In case you haven't watched Mr Plinkett's Star Wars reviews, they're the best in the business, and go down hard on George Lucas.<p><a href="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI" rel="nofollow">https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FxKtZmQgxrI</a>
> Lucas: So they became obsessed by the latest special-effects tools and no longer cared about the story.<p>Funny coming from the guy who directed the I,II and III which notoriously did not care about making any kind of sense, story-wise, and instead focused on special effects (look at the making-of movies, Lucas was in awe of all the CGI he could do then) with paper-thin characters on screen.
So, Lucas has fallen, and the vultures are out to pick the bones. Pointing out what went wrong is a good way to make yourself look smart and it gives publicity. After all, Star Wars still sells. Just don't forget to say how much you love SW and George Lucas while you rip.<p>This piece is garbage and it shows in the very first section. I've now watched the interview for a second time. The quote about white slavers was an obvious attempt at a joke, but it keeps getting repeated and abused. Why? Because shock-effect at clickbait. It even gets stuff like this on hackernews!<p>But don't get me wrong. I also don’t think Mr. Robertson is trying to deceive us. I truly believe that he believes in every word he says.<p>It certainly isn't just link-material for his principles and www.willpowered.co website...
tldr: a "willpower and success coach" takes down Georges Lucas because he didn't live up to his dream or artistic ambition. On Medium.<p>As a willpower coach he could have found the force to not publish this clickbait story.<p>Probably the worst type of junk if this stuff hiding behind fair criticism to advertise fake talent.
I'll admit that I don't know too much about Lucas as a person, but this assessment strikes me as a pattern I see amongst artists and their followings. Long time fans who feel a special attachment to the works of an artist always like to say how the artist "sells out" rather than choose to say they succeeded.<p>Artist makes something awesome -> people get attached -> artist starts making moves against -original- fan base's interest for the sake of larger financial success -> -original- fans get mad at their success.<p>This happens in the music industry. An artist will sign to a label where they lose control over their lyrics or thematics and their original following will feel betrayed. But that sense of betrayal can make fans overlook how it was for the betterment of the artist. They attained the success that every artist dreams of! Maybe they made sacrifices to the 'integrity' (however you define it) of their craft, but they reached an extent of financial security and wealth that they always wanted for doing what they love.<p>"Artists deserve to make good money!!"
"Wait no.. artists should feel ashamed of reaching success because it hurts my feelings!!"<p>I understand where the fans are coming from, but I think it's just as reasonable to view "selling out" as "reaching success"- which makes me happy for the artist.
An important person missing from the article is Marcia Lucas, George's first wife. She was hugely influential in the development of the background for eps IV & V, and many people think her departure was where the mythos lost its integrity. E.G.: <a href="http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret-weapon-behind-star-wars/news-story/75eb078a8b14d93fce23b06e98805ffb" rel="nofollow">http://www.news.com.au/finance/business/media/the-secret-wea...</a>
This article is a combination of hyperbole and speculation. Take the first paragraph in the section entitled "The CEO":<p>"After the massive success of The Empire Strikes Back, Lucas realized that he was making 3 times as much revenue in toy sales than he was for the actual films. Thus, if he could sell more toys, it would mean more projects for Lucasfilm, and even less need for studio financing."<p>Three paragraphs down it becomes clear that this idea originates in a quote from Gary Kurtz, whose context for these statements is left completely unexplained, leaving the reader to dig further. No evidence is provided to support the conclusion the author has come to and instead the author has inferred Lucas' motivations from the Kurtz quote almost verbatim.<p>This is but one example of this type of writing in the article. Every point the author makes is supported by similarly spurious reasoning. I suggest future readers to just give this one a pass and not make the mistake of reading something whose opinion you might already agree with and looking past its bad writing.