George Lucas Criticizes Latest ‘Star Wars’ Installment

Originally Posted by luj1
HE said Disney act like "white slavers" …. how did they enslave him exactly, by offering him something he couldn't refuse?

They did not enslave HIM (if you had read carefulle, you would have noticed that), they enslaved his creations.

So I'm looking at George Lucas' IMDB page…

Director:
THX 1138 (1971)
American Graffiti (1973)
Star Wars (1977)
The Phantom Menace (1999)
Attack of the Clones (2002)
Revenge of the Sith (2005)

To be perfectly frank, that's not really the roll-call of directorial genius. I'm not entirely sure why he would blame Hollywood execs for the fact that he's actually quite inexperienced with directing. There's no end of directors who have made one 'arty' movie and one 'summer blockbuster' but for who no-one remembers their name. It's quite the mind-set of self-delusion to assume you can direct a trilogy of movies of Star War's 1990s magnitude with such a resume.

Writer:
As above+
Raiders of the Lost Ark
Temple of Doom
Empire Strikes Back
Return of the Jedi
Willow
+Endless Star Wars spin-offs & Indianan Jones spin-offs

Although with these titles he's referenced more as "story by" rather than "writer" or "screenwriter", which is a very important distinction in the writing business, meaning someone takes your outline and makes something coherent out of it. Which is what happened with most of his writing.

Producer:
As above +
Labyrinth
Howard the Duck
The Land Before Time

And while Labyrinth is a cult classic, its, again, no truly great roll-call, and, again, the title is usually "executive producer" rather than just "Producer", meaning he likely didn't have that big a say in the end result.

But with the sheer volume of Indiana Jones and Star Wars spin-offs he's been involved in, and making money from, it really does hurt your eyes even looking for the "other stuff" he's done in his career, check it out for yourself.

So when he says:

Star Wars ushered in a change in Hollywood, Lucas says, and studios became more risk-averse, only wanting to bet on “sure” things. “The other thing that got abused,” Lucas explains, “the studios and everything said, ‘Wow, we can make a lot of money. This is the license to kill.’ And they did it. And the only way you can do that is not take chances, only do something that’s proven. … Now, if you do anything that’s not a sequel, or not a TV series, or doesn’t look like one, they won’t do it.”

It really does ring very hollow for me. The guy has done, quite literally, nothing but milk his two cash-cows, literally relentlessly, for decades. Which is fine, if that's how he pays his mortgage, but to somehow blame Hollywood execs for your own lack of artistic freedom is beyond absurd. Hollywood and the Hollywood system is notorious for stifling talent, but, at the same time, if you can prove to them that YOUR brand of originality sells, then they'll be bending over backwards to let you have free reign, here, let me list some people who are 'better' than the system:

Quentin Tarantino
Tim Burton
Stanley Kubrick
Oliver Stone
Alfred Hitchcock
Powell and Pressburger
David Lynch
Terry Gilliam
Woody Allen
… I could list and list, these are just off the top of my head, no research. Yes, the system will be criticised by all of them, but all of them have been determined enough in their visions to 'find a way', and when they did find a way, they got due recognition and greater freedom. Can you even begin to imagine the risk involved in the Tim Burton's Batman?

But here's ol' Georgie Porgie claiming "there was nothing he could do", what with all that money, all those contacts, all that experience, it was anyone but his fault that the Prequels sucked so utterly badly that they were effectively nationalised for protective posterity. Hey, maybe with the XXX billion he's got he could, I dunno, just make one good movie after a 30 year hiatus from a couple of hits in the 70s? You know, if he felt THAT STRONGLY about it…

…

or he could just do more Indiana Jones and Star Wars spin-offs…

…

I know you said off the top of your head with your list….but The Coen Brothers need to be there.

Originally Posted by Alrik Fassbauer
They did not enslave HIM (if you had read carefulle, you would have noticed that), they enslaved his creations.

you need an irony detector

Well, I am really sad he sold it to Disney. It would have been much more interesting for me if he made this movie instead.

Of course, as he already realised, it comes off as rather pathetic that he complains about the movie after he sold the rights to it.

But sadly he is 100% spot on and I totally understand why he sold it. The majority of the audience just wanted a retro movies to remind them of the feeling they had when watching the original three movies, instead of something new or innovative. If I were him and I had to produce something so crappy as the Force Awakens just to please the majority of my fans ( who love braindead action movies with next to no innovation and cheap comedies ) I would have sold it too.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
instead of something new or innovative.

Since the entirety of your mostly hyperbolic post hinges on this one small fact, I feel compelled to set the record straight. You complain that the primary reason for your hyperbolic stance is that TFA borrows too much from A New Hope? Well, if you're such an analytical viewer how come you never spotted these similarities from Phantom Menace:

It starts on the planet Tatooine.
There, a young male with no knowledge of the Force turns out to be the main Jedi protagonist.
A wise old Jedi decides to bring him into the fold against his better judgement.
There's a deal that takes place between a junk dealer and good guys to permit the advancement of a main character.
They then move to an area full of amusing aliens where we meet Greedo.
The old wise Jedi dies in a lightsabre duel.
Sandpeople are dicks.
A princess gets captured by the bad guys and our two protagonists have to rescue her.

There's an original pod race… you got me there. There's a character called Jar Jar Binks and some Gungans, lots of Robots fighting Gungans… you got me there.
I can't really remember much else… until…

Young boy who's recently been told he's got force powers manages to perform an unlikely spaceship manoeuvre which blows something big and bad up.

Ooo, such originality, it's like a whole new world… no, no comparisons to A New Hope here… must be some fancy goggles you use…

George Lucas basically said it was poetry back in the prequels days and fans made a video to prove his point.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Since the entirety of your mostly hyperbolic post hinges on this one small fact, I feel compelled to set the record straight. You complain that the primary reason for your hyperbolic stance is that TFA borrows too much from A New Hope? Well, if you're such an analytical viewer how come you never spotted these similarities from Phantom Menace:

It starts on the planet Tatooine.
There, a young male with no knowledge of the Force turns out to be the main Jedi protagonist.
A wise old Jedi decides to bring him into the fold against his better judgement.
There's a deal that takes place between a junk dealer and good guys to permit the advancement of a main character.
They then move to an area full of amusing aliens where we meet Greedo.
The old wise Jedi dies in a lightsabre duel.
Sandpeople are dicks.
A princess gets captured by the bad guys and our two protagonists have to rescue her.

There's an original pod race… you got me there. There's a character called Jar Jar Binks and some Gungans, lots of Robots fighting Gungans… you got me there.
I can't really remember much else… until…

Young boy who's recently been told he's got force powers manages to perform an unlikely spaceship manoeuvre which blows something big and bad up.

Ooo, such originality, it's like a whole new world… no, no comparisons to A New Hope here… must be some fancy goggles you use…

Well, I have mentioned earlier that the Phantom Menace is my least favourite of the new movies. I am not going to argue that it is a good movie, because I don't think it is, I think part 2 and 3 suffer more than they deserve because Phantom Menance was bad. Still as you noticed it contains more new elements then the force awakens.

There was a different situation in the galaxy and you got a glimpse of how the world was like before the Empire took over, I found the concept of chancellors for each planet and the queen Amidala entourage quite interesting for example, as well as the Jedi Council. I can understand you don't remmember too much from that movie, but it contained a lot more unique settings and ideas different from the originals compared to The Force Awakens, which adds literally nothing to the Star Wars Universe at all, except one CGI generated monster on Han's ship… ooo and yes you can have a lightsaber that looks like a mediaeval sword.

Anyhow the overall setting is not copy pasted, and it has a lot more unique elements than The Force Awakens so to me it is a more interesting movie than The Force Awakens. However it is not a good movie either.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
Still as you noticed it contains more new elements then the force awakens.

I don't believe I stated TPM has more new elements than TFA, I believe you've inferred that from your own bias. Also, my post was not to debate which of the two movies was better, but to disprove your hyperbolic claim that the prequels were some paragon of originality.

Edit - the further factual aspect of your admission that the first Prequel was your least favourite is that the latter 2 movies had more studio intervention and Lucas' freedom was curtailed, so you have also admitted that Lucas was also your problem with the Prequels.

Originally Posted by luj1
HE said Disney act like "white slavers" …. how did they enslave him exactly, by offering him something he couldn't refuse?

He considered his movies as his children, if the quotation is right.
And put shortly, he sold them.
So that is it.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
I don't believe I stated TPM has more new elements than TFA, I believe you've inferred that from your own bias. Also, my post was not to debate which of the two movies was better, but to disprove your hyperbolic claim that the prequels were some paragon of originality.

Edit - the further factual aspect of your admission that the first Prequel was your least favourite is that the latter 2 movies had more studio intervention and Lucas' freedom was curtailed, so you have also admitted that Lucas was also your problem with the Prequels.

I did not know that Lucas freedom was curtailed in the latter two movies. Still would believe that most of the ideas and creations were his in all three prequel movies, even if someone else "improved" on his directing work in the two following movies.

There are equally copy-paste scenes in the later 2 movies which have been documented by some (see the link by azarhal), I just can't remember them well enough to create a forum post about them.

The ultimate failure of the prequels hinges on the inescapable flaw that George Lucas was always determined to make movies for the 12 and under age-range, rather than the 12 and over age range - a rather crucial conflict of interest when you are trying to make an epic trilogy about the evolution of Anakin's/Darth Vader's turn to the Dark Side. One minute you have Jar Jar Binks, then next you have babies being killed by your main protagonist - it's incomprehensible.

Along with film critics, many have also accused the film's creators of excessive commercialization directed at young children (a criticism first leveled with the introduction of the Ewoks in Return of the Jedi).[13] Star Wars creator George Lucas stated that he feels there is a section of the fanbase who get upset with aspects of Star Wars because "the movies are for children but they don't want to admit that… There is a small group of fans that do not like comic sidekicks. They want the films to be tough like The Terminator, and they get very upset and opinionated about anything that has anything to do with being childlike."[16] Rob Coleman, who was the lead on the Industrial Light & Magic animation team, warned Lucas that the team thought Jar Jar's character came across poorly. Lucas told him that he specifically put Jar Jar in the film to appeal to small children twelve or under.

He's always made his movies for 10 year old boys, and that's fine.

Unfortunately, he forgets to double-back and pay a little fan service now and then to the original kids he roped in so long ago. We grew up, and got jack shit from him in the following years of sequels.

Someone finally plays the classics to a willing crowd, and he's bitter about it.

I would like to see George's plots for 7 8 and 9, since they were rejected by Disney who wants to create fan service / revenue maximizing movies instead.

EDIT: Actually I don't want any spoilers, and will save that comparison for later.

Also,

But what would Lucas' version of Episodes 7, 8 and 9 looked like? It's unclear. Lucas told Total Film magazine back in 2008 (via CinemaBlend) that he had "left pretty explicit instructions" for Lucasfilm not to make any more Star Wars films. "There will definitely be no Episodes VII-IX. That's because there isn't any story," said Lucas at the time. "The Star Wars story is really the tragedy of Darth Vader. That is the story. Once Vader dies, he doesn't come back to life, the Emperor doesn't get cloned and Luke doesn't get married."

http://www.polygon.com/2015/1/13/753…casfilm-disney

Resistance is futile. Embrace the cash grab. There was no story.

Originally Posted by lackblogger
There are equally copy-paste scenes in the later 2 movies which have been documented by some (see the link by azarhal), I just can't remember them well enough to create a forum post about them.

The ultimate failure of the prequels hinges on the inescapable flaw that George Lucas was always determined to make movies for the 12 and under age-range, rather than the 12 and over age range - a rather crucial conflict of interest when you are trying to make an epic trilogy about the evolution of Anakin's/Darth Vader's turn to the Dark Side. One minute you have Jar Jar Binks, then next you have babies being killed by your main protagonist - it's incomprehensible.

Yes, I agree with you it is very awkward… it is like making a part of the film for kids… but they should not be allowed to see it for the violent parts. There are a also repeating elements, I am not arguing about that either.

My point is that still there are a lot of new and fresh things, Jedi Council, Parliament, setting and overall story, the city planet and homes, underwater scenes… as we already concluded, people who wanted a reboot / return to the original movies with very limited new lore / ideas is satisfied with the force awakens, people who wanted an expanded Star Wars adopted to the new times and with new ideas and innovations are disappointed.

Now we don't know what Lucas would have done if he would've had the energy and motivation to do it. But it sounds to me like he'd have dared and tried to make something like what I and the other people who are very disappointed wanted. Instead of a very safe "retro" recycling kind of reboot thing which obviously is what most people wanted and is good for earning a lot of money of course.

So many points to make here, but I'll try and be brief.

My point is that still there are a lot of new and fresh things, Jedi Council, Parliament, setting and overall story, the city planet and homes, underwater scenes…

… which are all pretty major deviations from the plot, a plot which was even already a done deal, what with it being a prequel and just needing fleshing out. The plot of the prequels is Anakin turning to the dark side, but there's so much deviation into irrelevancies, primarily to make room for 10 year old's merchandising toys, that it's like watching a project made by someone with attention deficit disorder. In fact, it's worse than that, because it's a set of movies made by someone who's undergoing major internal conflicts about what it is he wants to achieve:

A little bit later in the interview, Lucas admits that his "ambition was ultimately to be Michael Moore." He wanted to make visually interesting films and documentaries — but obviously his career took some major turns after American Graffiti and then Star Wars.

Which is why there's a curious obsession with rather mundane political shenanigans. So we have someone trying to reduce the age range of viewers, reduce the plot relevance of the actual plot, but increasing the amount of dry, very adult, political commentary.

The points of originality you raise are extraneous to the story of Anakin. What does the underwater scene have to do with Anakin's story? None. It effects nothing, as does the Gungan scene, as does watching Amidala or Palpatine drone on in the senate, it has no effect at all on the story of Anakin. It's just a scriptwriter 'prattling on' and an audience screaming "get on with it!".

I do understand what you're saying though. The Ewoks might be crap, but at least it's "expanding the universe". The Gungans might be crap but at least it's "expanding the universe", the dry political narrative might be like watching paint dry, but at least it's "expanding the universe". And this is why you've been thumbed by jaz, as jaz has already explained how she always preferred the background stuff to the human characters and their stories. I guess what is termed "world building" in RPGs.

But what is star wars?

Star Wars is an American epic space opera franchise, centered on a film series created by George Lucas. It depicts the adventures of various characters "a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away."

And that's the part ol' Georgie failed at. So George is a great world-builder, but a bad practitioner at putting his worlds into effect. And everyone knows this. George himself knows this. George is "the ideas guy", not the "finisher". In terms of 'originality', you and Jaz would be happy as long as, at some point, a character lands on a strange planet and exchanges pleasantries with a funny looking alien every half an hour - which is great… I guess… but anyone could write that, it would take some kind of genius to make it constantly plot-relevant and actually interesting beyond "oh look, here's another bunch of aliens".

A good tight movie looks like this:

………………………..……..….The plot

GL's Prequel's movies look like this:

……….Now look over here……..Now look over here
…………….…………………….\………………/
…………………..…………………The Plot
……………….…………………./………………\
……….Now look over here………Now look over here

And your using the "Now look over here" to try and instigate a debate about 'originality', but movies aren't like open-world RPGs, they are a very specific format.

(I had to make a new post here to make use of the white background of alternative posts).

Originally Posted by lackblogger
A good tight movie looks like this:

………………………..……..….The plot

GL's Prequel's movies look like this:

……….Now look over here……..Now look over here
…………….…………………….\………………/
…………………..…………………The Plot
……………….…………………./………………\
……….Now look over here………Now look over here

And your using the "Now look over here" to try and instigate a debate about 'originality', but movies aren't like open-world RPGs, they are a very specific format.

(I had to make a new post here to make use of the white background of alternative posts).

Well, let me start by saying thank you for another good debate It is very pleasant to debate with you, as you keep introduce new good points and ideas, and there is no flaming.

GL certainly has the weakness of getting everything together, but he did make the original trilogy after all, which also partly suffered from this problem, but still is considered very great by most people. I think he wanted too much with the new movies and had trouble to focus, especially with the first one. He wanted to make it for everyone including little kids and grown-ups and he wanted to have too many things in it. He probably wrongly choose the things to include. Dialogue was never his strong point, and he tried to write a lot of it and so on.

But I disagree with you that the Jedi council, the overall political situation and the queen Amidala situation and so on doesn't have anything do with plot or Anakin.

A large part of what happens to Anakin is because of the way the jedi council treats him, and this is very relevant in the modern world as well, I actually really like this part. Someone is extremely talented but also has some problems, the older established council with a lot of experience, are afraid to let him rise too fast and he feels they are holding him back.

Love is also something that is not allowed in his position and dangerous, but he can't help being in love, on top of that the person he is in love with is not just anyone. The person he is in love with is completely against his new "political" views and that makes things even more impossible. Plus the rise of the empire is also a large part of the plot, and what happens to the parliament too busy with their own bickering to notice the great threat rising. Also how the storm troopers were created and so on.

I also like how the jedi's were executed in a very evil and smart plot, how Yoda's escapes it and how he takes it upon himself to defeat the threat but fails.

All is quite major to the plot and I found it both interesting and enjoyable to watch. I don't think those parts of the plots are a problem. However like you said the execution is the problem, and the dialogue. The overall story in those prequels is also very different from the original trilogy.

Originally Posted by GothicGothicness
but he did make the original trilogy after all, which also partly suffered from this problem, but still is considered very great by most people.

Factual interlude:

Of the original trilogy:

A New Hope - Lucas was heavily involved, but the movie was hashed and rehashed continuously and was mostly a product of combined visions.

Empire Strikes Back - Lucas was least involved in this movie. His credits for this movie are just "Story by" and "Executive Producer". This movie was "screenplay by" Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan. It was directed by Irvin Kershner.

Return of the Jedi - Lucas had a bit more involvement here than Empire. The "screenplay by" is now Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas, but it was directed this time by Richard Marquand. The general knowledge about Lucas' involvement was that his main influence in the screenplay was injecting the Ewoks.

The Phantom Menace - This is the movie where Lucas had the most influence. A veritable free utopia of independence from all other influences.

Attack of the Clones - While still in his utopia of freedom, there was now mounting pressure to dispose of Jar Jar Binks and a general air of dissatisfaction with the quality of the last movie. This was his second chance, the benefit of the doubt as it were. He is now influenced by growing negativity of his vision.

Revenge of the Sith - Lucas is now no longer in his entirely free utopia. He has to make severe re-writes to accommodate the removal of Jar Jar Binks and who knows what else and the movie has a PG-13 rating, completely against his vision of a series aimed primarily at the 12 and under market.

So we can factually list the movies by order of how much of the movie is "because Lucas":

1. Phantom Menace
2. Attack of the Clones
3. Revenge of the Sith
4. A New Hope
5. Return of the Jedi
6. Empire Strikes Back
7. The Force Awakens

And we can factually list the movies by order of how bad their IMDB rating is:

1. The Phantom Menace 6.5
2. Attack of the Clones 6.7
3. Revenge of the Sith 7.6
4. Return of the Jedi 8.4
5. A New Hope 8.7
6. Empire Strikes Back 8.8
The Force Awakens 8.5

And we can factually list the movies by order of how little money they made:

1. Attack of the clones - no.90 all-time US domestic inflation adjusted box office
2. Revenge of the Sith - no.62
3. The Phantom Menace - no.17
4. Return of the Jedi - no.15
5. Empire Strikes Back - no.12
6. Star Wars - no.2
The Force Awakens - no.20

The only stand-out difference between all three lists is The Phantom Menace getting a really high box office - and the explanation for this is obvious, a huge amount of first-day purchases and equivalent pre-orders followed by a month of people's sheer curiosity. While Attack of the Clones made a lot of money, that drop-off rate is actually very severe, and would send panic signals to even the most dedicated auteur.

So it's wonderful for you that you can find pleasure in George's idiosyncrasies and there's no argument from me on that point, people are free to enjoy their own pleasures. But the 'argument' arises when someone of your tastes attempts to make an argument that Lucas' 'originality' was factually better in comparison to any other part of the series with such leading statements as "at least Lucas was more original".

Whatever angle you look for, whatever avenue you wish to explore, what you have is an 'odd taste'. It is your own taste and you can treasure it and indeed be free to express it, but attempting to debate that it's anything at all other than an 'odd taste' is factually futile. If Lucas is the basis of your enjoyment of Star Wars then the more your preference is evident the less likely it will be that anyone will get any Star Wars beyond an independent production, something George was free to try, if he was that motivated, but he himself concluded was "beyond possible" for whatever reason.

It is far to early to guage the facts about the new Star Wars, but we know that Lucas had virtually zero involvement. So I've written in white ink where TFA currently sits on the above lists, please highlight over them to read.

So to conclude, it's great that you found pleasure in the oddities of Lucas, but… are you sure you're basing your factual statements on actual facts?… and are you aware that your taste is actually unhealthy for Star Wars as a franchise?

Originally Posted by lackblogger
Factual interlude:

Of the original trilogy:

A New Hope - Lucas was heavily involved, but the movie was hashed and rehashed continuously and was mostly a product of combined visions.

Empire Strikes Back - Lucas was least involved in this movie. His credits for this movie are just "Story by" and "Executive Producer". This movie was "screenplay by" Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan. It was directed by Irvin Kershner.

Return of the Jedi - Lucas had a bit more involvement here than Empire. The "screenplay by" is now Lawrence Kasdan and George Lucas, but it was directed this time by Richard Marquand. The general knowledge about Lucas' involvement was that his main influence in the screenplay was injecting the Ewoks.

The Phantom Menace - This is the movie where Lucas had the most influence. A veritable free utopia of independence from all other influences.

Attack of the Clones - While still in his utopia of freedom, there was now mounting pressure to dispose of Jar Jar Binks and a general air of dissatisfaction with the quality of the last movie. This was his second chance, the benefit of the doubt as it were. He is now influenced by growing negativity of his vision.

Revenge of the Sith - Lucas is now no longer in his entirely free utopia. He has to make severe re-writes to accommodate the removal of Jar Jar Binks and who knows what else and the movie has a PG-13 rating, completely against his vision of a series aimed primarily at the 12 and under market.

So we can factually list the movies by order of how much of the movie is "because Lucas":

1. Phantom Menace
2. Attack of the Clones
3. Revenge of the Sith
4. A New Hope
5. Return of the Jedi
6. Empire Strikes Back
7. The Force Awakens

And we can factually list the movies by order of how bad their IMDB rating is:

1. The Phantom Menace 6.5
2. Attack of the Clones 6.7
3. Revenge of the Sith 7.6
4. Return of the Jedi 8.4
5. A New Hope 8.7
6. Empire Strikes Back 8.8
The Force Awakens 8.5

And we can factually list the movies by order of how little money they made:

1. Attack of the clones - no.90 all-time US domestic inflation adjusted box office
2. Revenge of the Sith - no.62
3. The Phantom Menace - no.17
4. Return of the Jedi - no.15
5. Empire Strikes Back - no.12
6. Star Wars - no.2
The Force Awakens - no.20

The only stand-out difference between all three lists is The Phantom Menace getting a really high box office - and the explanation for this is obvious, a huge amount of first-day purchases and equivalent pre-orders followed by a month of people's sheer curiosity. While Attack of the Clones made a lot of money, that drop-off rate is actually very severe, and would send panic signals to even the most dedicated auteur.

So it's wonderful for you that you can find pleasure in George's idiosyncrasies and there's no argument from me on that point, people are free to enjoy their own pleasures. But the 'argument' arises when someone of your tastes attempts to make an argument that Lucas' 'originality' was factually better in comparison to any other part of the series with such leading statements as "at least Lucas was more original".

Whatever angle you look for, whatever avenue you wish to explore, what you have is an 'odd taste'. It is your own taste and you can treasure it and indeed be free to express it, but attempting to debate that it's anything at all other than an 'odd taste' is factually futile. If Lucas is the basis of your enjoyment of Star Wars then the more your preference is evident the less likely it will be that anyone will get any Star Wars beyond an independent production, something George was free to try, if he was that motivated, but he himself concluded was "beyond possible" for whatever reason.

It is far to early to guage the facts about the new Star Wars, but we know that Lucas had virtually zero involvement. So I've written in white ink where TFA currently sits on the above lists, please highlight over them to read.

So to conclude, it's great that you found pleasure in the oddities of Lucas, but… are you sure you're basing your factual statements on actual facts?… and are you aware that your taste is actually unhealthy for Star Wars as a franchise?

Wow, you are really trying hard to discredit Lucas, what do you have against him? fact is without him Star Wars would not exist, and the original movie has the following: ( You make it sound like it was not good because of him ) He also worked so hard on the movie that he had health problems by the end of it.

Director: George Lucas
Writer: George Lucas
Story By: George Lucas

It is kind of sad that you try so much to discredit someone who brought such a great franchise to the world.


In following movies story is still by him, even if there is another director. So I really don't get what your point is? All my main points has been about story, and I admit there was some directing problems.

As for the future of Star Wars, I am sure that the direction it has taken now is very harmful. Sure people will love the "retro" reboot movie one time, or even twice, but without anything new being introduced, I do not think it'll be good in the long term at all. Anyhow it does not matter much to me any more, the only thing that could save it for me is if the next movie is a great improvement over The Force Awakens, which I seriously doubt. Enjoy your silly braindead repeating action movies set in space, I could care less.