Can you still love the George?

The last thing F:AT needs right now is more Star Wars, but I dug this New Yorker article so thought I'd share it. I still haven't seen the new flick but I've read every spoiler and plot thread so I know roughly what to expect. Feel free to say whatever you like, although spoiler tags are always nice to use.

www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-george-awakens

JonJacob wrote: The last thing F:AT needs right now is more Star Wars, but I dug this New Yorker article so thought I'd share it. I still haven't seen the new flick but I've read every spoiler and plot thread so I know roughly what to expect. Feel free to say whatever you like, although spoiler tags are always nice to use.

www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/the-george-awakens

"It took a forgery to get him called an artist."

What stuck out to me was:

"But he (Lucas) was a Tolkien-level master at creating new worlds—as the critic Tom Shone noted, he created so many that Abrams didn’t seem to feel the need to create any."

Again, why Force Awakens was technically a very well made film, there was nothing to see. Nothing memorable that added to the Star Wars Mythos. The prequels did. Lucas continued to world build.

Going back to the comparison with Fury Road. Fury Road added a ton to the world of Mad Max. The culture of the War Boys, Immortan Joe, The Brides, Furiosa, locations such as Bullet Farm and The Citadel. These are new to the world of Max not only in name, but in concept and are additions to what we've seen in previous films. Building on ideas like Barter Town, The Humungous, Toe Cutter and Master Blaster.

Force Awakens is a retread. Did we need another diminutive, ancient, wise character? A Neo-Vader? Enhanced Luke?

I'm getting off the point of the article, but yeah, maybe when it's all said and done, we're going to wish some of Lucas' myth building was baked into this new trilogy.

The more this conversation evolves here on F:At the more it moves to what I said earlier -- The Force Awakens was a safe, dependable film. It was enjoyable, but it wasn't innovative. In other industries that would get you nuked. In film it's ok.

To a point. The next film isn't going to be able to get away with this. Unfortunately, they've kind of set themselves up for an Empire Strikes Back film next, with Rey doing her training with the reclusive Jedi master while everyone else is left to struggle with the powerful enemy. They need to change that, presumably already have since it's due to release in about 18 months.

Sagrilarus wrote: The more this conversation evolves here on F:At the more it moves to what I said earlier -- The Force Awakens was a safe, dependable film. .

You would make a good academic -- this is exactly the kind of phrasing I would expect to hear at a Department Meeting. Might as well just say, "All you idiots should have listened to me two weeks ago."

Space Ghost wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: The more this conversation evolves here on F:At the more it moves to what I said earlier -- The Force Awakens was a safe, dependable film. .

You would make a good academic -- this is exactly the kind of phrasing I would expect to hear at a Department Meeting. Might as well just say, "All you idiots should have listened to me two weeks ago."

Well thank you!

But I don't think it was exactly a revelation at the time.

Sagrilarus wrote:

Space Ghost wrote:

Sagrilarus wrote: The more this conversation evolves here on F:At the more it moves to what I said earlier -- The Force Awakens was a safe, dependable film. .

You would make a good academic -- this is exactly the kind of phrasing I would expect to hear at a Department Meeting. Might as well just say, "All you idiots should have listened to me two weeks ago."

Well thank you!

But I don't think it was exactly a revelation at the time.

No, no, no. Now you say "On that note, I was hoping we could revisit [topic which was completely resolved two months ago but the outcome of which you are still pissy about]…"

It's this concept

The thrill that cannot be recovered—by Lucas or Abrams or Rian Johnson—is the thrill of discovering the “Star Wars” universe for the first time. That’s the thrill that Lucas created.

that resonates with me. As well as what Jeff quoted about Lucas being a "Tolkien-level master at creating new worlds". That's what always appealed to me about Star Wars, or LOTR or even Mad Max I guess. I'm much more interested in the creation of a new world. It's the same instinct that makes origin stories so popular and the most re-told in the supers universes.

When Sag was saying in another thread that it bothered him that there were no new concepts this time around I couldn't help but think about this. Nostalgia, which much of F:AT's gaming ideals dwell in, isn't nearly as powerful as discovery. But discovery is much, much harder to pull off well.

I never even really thought the original Star Wars films were that great. They're riddled with issues, bad acting, shitty scripts.. but we overlook it all because the world they introduce us to is so incredible we're able to look past it. I've seen them dozens of times and been brought to tears despite their technical flaws. That sense of discovery makes it all worth while - even after the fact. Sometimes a great artist doesn't give us a top quality item... and that might be the best they have. I still stand by the idea that nobody would know who Tolkien was if it wasn't for his world creation. His actual prose or technical skills in story telling were never good enough to make it on their own. What I love about those people is the sense of creation. To me that means more than the techincal ability to understand story telling 101 or elegant prose techniques.

It's the same reason that I prefer original game settings to IP driven games. That sense of discovery is so much fun that I can handle shittier material as long as I get the sense that someone is at least trying to create their own mythos.

Hell Robert E Howard, Lovecraft.. two huge figures here on F:AT and yet neither of them were very good writers. Clumsy prose and awkward story telling techniques but there was so much to discover.

These types of figures, because their art is more raw creation and less technical skill, go unrecognized for ages. Lovecraft and Howard didn't get any scholarly respect and still don't get very much at all. It's harder for the raw creator to get their kudos and George, now that we have some distance, is being able to be seen as simply an idea man...something that he was great at. Yes his movies were homages to other things, yes he wore his influences on his sleeve, but he tried to make his own world out of those influences... not just play in someone else's home.

I will see the new film at some point, I expect to like it and maybe even love it. But the very idea of it existing at all is less appealing to me than pretty much any other new property, even a shitty derivative one. When I played Skyrim last year I enjoyed it up until the point I had explored the whole map. I didn't care to create or craft shit, I didn't care to follow the boring story with a million side quests, I just wanted to discover their world and then I walked away. I don't know if it's a personality type or what but that's what appeals to me. When someone makes a really good world, that has room to express a lot of what we experience we may not recognize their greatness right away but hopefully we won't see anymore South Park jokes about George raping Indiana Jones or more extreme levels of vitriolic hate towards a guy who gave us beautiful worlds to play in and think about simply because he altered a few things or didn't make enough good sequels.

JonJacob wrote: but hopefully we won't see anymore South Park jokes about George raping Indiana Jones or more extreme levels of vitriolic hate towards a guy who gave us beautiful worlds to play in and think about simply because he altered a few things or didn't make enough good sequels.

Which shouldn't have happened over something as subjective as films in the first place.

Great line, Jacob.

EDIT: I never read the Zahn novels, but why weren't they used for these films? Didn't they deal with kids of the OT heroes as well as a totally new villain in Admiral Thrawn and some new alien menace? Seems like that Thrawn dude could have been a cool, new SW character.

JonJacob wrote: It's harder for the raw creator to get their kudos and George, now that we have some distance, is being able to be seen as simply an idea man...something that he was great at.

THIS. George is a great idea man and that's what make the prequels so frustrating. I wanted to like them, I could see good ideas buried in the crap, but at the end of the day, irrespective of midichlorians or whatever nerd rage-inducing issues the movies may have had, they are not good films. Good intentions only go so far in art if you can't execute and in George's case he can't blame studio meddling or outside forces for the prequels' failings; all of their shortcomings are on him. It's also dishonest for Lucas to assert that everyone is angry about the prequels because they're somehow ruining their nostalgia for the OT. If they would have been well-made movies with interesting characters people would have gotten over it.

And I don't even know how to process his "artists have forever been changing their work" comment. I can think of several examples of Director's or Extended cuts of films, as well as remastered versions of albums, but I can't think of many, if any, examples of musicians and directors trying to suppress the original versions of their edited works.

And I'm sorry, derivative or not, I'm watching TFA over any of the prequels every time. If I want to immerse myself in the prequel universe I'll check out Clone Wars or the books. If I want to watch a non-OT Star Wars movie and actually enjoy myself then I'm going to watch TFA.

Mr. White wrote: I never read the Zahn novels, but why weren't they used for these films? Didn't they deal with kids of the OT heroes as well as a totally new villain in Admiral Thrawn and some new alien menace? Seems like that Thrawn dude could have been a cool, new SW character.

I haven't read an explanation from Disney, but my guess is they didn't want to be saddled with ALL of the expanded universe lore, so instead decided to jettison all of it from continuity (while still cherry-picking and modifying a few elements they did want to use.)

How can anybody compare Lucas to Tolkien as a world builder and expect to be taken seriously? I think it's much more appropriate to say the exact opposite and the prequels are the proof of this. When telling a story and not spending a lot time building the world, but just alluding to stuff (like the clone wars), his world works, but as soon as he fleshes it out - you know, actually build it - in the prequels, it all falls apart.

Also, The Force Awakens shows with great clarity that Abrams or at least the people he collaborates with have a much tighter grip on what makes a great story than Lucas does. Yes, it's derivative, but so was the original Star Wars movie.

One of the best examples of his (Lucas') shortcomings is his insistence on making Han shoot second. I read an interview where he explained that he wanted Han to be the white hat and that a white hat can't shoot first. I like that idea, but it reveals a flawed undertanding of what makes Han a great character: namely that he starts out as a grey hat and progresses to become a white hat. And the more control of the process Lucas gained, the more supreme he became because of money and reputation, the more his flaws as a world builder and storyteller shows.

I'm with Mads here.

Let me just say this : MIDICHLORIANS

I rest my case.

mads b. wrote: Also, The Force Awakens shows with great clarity that Abrams or at least the people he collaborates with have a much tighter grip on what makes a great story than Lucas does. Yes, it's derivative, but so was the original Star Wars movie.

Maybe, but I'm not so sure.

In Lucas' films, besides being actual, original works, they seem to be easier to follow. I'm still not sure I understand the political situation in TFA. I mean, if the Republic is the new governing body...wouldn't that make The First Order to actually be the resistance?

What's going on here?

It feels like JJ and Co have no idea and just needed the First Order to be this overwhelming force like the Empire so some scrappy pilots can prevail against long odds. Perhaps, blowing up those Republic planets should have happened first thing in the movie, then The First Order takes control, then we establish Leia's resistance.

The First Order controls a section of the galaxy. In that section is a resistance funded by The Republic. It's basically The Middle East.

I agree, it's a tad confusing, but compared to trade embargoes it's tremendous storytelling.