Science Explains Why You Hate George Lucas

[Anton P. Nym]

Maybe it's just too early, but I don't grok what this guy is saying. Let me see if I understand: our memories of Star Wars are fond, so when we went to see the prequels, those fond memories were conjured up, and our fond memories of the original compounded our reaction to the prequel. Is that right?

If I've got it right, that's the first half of it as that's the classic description of nostalgia. The second half is that our memories of the original trilogy get associated with the sense of disappointment in the newer trilogy and are retroactively "tainted" by that feeling... the whole "my childhood is being mauled" thing seems to have a basis in medical fact.

Hunh.

-- Steve

 

[INF1NIT3 D00M]

Science rules.
Oh well, I'll still always cherish growing up on Episodes 4-6.
(Original) Star Wars FTW!

Someday I plan to buy replica stormtrooper armor. Not even the Lucas can make me hate Stormtroopers.

 

[Eldritch Warlord]

But I don't hate George Lucas!

On the other hand the first Star Wars movie I saw was Episode I, which I liked.

 

[mattttherman3]

I don't hate George Lucas for trying to make more money, I hate George Lucas for not making The Force Unleashed worth the money I paid for it, but then again, I did get a full refund at EB games because of a deal they were running

 

[The-Big-D]

So its officialy proven now? lol

 

[CyberKnight]

I find Lucas to be a fine storyteller, but not a very good writer. The prequels would have been much better if he had produced them, drew up a narrative sketch for all three, and let somebody else write and direct them.

I agree. Having watched all six as a "grown up", I think 5 (Empire) was the best for acting and character development of the series. The way Han and Leia interact and their relationship takes root, the way Luke really starts to grow up. That was some good story production. And Lucas didn't direct.

Compare the "You like me because I'm a scoundrel" scene with "Ever since you came back into my life, I've been dying", if you dare.

 

[spyrewolf]

the 80's transformer animated movie is a classic example of this, when i saw this in the 80's it was amazing, seeing optimus prime getting blown to bits was jarring, fast forward to 2005 my brother picked it up on dvd, and it was pretty crap to say the least. but i remember it being so unbelievably awesome.

 

[cleverlymadeup]

So science has proved George is a prick?

actually no it's saying that all the fans that dump on Lucas are the pricks not him.

it's saying that fans hyped up both Indy and Star Wars in their minds so much and made it seem "so awesome and teh best evah" that no matter how good something is newer additions to the story won't live up.

it's something i've said for a while, Star Wars is a mediocre but well written story at best, it's cheesy sci-fi based on the old pulp serials from the 40s/50s which is what the new Clone Wars show is

the other thing that's in there is it's become "cool" to say he sucks and when you actually point out just how on par the original is with the prequels most don't have a response.

Ugh, why does everyone think the prequels are so bad? They're ten times better than the originals just by having a somewhat coherent plot line. And before you say anything, yes I am aware that the original movies did unheard of things in terms of special effects. Yay for them, they still suck.

...? How did the originals not have a coherent plot? And how do the new ones, with the teenage angst of young Vader, the politics of boredom, and Jar-Jar Binks make them better than the first ones, especially given the only angst from Luke is flatly told to stop being a dumb ass?

Totally, agree. The plots of the new movies couldn't even be sufficiently described as "clusterfucks'.
You're reducing the originals only to special effects? Maybe you also cherish the lancer as something better than the lighsaber...

the only clusterfucks are the fans, seriously Lucas told everyone what the story was YEARS before hand for the prequels. it's the fans that made it bad because they had the totally wrong idea about the stories

when Lucas did interviews for Star Wars most ppl heard this "blah blah blah new Star Wars blah blah blah awesome blah blah blah Star Wars blah blah blah" and not much else besides that

as for bad characters and ruining things in the originals, well there's whiny emo Luke and then of course as the Simpsons put it oh so succinctly "the gay robots from Star Wars" aka C3P0 and R2D2. if you think that Jar Jar was bad, just ask older ppl what they thought of golly gee Luke and his annoying robot sidekicks. the Simpsons, especially in earlier seasons put in rather funny and hidden jokes and social references that were still funny if you didn't understand the joke, ie the gay robots from Star Wars one, because there were a LOT of ppl who think that C3P0 and R2D2 ruined the whole original trilogy

 

[Joeshie]

I love George Lucas and I think anyone that honestly hates him is a complete and utter retard.

I mean, I'm not a fan of the prequels myself, but come on; the man gave us two of the greatest movie franchises ever created (Star Wars and Indiana Jones). Uwe Boll doesn't get anywhere near the amount of hate that George Lucas gets, which is really fucking pathetic.

 

[nipsen]

I agree. Having watched all six as a "grown up", I think 5 (Empire) was the best for acting and character development of the series. The way Han and Leia interact and their relationship takes root, the way Luke really starts to grow up. That was some good story production. And Lucas didn't direct.

Compare the "You like me because I'm a scoundrel" scene with "Ever since you came back into my life, I've been dying", if you dare.

Oof. I have the same impression. I had the first vhs set of the director's cut. The one with three new effects, and some polishing, but without the extra and altered scenes. And I think that was the best way to do it. It made sense - if you really wanted to brush the movies so they would look more modern (without the Gorgon Sarlac monster, the shaky focus on the Star Destroyers, the clearly painted in laser blast and saber sparks a few times, that kind of thing). And just with doing that - it's not Shakespeare, but it's not a bad set of films.

So it was ok - I had seen the originals right before that (when I was 12 or something), but episode five of that first special edition was still the film I liked best, with the others being entirely watchable. And I mean, I confidently can put on this movie and know that any kid will like it. It's a really great adventure film.

And I can't do the same with episode 1-3. I mean, these films are violent for one. They have a war, and it's fine because Jar-jar is running around being a clown? It's like watching a fake smile, and someone telling you that it's all right when something clearly terrible is going on. At the same time, you have Anakin who seems depressed and angsty, like any other kid will be at some point and recognise - and you know that he's going to be evil. It's not clear whether he's that way from the beginning, or that it develops over time.

But these films are apparently geared towards the same teenager appeal as the first four..? With the full endorsement of Lucas and friends? :/

 

[bluethunder 2471]

Maybe it's just too early, but I don't grok what this guy is saying. Let me see if I understand: our memories of Star Wars are fond, so when we went to see the prequels, those fond memories were conjured up, and our fond memories of the original compounded our reaction to the prequel. Is that right?

I find Lucas to be a fine storyteller, but not a very good writer. The prequels would have been much better if he had produced them, drew up a narrative sketch for all three, and let somebody else write and direct them.

here here at last some 1 who sees thru the mire.

 

[bluethunder 2471]

I find Lucas to be a fine storyteller, but not a very good writer. The prequels would have been much better if he had produced them, drew up a narrative sketch for all three, and let somebody else write and direct them.

I agree. Having watched all six as a "grown up", I think 5 (Empire) was the best for acting and character development of the series. The way Han and Leia interact and their relationship takes root, the way Luke really starts to grow up. That was some good story production. And Lucas didn't direct.

Compare the "You like me because I'm a scoundrel" scene with "Ever since you came back into my life, I've been dying", if you dare.

when Lucas directs his actors can only do 1 expression hammy.it borders on cheesy aka natalie portman scrunching her face whilst asking anakin if he had really killed younglings. there seems to be no room to express the full spectrum of phychological development with his characters or his direction. bottom line is as said he is a great ideas man but can't exucute his own ideas.

 

[cerebus23]

Yu can see geroges utter sellout into kiddie commercial garbage, by return of the jedi, hence the ewoks. But star wars, end the best of the lot empire, were solid teen/adult movies.

What is really baffling about the prequls is the fact the script seemed like it was written buy a grade schooler with stuff just making 0 sense, dialogue that no adult would buy, characters that had no emotion or chemistry because they were acting in empty rooms, but the content of the movies was VERY dark, annikin killing women and children, tuscans, humans, aliens, etc.

Go watch redlettermedia's reviews of the star wars films and it covers each and every one of the movies horrid storytelling horrid character, horrid fights, horrid marketing, and so on.

Lucas sold his soul to making toys and underoos, and lunchboxes and stuffed animals and yadda yadda, and lost and sense of the renegade film director, that burst on the scene and had so much promise.

Consider this speilberg and lucas hit the scene about the same time and had the same ahh factor when they first broke out, people thought both these guys would be huge in the years to come. speilberg makes art, lucas makes money.