George Lucas: Understanding His Prequel Debacles

Anyone who knows me knows that few things will get me onto my mighty soapbox, spewing forth vicious tangents until my throat is sore, like the words "Did you ever see that Phantom Menace?" or "How 'bout them Clone Wars?"

I shake uncontrollably anytime anyone mentions anything having to do with ASWAD3 (After Star Wars A D 3...Return of the Jedi came out in '83). I am convinced that the vast caverns of Hell threw wide their hideous gates and released "The Prequels" on our unsuspecting world in the hopes of destroying all the goodness left in humanity. ...If there was but one more movie, I could easily make the case that somehow these wretched films were in fact the Four Horsemen of the Apocalypse on a trial run.

Now I know George Lucas isn't the Anti-Christ, although he does have the world-wide popularity and crazy "Zen-Meets-Jesus-Meets-Mr.Midichlorian-Meets-Crap" religion needed to unite mankind and usher in the End Times. ...But honestly, the Anti-Christ would have been able to come up with a far better name for a villain than "Count Dooku." ...It almost looks funnier than it sounds. Regardless, I haven't exactly been George's biggest fan since Menace came out, and while I wish no ill to befall him as a person, I desperately pray every day for the eradication of those accurs'd movies. I ask only for every last bit of film stock, hard drive, DVD and BluRay Disc that contains said movies to be banished to the abyss from whence they came.

But I am not sitting at my computer at 8:30pm to rant. I'm actually writing this because earlier today I was struck with a thought that forced me to feel empathetic towards George Lucas (henceforth referred to as just "George")...maybe even sorry for him.

We all assume that he is surrounded by yes-men who tell him that everything he does is great because they are afraid of incurring his wrath. I mean the guy has a ton of Hollywood power (which is odd considering he only really made 3 good movies--only one of which did he even direct) and moves in many circles.

But what if that's not the case? I'm sure he has to have some friends that don't work for him. Him and Spielberg are buddies...you think The 'Berg is afraid of George? I have to believe that there are some guys out there who questioned, if not opposed George as he pursued his butchery of the Star Wars name. The problem was, how could he listen to them?

My facts may be a bit off, but lets look at Star Wars before it hit the theaters in 1977. I love the trilogy as a whole, but the first movie just didn't do much for me. It's a story about a space princess who gets abducted by a guy with a gynormous ventilator strapped to his face because he wants the plans to a "Death Star". A futuristic farm boy teams up with a huge, dog-based alien and his cocky space-pirate buddy to rescue said princess. And there is a washed-up old guy who lives in the desert who has mastery over "The Force" which is an invisible something-or-other that controls everything. There are laser swords, laser guns, and big orb-like battle stations that shoot out even bigger lasers.

Come on people--this has "B" movie written all over it. Not even that. Heck, Spaceballs was able to keep almost the exact same elements and plot points and it was a spoof!

Think I'm crazy? George took his script to at least three different studios that thought the exact same thing. These studios were run by high-rolling executives. They were the kind of guys who would say things like, "I've been in the business 30 years. I've seen everything, I've tried everything. I know what works and what doesn't. I know what people like and what they'll pay to see. ...This ain't it."

The guys that turned down George were some of the top dogs in the industry with all the power and influence money could buy. And they couldn't have been more wrong or made a worse mistake then passing on that script.

Even while he was making the movie, I'm sure George had people doubt him. Maybe his darling wife laughed at one of the scenes and asked if he really planned to shoot it the next day. Maybe everyone who wasn't involved with the project took him to lunches and told him he should rethink the whole thing and try to get another story out there. I'm sure there were nay-sayers who said that no one wanted to see a fairytale set in space.

But George stuck to his guns and look what happened.

My point in all this is that as a director, all you've got is your vision. If you look at the industry, it's far from perfect. There are mediocre mishaps and travesties aplenty. Half the time I find myself wondering how the heck anyone was able to pitch the premise to a studio without getting laughed out of the building, never mind actually getting financed! A movie's success is hit or miss depending on a huge variety of factors-some of them are completely out the filmmaker's control. It's never certain how an audience will receive a movie or what the side-effects of it will be. The "experts"-the critics-can bash a film to death and people love it.

In the world of film, there are no absolutes. A few days ago I heard an idiot talking about the Dallas Cowboys and how the owner made a huge mistake. This idiot went on to say that if the owner had looked at history he wouldn't have made the decision he did because history shows that decisions like his never work. Never.

Except three times. ...And the latest exception resulted in a coach that won three Superbowls in four years. Yet this idiot raved on how the decision was so bad, yadda yadda yadda.

The connection? There are no guarantees in the creative business either. There can be six films made a certain way and they all tank, but the seventh one, because it came out at the right time with the right atmosphere, is a huge success. The professionals will try to tell you that your idea is too long, too short, or too overdone. They'll tell you that history shows your idea to be out of touch and irrelevant. No one else made a successful movie about that topic so you can't either.

The pros, the experts, they know nothing. They have their opinions just like everyone else, but they can't possibly see your vision or accurately predict how it will be received. Friends too can doubt or support you and be dead wrong in either case.

As a director, all you can do is stay true to your vision and walk it out the best way you can. If you compromise or back-step, you've lost the only constant thing in your life and in your work and then all bets are off.

Lets say that your gut is right 60 percent of the time...even 51 percent. Your gut is right more than it's wrong. So if you go with your gut every time, you'll always come out on top over time. But if you start second guessing yourself and trying to figure out if your gut is right on every call, you run the risk of losing your winning record. If you screw with the odds you will probably wind up changing more rights to wrongs than the other way around. Besides, if you don't have your instincts to go off of, what are you making your decisions on? History? Other people's gut instincts?

Other than the basics, like crossing the axis, proper editing techniques, continuity, etc.., there are no rules set in stone for making a movie. (And even those very basic rules get purposefully broken for the sake of artistic expression.) In fact I'd argue that many a good movie hasn't been made because of artificial limitations and a great deal of pathetic clinging onto tradition.

So back to good ol' George. This guy got shot down by three studios. He probably had a bunch of "no" people around him. People who said "it was a good try, but obviously it wasn't meant to be." He may have even doubted himself. But when it was all said and done, he was right and they were wrong.

So how the heck can he listen to anyone now? How can someone who took a gamble and came out a big-time winner listen to anyone else when ignoring them was what got him to where he is today? If following his creative instincts gave birth to Star Wars Ep. IV, how could he doubt his instincts when he was creating the blight on humanity known as Jar-Jar-Binx?

How could a stiff, whiny golden robot with a British accent be so cool and a floppy eared Jamaican dinosaur be so horrific?

George may not be surrounded by "yes" men. He might have people telling him "no" on a daily basis. He could have had his wife threatening to divorce him once she found out Anakin was going to be a five-year-old involved in a glorified NASCAR race.

But George was doomed by his success.

I find it hard, even where I am now, to listen to the nay-sayers out there. What do they know? The experts, the professors...what have they done? Where is their stream of success? If 80% of the films released in a year are pieces of crap, what does that say about the top dogs who run this industry? I concede that there are the rare Spielbergs out there who consistently make high-quality productions, but they are the exceptions not the rule.

I haven't even found success yet and I would still trust my instincts over the advice of a film professor. Arrogance on my part? Could be, I guess. It's not that I'm sure my idea is a good one. It's not that I think I'm great and they're not. It's not that I don't think experience and knowledge have weight. It's not that I ignore common sense and reason all together. It's not that I'm sure of success. Heck, my idea could tank. But it could also impact people.

You can point to history and a score of any other "logical" reasons to justify why you played it safe. When you stick with what works (though it doesn't always) and kind of listen to consensus, you can easily explain away your actions and even spread the blame for failures. ..."Well it worked in the past..."

But there is no way to justify innovation, exploration and risk other than to say you've got a feeling, or that it's just something you have to do. It might not pay off. You could lose everything. But something inside tells you you've got to go for it and you won't be content unless you do.

So I feel sorry for George because I think he's stuck. I think he did his best with the new Star Wars flicks. I think that in his mind the plot and characters were fantastic, woven from the same magical material that constituted his first three creations. Sure, he had to forget that he had someone help him write Empire and Jedi (which were actually the best ones), and that despite his claims he really had no idea where Star Was was going after New Hope. But he had a vision and he really couldn't do anything but ride it out as he had done in the past.

I've felt creative conviction, and I can only imagine it gets stronger with success. If I would be willing to defy the world to bring a vision to life, why should I expect any less of George? His success was a blessing and a curse, making him immune to the no-men in his life. People who might otherwise have been able to convince him he needs a different approach or twist found their words falling on deaf ears post-'77.

Okay, so maybe I don't feel sorry for George. I guess I just understand where he might have been coming from now.

And though I'm not there yet...I know one day I'll be able to find it in my heart to forgive him for episodes I, II, and to some extent, III.

...For truly...he knew not what he did.