I agree. He has the absolute right. But that's not a bad thing, because other people can come up with other types of stories that will capture the imagination of the audience. That's the way it's been since time immemorial.
George Lucas is retiring.
- Thread starter Aspiring Mogul
- Start date
Don't worry. I won't be removing his copyrights and ownership, nor would I if I could. I understand and find it agreeable that he as every right to do what he wants with them and his films. =)
Last edited:
^Agreed, but I also agree that it still sucks. I'll never be a fanatic for the franchise, so this is never really going to bother me, but in the end it is indeed his right to say and do whatever he wants in regards to his property.
It still seems to me like he has a rather strange grasp of reality.
I also don't think he's actually going to retire. I have no factual basis for thinking this. I just don't think he will.
It still seems to me like he has a rather strange grasp of reality.
I also don't think he's actually going to retire. I have no factual basis for thinking this. I just don't think he will.
Aside from George Lucas actually saying he's retiring?
And specifically retiring from making BLOCKBUSTER style movies, not movies in general. He's threatened to go back to making art films since 1978 after Star Wars was so successful. The closest thing he's come to was putting his name on as Executive Producer for Kurasawa's DREAMS with Francis Ford Coppola.
Red Tails isn't doing too well as an artistic movie, according to the reviewers. The LA Times doesn't like it, the Globe and Mail doesn't like it, so he's not succeeding in his goal of becoming an artist.
As your first post stated, the idea was to do artistic films AFTER Red Tails. It's a shame critics aren't liking it, but on the other hand, how many blockbuster-style films DO they like?
As far as Star Wars, I do think it's funny that the people are complaining about the films...then saying they only liked the first two. So if you don't like them, then what does it MATTER what happens to them? And, again, not hard to get your hands on the theatrical cuts. Not on blu-ray as of now, but, hey, they're far from done milking the franchise. The films are NOT ruined. They're still out there, exactly as you remember them. Newer versions are just that.
Don't get me wrong, I enjoy heckling the films as much as the next person. And Episode 2 is groan-worthy enough to be almost unwatchable, without the right sense of humor (I make fun of films I love too). As richy says, there's lots of other stuff out there, and it's perfectly acceptable to just not like Star Wars. I don't like most Star Trek. I liked DS9, but couldn't make it through Next Gen when it was on the air, nor giving it another chance a few months ago. It's just not my thing.
Oh, and sonnyboo mentioned Kurosawa's "Dreams" which is one of my favorite films ever. I know there was a lot of ILM involvement on that one. For as minimal as it is, it's not a cheap film. But absolutely beautiful! If Lucas gets his hand in more projects like that, I can't see how it would be a bad thing!
Of course, I give it another five years before he starts shooting more Star Wars. He loves it!
Well, if he can't make Red Tails likable, that's a sign he may not have the talent to make artistic films - what are those anyway?
I think the critics did like the first two movies, and the second is considered one of the greatest SF movies of all time.
I like the first two, so I do care what he does to them; I like the third one a little, and I care a bit about what he does to that. I hate the prequels, so I don't care what he does to them. OK, maybe the last prequel wasn't too bad, but I don't care about it.
I think the critics did like the first two movies, and the second is considered one of the greatest SF movies of all time.
I like the first two, so I do care what he does to them; I like the third one a little, and I care a bit about what he does to that. I hate the prequels, so I don't care what he does to them. OK, maybe the last prequel wasn't too bad, but I don't care about it.
I think this is an interesting question and situation to ponder.
Comparing a painting by a dead artist to a film series by someone still alive is ludicrously inapplicable, but International copyright laws would apply and Leonardo DaVinci would have some rights, but since it was SOLD to the King of France while Leo lived, it seems he gave up the rights to own it or modify the painting.
George Lucas has not sold the rights to Star Wars, only the rights for everyone to VIEW it, aka buying a movie ticket or a VHS or a laserdisc or a DVD or Blu Ray.
Utilizing the metaphor, DaVinci SOLD the Mona Lisa (or all film rights) to the King of France. George Lucas maintained his rights to his paintings and can paint over top of them all he wants because he's only leased 'em to the general public for viewing purposes only.
FYI, the Mona Lisa HAS been retouched up in the 1800's with new color, controversially in ways that may not have been intended by the artist.
I was just thinking aloud in a theoretical and philosophical manner. Thinking about different types of artists, dead or alive in various different situations, laws, time constraints, social reactions/attitudes etc.
Didnt mean to interrupt the specific circumstances, grounded in reality which you guys are discussing.
Didnt mean to interrupt the specific circumstances, grounded in reality which you guys are discussing.
Shit, I like the prequels. Looking forward to seeing "Phantom Menace" in 3D! 
I brought up the comparison to the Mona Lisa because the argument was made by someone in The People vs. George Lucas, if memory serves.
It seems to me that you've made some solid points in explaining how it is less than an ideal analogy, and perhaps a fatally flawed one at that, Sonnyboo. I'd have to expend more mental energy mulling it over to decide. It's plain to see that you have described the law of the land, and the law is the law, after all. As a practical matter, perhaps that is all that matters. We all seem to agree that that is all that matters as far as the law is concerned. And so it should be. No argument from me.
However, I also do not think that the person who expressed the Mona Lisa argument was trying to make a legal argument that would stand up in a court of law. But it is discussed in The People vs. George Lucas in the context of the cultural heritage significance of the first Star Wars movies, including the fact that Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back have been selected for the National Film Registry. Again, I'm certainly not trying to argue copyright law here, nor that Lucas does not have every legal right to do whatever he wants to do with his legal property. I'm talking about what he ought to do, or not do. But as above, I'm also allowing for the cultural heritage question to be asked as it is in the already mentioned documentary: at what point does an iconic film like Star Wars become, or does it ever become, co-owned by the culture it has so affected? And, should the law be amended to take this into account? That is not necessarily my position. But it is a question I'm willing to entertain.
"Controversially." [emphasis mine]
I feel certain that, should Leornardo be teleported to this century, the French government and the administrators of the Louvre will not allow him to alter the Mona Lisa. But ohhh, he's always regretted not having painted her wearing a tiara. I'm guessing the answer they would give him would be: Um, sorry, but no, Maestro.
There is also the element of Lucas's weird sort of hypocricy as explained in that documentary and elsewhere.
Saving Star Wars
Or, hey...is it hypocricy?
The above quote is from this A.V. club ariticle: "George Lucas offers a compelling argument against George Lucas"
I don't bring this up to contradict you, Josh, but since availability of the originals is also an important element when in comes to the gripes fans have about what George Lucas has done, I suppose I should mention it. Going by the story told in The People vs. George Lucas and elsewhere, perhaps copies of the originals are not so readily available. I think the whole didn't Han Solo shoot first? issue is what's of particular annoyance to fans who want the originals more readily available.
It seems to me that you've made some solid points in explaining how it is less than an ideal analogy, and perhaps a fatally flawed one at that, Sonnyboo. I'd have to expend more mental energy mulling it over to decide. It's plain to see that you have described the law of the land, and the law is the law, after all. As a practical matter, perhaps that is all that matters. We all seem to agree that that is all that matters as far as the law is concerned. And so it should be. No argument from me.
However, I also do not think that the person who expressed the Mona Lisa argument was trying to make a legal argument that would stand up in a court of law. But it is discussed in The People vs. George Lucas in the context of the cultural heritage significance of the first Star Wars movies, including the fact that Star Wars and Empire Strikes Back have been selected for the National Film Registry. Again, I'm certainly not trying to argue copyright law here, nor that Lucas does not have every legal right to do whatever he wants to do with his legal property. I'm talking about what he ought to do, or not do. But as above, I'm also allowing for the cultural heritage question to be asked as it is in the already mentioned documentary: at what point does an iconic film like Star Wars become, or does it ever become, co-owned by the culture it has so affected? And, should the law be amended to take this into account? That is not necessarily my position. But it is a question I'm willing to entertain.
"Controversially." [emphasis mine]
I feel certain that, should Leornardo be teleported to this century, the French government and the administrators of the Louvre will not allow him to alter the Mona Lisa. But ohhh, he's always regretted not having painted her wearing a tiara. I'm guessing the answer they would give him would be: Um, sorry, but no, Maestro.
There is also the element of Lucas's weird sort of hypocricy as explained in that documentary and elsewhere.
Saving Star Wars
Or, hey...is it hypocricy?
The above quote is from this A.V. club ariticle: "George Lucas offers a compelling argument against George Lucas"
I don't bring this up to contradict you, Josh, but since availability of the originals is also an important element when in comes to the gripes fans have about what George Lucas has done, I suppose I should mention it. Going by the story told in The People vs. George Lucas and elsewhere, perhaps copies of the originals are not so readily available. I think the whole didn't Han Solo shoot first? issue is what's of particular annoyance to fans who want the originals more readily available.
Last edited:
Me too. I kind of think they're better than the original trilogy. *ducks*
Dreadylocks, there's this psychiatrist I want you to see ...
Red Tails is doing well at the box office - can't argue with that.
Not surprising, he got a lot of publicity by basically calling out the studio heads as racists.
Well, he's trumped Hollywood again, by going for a market the bigger companies overlooked. According to a writer at Forbes, that's because the executives were too conservative and afraid to stray from the norm - which is good for aspiring moguls like me. That said, the movie as a story seems to be only fair, and Roger Ebert has given it a sympathetic review, but only 2 1/2 stars out of four.
This movie bears further analysis, but the crucial factor is how well it continues to do.
I may get others mad at me, but it's my opinion. I was never a fan of anything Lucas has done. I find even the original, untouched Star Wars trilogy to be badly written films, with boring cinematography, and wooden acting. Now, the visuals of the originals are pretty impressive, if you haven't seen 2001: A Space Odyssey. I'm sorry guys, I just never get to express my opinion of Lucas. This is actually good news to me.
Lucas has BILLIONS of dollars. He can do anything he wants to. He served the world well with Star Wars. 
I thought he was going to help make Indiana Jones 5. George is working on the scrip according to Spielberg.
http://screenrant.com/steven-spielberg-jurassic-park-4-indiana-jones-5-crystal-skull-benm-137768/
http://screenrant.com/steven-spielberg-jurassic-park-4-indiana-jones-5-crystal-skull-benm-137768/