Ronster said:
If you take the spliced in shots of R2-D2 on death star whilst playing chess on the millennium falcon. If I was right that those stop motion chess pieces time exactly with the spliced in shots of R2-D2 then we can confirm Special effects not completed and R2-D2 was spliced in to cover the unfinished sequence although it was shot just not finished. If you were going to do a Special Edition why on earth would you not restore those special effects shots restoring how the film was planned and “meant to be”These aren’t unfinished effects. They probably just forgot to do closeups of R2 in the falcon. Whoever thought of using the Death Star footage for that scene was a genius, you’d never know if someone hadnt pointed it out to you.
The editors were legit geniuses.
This^
At this point I’m inclined to believe that Star Wars was a s**t-show saved in editing. Especially given how the prequels are… the prequels, how Jedi is paced (I say this because it’s the OT movie Lucas had the most control over) and how the Special Edition and '04/'11/'19 revisions are edited. I think Lucas needs to be kept as far away from the editing process as possible. Thank the 9 he didn’t have control over then new films.
(Sorry mods for getting off topic.)Given that the ST didn’t turn out that great for many, I would say the editing while important isn’t what determines how well a Star Wars film is regarded by posterity. Overall the ST has turned out to be a mixed bag, like the PT before it. It just has different flaws than the PT. I would say Lucas’ imagination and drive is still the main ingredient to the success of the franchise, and I personally prefer the PT over the ST despite its many flaws in the execution department.
It’s almost impressive how you can turn every topic into a dig at the ST.
Considering I’ve hardly discussed the ST in many months, I don’t really know what you’re talking about. Please point to the many topics I’ve turned into a dig at the ST in recent times, otherwise please get your facts straight before posting innuendo. However, I don’t really care for the myth, that Star Wars somehow became a success despite George Lucas. Without GL there would be no Star Wars, and if others can “take a dig” at the PT to “prove” that Lucas’ contribution is overrated, I can point to the unimaginative, and highly derivative nature of the ST to argue the opposite. If that’s considered a dig at the ST by some hypersensitive individuals, so be it. It’s also interesting to note the bias in taking a dig at me for referencing the ST, whilst the reference to the PT in the same thread is conveniently ignored.