George Lucas (or the artist that loses his vision for his art) (Not a Star Wars thread)
There's a great clip of Lucas back in the day, saying how he never wanted his special effects to overwhelm and take center stage to his story. Jump 25+ years later and that's precisely what he does. He's also said how he thought ESB was the worst of his films. There's plenty more, where he seems to have lost the idea of what audiences love and connected with.
Can anyone else think of anyone, not necessarily an artist-type peoples, that just completely lost track of their work like this? Not something where they turned out to be a hypocrite or whatnot, but where they genuinely misinterpreted their own work.
I read a little piece the other day suggesting that Camus, later in life, may have misread or not fully understood his own The Stranger.
That's just become such a curious topic for me, that someone could create something and not fully realize what they created.
The Anita Blake books? They started out as badly written detective novels (with vampires!) and devolved into badly written hardcore porn novels (with vampires!).
Maybe Lucas always meant for his work to be shit. He just didn't have the technology.
Maybe people misunderstood the old Lucas.
What about that guy who wrote The Bible?
That's more other people misinterpreting his work.
For it to be Jesus, he'd have to be up on the cross and be all like "I just did it for the lulz!"
Maybe people misunderstood the old Lucas.
He clearly at one time knew how to tell a story. American Graffiti was great, and he knew enough to study all the Joseph Campbell mythology stuff to build the first Star Warses. He just got to some point where he said to hell with keeping himself or his stories in shape.
Spielberg might be in this category though, with him replacing the guns for radios in ET. The life or death danger is what gave that thing most of it's tension.
You guys read that story a week ago where he insisted Greedo always shot first?
I've never seen ET.
yeah. That's when I first started thinking about this. He's completely lost his mind.
And now because of all the criticism he's throwing a great big sulk and saying hell never direct again.
No Red Tails 2: The Nazis Strike Back???
A work grows with its fanbase. You have to adapt with what people end up desiring out of the thing. That's why Mulder and Scully finally ended up getting together in XFiles. The creators never wanted that, but fans kept on wanting.
Oh thank gawd! I thought I was the only one.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I saw it when I was six or seven. I din't like the movie, but I have been a Drew Barrymore fan ever since.
Mom's gonna fix it all soon.
Oh thank gawd! I thought I was the only one.
Me either.
And this Star Wars thing... is it mostly just about that one scene with the shooting and Hans Solo? Or is there something stupider? What I'm asking is, when I watch the other movies for the first time, when should I be outraged?
And it sounds soooo strange to say that an author misinterpreted his own work... I remember thinking that when we talked about The Stranger in high school. We just talked about the philosophy part of it though... I didn't much care for that book but it definitely doesn't surprise me that it was interpreted in a ton of different ways. It was so simply written.
I wish I could think of another example of it.
You know, I've had a lot of trouble wrapping my head around that concept, too. I mean, what's the point of an artist, if he/she can so be called, if they don't "understand" their own work?
My first experience with the idea was reading a very intricate interpretation of the Matrix series. My first thought was 'Pffft, yeah I'm sure the Wachowski brothers were thinking the same thing, without really alluding to any of it, hoping someone will come up with the random assumptions themselves.' The response was, "Just because they made the films doesn't mean they know anything about them." That was a bit tough for me.
I just have to think about a monkey randomly typing out what I perceive to be a masterpiece.
Btw, I guess The Matrix series could fit into this thread, but I actually really, really loved the sequels.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I guess it's the other side of what they say in those literature classes... support your case well enough and your interpretation cannot be wrong.
I can see that maybe the creator didn't have the MOST INTERESTING interpretation but to be straight up wrong about it? I don't think that's possible.
Monkey and a typewriter! It's possible! ... just improbable.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Your face is improbable.
Improbably gorgeous.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
Case closed.
By which I mean, you and your monkeys could win. But most likely not.
Didn't I once claim to be an illiterate, pressing random keys, improbably formulating coherent sentences and ultimately a faux personality?
EDIT: The elaborateness of it suggests that yes... I did.
Si vis pacem, para bellum
I'm not sure I understand this statement. How can an artist misinterpret his own art? Surely that's left for the critics to do.
"Here am I, as rich as Croesus, married to the most beautiful woman in the world, but what I'd give for a pint and a shag up against a wall in Merthyr"
With regards to old man Lucas:
His first – and last – great film
"Here am I, as rich as Croesus, married to the most beautiful woman in the world, but what I'd give for a pint and a shag up against a wall in Merthyr"
It's not the best thread in the world, Mr Peasant, but you should read it.
That's more other people misinterpreting his work.
For it to be Jesus, he'd have to be up on the cross and be all like "I just did it for the lulz!"
Actually:
I bet Jesus of Nazareth would be making some screwy faces if he saw what people now a days were interpreting his work as.