George Lucas To Quit Movie Business

CaroKann writes, "Variety is reporting that George Lucas is getting out of the movie business. Mr. Lucas laments that today's big-budget franchise films are too expensive and too risky. He believes American audiences are deserting their movie going habits permanently. Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television. Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.' Notably, he does not plan on distributing movies online, calling online distribution a 'rathole.'"

Alas,

Three movies too late.

Re:Alas,

I sense a disturbance... as if a million voices suddenly cheered all at once.

Re:Alas,

Artoo says the chances of this being true are seven hundred seventy-five ... to one.

Re:Alas,

Of course he has been known to make mistakes... from time to time

Re:Alas,

Don't tell me the odds!
Never tell me the odds!

Re:Alas,

Choice quote from the article:

"I think the secret to the future is quantity," Lucas said

In other words, he's not going to make more movies, he's just going to make loads and loads and loads of terrible TV spin-off series.

Oh my.

Re:Alas,

Time to stop watching TV and start going to movies again! :)

Re:You must love the duck

I found light sabre duels with no words and no character conflict to be pretty empty.

Bad kung fu movies have more character conflict that Darth Maul and Mr. Master Jedi.

That was what was great about the real #1 to #3 and what was so lacking from the new #1 to #3.

Re:You must love the duck

So can you explain to me exactly why they had that stupid timed shield/door thing that prevented Obi Wan from entering the room?
It pretty much ruined the whole scene for me. Oooooh arbitrary plot device thrown in to create dramatic showdown.

Re:You must love the duck

Even Episode I has value

*blink* ... *blink*

BWAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA *gasp* HAHAHAHAHA

Value? That movie was unending crap from the first frame to the last. The story was the worst gibberish I've seen outside of a Troma picture (and they are trying to be stupid). All it had was special effects and over-choriographed sword fights. Those do not make a good movie. What those make is eye-candy. Distraction from the fact that there is nothing below the surface.

The fact of the matter is that Lucas got lucky with Star Wars (the first one). The rest of movies introduced every newer plot holes that invalidated the first film. And the prequals? Garbage.

Let's take a look at the Lucas track record, shall we?

1. THX-1138 - Not a great movie. Good ideas. No budget. Kinda boring. But worth seeing.
2. American Graffiti - His best movie. Based on his life in Fresno, CA.
3. Star Wars - His most popular movie. Good for its day. Has not aged well, however. (Not a good idea to go ten years between viewings. You start to notice the weak points.)
4. The 'Star Wars' Holiday Special - A portant of things to come. The horror! The horror!
5. Empire Strikes Back - Some argue that it's the best of the originals. I disagree due to the contradictions with Star Wars that were introduced. Technically it's better than Star Wars.
6. Raiders Of The Lost Ark - My favorite of his, and the best movie he made with Spielberg.
7. Return of The Jedi - Could have been great. Took the easy (and incestiously revolting) way out of the love triangle he setup in Empire. Loses major points for Vader being such a Nancy.
8. Temple of Doom - Well, he only wrote the story, so he only gets half the demerits for this steaming pile of garbage.
9. Ewok (anything) - Why does Lucas hate us?
10. Willow - Jesus, Mary and Joseph. I can't tell who should be more ashamed by this turd, Lucas for writing it or Ron Howard for directing it.
11. Last Crusade - Not really his movie, but it could have been great. Instead it's just okay.
12. Episode 1 - The man has lost his mind. Hundreds of millions of dollars for what amounts to a bedtime story he told to his kids. A bucket of vomit splashed across all that was Star Wars.
13. Episode 2 - For a brief moment there was hope of a good story in there. But just for a moment. It was pissed away on lame dialog, over-done special effects and the worst love story ever written.
14. Episode 3 - This movie did have one positive thing going for it: after it was done the pain was over. The patient was dead and we can all go home and have punch and pie and try to forget about it.

You'll note that I left out Howard The Duck and everything else that he was only the producer or executive producer on. all he did with those is write the checks to get them made.

Praise the gods.

Instead of making major films, Lucasfilm will instead focus on television.

Praise the gods. Just keep him off of SciFi, please.

Re:Praise the gods.

Just keep him off of SciFi, please.

Anything he offers up has gotta be better than wrestling.

Re:Praise the gods.

I for one deny that claim- there's no way he's to be considered a decent writer. His strength is in the vision but not the telling of a story. He might have good connections for effects here and there but the substance is all over the board- how else do you explain the backwards (no, backwards is a solid direction)... HAPHAZARD StarWars "saga". A this isn't Memento, George.. Tell us about the laser sword knights and blaster toting robots IN ORDER from beginning to end.. Don't supply us with crappy timelines and forgettable plug and pray style twists and turns. He's insulted our intelligence long enough- and like cavemen we sat and watched him flick his Bick completely amazed. So long George!!

"calling online distribution a 'rathole'"

Wouldn't that make all of us rats then? Is that a bad thing?

Re:"calling online distribution a 'rathole'"

I'd say being compared to a rat is actually a good thing. They're very clever for their brain mass, they can form large social heirarchies and they're highly adaptable. Their main failing is a lack of hygene, but anyone who's been in IT for long will have experienced worse.

Too expensive and Too risky?

Me thinks you were part of the problem, Georgie...how much did the last three of your films cost? Yeah.

Re:Too expensive and Too risky?

Actually, Lucas made the SW movies very cheaply. Phantom was only $110M and the other two were comparable. They actually came in UNDER budget... very rare for the film industry.

What he needed to do was recoup some of that cost into other things. When you make a "blockbuster" you trash almost all the sets with in a few weeks of shooting... sets that are more detailed and cost more than most of our houses! Compare SW:TPM to SG-1 where they use simple sets, and reuse, reuse, reuse to cut costs. They made more fully decorated sets for SW:TPM than an entire season of SG-1. Then let's get started on the digital models! Again, the cost nearly as much to create as the "meatspace" models, but they aren't being REUSED in anything else! Movies are full of huge non-recurring set costs that nobody thinks about. Lucas could do 3-4 seasons of a TV show with just the leftovers/reused props/efffects from his movies.. and we'd probably like the story better too.

What I want to know is..

Once you've spent $100 million on a movie... ...what exactly do you get for the SECOND $100 million you spend?

Re:What I want to know is..

Lower proffits.

*rimshot*

Re:What I want to know is..

Once you've spent $100 million on a movie... ...what exactly do you get for the SECOND $100 million you spend?

An actor that likes to jump around on the furniture?

Re:What I want to know is..

actually lucas himself is not known for mega bucks movies

attack of clones 120 million
revenge of the sith 113 million

king kong 207 million
alexander 155 million
final fantasy 137 million
pirates of the carribean 143 million
pearl harbour 132 million

its not like he's spending more than anyone else, especially considering the intense special effects.

Re:What I want to know is..

More explosions, mostly.

Explosions are really, really expensive. A film crew is the size of a mid-sized company. Sit through the credits some time, and see the names of the script girl and the second second assistant director and the backup plasterer. Each camera takes several people (camera operator, loader, focus puller, and sometimes more), and for an explosion you're going to have to catch it from several angles because otherwise all that work ends up as only a fraction of a second of screen time. They call cost money, not just in salary but in insurance, craft service, studio rental, the rental of the camera equipment they're holding, etc.

And every single one of them is sitting around while the explosives rigger is making 200% certain that none of them get hurt when the explosion goes off. And another 200% certain that the explosion is going to do the right thing the first time, because otherwise you'll have to start from scratch.

It's literally tens of thousands of dollars to make even something simple blow up. If you want something big to blow up, it'll cost you a few hundred thousand. Add a few dozen explosions into the movie, and suddenly you're talking about real money.

If they're on location, they have to have bathrooms, and hauling a porta-john into the desert isn't cheap, either. It's not any one thing that makes it pricey. It's eight million little things.

Plus the eight million little things that go into the digital effects (light matching, wire frame artists, shading artists, data center ops, plus a studio to put them all in, usually close to the studio which means the high-rent district).

Why bother? If you don't do all of that, your movie comes off looking cheap. Scrimp on the continuity girl, and the lack of continuity becomes glaring to the audience. It works for indie movies, which the audience expects to look cheap, but your summer blockbuster is going to look corny, and audiences won't enjoy it if it looks corny.

Lucas figures that the small screen is cheaper. The low resolution means that makeup that used to take two hours now takes only half an hour. Sets are built to a far lower level of detail; even where the audience can see the difference [e.g. Firefly vs. Serenity] you have lower expectations. (It used to be that you could save money shooting with three cameras rather than one, which means you can do in one take what used to take three, but these days quality dramas are usually shot movie-style with just one camera.)

It can all be done cheaper than it is. As in any organization a lot of money goes to waste between the cracks. Better organization means less wasted time and unnecessary equipment, but it's like at your office: you have a spare printer or ethernet cable sitting around not doing anything. It cost money to buy, but if you need it you'll be glad you have it, especially if the lack of it drives the entire company to a standstill. When those resources are people, though, it gets pricey fast.

Re:What I want to know is..

I do partly wonder if George will find that producing for HDTV is more expensive than he expects. I know that TV news shows had to chuck their old sets and build new ones when they went to HDTV, and the network anchors spend more time in makeup chairs than they used to.

Still, Lucas is right that TV is cheaper to produce than movies. It is astonishing that even an expensive show like Lost runs only $3-5 million per episode, even though it's 1/2 to 1/3 the length of a full movie. Some of the difference is set-up costs, but even the pilot, where they had to put out all of the one-time costs, cost a measley $10 million, and that was full of fancy effects and explosions.

Most Lost episodes are only that expensive because they involve location shooting in Hawaii, which is expensive, and it's done to keep the location secret, which makes it more expensive. They do most of the back-story and interiors in LA, and they end up flying people back and forth. It's amazing that they can do that. But they make up for it with clever management: they're shooting several episodes in parallel, and they don't fly people back and forth to Hawaii every single week.

It takes less than two weeks to shoot primary photography on an episode of Lost, compared to 30 to as much as 60 days for a movie. It's not really that there are fewer takes, although there sometimes are, but it takes so much less time to get each take ready. Standing around a set waiting for the light guys to remove every single damn shadow is incredibly tedious. (People rarely wear hats on TV because it's hard to light your face properly. They even forbid certain hair styles in TV shows; a movie director expects more flexibility.) And God forbid you should have to do it outside, where the lights look completely different at 2 PM as at 6 PM, even with the supplemental light. Audiences notice that in movies when they don't on TV.

The effects are cheaper on TV. The resolution is higher on HDTV than on NTSC, but it's still lower than full movie resolution. The actual pixel content may not be much higher, but the color reproduction on film is better, and it would take many pixels to compensate for that. The better the final picture, the more time it takes to make it look realistic: you have to have an artist shade every single pixel, or it ends up looking like the Babylon 5 effects. (Miniatures are easier, but not as flexible.)

What effects they do shoot on Lost would look cheesy on a movie screen. Audiences wouldn't pay $10 a seat for them. They expect more from a movie. Even where they do have good effects, you're often seeing less than you think you are. A movie is expected to be a big-budget affair, and producers say "yes" to a movie when they'd say "work around it" to the same request for a TV show.

That'll save Lucas a lot of money, and arguably we'll get better work. The man DOES know how to tell a good story, when he doesn't let the effects take up his whole life. Sometimes less is more, and the work-arounds make for better drama.

I felt...

... a great disturbance in the Force, as if millions of sequels cried out in terror and were suddenly silenced.

I think that this could be a good general trend

I think a general move away from Movies to TV Series's is a Good Thing. Don't get me wrong, I still think some stories will always work well when told over ~2 hours but think about The Lord of The Rings, for example. Could that have worked better as 13 1 hour episodes (on dvd, sans adverts!) or even 24 1 hour episodes? giving the viewer the opportunity to skip the (Two Towers Extended Edition equivalent) Faramir ep entirely if they like, allowing the director and producers the chance to span the three books better and such like. I probably think so, note I'm not talking traditional TV Series here, there would never ever be a LOTR season 2, for example, but so long as the production values (and therefore costs) were suitably high i see no reason why The Hobbit couldnt come out, not as a 3 hour film, but as a 6 part miniseries ... so long as the "marathon" option is available on the $NextGen DVD release for the nutters amongst us (myself included)

Tuesday on "Those Hairy Hobbits"

On a very special episode of "Those Hairy Hobbits," Merry and Pippin disclose a long-kept secret relationship.

I sense a confusion in the Force...

'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.'

But...

Notably, he does not plan on distributing movies online, calling online distribution a 'rathole.'"

I haven't been more confused since, well, about five minutes into Episode 1.

Re:I sense a confusion in the Force...

I haven't been more confused since, well, about five minutes into Episode 1.

Which is, as I recall, halfway the scrolling text intro. Right?

GL is welcome to forge forward...

And lead the way towards producing movies with substance. Last I checked, his most recent blockbusters were anything but character driven. Special effects look cool once or twice, but good scripts and acting make us feel over and over again. That never gets old. _That _ is why I watch movies, and if the movie business wants to stay alive, that's what they're going to have to give us.

George dug his own grave here, now he's lamenting he has to lie in it. I just hope he realizes it's not too late. There's always room for movies like "Walk the Line" and "Signs". Neither had awesome special effects, but they were still a joy to watch.

Re:GL is welcome to forge forward...

Wow, Signs? You think Signs is an example of a great movie? Can I remind you Signs is about an alien invasion of Earth(A planet 75% water, with an atmosphere of water vapor) by Aliens for whom water is deadly? That's kind of like us invading a planet where Acid rains from the skies, the atmosphere is made of nerve gas, and everywhere we look theres giant pools of cyanide. I'm not one to harp on realism in movies, but the entire premise of Signs is retarded. Besides, the budget for Signs was 72 Million, which while not the $200 million blockbuster Lucas is referring to, is still a fairly large budget.

Still

I have a bad feeling about this.

The rathole statement...

is truly inflammatory. It is horribly taken out of context, which makes you wonder if the submitter works for mainstream media because they love taking things out of context. The quote goes: We're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out.

He is saying, "We do not want to rush into this and have the method we chose to enter the online realm explode on us." Online movie distribution is in its infancy. We have already seen the Wal-Mart/iTunes debacle. He is simply making a methaphorical statement to describe that they are being cautious, but he does not openly say, "Online distribution is a stupid."

So, this one again proves that you must always RTFA.

Anyone else noticing TV Movies lately?

My wife made an excellent observation the other day. Anyone else notice that TV shows seem to be far better than the movies that have come out recently? Last year, ABC's Lost and Desperate Housewives dazzled many viewers (ourselves included). This year, I've been really impressed by NBC's Heroes and Studio 60 on the Sunset Strip. The writing has been quite good, although some may argue that it does degrade over time. Not to mention lots of the great shows on HBO, Showtime, and some of the excellent comedies that have come and gone (Arrested Development comes to mind). And keep in mind that most of these are original shows. TV is in a far better situation than it used to be just a few years ago, when everything had to be a "reality TV show".

This is in comparison to movies, where it seems like everything is a sequel nowadays, or some book->movie or TV->movie or game->movie port.

story line

Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.'

... and yet still have no story line or acting. If I wrote movies that poorly, I'd be afraid to make one too. (Not that I *can* write better, but this is /., where anyone can be a critic)

Seriously, if the special effect overshadows the story line, you've lost. The first three Star Wars were great, not because of the special effects (which were good at the time) but because of the people. Not computer generated crowds, but real people; Not a fake looking Jar-Jar, but a real actor pulling strings or whatever.

Peter Jackson did a great job with LotR. There were lots of special effects, to be sure, but most weren't relly all that spectacular. It just that they came in second to the actual story line and acting. Gollum was believable because of Andy Serkis; Jar-Jar just looked fake, as did many other CG characters in Star Wars.

He's probably right

Yes, it's easy to make jokes about the Prequels prompting this, except for one little thing - he made buckets of money on them.

However, it's pretty clear that Hollywood is getting into a self-destructive cycle. Bigger movies, worse scripts, and ever-dropping returns due to too many OTHER forms of entertainment competing for your dollar. Yes, the SW Prequels and the Matrices and LOTR all made money... but in the past 7 years, how many summer mega-movies have bombed terribly? It's a much higher number, and most of them titles we don't even remember a couple years later.

What he's advocating IS the rational move. And if he can get a few more high-profile directors to join him, he could make a real difference in the industry. (again)

And it'd be terribly ironic (and Campbellian) that the man who basically invented the summer blockbuster would be the same man to end its death throws.

Are you forgetting Jaws?

George Lucas did NOT invent the summer blockbuster. Steven Spielberg did with Jaws in the summer of 1975. Hollywood was dying up to that point with films like "A Bridge Too Far" and that "Barry Lyndon" or whatever it was called movie with lots of big name stars and huge budgets. The only movies that were making money up to that time were the "Blaxploitation" movies and other low-budget films.

Those of us who lived through those times might remember when directors were critisized for spending too much money on their films as that was seen as a sign that too much emphasis was being placed on sets, stars, and other things besides the story. I remember Steven Spielberg being interviewed on Dick Cavett. When asked about the budget for his upcoming movie (ET: The Extraterrestrial), he was reluctant to talk about it because he feared some complaints and he gave the humorous example of using a multi-colored bedspread and being critisized for production values that were too high.

What George Lucas did give us was the dreaded sequel. Give him credit for that, but don't rob Steven Spielberg of credit for the summer blockbuster. Jaws had people waiting in lines around the block and dwarfed even "The Godfather". It was an impressive accomplishment.

Who is "forcing" him to spend so much money?

There have been a lot of films even recently that have done quite well with small budgets. One of my favorites is "Lost In Translation" which only cost $14 million, and movies have been done for a lot less than that which are still spectacular. Just because Lucas cannot tell a story without that much money doesn't mean it is impossible.

Did anyone RTFA?

I'm perusing the comments here on slashdot about this article. And I am not really impressed by the quality of discourse on this subject.

It seems like a lot of people are busy trying to yell at Lucas for going too heavy on the effects and not writing a good enough story. Let's say this is true, that the story writing was actually bad in the prequels (cant prove it to me though), and that the problem with it was NOT that the actors were shooting most scenes in front of a green screen and having a difficult time reacting (imagine if Dagobah had been all CG instead of an elaborate set in a London soundstage, how silly would Mark Hamill have looked then?)

What Lucas said about ratholes is linked to his not knowing how to get paid for online distribution. It's a simple enough question if you're a filmmaker, or a musician. "How does the money get from the consumer to me?" He uses a big word...monetization. He's asking how does a producer get paid. Gotta get paid, yo. Until somone can answer that question he feels it's a rathole.

And yeah, he's looking at the industry's current state and considering how much money and quality the Sopranos, Galactica, Lost, Firefly, Desperate Housewives, and looking back he's looking at Clerks, Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction. He's realizing that low budget good stories with high quality actors are the way to go. He's realizing that people will be patient with a good story.

Just because he called your bitorrent addcition a rathole doesnt mean he's wrong. I'm sure he's so sorry he hurt your feelings.

Get with the times

Hollywood needs to wake up. Yes, people are losing interest in movies for a long list of reasons.

1) Expensive. Not just the ticket cost, but the cost of food is unbearable now.
2) Less on story, more on special effects. Don't get me wrong, I really love special effects. But, there are a ton of movies with nothing BUT special effects, the plot is just trash.
3) Cell phones in movies really drive me nuts.
4) People who won't STFU in movies are worse. I can't tell you the last time I went to a movie and DIDN'T have some jack off yelling, laughing with his friends, standing up, etc. The movie theaters don't do jack about it these days also.
5) I am not amused about going to a movie, and hainvg to sit through 2 coke commericals, 4 car commericals, 2 fandago commericals, 1 about the snack bar, 1 about not using your cell, 2 commericals about the internet being evil and then, we finally get to the previews. The previews are my favorite part of the movie experience. Now, I am so annoyed by this point I can't even enjoy them.
6) Movie studios are tossing out good movies, and replacing it with quick easy to make movies that can line their pockets with quick green cash.
7) The bathrooms are like the bathrooms in Grand Central station. You don't wanna use them.

Looking at all the above, I can very well see why people want to download movies (legal or illegal). Personally, I would rather wait till I can buy the DVD, or download it from iTunes or what not. I have a very extensive DVD collection of well over 500 DVDs. In the past 5 years, I think I have seen 8 movies in the theater vs the few hundred DVDs I have purchased.

Hollywood now reminds me of what the postoffice was crying about when E-Mail first started to become popular. Then will learn to adapt, or be crushed and put out of business along the way.

Ok, so now that that is out of the way. On to George Lucas quiting the movie business. Good, its time. I enjoyed the last Star Wars, he should leave now while he made a good movie. If he tries to stay around, things will go down hill very fast. Steven Spielberg is a good example of this, that bastard should have quit a long time ago. His movies now are trash.

Article Summary

* Mr. Lucas laments that today's big-budget franchise films are too expensive and too risky.
* He believes American audiences are deserting their movie going habits permanently.
* Lucas states that for the price of one $200 million feature movie, 'I can make 50-60 two hour movies' that are 'pay-per-view and downloadable.'
* Notably, he does not plan on distributing movies online, calling online distribution a 'rathole.'

And in summary... "Screw you guys, I'm going home"

Re:Ho Hum

Everyone retires or downgrades their career. Most of us even change gears once or twice. Nothing to see, move along.
 
Yeah, except he should have quit before Howard the Duck [imdb.com].

Re:Ho Hum

I dunno, Howard the Duck had better acting from Lea Thompson and Jeffrey Jones than anything in Episode 1-3.

Search your feelings. You know it to be true.

Re:Ho Hum

Your faith in George Lucas is your greatest weakness. He has long served the Dark Side. Look at your lunchboxes and action figures. Are they the work of a master filmaker? Don't you feel the hate swelling inside you?

I see you looking the the Episode I-VI: Special Edition Anamorphic DVD Edition in the limited edition Jar Jar binks shaped titanium collectors box on Amazon. Take out your Return of the Jedi credit card and buy it!

Re:

Everyone retires or downgrades thier career.

Lucas must be someone special as he's done both!

Re:

Seinfeld: now with more Banthas!

Re:Ho Hum

Actually if you RTFA he doesn't say no to online distribution. He just admits he doesn't understand it, "We're trying to find out exactly where the monetization is coming from. We're not interested in jumping down a rat hole until such time as it finally figures itself out."

More like until he figures it out. Either way, he apparently realizes the distributors (iTunes and whatnot) are making all the money, and not the producers. I'd have to agree with him that at this time online sales of movies aren't making anyone rich (besides iTunes).

Re:Ho Hum

I'm not sure why people think the iTunes Music Store makes Apple any money at all. Most of the money goes to whoever licenses the music. Apple provides the service to A) sell hardware (iPods with ~40% profit per unit, iTV?, mini?) and B) prove the feasibility and gain acceptance for digital distribution. Here are two of the big reasons for why the content from the iTMS has such low margins for Apple. They have the means and the motivation.

Motivation: As with all new products, Apple wanted iTMS to become popular and accepted. For any new technology to successfuly enter a market or create a new market, price and perceived quality are usually the most important factors. A cheaper better mouse trap with a pinch of good marketing will usually do well. Therefore Apple has an incentive to keep price as low as they can go.

Means: It is CHEAP to distribute digitally. Therefore Apple CAN sell for cheaper than the legacy content distribution moguls.

Note as evidence for at least the movies and TV episodes the recent Walmart vs. Apple articles [bloggingstocks.com], the articles usually contain some analysis that shows Apple undercutting Walmart's prices even though Walmart is selling new release DVDs at a loss! Trust me when I say that if anyone sells for less than Walmart (even if the products are not exactly the same), their profit margin is minimal. Then for music, even though this is not the greatest source, it's just one article of many that tell about the pennies made per song purchase on iTMS [businessweek.com].

Re:Rats will do anything to survive

No, those are assholes, they shit over everything. and then there are pussies and dicks; pussies don't like dicks, because pussies get fucked by dicks. But dicks also fuck assholes: assholes that just want to shit on everything. Pussies may think they can deal with assholes their way. But the only thing that can fuck an asshole is a dick, with some balls. The problem with dicks is: they fuck too much or fuck when it isn't appropriate - and it takes a pussy to show them that. But sometimes, pussies can be so full of shit that they become assholes themselves... because pussies are an inch and half away from ass holes. I don't know much about this crazy, crazy world, but I do know this: If you don't let us fuck this asshole, we're going to have our dicks and pussies all covered in shit!

Oh yeah, and I also hope Mr. Lucas focus on soaps or reality shows and leave SciFi as it is.

Re:Star Wars has run out

Disclaimer: I am not a Star Wars fan.

We're all tired of the prequels.

Really? My understanding from my Star Wars loving friends was that the prequels could have been fantastic. Going into the fray they were all enthusiastic about the films. But, IMHO, it appears that it was the films themselves that killed their love for SW, not the concept of a prequel.

Who knows, maybe Lucas' number was up... maybe him time was over. Maybe the older core of SW fans just couldn't relate. There is a thousand things that could have gone wrong. I don't think he was brought down for doing a sequel, I think he was brought down by doing bad films.

But again, I'm not a Star Wars fan. Doubtlessly some will offset what I've said. But also consider that artists sometimes lose their focus on what once made them great artists too.

I for one

think this joke needs to be retired.