logo Sign In

Lucasfilm: Beyond Star Wars and Indiana Jones — Page 2

Author
Time

Possibly! Maybe that is the side-effect of what the audience gets out of it, especially with a more clickbaity title. I do think general opinions of fans have already become a lot less anti-George than it was 10 years ago.

Not really the topic of this thread, but the rearranging in post for ROTS is super interesting! The Secret History of Star Wars go into that to an extent. Would love to talk about that.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

And a lot of the hard work of making such an effects-heavy film believable lay with ILM. Therein lies the difference between Star Wars and something like Starcrash.

Before the SFX shots were inserted, I imagine the film looked a lot rougher & harder to visualize. Especially for the New Wave generation of filmmakers in Lucas’ circle of friends, whose films were usually set in contemporary society, and by & large didn’t rely on that sort of post-production effects work.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RogueLeader said:

Possibly! Maybe that is the side-effect of what the audience gets out of it, especially with a more clickbaity title. I do think general opinions of fans have already become a lot less anti-George than it was 10 years ago.

Not really the topic of this thread, but the rearranging in post for ROTS is super interesting! The Secret History of Star Wars go into that to an extent. Would love to talk about that.

The Secret History of SW is indeed an interesting book. Regrettably though, the guy has a tenandancy to turn his opinions into a narrative.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

RogueLeader said:

I think it is a matter of balancing perspectives. Every writer or journalist is going to have their own bias. Obviously George deserves a lot of credit and responsibility for what he created (good or bad, however you feel about it), as well as surrounding himself with other talented filmmakers who also contributed heavily to these films. Filmmaking is inherently a collaborative process, so videos like “How Star Wars was saved in the edit” aren’t trying to say the editors saved a sinking ship that George was sailing, it is just trying to highlight the contributions of other artists who helped make the movie what it was too.

Yeah basically this, but also

MikeWW said:

I feel that “saved in the edit” is indeed a phrase that carries certain anti-GL-credit connotations. Otherwise, what is the implication? That the editors salvaged George’s mess. It implies a distance between the film being shot and the film being edited.

This feels true as well.

Regarding this though

What’s funny though is that the (pre Disney) Star Wars movie most altered in the edit is probably Revenge of The Sith, and even Mathew Stover who wrote the novelization (that people like to say is better than the movie) called George’s assembly edit-based reshoots “genius”.

AOTC was certainly altered more. A decent chunk of that movie was done in reshoots, probably a number not too far off from RO. Also the ROTS novelization is way better than the movie. But there I give Lucas the benefit of the doubt, because I have not read the script he was working from, I don’t know how much is Stover and how much is Lucas (and how much of the material which was not in the film was actually shot, which I think there was a decent amount). But reading that book definitely makes me think that George actually could have made a great movie out of that, had he cut it differently.

Author
Time

I knew AOTC had reshoots but I don’t think I knew that it was very extensive. Are there specific reasons why it was?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The RotS novelization has 3 big problems.

  1. The writing style is TOO melodramatic
  2. Stover trying to force his Shatterpoint fanfiction into pivotal scenes
  3. The pacing is really unbalanced. He speeds through the Mustafar sequence like the deadline to turn in the manuscript was the next day.

Bonus problem- His characterization of Dooku was questionable compared to better EU entries such as Yoda: Dark Rendezvous.

But Regarding AotC, I don’t think it was changed more, I think the changes are just more obvious. The fake beard and all that.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

MikeWW said:

The RotS novelization has 3 big problems.

  1. The writing style is TOO melodramatic
  2. Stover trying to force his Shatterpoint fanfiction into pivotal scenes
  3. The pacing is really unbalanced. He speeds through the Mustafar sequence like the deadline to turn in the manuscript was the next day.

Bonus problem- His characterization of Dooku was questionable compared to better EU entries such as Yoda: Dark Rendezvous.

The ROTS film had one big problem: Anakin’s turn to the dark side is completely unbelievable. The novelization does not have this problem.

But Regarding AotC, I don’t think it was changed more, I think the changes are just more obvious. The fake beard and all that.

No. The changes to AOTC are well documented in the Making of book and the audio commentary. They go beyond just the scenes with the fake beard.

RogueLeader said:

I knew AOTC had reshoots but I don’t think I knew that it was very extensive. Are there specific reasons why it was?

Working off a script that was in a bad spot, plus Lucas fully realizing the potential to change the film dramatically while in post I guess.

Author
Time

Did you prefer how the original cut of ROTS was less focused on Padmé and her dying? If I recall it correctly.

Author
Time

RogueLeader said:

Did you prefer how the original cut of ROTS was less focused on Padmé and her dying? If I recall it correctly.

I mean, it’s tough for me to say I prefer a cut I’ve never seen, but yes, personally I think Anakin needed more than just ‘saving Padme’ to turn, and ultimately Lucas cut out most of that other stuff.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I disagree with Anakin’s turn being unbelievable in the film, but even if it is, Stover’s novel is still overwritten schlock IMO. His prose is just corny.

And AotC might have MORE reshoots, but to me they don’t alter the film as much as RotS’ post production did.

Author
Time

MikeWW said:

I feel that “saved in the edit” is indeed a phrase that carries certain anti-GL-credit connotations.

Not necessarily. It depends on the context and how a person use that term to support his argument.

What i remind from the ROTS Making of (“Within a minute” i guess) Lucas emphasized himself that he likes to shape a movie in the editing and post-production phase. His specific quote was something like “Most directors shot the movie. I shot AROUND the movie.” So he knows that he can balance out certain shortcomings he wasn’t aware during prinicipal photography in the editing process hence SAVE the movie.

Rogue One is redundant. Just play the first mission of DARK FORCES.
The hallmark of a corrupt leader: Being surrounded by yes men.
‘The best visual effects in the world will not compensate for a story told badly.’ - V.E.S.
‘Star Wars is a buffet, enjoy the stuff you want, and leave the rest.’ - SilverWook

Author
Time

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Author
Time

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

My preferred Skywalker Saga experience:
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Author
Time

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

In addition to the above posts that explain why that is not a reflection on Lucas, I would say that some of the deleted scenes are actually very enjoyable.
Luke and Biggs on Tatooine for example.

Author
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

Yeah but what I’m saying is that we know what it looks like when George has 100% control, without these award winning editors, and it’s the PT. He needs those other people to save it from his “vision”.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

StarkillerAG said:

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

Yeah but what I’m saying is that we know what it looks like when George has 100% control, without these award winning editors, and it’s the PT. Those films were edited. But he needs those other more creative people to save it from his “vision” which is usually awful when dozens of yes-men are involved.

Author
Time

Mocata said:

StarkillerAG said:

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

Yeah but what I’m saying is that we know what it looks like when George has 100% control, without these award winning editors, and it’s the PT. Those films were edited. But he needs those other more creative people to save it from his “vision” which is usually awful when dozens of yes-men are involved.

I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, the prequels are bad, and part of the reason why is because George surrounded himself with yes men. But that doesn’t say anything about George’s editing talents. The prequels are actually decently edited: the problem is with the script and acting, not the editing. Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

My preferred Skywalker Saga experience:
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Author
Time

StarkillerAG said:

Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

I thought he was there to help supervise the sound mixing or something. Micheal Kahn was the editor. He’s been Spielbergs editor for years.

SSWR’s YouTube channel

Attack of the Clones: Alternate Timeline Edit Thread:
https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/SSWRs-Attack-of-the-Clones-Alternate-Timeline-Edit/id/66888

Author
Time

SomethingStarWarsRelated said:

StarkillerAG said:

Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

I thought he was there to help supervise the sound mixing or something. Micheal Kahn was the editor. He’s been Spielbergs editor for years.

I looked it up, and you’re right. I still don’t think George is a bad editor, he just didn’t have much to work with for the prequels.

My preferred Skywalker Saga experience:
I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX

Author
Time

How can people just ignore all the available evidence?
Is John Milius lying?

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

StarkillerAG said:

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

Yeah but what I’m saying is that we know what it looks like when George has 100% control, without these award winning editors, and it’s the PT. Those films were edited. But he needs those other more creative people to save it from his “vision” which is usually awful when dozens of yes-men are involved.

George is the common element of every good movie he was involved in.
The Hyucks were not involved in ESB or RotJ. Kasdan was not involved with ANH.
Lucas had no co director for ANH. Or American Graffiti. Or THX 1138.
And by the way, Marcia Lucas didn’t like THX 1138, but Stanley Kubrick did. And Stanley Kubrick also liked Graffiti and SW, so he didn’t THX because of Murch or whatever the meme might be to discredit Lucas’ work on that film.

And again, John Milius said himself that George was the good editor of their friend group.

Ylu are being willfully ignorant.

Author
Time

StarkillerAG said:

I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, the prequels are bad, and part of the reason why is because George surrounded himself with yes men. But that doesn’t say anything about George’s editing talents. The prequels are actually decently edited: the problem is with the script and acting, not the editing. Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

You’re confusing editing for time and pacing with editing for awkward embarrassing content. I think we did this discussion already somewhere. And I think your glossing over the point to raise up the guy as a talent beyond the seeds and the ideas of the story. As for the rest of this thread which has devolved into random tangents about Stanley Kubrick and people taking things personally, I have no idea where to begin. This is OT.com after all, a place where people know the sole genius legend is a lie.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

StarkillerAG said:

I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, the prequels are bad, and part of the reason why is because George surrounded himself with yes men. But that doesn’t say anything about George’s editing talents. The prequels are actually decently edited: the problem is with the script and acting, not the editing. Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

You’re confusing editing for time and pacing with editing for awkward embarrassing content. I think we did this discussion already somewhere. And I think your glossing over the point to raise up the guy as a talent beyond the seeds and the ideas of the story. As for the rest of this thread which has devolved into random tangents about Stanley Kubrick and people taking things personally, I have no idea where to begin. This is OT.com after all, a place where people know the sole genius legend is a lie.

You can’t refute my evidence that points to George being the common element of quality, and that’s ok. But admit it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

StarkillerAG said:

Mocata said:

By saved in editing I mean exactly that, it’s no longer an ambiguous idea since now we’ve all seen what a slog the original structure would have been and how bad the deleted scenes are.

Yes, the original edit of Star Wars was bad, but the original edits of most movies are bad, too. That’s why editing exists. Star Wars wasn’t “saved by the edit” more than any other movie.

Yeah but what I’m saying is that we know what it looks like when George has 100% control, without these award winning editors, and it’s the PT. Those films were edited. But he needs those other more creative people to save it from his “vision” which is usually awful when dozens of yes-men are involved.

I think it’s a little more complicated than that, the yes-men problem is something that extends beyond the editing room.

MikeWW said:

Mocata said:

StarkillerAG said:

I think you’re missing the point here. Yes, the prequels are bad, and part of the reason why is because George surrounded himself with yes men. But that doesn’t say anything about George’s editing talents. The prequels are actually decently edited: the problem is with the script and acting, not the editing. Also, George edited Jurassic Park, and I don’t see anyone complaining about the bad editing in that movie.

You’re confusing editing for time and pacing with editing for awkward embarrassing content. I think we did this discussion already somewhere. And I think your glossing over the point to raise up the guy as a talent beyond the seeds and the ideas of the story. As for the rest of this thread which has devolved into random tangents about Stanley Kubrick and people taking things personally, I have no idea where to begin. This is OT.com after all, a place where people know the sole genius legend is a lie.

You can’t refute my evidence that points to George being the common element of quality, and that’s ok. But admit it.

The easiest refutation is that Lucas was also in charge on all three of the prequels.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

And Kasdan wrote The Force Awakens.
And Irvin Kershner peaked with ESB.