|
And I think Lucas empathizes with the indie filmmaker because that was his roots, and his continued dislike of the studio system. Dude's a money grabbing rear end but some of his intents have good qualities.
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 13:31
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
RagnarokAngel posted:And I think Lucas empathizes with the indie filmmaker because that was his roots, and his continued dislike of the studio system. It'd be lovely if he'd actually leave a huge amount of money put aside in some small charity for strugging independents really. I enjoy Pegg and Frosts films but come on guys get on the ball for Star Wars.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 16:49
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:It'd be lovely if he'd actually leave a huge amount of money put aside in some small charity for strugging independents really. It wouldn't surprise me if he donated a lot of money to film schools or film programs later in his life -- I think he's already donated a building or two at USC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 17:49
|
|
MauveTrousers posted:It wouldn't surprise me if he donated a lot of money to film schools or film programs later in his life -- I think he's already donated a building or two at USC. That I did not know. We spend way too much being jerks about George.
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 20:47
|
|
|
MauveTrousers posted:It wouldn't surprise me if he donated a lot of money to film schools or film programs later in his life -- I think he's already donated a building or two at USC.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 22:32
|
|
|
He's commited half his fortune to the Warren Buffet give half your money away when you die thing that he and Gates set up. He's also extremely picky about his movies. When the studio recut 5 minutes of American Graffitti he went insane. It was actually Gene Roddenberry that convinced him fan films and fiction were good ideas that would make him rich. If not for Gene we really couldn't goon about Jorge now.
|
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 23:40
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:He's also extremely picky about his movies. When the studio recut 5 minutes of American Graffitti he went insane. It was actually Gene Roddenberry that convinced him fan films and fiction were good ideas that would make him rich. If not for Gene we really couldn't goon about Jorge now. I find that very ironic considering the only canon in Star Trek is the stuff released by Paramount on TV and the big screen. Even the licensed comics and books aren't considered anything. RocknRollaAyatollah fucked around with this message at 00:01 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 17, 2011 23:59
|
|
|
Never said anything about canon, just that fan-fiction promotes the brand rather than dilutes it. It's not an instinctual sentiment for creatives.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 00:25
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:I find that very ironic considering the only canon in Star Trek is the stuff released by Paramount on TV and the big screen. Even the licensed comics and books aren't considered anything. I think that's because they realized what a bad idea it would be allowing extra material to enter the convoluted Trek canon. They already have a guy whose job it is to keep everything on screen canon.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 00:26
|
|
|
RocknRollaAyatollah posted:I find that very ironic considering the only canon in Star Trek is the stuff released by Paramount on TV and the big screen. Even the licensed comics and books aren't considered anything. Star Trek canon, there's a joke. Internal consistency, what's that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 00:48
|
|
|
I never said Star Trek had good canon, just that Paramount has that policy. Sorry for misreading what was written. I assumed that fan material leading to more money was an inference of officially sold fan material bringing in revenue. Kind of like Larry Niven and Ringworld.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 00:53
|
|
|
TheBigBad posted:He's also extremely picky about his movies. When the studio recut 5 minutes of American Graffitti he went insane. It was actually Gene Roddenberry that convinced him fan films and fiction were good ideas that would make him rich. If not for Gene we really couldn't goon about Jorge now. He also was a big defender against colorizing B&W films. It sounds hypocritical but he chose to change Star Wars, even if we don't like it, it is legally his film to change. I mean, I dislike George for the same reasons a lot of people do. He's closeminded, obsessed with style over substance, and loves to milk the cash cow. But I don't think he tries to be a bad guy, the plinkett reviews seem to have cause a huge surge in hatred that isn't totally warranted. The worst thing he did was change some movies that he owned, it's hardly the worst thing to happen, even if we're just picking filmmakers.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:14
|
|
|
Yeah, sometimes we forget that in the end, its thanks to the guy that we even have Star Wars. He's done some awful poo poo to the brand in the last decade, but without him we wouldn't have a lot of great poo poo we love.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:28
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:He also was a big defender against colorizing B&W films. It sounds hypocritical but he chose to change Star Wars, even if we don't like it, it is legally his film to change. They're not just his movies, though. He just holds the copyright. This defense of "they're his movies, he can do what he wants" ignores the input of everyone else that took part in creating the movies. Hate, dislike, it's all semantics. Bottom line: you don't agree with the things he's done to the franchise. I don't think there are any goons that do. If there are, they're definitely a minority. Nemesis Of Moles posted:Yeah, sometimes we forget that in the end, its thanks to the guy that we even have Star Wars. He's done some awful poo poo to the brand in the last decade, but without him we wouldn't have a lot of great poo poo we love. http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/marcialucas.html
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:35
|
|
|
Doesn't it seem a little short sighted to claim Lucas shouldn't be taking the sole credit, then giving it to another person? I agree the way George writes Marcia out of the picture is pretty scummy but she didn't do the whole drat thing either. George did have the initial spark. Marcia took it, refined it, made it something worth watching. Without her the films would have been, well, the prequels. But they probably share equal credit.
RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 01:42 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:39
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Doesn't it seem a little short sighted to claim Lucas shouldn't be taking the sole credit, then giving it to another person? I agree the way George writes Marcia out of the picture is pretty scummy but she didn't do the whole drat thing either. George did have the initial spark. And that's why I never said that. I simply highlighted the most egregious example of Lucas' hubris. RagnarokAngel posted:Marcia took it, refined it, made it something worth watching. Without her the films would have been, well, the prequels. But they probably share equal credit. Mooktastical fucked around with this message at 01:47 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:44
|
|
|
Divorce does poo poo to people. It's sad really.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:46
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Divorce does poo poo to people. It's sad really. Straw man to red herring, nice.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:55
|
|
|
I was not aware I was debating anything  Edit: I get your point really, I'm not trying to change your mind on anything though. RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 01:58 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 01:56
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:I was not aware I was debating anything Well I posted a response that contradicted yours...Would you prefer to call it an argument?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 02:00
|
|
|
How does it contradict it? We both agreed no one person gets credit for it. All I had said was that without George we wouldn't have Star Wars, and you have to admit that's true. I didn't mean to imply that he was the end-all be-all. I'd easily agree that there'd be no Star Wars without Marcia, or no ESB without Kershner etc. Parts of a whole. I'm sorry if I seemed contradicting.
RagnarokAngel fucked around with this message at 02:09 on Mar 18, 2011 |
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 02:02
|
|
|
Yeah I don't think anyone could or would claim Lucas has sole credit for Star wars at all.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 02:18
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:How does it contradict it? We both agreed no one person gets credit for it. All I had said was that without George we wouldn't have Star Wars, and you have to admit that's true. I didn't mean to imply that he was the end-all be-all. I'd easily agree that there'd be no Star Wars without Marcia, or no ESB without Kershner etc. Parts of a whole. I'm sorry if I seemed contradicting. I'm sorry, I should've been more specific. This is what I mainly take issue with: RagnarokAngel posted:The worst thing he did was change some movies that he owned, it's hardly the worst thing to happen, even if we're just picking filmmakers. Originally, I was basically just bitching about how he chose to exert his legal power as copyright holder. It must sound pretty  , but I really think there's more to it than just who holds the rights. Imagine if the OT was made in the traditional studio manner. Had the studio bastardized the franchise to the amount that Lucas has, I'd be just as pissed at them, and for very similar reasons. It's not fair to poo poo all over other people's work like that.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 02:24
|
|
|
Regarding the whole "its his right to change his own film" I look at it like this: Leonardo painted the Mona Lisa and by all rights he can do whatever he wants with it. But if he took a huge poo poo on it and then rubbed his lovely rear end all over it, we all have the right to get pissed at him because he took something beautiful and totally ruined it. Just because he has the rights doesn't make it right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 03:14
|
|
|
SeanBeansShako posted:That I did not know. We spend way too much being jerks about George. I live in Connecticut and the local NPR station always mentions the George Lucas Educational Fund as one of its sponsors.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 03:22
|
|
|
Mooktastical posted:Originally, I was basically just bitching about how he chose to exert his legal power as copyright holder. It must sound pretty I think we can quote the ghost of a wise man in support of this: George Lucas, testifying before congress, 1988 posted:A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 03:38
|
|
|
^^^Yeah, but he was talking about "art", not one long toy commercial like you know what has turned into.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 07:30
|
|
|
deadguy posted:^^^Yeah, but he was talking about "art", not one long toy commercial like you know what has turned into. Turned into?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 07:34
|
|
|
RagnarokAngel posted:Turned into? Well, the prequels. The OT was pretty legitimate wasn't it?
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 14:08
|
|
|
deadguy posted:Well, the prequels. The OT was pretty legitimate wasn't it? I'm pretty sure we can get 10 different interviews that say ROTJ was intended to be a big toy commercial.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 14:10
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:I'm pretty sure we can get 10 different interviews that say ROTJ was intended to be a big toy commercial. Hell, you can probably go back to interviews about Lucas seeing even Empire as a toy commercial. Probably why he dislikes it so much: it was a toy commercial that nearly cost him everything. Past schedule, overbudget, $30 million+ toy commercial that Lucas had to take out loans and risk his entire fortune and future on. I kind of worry that Star Wars is a self-perpetuating entity now. Like, George Lucas makes Star Wars movies to sell action figures and comics and books and whatever to make money. And then he uses that money to make more Star Wars. It's almost frightening.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 16:54
|
|
|
During production of A New Hope George specifically negotiated for exclusive rights to merchandising contracts, and got them because at the time no one saw any money in it. It's no mystery honestly.
|
|
#
?
Mar 18, 2011 18:31
|
|
|
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 00:30
|
|
|
^...the hell? Why are they using stormtroopers? Is there something I'm missing?  To make up for that insanity, here's a pic of the EU's cutest Sith:    
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 10:59
|
|
|
Mahoshonen posted:^...the hell? Why are they using stormtroopers? Is there something I'm missing?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 11:12
|
|
|
Does anyone have that EU cover that is blatantly a LOTR photoshop with a lightsaber?
|
|
#
?
Mar 19, 2011 12:55
|
|
|
In the OP there's a link to a LP of KOTOR which links to a strange page that has an IP address as the webpage address and doesn't show me as being signed into SA and all the links are dead. Can anyone tell what's up with that?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 00:35
|
|
|
Mister Roboto posted:Does anyone have that EU cover that is blatantly a LOTR photoshop with a lightsaber? It's not cover art, it's from (I believe) The New Essential Chronology. As I recall it's either supposed to be the Great Hyperspace War from the Tales of the Jedi comics or the battle from the end of the Jedi vs. Sith comic, but I looked through the images category on Wookieepedia and didn't see it.
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 03:54
|
|
|
I will never get tired of posting this. 
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 03:56
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 16, 2024 08:18 |
|
|
Just noticed the triceratops  how does that thing eat?
|
|
#
?
Mar 20, 2011 04:01
|
|
