The one that was most painful for McCallum to let go was Yoda's voyage to take exile on the swamp planet of Dagobah, where we meet him again as the Jedi trainer of Luke Skywalker (Mark Hamill) in "Episode IV (sic) -- The Empire Strikes Back."
McCallum's taste is not in sympathy with my own. It is better for Yoda to say he's going into exile, then not be seen again until Luke finds him. To show Dagobah in the PT is to continue the unfortunate recent trend of showing things before introducing them -- the first and most objectionable example of that probably being the inserted Docking Bay 94 footage in ANH:SE.
That's great. I wish they'd showed that. It would've been really neat to see Anakin slowly seduced by the increasingly easy power of the Dark Side. But that's not what happened.
"We know we want it to be darker, edgier and have fun sense of humor, but it will be more character--based,
McCallum's taste is not in sympathy with my own. It is better for Yoda to say he's going into exile, then not be seen again until Luke finds him. To show Dagobah in the PT is to continue the unfortunate recent trend of showing things before introducing them -- the first and most objectionable example of that probably being the inserted Docking Bay 94 footage in ANH:SE.
"Personally, I felt they held things up and I was bored by them. At the end of the day, all anybody wanted young and old was to find out how Anakin turned to the Dark Side. We were already on dangerous ground as to how and why. Basically because he's in love with his wife and wants to protect her."
First of all, I've got to commend McCallum on his uncharacterstic honesty here. He admits they were on shaky ground with the Anakin subplot, and that he was bored with the other subplots. (Maybe because they didn't have CGI automatons flying around and killing each other?) Anyway, if McCallum believed that all anybody wanted was to see Anakin's fall, that goes a long way towards explaining the paucity of development the other characters and plot threads got. Why should we care about the disposable villains, the incompetent heroes, or the gaping plot holes? We came here to see Hayden Christiansen fall into lava and talk like James Earl Jones!
So Lucas hasn't had a single original idea since the Vietnam War ended? I can almost believe that. How ironic that George Lucas brought McCallum on as his producer, and now McCallum views Lucas as a product.
"It's trying to say, 'Look, if you lie to your parents, if you lie once, it gets easier. If you lie again, there are consequences to everything you do,
First of all, I've got to commend McCallum on his uncharacterstic honesty here. He admits they were on shaky ground with the Anakin subplot, and that he was bored with the other subplots. (Maybe because they didn't have CGI automatons flying around and killing each other?) Anyway, if McCallum believed that all anybody wanted was to see Anakin's fall, that goes a long way towards explaining the paucity of development the other characters and plot threads got. Why should we care about the disposable villains, the incompetent heroes, or the gaping plot holes? We came here to see Hayden Christiansen fall into lava and talk like James Earl Jones!
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.
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.
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.
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.
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:
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.
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.
So Lucas hasn't had a single original idea since the Vietnam War ended? I can almost believe that. How ironic that George Lucas brought McCallum on as his producer, and now McCallum views Lucas as a product.
"It's trying to say, 'Look, if you lie to your parents, if you lie once, it gets easier. If you lie again, there are consequences to everything you do,
That's great. I wish they'd showed that. It would've been really neat to see Anakin slowly seduced by the increasingly easy power of the Dark Side. But that's not what happened.
"We know we want it to be darker, edgier and have fun sense of humor, but it will be more character--based,
Isn't that what they said about the last two movies? And now they're going to try to do "100 hours," "three or four years" (at least four for syndication, probably five) worth of stories? Fixing plot holes instead of introducing them this time? I'll believe it when I see it.
McCallum reminds me of Rick Berman. You think Star Wars is bad now, wait until George dies.