Vince McMahon and George Lucas

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Vince McMahon and George Lucas are basically the same person.

Vince started as an independent promoter with a wrestling territory in the north eastern United States, and now finds himself the head of a worldwide corporation, WWE. George Lucas started as a fiercely independent film maker, who hated the studio system in Hollywood, and now finds himself the head of a corporation, Lucasfilm Ltd. It seems as though these two individuals are also viewed by others (fans, critics, etc.) in essentially the same way, which at the end of the day, is the ultimate point of this thread.

People tend to see George Lucas as one of three things:
1. A once great film maker who simply doesn't have it any more and now needs to step aside and let someone else take control of his franchise.
2. A hack who was never really that talented as a film maker and who had an idea that others (actors, editors, screenwriters, etc.) really made work for him.
3. A guy who is still talented but has fans that are jaded and blinded by nostalgia.

Now it seems to me, that those descriptions also perfectly match the way that people generally feel about Vince McMahon.

So the first question I'm really posing with this thread is: How do you see Vince McMahon as a promoter/booker/creative force in wrestling through the years?
Was he great back in the day and is now out of touch with what the modern wrestling fan wants from the product?
Was he never really that good and owes his success to wrestlers like Austin and Rock, or writers like Vince Russo who some argue really made the product as successful as it was in the Attitude Era?
Or do he think he is as good as he ever was, but the fans are the ones now out of touch and can't see the bigger business picture?

The second question I will pose is: Do you see the same similarity between Vince McMahon and George Lucas as I do? or am I just way off-base in my comparison of these two people?

 

[THTRobtaylor]

The main issues people have had with Lucas is his "revisionist" attitude towards his material. Now Vince does excise stuff from WWE like Randy Savage and Benoit, but there is enough smoke in their alleged transgressions for that to not be completely outrageous. Both men are guilty of hiring yes men who will let them call the shots, but Vince on the whole has been far better at having his finger "on the pulse" of trends, where Lucas is more reactionary in his approach ("Episode one got abuse...what can I do to make sure Two is better?)

Lucas was not "hands on" in the way McMahon is, indeed he was quite happy to let others direct his movies. Where Lucas fails is that he then goes into movies years later and tinkers, sure when it first came out seeing Jabba back in A New Hope was interesting, but to then change all the music in Jedi etc was actually ruining the movies or rather the memories associated with them for those there originally, and making the new experiences miss those moments.

Where Vince differs (though I am sure he'd love to be able to revise a lot of WWE history) is his output is in the main based on a collective live experience, a movie can be edited so certain events happen in sequence, that sequence can be totally different the next day, but when 20,000 people saw it live in an arena it's not that easy to change something. In the old days Vince would not televise title changes (like all promoters) if it wasn't gonna fly, but today someone is tweeting the moment the pinfall is made. You can't go back and add a Jim Duggan v Ted DiBiase match to WM3 or add 5 minutes to Savage v Steamboat because people know it didn't take place, but Lucas can add Jabba into a movie where he wasn't before.

I wouldn't call either man a hack, they had visionary qualities that have shaped entertainment but over time diminished into that of an old man pottering around his lawn, even though he employs the best gardeners, interference for interference's sake in things that are ticking over fine without them.

Vince is different to Lucas, he NEVER wants to stop, indeed I don't think he is actually capable of walking away, it'd take a catastrophic episode healthwise to ever make him do so. In some ways having Triple H is a strange thing for Vince to be doing and is clearly a sop to shareholders who WANT him gone so he can say he is sharing power. Lucas only ever wanted to stop, he wanted (and succeeded in) the one movie making his career and then he could be the mogul. He let Spielberg take the reigns for Indy and when he tried to direct again, yup Willow I am looking at you, it showed that he isn't a great director just as when Vince tried the WBF or XFL it didn't quite work.

History will be kinder to McMahon than Lucas, mainly because VKM is far more embracing of nostalgia and the past. Raw 1000 was pretty bad, but had enough to keep even the most ardent hater marking out a little bit. Lucas has been embarrased of his original movies for so long and mutilated them so much that many refuse to deal with anything other than original movies.

 

[Sexcellence of Sexecution]

Both men are guilty of hiring yes men who will let them call the shots,

Ya this is an important point I forgot to mention, the people around both Lucas and McMahon are really afraid to challenge their "visions", which is one of the things that really hurt the Star wars prequels and is one of the things that continues to hurt the WWE today.

but Vince on the whole has been far better at having his finger "on the pulse" of trends, where Lucas is more reactionary in his approach ("Episode one got abuse...what can I do to make sure Two is better?)

I definitely disagree with Lucas being reactionary. I don't really think he cared about the abuse that Episode I got from fans, and I don't really see him reacting to the vast criticism of his revisions to the original trilogy as he insists on not releasing them in their original form (which is outrageous and hypocritical by the way, but I digress). I'm not sure if Lucas has the same McMahon mentality of "I know what the fans want better than they do", I think it's more of "I don't care".

Lucas was not "hands on" in the way McMahon is, indeed he was quite happy to let others direct his movies.

Well Lucas both wrote and directed all three prequel movies, and from what I've seen of behind the scenes footage, seemed to be a little too hands on and wouldn't let his movies really be a collaborative process. At the end of the day, it seemed like no matter what anyone would say (if they got the courage to speak to Mighty George at all), George had the absolute final say on every decision. Remind you of anyone?

Vince is different to Lucas, he NEVER wants to stop, indeed I don't think he is actually capable of walking away, it'd take a catastrophic episode healthwise to ever make him do so.

This I completely agree with, and is really the biggest difference between the two. Lucas seems to be sick of Star Wars and always wanted to move on to create his "personal films" but never really was able to.


The last point I will make is that the constant revisions and changes to the original Star Wars movies really reminds me of those reports we constantly hear of Vince constantly making changes to the plans for RAW, right up to the last minute. They both come off to me as these obsessive compulsive people who continually tinker with things trying to make them "perfect".

 

[THTRobtaylor]

I think you have to consider Lucas as reactionary when you consider Jar Jar for example. As a character he was clearly the 2nd biggest focus of Episode 1, over Neeson, Portman even Darth Maul. He and Anakin were the "main characters" of that movie and I have little doubt that Jar Jar was intended to go on throughout those sequels as a main protaganist.

People absolutely hated Jar Jar, to the point where he was barely in the next 2 and when he was had been subtly positioned as being a direct source of blame for of the Empire (by calling for the old chancellor to go and stirring the pot for Palpatine). Lucas reacted to the utter hatred of Jar Jar and his "kiddyfying" of Episode one and made the next two darker and more focused on other characters.

Lucas also vowed "You would never see theatrical versions on Blu-Ray" and lo and behold you can now buy them!

Vince changing booking or shows is not the same thing as tinkering by Lucas as the event has not happened till it has... Anything can change in a live wrestling or recorded TV show before it airs, once a movie is "out" it is uber rare for a director to alter it and certainly not more than once. They may add stuff they shot that wasn't released at the time but as for actively going back and changing a movie thats been out for 20 years, it's nearly unheard of. Vince doesn't excise matches or people from history without a good reason, like Benoit and even then, he simply doesn't show those matches or people rather than erasing them from canon completely as Lucas has done with a few parts of his movies.

 

[jacdnwarrior]

I think George Lucas is quite talented. He had other films besides the Star Wars Franchise, (Indiana Jones, etc.) but tbh, if you have a franchise that delivers like Star Wars did and has not just in films, but books, toys, video games etc. you have to sell that thing like nobody’s business. Take a look at the Harry Potter Series, and you see the difference one great series can make in a writer or director’s career. And see how people try to milk a successful series for everything they can get out of it.

I was and still am a Star Wars fan. I get the books, the comics, and loved the films (the first film trilogy more so than the second) While I didn’t mind the prequel I wasn’t thrilled after seeing the first 2 films but I think the third film showed his ability as a filmmaker. The problem for me in those films were the dialogue and Hayden Christensen. I mean some of the actors he had, were just killed by the horrible dialogue, he could have done so much better. Hayden, was so one note. His acting was horrible. The only thing that convinced me was the end when he was burning alive. With all the known and unknown actors he had to choose from, if he felt Hayden was the one, why couldn’t he have done a better job and tighten up his acting ? I don’t blame Hayden as much as I blame Lucas for that. Lucas had the experience and should have guided Hayden to deliver a much better performance.

Lucas changed the way we see and hear film, so his contribution to filmmaking is very hard to ignore.

How do you see Vince McMahon as a promoter/booker/creative force in wrestling through the years?

As a promoter, Vince McMahon took wrestling to the mainstream, where it had been viewed as carnival act for a very long time. He has changed the industry forever. A lot of those changes helped his company become the biggest company and now we have a virtual monopoly in the wrestling world. While a number of companies folded (WCW the biggest blow to the industry) for some reasons that had nothing to do with Vince, he helped begin the process by stealing the best talent of smaller promotions and killed their ability to survive.

Was he great back in the day and is now out of touch with what the modern wrestling fan wants from the product?

He has always had his moments. He’s had huge successes for a time, then low periods, then rise again. The creativity is lost, and the talent isn’t great when it comes to work in the ring with a few exceptions. I’m not sure it’s that he’s lost his touch as it’s been the way the company has always been. I think he needs to work on creating stars whose names aren’t Cena but people who can deliver the goods like him aren’t instantly available.

Was he never really that good and owes his success to wrestlers like Austin and Rock, or writers like Vince Russo who some argue really made the product as successful as it was in the Attitude Era?

He didn’t do it alone, clearly. But you can’t deny him any credit. He got the right talent and pushed their strengths while covering up their flaws.

Or do he think he is as good as he ever was, but the fans are the ones now out of touch and can't see the bigger business picture?

Can’t put this on the fans entirely. If the product doesn’t excite them, they won’t watch. It does require patience on their part. He clearly isn’t giving us anything people are overly excited about.

The second question I will pose is: Do you see the same similarity between Vince McMahon and George Lucas as I do? or am I just way off-base in my comparison of these two people?

I suppose you can find similarities in any two people if you look hard enough. I think they are both men who had an idea and built an empire around that idea. I think they are both driven and have found a fanbase who absolutely fell in love with their product and supported them to an incredible degree. They found large mainstream success and it’s a testament to their genius that they accomplished what they did. I think I’d rather have Lucas’ wallet than Vince’s, but either one would be good for me.