Discussion Would you like to see George Lucas involved again in the new movies ?

No it isn't. Still it has Lucas "look and feel".

 

I mean, if Tolkien or Frank Herbert were still around, I can’t ever imagine new stories being developed without their input… and purely from a marketing perspective, I think it’s only a matter of time before we get a new film/TV show with ‘story/characters by George Lucas’… even if they end up repurposing his ST treatments. If the ST had been a unequivocal success, I don’t think we’d be having this conversation… but post ST, I think most fans would now like to see his new ideas/concepts on screen, even if it’s through the lens of a different filmmaker etc.

 

I love George, but I really don’t think he comes even close to Tolkien in his world-building genius. His ideas later in life have just…not been great, IMO. Frankly, I think there are fan-directors out there, like Edwards, Favreau, Famuyiwa, Filoni, Chow, etc, who have better ideas for the GFFA than George might have now. There’s a reason he quit. He’s just not that into it anymore. And that’s perfectly OK. He deserves his retirement.

 

I don't know? Outside of TLOTR, I'd say Lucas has built one of the most expansive fictional universes (certainly in terms of its impact on popular culture)... so I'd personally always want to listen to/see his ideas... and I suspect the ST would have played better for a big section of audiences if DLF had employed those ideas more fully (but hey... that's just my take). However, I'd never suggest that this should be at the expense of Favreau, Filoni et al. There's room for both to co-exist and compliment each other (IMO). And of course, I wasn't suggesting Lucas should be strong armed into writing new SW stories... only if he offered them willingly, or if DLF had to rights to material he'd previously written, but never put to screen... Lucas' ST treatments' (he whispers).

 

Tolkien was first, so there's that. Otherwise, Lucas has him beat in every way. And Lucas absolutely developed the saga over decades, and the time off doesn't mean he wasn't world building the whole span between ROTJ and TPM. Tolkien has him beat on sheer volume of details because he wrote books, not movies, but Lucas utilized a completely different dimension of storytelling to "world build", given the world Lucas created takes place on a movie screen as opposed to in your head, where you fill in lots of details yourself. Lucas didn't just create the spaceships, he created, or oversaw the creation of, how they look, how they move, how they sound.

And Lucas wasn't bored with Star Wars. He wanted to finish the saga he started. He just didn't want to direct. He wanted to make Episode 7 and then sell the franchise, but Disney was ready to buy, and Lucas took the opportunity to sell it then, with the understanding they'd use his treatment. And then they blindsided him and rejected his ideas. So he walked away.

 

We’ll have to agree to disagree on Lucas having beat Tolkien “in every way.” Though I agree that Lucas’ visual imagination is incredible and something Tolkien didn’t get to fully engage in (I say not fully as Tolkien actually was a good artist and created some great and imaginative drawings and paintings).

 

To be honest I don't disagree with you. I think what Tolkien did was literary genius... whereas Lucas' talent is primarily his visual storytelling. I was more talking about how those fictional universes (TLOTR/SW) have impacted popular culture and their respective genres... and from that perspective Lucas is up there with anybody, even if Tolkien is the better writer (which of course he is IMO).

 

I get that. Though LOTR has also had a major effect on popular culture. Even before PJ’s films, due in party to his popularity among the hippy set. LOTR has sat consistently right behind the Bible every year as the best selling book of all time. Though books don’t get seen by as many folks as blockbuster films, the influence he’s had through written text alone is extraordinary.

 

I wouldn't compare Tolkien to Lucas. They are both different types of storytellers and world builders. I love them both. GL did the impossible and holds a special place if you ask me. A category that is different from others. He created movies that basically gave him the financial freedom to create his companies that were pioneering in many ways. Just the original trilogy did so much to the movie business, the toy business, etc that it would take a 25 page paper to authentically explain.

Would I love for GL to return to star wars? Absolutely because he is "Star Wars" he created the damn thing and knows all the ins and outs, even if we don't agree with them. But, at the same time, GL had the opportunity to do more with star wars but decided that the movies would end with 6 of them. . TCW was pretty good and expansive but the sale of the company caused some good stories to never comeout in its completed animation form. So its a catch 22 for me.

 

GL deserves a place in SW, and he may have multiple places in it, as advisor and creator, but I think it's important to run his ideas through younger people, like Filoni.

While much of GL's vision is inclusive, there are some flaws in his thinking. For example, his binary assumption that "inorganic" material has no connection to the Force relies on outdated concepts of what constitutes physical things. There are lively particles in the "inorganic" and therefore no reason to assume droids or AI would lack a connection to the Force.

But GL is a huge resource and should be treated as such, and treated with the respect he has earned.

 

Star Wars without George Lucas is like The Beatles without John and Paul. IMO, it's not "really, truly" Star Wars, but rather a facsimile of what it once was... At the very least, if you want to convince people it's the Beatles, you need to sound like John and Paul, and you need to write and play like them, too. And it needs to be in their spirit.

Said it before, but buying Star Wars and rejecting Lucas' idea would be exactly the same as purchasing the rights to the Beatles, and then hiring Justin Timberlake and Taylor Swift to write and perform all the new songs instead of Paul and Ringo. If Lucas is not available, they need to try to emulate his spirit, which is what Filoni and Favreau have done. The Acolyte will be very interesting. I am very pessimistic but I will always remain hopeful they will get it right. If it doesn't feel like Lucas Star Wars, it will fail, IMO.

 

I honestly think that's an incredibly narrow, reductionist view of what Star Wars is, has been, and could be. I think trying to duplicate Lucas' style, if anything, is what ends up feeling like a facsimile.

 

The thing about mythology is that mythological explanations needs to change over time, as one period's understanding of reality demands new narrative explanations.

So we can't really expect SW to always remain the same, based on the original concepts that came from Lucas. His ideas need to change and transform through the perceptions of younger storytellers more in touch with the spirit of the times.

 

Facsimile may not have been the best word for me to use, because I really meant a bad version, not a bad copy, so okay... But to my point...

You call it incredibly narrow, but that's ridiculous, IMO, because first of all, there is a lot of leeway within those parameters. The Mandalorian follows those parameters, IMO, and it looks and feels like Star Wars, and there is no evidence of the creators feeling boxed in or limited. If something is going to fall under the category of Star Wars, it has to have certain attributes, or what does it mean to be Star Wars? Merely setting a story in space doesn't make it Star Wars. And when you say what Star Wars is, has been and could be... what are you talking about? I've been a fan of Star Wars for almost 45 years, and I'm sure you're a long time fan as well. For the first 35 years, Star Wars was completely run and controlled by Lucas, so in terms of what has been and what is...everything prior to the sale falls into the category of what I'm talking about...

So you are just talking about Disney Star Wars, and so far, based on Rotten Tomatoes fan scores, the most popular Star Wars Disney productions have been TFA, Rogue 1, and The Mandalorian. The less satisfying one to fans were Solo and TLJ, which IMO both strayed from Lucas' vision more than the others. You personally may disagree.

I don't agree with this. I think mythology is timeless, and my point of view is not that there is no room for new ideas or growth or change...that's twisting what I'm saying (not that you are). My point of view is that Star Wars has to mean something. The wider you open it up to interpretation, the more you lose what makes it special, and what makes it so effective. Basically, if there is no style to adhere to, and no basic uniformity, then what would even make it Star Wars?

Look at what happened to the Muppets. Look at what is happening to Pixar? Is there any wonder why all the great Disney classic animated movies all came out under Walt Disney himself or during that renaissance with Little Mermaid to Lion King? It's because one person in charge knows what they're doing, and everyone follows a single vision.

IMO, the more you take Lucas out of Star Wars, the less it will be Star Wars, and in all likelihood, the less the audience as a whole will respond to them.

 

Some aspects of myths are timeless -- for example, when we have thinkers like Jung imagining timeless structures that appear in multiple cultures -- but then when we see how such structures are contextualized in a particular time and culture, the differences matter.

Now in reality, myths are not timeless but contradictory. If you study Greek myth, or even biblical mythology -- this probably applies to all actual written or spoken myth -- the stories and characters wildly contradict each other. In one story, Zeus is a horrible person; in another, more of an ideal to admire.

This simply has to do with the basic fact that writers often didn't know each other, grew up with different understandings of Gods, or were writing for a particular cultural moment or audience.

So a lot of our belief that mythology is timeless is after the fact projection of our own ideological values, the desire to find consistency in inconsistency.

Having said all this, I think it's possible to update our myths in a way that is true to what was good in them while revising what wasn't.

Thus, the spirit of Lucas can be retained even while making his vision more inclusive and less tenuous.

 

I think we agree more than disagree. I'm not suggesting Star Wars shouldn't be inclusive in regards to both the cast and the creative team, but if you mean inclusive of other ways of looking at things, such as the rejection of the concept of good and evil, or the rejection of taking personal responsibility for your place in the world, then no, Star Wars should not be inclusive of all ideas. Whatever Star Wars has been about for the last 45 years is what it should continue to be about. It should not be co-opted by whoever is in charge at the time to satisfy whatever they personally feel is important to them. It should not be used to divide the fan base. And that's what will happen if you don't have a very specific idea of what Star Wars actually is... The different people who get control will use it, just like Rian Johnson did. There needs to be a bigger picture that is uniform.

 

We could talk about this more sometime, but the concept of good and evil, which supposes the two terms have no similarity or overlap, is a deeply flawed concept, and even a destructive one despite that it is effective for viewing the world in simple terms, which can be entertaining and psychologically pleasing. However, it leads to numerous social problems, wars, genocide, and unethical behavior, and in fact doesn't accurately reflect the complexity of reality, and perhaps worst of all, is often misused by those in power.

I personally think the concept could be retained as long as a moral middle space is established. Stargirl did this well recently by pointing out how Eclipso was true evil while other characters fell in the middle, like the Shade. I think this reflects reality pretty well because while most people are a mix of good and bad, most aren't 100% evil, even psychopaths, who often serve society well as business people who create jobs (more psychopaths are attracted to the business world than any other profession).

 

Well yes, all people have both inside of them, and that's what Star Wars is all about, right? And Han Solo is certainly a shade of good and a shade of evil. But that is different than saying one person's good is another person's evil, or that good and evil are subjective. IMO, Star Wars historically would make the argument that murder is wrong objectively, not subjectively. We don't all agree that murder is wrong, and that's why it's wrong. Murder is wrong because there is a higher force, power, intelligence, whatever you call it, and the universe itself is aligned with this. Star Wars and atheism do not mix, IMO. Star Wars is a spiritual galaxy.

IMO, Star Wars cannot ever suggest that good and evil are subjective concepts. This is not Obi Wan point of view speech. That's perception. Good and evil don't work that way, which is exactly what Lucas was saying when Anakin says from my point of view the Jedi are evil.

 

There’s no reason why both cannot co-exist. The experimental, taking content in a new direction, and content that adheres to the underlying philosophies, aesthetics and approach of the original creator. What I wouldn’t do is reject the new ideas/concepts and stories of *the* original creator (in this instance Lucas) in favour of something seen as more ‘on message/trend’. That the recent Boba documentary has Lucas being interviewed at Skywalker Ranch (?), makes me think/hope that DLF are trying to get Lucas back into the fold in some capacity… even if simply a creative consultant.

Well it is kind of subjective… and is bound up in social constructs designed to explain the behaviour of humans. It’s way more complex than than simply being good and bad… and I think that’s what Lucas was alluding to when he had the nicest kid in the galaxy become one of the nastiest men in the galaxy. Rogue One also majors on these blurred lines of morality, and the subjective nature of doing ‘bad’ things…

 

This complexity has always been in SW even if some fans don't like to talk about it.

Luke knowing there is still good in his father despite Vader supposedly being total evil. And Vader returning to the light. You can't return to the light if you are made of total darkness.

 

I was made of total darkness and returned to the light. How dare you!

 

I'm not saying people are either good or evil... I think actions are good or evil, so when I say it's not subjective, I mean the act of murder, or rape, or enslaving someone, is not subjectively evil, it's objectively evil. And that's only possible if there is a higher power to establish such a thing.

I believe Cassian Andor knows its wrong to kill that man when he does it. He would not deny that. He seems to carry that burden.

Rian Johnson giving Luke the ability to "turn off" the force is a weird concept that I would say pushes outside the boundaries of Lucas Star Wars. How exactly can someone turn off the energy field that binds us all and the galaxy together? IMO, that doesn't track as a metaphor.

 

GL (and Filoni talking about him) were real comfortable in the Boba Fett feature. GL coming out of retirement wouldn't surprise me at all.

 

"People are saying I'm back. Yeah, I'm thinking I'm back" ~ George Lucas coming out of retirement because somebody broke into his mansion to steal the theatrical cuts of the OT