Slashdot Mirror
The Star Wars Money Machine
Darth Cola writes " The Star Wars franchise has made George Lucas plenty rich. But his fortune is only a peice of a much bigger financial pie, one which Forbes.com estimates at just shy of $20 billion. They have a rundown of the Star Wars financial empire, and a market by market breakdown of where the money comes from." From the article: "It all started with a story treatment, handwritten in pencil on a few sheets of lined yellow legal paper. That's all that existed of the multibillion-dollar financial empire, now known as the Star Wars universe, when filmmaker George Lucas sat down in 1974 to write what, within three years, would be the biggest meteor to hit Hollywood since there's been a Hollywood."
Previous generations may have objected to commercialism but we grew up on. I'd be surprised if every aspect of Star Wars didn't get commercialized. Besides the Yoda/Pepsi ads are funny.
In the end he's now got the big studio and calling the shots. It's as though he joined the dark side to defeat the dark side.
Considering how rich George Lucas is, it's interesting to keep hearing him talk about his future projects, how he wants to make smaller movies etc.
... don't get me wrong, I like [some of] his movies and all, but I can't help but suspect that despite all his success, Lucas is just sort of a sad, isolated, lonely, messed-up old fucker.
"I've earned the right to just make things that I find provocative in my own way," he's quoted as saying. "I've earned the right to fail, which means making what I think are really great movies that no one wants to see."
I always wonder what the hell that means? Earned the right to fail? Like he wasn't allowed to fail before? Exactly how much money was he supposed to make before he could buy his way into the club of mere mortals who are allowed to fail? Kind of a strange way to approach a creative ambition, I think. What mental process must go on in Lucas's head that he has to actually give himself permission to be creative, and justify it by pointing to his past commercial successes?
In general, I'd love to see a psychological profile of George Lucas sometime. Especially considering some of the truly bizarre moral commandments he's put into his recent films (missing your mom is wrong, getting angry at things is bad and makes you a bad person, if you want to be a hero then relationships are forbidden, etc.)
Breakfast served all day!
It all went south with RotJ, which was an unashamed attempt to sell as many action figures and toys as absolutely possible to kids. With PM, we saw large portions of the movie given over to selling a video game.
Star Wars nerds ruined Star Wars the same way that Trek nerds ruined Trek - by accepting any shit thrust upon them with the appropriate branding, the producers felt free to sacrifice quality in order to broaden appeal and merchandise the hell out of the product.
In both cases, we get bland crap that doesn't stand up well to the original. Greedy producers, stupid nerds... a fatal combination.
The fact that he was extremely successful doesn't automatically mean that he screwed everybody and did whatever he could to make the biggest profit.
Of course he took advantage of starwars' success, but who wouldn't have? That doesn't make him sleazy and unscrupulous.
Eh.
Spaceballs 2: The Search for More Money
Star Wars is the ultimate franchise because even as a film it's an amlagam of marketable genres.
The original trilogy alone features:With all of that thrown together... in space... there's a little something for every geek. And market after market after market that you can sell games, toys, lunch boxes, books, clothing, artwork, women's delicates and more to.
"I've earned the right to fail"
It reminds me of an engineer who said "I knew I was sucessful when I knew I could turn down clients."
I think the point is that he wants to make something that he is happy with and screw everyone else, at thats a pretty good goal to have. You don't wear your comfy pjs and sweats on the streets because of social pressure, not because you don't like the clothing.
Alot of art is peer reviewed. Your sucess or failure depends on what others say; teachers, critics, art dealers, customers. The social pressure is huge especially in a highly visible position he has.
The surprise isn't how often we make bad choices; the surprise is how seldom they defeat us.
"That doesn't make him sleazy and unscrupulous."
No, admittedly it does not.
However, I don't know how old you are, but I am 32. I barely remember seeing the orginal Star Wars in the theaters. I remember thinking it was neat, and that the people around me were totally and completely awestruck.
It was a turning point in US Cinematography, as well as Science Fiction in general. Star Trek was still dead, Galactica was camp, and out of nowhere came this shining new well crafted "Space Opera".
It was truly a defining moment for the science fiction culture, as well as a generation of filmgoers. Then came Empire. Still good, not quite as fast paced, and obviously written with sequal in mind. It also introduced us to the notion that spoilers could get your ass beat in the lobby.
Jedi was the turning point. As many have said, it took something near and dear to many, and almost religious to some, and turned it into a marketing machine for action figures.
That hurt.
As time has passed, it has become clear that Mr Lucas does not understand (or understands all too well, but does not care) how important his creation was and is to many many people.
He has changed it, manipulated his fans, and slowly bled every penny he could, and with them every feeling that it is something more than just a film, from his fan base. He refuses to release the orginal 3 movies in their original formats on DVD. Do you realize that some people actually bought laserdisc players JUST to see that!
He took something we loved, and used it against us. He has proven that the $ is all he cares about. Thats why many people feel he is "sleazy and unscrupulous."
There are 4 boxes to use in the defense of liberty: soap, ballot, jury, ammo. Use in that order- Ed Howdershelt Via Tass
Comment removed based on user account deletion
Essentially, there are several archetypes (one could even call them "stereotypes") of the sci-fi genre that a great many filmmakers and writers have adopted for their own use. Motifs such as the villain being the hero's father, a spiritual father figure to the hero, and mystical overtones (such as the Force) can be found ALL OVER sci-fi movies and literature. Lucas was not the first to adopt them, and he undoubtedly will not be the last.
But, of course, the fact that these archetypes are being used over and over again by no means means that they cannot be used *well.* Peoples' fond memories of the original SW movies, the plot/characters of which were somewhat cliche as far as sci-fi movies go, only proves the point. Luke was the naive hero, Han the roguish "wild card", Leia the "damsel in distress", Vader the evil villain. What matters, however, is that Lucas honed each part to near-perfection, such that the characters were so believable and *human* that they didn't *seem* like stereotypes. I believe that it's this element that is sorely missing from the prequels, but that's another rant altogether!
Many Bothans died to bring you this sig.
Money destroys creativity.
Probably. But most people do their best work early on, because they have something to prove. Okay, so there are exceptions, like the Beatles etc., but if you think of a lot of artists, once they become middle aged they're not exactly making ground-breaking work like they were when they began. I think they just lose the drive and mellow out with age. Plus I guess having bazillions of dollars helps ease the pain.
Incidentally, Lars is a hopeless drummer.
for this is "The Hero With A Thousand Faces" by Joseph Campbell.
The book was written in the 1940s.
Today @ 7-11 I saw Star Wars Cheetos that boasted they would turn your tongue Yoda Green or Vader Black. I doubt I would ever purchase, let along eat, a food item that made such claims. Ick.
I could not justify my existence if I were a turkey farmer. Would I terminate myself? Undoubtably, yes.
There was stagflation and high unemployment. The cold war was in full swing. The Chinese were butchering Tibetans left and right.
And don't forget the oil crises and a very tense state of affairs in the middle east.
My, how times have changed.
KFG
There are two types of nerds:
1. Those that watch Star Wars and admit it openly
2. Those that call those in 1 geeks and publicly call Lucas a money-lubber, and then secretly watch it in the dark shroud of the night and wish to be Lucas himself.
Which type of nerd are you??
Typical empty-headed Hollywood liberal, running down free-market capitalism between bites of caviar and lobster. Fuck them.
This sounded a bit more like sour grapes from your part than reality. From the beginning, the money making (licensing and whatnot) was necessary as he was self financing everything. The very first movie was financed by Fox. It was reject time and again as something that wouldn't sell. He finally got it through. When he started working on his second film, he wanted more control over the movie. He wanted to tell a story and didn't want Hollywood to interfere on how that story was told. He was ostracized by Hollywood. Yes, he has made a shitload of money in the process but you can see it invested in moviemaking and not in some outrageous Hollywood lifestyle. What you think about Stars Wars is somewhat irrelevant. What's important is what it meant for everything that came after it. It changed the industry more than anything before or since.
The guy worked his butt off to get where he is today. I don't see it as a liberal running down free-market capitalism. I see someone with a passion for what he does and doing well. Someone who dared to criticize the way things are done in Hollywood. He never said profits are bad. What he complained about was that the artists are screwed by Hollywood and the only people making any money are the deal makers.
If you say he sounds like a liberal taking a free ride, I could say you sound like a communist cry baby pissed because it wasn't you who made the money.it took something near and dear to many, and almost religious to some...Mr Lucas does not understand (or understands all too well, but does not care) how important his creation was and is to many many people...something more than just a film, from his fan base...
I think those people that think a movie is more than just a movie need to get out more. I'm sure glad George doesn't submit to the will's of the unwashed-nerd masses, because the anal retentivness and out-spoken arrogance of many bothers the hell out of me. When did it become the storyteller's responsibility to tell the story everybody wants to hear? You might like it if he did everything you or others want him to do, but I think it is arrogant to believe GL should bow to the whims of the zealous few that absolutely HAVE to have their childhood dreams protected.
Everytime someone mentions how George has "raped their childhood" by "exploiting" Star Wars, I'm reminded of an interview with Peanuts creator Charles Shultz.
Shultz was asked if he was concerned that the marketing of his Peanuts characters violated his "art." Schultz was shocked. "I draw Peanuts as a way to make my living" he replied. He was less concerned with "art" and more concerned with being a good businessman.
George isn't forcing people to buy his products or locking them into a system they can't easily extract themselves from (*cough* Bill Gates *cough*). If he's rereleasing movies in different formats, its because he knows theres a market for them. You want to show George you're mad at him? Don't buy his products.
As for me, I'm going to go play some Lego Star Wars with my kids, who throughly dig all things Star Wars, and whose childhoods are just fine, thank you.
Umm... actually, I find that quite OFTEN, major Hollywood movies pose as "simple entertainment" while trying to cram some sort of political message down my throat.
(EG. Did you ever see a movie called "The Contender"? I actually wasted $10 or so on the DVD, never having seen it before in the theater - because it looked like it might be an entertaining political thriller. Started out with some promise, in fact, but by the end, turned into mindless stereotyping of conservatives followed by ramming home a feminist liberal political agenda.) I could have thought of at least 2 or 3 alternate endings that would have made it a much more interesting movie, really - if they could have just let go of the apparent need to shove a certain "message" in the audience's faces.)
The new Star Wars movies are no exception, really, other than being less blatant than some stuff out there. Look at it this way. The original 3 films barely even touched on "politics", other than some vague references. That didn't make them less interesting. But now, it seems like half of the last 2 movies revolved around senate meetings and jedis in the thick of political decision-making. It just seems to me like none of this made for a better, more "entertaining" movie experience at all. So why is it there? Allows insertion of political messages....