Slashdot Mirror
Sellout: George Lucas in HypeSpace
A couple of months ago, Rob (CmdrTaco) Malda and I were trading e-mail about "Star Wars: Phantom Menace." He gracelessly reminded me that even though he?d seen "Star Wars" 100 times or so, he hadn?t seen it in a movie theater when it first came out (he would have been in diapers) and I had.
Alas, this is so. And given the insane commercial and media hype surrounding "Phantom Menace," I?m the lucky one. (This isn?t a review - I haven?t seen the movie yet.)
The original "Star Wars" came as something of a shock when it appeared two decades ago. It was promoted, of course, but before the age of Mega Hype it was possible to discover a great movie, rather than have one rammed down your throat and into every other orifice.
And the original "Star Wars" was discovered by transfixed nerds and movie lovers. It was a weird movie, half fairy tale and half comic book, yet a very human and accessible one. It proved an instant smash with almost everyone, ordinary ticket buyers along with the non-normal. It celebrated science fiction, technology and heroic oddballs all at once.
A pre -Web movie, fans had fewer ways of spreading the word, but the raves got around. The movie?s genuine stars were technology, animation, imagination and special effects. But in other ways, it was a very old story: the young man or woman called to a great adventure, one in which his community?s survival was at stake. He battles the forces without, but first has to conquer the ones within.
For eons, in various forms from Hercules and the Trojan war to "High Noon" to Batman, this idea has been an elemental myth in virtually every culture. Do we have what it takes to confront evil when it arises and threatens us and the people we love? Will we do the right thing, and comport ourselves with honor and dignity?
The power of myth permeated the original "Star Wars", and not by accident. George Lucas credited the late mythologist Joseph Campbell as a major inspiration for characters like Luke Skywalker and Darth Vader, and even invited Campbell, an academic and writer, to a special screening to view the "Stars Wars" trilogy at Lucas? Skywalker ranch in California.
The journalist Bill Moyers was there at the screening, too, and later recalled that Campbell "reveled in the ancient themes and motifs of mythology unfolding on the wide screen in powerful, contemporary images." Campbell, Moyers remembered, especially exulted aloud in the fact that Lucas had put an up-to-date spin on the timeless hero/quest.
"And what is that?" asked Moyers.
"It?s what Goethe said in Faust but which Lucas has dressed in modern idiom - the message that technology is not going to save us. Our computers, our tools, our machines are not enough. We have to rely on our intuition, our true being."
Campbell also loved the Darth Vader character - the dark and evil man in the mask - as a staple of mythology dating back to ancient wall scribblings.
"Darth Vader," he told Moyers in a later interview, "has not developed his own humanity. He?s a robot. He?s a bureaucrat, living not in terms of himself but in terms of an imposed system. This is the threat to our lives that we all face today. Is the system going to flatten you out and deny your humanity, or are you going to be able to make use of the system so that you are not compulsively serving it?"
Re-reading this interview in "Joseph Campbell, The Power of Myth," I couldn?t help thinking that twenty years later, that Lucas has lost touch with the spirit of his own creation.
Vader would now be out on the network in the employ of some giant corporation, or maybe a gargantuan tel-com, directing the Hype machine and pushing around the competition. Bill Gates doesn?t make it as a truly menacing figure who wants to hurt people, but the mammoth corporatism he has come to embody is creepy enough. It invokes empire, and hovers above us all like some giant spaceship, just waiting to plop down and squash us. And it definitely evokes a system that denies humanity.
Mostly, what I recall about the first Star Wars was the almost spine-tingling sense of simplicity, menace and drama.
There was the first appearance of Lord Vader, the ironic and deflating presence of Harrison Ford?s Han Solo (who, along with R2D2, kept the movie from getting too pompous or heavy-handed), and that curiously emotional moment when Ben Kenobi says to Luke: "Turn off your computer, turn off your machine and do it yourself, follow your feelings, trust your feelings."
And when he did, it worked. Luke rode a crippled, defenseless machine into a Death Star to save the world, and in the end, rose above all the machinery to get the job done. The dozen or so times that I saw the movie, that moment always brought the loudest applause.
If the original "Star Wars" invoked the power of myth, Phantom Menace invokes the power of hype. Lucas has shamelessly sold his soul, thus that of his movie, to magazine editors, TV producers, toy-makers, pizza and fried-chicken purveyors, and the massive corporations cranking out toys, books, calendars and videos. There?s almost no piece of Lucas?s story that he wasn?t happy to peddle to the highest bidder. One can only imagine how many - unlike the original figures -- were created with marketing tie-ins in mind. On May 3, Toys "R" Us sold 1.25 million units of "Phantom" products. According to Entertainment Weekly, tie-ins from the movie will probably represent the biggest event in the history of the toy business.
This week, Pepsi-affiliated Taco Bell, Pizza Hut and Kentucky Fried Chicken began a months- long, TV-saturated, cross-promotional campaign. Each restaurant will be turned into one of the planets in the movie. Each will have its own toys "that can?t be found anywhere else." KFC gets the Jar Jar Binks Squirter, Taco Bell the Anakin Skywalker Transforming Bank, and Pepsi itself is offering four separate commemorative soda cans. There are rumors that Yoda himself will soon be on the tube, guzzling pop.
Is that Lucas message, the point of one of the great creative works in all of popular culture? Get as much as you can? Embrace the bigness and squeeze it for every last nickel?
Yuk. This kind of hype isn?t just about making a few bucks. It?s about manipulating children in the name of greed and influence. It?s about ego and cash. This round, we?re not allowed to discover a great work; we?re nearly beaten to death with it, and it?s calculatedly cute, most profitable and commercial manifestations.
The cacophony is demeaning to Lucas and to his film and insulting to his audience. It?s hard to know which would be worse: if "Phantom Menace" is a great movie defiled by Lucas and his marketing tie-ins or, if it?s a crummy movie lost in the cloud of hype.
Every big movie arrives in a cloud of tie-ins, toy promotions and fast-food marketing schemes these days. Lucas can?t be blamed for that. But if any producer every claimed that his movies were not like all the others, it?s Lucas. The gross commercialism of the pre-Phantom Menace campaign has gone way beyond the usual hard sell, especially given that he has worked to studiously to invoke the image of the pure, independent, anti-Hollywood producer, holed up in his far-from-LA compound in the interest of art and integrity.
Lucas himself has graced the cover of Wired and even corrupted Popular Mechanics (which refers to "film genius" George Lucas) and the films? various stars have fanned out to be photographed for the covers of Time, Newsweek, Premiere, and Vanity Fair. This doesn?t count the barrage of TV appearances ("60 Minutes", et al) scheduled to be unleashed this week.
And for good measure, he?s turned a chunk of the Web into a giant, teeming fanzine and Star Wars shopping mart. X-Files and Buffy sites are crammed with adoring fans too, but they aren?t droid like. They can also be independent, creative and original - their members sometimes writing original episodes when their programs are in hiatus, sometimes even breaking news the producers don?t want to get out. But many of the Star Wars sites are simply worshipful, the movie a faith rather than an imaginative amusement.
Contrast the irony of the man who loudly prohibits any form of advertising in or around his movie in theaters with the one behind money-grubbing sales outlets like the Amazon.com Star Wars Store. The one behind the "paper-engineered" Pit or Battle droid display that can be ordered with the purchase of any of the scores of "Star Wars" titles, calendars, toddler books, paper-action figures and other paraphernalia being sold in chains and books stores.
Lucas himself seems tired of his humble origins, eager to shed his geeky roots, to come in from his self-imposed cold and join the pantheon of mainstream, big-time Hollywood producers. In his interviews, he?s gone to great pains to cast himself as a normal (read: non-geek) guy, sitting at his California breakfast table, appearing in most of his interviews in a plaid shirt, talking about his kids, his digital backlot and his past life as a Hollywood rebel.
Seems like he?s embracing some myth off-screen, too. These days Lucas seems as much of a rebel as Bill Gates, and even more greedy.
The truth is, director James Cameron of "Titanic" (probably not as nice a guy, by most accounts) showed a lot more courage and rebelliousness in the making of his movie. He actually risked forgoing his share of the profits in order to go over budget to make the kind of movie he wanted. "Titanic," was plenty hyped, but Cameron knew to stay away from Pizza Hut, and avoided Lucas? holier-than-thou posture.
Is hype without limit or shame or any shred of dignity? Isn?t there some boundary between a lot of bucks and every buck? Nobody needs that much money, and the avalanche of toys and tie-ins has already obscured the power of myth that suffused the original "Star Wars," no matter how good "Phantom Menace" is or isn?t. We should have been prepared by the end of the trilogy: remember those revolting Ewoks?
"Star Wars" was a breathtakingly original idea in its day, but for all the intergalactic battles, the original movie stayed refreshingly grounded. Ford?s Han Solo was constantly smirking at all the chatter about the Force, Princess Leiea was stuck with that awful hair, and the Empire?s white plastic foot soldiers were profoundly cartoony. The movie never forgot that it was a simple story at heart - high stakes, good guys versus bad guys, the real weapons being good hearts and plenty of guts.
Reeling under the deluge of magazine covers last week - the final straw for me was Vogue?s "exclusive" spread on "Star Wars Couture," complete with the outfits Natalie Portman wears around the Planet Naboo -- I told my family last week that I was considering skipping the movie. A protest against hype. My wife and daughter laughed.
They?re right, of course. I?ll go, eventually. But I?m glad I did get to see "Star Wars" the first time around, in a very different context.
It?s probably just as well that Joseph Campbell died before "Phantom Menace" appeared. It?s hard to believe he?d feel the same way that he did about the original: "?the movie communicates. It is in a language that talks to young people, and that?s what counts. It asks, Are you going to be a person of heart and humanity - because that?s where the life is, from the heart - or are you going to do whatever seems to be required of you by what might be called ?intentional power?"?
"Phantom Menace raises a different set of issues. Here?s Pepsi?s pitchman Hal Oates: "If you mail one of the Yoda cans back to us," he says on TV, "you?ll get a special collector?s check worth $20 - or you can hold onto the can for the future."
The next generation deserved better. Lucas has proven to be yet another sell-out and spin-meister, his hypocritical posturing collapsing under the weight of Toys ?R Us royalties and inter-galactic pizza.
Actually, metallica DID sell out. Members of the band have admitted that they needed the money that the mainstream-type music offers.
Nicely written, Jon, but while I am WAY sick by the whole hype and commercialism myself, I think it is simply a corroboration of the old syaing that 'Absolute Power Corrupts Absolutely'.
*ANY* Star Wars sequel would have such incredible hype to live up to, that it would be impossible to meet any expectations of the fans - couple that with the incredible, overwhelming runaway marketing in the interest of the allmighty $$$ these days, I believe it would be hardly possible for any of us to resist the temptation of being abused...
In the end, the proof will be in the pudding, or rather in the theatres. Either Lucas has provided content that his audience will accept, in that case all of the hype and marketing won't matter - or the movie will not do as well as expected (it will still make tons of $$$), and Lucas has the opportunity to do better in the next two.
In the end, one thing to consider is that all of us were much younger when we saw Star Wars, and most of us have grown up in the interim - this comes, unfortunately, with other expectations and points of view.
Lucas points out, repeatedly, that his movies are for kids. *WE* were kids when we saw Star Wars, and what kids like, or how to present it to them HAS changed in the past 20 years.
We *WANT* Star Wars to feel as fresh when we see TPM as when we saw Episode IV, but, sadly, that simply won't happen. The best we can hope for is to get back in touch with that 14 year old in the back of us, and enjoy the ride.
Harry
harry@spotfans.com
I, for one, admire Bill Gates. Getting to the point in his career where he can lay down the rules to the IT machine; dictating what standards users must adhere to in order to use his software; maintaining tight control over his licenses.
It is an envious position to be in. But I don't wish I were him. I don't know why.
AC
With regard to the merchandising, you can't make the comparison between the old Star Wars, the new Stars Wars, or even Titanic. When the original Star Wars came out, there was no precendence. It was a low-budget movie, and they barely finished the movie. You can't tell me that there were no product tie-ins with ROtJ, what with all the Ewoks 'n stuff. And how are you going to merchandise Titanic? Your very own sinking ship?? It's completely different. James Cameron had to gave up his directing share of the profit because he is using someone elses' money. Lucas used his own money to bankroll the entire project. He has every right to sell merchandise from the movie in any way he sees fit. Notice that commercials for the product tie-ins did not appear until May. A typical Disney hype begins almost and entire YEAR before with product tie-ins and posters/poster boards in movie theaters. Phantom Menace posters were only available from their web site, and poster boards did not appear in movie theaters 'till well after the 2nd trailer came out.
I am sure there will be those who says all the restrictions on the actors to talk about the movie, and the tight control he exhibits over ever aspect of the movie is aimed at generating hype. Perhaps. But that's just one point of view. It could also be seen as a man trying to do the right thing, and not ruin his own vision.
That whole bit about technology. If Lucas had completed the movies as they were, why bother with a 2nd edition? Obviously it was because he never did put his vision into the original movie. Now that he can, he utilizes all that is within his power to make the vision come true. Technology corrupts, but only if you become dependent on it. Vader became completely dependent on it, but Luke still uses technology as much as he can. So does Lucas. He is not selling out to technology, he is making sure he can tell the story the way he wants it to be told. Only in this way can his dream be fully fulfilled.
AC
You should check out Excessive Use of the Force, a review of the Star Wars special edition by Jonathan Rosenbaum. He is the film critic of the Chicago Reader and IMO one of the most knowledgeable film writers in the world.
Jon, you're really missing the point badly. With luck I'll not waste too much time replying to this and will sum it up in one post: ;P ): Zappa was another artist able to produce very extensive, elaborate and well-funded artworks by locking in to the business game and making it work on his own terms. Zappa fought record companies all his life, but he was not a monk, or a hippie- he was a _businessman_ and that is how he financed his art. Lucas is a businessman too, and I personally consider it ludicrous that you criticize the exact skills that allow him to _make_ Phantom Menace exactly how he wants- movies are _very_ expensive, much more than record albums, and the man wouldn't have _shipped_ the movie were it not for his ability to turn hype to his own ends and get companies to pay for his artistic freedom.
You did tremendous hype on RTTM. Lucas is doing more tremendous hype on Phantom Menace.
The problem here is that you're behaving like hype is some kind of moral crime. I'd love to see Frank Zappa debate you on the subject (he's dead but might still win
No-one is making you buy Jar Jar Binks cup-holders, and in fact you are suffering from an annoying boomer trait, which is the assumption that most of the world are peasants who just consume what they're told to consume, and that there are _spiritual_ _elites_ which understand the triviality of modern life. This is insulting and wrong- as near as I can tell, most people, rich, poor, smart or dumb, have a native savvy that's enough to tell them what hype is, and they see no reason to be _angry_ or _betrayed_ by it- what do you expect from corporations, anyway? Dignity? _Apple_ had that for awhile (sort of) and it near kilt them off entirely.
Your smug pride in not getting paid is strictly the product of a wealthy dilettante, and if you had to wonder where your food money was coming from for the end of the month, you'd be less pompous about Jar Jar Binks Toilet Paper... or maybe you'd be more pompous, but frankly it's hard to imagine why you didn't simply vote 'pissing me off' in the Slashdot PM Hype poll and be done with it. This article is poorer than any recent article you've done, capped off by the fact that you won't even see the movie. I'd think you might at least see it and watch for product placement opportunities >;)
Right, moderate this down- I just had to get that off my chest. From the instant I saw the teaser I knew Katz was running amok again, and it turned out to be quite true. *feh* hippie!
"Never trust the storyteller; trust only the story." -- Neil Gaiman, _Sandman_ issue 38.
Mashed potatoes can be your friends!
I saw this one fact in Newsweek:
"Amount spent on advertising for The Phantom Menace: $0"
Lucas spent some big $$$ to make the movie but HE himself hasn't spent a DIME on advertising . . .
If I had a product and big time ad agencies and other establish big name brand types came to me and said "We're gonna advertise your movie on EVERYTHING we have . . and get this . . you won't have to pay a thing . . you know, we'll even PAY YOU to let us !"
I think he would be a FOOL not to take that offer!
Be it business or not, who can say NO to that !
And one more thing . . .
Control IS Power ! (as long as it's used for good)
Think of the Lucas thing . . the Orsen Wells thing with Citizen Kane . . . Mark McGuire home runs . . . all of the power came from CONTROL.
No one seems to understand that . . .
Just my TWO PESOS and a SHOT of CUERVO.
I find myself in disagreement with John Katz much of the time, on a wide variety of subjects, but this time I would have to say I agree with much of what he's saying in this article.
I saw Star Wars when it first came out; I was nine years old at the time. I liked it, and liked Empire a bit more. I disliked ROTJ. As I grew older, and read more books, both science-fiction and non-science-fiction, I started to become more and more disenchanted with the Star Wars movies.
I am especially dubious about the Star Wars movies because of their attempts to push their synthetic mythology on people. I have actually gained familiarity with the original stories and myths, and philosophies, that Lucas drew on to create his stories, and frankly, the original myths are much better. The whole mythos of the Force, which seems like an attempt to weld together Manicheism and Taoism in an inappropriate fashion, is IMHO very misguided.
I think most of the people here are perfectly capable of reading about Taoism or Christianity or Homer or what have you on their own, and will find it more fulfilling than Lucas' synthetic feel-good attempt to combine all of them.
Personally, I think there's only one really good movie in recent years about mythology and "mythic themes," and I would recommend that everyone here see it: The Secret of Roan Inish.
And although I didn't agree with everything in the essay, Neal Stephenson's In The Beginning Was The Command Line has many interesting observations on the Synthetic Culture business. He also touches on a lot of the same topics in Cryptonomicon, which I'm currently reading.
ps: Jon, thanks for finally coming through and validating my decision not to put you in my Slashdot "kill-file" equivalent.
Phil Fraering "Humans. Go Fig." - Rita
(currently testing something about signatures here)
Re: 'Discovering' a movie - I always like that. When you go to see something a friend said was pretty good and come out knowing that only a few of you (so far) know about it. Unfortunately, movies are now positioned as 'sleeper hits' - to try and capitalise on this. No longer will a movie be released to an unsuspecting market place, it'll be marketed as 'unknown'.
Perhaps it'll drive more people into art-house cinemas, where they can rediscover plot, characterisation, and genuinely innovative moviemaking.
I'll stop short of a call to boycott 'The Phantom Menace' (hell, I'm still going to see it when it finally opens in the UK) but if I keep hearing 'it's the movie of the millenium' (another pet peeve - the cinema is only just over 100 years old) I might wait for the next millenium.
In the meantime, go see something arty. It won't hurt you, and it'll give you something to think about.
Liked this comment? Why not buy me something nice
The New York Post reports that Lucas is as disatisfied with the hype as anyone, but the article talks mostly about out-of-hand fans.
I blame the marketers and licensees, but fortunately, I've been immune to the hype: I don't have a television, and my embargo on Episode I news, gossip and talk has been very successful. Katz's piece is not about the movie, really, which why I'm here.
Wordnik, a dictionary project which aims to collect
A few notes on selling out:
1) Usually, selling out involves blatantly
reversing one's previously stated position.
2) Selling out (if we must use that term) always
includes not only a change in one's public persona,
but altering one's art to fit someone else's
ideas.
Now, let's take Lucas. I see nowhere in Katz's
article where he cites Lucas explicitly stating
that he will not do promotions with fastfood
places, etc. This is all based on incredibly vague
implications as seen by Katz about the "myth" of
Star Wars, and the assertion that somehow these
things that have nothing to do with the movie
itself degrade the quality of the art.
Of course, none of this can be backed up by
pointing out examples in the actual movie, as
we haven't seen it yet. But Jon Katz still feels
the need to make blatantly ignorant statements
on the subject and defile a man whose work in the
past has been impeccable. I'll admit that I tend
to find Jon Katz's writings rather puerile and
generally foolish, this kind of attack on someone's
character shocks even me.
--
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
Kevin Doherty
kdoherty+slashdot@jurai.net
It's all overhyped yes. Here's the solution:
Commercial for something star wars comes on, hit mute. Or change the station.
Dont go to Pizza Hut.
Dont go to Taco Hell.
Dont buy Pepsi (yuck anyway).
Dont buy an action figure.
Dont buy Star Wars shaving cream (no shit, there I was, in Walmart... )
Dont buy any of the souvenirs at all.
Dont write about it and hype it even more.
and last but not least,
Dont go and see the freaking movie!
Of course, if you dont go see the movie, that will be an article you'll miss out on writing.
BTW, I'm puzzled, you say in another post that you didnt get money for RttM? And yet you're promoting it on C-span and here and other shows.... who's getting that money? You're getting nothing? How is it that you make your living?
So... sorry we won't hear that TPM review from you Jon, since you won't be seeing the overhyped movie. Or maybe I'm sorry I will see that review.
-- There is no sig line, only Zuul.
Note that I have no idea of the truth to that rumor, but it would really be too bad. The Star Wars RPG has been pretty much universally acknowledged as one of the best systems ever made, and the universe really lends itself to role-playing. I have a group of friends with whom I have played since college, and we still have folks who fly in occasionally just to play.
It's interesting - one of the problems may be that the RPG was *too* successful. The authors for the books have openly acknowledged that they go to the RPG references for information about the Star Wars universe. The universe has probably grown more from the RPG than just about any other source. It seems like some of Lucas' control issues may play into not wanting the universe to be arbitrarily expanded by other people, as it has been.
In reference to Mr. Katz' column, I agree with a lot of what he says. I've been trying not to get too depressed about the seeming corporate onslaught, and also with some other seeming nastiness coming from the Lucas empire (notably, check out Daily Sci-Fi for the story of what happened when they tried to run a fairly innocuous little ticket giveaway contest). I guess the most depressing thing about this is the harsh reminder that this is only a movie, and that Lucas is still just the head of a corporation. I guess we all wanted to believe it and he were somehow more than that. I keep hoping I'll see some sign of that being the case, but as yet, that hasn't been the case.
On the other hand, the control regarding theaters and such has, I think, been mostly to Lucas' credit, and he has relented when it seemed to be in the fans best interest (i.e., buying advanced tickets). It really does appear that he was trying to make sure that everyone had a good experience seeing the movie, rather than seeing it on what is essentially a big-screen TV with bad sound, as a lot of theaters are. We need to give credit where credit is due there.
To sum up, I'm still very excited about seeing the movie, but a little of the magic has gone out of it for me, which just makes me sad. My only hope is that Lucas will see some of this and take it into consideration for Episode 2. I would certainly love to have him prove us all wrong.
Hope everyone has a good time at the film...
--Derek
It seems as if Katz has a definite blind spot regarding recent history: he has (incorrectly) regarded Bill Gates as a celebrity of the 80's who seized upon the Internet, now he is downplaying Star Wars to a "sleeper film" that was "underpublicized" because there was no World Wide Web in which to spread the word. The fact that he isn't twenty years old makes this more shocking. ;-) dead-end ;;-)) series on TV called "Happy Days". Spielburg had already done another "sleeper" (athem) about some sashimi odori called "Jaws" that in my school, was *the* movie to avoid (no lie) for being a "typically overhyped piece of studio and commercial manipulation". So when everyone started *raving* about a film that seemed to have nothing going for it but some special effects and a heroine who didn't act like a damsel in distress, I held off. And held off. It stayed in the theaters for about a year. (Really, it did.) Some people saw it a dozen and more times.
OK, well, let's see: as I recall, I didn't see Star Wars at first since I thought it was overhyped, and I don't think that the Web is (yet) so big of a Force in peoples' lives that they won't hear about something without it. In 1977, Lucas had already scored big with a little film called "American Graffiti", which begat a short-lived
Breaking down, I finally saw it...and was conquered. No, it's not deep. No, it doesn't really do much more than rehash classic space opera in a new, jazzy, package with some added new twists. BUT, nothing else looked like it, not even 2001. After years of "normal" looking folks bumbling around with cloudy intentions in movies, these people looked and behaved like Gods and Goddesses (even the aliens and droids). The sets avoided sterotyped Art Decoish sets and the "too new" look of whiz-bang SF (or most film and TV, for that matter) for a grungy universe where there was dust and dirt everywhere, where things seemed to have a past, a present, and a future, and most of the aliens, sets and costumes looked like nothing anyone had ever seen before. Never mind it had ships making noise in space. It was a feast!
It was also the first film, I think, that engendered a lifestyle. Previous to this, there had been great films (Gone With The Wind), endlessly repeated films (Wizard of OZ), and even revered films (Citizen Kane), but no one ever dressed up as Charles Foster Kane for anything but a Guess Who I Am? costume party, or quoted whole scenes from OZ from memory, or took bits and pieces of Gone With The Wind out of context as being Guiding Philosophies in Life. (To do so would have seemed like writing Dr. Kildare for advice about a suspected cancer.) Within a year, however, Princess Leia wigs were a huge seller, earth-toned tunics-and-leggings-with-boots became an instant fashion classic, people quoted the dialog verbatim at the drop of a hat, and ministers in the pulpit spoke approvingly of Obi-Wan's guidance and wisdom. It engendered books, cartoons, radio drama, comics, arcade games, board games, and made George Lucas rich beyond all dreams of old Hollywood.
That said,its not at all surprising Joseph Campbell spoke of it : it's like hearing a middle-aged English prof quote Madonna. As for its philosophy, it seems like nothing more than recycled Zen Buddhism and Christianized Tao, with a lick of hippie portentiousness thrown in (Lucas has said that he first contacted the Force while convalescing from a concussion.) To say that its message is that "technology cannot solve our problems" is like saying that Dorothy learned nothing from her experience/dream but the futility of trying to move out of Kansas: here Campbell seems to be cleaving to the time-honored aristocratic/intellectual tradition of denigrating the New (with its confusing machinery) in favor of the Old (which left such matters to the servants, dahling) while the real issue is something like "your instincts can work more adaptably than logic" (If he'd really wanted Luke to abandon technology, then why didn't he have Luke fight with an actual sword, instead of some glorified flashlight?) While left brained logic was a specialty of the computation of 1977, right brained functions (or simulations thereof) are the new frontier of the 90's. That said, I wonder how Campbell would have responded to my news and sales agents being able to pick out what I might like as well as an old-time sales clerk, or to computer-generated animations that indistinguishably simulate the "organic" motion of a flock of birds, or a school of fish.
It's also intreguing to note the values he assigns to the Bright and Dark sides of the Force. In 1977, it was still a given that heroic individuals = good, while society = bad. Nowadays, we would talk about Darth being a representative of an upstart authoritarian society that champions the selfish will to individual power (Darth's posture as he kneels to the Emperor looks anything but humble) while Luke is a rootless orphan who comes to realize the value of the continuity of tradition and of subduing his selfish wants and desires to a greater community. (That he also gets to run away from home, hang out with a pretty girl (before he knows this is incest), and have the cheers of a vast auditorium is immaterial.) Neither of these views is hard-and-fast reliable in my humble opinion: organic relations to one's homeland were one basis of Nazi philosophy, and remain a problem in Kosovo right now, while "heroic" Bill Gates (who defied his competators, his old boss, and even the United States Government) is now pitted against the "beaurocratic" and "collectivist" Linux community, with its operating system that was based on something from AT&T, for krissake! Unlike THX 1138, Star Wars was an effort that required lots of teamwork and lots of individual vision, and I don't think that the prequel is going to be any less awesome for that.
Damn, I wasn't going to write this much. sorry.
teleny, friend of cats.
argh. you make me sick with your anger. how can you become so enraged at these people? they certainly aren't hurting anything, and they certainly aren't hurting you personally. i can't comprehend the source of your intensity on this issue. you claim these people have been brainwashed. they must have brainwashed themselves, because there hasn't exactly been a glut of pre-release hype for this film. these people are big fans of star wars, what exactly is your problem with that? and then you go on to say that this "hype engine" producing the phantom menace could be used to endorse racism or genocide? poppycock, i say, that is pure conjecture, and such a leap of logic that i can't even comprehend how you came to such a conclusion. again, lucasfilm has not been overhyping this film. a few trailers, a few posters is all i've seen from them. the fans are zealous, because they care about this movie. who are you to point at them and say "don't care about that!"? i think you need to take a look at why these little things get you so incensed, and maybe try some breathing excersizes to calm down, or something to that effect.
I'm so sick of the hype. I mean, how much more shameless can you get than having taco bell, and the KFC guy in a star wars commercial. Really now, it's blindingly obvious the reality won't live up to the hype, and millions of geeks will try to cram in may 19th to see.. a movie.
This isn't a life-altering event, this isn't going to solve world hunger, promote peace on earth and good will towards men.. it's a movie.
I'll go see it after everybody else has. I won't be there at midnight listening to a bunch of 13 year old kids cheering whenever Yoda appears on the screen, and throwing popcorn arond. No, I'm going to enjoy it with a group of my friends well after all those people are done trashing the place. And it'll be a better experience for me as well.
--
#1) This is simply not true. Capitalism (with an a - the word capitol refers to three things: Washington, D.C., the Roman temple of Jupiter, where the Senate met, or a U.S. statehouse (where a state legislature meets), according to Webster) isn't necessarily the best thing in the world. Pure capitalism can be synonymous with pure evil due to the nature of human being. Simply because this is true doesn't mean we should embrace it. However, capitalism and art are two things that generally should stay apart. As an artist, you should realize this because:
To maintain artistic integrity, one has to be free of the forces of censorship and repression, at least insofar as being "free" to say what you will or draw or photograph what you will, etc. Capitulating to the demands of *anything* can be shown to mean that you've lost some of your artistic integrity.
Which brings us to Star Wars. Now, admittedly, I'm not as into the hype as some of the other people in the world, nor am I one of those who follows Star Wars as a religion. That aside, not only is it tacky to put images from your movie on disposable plastic cups, lunch boxes, toys, magazine covers, etc., but it violates artistic integrity because the case can me made that, when such merchandising follows so quickly on the heels of a movie (which is an art form), one has deliberately placed these objects into the movie strictly for marketing value, and, possibly removed images from the movie which were or could be construed to be disturbing, and contrary to the "goal" of making lots and lots of money.
To sum up and give yet another perspective on why capitalism and art are not two things that mix well, examine, if you will, the actor, the artist, and the whore. All of which perform their craft for the entertainment of others, for money. All of which, if they're supremely excellent, truly enjoy and believe in what they're doing. What actors, artists, etc., strive for is to not be that whore. That's why there is such a concept as artistic integrity. This is why Lucas doesn't meet this test and such could be referred to as a whore, because he sold himself for the money that promised to arrive. It's not evil to make money - far from it. But to sacrifice your integrity for that money - that's not right. This is the crux of what Katz attempts to argue. I'm inclined to believe that while the hype surrounding this film *is* pretty high, I still remember collecting Star Wars toys (and there were *plenty*) as a child. It's nothing new, but that doesn't make it right.
I mean if people are willing to pay all sorts of money for paraphanalia (sp?) and food in containers adorned in Star Wars characters, then more power to George so he can make more good movies. I've read and heard of the restrictions placed on manufacturers, resellers, advertisers, and anyone else who wants to use or sell Star Wars related gimmicks and products. Of course there's hype to end all hype...we've been waiting for 20 years!!! Considering the anticipation, I'm surprised there isn't more advertising and gimmicks. The only one I've seen thus far is the taco bell, pizza hut, and kfc commercial. I've seen displays in bookstores to sell the books, and I even bought the soundtrack. I haven't listened yet because I want to hear it in the theater first. What's amazing is the lack of promotion and advertising. I haven't seen a tv commercial for it yet, but every other major movie does. why not? Because it doesn't need it. Everyone knows, and everyone wants it so bad they can taste everyone else tasting it. Where is Lucas during all of this? He's keeping whatever grip he can on the way his vision is used. I will bet vital parts of my anatomy that if this was being run by a marketing guy, we'd be bombarded by advertising and gimmicks and merchandise. It's no worse than anyother major movie. ID4 had more promotion from what I remember.
Leave George alone so he'll finish it out and give us great memories.
damon
While I concede the points in your article, I really admire Lucas for getting to the point in his career where he can literally lay down the rules to the Hollywood machine.
From what I understand, Lucas financed TPM by himself; he has dictated what standards theatres must attain to show his movie; he has maintained tight control over his licensees. And through all this, he is beholden to no one other than himself, making exactly the movie HE wants with no other influence other than his desires.
In my mind, that's a pretty envious position to be in. *I* wish I had a job over which I had total, 100% control -- don't we all. Yes, he may be accused of playing the commercialization card to the hilt, but I'd rather have him do it than the Hollywood Menace.
As i recall, before the original Star Wars opened, George Lucas was going around the toy industry trying to get companies to back his star wars action figures. Most of the companies said that it wasn't what kids wanted, but George kept trying--until he hit Kenner (i think it was kenner--might have been Hasbro--shrug). They said ok and after star wars launched it created the action figures industry and whichever company it was that produced the action figures--they made a bazillion dollars.
My point being that George Lucas is not as you have portrayed him. Amongst other things, he is a business man and he is putting forth lots of effort to make money. Even back then though you may not have noticed it much.
I remember watching The Power of Myth and marvelling at the depth that Star Wars had through Joseph Campbell's eyes. But I wouldn't be surprised if Joseph Campbell helped make the Star Wars trilogy what it is today by instilling that mythological quality--and George Lucas just packaged it all together.
I really think that much of this mega-hype is planned. It's unfortunate that some of us got so sick of it months ago and now it's like you can't hardly sneeze without spraying some new Star Wars mega-hype fu-fu thing.
This is why works of fiction are not GPL'ed.
Artistic integrity is a very different animal from closed source.
iSKUNK!
OK. Jon makes some valid points about the whole Star Wars Saga(tm) and it's deep meanings, it's effect on us all, and for that I'll give him a little credit....
Mr. Lucas himself has stated several times that Lucasfilm *itself* has purposely kept the hype down to a minimum, on *their* end. And I would tend to agree that there could have been a LOT more hype. I don't think the hype surrounding this movie has been any worse than that accompanying, say, "Jurassic Park" or "Toy Story" or even "The Flintstones" a few years ago. The difference being that they all faded away into oblivion, whereas Star Wars will be remembered for years to come.
Now, back to the hype. The licensees and the news shows are the ones creating most of the hype out there. What have we seen from LFL? A couple of trailers, a few low-key, and sparsely played TV spots, and a music video. Meanwhile, Hasbro has saturated the Toy Stores, the Pizza/Taco/KFC trinity is lambasting us w/ their stuff....blame them, if you're going to blame anyone.
And re: the fans and their 'droid'like tendencies to worship rather than expand Star Wars in their own ways....There *are* plenty of fan-written chapters out there, have been for years. There is fan-art aplenty....etc, etc. And after all, why mess with perfection?
This ripping-on-the-fans stuff in the media as of late is getting old real fast. Now you've joined those ranks me friend.
Blech. Signatures.
Alright, I've stayed out of the Katz-flaming to date, but this one takes the f*cking cake.
Katz, in short,
WHAT THE HELL ARE YOU TALKING ABOUT?
How can you possibly put the previous Star Wars films up on some kind of holy pedestal, seemingly oblivious to any sort of "hype"...
Where WERE you 18 years ago, my friend? Were you on some far flung corner of the MOON? Were you not present for the many Burger King Glasses, the infinite toys, the Star Wars Popsicles, the T-shirts...WHERE WERE YOU?
This is NOTHING new!!!! Go find Mr. Peabody and jump in the old wayback machine to circa '79 or '80 when the hype was in full force. Hell I was only 8 or so then, and *I* remember it being all-consuming. It so consumed the passions of this entire country that the 'product' was in demand enough to warrant said 'product.'
This article is nothing but pure, sheer ignorance and inflammability, whether on purpose or out of true ignorance, I can't say. Sure you're right about SW being the 'modern myth' yadda yadda boom boom...and I agree fully.
BUT...don't try to tell George about how his artistic integrity is somehow violated because there are action figures and coloring books w/ his movies' marque on them. He'll be the first to tell you, while yes it is a modern myth, etc. etc., it's also just a Saturday afternoon serial....
....And every kid wants his Red-Ryder BB gun....
Blech. Signatures.
Regardless of whether he wants the hype or not, Star Wars is his movie. It's his creation. If he wants to hype it, he can.
Jon acts like Star Wars is something he owns. I'm rather happy to tell him that he's wrong.
As a friend of mine once said, "George Lucas could show two and a half hours of his hairy ass, and people would still go to see it." We care about Star Wars because of what it is. We certainly hope that SW:PM lives up to Episodes 4-6, but if they don't, we shouldn't feel cheated out of the experience. Lucas can do whatever he damn well wants with these movies.
Saying he is selling out is like saying Metallica sold out with their album Load. It certainly was different, and more mainstream. But if that's what they wanted to do with their music, that is THEIR choice. Saying they sold out because of it is your infantile way of saying they don't have a right to go the direction they want to go.
Now very few people can claim that seeing movies is their life, but it definitely is a hobby. First off, this isn't the first time people have slept in front of ticket counters to be assured tickets to something. And this won't be the last time.
However,
It is arguably the first time that people have slept in front of ticket counters to see a movie that is going to be seen on the very same screen thousands of times before it ends its first theatrical run some six months hence.
It is one thing to camp out for tickets for a one time event. Take a music concert for example. Your favorite artist might visit your town once every five years at best, and each concert by that artist is a little bit different and unique. THIS is worth camping out for. The event will never be repeated.
However, this is a MOVIE. It will be shown thousands of times. It's not like it's going to be that difficult to see. I stated that I have every intention of seeing "Phantom Menace." I assume that I'll enjoy it a lot. I just don't find it necessary to camp out (for WEEKS, in the case of a few people) in order to see it!
I'm really not trying to be insulting. Nor did I really intend to berate anyone. I just don't get it, that's all.
I remember seeing the original Star Wars movie in the theater.
I was living in Minneapolis when it came out and the St. Louis Park Cinema had an area exclusive on it.
This was almost the last hurrah for that theater, which was a grand and gigantic one screen movie theater of the old fashioned kind.
It had a humongeus curved "surround" screen that had been designed for "Cinerama" moves (the type shown by three projectors at once). A thick gold glittery curtain slowly parted to reveal the screen as the movie started.
I did think that Star Wars was perhaps the best movie I had ever seen.
The St. Louis Park Cinema closed a year or two later, run out of business by the multi-screen cineplexes at the malls.
Now, all these years later, "The Phantom Menace" is about to debut. I'm sure it will be an enjoyable movie, and I intend to catch it within it's first few days out. But, I truly never thought I would live to see such hyperbole and hysteria over any movie.
To those who have been camping out for the last three or four weeks to get a ticket, I'll be about the millionth person the scream at you: "IT'S A FSCKING MOVIE FOR CRISSAKES!"
By definition, anyone who has nothing better to do than to sleep in a tent on a sidewalk for weeks on end just so they can make sure to see the very first presentation of a FSCKING MOVIE at their local cineplex has no bloody life whatsoever, period!
After this mythical "first showing" at hundreds of theaters nation wide, I'm sure that I will have no problem calling the automated ticket sales phone line of my local mega-cinema ("The Palace" here in New Orleans), and scarf me a couple o' tickets to a showing on the second, third, or fourth day. No big deal, and I'm happy.
The fact that there are so many people out there willing to dedicate weeks of their life to camping out to ensure they see that "first show" indicates just how the masses can be brainwashed by hype and effective advertising. In a very real sense, this is scary. Individual independent thinking is apparently a rare commodity in today's society. Suppose the hype engine that is producing the "Phantom Menace" hysteria were to be used to sell the masses on some sort of race hatred or ethnic cleansing campaign? Think about it.
Since there are so many people willing to get this worked up over a FSCKING MOVIE however, I really can't say I blame Lucas et. al. for milking them for all they're worth!
On the contrary, Mr. Katz. I'd like to offer the view that "The Phantom Menace" is nothing other than the biggest independent film ever made. Note that Lucas personally put up the $115 million to make the film: no studio money. This gave Lucas complete artistic freedom to do whatever he wanted. This is normall the realm of art/independent film makers, people too independent to tow to the studio line. Lucas is so wealthy from his success that he can afford to blow off the studios, and make exactly what he wants.
Look at this as a brave new experiment in film: the very first time that 9 digits of money was spent on a film totally under the control of an imaginative film maker, instead of a gang of bankers and focus groups.
Crispin
-----
Crispin Cowan, Research Assistant Professor of Computer Science, OGI
NEW: Protect Your Linux Host with StackGuard'd Programs
http://www.cse.ogi.edu/DIS C/projects/immunix/StackGuard/
Support Justice: Boycott Windows 98
Look, people, the hype DOESN'T MATTER. It's safe to say that any movie/director who appears on every major news magazine's cover in the space of a month is pretty well hyped. These very news magazines are whipping themselves into a froth about the hype surrounding this movie, hype which THEY are responsible for making.
What's Lucas to do? There's a HUGE grassroots fan movement around this movie. The fanboys (myself included) are beside themselves with anticipation for this movie. It IS only a movie, but it's a BIG FUN movie that I've been waiting a good long time to see. If he declines all these interviews, he becomes a reclusive antisocial hermit. If he accepts all these interviews, and tries to communicate his goals for these films, he becomes a narcissistic sell-out. He's damned if he does, damned if he doesn't. What would YOU do in his situation?
As far as the marketing blitz, it's annoying. It's kitschy. It's pretty darn grotesque in the form of that Taco Bell/KFC/Pizza Hut commercial. However, it's ALSO American business. Would YOU refuse that enormous pile of money? I know that I can't say I would.
George Lucas is in my opinion making quality films for children. They're not soft-pedaled Barney crap, but they're also not Reservoir Dogs (and that's a Good Thing IMHO). It just so happens that a bunch of us who were the target audience for his last films are VERY VERY excited about this next batch. I can't understand why that's a bad thing.
Why yes, I AM a rocket scientist!
While I too long for simpler times when it was possible to have a piece of art, an event, or a building that wasn't sponsored by some huge corporation, I have to question Jon's integrity.
I think that he honestly believes that he believes what he wrote, but his own actions in hyping Run to the Mountain here, differ from what Lucas is doing only in degree, not in essential manner.
Jon: would you honestly have refused a Pepsi ad campaign for RttM if it had been offered?
Check out Linux University
--
--
Jason Eric Pierce
Go see it or dont.
Pay attention to the hype or dont.
Yes, its a damn shame that Lucas has chosen this route to pitch his film. It is a sort of slur against the 'soul' of the original film(s)... But is it so bad?
I mean, Katz just said it.. Lucas is no longer portraying himself as a hollywood rebel. So he's gone mainstream. So what? The guys got a right to do so. We stand here and covet a movie made twenty years ago for its beautiful values and ahead-of-its-time special effects that gained popularity through its purity more than anything else... And then we decide to make Lucas the villian today when he has grown up and grown into his station in Hollywood. A station he has because WE gave it to him.
Its his life. Its his movie.
He's hardly Gates-ish.
.02
When I first saw SW as a kid, I didn't know what to make of that scene where Luke halucinates the voice of Kenobi telling him to turn off the targetting computer.
Now, I'm an adult living in a "new-age" world where appearances and "feelings" often have more weight in decision-making than conclusions reached by research and strenuous exercise of logic. True, SW was about heroism and making hard decisions, but it was also about tech. Why does it have to be spoiled by a rejection of technology and the hard work and logic behind it?
Presumably a hell of a lot of military technologists sweated blood to build those X-wing fighters and their weapons systems and here comes this bozo who switches to manual just because he hears voices in his head. I can only regret that I didn't have the presence of mind to shout "Turn ON the targetting computer, Luke!"
Can you dig it? He risks an entire revolution against opression, just for a voice in his head. And of course, he hits the target. Proof that wishful thinking is an effective Force in dealing with the Universe.
Crap. If Lucas had been a European film-maker things would have been slightly different. Luke switches to manual, misses, the Death Star destroys the rebel base, and Luke escapes, only to commit suicide by plowing into an asteroid when he realises what a terrible mistake he made. A Greek tragedy - man destroyed by hubris.
Now I run across people who had "mystical experiences" when they saw SW and these are the same people who wear a piece of pink quartz around their necks (or maybe pitchblende) because "it improves their energy flow". Thanks, George.
The level of influence of SW on "new-ageism" is certainly debatable, but I can't help but believe that it added to the crud. Too much hype? Who cares?! What about the destruction of critical thinking and effort?
I would like to close with two quotes, the first by Richard Stallman from the book "Open Sources".
And the second, from fortune(1):
As for 'no one needs that much money'... that's like saying 'no one needs to live forever'. The implicit question is: 'What would you do with it all?' If you honestly have no idea how to spend 'too much money' responsibly and in a way that would benefit several good causes, check out Elizabeth Barrette's excellent What to Do With Entirely Too Much Money. I bet you'll think twice next time you buy that lottery ticket.
-- Micah Lionette
It's probably pretty obvious by now to everyone over the age of 13 that Lucas has sold out... But clearly this isn't the first time, right? I mean, I remember buying the Star Wars cereal when I was five or six, collecting the Ewoks cards at the bottom of the box... I had Land Speeder and the Ton-Ton with the rubber belly that I could stick my Luke action figure in, and my next door neighbor had the plastic Ewok village. I don't know about Empire Strikes Back, but the Return of the Jedi had *plenty* of associated marketing. Asking for purity from Lucas at this point is probably like asking for honesty and integrity from a politician. He talks big, but when it comes time to make the decisions that make the money..... If you go in for the movies today, you go for the story and the nostalgia, and attempt to avoid the hype. That's about the best anyone can hope for...
"The horse leech's daughter is a closed system. Her quantum of wantum does not vary."
Katz = Complain O' Matic
Lucas = poet with a camera, who did his best to keep hype to a minimum. He also has a following, he knows it. And released the trailers/previews in such a way as to tease, but to give nothing away.
Early Reviews = from what I have seen, alot o reviewers have been giving it lukewarm reviews. But, what it all comes down to is what the fans think. Also, Ebert has seen it, and thought it a good film.
Selling out: I dont think lucas has sold out at all. He honestly hasnt had time, if you think about it, as he has been involved in production right up until release. In addition, ive noticed that there is a trend to slam those who have something big, mainly by people who lack any talent of their own.
I also think it should be pointed out, Lucas is doing this with his own money. He has every right to recoup some of it. If he didnt care, he would have pulled the money out of Fox.
I noticed that someone mentioned something about Lucas resisting DVD release. So what? Its his film. Not yours. He has every right to control how/when it is viewed, and the medium in which it is viewed. And, knowing lucas, he has something in mind.
In other words, lets stop all the complaining, see the movie. form an opinion. But or gods sakes, quit complaining about what lucas is/isint/could be/hasnt done to *your* satisfaction.
Having a vision of something isint easy. Making the vision a reality is even harder. Making a vision a reality when you have a bunch of people telling you what a bastard you are for this or that is even more tough.
Cluepon = get a vision. make it happen. you'll see what Im saying. Ill bet Linus knows what its all about.
Supernaut
Supernaut
The more I think about the (fairly recent) explosion of simulacra in our society, the more I recognize the core Truth in what Baudrillard is saying. We are mass-manufacturing simulacra to replace Real Truth. And we're doing it at such a rate that it we're now essentially bent on destroying, concealing or subjugating Truth almost everywhere. Why? Because we don't want to face the reality of what we're losing or what we've already lost. And the actual losses have been truly staggering.
I'm pretty sure this is what early religions were concerned with when they tried to stop people from worshipping idols and creating "graven images". They were worried (and rightly so, I think) that mere simulacra of God would replace the living Truth of God that (they believed) surrounds us. In fact, they were probably too late even then: God was already dead or dying (as an inherent cultural Truth), and thus all the simulacra -- to try to conceal it from ourselves. Certainly an odd way to behave (on the surface of it, anyway), but with multi-million dollar athletes, TV stars and politicians like Clinton held up as our leaders/heroes/role-models, it's easy to see why we might need The Phantom Menace to remind us of what heroes used to be like.
It seems to me that the more evident the absence of Heroes in our society becomes, the more our anxiety grows and thus the louder and more omnipresent the replacement simulacra must become to conceal the issue. Thus all the hype. If even to name something is to kill it, then surely The Phantom Menace is the epitaph of the Hero.
Jonathan
I don't normally read or listen to movie reviewers, but I do enjoy Roger Ebert and his tastes seem to mirror mine in terms of movies.
He loved the movie, said basically what others are saying about great visuals, flat characters...but he saw the movie for what it was...great entertainment! Which is exactly what I'll be seeing it for.
--- "It's not enough that I succeed...everyone else must fail."
The original Star Wars movie didn't have any hype or toys before it opened...it was a small movie at the time and it didn't even get a premier! But after a few months when the movie took the world by storm, the toys, the bed linen, the product endorsements etc etc....took off like nothing before it!
But you seemed to have forgotten The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. Both these movies were surrounded by incredible hype. The Empire Strikes Back was surrounded by the hype almost as much as Phantom Menace is. It was most anticipated movie ever made (the same sort of thing people have been saying about Phantom Menace).
What is the point of your article? Did Lucas sell out? Of course he did, and he'd be a fool not to! If he hadn't sold out 22 years ago with the original, we wouldn't be here today talking about the Phantom Menace...which he financed totally by himself.
What's the deal with you Katz? Your whole article reeks of hypocrisy and of the Rolling Stone magazine article submission guildlines (were they tell their writers to make sure they hate everything and slant it to make the artist look like they sold out because they were smart enough to make a buck).
Wow, you're so controversial! I hope you don't get paid by Slashdot for your articles...after all, you'd be a sellout!
--- "It's not enough that I succeed...everyone else must fail."
I don't understand you people.
You seem to have nothing to do but bitch about the hype and call Lucas a sellout. Why can't you just accept that fact that people are having FUN? People are going out and buying star wars toys and getting them with their mugs and being excited and having FUN! There's nothing wrong with that. Even if the movie isn't that great, people have had fun anticipating it.
Also, what's with the opinion trends towards The Phantom Menace? Suddenly, everybody decided it was cool to say "It's all hype!". You've lost something valuable if you've lost the excitement present in antipating it.
It may be "just a movie", but that doesn't mean you have to slam people who think it is more.
-dh
Diehard
It's easy to be captivated by the amount of money being thrown around - mostly because I (and most of us) don't operate in that kind of money on a day-to-day basis. If Pepsi walked up to me today and offered me $10 million, my first response might be "Who do you want me to kill?". However, if I had $800 million in the bank I would be in a better position to consider what that measley $10 million was worth as far as image and values are concerned.
So considering that in just ticket sales alone, it's pretty clear Lucas will be able to make his kids braces payment, it's a fair question to ask how much responsibility Lucas has himself for approving all of the ad campaigns and product tie-ins. This created the hype which he then goes on record as denouncing.
Dave