I am increasingly amazed by the scorn fans heap on Lucas' head for making money...
| Meta | |
|---|---|
| Title: | I am increasingly amazed by the scorn fans heap on Lucas' head for making money... |
| Creator: | Maggie Nowakowska |
| Date(s): | July 1984 |
| Medium: | |
| Fandom: | Star Wars |
| Topic: | |
| External Links: | |
| Click here for related articles on Fanlore. | |
I am increasingly amazed by the scorn fans heap on Lucas' head for making money... is the first part of a 1984 letter by Maggie Nowakowska that was printed in Comlink #17/18.
The letter generated a lot of fan commentary.
This discussion was part of a bigger conversation in Comlink which centered on Lucas and what he owed fans, how Lucas compared to Gene Roddenberry, and did fans influence Lucas in his creative endeavors.
Some Topics Discussed
- does George Lucas have the right to make a lot of money from his products?
- is Lucas greedy?
- Lucas' money is, in the end, what we all want for ourselves
- some reasons Lucas is a good guy regarding money
- he sold the rights to the radio show to NPR for a dollar
- he donated over 5.75 million dollars to the USC Film School for scholarships
- he insisted on his films premiering at charity functions and or in support to festivals promoting the art of the film
- he constantly churns his profit back into Skywalker Ranch, "his dream of an independent film resource, which ultimately benefits all of us who love films. Until 1980, he took no set salary, and and since then has paid himself $50,000 a year."
- he insisted on sugar-free gum in his trading cards
- he supports solar heating research
- he insisted that Kenner toys have no sharp edges that could hurt children
- he has allowed his characters to be used for a lot of public service announcements on radio and TV
- "he even crosses media and promotes reading through the American Library Association"
- there's nothing wrong with making money; because fans have jobs that make money, they use that money to support their fanac
- Lucas works hard to make films, even to the point of jeopardizing his health, and fans should be grateful
- Lucas is an artist and should be able to do what he wants
- his art is his responsibility
- Lucas doesn't do cocaine and have wild parties
From the Letter
I am increasingly amazed by the scorn fans heap on Lucas' head for making money, especially on SW merchandising.
A movie's net income is split many ways; merchandising provides a more direct income. And how else, if not with a high direct income, is Lucas to finance not only expensive movies, but all that Skywalker Ranch stands for: the research into computer graphics, the state-of-the-art film-making, the independence so precious to artists? In our society, money buys that kind of freedom.
There is nothing intrinsically wrong with making a profit on one's labor, most certainly not when that profit is turned into future artistic efforts that benefit the community. After all, it is the profit each of us makes on our own income that supports our fanac, convention-going, and general quality of life.
In COMLINK #16, Bev Lorenstein complains that "all we get from Lucas is enough care for profits," that Lucas has not shown enough interest in fans. If creating movies the size and scope of the SW saga, with the great attention to detail Lucas demands (and jeopardizing his health in the process), is not caring about fans, what is? All Lucas has ever wanted to do, all he has ever claimed to do, is make movies. All Lucas owes fans is a sincere attempt to be good at making movies. Or, as Paul Newman put it to Tom Lehr, "The only thing I owe my fans is to give the best performance I can." Lucas is not a guru, or the answer to all our fantasies, or the guy through which we can live out our dreams. He makes no effort at all to be a celebrity; he is simply well- known because of his success.
And that's an important difference. A celebrity, like a graphic artist, works to a client's demands, providing the client with what the client wants and measures the value of his work by how well he satisfies the client. He may wish for recognition as an artist, and sometimes he is granted such, but basically, he is a "gun for hire." He satisfies his audience; he "owes" his audience his existence. TV producers who test people for subject preferences and character fondness/prejudices, then mold programs to match their findings are in the same category. There is nothing wrong with such labor (I do it myself for Boeing), but I do not call it Art.
A famous person, on the other hand, is usually famous for what that person produces, be it a peace treaty, a job in a prominent position, a better mousetrap, a good film ... Like a fine artist, he does what he has to do for reasons of his own (the proverbial Muse silently, incessantly, whispering in the ear, or the gremlin pounding on the head until the artist hits the typewriter in a desperate effort to shut the gremlin up), and sometimes what he has to do also clicks with the greater mass of people. Maybe even in his own lifetime. Which is neat and wonderful, but still totally separate from what that greater public might have wanted of the artist.
Time and time again, Lucas has proven that he does what he does because he wants to. If he wants to make a space opera, no matter who laughs at him, he does. If he likes Ewoks because his daughter likes Ewoks, he puts Ewoks in his next movie, no matter what critics say. Whether the Ewoks are successful or not remains Lucas' responsibility. He is an artist and I see no reason to put Lucas down because he wishes to stay an artist. If folks don't like his movies — or his Ewoks — he won't be able to make more films. Why? Because movies take money, lots of it, which also brings us back to the second original point: all we owe an artist is attention to his
artistic attempt; all an artist owes us, no matter how successful/profitable he is, is the integrity of that attempt.
In other words, Lucas does live by the creed he professes in his movies. He is a responsible businessman. One may dislike his product, his point of view, but one cannot deny that Lucas is true to himself. He has shared in the profits with Lucasfilm folk from actors to janitors; he runs a company whose employees are fiercely supportive of him. Finally, he has shown the greatest "care" possible for his audience by preserving his artistic integrity by working the system as efficiently as possible within his standards to fund that preservation.
I don't mean to pick on just Bev. I see this attitude continually in letterzines. Do fans hate money? Do they just resent people who have money? Don't many of us dream of the day when we might have enough money to be free to do what we love; are we jealous because Lucas managed it? Or is is still fashionable to seem "above" money? If Lucas were shown spending it all on cocaine and wild parties, I might wax sarcastic, true. But I can't help but think that if we automatically lump all folks who make a profit in with the Robber Barons, that we are helping to insure no one will ever be responsible; after all, why fight the slander? Remember, it is the "love of money" that is the root of all evil, not just money's existence.
Fan Comments
It amazes me as well as her that so many fans are protesting George Lucas' financial success, and I don't understand it either. Perhaps it's an upsurge of the old chestnut that anything that makes a lot of money is a) a hack and b) greedy. Perhaps it's simple resentment, Perhaps it's resentment that GL is not abjectly grateful to fans and doesn't listen to what we want to him to do with his movies. (I seem to recall that both Gene Roddenberry and Leonard Nimoy had to suffer through similar attacks when they didn't do what fans wanted them to, and I've heard LN, at least, called money-hungry when he wanted some control over the way the character of Spock was marketed.) Perhaps it's "I didn't like this movie but it made alot of money, so obviously the person who made it is only interested in the money." Etc. At such time as GL shows signs of being a profligate, socially irresponsible big spender, then maybe I'll start complaining about his money. Judging from the evidence so far, I'd say that day will come when the sun goes supernova.[1]
I do agree with you that fans do have an understand "of the power and potential inherent in Lucas story" but I don't know if one can truly judge if it is better or not. According to you it is, according to someone else, it may not be. It's all a matter of opinion. Lucas had his story to tell, fans in general have theirs. We tend to enjoy more in-depth characterizations, ideas, and plots because we are a creative lot with a need to write, read, draw, and explore things more deeply than how they are presented. Lucas has his original format and we get to elaborate and change it according to our own imaginations.[2]
I know that George Lucas gives plenty of money to charity and he is building new studios to teach new, young cinema artists, but as far as the movie FANS are concerned, he could care less. Sure, he's allowed a SW Fan Club which may occasionally sell us such things as posters at premium prices but BIG DEAL! WE have have been paying who knows how many millions of dollars to see GL's movies over and over and over, yet he won't allow Star Wars at conventions, none of the stars of the movies have ever been to a convention as a guest speaker, GL has never been to a convention as a guest speaker, and an attempt was even made a few years ago to control the type of material we would be allowed to print in our fanzines! (an attempt that failed, by the way). Is this the thanks we fans get for giving him some of the money he uses for charities and studios? I will continue being a SW fan, writing SW stories, and reading and buying SW material, but I will continue to do so because of my interest in the SW universe, NOT its creator. I've thanked Mr Lucas enough times for having created this wonderful universe; I will not kiss his feet.[3]
I agree with you on everything you've said about Mr. Lucas, but all these facts that you cite have noting to do with his attitude toward fandom. I have no scorn for the money he makes. I don't even care. All I am saying is that he doesn't do as much for fans as the creator of Star Trek and there is a difference... This difference, I believe, can make or break a fandom. ST fandom has grown over the years due to respect between the fans and the show's creator. I'm not saying that ST fandom wouldn't still be here if Mr. Roddenberry despised us, but it wouldn't be the same, and ST fandom is appreciated. I've never heard ANY fan write or say disparaging remarks about Roddenberry. Respect breeds respect. It really is that simple.[4]
Bravo to Maggie Nowakowska [#17/18] for her letter putting the "Is Lucas a Good Guy?" controversy in perspective. To support her argument further, has everyone seen the August '84 (I think) issue of Discover magazine? There was a four page article (the cover story) on the computer graphics, sound and editing advances being made at Skywalker Ranch. That's where the profits are going, that's what Hollywood could have been working on all these years but hasn't. Who really are the money grubbers? Really, folks, why take such pleasure in putting down a man—an artist—whose creations have made our lives more full and enjoyable? Don't some people have anything better to do? Writing LoCs takes precious time; that time could be spent more constructively.[5]