StarDestroyer.Net BBS

What do you think of this site? George Lucas, much like Gene Roddenberry, was more of an raw ideas man than a highly skilled story teller, and worked best when reigned in by colleagues/bosses, but this strikes as rather uptight albiet very well presented and witty.

Big Orange wrote:What do you think of this site? George Lucas, much like Gene Roddenberry, was more of an raw ideas man than a highly skilled story teller, and worked best when reigned in by colleagues/bosses, but this strikes as rather uptight albiet very well presented and witty.

How high is the bar for "highly skilled story teller"? I feel like you have not calibrated your scale correctly. While Lucas isn't a Francis Ford Coppola or a peter jackson, he's still pretty highly skilled. The original trilogy was well delivered and enduring, American Graffitti was pretty good, and for taht matter, Indiana Jones? it takes a masterful story teller to make THAT concept work. I'm not arguing the prequel trilogy was an isntincct classic, and I'm as bored as anyone else with the whole clone wars fixation lucas currently presents, but I would consider him at LEAST a highly skilled story teller, several orders bettter than Roddenberry anyway.

I just took a cursory look at that site. This is an independent documentary that will be shown in theaters (I'm guessing that it will be an extremely limited release) and sold on DVDs. They're actively asking for video submissions from regular people so they can "impartially" analyze of the Lucas (really SW prequel) controversy.

If you're interested in this and as annoyed as I am with the jaded hipster crowd screeching that the prequels "were the worst movies ever" and "raped their childhoods," this could be an opportunity to get your word out there. I'm afraid that the submissions will be dominated by bitter poseurs with their revisionist history. Again, I'm not saying the prequels didn't have their flaws, but they were obviously successful and their "fresh" ratings at Rotten Tomatoes proves that they weren't nearly as critically reviled as some people say they were.

Why would anyone WANT to release a movie that is just whining at a successful person because he didn't do things that you like?

I would say it's only going to feed Lucas' ego, but considering the "Jedi" phenomenon in England it's probably topped out. When people are making religions about your own made-up words, you know you've got it made.

And God, what a pretentious title. "The People vs. George Lucas," as if he failed in some obligation to us all.

Anguirus wrote:Why would anyone WANT to release a movie that is just whining at a successful person because he didn't do things that you like?

You know how it works. Make it, and... if there's a market... they will come.

Themightytom wrote:

Big Orange wrote:What do you think of this site? George Lucas, much like Gene Roddenberry, was more of an raw ideas man than a highly skilled story teller, and worked best when reigned in by colleagues/bosses, but this strikes as rather uptight albiet very well presented and witty.

How high is the bar for "highly skilled story teller"? I feel like you have not calibrated your scale correctly. While Lucas isn't a Francis Ford Coppola or a peter jackson, he's still pretty highly skilled. The original trilogy was well delivered and enduring, American Graffitti was pretty good, and for taht matter, Indiana Jones? it takes a masterful story teller to make THAT concept work. I'm not arguing the prequel trilogy was an isntincct classic, and I'm as bored as anyone else with the whole clone wars fixation lucas currently presents, but I would consider him at LEAST a highly skilled story teller, several orders bettter than Roddenberry anyway.

How exactly does Coppola rate as a better storyteller than Lucas? Coppola's most successful movies were all either remakes of older movies or based on someone's novels. Peter Jackson is even less original.

Themightytom wrote:

Big Orange wrote:What do you think of this site? George Lucas, much like Gene Roddenberry, was more of an raw ideas man than a highly skilled story teller, and worked best when reigned in by colleagues/bosses, but this strikes as rather uptight albiet very well presented and witty.

How high is the bar for "highly skilled story teller"? I feel like you have not calibrated your scale correctly. While Lucas isn't a Francis Ford Coppola or a peter jackson, he's still pretty highly skilled.

Yeah. At best, it's like saying that a minor league baseball player isn't "highly skilled" because they aren't in the major leagues. They may not be highly skilled compared to the top stars of baseball, but they're damn sure highly skilled compared to, say, me. Or 99.9% of the human race, for that matter.

Pretty much nobody outside the US cares about what happens in the so-called "Major Leagues".

May I suggest you pick a better similitude..?

Elfdart wrote:
How exactly does Coppola rate as a better storyteller than Lucas? Coppola's most successful movies were all either remakes of older movies or based on someone's novels. Peter Jackson is even less original.

..Ok Elfdart there's no point even TRYING to talk to you, If you can't acknowledge the guy who turned 4,000 pages of excruciatingly detailed abstract world building into a three part blockbuster hit/cultural phenomanon is a good story teller. I would have thought you could at LEAST acknowledging turning a franchise that became the DEFINITION of a B movie into a quality well recieved modern movie your "standards" are SOOO esoteric and refined you wouldn't be able to acknowledge that originality is only one of many factors in considering what makes a good story teller.

Akkleptos wrote:Pretty much nobody outside the US cares about what happens in the so-called "Major Leagues".

May I suggest you pick a better similitude..?

I think the concepts of minor league and major league are pretty universal; one doesn't need an intimate knowledge of American baseball to understand Simon_Jester's analogy.
As regards Lucas as storyteller - now as regards being a writer of novels he maybe not so great (we can't really know, as he doesn't write books), but if use storyteller in the sense of someone bringing a vision to the screen (in various capacities including as an ideas originator & as a screenwriter) he was pretty effective, and created a cultural icon (more than one if also consider Indiana Jones).

Themightytom wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
How exactly does Coppola rate as a better storyteller than Lucas? Coppola's most successful movies were all either remakes of older movies or based on someone's novels. Peter Jackson is even less original.

..Ok Elfdart there's no point even TRYING to talk to you, If you can't acknowledge the guy who turned 4,000 pages of excruciatingly detailed abstract world building into a three part blockbuster hit/cultural phenomanon is a good story teller. I would have thought you could at LEAST acknowledging turning a franchise that became the DEFINITION of a B movie into a quality well recieved modern movie your "standards" are SOOO esoteric and refined you wouldn't be able to acknowledge that originality is only one of many factors in considering what makes a good story teller.

I know you're a fucking moron, and I don't always agree with Elfie...but answer his question, dipshit.

Engaging in a mindless fucking red herring is the reason you were nearly on the chopping block and a reason to wonder about it again.

Akkleptos wrote:Pretty much nobody outside the US cares about what happens in the so-called "Major Leagues".

May I suggest you pick a better similitude..?

You, know, except all the other 'Pro' leagues in other countries that constantly try to compare themselves and live up to the 'Major Leagues' here.

Themightytom wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
How exactly does Coppola rate as a better storyteller than Lucas? Coppola's most successful movies were all either remakes of older movies or based on someone's novels. Peter Jackson is even less original.

..Ok Elfdart there's no point even TRYING to talk to you, If you can't acknowledge the guy who turned 4,000 pages of excruciatingly detailed abstract world building into a three part blockbuster hit/cultural phenomanon is a good story teller. I would have thought you could at LEAST acknowledging turning a franchise that became the DEFINITION of a B movie into a quality well recieved modern movie your "standards" are SOOO esoteric and refined you wouldn't be able to acknowledge that originality is only one of many factors in considering what makes a good story teller.

So you are sorta refuting with 'He is a great editor'. And hey dipshit, ED didn't say he wasn't a good story teller, he asked how he is better than Lucas.

Lucas created original stories that appeal to far more people than anything Coppola and certainly Jackson have done. Yes Coppola made a classic movie, and maybe one of the best, but so did Lucas, and Lucas did it without a novel that was already written and with input from that novel's author.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Themightytom wrote:

Elfdart wrote:
How exactly does Coppola rate as a better storyteller than Lucas? Coppola's most successful movies were all either remakes of older movies or based on someone's novels. Peter Jackson is even less original.

..Ok Elfdart there's no point even TRYING to talk to you, If you can't acknowledge the guy who turned 4,000 pages of excruciatingly detailed abstract world building into a three part blockbuster hit/cultural phenomanon is a good story teller. I would have thought you could at LEAST acknowledging turning a franchise that became the DEFINITION of a B movie into a quality well recieved modern movie your "standards" are SOOO esoteric and refined you wouldn't be able to acknowledge that originality is only one of many factors in considering what makes a good story teller.

I know you're a fucking moron, and I don't always agree with Elfie...but answer his question, dipshit.

Engaging in a mindless fucking red herring is the reason you were nearly on the chopping block and a reason to wonder about it again.

Way to flip out Ghostrider, I didn't answer his question because I don't think Peter Jackson and Francis Ford Coppola ARE better than George Lucas. Thats like saying the Red Sox are better than the Patriots and the Bruins. Typoed as it was I think my original post was pretty clear in my support for Lucas what I objected to was the implication that originality is such an influential criteria for a great story teller. Most movie reviewers consider it a factor sure, but not THE factor for compairson. Intentional communication of message and ideas and an identifiable style are hallmarks of any great artist and story telling is an art.

Storytellers have diffferent styles, but while Elfdart would place a higher importance on composing an original work, I place a higher value on how well a story is recieved as an indication of how well it is delivered. making an annoying story watchable takes as much creativity as creating one from scratch, and more to the point, Lucas used a blue print himself so how can we start using originality as the benchmark for achievement?

Havok wrote:

So you are sorta refuting with 'He is a great editor'. And hey dipshit, ED didn't say he wasn't a good story teller, he asked how he is better than Lucas.

Lucas created original stories that appeal to far more people than anything Coppola and certainly Jackson have done. Yes Coppola made a classic movie, and maybe one of the best, but so did Lucas, and Lucas did it without a novel that was already written and with input from that novel's author.

And you are sorta refuting my statement with "He's a great writer!" rather than "he's a great story teller", When we are talking about story TELLING not compositionwasn't entirely original either but I do concede he is a great story teller nonetheless, just not for his originality alone. Lucas did more than write a "new" story, he DELIVERED it. Thats what makes a good story teller.

Havok wrote:

Akkleptos wrote:Pretty much nobody outside the US cares about what happens in the so-called "Major Leagues".

May I suggest you pick a better similitude..?

You, know, except all the other 'Pro' leagues in other countries that constantly try to compare themselves and live up to the 'Major Leagues' here.

Man, you managed to make me go google some stuff!

I'm sure the Cuban (ranked #1 in the world) and the Japanese (ranked #4) national teams would surely give any "Major League" team a run for their money. They just don't have the multimillion dollar infrastructure or the abundant, relatively wealthy fanbase the US Major League teams have (and probably not as much steroid-fueled power, either)


On topic:

While not an author -in the traditional sense- himself, it's quite reasonable to view Lucas as a more than competent story teller, considering that the Star Wars saga is based entirely on things he imagined; which he also put together on film -with the help of many, yes- under his sole responsibility as a director.

Themightytom wrote:

Ghost Rider wrote:

Themightytom wrote:
..Ok Elfdart there's no point even TRYING to talk to you, If you can't acknowledge the guy who turned 4,000 pages of excruciatingly detailed abstract world building into a three part blockbuster hit/cultural phenomanon is a good story teller. I would have thought you could at LEAST acknowledging turning a franchise that became the DEFINITION of a B movie into a quality well recieved modern movie your "standards" are SOOO esoteric and refined you wouldn't be able to acknowledge that originality is only one of many factors in considering what makes a good story teller.

I know you're a fucking moron, and I don't always agree with Elfie...but answer his question, dipshit.

Engaging in a mindless fucking red herring is the reason you were nearly on the chopping block and a reason to wonder about it again.

Way to flip out Ghostrider, I didn't answer his question because I don't think Peter Jackson and Francis Ford Coppola ARE better than George Lucas. Thats like saying the Red Sox are better than the Patriots and the Bruins. Typoed as it was I think my original post was pretty clear in my support for Lucas what I objected to was the implication that originality is such an influential criteria for a great story teller. Most movie reviewers consider it a factor sure, but not THE factor for compairson. Intentional communication of message and ideas and an identifiable style are hallmarks of any great artist and story telling is an art.

Storytellers have diffferent styles, but while Elfdart would place a higher importance on composing an original work, I place a higher value on how well a story is recieved as an indication of how well it is delivered. making an annoying story watchable takes as much creativity as creating one from scratch, and more to the point, Lucas used a blue print himself so how can we start using originality as the benchmark for achievement?

I see.

So again, you didn't answer his QUESTION except now you actually put into words what you should've done in the first place. And really, given your previous fucking stupidity, and the last time you went on tirade...you were on notice to getting banned hard and fast. This time all you've done differently is that it is not in three more pages of you trying to prove your opinion.

Ghost Rider wrote:

Themightytom wrote:
I see.

So again, you didn't answer his QUESTION except now you actually put into words what you should've done in the first place. And really, given your previous fucking stupidity, and the last time you went on tirade...you were on notice to getting banned hard and fast. This time all you've done differently is that it is not in three more pages of you trying to prove your opinion.

Are you dissatisfied because I didn't answer the question or just reiterating your irritation, because I posted above that I don't think Coppola IS better than Lucas so wouldn't be able to to explain anything of the sort. I would rather skip the three pages if that is alright.

I'm as vocal in my criticism of Lucas as anyone, but is this "movie" about him really necessary?

Of course not. But hey, why pass up the opportunity to make a buck on someones coattails and be a douche.

No film is "necessary". But it's my understanding that this documentary is a look at the phenomenon of people who watch all the Star Wars movies and lap up all the spin-offs (books, comics, toys, video games, etc) and still bitch and whine about how George Lucas "sucks" or "raped their childhood" or how they wish he had died in 1982. In other words, sci-fi versions of Mark David Chapman.

So its going to be a Star Wars version of "Trekkies", but since you most probably won't find a Wars fan dressing up as a Jedi Knight for jury duty or any other really weird stuff they are going for an angle which involves more criticism.

Oh, and with the George Lucas raped my childhood crowd, I am afraid south park beat this film to it with their Indiana Jones episode which showed
Spoiler

People often forget about Lawrence Kasdan, the co-screewriter involved with Raiders of the Lost Ark and The Empire Strikes Back (widely seen as the strongest movies out of their respective trilogies), but he seemed to come much more a cropper with Dreamcatcher than Lucas did with his Prequel Trilogy or Steven Speilberg with his career from the mid 1990s onwards.

I think it is also relevant to point out that Lucus was taking a huge risk with Star Wars. SciFi and the like did not have nearly the interest that it does now then and few had attempted a project of such scale in that genre at that time.

I would also say that Lucas is better at some aspects of story telling than others. I think he did an excellent job of creating a broad world that sparks the imagination, he just derails on some of the finer points like dialogue. What really annoys me about Lucus is that having created this awesome world he then routinely violates it for the purpose of plot. However, while I don't like it he is hardly the only person to do this, it is mearly a priority choice which I can understand that. Now, when he violates it AND fails a plot...

Lucas wasn't making these movies with me in mind specifically, so if he pisses me off but manages to make a million younger fans happy, how can I really classify that as a failure or lack of skill on his part?