Miscellaneous tidbits: factoids, videos, trivia, etc.

I gave my thoughts about GL's latest remarks in the General grievances thread within the Disney section (Reply #258, Reply #265, Reply #266, Reply #268), so I'll just say that you all make valid points, and they helped frame my own responses. 

George is clearly at a different place in his life than he was twenty years ago, even eight or nine years ago, so this statement of his isn't too surprising -- if, in a lot of ways, disappointing. Expecting him to take his ball away and go home isn't realistic. The man has four billion dollars on the line, give or take.

Perhaps he should still care about what happened to the Sequel Trilogy, but maybe we need to remember that the sequels were never essential to him anyway. He basically came up with them only to sweeten the deal to Disney -- for years before that, he declared there was no further story and episodes beyond ROTJ would never materialise by him or anyone else. This is perhaps why he seems to have moved on so quickly from what happened and has now publicly backed Bob Iger, the very man who approved the binning of his treatments and then complained in his book that Lucas, in speaking out, had violated a gentleman's agreement they had never to publicly criticise Disney or his actions. It's quite the turnaround, in a way; but then, right after it aired, Lucas also issued a retraction in his Charlie Rose interview of his "white slavers" comment, so he's been playing the game a while.

Life gave us lemons. Then it gave us Lucas who gave us lemonade. Then it started giving us lemons again and George said, "Fuck it, lemons are okay now."

"1... 2... 3... 4... I love the Walt Disney Corp."

That's true. He had loose plans in the works for something. I forget all the details now, but a big blow against the sequels being made -- George's sequels (i.e., no selling to Disney) -- was when his neighbours staunchly objected to Lucas building a film studio in the foothills of San Francisco called Grady Ranch. Yes, why have one ranch, when you can have two? But I guess the locals took the Nute Gunray approach: "This is getting out of hand -- now there are two of them!" And it was killed dead. 

Lucas being Lucas, he came up with an alternative suggestion: low-income housing. However, if you parse the details, this was basically a polite "F-U!" to the people who objected, since a major concern of residents in the area (after arguing that Lucas' ranch would be far too disruptive and also spoil the natural beauty of Marin County) is that affordable, low-cost housing would, in turn, impact their own property values. 

Via the Huff Po:

www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/george-lucas-grady-ranch-affordable-housing_n_1501554


The news actually broke of Lucas abandoning his plans for Grady Ranch the month before:

www.cbsnews.com/sanfrancisco/news/george-lucas-abandons-controversial-studio-project/

(Date of article: April 10th 2012)

It was probably right around this time that Lucas threw in the towel and decided to push ahead with his decision to sell to Disney -- something he had been contemplating since meeting with Bob Iger the previous May (2011), which then only went as far as trying to hammer out a distribution deal between Disney and Lucasfilm. More here:

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-07/how-disney-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars

So, if we want someone to blame, we could blame his pissy, parochial neighbours. Their objections, I think, were the straw that finally broke the camel's back. If Lucas couldn't get a new studio off the ground, with all his wealth and fame, and after being pilloried for years by fans and the media for the prequels and the Special Editions, then maybe now was as good a time as any to finally give in and sell.

There was also a pragmatic consideration in the mix: avoiding a steep rise in capital gains tax.

taxfoundation.org/blog/yoda-goes-disney/


Now, you might read that and go, "What's $176 million to someone with Lucas' crazy wealth? He wanted to sell all his film companies and the rights to making any more Star Wars material to save a (comparatively) modest amount -- his whole legacy to save a quick buck on tax rates???"

But, we ought to remember, the whole blinkin' saga starts off, as bashers loved reminding one another over the years, over "the taxation of trade routes" (art imitates life 'n' vice versa). And if you think I'm being flippant, just re-read that article. Wealthy people are sensitive to tax hikes; and, often having smart financial advisors to help them out, tend to exploit whatever loopholes they can to avoid paying a penny more than they have to. Moreover, there is documented proof of Lucas' anxiety toward cost overruns and unnecessary splurging when making the Original Trilogy, as well as audio-visual proof of him being highly sensitive to potential losses in the TPM documentary, "The Beginning". 

As Lucas famously says near the beginning of the documentary, "Jar Jar is the key to all this". And, it turns out, that understated utterance has many layers. It is through discussions concerning Jar Jar, in the same documentary, that we actually get a revealing glimpse into the mind of this money-conscious mythmaker.

 
Title: The Beginning: Making Star Wars: Episode I The Phantom Menace (Full Version)
Channel: Star Wars
Uploaded: 5 Apr 2014

Lucas makes a classic comment at one point when the cost of technically realising Jar Jar is being discussed between Lucas and Visual Effects Producer Jeff Olson, with Producer Rick McCallum defensively starting the conversation off by announcing, "Sad news -- but interesting news" (17:20). Olson reveals that there's a significant cost difference between realising Jar Jar through a suit versus CGI, stating that difference to be "about a million and three (dollars)". Lucas reacts with a pithy but frugal expression: "Well, a million saved is a million earned." Later in the documentary (40:02), the same topic is back, now with a visual demonstration on some stage monitors during a break in filming. John Knoll is showing Lucas two versions of Jar Jar: "head replacement" vs. "fully animated figure". Revealing to Lucas that the fully animated figure was actually less man hours, and therefore cheaper, he provokes a dismayed response from his boss: "Oh, so we spent a hundred thousand dollars on that suit that we didn't need to spend." Knoll, of course, tries to rescue the moment and put Lucas at ease, rationalising that the suit was very useful for lighting reference, but he can't fully erase the irritation from Lucas' flat, exasperated tone.

The man plainly hates losing money. The next article furnishes us with a concise quote that makes clear, while there were likely many variables at work, Lucas selling when he did was nevertheless strongly motivated by financial considerations. The new filmmaking ranch had fallen through, Lucas had been hurt over the negative response to the prequels, he was getting older, and darn it, he wasn't about to lose money at the last minute because of some stupid tax hike. 

www.marketwatch.com/story/george-lucass-jedi-estate-planning-2012-11-01

(ARCHIVE LINK if blocked)


Selling to Disney allowed Lucas to smoothly detach from all the headaches of being responsible for a massive company -- or family of companies -- day-to-day. And he could free up an extraordinary amount of cash to spend on causes he'd previously pledged to heftily support. 

Star Wars would suffer, people would lose their jobs through restructuring or feel so squeezed they no longer felt valued or respected anymore (e.g., Ben Burtt), but hey, Lucas had his $4 billion (plus change). 


Yeah, this is quite confusing -- until you realise that people often tell themselves lies, to quiet down that voice in their head that's saying, "This isn't really you, is it?" Given the pressure on Lucas to sell because of the capital gains tax increase, it is likely (sadly) that he didn't really think his decision out for long enough; and that he was, in a sense, manipulated by Bob Iger into selling because Iger had the stronger position (or at least Iger probably made Lucas think he did -- classic sales tactic). 


Must admit, the Dent quote has gone through my head a few times, as well. It happens in life more than we would like to admit. "I will not betray the Republic". Like I said in the General grievances thread (Disney section), the classic lesson here is: trust the art, not the artist. 

I guess it's about making magic, and of course making a living making magic.

The thing is, making magic requires more than a good, cost-effective production model.

George was a rare individual who was good at business and making magic. Something that only a few people per generation are gifted with.

The problem is, are the newer generations' GLs even being given the chance to be the new GLs?

George began making films during a window in time that favored him and his friends. But look at today's industry.

Ingram is right.
Iger may not be an amateur, but where are the Ladds and Kurtzs?

Now that Padmé is gone and the Empire has control, where are the Mon Mothmas and Leias and Lukes? Are Kenobi and Yoda still out there to help them get on their feet?

Great News!
www.festival-cannes.com/en/press/press-releases/george-lucas-honorary-palme-d-or-of-the-77th-festival-de-cannes/

I get what you're saying in all of this, and I wouldn't say you're a million miles away from the truth, but it still feels like we're dancing away from more basic realities here. 

Addressing each of your points in turn:


You say Lucas was a fuss-budget, but what actually came of all his fuss-budgeting? And how could anyone else do films as cheaply as Lucas when they couldn't possibly hope to emulate his specific mode of production (i.e., no-one else was head of several major film companies, as Lucas was, and also a genius filmmaker who embraced digital technology when it was at the cutting edge of the then-accepted paradigm)? At the end of the day, he may have had the same rationalisation toward his money-management skills/anxieties as you have just given, but the fact he sold to Disney for a cool $4.04 billion shows that it was ultimately for selfish (or at least self-oriented) ends. In retrospect, it feels like it was all leading in that direction and Lucas was just building up his pension before then. He even sold close to the standard retirement age in the United States (a couple of years over). In the end, as the saying goes, people show you who they really are.


Because he actually had a lot of deals with other companies (Kenner, PepsiCo, Inc., et al.), and if he reneged on those deals, doing whatever the hell he wanted, taking as long as he wanted, he would have quickly ran up massive debts. He also had a vast number of people in his employment, working on these films, that required payment for their labour. And, again, if he'd dragged his feet and given himself unlimited time (which no filmmaker can enjoy the luxury of), he would have quickly depleted his available cash and not been able to acquire more without getting into serious debt.

The key word pertaining to TESB, which you yourself used, is "inadvertently". TESB came out accidentally better than Lucas intended -- because, in his eyes, Irvin Kershner was over-indulged by Gary Kurtz, and even when there was a big time-crunch near the end, Kurtz still thought it was reasonable to re-do an effects shot (the last scene of the film with the rebel ships), so that the film maintained its quality all the way through. In Kurtz's telling, Lucas was reluctant to give approval and Kurtz had to argue with his boss about it, but ultimately, they did re-do the shot and Kurtz thought the second attempt was a lot better.


Well, yeah, but this is really a red herring. Lucas, as I described above, may have proceeded with that sort of guiding principle in mind, but he was really trying to minimise losses -- while, of course, still having the films look technically impressive -- and keep financial leakage to a bare minimum. Indeed, the record shows that he wasn't above entering into (unethical) capitalistic conspiracies with other tech billionaires to keep the wages of his employees artificially low, so as to reap the greatest profit for himself:

web.archive.org/web/20140902054028/https://pando.com/2014/01/23/the-techtopus-how-silicon-valleys-most-celebrated-ceos-conspired-to-drive-down-100000-tech-engineers-wages/

(Extract)


Sadly, some of what the less charitable types have said about George Lucas, over the years, had some truth to it. Again, Lucas there offers the excuse that his company lacked "the margins" to pay his employees a competitive wage (and he presumably stuck to this outlook and practice all the way until 2012 when he sold to Disney). The meek-and-mild Lucas, worrying about cost overruns, just trying to get the best bang for his buck -- when it serves to obscure this less-salubrious reality, at least -- is bullshit. He's just your typical billionaire capitalist overlord opposed to anybody getting above their station and asking for more for themselves. Because more for them equals less for George Lucas.


Never heard that story, and even if true, it's pretty ridiculous if Lucas had doubts about ILM building a decent model of the Death Star, since, like before (ANH), it was going to be a major staging ground for the film's finale -- why wouldn't he be prepared to shell out for something that photographed well and looked realistic? He had to at least match what he achieved on the first film, and ideally, surpass it. Holding out at the last second and grumbling that a decent model was too expensive for the concluding part of his iconic trilogy would have been stupid. 

It's fine. No more than fine, in the colloquial sense of the word, though. Can't get into these AI things too much. It's kind of beguiling initially, then it gets boring. It doesn't help that there's a lot of repetition in the colour tones and environments between the OT and PT "1950's Super Panavision 70" trailers (I do love that title, however). Ironically, there is much less differentiation in the look and flavour of these trailers than there is between the real OT and PT trailers (and the movies themselves).

Like you, though, I find it fun to marinate in that vintage Technicolor aesthetic (something modern-day cinema has completely done away with), and there's clearly a craving out there for this sort of thing. You can, indeed, through the convulsive, unrelenting beauty of these trailers (albeit fake, cookie-cutter, simulacrum beauty) see what drove Lucas and Spielberg into a near-ecstatic reverie for this material.

Watching these trailers, you can also understand other trends where people are now pursuing retro aesthetics, from the resurgence of vinyl, to Polaroid cameras, to the recent so-called "digicam" obsession by late-era millennials and Gen Z-ers (confession: I bought a cheap digicam/old point-and-shoot last year; the camera is a lot of fun and does, indeed, produce lovely image quality that looks rough and organic and quite "film-like"). One of my favourite things that I encountered a few weeks ago, though no direct relation to Star Wars, is this recent 16mm trailer/tone poem shot in Japan (film still looks like nothing else -- and some strong LIT vibes here, too):


Title: Japan on 16mm Film | Shot on Bolex
Channel: illkoncept
Uploaded: 3 Mar 2024

New is great, but newer isn't always better. What is really needed is a thoughtful and fruitful marriage between old and new. Make something too new, too contemporary -- or, worse, half-heartedly ape the old and don't even vigorously embrace the new -- and you end up with a modernist (or post-modern) mess. Clearly, there is a lot of beauty in old forms, old things, and the romance of things past (and things of the past) refuses to die. I suppose it really comes to something when modern AI tools (a very new thing) are providing therapy to humans sick of the present day and who are longing for some of the beauties and glories of a mid-century past; when the past was the past and the future looked real inviting. Real retrofuturism. 

Can you fault an old burglar if they spent a majority of their life teaching you the mechanics of spotting one?



Welcome back, friend.

Thank you, Somny -- what a patient, gracious, and also clever devil you are!

On that witty observation of yours, perhaps Lucas is a sort of movie-mogul version of Frank Abagnale ("Catch Me If You Can"); or even -- gulp -- the just-departed O.J. Simpson ("If I Did It")?