Masahiro Sakurai "realizes how George Lucas must feel"

Had Lucas had his way, Starkiller would have borne the title: Darth Insanious or Darth Icky.

I think that says a lot about his creative drive.

George Lucas just isn't a very good screenwriter. Even the original trilogy had some pretty bad dialogue, but it was saved by casting Harrison Ford. I'll be damned if he didn't create the most interesting fantasy world I've come across and probably ever will, though. Uwe Boll could make a Star Wars movie, and I'd still go see it.

@MirkoS77: Interesting point of view, but I'd argue that Lucas hasn't taken anything away. Star Wars is meant to be viewed on a movie theater screen, that's the proper way to view it. Yet, it'd be sort of absurd to expect Lucas or Disney to hold theatrical screenings for the public every year, because it's sort of accepted that it had a limited run. Lots of things have a limited run. Many installations are one-time-only and are never put up again. Plays may get a limited run and then that's over. Photographers may print an edition of x numbers of prints and then never print that image again. Some artists deliberately use non-archival materials because they WANT their art to decay and fall apart. And yes, the same is true of film. LOTS of movies either never get a theatrical re-release or never get a proper HD home release. The question here is, "how much obligation does the artist have to be a historian?" And I don't think that's the artist's job. That's society's job. Even if being a historian is the artist's job, I'm sure that the original Star Wars film reels have been well-preserved for future generations.

Of course Smash Bros is nowhere close to being the Star Wars of gaming. That's not the point of this thread.

If any video game can be called the Stars Wars of video games, that would be Space Invaders, in terms of things like theme, timing, revenue, and cultural impact.

Harrison Ford didn't save anything. What made Star Wars special is the lore, the direction, memorable characters, action scenes, special effects, and production values. Harrison was just one part of the puzzle.

The script for A New Hope was weak though. The original draft for that movie was just a sci-fi version of Akira Kurosawa's The Hidden Fortress, before George Lucas re-wrote the script into a pastiche of Kurosawa, Dune, and Flash Gordon. The Empire Strikes Back, on the other hand, had a strong original script, the best writing in the whole series.

They actually haven't, unfortunately. This explains it, if you don't wish to watch the whole thing, 2:10 is where it touches upon it. Lucas HAS taken things away. He is pro-actively attempting to eradicate the original print of Star Wars from the history books. It's not about limited runs or seeing it on the big screen. Star Wars was never meant to be a limited run, nor restricted to the big screen.

The artist doesn't have the obligation to be a preserver of history, I agree, but I'd say it does become society's responsibility, which you agree with me on. The National Film Registry has attempted to take this role yet Lucas has fought them every step of the way. As it stands right now, future generations are in danger of never being able to see the original Star Wars through any legitimate means. They only way currently is by bootlegging. That is just shameful and should be fought against wholeheartedly.

Well, I'm fine with bootlegging for historical/archival purposes. I mean, it'd be nice if we got a proper HD release of the originals. But if he ever did release the originals in any reproducible format, then again...it's on society to preserve it. If that requires bootlegging, then so be it. I mean, shit, even if the best quality we get is VHS quality, then that's not ideal but I think it's fair.

Anyway, as much as I'd like to see a proper HD release of the original trilogy (or ANY future release of the original unaltered trilogy, even if the quality sucks), I can't really get pissed or say that it's shameful. I mean, there are different philosophies regarding art, ownership of art, and I actually see a lot of validity in opposing arguments. You say that art is a gift to the audience, but someone could equally argue that art is a gift to the artist himself. After all, you don't keep giving a gift to someone when they've made it clear that they don't want it. But it can easily be argued that artists are compelled to create, even if no one wants it. That it isn't the need to be accepted that drives artists, but the need to create that drives artists. And unpopular unsuccessful artists don't stop creating simply because no one wants their "gift". No, they keep on creating because they are artists and simply continue to be unpopular and unsuccessful.

Same thing with "fan service". I don't see anything inherently wrong with fan service. But there's an argument to be made that the artist shouldn't have to give a flying **** about making the fans happy. I mean, pissing off your fan base is a good way to make your art not SELL. But if you genuinely don't care whether or not your art sells, if you're doing well enough that you can make it simply out of a personal need to create what YOU want to create, then by all means...**** the fans and what they want.

And this gets into other things. As I understand it, one of the reasons George Lucas didn't re-release the original unaltered trilogy is because he views art as a constantly evolving thing that is never "finished". As in, no work of art is ever "complete" or "finished" or "perfect". There's always something that can be done to improve it, the artist simply runs out of time or runs out of funding or runs out of ideas or runs out of interest. I don't necessarily agree with that, since anyone involved in making art has inevitably come to the point where they went too far. As in, they like the product, but they think it isn't truly "complete", so they go back and tinker with it some more, and ultimately end up ruining. In their attempts to improve on it, they utterly ruined it and it would have been so much better if they just knew when to quit. And yeah...that happens all the freaking time in art, and one could argue that that's exactly what happened with George Lucas' revisions to the original trilogy. Here's the thing: even if I agree that the changes objectively made the original trilogy worse (and I do), I don't necessarily DISAGREE with the logic that led to the original trilogy getting ruined.

I mean...he wasn't entirely happy with the original trilogy. Technological/budget limitations prevented him from doing what he wanted to do with the movies. Once he was able, he totally changed the originals, only rereleased the new "improved" version of the originals that more accurately reflected his idea of how the art should exist in its ideal state. He then continued to reject fan outcry, continuing to do things the way that he wanted, even if the fans hated him for it.The whole time, he was getting filthy fucking rich off of running things his way, which is the exact thing that gave him the ability to say "**** the fans" and do whatever the hell he wanted (even if the fans hate him for it).

I'm sorry, but I just can't get mad about that AT ALL. He exercised total fucking ownership over this, which I think is entirely fair. Granted, this gets into arguments about who owns art. You say that society owns it, but I think that it's at least equally valid to say that the artist owns it. If he wants to do however many revisions, if he's of the mindset that art is a dynamic thing which is never meant to be "finished", if he thinks that the work of art in its originally released state is so bad that it should never be released again (or to be more specific: should forever be replaced by the newer "better" revisions), then...I can actually respect that as the culmination of an artist's personal vision and overall philosophy.

I might not LIKE it. But let's be clear...the biggest reason I want the original unaltered trilogy to be released is because the revisions made the movies WORSE. If people actually thought that the revisions IMPROVED the original trilogy, would they still be asking for a release of the original WORSE version just for the sake of historical value? Shit...let's take Blade Runner. There have been a stupid amount of cuts of that movie released. Is the studio obligated to keep releasing ALL of those cuts? I think by now, it's become sort of general opinion that the original cut of Blade Runner kind of sucked and that most subsequently released cuts were better. If the studio (or whoever owns the distribution rights) axed only the WORST version of the movie, would this argument still hold up? People are pissed that the original Star Wars trilogy is not getting an original unaltered release, but the thing is, the alterations made the movies WORSE. If the alterations had made the movies BETTER, would we still have such a need to see the WORSE versions again just for the sake of preserving history?

Disappointing and shit are 2 sides of the same coin though

All I know is if a nuke is falling near me, I have a lead coated fridge to save me from the explosion. Thank you George

I don't think he really does. Lucas took risks with the prequel trilogy and he failed miserably. Sakurai took no risks with Brawl and Smash 4 and made the "casual appeal" mantra the theme of development for both games. Lucas got the universal backlash; Sakurai got the widespread critical acclaim. It's just an asinine comparison to make because he thinks the hate he's getting from Melee players is bigger than it really is.

I didn't mean to imply that an artist should create out of any other motivation than his own if that's the impression you got. Frankly, I wouldn't desire art that wasn't a product of personal drive or done out of seeking the acceptance of others.

Lucas has always viewed Star Wars as incomplete. He's been saying this far before he had the ability to change them. He once said something like, "the OT is only about 30% of what I envisioned". There's a favorite saying of mine: "Art is never finished, only abandoned". So true. It's a stamp on a particular period of history. I don't agree with Lucas that the flaws in Star Wars are flaws at all, nor do they need correcting. I love seeing the "screw-ups" in the UOT (unaltered original trilogy). It's fascinating to see the restrictions they worked with and around, both budgetary and technically. That's part of the wonder when looking at any piece of art for me. When viewing it, I'm viewing everything that surrounded it at the time of its creation that is unspoken and that went into its creation.

Hence why I find the logic behind Lucas's changes to be shameful. It is not only a disregard for history which is troubling in itself, but something else: I said in my last post I think he has the right to make OT changes as long as he makes the UOT available. I still do, yet something still rubs me the wrong way even so....Star Wars is not only Lucas's creation. It is his vision, but hundreds of people poured thousands of collective hours of their hard work into those films. What does his actions say to those who were awarded the Oscars for editing/costume/sound design? What Lucas has done is disrespectful and dismissive to all those who helped him achieve what he has. Lucas is essentially saying, "Thanks for your work guys, now **** off, this is my show to eliminate what you worked so hard for so as to make me be able to now go remove/replace it to my credit".

Seriously, what an egocentric, unappreciative, selfish dickhead. A large part of me respects Lucas for being the impetus behind Star Wars. He is a brilliant visionary. Yet an equally large part of me thinks "**** Lucas!" due to the above and tells me a lot about his character. It is very difficult for me to grant him complete ownership because he would be nowhere without that collaboration from many talented people.

To answer your question: yes, even if the revisions made the films monumentally better, the originals still need to be accorded their due respect in preservation. Because as I mentioned previously, art manifests into culture and holds immense value in its impact on it. It is also a statement and portal back into the period of which it was produced, imperfections and all. It speaks on limitation, on possibility, on advancement. It demonstrates direction and philosophy. Art doesn't just feed into culture, it is also a reflection of it (this is partly why I feel that all art is indebted to the people and they also own it). I love watching Star Wars and chuckling at the ridiculousness of the time. The clothes, the hairstyles, the filmmakers' envisioning of what they believed future tech would entail and look like, the steel rod of Vader's lightsaber after Obi-Wan's death they failed to light up in post production. All of it. I treasure it for exactly what it was, is, and if things got changed in a newer version 30 years later, I would be incredibly disappointed because it's at that point become historical revisionism.

That's very dangerous, and I take great exception and get angered when any artist attempts to do so. Art needs to be preserved because it's a part of who we are and a testament of where we came from. It really doesn't have anything with it being finished or ideal or even about the creator themselves. That art remains unfinished is precisely what gives it value beyond measure. If we just view it as a product to be sold, or evolved at the artist's whim to be finalized throughout the ages, we along the way abandon part of our identity and an acknowledgement of that growth and time that we can never recover.....but only try to preserve.

Tried to say that without it coming off as way pretentious....and majorly failed. Happy New Years to all!

To this day, I still can't figure out why people blame all of Indy 4's issues on George Lucas alone when Steven Spielberg was working alongside him on the movie.

Star Wars I can understand given Lucas had total control over the franchise, but if you have an issue with Indy 4 then Steven Spielberg also deserves a share of the blame. He was the director of the movie, not a producer or someone who hung around the set.

And given his success and power in Hollywood, I highly doubt Lucas told him to go sit down in a corner, while he worked on the movie by himself.

People tend to blame Lucas more because of the prequels. Spielberg has no films anywhere near those abominations.

@MirkoS77: Yeah, but great work on movies gets scrapped all the time. On any movie, there's a ton of great work that gets left on the cutting room floor or never even makes it past the planning stage. That's not a "**** you" to the artists, that's just the nature of the job. For someone in George Lucas' position, it's pretty much his JOB to excise what isn't working, even if it's great stuff.

Part of being successful is being able to take the failures and/or critical remarks. Haters exist everywhere for every possible product and service. Masahiro's taking it too personally. It's not like peoples complaints can change what already exists. Rather he should take the most suggestive ones and look into implementing what fans want going forward. But in the business world, feelings are for those who will be filing for bankruptcy.

I'm not talking about the Prequels, the changes to the Original Trilogy, or anything related to Star Wars. That's a separate issue.

What I'm talking about is how every time anyone slams Indy 4 its always George Lucas' fault and Steven Spielberg never seems to get any share of the blame, despite his direct involvement.

And whatever Spielberg worked else on also does not matter. Him and George Lucas both worked on Indy 4. Any issues that movie has is on both of them. But it seems like Lucas alone gets the blame for Indy 4.

Even if we go with the argument that Spielberg has better movies then George Lucas(which is a fair assessment), it does not change the fact that he had the same level of power to veto certain ideas or that some ideas that people hated are his.

You know the scene where Indy hides in a fridge to survive a nuclear blast? The one that everyone blames Lucas for?

Yeah, that was Spielberg's idea. He's even taken the blame for the idea in recent years.

http://www.firstshowing.net/2013/spielberg-takes-responsibility-for-nuking-the-fridge-in-indiana-jones-4/

I'm not saying George Lucas is not guilty of some questionable ideas, and everything related to Star Wars is on him. But there are times where the bashing of Lucas comes off as less of a criticism and more blind hatred.

@caryslan2: right, I agree with you.

What I'm saying is, people saw the prequels and knew Lucas was responsible for how shitty they were. So of course they're going to blame him because he's involved with that past history. Spielberg doesn't really have such an awful movie to his name. Star Wars doesn't have anything to do with Indy 4, but it does have something to do with Lucas who they attribute with doing the prequels, and Lucas worked on Indy 4.

So it's perfectly understandable why people are going to assume he's responsible, even as misinformed as they are. Whatever Lucas does in life, the Star Wars legacy is attached to him no matter what.

For what it's worth, I'm one of the few who was okay with the prequels only because George Lucas tried and came up with something NEWER, unlike Disney when TFA is just A New Hope 2.0 but still, I actually like TFA.

At least the Lucas Star Wars movie actually had stories, same goes for Indiana Jones 4. And I believe it's fair to say he's a good storyteller, but a horrible writer. Say whatever you will about the prequels, but each one had its own narrative and felt like a complete film with new ideas. The Force Awakens, recycled A New Hope that it tries to be, is basically just "Wait for the sequel: The movie."

Original doesn't mean good. You could film my epileptic little brother having a seizure and then edit the footage to smooth jazz and that would be incredibly original, doesn't make it good.

It's fair to say he USED TO BE a good storyteller. You wouldn't know that from the prequels, whose problems are so complete that the movies are totally broken. If you think they are good stories you need to go to your brain doctor and get your brain medicine for your brain because it's suffering from brain disease.

@Big_Red_Button: My point was that George Lucas get's attack way too many times with the prequels. After Star Wars originals ended, everyone ask him to make another Star Wars movie, he tried something newer and everyone bitch slap him because of it. For me, I was okay with Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith, Attack of the Clones suck but I'm not gonna fault Lucas just because he wanted to try out something new. If any, Nintendo also goes into lengths to trying new inventions into there consoles and they too get attack for it. I personally feel sorry for George Lucas and I for one would have welcome to work with TFA.

"I was okay with The Phantom Menace and Revenge of the Sith."

I know that everyone is entitled to their opinions. A diversity of viewpoints and ideas is one of the most wonderful and useful parts of being human. Our lives are richer for encountering folks who see things differently from us, and we can grow as thinking, feeling beings by hearing and attempting to understand those things. In this great human experiment its those subjective inconsistencies between individuals and groups that paint the rich tapestry of human culture in all of its glorious triumph and desperate depths.

But that opinion is wrong and you should feel bad for having it.

Those Star Wars Dorks B* about everything.

Did you read the entire article you posted? There is an update where Lucas said Spielberg was saying that to "protect him."

To be fair, this is the same series that taught us that we can survive falling down a fucking waterfall on an inflatable raft.

James Rolfe made a similar defense in his "Top Ten Films he didn't hate as much as others" list (or something like that, I haven't watched the vid in a while)

Well, I certainly can't say that I'm the least bit sorry for George Lucas. Most people will never be able to say that they created something as well loved as Star Wars, and most people never become fucking billionaires by pimping out their work. As far as lifetime achievement goes, he created Star Wars. He's got the achievement, he's got the money, so if that's not enough for him then I have absolutely NO pity for the dude.

But I do agree that I'd generally rather see people try something new and fail, than keep on doing the same thing over and over again. I mean, yeah the prequels sucked, but you can't win 'em all.

Besides Jar Jar Binks issues, there are production quality issues with Star Wars Ep1/2/3.

J.J. Adams' Star Wars Ep7 shows production quality difference when compared to Star Wars Ep1/2/3.

If you can't take criticism then you should not be making anything.

If a disproportionate amount of people say your creation is shit and not worth the money then accept it.

Most sequels never attain the same status as the original, there are a few exceptions, what people tend to hate is when the gameplay is changed too much, or the content is not changed enough.

If the creators want to experiment then they should just make a new IP.

The cutting room floor exists before the film's released, and is no longer a factor after that work has been showered with the highest of accolades from the industry for not only being well done, but in Star Wars's case, breaking through boundaries.

It was an absolute "**** you" to his crew once they had been handed those Oscars (I don't even think awards are necessary, it just makes it all the worse), and Georgie raked in his billions in outright dismissal of the very work of those people who helped him attain it in the first place.

People didn't bitch because the prequels were new, they bitched because they were downright abysmal films. I disagree with your past post that Lucas is a good storyteller. He's an incredibly visionary, but he needs serious help bringing that vision to light. I think after the prequels hit it was very apparent what happened with the OT.

I tend to believe that the OTs were largely accidents. Anyone who knows anything about IV's production knows it was a train wreck in motion. Sets breaking down, over budget, other writers had to come in and revise Lucas's script more than a few times, ILM shots were barely complete months (or weeks?) from release, his filmmaker friends watched the screening (sans Williams's score) and howled with laughter at it. Luckily it all came together perfectly at the end. And as Lucas has admitted, it wasn't what he truly envisioned. Then we get the changes to the OT 20 years later to fit his "original" vision, and everyone almost universally hates them. THEN the prequels come out, and it's a mess.

Difference with the OTs and the prequels were the OTs were created at a time when Lucas was a nobody, so people had no fear of saying no to him and reeling him in. The prequels are a product of Lucas having complete control, and we see the results. They were a dictatorship. The OTs were a product of restricted vision, the help of others, and the limitations of the time. A mix of factors that all came together and made the perfect recipe.

That the work was released is irrelevant. Remember, the premise that we're supposedly working with is that Lucas didn't think the originals worked. That he only released them in a subpar state because he didn't have the technological means to fix them at the time. Fixing them is sort of his JOB, the fact that people saw it before it got fixed doesn't change a thing.

Furthermore, if I remember correctly, very few of the changes to the originals were changes of omission. It was mostly him ADDING stuff that didn't work.

You are one of a handful of users on these boards who I truly respect and value your opinion, but in this case, we're going to have to respectfully disagree I think. That the work was released is completely relevant. It doesn't matter what Lucas intended, it only matters what was granted and those awards were based upon.

But this all kind of goes back to what we were talking about earlier....you tend towards taking the artist's side (which I see as reasonable) in holding control over their work, whereas I tend to favor that the audience and consumer of art has an equally legitimate claim to it as well, whereas you also can see where art can be a constantly evolving medium, but I think it needs to remain in its unfinished state it was left to truly hold merit and value.

@MirkoS77: I think at this point we really have no choice but to just agree that we're never going to see eye to eye on the issue because we have fundamentally different philosophies guiding us.

And...I think that's okay, because without such fundamentally differing philosophies we'd ALL be missing out on a whole lot of great art. That very diversity of guiding principles and values and beliefs is precisely what I fucking LOVE about art.

But more specifically, I think we're both sort of getting to the point of repeating ourselves. I mean, my obvious reply to your comment is that Star Wars WAS released in it's unfinished state, and that George Lucas has zero obligation to release it in that state again. Preservation and archiving are on the audience, NOT George Lucas. He has zero obligation to release ANYTHING ever again, regardless of how he feels again.

But the thing is...I already said that. Which means that this conversation is just repeating itself. It's going in circles and it's probably never going to be resolved because both of our arguments are based on entirely different principles. So, yeah, I guess all we can do now is agree to disagree, because we're really just going in circles at this point. To be fair, I have to admit that you've changed my mind a little bit. I still vehemently disagree with you about the role of the artist and what the artist owes to the audience. However, taking into consideration how you've explained things, I see your opinion of the role of the artist as the natural culmination of your overall opinion of art's place in culture. I still disagree with you just as much as I always did, I still think that the implications of your philosophy regarding art leads to some insidious implications and actually serves to SUPPRESS creativity. But...your fundamental operating principles are valid (even if I disagree with them). And based on those fundamental operating principles, your attitude regarding Star Wars is logically the only attitude you could have arrived at (even if I strongly disagree with your conclusions). There seems to be literally nothing else to discuss here, because the very fact of the matter is that there are differing schools of thought as regards to art, and that very difference plays a huge role in the richness and diversity of art. I don't think it's possible for us to ever come to an agreement on this, and I don't think we should. Even if I still think you're entirely wrong, I still recognize that there's literally no other place you could have arrived at because your conclusions are the natural endpoint of some initial premises that I have to agree have quite a bit of validity. i still disagree like hell, but I can't be mad at you because based on your outlook there's no other place you could have arrived at.

Of course, by that same token, I think that George Lucas' initial operating principles have quite a bit of validty behind him. And his choices as an artist are the natural progression of that. There's no other place he could have arrived at either. As much as Star Wars was about making money and selling shit, George Lucas has pretty much always done precisely what he wanted (within his means at the time, of course). I can't get mad at that, because "what he wanted" is the natural consequence of his overall thoughts regarding art, and I absolutely see a hell of a lot of validity in the initial operating premises that naturally led him to that point. As long as he is "staying true to himself" (and there's an argument to be made that one CAN'T not stay true to oneself), then there's no other place George Lucas could have ended up either.

Bottom line is that art is not a science (though that's not to say that science doesn't have a role in art). That's in large part one of the things that I absolutely LOVE about it. It's debatable how much ANYONE really knows what they're doing, it's a constant process of discovery the entire way and it could all fall apart for anyone at any time.

That's fair, and I appreciate your views and taking the time for this debate. Really. But I do feel this is becoming circular as well.

On a final note, what really makes me wonder, though, is that Lucas hasn't always appeared to hold these same principles. He was the very one that went before congress and gave a speech espousing basically the same thing I'm saying right now. Which, I'll admit, makes me question my own position. Who am I really to question much less counter someone who's lived such a life practicing principles instead of simply viewing and arguing towards them? If he once felt that way, yet eventually changed his mind (and if indeed that's a nature progression), I'm only left to wonder that perhaps I'm missing out on something crucial (if not overtly obvious) pertinent to these points we've been talking on.

Eh. Someone I'd love to sit down with over coffee and pick his brain on nevertheless. As much as I disagree with what Lucas has done over the years, hell if I wouldn't still be fascinated by his perspective given to him by his experiences.

I can imagine who would be the directors, producers, screenwriters, and narrator already.

Know what the funny thing is? That was Spielberg's idea.

And with that, I'm staying way the **** away from this thread.

Although Lucas stated Spielberg was only defending him (as in Lucas) by saying that. Yeah, I don't know who's more believable on that.

Here's a tip...GET OFF SOCIAL MEDIA. People are assholes. Don't interact with them.