George Lucas thoughts on Force Awakens. Upset and Betrayed.

[WebLurker]

[Beaddle]

And to me it's worst because of what John Boyega & poor Kelly Marie Tran had to deal with. That is not being mindful of what they dealt with. Because there were folks acting BEYOND normal fan behavior to the point I know folks who didn't go to see the films out of fear of VIOLENCE.
Not to mention the folks who have no interest in seeing the film but love to troll-are going to join in.



Only reasons I could see is-you don't expect that film to make the profit you EXPECT-so you toss this nugget out to excuse lower than expected profit.

Or this is a work to get Lucas's name out there because he has some new project coming.

This is NOT by accident it coming out.

John Boyega's finn has potential but the writing is not there, Rey sucked out the air of everyone in the force awakens with her mary sueness. this new star wars movies have CW writing, I don't doubt he was the subject of racist abuse but I think it was not enough to overshadowed the real criticism of the character. its like the prequels, fans and even critics all felt Sam L Jackson was wasted in those films, Mace Windu was a dry character, boring too. hardly did anyone say, it was racist to criticize sam l jackson. I also blame this messed up social media environment we live in, I wish people would stop using social media to make a point.

As for Kelly Marie Tran, she did not deserve the level of hate she got, again social media is the wrong place to look for constructive criticism but at the same time, Rose Tico is one of the worst characters in any star wars movie. What are we supposed to do about that?

[ChrisIII]

I think Lucas has generally been somewhat more supportive of the spin-off films, giving them his stamp of approval and visiting the sets. They're largely based on his era after all (Episodes I-VI), and even utilize characters from the prequels (Bail Organa and Maul).

[RickWJ324]

I'll take the Disney era of films any day over the PREQUELS. Those movies are terrible in every sense of the word. GL lost his way ages ago. His constant meddling with the original films are inexcusable. I'm glad he gave up SW. As a kid growing up in the 70's Lucas was like a god to me.... SW was such a huge part of my childhood and that carried on into adulthood. I was beyond excited when I heard that he was going to make the prequels after such a long wait. I felt like a giddy little child going into Phantom Menace. Sadly, the prequels left me wishing that he had never made them at all. Then his refusal to give us the original films untouched just showed how much he'd lost his way. He claimed to be a crusader against altering films (back in the 80's when things like B&W colorization's were being done to classic films) yet the hypocrite did things far worse to his beloved trilogy and then proceeded to try and erase the original films. Unforgivable! No matter where Disney takes the franchise, to me it will ALWAYS be better than what we would've gotten from GL going forward.

I'm sure most of you know what I'm referring to in regards to GL's testimony about altering films, but in case you aren't familiar with it, here's the speech he gave:

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.

So..it's an "outrage" to colorize THE MALTESE FALCON. I wonder how he would feel if they replaced Bogart with a CGI actor, gave him a Southern accent, and then proceeded to burn every copy in existance of the original film as it was seen before these changes are made?! Would he support that? Or would he see it as the travesty that it would be! Make no mistake, what Lucas has done to SW is no less unforgivable then any of the changes to the Maltese Falcon that I just proposed would be!

I have zero respect for that man. The prequels are garbage. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls is garbage. Didn't see Red Tails, nor will I ever see it because of my disdain for GL. How about Strange Magic? How was that film? I wouldn't know... won't watch it. The commercials for it were cringe-worthy.

[Anthony W]

You know who I feel more embarrassed for? JJ Abrams not Bob Iger. Abrams has spent years gushing about how he loves Lucas and Star Wars, even when he was making star trek movies. It must suck when the creator is not a fan of your movie but feels very betrayed to the point of anger, it sucks harder that Abrams ended up making a better star trek reboot than a star wars reboot as a bigger star wars fan but in fairness to Abrams, how much control did he personally have? we know Disney does not give writers and directors the best creative choices so we can't place all the blame on Abrams as the director, writer and producer of the force awakens.

I just don't think Episode 9 stands a fair chance, I am getting a X-Men Dark Phoenix vibe in the sense that people have already rejected it before seeing it.

Abrams is a really good director, but he is not a writer. Disney should have realized this when they saw his Trek work.

[thwhtGuardian]

I'll take the Disney era of films any day over the PREQUELS. Those movies are terrible in every sense of the word. GL lost his way ages ago. His constant meddling with the original films are inexcusable. I'm glad he gave up SW. As a kid growing up in the 70's Lucas was like a god to me.... SW was such a huge part of my childhood and that carried on into adulthood. I was beyond excited when I heard that he was going to make the prequels after such a long wait. I felt like a giddy little child going into Phantom Menace. Sadly, the prequels left me wishing that he had never made them at all. Then his refusal to give us the original films untouched just showed how much he'd lost his way. He claimed to be a crusader against altering films (back in the 80's when things like B&W colorization's were being done to classic films) yet the hypocrite did things far worse to his beloved trilogy and then proceeded to try and erase the original films. Unforgivable! No matter where Disney takes the franchise, to me it will ALWAYS be better than what we would've gotten from GL going forward.

I'm sure most of you know what I'm referring to in regards to GL's testimony about altering films, but in case you aren't familiar with it, here's the speech he gave:

My name is George Lucas. I am a writer, director, and producer of motion pictures and Chairman of the Board of Lucasfilm Ltd., a multi-faceted entertainment corporation.

I am not here today as a writer-director, or as a producer, or as the chairman of a corporation. I’ve come as a citizen of what I believe to be a great society that is in need of a moral anchor to help define and protect its intellectual and cultural heritage. It is not being protected.

The destruction of our film heritage, which is the focus of concern today, is only the tip of the iceberg. American law does not protect our painters, sculptors, recording artists, authors, or filmmakers from having their lifework distorted, and their reputation ruined. If something is not done now to clearly state the moral rights of artists, current and future technologies will alter, mutilate, and destroy for future generations the subtle human truths and highest human feeling that talented individuals within our society have created.

A copyright is held in trust by its owner until it ultimately reverts to public domain. American works of art belong to the American public; they are part of our cultural history.

People who alter or destroy works of art and our cultural heritage for profit or as an exercise of power are barbarians, and if the laws of the United States continue to condone this behavior, history will surely classify us as a barbaric society. The preservation of our cultural heritage may not seem to be as politically sensitive an issue as “when life begins” or “when it should be appropriately terminated,” but it is important because it goes to the heart of what sets mankind apart. Creative expression is at the core of our humanness. Art is a distinctly human endeavor. We must have respect for it if we are to have any respect for the human race.

These current defacements are just the beginning. Today, engineers with their computers can add color to black-and-white movies, change the soundtrack, speed up the pace, and add or subtract material to the philosophical tastes of the copyright holder. Tomorrow, more advanced technology will be able to replace actors with “fresher faces,” or alter dialogue and change the movement of the actor’s lips to match. It will soon be possible to create a new “original” negative with whatever changes or alterations the copyright holder of the moment desires. The copyright holders, so far, have not been completely diligent in preserving the original negatives of films they control. In order to reconstruct old negatives, many archivists have had to go to Eastern bloc countries where American films have been better preserved.

In the future it will become even easier for old negatives to become lost and be “replaced” by new altered negatives. This would be a great loss to our society. Our cultural history must not be allowed to be rewritten.

There is nothing to stop American films, records, books, and paintings from being sold to a foreign entity or egotistical gangsters and having them change our cultural heritage to suit their personal taste.

I accuse the companies and groups, who say that American law is sufficient, of misleading the Congress and the People for their own economic self-interest.

I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation.

The public’s interest is ultimately dominant over all other interests. And the proof of that is that even a copyright law only permits the creators and their estate a limited amount of time to enjoy the economic fruits of that work.

There are those who say American law is sufficient. That’s an outrage! It’s not sufficient! If it were sufficient, why would I be here? Why would John Houston have been so studiously ignored when he protested the colorization of “The Maltese Falcon?” Why are films cut up and butchered?

Attention should be paid to this question of our soul, and not simply to accounting procedures. Attention should be paid to the interest of those who are yet unborn, who should be able to see this generation as it saw itself, and the past generation as it saw itself.

I hope you have the courage to lead America in acknowledging the importance of American art to the human race, and accord the proper protection for the creators of that art–as it is accorded them in much of the rest of the world communities.

So..it's an "outrage" to colorize THE MALTESE FALCON. I wonder how he would feel if they replaced Bogart with a CGI actor, gave him a Southern accent, and then proceeded to burn every copy in existance of the original film as it was seen before these changes are made?! Would he support that? Or would he see it as the travesty that it would be! Make no mistake, what Lucas has done to SW is no less unforgivable then any of the changes to the Maltese Falcon that I just proposed would be!

I have zero respect for that man. The prequels are garbage. Indiana Jones and the Crystal Skulls is garbage. Didn't see Red Tails, nor will I ever see it because of my disdain for GL. How about Strange Magic? How was that film? I wouldn't know... won't watch it. The commercials for it were cringe-worthy.

If the director of the Maltese Falcon was still alive and he felt those elements would better reflect his vision for the film he'd e within his rights to do so. I'd probably dislike his new version in much the same way I dislike a lot of what was done to Star Wars but the moral outrage over it? That just seems silly to me. I have never and never will understand the hate Lucas gets. Say what you will about his specific artistic choices but the pure vitriol he gets seemingly as just a human being is just crazy.

[RickWJ324]

If the director of the Maltese Falcon was still alive and he felt those elements would better reflect his vision for the film he'd e within his rights to do so. I'd probably dislike his new version in much the same way I dislike a lot of what was done to Star Wars but the moral outrage over it? That just seems silly to me. I have never and never will understand the hate Lucas gets. Say what you will about his specific artistic choices but the pure vitriol he gets seemingly as just a human being is just crazy.

The fact that you (or anyone) would condone that is just sad! If the creator wanted to make those changes and release it as an "alternate" version, then more power to them. If however they wanted to replace the original CLASSIC film then no that's not ok. If it is in your mind, then I'm sorry for you. You fail to see the hypocrisy in GL's statements. He's staunchly against ANY changes made to these classic films, yet bastardizes the films that are loved by millions. I'm not going to argue with you. If you are ok with it then good for you.

[thwhtGuardian]

The fact that you (or anyone) would condone that is just sad! If the creator wanted to make those changes and release it as an "alternate" version, then more power to them. If however they wanted to replace the original CLASSIC film then no that's not ok. If it is in your mind, then I'm sorry for you. You fail to see the hypocrisy in GL's statements. He's staunchly against ANY changes made to these classic films, yet bastardizes the films that are loved by millions. I'm not going to argue with you. If you are ok with it then good for you.

He's staunchly against other people changing original works, not artists themselves changing their work and that's a big difference.

[RickWJ324]

He's staunchly against other people changing original works, not artists themselves changing their work and that's a big difference.

OK.. we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Enjoy his films.

[thwhtGuardian]

OK.. we'll have to agree to disagree I guess. Enjoy his films.

I don't really enjoy his films outside of Star Wars and Willow...I just don't see hating a person based on their own artistic decisions...it makes zero sense

[WebLurker]

If the director of the Maltese Falcon was still alive and he felt those elements would better reflect his vision for the film he'd e within his rights to do so. I'd probably dislike his new version in much the same way I dislike a lot of what was done to Star Wars but the moral outrage over it? That just seems silly to me. I have never and never will understand the hate Lucas gets. Say what you will about his specific artistic choices but the pure vitriol he gets seemingly as just a human being is just crazy.

Yeah, the Star Wars fanbase is one of the most entitled and toxic out there and Lucas bore the brunt of it.

[PoorStudent]

Lucas also did a lot for the special effects industry, digital technology and the THX certification process made the theater going experience better for everyone. I know people don't like the prequels and that he is rich, but he did a lot for cinema that people really don't appreciate or even acknowledge. The museum and his criticism of altering the Maltese falcon seem to be in line with his mission and love of film.

[The Negative Zone]

George Lucas is a weird spot where while he is the creator he's also one of the biggest examples of subversion of the creator always does it right trope at least when it comes to fan reception

[Beaddle]

George Lucas is a weird spot where while he is the creator he's also one of the biggest examples of subversion of the creator always does it right trope at least when it comes to fan reception

I think what Lucas argument is that he still put his art and effort to star wars and the fans acknowledged that despite their views on the 6 films. Lucas does not see disney star wars as having any king of art or real film making effort. he thinks of it as just a mass product for making money, hence the white slavers comments.

[Moon Ronin]

I think what Lucas argument is that he still put his art and effort to star wars and the fans acknowledged that despite their views on the 6 films. Lucas does not see disney star wars as having any king of art or real film making effort. he thinks of it as just a mass product for making money, hence the white slavers comments.

That funny because Gary Kurtz left Star Wars after Empire because he said that George was more focused on selling toys than making quality movies.

“I could see where things were headed,” Kurtz said. “The toy business began to drive the [Lucasfilm] empire. It’s a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It’s natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that’s not the best thing for making quality films.”

He said that pretty much Jedi was rewrote for a more mass commercial appeal. Oddly enough some of the Force Awakens takes off of the original ideas of what Jedi was going to be.