At first, McCallum said, he thought that the thought of love turning Anakin to the Dark Side would be a difficult concept for the hard-core "Star Wars" fan base to accept.
His first instinct was correct. While I find the concept less objectionable than others, I find the execution to be shoddy. We are given a rather shallow reason for why Anakin first began his investigation of the Dark Side, but not why he would continue being a Darksider for twenty years, or how he got on the path to being a hotshot Imperial commander. If anything, the ending of Episode III made me think he was a man destroyed, useless to himself and others, and probably a suicide case.
McCallum said, in fact, that there was never really a consideration of implementing (Qui-Gon) in "Revenge of the Sith," at least in a physical form.
Sithspit. Or equivocation and dissimulation. The scene, as filmed,
doesn't work. It violates the fundamental rule of storytelling: Show, don't tell. Surely Lucas at least
considered using Liam Neeson in Episode III? The real reason for Neeson's absence, when revealed, will be either incredibly interesting or incredibly banal.
Of course, McCallum knows that he and Lucas will be up for criticism for putting special editions out in the marketplace again, but he insisted that it's not about money.
Kinda ironic, given that Lucasfilm just released the special editions again with no "improvements." It clearly wasn't about George Lucas seeing more "new light," but Ricky says it wasn't about money, so ... :confused:
"There are a group of people out there who are fascinated by the very creative process of what it's like to put all this s--- together, to change things and see the impact those changes have," McCallum mused.
Why don't you give us the original version of "all this s---" so we can see how things have changed and the impacts those changes have had? Don't cloak your greed and George's filmic OCD with an appeal to film buffs.
"It's like the extended versions of 'The Lord of the Rings.' One of the great things about having conversations with Peter Jackson about it, was finding out, that, people who didn't like 'Lord of the Rings,' particularly, liked it a lot more in the extended versions because everything made more sense for them.
Peter Jackson released the theatrical versions of his films and is on record saying that he doesn't see one as more real than the other. The theatrical cut is the director's cut; he's not shy about saying that. The Extended Editions are alternative versions, not replacements. And don't talk about "making sense" after a six-year exercise in anti-sense.
"That's such s---, I promise you," McCallum told me. "I know there's one line -- 'You're either with me or you're against me' -- that echoes something.
People have been pointing out the crypto-leftist ideas in the prequel trilogy since 1999. Remember Nute Gunray and Lott Dod?
In fact, McCallum added, if the film echoes any war, it's Vietnam.
"George is a product of Vietnam, not a product of Bush," McCallum said.