George Lucas to receive AFI Lifetime Achievement Award
10-16-04, 05:40 PM
#26
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
it's a freakin joke.
This asinine comment needs to be done away with forever.
Last edited by Terrell; 10-16-04 at 05:42 PM.
10-18-04, 11:04 AM
#28
DVD Talk Godfather
Thank you Terrell.
Why can't the whiny ass haters stay out of threads like these? Sheesh. GL. Derserves this. He is a true pioneer in the filmmaking world.
One things Terrell left out is the fact that he is a independent filmmaker. He doesn't take shit from anyone. That is hard to do in Hollywood. He sticks to his guns.
Why can't the whiny ass haters stay out of threads like these? Sheesh. GL. Derserves this. He is a true pioneer in the filmmaking world.
One things Terrell left out is the fact that he is a independent filmmaker. He doesn't take shit from anyone. That is hard to do in Hollywood. He sticks to his guns.
10-18-04, 11:26 AM
#29
DVD Talk Hero
Just to clarify my opinion on this ... I have no doubt Lucas deserves many lifetime achievement awards in many areas (much more for what he's done off screen than on). That's a given, and to deny his impact would be silly. I'm just not sure how this particular award fits. It's not something I intend to argue, or that even deserves argument; it's just a gut reaction that AFI is giving him this award for all the wrong reasons. He shares almost nothing in common with previous winners, and the areas where he is great are not areas the AFI typically gives a damn about. Just my opinion, though.
das
das
10-18-04, 10:40 PM
#30
Mod Emeritus
Join Date: Feb 1999
Location: Gone to the islands - 'til we meet again.
Posts: 19,053
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by Terrell
The only people whose childhoods could possibly be raped by a bunch of movies, are losers with childhoods that are beyond pathetic. That probably fits you to a tee. Then again, these losers wouldn't have any childhood if it wasn't for Lucas to begin with.
The only people whose childhoods could possibly be raped by a bunch of movies, are losers with childhoods that are beyond pathetic. That probably fits you to a tee. Then again, these losers wouldn't have any childhood if it wasn't for Lucas to begin with.
Terrell, you seem to be asking to get banned. If that's not your goal, I would highly suggest that you stop making comments directed at other members.
10-19-04, 04:21 AM
#32
DVD Talk Ultimate Edition
If that's not your goal
Apologies for the remark.
He shares almost nothing in common with previous winners
""The recipient should be one whose talent has in a fundamental way advanced the film art; whose accomplishment has been acknowledged by scholars, critics, professional peers and the general public; and whose work has stood the test of time."
Judging by their mission statement where this award is concerned, it seems Lucas is exactly they kind of candidate they're looking for. His work fits every one of those criteria, and then some.
Last edited by Terrell; 10-19-04 at 04:37 AM.
10-19-04, 09:53 AM
#33
DVD Talk Hero
Don't forget "individuals with active careers and work of significance yet to be accomplished." I'm not saying he doesn't qualify for that too, just that it's also part of the "criteria."
I think this is what motivated my initial post on this subject. As a director or "creator," I don't think he qualifies for a lifetime achievement award of this nature. Even if you accept that he's a great director (something I think many would disagree with), his body of work is remarkably thin. As a writer, he's certainly done more, but take out his two major projects, and there's just not much there, at least not enough to justify a lifetime achievement award for writing. Behind the scenes, however, he qualifies for so many awards it would be pointless to even try to itemize them.
Given how vague the "requirements" are for AFI's award, it's near impossible to debate their motivations. Perhaps they really are giving him this award for accomplishments away from the camera, and if so, then it's a big shift for them, and hopefully they'll recognize more people for that. However, given AFI's track record, it seems more likely, they're just giving him the award because Star Wars and Indy are popular, and they'll get a huge publicity boost by hooking up with Lucas during perhaps his most prolific marketing year ever. In the past, AFI has given this award to two kinds of people: actors with a lifelong body of varied work and writer/directors with a lifelong body of varied work. He's clearly not an actor, and as a writer/director, even the most diehard fan would have to admit he's not fit to carry the jock of Ford or Welles or Hitchcock or Wilder or any of the previous winners. He's a great storyteller, but as a director, he's average at best, and his screenplays are pretty darn weak compared with the strength of the stories themselves.
So, hey, if they're specifically rewarding all his other accomplishments, then bravo to them; he deserves it. If not, then my opinion stands: given the history of the award, he doesn't qualify. Knowing the AFI, I'm inclined to believe the latter, but there's really no way to know.
das
• Terrell •
But he is a filmmaker who directed and created films that have stood the test of time and had a tremendous impact.
But he is a filmmaker who directed and created films that have stood the test of time and had a tremendous impact.
Given how vague the "requirements" are for AFI's award, it's near impossible to debate their motivations. Perhaps they really are giving him this award for accomplishments away from the camera, and if so, then it's a big shift for them, and hopefully they'll recognize more people for that. However, given AFI's track record, it seems more likely, they're just giving him the award because Star Wars and Indy are popular, and they'll get a huge publicity boost by hooking up with Lucas during perhaps his most prolific marketing year ever. In the past, AFI has given this award to two kinds of people: actors with a lifelong body of varied work and writer/directors with a lifelong body of varied work. He's clearly not an actor, and as a writer/director, even the most diehard fan would have to admit he's not fit to carry the jock of Ford or Welles or Hitchcock or Wilder or any of the previous winners. He's a great storyteller, but as a director, he's average at best, and his screenplays are pretty darn weak compared with the strength of the stories themselves.
So, hey, if they're specifically rewarding all his other accomplishments, then bravo to them; he deserves it. If not, then my opinion stands: given the history of the award, he doesn't qualify. Knowing the AFI, I'm inclined to believe the latter, but there's really no way to know.
das
