
How George Lucas Lost His Integrity…and Why It’s So Important - ghosh
https://betterhumans.coach.me/how-george-lucas-lost-his-integrity-and-why-its-so-important-240c74991931#.k7jdtat47
======
smnscu
In case you haven't watched Mr Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, they're the best
in the business, and go down hard on George Lucas.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI)

~~~
jamesrcole
They're awesome.

Worth pointing out that they're reviews of the prequels.

------
ekianjo
> Lucas: So they became obsessed by the latest special-effects tools and no
> longer cared about the story.

Funny coming from the guy who directed the I,II and III which notoriously did
not care about making any kind of sense, story-wise, and instead focused on
special effects (look at the making-of movies, Lucas was in awe of all the CGI
he could do then) with paper-thin characters on screen.

~~~
krylon
Unfortunately, replacing story-telling with CGI effects has become far too
common since then. Star Wars is a particularly prominent example, but far from
being the only one...

~~~
ekianjo
Yeah, but the first Star Wars was way different and had an actual story and
credible characters. Luca has basically forgot what makes the success of its
movie in the first place.

~~~
agumonkey
I generalize to the whole movie industry. Lots of the genes of 70s- era is
gone. Framing, pacing, music, acting. Nothing clicks to me these days.

I don't blame Lucas too much. SW worked a lot because of the effects so Lucas
tried to push the envelope has he did before. But yeah, drowned in the
technical side of making pictures while making the rest utterly bland. But
look, fully CGI grass fields.

~~~
krylon
There are exceptions. I recently watched District 9 and was very pleasantly
surprised. The CGI effects were beyond reproach, but the movie did not use
them as a substitute for plot or character.

Sunshine was very good, too - the script had logical holes in it that could
swallow an entire galaxy, but the actors were so good, and the atmosphere so
dense it was still a really, really good SciFi movie. Again, the special
effects were good, but used sparingly.

So not all hope is lost.

~~~
ekianjo
However after District 9, Neil Blomkamp is on a downward trend. His recent
movies are much less engaging, and Chappie was really, really bad: it tried to
copy the frame of District 9 but every story aspect was much worse and smelled
fake kilometers away. Really disappointing after the excellent experience
District 9 was.

I found Sunshine quite poor, too. First the whole story makes no sense (even
the largest spaceship you could build would anyway be way too small to do
anything meaningful, it's so obvious it's preposterous), and the last scene is
a deal breaker: after they succeed, you see a woman and a child playing on the
snow. Oh, I thought people were starving on Earth, but no they are actually
enjoying the snow and winter sports? So what was the big emergency all about?
That was stupid.

------
Eupolemos
So, Lucas has fallen, and the vultures are out to pick the bones. Pointing out
what went wrong is a good way to make yourself look smart and it gives
publicity. After all, Star Wars still sells. Just don't forget to say how much
you love SW and George Lucas while you rip.

This piece is garbage and it shows in the very first section. I've now watched
the interview for a second time. The quote about white slavers was an obvious
attempt at a joke, but it keeps getting repeated and abused. Why? Because
shock-effect at clickbait. It even gets stuff like this on hackernews!

But don't get me wrong. I also don’t think Mr. Robertson is trying to deceive
us. I truly believe that he believes in every word he says.

It certainly isn't just link-material for his principles and
www.willpowered.co website...

~~~
Chris2048
> Just don't forget to say how much you love SW and George Lucas while you
> rip.

What's the implication? If you really love SW you shouldn't complain when the
brand is ruined?

------
pi-err
tldr: a "willpower and success coach" takes down Georges Lucas because he
didn't live up to his dream or artistic ambition. On Medium.

As a willpower coach he could have found the force to not publish this
clickbait story.

Probably the worst type of junk if this stuff hiding behind fair criticism to
advertise fake talent.

------
justinsingh
I'll admit that I don't know too much about Lucas as a person, but this
assessment strikes me as a pattern I see amongst artists and their followings.
Long time fans who feel a special attachment to the works of an artist always
like to say how the artist "sells out" rather than choose to say they
succeeded.

Artist makes something awesome -> people get attached -> artist starts making
moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial
success -> -original- fans get mad at their success.

This happens in the music industry. An artist will sign to a label where they
lose control over their lyrics or thematics and their original following will
feel betrayed. But that sense of betrayal can make fans overlook how it was
for the betterment of the artist. They attained the success that every artist
dreams of! Maybe they made sacrifices to the 'integrity' (however you define
it) of their craft, but they reached an extent of financial security and
wealth that they always wanted for doing what they love.

"Artists deserve to make good money!!" "Wait no.. artists should feel ashamed
of reaching success because it hurts my feelings!!"

I understand where the fans are coming from, but I think it's just as
reasonable to view "selling out" as "reaching success"\- which makes me happy
for the artist.

~~~
Chris2048
> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the
> sake of larger financial success

Much like hollywood white-washing. Why not complain about this kind of thing?
Framing it as "original- fans get mad at their success" is not correct - fans
are mad that the product changed; They are mad the artist chose not to fight
for the integrity of the product, and just took the money straight away.

You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be
that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

~~~
justinsingh
As I said, I understand where the fans are coming from in this type of
situation. So, they of course have a right to complain. But the answer of why
they did it is right in front of them- they wanted quick financial success.

> They are mad the artist chose not to fight for the integrity of the product,
> and just took the money straight away.

That product's time is over because the artist says so. No consumer of art is
promised a qualitatively consistent stream of content. Don't like it? Then
don't buy into it. Just because fans have an emotional attachment to an
expired product does not mean it should continue to be created if the artist
doesn't want it to be. Why should it? If their new product is not worth the
price it goes for, then it will fail.

> You equate success with watering down the product, but it doesn't have to be
> that way. Plenty of artist have fought before.

And I'm sure plenty have fought and failed as well. If the artist wants to
pick the quickest route to financial success, however they define that wealth,
then it does have to be that way.

Not every artist wants to go through the "fight" that you mention. And that's
fine- they reached the success they wanted because of their hard work that led
up to that point.

~~~
Chris2048
I don't know what you are arguing here. You say you understand the fans
viewpoint, but then why frame it differently?

Sure, artists have the right to sell out. And fans have the right to criticise
them for it, and their reputation with the original fan base damaged. What
else are you arguing?

~~~
justinsingh
Understanding something does not mean agreeing with something.

I disagree with the idea that artists should be shamed for selling out.

------
macavity23
An important person missing from the article is Marcia Lucas, George's first
wife. She was hugely influential in the development of the background for eps
IV & V, and many people think her departure was where the mythos lost its
integrity. E.G.: [http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret-
wea...](http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret-weapon-
behind-star-wars/news-story/75eb078a8b14d93fce23b06e98805ffb)

~~~
agumonkey
Giving credit to Lucas. But it's pretty obvious that SW was a recipe of pretty
staggering ingredients. From pictures to music, design, even the sound
engineering. Everything was pretty unique and succeeded when there were
thousands of way they could have failed. That makes SW even more special in my
mind, a really serendipity gem of these times.

------
adrianm
This article is a combination of hyperbole and speculation. Take the first
paragraph in the section entitled "The CEO":

"After the massive success of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas realized that he
was making 3 times as much revenue in toy sales than he was for the actual
films. Thus, if he could sell more toys, it would mean more projects for
Lucasfilm, and even less need for studio financing."

Three paragraphs down it becomes clear that this idea originates in a quote
from Gary Kurtz, whose context for these statements is left completely
unexplained, leaving the reader to dig further. No evidence is provided to
support the conclusion the author has come to and instead the author has
inferred Lucas' motivations from the Kurtz quote almost verbatim.

This is but one example of this type of writing in the article. Every point
the author makes is supported by similarly spurious reasoning. I suggest
future readers to just give this one a pass and not make the mistake of
reading something whose opinion you might already agree with and looking past
its bad writing.

