4 Reasons It's a Good Thing George Lucas Retired

If you're a sci-fi geek like me, you've probably heard this already, but for those who haven't heard it: George Lucas retired. For those of you who feel good about this announcement, you're probably saying to yourself "he used to be awesome but lately he's been ruining his movies." For those of you who feel bad about that announcement, you're thinking about the fact you'll never see another Star Wars or Indiana Jones movie again. But I look at these two groups and I think that there's a flaw with both of their logic. Namely: George Lucas was never that impressive.

Don't get me wrong, I like Star Wars and Indiana Jones, I never stopped liking them and actually think that the prequel trilogy and Crystal Skull are entertaining in their own rights. But when I think about George's work and the perception that the quality has decreased I start to think about what exactly has changed for people besides the nostalgia factor. When I watched the original Star Wars trilogy I thought they were fun but I wasn't blown away by them and the same went for Indiana Jones. Yet people are obviously obsessive to the point that they're going to devote a great deal of time out of their lives for their fandom.

Obviously, for people to be so vehement to be so off put by the recent projects from this man, something had to have changed. But when I took a closer look, something I love to do, I realized there were some key changes between George Lucas of the 80s and George Lucas of the last decade. In the end, I came to a conclusion that would have some people up in arms.

The worst thing to ever happen to George Lucas movies... was George Lucas.

But you know me by now if you've been following this blog: I don't just make statements and leave them at that, I back up my statements with an argument. So why would I think George Lucas was a bad influence on his own works?

1. George Lucas is a bad writer

Yeah, I know, another shot across the bow, but it's a good one. Think about the Star Wars movies and really consider what would happen if you didn't have one hell of a cast to carry some of those horrible lines. The dialogue is stilted, ridiculous and unbelievable. Want proof? Just read the scripts and picture Hayden Christensen saying all of them. Not to bag on Hayden too much, he tried, but we all know he was the weakest link as far as acting chops went in the prequels.

Dr. Evazan: [explaining] He doesn't like you.
Luke: Sorry.
Dr. Evazan: [grabbing Luke] *I* don't like you either. You just watch yourself. We're wanted men. I have the death sentence on twelve systems.

Imperial Officer: [seeing Luke and Han disguised as Stormtroopers taking Chewbacca to the prison level] Where are you taking this... thing?
Luke: Prisoner transfer. Cell block 1138?
Imperial Officer: I wasn't notified. I'll have it cleared.
[signals another imperial officer to check Chewbacca; Chewbacca breaks out of his binders]
Han Solo: Look out he's loose!
Luke: He'll tear us all apart!
Han Solo: I'll get 'im!
[they shoot out the security cameras and kill the officers]

Picture that in the voice of the weakest actor you can think of and tell me how bad that dialogue actually is. And this is just two quotes out of the first movie. If I scoured all six movies I'm sure I could find enough to make you regret ever liking them in the first place.

"But hey," you're probably saying about now, "what about the good Star Wars movies like Empire Strikes Back? Some of the most quoted and memorable lines of all time came from that."

Oh, right, Empire Strikes Back: the movie Lucas didn't write or direct. Yeah, that's right, the movie that most people agree was the high point of the franchise was the one movie where he didn't have a direct role in its creation. He gave them a general story to produce, yeah, but he didn't actually put any work into it. In fact, the prequel trilogy, often claimed to be collectively the lowest point of the entire franchise by most of the outspoken fans was the time when Lucas was the primary screenwriter the entire time. That's right, whenever the dialogue was awkward and the plot was contrived or nonsensical - Lucas wrote it.

Though, I'm sorry Hayden, you didn't help any and you don't look angry, you look stoned

Hell, imagine what would have happened if we could understand everything Chewbacca and R2-D2 could say and consider how much of the dialogue in the first movie was between one of them and their respective straight man. And remember that James Earl Jones was brought in to do the Darth Vader voice because the original actor made everything the man said sound silly. I'm not the first person to notice this!

2. His vision of the films is entirely different from yours

This one has to be clear to everyone, but I don't think it's really been driven home in the most direct way yet: George Lucas doesn't see the same movies you're seeing. When you think of Star Wars, you probably think of this.

But you know what George Lucas thinks of? This.

How exactly do I know this? Well it's actually pretty obvious. When he started working on the prequels, he didn't think about what had been remembered by the loyal fan-base for years or try to recapture the kind of mood and tone of ESB, he put in the thing he felt was going to truly represent his version of Star Wars.

In fact, during at least one behind the scenes video he expressed how very important it was that we got to see Yoda really cut loose and be active, at one point saying he should look like the child of Miss Piggy and Kermit.

Beginning in 2002 with Attack of the Clones, Yoda became a CGI character, the concepts of which Oz was consulted on. The documentary, From Puppets to Pixels features behind-the-scenes footage of George Lucas providing direction to his team of animators regarding how Yoda should move in a fight scene. Having already referred to Yoda as frog-like, Lucas remarks that Yoda is "actually the illegitimate child of Kermit the Frog and Miss Piggy."

And, you know what, he has the right to create children's movies for the sake of them being children's movies. So that's not really a bad thing, but it's important to remember because...

3. He really doesn't care what his fans want

When Lucas started working on the prequel trilogy, he had to have known that the people who were going to line up for these movies were going to be the people who watched the original trilogy. They're clearly devoted, sometimes to the point that they're willing to cross bounds of reason to show that devotion.

I like to think all of these women had boyfriends they were appeasing, 'cause otherwise this just reeks of desperation.

But, despite this, he clearly designed it for their children instead (assuming, of course, that his truly devoted fans were not still virgins - which, you have to admit, is a bit of a coin toss). He's even said in interviews that Star Wars is a generational thing and that everyone's favorite Star Wars is the version that was produced when they were children. But he goes further than that when you listen to some of his other statements, specifically in regards to the people unhappy with what they got.

"It’s a work of fiction. It’s a metaphor. It’s not real. And therefore, you can either like it or not like it. Whatever"

He honestly doesn't care if you don't like what he did. And, actually, when he creates the special editions, he's not creating them for you. Think about it - does he really need to create new CGI sequences in the films in order to "cash in"? If he'd released them just remastered in digital quality he would have made just as much money without any of the complaints. But the complaints are there because he -did- go out of his way to change things. So was it for you? Obviously not.

"I'm standing next to a puppet and he still looks more life-like than the new kid"

The changes Lucas made have always been a matter of fixing things he believed to be a mistake on his part or weren't quite what he envisioned. He's trying to create what was in his mind for all of those years but couldn't be done with the technology he had available at the time. As a result, he makes the changes that he doesn't really believe were "changes" but "fixes" to match what he originally intended. It's really all about him and what he wants. Hell, the Han shot first debate?

He says Han never shot first.

Think about that. Not only did he go out of his way to change that scene so that he could have his way, but then he went out of his way again to tell everyone they'd always been wrong about the scene and that the new version is the right one. That's how little of a fuck the man gives about the fan-base's opinion.

And why on Earth would any creator just disregard the fans of their work like that?

4. He bought into his own hype

This is the core of a lot of the problems (besides the fact the man was a bad writer in the first place). Years ago George stumbled on a surprise hit and he believed that the fact it was a surprise hit meant that he was above other people. I know that's a pretty big assumption for me to make, but you have to understand that his actions speak louder than words. His entire career is centered around that one smash hit that he pulled off. He named Skywalker Ranch after it, hasn't really done much work that wasn't related to it and continues to release new versions of it all the time. And when he finally did decide to work on something else, Red Tails, he promptly announced he was done with the film industry all together.

Skywalker Ranch: You will never find a more wretched hive of scum, villainy or ego.

In fact, look at the report I linked earlier. Note:

The task of getting Red Tails, a big-budget film chronicling the World War II deeds of the famed, socially-significant Tuskegee Airmen was a difficult one for Lucas, who has always been known to appreciate having the autonomy to do the kind of films that he wants to make, the way that he wants to make them. On Red Tails, studio bigwigs were obstinate on the project, not giving him the time of the day, treating the iconic filmmaker as if he was pitching a sequel to Plan 9 From Outer Space.

So George Lucas had some resistance getting one of his films produced and became tired of the process. But consider how often he's actually had to go through with this process. Having a hard time remembering any in the last few years? Congrats, you just stumbled on the arrogant part.

For all of his years making films, George has always had it easy and he believes he deserves for it to be easy just because he managed to pull off one franchise that really skyrocketed. And when you look deeper into it and realize that his thoughts about his own fans have become caustic then it becomes clear that he was hoping to escape his fans and go into other films, only to find that it was harder than he thought it'd be. Need proof? Look at this quote.

“On the Internet, all those same guys that are complaining I made a change are completely changing the movie,” Lucas says, referring to fans who, like the dreaded studios, have done their own forcible re-edits. “I’m saying: ‘Fine. But my movie, with my name on it, that says I did it, needs to be the way I want it.’ "

Sounds a little bitter, doesn't it? And, you know what, he deserves to be a little bitter considering how sour his relationship with the fans has gotten. But that's why I think it's a good thing he's retiring. And that's also why I'm writing about this even though I'm primarily doing a blog about being a writer. George isn't the first creator I've seen take this turn and he's not going to be the last, writers have often done the same (Anne Rice famously doing it on Amazon with a rather lengthy response to her critics).

It's natural to get attached to your work and feel like it belongs to you. It's also natural for you to hit some success and believe you're entitled to it. But sometimes you need to realize your limits and realize that you've been a success not because you're just that damn good but because there were people out there who were willing to give you their time and money. Without those people you never would have made a dime. No creator should ever be so arrogant as to believe their fans can be brushed off. And if the fans start to reject you violently, it's better to listen to them and understand where they're coming from than to try to force your will on them and bend them to your whims.

And if you can't do that, it's best to retire, like George did, before it's...



...too late.

I may not be famous, I may not be successful, but here's something you know for damn sure. If you buy my book, I will love and cherish you forever. Seriously, it'd make my week.

5 Rules of Dating to Avoid Bloodshed

Hey everyone! Tomorrow's Valentine's day and, if you're one of those special people I spoke of previously, you might have a bit of anxiety over the chances that your romantic advances may be interpreted as reason to stab you with a sharpened piece of wood. Not that it would do any good, but they'd still try.

So let's do a quick check on you and your behaviors and make sure that you don't do anything we could consider... ill-advised, shall we?

1. Style

As we covered last time, there are specific do's and don'ts that you need to be aware of, specifically regarding not wanting to look like a douche bag from the Jersey Shore or, worse, an androgynous train-wreck. No towering hair, no spray on tans, no shark teeth.

But he's smiling!

Preferably, if you're going to take your advice from the media, try to do it from the CW. Yes, they often have your kind killed (especially by those Winchester boys), but at the very least they make you look relatively pretty 9 times out of 10. Vampire Diaries, while not exactly the greatest of sources for examining society, is at least a good place to look for tips on how to look reasonably attractive to your targets.

You don't have to look exactly like anyone from that show, but it couldn't hurt considering the CW's long standing policies of being designed specifically to induce drooling in teenagers. Though, speaking of which...

2. No High School Students

I don't care if you still look like a teenager even though you're over a century. If you need to hunt for women who look your age, go to college. Do not, I repeat, do not, go for minors. This is not morally ambiguous, this is a felony. The girls you've been following are called jail-bait for a reason.

And so should you

College girls are in the same generational span but they're still A) more mature, B) able to drink and C) legal. And, in case you think you can get away with it just because you look 17, remember: they have police for you too. And this is especially important to remember for other illegal activities, such as...

3. No Stalking

This, too, cannot be stressed enough: There are laws against this. I don't care what you saw in that movie that you saw because someone told you it was about your people. It was illegal. And, for most women, an extreme turn off. The only people who are going to think it's charming are the teenage girls who I just told you not to be into and, even then, they're not nearly as into it as the media has told you. In fact, if you really have to know everything about her, there are legal alternatives.

And, before you think we condone doing it on facebook: that's creepy too. If you're going to do it, do not let her know that you're doing it. It would be a swift method of getting a restraining order. And if the restraining order does happen, for the love of god...

4. No Kidnapping

Yes, folk hero, most famous and iconic person in all of your kind: total perverted social outcast. Under no circumstances should you fly away with some village girl to your castle. You should also not invite them specifically for the purpose of eating and/or seducing them. First of all, this is simply the ancient equivalent of the man with the windowless van. Second, you should remember that this man has been killed repeatedly in multiple stories, films and television shows for this action. Consider long and hard before you follow his example about how often he's been stabbed through the heart with a wooden stake, force fed garlic or beaten to a bloody pulp by a male dom in a leather thong.

Up until a few years ago, this man was the absolute worst example you could possibly follow. Yes, he's recently been surpassed by some younger upstarts. But, while those people have definitely lowered the bar, they have never been stabbed through the chest with a sharpened piece of wood. This was the pre-industrial society's way of saying "I'm just not that into you" and you should keep that in mind. Also, despite all of the hero worship, he's clearly made the style mistakes you've been warned against already.

But, let's say you've avoided all of these mistakes and have managed to get a date who is not running from you screaming or staring vacantly into space after you drugged, hypnotized or flashed her. You've managed to be invited home with her and things are going along swimmingly. This is a good time to remember the cardinal rule about safe sex...

5. No Biting (unless she asks)

It is incredibly bad dating etiquette to take a bite out of your date in the middle of "whoopie". There is no greater turn off than a gaping hole in the neck - besides possibly looking like this:

Some of them may ask for it, and if that happens, remember to be gentle. They don't always know what they're asking for. And, if you're dating those teenagers (you were explicitly told NOT to touch in Rule #2), you should remember that they don't always know what's best for them. Hormones are a hell of a thing and they will drive someone to desire things that they shouldn't: Tattoos, piercings, severe pain from being fed on by the undead.

"Please put me through horrible medical trauma and potentially risk my life, I'm not complete without it!"

Also, about the ones who ask: you should be careful to do some background checks. Some people, known as "convert wannabes" or "conners" are seeking you out to try to turn them. These people are usually not the clearest minded people and will act irrationally for the sake of trying to become like you. In fact, some have made videos about it:



Stay safe, use protection.

If you're a vampire, know a vampire, or are an Alter of another kind, feel free to take a look around Alters United for more articles like this! And, if you're curious about the activities of the people who would prosecute violations of Rules 2, 3, 4 and 5, take a look at my book!

A Word to the Indies: Risk Aversion

Hello my indie friends, it's time to gather around for story time again. For those who've come by here looking for more wisecracks about Vampires, that'll be tomorrow. But I had a thought about something that stuck with me and I need to get it out of my system. I know most times when I get talking like this I start making broad stroke abstract statements about the potential of a better tomorrow and achieving our dreams. But today I'm talking about statistics!

No, no, I wont get into numbers. But I think that it's something that everyone should probably hear because I know it's been bugging me lately too. I've already talked once before about how you're going to find a lot of people telling you that you're going to fail. Usually the loudest voices telling you to give it up and go into something safer are the people who care about you. And, for some of those people, they're possibly right to do so. After all, numbers don't lie.

Sometimes they leave out a bit of the truth though.

I'll cut it to you straight: statistically, you're going to fail. Statistically, I'm going to fail. Statistically, we're all going to fail - together! And, let's face it, that's incredibly daunting to know. We are in one of the riskiest industries out there. You can release your work and have any number of sorry fates befall it. But, if that were to happen, would it be because of the statistics? Can you fail simply because there's a statistical chance to fail? Hell no.

Statistics aren't talking about you. I'm not saying that as some inspirational pep-talk bullshit - I'm saying it because it's absolutely true. Those statistics, the numbers that convince the people that care about you that you need to stop, are about other people who have already failed. The people who create the numbers that are so easy to use to discourage you are taking the successes and failures of other people and putting those in a number format to show publishers, above all else, the amount of money they should be willing to wager on new talent. But statistics are mostly blind.

Like the people who make them

They rarely keep track of why they fail. You will always be told a blind number of how X number of people succeeded vs. Y number of people who tried. But when you try to dig deeper you start to find that things are almost completely vague underneath. Why did some people succeed and other people fail? A lot of studies go into it, and a few results have been helpful, but for the most part no one really has a verifiable answer. There are factors we've nailed down, of course, but nothing that unifies them all into a formula you can repeat. In essence, the statistics are a scoreboard and very few people have been watching the game.

And the people who care about you? They're doing something called risk aversion. Statisticians, economists and pretty much anyone who wants to quantify the human condition study that like crazy, especially for game shows. It's the part of us, left by evolution, that says "if there's any chance for danger, it's time to run". Some of us would call that cowardice, but it's not, it's actually the part of evolution that kept us from being devoured by larger, hungrier carnivores. In ages gone by, the people who are telling you to run right now heard a rustle in the bushes and ran like hell while other people stayed in lunging distance and became a snack.

But that's where the blind statistics come in. What if you're standing by the bushes and you happen to have a gun? Should you run then? The people who are feeling that risk aversion are going to say yes because every fiber of their being is telling them to do it. But you're there and you have the gun, it's time for you to make the judgment call about whether or not you can squeeze off a shot before Tony eats you.

And when you come down to really thinking about the odds, while holding that imaginary gun, here's a thought that I want everyone to consider: how many of the "failures" have quit? The statistics don't go down to the personal decisions that guided the failures, usually. They don't know if one day the person behind the keyboard suddenly groaned and gave into the concerned pleas of their loved ones. And that leaves a fascinating paradox.

If people concerned about the statistics of your chances use that to convince you to quit: You've just become part of the statistic. That means that when someone else down the line is given the same rationale for why they should quit it will be partially because you quit. There's a term for something like that.

I'm not saying to out right ignore them - just be more thoughtful about why you're doing things. Don't determine whether or not you continue ahead on a statistic: determine it by what you think your chances are with that proverbial gun I handed you earlier. Those people who are telling you to stop aren't trying to hurt or impede you, they're trying to protect you. And, depending on how you are with that gun...



Sometimes it's from yourself.