Epoetker said:
Before talking about forgiving OR forgetting George Lucas, one must consider what happened in between 1983 and 1999. Most specifically the explosion of good Star Wars novels, good Star Wars videogames from a LucasArts that hadn't fired all the creative people yet (THAT should be the REAL unforgivable crime,) and the gradual Star Wars hype machine (re-release of the remastered original series, release in theaters and then VHS of the Special Edition with actual nods to Coruscant and such cities,) combined to give the impression that yes, all you readers of the New Star Wars print media and players in the New Star Wars videogame lands (Kotor? Pish-tosh, ye ignorant neophytes, it was all about Rebel Assault, Dark Forces, and TIE Fighter!) were actually being listened to.
While I agree that those are excellent games, there are a few points that ought to be made. Dark Forces was, quite literally, a doom clone. At every possible level it played like and looked like Doom. The same ray traced graphics, virtually identical weapon and enemy selection (if one looks past the sprites outward appearance). This did not stop it from being a worthwile game of course, I played and loved it, but to place it on an alter as though it represents what talented and creative people do would indicate to me that talented and creative people steal from id. Not that there was much wrong with that - it seemed like everyone was doing it. I would also note that if one does not read any of the novels (like me) and who's knowledge only comes from the movies and select video games, it would appear that the game is a bit of a retcon since the end state objective is to steal the death star plans. Unless I was absent mindedly shooting bothans, I'm pretty sure something has been left out in the narrative.
The next point I would bring up is simply that listening to your fans for new ideas is rarely a successful strategy. What you'll find in the long run is that the advice you get for your next project looks suspiciously close to the last project they liked. No progress gets made in this format - one simply iterates a formula until eventually people stop buying.
That said, if someone asked me, I would actually love to see a new TIE Fighter game, which is still my favorite space combat game ever made.
Epoetker said:
As it turned out, no, not really, no. The soft-spirituality of the Force, which you can generally get away with in sci-fi, led directly to the soft-science of the midichlorians (Parasite Eve did that plot way better in the same year,) "going through the planet core"(facepalm), and a ridiculously lame attempt to shoehorn in a 'virgin birth' subplot. (Which I facepalmed at nearly as hard as when the Na'vi told Jake Sully that he must be 'born again'.)
The midichlorians are an absolutely terrible explanation, I'll grant you that, but it is still an explanation. The original movies simply implied that "wanting to" and practicing was all it took to learn the ways of the force. Hell, Luke learned most of what he needed in a few weeks (or months I suppose) of training.
My problem with this explanation is that it hangs a lantern on this long standing problem. They don't really explain how it works, and in general if one wants to keep the discontent to a minimum, the best solution is to simply not address the issue. No explanation is better than a bad explanation. In the first case, you annoy people like me, in the latter case you annoy everybody.
Epoetker said:
PROTIP: Western movies should only borrow Eastern spiritual concepts. Eastern movies should only borrow Western spiritual concepts. There's something incredibly unright about people who live in your own damn country with your own damn co-religionists getting it that wrong. C.S. Lewis is subtler than that in Narnia. Michael fucking Bay is subtler than that in Transformers. (As soon as I saw Soundwave for the first time, I realized that Transformers 2 less a hard sci-fi movie than a Frank Peretti novel with giant robots standing in for the angels and demons. It's the closest thing to This Present Darkness you'll find in theaters, and that covers for a whole lot.0
Michael Bay is subtle? I'm not sure I've ever seen that asserted, at least not in recent memory. Moreover, the theme you are applying to transformers is almost utterly laughable. Like most 80's cartoons, Transformers was little more than an extended advertisement for a lucrative toy line. To say that they are robot standins for angels and demons is simply rubbish, since the only pieces of evidence are good guys (who are good without explanation) and bad guys (who also offer no explanation for their motives). Other than this black and white division, there are no notable religious themes. The battles are not for the souls of mankind or to serve the whims of a (known) higher power. Instead, the key conflict is over a source of power (which varies depending upon the iteration of the series). If such a shallow and poorly defined conflict and cast is a cunning attempt to portrey the eternal battle of angels and demons, then I would assert that other cartoons offered similar themes (He-Man, Thundercats, Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles, GI Joe and so forth).
Epoetker said:
I think that Michael Bay actually occasionally watches anime, and might even occasionally read books, even if they are by Frank Peretti. I think C.S. Lewis actually read the Tao Te Ching or the life of Siddhartha Gautama (and a crapload of other books) before writing Narnia. I think that James Cameron actually plays Starcraft, Halo, or other such videogames occasionally. (Frank Peretti most definitely watched every GOOD movie George Lucas ever made.)
I fail to see how consuming media allows one to create notable things. I have consumed a great deal of media - hundreds of books and movies and video games. Yet in spite of this I have yet to make anything notable.
Epoetker said:
I think that George Lucas did none of these things before making the prequels, neither reading the Star Wars books, playing the Star Wars videogames, or watching the zillion pieces of 90s sci-fi remake crap (Lost in Space, anyone?)that would have at least warned him of the direction NOT to go. His sins of commission(the prequels) were directly tied to his sins of omission(the VAST wealth of excellent stories and adaptations made from his work that near every Star Wars fan had been reading.) And thus he thought himself God of Star Wars, and that he could make great boasts without consequence or research, and yet still be taken seriously as God.
Why in gods name would the man who CREATED the thing commission someone elses idea? What part of that makes even the tiniest bit of sense. Interesting note - he IS the god of Star Wars. He created it, and the continuing works produced within the universe still require his stamp of approval.
What's more, you did not offer any reasonable support as to what he could have done differently. Most of the cited failures of the latest offerings are not ones of narrative, but rather of chracter (Jar Jar is annoying, the terrible performance of Natalie Portman, Sam Jacksons presence and so forth).
Epoetker said:
And that, as C.S. Lewis might say, is why Pride is not just a sin, it's the sin. Spiritual Pride, where a creator of derivative work assumes that his attitudes on it are the most important attitudes and the only ones that must be listened to, is the very worst.
I'm entirely willing to grant George Lucas' the right to have the most important vision. Even if his vision is terrible. The reason is simple - he created it, he controls it and no other person can stake a better claim to the property.
Epoetker said:
All of the inchoate fanboy rage against George Lucas is deserved. George Lucas was not simply snubbing us, he was snubbing Timothy Zahn, Kevin J. Anderson, and the entire pre-1999 group of LucasArts employees.
No, it really isn't. He made movies that people liked and thus spawned an entire universe of works that people also like. After years of either directly delivering or indirectly (through initial creation and conception) joy to the hearts of millions he then goes and does things people do not like. These new bad things do not, in any tangible way, impact those things people like. Books that people like are still made, as are games and even cartoons and collectables. If your percieved joy at such things has been dimished by Lucas' transgressions, the fault lies not on Lucas but on you. It is you afterall who must allow this thing you love to be forever tarnished by the memory of Lucas betrayal.
Epoetker said:
That will be forgiven when it is actually apologized for. But I have seen no public acts of repentance, and thus I would only counsel letting the damned who refuse to be saved slip back into the mists of blessed human forgetfulness.
And I'd accept an apology if he gave it but I will not ever bother asking for one. Why would I ask this man to apologize for a few recent misteps when, for decades, he has had a direct impact on everything that I love? His movies, even when they fail, still rake in the cash so he is absolved from guilt on the business front. His movies, even at their worst, were still entertaining enough to watch and not feel as though I had been cheated so he has commited no personal grievance. His actions, even at their most damning will not magically erase my past enjoyment of Star Wars or related products so he is absolved of the rape and pillage of my childhood.
To ask him for an apology because of a percieved slight is not only unwarranted in my eyes, but also clearly represnents a misplaced sense of entitlement. Lucas doesn't owe you anything. He created things for consumption - you chose to consume it. That is the limit of the relationship between creator and consumer.
