RocketJump's Video on Star Wars "being saved in the edit" is Literally a Lie (*no, it is not)

I remember watching that video awhile ago and actually thinking it was cool and informative and it’s used all over the place to try and prove the whole “George Lucas bad” campaign.

Then I came across this video. This really well-researched and thought out video that actually has credible sources and shows them really well… and it basically proves that RocketJump’s video is a bunch of lying, bias nonsense with misdirection and misinformation across the board.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=olqVGz6mOVE - (Mod Edit: a 2 hour video from the Nerdonymous youtube channel, titled ‘How “How Star Wars was saved in the edit” was saved in the edit (sort of, but not really)’).

So uh, yeah… Goerge Lucas didn’t suck and it wasn’t the editors that created Star Wars.

Sorry.

Mod Edit - 15th March: for clarity and a forewarning… the Nerdonymous video states the RocketJump video is “simply an attempt to discredit George Lucas” - and spends 2 hours attempting to discredit the RJ video in an abrupt, mocking and patronising manner - along with showing animals repeatedly defecating in it. The Nerdonymous video is aimed at appealing to pro-George Lucas fans out there, takes aim at OT fan preservations and later claims some fans “they want to burn him (Lucas) to the ground” & “they want to take everything away from him (Lucas)”.

The RocketJump video is… ‘‘A video essay exploring how Star Wars’ editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it became’ and is about the power and effects of film editing in general. The RJ video does feature a few factual errors - though some of Nerdanyomous claims and statements in his video are obviously nothing to do with RocketJump… but his issues with fans he considers not to like George Lucas - or fans seemingly acknowledging or praising others’ contributions to the making of the Original Trilogy.

“I think George’s ‘ace in the hole’ was that he surrounded himself with an incredible team of people to work with, and listening and collaborating with them to help refine his incredible vision.”

^ The RocketJump video in summing up - which not only applies to the editing of the film - but also the overall making of Star Wars itself. (Not forgetting, of course, that near-on all films are ‘made’ / ‘saved’ in the editing process.)
 

The RJ video does NOT claim that ‘George Lucas sucks’ - or anything like, nor that ‘the editors created Star Wars’ - as the OP stated.

Right. Even the best artists need people to push back against them in order to make their work as good as possible. It’s when you get people becoming so famous and celebrated that nobody stands up to them anymore that you get problems.

And it’s not confined to celluloid by any means. I can think of several fantasy-book writers who got so famous they ended up being able to ignore their editors and their work suffered for it.

That’s one reason why it’s so interesting to me that films like Solo use rear-projection for the cockpit scenes instead of blue-screens.

Lucas tried using that exact method on the first film back in 1976 and it didn’t work at all. ILM supplied hardly any usable footage beforehand and what they did give was too fast-paced for the actors to react well against. Blue-screens were a backup used out of necessity.

Same with the lightsabers on the first film. Rotoscoping was added only because the original idea - an “in-camera” effect using glowing sticks with electric cords hidden up the actors’ sleeves - looked absolutely terrible. Plus it severely hampered the actors’ range of motion in the duel. If they’d gone with the rotoscope idea from the beginning the Vader/Obi-Wan Death Star deul could have had stunt doubles and been as spectacular as the ones in ESB and ROTJ.

And now we’ve come around all the way back to glowing sticks again. Funny how that works. But a lot of the OT’s use of post-production effects work was driven by practical on-set alternatives simply being unviable back then. That probably was why Lucas learned to rely on optical and then digital effects so heavily.

For information…

RocketJump’s ‘How Star Wars was saved in the edit’ video can be seen here:-

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GFMyMxMYDNk - an 18 minute long video, from the erm… Rocketjump youtube channel.
 

The blurb for the video: ‘‘A video essay exploring how Star Wars’ editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it became.’
 

I haven’t seen the 2 hour long video linked in the OP by G&G-Fan - though I am not sure how a video (in this context) can be “Literally a Lie”. Literally… 😉
 

Well in this case it’s because it takes the time to show and pull direct quotes from the books being referenced for research

Mocata said:

Jeez why are all the pro-Lucas and pro-prequel videos like 2 hours long or more

Ad revenue for some, maybe? Catering to ‘the algorithm’?

Though Sparky is probably onto something too.
 

After watching the 2 hour video I am still not sure how a video (in this context) can be “Literally a Lie”. Literally…
 

G&G-Fan said:

I remember watching that video awhile ago and actually thinking it was cool and informative and it’s used all over the place to try and prove the whole “George Lucas bad” campaign.

There is a ‘George Lucas bad’ campaign? If it is indeed used by others as some sort of ‘proof’ of something… that’s not really on the people who made the video, is it? The RJ video isn’t a gospel, or claims to be ‘the definitive video on the editing of Star Wars’ etc, or anything like. I’m still not sure how Nerdonymous views the RJ video as “simply an attempt to discredit George Lucas”.
 

Then I came across this video. This really well-researched and thought out video that actually has credible sources and shows them really well… and it basically proves that RocketJump’s video is a bunch of lying, bias nonsense with misdirection and misinformation across the board.

It is? How so (other than a couple of mistakes in the RJ video)? Please don’t point me to watch the Nerdonymous video - what are the lies, bias, nonsense, misdirection and misinformation you claim there to be in the RocketJump video.
 

So uh, yeah… Goerge Lucas didn’t suck and it wasn’t the editors that created Star Wars.

Sorry.

Did the RocketJump video state that ‘Lucas did suck’? And that it was ‘the editors that created Star Wars’? Huh… I’ll have to give the RocketJump video another watch. I did re-watch it, and no, they didn’t say anything of the sort.

They did indeed explain how ‘Star Wars editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it became’.

Some of the RJ video you may disagree with, some of it may indeed be incorrect (or there are other sources / recollections by people used in that could be seen as conflicting with each other), or some of it ‘from a certain point of view’… YMMV.

Yet there really isn’t a need for the type of hyperbole or attitude used in in your OP - which, to be honest, reads like a an advert for a 2 hour video designed to deconstruct the RJ video / profit on the back of the popularity of the RJ video… that some ‘pro-George Lucas’ fans obviously and vocally don’t much like - which is ironic as the RocketJump video doesn’t actually criticise George Lucas (Special Editions / further tinkerings apart).

As it literally says in ‘summing up’ of the RocketJump video - “I think George’s ‘ace in the hole’ was that he surrounded himself with an incredible team of people to work with, and listening and collaborating with them to help refine his incredible vision.”
 

The 2 hour video guy could have easily made his own ‘How Star Wars was made in the Edit’ video as an alternative - whilst also pointing out differences or conflicts (or any mistakes) with the RJ video… instead he attempts to simply deconstruct it - in an abrupt, mocking and somewhat patronising manner - whilst taking much of the RJ video out of context or making strawman-type arguments.

So in summing it up… even after watching sitting through that 2-hour video linked by G&G-Fan, the RocketJump video is not “literally a lie”, or anything like it.

If anyone is looking for a quality read on how Star Wars was written, evolved, and was made… then ‘The Secret History Of Star Wars’ book by Michael Kaminski, is well worth it.

Or watch the three Original Trilogy ‘Filmumentaries’ by Jamie Benning.
 

/thread

When did he bash fan preservations?

oojason said:

So in summing it up… even after watching sitting through that 2-hour video linked by G&G-Fan, the RocketJump video is not “literally a lie”, or anything like it.

It is though. They lied about George editing the rough cut (he didn’t; and before you say that they never said Goerge edited the rough cut, it’s heavily implied and it’s what I and everybody else thought upon initially seeing the video), they lied about the reactions of the people who watched the rough cut, they lied about the editors being the ones to decide to remove the early Luke scenes, they lied about the reasons the Death Star scenes were moved later and framed the original arrangement as absolutely ridiculous when in reality, sometimes they actually did work (like having the scene with Vader torturing Leia right after the plea for help), and straight up lied that Marcia Lucas came up with the idea that the Death Star was going to destroy the Rebel base. Many times they credit the editors for “ingenious ideas” and it simply isn’t true.

And if you want to claim that The Making of Star Wars and all of the others books written about the production of Star Wars he referenced (which were all written by people OTHER then George Lucas) are lies and there’s massive conspiracy going on, then fine, but I’m going to trust actual peer-written published material over “Dude(s) trust me”. I guess all of those scripts are lies too. But the 12 minute video that barely bothers to pull quotes, that’s the stuff!

SparkySywer said:

…Does Nerdonymous think that the bloopers should have remained in the movie? I’d really like an explanation from Servii and G&G-Fan for why they think this guy isn’t (pardon my French) a fucking moron.

I’ll probably respond more to this later, but since this one is obvious, I’ll just say it right now. He’s being sarcastic. No, he doesn’t think the bloopers should’ve remained in the movie. He’s pointing out that it isn’t “ingenious” of the editors that they didn’t use those takes.

Also I’d like you to point out where exactly he keeps contradicting himself by saying the rough cut is bad. He does have a central point: that the rough cut is not as bad as the video makes it out to be and the editors aren’t the only reason the movie is good.

The only reason you think he’s contradicting himself is because he’s saying that the changes the editors made really weren’t all that big and it works either way. He thinks that both the way the rough cut and the final cut did it is fine. I don’t recall him saying “Thank god the director removed the Luke scenes”.

The whole “rough cuts are usually bad” tangent was saying that even if the rough cut was truly awful, that wouldn’t be unusual.

“but I’m going to trust actual peer-written published material” G&G Fan , do you have a link to this peer written published material ?