Last edited by a moderator:
George Lucas on the meaning of Star Wars
- Thread starter ghostryder
- Start date
.... and sell a LOT of toys!
That is some old school Lucas there, that guy should make movies.
That is some old school Lucas there, that guy should make movies.
SVTStingRay
Sr Member
sometime, somewhere that original message became horribly wrong and lost
There´s a bit of retconning going on, isn´t it? When he started with "When I was pitching ..." I thought he´d continue with "... Flash Gordon". And then he´s all about how he wanted to tell a great story. Or am I remembering things not correctly if I say that his first drafts were void of what he was talking about, and the greater idea of a modern myth was added after he had talked to Campbell?!
anamorphicWayne
Sr Member
The modern myth he was referring to is called The Heroes Journey. You can see it in Star Wars and within the trilogy itself.
http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero's_journey.htm
http://www.thewritersjourney.com/hero's_journey.htm
Well if he doesn't think people can't argue about SW, he hasn't been on the Internet since 1999. :lol
If you were George you'd steer clear of the net as well! :lol
Solo4114
Master Member
Look, I think it's lovely that George Lucas has these various grand ideas about what Star Wars means, and such. But the fact is that I now pay very little accord to any pronouncements he makes on the subject of Star Wars. His story about its creation has itself become a myth, which has -- like many myths -- gone through several iterations and modifications over time.
The one really valuable lesson that I think it teaches, though, is that our perceptions of the past can change over time, to the point that we may be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN in this moment about the significance of a given moment in the past, but 1, 2, 5, or 20 years down the road, we may tell an entirely different but equally ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN story about those same events.
The one really valuable lesson that I think it teaches, though, is that our perceptions of the past can change over time, to the point that we may be ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN in this moment about the significance of a given moment in the past, but 1, 2, 5, or 20 years down the road, we may tell an entirely different but equally ABSOLUTELY CERTAIN story about those same events.
Let's take it easy on GL. There are plenty of documented interviews that can provide insight into his thoughts literally at the time of his creation of SW. The things that he has retconed are his prerogative. But I do see a through line, after hearing the interviews, reading the articles, having been alive and aware of SW as a not so young kid, there is consistency to his message and he deserves more then a modicum of respect and retrospective criticism.
I agree. GL changes his details but there is a lot of consistency in what he talks about in the big picture.
Look into studies of human memory. The more times you recall something, the more you subconsciously alter the memory. Your recollection is actually more accurate about things you have recalled less often. My point is that GL's changes to the story are probably less intentional than we assume.
Look into studies of human memory. The more times you recall something, the more you subconsciously alter the memory. Your recollection is actually more accurate about things you have recalled less often. My point is that GL's changes to the story are probably less intentional than we assume.
Solo4114
Master Member
I guess when I refer to the "myth" surrounding George Lucas, it's more the message that was conveyed throughout the 80s that he was this amazing, sole auteur who dreamed everything up himself, had a plan the whole time (that made sense), knew the backstory of the world, etc. As time has revealed, that's just not the case, or at least isn't the whole story. Yes, he had a plan, but the plan kept changing over the years, and probably continues to change to this day. Yes, he was the creative spark behind Star Wars, but a HUGE portion of that vision is due to the work of people who are not George Lucas. People like Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, Marcia Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan, Irving Kirshner, Ben Burtt, Joe Johnston, Phil Tippit, John Williams, and the list goes on.
Basically, what I don't buy into now is the phrase "I always intended" or the notion that there was some single, conscious purpose behind everything from the get-go. I'm not saying that there isn't a thru-line, or that Lucas isn't incredibly creative, but he's not a monolith. Popular culture, however, treats him as such. I guess as I've gotten older, I've become far more inclined to believe that people are very often not creative monoliths. Jim Henson was the spark behind the Muppet, but all the other performers and crafters helped make his vision into a reality, and in so doing shaped the vision itself. Sting is an incredibly talented musician, but his best work is when he worked with Andy Summers and Stuart Copeland in the Police.
We tend to put certain artists on a pedestal, crediting them with this kind of genius, and while they do have a degree of genius, when it comes to film or television certainly, that genius is almost always the result of a collaborative process with other people helping them realize it. When it comes to Lucas, I think his best work was when he had equal or near-equal collaborators, rather than employees.
Basically, what I don't buy into now is the phrase "I always intended" or the notion that there was some single, conscious purpose behind everything from the get-go. I'm not saying that there isn't a thru-line, or that Lucas isn't incredibly creative, but he's not a monolith. Popular culture, however, treats him as such. I guess as I've gotten older, I've become far more inclined to believe that people are very often not creative monoliths. Jim Henson was the spark behind the Muppet, but all the other performers and crafters helped make his vision into a reality, and in so doing shaped the vision itself. Sting is an incredibly talented musician, but his best work is when he worked with Andy Summers and Stuart Copeland in the Police.
We tend to put certain artists on a pedestal, crediting them with this kind of genius, and while they do have a degree of genius, when it comes to film or television certainly, that genius is almost always the result of a collaborative process with other people helping them realize it. When it comes to Lucas, I think his best work was when he had equal or near-equal collaborators, rather than employees.
I never have ascribed to those feelings towards GL. To me, he was just a hard working film maker who's real legacy is being one of if not the most successful independents who created some of the most influential entertainment production companies (LucasFilm, ILM, Skywalker Sound, ect) of all time.
Solo4114
Master Member
I get you, and he may not actually believe it himself. I mean, he's said "They're my stories," and they are, but he may recognize the collaborative efforts that went into them.
Honestly, I think a lot of this is more about my own disillusionment with Lucas as a creator stemming from what happened in the late 90s and early 2000s with Star Wars, and some of the stuff he said during that time in response to fan backlash at his decisions. When I say that popular culture put him on a pedestal, I include myself in that. Nowadays...yeah, not so much. He's not infallible, and his storytelling decisions with the PT and (from what I heard) Indy IV...were questionable at best for me. So I guess I just don't accord him the kind of awe that I once did, and hence, when he says something -- even if it's something that I agree with -- I'm more inclined to just shrug and figure "Ok. One man's opinion." It's an interesting opinion, sure, but it's not, like, the final word on the subject for me. For me, Star Wars has grown beyond Lucas, his attitudes, and his dictates. He can say what he thinks Star Wars means, but...
And to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with him on this particular statement. I just don't think that his is the only opinion that matters, nor is it the final word on all things Star Wars. To the contrary, I think Star Wars serves as a terrific example of a work ceasing to be the author's and becoming the audience's (intellectual property laws aside, of course) to a degree.
Honestly, I think a lot of this is more about my own disillusionment with Lucas as a creator stemming from what happened in the late 90s and early 2000s with Star Wars, and some of the stuff he said during that time in response to fan backlash at his decisions. When I say that popular culture put him on a pedestal, I include myself in that. Nowadays...yeah, not so much. He's not infallible, and his storytelling decisions with the PT and (from what I heard) Indy IV...were questionable at best for me. So I guess I just don't accord him the kind of awe that I once did, and hence, when he says something -- even if it's something that I agree with -- I'm more inclined to just shrug and figure "Ok. One man's opinion." It's an interesting opinion, sure, but it's not, like, the final word on the subject for me. For me, Star Wars has grown beyond Lucas, his attitudes, and his dictates. He can say what he thinks Star Wars means, but...
And to be clear, I'm not saying I disagree with him on this particular statement. I just don't think that his is the only opinion that matters, nor is it the final word on all things Star Wars. To the contrary, I think Star Wars serves as a terrific example of a work ceasing to be the author's and becoming the audience's (intellectual property laws aside, of course) to a degree.
Attachments
Understood. I never looked at him with a sense of awe and wonder, I looked at him more as a CEO visionary along the lines of a Steve Jobs as opposed to a Tolkien. His storytelling is just a part of why I respect his accomplishments. So when he equivocated or reinvents his thoughts on SW, it sort of goes in one ear out the other.
Enh... I can semi-agree @Bryancd. I was barely old enough to even remember seeing Star Wars with my folks the first time, in the theater. I was well and thoroughly hooked by Empire, though, I know that. And so eager for Jedi I have no words. And I remember, even before the age of ten, that something was off about that last film. It took me years to be able to nail down what all bothered me about it compared to the previous two -- everything from the story to its presentation. I spent a lot of time the years that followed delving deeper into the craft and the real-world genesis and timeline of the Saga, in part to understand how to make movies like that myself, and partly -- from an audience perspective -- to understand what worked, what didn't, and why.
I found out fairly quickly about George and Marcia divorcing between Empire and Jedi, and I got more and more evidence as time went on that she had been George's critical brain through the editing of the first two films -- telling him to leave in things that worked and that the audeince responded to, even if he didn't like them or thought they were reacting the wrong way... and prevailing on him to take out things he thought were great but that fell flat in test screenings. I attribute the burp and fart jokes that have been present from Jedi on to her absence.
I also learned more about the various drafts the scripts went through and who was responsible for what. I miss Leigh Brackett a lot. I seriously appreciate the melding of Irvin Kershner, Larry Kasdan, and the cast to make with Empire a film that was greater than the sum of its parts -- an organic synthesis I wish the other films had. I find it telling that it is most fans' favorite out of the six George had at least a hand in, and the one that George considers the weakest of those six.
I credit George strongly with being the idea guy, and a terrific idea guy. He has been at his best when he has a few people to brainstorm, spitball, and generally think out loud with. But he needs skilled storytellers to then bash those ideas into a workable, internally-consistent plot. I definitely ding him for not being more aware of his weaknesses and finding the right people to shore them up.
I tracked the morphing length of the Saga through his interviews. When Star Wars came out, it was in the middle of a twelve-movie cycle. The latter half we were getting first were From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, and -- going by his early-early scribbled notes -- the first half, once we got to them, were to be From the Adventures of Obi-Wan Kenobi. By the time he was making Empire, he had decided there was only enough story potential in his background notes for three films and Star Wars retroactively became Episode IV, and the Saga was now to be nine films. After Empire, he was getting burned out and wanted to do other things, and did Jedi more out of a sense of obligation to not leave the story hanging, but still crammed four films' worth of plot points into one. Then he went on to do things that were more important to him. Like Howard the Duck.
When Rick McCallum came on board to help with the 20th anniversary Special Edition of Star Wars, he coaxed George into doing the Prequels, and also redefined the now-six-film arc to be about the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker -- even though that character had only enough of an arc to be peripheral in the Prequels at best. Obi-Wan was supposed to be the central Hero. But that also utterly alters the impact of the Original Trilogy. All the revelations are gone. We know Anakin becomes Vader, we know Luke and Leia are twins, we know what Yoda looks like... Now we just spend three films waiting for Our Heroes to catch up with the audience, which is not a good position for an audience to be in.
It's an old industry aphorism that a film is made three times (George's love of tweaking notwithstanding) -- on the page, on the stage, and in the booth. George got into film-making wanting to be an editor. But to control the raw material he got to edit, he felt he needed to control the earlier stages in the process, too, rather than find people who were stronger in those areas (and liked doing them) to work with. I ache sometimes to think how things might have gone if he hadn't burned himself out trying to wear too many hats, had gathered around him a cadre of good writers and directors who got what he was trying to say and show and could deliver, and weren't afraid to tell him when one of his ideas needed to be changed for the sake of the story*.
[*Actually, I had a scriptwriting professor who gave me probably the best advice in this area I'll ever get. "Part of learning how to do this," he said, "is watching what's out there -- what other people have done. And, sadly, there's a lot of [crap] out there. When you notice you've gotten kicked out of the experience, don't just sit there bitching about it. Get a copy of the script and see if you can do better." So far, amongst others, I've rewritten Jedi and the Prequels, and undone what I perceive to be the larger damage done to the Saga and uncompressed things back into twelve films, the first half centering on Obi-Wan, the second on Luke. And everyone I've shown them to thinks they're far, far better than what we actually got.]
So I respect George for having an idea, like Gene Roddenberry. Like Gene, he has his flaws and blind spots. Like Gene, his creation outgrew his sole authority and he never really learned to share with others who might have been able to help. But George's actual attempts at storytelling, like Gene's, are just kind of... embarrassing. Star Wars worked because of the actors and the production values and visual effects breakthroughs and, let's be honest, because at that time fewer people were familiar with The Hidden Fortress, and also because he was fresh from a crash course on myth and the Hero's Journey. The story itself is pretty basic, but all of that other stuff lets us ignore that. Empire had to step it up a notch, in complexity, and it delivered. After that, though, things sort of fell flat, and that's mainly because George is an idea man, not a storyteller.
--Jonah
I found out fairly quickly about George and Marcia divorcing between Empire and Jedi, and I got more and more evidence as time went on that she had been George's critical brain through the editing of the first two films -- telling him to leave in things that worked and that the audeince responded to, even if he didn't like them or thought they were reacting the wrong way... and prevailing on him to take out things he thought were great but that fell flat in test screenings. I attribute the burp and fart jokes that have been present from Jedi on to her absence.
I also learned more about the various drafts the scripts went through and who was responsible for what. I miss Leigh Brackett a lot. I seriously appreciate the melding of Irvin Kershner, Larry Kasdan, and the cast to make with Empire a film that was greater than the sum of its parts -- an organic synthesis I wish the other films had. I find it telling that it is most fans' favorite out of the six George had at least a hand in, and the one that George considers the weakest of those six.
I credit George strongly with being the idea guy, and a terrific idea guy. He has been at his best when he has a few people to brainstorm, spitball, and generally think out loud with. But he needs skilled storytellers to then bash those ideas into a workable, internally-consistent plot. I definitely ding him for not being more aware of his weaknesses and finding the right people to shore them up.
I tracked the morphing length of the Saga through his interviews. When Star Wars came out, it was in the middle of a twelve-movie cycle. The latter half we were getting first were From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker, and -- going by his early-early scribbled notes -- the first half, once we got to them, were to be From the Adventures of Obi-Wan Kenobi. By the time he was making Empire, he had decided there was only enough story potential in his background notes for three films and Star Wars retroactively became Episode IV, and the Saga was now to be nine films. After Empire, he was getting burned out and wanted to do other things, and did Jedi more out of a sense of obligation to not leave the story hanging, but still crammed four films' worth of plot points into one. Then he went on to do things that were more important to him. Like Howard the Duck.
When Rick McCallum came on board to help with the 20th anniversary Special Edition of Star Wars, he coaxed George into doing the Prequels, and also redefined the now-six-film arc to be about the rise, fall, and redemption of Anakin Skywalker -- even though that character had only enough of an arc to be peripheral in the Prequels at best. Obi-Wan was supposed to be the central Hero. But that also utterly alters the impact of the Original Trilogy. All the revelations are gone. We know Anakin becomes Vader, we know Luke and Leia are twins, we know what Yoda looks like... Now we just spend three films waiting for Our Heroes to catch up with the audience, which is not a good position for an audience to be in.
It's an old industry aphorism that a film is made three times (George's love of tweaking notwithstanding) -- on the page, on the stage, and in the booth. George got into film-making wanting to be an editor. But to control the raw material he got to edit, he felt he needed to control the earlier stages in the process, too, rather than find people who were stronger in those areas (and liked doing them) to work with. I ache sometimes to think how things might have gone if he hadn't burned himself out trying to wear too many hats, had gathered around him a cadre of good writers and directors who got what he was trying to say and show and could deliver, and weren't afraid to tell him when one of his ideas needed to be changed for the sake of the story*.
[*Actually, I had a scriptwriting professor who gave me probably the best advice in this area I'll ever get. "Part of learning how to do this," he said, "is watching what's out there -- what other people have done. And, sadly, there's a lot of [crap] out there. When you notice you've gotten kicked out of the experience, don't just sit there bitching about it. Get a copy of the script and see if you can do better." So far, amongst others, I've rewritten Jedi and the Prequels, and undone what I perceive to be the larger damage done to the Saga and uncompressed things back into twelve films, the first half centering on Obi-Wan, the second on Luke. And everyone I've shown them to thinks they're far, far better than what we actually got.]
So I respect George for having an idea, like Gene Roddenberry. Like Gene, he has his flaws and blind spots. Like Gene, his creation outgrew his sole authority and he never really learned to share with others who might have been able to help. But George's actual attempts at storytelling, like Gene's, are just kind of... embarrassing. Star Wars worked because of the actors and the production values and visual effects breakthroughs and, let's be honest, because at that time fewer people were familiar with The Hidden Fortress, and also because he was fresh from a crash course on myth and the Hero's Journey. The story itself is pretty basic, but all of that other stuff lets us ignore that. Empire had to step it up a notch, in complexity, and it delivered. After that, though, things sort of fell flat, and that's mainly because George is an idea man, not a storyteller.
--Jonah
Last edited:
Exactly. He's always been more comfortable in the editing booth and on the visual effects stages and working with equipment rather that people.
--Jonah
--Jonah
Similar threads
