while Lucas was world famous in his early 20s and created some of the most famous and commercially successful franchises and tech companies.
Nonsense. If George cared so much about kissing audience ass, he would have made TFA instead of the prequels.
Look at stuff like Red Tails, Indy IV, or even Howard the Duck. The man has ideas, and his primary motivation is getting those ideas across. You don't recognize his artistic integrity just because you don't like his art.
I think those who are enraged at Ep. VII can't see that.
Lucas studied human mythology, religion and history and created the pulpy Star Wars universe. JJ and his ilk studied Lucas, and rehashed him.
The universe no longer belongs to the creator when it's been sent public.
Lucas wrote the stories for the originals as well as the prequels and wrote or co-wrote the screenplays for all six of those features (yes, I am aware he is not credited for Empire Strikes Back. The fact remains that he did co write it and none of Brackett's draft was used. Look it up on Wikipedia.)
Many artists would disagree, including Chaplin, Tolkien, Dickens, Spielberg, and Stephen King.
I get the sense that you don't know very much about literature in general and mythology and cinema in particular.
And? Lucas was forced to rewrite the first film's story several times and abandon his more ridiculous ideas by people who know better than him
Harrison Ford absolutely rebelled against the dialogue as written
Lucas may have written the screenplay for Empire Strikes Back, but it is up to sciptwriters to revise unworkable parts and the directors will often improvise when needed. So exactly how much of Lucas' original screenplay actually made it onto the screen, hmm?
Not what I was talking about at all. Look up "Death of the Author".
You would be wrong. I've studied both all my life and between my books and video library, I could open a Library/Rental Store hybrid.
Wrong. Lucas rewrote the drafts multiple times on his own prerogative, based on various factors including what he thought would make a better story as well as budget and technological limitations. Very few people understood what he was trying to do and most people thought it was going to bomb.
Apparently, more than you'd expect.
Lucas had final cut on all of these movies. Kershner and Marquand understood this.
I don't think you understand the meaning of that essay, or how it may apply to a singular work. If that was your intent, it is a complete non-sequitur to the content of the rest of your post.
And yet you failed to present any such knowledge in any of your posts.
No, you're the one that's wrong. The first film is as good as it is because of other people holding Lucas in check.
Which is why his ex had to save his ass with the first film.
My point is that Lucas may have created Star Wars, but what the audience values will always trump the author.
I see you've read that silly little hack piece "The Secret History of Star Wars." I'd question the veracity of that work. The author has never written anything else and apparently a camera operator with a rather small list of credits, mostly for a reality TV show based in Canada.
Again, the others were working to help Lucas realize his vision, not to hold him back. This was their job.
She helped him edit it to his specifications.
It should also be noted that Lucas did a lot of the editing himself, again without credit, as he did on the first three Indiana Jones films as well as Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He also handled the post production assembly on Jurassic Park.
So? The artist creates the work as he or she sees fit. If the audience values it, that is up to the audience. If the audience finds something in the work that the artist didn't intend to be there, that is again up to the audience. Ultimately, the work is whatever the artist wanted to produce. And as I presented in my links, many scholars find much of value in those first six Star Wars features. This is in addition to the movies all being commercially successful.
Yes, and they helped him by holding him in check.
Yes, I'm sure that's what he wants us to believe.
Thankfully we will never see what resulted from his editing in the original film since his cut sucked and got scrapped.
Lucas was shocked when editor John Jympson's first cut of the film was a "complete disaster". According to an article in Star Wars Insider No. 41 by David West Reynolds, this first edit of Star Wars contained about 30–40% different footage from the final version. After attempting to persuade Jympson to cut the film his way, Lucas replaced him with Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew. He also allowed his then-wife, Marcia Lucas, to aid the editing process while she was cutting the film New York, New York (1977) with Lucas's friend Martin Scorsese. Richard Chew found the film to have a lethargic pace and to have been cut in a by-the-book manner: scenes were played out in master shots that flowed into close-up coverage. He found that the pace was dictated by the actors instead of the cuts. Hirsch and Chew worked on two reels simultaneously.
Jympson's original assembly contained a large amount of footage which differed from the final cut of the film, including several alternate takes and a number of scenes which were subsequently deleted to improve the narrative pace. The most significant material cut was a series of scenes from the first part of the film which served to introduce the character of Luke Skywalker. These early scenes, set in Anchorhead on the planet Tatooine, presented the audience with Luke's everyday life among his friends as it is affected by the space battle above the planet; they also introduced the character of Biggs Darklighter, Luke's closest friend who departs to join the Rebellion. Chew explained the rationale behind removing these scenes as a narrative decision: "In the first five minutes, we were hitting everybody with more information than they could handle. There were too many story lines to keep straight: the robots and the Princess, Vader, Luke. So we simplified it by taking out Luke and Biggs". After viewing a rough cut, Alan Ladd likened these Anchorhead scenes to "American Graffiti in outer space". Lucas was looking for a way of accelerating the storytelling, and removing Luke's early scenes would distinguish Star Wars from his earlier teenage drama and "get that American Graffiti feel out of it". Lucas also stated that he wanted to move the narrative focus to C-3PO and R2-D2: "At the time, to have the first half-hour of the film be mainly about robots was a bold idea."
No, "many scholars" do not find value in the prequels.
The artistic doesn't eat until we decide we enjoyed the work.
Even then, we've managed to make our displeasure with the prequels heard loudly enough that he gave it up to someone to continue.
He was the director and executive producer. He was their boss. Their job was to do what he said to the best of their abilities. The only thing holding him in check was budget and technological limitations.
It wasn't Lucas's cut that was abandoned, but rather John Jympson's, who had previously worked with Richard Lester on A Hard Day's Night, and Alfred Hitchcock on Frenzy.
Obviously, a lot of people find value in them, or there wouldn't be so many people constantly writing about them and they wouldn't be quoted so freely as part of observations on current political struggles (these movies are all more than ten years old, after all).
All you have are subjective whinings based upon misinformed source material
And many people have done so. Of course, by that standard, Michael Bay is quite well fed.
Except that apparently Lucas had already completed the story he wanted to tell. Return of the Jedi delivers a rather definitive ending. All continuations are purely an afterthought.
He had people over him on the first film. He'll never admit these days, but he did have not full power and that's what saved it. Their job was to make a good movie. In actuality, the cast and crew frequently gave Lucas crap on the set on the first film. No, he has bosses holding him in check.
Yes, because we all know what a reliable source Wikipedia is
If those people are scholars, then the criteria for being one has been pathetically lowered.
And yet Lucas hasn't seemed very happy as of late.
That last statement is completely wrong.
And which bosses were that? The name of the company was Lucasfilm. The name of the director was George Lucas. The name of the executive producer was George Lucas. He fought hard to make certain that the studio gave him final edit. There had never been a movie quite like it made before. Most of the people working on it were completely confused. They only had Lucas's vision to go by. Even more thought it would be a flop, Lucas included. Lucas stuck to his vision.
Considering it also matches what was written at the time, as well as many documentaries and books on the subject, one may as well presume the veracity of the post.
Last time I looked, professors at Harvard, Yale, New York University, etc. qualify as scholars.
What villains were left alive at the end of Return of the Jedi? For all intents and purposes, all of the plot threads were resolved.
Who do you think funded that film? 20th Century Fox. Who do you think had final say? 20th Century Fox.
The avian is skeptical.
Wow, then society is REALLY dumbing down.
Except for, you know, all those Grand Hoffs, officers, and Stormtroopers who just didn't happen to be in the area when it happened.
2oth Century Fox funded the movie based on the commercial success of American Graffiti. Lucas negotiated a deal where they had no say over content or final cut. They were very nervous during production because science fiction movies at the time were not hugely popular and Lucas augmented the money Fox provided by securing the merchandising rights and licensing out the designs for various products.
A more likely scenario is that the ideas are going WAY over your head.
None of whom were named villains. Lots of Nazis were still alive at the end of Casablanca. But the only villain whose demise mattered was Major Strasser.
As of this writing, there is no canonical sequel to Casablanca.
Yes, and studios are SO good about keeping to deals when it starts to look like something might go wrong.
They're still poorly made movies with bad dialogue, bad acting
Samuel L. Jackson was completely miscast as Mace Windu
what is The Force? Oh, it's space germs.
Also, Jar Jar Binks.
Uh, slightly different scenario. Do you really think all those Imperials just gave up because their leader was dead? That's like if someone managed to bomb Berlin, killing Hitler, while the Nazis were still going strong everywhere else they were positioned. It wouldn't have stopped World War II.
Except, you know, the REST of World War II.
And Alan Ladd was completely in Lucas's corner and made certain that the studio kept to their deal. Lucas also had to fight hard to keep to that deal and was frequently in meetings with them. This was why he found the task of directing the movie so exhausting, and, out of concern that he may find himself in a similar situation with the sequels, delegating the directing duties to others, with the understanding that he (Lucas) had final cut.
Subjective statements. Identical criticisms were leveled against the original trilogy.
How is that possible?
Again, showing a misunderstanding of what was shown on the screen.
Who tied into the themes of patience and tolerance. Notice how Padme is the only one who smiles at his antics. Also, remember that Star Wars always referenced movies from previous eras, and note that Jar Jar's arc paralleled various classic film narratives and antics as Charlie Chaplin, Buster Keaton, and Harold Lloyd.
It would have brought it to a rather swift conclusion.
Casablanca was a work of fiction. World War II was a real event.
Lucas had to fight, and he knew that if he produced something lackluster, control would be wrenched from him, because there's always fine print.
Seriously, the actors are obviously struggling with the dialogue at pretty much all times in these bad movies.
He was miscast via not being the right actor for Mace Windu. Windu is a man who is at peace.
Irrelevant. He's annoying, obnoxious, and racial offensive. I don't care who he's based on or what themes he represents. He. Is. Annoying. And I hate him. He actively (further) ruins every scene he's in. He is the single most terrible thing to ever come of a Star Wars film.
Uh, no. First of all, Hitler was hardly the most brilliant strategist. He was charismatic and intelligent, yes, but he was not the most brilliant person there. In fact, he became a big reason the Nazi empire started to crumble as soon as it did. As the war went on, he went more and more insane to the point of actually frothing at the mouth in his fanaticism. There were people of far greater strategic prowess below him who could have kept the regime going a lot longer if they had filled the power vacuum he left. Spurned on by the murder of their "great leader", the Nazi invasions might have actually become more brutal.
The war still continues past the point of the film's ending.
He had to fight to maintain his vision. He had to be more hands on for the whole project, including not letting the editing be done by someone else, in order to make certain that it was his final vision.
As they did in the originals. Carrie Fisher openly mocks her dialogue.
And how do you come by this information? Nowhere in the movie does it explicitly say that Windu is a man of peace. Even so, Samuel L. Jackson's performance worked for what was required of him.
Subjective and showing your personal bias.
But Rick's story was concluded.
And then he failed at editing the film and had to have his bacon saved by his then wife.
The performances and line delivery in the originals are WAY more natural than a single word said in the prequels.
They don't HAVE to say he's a man at peace. Look at him.
No, I'm not reading your what-if scenario.
Rick probably got shot!
Wrong again. He had to start editing it from scratch, had his wife come in for an assist, along with others who was able to see what he had done on his own, understood his intent, and keep helping. Spielberg tapped Lucas to help with the editing on the Indiana Jones movies because Lucas has great skill at this.
Not according to critics at the time.
So are you now saying that Lucas has such skill as a director that he can convey the personality of a single character without having that character utter a single word?
You're not one for actual research, are you?
He got his letter of transit and 10,000 bucks. He may have found safety somewhere, or took a more active role in fighting the Nazis. Whether or not he survived is up to the imagination of the audience.
Just keep telling yourself that. No, his wife saved his ass.
You're not on for using your eyes, are you? Seriously mean to tell me there's no difference between the quality of performances by Fisher and Portman?
No, but if Windu was a more disturbed individual, I would imagine he'd be much angrier and would raise his voice more.
What if scenarios are not research and are always flawed. The only way to find out what would have happened if Hitler died via assassination is to witness it happen in an alternative timeline and then travel forward to see how the war played out from there. We can speculate all we want, but that's all it is.
By following his directions.
Both are frequently stilted and over the top.
You presented the speculation. The least you could do is follow through with some research.
Uh-huh, sure. He couldn't do it himself. She is obviously the better editor.
I've done the research by studying those who served under Hitler. The man himself wasn't the most brilliant person there. He was the driving force, but there were better strategists than him in his army.
First of all, Hitler was hardly the most brilliant strategist. He was charismatic and intelligent, yes, but he was not the most brilliant person there. In fact, he became a big reason the Nazi empire started to crumble as soon as it did. As the war went on, he went more and more insane to the point of actually frothing at the mouth in his fanaticism. There were people of far greater strategic prowess below him who could have kept the regime going a lot longer if they had filled the power vacuum he left. Spurned on by the murder of their "great leader", the Nazi invasions might have actually become more brutal.
What if scenarios are not research and are always flawed.
He was sort of busy overseeing the special effects department, who had also slacked off in his absence, as well as also editing. There was a lot to edit.
Watch the movies. It's obvious.