George Lucas - out of touch? (1 Viewer)

[James D S]

There hasn't been any flaming or out of control arguments.

I'm not so sure Terrell.

 

[Terrell]

There have been on plenty of other sites, but I haven't seen any of that here. I've certainly seen heated arguments. I don't think the original trilogy causes any of the heated discussions, because everyone is pretty much in agreement that they were great films. What causes 99 percent of the volatility seems to be Lucas and TPM.

 

[Dome Vongvises]

What did I miss?
Seriously, I'm scared of going over to AICN. They need some serious anger management (and if people aren't too careful, some HTF'er's do too :p) ).
Getting back to the topic at hand, I don't think that George Lucas is out of touch. Rather, the audience is out of touch with George Lucas. I sometimes have no earthly idea what goes on in his head sometimes. Since the beginning, he's always been an independent-minded person. He'll do whatever he damn well pleases. What pisses off these fanboys at AICN so much is that George Lucas has total control over a cultural empire.
As for the movies, I love Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace. To be frankly honest, it was the most fun I've ever had (being in line with friends, watching it with friends, and realizing that its summer and there's no school, etc. etc.). But even I am not impervious to noticing its flaws. What's funny is that I don't hate Jar Jar Binks at all. Sure his cartoonish behavior seems out of place in the real world. But who the hell knows what a Gungan supposed to look and act like in real life? And I'll even say that I've got friends who are bigger clutzes than he is.
What puzzles me, however, is the level of criticism levelled at Return of the Jedi. At one time, it was my favorite of the OT, until I realized that while as a child I watched it six times in theaters, I watched Star Wars a billion times more on my VHS tapes.
Oh well, I'll go out on a limb and say that me, Terrell, and about six other people in this universe are the only people who would defend George Lucas in all honesty.

 

[Terrell]

Oh well, I'll go out on a limb and say that me, Terrell, and about six other people in this universe are the only people who would defend George Lucas in all honesty.

You may be right. However, if he doesn't give us the originals, I might have to ring his neck.

 

[Jeffrey Forner]

Terell;

Get a Laserdisc player!

 

[Kevin M]

Otherwise you're in the position of saying that anyone who liked John Travolta in Battlefield Earth is perfectly justified in saying he was best actor that year, because after all, his acting was just a matter of "taste".

So what are you trying to say, that if anyone felt that Mr.Travolta's performance in BE was the best that year because it fit their personal tastes in acting (I.E. broad, over the top) they would be essentially wrong because their definition of "quality" & "execution" differ from "the norm"?
In France they think Jerry Lewis is a genius because of his execution of over the top comedy, I disagree but only because my tastes in what makes a "quality" comedic performance are different then those of the French (some but not all I am sure, many French people probably hate Mr.Lewis).
You can't be saying that the technical execution of TPM was lacking so you seem to be criticizing Lucas' direction (& scripting) of the story he was trying to tell, and that no matter what individual opinion of that film is, the film was inferior at some basic level while I contend that that is down to personal taste and not merely a "set in stone" science that can be judged as being either good or bad without bringing into question the idea of individual preference, it depends on who is looking at the art hanging on the wall as to whether it is good or bad.
Now you can go ahead and try to deconstruct the film (and my opinion* of it for that matter) and point out as many flaws as you like but as to whether it is a "good" film or a "bad" film depends entirely on the beholder (as it always has & always will).
Now if you're (again) saying that Lucas' directorial execution of TPM was technically or aesthetically lacking and nothing can change that then I have to say that that is your opinion & not an "un-debatable fact" as you seem to be saying in your posts above.
*My opinion of Episode I is that it was pretty good with a few problems here & there. Jar-Jar was fine by me since he was exactly what he was supposed to be IMO, comic relief in the style of old serials, however I have to agree with the opinion that Jake Lloyd was the weakest thread in the film. I had fun with the film because I wasn't expecting Jesus to walk down off the screen and kiss me on the forehead, I was expecting a Star Wars film and In My Opinion that was what I got.

 

[Damin J Toell]

So what are you trying to say, that if anyone felt that Mr.Travolta's performance in BE was the best that year because it fit their personal tastes in acting (I.E. broad, over the top) they would be essentially wrong because their definition of "quality" & "execution" differ from "the norm"?

RobertR isn't claiming to merely be providing the "norms" with regard to film quality; he stated that his opinions are, indeed, facts ("That's because they are perfect films, or damn near close to it. Contrast this fact with the significant flaws in TPM..." (emphasis added)). he believes, therefore, that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong on a factual level; he has deemed Travolta's performance bad presumably through some special access he has to ultimate truths of aesthetics. as he implied, a person would not be justified in arguing for Travolta's performance as the best of the year because it is simply factually bad. i'm sure that the artistic world is estatic that someone has finally gotten access to the "true" answers on questions of quality.

what it comes down to is that RobertR believes that film has certain unassailable true standards (that are true in themselves and aren't mere norms) which he knows and that anyone who might disagree with him is blind to the truth. see what i said earlier about those who believe their opinions to be facts....

DJ

 

[Aaron Reynolds]

My God, Roger Ebert will have to find a new job!

 

[RobertR]

he believes, therefore, that anyone who disagrees with him is wrong on a factual level

Yes, how outrageous of me to suggest, for example, that a typical piano student's execution of Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata doesn't live up to the aesthetic standard of Vladimir Horowitz in his prime, or that Plan 9 From Outer Space cannot reasonably be thought to on the same level of aesthetic excellence as Ben-Hur. Both are simply a matter of "taste" :rolleyes

 

[Kevin M]

Oh, CRAP! I just had a whack at that dead horse myself now didn't I?!!??!!

...poor poor horsey.

And yes Robert, that is correct. It has and (god I hope) will always be in the eye of the beholder at just what makes enjoyable art. I'm sorry if this "fact" upsets you but it has been a fact ever since man first picked up a piece of charcoal and made a horsey on a cave wall...

...p..poor poor horsey.

 

[Damin J Toell]

Yes, how outrageous of me to suggest, for example, that a typical piano student's execution of Beethoven's Appassionata Sonata doesn't live up to the aesthetic standard of Vladimir Horowitz in his prime, or that Plan 9 From Outer Space cannot reasonably be thought to on the same level of aesthetic excellence as Ben-Hur. Both are simply a matter of "taste"

It is not at all outrageous to hold an opinion. it is, however, quite another thing to believe that your opinion is so utterly brilliant as to be unarguable. assuming (and this is a big assumption) it is possible that aesthetics can be reduced to factual assertions of quality, i'm doubtful that somehow you, of all the people in the universe, have access to these truths.
what is your assertion that Ben-Hur is better than Plan 9 based on, if not taste? what other capacity do you have within you besides taste? your expression of your opinion on those films is, indeed, a matter of taste, no matter how often you roll your eyes about it. unless you're of a higher order than a normal human being, you've got little else by which to judge aesthetics. you may believe your assertions to be grounded in something firmer, but your statements amount to asserting that chocolate is factually better than vanilla (for whatever reasons one might outline for such an opinion).
again, opinions themselves are not outrageous and you should feel free to express how you feel Ben-Hur is preferrable to Plan 9. but you do yourself and your opinions a disservice when you claim that your opinions are priveleged and unassailable truths over which one cannot debate.
a favorite quote of mine: "I do not envy people who think they have a complete explanation of the world for the simple reason that they are obviously wrong." -Salman Rushdie
DJ

 

[Eric Sevigny]

Well, I'll take a shot at understanding what RobertR was getting at by an analogy.
Let's say I am outside standing with a thermometer in my hand that very precisely tells me what the current temperature is. I can very well discuss *what* the temperature is, but I can also make an *opinion* on it and say if I think it's cold, hot or in between. What Damin and Kevin argue is that a film can only be judged by an opinion (i.e. it's cold) and what RobertR is saying is simply that a film can be discussed as facts too (i.e. it's -20 degrees celsius, and it's colder then yesterday's -17 degrees). We *can* do what RobertR suggests because we have some basis for factual comparison, but that doesn't preclude someone from forming an opinion on those facts despite it.
In brief, what we have now is someone saying "it's -20 degrees and it's cold as hell compared to my californian 32 degrees", while others are saying "Well, it's just your opinion, -20 degrees isn't that cold".
Okay... This is borderline babbling but I had fun writing it

 

[Damin J Toell]

We *can* do what RobertR suggests because we have some basis for factual comparison, but that doesn't preclude someone from forming an opinion on those facts despite it.

it is that preclusion of opinion formation that i believe RobertR is engaging in. note that he actually asserted that "no one ever" held an opinion that disagreed with his on films such as 2001 and Casablanca. i agree that it is possible to state some facts about, say, Travolta's performance in Battlefield Earth; the film itself serves as a record of facts about that performance. however, those facts themselves fail to necessitate a quality judgment without reliance on another source (e.g., a standard of temperature, as in what generally constitutes "cold" in California). in Travolta's case, RobertR needs to rely upon a standard of acting by all which performances are judgeable. where he fails, i believe, is in his assertion that his standard of judgment is correct and unassailable. i think the basic problem is that i don't believe humanity has the ability to formulate and decide upon a single meaningful standard of aesthetic judgment. while it may perhaps be possible for some ultimate standard to exist (Plato certainly proposed one), i remain utterly unconvinced that we are able to discern what that standard might be. instead, we're stuck with our tastes. this doesn't mean that all opinions are equal; a better-formed opinion is preferrable to a shoddily-formed opinion. still, even a "better" opinion fails to be assertable as an ultimate statement that flows from the truths of aesthetics.
DJ

 

[Terrell]

Already have one Jeffrey.

 

[Tom Ryan]

I'm going to have to agree with RobertR to an extent. I'm sick of relativism. Lawrence Of Arabia is a better film than Battlefield Earth. This doesn't mean one will necessarily like Lawrence better, but it's a better film. If Lawrence's superiority has to be explained, a discussion like this will go precisely nowhere.

-Tom

 

[Evan Case]

As in all things controversial, one need only turn to Bill and Ted's Excellent Adventure for advice and guidance.
The film graces us with the following answer: "Upon whose music is the ultra-Utopian futuristic society based: Bach, Beethoven, Ellington, or the Wyld Stallyns?"
Therein lies the solution.
Be excellent to each other. Party on, dudes.
Evan

 

[Damin J Toell]

If Lawrence's superiority has to be explained, a discussion like this will go precisely nowhere

do you really think that dogmatic acceptance of a film's quality is beneficial to the study of film? doesn't an investigation and explanation of the qualities of a film do more for the enterprise at issue here? stating that Film A is better than Film B because it's simply true and needs no explanation really doesn't say anything at all. this isn't relativism by any means; it's a desire to resist dogma and engage in a critical study of film free from people who claim to be able to espouse "truth" from on high. like i said earlier, rejecting a person who claims to have ultimate insight doesn't meant that all opinions are therefore equal; resistance to easy acceptance of empty "truths" isn't relativism, it's honest and meangingful discussion. dogmatic acceptance of certain films is just as harmful as relativistic "all films are created equal" thought. both sides ask for the end of debate; one says that the truth is already found and debate is pointless and the other says that nothing can be known and debate is pointless. i reject both. debating the qualities of aesthetics can be quite meaningful, but it nothing is accomplished by merely announcing that one knows the "truth" about art and that all further discussion is futile.

DJ

 

[Oscar]

Well, for me Star Wars looks like a four and a half stars film, and as for me TPM looked like a three and half one and that is the rating i gave it.

And the characters do seem more interested, the problem was probably that GL must have been obssesed with his own money!

"An Honest Man is always in trouble, remember that Simon"

 

[Oscar]

Aw, sorrry people that quote from Henry Fool has nothing to do with SW, sorry, i was trying to put a signature sorry.

 

[Chad R]

have you ever heard ANY one say, for example, that Jake Lloyd's acting was anywhere NEAR first rate?

No, but I'd argue that the acting in the original trilogy wasn't anywhere near first rate either. Especially Luke who almost has the same whiny tone (But I was going into Toshi station to pick up some power converters!) that Jake Loyd had. I still feel that most of the performances in the original are far from natural (including a very stilted Harrison Ford).

The preceding films got better as the actors got more comfortable with their roles and became more natural, but there are still misfires. Mark Hammil really overdoes the revelation at the end of Empire, and has to bow his head to a point of obvious discomfort at the end of Jedi to hide his inability to cry convincingly.

For all the brouhaha over the acting in TPM you'd think everyone in the original trilogy were nominated for numerous awards (and comparing them to the originals is the safest barometer). Frankly, you'd be hard pressed to find one acting teacher or coach in the world that points to any of the Star Wars movies as examples.

And please don't throw Alec Guiness up because he was just so wonderful of an actor he survived the flat dialogue (try and compare his Obi-Wan to 'Bridge on the River Kwai').

I love TPM and the originals for many reasons but acting has never been one of them.