George Lucas: Give it up

I remember watching the Star Wars: Empire of Dreams documentary that was about the making of the first trilogy. Lucas kept going on and on during the making of Empire Strikes Back of how he is trying to control the production to take it out of the hands of the studios. Even though he did not direct the last two of the original trilogy he has lost his way. The magic of Star Wars that I remember watching with my father as a kid in the 90s was greatly appreciated. When I got older and watched the new trilogy I sank in my seat. Lucas has replaced filmatic ambitions and the journey into a CGI orgy of effects and no plot. Now seeing the commercials for his Saturday morning insert between Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith I have lost faith in him to ever achieving a great film for the foreseeable future. That vision was also seen after I saw the latest Indiana Jones movie. He has stopped trying and is raking in the cash. He has to pay for Skywalker ranch somehow, right?

I agree George Lucas hasn't been able to make that many movies and because of the creations of Star Wars and Indiana Jones he hasn't gotten the oportunity to make the movies he wanted to make as a director and if he wants to go that route I think he has every right to try.I personally think that "Star Wars" probably did ruin his dream of being the great director that he always wanted to be but now that he is rich and famous thanks to "Star Wars" he can now make the movies he wants to make.

I liked Lucas (and his movies) a lot better before he became "The Chosen One."

Everything you need to know about Lucas is that to him, art is interchangable with technology, and fans are putting his kids through college and helping him build the ranch.

I still think the single most self-aware line Lucas has ever written ws in "Phantom Menace," when he had some Jedi master or another say "Greed can be a powerful ally."

And there's a weird thing about Star Wars: The more Lucas has to do with it, the worse it gets.

Well, George Lucas technically is an independent filmmaker...

My "crazy" opinion:

The Star Wars prequel trilogy is a massively intricate détournement of the original trilogy, which itself deserves nothing more than to be détourned.

*cough*balancetotheforce*cough*

Wow. I don't recall any American director who is the target of so much animosity over his personal and artistic choices.
For the record, Jim, "Red Tails" is currently supposed to be in pre-production; Lucas is definitely producing but may not direct himself. Let's at least wait how that project turns out; it is certainly a worthy story to make a movie out of it.
Anyone who was less than perfectly pleased with "Indy 4" must acknowledge that Lucas, Spielberg and Harrison Ford had agreed not to make the movie unless they could find a script they all liked. So if you're going to blame someone, then blame all 3 of them. It just seems like the honest thing to do.
As for the Star Wars prequels, I am sorry that I have to even bring this up again, I certainly don't do it with the illusion that I will change anyone's mind on this. Look, I spend 80-90% of all my movie-watching time looking at classic cinema, foreign-language cinema, and independent films. My favorite directors are Wilder, Ford, Capra, Kurosawa, Lean, Powell & Pressburger, Truffaut, and many others. And I tell you that if you look at the Star Wars prequels with an open mind, you'll see a brilliant stroke of genius, which is to tell a story that works to very different effect on different levels. Certainly many young children will not detect all the underlying layers on their first or maybe even second viewing. More astute viewers will detect all the levels of subtle manipulation that are going on from the first minute of the Phantom Menace and realize that nothing is really as it seems. It is almost subversive in the way that it manages to give us (in Episode 1) an ending that in the surface appears to be a totally happy ending, yet in fact has just been the first step of a plan that is carried out over more than 10 years to destroy a very sophisticated, democratic system that embraced great diversity. No, I do not expect a lot of viewers to really get that level of the prequels, because they aren't the relatively straightforward action-adventure episodes of the Old Trilogy (episodes 4-6). But if you look at them with an open mind, the prequels really do have almost as many different interpretations as Kurosawa's "Rashomon". To me it did not come as a surprise because Lucas had stated in interviews way back in 1980 that the prequel films, if they were ever made, would have a very different feel to them, because they would be set in the ancient Old Republic and include a lot of political intrigue.
So, again, I am not fooling myself that anyone is going to change their minds about the SW prequels just because of what I've written here. But trust me, as a fanatic movie buff who loves everything that has been made since the 1910's, since Griffith and Eisenstein established the basics of film language, there is more to the SW prequels that meets the eye. And even if that wasn't the case, most of the young viewers who I know IRL seem to like them just fine.
As for Lucas - I give him credit for finding a way to do what he wanted to do, in cinema and television, and to get away from Hollywood and help create some jobs in Northern California (as Pixar has also done). He lives what is in many ways is the American Dream, so more power to him. Even if I don't necessarily agree with the choices he makes, well, that's the kind of freedom an artist should have. Do his decisions include commercial considerations? Hey, this is America. Can't hold that against someone who's gone into business and created jobs in the process.

Admittedly, he executive-produced "Mishima: A Life in Four Chapters," which makes up for a few of his sins. But since the 80's, he seems to have been focusing on "Star Wars" way, way too much, with occasional ventures into other projects.

You'd think being worth billions would be enough to either rest on or try for a "personal project," but really, Jim is right: He's a mogul more than a filmmaker now.

One more thing I would like to say is that I think making totally different personal films might give him some redemption because much has been said that Lucas(along with his friend Spielberg)that he was responsible for destroying the future of american film(which I think was unintentional) and I think he could redeem himself and prove that he can make good or even great movie with out it having anything to do with Star Wars or Indiana Jones. I think if he were to make a cinematic masterpiece in the future it would be his ultimate apology to everyone.

It's a true shame that the ultimate revenge can never take place on George Lucas. Namely, that "Star Wars Holiday Special" will never receive a proper dvd release. I managed to see a bootleg copy of it earlier this week, and it was truly the most horrible thing you could imagine. I'd say that 60-70% of the "dialogue" consists of wookie grunting. The rest is maybe the most mashed-up, schizophrenic screenplay I've ever seen. Lucas seems to have had nothing to do with it (though it's roughly around his current standards), and apparently hates it with all his heart. But with all the Star Wars junk that he has foisted upon us over the years it would serve him right that this mockery of the Star Wars universe see the light of day (complete with original commercials, of course).

At any rate, Jim, I don't think he will make those small pictures. Protecting, and proliferating, his baby takes up too much time and energy. I'd be shocked if he ever does make something else, and I'd be even more shocked if it were any good. I think he's so deep into Star Wars that he might not have a good perspective on the rest of the world. who knows?

I often wonder if Star Wars wasn't one of the worst things to happen to cinema. I don't mean to sound overly dramatic, but I find myself weighing what we got from that film versus what was lost. On the one hand, we gained a film that was revolutionary in terms of visual effects. It was a film that kids loved, and went to see again and again, and at least one good sequel (Empire Strikes Back). I myself was not born when the film originally came out, but I got to see the re-release, and it was an enjoyable experience.
What was lost?

Star Wars also spawned a number of inferior sequels that have arguably tarnished the whole canon.

Due to this film, George Lucas's promising career as a director was effectively canceled. For me, American Graffiti is his best film, and one of the best of the 1970s. I wonder what kind of director Lucas would have been, and what kind of films he would have made if he had not made Star Wars, but continued to make those small films? Did the success of Star Wars corrupt him, since he is financially able to make any movie he wants, and yet he continues to work the franchise, rather than return to his roots.

Worst of all was the toll Star Wars' success wrought on the New Hollywood, as outlined in "Easy Riders, Raging Bulls." It's success, along with Jaws two years before, essentially launched the age of the blockbuster, high-concept/low character development picture. It marked the beginning of the end of an important artistic movement, and gave birth to a wave of films that (in my opinion) made the 1980s the worst decade in the history of American cinema, artistically speaking.

Ultimately, while I enjoy the earlier Star Wars pictures, I wonder if the price we paid was too steep, compared to what was lost, what might have been. I for one would be willing to sacrifice those pictures (as well as my action figure collection) to have seen what the world would have been like without a Luke Skywalker.

Best,
Br

It's pretty fashionable to criticize George Lucas. As far as I'm concerned, the man can do whatever he wants with his money. He made THX-1138 and American Graffiti. He directed the newspaper montage in The Godfather. He created the Star Wars universe and Indiana Jones. The making of Star Wars and The Empire Strikes Back is an inspirational story of a bold independent filmmaker, who put everything on the line. He refused to follow Guild mandates for opening credits, and refuses to allow critics quotes on his movie posters. He founded ILM, Skywalker Sound, and LucasArts. He probably invested more of his own money into improving the science of filmmaking sights and sounds than any other individual in world history.

Somewhere along the line after The Empire Strikes Back, he did turn to the dark side of life. In his early years, he was a bold, scrappy, fighter of a filmmaker. He was Luke Skywalker, the farmboy underdog taking on the Death Star and Darth Vader, standing up to Yoda and telling him he was going to do stand up for what he believed in. After Empire, though, he transformed into Anakin Skywalker, the cocky golden boy with a sense of entitlement. Luke's abilities are based on merit, his virtue and his effort; Anakin's abilities are based on an inhereited wealth of midi-Chlorians. The Young Lucas was forced to struggle like Luke, but the older Lucas had so much money/power that he never needed to work for it (which is how Anakin's life worked). The only real way Lucas can ever re-create himself as a filmmaker would be to go back to his roots as a young upstart, desperate to prove his worth to the world. If he's ever going to make a great film again, he needs to regain the edge of the young Luke Skywalker.

I think you can see is a bit of a paradoxical trend in Lucas' Star Wars movies as well as many other big special effects movies. CGI essentially gives a filmmaker too much freedom. The special effects, as well as the acting, of his Star Wars films was infinitely better when he didn't have the freedom to draw anything he wanted onscreen with a computer. When he was forced to improvise, to make do with much less, the results were one hell of a lot more impressive. The external constraints of his old movies were actually the best thing that ever happened to him. Struggle is nature's way of strengthening a creature, but Lucas himself hasn't had to struggle since 1980.

You won't make too many friends with the fanboys detracting Lucas. I find the Star Wars prequels to be unwatchable (yet I paid money to do so) but people I know are still fervent believers in Lucas' filmmaking ability and they even get angry when I express my disdain for the films. The films are just plain bad, they just are and there is no amount of goodwill that was generated by the original 1977 film or Empire Strikes Back that can gloss over their mediocrity. Contrary to an above opinion I don't believe there is any strokes of genius in any of the prequels, Lucas even messes up the continuity from his original trilogy. When I heard that Lucas was intending to create a series of films featuring the downfall of Anakin Skywalker I was hoping for more of a disgraced samurai story. Unfortunately what we ended up with was largely bloodless and has no edge whatsoever.

George Lucas is like one of those rock stars fronting successful bands who decide to go solo, and then they suck. Even if you are a great artist, you need to have peers who can tell you "that line is stupid" or "you should take that part out". Lucas is naturally stubborn, and being on top doesn't help it at all.

Sean I do agree with a lot of what you're saying, but I don't think I agree on the technology having sidetracked Lucas necessarily when he made the prequels. I don't think you can compare a trilogy which essentially follows a bunch of rebels fighting an Empire with a trilogy which follows members of the Galactic elite who occupied prominent positions in the Senate or the Jedi Order - they were part of the establishment and perhaps also had a sense of entitlement. This would probably have been the case even if the CGI technology hadn't been there too. This is what some people just don't get, imho. Most of the characters in the prequels trilogy have nice comfortable lives and live in well-decorated quarters in Coruscant, the center of the Republic. In the original trilogy, aside from Vader and the Emperor, everyone has had to flee to distant, remote, hard-to-find locations just to get as far from the Empire (the new establishment) as they can.
That is a huge reason why the prequels would have been quite different from the original trilogy EVEN in the absence of any CGI technology.

It's odd how George Lucas' most mature film was his first - THX1138 - followed by American Graffiti, then Star Wars, as though each subsequent film got younger and younger until we're left with Clone Wars. If you have not seen THX1138 in a while, check it out to see how way ahead of its time it was, and how intelligent and sparse it is. Certainly one of the finest science fiction films ever made and so far away from the all-dressed pizza effect of the new Star Wars franchise.

Lucas is a genius (yeah, I said it) on the micro level (tiny production design details, background action you don't notice until a third viewing) and the macro level (mirrored scenes and parallel developments scattered throughout all six movies that you don't notice until you've watched the whole series). But there's a whole artistic middleground -- the housekeeping part of filmmaking, having to do with performance, pacing, overall consistency and making sure that certain elements that please the filmmaker don't drive regular viewers into a tizzy (Jar-Jar).

As for the CGI issue, I disagree that the issue here is computer effects giving a filmmaker too much freedom. Spielberg has leaned heavily on CGI for 15 years now, with mostly good results, both in sci-f/fantasy themed films and movies such as "Saving Private Ryan" and "Catch Me If You Can" that you don't expect to employ them; the big difference between them is that Spielberg goes the extra mile to integrate the effects into the "real world" imagery, and film action in such a way that it seems affected by Newton's laws of physics (compare Anakin deliberately falling a thousand feet and landing in somebody else's speeder in that "Attack of the Clones' city chase vs. Tom Cruise scrambling from car to car in that vertical highway sequence of "Minority Report," both released the same year; the former is purely abstract, the latter intensely real-seeming). I think the problem here is that Spielberg (with certain exceptions) recognizes the limitations of the technology, knows in which ways it isn't visually credible, and avoids or minimizes elements that might give the game away (all the shaky-cam footage in "War of the Worlds" and "Minority Report" made the action seem more immediate and also disguised any potential believability problems re:CGI); Lucas on the other hand pushes the technology to do things which, for all its potential, CGI isn't quite ready to do yet, and the result is a moment or a scene that takes you out of the movie.

I realize it's an extreme minority position, but I like the prequels -- the second and third anyway -- and think they're held back by two big problems. One is that Lucas apparently has no facility with actors (the actors themselves have indicated as much, particularly Harrison Ford) which means that they're all left to their own devices, and actors who can do compelling work with comparatively little direction (like Alec Guinness, Ian McDiamid, Ewan MacGregor and Ford all spring to mind) can still shine, whereas other actors (Liam Neeson, Mark Hamill, Natalie Portman) just sort of lie there onscreen or seem awkward and amateurish. The dialogue in these movies isn't any worse than the dialogue in "Lord of the Rings" or "The Matrix," but because the performances aren't as uniformly strong (and consistent in style) the lines play as clunky, even if you're into the story.

The other problem -- which there really isn't any remedy for -- is that George Lucas is a brilliant visual and structural filmmaker who either isn't capable of handling the basic stuff or isn't interested in it. The things he does well are things almost nobody can do as well as Lucas (create entire universes with their own distinctive look and feel, construct contemporary myths that play on ancient ones, turn basic psychology into archetypes). But the things he does poorly are things we expect any filmmaker in any genre at any budget level to do well.

Taken as a whole, the six films are marvels of large-scale construction, and even the much-derided political details of the prequels are comprehensible, and illuminate events in the original trilogy, if you can get past the performance problems (and irritating CGI characters), which admittedly is difficult to do. And the central story of a father's fall into evil and his son's cosmic righting of the scales is compelling enough (and in the second and third prequels, unexpectedly moving, at least for this viewer) to give the series more heft and internal coherence than we've seen in most franchises. Even when the prequels are leaden and amateurish (which unfortunately is often, particularly in "Phantom Menace") they're lovely and fascinating, deliberate works of primitivist mythmaking, like fables illustrated with woodcuts. I have watched "Attack of the Clones" and "Revenge of the Sith" many times since they came out, usually in bits and pieces, but sometimes in total. I find them more mesmerizing, visually imaginative and just flat-out more exuberant and original than almost any super-expensive fantasy movies made in the last 20 years -- and I like the darkness, the much-mocked seriousness, of the Anakin story, and love the doom-spiral construction of episodes II and II (which feel like one big movie) with that terrific downer ending (hampered only by Vader's cheeseball "NOOOOO!" -- Jesus, Lucas, why?). And I always notice new visual and dramatic details that put the lie to the notion that Lucas doesn't care or that he's only in it for the money. I can't imagine anyone who has ever tried to mount a sustained creative endeavor saying such a thing; it just doesn't compute.

I think whole "Star Wars killed cinema" thing is a little overwrought. There's nothing Star Wars did that the Bond series didn't do and yet during Bond's heyday, the mid-sixties, that series coexisted with some of the most artistically edgy films ever made.

Does anyone truly think that if it were not for Star Wars or Jaws, studios would never have discovered that if you got a hold of a hot franchise property, infused it with huge amounts of special effects and spectacle, and spent as much/more money hyping the film as the actual budget of the film itself, then you'd have a tailor-made blockbuster? And couldn't you argue that that mentality existed before Star Wars?

Didn't a similar thing happend with the music business? Edgy more artistic fare was rubbed out by the major labels in favor of more formulaic, processed fare? I'd say the eighties greed mentality and the fact that studios became part of conglomorates (where making movies were just one of many interests a company had) was more hurtful to edgy and artistic fare.

And I don't want to beat up on somebody's failures, but huge, expensive flops by directors that were given cart blanche like "Heaven's Gate" or "One From the Heart" couldn't have helped matters either.

Also the opening of foreign markets over the last 20-30 years have had an affect, making more action-oriented, less dialog and plot-oriented, (and therefore easily translatable) fare more of an appealing prospect.

As for the prequels, I still don't understand why so many smugly assert Lucas fell flat on his face with these movies. They made billions and all three have fresh ratings at Rotten Tomatoes. Admittedly I and II just make the cut, but still, they were far from being unanimously hated which some people make them out to be. Roger Ebert himself gave Episodes I and III 3 1/2 star reviews so we know he's a great admirer of 2 out of 3 of the prequels. I'm not saying people have to like them or not acknowlege their flaws, but that self-sastified "boy Lucas really dropped the ball on the prequels" just doesn't gel with the critical (again, not nearly as bad as the press or more ardent prequel detractors made it out to be) and audience reaction - stateside the Prequel Trilogy grossed more than the three Lord of the Rings movies, the three Spider-man movies, the three Pirates movies and the top three grossing Harry Potter movies. Again, that DOES NOT mean they're good or great, or that everybody has to like them, but still it flies in the face of the image many seem to have of Lucas as some clueless, out of touch person stumbling around unanble to tell a story or direct a film to save his life.

I think it's fair to say that Lucas' insane amount of wealth and the insane amount of revenue Star Wars (and Indy) generate is making him a favorite target of vitriol and making almost anything he's remotely associated with a whipping boy for various people, particularly on the net. Rich man = boogey man!

As for not making the more artistic, expermental and non-linear fare that he claimed he would do after Star Wars, maybe he just decided in the end, that being in his mid-sixties, he just wants to sit behind the scenes and produce and supervise Star Wars (and maybe Indy) spinoffs. I doubt that takes much energy or work for him and helps generate revenue for his various companies. "Clone Wars" cost only $2 million to make and despite the critical thrashing, looks to make about $20 million. And some people act like he's the devil. Wonder why?

The Star Wars prequels needed better dialog.

Cripes, I bet Lucas had ILM mock up that hair for him. No man his age should have a hair helmet like that. I'm 36 and most of mine is gone, George how did you do it?

I think Lucas' problem is one that happens a lot with major celebrity types; it's just on a much grander scale. As people in the industry get more successful, they naturally gain more clout and are able to rely less on the help and advice of others. Also, as they get more successful financially, they are able to remove themselves more from the real world via big houses, guards, drivers, etc. Just think of what happened to Jerry Seinfeld: observational comedian gets really rich, buys big house away from everything, decides to return to stand-up, and has no good material since his observations no longer register with the public. It's happened so much with writer-directors (Barry Levinson and Robert Zemeckis spring immediately to mind). Since George Lucas is so much more successful and more reclusive than most, it has been so much more pronounced. So I can't take the prequels as so much of a disappointment, at least no more than Seinfeld's recent stand-up material, or The Polar Express, or any Levinson film since 1992 (except Wag the Dog). It's just what happens to these guys.

I just wish he'd start throwing a little cash at other directors. He hasn't produced anything that isn't Star Wars or Indiana Jones in ages. Remember when he helped out folks like Akira Kurosawa, Don Bluth, Godfrey Reggio, Jim Henson, etc? If I had Lucas's virtually unlimited funds (Star Wars never ceases printing money) I'd be giving all kinds of artists a little funding. Give some people a chance to get small visions out there and create their own stories, movements and self-perpetuating careers. But that's me.

I completely agree with Michaela. The "Star Wars" prequels are subversively brilliant. Flawed? Yes. But much more ambitious in their storytelling than the critics have been willing to admit. Beneath all the swashbuckling action and the over-wrought dialogue about prophecies, is a shrewdly sophisticated story about political machination that's a hell of a lot more interesting than many of the more generally accepted political movies.

Matt & Mark - you both have made some excellent points, and have made a case very eloquently as to why the SW prequels were big box-office hits and, once you get used to Lucas' peculiar perspective, have much to offer that you wouldn't find in any other contemporary American movies.
And I would also point out that a very respected reviewer -- Janet Maslin of the New York Times -- gave Episode I: The Phantom Menace a positively glowing review, managing to look at the movie for its actual merits and largely ignoring all the hype that accompanied it in 1999. I highly encourage anyone who has mixed feelings about that movie to look for Maslin's 1999 review on they nyt.com website and consider all the positive things she had to say about the movie.

Maybe it's because the link to the full essay isn't working, but I really don't see what your point is. You list all of the various Star Wars- and Indiana Jones-related projects, and then end it by declaring that Lucas shouldn't bother making a small, personal movie, without giving any reason why not (other than the dubious reasoning that Louis B. Mayer didn't direct and a friend of Lucas's made a bad movie last year). Um... why shouldn't he make whatever he wants to make (especially since you claim the small and personal American Graffiti to be his best film)?

It's become bizarrely fashionable to bash Lucas lately, but still, I have to wonder what prompted this inchoate diatribe.

And Michaela, you are exactly correct (even if I'm the only one who agrees with you).

Robert: "Lucas has shown that the "Star Wars" universe is his most personal project." The link to the full essay is fixed now.

His original goal was to become successful enough to break free of the corporate studio shackles so that the viewers could enjoy his unadulterated creative vision. It just so happens that he has turned into the corporate studio shackles, while his creative juices ran dry. Here's an idea George, make a documentary about how you gradually but surely turned into a corporate sell-out. Could be more interesting than a thousand Clone cartoons.

There was a time when I could forgive George Lucas' much talked about shortcomings as a filmmaker and enjoy his films for what they do well, but that changed with "Revenge of the Sith," which essentially did the same thing to me that "The Life of David Gale" famously did to Roger Ebert. It's true, as Michaela writes above, that there's more to the films that meets the eye. Lucas does develop themes that pass under the radar of casual viewers. Unfortunately, some of the themes that he develops in his films are ones that I find deeply offensive.

No, it isn't the implied anti-Bush messages that were picked up by the news media. I actually agree with the film on those, and I applauded its predecessor, "Attack of the Clones," for warning about the dismantling of Democracy at a time when the U.S. was heading in the same direction as the Galactic Republic.

Rather, it's the reactionary and misogynistic cultural views inherent in Lucas' handling of the characters, not only in "Sith," but, in hindsight, its two immediate predecessors. The problem with the character development, or lack thereof, goes beyond mere awkward dialog and inability to work with actors, to the basic assumptions Lucas makes about human behavior.

The worst case, and the character treated most shabbily in the films, is Padme Amidala. In "Sith," he depicts Padme's love affair with Anakin and her pregnancy as turning her into incompetent mush, totally incapacitated from doing anything meaningful about the political crisis. I'm including, in this assessment, the deleted scenes, which some fans of the movie believe ameliorate the problem, but which actually make it worse, for they portray Padme as the weakest link among her group of opposition Senators. For example, she delivers a half-hearted petition to Palpatine and has no comeback for his non-answers. She's intimidated by Anakin. She lets Obi-Wan manipulate her. She never has a proper confrontation with Palpatine, her true nemesis, even though the opportunity for such a confrontation and the effect it would have in inspiring the Rebellion to come in the original "Star Wars," is glaringly, screamingly obvious. She finally does confront Anakin, but by then it's too little, too late, and it's followed by her dying one of the most stereotypical deaths ever devised for a woman character.

Padme isn't treated much better in "Attack of the Clones." There, Lucas is intentionally weakening her in preparation for what he does to her in "Sith." There's a deleted scene in "Clones" that's particularly telling. It has Padme's family urging her to quit her political career, find a man (not Anakin) and "settle down", as if a woman such as her isn't capable of handling both a career and a family. The way Lucas writes it, with Padme giving weak and childish responses, he's clearly siding with them and not with her. Anakin, meanwhile, behaves so badly in the film, that it's simply not believable a woman with Padme's background would fall in love with him. Yet the plot forces her to.

Why Lucas wrote Anakin as such an unlikable brat in "Clones" may never be fully explained, but I think it has something to do with attempting to justify Obi-Wan's 'tough love' treatment of him, as well as attempting to justify some of the more controversial provisions of the Jedi Code that the films preach. Despite their eventual opposition to a right-wing government, the Jedi's philosophy and practices are far more in line with 'strict father' conservative ideology than they are with 'nurturant parent' liberalism. (For descriptions of the terms 'strict father' and 'nurturant parent', see George Lakoff's "Moral Politics: How Liberals and Conservatives Think.")

I'm also uncomfortable with Lucas' treatment of the other woman character in the prequels, Anakin's mother Shmi. For what reason do the Jedi fail to bring her along when they rescue Anakin from slavery on Tatooine? I don't buy Qui-Gon's excuse that he could make a deal with Watto only for Anakin. I suspect the real reason they don't bring her, aside from the Jedi's standard practice of separating young trainees from their families, is they deem her unfit to raise, or even to help raise, "The Chosen One." Why? She's a single mother.

Lucas' greatest legacy are Lucasart's adventure games from the 90s. The Secret of Monkey Island, Full Throttle, Day of the Tentacle, Sam and Max Hit the road, all classics. The Shelving of the Sam and Max sequel was shameful. Oh, and if anyone is ever gonna convince Ebert that video games can be art I'd suggest using Girm Fandango as the obvious example. Great story, great characters, deep themes, wonderful artwork and a consistent artistic tone. It's everything the prequels weren't.

Oh, and there's nothing bizarre about the fashion to bash Lucas. It's 'cause his movies suck. End of story.

Mark is right. To solely blame the Star Wars movies for the end of a golden age of cinema is a major overreaction. People didn't suddenly start liking action blockbusters with Star Wars (e.g. Jaws, Dirty Harry, James Bond).

Also, Cimino's massive financial flop with Heaven's Gate and Coppola's breakdown filming Apocalypse Now (something from which he has never recovered creatively) also played huge roles in the death of 70s cinema that cannot be placed at George Lucas' feet. Also, Scorcese bombed with New York, New York. And other 70's rising stars like Brian DePalma and William Friedkin proved themselves to be wildly inconsistent after their first successes. None of these things can be blamed on George Lucas.

Did Star Wars have some negative effects overall? Probably. But lots of great films spawn terrible trends. A genuine classic like Halloween gave birth to garbage like the Friday the 13th Films. There's Something About Mary, which I really like, started the annoying trend of comedies feeling they had to be grosser than horror films to get laughs. I could go on and on.

I'm not sure I've necssarily gotten Jim's point, but here goes: I'm writing this as someone who actually enjoys the prequels (while admitting they don't match up to ANH and Empire)and even enjoyed Clone Wars when I saw it last week at an advance screening (and then watched in confusion as review after review eviscerated it).

But when I read "Give it up", I read it as "George, stop talking about how you want to small intimate personal films. You've been talking about doing that since 1982. You clearly have no actual intent to do so. STOP TALKING ABOUT IT. If you were serious about doing it, you'd have DONE it by now. What are you waiting for? Make the damn personal project or stop talking about it."

Yes, 1982. In an interview with Starlog, just after Raiders came out. That's the first time I can recall reading Lucas saying how he wants to do something arty and abstract and experimental.

Does he deserve the chance to do so? Of course. But what can't be denied is that he has all the resources and freedom that millions upon millions of dollars can give, and yet he hasn't. He's done more Star Wars films, and been producer on kid's films. It's not even like the 80s when he'd produce/exec produce/shepherd Kagemusha, Mishima, and that abstract film with a Phillip Glass score :-)

So I'd like to see him stop talking about how he has these artistic impulses that IF ONLY he could fulfill...

Sam, some thoughtful and rather detailed points you brought up, and certainly sheds light on the treatment of women in this saga.I agree that Padme was treated horribly as a character. What I find most unforgivable is the fact that he took the arc of the first trilogy - Luke's story - and decided that Anakin's story was worth telling in the first place. I hate to dredge up that old story of Joseph Campbell' "The Hero's Journey" but it was in fact what Star Wars was initially based on in the first place. I studied Campbell's work in college and even had the privilege of meeting him years ago during a lecture tour, so it's a subject dear to my heart.

As interested as some may be in the politics and origins of the Star Wars universe, to decide to go back and tell these complex stories after wrapping up a simple timeless myth is risky at best. To pull it off, you'd better come up with a protagonist you care deeply about, and keep the back story as just that - a back story. Notice how many councilors, chancellors and politicians it took in the prequels spouting expository dialogue, grinding everything to a halt.
The same thing happened in The Matrix. Neo's story was the Hero's Journey beat by beat, and it was all neatly wrapped up in the first film. Then the second and third film introduced a chancellor, a viceroy and a politician. The assumption was that there was so much more to say, when in fact, no, because there was no one new to take on a journey.

Anakin's journey could have been interesting, but he was surrounded by so many uninteresting characters and situations. Worst of all, if he was the main character - and sometimes even that was uncertain - then he needed to be like a character in a Shakespearean tragedy because we all know his fate.
Luke Skywalker had his "atonement with the father" moment, a necessary part of the hero journey, and perhaps a personal echo of Lucas himself. What did Anakin need to find, and in his case lose? Was it Padme - that pale ghost of a love story buried inside the sprawling war story? Was it the struggle with his Jedi master? What was his journey among all the millions of distractions in the prequels? That's where I feel Lucas lost his way. Keep it simple, George.
I couldn't give a rat's ass if viceroy whatever-the-hell is interrupting the story to bla bla bla. Please decide who the main character is and stick with him. It's such a simple rule of filmmaking I can't believe it was so heavily violated in the prequels.
In one of my storyboard classes I asked my students a question right after The Phantom Menace was released. I said "You have 2 seconds to answer the following question: Who was the main character in the first Star Wars film?" Without hesitation they all shouted "Luke Skywalker." I then asked "Who was the main character in The Phantom Menace?" Even after 10 seconds there were still a variety of answers, and most of them said it was Qui Gon! It shouldn't have taken two more films to make that answer any easier. I still don't think that little kid carried the movie, nor did his teenage version. For that alone I think it's time to find a new story to tell.

Yes, Coppola's YOUTH WITHOUT YOUTH is small and pretentious, hardly the confident return of a filmmaking genius. But taken on its own terms, it's far from a bad film, and the performances are every bit as superb as one could possibly hope. It's much better than the two films Coppola made prior to his hiatus -- and I'd even go so far as to say it's preferable to BRAM STOKER'S DRACULA, which was fatally marred by a departure from Stoker's novel in the film's third act, and not helped by some egregious miscasting among the younger actors.

I find the notion of subtelty in the prequels more than a bit laughable. The suggestion that most moviegoers didn't get the whole "Palpatine is an evil man pulling the strings from behind the scenes like an evil geniues because, well, he is" is almost insulting to the average moviegoer. Sure, this fabled average viewer doesn't usually understand the intricacies of "2001: A Space Odyssey" or "Blade Runner" or maybe even "The Empire Strikes Back" but the problem with the prequels is their stunning lack of anything even approaching depth.

There is nothing in the first two prequels that requires any thought to comprehend. In "Revenge" there is some inferred philosophy about fighting fire with fire, but it never really gets off the ground and the little of it that actually gets across is mostly by accident. (The novelization of "Revenge", hardly a masterwork, does a superb job by comparison, detailing, among other things, Yoda's realization that he can't defeat the emperor because he lost when the Jedi started fighting. This also ties in well with the original trilogy, and Luke's defeating the emperor by... not fighting him.)

By the same token, I think the idea that George Lucas is offending women--even implicitly--is totally off. For one thing, he isn't a good enough writer to do it without making a whole world of women under the yoke of evil teddy bears. For another thing, Padme is a terrible character because almost every character in the prequels was terrible. She isn't the only one dimensional, badly drawn personality. If Padme's pathetic character is a slight against women, Jar Jar Binks is a vicious attack against fish.

But with all of that said, I'm not sure how this became a forum on Lucas' many failings. Regardless of what you think of him as a filmaker (I think he isn't very good) or as a story teller (where I think he is very good) he very much needs to restrain waxing poetic about the personal movies he just can't wait to create. This is like Bill Gates saying "when I grow up, I want to..." Lucas has the money to do just about whatever he wants. If he *really* wanted to make personal films, he would. His incessant pining for these short personal films seems like a very thinly veiled attempt at maintaining credibility as a filmmaker while not actually having to work at making films. If he really wanted to retain his credibility, he would have quit while he was ahead.

Leave it to Mr. MZS to beat me to the punch here, he already standing as the one person who allowed me to feel comfortable liking/loving the prequels amidst a group of professionals and peers who by and large do not. My favorite quote of his on this topic comes, I believe, from his original review of [i]Episode III[/i]: "[Lucas] can levitate entire cities but can't master a knife and fork." Brilliant.

And I do like [i]The Phantom Menace[/i], regardless of how plainly bad entire portions of it are.

[i]Youth Without Youth[/i], puny? Really? Ouch. (I'm only playing...I know Jim isn't the type who feigns opinions or speaks in hyperbole just for effect.) I just can't get the overall disregard for that movie.

This man's contributions to cinema are unparalleled. Because of him, we now have to ability to create ANYTHING on the screen. I'm sorry if you haven't liked his movies, but what he's accomplished in this business affords him respect that can't be taken away.

Back to your regularly scheduled programming of blind spite... who's up next?

Sam

While I'm not sure I agree with you, I think your observations of Lucas' treatment of Padme are sound. But I have to disagree with your last point about Shmi being a "single mother" and thus being yet another nail in Lucas' coffin.

While I can't say that it's impossible that your view of Lucas' intentions given her "single mother" status is correct... I do think there is sufficient reason to be charitable with regard to this issue given the overt Buddhist inspired views of the Jedi order. The Jedi order valued non-attachment (leading to unattached universal compassion) above all else... it was their implied justification for removing all the younglings from their families. They didn't want children leaning on or developing emotional attachments that would hamper their development. Preparing them for a life loosely patterned after Buddhist monks living detached from society trying to cultivate non-attachment (particularly from the self).

The stakes are raised a bit given the vast power Jedis were being trained to harness and the supposed risk of being too attached (and turning toward the Sith, a concept interestingly not found in Buddhism, as there are evil, or fallen anti-Buddhas. Some would contend this is a somewhat unjustified inconsistency in Buddhist metaphysics but I digress). Given the risks, this extreme precaution would seem justifiable. Hence, even if Qui-gon had been able to free Shmi, she would have had no place in Anakin's life, married or not or no matter how fit as a parent. One can imagine that the Jedi would have viewed conventional parenting as useful for preparing someone for a more conventional attached existence but as completely inappropriate and dangerous for a prospective Jedi.

So I think you're overreaching a bit with your last paragraph but aside from that I do think you've done a decent job of outlining a potentially nasty undercurrent of Episodes II and III. Even so, I will likely just add this to the rather long list of flaws in the prequels. I agree with Matt Zoller above when he suggests that Lucas has trouble with things we expect every filmmaker in every genre to be able to do.

Nevertheless, I count myself as one of the few who enjoy the prequels more than the original trilogy (particularly Return of the Jedi, which aside from the Emperor-Luke-Vader scenes was utterly pointless). The Buddhist undercurrents along with the political intrigue are far more interesting to me than than the more conventional Luke-hero archetype driven narrative of the original.

Gomenasai? Who is Jim Emerson? Has he directed anything (except perhaps himself with one of those hand-held smart-phones under a shower)?

Contemptible, that coven of 'critics' that try to tell accomplished men (and women) what to do and what not to do. Amazing how pusillanimous some minds are, and yet they want to squeeze everyone else into their bleached Nessus-shirts!

Opinionated fool: cut your tongue more often is my advice to you! Live and let live ....

Matt,

You nailed it with your analysis of Spielberg vs. Lucas on CGI. Unfortunately, most filmmakers seem to fall in the Lucas camp when it comes to the unlimited (and usually unconvincing) properties of computer animation. I still think Jurassic Park made the best use of CGI because - with the technology new and relatively untested - it was used sparingly, always in the context of real sets and locations, and often cloaked in darkness which both made the scenes more frightening and effectively hid the synthetic qualities of the animation. But people got carried away. Twelve years later we had King Kong as Donkey Kong, with the limited but beautiful fluidity of the original stop motion replaced by Kong wrestling a T-Rex in a set piece that resembles a video game. And yet King Kong was more acclaimed in its year that War on the Worlds. I'll never figure that one out.

MovieMan0283
http://www.thedancingimage.blogspot.com

Carl's right. Lucas does suck, as has his Star Wars franchise for a very long time. Me, I checked out the moment Darth told Luke he was his father -- a ridiculous development -- and never looked back. All this squabbling over the intricacies of the storylines of his ludicrous "prequels" just bores me stupid. I don't know if Lucas should "hang it up," but if his fans did, the world would be a better place.

I'm not sure how anyone could miss the point. Lucas has been independently wealthy since the late 70's. What is supposed to be stopping him from making the small films he supposedly cares about?

I have to agree with Sam; Lucas did not seem to know how to write a script for a woman who wasn't an action hero; Padme's dialog in II and III was atrocious (and she was so good in I, to boot!)

I enjoyed The Phantom Menace (a war about trade and taxation, sounds like real life, eh?) and the political subtleties.

The Attack of the Clones however was way too long for too little content. Except for the scene with Obi-wan on Pamino, most of the movie was wasted (that whole Geonosis arena business was utterly preposterous).

What really, really offended me was the ending of Revenge of the Sith. It was like Lucas did not understand the consistencies of his own characters. Obi-Wan would never have walked away and left Anakin alive...if it was his mission to kill him then he would have plunged his light saber into him while apologizing. The idea that he would give Anakin a lecture and then leave him there! Sure, Anakin had to live, but there were plenty of other ways to write the story to reach that outcome. It was just creepy, the way he did it. In fact, when my children watch the movie, they stop it right after Anakin jumps, and then make up their own ending in a way that is consistent with the characters.

"His last film to acknowledge adult concerns (adult sexuality, adult emotions) was "THX 1138," co-written with sound designer Walter Murch and directed when he was 26. Any signs that he has grown up since then?"

Nope. Quite the opposite. The biggest sign of this is his inability to maintain a consistent tone. He can't help but throw ridiculous, child-like ideas at the screen, often at the most inopportune times. You can say that the original Star Wars (A New Hope) was campy but part of what makes it work so well is that the characters are taking their situations seriously. Empire Strikes Back is a dark film but it's tone stays consistent, even with moments of humor because those moments come from character traits (even if you think of the characters as one-note) and chemistry between the actors. Those moments don't distract, they fit.

In the new trilogy, I find the biggest flaw to be the cartoonish moments, especially with the robots. There are so many moments where something jokey happens with a robot and it always feels completely detached from the rest of the film. I actually just watched ROTS last night and was really annoyed by this very thing. At the beginning of the film we are treated to a fantastic ballet of the Jedi fighters flying through the massive space battle. Unfortunately, Lucas interrupts the pacing and spectacle of the scene to give us an overly long, silly sequence involving the goofy buzz droids that attack the ships. The implied threat isn't enough - Lucas has to make it literal and he, unfortunately, does it with something completely inane that removes all tension from the sequence.

There's something about Sam's comment regarding the view of women and mothers that, while possibly difficult, may very well be an argument for the personal nature of the series, considering that he was left by his wife and raised their children by himself... Yes, I'm quite sure it's more complicated, but I believe that is his view of it, which is what his work will most likely reflect, right?

Lucas loves to talk about this long-awaited personal project as if it were some weekend hobby; a fun little diversion he can address between the heavy-lifting of multiple blockbuster franchises. It's an idea that smacks of pretention. There is nothing wrong with filmmakers who take on big budget studio work in order to fund more personal projects, but this is not Lucas's aim. He wants to be the man who carries the torch for Hollywood's blockbuster culture, while holding his own amongst the Indiewood intelligentia. In short, he wants his own myth to match that of his Star Wars universe.

Here's the problem though: he's completely incurious. His is an hermetically sealed world that relies exclusively on nostalgia, trickery, and his own well of creative sensibility. When real world themes are brought into the mix, they are done so in a manner that reflects only a broad understanding of outside events. This is part of what made the three prequels so deeply unsatisfying. After 20 years of imbuing his franchise with new special effects, interlacing plot details, and big themes, he lost any sense of humanity. There was no Han Solo; no one to bear witness as an audience surrogate in this fascinating other-world (even C3PO become a token plotline unto him/it-self). Whether this was a product of detachment or the triumph of intricacy over imagination, one could clearly tell that the world outside of Skywalker Ranch was no longer invited to the Star Wars party.

The fact that Lucas invokes the failure of Coppolla's "Youth Without Youth" in casting his own vision is not an encouraging sign. It's as if he's already making an excuse for creating something that might come off as completely unrelatable. He can rest assured that none of us will care.

Lucas is an easy target - as creaky as The Clone Wars is ( and yes he didn't write or direct yet his fingerprints are all over it), it's still a bit more entertaining than the over-hyped-to-the-level-of-insanity The Dark Knight, which follows Batman Begins as yet another Batman movie to get it all wrong. But as for Lucas, he IS a director, just not a particularly good one, but he never has been. He's an idea man, not even a good screenwriter, as his best films ( Graffiti or the original Star Wars) were heavily rewritten for him. Lucas excels on ideas but falters in execution. Hey, there are worse filmmakers. Anyone yearning for another ham fisted PT Anderson snooze fest? He-who-has-no-directorial-style? Or maybe Judd Apatow, who somehow is now hailed as the comedy savior of Hollywood, yet as a producer his Superbad was maybe the worst teen comedy in ages? I think Lucas maybe actually wants to go away and make little movies, but he's just seduced by technology and loves the glitz. He wants to do that but he never will. And that's OK. What he needs, is another Gary Kurtz. A producer who has the balls to say "no, George, no".

Was George Lucas at Pine Mountain Club, CA Aug. 15, 2008 visiting with film maker Jim Wynorski
on location shooting "Timmy & the Bandits?

JD: Beautifully put. For those others who didn't read all that closely: I did not say that Lucas should give up making "Star Wars" films. I said the evidence overwhelmingly shows that the "Star Wars" and "Indiana Jones" pictures ARE as "personal" as his filmmaking gets. He created worlds, and he's been living in them since 1977. He himself has been dismissive about his buddy Coppola's last "little" effort, "Youth Without Youth" -- but at least Coppola has made interesting small-scale personal films in the past ("The Rain People," "The Conversation," "Rumblefish"...). I get the impression from his statements and behavior that, as JD says, Lucas is really not interested in exploring anything outside of his meticulously detailed, hermetically sealed fantasy worlds. At least he's a movie mogul and not the President of the United States. So, if he wants to stick with "Star Wars," that's fine with me. The record indicates that's what he does best, and that's what he's most interested in doing. He's a mogul. And, as I said: Do you want to see Jerry Bruckheimer's "small, personal" films? Michael Bay's? Rupert Murdoch's? Maybe not so much.

I would like to see Michael Bay's personal film, just out of morbid curiosity to see what he'd actually comes up with. Unless "Pearl Harbor" was his personal film, in which case hell damn no thanks.

Random Guy at Bar: Those new Star Wars films sucked! They've destroyed my childhood memories! They were made for 12 year olds!

Me: How old were you when you saw "Empire"?

Random Guy at Bar: 12 years old...

I too don't get all the hate on the new trilogy. I like all the movies, with "Phantom Menace" and "Empire" as the least liked. But look at the complaints. A bunch of stupid special effects. Wooden dialog. Bad acting. It's not like the original trilogy was immune from these. Harrison Ford was the only one who acted in the original trilogy. (Okay, I guess I'll concede that Frank Oz did too.)

Most people need to acknowledge that their taste wasn't fully developed when the original trilogy came out. At the time you wouldn't watch something with subtitles. Or in black and white. And you probably were annoyed by letter boxing. Yes I'm sure someone out there can say "I was watching French New Wave when I was 12) but please admit you were an exception to the rule.

When I saw the new ones, I was immediately transported back to being that kid who lived in the middle of nowhere and got to see one movie a year in the movie theater. I couldn't help but like them. Sorry everyone else grew up.

I'd really like to someone who wasn't an adolescent or college student, but actually a full-fledged grown-up, compare the trilogies.

Something occurred to me while reading this blog entry. It might be an odd coincidence that "The Clone Wars" and "Vicky Cristina Barcelona" opened in the U.S. on the same day. But it's interesting to note that both Woody Allen and George Lucas are among a very very small number of American filmmakers who have found ways to create movies largely free of Hollywood's corporate control that will nonetheless get good distribution. (Obviously Lucas didn't direct TCW personally, but it is a project over which he can decide how much control to yield).
Most American directors, unless working in independent cinema, have to toe the studios' line - which basically means yielding to the corporate mentality in many ways that limit creative expression.
Is it possible that at this point in time, many American filmgoers have less tolerance for the idiosyncrasies of filmmakers like Lucas and Woody Allen because the overwhelming majority of their film diet consists of homogenized conglomerate product?

Man I love Rumblefish.

But Lucas doesn't have a Rumblefish in him.

If he did, you can do a small, personal film with a shooting schedule of about a month, and what would amount to chump change for George to self-finance, so it's not exactly like he's just got to wait for the right opportunity.

JD: "The fact that Lucas invokes the failure of Coppola's "Youth Without Youth" in casting his own vision is not an encouraging sign. It's as if he's already making an excuse for creating something that might come off as completely unrelatable. He can rest assured that none of us will care."

I loved "Youth Without Youth." Even the aspects that were deal-breakers for most viewers (the Magical Realist posturing, the Bergman-esque, theatrical hashing-out of philosophical positions. the dreamy overlapping dissolves and pot-haze pacing) were invigorating to me, because one rarely sees such idiosyncratic filmmaking attempted by a Hollywood giant. If in fact it's a creative failure -- which I don't believe it is -- it's the sort of failure of a type that I'd love to see on screens more often. Better to overreach in the name of originality than devote one's career to doing technically impeccable variations of the same-old, same-old. If Lucas made a small personal film so peculiar that it made the millions of "Star Wars" devotees go, "What the hell is this?", I'd cheer on general principle.

I agree with Jim, though, that when a guy with as much money and freedom as Lucas never gets around to realizing his dream some 20, maybe even 30 years after it became financially possible, then we need to assume wasn't really ever his dream -- just something he kept claiming was his dream because that's what visionary film artists are supposed to say.

Let's not underestimate the influence of Coppola, who was as much guru as colleague of Lucas' when he was starting out, on Lucas' conception of himself. When Lucas rehashes this particular unrealized dream for reporters, he's describing one that was already realized many times over by Coppola, via Zoetrope Studios and various individual projects.

"...Francis Coppola's teeny "Youth Without Youth"?

According to the dictionary, "teeny" means "an informal or child's word for tiny."

Perhaps there is a more expansive reason for dismissal?

harry: "Teeny" is intended as a play on the (over-)use of the terms "small" and "personal" to describe movies. Coppola shot "YWY" with a minimal crew, on HD video, for $5 million, about 1/8 to 1/10 the budget of the average studio film. Just a teeny, small-scale production by modern Hollywood (or Lucas) standards.

A simple reality which cannot be escaped: George Lucas is not a poor man. He is not an old man. He is not a creatively unable man. If he wished to be making films like 'Empire' today, he would be making them. Therefore, he must not wish to. Argue with it.
The last time Lucas made a film for any reason other than his own personal amusement was a quarter of a century ago. You can not force inspiration upon yourself. It doesn't work that way.
For this reason, I announce, with peril but with confidence, that there will be no more good Star Wars work on screen, ever. Lucas simply no longer possesses the hunger for it, and he is to stubborn and territorial with his own work to let it be done WELL by anyone else. If 'Clone Wars' is not proof of this, then his other recent film, 'Indiana Jones And The Most Expensive Group Campout In The History Of Man' left no doubt.
I find the time to anklebite about Lucas in this way for one reason--I believe that when someone has the ability to do great and inspirational things, they have the responsibility to. Exeunt.

I remember laughing like a maniac when I listened to that commentary track on his futzed-around with version of THX 1138 - going on about how he's going to go back to making small, avant garde, experimental films.

Yep. It'd be nice if he just developed some sort of senility with Brakhagian overtones and just cooped himself up in an outhouse for months at a time, endlessly hand-painting over prints of Star Wars to "restore" them one more time, mason jars of urine stacked floor to ceiling and the stale smell of Howard Hughes permeating the sickly air. Fraaaaancis could come visit and try to talk to him through the door like Juan Trippe...

A fella can dream.

Grant--

I can't claim I was a grownup when I saw all the Star Wars films, but I can do the reverse--I was an adolescent or college student when I saw all of them.

I was anywhere from 12-16 when I saw each of the original 3 films, and 17, 20, and 23 when I saw the latter three. Based on that experience, I can affirm that, based on that experience, the new ones kinda suck. Even my little brother (take all those ages above and subtract 7 from them) thought so--he was much more critical of the new ones than me, even.

There are many reasons why even current teenagers and college kids think the movie sucks, but among them:

1: Stupid humor. I'm sorry, but trying to compare Jar Jar Binks and all C3P0s stupid puns to anything in the first trilogy (even the Ewoks) doesn't work. Teenagers and adolescents hate when adults think they're gonna like stuff obviously aimed at six-year-olds.
2: No Han Solo. The most relatable, funny, and human character in the entire prequel trilogy is probably Qui-Gon, and he was killed off in the first one.
3: No Darth Vader. Vader's the single most iconic figure from the original movies, but at no point in the prequels does Lucas manage to convince *anyone* that whiny little Anakin Skywalker could ever go on to become Darth Vader. He was just not, in any way, cool.
4: Terrible dialogue, and performance of that dialogue. Compare the awful, stilted love story between Padme and Anakin to the much more subtle development between Solo and Leia. Sure the princess/rogue love story is a cliche, but it's a cliche with fairy-tale resonance, and it doesn't dominate the story. The Padme/Anakin story has none of that power (Lucas manages to unfortunately avoid the potential invocations of the Queen/Champion archetype by demoting Padme to Senator), and Christensen (who is not, by nature, a terrible actor--see Shattered Glass) is no Ford, while Portman (certainly capable of charm) is saddled with a painfully boring character.

What makes kids (and adults) like Star Wars in the first place is, basically, the way it feels like genuine mythology wrapped up in a nifty scifi setting. It's got elements of Greek myth, Arthurian legend, fairy tales, and space opera that just *feel* right, they feel like the culmination of years of the cultural development of storytelling put up on screen into a cliche-ridden, derivative, simplistic, but *powerful* narrative.

The prequels just don't have that. Every time they approach it, they sabotage it somehow, or are just tone-deaf to it (Anakin's a virgin birth? *Really?* Who really thought that was a good idea?). And that's the kind of thing even a 12-year-old can sense.

Richard:
Interesting take on the reason(s) for Shmi's exile from the plotline of the prequels, but personally, I always thought it had more to do with being (another) example of Lucas' bad writing.
Clearly, he wanted to illustrate that Anakin's eventual downfall was a result of his inability to "let go" - of fear, excessive concern for others, etc. He couldn't get into that Buddhist-like state of mind that you described so well.
The problem is, I can almost see Lucas working the story backward instead of forward:

"Let's see, I need to give Anakin some emotional trauma that will lead him to the dark side."
"Well, failing to save one's mother from suffering and death is pretty awful."
"Let's have her get kidnapped and abused, and he'll find her *just* as she's on the brink of death."
"But why would they get separated in the first place?"
"I know! Let's have them make a deal in Episode I that will force them apart and begin his emotional spiral."

Obviously, I'm not claiming that this is how the script development actually went down. But even if it only *seems* like a deux ex machina, that's still enough reason to give it another draft. Sadly, Lucas doesn't seem to be a fan of script-polishing, which can really make the difference between "OK, I'll buy that" vs. "Oh, come on!"

Thanks for the responses regarding my take on the way Lucas treated Padme in the prequels.

Meinert, while I generally agree with your points about "The Hero's Journey" and the need to focus on a protagonist, I differ only slightly in that it's possible for a story with multiple protagonists to work. It's just that Lucas fails to pull it off, partly due to reasons stated before by me and others, and partly because he's inconsistent as to how many protagonists he has. "The Phantom Menace" establishes three roughly co-equal protagonists (in order of appearance, Obi-Wan, Padme and Anakin. Qui-Gon is the mentor who dies, passing the torch to the others.) But the subsequent films fail to follow through on this balance.

For contrast, let me bring up a series of films that uses multiple protagonists and follows through with them; the "Pirates of the Caribbean" trilogy. While I agree, in part, with the criticisms of the second film (the cannibal island sequence was unnecessary and in bad taste), I believe many of the trilogy's critics didn't grasp that there are not one but three main characters driving the story. Two of them, Elizabeth and Will, are on 'Hero's Journeys', which include a Homer-inspired odyssey, and sometimes conflicting goals, which makes their love story more complicated than if one were simply the hero and the other simply the love interest. The third protagonist, Jack, is the cynical anti-hero who goes to hell and back and, in the end, redeems himself by doing the noble thing instead of the selfish thing. It's with these things in mind that I found the third film "At World's End" to be the most satisfying entry.

Neil, now that you're mentioned Lucas' divorce, I'd like to add that there's a noticeable shift in the treatment of women characters in Lucas' projects post-1983, the year his wife left him. The leading lady in "Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom" (1984) is a total bimbo and totally annoying. "Willow" (1988) has an evil witch-queen and her unbelievably fickle daughter, the latter of whom initially fights for the evil side then, late in the film, suddenly switches to the good side, not because it's the right thing to do, but because she falls for Val Kilmer!

Richard and Jack Foley, regarding Anakin's mother Shmi, while I don't think that Lucas consciously set out to use her in an agenda against single mothers, I do think that, sub-consciously, it fits the pattern of cultural conservatism evident in the choices he makes with the characters throughout the Prequels. Richard is correct that Lucas' primary influence for the Jedi's practices is Buddhism, but in the Prequels, there are other, I believe less savory, factors entering into the philosophical mix. And, as Neil suggested, 'revenge of the divorced husband' may be a part of it.

I think some limits are important for a director. It forces him/her to be creative. CGI is overused in his movies and most movies these days. It's a tool that works better when it's used in smaller ways.

George Lucas has actually tried to make those "little personal" projects in the late 80s and early 90s(they being the likes of "Howard The Duck","Willow",and "Radioland Murders"),but they monstrously bombed and drove Lucas back into diving full board with the "Star Wars" prequels,which are now mainly aimed at both childrens audiences and CGI fanatics,for Sean Luhks is right that the George Lucas of this decade has become like Anakin Skywalker/Darth Vader,since Lucas has ironically become more mainly fascinated in Anakin's story than the continuation of Luke Skywalker's post-"Return Of The Jedi" story(which Episodes 7-9 would have depcited,had Lucas been still fully interested in filming them),with the "Clone Wars" full length feature film,its earlier cable television incarnation,and upcoming TV series showing full proof of that.

While Steven Spielberg has fully moved on with his post-"Close Encounters Of The Third Kind"/"Raiders Of The Lost Ark" career(with films such as "Schlinder's List","Saving Private Ryan",and "Amistad"),Lucas has been fully stuck in his own self-made "Star Wars" universe,for at least he'll be fully remembered as being an innovative force in frequently using the newest advancements of on-screen special effects in every film he has made(when the time comes),which is something good that Lucas can be remembered by.

I have no problems with the prequels..........He should be working on Episodes 7, 8 & 9!!!!

I like George Lucas. I like his work. I like Star Wars (yes all 6 episodes) and every Indiana Jones adventure. Me and my son (who is 14 now) recently watched Clone Wars. It wasn’t quite “Pixar” if you know what I mean, but good enough for me to buy it on DVD when it comes out. Not everything can be great. Even Scorsese has a few projects considered less than great, and how awesome is Scorsese! Mr. Ebert liked every Star Wars movie (not counting Clone Wars.) Sure he gave Attack of the Clones 2 stars. But read his review, he mostly liked it. But back to George, it’s great that there are so many opinions and I respect them all. There is no real right or wrong here.

My opinion is, KEEP ‘EM COMING GEORGE! Small movies, big ones, whatever floats your boat. If you make something that isn’t critically acclaimed and accepted, just keep going. According to Box Office Mojo, your Star Wars movies averaged $315,527,337 a picture. So millions of people around the world like your stuff. Or at least are interested enough to check it out.

In my opinion the prequels are underrated, not overrated. Each one should’ve won the Visual Effects Oscar (no offense King Kong, Two Towers and Matrix.) How the heck did Sith not even receive a nomination? The plot of each prequel is deeper and grander than they’ve been given credit (no, Phantom Menace was not just about Jar Jar.)

As far George not making his “small, personal movies” he’s talked about, he probably will. The man is not getting any younger. No doubt better to knock out the prequels before he starts receiving Medicare benefits, you know. Give him a chance. Filmmakers like George Lucas and James Cameron are not just filmmakers. They are equally fascinated by the process of filmmaking and we can thank them for many of the “toys” that filmmakers enjoy so much today. It seems George was as interested to try out his new techniques as he was to write a new Star Wars storyline. And really, more power to him. This doesn’t mean his stories are bad, again in my opinion. He’s still writing good stuff.

Every time I read or hear an interview with George, he’s always asked when he will make another Star Wars movie, not “when ya going to make that personal movie?”. You kidding me, I’d love to see another Star Wars. Another Clone Wars, sure, that’ll be OK. But I’d love to see Episodes 7 – 9. We’ll see I guess. With the prequels behind him, I bet those small personal movies will come off the back burner though.

It's strange that Lucas has only directed two movies that have no connections with "Star Wars" and Indiana Jones("THX-1138" and "American Graffiti"). After watching "Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull" back in May, I liked what I saw; now I feel humiliated that I saw it. That's a sign that says Lucas should more independent movies than big budget studio movies. Hey, you never know. He might finally win that Best Director Oscar if he does.

"Amen" is the only thing I can say to that. For me, Lucas's best film is "American Graffiti." In some ways, I almost consider it his last. I never warmed to "Star Wars." I won't knock it, but I saw the first one, realized it wasn't my kind of movie, and haven't been back for seconds or sequels. Having come of age in the era of Sean Connery's James Bond, Indiana Jones is okay, but he never wowed me as he might have done a decade earlier. If Lucas really wanted to make those "small, personal" films, I doubt that anyone could stand in his way. The fact seems to be that he doesn't want to, or may no longer remember how.

In 2007, Marty finally won his Best Dir Academy Award for, some argued, a so-so movie, thus the ultimate consolation prize indeed.
And in the same year Francis's Youth Without Youth was given only a limited release. Few saw it, and they sighed, "a pity he lives long enough to make such things ..."
Yet no one in one's right mind could call either underachiever.
And you guys asked George about those non-existent personal pieces, and he smiles inwardly, "why would I want to lead a life like that?"

it's funny that before this there were "66" comments