CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › the Lucas & Spielberg friendship
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

the Lucas & Spielberg friendship

post #1 of 66
2/16/08 at 11:50pm
Thread Starter 
I've always viewed Lucas as a guy who really got lost in his toys, but his toys became interesting tools for other people. Spielberg seems to be the guy who could make an awesome movie when needs be almost anytime and actually can make a movie without special effects.

In short, Spielberg just is a flat out better filmmaker in all fronts. Lucas is just a marketer. So I always wonder, how these 2 just talk? I mean I kind of just see Lucas as this stuck up loser who wants thing his way or no way (see: prequels), but somehow has this one friend in Spielberg.

I dunno where I'm exactly going with this, but while one's quality went downhill, the other pretty much maintained. I guess, I'd pay good money for Spielberg to just sit Lucas down and tell him 2 and a half of his recent sequel movies suck.

I could just see a conversation between the two go like this, (this is part of a story I'm working on for a cartoon):
S: "Come on Georgie, we gotta get a script ready for Indy 4"
L: "Aww comeon, we don't have the quota for one liners filled. They've already made the action figures, and they have the memory for 20 one liners"
S: "You know Harrison isn't getting any older!"
L: "Ah yes, well we could always CG the whip"
S: "For the last time no"
L: "We could CG Harrison, a totally digital"
S: "Oh for christ sakes, will someone just make this guy shut up and die?!"
L: (with a slight tear) "what?"
S: "Oh, err, I mean this guy, meaning you, should make episode 7, 8, & 9"
L: "oh really" (now showing a pitiful smile, like a small child seeking approval)
S: (starts to pop pills) "Katie start the car"
L: "Stevie, you didn't rub my beard"
Reply
post #2 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:07am
There was an article I read, I think it was about Indy 4, but Spielberg basically described their collaboration like this: George will go on and on and on about the greatness of this obviously not-great idea. Spielberg will let him, then say "No" and then do his own thing.
Reply
post #3 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:25am
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
There was an article I read, I think it was about Indy 4, but Spielberg basically described their collaboration like this: George will go on and on and on about the greatness of this obviously not-great idea. Spielberg will let him, then say "No" and then do his own thing.
I loved that, yeah. I had that link saved even, but I seem to have misplaced it.

I'm sure Spielberg and Lucas get along because despite the whoring of Star Wars, Lucas has a huge imagination. The man did do THX-1138 before SW, remember.

Lucas is probably what Spielberg would be if he didn't have a soul.
Reply
post #4 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:41am
I know everyone thinks Lucas is this money grubbing hack, but he really strikes me as an interesting artist, though of course one that's had his share of failures. Speilberg is quite possibly the most intuitively successful filmmaker of the modern era, but Lucas' steadfast personal interest when it comes to his property has always impressed me from an artistic standpoint. Many people don't like his art, but he's one of the few large scale filmmakers that can call it his own.

On the other hand, Speilberg is more willing to challenge himself, and is the more powerful filmmaker, and I see basically none of Lucas in the Indiana Jones series, with the possible exception of Temple of Doom, which Speilberg has expressed outward hostility towards.
Reply
post #5 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:53am
In his defense, Lucas did write and direct American Graffiti, which is my second favorite movie of all time. Spielberg's only movie in my top 25 is AI, although I'd probably throw Munich or Raiders in there if I made the list today.
Reply
post #6 of 66
2/17/08 at 1:12am
Until he grows a pair and makes a film that doesn't involve Star Wars, the jury's out as to what kind of filmmaker we've got in George Lucas. I'd like to believe that parts of Episode III represent that filmmaker, because there was actually some sort of energy and passion behind them, but that filmmaker hasn't been present throughout an entire film since A New Hope.
Reply
post #7 of 66
2/17/08 at 1:18am
Lucas is a loser?
Reply
post #8 of 66
2/17/08 at 1:18am
Lucas strikes me as a producer/production designer wrongly given a director's chair. The man really loves getting down into the design and FX weeds, as well as calling the shots WRT talent and crew. It's well documented that he's horrible when it comes to, you know, giving actual direction to actors, especially actors with more than thimbleful of talent.

I don't think he's soulless, but he does seem very disconnected from the human element in filmmaking and storytelling. Every interview and all the BTS stuff I've seen suggests a really socially awkward geek who loves monsters, spaceships, and some grand ideas - but hasn't the least clue on how to communicate or evoke genuine, compelling humanity in stories.

If he ever directs again, I just pray he'll let someone else write the script.
Reply
post #9 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:07am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Gabe Powers View Post
and I see basically none of Lucas in the Indiana Jones series, with the possible exception of Temple of Doom, which Speilberg has expressed outward hostility towards.

Spielberg: "I'll always consider Raiders to be my film as a director, but George's film as a creator.
Reply
post #10 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:17am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Aranion View Post
Every interview and all the BTS stuff I've seen suggests a really socially awkward geek who loves monsters, spaceships, and some grand ideas - but hasn't the least clue on how to communicate or evoke genuine, compelling humanity in stories.
I think that's being a bit unfair, especially with American Graffiti in his list of the few films he has directed, even though that was decades ago.

I'm sure this is a 100% original thought but his money and luxury seemed to amplify his worst tendencies. If forced to shoot a film in a limited time, without a boatload of money for effects, his imagination could really help produce some quality stuff. Maybe Coppola's return could inspire Lucas to take a similar route.

Plus, I love me some Temple of Doom, and I think it's a little weird how often Spielberg mentions how much he didn't like that movie.
Reply
post #11 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:23am
The sad part is all this "Fuck Lucas" stuff is because of one thing:

The Prequel weren't what you wanted them to be.

I just don't get this scorn for the man, this utter disdain. Does he have flaws? Of course he does. His weakness has always been twofold as a filmmaker; writing and working with actors. Lucas has, and always will be, a visual filmmaker. THX-133, A New Hope, and American Graffiti stand, at least two of them, as landmarks in American cinema. No, that doesn't excuse him from critical analysis or saying what came after just wasn't as good, but it does buy him just a bit of credit from being called soulless or talentless.

Even at their worse, the Prequels have more value in terms of the art of cinema and making films than anything hacks like Steve Levy or countless other directors working today have ever done.
Reply
post #12 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:26am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS View Post
In short, Spielberg just is a flat out better filmmaker in all fronts. Lucas is just a marketer.
Holy shit! REALLY?!
Reply
post #13 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:35am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
The sad part is all this "Fuck Lucas" stuff is because of one thing:

The Prequel weren't what you wanted them to be.

I just don't get this scorn for the man, this utter disdain. Does he have flaws? Of course he does. His weakness has always been twofold as a filmmaker; writing and working with actors. Lucas has, and always will be, a visual filmmaker. THX-133, A New Hope, and American Graffiti stand, at least two of them, as landmarks in American cinema. No, that doesn't excuse him from critical analysis or saying what came after just wasn't as good, but it does buy him just a bit of credit from being called soulless or talentless.

Even at their worse, the Prequels have more value in terms of the art of cinema and making films than anything hacks like Steve Levy or countless other directors working today have ever done.
Great post, I agree 100%.
Reply
post #14 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:36am
Thread Starter 
I will freely admit that I didn't like Return of the Jedi except for approx 30 min of it. I love nearly every second of Empire and Hope.

I just find it funny how Lucas and Spielberg are friends, but have some very very different values when it comes to film.

Both are surrounded by Yes Men, but one caved, the other didn't.
Reply
post #15 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:43am
Just to get back on track from my little rant:

Spielberg is a better filmmaker than Lucas leaving the technical aspects of the craft aside. His body of work is amazing in it's volume and quality, his ability to switch genre's and themes at the drop of a hat...he really is my John Ford.

I think where Lucas fell by the wayside (Remember this is the guy who wanted to shoot Apoc. Now in Vietnam on 16 MM handheld) in relation to his contemporaries (Coppolla, Spielberg, Scorcese, etc) is that at some point, after the difficult birth that was Star Wars and the entire industry he literally created from the ground up to create that vision, he lost his passion for the entire process and became wrapped up in other pursuits (Like ILM) to compensate..which stunted his growth as a filmmaker. Spielberg and Lucas share a great deal in common in influences, background, etc so I totally "get" their friendship.

Armchair analysis but I think it has some merit.
Reply
post #16 of 66
2/17/08 at 2:57am
Thread Starter 
I think it would be interesting to somehow put Lucas in a situation where he only had 10 million to make a movie of his choice. I know it would never happen, but it would force him to get creative.
Reply
post #17 of 66
2/17/08 at 3:06am
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS View Post
I think it would be interesting to somehow put Lucas in a situation where he only had 10 million to make a movie of his choice. I know it would never happen, but it would force him to get creative.
Being creative has never been Lucas' problem. The translation of that creativity to something other than the visuals is where he has struggled. I think he could make a visually great film on that budget. The question is could he make something great in terms of story, character, etc.
Reply
post #18 of 66
2/17/08 at 5:09am
See, when people talk Lucas being able to do characters, they always neglect American Graffiti, and the fact that it worked primarily due to its characters. Thing is, Lucas was basing that on his own childhood, and used personal experiences to get in deep with the story. If he'd go to that well more, he might have something to say.
Reply
post #19 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:08am
Just dug up an old John Milius (writer of Apocalypse Now, director of first Conan, etc) interview where he talks about George Lucas.

Quote:
IGNFF: I noticed one compatriot that you left out of that group – so I was wondering what your take was on the directing style of George (Lucas)?

MILIUS: He's a good director. He was a great, graphic kind of artist in a way. He had a definite kind of visual orientation towards things, when we were at school. He had a real sense of that. He was very good at that. I think that he hasn't done that in a long time. I mean, he was very sickly, and he couldn't survive a movie after Star Wars. He gave up. He may have sat around and had somebody directing, he may have directed them, but he wasn't there day-to-day doing it.

IGNFF: Would you also agree with the criticism when people say Lucas isn't an actors' director?

MILIUS: I don't think he directed enough to really know.

IGNFF: You think it's just a lack of hands-on experience?

MILIUS: No, he was a wonderful, visual stylist when we were in school together and everything else. He had a great sense of what he wanted to do, you know, and he did unusual things and everything. We didn't have actors. In the movies he made after that, he got good performances out of people. I mean, he got perfectly good performances out of people in American Graffiti. The Star Wars stuff, that's a different kind of thing.

IGNFF: It wasn't intended to be a Shakespearean drama.

MILIUS: No. I mean, he never tried to do those kind of movies. He kind of gave up doing it too early, I think.

IGNFF: Do you think that there's still enough time, if he had the motivation, to move back into it and get his sea legs?

MILIUS: I don't know, I don't know what he wants to do. I felt that the Star Wars series became very pretentious as time went on. Just heavy and leaden.

IGNFF: Do you think that was more his fault, or those that he chose to guide his ...

MILIUS: I thought it was his fault ... as I said, George is a great visual stylist, and a great businessman, and not a very good writer.

IGNFF: Is that something owing to lack of effort and oversight?

MILIUS: No, you're either born a writer, a storyteller, or you're not.

IGNFF: So your opinion of, say, The Phantom Menace?

MILIUS: Bad writing.

IGNFF: I mean, a lot of people discussed beforehand that he asked for input on the script. It didn't seem like any of that input was evident. I can't see how people could give him that bad of input, that it could turn into that.

MILIUS: He made the movie he wanted to. Nobody was telling him what to make, really.

IGNFF: Do you think that George is headstrong, that he still would stick to whatever his vision was, regardless of the input?

MILIUS: Oh sure.

IGNFF: As would any filmmaker?

MILIUS: I think people would be afraid to give him real input, too, you know?
http://movies.ign.com/articles/401/401150p2.html
Reply
post #20 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:31am
As a longtime Star Wars sufferer, the most positive I've felt about my entirely made up projections of how Lucas is as a person occurred when I saw that picture from the Indy IV set, where he's wearing the Han Shot First shirt and laughing, with a big shock of white hair and beard. With wrinkled shirt and sunglasses.

And I thought. He's divorced, he's in his sixties, he just doesn't give a fuck. And that's admirable. He pissed off millions of people through sheer will. That's punk rock. Spielberg, his work and persona, don't place a high value on upsetting people.

George Lucas' middle name is Walton, and he once dated Linda Ronstadt.
Reply
post #21 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:49am
I think it's really unfortunate that Lucas hasn't directed more. The vast majority of his output at this point is Star Wars, which is, even by his own admission, basically just a childish action/adventure series. I don't think it's fair to assess his abilities by that, even if it is most of what he's done.

I think a lot of the attitude that gets turned his way comes from people wanting Star Wars to be more than what it is. They seemed to want the prequels to be their generation's Lawrence of Arabia, and I'm just not sure that the whole series was ever intended to be much more than fun. I doubt that he has any illusions about it being high art.

If he's going to get to those small, weird, experimental projects, I wish he'd get on with it. Sadly, as is so often made crystal clear in online discussions, the jury has already returned their verdict on anything he decides to do in perpetuity. He's a hack, an opportunist, a talentless and soulless mechanic; even more, an actual bad person. All because the story of how a kid with magical powers ended up in black armor didn't live up to their expectations.
Reply
post #22 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:59am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bancroft Agee View Post
Lucas has, and always will be, a visual filmmaker.
What the hell is a "visual filmmaker"? Is that like when you visualize a movie in your head but have no real skill to make it come to life?

The truth is that Lucas has vision, lots of it, but he gets way too much credit for other peoples hard work. The visuals you speak of are not as much the result of his creative genius as they are the result of an army of hard working and very talented artists.

But this "visual filmmaker" argument is super lame because 1. It sounds exactly like something Lucas would say, and in fact I'm pretty sure I've heard him say exacly that in interviews before. 2. Film IS a visual medium. That's what you do with films, you see them with your eyes, and the people who make them visualize them.

To the people spouting off the THX nonsense, that movie is THE perfect illustration of why Lucas is not a good filmmaker, he doesn't get the human element at all.

I could imagine it's the film that speaks most personally to him.

I have no hatred for the man, but he's just not a good filmmaker.
Reply
post #23 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:50am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Isildur's Bangs View Post
What the hell is a "visual filmmaker"?
I think he means a guy who can make pretty pictures but not much else. You know... Tarsem, Joseph Kahn etc.

Essentially a person who should have been a Production Designer, DOP, Fashion Photographer, Special Effects Supervisor, anything but a director...
Reply
post #24 of 66
2/17/08 at 11:43am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I think a lot of the attitude that gets turned his way comes from people wanting Star Wars to be more than what it is. They seemed to want the prequels to be their generation's Lawrence of Arabia, and I'm just not sure that the whole series was ever intended to be much more than fun.
Except that big chunks of the prequels aren't fun. We weren't looking for Lawrence of Arabia, we wanted something that would stand next to the original trilogy.

I think Lucas misses someone who will tell him no (Gary Kurtz, Spielberg). He had no one to rein him in on Jedi or the prequels, and it shows.
Reply
post #25 of 66
2/17/08 at 11:57am
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
I think it's really unfortunate that Lucas hasn't directed more. The vast majority of his output at this point is Star Wars, which is, even by his own admission, basically just a childish action/adventure series. I don't think it's fair to assess his abilities by that, even if it is most of what he's done.

I think a lot of the attitude that gets turned his way comes from people wanting Star Wars to be more than what it is. They seemed to want the prequels to be their generation's Lawrence of Arabia, and I'm just not sure that the whole series was ever intended to be much more than fun. I doubt that he has any illusions about it being high art.

If he's going to get to those small, weird, experimental projects, I wish he'd get on with it. Sadly, as is so often made crystal clear in online discussions, the jury has already returned their verdict on anything he decides to do in perpetuity. He's a hack, an opportunist, a talentless and soulless mechanic; even more, an actual bad person. All because the story of how a kid with magical powers ended up in black armor didn't live up to their expectations.
I didn't think I'd become one of those people at some point, but times like this, I miss rep.
Reply
post #26 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:00pm
Do you remember the rumour that Lucas hates The Empire Strikes Back?

I think it's true.

That film turned out far more serious and psychologically deep than Lucas ever intended Star Wars to be and I think that was a fluke. Suddenly, his Flash Gordon for a new generation became a real story with real people, even if some of them were muppets or a bodybuilder with James Earl Jones' voice.

And that killed every movie in the series that followed. Empire threw Star Wars off balance. Lucas not only didn't know how to turn a series about space wizards into the Godfather, he didn't even want to.

The Empire Strikes back was too good to be a Star Wars flick and impossible for the rest of the saga to live up to.

My guess is that this is the exact reason Lucas was against the Darabont draft of Indy IV. He didn't want another pulpy adventure series transform into something he never intended it to.
Reply
post #27 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:20pm
Thread Starter 
The thing is though, ANH, is still a damn good film because the way Lucas wrote it. He used universal themes that all ages could relate to. If ANH was meant for children, then he pulled a Brad Bird and made it universally appealing. When the audience hit, a lot were children. Sadly he burned out, and put all his baskets in the first movie. I think it would of been damn interesting if the Death Star had been saved for the 3rd movie, and the rebels just fight off a Super Star Destroyer. Somewhere along the lines, he confused childishness for universality (probably thinking: hey everyone was a kid at one time, let me dumb it down and put in Ewoks, Jar Jar Binks, and hating sand).

Its interesting watching the Empire of Dreams feature on OT dvds, showing Lucas back in the old days. He seemed shy then, but the actors he got with the help of Brian De Palma really came through. The kiddie actors of today barely can touch a flame to even those of the past. People look younger, look less mature (see example: Superman Returns, X-Men, Prequels). Even Ian McDiarmid pulled off all his scenes in the prequels with ease (even in Eps III, where he was walking KFC Anakin in the rain was just him and blue screen). His stubbornness was his undoing, thinking he had to discover new talent again, keep the films PG (he broke the rules finally at the end), and running time very close to the originals.

I'm sure he is just jealous that he got out Star Wared in Empire.

I just wonder though, if he always did want the movies to be serials based on the tales of old, why was Eps III PG-13? Most likely for marketing.
Reply
post #28 of 66
2/17/08 at 12:46pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg Clark View Post
See, when people talk Lucas being able to do characters, they always neglect American Graffiti, and the fact that it worked primarily due to its characters.
Given that AG is one film out six that he's directed that really works on a character level - and that film was more than 30 years ago - really doesn't add any weight to the argument that George is underappreciated or misunderstood as a director.

If you spend any time watching the BTS for the prequel trilogy, it's abundantly clear that Lucas is very uncomfortable and, frankly, inept, at directing and guiding actors WRT the more emotional, accessible aspects of the stories. He's much happier and at ease picking out monster heads and ship designs.

That last sentence isn't meant as a slam, per se. I think picking out monster heads and ship designs sounds like great fun, and I do think there's talent and skill involved in creating a film's look and feel. But he has, at best, a 33% success rate (and that's giving him the first Star Wars film) in pulling out satisfactory or above-average performances from his actors and scripts.

Compare that with Steven Soderbergh, who miraculously managed to make Jennifer Lopez appear smart and talented in Out of Sight, two things the rest of her oeuvre convincingly dispute.
Reply
post #29 of 66
2/17/08 at 3:11pm
Honestly, guys, go watch American Graffiti. Watch the scene with Milner walking through the junkyard and talking about the guys he knew who died in wrecks, watch the scene with Richard Dreyfuss walking through the school during the dance, where he tries his old locker combination, or the scene with Milner and Toad after the race. And yeah, watch the scene with Wolfman Jack and Dreyfuss. Then tell me Lucas doesn't understand the human element of his movies.

I get down on Star Wars as much as anyone else, and you're talking to a reformed EU nerd here, but Graffiti is a masterpiece and an important film.

Also, that was a great post from Felt Pelt.
Reply
post #30 of 66
2/17/08 at 3:39pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by SAIRUS View Post
I just wonder though, if he always did want the movies to be serials based on the tales of old, why was Eps III PG-13? Most likely for marketing.
If anything, Episode II is a PG-13 film that got by with a PG. The very nature of Episode III's story prevents it from being PG.
Reply
post #31 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:21pm
I hate the whole original-version Star Wars situation, (I dunno, there's something icky to me about selling kids a 2004-enhanced movie from 1977 without telling them-the "special edition" label is gone now) but all Lucas really did to get this bad reputation is finish Star Wars and not die young. I think Milius is right, we really don't know what he could have done, or still could do.
THX, Graffiti and Star Wars is a pretty goddamn amazing resume' for a 32-year old guy.
Reply
post #32 of 66
2/17/08 at 6:49pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by RathBandu View Post
Honestly, guys, go watch American Graffiti. Honestly, guys, go watch American Graffiti

*snip*

Then tell me Lucas doesn't understand the human element of his movies.
I've seen it, it's very good, but Graffiti is not a masterpiece, not for it's time and not for today.

It's kind of hard to try and argue Lucas did really get the human element (historical accuracy is not the same thing Rath) right here, when the actors in the film have complained that he couldn't give them better direction than "faster more intense".

And it's impossible to argue this when you've seen the majority of films he has directed, or directed by proxy.
Reply
post #33 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:09pm
I'm with Rath, and furthermore, I can't help but think that American Graffiti would now be held in much higher esteem than it is if the Star Wars series hadn't overshadowed it, and come to represent Lucas as a filmmaker. Ironically, if Star Wars had been a flop, or even just moderately successful, I think we'd see a very different attitude about his abilities. That, and he'd probably have gone on to make other, more interesting films in the ensuing years. Now, it's become impossible to discuss him as a general filmmaker. There aren't enough impartial judges in the world, as people clearly have too much emotional baggage connected to the Star Wars franchise. It kind of freaks me out a little how angry people are at him over this.

And by the way, those "rumors" about Lucas hating Empire are bullshit. He made a lame, throwaway joke at a public event, and fandom got their collective panties in a twist, as they are wont to do.
Reply
post #34 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:40pm
What could have been, means dick.

He tried doing things outside of Star Wars and Indiana Jones, and they ranged from good and forgettable Willow, to god awful Howard the Duck.

For the most part, the only things he seems interested in (besides money) are sequels and prequels, and the Star Wars films were never the worst of those.
Reply
post #35 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:47pm
He didn't direct any of those movies you just mentioned. And as I've read it, with the possible exception of Willow (which I agree was eminently forgettable), he was pretty hands-off on on the actual directing of those productions. It's a little like blaming Spielberg for *batteries not included.

And what is Radioland Murders a prequel to?

Edit:
Nevermind. I found this little tidbit:

Quote:
George Lucas has stated that the two main characters, Roger and Penny Henderson, are actually the parents of Richard Dreyfuss's character from Lucas' American Graffiti (1973); making this film a bit of a semi-prequel.
I don't think that exactly makes it a prequel. He just put a throwaway reference to one of his movies in there. He likes to do that. R2-D2 and C-3P0 appear in Raiders of the Lost Ark. That doesn't make it a sequel to Star Wars.
Reply
post #36 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:48pm
American Graffiti apparently...

Quote:
Originally Posted by IMDB
Trivia for Radioland Murders:
George Lucas has stated that the two main characters, Roger and Penny Henderson, are actually the parents of Richard Dreyfuss's character from Lucas' American Graffiti (1973); making this film a bit of a semi-prequel.
Reply
post #37 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:50pm
Yeah, I was wondering myself after he posted that.
Reply
post #38 of 66
2/17/08 at 7:53pm
Lucas is a fine director. A director is somebody who has a vision and translates that vision successfully into images. A good director is someone who does that and gets a thoughtful, provocative reaction out of an audience, positive or negative. The worst director is a boring one, who makes a mediocre film no one gives a second thought to.

People forget that cinema started silent, without much characterization. The expression of images that provoked a meaningful reaction is what mattered in the beginning. Narrative film with actors and motivations came later. But the fundamentals of cinema is still visual storytelling. Deep, meaningful character business comes from the theater, and is today the accepted form of cinema. There's nothing wrong with either. I just think the message has gotten lost.

In that sense, Lucas is a great director. Star Wars is one of, if not the best cinematic experience ever made. And it was mostly Lucas' doing. People say he's a bad director because he can't direct actors. But that only makes him a bad director of theater, not motion pictures, if we're really talking about the fundamentals. Good characterization comes from writing. Directing the actors into the materialization of that good character is the mark of a good director. Lucas did it with AG and Star Wars. THX was unsuccessful as a good character piece because of the writing. But it was never intended to be that. As a piece of cinema it's great.

Spielberg on the other hand is a superior director because he can do both, in his sleep.
Reply
post #39 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:04pm
I alway thought, Lucas got more after Star Wars then he bargained for. He realized that directing could be a health hazard for him. And to get Star Wars done he had built this huge facility full of VFX/FX guys who were now dependent on him to give them work (similar to Jackson's Weta) so he decided to "lay low" for a while and build up a hugely successful movie empire. Why not?
Think about it: Revolutionize the movies with digital editing, create the THX program, build a huge ranch in a heavenly environment, get your own firetruck, your own nerd museum full of the stuff that made you famous and your own cafeteria.
It would take A LOT to get me out of there and on to a set again just so that I could prove I could top Star Wars. And he did lots of stuff like all the work on ESB, RAIDERS etc..
James Cameron fell into a similar creative dilemma I guess. He just didn't feel the need anymore to do one actioneer after another after Titanic.
Now Avatar could be Cameron's prequel toy...
Reply
post #40 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:07pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
He didn't direct any of those movies you just mentioned.
Does it matter? He wrote the screenplays or at least came up with the story. And the writing was terrible. He also produced them, and I'm sure gave plenty of creative input. He's been accused plenty of times of directing by proxy, it's widely believed to be the case of Return of the Jedi, for example.

The point is his sensibility as someone who makes films is off, regardless of if he's the writer, director or producer or all of the above, most often doesn't it all just doesn't jive with what most of us consider to be great filmmaking.

In everything he's done, the one thing he has truly excelled at is being an entrepreneur.
Reply
post #41 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:15pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Greg David View Post
R2-D2 and C-3P0 appear in Raiders of the Lost Ark. That doesn't make it a sequel to Star Wars.

That's not the same thing at all as basing a film around the parents of one of your main characters in another movie. They aren't a part of the story, they're a very small homage put in by the production designers/set decorators, and not even very noticeable at that. Course I realize that Radioland Murders and American Graffiti are very different movies, and the only connection is through the main characters simply being the parents of Dreyfuss' chracter in American Graffiti (even that is DUMB, but Lucas must think there's a point to it). The main point though is that it was one of those examples of Lucas trying something different and massively failing.
Reply
post #42 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:38pm
I think Lucas is a decent enough ideas man, and he definitely has an eye for the visual. Even if the Prequel films weren't well written or directed, the visuals were well designed and all. I also appreciate that it never went to Burly Brawl levels of suck. The fight between Yoda/ Sidious or Yoda/ Christopher Lee are definitely CG fights but it's well done to the point where we don't care about it.

I kinda wish there was a big twist in the prequel trilogy, like something we thought we knew wasn't true from the get go. I might get slapped for saying this, but I kinda wish Palpatine was revealed to be Anakin's father, and that Anakin wasn't "The One" after all. Or at least Yoda finding out a hidden text about the prophecy...or anything to explain how all this crazy shit happening still falls in line with the prophecy.
Reply
post #43 of 66
2/17/08 at 8:54pm
Quote:
Originally Posted by Radb707 View Post
The fight between Yoda/ Sidious or Yoda/ Christopher Lee are definitely CG fights but it's well done to the point where we don't care about it.
What planet are you living on? People were massively bitching about Yoda fighting, Dooku's (crappy) digital head on an obviously shorter stunt double's body, etc.

Me, not so much...

But that's got alot to do with this:


That's a serious contender for most embarrassingly bad/hilarious fight in film history.
Reply
post #44 of 66
2/17/08 at 9:27pm
"No...No! No! NO!"
Reply
post #45 of 66
2/17/08 at 9:46pm
There was a great article in InStyle before Phantom about the ranch and two of the shots in the article was the Lucas family, Spielberg, and Ron Howard and his family sitting around the dining table over dinner. Ron was discussing something and Lucas had this look of "why is this guy still asking me questions".

The other Image was of the beards sitting in the lounge talking about Phantom, and Steven arguing some point and George listening but saying to himself "I'll still do it my way".

And Isildor if you think 1138 lacks emotion and character, I think you where watching the wrong movie. As its still probably my favorite Duvall performance.

His divorce did something to rewire him as well, I also think this is why he does not like to talk about Empire as it happened at the same time.

I agree with what Felt Pelt, although I would say its more because he is still in shock that Star Wars has succeeded in the way it has, and that no matter what he does to it it still makes him wealthier and wealthier.

The curious thing to me though and it get more so with each new game release, is just how well Lucas Arts is at playing in the SW Sandbox, and how Lucas continues to let them do so, yet at the same time he would not let anyone near the celluloid version of his galaxy, even to direct a task I think as many has said he hates the actual process of.
Reply
post #46 of 66
2/17/08 at 10:12pm
Hahaha..

"UNLLLIMMMIITTTEEEDPOOOWWWWAAAAAHHHHH!!"
Reply
post #47 of 66
2/17/08 at 10:36pm
Honestly, not to be a dick, but anyone who says that American Graffiti isn't still relevant, or lacks resonance, to a modern audience never grew up in the suburbs.
Reply
post #48 of 66
2/17/08 at 10:41pm
That's not a dickish thing to say, you could be completely right about that. I didn't grow up in the burbs. I also didn't say any of those things about American Graffiti though. I just think masterpiece is taking it a bit too far.

Also...
Reply
post #49 of 66
2/17/08 at 10:59pm
In my family we watch AG a hell of a lot more than A New Hope, and it almost single handily created the 50's Nostalgia craze that still exist to this day. And was also the first big compilation Soundtrack if I am not mistaken. And also is by far my favourite Dreyfuss role, better even than Close Encounters.
Reply
post #50 of 66
2/17/08 at 11:32pm
I've always said that if Star Wars had been a modest success, Lucas may have still done Apocalypse Now and we could have seen a very different career out of him. Then again, the physical and mental toll he paid to get Star Wars made may have been that much worse had it not been successful.
Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Movie Miscellany
CHUD.com Community › Forums › THE MAIN SEWER › Movie Miscellany › the Lucas & Spielberg friendship