comment #1

ZayTonday says ...

His neck is his mask.

comment #2

D.Z. says ...

I was just thinking how the fact that the Empire burns Luke's adoptive parents' hut in the first Star Wars could be an allusion to our tactics in Vietnam. And frankly, as much as I don't like his creative choices, I think George has simply become like Cameron post-Terminator 2-that is, more obsessed with spectacle than story. [Though I still think that, visually, he's a better artist than Michael Bay.] If he just kept his ego out of his more recent projects, he could easily produce something with more substance in the future.

comment #3

Joshua Mooney says ...

I'm not saying "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls" is definitive or profoundly objective, but it does paint Lucas as a creative simp with massive drive and ego. Which is how I've always seen him. Anyone still waiting for George and Milius to give us "The Psychedelic Soldier"?

Wait--oh, shit! I am.

comment #4

Josh Massey says ...

If George Lucas had died in 1984, the world would be a happier place.

Or, you know, retired.

comment #5

Mgmax says ...

"I was just thinking how the fact that the Empire burns Luke's adoptive parents' hut in the first Star Wars could be an allusion to our tactics in Vietnam."

Well, more directly it's an allusion to The Searchers, if allusion means "wholesale theft," but read the essay on Star Wars in Seeing Through Movies (I think it's by Mark Crispin Miller before he became a crank author of annual anti-Bush rants) and Lucas very clearly intended a kind of celebration of California hippie/Renaissance Faire culture rebelliion against corporate/government squares, seeing The Emperor as a Nixon figure, the Ewoks as sort of like Viet Cong bringing down spaceships with spears, etc.

Hmm, did Lawrence Kasdan ever say where he got the idea for making a movie about how the radicals of the 60s all turned into smug corporate yuppies?

comment #6

cjKennedy says ...

I think Faraci sums it up best in the article itself: "Listening to him talk I got the impression that the art movie represented a challenge, not an opportunity for expression. The man is an engineer first and foremost, and what gets him excited is solving problems, not telling stories."

Was he that way before Star Wars or just since?

comment #7

MilkMan says ...

George Lucas' attitude towards movies at this point in his life mirrors his father's attitude towards movies when he was an old man. It's as if George tried for most of his adult life to not be like his old man, but couldn't help himself. I suppose we're all like this in some way, although some of us might not loathe the thought of turning into our father as much as George did.

comment #8

arch451 says ...

Constrants lead to creativity. When Lucas works without constrants, his creative engine is dead (like when he did the prequels). Innovative solutions to practical problems can become art. He cannot make an art movie because he would have too much of a budget.

There is nothing wrong with thinking like an engineer. Just look at James Cameron (before he retired.) Cameron was incredibly ambitious and always struggled to achieve his vision even with a huge budget. Lucas, meanwhile, sees animation and digital effects as the creative solution to any problem. Lucas has become a lazy engineer for relying on one solution to every logistical problem. Lucas is incapable of producing art since he has always lacked artistic vision, and now he lacks engineering innovation.

comment #9

C-PhreekII says ...

Usually, another edition of Wells' Lucas is Evil rant just makes me roll my eyes, but Faraci asks a question I really have wanted answered. Especially since he finished the prequels (otherwise known to most of us as The Rape of Our Childhoods) and was sitting some major "fuck you" level money.

Well, maybe he'll feel guilty for bailing on his own dream and fund those who actually want to make unconventional films.

comment #10

mitchtaylor says ...

Are people here really only just now getting the fact that Star Wars was, in a sense, a way for Americans to recast themselves as the victor of the Vietnam War? Hence the story of a small band of rebels using guerilla tactics to take down the technical giant...

It's the same with First Blood, BTW.

comment #11

D.Z. says ...

Josh: Now, now, Willow was kind of fun. Plus ILM gave us quality FX until Transformers.

Mgmax: "Hmm, did Lawrence Kasdan ever say where he got the idea for making a movie about how the radicals of the 60s all turned into smug corporate yuppies?"

Does the Big Chill really condemn that transition? The way it's touted, it seems to actually endorse their new lifestyle. I'm not sure I noticed any media in recent years which portrayed the Flower Generation as hypocrites, other than that one Pinky and the Brain episode...

comment #12

D.Z. says ...

arch: Cameron didn't retire yet. [Unless Avatar is just something he made up, so people would still remember him....] Also, I know exactly when Cameron started to lose it, and-even though I'd like to say it was Titanic-it was with Dark Angel. Maybe he could get away with casting Alba as the lead, if he could deliver on the story, but it seemed like a low-grade effort worthy of the Sci-Fi channel.

mich: I thought the ideological premise of Star Wars was the opposite of Rambo, and that Luke represented the hippie movement.

comment #13

Kristopher Tapley says ...

Dale Pollack. Blast from the past there...

comment #14

arch451 says ...

Saying Cameron retired is a joke refering to his meandering since Titanic. I'm aware he is keeping himself busy with his masterbatory exercises.

comment #15

corey3rd says ...

Lucas gave up on making small, intimate films when Coppola's tried to shaft him on the infamous phone bill. He views small films as Francis BS dreams. He does not want to be Francis Jr.

Dale Pollack - what a douche.

comment #16

Mgmax says ...

"Does the Big Chill really condemn that transition? The way it's touted, it seems to actually endorse their new lifestyle"

Astute observation, in that in quintessential Boomer fashion, it lightly condemns in order to excuse as inevitable and, probably, healthy.

comment #17

Carl LaFong says ...

Pollack's book was okay, but it's still tainted by the fact that it was a Lucas sanctioned product and still whitewashes a great deal. Much more informative (though not as slick) is Garry Jenkins' "Empire Building", which is told primarily from producer Gary Kurtz' point of view. Lucas as a "Collaborative Artist" came to an end in the early 80s, sealed by his divorce from his very talented wife (who by all accounts polished the turd that was the first cut of Star Wars and crafted it into something far superior with skilled editing). After the settlement, he dove into an insular Xanadu like existence, surrounding himself with yes-men, and never has come back.

It's a shame; his first two flicks showed great artistic promise, and I'm very fond of his Viet Nam sequences shot for MORE AMERICAN GRAFFITI (the flick is weak, but the Toad sections shot by Lucas in 16mm are very well done).

Basically, Lucas could be good again, if only somebody would just say NO to him when he latches on to a stupid idea and won't let it go. The "not enough time" excuse is just a cop-out...

comment #18

breadlymoore says ...

Gotta say, Faraci comes off like an ASSHOLE in that story.

comment #19

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

Posted by Carl LaFong
Lucas as a "Collaborative Artist" came to an end in the early 80s, sealed by his divorce from his very talented wife (who by all accounts polished the turd that was the first cut of Star Wars and crafted it into something far superior with skilled editing). After the settlement, he dove into an insular Xanadu like existence, surrounding himself with yes-men, and never has come back.

so why did they divorce?
ego?

comment #20

Devin Faraci says ...

breadlymoore, I heard you're brian orndorff.

comment #21

Carl LaFong says ...

Mr. BV,
I don't think any party has officially commented on the reasons for the divorce (and not likely ever to), but after she and Lucas were divorced in 1984, Marcia married a stained-glass artist who had been involved in the construction of Skywalker Ranch.

Much of the period from the middle 90s to the release of PHANTOM MENACE was spent re-amassing the fortune lost in the divorce settlement, or so it would seem.

comment #22

Mr. Blood Vessel says ...

Carl LaFong [TypeKey Profile Page] says ...

Mr. BV,
I don't think any party has officially commented on the reasons for the divorce (and not likely ever to), but after she and Lucas were divorced in 1984, Marcia married a stained-glass artist who had been involved in the construction of Skywalker Ranch.

ouch.
goes to show-ego is useless.

Much of the period from the middle 90s to the release of PHANTOM MENACE was spent re-amassing the fortune lost in the divorce settlement, or so it would seem.

you hit the nail on the head Carl-
He said exactly that when he appeared on Larry King to promote Episode 3.

shame about Lucas- he will forever be known as "that Star Wars Guy."

comment #23

frankbooth says ...

Devin,

Lucas is a shell. He'll never make those films because he has nothing inside to express.

Milkman,

We're due another "Milkman's evil sleazebag father" story. It's been too long.

D.Z.,

Defecate on a plate, eat it, shove the plate down your gullet, choke on it and die.

comment #24

Edward says ...

The Big Chill still sucks.

comment #25

Terry McCarty says ...

I don't know what your thoughts on George Lucas are, but I talked to him yesterday and cornered him on why he hasn't made one of those art films he's always going on about," writes CHUD's Devin Faraci.

Assuming the augmented-with-CGI reissue of THX 1138 doesn't count.

comment #26

Dravot says ...

First of all, I think it's an overstatement for anyone to say that Lucas has talked about making those "small films" constantly since the early 80s. It always seemed to me like a comment he made once or twice, that gets repeated over and over because it makes a good story: the billionaire head of a filmmaking empire who just wants to make "small personal films."

But more importantly... why the hell do any of you CARE whether or not he makes those films? Or are you just eagerly waiting to shit on them too?

The man can do no right in some people's eyes. There's a lot of stuff that he gets blamed for that wasn't his doing (the prairie dogs in CRYSTAL SKULL), and things that he doesn't get credit for that people like (the "opera house" scene in REVENGE OF THE SITH).

Frankly, I find some people's obsession with him to be hilarious. "Raped my childhood?" Please.

comment #27

D.Z. says ...

Dravot: I'm guessing people want to see his small, personal films, because they remember him better for those than for the impersonal stuff. And frankly, we're not really that interested in him any more, but we keep hoping he'll do something with some heart again.

comment #28

Sax says ...

Hey, I thought Ksdan's hippies-turning-into-corporate-jerks movie was Grand Canyon. That one really sucks.

comment #29

Brian R says ...

If he's not interesting then people should perhaps may more attention to other folks who are. I don't get this obsession with Lucas and the way he's gone. So what? It happened. He made the original Star Wars films and no amount of adult-nerd whinging about "raping my childhood" (a frankly offensive notion) can ever sully the way I felt when I first saw those films when I was a kid. Yes, he's carrying on with Star Wars and without much of the spirit he had when he made the first one, but who cares? We have these films (and no Special Edition whinging - we still have the originals, no matter what form they are in) and should enjoy them and remember them for the fun they were. To want more of the same and expect it to be just as good is not realistic. But so many folks still do, and whinge when they don't get it. "We demand it! Because we deserve it! And if we don't get it we'll crucify you!"

I remember an article on CHUD last week about the new Punisher film, suggesting that we have no real right to expect a great film. Can I suggest that this view be applied to Lucas? In other words, stop the stupid "outrage" and concentrate on other areas. He's doing his thing the wya he wants (I neither comdemn nor advocate this) and no amount of fanboy whinging disguised as journalism is ever going to change that. The more people go on about him, the more it says about them, not him.

comment #30

swordandpen says ...

Lucas is a shell. He'll never make those films because he has nothing inside to express.

Posted by frankbooth

Hit the nail on the head, although I don't think that's the answer anyone wants to hear.

comment #31

Mgmax says ...

I agree that people expect too much from him. IT's a bit like Disney-- when I was born he was making glories like Mary Poppins. By the time I was actually choosing movies fot myself, it was Pete's Dragon and Unidentied Flying Oddball and Herbie Goes to Monte Carlo. Did Disney rape my childhood?

comment #32

Dave Polands Gut says ...

Wells has a point. Lucas is supposedly a filmmaker. Star Wars gave him carte blance to make WHATEVER he wanted. He didn't need the films to make money.

And he hasn't done that.

He is a waste

comment #33

Catman says ...

1. What's wrong with what Cameron's been doing? He's actually been living an explorer's life and doing deadly, dangerous work below the ocean while perfecting the equipment he's now shooting "Avatar" with. Cameron still has a lot to learn as a writer, but given the money, he's had the guts to do something adventurous with it. He has my complete admiration for this.
2. As much as I hate to say this, Michael Bay is a better film maker now than either Lucas or Spielberg. Indy IV is one of the laziest movies of the decade, while Bay's film - whatever their merits on story - are models of cinematography, framing, and scoring. Bay knows how to give every action scene maximum impact - something Lucas and Spielberg seem to have forgotten or don't care about anymore.

comment #34

Jay T. says ...

Comparing Cameron to Lucas really isn't fair to Cameron... Titanic was huge, but obviously was made with the exact type of passion that Lucas no longer has.

comment #35

h.krinkle says ...

I just don't get why Lucas inspires so much passion. He's made some crap movies, so what? That crime is committed about 500 times a yr. in Hollywood. The outright hate some fester for the guy is laughable.

comment #36

twicks says ...

So what if Lucas is a creative shell now? He's earned the right. Why do we expect these '70s legends to keep producing masterworks until they keel over? A handful of great films is enough.

I don't know who said it, but I remember reading a quote to the effect that "The difference between Europeans and Americans is that Europeans celebrate their heroes while they're still alive."

comment #37

T. S. Idiot says ...

I seem to remember an interview with Lucas in which he said he did not direct Empire and Return because he was uncomfortable dealing with people (aka actors).

comment #38

Bocephus says ...

"Why do we expect these '70s legends to keep producing masterworks until they keel over?"

Because Altman did. Herzog and Cronenberg will. Great artists live to create great art.

comment #39

D.Z. says ...

Mgmax: Do you mean Bedknobs and Broomsticks? As for Disney, I think it's more like the company raped Walt's corpse.

Catman: No, the Crocodile guy lived dangerously. Cameron's just trying to do another Abyss.

comment #40

hatchetface says ...

Brian R., so you're saying a journalist in the position to ask an insightful question to a somewhat reclusive director should refuse to do his job simply because you aren't interested? With all due respect, fuck your nonsensical whims. I think Devin asked a question that many people who were ever interested in Lucas's work still occasionally wonder about, namely, when is the guy going to put his financial and artistic effort into something that isn't shit. It's relevant. And you called Devin a fanboy, too, ha ha ha.

comment #41

Brian R says ...

Hey Hatchetface. Nice name. Did it hurt? Anyway, his question might have been "insightful" but it's the context Devin placed the question in the article I was on about. Try reading a bit more of CHUD and you'll see the fanboy whinging I'm also on about. And I did not directly call him a fanboy, even if all of CHUD's previous stories on Lucas show an unending whinging and crapness even Hayden's Anakin would cringe at. If Lucas is so irrelevant then why continue to ask for what you're obviously not going to get? A little objectivity is all, not the constant subjectivity of "wronged" fanboys.