Also, how can it be that Lucas, whose sweet tooth has only grown more ravenous for saccharin as time goes by, is planning to wrap things up with a full-bore tilt into evil?
Well, the "tilt into evil" is kinda part of the already-established storyline. Remember, what we're dealing with here is a covert takeover of the existing representative government by fascist elements who proceed to turn the Republic into a repressive military dictatorship. It just ain't fun times in the galaxy far, far away.
Since it seems to me that I'm the only person I know who found anything positive at all to like in the second-trilogy-which-is-the-first, I feel rather doomed when I try to say anything positive, but Walter above is correct; Lucas was trapped by the narrative structure he conceived.
The entire story is the story of the rise and fall to evil of Anakin to Vader back to his redemption in being saved by Luke and saving him.
Which left Lucas stuck with the dramatically awful job of having to tell the early trilogy starting with the kid and his "yippee!" And what sucked about the first film, and got it off on the wrong foot with pretty much everyone, me included, is that a) Jar-Jar, and b) yippee!
Attack of The Clones, with correspondingly far less Jar-Jar, and no little kid, was about ten times better than Phantom Menace. I'm in the minority in actually liking AOTC quite a bit, although admittedly largely because it's the most beautiful film in terms of sf imagery ever made; yeah, the dialogue per se still mostly sucks. But it's gorgeous, and the battle stuff is neat, as is saber fu Yoda, evil Christopher Lee on his speeder bike, the scenes of Trantor, I mean, "Coruscant," and so on. And TPM is much better if you can mentally edit around Jar-Jar and the kid.
Inevitably, the third part, where Evil Triumphs, and we get Mace fighting the Emperor, Anakin fighting Mace, Anakin fighting Dooku, Yoda fighting the Emperor, Obi-Wan fighting Anakin, and so on, Jedi dying left and right, the Emperor cackling and Being Evil, and so forth, is going to rock a lot more than the previous two, I pretty well think, though I could end up wrong, theoretically.
Theoretically.
I dunno. Maybe I'll be the only one ending up liking Revenge Of The Sith, again, or maybe I'll be disappointed. But I can't help but be kinda hopeful. It's not as if I'm holding my breath on expecting Fantastic Four to be great (though I'll be very pleased if I'm pleasantly surprised), and what's there to do if one can't find some sort of mythic iconic fantastic movie to look forward to, somewhere, sometime? Waiting for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be done in seven or eight years is a long wait.
At risk of diminishing returns here, let me emphasize, looking at your question again, Alameida, that it's very clear to me, having obsessively read every little comment of Lucas's I easily could in recent years, that he didn't desire in the least to focus on the little boy in TPM; he's repeatedly talked about how he didn't want to do that, didn't want to make a movie for kids, didn't want to only make huge special effects extravaganzas (remember, his start was the short THX 1138, and then he did American Graffitti), but rather was trapped into it.
To tell the full story of innocence turning to evil, he felt he had to start with young innocence, thus young Jake Lloyd, and the "saccharin." But that wasn't out of desire. Now, explaining the Ewoks is another story, which boils down to his earlier intent having been to use primitive Wookies in the original trilogy, but having felt that having established Chewie as thoroughly technological, it would be too difficult to have him return to his homeworld and have it be as primitive as necessary to do the primitives-over-come-hi-tech-Storm-Troopers, so he dropped the Wookie storyline for an inversion into Ewoks. Now, I'll entirely grant that that was pretty simple-minded and dumb, and didn't at all entirely work. But that's how we got that set of excessive cuteness, which when followed, albeit decades later, by the little kid and Jar-Jar, leaves one with the impression that Lucas had his mind reduced to jello. But it's at least as much a reflection of the requirements of the intended story as it is a reflection of whatever imaginative limitations Lucas has. I'm pretty sure the part of him that made THX (either version) isn't dead. (Although, sure, I could be wrong.)
But, this film, well, the happiest parts are simply that the two infants get to live, and we know eventually triumph, and, of course, Obi-Wan and Yoda get to go on to their inevitable respective deaths, while meanwhile the galaxy gets the Empire for 18 or so years. It's a good time to be a servant of Imperial Evil, bwahahahaha.
I do hope you downloaded both the teaser and the trailer, by the way; I think they're both nifty in their own way.
he's repeatedly talked about how he didn't want to do that, didn't want to make a movie for kids, didn't want to only make huge special effects extravaganzas (remember, his start was the short THX 1138, and then he did American Graffitti), but rather was trapped into it.
That would be because he has no imagination. He's a director, not a writer. Christ, I plotted a version that was better than his.
He ripped off Kurosawa, had nothing to follow up with, brought in Leigh Brackett to save his butt, and then tanked with Return. Alas, he wasn't willing to save himself.
Why is it that even though I know the new Star Wars movie is going to suck, the trailer still looks so fucking awesome. Answer me that, young commenters.
Because movies are made for trailer-riffic moments nowadays. The trailer trades on the potential rather than the actual, (like a good horror movie), and since the main thing is advertising and trailers, nobody bothers to come up with something to fit the potential, since they start out with a trailer (a pitch) and then they tailor a movie around it.
The reason it's so tasty is because you're writing the movie in your head when your seeing the trailer, and obviously, you are a much better writer than Lucas.
I stopped watching movies when I realized I could watch the trailers and get the same effect as seeing the movie without wasting two hours to do so.
Gary, there have been movies made about children and innocence that are quite affecting. Sci-fi-ish movies, even. Next time you're at the video store, look for a little movie called "Into the West." Ignore the video box, which makes it look like something you'd never watch in a million, jillion years. Yes it does actually have a magic horse in it. But I swear upon all that I hold dear that it is a Good Movie.
But the Star Wars movies, no. And I know I'm gonna be forced to see this last one by (a) Mr. B.'s neverending optimism; and (b) my own ridiculously obsessive need for closure. Having watched the others, I *must* watch this, even though I know I'll just bitch about it afterwards.
The thing that I think is sad is that the first two prequels could have been quite good in terms of the narrative arc they propose--not just the fall of a single person, but the whole underlying story about how a democracy falls to a "man on a white horse". There's a lot of potential resonance there: Lucas could have been riding the zeitgeist express.
The basic problem is in the execution of the first two movies, and it's why I'm skeptical about this one, despite the fact that the trailer looks good. Lucas takes himself too seriously and his critics not seriously enough: it's very clear that the guy has absolutely no idea, zippo, about how to direct actors, and even less idea about dialogue. You can see both problems even in the original trilogy, but those films overcame those problems in a variety of ways, many of them happy accidents. If Lucas had been content to step back into the role of producer, set designer and author of the core narrative, and given the directorial and screenwriting chores over to other people, the first two films would not have sucked ass. In fact, they might have become a classic dark fairy tale for our dark times. More's the pity.
Just keep in mind that this trailer is for a film made by a person whose detachment from creative reality screwed up two other films that had every chance to be good. Keep in mind that the trailer for Phantom Menace also looked really good before we actually saw the movie.
I just saw "Attack of the Clones." Man, did it suck ass!
I think that two things happen to destroy the franchise, other than Lucas just losing his mind.
1) The new technology has ruined the movies' aesthetic. The comparative lack of sophistication that Lucas was working with on the first three pushed his aesthetic in a more gritty and raw direction than seems to be his natural inclination. The famous bar scene from the first one looked like it did because he was forced to use actors wearing rubber masks. The most recent ones have looked boring and lifeless, and have fallen into that trap of imagining the future as a super shiny and clean-looking place, a trap that he specifically disavowed in the first one.
2) The new ones lack characters like Han Solo who exist independent of all the Force crap. An adventure hero who does nothing but soberly intone about some lameass self-help religion is just no fun to watch kill things and avoid peril. It is not just that the new movies have lacked a sense of fun and humor. It's that they have been filled with the exact opposite of a sense of fun and humor, which turns out not to be boredom per se, but talk about the Force.
Alameida -- I had the same thoughts when I saw the trailer last weekend before Robots. I'm certain, so so certain, that it's going to suck. It's going to SUCK. Balls.
Joe D--one of my students says it sucked ass. This developed into an example about how you might deceive yourself into enjoying a movie, because if you admit it sucks your date is going to be all up in your face about it, even though you know it sucks. Maybe something similar about how we know these movies suck, and yet we (well, let's be honest you) convince yourself they might not.
Let's be fairer to his gifts: he's neither. He didn't direct the last two movies of the original ("good") trilogy. He might be ok as a, whatchacallit, conceptualizer.
I seem to recall people wetting themselves over the trailers for the last two movies as well, and look how they turned out.
This developed into an example about how you might deceive yourself into enjoying a movie, because if you admit it sucks your date is going to be all up in your face about it, even though you know it sucks.
I have so totally done this. See: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
I met a guy who worked for one of the special effects crews last summer--he did some pretty important stuff in the last movie. He said that everyone has gotten really frustrated with Lucas, b/c it's all about the bottom line: they'll show him what they think is an 80% complete piece of film, and he'll say, "ok, that's done." His argument was that that's one reason the new stuff looks so shiny and moves so fakey-computer-animation-y: that they're not given the time or money to finish it up with the appropriate non-uniform mud, movement, etc. He also said that there was some guy who got so pissed off he quit and then he was the person who won some Oscar or something for the effects, or artistic direction, or something like that in the LOTR movies. Apparently everyone still working for Lucas was thrilled.
the guy has absolutely no idea, zippo, about how to direct actors, and even less idea about dialogue
Thank you, Tim. That's exactly the problem. The story itself is wonderful and there's nothing wrong with the narrative arc. They're just poorly executed movies. (It's also true that it's a "too clean" future, but if the rest of the movie were any good, we could happily ignore that.)
That was Gwyneth Paltrow, b. (The incredibly cute Gwyneth Paltrow, pjs.)
I reviewed SCATWOT on me blog. I didn't think it was unwatchable, just didn't try to have one idea to knock together. And IIRC my friend wanted to go see it, so I'm unbiased.
"Gary, there have been movies made about children and innocence that are quite affecting. Sci-fi-ish movies, even."
No kidding. And, yes, Mike Newell is an excellent director. Hell, even Time Bandits is better at it. Thanks for the eggs, though.
"...have fallen into that trap of imagining the future as a super shiny and clean-looking place, a trap that he specifically disavowed in the first one."
No, this is wrong, on the other hand. The point is that in the original trilogy, things are gritty and broken down and dirty because they're not Imperial, and this is the result of the fall of the Republic. In comparison, the Death Star is all spic and span. Whereas in the "earlier" trilogy, we're back in the days before the Fall, when things were clean and shiny on a planet such as Naboo -- but not on a shithole planet such as Tattooine. (And it varies on Coruscant, from the fine city parts, to the commercial entertainment sector, to the industrial sector, and so on.) It's not a matter of Lucas changing sensibilities in the slightest; it's a matter of the environment having changed, which is the entire point of the frigging films.
Let's be fairer to his gifts: he's neither. He didn't direct the last two movies of the original ("good") trilogy.
I was trying to be generous. He started out as a director. He was never a writer. (No, not THX 1138, either.) The last Lucas-touched thing that I well and truly liked was Raiders. (The third movie was good, if polluted with schmalz.)
There was a moment in the lat 70's when they were doing 30's (and 50's) pulp right (meaning, they managed to work in what made pulps good) and then they just lost the handle, and it became a Hollywood motif thing. (Rather like the 'second coming' of the alien in Alien. That movie did it, and now everybody has to do it, and has done it so much, that now the movie can't end without, which makes everything up to that utterly boring. ('Christ, hurry up and make him come back to life so we can be rid of you.')
Of course, Hollywood has always been like that, but the thing now is the looking around for something that DOESN'T suck, which was not a problem in the 30's. (But also, per Ellison, perhaps we are living in the 'Twilight of the Word'.)
Potential alternate explanation for why Eps I and II suck: Lucas, like the rest of us, finds the Dark Lord of Sith the most interesting character in the story, and, in exploring the source of that interest, is actually taking the audience on an analogous journey to the one that Anakin takes. I no longer think of Anakin's transformation from young Jedi novitiate into Vadar as a tragedy. Instead, faced with the unremmitting pap of the first two movies, I think of the destruction of the Republic and the move to the Dark Side as the most acceptable and happy result of the options available to us. I actively hope to see the heads of Jar-Jar, Portman, and a tow-headed moppet stand-in for young Anakin roll down a stone-paved Republic street.
Well, Padme (Natalie Portman) has a big death scene, which is a major piece of the plot, if that makes you happy. Rather obviously Anakin can't literally die (except "from a certain point of view"), but he does get to lose both his legs and his remaining arm, as well as dunked in lava, so there's no lack of suffering there.
The fate of Jar-Jar, on the other paw, is an open question at my present state of knowledge. But true enthusiasts can purchase any of several of the games in which you can kill him over and over and over again.
Too bad about Mace, and the other Jedi, but that's what happens when Evil Triumphs. Oh, and did I mention the mass killing of the younglings? And the slaughter of the Neimoidians? And the killing of....
"I have a feeling that the Padme death scene is going to suck. Hard."
It's considerably more than a single scene, unless one takes the strictest possible definition. But even though I assume that if people hate the films, they're not particular about spoilers, there's a limit to how much detail I want to go into. On the other hand, the scenes of the Very End where someone finally dies are pretty much all the same in any movie.
Except for Paul Reubens in the (immensely inferior) movie version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Now, that's a death scene.
This allows me to bring up my favorite death scene of all time, that of Mortimer the Indian, in "The Fantastiks." That one scene inspired me to get into theatre.
To be honest, that's actually what made me think of #31. But I didn't want to directly reference it, as I've never read Paradise Lost and only read a glancing reference to that description of PL in, I think TNR (back when the mag was worth reading).
The movie of BtVS had some moments, but so largely disembowelled the intent and original script, and pretty much hit only the single note implicit in the title, that its true awfulness is revealed in comparison to the cumulative work of genius that is the full set of shows; the difference shown between Joss-work and ruined-Joss-work is just Grand Canyon sized. Not to mention Luke fugging Perry.
Now, the series: that's funny and smart. Particularly in the considerable amount of change the characters were put through, and the use of tiny plot bits and characters that suddenly become Really Important three or four years down the road. The movie, of course, wouldn't seem nearly so bad if it weren't for the fact that we see how awful it was compared the use of the precise same premise and character ideas with the series. Even a little bit of Joss Whedon is good.
"Reminds me of the Light Saber feud. Regardless of everything else, what an ass."
I don't see why. Although Lucas certainly didn't invent the idea of laser swords, so far as I know he did invent the name "light sabers," which, so far as I know, no one else ever used before. And he, rather obviously, made them immensely famous in the world, and they're utterly tied to the heart of his Star Wars universe; so, yeah, defending the rights to the name is defending tens of millions of bucks, but they're bucks he's plainly entitled to, and why he shouldn't defend that, I can't imagine. It would be "greedy" if he were claiming something at all unreasonable or untrue, such as, say, that he invented the concept of lasers, or lasers as weapons, or swords as weapons. But the name "light sabers" is plainly his. He'd be crazy to not see to his rights. And there's plainly no need for an inventor of medical lasers to steal his name.
I don't care about the intent and original script, I care about the end product. It was campy and funny and Luke Perry was part of the funny camp. Paul Rubens, of course, was untouchable, but then, isn't he always?
I'm a huge BTVS (show) fan, too, believe me. But it's like complaining that the movie is nothing like the book: you have to judge the thing on its own terms. BTVS the show is better--much better--as tv, than BTVS (movie) is as movie, admitted. But there's nothing wrong with fun camp.
I saw the new version of "thx 1138" this weekend. I didn't figure out that it had huge amounts of new computer effects til I checked the internet the next day. I just thought he was a fricking genius with the model work.
"thx 1138" is a good movie. The use of seventies technology and architecture adds to the film's strong visual interest. I was suprised how influenced the movie was by "Alphaville". The sound work is stunning. The dialog and the general concepts are stupid , but not as stupid as other contemporary sience fiction films like "silent running" or "logan's run".
Gary, if I had obscene amounts of money, I'd start a summer camp just so I could hire you as counselor. It'd be like seeding the clouds for rain, only with children and weird anecdotes.
First, I just want to say that I highly, highly, highly doubt that Lucas was the first person or the last to independently put those two words together. Second, I'm sorry but I don't see how a medical company is going to steal tens of millions of dollars from Lucas by using a certain moniker for a laser surgery instrument. Where do those tens of millions come from?
More fundamentally, I think it's just ridiculous to copywrite the conjunction of two words qua that conjunction, and that seems to me to be what Lucas is doing in this instance. Now, when two words represent something more abstract, say, a brand, I'm a little more sympathetic. But what brand has been infringed here? "Light saber" as Lucas has used it seems much too specific and limited to be a brand. Is a plastic toy "light saber" going to be confused with a medical instrument? Of course not. Will the use of the term cause people to infer some sort of "George Lucas seal of approval and quality?" No, not at all.
I just don't see how Lucas gets anything by not simply allowing the medical company to use the mundane, not-very-creative phrase, "light saber." I don't see how using that phrase will benefit the medical company, either. "Frivolous lawsut!"
"More fundamentally, I think it's just ridiculous to copywrite the conjunction of two words...."
Indeed, that would be impossible. I suggest looking into trademark law and how it works and how it is completely unconnected to copyright law. (I understand most people are clueless about both, often to the point of not being able to spell one or the other.)
It is a shame I'm not in a position to more consistently and thoroughly poison young minds, FL. First I'd start with some Edward Gorey, followed with EC Comics; then we'd move along to the most gruesome nursery rhymes....
Snark duly noted. You'll notice I implied that I thought A was going on, and was dumb, but under the pretext of B, which was legit.
Anyway, it matters to the courts what they call the legal protection, not so much to me when I call Lucas an ass. His legal reasoning may be solid as concrete, but that makes no difference in my evaluation of his actions, provided that I am right that there was no financial impetus for Lucas to sue. If it can be shown that Lucas really would lose gobs of money because of this medical device being called I lightsaber, I will retract my statement. Other than that, I refuse to bore myself by looking up the difference b/w copyright and trademark laws.
Tripp, I googled around a bit, but couldn't find anything.
"If it can be shown that Lucas really would lose gobs of money because of this medical device being called I lightsaber, I will retract my statement."
Very simply, if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it. So, yes, Lucas would have lost every cent to be made from selling anything with the "light saber" name. Which is probably at least a few million dollars.
"Other than that, I refuse to bore myself by looking up the difference b/w copyright and trademark laws."
They're so different I'm not even sure where to begin to explain.
Let's see. Basically, a trademark protects a name or symbol that labels goods; ditto, a servicemark protects the same in regard to a service; once properly registered, it prevents someone else from pretending they're making what you're making, or pretending they're providing the service you provide. Another person can still provide that same good or service -- they just can't use your symbol, word, or name, that you've registered, to fool people that it's coming from you or is identical to yours.
Copyright, on the other hand, is entirely different, in that it protects original works of authorship, in various forms, including literary, music, dramatic, artistic, and so on. What can and can't be covered is slightly complicated, but the simple version is that it protects specific work, not the ideas put forth in the work; it protects text of sufficient length, but not the notions in the text; ditto for art, drama, music, etc. (Notions are subject to patent, if sufficiently detailed, which is yet a third form of intellectual rights protection.)
One short rule is that you can't copyright a name or title; you can, however, trademark or servicemark it.
But there's no requirement to understand these basics, of course. Unless one is talking about them, and putting forth opinions. Then it helps to have a clue.
If you lose a trademark by not protecting every single instance of it, then it appears I am wrong. I was making judgments based upon my knowledge of copyright law, wherein permission may be granted to use copyrighted material. But, if that's the way trademark works, then I suppose Lucas's suit wasn't as frivolous as it appears. It is funny that I read 2 articles on the case, and saw a news segment about it, and none of them brought up the trademark legality. I'm not presenting that as evidence you're wrong, but more as an indictment of the news services.
But, if that's the way trademark works, then I suppose Lucas's suit wasn't as frivolous as it appears.
About ten years ago a suit was filed in a trademark dispute and the judge ruled that company that didn't defend a trademark against all comers couldn't sue later for a more egregarious violation of it.
And the Supremes upheld it. Even since, companies jump on every possible violation.
"I'm not presenting that as evidence you're wrong, but more as an indictment of the news services."
In skimming about this, I saw at least two articles from major publications that mistakenly claimed copyright was involved (it's clear it was a mistake because a) it's an endemic error, and b) it's not possible for there to have been a copyright issue, as outlined); yeah, most reporters are as ignorant of the law as they are of the military or, well, pretty much any topic they've not specialized in. And, yes, ignorance of copyright, trademark, and patent, law is widespread and common.
"If you lose a trademark by not protecting every single instance of it...."
You pretty much do, because any subsequent violator can point to your lack of defense as evidence of your lack of interest in defending your mark, and if that can be substantiated by the facts, they win and you lose. Which is why -- based on the completely superficial summary that was reported -- there didn't seem to me to be anything wrong in Lucas defending his trademark on "light saber."
The lesson here is obvious: don't trust reporting; trust me. Those aren't the droids you're looking for.
Also, how can it be that Lucas, whose sweet tooth has only grown more ravenous for saccharin as time goes by, is planning to wrap things up with a full-bore tilt into evil?
Well, the "tilt into evil" is kinda part of the already-established storyline. Remember, what we're dealing with here is a covert takeover of the existing representative government by fascist elements who proceed to turn the Republic into a repressive military dictatorship. It just ain't fun times in the galaxy far, far away.
Posted by Walter Sobchak | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 5:44 AM
Since it seems to me that I'm the only person I know who found anything positive at all to like in the second-trilogy-which-is-the-first, I feel rather doomed when I try to say anything positive, but Walter above is correct; Lucas was trapped by the narrative structure he conceived.
The entire story is the story of the rise and fall to evil of Anakin to Vader back to his redemption in being saved by Luke and saving him.
Which left Lucas stuck with the dramatically awful job of having to tell the early trilogy starting with the kid and his "yippee!" And what sucked about the first film, and got it off on the wrong foot with pretty much everyone, me included, is that a) Jar-Jar, and b) yippee!
Attack of The Clones, with correspondingly far less Jar-Jar, and no little kid, was about ten times better than Phantom Menace. I'm in the minority in actually liking AOTC quite a bit, although admittedly largely because it's the most beautiful film in terms of sf imagery ever made; yeah, the dialogue per se still mostly sucks. But it's gorgeous, and the battle stuff is neat, as is saber fu Yoda, evil Christopher Lee on his speeder bike, the scenes of Trantor, I mean, "Coruscant," and so on. And TPM is much better if you can mentally edit around Jar-Jar and the kid.
Inevitably, the third part, where Evil Triumphs, and we get Mace fighting the Emperor, Anakin fighting Mace, Anakin fighting Dooku, Yoda fighting the Emperor, Obi-Wan fighting Anakin, and so on, Jedi dying left and right, the Emperor cackling and Being Evil, and so forth, is going to rock a lot more than the previous two, I pretty well think, though I could end up wrong, theoretically.
Theoretically.
I dunno. Maybe I'll be the only one ending up liking Revenge Of The Sith, again, or maybe I'll be disappointed. But I can't help but be kinda hopeful. It's not as if I'm holding my breath on expecting Fantastic Four to be great (though I'll be very pleased if I'm pleasantly surprised), and what's there to do if one can't find some sort of mythic iconic fantastic movie to look forward to, somewhere, sometime? Waiting for Peter Jackson's The Hobbit to be done in seven or eight years is a long wait.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 6:21 AM
At risk of diminishing returns here, let me emphasize, looking at your question again, Alameida, that it's very clear to me, having obsessively read every little comment of Lucas's I easily could in recent years, that he didn't desire in the least to focus on the little boy in TPM; he's repeatedly talked about how he didn't want to do that, didn't want to make a movie for kids, didn't want to only make huge special effects extravaganzas (remember, his start was the short THX 1138, and then he did American Graffitti), but rather was trapped into it.
To tell the full story of innocence turning to evil, he felt he had to start with young innocence, thus young Jake Lloyd, and the "saccharin." But that wasn't out of desire. Now, explaining the Ewoks is another story, which boils down to his earlier intent having been to use primitive Wookies in the original trilogy, but having felt that having established Chewie as thoroughly technological, it would be too difficult to have him return to his homeworld and have it be as primitive as necessary to do the primitives-over-come-hi-tech-Storm-Troopers, so he dropped the Wookie storyline for an inversion into Ewoks. Now, I'll entirely grant that that was pretty simple-minded and dumb, and didn't at all entirely work. But that's how we got that set of excessive cuteness, which when followed, albeit decades later, by the little kid and Jar-Jar, leaves one with the impression that Lucas had his mind reduced to jello. But it's at least as much a reflection of the requirements of the intended story as it is a reflection of whatever imaginative limitations Lucas has. I'm pretty sure the part of him that made THX (either version) isn't dead. (Although, sure, I could be wrong.)
But, this film, well, the happiest parts are simply that the two infants get to live, and we know eventually triumph, and, of course, Obi-Wan and Yoda get to go on to their inevitable respective deaths, while meanwhile the galaxy gets the Empire for 18 or so years. It's a good time to be a servant of Imperial Evil, bwahahahaha.
I do hope you downloaded both the teaser and the trailer, by the way; I think they're both nifty in their own way.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 6:36 AM
he's repeatedly talked about how he didn't want to do that, didn't want to make a movie for kids, didn't want to only make huge special effects extravaganzas (remember, his start was the short THX 1138, and then he did American Graffitti), but rather was trapped into it.
That would be because he has no imagination. He's a director, not a writer. Christ, I plotted a version that was better than his.
He ripped off Kurosawa, had nothing to follow up with, brought in Leigh Brackett to save his butt, and then tanked with Return. Alas, he wasn't willing to save himself.
Why is it that even though I know the new Star Wars movie is going to suck, the trailer still looks so fucking awesome. Answer me that, young commenters.
Because movies are made for trailer-riffic moments nowadays. The trailer trades on the potential rather than the actual, (like a good horror movie), and since the main thing is advertising and trailers, nobody bothers to come up with something to fit the potential, since they start out with a trailer (a pitch) and then they tailor a movie around it.
The reason it's so tasty is because you're writing the movie in your head when your seeing the trailer, and obviously, you are a much better writer than Lucas.
I stopped watching movies when I realized I could watch the trailers and get the same effect as seeing the movie without wasting two hours to do so.
ash
['Wasn't that easy?']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:09 AM
Gary, there have been movies made about children and innocence that are quite affecting. Sci-fi-ish movies, even. Next time you're at the video store, look for a little movie called "Into the West." Ignore the video box, which makes it look like something you'd never watch in a million, jillion years. Yes it does actually have a magic horse in it. But I swear upon all that I hold dear that it is a Good Movie.
But the Star Wars movies, no. And I know I'm gonna be forced to see this last one by (a) Mr. B.'s neverending optimism; and (b) my own ridiculously obsessive need for closure. Having watched the others, I *must* watch this, even though I know I'll just bitch about it afterwards.
Then again, hey! Maybe I'm looking forward to it.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:31 AM
The thing that I think is sad is that the first two prequels could have been quite good in terms of the narrative arc they propose--not just the fall of a single person, but the whole underlying story about how a democracy falls to a "man on a white horse". There's a lot of potential resonance there: Lucas could have been riding the zeitgeist express.
The basic problem is in the execution of the first two movies, and it's why I'm skeptical about this one, despite the fact that the trailer looks good. Lucas takes himself too seriously and his critics not seriously enough: it's very clear that the guy has absolutely no idea, zippo, about how to direct actors, and even less idea about dialogue. You can see both problems even in the original trilogy, but those films overcame those problems in a variety of ways, many of them happy accidents. If Lucas had been content to step back into the role of producer, set designer and author of the core narrative, and given the directorial and screenwriting chores over to other people, the first two films would not have sucked ass. In fact, they might have become a classic dark fairy tale for our dark times. More's the pity.
Just keep in mind that this trailer is for a film made by a person whose detachment from creative reality screwed up two other films that had every chance to be good. Keep in mind that the trailer for Phantom Menace also looked really good before we actually saw the movie.
Posted by Timothy Burke | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:35 AM
I just saw "Attack of the Clones." Man, did it suck ass!
I think that two things happen to destroy the franchise, other than Lucas just losing his mind.
1) The new technology has ruined the movies' aesthetic. The comparative lack of sophistication that Lucas was working with on the first three pushed his aesthetic in a more gritty and raw direction than seems to be his natural inclination. The famous bar scene from the first one looked like it did because he was forced to use actors wearing rubber masks. The most recent ones have looked boring and lifeless, and have fallen into that trap of imagining the future as a super shiny and clean-looking place, a trap that he specifically disavowed in the first one.
2) The new ones lack characters like Han Solo who exist independent of all the Force crap. An adventure hero who does nothing but soberly intone about some lameass self-help religion is just no fun to watch kill things and avoid peril. It is not just that the new movies have lacked a sense of fun and humor. It's that they have been filled with the exact opposite of a sense of fun and humor, which turns out not to be boredom per se, but talk about the Force.
Posted by pjs | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:49 AM
Alameida -- I had the same thoughts when I saw the trailer last weekend before Robots. I'm certain, so so certain, that it's going to suck. It's going to SUCK. Balls.
But maybe, just maybe, it won't. Maybe. Please.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:58 AM
Look at the new ones. Everything is shiny and slick. It's overproduced. There was nothing shiny, or slick, about the original 3.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:04 AM
tweedledopey,
There was nothing shiny, or slick, about the original
True, but then in the re-release they just had to add those stupid saturn-rings around the explosions. They couldn't just LEAVE IT ALONE.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:15 AM
Joe D--one of my students says it sucked ass. This developed into an example about how you might deceive yourself into enjoying a movie, because if you admit it sucks your date is going to be all up in your face about it, even though you know it sucks. Maybe something similar about how we know these movies suck, and yet we (well, let's be honest you) convince yourself they might not.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:15 AM
He's a director, not a writer.
Let's be fairer to his gifts: he's neither. He didn't direct the last two movies of the original ("good") trilogy. He might be ok as a, whatchacallit, conceptualizer.
I seem to recall people wetting themselves over the trailers for the last two movies as well, and look how they turned out.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:18 AM
ben,
and look how they turned out.
Umm, with wet pants?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:22 AM
This developed into an example about how you might deceive yourself into enjoying a movie, because if you admit it sucks your date is going to be all up in your face about it, even though you know it sucks.
I have so totally done this. See: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:22 AM
Joe,
I have so totally done this. See: Sky Captain and the World of Tomorrow.
I did and I did.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:23 AM
I met a guy who worked for one of the special effects crews last summer--he did some pretty important stuff in the last movie. He said that everyone has gotten really frustrated with Lucas, b/c it's all about the bottom line: they'll show him what they think is an 80% complete piece of film, and he'll say, "ok, that's done." His argument was that that's one reason the new stuff looks so shiny and moves so fakey-computer-animation-y: that they're not given the time or money to finish it up with the appropriate non-uniform mud, movement, etc. He also said that there was some guy who got so pissed off he quit and then he was the person who won some Oscar or something for the effects, or artistic direction, or something like that in the LOTR movies. Apparently everyone still working for Lucas was thrilled.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:24 AM
Ew, Sky Captain. It is so, so hard to take a movie with Jude Law and Cate Blanchett in it and make it unwatchable.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:25 AM
Also, Lucas looks like a chipmunk. If you're ever to watch him in the bonus footage on those DVDs.
So I've heard. From others who watched. Several times.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:26 AM
These movies make megabucks, what's Lucas got to be stingy about?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:27 AM
Not stinge. Greed.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:30 AM
the guy has absolutely no idea, zippo, about how to direct actors, and even less idea about dialogue
Thank you, Tim. That's exactly the problem. The story itself is wonderful and there's nothing wrong with the narrative arc. They're just poorly executed movies. (It's also true that it's a "too clean" future, but if the rest of the movie were any good, we could happily ignore that.)
Posted by ogged | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:31 AM
That was Gwyneth Paltrow, b. (The incredibly cute Gwyneth Paltrow, pjs.)
I reviewed SCATWOT on me blog. I didn't think it was unwatchable, just didn't try to have one idea to knock together. And IIRC my friend wanted to go see it, so I'm unbiased.
Posted by Matt Weiner | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:33 AM
Matt,
No, bphd was right, but I think it was Johnny Depp instead of Jude Law.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:34 AM
"Gary, there have been movies made about children and innocence that are quite affecting. Sci-fi-ish movies, even."
No kidding. And, yes, Mike Newell is an excellent director. Hell, even Time Bandits is better at it. Thanks for the eggs, though.
"...have fallen into that trap of imagining the future as a super shiny and clean-looking place, a trap that he specifically disavowed in the first one."
No, this is wrong, on the other hand. The point is that in the original trilogy, things are gritty and broken down and dirty because they're not Imperial, and this is the result of the fall of the Republic. In comparison, the Death Star is all spic and span. Whereas in the "earlier" trilogy, we're back in the days before the Fall, when things were clean and shiny on a planet such as Naboo -- but not on a shithole planet such as Tattooine. (And it varies on Coruscant, from the fine city parts, to the commercial entertainment sector, to the industrial sector, and so on.) It's not a matter of Lucas changing sensibilities in the slightest; it's a matter of the environment having changed, which is the entire point of the frigging films.
"Let's be fairer to his gifts: he's neither."
What, American Graffiti was just an accident?
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:36 AM
Um. Huh? Sky Captian starred Jude Law and Gwyneth Paltrow, with a supporting role played by Angelina Jolie.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:37 AM
Let's be fairer to his gifts: he's neither. He didn't direct the last two movies of the original ("good") trilogy.
I was trying to be generous. He started out as a director. He was never a writer. (No, not THX 1138, either.) The last Lucas-touched thing that I well and truly liked was Raiders. (The third movie was good, if polluted with schmalz.)
There was a moment in the lat 70's when they were doing 30's (and 50's) pulp right (meaning, they managed to work in what made pulps good) and then they just lost the handle, and it became a Hollywood motif thing. (Rather like the 'second coming' of the alien in Alien. That movie did it, and now everybody has to do it, and has done it so much, that now the movie can't end without, which makes everything up to that utterly boring. ('Christ, hurry up and make him come back to life so we can be rid of you.')
Of course, Hollywood has always been like that, but the thing now is the looking around for something that DOESN'T suck, which was not a problem in the 30's. (But also, per Ellison, perhaps we are living in the 'Twilight of the Word'.)
ash
['Burn down the malls...']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:38 AM
"No, bphd was right, but I think it was Johnny Depp instead of Jude Law."
I'm glad we really know what we're talking about.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:38 AM
Gary,
I'm glad we really know what we're talking about.
Yeah, but Joe thinks we are talking about a film called "Sky Captian." Luckily I don't have a need to correct him.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:42 AM
Grrr. Everyone's a Wolfson.
Posted by Joe Drymala | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:43 AM
You're right, it was Gwyneth. My bad.
Cate Blanchett was awful as Gwinevere, though, which is so, so sad because she's a fantastic actor and fucking gorgeous and it was just not done well.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:55 AM
Potential alternate explanation for why Eps I and II suck: Lucas, like the rest of us, finds the Dark Lord of Sith the most interesting character in the story, and, in exploring the source of that interest, is actually taking the audience on an analogous journey to the one that Anakin takes. I no longer think of Anakin's transformation from young Jedi novitiate into Vadar as a tragedy. Instead, faced with the unremmitting pap of the first two movies, I think of the destruction of the Republic and the move to the Dark Side as the most acceptable and happy result of the options available to us. I actively hope to see the heads of Jar-Jar, Portman, and a tow-headed moppet stand-in for young Anakin roll down a stone-paved Republic street.
Yes, I am become Death, or at least Vader.
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 8:58 AM
SCTM: Surprised by Sith?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:00 AM
SCMT, that is. Fuck a duck.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:00 AM
#31: Excellent.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:02 AM
Well, Padme (Natalie Portman) has a big death scene, which is a major piece of the plot, if that makes you happy. Rather obviously Anakin can't literally die (except "from a certain point of view"), but he does get to lose both his legs and his remaining arm, as well as dunked in lava, so there's no lack of suffering there.
The fate of Jar-Jar, on the other paw, is an open question at my present state of knowledge. But true enthusiasts can purchase any of several of the games in which you can kill him over and over and over again.
Too bad about Mace, and the other Jedi, but that's what happens when Evil Triumphs. Oh, and did I mention the mass killing of the younglings? And the slaughter of the Neimoidians? And the killing of....
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:08 AM
I have a feeling that the Padme death scene is going to suck. Hard.
Posted by tweedledopey | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:16 AM
"I have a feeling that the Padme death scene is going to suck. Hard."
It's considerably more than a single scene, unless one takes the strictest possible definition. But even though I assume that if people hate the films, they're not particular about spoilers, there's a limit to how much detail I want to go into. On the other hand, the scenes of the Very End where someone finally dies are pretty much all the same in any movie.
Except for Paul Reubens in the (immensely inferior) movie version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Now, that's a death scene.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:24 AM
This allows me to bring up my favorite death scene of all time, that of Mortimer the Indian, in "The Fantastiks." That one scene inspired me to get into theatre.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:26 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:35 AM
39 is what I was trying to get at with 32. Dammit. No one notices my attempts to be clever.
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:39 AM
[redacted]
Posted by [redacted] | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:53 AM
It's like paradise lost with light sabers
To be honest, that's actually what made me think of #31. But I didn't want to directly reference it, as I've never read Paradise Lost and only read a glancing reference to that description of PL in, I think TNR (back when the mag was worth reading).
Posted by SomeCallMeTim | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 9:57 AM
Pity the actual movie will be like a really lame episode of Power Rangers with high-dollar actors.
ash
['Jinn and that Sith guy are dead.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 10:20 AM
Except for Paul Reubens in the (immensely inferior) movie version of Buffy The Vampire Slayer. Now, that's a death scene.
Oh! Man! Yes! Genius! I want Paul Reubens's baby!
I liked the movie, though. Much with the camp.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 10:23 AM
Not stinge. Greed.
Reminds me of the Light Saber feud. Regardless of everything else, what an ass.
he does get to lose both his legs and his remaining arm
I wonder if Max Cleland will see this movie, and, if he does, will he think, "man, if I lived in the future, I could get a Darth Vader suit."
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 10:34 AM
"I liked the movie, though. Much with the camp."
The movie of BtVS had some moments, but so largely disembowelled the intent and original script, and pretty much hit only the single note implicit in the title, that its true awfulness is revealed in comparison to the cumulative work of genius that is the full set of shows; the difference shown between Joss-work and ruined-Joss-work is just Grand Canyon sized. Not to mention Luke fugging Perry.
Now, the series: that's funny and smart. Particularly in the considerable amount of change the characters were put through, and the use of tiny plot bits and characters that suddenly become Really Important three or four years down the road. The movie, of course, wouldn't seem nearly so bad if it weren't for the fact that we see how awful it was compared the use of the precise same premise and character ideas with the series. Even a little bit of Joss Whedon is good.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:01 AM
"Reminds me of the Light Saber feud. Regardless of everything else, what an ass."
I don't see why. Although Lucas certainly didn't invent the idea of laser swords, so far as I know he did invent the name "light sabers," which, so far as I know, no one else ever used before. And he, rather obviously, made them immensely famous in the world, and they're utterly tied to the heart of his Star Wars universe; so, yeah, defending the rights to the name is defending tens of millions of bucks, but they're bucks he's plainly entitled to, and why he shouldn't defend that, I can't imagine. It would be "greedy" if he were claiming something at all unreasonable or untrue, such as, say, that he invented the concept of lasers, or lasers as weapons, or swords as weapons. But the name "light sabers" is plainly his. He'd be crazy to not see to his rights. And there's plainly no need for an inventor of medical lasers to steal his name.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:08 AM
Ah! Intentional fallacy!
I don't care about the intent and original script, I care about the end product. It was campy and funny and Luke Perry was part of the funny camp. Paul Rubens, of course, was untouchable, but then, isn't he always?
I'm a huge BTVS (show) fan, too, believe me. But it's like complaining that the movie is nothing like the book: you have to judge the thing on its own terms. BTVS the show is better--much better--as tv, than BTVS (movie) is as movie, admitted. But there's nothing wrong with fun camp.
Posted by bitchphd | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:11 AM
I saw the new version of "thx 1138" this weekend. I didn't figure out that it had huge amounts of new computer effects til I checked the internet the next day. I just thought he was a fricking genius with the model work.
"thx 1138" is a good movie. The use of seventies technology and architecture adds to the film's strong visual interest. I was suprised how influenced the movie was by "Alphaville". The sound work is stunning. The dialog and the general concepts are stupid , but not as stupid as other contemporary sience fiction films like "silent running" or "logan's run".
The new star wars movie is going to suck, though.
Posted by joe o | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:14 AM
"But it's like complaining that the movie is nothing like the book: you have to judge the thing on its own terms."
Fair enough.
"BTVS the show is better--much better--as tv, than BTVS (movie) is as movie, admitted."
You've uttered the holy words, so that's good enough.
"But there's nothing wrong with fun camp."
Or camp fun. Just so long as I don't have to go to Fun Camp. Or Camp Fun.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:32 AM
Gary, if I had obscene amounts of money, I'd start a summer camp just so I could hire you as counselor. It'd be like seeding the clouds for rain, only with children and weird anecdotes.
Posted by FL | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:35 AM
First, I just want to say that I highly, highly, highly doubt that Lucas was the first person or the last to independently put those two words together. Second, I'm sorry but I don't see how a medical company is going to steal tens of millions of dollars from Lucas by using a certain moniker for a laser surgery instrument. Where do those tens of millions come from?
More fundamentally, I think it's just ridiculous to copywrite the conjunction of two words qua that conjunction, and that seems to me to be what Lucas is doing in this instance. Now, when two words represent something more abstract, say, a brand, I'm a little more sympathetic. But what brand has been infringed here? "Light saber" as Lucas has used it seems much too specific and limited to be a brand. Is a plastic toy "light saber" going to be confused with a medical instrument? Of course not. Will the use of the term cause people to infer some sort of "George Lucas seal of approval and quality?" No, not at all.
I just don't see how Lucas gets anything by not simply allowing the medical company to use the mundane, not-very-creative phrase, "light saber." I don't see how using that phrase will benefit the medical company, either. "Frivolous lawsut!"
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 11:43 AM
Michael,
How did the lawsuit turn out? Did the courts find it frivolous as well?
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 12:35 PM
"More fundamentally, I think it's just ridiculous to copywrite the conjunction of two words...."
Indeed, that would be impossible. I suggest looking into trademark law and how it works and how it is completely unconnected to copyright law. (I understand most people are clueless about both, often to the point of not being able to spell one or the other.)
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 1:17 PM
It is a shame I'm not in a position to more consistently and thoroughly poison young minds, FL. First I'd start with some Edward Gorey, followed with EC Comics; then we'd move along to the most gruesome nursery rhymes....
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 1:19 PM
Gary,
It turns out it was Minrad trying to trademark "Light Saber" that started the whole mess!
I know enough about trademarks to know we had to change the name of a complete product line two years after it shipped. Was that a headache!
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 1:51 PM
that would be impossible
Snark duly noted. You'll notice I implied that I thought A was going on, and was dumb, but under the pretext of B, which was legit.
Anyway, it matters to the courts what they call the legal protection, not so much to me when I call Lucas an ass. His legal reasoning may be solid as concrete, but that makes no difference in my evaluation of his actions, provided that I am right that there was no financial impetus for Lucas to sue. If it can be shown that Lucas really would lose gobs of money because of this medical device being called I lightsaber, I will retract my statement. Other than that, I refuse to bore myself by looking up the difference b/w copyright and trademark laws.
Tripp, I googled around a bit, but couldn't find anything.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 1:54 PM
Michael,
Tripp, I googled around a bit, but couldn't find anything.
Thanks.
It seems from Tess (Trademark Electronic Search System) that Minrad abandoned its request on 1/16/2002. I wonder if it was settled out of court.
Posted by Tripp | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 2:14 PM
"If it can be shown that Lucas really would lose gobs of money because of this medical device being called I lightsaber, I will retract my statement."
Very simply, if you don't actively defend your trademark, you lose it. So, yes, Lucas would have lost every cent to be made from selling anything with the "light saber" name. Which is probably at least a few million dollars.
"Other than that, I refuse to bore myself by looking up the difference b/w copyright and trademark laws."
They're so different I'm not even sure where to begin to explain.
Let's see. Basically, a trademark protects a name or symbol that labels goods; ditto, a servicemark protects the same in regard to a service; once properly registered, it prevents someone else from pretending they're making what you're making, or pretending they're providing the service you provide. Another person can still provide that same good or service -- they just can't use your symbol, word, or name, that you've registered, to fool people that it's coming from you or is identical to yours.
Copyright, on the other hand, is entirely different, in that it protects original works of authorship, in various forms, including literary, music, dramatic, artistic, and so on. What can and can't be covered is slightly complicated, but the simple version is that it protects specific work, not the ideas put forth in the work; it protects text of sufficient length, but not the notions in the text; ditto for art, drama, music, etc. (Notions are subject to patent, if sufficiently detailed, which is yet a third form of intellectual rights protection.)
One short rule is that you can't copyright a name or title; you can, however, trademark or servicemark it.
But there's no requirement to understand these basics, of course. Unless one is talking about them, and putting forth opinions. Then it helps to have a clue.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 3:03 PM
If you lose a trademark by not protecting every single instance of it, then it appears I am wrong. I was making judgments based upon my knowledge of copyright law, wherein permission may be granted to use copyrighted material. But, if that's the way trademark works, then I suppose Lucas's suit wasn't as frivolous as it appears. It is funny that I read 2 articles on the case, and saw a news segment about it, and none of them brought up the trademark legality. I'm not presenting that as evidence you're wrong, but more as an indictment of the news services.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 3:12 PM
But, if that's the way trademark works, then I suppose Lucas's suit wasn't as frivolous as it appears.
About ten years ago a suit was filed in a trademark dispute and the judge ruled that company that didn't defend a trademark against all comers couldn't sue later for a more egregarious violation of it.
And the Supremes upheld it. Even since, companies jump on every possible violation.
ash
['They have to.']
Posted by ash | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 3:34 PM
"I'm not presenting that as evidence you're wrong, but more as an indictment of the news services."
In skimming about this, I saw at least two articles from major publications that mistakenly claimed copyright was involved (it's clear it was a mistake because a) it's an endemic error, and b) it's not possible for there to have been a copyright issue, as outlined); yeah, most reporters are as ignorant of the law as they are of the military or, well, pretty much any topic they've not specialized in. And, yes, ignorance of copyright, trademark, and patent, law is widespread and common.
"If you lose a trademark by not protecting every single instance of it...."
You pretty much do, because any subsequent violator can point to your lack of defense as evidence of your lack of interest in defending your mark, and if that can be substantiated by the facts, they win and you lose. Which is why -- based on the completely superficial summary that was reported -- there didn't seem to me to be anything wrong in Lucas defending his trademark on "light saber."
The lesson here is obvious: don't trust reporting; trust me. Those aren't the droids you're looking for.
Posted by Gary Farber | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 3:48 PM
The lesson here is obvious: don't trust reporting; trust me.
Obviously.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 5:26 PM
kind of late to the party here, but I just thought I'd mention that I, like Gary, kinda liked "Clones".
Posted by alameida | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 5:30 PM
I think it would have been better if Anakin and Padme had been deaf-mutes and forced to sign to each other.
Posted by Michael | Link to this comment | 03-17-05 7:21 PM
Shouldn't y'all be reading Paradise Lost or the Second Critique or something? You're setting a bad example.
Posted by John Emerson | Link to this comment | 05-17-05 4:13 PM
What do you think we've been doing for the past two months?
Posted by ben wolfson | Link to this comment | 05-17-05 5:07 PM
hey, corret me if im wrong but does luke or anakan become darth vadar
??
Posted by harley | Link to this comment | 05-21-05 9:09 PM
held his hands up and shook his head atlantic city casinos (same deadly serious voice) Just close the door McFly and walk away.
Posted by Nicholas Alvin | Link to this comment | 01-10-06 7:37 PM