View Full Version : George Lucas don't want to make movies any longer
Yog
Oct 9th, 2006, 08:39:32 AM
http://www.variety.com/VR1117951284.html
Apparently, Lucas find big budget feature films too risky, and Lucasfilm will focus on TV productions from now on.
Nathanial K'cansce
Oct 9th, 2006, 01:20:29 PM
"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas said.
No, Uncle George. no.
JMK
Oct 10th, 2006, 07:48:49 AM
A lot of things he says makes sense, but you get the distinct impression that he's willing to forgo the quality of storytelling in order get a lot of product out there. That's where he's wrong. Sure he may hook a lot of kids that way, but adults want something they can wrap their brains around.
Jedi Master Carr
Oct 11th, 2006, 09:36:23 AM
I am not sure what he means by quanity. Unless he wants to start a Network or something. I disagree with him about about big budget movies they still make loads of money.
Morgan Evanar
Oct 14th, 2006, 11:33:18 AM
Lucas's problem is that he doesn't know how to make good movies anymore. Fin. I said it.
Ira Yahff
Oct 14th, 2006, 01:59:31 PM
Lucas's problem is that he doesn't know how to make good movies anymore. Fin. I said it.
You did not like the prequels at all?
Morgan Evanar
Oct 14th, 2006, 07:43:30 PM
I thought they were not anywhere near as good as the originals?
Jaime Tomahawk
Oct 15th, 2006, 05:22:49 AM
You did not like the prequels at all?
Ep 1 - Awful. Just plain awful
Ep II - Ehh........ not that good either
Ep III - Would have taken a moron to screw that one up - Geez, Vader appearing and the Jedi being slaughtered? It would have taken Uwe Boll to make a stinker with material like that. Still not exactly up with how good the first three were and should have been a lot better.
Terran Starek
Oct 15th, 2006, 08:17:25 AM
I think what Lucas means (cuz I've heard him say it elsewhere) is that he believes the money is no longer in movies, but TV.
I mean, think of it this way. A movie has 1 hour 45 minutes to about 3 hours to tell a story, and that's it. That's how long they get your attention. Sure, there are sequels, etc., but in each movie, you've got a limited canvas because of time constraints and pacing. That's just the nature of a movie.
A TV show is a different kind of beast. A TV show can build character and plot over an expanse of time - say (with commercials for an hour show) 40 minutes a week. If you run a 20 episode season, you've got 800 minutes of storytelling time! That's a boat load! And, because of a week-to-week basis, you have a natural ability to build suspense and poise for your character development and storyline. You can do so much more with a character in a TV show, because you have the chance to focus on the small things.
Look at Lost or Heroes. These are excellent TV shows. They are well produced, have great characters and stories, and are grossing tons and tons of money. And, of course, the potential life for a TV show is limitless. Star Trek, anyone?? :D
I think that's what Lucas sees in TV.
Figrin D'an
Oct 15th, 2006, 12:39:23 PM
It's an economic issue for Lucas. He sees that the TV industry is more willing, and able, to adapt it's business model to suit the continuing evolution of on-demand media and sharing of content. He sees more opportunities for highly profitable ventures in that medium than in the film industry, which is still split over issues like using digital cameras to make movies to see the big picture.
He makes a valid point in that respect.
Morgan Evanar
Oct 15th, 2006, 06:04:30 PM
He makes a valid point in that respect.I agree. The movie industry is doing a stellar job strangling itself while some TV studios are realizing that if the content is reasonably priced and easily accessible with good enough quality, people will *gasp* actually buy it.
Zem Vymes
Oct 16th, 2006, 03:35:10 PM
I wish he'd take this approach and pour cash money into all of the TV shows that HBO is making. Honestly, if he wants to straddle big screen and small screen, the HBO shows are where it's at, and they're consistently some of the best TV shows out there, even if they're notoriously short-lived :(
Zem Vymes
Oct 16th, 2006, 03:37:43 PM
Ep III - Would have taken a moron to screw that one up - Geez, Vader appearing and the Jedi being slaughtered? It would have taken Uwe Boll to make a stinker with material like that. Still not exactly up with how good the first three were and should have been a lot better.
Revenge of the Sith is every bit Return of the Jedi's match, and I find both to be marginally better than A New Hope. While I do agree that it's a much easier story to tell, I don't think that it fell short of the OT by any margin. Like you said, it was just a sure bet.
Liam Jinn
Oct 16th, 2006, 04:34:09 PM
Revenge of the Sith is every bit Return of the Jedi's match, and I find both to be marginally better than A New Hope. While I do agree that it's a much easier story to tell, I don't think that it fell short of the OT by any margin. Like you said, it was just a sure bet.
Bah, RotS was like the end leg of climbing to the summit of Everest only to find a hotel there. Obviously, I wasn't thrilled by the movie.
JMK
Oct 17th, 2006, 07:53:42 AM
If anyone went in to RotS looking to be surprised by its contents, you've been in a cave since 1983. Every single Star Wars fan, and I would wager a good portion casual movie goers knew what was going to happen in RotS. If you can find me another movie in which people know what happens to the main characters yet still grosses over 300 million movies, well then you're much smarter than I am.
I do agree with you though, Liam, in one respect - though I really liked the movie, it could have been more emotionally resonant. Some things just came up flat.
And no, Titanic doesn't count. ;)
Jedieb
Oct 31st, 2006, 04:05:28 PM
I think he's seriously underestimating the future of big budget films. Successful big budget films are still very profitable, especially with all of different revenue streams that they have availible to them; cable, DVD, merchandising. We're still a few generations away from the trip to the cinema becoming a distant memory.
JMK
Nov 1st, 2006, 09:10:38 AM
I think the truth lies somewhere in between. Whenever I get around to having kids, I don't think trips to the movie theater will be all that much of a thing for them. Home theater systems will be improved and drastically cheaper. Eventually the movie industry will have to surrender to the fact that people are building very good quality theaters in their homes and prefer to stay home rather than go out. Families will just order new movies via satellite or cable and just play them at home.
I think Lucas is correct in that sense, and I think he'll be alive to see it happen.
vBulletin, 4.2.1 Copyright © 2024 vBulletin Solutions, Inc. All rights reserved.