New York Times: “But stripped of hype and breathless expectations, Mr. Lucas’s first installment offers a happy surprise: it’s up to snuff. It sustains the gee-whiz spirit of the series and offers a swashbuckling extragalactic getaway, creating illusions that are even more plausible than the kitchen-raiding raptors of Jurassic Park."

The Hollywood Reporter: "Lucas, directing his first effort since the original Star Wars, has delivered a brilliant technical achievement, light years ahead of its forerunners in its computer-generated special effects"

Rolling Stone: "But it’s useless to criticize the visual astonishment that is Star Wars – Episode I: The Phantom Menace. With this epic and the trilogy that preceded it, George Lucas has built a pop-culture monument that packs all of history – war, religion, myth, art, science and those old reliables, good and evil – into a mystical grab bag that plays like a kiddie cartoon."

Chicago Sun Times: "Unlike many movies, these are made to be looked at more than listened to, and George Lucas and his collaborators have filled The Phantom Menace with wonderful visuals. What he does have, in abundance, is exhilaration. There is a sense of discovery in scene after scene of The Phantom Menace, as he tries out new effects and ideas, and seamlessly integrates real characters and digital ones, real landscapes and imaginary places. We are standing at the threshold of a new age of epic cinema, I think, in which digital techniques mean that budgets will no longer limit the scope of scenes; filmmakers will be able to show us just about anything they can imagine.”

 

Thank you for this post. I remember people I knew in my personal life being very, very impressed with the visuals in TPM which is why it's always surprised me to hear so many people say "Oh *everyone* always thought the PT's effects were badly done/cheesy/too CGI'd/whatever." Now, has every single effect aged perfectly all these years later? Maybe not all of them. I mean, one would surely hope that visual effects have continued to improve in the many years since TPM's release and that eventually some of the things they did would start to look dated.

But personally, I really do not recall anyone saying the CGI looked pathetic or hokey or poorly done at *all* at the time this film came out, at least, not in my own experience with average American suburbanites. I was a teenager and my sibling was 10 at the time, so I knew lots and lots of families with kids who saw it. I do not remember a single person saying anything other than things along the lines of "the special effects were awesome."

 

It's not my favourite prequel, but TPM is visually the most beautiful SW movie.

 

When I think about it again and when I compare the Star Wars prequels to The Hobbit Trilogy, it seems to me that the special effects and CGI are still looking better in the prequels than The Hobbit movies. And this is very odd because the Hobbit has been made 10 years after the Star Wars prequels, so it should have better and more advanced technology used than during the beginning of the 2000's.

 

I like when the artist didn't care about the opinion of fans about these films, he created this for only mind, but, i think that exactely this faults for Lucas in prequels, some ideas of these movies is really interesting in paper, but how is show in big screen is really strange, the point of create alone the things is nice in some ways, but yes, it have the bad ways too.

I like the prequels in a way of interesting movies of action, in a way of SW movie, it's strange, but i watch these movies normally, it's not the worst movies of the world, it's a really fact.

 

My thoughts exactly.

The set design, the cities and worlds, the costumes, the props, just everything about that film is so beautiful.

 

I've thought about his for a long time, regarding a lot of newer films with more advanced effects. Something about the 'realism' levels achieved seems to make it feel too perfect to be real? I hear this a lot about Jurassic Park (though I've only seen the first one, and then only once almost 8 years ago). They look too good to be true. Maybe. I don't know. That's how I've always thought about it.

 

TPM yes. Less so the other two. It's notable that no PT film won a major award for special effects. RotS wasn't even nominated for the Oscar.

 

They'll get the statue this year.

'Ding dong the wicked witch is dead...'

 

Interesting article, I never got why people gave Lucas the finger. Decades after the OT, Lucas enriched his universe tremendously and gave the OT a great backstory, including my favorite Star Wars movie besides ROTJ: ROTS. That movie is so emotional, eventful, grim and has the best sabre fight ever, Anakin vs Obi Wan on Mustafar.
Lucas was right to show his vision instead of only repeating himself. TPM is full of details and has a different feel than ANH so that it does not stand out that there are broad similarities to ANH (in contrast to TFA, one cannot fail to catch at least some of the repeated elements). So it's "rhyming", not simple repetition.
I wish Lucas was still involved in the Star Wars movies.

By the way, my current apprection of the movies is like this:
ROTS & ROTJ > TPM & ANH > TESB > AOTC & TFA

 

Thomas Jay Welcome to the forum!

 

The issue with the prequels wasn't that GL didn't listen to the fans or was too bold. It was that nobody would tell him no if an idea was bad, and quite frankly, he is a wonderful storyteller but not the best director.

I loved TFA, but one of its weaknesses is that it played it TOO safe. My hope is that after VII established a foundation, VIII and IX will establish a nice middle ground between keeping a retro 'Star Wars' feel and covering new territory.

 

SW Saga Fan Thank you very much.
beedubaya I hope so, too. About Lucas I guess you're right, too. While I like the PT, one of its weaknesses is that there are some boring dialogue scenes in AOTC. Let's hope they combine strengths of the trilogies - some of the amazing details like multiple planets, some background information like in the PT for example - and bring us a new and satisfying end of the saga.

 

The marketing behind TFA is a bunch of smoke and mirrors. There are more practical effects in the prequels trilogy.

 

That simply isn't true. All the design department had all the freedom in the world. This is where Lucas gets downplayed as a director. He is thoroughly involved in all the aspects of his films, and works with each department head to achieve the goal in mind.

 

Anyone who thinks George Lucas isn't a great director needs to watch American Graffiti and THX 1138.

Not to mention the masterpiece that is the original Star Wars movie...

 

Or the prequels. It baffles me that people say he is an awful director. Watching interview and it is very apparent that Lucas has a great understanding of the medium, perhaps more than anybody else.

I finally got around to watching the bonus features for Empire,on the blurays. George Lucas is brilliant in so many ways.

 

Ummm...ANH had an $11 million budget. The average film budget in the 70s was $5 million. So more than twice the average is small?

Now I'll grant you that adjusted for inflation it comes out to about just under half of the PT budgets.

 

What is really happening here is far more simple, and sad, than most people realize.

The truth is that Disney spent billions on this franchise.

The PT was a visionary and ambitious undertaking. The PT's biggest flaw is that it tried to do too much. I'm a PT fan. I love them. I admire the ambition and the guts to try and create a galaxy and story so different from what we expected. Some fans don't like it. But that is not the issue.

The issue is that Disney spent BILLIONS on this franchise. They have no intention of taking a risk or of pursuing an artistic goal. They don't have the visionary ambition of challenging SW fans preconceived views.

They have one ambition and one ambition only - to cash in. They will be churning out the same formulaic film time and time and time again until that $4 billion they spent is a fraction of what they've made. I liked the Force Awakens, but it was no Lucas film. It didn't challenge the audience to digest a complex and multilayered thematic experience. It was space pulp.

And here is the rub. Disney knows what they're doing. They can make a film that will please MOST audiences and blow up the box office. They're masters at this. I love me some Marvel movies, and they're great fun, but Marvel is not Lucas's Star Wars. Disney is aiming to make Star Wars into the MCU Part 2. It will succeed. It will make a fortune. But they're scared of one thing and one thing only...a lack of legitimacy. They know they don't have Lucas's vision or cinematic courage. The first step is to discredit and dismiss the one thing that concerns you - in this case it's Lucas.

Look at TFA versus the PT. TFA checks every box a popcorn blockbuster like the Avengers is supposed to check. It has solid acting, a clean script, mysterious characters that conveniently create a demand for us to see the next film, and a retreading of the same story all over again. This is Marvel Studios people. This is the formula. There is no depth. It is superficial.

And here is the thing. I love Marvel studios. I think they're great. I liked TFA too. But it is plainly obvious for anyone looking why there is this sudden, oddly timed, attack on Lucas and the PT. Disney is afraid of being called out for what they're doing - making fan service films for cash rather than creating something new.

The best way to get away with this is to flatter your audience. "We are making these films for you." "You deserve these films." "You've waited for these films." "You're who we want to please."

 

They can't even take risks like Lucas did, they are bound by law to make as much profit as possible though legal means for their shareholders. Lucas didn't have shareholders to report to like Disney does.

 

What a great point - though the law around that is gray enough they could take risks if they could justify it as a long term gamble to establish artistic credibility.

I think they could take risks in that sense, but your general point is correct.

 

It's hard to argue with this.

Disney knew exactly what it was doing with TFA. In order to begin recouping that $4 billion investment they knew they needed to get the fans who were disappointed with the prequels back on board. And they knew the best way to do that was to pander to them by giving them what they appear to have wanted all along: more of the same. So that's precisely what they did and the fans ate it up.

Disney shunted artistry aside in favour of empty nostalgia. Which is something George Lucas would never have done.

Whether that's a good thing or a bad thing depends on your point of view I guess.

 

It is revisionist crap and a double standard. If I were to say "man...that Hoth battle and the AT-ATs look pretty ******" people would scream me down with "that was state of the art!" "That was the best there was back then."

But somehow the first fully CGI character in Jar Jar is crappy? Makes no sense.

 

Your last point is salient. I suppose from "a certain point of view" (lol) it could be viewed as a good thing. And truth be told I really did enjoy TFA. But I enjoyed it in the same way I love Marvel movies.

I can't explain my frustration with it. I'm a guy who saw Avengers tons of times and The Winter Soldier even more. I love Marvel movies.

But I've never felt the same kind of love for Star Wars. I have always felt something deeper, like something more meaningful was being revealed to me when I watched Star Wars. In many cases it was less entertaining. I will flatly say that The Force Awakens, Avengers, etc. are all, strictly speaking, more entertaining than any of the PT.

And yet, they all feel so much more hollow to me. Despite the PT flaws, there is something deeply and poetically powerful in them. Perhaps it's the ambition or the vision or the attempt to do something unique that strikes me. Either way, I must also concede to your point that it isn't necessarily a bad thing, it's just not Lucas's thing.

 

I enjoyed TFA. Saw it three times with my son and had a blast each time. But I simply cannot hold it in the same regard as Lucas's saga because it has nothing to say for itself.

As Andrew O'Hehir wrote in his review for Salon, TFA "is the work of a talented mimic or ventriloquist who can just about cover for the fact that he has nothing much to say." Or as Stephanie Zacharek put it in Time, "...somewhere along the way, Abrams begins delivering everything we expect, as opposed to those nebulous wonders we didn’t know we wanted..mostly, The Force Awakens strives to please instead of surprise. Abrams wants us to walk away happy. He just doesn’t give us much to take home."