Well, Scalzi agreed they were entertaining, but seemed to think that it was mostly by accident?
they did a good job of doing _what Lucas wanted_ - which was to tell the story of how it happened.
It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Rand had a fairly good idea of the story she wanted to tell, and the morals she wanted it to have. And she had a good tone for some of it, but much of it was lamentably turgid.
It seems reasonable that Lucas was more attached to the story, and for whatever reason didn't make the film tell it in an entertaining way. But he obviously tried at least a bit -- there's much in the films that are obviously supposed to be enjoyed by viewers and don't have anything to do with the plot. It seems up in the air whether he didn't care and put in a token effort, or tried and failed, or tried, but without the drive of a young and still-to-be-proven director didn't try hard enough, etc.
But I still think "not entertainment" is a ridiculous measure to describe it. Most authors love things about their books more than "are they popular", and many make them enjoyable anyway, and some don't, and no-one says they're not entertainment.
Scalzi is clearly talking about the principle purpose of the work. The principle purpose of, say, Toy Story 3, is to be entertainment. It does a fantastic job of this, and includes morals, good dialogue, wit, humour, etc. to that end. However, it could have been good entertainment without the morals, if they'd decided that putting the morals in was contrary to their purpose (entertain the audience).
Star Wars is myth building. It happens, sometimes, to be entertaining too, but that's not its purpose. When it's at its most entertaining (Empire), it's because other people have been handed the myth framework and been given enough leeway to make it entertaining. But its primary purpose is not to be an entertainment, and if that got in the way of the myth-making, the myth-making won.
![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
no subject
Well, Scalzi agreed they were entertaining, but seemed to think that it was mostly by accident?
they did a good job of doing _what Lucas wanted_ - which was to tell the story of how it happened.
It reminds me of Atlas Shrugged. Rand had a fairly good idea of the story she wanted to tell, and the morals she wanted it to have. And she had a good tone for some of it, but much of it was lamentably turgid.
It seems reasonable that Lucas was more attached to the story, and for whatever reason didn't make the film tell it in an entertaining way. But he obviously tried at least a bit -- there's much in the films that are obviously supposed to be enjoyed by viewers and don't have anything to do with the plot. It seems up in the air whether he didn't care and put in a token effort, or tried and failed, or tried, but without the drive of a young and still-to-be-proven director didn't try hard enough, etc.
But I still think "not entertainment" is a ridiculous measure to describe it. Most authors love things about their books more than "are they popular", and many make them enjoyable anyway, and some don't, and no-one says they're not entertainment.
no subject
Star Wars is myth building. It happens, sometimes, to be entertaining too, but that's not its purpose. When it's at its most entertaining (Empire), it's because other people have been handed the myth framework and been given enough leeway to make it entertaining. But its primary purpose is not to be an entertainment, and if that got in the way of the myth-making, the myth-making won.