Lucas is a good director and producer, a BAD writer, a fabulous businessman, and a complete asshole (oddly enough something that is basically required to survive in the film/entertainment industry).
His major contribution to film can really be boiled down to his refusal to except "That is the best we can do."
ILM and everything else sprung from the fact that he would not accept the established wisdom that what he wanted to appear on screen could not be done, he simple demanded that the people he had gathered figure out how to do it, and the people he gathered were VERY good.
He deserves his place in cinema history, but it is not at the top.
His major contribution to film can really be boiled down to his refusal to except "That is the best we can do."
ILM and everything else sprung from the fact that he would not accept the established wisdom that what he wanted to appear on screen could not be done, he simple demanded that the people he had gathered figure out how to do it, and the people he gathered were VERY good.
He deserves his place in cinema history, but it is not at the top.
This message last edited by HyogaRott on 15/10/2012 at 06:20:28 PM
When the career of George Lucas is reviewed, will he be the most influential film-maker of all time?
- 10/10/2012 12:27:59 AM
971 Views
Shrug. He might be the most influential special-effects artist *NM*
- 10/10/2012 08:43:05 AM
307 Views
It is going to be the same way with Steve Jobs
- 10/10/2012 02:38:25 PM
596 Views
Steve Jobs shouldn't be remembered for the Apple II, it was Woz's creation.
- 18/10/2012 04:37:38 AM
529 Views
He deserves all the credit he gets, he's a superior artist to his pals Spielberg & Coppola
- 10/10/2012 04:15:29 PM
720 Views
My point is that his greatest contribution is horrifically overlooked.
- 11/10/2012 06:14:53 AM
581 Views
Hell has frozen over
- 11/10/2012 04:31:56 PM
600 Views
I'm going to start making a list of people who say stuff like this to me.
- 12/10/2012 03:48:36 AM
643 Views
That's giving a single man way too much credit and influence, and under the wrong title
- 12/10/2012 01:13:07 AM
566 Views
I'm not sure the OP was saying he was the most influential director
- 12/10/2012 08:34:02 PM
599 Views
Pretty sure I said film-maker. (Checks the Subject line.) Yep, I did. *NM*
- 15/10/2012 05:28:50 AM
304 Views
That's precisely the problem. You said filmmaker, not effects studio owner. *NM*
- 18/10/2012 10:31:26 PM
270 Views
Re: That's precisely the problem. You said filmmaker, not effects studio owner.
- 19/10/2012 03:46:33 PM
584 Views
Short answer, no.
- 15/10/2012 06:19:52 PM
663 Views
So who beats him out?
- 16/10/2012 02:23:19 AM
550 Views
Thats the point, he didn't actually change anything; he demanded that others change things.
- 16/10/2012 02:35:03 PM
720 Views
You have a strange definition of influence.
- 16/10/2012 09:55:59 PM
604 Views
Not really, influence is somthing actively done, his role was too passive.
- 17/10/2012 03:23:40 PM
639 Views
Spielburg, Howard, Coppola, Tarrentino... There is a long list, even only among the modern filmakers *NM*
- 16/10/2012 02:39:28 PM
307 Views
Maybe, no, no, and no. Lucas had a much bigger impact that any of the film-makers .....
- 18/10/2012 04:40:41 AM
559 Views