Bob Iger reveals that George Lucas was disappointed by TFA

This isn't news. This is marketing for Bob Iger's book. And while GL is obviously entitled to his opinion, he clearly isn't objective. Like Riceball said, the ST could've been the best movies ever made and he still wouldn't like them. This is all about his ego. He sold his baby to Disney and instead of being treated like the revered father\creator figure, Disney patted him on the head and said, "Thanks, George. We'll take it from here.". Now he's butthurt and painting himself as a victim. One who walked away with billions of dollars.

Its just funny how some people here will buy into something as long as it fits their view of how they want things to be.
 
Why on Earth do we care what the guy who sold the property, and fouled up the previous 3 movies thinks?

He created the series, but he's not at the wheel any more, so what he thinks should have happened is as important to me as what the nerd sitting 5 seats over in the theater thinks; precisely dick.
 
Last edited:
Halliwax said:
Me too, always wondered what the next “baddie” was going to be
Click to expand...

According to some of Pablo Hildago's tweets, and concept art. "Uber" was thes name or code name of the villain. He is or his apprentice is responsible for turning Han and Leia's son. "Uber's" apprentice was an going to be an adaptation of Darth Talon. By this we know that this was one of George's ideas. "Uber" eventually became Snoke.
hidalgo_lucas2.jpg

talon_tfa1.jpg

talon_tfa2.jpg
 
Part of why I know I'd have issues with a George-created ST, too -- just different ones. From everything I've seen, George, Michael, J.J., Larry, and Jon all needed to be more conscious of hubris, and weren't. It was what led to the downfall of the Republic and Jedi, it was what led to the downfall of Palpatine and the Empire, in different form... It doesn't need to be the focus of the ST, but those writing it need(ed) to be conscious of its impact on the New Republic, First Order, and Our Heroes having learned humility needed to pass that on to the next generation.

From what we've gotten, from what we've seen of George's treatments, from Michael grumbling about how Luke took over the story as soon as he appeared, it's apparent that those writing Han, Luke, and Leia hadn't internalized what those characters would have learned from what they went through. So they had to come up with other motivations and lessons. Since Our Heroes lived through the end of ROTJ, they're right in the middle of "either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". I am with George in wishing they'd explored that more, rather than going back to the familiar. At the same time, I don't think he'd've done much better.
 
Inquisitor Peregrinus said:
Part of why I know I'd have issues with a George-created ST, too -- just different ones. From everything I've seen, George, Michael, J.J., Larry, and Jon all needed to be more conscious of hubris, and weren't. It was what led to the downfall of the Republic and Jedi, it was what led to the downfall of Palpatine and the Empire, in different form... It doesn't need to be the focus of the ST, but those writing it need(ed) to be conscious of its impact on the New Republic, First Order, and Our Heroes having learned humility needed to pass that on to the next generation.

From what we've gotten, from what we've seen of George's treatments, from Michael grumbling about how Luke took over the story as soon as he appeared, it's apparent that those writing Han, Luke, and Leia hadn't internalized what those characters would have learned from what they went through. So they had to come up with other motivations and lessons. Since Our Heroes lived through the end of ROTJ, they're right in the middle of "either die a hero or live long enough to see yourself become the villain". I am with George in wishing they'd explored that more, rather than going back to the familiar. At the same time, I don't think he'd've done much better.
Click to expand...
Before TLJ, I had never even heard the word hubris before. First movie that I have ever had to Google some of the dialogue!
 
I know some of the concepts George threw around for his versions of 7, 8, and 9 were to explore the "microscopic" aspects of the Force, so more stupid midichlorians etc. Perhaps the new villain would have been disease and watching a person lay in a sickbay fighting off said disease for 3 films. Yawn. :rolleyes: No thanks George. I'll pass.

I wouldn't have liked his concept any better than what we got, nor has my distaste for the ST made my perspective on the PT change, because I still hate those movies too. They suck. So I am far from the type to start lamenting George's departure entirely. Though I don't outright hate him either and my hope is that he still has some talent left in him. Though we will never know now because he's hellbent on hiding his current films from the world.

What I am interested to see (though I suspect that Lucasfilm under Kennedy would do their damnedest to hide it) is what the truth behind these new films really is? It's certainly more volatile that they make it out to be and though the public may never know the whole truth, I think there is a level of duplicity to it all that makes my stomach turn.

Joek3rr said:
Before TLJ, I had never even heard the word hubris before. First movie that I have ever had to Google some of the dialogue!
Click to expand...

I think Hubris has always been a central theme of the Empire's downfall and why the Rebels managed to eventually defeat the Empire (at least in the three original films) though it was never stated outright.

Their arrogance often led to their defeat at many points in the story.

So basically Hubris is not a new concept in the Star Wars films, only now the focus of that Hubris has been shifted to the heroes and not the villains. Which I personally hate but to each their own.

But back on topic.

The initial article really doesn't come as a surprise to most Star Wars fans that have been paying attention. Perhaps this is news to the general public, but for Star Wars fans, no matter how you feel about the new films, this was never hidden if you watched closely enough.
 
It would be hard to walk away from characters you created but that is part of the reason why the stories have suffered in my opinion because he overstayed his welcome.

Sometimes it's just better to leave a story behind and move on to other things. I linked it to one of the threads either late last year or earlier this year about the relationship between the artist and their creation and how when you keep changing it, you tend to mess it up.

It used Calvin and Hobbes as a great example of how to preserve the artistic integrity of a work by letting it be.
 
Psab keel said:
I know some of the concepts George threw around for his versions of 7, 8, and 9 were to explore the "microscopic" aspects of the Force, so more stupid midichlorians etc. Perhaps the new villain would have been disease and watching a person lay in a sickbay fighting off said disease for 3 films. Yawn. :rolleyes: No thanks George. I'll pass.

I wouldn't have liked his concept any better than what we got, nor has my distaste for the ST made my perspective on the PT change, because I still hate those movies too. They suck. So I am far from the type to start lamenting George's departure entirely. Though I don't outright hate him either and my hope is that he still has some talent left in him. Though we will never know now because he's hellbent on hiding his current films from the world.

What I am interested to see (though I suspect that Lucasfilm under Kennedy would do their damnedest to hide it) is what the truth behind these new films really is? It's certainly more volatile that they make it out to be and though the public may never know the whole truth, I think there is a level of duplicity to it all that makes my stomach turn.



I think Hubris has always been a central theme of the Empire's downfall and why the Rebels managed to eventually defeat the Empire (at least in the three original films) though it was never stated outright.

Their arrogance often led to their defeat at many points in the story.

So basically Hubris is not a new concept in the Star Wars films, only now the focus of that Hubris has been shifted to the heroes and not the villains. Which I personally hate but to each their own.

But back on topic.

The initial article really doesn't come as a surprise to most Star Wars fans that have been paying attention. Perhaps this is news to the general public, but for Star Wars fans, no matter how you feel about the new films, this was never hidden if you watched closely enough.
Click to expand...

What I'd be curious to know. Is when that meeting took place. Because George was liking some the stuff they were doing in that first art meeting.

But if I was to hazard a guess. Disney/Lucasfilm looked at George's outlines. Adapted what they liked(Luke in exile, female protagonist, etc) and dumped the rest. That being all that midi-chlorian/Whills stuff.
 
Oh I'm sure they took some of the ideas and ran with them, using some basic concepts he had and doing different things with them.

As far as getting a solid timeline and who came up with what I suspect that most of it is conjecture and we will never know how it all came to be. I mean look at the original trilogy. Even after 40 years we know the basics of how it came together but there are still multiple versions of the same stories with people taking credit for things and disowning others and perspectives on who developed it all changing with every interview practically. This will be no different.
 
I believe I caught an “After School Special” called “The Dangers of Dealing With White Slavers”, starring either Willie Ames or Scott Baio, that made it very clear that when one does business with “White Slavers” one should expect underhanded dealing. As a general rule, I have always steered clear of these “White Slavers” in all of my business dealings. I wonder why George did not follow this valuable advice? Nonetheless, I don’t believe that there is any sour grapes to be found in this situation—at least for George Lucas.

I am also reminded that time truly does create romantic nostalgia that clouds people’s judgements. I will temper my reaction to this story with my singular certainty that the man who gave us the prequel trilogy really was not about to deliver a profound rebound to form with his trilogy about the micro-verse of Star Wars. We would not have been just a Jar Jar Binks away from a series of films to rival the OT. I can imagine the dialogue now...”I hate atoms, they’re coarse and rough, and they get everywhere....”

Such histrionic clickbait from the armchair Youtube commentators on this subject today....I am certain George is shedding no tears for the fact they they did not use his story ideas for the new trilogy. I think he knew when to hand off the franchise and his timing was genius. I very much doubt that he regrets offloading it.

If anything, the past few years should lead Disney to check to see if there are any “Film Franchise Lemon Laws” that would allow them to return the franchise to George and the return of their investment. Bob should have done more than just “kick the tires” on that one before signing the deal.

;)
 
Last edited:
There has been some speculation (check out RLM for this one too) that says that he was so bitter about his relationship to Star Wars and it's fans that he intentionally sold it to Disney, knowing they would **** it up. In this way George would be able to get a huge pay out, and be rid of the nerd rage that fueled his stone fireplaces for the last 20 years because then they could direct their hatred at Disney instead of him.

For the record, he no longer uses nerd rage as fuel, he's using the money from the Disney sale as firewood now.
 
people still talk about George's huge payout for Star Wars but remember he donated the money from the sale elsewhere so it wasn't about money.

Ben
 
I don't think it was all about the money but it certainly was a factor. Plus if the supposed leaks are to be believed, he still gets a cut of Disney's profit every time they use one of the characters he created from ep. 1 -6.

George has always had a complicated relationship with the fans so even in his departure it comes as no surprise to me that those complications would still exist.

I could care less what he chose to do with his own money. Its his. He earned it. He can do whatever he wants with it. Though even if he donated all 4 billion to charity he's still set for several lifetimes. He's a business man and a very savvy one at that. Though to be fair he's also a family man. I mean at the end of the day he's just a man. Not a god like some revere him to be.

I still would be thrilled to meet him if I ever got the chance. I just find it hilarious that the general media is only now, four years later, picking up on Georges displeasure with the direction of the story. Clearly they weren't paying any attention.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ron
Someone needs to remind George of what he said in 82.
“I’m only doing this because I started it and now I have to finish it,” he adds. “The next trilogy will be all someone else’s vision.”
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

LOM
An Analysis of ANH Lightsabers Timeline, Stunt Props, and Miscellaneous Theories
2
Replies
39
Views
9,556
PadawanLoLo
PadawanLoLo
Back
Top