Subject:
|
Re: Senator Palpintine / Emperor
|
Newsgroups:
|
lugnet.starwars
|
Date:
|
Fri, 25 Feb 2000 06:54:16 GMT
|
Viewed:
|
626 times
|
| |
|
|
Very well said Shaun, very well said.
-Will
Shaun Sullivan wrote:
> Just to add my useless two cents ...
>
> I consider Lucas to be the greatest example of anti-pandering there is. He
> financed the production of Episode I (and ROTJ, I believe) with his own money, for
> that express purpose: so that he could do exactly what he wanted to do. He really
> had very little monetary incentive to pander to anybody in particular: Pepsi Co.
> signed some huge contract prior to the movie's release for the right to use Star
> Wars characters in advertising ... I don't want to cite numbers that will be wrong,
> but I do recall the scale being the same order of magnitude of the total domestic
> movie ticket sales. I can check the number, too, since I have article on a shelf
> at home.
>
> Anyways, all that being said, I honestly feel that Lucas does things the way he
> does them because that's the way he WANTS to do them. Not because he has anybody
> else to please, or because there are voices whispering in his ear. In an age where
> movie endings are more often than not dictated by the feedback of screening
> audiences, I think that Lucas's work is the closest that theater has been to ART in
> a long time; an unfettered expression of a personal vision. Don't confuse that
> with ENTERTAINMENT ... movies have fulfilled that role consistently.
>
> Maybe he puts Jar-Jar in because he thinks it adds something to the movie, such as
> enjoyment for people (or 10-year-old boys, which Lucas says is really what the
> movies are targetted for). If so, that's a personal decision, not "pandering",
> which entails some manipulation ... e.g. would be putting Jar Jar in to make
> people like the movies, or make them buy the products, or simply to go see the
> movie in the first place.
>
> In any case, you can choose to like or not like all or part of Lucas's movies ...
> but to be disappointed in any case seems ridiculous to me. Nobody looks at an
> artists paintings and says "I'm really disappointed with the artist because I don't
> like this piece". People may or may not like a piece, but they accept that as
> indicating whether or not it speaks to them personally. The Star Wars movies are
> rarities, in that they are like art in that sense. If people say that Lucas should
> or should not have done something, then they're really complaining that Lucas
> *DIDN'T* pander to them, and instead expressed his own vision.
>
> Anyways, I could rant for much longer, but this is already ridiculously long, and
> only peripherally tied to LEGO at this point. Please forgive my impassioned speech
> :) Now, back to the brick ....
>
> shaun ;)
|
|
Message has 1 Reply:
Message is in Reply To:
 | | Re: Senator Palpintine / Emperor
|
| Just to add my useless two cents ... I consider Lucas to be the greatest example of anti-pandering there is. He financed the production of Episode I (and ROTJ, I believe) with his own money, for that express purpose: so that he could do exactly (...) (25 years ago, 24-Feb-00, to lugnet.starwars)
|
17 Messages in This Thread:
 
  
- Entire Thread on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
This Message and its Replies on One Page:
- Nested:
All | Brief | Compact | Dots
Linear:
All | Brief | Compact
|
|
|
|
