Talk: George Lucas

Article milestones Date Process Result February 13, 2007 Featured article nomination Failure March 17, 2007 Failed Featured article nominee
Current status: Failed Featured article nominee

Hypocricy Quote

In wikipedia I read somewhere that Lucas criticized those who edited old movies (eg adding colour to BW movies), something that was deemed hypocritical when considering his re-releases. Anyone remembers the exact quote? MoffRebus 13:26, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

• I found it at http://www.imdb.com/name/nm0000184/bio -- Reignfire 05:12, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

spanish

who knew lucas is spanish for daffy

"I am very concerned about our national heritage, and I am very concerned that the films that I watched when I was young and the films that I watched throughout my life are preserved, so that my children can see them."

―George Lucas (expressing concern over the Colorization of black & white films)

• • It's technically not hipocracy since he was refering to other people changing a filmmaker's films. Adamwankenobi 06:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)

Main Quote

I'm sorry, but does the quote at the top seem to be Lucas bashing? I feel it's a shot at the Prequels, a quote used by those who were not fans of the Prequel Trilogy to say that Lucas made them up as he went along. I feel a more appropriate quote would be "If I can get a room full of people and they enjoy it then I've done whatever it is that I had hoped to do." Brandon Rhea 19:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• I'm partial to "I thought it [Star Wars] was too wacky for the general public." – Aidje _talk 07:54, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Does anyone hate George Lucas?

does anyone like Star Wars but hate George Lucas??

• Objection: Irrelevant. Atarumaster88 21:33, 31 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Actually it is quite relevant. There is a community of former STAR WARS Fans who have divorced themselves from the franchise and this community of former fans is both under-reported, and under-represented in this Wiki. Ignoring or pretending they do not exist does a disservice to the accuracy, history, and legacy of Mr. Lucas' article and this Wiki in general. We must be honest with ourselves, take the good, and the bad when we report on and edit these articles. -- Frank V Bonura 16:20, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
    • Please do not restart old topics on talk pages. Also, if you want to add a part about his criticism, then be bold and add it (with proper sourcing, of course), but do not start a general discussion, since that is forbidden.—TK-999 ^{(Rise of the Empire)} 16:23, May 11, 2011 (UTC)
• Whoever posted this, talk with Darthmix. Darth Shohet 20:23, June 21, 2008

"the most significant contemporary contributor to modern movie technology"

This quote and the following are dubious and obviously takes one side on what "modern movie technology" is. There have been advancements both before and after Star Wars by several directors (such as those pioneered by Stanley Kubrick: the steady cam, the stargate effect, the retrofitted NASA cameras as used in Barry Lyndon, etc) which have much more merit in the scheme of "modern movie technology."

Also several of the "facts" about digital film are just plain wrong, such as the life of digital movies vs. film (or at least is extremely vague), and the whole "Delivery of movies to cinemas is much cheaper since the digital media is much smaller than traditional reels which can weigh hundreds of pounds." -- MOST, if not all movie theators in the country use 35MM projectors: the media MUST be translated to film media just to be shown to a movie theator audience! -- Falmarin 18:35, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

• One the first part, it could it be rewritten "one of the most significant". -- Riffsyphon1024 18:39, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Member

Do you think Lucas is a member of Wookieepedia? - Patricknoddy The Jedi Council 21:51, 9 March 2007 (UTC)

• Dout it, Lucas has only been on the starwars.com once or twice. He may have browsed wookieepedia a couple times to see what people wrote about him and his family.--Zett_FAN101 —Unsigned comment by Zett FAN101 (talk • contribs).

Bias?

Is it me, or does the article seem a bit biased? It reads somewhat like 'George Lucas had a miserable childhood and everyone abused him and then he made the brilliant Star Wars films and changed moviemaking for the better', or words to that effect. Does anyone else have the same feeling? Unit 8311 11:06, 26 May 2007 (UTC)

• I agree. I get the sense the article greatly downplays the negativity Mr. Lucas has generated amongst the fans of the STAR WARS franchise (the older fans especially). Likewise the article makes no mention of the fan-based continuity-civil-war over STAR WARS that has been burning since "The Phantom Menace" and is still being fought over as we speak. Labeling critics of Mr. Lucas' work as "Bashers" is very biased language indeed. Lastly the article does not communicate the fact that many STAR WARS fans are no longer STAR WARS fans, post-Episode 1, blaming Mr. Lucas solely for their departure. -- Frank V Bonura 13:32, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

impersonator

Several SW fan films feature a guy that looks a good deal with Lucas and impersonates him. He has anarticle on Wookieepedia but I can't remember his name. Anyone knows what I am talking about? MoffRebus 05:41, 27 June 2007 (UTC)

EU appreciation

Is there some sort of list of what parts of the expanded universe he likes? Gustafar 15:54, 8 July 2007 (UTC)

???

why the heck did he appear on the discovery channel show alien planet and whats with the he's not dead yet thing—Unsigned comment by Han Fett (talk • contribs).

• The "not dead yet" message is just to remind users that this is an article about a living person, and must follow our policies on articles about living people. —Silly Dan _(talk) 11:40, 12 July 2007 (UTC)

Criticism of Lucas

This section is atrociously POV. It discusses only the stereotypical "Lucas basher" and in doing so implies that there is no legitimate, cool-headed, sincere criticism of Lucas out there, which of course there is, and from well-known critics and media figures, too. Roger Ebert has repeatedly criticized Lucas' enthusiasm for digitial projection over film, just as an example. It's fine to discuss Lucas bashers, but this needs some balance. If no one objects, and if no one else does it first, when I have time I'll source some real criticism and add it to the section.Darthmix 21:22, 23 April 2008 (UTC)

• When you posted this, was it because you had found some? And no, I don't object to it being posted. I actually WANT to have it posted. And , although slightly irrelivant, Ebert's comment (NOT HIM) was MORONIC. It's simply new technology used to enhance the moviegoer's experience by making it more realistic and just plain awesome. User:Darth shohet 20:20, June 21, 2008
  • Ebert had his reasons. He stated that a preferred system, MaxiVision 48 was more practical, and sharper than digital. It wasn't a moronic comment. My personal opinion? Digital shall improve, and gradually overtake all forms of film, but for the time being, MaxiVision is the better system. And as for the topic of this article, I agree. I think this article could have easily been written by George Lucas himself to improve his image. "MovieMan" 17:18, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

• This article states that criticizing the Special Editions/alterations is indicative of a "Lucas Basher." Luke's lightsaber is green in the current version of Star Wars, so I find it hard to believe that there's no way to legitimately criticize that alteration. Get rid of the bias and stop dismissing everything you don't want to hear as senseless bashing. I do believe that the prequels are examples of "very poor filmmaking," and you know why? It's not because I hate George Lucas - I have nothing against him personally - I just think they're bad. You don't have to agree with the criticism, but please don't pretend it doesn't exist. This is like a Cult of Lucas. 128.119.16.106 00:40, 11 February 2009 (UTC)
  • There is plenty of legitimate criticism of Lucas' works. That should go on the appropriate pages covering those works. This page is about George Lucas, the person. Criticism of him is, by definition, personal, and much of it is petty and immature. Legitimate criticism of the man himself, by all means, should be documented here, but criticism of, for instance, the prequels, belongs on the pages covering the prequels. Asithol 10:21, January 16, 2011 (UTC)

• Hi. I am a total nobody here, and never intend to become involved. I consider myself an impartial observer, and generally will not get involved in arguments over the internet at all. I am a Star Wars Fan, although not as huge of one as some. I even like Episode I and do not hate Jar Jar, which makes me a pretty rare kind of fanboy. But this entire section about "Lucas Bashers" (a term I have never heard before reading this wiki, so please cite that "sometimes called") is over-the-top and biased in the extreme and not suitable for any wiki. Just reading it made me feel dirty. There is no reason to have it as part of a Wiki page, any more than there would be reason for the "Bashers" to post their opinion. I am an admirer of his work, for certain, but both the tone and content of this section are offensive. Yes, you are all correct that this wiki page should not be a forum to insult the guy who invented Star Wars; it should not be a place of the opposite extreme, either. Facts about Lucas, his life and his work should be included, but this list is simply too subjective to belong here. The entire "Criticism" section is extremely prejudiced in the opposite extreme, and feels sycophantic. Also not a single source is cited in the entire section, which should automatically be cause for erasure. My advice: delete the Criticism section... and ALSO delete any biased, unsourced criticism against Mr. Lucas. Nobody's opinions should matter when it comes to writing wikis. 04:58, March 6, 2012 (UTC)Scholic_M
  • Fair enough I will place a link to my well-sourced web page that criticizes Mr. Lucas' Prequels in an open manner that allows the reader to come to their own conclusions. You can read it here. [1] -- Frank V Bonura 19:32, March 7, 2012 (UTC)

personal opinion

probably irrelevant but how can we have arguments over the guy who created this whole krifing universe!!!!! DarTah Ravin' 02:02, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

• Arguments exist about George Lucas because regardless of your "personal opinion", there will always be others who disagree. The root cause of the debate hinges on those who value the past and place more weight on history (i.e. The Old Trilogy) and those who ignore/forget the past and focus on all things new and current. As long as mankind has the capacity for these two opposing worldviews, there will be a bone of contention about George Lucas' conduct, continuity, and choices in film-making. This is also why there is no consensus about bias in this article. The best possible outcome for this article would be a rough balance of perspectives from both the devout Lucas Fans who consider Mr. Lucas a genius and the devout STAR WARS Fans who see him as but one small ingredient in a far grander STAR WARS recipe. -- Frank V Bonura 13:49, May 10, 2011 (UTC)

spanish

who knew lucas is spanish for daffy 69.124.138.94 17:12, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

?????????????????????????

{{

What revelance does any of this have on the article? "MovieMan" 17:19, 4 August 2008 (UTC)

Is it true?

Is it true that GL has cancer? --200.116.162.237 03:34, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think so. Where did you hear that? R3 T3 01:33, March 20, 2010 (UTC)

Should probably take this out...

"Lucas is a member of the United Methodist Church, though he claims that he doesn't believe in a specific religion, due to his college studies.[source?]" in "Behind the Scenes" should be taken out,since his "Buddhist Methodist" stance is sourced and in the personal Life section. 64.234.0.101 07:59, August 19, 2010 (UTC)

Obama supporter, preferring Democracy over Capitalism, and trolling Breitbart/other websites.

Hi.

I was wondering if we should mention that George Lucas apparently supported Obama during the elections? I think we probably should also note a rather controversial statement he made during the making of Red Tails where he insinuated that Capitalism was bad and that he preferred Democracy. I also noticed that he seemed to troll some sites, so I'm wondering whether we should note that as well (case in point, some of his comments in an article published at Breitbart shortly after Obama won the election here, and also some posts he made on the case alpha site complaining about the changes to the Blue Ray edition). Weedle McHairybug (talk) 13:20, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

• For what possible reason? Lucas has been active since the mid-70s—should we include his views on Nixon, Ford, Carter, Reagan, Bush I, Clinton, and Bush II as well? I fail to see how any of that is relevant. — DigiFluid^{(Whine here)} 15:00, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

• • It's not in any way relevant. And for Force sake, can we kriffing please keep politics off of Wookieepedia?ShannarythVenhallyn (talk) 15:06, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

• • • Since it deals directly with George Lucas and his views, it most certainly is relevant for his article (at least, it seems relevant, anyway). What wouldn't be relevant is abruptly posting the Ten Commandments on George Lucas' bio. And do you honestly think politics is my main motivation? I would have posted it regardless of who I supported (and for the record, I'm an independent voter, not belonging to any political party, so politics isn't really a major factor for me). I just want to post any information about Lucas, good or bad, on his article. But sorry if I even asked in the first place. Weedle McHairybug (talk) 16:38, March 6, 2013 (UTC)

Add to Behind the Scenes

There Egroeg Sacul named after Lucas, and then there's Jax Pavan whose appearance was copied of Lucas--Fekyu 10:04, May 8, 2015 (UTC)

Lucas' Star wars Work

Of course he worked on the first six films but the new films he will have little to no invovlment in so it shouldn't say "All films. Skywalker2255 (talk) 22:57, October 22, 2015 (UTC)

3 April 2008 at Upfront

Does anyone know if he was videotaped pitching Clone Wars at that event? I want to know if any video confirms the "eleven year old girl" quote Schiller of Hollywood Reporter attributes to him. talk2ty 03:31, June 2, 2019 (UTC)