General grievances (random fan rants)

The article is just blandly repeating a trope/myth we've all heard before. Its concluding paragraphs:


Yeah, okay... The OT is warmer and funnier. And Marcia probably had something to do with that.

Aaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaand???

Lucas specifically sought a very different tonality in the PT, so I'm not clear on why he supposedly needed a "Marcia Lucas" the second time around:




Also: Lucas is a pretty accomplished editor in his own right.

Also-also: Some Star Wars fans have come round to the prequels a little bit. Others liked them all along.

Also-also-also: The Internet isn't a very good judge of things of lasting value. Case in point: 

en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most-viewed_YouTube_videos

I was thinking of explaining that one with a link or a quote or two, but sometimes (even for Cryo), no explanation is necessary.

Somny
Tom Connors is full of shit saying the Prequels were a disaster the Merchandise didn't sell and that Marcia saved ANH

natalie
i know and now people are saying the Prequels would have been good if Marcia edited them and it seems she doesn't get Star Wars either saying anakin is 6 and padme is 24 in TPM THEY'RE 9 AND 14 RESPECTIVELY!




AND SHE DID NOT SAVE STAR WARS!

Okay, and thanks for making that clarification, Joe.


Not really. How is it people ring-fence ROTJ and ignore the fact that Star Wars was a merchandising supervolcano -- the "Yellowstone Park" of fantasy cinema -- waiting to erupt from the beginning?

Lucas' primary mantra when going with the Ewoks was "dare to be cute". In fact, he offers a reasonably concise exposition of his motives in this vintage Rolling Stone interview from 1983:



Well, Lucas is quirky and has a good deal of affection for quirky characters, to help shade and offset the heavy-handed light-dark struggle of good vs. evil the bulk of Lucas-authored Star Wars is defined and/or encumbered by. Side stories and side characters are part of the appeal. Star Wars is designed to be a melting pot. It's meant to be symphonic; or, as I sometimes say, architectonic. It's also meant to appeal to children. But this person is also exaggerating. Your focus determines your reality. 


I don't know so much about Lucas' thinking behind the Ewok spinoffs. Perhaps someone else can comment. However, the "toy" argument is again dubious. Lucas had a company to maintain -- of course, he was going to cash-in on Star Wars where he could (but without compromising the underlying integrity of the films). Also, there is a part of Lucas that fancies himself an architect or a builder, and a purveyor of pleasant, child-like things (that adults can also enjoy).


Now, on this one, George has always protested he had little to do with it. It was something he signed off on and gave little oversight to. Years later, he allegedly despaired, "If I had the time and a sledgehammer, I would track down every copy of that show and smash it." 

Some of the Holiday Special looks like it came down to what the director, Steve Binder, preferred to do. As an Elvis fan, I can tell you that his 1968 TV special, which Binder also directed, has a few parts that are nearly unwatchable -- he puts Elvis through some "story" segments that are hideously cliched, terribly dated, and with poor production values to boot. And this was the special meant to rescue Elvis and restore his edgy image from years of substandard Hollywood B-movies. Fortunately, it did, but largely because of Elvis' raw performances in the famous "sit-down" segment of the show. Binder had some good ideas for the show, but those interludes are extremely ropey. IMO, anyway.

On the other hand, it would be unfair to pin all the blame on Binder for "The Holiday Special". It's a one-of-a-kind thing and at least deserves a crumb of respect for its weird, quasi-experimental, and bizarrely incongruous variety-show vibe. Binder was also brought in late and had a very limited budget to work with. Source of the GL quote and an engaging read:

www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/articles/3GFTsFGQjqWk9RR35WFGh5c/when-star-wars-got-it-awesomely-wrong-the-tv-holiday-special


What's this guy's obsession with Jar Jar? He's worse than me! He seems to be pivoting off of Lucas' famous remark in the first few minutes of The Beginning: "Jar Jar's the key to all this." If the prequels' success (which wasn't a foregone conclusion) was based on anything, then it was based more around people wanting to see the backstory of Obi-Wan and Vader (in ANH, these characters embody classic good and classic evil -- thus, the PT is a kind of elaborate disquisition of the yin-yang). Beyond that, the prequels succeeded on their own terms, by very much telling a story, and depicting a world for that story to convincingly take place. Anything else is ultimately secondary.


Nice. Some passing acknowledgement of his prolific genius, at least.


Genius' don't make "mistakes", or those mistakes aren't really worth much compared to their triumphs and successes. And if you're not first willing to consider the source, function, and extent of a person's genius, griping about their weaknesses and low moments doesn't make much sense. 


Except, judging by the way the Internet has talked about him for the past twenty years, most people have done nothing but complain about him and run his name through the mud. The idea that George Lucas is revered as a godly figure and can't be criticised, or that criticism of him is thin on the ground, is laughable (and sad). For every Naberrie Fields, there are a thousand embittered blog posts and YouTube commentators -- even if, mercifully, the fanbase seems to have softened its stance on Lucas of late.

Cryogenic
i hate to go off topic but did you read my post about an anti-jedi article?

I didn't, but I can take a look. 

The URL itself bothers me, however:

What is an article that seeks to police and shame George Lucas/Star Wars doing on Scientific American? 

I go there to read about insights in biology, geology, chemistry, physics, the potential for life on Mars and other celestial bodies, and the search for extraterrestrial intelligence -- not to read sociological pieces.

That said, skimming it over, the article appears to make valid points. These sorts of acronyms are a dime-a-dozen in the corporate world, and whenever they come up, I have to laugh with irritation. I think the authors are right that it's probably best to find another term. I can't help but connect strongly with their last paragraph (I'm guessing other people on Naberrie Fields, with an anti-Disney mindset, may also struggle to disagree with it):

Note: JEDI -- or J.E.D.I. -- stands for "Justice, Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion", according to the J.E.D.I. Collaborative website.

Anyway, quoting the Scientific American piece:

Such blatant mean-spiritedness doesn't merit a response. Focus your attention on better things and enjoy life. 

Is that article about the TFN mods? Looks like it.