Sign In

RocketJump's Video on Star Wars "being saved in the edit" is Literally a Lie (*no, it is not) — Page 2

Author
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

Also, this “every frame a pause” style of critique is terrible and I despise Mauler and his cronies for making it popular.

What’s wrong with critiquing with a fine tooth comb? I’d rather watch someone who was overly detail focused than someone who overgeneralized.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I don’t think Nerdonymous was trying to hate on fan preservations. I think he was just pointing out how some fans tend to try to discredit George’s original contributions to the OT rather than merely criticizing his poor creative decisions later in life (the Special Editions and the Prequels). Some fans have tried using George’s poor decisions from 1997 onward as proof that he was always incompetent and that the OT was never truly his accomplishment. I think Nerdonymous did a poor job of articulating that, but I’m pretty sure that’s what he meant. He wasn’t bashing Harmy or anything.

I do agree, though, that this video has a lot of filler and feels rather mean-spirited and vitriolic at times. And him accusing Paul Hirsch of being a liar is in very poor taste.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Without George Lucas, there would be no Star Wars. Period. Does he get credit for the work of others? Yes. Does he revise history to make things seem more perfect? Absolutely. I think we all do though.

It look a lot of people doing their best work to create Star Wars. He didn’t do it all alone, but he had the vision that it could be done and made it all possible.

We are able to poke holes in his revisionist facade and peer deeper into what actually happened and see how significant the contributions of others really were. I think that’s important to do. Other people deserve their share of the spotlight too. I just think there’s room in Star Wars to credit multiple people as geniuses. Can’t we just elevate those others without tearing George down?

The only things he’s done I don’t like are the suppression of the original theatrical releases, and some of the things he said around the release of the GOUT were out of line. Other than that, I’m thankful he created something so important to me.

I’m glad the video emphasizing the work of the editors is out there. They likely played a larger role than they get credit for.

I still thank George too though.

Author
Time

screams in the void said:

Yeah , I thank George too , I still don’t see Rocketjump bashing him anywhere in his video though .

You’re correct mate - though that hasn’t stopped a number of pro George fans saying it has - or being offended by it to the point of being vitriolic.

He, and some of the pro George Lucas fans really shouldn’t be triggered by such as a video as RJ’s - especially where in the blurb, and the video itself, clearly states it 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 of film editing in general.

(maybe he can’t get past the somewhat clickbaity title of RJ’s video)

Yet Nerdonymous for whatever reason does indeed that claim in his 2 hour video that the RJ video is “simply an attempt to discredit George Lucas”.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

The Star Wars Trilogy; three timeless adventures that changed movie-making forever!’ - no longer available.
 
Welcome | About | Help | How do I do this on the OT.com? | Announcements | General Assistance |
Site Timeline | Forum Rules | Fan Edit & Preservation Rules + FAQs | Signature Rules | MySpleen Info

Author
Time
 (Edited)

G&G-Fan said:

When did he bash fan preservations?

1h 48m 40s into that 2 hour video you plugged on here.
 

If anyone hasn’t yet seen the video - I wouldn’t bother. Yes, there are a couple of mistakes in the RJ video - though it didn’t need a 2 hour video remedy that; and nor in the abrupt, mocking and somewhat patronising manner delivered in Nerdonymous’ video. SparkySywer’s post here covers the Nerdonymous video in some detail to save you wasting two hours actually watching it.

That’s without the somewhat laughable claim made in the 2 hour video by Nerdonymous that the RJ video is somehow “simply an attempt to discredit George Lucas”.

 

G&G-Fan said:

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 George edited the rough cut, it’s heavily implied and it’s what I and everybody else thought upon initially seeing the video),

It may be what you thought - though please don’t claim that to speak as to what “everyone else thought upon initally the seeing the video” - this obviously is not the case here.

The RJ video simply didn’t state what you claim to be a lie - as you admit yourself.

Asserting someone is claiming something that they are not… is indeed a strawman argument. (I think I read that something akin to that somewhere recently…)

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.
 

they lied about the reactions of the people who watched the rough cut,

Spielberg? He’s on record as saying Brian De Palma “went off on George” after watching the rough cut with Lucas’ other film-making friends.

De Palma? He is also on record as saying the crawl didn’t make any sense at all - ‘gibberish’ (?), kidding Lucas about the Force etc, what’s going on around here, that he didn’t understand the story, who are these people, who’s the hairy guy, etc’. “But you have to understand, we used to look at each other’s movies in order to be helpful. We might say some things that weren’t nice.” - De Palma also admits his harsh criticisms didn’t always go down well for some, yet Lucas never took offense to his remarks about the movie.

Isn’t the audio footage used by RJ from the HBO doc on Spielberg? Spielberg actually doing his De Palma impression? (it has been a long time since I watched it; I think it is - though could be wrong).

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.
 

they lied about the editors being the ones to decide to remove the early Luke scenes,

They simply quoted Richard Chew, from ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler, as saying:-

“In the first five minutes we were hitting everybody with more information they could handle. There were too many storylines to keep straight: the robots and the princess, Vader, Luke. So we simplified it by taking Luke and Biggs out”.

This is quite strange… as apparently ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler is a trusted and “peer-written published material” for you… yet now it is a lie? Huh, interesting that.

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.
 

they lied about the reasons the Death Star scenes were moved later

The conference scene on board the Death Star? What exactly is your reason for claiming that RocketJump ‘lied’ to be?

Seems it simply made more sense to the story to re-arrange those scenes, yes?
 

and straight up lied that Marcia Lucas came up with the idea that the Death Star was going to destroy the Rebel base.

Edit: Perhaps the misconstrued what Marcia Lucas said when she talks about introducing the ‘time clock’ to the Death Star Trench Run Attack to give it more tension (as demonstrated here in this video of Marcia talking about it: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxfmq0nCEs - at 1h, 07m 47s into the video)

It’d be interesting to hear what RJ’s source or basis for was for their claim - or if RJ misinterpreted it? Have they commented on it as yet (I imagine others have asked them about it)?
 

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!

‘peer-written published material’ - where is this material? Don’t say the ‘The Making of Star Wars’ by Rinzler; you’ve just accused Chew’s comments from that very book as being a lie told by RocketJump.

I’ve not made a claim about ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ prior to this post in the thread - nor any other books about the subject of the RJ or Nerdanonymous videos. If you’re going to plainly just make things up to try to pin false claims on others… then you should probably think again.

Hokey hyperbole, exaggeration, and false claims are no match for good blaster facts at your side.

 

As stated previously…

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.

It still doesn’t make the RocketJump video “literally a lie”.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

The Star Wars Trilogy; three timeless adventures that changed movie-making forever!’ - no longer available.
 
Welcome | About | Help | How do I do this on the OT.com? | Announcements | General Assistance |
Site Timeline | Forum Rules | Fan Edit & Preservation Rules + FAQs | Signature Rules | MySpleen Info

Author
Time

and if one scrolls down far enough in the comments of RJ’s video , one will see that RJ even had to state in the comments that he wasn’t trying to attack Lucas.

“That was never the goal, nor the intent of this video,” he wrote. “It should go without saying that George Lucas supervised, approved, and even contributed to all of these editorial changes. However, having seen the response, this is a point of fact that clearly should’ve been stated and it was an oversight on my part that that simple acknowledgment wasn’t included.”

I just wish he had thought to add that to the description of the video afterwards .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I wouldn’t call myself “pro-George” nor am I anti-George. That video (How Star Wars was saved in the edit) has been around a few years and I’ve posted it several places.

I see a lot of people on two sides where George is either a saint or the devil incarnate. That video is a conversation starter for both. I see comments claiming it’s misleading because George was actually hands on during the editing process and oversaw their work, while others use it as an example of how the people around George actually created Star Wars more so than he did.

Everyone references this or that article or interview, book and video. My interpretation is the truth falls somewhere between, as often is the case.

George’s star got really bright, and the creative contribution of some others got overlooked. Is this George’s fault? I’d say somewhat. They say every time you remember something, your brain changes it a little. It’s been over 40 years. George probably thinks a lot of things happened ways they actually didn’t.

Did George create everything or just chose what he wanted from the creative work of others? Did he invent technology or just push others to create it? Again, probably some of both.

I wish George would share the creative spotlight a little more and stop revising history. I wish he would be more of a brand ambassador like Stan Lee was for Marvel. But it is what it is. Star Wars wouldn’t be what it is without a lot of important people. Not sure you can remove any of them and be where we are today.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

Okay, I have a confession to make. I’ve watched Nerdonymous’ other videos, but I hadn’t actually gotten around to finishing this one yet. From what you’re describing, Sparky, I have to agree that it sounds pretty bad. It sounds more like he’s just lashing out against the anti-George Lucas sentiment rather than actually offering a coherent counterpoint to the video. I must admit I’m disappointed in this guy.

My apologies then for including your name in my comment

G&G-Fan said:

When did he bash fan preservations?

1 hour 48 minutes 49 seconds is when Nerdonymous starts talking about it, maybe start a few seconds earlier for context.

Edit: To make it more clear, he responds to a part of RocketJump’s video talking about fan preservations, specifically showing a clip from Harmy’s making of video, and compares it to “George Lucas raped my childhood” bullshit from the time.

Rodney-2187 said:

Without George Lucas, there would be no Star Wars. Period.

This is also an important mentality to have. Because while Lucas’s revisionism is BS and harmful, and while Nerdonymous’s video is incorrect in asserting RJ’s video was an attempt at discrediting George Lucas, there are people who do want to discredit George Lucas, and that’s wrong too.

Plus, there’s a quote by exurb1a I think is relevant for people who don’t like the prequels. Paraphrasing it because I can’t be bothered looking it up: “The key to happiness is recognizing that the prequels were awful, but thanking George Lucas for the Original Trilogy anyway.”

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

oojason said:

1h 48m 40s into that 2 hour video you plugged on here.

He never bashes the fan restorations though, right after RJ brings up the restorations he just goes and comments on how some fans want to take away all of Lucas’ accomplishments because they were dissatisfied with the special editions and prequels.

oojason said:

De Palma? He is also on record as saying the crawl didn’t make any sense at all - ‘gibberish’ (?), kidding Lucas about the Force etc, what’s going on around here, that he didn’t understand the story, who are these people, who’s the hairy guy, etc’. “But you have to understand, we used to look at each other’s movies in order to be helpful. We might say some things that weren’t nice.” - De Palma also admits his harsh criticisms didn’t always go down well for some, yet Lucas never took offense to his remarks about the movie.

Isn’t the audio footage used by RJ from the HBO doc on Spielberg? Spielberg actually doing his De Palma impression? (it has been a long time since I watched it; I think it is - though could be wrong).

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.

He gave an impression that the rough cut was universally hated when De Palma was the only one with problems.

oojason said:

They simply quoted Richard Chew, from ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler, as saying:-

“In the first five minutes we were hitting everybody with more information they could handle. There were too many storylines to keep straight: the robots and the princess, Vader, Luke. So we simplified it by taking Luke and Biggs out”.

This is quite strange… as apparently ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler is a trusted and “peer-written published material” for you… yet now it is a lie? Huh, interesting that.

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.

The Making of Star Wars isn’t a lie nor is that quote, and I never said it was. What happened is that RJ conveniently left out parts of that quote that come immediately before and after it that prove that it was Lucas’ decision to cut those Luke scenes, not the editors. Nerdonymous literally shows the full quotes in his video.

oojason said:

they lied about the reasons the Death Star scenes were moved later

The conference scene on board the Death Star? What exactly is your reason for claiming that RocketJump ‘lied’ to be?

Seems it simply made more sense to the story to re-arrange those scenes, yes?

If you watched the video you would know that it’s proven through The Making of Star Wars by Rinzler that the reason those scenes were rearranged was not for story purposes, it was strictly for the reason that Scorsese thought there was too much exposition in the beginning. It wasn’t because the original arrangement made no sense.

My Star Wars Fan-Edits
Proud creator of Dinosauria: Ascension, Domination, Downfall

Author
Time

G&G-Fan said:

oojason said:

1h 48m 40s into that 2 hour video you plugged on here.

He never bashes the fan restorations though, right after RJ brings up the restorations he just goes and comments on how some fans want to take away all of Lucas’ accomplishments because they were dissatisfied with the special editions and prequels.

RocketJump mentions Harmy and other fans who’ve contributed to restoration projects, and then Nerdonymous goes on about “George Lucas raped my childhood” type fans to rebut him. There is absolutely no reason for him to have brought that up here other than if he was claiming that this was their motivation for restoring the Original Trilogy.

I suppose it’s possible that that’s not what he meant, he does waffle on about random, irrelevant bullshit a lot in his video. But somehow I doubt that’s what happened here.

BedeHistory731 said:

Also, this “every frame a pause” style of critique is terrible and I despise Mauler and his cronies for making it popular.

Servii said:

BedeHistory731 said:

Also, this “every frame a pause” style of critique is terrible and I despise Mauler and his cronies for making it popular.

What’s wrong with critiquing with a fine tooth comb? I’d rather watch someone who was overly detail focused than someone who overgeneralized.

A few months ago a Mauler fan gave their definition of a bad movie, that being any movie where over 60% of the runtime has problems. Obviously this is ridiculous, 60% is a really random-ass number to pull, and how you would even measure this is beyond me. But I think it kind of says a lot about what that style of criticism is trying to prove.

These types of criticisms are essentially big long lists of mean things you can say about a movie. And the more “problems” you can list off about a movie, the worse it is.

But that style of critique doesn’t address how people actually experience movies. It’s not like when you’re watching a movie you’re counting all the bads you notice, and if it passes a threshhold it’s a bad movie. People experience movies in the big picture.

And this style of critique is completely incapable of addressing the big picture, because a character arc is more than just a combination of character moments. A narrative is more than jut a combination of plot points. Et cetera.

If you wanted to criticize Luke’s character in TLJ in this format, you could only really look at the individual character moment, when the thing that’s actually controversial is the overarching story.

But even making that comparison is way too generous, because they’re not starting from the top down, trying to criticize Luke’s character by finding individual character moments that bug them. They’re going from the bottom up, making a huge, long list of everything that could be considered at the very least an imperfection. And none of it ever amounts to anything.

They’re not criticizing with a fine tooth comb, they’re not catching lots of problems. They’re catching lots of meaningless nitpicks and missing actual criticism.

There’s a lot of people who say that people only care about these problems in movies they already didn’t like, and happily ignore them in movies they do like. I think this is a bad argument, if a movie has problems you probably don’t like it, kind of by definition. But looking at it at from this angle kind of makes that argument make sense a little: These aren’t actual problems, whether or not you like a movie has absolutely nothing to do with them. You’ll recognize these sorts of “problems” to dunk on a movie you already like, but either aren’t motivated to seek out these sorts of “problems”, or you aren’t receptive to them when you find them, because you already like the movie and they don’t actually matter.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

Mauler is just CinemaSins taken to its logical conclusion. And my goodness does it suck.

Heck, I don’t even like the Plinkett reviews that much anymore, given how so many people took the wrong message from them and perpetuated this “listing little problems as critique” method.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

G&G-Fan said:

oojason said:

1h 48m 40s into that 2 hour video you plugged on here.

He never bashes the fan restorations though, right after RJ brings up the restorations he just goes and comments on how some fans want to take away all of Lucas’ accomplishments because they were dissatisfied with the special editions and prequels.

See SparkySywer’s replies on this - in both of his latest posts - for more or less my answer on topic too. So, yes, Nerdanymous does indeed bash fan restorations.

(and Nerdanymous seems to get quite triggered and angry about it too as he progresses with his ‘some fans’… “they want to burn him (Lucas) to the ground” & “they want to take everything away from him” spiel; whilst showing a FactRepublic image stating some of Marcia’s contributions to the film, and some of what she edited - for which she won an Oscar for).
 

G&G-Fan said:

oojason said:

De Palma? He is also on record as saying the crawl didn’t make any sense at all - ‘gibberish’ (?), kidding Lucas about the Force etc, what’s going on around here, that he didn’t understand the story, who are these people, who’s the hairy guy, etc’. “But you have to understand, we used to look at each other’s movies in order to be helpful. We might say some things that weren’t nice.” - De Palma also admits his harsh criticisms didn’t always go down well for some, yet Lucas never took offense to his remarks about the movie.

Isn’t the audio footage used by RJ from the HBO doc on Spielberg? Spielberg actually doing his De Palma impression? (it has been a long time since I watched it; I think it is - though could be wrong).

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.

He gave an impression that the rough cut was universally hated when De Palma was the only one with problems.

No, the RJ video made no such claim. What RJ actually stated was:-

“In February of 1977 George Lucas invited some of his closest friends to watch a rough cut of his new film… Star Wars. In attendance among a handful of people were were Steven Spielberg and Brian De Palma. The response was… not good. According to Spielberg this is how De Palma reacted… (inserts Spielberg’s audio of the De Palams’ reaction)”.

That is literally it - from 8 seconds in to 38 seconds in of the RJ video.

So, no… the RJ video did not lie as you claimed before.

And neither the RJ give an “impression that the rough cut was universally hated”.
 

G&G-Fan said:

oojason said:

They simply quoted Richard Chew, from ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler, as saying:-

“In the first five minutes we were hitting everybody with more information they could handle. There were too many storylines to keep straight: the robots and the princess, Vader, Luke. So we simplified it by taking Luke and Biggs out”.

This is quite strange… as apparently ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler is a trusted and “peer-written published material” for you… yet now it is a lie? Huh, interesting that.

So, no… the RJ video did not lie.

The Making of Star Wars isn’t a lie nor is that quote, and I never said it was. What happened is that RJ conveniently left out parts of that quote that come immediately before and after it that prove that it was Lucas’ decision to cut those Luke scenes, not the editors. Nerdonymous literally shows the full quotes in his video.

This is about your claims about the RJ video - and not the Nerdonymous video or ‘Making Of’ book.

The Richard Chew quote, in the context of the RJ video, says… “So we simplified it by taking Luke and Biggs out”, the ‘we’ in that quote - could be referring to anyone; as part of the group of people who worked on the film, or him and his fellow editors - including Lucas, or the people in the editing rooms at the time of decision - including Lucas, or assistant editors, and so on… It was also used in the RJ video to highlight how scenes in films get removed around in the editing process. There is no lie or deception in the context of the RJ video about this topic.

So again - on your claims of the RJ video ‘lies’… no, RocketJump did not lie.
 

As for ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book… see the end ‘by the way’ section towards the end of this post.
 

G&G-Fan said:

oojason said:

they lied about the reasons the Death Star scenes were moved later

The conference scene on board the Death Star? What exactly is your reason for claiming that RocketJump ‘lied’ to be?

Seems it simply made more sense to the story to re-arrange those scenes, yes?

If you watched the video you would know that it’s proven through The Making of Star Wars by Rinzler that the reason those scenes were rearranged was not for story purposes, it was strictly for the reason that Scorsese thought there was too much exposition in the beginning. It wasn’t because the original arrangement made no sense.

I’ve watched the Nerdanymous video - unfortunately, as well you know.

However, when you stated in the OP of this thread…

G&G-Fan said:

RocketJump’s video is a bunch of lying, bias nonsense with misdirection and misinformation across the board.

I asked you…

oojason said:

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.

Again, this is about your claims about the RJ video - and not the Nerdonymous video or ‘Making Of’ book.

 

Some advice, G&G-Fan… when you’re deep in a hole (like the one you started shovelling with in the OP of this thread), stop digging. 👍

 
 

By the way, you should know ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ book by Rinzler that you ‘trust actual peer-written published material over others’ (paraphrasing)… also contains errors, uses Special Edition images passed off as theatrical cut images, and includes retcons inserted by George himself (as Rinzler himself later admitted).

However, nobody is seemingly going around claiming ‘The Making Of Star Wars’ to be “literally a lie”, or similarly like, either. Maybe Nerdonymous’ next video will? And you may then make a thread claiming the Rinzler book is then also “literally a lie”… though let’s not literally hold out breath on that one though, eh? 😉
 

Highlighting the ‘errors’ or ‘mistakes’ in media is good form - in a civil, factual & informative manner. There are many forms of media out there - books, docs, videos, specials, interviews, and other programs… many of which feature errors, mistakes, variances of recollections, some retcons and so on… If official releases such as Rinzler’s well researched ‘Making Of Star Wars’ books (much credit to Charles Lippincott; RIP) contains such mistakes; even after passing numerous checks, and also receives the ‘okay’ from the publishers, George, Lucasfilm & lawyers etc… then an online ‘video essay exploring how Star Wars’ editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it became’ may well contain a few errors too. It happens.

As said to you previously…

oojason said:

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.

 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

The Star Wars Trilogy; three timeless adventures that changed movie-making forever!’ - no longer available.
 
Welcome | About | Help | How do I do this on the OT.com? | Announcements | General Assistance |
Site Timeline | Forum Rules | Fan Edit & Preservation Rules + FAQs | Signature Rules | MySpleen Info

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

A few months ago a Mauler fan gave their definition of a bad movie, that being any movie where over 60% of the runtime has problems. Obviously this is ridiculous, 60% is a really random-ass number to pull, and how you would even measure this is beyond me. But I think it kind of says a lot about what that style of criticism is trying to prove.

Whoever this fan is, they did a poor job of explaining what Mauler’s critique videos are actually aiming for. It’s not about some arbitrary threshold where a movie becomes bad if it has a certain number of bad things. It’s about determining whether a film is able to maintain logical consistency alongside its emotional payoffs.

There’s this misconception among some people that the struggle in filmmaking to balance emotional moments with logical plot/character progression is a zero sum game. That in order for a film to have its powerful scenes or payoffs that touch the audience on an emotional level, the film’s internal logic is worth being compromised or disregarded. These same people also often believe that a film which maintains internal logic and airtight writing will necessarily be more “boring” or less emotionally impactful than a film that sometimes gives up on logic for the sake of making an emotional scene happen.

This is a problem with a lot of modern filmmaking. Writers and directors come up with certain scenes or moments that they really want to put in the film to leave a strong impression on the audience, then they work backwards through the story to make those moments occur. The priorities are backwards here. Those emotional moments and payoffs need to be earned, and they need to make sense in context, both in the individual film and in the larger series (if there is one). Otherwise, their intended impact is diminished for anyone who notices the lapses in logic.

That’s what Mauler is looking out for. To see if those payoffs are earned or set up correctly, and whether or not the story’s logic is compromised for the sake of the scene. It’s not about the quantity of issues. It’s about whether those issues majorly interfere with or undermine what the film is trying to convey to the audience.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

screams in the void said:

yeah , I thought it was vitriolic too , on a somewhat related tangent to the topic at hand, I find this conversation with Marcia Lucas and Ben Burtt in this video very interesting . Starts at the one hour mark and goes on for about 15 minutes …https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iOxfmq0nCEs

Quality mate - thanks for posting that, an intriguing and informative watch. Always good to hear Marcia talk about her work on the Original Trilogy.

And also hearing Marcia talk about introducing a ‘time-clock’ to the Death Star ‘Trench Run’ attack scenes to give them more tension too.

‘For the smartest pair of hands in the galaxy’ 😉

 

In the wider context of the whole video - and for anyone interested… John Dykstra, Dennis Muren, John Knoll, Bill George, Harrison Ellenshaw, Bruce Nicholson, Richard Edlund and Rachel Rose also appear and give their views, recollections and insights 👍
 

A little more info on the event they were all at - the video that screams linked to above…

Star Wars Visual Effects Pioneers Highlight The Academy’s “Galactic Innovations: Star Wars and Rogue One” Event’:-

www.indiewire.com/2019/06/star-wars-tech-academy-1202152588 & www.wearemoviegeeks.com/2019/06/266867
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

The Star Wars Trilogy; three timeless adventures that changed movie-making forever!’ - no longer available.
 
Welcome | About | Help | How do I do this on the OT.com? | Announcements | General Assistance |
Site Timeline | Forum Rules | Fan Edit & Preservation Rules + FAQs | Signature Rules | MySpleen Info

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Rodney-2187 said:

I wouldn’t call myself “pro-George” nor am I anti-George. That video (How Star Wars was saved in the edit) has been around a few years and I’ve posted it several places.

I see a lot of people on two sides where George is either a saint or the devil incarnate. That video is a conversation starter for both. I see comments claiming it’s misleading because George was actually hands on during the editing process and oversaw their work, while others use it as an example of how the people around George actually created Star Wars more so than he did.

Everyone references this or that article or interview, book and video. My interpretation is the truth falls somewhere between, as often is the case.

George’s star got really bright, and the creative contribution of some others got overlooked. Is this George’s fault? I’d say somewhat. They say every time you remember something, your brain changes it a little. It’s been over 40 years. George probably thinks a lot of things happened ways they actually didn’t.

Did George create everything or just chose what he wanted from the creative work of others? Did he invent technology or just push others to create it? Again, probably some of both.

I wish George would share the creative spotlight a little more and stop revising history. I wish he would be more of a brand ambassador like Stan Lee was for Marvel. But it is what it is. Star Wars wouldn’t be what it is without a lot of important people. Not sure you can remove any of them and be where we are today.

Agreed. George was the driving force behind it all…with Kurtz as wingman. There are a lot of quotes from George in the 1976-1984 period that show he understood how to make a great movie and was aware of his own deficiencies in certain areas.

As an aside Rodney, I also thought George was an uncredited editor of the final edit too. Can anyone clarify?

“It is only through interaction, through decision and choice, through confrontation, physical or mental, that the Force can grow within you.”
-Kreia, Jedi Master and Sith Lord

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Servii said:

SparkySywer said:

A few months ago a Mauler fan gave their definition of a bad movie, that being any movie where over 60% of the runtime has problems. Obviously this is ridiculous, 60% is a really random-ass number to pull, and how you would even measure this is beyond me. But I think it kind of says a lot about what that style of criticism is trying to prove.

Whoever this fan is, they did a poor job of explaining what Mauler’s critique videos are actually aiming for. It’s not about some arbitrary threshold where a movie becomes bad if it has a certain number of bad things. It’s about determining whether a film is able to maintain logical consistency alongside its emotional payoffs.

They weren’t trying to explain anything, it was just their unsolicited opinion that I think said a lot about Mauler’s style, or at least the popular perception of his videos.

There’s this misconception among some people that the struggle in filmmaking to balance emotional moments with logical plot/character progression is a zero sum game. That in order for a film to have its powerful scenes or payoffs that touch the audience on an emotional level, the film’s internal logic is worth being compromised or disregarded. These same people also often believe that a film which maintains internal logic and airtight writing will necessarily be more “boring” or less emotionally impactful than a film that sometimes gives up on logic for the sake of making an emotional scene happen.

If they built to a larger criticism of the movie, something like “This movie’s plot was clearly cobbled together” or “They clearly put no thought into the progression of this movie’s plot”, or “They sacrificed making sense for XYZ other aspect”. But they don’t. And they really couldn’t even if they wanted to, which I doubt they do.

Or, they could even build to a larger point like “This plot point that the movie hinges on doesn’t really make sense”, but again, they don’t really and can’t really because of the format, and I doubt that’s even their goal.

Because the problems with the sequel trilogy aren’t really an abundance of plot holes, it’s the narrative and its execution. Honestly, severe plot holes are incredibly rare, because it’s pretty hard to break the internal logic of a story so hard that it actually hurts the movie. That’s why it’s so difficult to find examples of plot holes outside of angry rants and clickbait bullshit.

There’s a market for this, making big long lists of things you can use to dunk on a movie someone already doesn’t like. Especially if that particular movie is controversial and polarizing with lots of heated internet arguments and strong opinions on both sides, you slap on a ridiculous name like “objective film criticism” to tickle their egos. But it’s not criticism.

And, you know, Mauler is no Socrates. This is the guy who thought the Last Jedi’s ending being set on a salt flat was as ridiculous as there being a Jelly Donut planet in Star Wars… despite Crait literally being shot on location in the largest salt flat on Earth in Bolivia.

This guy went 27 years never hearing of salt flats, never heard anything in the promotion leading up to the Last Jedi, and never did his research… it’s really funny. Even if you’ve never heard of salt flats, where does he think salt comes from? It’s either mined or distilled from saltwater (which turns into salt flats if the water evaporates).

I kind of hate the narrative that if the OT came out today it would be torn apart, because a lot of the time it’s done to undercut the OT. But if the audience who thought Luke astral projecting himself was a plot hole because it wasn’t a pre-established ability saw Palpatine’s death in Return of the Jedi, they’d have died in their chairs from the shock.

I genuinely think it’s ruining movies, because an entire generation of cinema has come out to an audience who think they’re genius analytics or something because they saw a few CinemaSins videos. Movie discussion is centered around made up “plot holes” which could be resolved if you turned on your brain for a second, but apparently modern audiences need information spoon fed to them.

I also kind of hate that the post-Disney movies feel the need to fill in these fake plot holes, often with way worse explanations. If you use your brain and think about what an exhaust port is, it’s obvious why the Death Star has one, why it would be open, and why it would go all the way down to the core. But Rogue One felt the need to come up with the idea that it was intentionally designed that way. The Last Jedi explains the Holdo Maneuver, but you have to actually stay awake for the whole movie to catch it, so the Rise of Skywalker comes up with a completely different, far worse explanation which retroactively makes it less believable.

Edit: I think I’m bringing this thread way off topic now, but to be fair the original purpose of the thread is kind of over and done with

Death of the Author