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.
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.