CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Final Word On George Lucas [the prequel trilogy finally makes sense]
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

The Final Word On George Lucas [the prequel trilogy finally makes sense]

post #1 of 140
12/23/07 at 12:30pm
Thread Starter 
From Premiere Magazine, an interview with John Hurt.

"Did you see George Lucas around much?

JH : Occasionally. George is a bit socially crippled really. Not good with people. So I just left him alone.


It all makes wonderful sense to me now!
Reply
post #2 of 140
12/23/07 at 12:32pm
.....'kay.
Reply
post #3 of 140
12/23/07 at 2:25pm
What Justin Clark is trying to say is that this has already been mentioned in the frontpage (yes, there is one. Click here)
Reply
post #4 of 140
12/23/07 at 10:21pm
Wow, George Lucas is a nerd? Stop the presses, for god's sake, this is the scoop of the century!
Reply
post #5 of 140
1/6/08 at 11:33am
Isn't John Hurt gay? If I was a gay movie star and on the set of Indy4 I sure as hell wouldn't hang out with George or Steven. Think of Shia or all the stunt people, the fan boys etc...
Reply
post #6 of 140
1/6/08 at 11:39am
I somehow doubt this is the "final" word on George Lucas.
Reply
post #7 of 140
1/6/08 at 11:46am
I find it more amusing that it's some kind of law that there is a certain type of british "shakespeare" actors that all behave exactly the same.
I'm looking at you John Hurt, Ian McKellen, Sean Connery, Alan Rickman and the grave of Alec Guiness.
Always taking the big money roles in hollywood movies and then keep trashing them and feeling insulted when the audience calls you Snape, Kenobi, Bond or whatever.
Reply
post #8 of 140
1/6/08 at 12:03pm
Is anyone really surprised by this? The man's being wearing flannel shirts since the early sixties.
Reply
post #9 of 140
1/6/08 at 4:13pm
Thread Starter 
I guess I don't understand why some one who is admittedly not good with people tries to direct films. Does he not think that his art will suffer because of such weakness?
Reply
post #10 of 140
1/6/08 at 4:34pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
I guess I don't understand why some one who is admittedly not good with people tries to direct films. Does he not think that his art will suffer because of such weakness?
I don't know, let's ask the ghost of Alfred Hitchcock. Maybe we can conference call with the ghost of Stanley Kubrick.
Reply
post #11 of 140
1/7/08 at 5:35pm
It is clear to anyone who watches an interview with Lucas that he is not good with people, not even with himself, since he can't even align the Georges of each decade and make their stories straight.
Reply
post #12 of 140
1/8/08 at 2:41am
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
From Premiere Magazine, an interview with John Hurt.

"Did you see George Lucas around much?

JH : Occasionally. George is a bit socially crippled really. Not good with people. So I just left him alone.


It all makes wonderful sense to me now!
So says the guy who ignorantly accused Lucas of bashing an employee in the Episode 2 DVD docs, when it was proven (and obvious to everyone else who watched the scene) that he did nothing of the sort.

Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
I guess I don't understand why some one who is admittedly not good with people tries to direct films?
Probably for the same reason that someone who doesn't really know George Lucas keeps posting info about him like he DOES know him.


Just quit while you're still behind, Praeter.

Please.
Reply
post #13 of 140
1/8/08 at 3:56pm
Thread Starter 
Kreeper, I don't know George Lucas, never have, never will. Do I still have lingering contempt for a sub-par prequel trilogy? Yes I do, and I make no apologies for it. When I read comments like this, made by esteemed actors who work with many different kinds of directors on a daily basis, well, I like to reflect. Perhaps you're tired of it all, I can respect that. Has this topic been discussed into the ground? maybe. I would think that I would be worth the respect of a healthy disagreement as opposed to a small character assasination.

In terms of your first comment, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you refresh my memory? And can you at least give me the respect of a discussion that doesn't involve blatant insults and a purposeful surname mispelling so as to make an unknown point?

If there are those that wish not to respond, then I respect that.
Reply
post #14 of 140
1/8/08 at 4:20pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueharvester
I find it more amusing that it's some kind of law that there is a certain type of british "shakespeare" actors that all behave exactly the same.
I'm looking at you John Hurt, Ian McKellen, Sean Connery, Alan Rickman and the grave of Alec Guiness.
Always taking the big money roles in hollywood movies and then keep trashing them and feeling insulted when the audience calls you Snape, Kenobi, Bond or whatever.
As far as I know, Guinness and Connery are the only two of those guys who really had a problem with it. McKellen always seems very proud of his work on the LOTR and X-Men movies, I've never heard Rickman express displeasure with his genre stuff, Hurt's resume is pretty varied so it probably doesn't come up that much, and you can't blame Connery for having hated Bond at certain points - he's not half the actor these other guys are, so the typecasting must have been even more of a pain in the ass to overcome.

Anyway, I wouldn't hold it against any of them for being reluctant to dwell on the few roles that the fanboys harp on when most have done tons and tons of movies and plays that probably required more actual acting. But I don't think there's a default British actor "type," aside from the fact that there's a little more focus on stage work.
Reply
post #15 of 140
1/8/08 at 5:28pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by BobClark
I guess Blueharvester has never bitched about his own job.
Or more to the point, his previous jobs. That's the weird thing about acting ... you are always looking for work.
Reply
post #16 of 140
1/8/08 at 5:44pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Blueharvester
Isn't John Hurt gay? If I was a gay movie star and on the set of Indy4 I sure as hell wouldn't hang out with George or Steven. Think of Shia or all the stunt people, the fan boys etc...
This is a little too on the nose for an if.. well, I guess you aren't a movie star.

Also - a gay man in his 60's should be hanging out with fan boys and not the people making the film he's in? Huh? Anyway..

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
Spouse
Ann Rees Meyers (March 2005 - present)
Jo Dalton (24 January 1990 - 1996) (divorced) 2 children
Donna Peacock (6 September 1984 - 1990) (divorced)
Annette Robertson (1962 - 1964) (divorced)
Reply
post #17 of 140
1/8/08 at 11:51pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by J.M. PRATER
Kreeper, I don't know George Lucas, never have, never will. Do I still have lingering contempt for a sub-par prequel trilogy? Yes I do, and I make no apologies for it. When I read comments like this, made by esteemed actors who work with many different kinds of directors on a daily basis, well, I like to reflect. Perhaps you're tired of it all, I can respect that. Has this topic been discussed into the ground? maybe. I would think that I would be worth the respect of a healthy disagreement as opposed to a small character assasination.

In terms of your first comment, I don't know what you're talking about. Can you refresh my memory? And can you at least give me the respect of a discussion that doesn't involve blatant insults and a purposeful surname mispelling so as to make an unknown point?

If there are those that wish not to respond, then I respect that.

Sorry if I came off a bit harsh, J.M., but you've done a variation of this argument before. You're certainly entitled to your opinion but to me your beating a dead horse.

For those of you who've forgotten, here's the original thread:

http://www.chud.com/forums/showthread.php?t=76762

J.M., re-read your posts and my (and Colt .45's responses). I stand by what I said in that thread, so I'd rather not repeat myself here.
Reply
post #18 of 140
1/9/08 at 6:08pm
Blueharvester ought to call himself Blowholeharvester.
Reply
post #19 of 140
1/9/08 at 11:54pm
Thread Starter 
I had actually forgotten about that thread. Thanks for bringing it to my attention Kreeper. My apologies for beating a dead horse. I definitely still hold my opinions, but I understand how my persistence can be wearing. I suppose I'm trying to understand something that I won't understand, ever, nor will it change anything.

Again, my apologies Kreeper.
Reply
post #20 of 140
1/10/08 at 12:58am
Here's the thing that drives me up the fucking wall about the Lucas hate: every year, hundreds of terrible movies come out. Even if you believe that the Star Wars prequels are worse than White Chicks (first of all, seek therapy), it still doesn't justify the rabid levels of hatred for Lucas. The worst thing he can be accused of is making some movies that people didn't like. So fucking what? At least I can understand it when people crucify Roman Polanski.
Reply
post #21 of 140
1/10/08 at 11:46pm
Exactly!
Where was this hate when The Two Towers was boring the shit out of me? THAT is a terrible movie, but I don't dwell on it because I have a life. I suggest the bitter bromide brigades do the same.
Reply
post #22 of 140
1/11/08 at 12:09am
Also, just so we're clear, Zod has no taste.
Reply
post #23 of 140
1/11/08 at 12:46am
Two Towers is the best in the trilogy.
Reply
post #24 of 140
1/11/08 at 12:58am
Honestly, like everyone my age, I'm always going to remember seeing LOTR in the theatres, but I didn't have the same love for ROTK that everyone else did at the time it came out. Fellowship and Two Towers were both awesome theatrical experiences, as I saw them with friends, and ROTK I saw alone. I really haven't had any desire to own or revisit them on DVD. But based on my memory of 2001-2003, I remember liking Two Towers the best. Which isn't really a defense, but there you go.
Reply
post #25 of 140
1/11/08 at 7:14am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
Two Towers is the best in the trilogy.
Out of respect for you, I'm going to pretend you didn't say that. Personally, I can't stand the book, and Jackson didn't do it any favors with his pointless padding.
Reply
post #26 of 140
1/11/08 at 7:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
The quick answer is: Those who grew up with the OT had the PT in their heads, or at least liked the blanks blank. By filling in the opening three chapters, Lucas was closing down the audience's imagination, and the trade up is for lesser material. That earns it the level of scorn rarely heaped upon, say, Star Trek V, which is an arguably worse film that any of the PT.
I don't think that explanation earns it anything, frankly. It explains it on a psychological level, but it justifies nothing. He's still just a director who made movies people didn't like. If those movies actually hurt anyone's view of films that they previously loved, then that's a problem on the part of the viewers, not the filmmaker. Their psychological baggage concerning the films of their childhoods doesn't make him guilty of worse cinematic crimes than Simon West.
Reply
post #27 of 140
1/11/08 at 9:31am
For me, a lot of the disappointment came from hearing for years that the Episodes I through III would be the Clone Wars, and then seeing about 20 minutes of it in the actual films. I understand that Lucas can make whatever film he wants, but he was really out of touch on that count. Still, you'll get no "Lucas raped my childhood" from me, although the Special Editions have recently begun to really bother me, but that's another thread.
Reply
post #28 of 140
1/11/08 at 10:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
Also, just so we're clear, Zod has no taste.

Thank you, President of "Grey's Anatomy" fan club.
Reply
post #29 of 140
1/11/08 at 10:20am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu
I really haven't had any desire to own or revisit them on DVD.
So how does that make it a good movie?
Reply
post #30 of 140
1/11/08 at 12:31pm
Hey, Zod, guess what, I haven't had any desire to watch Grey's Anatomy in a while, either. The first couple seasons were entertaining, then the wheels came off the wagon in a big, big way.
Reply
post #31 of 140
1/11/08 at 7:15pm
The crime is already done. Admitting you have no taste is the next step.
Reply
post #32 of 140
1/11/08 at 7:27pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
And it's the film that is the least like the books it's based on - the title The Two Towers actually refers to Orthanc and Cirith Ungol, and that is where the two separate stories end - not that being less like the book is a fault in and of itself.
But it was all written as one book anyway, wasn't it? It was an editorial decision to split it up, and I don't know if it was Tolkien who gave it that name. Could be wrong.

I like Fellowship the best out of the movies, but Two Towers has a lot to like. Especially the kickass opening. ROTK leaves me cold though, I actually think it's less true to the book than Two Towers in many ways.

Oh yes, and count me in as a once-hardcore PT basher who has now gotten over it. Still don't like the movies though.
Reply
post #33 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:03pm
Not more flying Artoo bashing. When exactly in the original trilogy would that have been helpful?

I like the Prequels, but I understand the criticism. Darth Vader's a sissy? Okay. Yoda's a gremlin? Gotcha. But R2-D2 has rocket boosters amongst his entire swiss-army knife assortment and that's a deal-breaker?
Reply
post #34 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:05pm
Yeah, complaining about R2 should be the least of your angst for the prequels.
Reply
post #35 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:08pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape
Not more flying Artoo bashing. When exactly in the original trilogy would that have been helpful?
Stairways.
Reply
post #36 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:11pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Samurai Mike
Stairways.
Artoo's a pimp. He has to take his time and make the crowd wait for him.
Reply
post #37 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:17pm
I'm quite beside myself!
Reply
post #38 of 140
1/11/08 at 8:17pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David
At least I can understand it when people crucify Roman Polanski.
At least that happened with consent.
Reply
post #39 of 140
1/11/08 at 9:43pm
First of all, Artoo doesn't get chased by Jawas, they pop out and zap him. And swimming on Dagobah seems every bit as logical as firing up the boosters to me.

Now, you're saying Lucas is bound to only things that have been shown in the original trilogy? Why would any storyteller in the world ever hold to that? Should I disregard Return of the Jedi because the Emperor looks different from what he did in Empire Strikes Back?
Reply
post #40 of 140
1/11/08 at 10:40pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Andre Dellamorte
Ugh. That's dumb. The challenge of making a prequel is lining everything up so it fits into what's already known. Or subverts what we know by presenting a different reality than what we expected but (most importantly) doesn't contradict what already exists. Changing an actor over the course of a franchise is one thing. Not explaining why a character can fly in one film and then not explaining why they can't in another is silly.

R2 knew something was up. He makes those beep boop beep sounds. R2 also falls over. But my point is not invalidated. Lucas had R2 do that because he could and it solved a problem that good writing would have taken care of. Lazy.
Two themes that are consistent in both trilogies are:

1) Civilization and therefore technology are not as good in the Empire by Episode IV as there were during the prequels

2) Artoo starts Episode IV at the ass end of teh universe and pretty much stays there during the entire OT.

Thus his rocket boosters broke and he couldn't fix them becuase the necessary parts were no longer available.

Christ I can't belive I just typed that
Reply
post #41 of 140
1/11/08 at 11:59pm
Cylon Baby, stop apologizing for bad writing. It's painful to read.

Andre has a point, though on a very small issue about the bad heap of writing that is the prequels.
Reply
post #42 of 140
1/12/08 at 12:45am
I do see the point you're making. But generally, I still think that the visceral, emotional reaction that people have had has gone way overboard. That kind of blind hatred should be reserved for people who have literally raped children.
Reply
post #43 of 140
1/12/08 at 1:14am
To be honest, I watch A New Hope and I watch Attack of the Clones and both films have a lot of similar problems, lousy actors trying their hardest but failing, great actors not giving a damn and having little to do, largely atrocious writing from Lucas and an autistic fascination with technology which goes onto completely overshadow everything else. A New Hope just gets points for being first out of the door.

I still think that the kids who saw The Phantom Menace in 1999 will hold that film up as better than the OT in 10-15 years time, just because it captured the zeitgeist in the way A New Hope did...only most of you guys were too old to be part of it.
Reply
post #44 of 140
1/12/08 at 5:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Spike Marshall
I still think that the kids who saw The Phantom Menace in 1999 will hold that film up as better than the OT in 10-15 years time, just because it captured the zeitgeist in the way A New Hope did...only most of you guys were too old to be part of it.
I don't know if I'd go that far, but people my age -- in the 'real world' (whatever that means) -- certainly seem to like the Prequels more than those who grew up as the originals hit screens.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I was 13 when TPM came out, 16 for AOTC, and 19 for Revenge of the Sith. I was the perfect age for "Yippee!" Anakin, horny-as-fuck Anakin, and child-killin' Anakin.
Reply
post #45 of 140
1/12/08 at 6:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Uncle Cthulhu
The Two Towers is so far removed from it's source material that Jackson actually changed the very meaning of the title The Two Towers.
I swore I would read all three after the EE's came out(I'm a liar), but what was the previous meaning?
Reply
post #46 of 140
1/12/08 at 4:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by The Dark Shape
I don't know if I'd go that far, but people my age -- in the 'real world' (whatever that means) -- certainly seem to like the Prequels more than those who grew up as the originals hit screens.

Maybe I'm just lucky. I was 13 when TPM came out, 16 for AOTC, and 19 for Revenge of the Sith. I was the perfect age for "Yippee!" Anakin, horny-as-fuck Anakin, and child-killin' Anakin.
That's the point I'm making, Zeitgeist was due to it being 3:30am and my brain refusing to work properly. Lucas aimed the prequels at a very specific audience and in doing so made fantastic films catered to that audience.

Also A New Hope had the distinct help of being at the dawn of Blockbusters, so it made sense that it played for years. The fact that Revenge of the Sith and Attack of the Clones were both showing at my cinema for half a year shows you how powerful and successful they were.

The Prequels were fucked from the offset in terms of audiences above the age of 15 because most of them would have seen the Original Trilogy at a younger age and as such would be able to look past the large flaws in the film, you can't compare your viewing of the Prequels as an adult to your viewing of the OT as a child/teenager. It just doesn't work.

And in terms of acting in a New Hope I'd say that Hamill was god awful, and Fisher and Guiness looked genuinely uncomfortable. Even Ford seems to phone it in now and then.
Reply
post #47 of 140
1/12/08 at 6:34pm
Great point, Spike! Right on, the movies were liked, hated movies do not continue to make money.

As for the flying R2 thing, not sure where the hate is since there really was no need for him to buzz around in the originals.

In ANH, why would he use up his battery/power source/whatever in the desert while looking for Obi Wan? It was a marathon, not a race.

As for the stairways, in Docking bay 94, you can see R2 negotiating the steps, he also did the same in AOTC when they arrive on Naboo.

ESB when he falls in the bog, his jets wouldn't work in the water, the X-wing's didn't.

ROTJ he and 3PO are taking cover in the sand. Why would he use his jets only to get blown out of the sky by Jabba's goons?

Who's to say he had them twenty years later? Maybe they broke down? Who cares?
Reply
post #48 of 140
1/12/08 at 7:22pm
But you all act like Lucas being a bad writer is a new thing, when in actuality his dialogue has been atrocious and his storytelling haphazard since A New Hope.
Reply
post #49 of 140
1/12/08 at 7:28pm
By hate, I mean movies the public doesn't connect with, ignores. Doesn't continue to engage its sequels/prequels. If the public hated these new flicks they would have stopped making money around the middle of June of 1999.
Reply
post #50 of 140
1/12/08 at 7:34pm
'Empire Strikes Back' is the only film in the entire Star Wars series which actually works as a piece of cinema, and that's because Lucas surrounded himself with all kinds of talent to actually make the fucking thing work.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: The Franchises
CHUD.com Community › Forums › SPECIFIC FILMS › The Franchises › The Final Word On George Lucas [the prequel trilogy finally makes sense]