Go Back   Movie Fan Central Discussion Forums > Movie Talk! > General Movie Talk
MOVIE FAN CENTRAL FAQ Members List Calendar Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read

View Poll Results: Do you hate George Lucas?
Yes. 4 20.00%
No. 8 40.00%
I'm indifferent towards him. 8 40.00%
Voters: 20. You may not vote on this poll

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old 09-03-2012, 02:59 PM
Why do people hate George Lucas?

I'm confused as to why people hate George Lucas so much. Yeah, he made the prequel trilogy (only one film of which was truly terrible), but it seems like all of his detractors are oblivious to the huge impact he's had on the industry.

First off, he made THX 1138 and American Graffiti, the latter of which was nominated for five Academy Awards. Then of course he directed the incredibly influential Star Wars and also was the creator of the Indiana Jones.

Even with Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace he left his mark on film history. That film was the first mainstream motion picture to be projected in the digital format. He was a leading advocate for digital filmmaking, so without him, the independent filmmaking movement such as the one originating out of Toronto, Ontario, Canada, would be considerably smaller. This is of course due to the fact that digital filmmaking is a lot cheaper and easier to manage than celluloid filmmaking; therefore more filmmakers could have their ideas come to fruition.

I think whether or not people like the prequels, it's foolish to deny how much of a visionary George Lucas is and it's ignorant to even deny the fact that he's one of cinema's most important pioneers.

So why do people hate him so much? Is it really the fact that he's made some poor decisions regarding Star Wars, or am I missing something?
Reply With Quote
  #2  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:38 PM
I'll always love Lucas for giving us American Graffiti. I recognize his influence, but Star Wars means little to me. I may end up rewatching the original trilogy some day, but it's not something I'm passionate about doing.

While I don't hate him, I'm certainly more indifferent to him.
Reply With Quote
  #3  
Old 09-03-2012, 06:44 PM
I don't hate him. I don't hate the prequel trilogy as much as the rest of the world, they just don't come close to the original trilogy. But the fact that he is responsible for the awesomeness that is Star Wars, I can't help but admire what he did. American Graffiti is another underrated classic that he wrote and directed that he should be hailed for.
Reply With Quote
  #4  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:02 PM
Hate is such a strong word for someone you've never met before in your life, and for someone who's done nothing bad to you or yours personally.

But I chose hate, and here's why.

The guy rapes the values of cinema. And cinema is something that I love (obviously). He's made THX-113, awesome and underrated sci fi film, he's made American Graffiti, a heart felt high school movie which influenced countless others like it, and he's created Star Wars which is like, one of the biggest influences in cinema EVER and has created a legion of fans, people who would probably sell their kids to the black market before getting rid of their precious autographed comic con statues or whatever.

And what else has he done?

NOTHING.

The guy's been milking the Star Wars cow for the past 30 years, making a stop to taint the Indiana Jones franchise forever with the atrocity that was Indy IV, and he's just been devising ways of getting people's money by using the Star Wars and Indiana Jones brands. That's not cinema, that's manipulation and complete abuse and he sucks for that.

If any Hollywood "celebrity" needs to be roasted on Comedy Central, it's this guy.
Reply With Quote
  #5  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:09 PM
The short answer: he's an asshole.
A slighter less-short answer: He's a greedy asshole.
Reply With Quote
  #6  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:14 PM
I have no idea. If you don't like his last three films, it's understandable not to be a fan of him as a director, but the man is important to cinema regardless of the quality of the Star Wars prequels.

Without him, there would be no CGI in films. He was the guy who is responsible for CGI becoming a mainstay in film.

Without him, digital cameras would be nowhere near as sharp and advanced as they are now. He pushed the development of high definition cameras more than anybody else in the film industry.

And without him, there would be no Pixar. LucasFilm is where Pixar was conceived.

I don't know about you, but that makes him A-Okay in my book.
Reply With Quote
  #7  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:23 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I have no idea. If you don't like his last three films, it's understandable not to be a fan of him as a director, but the man is important to cinema regardless of the quality of the Star Wars prequels.

Without him, there would be no CGI in films. He was the guy who is responsible for CGI becoming a mainstay in film.

Without him, digital cameras would be nowhere near as sharp and advanced as they are now. He pushed the development of high definition cameras more than anybody else in the film industry.

And without him, there would be no Pixar. LucasFilm is where Pixar was conceived.

I don't know about you, but that makes him A-Okay in my book.
100% this.
Reply With Quote
  #8  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:26 PM
I didn't know we could make a poll in the General Movie Talk forum. When did this happen?
Reply With Quote
  #9  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:35 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Cop No. 633 View Post
I have no idea. If you don't like his last three films, it's understandable not to be a fan of him as a director, but the man is important to cinema regardless of the quality of the Star Wars prequels.

Without him, there would be no CGI in films. He was the guy who is responsible for CGI becoming a mainstay in film.

Without him, digital cameras would be nowhere near as sharp and advanced as they are now. He pushed the development of high definition cameras more than anybody else in the film industry.

And without him, there would be no Pixar. LucasFilm is where Pixar was conceived.

I don't know about you, but that makes him A-Okay in my book.
You are mostly correct, but he is not Steve Jobs. Lucas has received much of the credit for the last dozen or so years of those things you mentioned, but he hardly the only person thinking these ideas up and excuting them. I thank him for all he has done for cinema. And then there is the money.....

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
Hate is such a strong word for someone you've never met before in your life, and for someone who's done nothing bad to you or yours personally.

But I chose hate, and here's why.

The guy rapes the values of cinema. And cinema is something that I love (obviously). He's made THX-113, awesome and underrated sci fi film, he's made American Graffiti, a heart felt high school movie which influenced countless others like it, and he's created Star Wars which is like, one of the biggest influences in cinema EVER and has created a legion of fans, people who would probably sell their kids to the black market before getting rid of their precious autographed comic con statues or whatever.

And what else has he done?

NOTHING.

The guy's been milking the Star Wars cow for the past 30 years, making a stop to taint the Indiana Jones franchise forever with the atrocity that was Indy IV, and he's just been devising ways of getting people's money by using the Star Wars and Indiana Jones brands. That's not cinema, that's manipulation and complete abuse and he sucks for that.

If any Hollywood "celebrity" needs to be roasted on Comedy Central, it's this guy.
100% this..... well 95% I am not going to kill him of Indy 4, but it was made just for money.

What really pisses me off the most is he lies. Some new technology comes out and he says, "this is what I really wanted to do back then, but it was not out yet." Bull fucking shit. He never thought of a 3D Star Wars or he would have come out with 3D Star Wars years ago. He sees it as another reason to come out in the theaters and make more money. That is it. Normally, I am all for it, but fuck him. He is staging his DVD, Blu Ray, VHS, special edition, new version, old versions on purpose, because he knows there are fans who will buy both. He is an asshole and abusing fans. If he really cared about the fans, he would come out with NEW FUCKING STAR WARS MOVIES!!!!!!! That is what we all want.
Reply With Quote
  #10  
Old 09-03-2012, 07:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You are mostly correct, but he is not Steve Jobs. Lucas has received much of the credit for the last dozen or so years of those things you mentioned, but he hardly the only person thinking these ideas up and excuting them. I thank him for all he has done for cinema. And then there is the money.....
Again, you're completely ignoring what he did for film technology and the independent film movement. He should be commended and hailed as an icon but instead he's hated for making a couple of bad movies and making some poor choices with his characters. And I love how when he does something good, he's just taking credit for others, but when he does something bad, the blame must fall entirely on him.
Reply With Quote
  #11  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:03 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magjournal View Post
Again, you're completely ignoring what he did for film technology and the independent film movement. He should be commended and hailed as an icon but instead he's hated for making a couple of bad movies and making some poor choices with his characters. And I love how when he does something good, he's just taking credit for others, but when he does something bad, the blame must fall entirely on him.
Again, he gets his credit where credit is due. He keeps icon status. He is also a greedy fuck and that trumps all else for me. Had he not released the DVDs and blu rays the way he did or try to cash in on 3D prints like he has done, I would have more respect for the guy.

One can also make the very valid point that he helped kill cinema. CGI and effects over story. He is the father of eye candy. You can't have the good without taking the bad too.
Reply With Quote
  #12  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:18 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
One can also make the very valid point that he helped kill cinema. CGI and effects over story. He is the father of eye candy. You can't have the good without taking the bad too.
There have always been films used as eye candy even before George Lucas was making films. The inclusion of computers in the filmmaking process wasn't the first time films were made solely to look good. I'm sure there were plenty of films that were made just to people could marvel at how a film had sound. And again, once Technicolor came out. Besides, isn't blaming Lucas for a director overusing CGI like blaming John Browning for someone shooting up a school? Lucas just came up with the tools; how someone uses it is out of his control.

I'm not denying the bad. Like I said, the prequel films aren't very good and he's made some poor choices in regards to "fixing" the original trilogy, but that doesn't detract even the slightest bit from what a great innovator he was.
Reply With Quote
  #13  
Old 09-03-2012, 08:30 PM
1. I love the Star Wars saga
2. I don't hate George Lucas
3. I hate the gazillion releases of the films
4. I hate the 3D re-releases
5. I love my fellow Schmoes

Reply With Quote
  #14  
Old 09-03-2012, 09:00 PM
The innovations...to be fair, I was never big enough of a fan to follow/care about the various innovations he's contributed to or created himself. Hats off to him for contributing to the various technological advancements of cinema, great. But as soon as I read Cop's post, I thought about something Tarantino said regarding the John Ford door framing shot he used in Basterds: "If he hadn't of thought of it, someone else would have" (I think he was being his usual ego-maniac self and said "I would have" but you get the point)

I don't believe for a second that had Lucas not been around, we wouldn't have CGI in movies, Pixar (!!) or that digital cameras wouldn't be as advanced (which, in my opinion, isn't really a compliment to begin with. Film owns digital).

I don't doubt that he helped A LOT and his boatloads of money helped A LOT, but someone else would have done it, and perhaps, done it without being such a manipulative douche :P
Reply With Quote
  #15  
Old 09-03-2012, 09:05 PM
Because he no longer has a love for movies, but instead just loves making money by selling toys etc.

I don't fault him personally for it, but as a movie maker I do not like him.
Reply With Quote
  #16  
Old 09-03-2012, 09:33 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
The innovations...to be fair, I was never big enough of a fan to follow/care about the various innovations he's contributed to or created himself. Hats off to him for contributing to the various technological advancements of cinema, great. But as soon as I read Cop's post, I thought about something Tarantino said regarding the John Ford door framing shot he used in Basterds: "If he hadn't of thought of it, someone else would have" (I think he was being his usual ego-maniac self and said "I would have" but you get the point)

I don't believe for a second that had Lucas not been around, we wouldn't have CGI in movies, Pixar (!!) or that digital cameras wouldn't be as advanced (which, in my opinion, isn't really a compliment to begin with. Film owns digital).

I don't doubt that he helped A LOT and his boatloads of money helped A LOT, but someone else would have done it, and perhaps, done it without being such a manipulative douche :P
You could say that about anything. We credit Eli Whitney with the invention of the cotton gin. We credit Pythagoras with the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that someone else WOULD'VE invented it had the credited inventor not been around doesn't mean anything. The credited inventor DID invent it, case closed. When you get into the whole "someone else would've done it" argument, you're talking about some alternate universe; not ours.
Reply With Quote
  #17  
Old 09-03-2012, 09:59 PM
Indifferent.

Don't love him. Don't hate him. Dont' watch his movies. I've never been a Star Wars fan.
Reply With Quote
  #18  
Old 09-03-2012, 10:46 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magjournal View Post
You could say that about anything. We credit Eli Whitney with the invention of the cotton gin. We credit Pythagoras with the Pythagorean theorem. The fact that someone else WOULD'VE invented it had the credited inventor not been around doesn't mean anything. The credited inventor DID invent it, case closed. When you get into the whole "someone else would've done it" argument, you're talking about some alternate universe; not ours.
True true. I just wanted to make it clear why, for some of us, those contributions he's made don't immediately overpower the fact that he's a money-hoarding douche who just uses the Star Wars and Indiana Jones brands to make more money from fans.
Reply With Quote
  #19  
Old 09-03-2012, 10:55 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
True true. I just wanted to make it clear why, for some of us, those contributions he's made don't immediately overpower the fact that he's a money-hoarding douche who just uses the Star Wars and Indiana Jones brands to make more money from fans.
In his defense though, every time he milks his franchises, people buy into it. Five of the six Star Wars films are Certified Fresh and all of the Indiana Jones films are also Certified Fresh. They've made a ton of money as well. So people may be complaining about George Lucas "raping their childhoods" or whatever overly-dramatic phrasing they use nowadays, but numbers are telling Mr. Lucas that these same people are still willing to shell out oodles and oodles of cash to see these films.
Reply With Quote
  #20  
Old 09-03-2012, 11:12 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
I don't believe for a second that had Lucas not been around, we wouldn't have CGI in movies, Pixar (!!) or that digital cameras wouldn't be as advanced (which, in my opinion, isn't really a compliment to begin with. Film owns digital).
We may have had CGI in movies, but I doubt it would have progressed as far as it has today had it not been for Lucas. There was extreme hesitation from the large majority of people in Hollywood with regard to what Lucas was pushing for. The only reason it progressed as quickly as it did was because of Lucas' intelligence and resources. A few may have had the intelligence, but I doubt many, if any, had the resources.

I also doubt that Pixar would have existed. It stemmed directly from Lucasfilm and the technological prowess that Pixar is known for would not have been where it was when Toy Story was made and would not be where it is today without Lucas.

I also think advancements in digital cameras is a huge compliment. Of course many prefer film (as do I, as digital is still very young, while film has had around 100 years to reach its peak of greatness), but advancements in digital cameras are making it easier for young, broke filmmakers to break their way into the business. Prior to digital, young filmmakers pretty much had to go to film school in order to get their hands on a high quality film camera. On top of that, digital can be a much more efficient way of making movies. You can do as many takes as you want without having to change the mag, it's lighter so you have more freedom in your shot selection, it's less expensive, it's less wasteful, and it can be adapted quickly in order to suit the needs of a particular shot or set of shots (a RED camera was manipulated over a weekend to suit the needs of the boat race scene in The Social Network). Also, film took years to reach the peak that it did. Writing off digital now would be the equivalent of writing off film in 1940 because it wasn't perfect. It's Lucas' goal to push it as far as it can possibly go, so it can be of the utmost quality.

I recommend giving the doc Side by Side a watch. It gives a lot of insight into film vs. digital, the people on both sides of the argument and those in the middle. While I did know a bit about digital beforehand, it really opened my eyes to just how important it is and how great it can potentially be.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DaMovieMan View Post
I don't doubt that he helped A LOT and his boatloads of money helped A LOT, but someone else would have done it, and perhaps, done it without being such a manipulative douche :P
As magjournal said, you're talking about a possible world, not the actual world. In the actual world, everyone in Hollywood was incredibly stubborn, not willing to take the technology to the next level, not willing to take chances in order to make more efficient and effective filmmaking. He was a manipulative douche because people were so completely against what are now considered by many to be essential components of filmmaking.

The contributions he has made to cinema far outweigh the shitty Star Wars prequels and him cashing in on popular franchises.

Last edited by Bourne101; 09-03-2012 at 11:48 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #21  
Old 09-03-2012, 11:45 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
1. I love the Star Wars saga
2. I don't hate George Lucas
3. I hate the gazillion releases of the films
4. I hate the 3D re-releases
5. I love my fellow Schmoes

I love you too man.
Reply With Quote
  #22  
Old 09-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by God of War View Post
1. I love the Star Wars saga
2. I don't hate George Lucas
3. I hate the gazillion releases of the films
4. I hate the 3D re-releases
5. I love my fellow Schmoes

That's really well said.
Reply With Quote
  #23  
Old 09-03-2012, 11:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by magjournal View Post
There have always been films used as eye candy even before George Lucas was making films.
You must be a liberal. lol

Seriously, you can't give the guy all the credit you give him and then not accept the negatives. He is MR Special Effects and CGI. Those were both the birth and obortion of modern movie making. I don't have an issue with this, but there are many who would say that Lucas killed the modern story telling in movies
Reply With Quote
  #24  
Old 09-03-2012, 11:52 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
I don't have an issue with this, but there are many who would say that Lucas killed the modern story telling in movies
I don't think he killed modern storytelling at all (great films still come out every year), he just opened up many windows, one of which just happened to be the ability to abuse the technology to showcase style.
Reply With Quote
  #25  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
Seriously, you can't give the guy all the credit you give him and then not accept the negatives. He is MR Special Effects and CGI. Those were both the birth and obortion of modern movie making. I don't have an issue with this, but there are many who would say that Lucas killed the modern story telling in movies
I don't think Lucas killed modern story telling either. Yes, he helped introduce special effects in a big way to cinema, but others like Michael Bay, Louis Letterier, and others have used CGI to the extreme at the expense of story and character.

At the very least, he may be partially to blame, but he's by far not the biggest offender.
Reply With Quote
  #26  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:03 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Bourne101 View Post
I don't think he killed modern storytelling at all (great films still come out every year), he just opened up many windows, one of which just happened to be the ability to abuse the technology to showcase style.
When I say kill, I am speaking mostly mainstream blockbuster movies. You can't really compare blockbusters of today with those from the 70's and early 80's. There is no story at all in many of today's
Reply With Quote
  #27  
Old 09-04-2012, 12:09 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
There is no story at all in many of today's
And you're going to blame Lucas for that?
Reply With Quote
  #28  
Old 09-04-2012, 01:10 AM
Quote:
Originally Posted by Erroneous View Post
You must be a liberal. lol

Seriously, you can't give the guy all the credit you give him and then not accept the negatives. He is MR Special Effects and CGI. Those were both the birth and obortion of modern movie making. I don't have an issue with this, but there are many who would say that Lucas killed the modern story telling in movies
I've accepted his negatives. I've already stated that I don't like the prequel trilogy. Episode I is mediocre and Episode II is a pile of shit; Episode III is watchable but is only fun on a superficial level. I also think he's made some incredibly stupid and unnecessary changes to the original trilogy. I agree with and accept every single complaint towards his handling of the Star Wars franchise.

What I don't accept is that by pioneering CGI, he effectively killed modern storytelling. Again, it's like blaming John Browning for a school shooting (how a kid managed to get his hand on a Browning is beside the point). What I'm trying to say is that Lucas made the tools, but how people use those tools is out of his control. Plenty of filmmakers have done wondrous things with CGI. James Cameron crafted a beautiful world using CGI in Avatar. Terrence Malick used CGI to depict the birth of the universe in The Tree of Life. Rupert Wyatt used it to add deep emotion to a mistreated chimpanzee and make us sympathize with him in Rise of the Planet of the Apes. Peter Jackson used it to create one of the best and most conflicted characters in recent cinema history in The Lord of the Rings trilogy. I don't see you giving George Lucas credit for those stunning achievements.
Reply With Quote
  #29  
Old 09-04-2012, 02:35 AM
Love prequel trilogy. Loved Indy 4. I think the guy isn't the greatest writer in the world as far dialog goes. And Attack of the Clones proved that he's not very good at handling romance either. But the guy is a true visionary and definitely truly influential on the industry.
Reply With Quote
  #30  
Old 09-04-2012, 04:22 AM
I don't HATE George Lucas, I mean he's behind the some of the most important and influential films of recent cinema (Star Wars, Indiana Jones), but then again he's not a very good director or writer. Just look at the first three Star Wars films compared to the newer ones. He showed a lot of promise with American Graffiti and THX1138 though.
Reply With Quote
  #31  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:43 AM
I don't hate George Lucas. But I absolutely hate everything he's done to his own work since... uhm.. let's say 1990 or so.

It's become a bit of a cliche, but ultimately the phrase "Han Solo shot first" pretty much explains very succinctly everything that is wrong with George Lucas. Stop f***ing around with my childhood man!
Reply With Quote
  #32  
Old 09-04-2012, 03:48 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by abishop View Post
I don't hate George Lucas. But I absolutely hate everything he's done to his own work since... uhm.. let's say 1990 or so.

It's become a bit of a cliche, but ultimately the phrase "Han Solo shot first" pretty much explains very succinctly everything that is wrong with George Lucas. Stop f***ing around with my childhood man!
Honestly that change I can sorta understand even though I don't approve of it. Han shooting first adds a moral ambiguity to his character but moral ambiguity is not exactly something you can easily sell to kids.
Reply With Quote
  #33  
Old 09-04-2012, 04:07 PM
Quote:
Originally Posted by abishop View Post
I don't hate George Lucas. But I absolutely hate everything he's done to his own work since... uhm.. let's say 1990 or so.

It's become a bit of a cliche, but ultimately the phrase "Han Solo shot first" pretty much explains very succinctly everything that is wrong with George Lucas. Stop f***ing around with my childhood man!
Han never shot first. Ever.

Han was the ONLY one to shoot at all. Period.

By changing that, the man proved that he didn't understand his own characters AT ALL. And even, arguably, his greatest character of all. By stripping him of that shot, he also stripped Han of his essential badassery.

He might as well have changed the famous line "I love you/I know" to "I love you too." because it's more "kid-friendly."

Ridley Scott changed a couple things for the Final Cut release of Blade Runner, even shot new footage with new technology. But while Ridley was fixing a few of the more glaring mistakes (and for the better) like her wig, the dove flying into bright sky at the finale, etc, Lucas comes out and adds a bunch of CGI characters, re-edits scenes like Han shooting first, and even cut out entire actors like in ROTJ, and essentially WIPES OUT the original film altogether.

While you could barely tell that Ridley did anything at all, Lucas' changes filled up the screen.
Reply With Quote
  #34  
Old 09-04-2012, 04:10 PM
I do think though, that despite Lucas's sloppy changes, the original trilogy is still excellent. Maybe not AS excellent, but he certainly didn't ruin them.
Reply With Quote
  #35  
Old 09-04-2012, 04:12 PM
Simple as this:

I love George Lucas. I hate some of his decisions.
Reply With Quote
  #36  
Old 09-04-2012, 06:22 PM
As the other posts have said, the man has made a sizable contribution to film history. Digital cameras, CGI, Pixar, Star Wars, etc. So you have to give him credit for that.

I will say that Lucas can't write dialogue to save his life, so I don't think I'll be missing much if he makes another movie or not. I like Star Wars, but I'm not an obsessive fan or anything, so whether or not he makes more of those doesn't matter to me.

And I actually liked the last Indy movie. "Shia swinging from vines with monkeys" was not a good enough reason for me to flat-out hate it.

Plus, there's the LucasArts games, which are all pretty awesome. As a kid I spent hours playing Fate of Atlantis.

Last edited by EZM22; 09-04-2012 at 06:29 PM..
Reply With Quote
  #37  
Old 09-04-2012, 06:28 PM
Obi-Wan: "Anakin, Chancellor Palpatine is evil!"

Anakin: "FROM MY POINT OF VIEW, THE JEDI ARE EVIL!"



That's why.
Reply With Quote
  #38  
Old 09-04-2012, 06:55 PM
Bourne, majournal: I really don't know much about Lucas' contributions to technology, what he actually invented/created, what his resources were used for and whether without him we'd have Pixar or not so I respectfully withdraw from this thread. Thank you for shining some new light on this man whom I've only ever seen as the guy who likes taking people's money by milking his brands.

I'll check that doc out Bourne, from a film critic/aesthetic point of view I prefer film over digital by a country mile, but I know that digital has helped young filmmakers a TON (and will hopefully help me one day in that same fashion) so I definitely wasn't talking about it from that angle.

I leave you guys with this, the awesome Carrie Fisher.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lZ97s396kb0
Reply With Quote
  #39  
Old 09-04-2012, 07:04 PM
Funny Bourne101 should mention Side By Side, because watching that movie is what sparked this thread up in the first place. I used to dislike George Lucas as well, but the documentary makes it clear what kind of impact he had on the film industry.

I also recommend it. It's one of two films this year I've given 4 stars to (the other being Beasts of the Southern Wild) and it's one of my favorite films of the year.
Reply With Quote
Reply

Bookmarks

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump