|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Apr 4, 2024 19:25:47 GMT
I just hope he does something useful and charitable with all those billions of dollars before becoming a Force ghost.
|
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Apr 4, 2024 19:27:04 GMT
I just hope he does something useful and charitable with all those billions of dollars before becoming a Force ghost. He's building a museum. |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Apr 4, 2024 19:53:40 GMT
I know, but... I want more...
|
|
|
|
Post by Somny on Apr 4, 2024 19:59:18 GMT
I know, but... I want more... |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 4, 2024 20:16:14 GMT
Cryo returns from his self imposed exile!!! Something like that, yeah.  HE-HE-HA-HA. Stock. Well, George certainly has! I think, what you're saying is, this is a case of "Better the devil you know". It certainly looks that way. Yup. It would also then look like George was bailing on his business associates and his long-term hopes for Disney/Star Wars and proverbially taking his ball home. So, in a way, he has trapped himself with his earlier decision to go all-in with Disney, and he's clearly planning to stick with that decision, presumably to the bitter end. And if we know anything about George Walton Lucas, we know he can be incredibly stubborn, weathering all criticism and doubt and defiantly sticking with what he thinks best. It was an odd moment of devastating clarity in the Charlie Rose interview -- perhaps, in many respects, the last "raw" moment we've seen from Lucas, and perhaps the last one we'll ever see. Just for a second, we saw the spark of "Anakin" (young THX Lucas) bursting out of the mask of "Vader" (business mogul Lucas); and then his post-interview statement, where he apologised for his wording, and seemed to pledge that, unlike his legendary screen antagonist, he was committed to the path of greed/profit for good; now devoutly a part of the machinery of empire rather than a rag-tag rebellion trying to bring it down. Which leads onto a kind of psychological fault-line of his: What we also glimpsed in that tactical recanting was the present-day Lucas declaring the profit motive to be a good thing whilst disavowing leftist terminology that is built around criticising capitalistic enterprise. It's funny because Lucas is obviously sympathetic to card-carrying Democrats over Republicans (and seemed to make some sly bashes of famous Republican politicians in the prequels), but he also dances around directly bashing the latter or using more strident language that would firmly place him in the camp of the left. As I said before, what he really is is a kind of centrist liberal. There's still a bit of hatred for authority and demagogues and collectivist decision-making somewhere in his psyche, but he's also a guy that has been concerned with the bottom line for decades -- hence the lack of any new films from him in many years now, as well as the fact his first marriage was full of tension and was to an artistic person (Marcia Lucas was a highly competent film editor whom Lucas trusted but very rarely complimented), while his second marriage, apparently more stable, is to a business person (Mellody Hobson is a very shrewd investor and corporate director). Perhaps some type of ulterior argument could be made, but looking at the major markers, Lucas is a lot more focused on money-management today, and less about breaking rocks as a suffering artiste. And he has perhaps never been that way, anyway. Not since the days of THX, at least. I do wonder if the commercial failure of that film (it totally bombed on release and still remains a relatively obscure title) hurt him so badly that his priorities shifted from that day forward and he vowed he would become wealthy at all costs, if only to avoid the pain of ever being rejected to that degree (artistically, financially, intellectually) ever again. Not only that, he had the disapproving glare of his father to contend with, who felt there was no real money in being an artist and that his son was basically a fool to leave a steady and respectable family business behind, and he had the burden of also being able to provide for a wife and build a family of his own, and pay off his debts to his mentor Francis Ford Coppola, and he needed to ensure a second failure didn't occur and ruin his burgeoning career entirely. Whatever else may be said, there is a vital sense of security in having money and getting to call the shots and making sound investments -- it's a path out of slavery (ironically). White slavers? You were there first, George! |
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 4, 2024 22:02:20 GMT
Eh, it's fine. Lucas chose his camp long ago. So long ago in fact that for him here and now to issue any formal statement contra would be to break from a certain identity buried deep within the Mesozoic ice core of his psyche as, yes, a Bay Area '60s lib. He's only human after all, and when men wade into their twilight years their priorities dwindle down to only the most practical, that being family and investments, generally speaking. So he backed Lord Iger of Northumbria over the invading Viking King Peltz. Okay. Of course he did. What are we really talking about here... what would any neighboring elder Welsh vassal do? This, like so many of your posts, fine sir, deserves its own reply -- because, well, goddamnit... look at that. Brilliant. I think you also hit the nub there. The original decision to sell to Disney was made, in large part, it seems, because Lucas is painfully aware of his own mortality, and it was really a case of "It's now or never". He wanted, in his own words, to give himself the best "Third Chapter" possible, and selling to Disney was (ultimately) the way to kick-start that chapter off in the best way possible (or as the lesser of various other evils). Moreover, yes, people tend to consolidate their beliefs and think more pragmatically as they head into old age: one's early years are a time for experimentation and rebellion, while later years are about shoring up financial security and going beyond the stress of "proving" oneself (and trying to win the attention of the opposite sex -- to, if you will, stand out in a crowd). But it's also why there's truth in the counterculture-derived maxim, which Lucas himself has used before, that you shouldn't trust anyone over the age of 30. Because this is what old bastards do. They lack the fire of youth; they retreat, to one extent or another, into their little Howard Hughes kingdoms, and then, really, they should only be seen and not heard. P.S. Who said ageism is dead? (Cryo -- turning 41 tomorrow).
Well, you know, I think Lucas is mostly one of these anti-antiwoke people -- or maybe he just likes artichokes (lame pun alert). That is, he doesn't share in all the misgivings of woke culture, and he certainly doesn't quote woke causes or woke idioms chapter-and-verse (DROID PEOPLE ARE REAL PEOPLE), but there are comments he's made, sentiments he's expressed, and actions he's taken, that suggest he has little time for people labelling this or that thing as "woke", and that he's rather contemptuous of men who blame women for society's ills or are desperate to prove their manhood in some way (even though he made a movie about cruising and the romances in Star Wars aren't the most PC of affairs). Oh, and he has also derisively said people spend most of their time on the Internet sharing and reacting to cat videos.
So, basically, I don't think he really understands modern Internet culture, nor the dating struggles of young people today, nor the monumental impact the Internet has had on the latter. To him, it's all just bogus noise; and when you take those noises seriously and the people making them, that's when problems arise.
The strangely-harsh wording that Lucas used in his statement ("amateurs") gives the measure of his contempt for the individuals involved. The relatively asexual Lucas presumably has little time for chad-investors or anyone arguing that inceldom is a real thing; so an antiwoke agitator like Peltz probably isn't someone high on his Christmas card list. I think he genuinely sees these sort of folk as regressive morons. But that might still be secondary to him not wanting the boat to be rocked too much (because, at his age, he ain't got time for that shit) -- especially when it's a regressive moron (again, George's eye-view) doing it.
Yes.
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Apr 5, 2024 2:57:21 GMT
Honestly, Disney's biggest admission to guilt on the issue of "wokeness" was the removal of the Willow streaming series. They know when it sucks and why, and they straight-up retracted that POS.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 6, 2024 9:20:21 GMT
Honestly, Disney's biggest admission to guilt on the issue of "wokeness" was the removal of the Willow streaming series. They know when it sucks and why, and they straight-up retracted that POS. I've seen the original film, and the trailer for the Disney streaming (or now, I guess, non-streaming) series, but nothing beyond that. So I can't comment on the content of the short-lived Disney series, other than remarking on a fairly unremarkable trailer that still exists (ironically) on the official Lucasfilm YouTube channel: Title: Willow | Official Trailer | Disney+ Channel: Lucasfilm Uploaded: 10 Sept 2022 Views: 3,746,536 Not a great number of views, and definitely a big slump compared to the teaser trailer: Title: Willow | Official Teaser Trailer | Disney+ Channel: Lucasfilm Uploaded: 26 May 2022 Views: 9,339,377 I guess the series could be considered to have had a bit of charm, maybe, due to the basic premise and having Warwick Davis back in the role. Otherwise, to be honest, neither trailer inspired much feeling of awe, tenderness, hope, or even good ol' fashioned nostalgia within me. Some of it, perhaps, is the fault of these Disney trailers, themselves. If we're honest at this point, they all basically look and sound the same, making it seem like these various shows (and movies) all come off a production line, from the dreadfully generic music, to the plastic-looking cinematography and effects work and lighting schemes, to the predictable editing and action beats (as worn as an old, leaky shoe), the actors' faces and voices (bland Gen Z hopefuls), the snarky humour -- even the damn dialogue is all the same ("darkness", "balance", "light"), and this has been true from "The Force Awakens", and still holds true right now, with the new trailer for "The Acolyte". And "Willow" isn't even Star Wars, for Pete's sake. Can't they do anything original anymore? I don't know why I'm even asking the question. We all know the answer. (And don't say "Andor"; semi-original content that departs from the fairy-tale aesthetic doesn't count). Of course, I do feel a bit sorry for Warwick himself. Lovely guy. He bitched at Disney on Twitter (I refuse to call it "X") for removing the series after only six months last year: www.ign.com/articles/willow-star-warwick-davis-slams-disney-for-removing-the-show-from-disneyTo me, he looked like the one bright spot in the production. He even made that cookie-cutter dialogue in the trailers sound a bit more appealing than normal. And he's right that it's "embarrassing", to say the least, that the series can't be found there anymore, after such a limited period of availability. It's also disturbing that all this money can be assigned to these shows and they still get cancelled even after making it all the way to streaming. That seems to be the new normal under Disney: expect everything to be cancelled eventually; even if the hand of Disney is stayed all through production, and the darn thing actually releases, it still isn't safe from being randomly pulled and yanked out of existence. Their own bloody content. At least when Netflix has a purge, it's just re-arranging the shelves (although also not great -- placing art/entertainment at the mercy of corporate levers). Disney, on the other hand, is the company that both giveth and taketh away. Let's also not lose sight of the basic reason it was pulled. You claim it was effectively due to an abundance of wokeness, but remember why even wokeness is there: because it's considered to be good business sense. In fact, staying with the topic of George Lucas throwing his support behind Bob Iger, Iger has just come out with an interview about the whole Peltz/Iger proxy fight, and in said interview, he just reaffirmed his commitment to woke content (if making a small concession, interestingly, that some criticism of Disney for woke content is justified): www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bob-iger-cnbc-nelson-peltz-response-1235866344/So, what I'm saying here is, concerns regarding the bottom line drive all of Disney's decisions. Therefore, most of what comes out of Disney is content, in some sense, designed to appease and placate people, number one. Disney is actually fearful of pissing people off and scaring off consumers -- because, again, the bottom line is key. Now, Lucas, even in his heyday, was hardly some shining inverse of this or a glowing paragon of complete artistic integrity (i.e., he, too, was thinking of the bottom line), but he was able to impose his own decisions on his films even when there were voices within his company murmuring that maybe he was taking too big a risk. For instance, back on the very first page of the "General grievances" thread in the Lucas Era section, in November 2020, I shared the following article that was originally published online in 2005: web.archive.org/web/20050510022335/http://www.staticmultimedia.com/content/film/features/feature_1115643931And Lucas specifically says there: You could argue, perhaps, that Lucas was in a rather unique position where he was knowingly pursuing art, but not necessarily Art. In fact, he said in another interview in 1999: www.nytimes.com/1999/03/21/movies/moviesspecial/george-lucas-im-a-cynic-who-has-hope-for-the-human-race.htmlHe obviously expected his films to find an audience -- a big audience to recoup all his costs and turn a sizeable profit. And yet... Naturally enough, many of the individuals who inspired him within the San Fran art scene of the 1960s were basically beatniks/hippies who weren't necessarily producing art with the aim of reaching a lot of people, let alone with the expectation they'd rake in a lot of money. Lucas, somehow, broke the mould -- first by making an avant-garde film on the fringes of the mainstream that was a total commercial bomb, then finding paydirt with "American Graffiti", then doing his first studio-bound movie in "Star Wars" that he would turn into a franchise and merchandise to death, then becoming a chairman/figurehead and financier of other films within the confines of his filmmaking castle (and also a father in this period), then a big media presence with the release of the prequels (and a figure of fanboy hate starting with the Special Editions), to a proud mentor with the success of "The Clone Wars" under Dave Filoni (and he seemed, for a while, to be looking forward to overseeing other television shows under Lucasfilm, including a live-action Star Wars series), to, finally, a semi-reclusive retiree who said "Fuck it" and sold his life's work to a corporation. It is a rather fascinating progression. Back in the same interview (link above), he also said the following: Yet, thirteen years later (unlucky thirteen? -> the same in-universe time-gap between TPM and ROTS), he would sell it all to the biggest entertainment company on Earth, effectively pulling an Anakin in full view of every Star Wars fan with an Internet connection: "Just help me get my retirement fund now. I can't live without it."If we juxtapose his remarks there with the statement he released the other week, it's almost like two different people speaking: www.indiewire.com/news/general-news/george-lucas-backs-bob-iger-disney-nelson-peltz-1234965820/Yet, by Iger's own admission, he won't even be part of Disney for much longer: www.hollywoodreporter.com/business/business-news/bob-iger-cnbc-nelson-peltz-response-1235866344/There's a limited timescale here to get this "successor" in place, which really only means more dilution from the chain of Lucas > Iger > whomever, since we know Lucas was far from happy with what happened to his Sequel Trilogy treatments, based on his comments to Charlie Rose and elsewhere. Moreover, back in that Charlie Rose interview, Lucas had some very pointed words concerning corporations and their aversion to taking risks: Title: George Lucas Calls Disney “White Slavers” in Charlie Rose interview Channel: Laurent Touil-Tartour Uploaded: 2 Jan 2016 Views: 1,662,824 36:57 - 39:11Unfortunately, present-day Lucas has not only forgotten his "white slavers" comment from elsewhere in the same interview, but he even seems to be overlooking the fact that Star Wars has devolved into disposable streaming content under Disney. Risk-taking, in other words, wasn't just minimised for the Sequel Trilogy, but continues to be minimised with a plethora of television shows -- i.e., the very emergence of such content, in such a format, is a conspicuous indicator of risk-averse behaviour from Disney all by itself, which Lucas preemptively called out in 2015 (before any shows materialised). Now, I'm trying not to put words in his mouth, because he was clearly talking, on some level, about films not based on any existing material, with TV shows provided as an example, but since he also said "Or doesn't look like one", I can't help but find that painfully ironic -- now, everything Star Wars not only looks like a TV show, it is a TV show (although a couple of movie projects have been teased for a while). All in all, what has happened to Star Wars the past decade looks largely like a diminution of what Lucas might have hoped for, and seemed to call out, in the first few years after the sale. Yet all we hear today, if we hear anything at all, is bland noises of approval, and corporatese like "driving long-term value". George Lucas is still a genius; but like all geniuses, flawed and all-too-human, at the end of the day. This is why it is perhaps best to keep a famous aphorism in mind: "Trust the art, not the artist." Unfortunately, it looks like George stopped being the latter some time ago. But we should still be grateful for everything he brought into the world and wish him a happy retirement regardless. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 6, 2024 22:46:19 GMT
I know, but... I want more...
Ah yes, George Lucas on the Joe Rogan Experience
Joe: so George, you make a second trilogy, it's controversial George: Well, I wouldn't say it like that... Joe: *interupts* JAMIE, PULL UP THE PREQUELS
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 6, 2024 23:23:58 GMT
I know, but... I want more...Ah yes, George Lucas on the Joe Rogan Experience Joe: so George, you make a second trilogy, it's controversial George: Well, I wouldn't say it like that... Joe: *interupts* JAMIE, PULL UP THE PREQUELS  |
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Apr 7, 2024 0:22:05 GMT
Revenge of the Sith totally primed me for the Alex Jones documentaries from the 00s.
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 7, 2024 1:05:30 GMT
Honestly, Disney's biggest admission to guilt on the issue of "wokeness" was the removal of the Willow streaming series. They know when it sucks and why, and they straight-up retracted that POS.
And yet it's full steam ahead with The Acolyte and the "High Republic" gibberish that nobody was asking for...
|
|
|
|
Post by stampidhd280pro on Apr 7, 2024 1:24:28 GMT
Honestly, Disney's biggest admission to guilt on the issue of "wokeness" was the removal of the Willow streaming series. They know when it sucks and why, and they straight-up retracted that POS.
And yet it's full steam ahead with The Acolyte and the "High Republic" gibberish that nobody was asking for...
The Acolyte can't be as bad as Willow was. |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 7, 2024 2:01:46 GMT
And yet it's full steam ahead with The Acolyte and the "High Republic" gibberish that nobody was asking for...
The Acolyte can't be as bad as Willow was.
Well, I guess not naming it after a tree is a start.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 7, 2024 2:19:10 GMT
The Acolyte can't be as bad as Willow was. Well, I guess not naming it after a tree is a start.
That's funny, but we really need trees in our world, and as trees go, willows are quite striking. I'm not overly enthusiastic about "The Acolyte" -- based on its trailer and stated premise, it has some neat aspects, and some not-so-neat aspects. I'm not even talking about all the alleged "woke" crap, per se. The problem with it is the same problem with all the other Disney+ stuff: it all looks and sounds the same (and comes across as considerably cheaper-looking than the movies). We're being asked to love something that's far from the attributes that made us fall in love with Star Wars to begin with, and then we're basically called haters if we don't. Although, this time, going by the comments under the trailer on the official Star Wars YouTube channel (which are hilarious, BTW), people are no longer as easily impressed ("Chewie, we're home!") as they once so blatantly were. Title: The Acolyte | Official Trailer | Disney+ Channel: Star Wars Uploaded: 19 Mar 2024 Views: 9,739,997 Can't resist posting a few of those comments here! The top comment, right now: @hooper-DrivesTheBoat, 2 weeks ago
"Someone is killing Jedi" It's Disney And a few more: @jullia_Trades_Crypto, 6 days ago
"What do you see?" Disney going bankrupt. @franks.6134, 2 weeks ago
"Close your eyes, what do you see?" "I see the dislikes disabled." @princelaharl2, 13 days ago
"Close your eyes, what do you see?" bots trying to fix the ratio @jaded5957, 2 weeks ago
"Close your eyes. What do you see?" "Nothing, Mr Weinstein" @darth-Ru, 4 days ago
"Not so long ago, in a galaxy, quite nearby really". @rustlertime, 13 days ago
Did you ever hear the tragedy of Disney Plus The UnWise? @aggeloskyriou, 2 weeks ago (edited)
“Close your eyes, what do you see?” "Somehow. Weinstein returned" @normiesaxon, 2 weeks ago (edited)
Close your eyes. What do you see? Chrome extension: "I see half a million dislikes" Edit: 594K as of 29/03/24 @ferastg6652, 12 days ago“Close your eyes, what do you see?” “Fire in the comments” @alstanus, 2 days ago
187k likes to 642k dislikes currently. @whocares2584, 13 days ago
"Close your eyes, What do you see?" Nothing I canceled Disney+ months ago @colbydenton390, 7 days ago
“What do you see?” “The dislikes not being visible” @hisairness5628, 2 weeks ago
“What do you see” A fire sale of unwanted Star Wars toys @jesusfermin946, 2 weeks ago
"Close your eyes, what do you see?" "I see massive layoffs at Disney" And so on and so forth... |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Apr 7, 2024 2:52:46 GMT
Well, he has said he's now making movies nobody will see.  |
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 7, 2024 3:11:43 GMT
Back in the same interview (link above), he also said the following: Yet, thirteen years later (unlucky thirteen? -> the same in-universe time-gap between TPM and ROTS), he would sell it all to the biggest entertainment company on Earth, effectively pulling an Anakin in full view of every Star Wars fan with an Internet connection:
"Just help me get my retirement fund now. I can't live without it."LOL
Welcome back old buddy, old pal. How we've missed that rollicking flair and unrestrained wit, where not even the saintly Lucas is immune from a few jabs the ultimate form of affection
|
|
|
|
Post by ArchdukeOfNaboo on Apr 7, 2024 3:28:36 GMT
Coruscant Nights: Season 2, Episode 4
Padmé investigates a suspected corruption racket between bribed senators and the banking clan, tracing a mob boss down to the most feared of all Coruscant neighbourhoods. But not before a special general arrives unexpectantly on the scene.
|
|
|
|
Post by Cryogenic on Apr 7, 2024 3:58:25 GMT
Well, he has said he's now making movies nobody will see. Movies in his head, yes. Back in the same interview (link above), he also said the following: Yet, thirteen years later (unlucky thirteen? -> the same in-universe time-gap between TPM and ROTS), he would sell it all to the biggest entertainment company on Earth, effectively pulling an Anakin in full view of every Star Wars fan with an Internet connection:
"Just help me get my retirement fund now. I can't live without it."LOL Get better soon. Oh, I see...  Thank you, AD. We should probably write a comedy script about Lucas' travails with movies, marriage, merchandising, and moving on. AKA: Murch, Marcia, Merch, Mouse. For glorious George Lucas send-ups, it's hard to beat these two instant-classics of the Deepfake genre (even with some prequel bashing thrown in): Title: George Lucas Reacts to Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker Final Trailer - Salty Celebrity Deepfake Channel: Collider Extras Uploaded: 22 Oct 201 Title: George Lucas Reacts to Star Wars: The Mandalorian Final Trailer - Salty Celebrity Deepfake Channel: Collider Extras Uploaded: 29 Oct 2019 I'm literally LOL-ing through these. YouTube's not exactly helping me stifle my laughter, when my browser window looks like this:  Fake George, Real George... |
|
|
|
Post by Subtext Mining on Apr 7, 2024 5:32:54 GMT
Well, he has said he's now making movies nobody will see. Movies in his head, yes. My favorite 6ths song, because Georgia from Yo La Tengo sings it. |
|
