5 ms·
Geez, Lucas. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency? I mean, really. I can see being a greedy fuck for a couple dec
by Bud 15y ago
Geez, Lucas. Have you no sense of decency, sir, at long last? Have you left no sense of decency?
I mean, really. I can see being a greedy fuck for a couple decades, while you're still unsure if you are, in fact, going to become and remain wealthy beyond the dreams of avarice. But once you have the fuck-you money put away for you, your entire family and everyone you've ever met who was halfway interesting, can't you toss Lord Vader some coin for his trouble?
Shameful.
- phxrsng 15y agoYes because he clearly knew they would be such a success at the time he was negotiating contracts. He made the standard contracts, which is what you have to do, because you can't just change the terms later based on how successful something is or isn't. This isn't a case of Lucas being exceptionally greedy. Maybe its a case proving how 1-sided Hollywood contracts are, though.
- kanamekun 15y agoWhile I agree with you, the article is about Return of the Jedi which was released in 1983 - six years after the first Star Wars movie came out. So by the time these contracts were being negotiated with David Prowse, the producers of the project knew that the movie was likely to be highly successful.
- Joakal 15y ago"... I accuse the corporations, who oppose the moral rights of the artist, of being dishonest and insensitive to American cultural heritage and of being interested only in their quarterly bottom line, and not in the long-term interest of the Nation. ..." There's more, including calling any such distortion of [his movie?] art as barbaric. http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.html http://savestarwars.com/lucasspeechagainstspecialedition.htm...
- socratic 15y agoI hate citing Reddit, but this un-sourced imgur link makes it seem like he's not such a bad guy, no? http://i.imgur.com/lTvOg.jpg http://i.imgur.com/lTvOg.jpg
- chc 15y agoDonating 5% of your net worth to charity is praiseworthy, but it's not really anything special, particularly for people in that range of disposable income. He could probably release another boxed set of the original trilogy and make the entire amount back. Every active Mormon donates twice that much to their church.
- estel 15y agoConvenient you mention that, given another box set of the original trilogy is coming out... today!
- thebooktocome 15y agoThe Mormon church is hardly a laudable "non-profit" charity.
- alttag 15y agoOkay, they have some real estate holdings. But they've also provided significant relief for every major disaster in the past century. In addition, they offer job search assistance, food assistance, etc., through a network of farms, canneries and thrift stores. And all of this is funded by member donations in addition to the 10% mentioned by the GP. But none of that's the point. The GP was pointing out that a not insignificant portion of the population donates more than 10% of their income on a regular basis. In light of that, 5% isn't much, particularly for someone with a great deal of income.
- thebooktocome 15y ago"Some" real estate holdings? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus_Christ_of_Latter-day_Saints#Assets http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Finances_of_The_Church_of_Jesus... My point is that a person donating 10% to an inefficient charity like the Mormon Church is not as laudable as, e.g., a person donating some fraction of 10% to one of these: http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities http://www.givewell.org/charities/top-charities
- danssig 15y agoLucas ever had decency? The only reason his movies were ever popular is because he wasn't allowed to do anything he wanted.