Slashdot Mirror


George Lucas Criticizes the Force Awakens (theguardian.com)

RogueyWon writes: While many critics have responded positively to JJ Abrams's take on Star Wars, one particular industry figure seems rather less impressed. George Lucas has criticized the "retro" tone of The Force Awakens and lamented his own lack of involvement in it. Speaking to television talk-show host and journalist Charlie Rose, Lucas quipped that he had sold his "kids to the white slavers that take these things". "They wanted to do a retro movie. I don’t like that,” he said. “They weren’t that keen to have me involved anyway, but if I get in there, I’m just going to cause trouble, because they’re not going to do what I want them to do. And I don’t have the control to do that any more, and all I would do is muck everything up. And so I said, ‘OK, I will go my way, and I’ll let them go their way.’”

6 of 562 comments (clear)

  1. Re:God I hate to say this, but by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 2, Informative

    The problem is, we've seen the kinds of films that this filmmaker would tend to make... And they were crap.

  2. Plinkett Reviews - Lays the smack down on Lucas. by Fragnet · · Score: 4, Informative

    The Plinkett Reviews of Star Wars are as long as the movies, far more entertaining and completely hilarious.

  3. Re:God I hate to say this, but by malditaenvidia · · Score: 5, Informative

    My problem with all this, and the tentative point where I agree with Lucas, is that it seems a strange new world where the creator of a work is locked out of its further development simply because a corporation stepped in with $4B's and bought all rights and control of it. In other words, when a work of art becomes too popular it is in danger of becoming a mere franchise.

    Oh but that's exactly what Lucas did. He wasn't responsible for all of this work, he was only the screenwriter. A new hope was a horrible mess until his then wife saved it in editing. Neither Empire or Return were directed by him. The puppetry that gave the series one of its most memorable characters had nothing to do with George, neither did Empire's script, or Lucasfilm's special effects, or Ford, Fisher and Hamill's acting.
    This legacy wasn't his work, yet he owned every single bit about it, took it upon himself to absolutely ruin movies he didn't direct with post and then he sold all of it for an absurd amount of money. Your outrage should be directed at George, who absolutely fucked up these movies which were not his work, sometimes just to spite his fans, for the hell of it.

    I bet you loved that "Jedi rocks" music video added in the special edition of Return of the Jedi, or Hayden Christiansen being added to the ending of the DVD edition as a force ghost. He even added Jar-Jar's voice to the very end of Return, a movie he didn't direct, just to spite all the people who hated his stupid cartoon rabbit. He also made Darth Vader yell "NOOOOOOOoooo" while throwing Sheev down the shaft in the BluRay release. I'll bet good money he named Palpatine "Sheev" as a final middle finger to his fans.
    Seriously, if someone is responsible for messing with other people's work and appropriating it, it's George himself.
    Hell, and that's without even going into those prequel abominations. You also point out how Star Wars is just becoming to popular and a franchise, when this was George's goal from the very beginning, securing the merchandise rights from 20th Century FOX in exchange for a smaller cut. Star Wars was designed from the very start to be a marketing campaign, not a work of art. Whatever artistry was involved in it, had barely anything at all to do with George.

  4. Re:Yeah yeah by Art3x · · Score: 3, Informative

    Why did you sell it? Take your money and shut up

    George's response is taken out of context. Charlie Rose brought it up. George mainly said that he had to stay away, so he didn't "muck it up." Mucking it up is a self-deprecating description. He's trying to keep it light.

    He did send one vague criticism, that he did say that he would have repeated less. Of course he feels that way. He has been there, done that. Directors get sick of a movie halfway through making it. Artists in general want to keep exploring new stuff.

    Even I was like, another Death Star, really?

  5. Re:God I hate to say this, but by Penguinisto · · Score: 5, Informative

    This! A zillion times this!

    Okay aside from my biggest peeve ("a bigger, badder death star that can inexplicably be destroyed in way less time!") was the lack of balance between character development and action.

    Sure, they did try (well, sort of) to develop most of the individual new characters, but really - why would any of the new characters give a flying frig about each other? That aspect of the plot barely held together, with a few split seams showing here and there (enough to disturb the experience).

    Example of a 'split seam': They spent so little time on the Kylo Ren dude (okay, they just flat-out set him up wrong), that he was less of a badass, and more like a bipolar emo kid with daddy issues. I mean, Vader had a fucking *presence* about him when he walked into the room - enough to see palpable fear emanating from all the other actors in the room. You knew right up front that he was a badass. Even in the misbegotten eps I-III, you still had a sufficient-if-not-quite-Vader level of badassery going on w/ Maul. But Kylo Ren? The phrase "punk bitch trying to prove himself on day one in prison" kept popping up. Sheesh. (okay, rant over on that one...)

    But yeah - the whole thing came off as less of a movie and more of a fanfic, truth be told.

    --
    Quo usque tandem abutere, Nimbus, patientia nostra?
  6. Re:Yeah yeah by Anonymous Coward · · Score: 5, Informative

    >

    Now, there's nothing that will make me forgive Disney for what they did to their IT people. No amount of good film will make up for that.

    I can't forgive them for how they pushed for longer and longer copyrights. The idea was for a limited term, so the public could use that material later. Now things are ever more locked into the company that gets the IP, so rather than a net benefit to the public over time it is a net benefit to the IP holder over time, and not by a small amount. Such draconian terms stifle innovation.

    Don't get me wrong. Copyright has its place, as long as it is finite. Ten to twenty percent of the lifespan of the average man or women seems more reasonable than this death plus however many years, which in itself is liable to be extended, again.

    Of course their obvious evil with their IT workers is also a good reason to hate them. I'll probably see the new movie, but maybe I'll wait till it is on netflix.