|
|
Post by jppiper on Nov 3, 2020 22:16:38 GMT
This needs to be discussed i made a poll for Brighter Than Coruscant asking if lucas was surrounded by yes men and the first comment said for the OT no for the PT yes i deleted the poll shortly thereafter i know i know stupid so i'll ask here do you think lucas was surrounded by yes men during the production of the PT?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 4, 2020 2:41:50 GMT
This needs to be discussed i made a poll for Brighter Than Coruscant asking if lucas was surrounded by yes men and the first comment said for the OT no for the PT yes i deleted the poll shortly thereafter i know i know stupid so i'll ask here do you think lucas was surrounded by yes men during the production of the PT? Some people say "yes men". I say "people who get shit done". Also, "yes women", if you please. Trisha Biggar, Terryl Whitlatch, and Robin Gurland, to name but three examples, are certainly people who had a major positive impact on the prequels. The "yes men" accusation mostly comes down to a case of sour grapes, I think, and is basically a disguised way of bitching, "Lucas didn't make the prequels my way." There's some truth to it (as there is to many things) that gets at something pretty basic and undeniable about the PT, however: these are surprisingly personal films with an idiosyncratic and even a mildly (or perhaps even a markedly) eccentric touch. The personal bent of the prequels is maybe best summed up by two of GL's most famous remarks in "The Beginning": "Jar Jar is the key to all this" and "I may have gone too far in a few places". |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 4, 2020 4:19:39 GMT
Yes... he was. All directors are surrounded by "yes men". Such is quite literally the job of being a director. A film set is not a democracy.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 4, 2020 7:11:26 GMT
Yes... he was. All directors are surrounded by "yes men". Such is quite literally the job of being a director. A film set is not a democracy. It's not a democracy, but some directors are more autocratic than others. In Lucas' case, the perception of him being surrounded by "yes men" exists, in part, because he unusually took on the task of writing, producing, and directing the prequels himself -- and he owned the companies that were used to make them. This lends the impression he was imposing his will on absolutely everyone and everything and didn't have to battle through some of the constraints that other filmmakers face (especially with big tentpole movies). Additionally, people didn't like a lot of Lucas' choices, or felt weirded-out by them in some way. But that's where the collective doublethink is obvious. Other filmmakers aren't normally bashed for having "yes men" or for people "being too afraid to say no". A dogma developed that Lucas somehow bullied or controlled people into adhering to his every wish, "even when they knew his ideas were terrible". There's little real evidence of this being the case. But yes: a film set is not a democracy. I think it speaks to something innate about the Star Wars fanbase. Many of its constituents seem to feel uniquely entitled to have their own needs and wishes met and validated with these films. The good news is they can be: if one is willing to look at them from different angles and apply new lines of interpretation. However, the fanbase seems to have a real bee in its bonnet when a director with strong ideas comes along (George Lucas, Rian Johnson), and then the conversation rapidly shifts to how they "ruined" the franchise and "should have been reined in". Basically, when Star Wars flexes its offbeat muscles, people don't like it. They want clones of ANH and TESB; or an inconsequential distraction like "Rogue One". |
|
|
|
Post by Ingram on Nov 4, 2020 8:06:44 GMT
Yes... he was. All directors are surrounded by "yes men". Such is quite literally the job of being a director. A film set is not a democracy. It's not a democracy, but some directors are more autocratic than others. In Lucas' case, the perception of him being surrounded by "yes men" exists, in part, because he unusually took on the task of writing, producing, and directing the prequels himself -- and he owned the companies that were used to make them. This lends the impression he was imposing his will on absolutely everyone and everything and didn't have to battle through some of the constraints that other filmmakers face (especially with big tentpole movies). Additionally, people didn't like a lot of Lucas' choices, or felt weirded-out by them in some way. But that's where the collective doublethink is obvious. Other filmmakers aren't normally bashed for having "yes men" or for people "being too afraid to say no". A dogma developed that Lucas somehow bullied or controlled people into adhering to his every wish, "even when they knew his ideas were terrible". There's little real evidence of this being the case. But yes: a film set is not a democracy. I think it speaks to something innate about the Star Wars fanbase. Many of its constituents seem to feel uniquely entitled to have their own needs and wishes met and validated with these films. The good news is they can be: if one is willing to look at them from different angles and apply new lines of interpretation. However, the fanbase seems to have a real bee in its bonnet when a director with strong ideas comes along (George Lucas, Rian Johnson), and then the conversation rapidly shifts to how they "ruined" the franchise and "should have been reined in". Basically, when Star Wars flexes its offbeat muscles, people don't like it. They want clones of ANH and TESB; or an inconsequential distraction like "Rogue One". Hey, Rogue One is not inconsequential; YOU'RE inconsequential! ...Sorry. My impulsive defense of the movie sometimes gets the better of me. I would contend that Rogue One is... untroubled, with the ST, at least. Backwater. Anyhow, yes, the position of a director can have degrees. I only mean that in a very practical sense, his/her job is to pass or go on every option, every technical or artistic choice, provided by the rest of the crew; and that said hierarchy literally cannot exist if the latter do not ultimately defer. I suppose what critics mean to say is that Lucas was less open to the input and suggestions of others, except there seems to be little-to-no clear metric for this from one trilogy to the next. People instead interpret as they please based on the few broad, vague creative difference or business conclusions that have transpired (inevitably, organically) between Lucas and this producer or that writer during the course of the saga. But if the making-of featurettes of the Prequels show anything, it's that Lucas was obviously dependent on a myriad of ideas, from concept to execution, that he could otherwise never have realistically generated on his own—a process necessary for enriching the soil of world-building. I'd say the whole "yes men" argument is just plain reductive, and armchair to the point where a mere 30 seconds of objective thinking can scarcely even imagine how such omnipotence actually functions in a real life filmmaking environment. Also, Rogue One is not inconsequential.
You're just jealous. |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 4, 2020 8:45:57 GMT
Anyhow, yes, the position of a director can have degrees. I only mean that in a very practical sense, his/her job is to pass or go on every option, every technical or artistic choice, provided by the rest of the crew; and that said hierarchy literally cannot exist if the latter do not ultimately defer. I suppose what critics mean to say is that Lucas was less open to the input and suggestions of others, except there seems to be little-to-no clear metric for this from one trilogy to the next. People instead interpret as they please based on the few broad, vague creative difference or business conclusions that have transpired (inevitably, organically) between Lucas and this producer or that writer during the course of the saga. But if the making-of featurettes of the Prequels show anything, it's that Lucas was obviously dependent on a myriad of ideas, from concept to execution, that he could otherwise never have realistically generated on his own—a process necessary for enriching the soil of world-building. I'd say the whole "yes men" argument is just plain reductive, and armchair to the point where a mere 30 seconds of objective thinking can scarcely even imagine how such omnipotence actually functions in a real life filmmaking environment. Paraphrasing Lucas: "A director's job involves answering one-thousand questions every single day. And if you don't know how to do that, you're not a director." So yes, there is certainly a hierarchy, and every director (also paraphrasing Lucas) is part-emperor. There's just an added "kooky" factor with Lucas, in a lot of people's eyes, because he evidently had clear goals and ideas in mind, but yet rather esoteric ones -- which a lot of fans reacted adversely to and didn't quite know how to take (e.g., midi-chlorians). I mean, a certain degree of strangeness is in the DNA of Star Wars, but fans seem to want to keep resisting it. As I said before, they'd rather the franchise meet their personal standards; so when a director strikes out and does something different, with an offbeat quality that involves slaying (or milking) sacred cows, half the fanbase loses its shit and goes into revolt. And they think their revulsion passes for wisdom. It's childish, basically. Now, having just said that, for irony overload, see below...  LOL. Here's another "not" statement for you: "Rogue One" is not untroubled. In terms of its reception? Okay -- most fans seem to like it. But it didn't escape reshoots with a second director. And its score was done at the last minute after the original composer was fired. There was clearly some behind-the-scenes tussling we haven't been made privy to. By "inconsequential" (and yes, I'm being bratty here)... I mean the film is somewhat narratively redundant when stacked next to the saga. Some people say having all the characters die is a bold move. But it also gives the film a relatively hermetic feel. I also plain prefer the Shakespearean/Homeric wrangling of the saga films. I suspect part of the reason people enjoy the Gareth Edwards/Tony Gilroy picture is precisely because it doesn't tread on the toes of the "main" films. You can watch it and/or ignore it. Nothing is really "recontextualised" a great deal. Some diverse yet homogenised rebels steal the plans to the Death Star, some big ship collides with another big ship, and a shiny-looking Darth Vader is in it a little bit. There. I just summed up the movie for you. Oh, it was also shot digitally and has Mustafar and a couple of prequel actors in it. Therefore, it must be a "true" bridging film between the PT and the OT. Wow. Exciting. |
|
|
|
Post by Alexrd on Nov 4, 2020 10:16:48 GMT
Yes... he was. All directors are surrounded by "yes men". Such is quite literally the job of being a director. A film set is not a democracy. Correct. Not all directors have the freedom of authority that Lucas did, but the principle is correct. The implication that people doing what they were hired for, thus proving their worth and trustworthiness, is a problem is ridiculous. A vain attempt to criticize something that's not criticizable, all because Lucas was true to his vision and dared to do what some people didn't like. |
|
jtn90
Ambassador
Posts: 66
|
Post by jtn90 on Nov 4, 2020 14:36:34 GMT
With this there is also the impression that the OT saff challenged him more, specially Gary Kurtz and Keshner,and that's why the OT is better,People really think that during the production of ESB, Lucas was was gagged in the basement, but if is true that they use to say "No" to tons of Lucas ideas, Why Lucas would keep them hired? Isn't the lack of freedom one reason why Lucas broke with Hollywood?
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Nov 4, 2020 18:38:44 GMT
Yes... he was. All directors are surrounded by "yes men". Such is quite literally the job of being a director. A film set is not a democracy. Correct. Not all directors have the freedom of authority that Lucas did, but the principle is correct. The implication that people doing what they were hired for, thus proving their worth and trustworthiness, is a problem is ridiculous. A vain attempt to criticize something that's not criticizable, all because Lucas was true to his vision and dared to do what some people didn't like. It's certainly ridiculous to criticise those people for being "yes men", but the accusation has some bite in terms of the perception that Lucas winged the prequels and was over-indulged. As the saying goes: art from adversity. Some fans continue to think Lucas didn't meet enough resistance when chiselling out the PT, and as a result, the movies were somewhat alienating and less finessed than they could have been. Even Mark Hamill seemed to hold this basic view. However, looked at another way, Lucas was simply painting on a canvas with oils, and no longer merely some plot manager or commissioned artist with limited tools at his disposal. He could do anything; and he was determined to show the world what was now possible. The "didn't like" component is the more significant one to the "yes man" fallacy, however. Because any number of other filmmakers could rightly be considered as single-minded and always getting their own way, like Ridley Scott, Terry Gilliam, or Stanley Kubrick. But it's rare that anyone seeks to discredit their artistic impulses or complain (with some exceptions) about the end product. Obviously, those two things are related in some way: if the end product is liked or revered, no-one says anything about the underlying process or the filmmakers involved; if the end product is disliked or hated, people suddenly disparage the idea of artistic freedom and look for scapegoats. Ergo, because the prequels were dissatisfying for some fans, a romantic, self-serving myth was created that Lucas was "controlled" or "restrained" on the OT (or wasn't even responsible for the success of those films in the first place), while the PT showed us what happens when one person "thinks they can do it all" -- which, ironically, is still a compliment (albeit a back-handed one), of course. And I think that all derives from fans foisting certain expectations on this thing called Star Wars after the OT became an iconic piece of American pop culture. They were not expecting such a departure from the basic aesthetic and tone of those earlier films. Some way was therefore sought to rationalise the jarring difference. After all, it's basically the same creator and the same universe, isn't it? And yet, when two different filmmakers strongly apply their own stamp to a subsequent trilogy under Disney, then some of these same people hanker for a single unifying vision: a general, a leader, a plan. Because, as with the prequels, a rationalisation is sought for after people get down bout the end result; even if both rationalisations undercut one another and the former complaining led (in many ways) to the latter situation. |
|
