>>212505728

He could have appointed an actual competent successor to continue running it as an independent company. If he felt like Lucasfilm couldn't stay afloat on its own, he could have sold to another company like 20th Century Fox, whom he had relationship with (being the distributors of the original six films). If nothing else, he could have sold to Disney and strictly stipulated that a Sequel Trilogy had to be produced with his input.

Instead he did none of those things and torched his own legacy. And for that, he deserves the upmost contempt.

>>212149249
>The prequels are still the absolute worst of Star Wars. The sequels have decent actors, good effects, and as long as you turn your brain off, you can still enjoy them. Nothing about the prequels can be enjoyed. They're boring, have awful effects and stilted acting. The prequels also had far more hatred for them than the sequels ever did. Deep down, you know I'm right. Nostalgia for movies that you didn't know were completely hated as a kid is the only thing they have.

It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, Brody, etc) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.

https://www.vice.com/read/camille-paglia-believes-that-revenge-of-the-sith-is-our-generations-greatest-work-of-art
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw

The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.

Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.

Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.

>>211892032
If you watch the sequels, you’ll understand.

It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, Brody, etc) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.

https://www.vice.com/read/camille-paglia-believes-that-revenge-of-the-sith-is-our-generations-greatest-work-of-art
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw

The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.

Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.

Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.

It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, Brody, etc) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.

https://www.vice.com/read/camille-paglia-believes-that-revenge-of-the-sith-is-our-generations-greatest-work-of-art
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw

The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.

Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.

Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.

It's not surprising that the same people who attack the prequels are always unversed in real film or anything artistic, and that the people who praise the prequels (Zizek, Paglia, Brody, etc) are always literate, educated, and versed in real film.

https://www.vice.com/read/camille-paglia-believes-that-revenge-of-the-sith-is-our-generations-greatest-work-of-art
https://www.newyorker.com/culture/cultural-comment/what-the-seven-star-wars-films-reveal-about-george-lucas
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ibkmh72_1pw

The fact that everyone points to Plinkett as the authority on why the prequels are bad speaks volumes. Mike Stoklasa is one of the least artistic people on the planet - he can't process movies outside of the conventions of Hollywood films, his approach to narrative is tempered with the same surface-level requisites listed on tvtropes.

Any complaint that people have about the prequels illustrates a weak grasp on film. How many art films would they claim has 'too much sitting and talking'? They would watch the end of Breaking the Waves and whine about dated CGI. Their sensibilities for 'good dialogue' in what is intentionally pulp comes from bad pulp, ie, the original Star Wars, the only pulp they've ever seen. They would similarly view any homage-driven art film and miss the entire point.

Lucas' only mistake in the prequels was doing something daring, original, artistic and literate, not realizing that the manchildren conditioned by the original SW trilogy to loathe anything cerebral would lash out against his cinematic risks.

>>211594251