The People vs. George Lucas To Premiere At SXSW

skatepark builder writes "David Prowse, the 74-year-old actor who has enjoyed a long and varied career filled with roles such as Darth Vader (Star Wars Episodes IV, V, and VI), is starting 2010 off with two major accomplishments. His victory over colon cancer earlier this month means he'll live to see his top billing in a film premiering next month at the South by Southwest Film Festival. The People vs. George Lucas is a documentary attempting a balanced examination of the love/hate relationship Star Wars fans have developed with the filmmaker and his work over the past three decades. Director Alexandre Philippe distances his film from the one-sided fan rage films that lambaste Lucas, even though the title would suggest otherwise. According to the trailer, The People vs.George Lucas exposes the full spectrum of opinions on Lucas, including those like Prowse, who still refers to him as a 'master.' Philippe captures these opinions through filmed interviews, but perhaps more interestingly, he crowdsourced the commentary by soliciting fan submissions over the internet. The clips seen in the trailer appear to be funny, highly inspired, and are probably more concise than the recently released 70-minute YouTube evisceration of Episode I."

Comments

Who cares?

[isaac]

The franchise is dead. Lucas killed it. Not worth the emotional investment to lament or analyze.

Move on, people.

Re:Who cares?

[grumpygrodyguy]

The franchise is dead. Lucas killed it. Not worth the emotional investment to lament or analyze.

Move on, people.

Not quite that simple.

I want the Original Theatrical Release of Episodes IV, V, and VI in stores, along with a promise from Lucas and his estate that these films will always remain untouched and available alongside any 're-mastered' versions.

Re:Who cares?

[AbRASiON]

Yes but they've been cheapened and reduced to just a product now thanks to his fiddling.
They always were a product but the illusion was there initially.

The Matrix sequels ruined the Matrix for me, I'm one of those people who gets invested in a universe and imagines things about it, Matrix is mostly dead to me and Star Wars hasn't been the same, between the editing of the originals and the prequels.

GP was correct, forget it and move on and if you haven't seen Indy 4, don't (so I hear, I refuse to watch it!)

A fandom i'll never understand

[grapeape]

I've never really understood the hatred of George Lucas. I was a Star Wars fan like most kids growing up in the late 70's had the action figures, the underoos, bed sheets, posters...all that crap and when the second trilogy was released I was excited about it. I took my kids to see the newer ones and they loved them like I loved the originals. I never expected the second series to have the same appeal because Lucas was farily consistant and aimed the new trilogy at the same age group he created the original for. The problem I saw was that many fans expected him to create new stories that were aimed at the now 30 year olds who watched the originals as children. I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids. What I really dont get is the hatred over the inclusion of jarjar as if Lucas had never stooped to funny critters to appeal to kids in the first trilogy, but I can remember by father rolling his eyes at Ewoks.

I will admit to being irritated by the policical correctness of Greedo shooting first, but welcomed most of the other enhancements of the special editions, the xwing segment in episode 4 was particularly satisfying. I was equally upset with the guns being edited out of ET but I figure it just a sign of the times and it will likley correct itself in the future.

On a side note Lucas has done something excellent for grown up's recently...check out the book Blockbusting: A Decade-by-Decade Survey of Timeless Movies Including Untold Secrets of Their Financial and Cultural Success, its fantastic.

Re:A fandom i'll never understand

[Vellmont]

I was still able to watch them and enjoy them just not with same wide eyed wonder, but then I wasnt supposed to, they werent made for me, they were made for my kids.

The difference is that the original movies weren't just designed to appeal to kids, and stood up on their own. Plenty of kids grow up liking a certain movie as a child, but later grow out of it and realize it's a crappy kids movie. Is their a real cult following for the Beethoven (the dog) movies for instance? It looks like they made 6 of the things, but I've never heard there's a serious collection of adults that love those movies on the scale of Star Wars. There's plenty of stuff I loved as a kid, but later realized just how terrible it really is. Buck Rogers comes to mind. So I don't agree with your idea that the original Star Wars movies were just kid movies.

The hatred comes from just how bad the new movies ultimately were. Lucas just made a kids movie in space and forgot to hire decent actors, give them good direction, provide a decent storyline, etc. Jar Jar is merely the undeniable representation of this. I think a lot of the more extreme reactions come from some feeling of betrayal. Some people feel like Lucas was "one of them", and the new movies are a complete rejection of that perceived relationship.

I'm really interested in the movie, as I'm fascinated by the whole love/hate relationship people have with Lucas. The only thing that really pissed me off was Han not shooting first. That's just utterly wrong as it changes the character of Solo (which is just a big no-no). You don't mess with character development after the fact. The FX changes I didn't really care about to much, though most of them looked like crap.

If you don't like it...

[British]

..don't watch it. I don't like how people think they can call changes to SW eps 1-3. As soon as you start making changes(remove Jar Jar, etc) it ceases to become Lucas' artwork, and moreso a "design by committee". Sure, this happens in meetings for filmmakers all the time, but I don't see how the fans have a say in someone else's art.

Re:If you don't like it...

[ClosedSource]

On the other hand, the changes made to episodes 4-6 ceased to be young Lucas' artwork too. I'm not confident that the 2010 version of Lucas could have made those movies.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Vellmont]

As soon as you start making changes(remove Jar Jar, etc) it ceases to become Lucas' artwork, and moreso a "design by committee".

I think that's kind of the point.

but I don't see how the fans have a say in someone else's art.

Heh. There's an old cliche. "Good artists borrow, great artists steal". Obviously nobody has any legal rights to be able to take SW and change it around to their own pleasing. But you sound like you're going beyond that and claiming nobody should do this on some sort of moral or ethical grounds. If that's the case, all art is guilty of the crime you describe. I'd go so far as all creative works are guilty of it. If you think creation comes out of a vacuum, think again.

Re:If you don't like it...

[Vintermann]

Let's forget George Lucas for a moment, and focus on another filmmaker who was in the news recently, James Cameron. Now tell me: Are you of the school of thought that James Cameron is the greatest filmmaker of all time, or do you think that perhaps the fact that he gets to play with new toys before everyone else has something to do with his success?
How about Madonna. How about J.K. Rowling. Success may involve a lot of perspiration, but so does failures. Dumb luck is a far bigger part of it. Once you are established, you don't have to make the insane grab for people's attention again - they've invested in you, got to know you and your work, and they will want more - even if you strictly speaking don't deserve it.

Commercial artistic success is rarely something people deserve. Certainly they don't deserve the insane compensation - if art worked as any other market, you could look at the huge number of would-be supplyers, and the ease of reproduction, and conclude art would be essentially free. The reason it isn't, is _not_ that George Lucas or J.K Rowling or Mick Jagger or bloody whoever is that much better than all the wannabees. Think about it: if you gave 10000 people James Cameron's resources and opportunities, set them to make movies, did a blind test, you think Avatar would stand out as clearly the best?

Most successful artists think that they live by their art. They are wrong. They live by social inertia and network effects - lots of people wouldn't mind being obsessed about a film, few people would want to be obsessed about a film no one you care about has heard of. There can only be so many stars. What this means is this: Star Wars the movies, may be Lucas' work of art, but no one really cares about the movies. Star Wars the phenomenon is what people really pay for, and Lucas' role in creating that is small. It's almost non-existent. If Star Wars hadn't been created, we the people would have found something different to obsess about.

This is why fans should "have a say in someone else's art". In fact, fans are way too subservient, and our culture is hopelessly locked into a view of "the artist" which appeared in the romantic period, and should have died a hundred years ago. Unfortunately, it became institutionalised (in large part through copyright legislation) and walks on as a ravenous zombie.

That is all.

admire lucas for the original star wars

[circletimessquare]

because even if he made 20 movies after star wars and every single one were the most puerile piece of uwe boll crap... he still made star wars, and therefore still deserves your admiration

if einstein became a creationist after his exposition of relativity, does that detract from his earlier genius?

if edmund hilary fell down a flight of stairs, does that detreact from the fact he climbed mount everest?

i don't understand a way of evaluating people that somehow their accomplishments are diminished by later missteps

as if we only get better with every year, as if no one ever makes mistakes

"what have you done for me lately" is a pretty selfish crude shortsighted and hypocritical way to evaluate people

Re:admire lucas for the original star wars

[Scrameustache]

if einstein became a creationist after his exposition of relativity, does that detract from his earlier genius?

if edmund hilary fell down a flight of stairs, does that detreact from the fact he climbed mount everest?

i don't understand a way of evaluating people that somehow their accomplishments are diminished by later missteps

You're right! Hitler SHOULD be remembered as an ok painter. Doesn't matter if he did a thing or two later on that got some bad press.

John Wilkes Booth: Remembered as the famous actor that he was, not for one teensy tiny misstep he might had near the end of his life.

Good idea

Re:More concise...

[Simon80]

I second this. It seems possible that the submitter hasn't actually watched the Episode 1 review he linked to. Anyone who thinks it couldn't possibly be worth 70 minutes of their time will realize they are mistaken after 5-10 minutes.

Re:More concise...

[skatepark builder]

Simon,

Actually, I watched that review a week ago and thoroughly enjoyed it. That guy echoes a lot of observations I had quietly held as my own, but also provides very tangible explanations of where George Lucas utterly failed to craft a proper story. It's so much more than a "What were you thinking, man! Jar-Jar?!?! You IDIOT!" rant. I think it's kind of funny that this commentary piece is nearly identical in size to the subject it's based on, and that's why I made the "concise" reference. But I agree it's fully worth watching for anyone who is interested in films as more than an excuse to eat popcorn in the dark. It's one reason I'm eager to see the People vs George Lucas.

Skatepark Builder

Re:No, your kids did NOT love them.

[Anonymous Coward]

Indeed. Is McHammer some sort of Irish rapper who wears a super baggy kilt?

I think you mean Scottish

that hitler was a painter

[circletimessquare]

or booth an actor doesn't matter, since neither endeavours are the most momentous things they ever did

star wars is the most momentous thing lucas ever did

hitler would be remembered as a painter, if he did nothing else of interest or moment after being a painter

meanwhile, i thought it was funny to see an ad for "pirhanha 3D" before watching avatar. why? because cameron started his career with the "piranha ii" movie. if cameron got hit by a car or decided to become a painter in 1982, "piranha ii" would be the movie he would be remembered by. not terminator. not titanic. not avatar. but since terminator, titanic, and now avatar are far more impressive than piranha ii, we forget all about piranha ii. and in 50 years, cameron will be known primarily as the guy who directed "avatar", and even terminator and titanic will fade in relevance to that, UNLESS cameron directs a move even more impressive than avatar, then he'll be remembered for whatever that movie is

get it? its the MOST IMPRESSIVE thing you do in life you are remembered for. that really is the truth

which nullifies your comment completely about hitler and booth, and reinforces my comment about eintstein and hilary, and lucas, and cameron