Sign In

RocketJump's Video on Star Wars "being saved in the edit" is Literally a Lie

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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. 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 mistakes - 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.

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

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Nerdonymous is a great channel that really deserves more recognition. He’s only done a few videos, but they’re very well researched. I’d highly recommend them.

Edit: Never mind.

I used to buy into the narrative that George Lucas was incompetent and that Star Wars was only ever good in spite of him. I see now how wrong that is. Ever since the Plinkett reviews, there’s been this trend in the fandom of downplaying George’s importance to the Original Trilogy, and while the OT was still very much a collaborative effort, George was a large part of that collaboration. He wasn’t the bumbling fool Plinkett made him out to be.

Author
Time

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 Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Another thing I’ve realized from the OT is how much art is defined by its limitations. The OT was plagued by production struggles and technical shortcomings, yet those issues are part of what shaped the OT into the revered films they are today. We’ve grown up and become aware of all the seams and visual imperfections, but that only leads us to appreciate what the filmmakers accomplished even more. That’s why I think the Special Editions were always a fool’s errand, because you can’t turn back time and undo those limitations. The limitations are baked into the films. They shaped the films by forcing the filmmakers to adapt to them. It’s only natural that George was dissatisfied with the final products. Any creator in his position is bound to be.

I think some people were so shocked at the disparity between the OT and the PT that they tried to justify it by concocting the false idea that George was never a good filmmaker, when the reality is far more complicated. A film is a combined product of many different creatives all working in tandem, and the production process is influenced by the workplace culture.

Author
Time

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.

“That Darth Vader, man. Sure does love eating Jedi.”

Author
Time

I haven’t seen the whole video and don’t plan on doing so today, because it’s 4 AM in my time zone and I don’t want to commit myself to staying up past 6 just to watch one video. I probably will tomorrow. I’d also have to watch RocketJump’s original video too, it’s one of those videos that’s always been in my recommendations but I’ve never seen. But the first few minutes give me red flags, mainly the format of the video. It’s incredibly common for the “let the original play, and then pause and make some comment” format to be used downright dishonestly.

As far as I watched (not that far) I didn’t notice anything that seemed (to me) outright dishonest, but it also didn’t put my concerns to rest. For one, the first few minutes complaining about how RocketJump talked about the unfinished state of the early cut shown to Spielberg seems to try and make RocketJump look dishonest by intentionally missing the point of the segment in their video: That being most people in the audience aren’t exactly familiar with movie development and might need more information on what Star Wars was like in this stage. But to be fair to Nerdonymous, it isn’t strictly necessary and Nerdonymous is technically correct. It’s also possible that there’s context I’m missing where this segment is a lot worse than I think, but if that’s the case, Nerdonymous isn’t giving us that context.

I’ll watch this tomorrow with an open mind, because while George Lucas’s revisionism is pretty awful, it’s just as awful that a lot of fans in the late 2000s and early 2010s swung so hard in the other direction. Given that the idea that Star Wars was saved in the edit became common knowledge (or maybe, became incorrectly taken for granted) around that time, I’d rather hear him out and not be part of the problem.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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… 😉
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

#ReleaseTheOriginalTrilogy
 
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

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

Author
Time

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.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

#ReleaseTheOriginalTrilogy
 
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

There are alot of moments that were cut from the movie that help it out more.
Cutting the Biggs stuff, luke looking up at the sky, Han meeting Jabba and being given info we already learned from Greedo.

But overall, there is no such thing as a good first cut. Everything we love was shot, and there is no way Lucas would have discarded it. We may have ended up with a slower movie overall but we would still have had 99% of what we loved about the movie.

What, no Turkey?!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Mocata said:

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

Not that there’s anything wrong with that. They’re being thorough. It’s much easier to make a 10-minute shallow clickbait video than something lengthy and well-researched. It takes a lot of time and effort to put together a video like this one. I respect that. And since they put in so much time making it, I have no problem taking an hour or two to enjoy watching it.

I’ve too often heard people use a video’s length as an excuse not to watch it, while also condemning the video at the same time despite not having seen it.

Author
Time

Length and quality do not correlate at all. There are tons of really long video essays which make really strong arguments and are paced well enough that they don’t feel like their runtime, but there’s also tons of video essays which use their incredible length to hide their lack of depth. There’s thoroughness, and then there’s listing off a bunch of points that never build into any sort of argument.

There’s a lot of pro-PT pro-Lucas content (“content”) on Youtube that fits the second category. That’s probably what Mocata is getting at and that’s what I was getting at earlier. Don’t know if this video fits that trend, I plan on watching it in an hour or two when I get the chance to, but it’s an undeniable trend.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

SparkySywer said:

Length and quality do not correlate at all.

I’m aware. I’ve just encountered the issue before where people dismiss a video as bad simply on the basis that it’s long. I’m sure no one here has that mindset. It’s just one I’ve seen often.

There’s a lot of pro-PT pro-Lucas content (“content”) on Youtube that fits the second category.

Are you talking about someone like Rick Worley or Mauler? Rick Worley’s videos are much more overtly pro-PT and I think they’re well made, though I disagree with a lot of his opinions. Mauler doesn’t really talk about Lucas or the PT much, and I do think he sometimes loses focus in his longer critique videos, but all in all, they’re also well made.

There’s plenty of long-winded, pretentious videos about Star Wars, but they’re far from exclusively devoted to defending the Prequels.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.
 

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

#ReleaseTheOriginalTrilogy
 
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)

RocketJump’s video is pretty inoffensive. It isn’t really slandering Lucas, like at all. The worst thing it has to say about the man is that a lot of SE changes were unnecessary, which I hope is uncontroversial on OriginalTrilogy.com of all places.

It essentially makes the following three claims:

  1. The Rough Cut of Star Wars differed a lot from the Theatrical Cut of Star Wars

  2. The Theatrical Cut is great, the Rough Cut was bad

  3. Marcia Lucas, Richard Chew, and Paul Hirsch were the people who did the editing in this movie

The first two are pretty inoffensive and the third claim barely deserves to be a claim. Where the first two claims are central to the point of the video (editing is awesome and an important part of moviemaking, to show that, here’s how the bad Rough Cut of Star Wars was edited into the great Theatrical Cut), the third claim is incidental. It isn’t trying to prove anything about George Lucas or any other person.

But anyway, if I wanted to refuse those three claims, I’d probably do the following:

  1. Refute or downplay the differences between the two cuts of the movie, claim they weren’t so dissimilar (pretty hard to argue given how the differences are pretty common knowledge, but hey, common knowledge is sometimes wrong)

  2. Argue that the Rough Cut was better, or that it had elements which were better (Also pretty hard to argue, but I suppose it’s subjective, even so you’re going to convince incredibly few people)

  3. Prove that those three actually weren’t the ones who did the editing (Very hard to argue, would probably require some massive conspiracy given that they were the ones awarded for their groundbreaking editing and they’re the ones who were credited)

On first impression, everything the video says is incredibly informative for anyone interested in movie editing. Which is probably almost everyone on this forum. The only real error I noticed is that C3PO’s exposition about the tractor beam was only there for the mono audio mix.

So, now onto Nerdonymous’s video. This is very long, so here’s a summary:

  1. Nerdonymous sort of touches on all three refutations, but never actually makes any real refutation of the central point of the video. He never really takes any sort of position. He essentially just contradicts RocketJump, and never forms any coherent, consistent position. He constantly flip flops and adopts entirely contradictory positions. One minute a particular editing choice is dumb and the Rough Cut was better, the very next it was a genius move.

  2. Most of the video is really dishonest, ranging from most commonly twisting RocketJump’s words, to downright lying.

  3. This video makes the occasional good point but it’s honestly a waste of your time

The video also ends with Nerdonymous trashing fan restorations of the unaltered cut of the Original Trilogy, which is frankly disgusting, and I hope I don’t have to explain why on this website of all places.


Nerdonymous’s video, like I said in a previous comment, pretty much just lets RocketJump’s video play and then pauses it to make counterarguments wherever he feels like it.

The first real thing Nerdonymous talks about is the first thing RocketJump talks about: The original opening crawl. RocketJump actually made a really silly mistake and showed the opening crawl from the 3rd draft when talking about the 4th draft, which Nerdonymous caught. The source that RocketJump used had a mistake in it, something that Nerdonymous went as far as contacting the author of the book to confirm.

Have you guys ever seen CGP Grey’s video on errors? The type of error here is somewhere between Blunder and Error Trivialus. It’s enough of a mistake that’s big enough that it would be embarrassing to someone who’s well versed in the subject. The author might be tempted to reupload the video with a correction if caught on time, but given that it’s not really that central to the video, only being there as an introduction, it’s not worth taking down a 3 year old video for. But it’s still worth acknowledging.

Nerdonymous blows this super out of proportion, though. He goes on a victory lap, editing RocketJump’s words to make him look dishonest, like he intentionally lied about the development of the opening crawl. Despite having just said that he literally contacted the writer of an official Lucasfilm source to confirm that what RocketJump said was an error within his sources. Which is a huge scumbag thing to do.

Nerdonymous also then owns RocketJump by pointing out that Lucas, Hirsch, and Chew were all behind the rough draft of the movie, too. Which, yeah, they were the editors. Nerdonymous never says it, but the impression you get from this part of the video is that RocketJump is claiming that Lucas sucks and Lucas, Hirsch, and Chew are awesome, which isn’t the case. It’s a pretty textbook straw man: Asserting that RocketJump is claiming something which he isn’t, something much weaker than what he actually claimed, and then disproving the thing they never claimed in the first place. It’s pretty dishonest.

Next thing I want to talk about is when RocketJump talks about the deleted scenes with Luke and his friends, which were cut, improving the movie. Nerdonymous remarks that almost all movies have deleted scenes, whose deletion improved the movie, and jokes about a title of “How Star Wars and Virtually Every Other Successful Film Ever Made Was Saved In the Edit”. Which… congratulations Nerdonymous, you discovered the point of RocketJump’s video. It’s about the power of editing, not about slandering Lucas or praising the trio of editors whose names I don’t want to keep listing. Seriously, the only way I think you could miss that that was the point is if you were being dishonest, and I mean that completely and fully. Maybe there’s some lack of clarity somewhere I just didn’t fall victim to, so if you guys want to point that out, go ahead.

He does this again later in the Fine Tuning part of the video where he points out that all movies’ rough cuts are disasterous, which, again, thank you Einstein. You’ve discovered the point of RocketJump’s video. It’s about how editing is an important part of the moviemaking process.

There’s a lot of that in this video. Nerdonymous goes on to complain about RocketJump’s word choice in describing Luke’s introduction, but kind of flies over the actual point of RocketJump’s description: We don’t get the time to be properly introduced to Luke, and the pacing of the space battle is killed by slow, pretty uninteresting scenes on the surface that don’t really have anything to do with anything we’ve already seen.

The rest of this segment is incredibly unfocused. He spent almost 10 minutes defending the deleted Luke scenes, and then when the big shocking reveal that George never liked them is dropped, he pivots to “They were never good and thank the Lord that Lucas cut them.” This says a lot about Nerdonymous’s mentality IMO, and it reminds me a lot about politics.

Left leaning people are typically okay with deplatforming but not okay with businesses denying services to LGBT people. Right leaning people are typically okay with businesses denying services to LGBT people but not okay with deplatforming. Not to sound like a centrist, but they’ll use the “They’re a private company and can do whatever they want” to justify the one they like and “It’s discrimination, I don’t care.” to criticize the one they don’t, and they never confront that this is blatantly contradictory.

According to Nerdonymous, they’re fine scenes and the movie would’ve been fine if they were included, but also they’re bad and thank the maker they’re gone… and then he goes right back to they were fine and the movie would’ve been fine if they were included, and never does he recognize the contradiction. This is especially bad in the next segment, Intercutting.

Nerdonymous seems to just be taking whatever RocketJump says and saying he’s wrong. Just like I thought, it never builds into any coherent argument. There’s no refutation of RocketJump’s video, just contradictions of RocketJump’s video, and it just keeps getting worse and worse as the video goes on. It’s at the end of the “Luke’s Introduction” part of the video where I started to regret ever watching this thing. It ended only 30 minutes into the video, but with writing down my thoughts so my scatterbrain doesn’t forget them, and constantly pausing to walk around or whatever because I find it hard to focus normally, let alone watching a really dry video essay that never really makes any real points, it’s taken me over 2 hours to watch those 30 minutes.

He’s not taking a position and defending it, or even coherently arguing against RocketJump’s position. He’s essentially just taking everything RocketJump does, saying “Nope, you’re wrong”, and pulling whatever the hell he can out of his ass to justify it, even if it means he contradicts himself. He’ll pick up completely contradictory positions and then drop them a few minutes later. He has three different positions in Intercutting, even, and then in the Finale he flip flops again to a fourth position on this particular issue. On how good/bad the Rough Cut was, he takes five, not even including the more minor flip flops on particular examples of changes and which one he prefers in the moment.

And shockingly, the professor’s not going to explain it (31:16)

…As someone who’s seen the professor’s video, I can attest that he actually does explain it. The theatrical cut of the movie has a clear flow of information from scene to scene, but the rough cut doesn’t really have much of a rhyme or reason for the sequence.

Nerdonymous seems to recognize this because he argues there is a flow of information between the battle at the beginning of the movie and the Imperial Conference scene, but the whole point is that the flow of information connects two scenes side-by-side. Just because two scenes talk about the same thing, and one scene comes before another (which is true of most scenes in most movies so why it matters is beyond me), that doesn’t make good editing.

There’s a lot of Nerdonymous not seeming to really understand editing? There’s quite a few times where RocketJump will assert that the way the Theatrical Cut did something was better than the way the Rough Cut did. He doesn’t really explain exactly why the Theatrical Cut was better, I assume because they’re pretty self-evident and most viewers would agree, and explaining it specifically isn’t really the point of RocketJump’s video.

This sort of thing is subjective, so if Nerdonymous genuinely believes the Rough Cut did it better, that’s fine. Although obviously he doesn’t actually think that, almost every single one of these examples is later contradicted by one of his pivots. Even if that weren’t the case, though, I find it seriously hard to believe that he doesn’t at least understand why most people might prefer serious action sequences not to be interrupted by humor, why the immediate payoff of information is better than going off and doing something else before paying off that information, etc.

Toward the end of the Intercutting part of Nerdonymous’s video, he actually makes a sort of good point (or, it would’ve been a good point if it wasn’t just another one of his pivots), that being that RocketJump’s categorization of the first act scenes is wrong, and if you categorize them differently, the alteration is much smaller. But this doesn’t even really contradict what RocketJump is saying, both of them can be right at the same time. The reordering of the scenes can be thought of like shifting around sequences so that Sequence B happens later in relation to Sequence A in the Theatrical Cut as opposed to the Rough Cut, which was an improvement because the flow of information is made smoother, like what RocketJump said.

And this is a shame, because this happens a lot in the video. He’ll say something actually informative or clear something up that RocketJump actually got wrong, or he’ll add detail where RocketJump didn’t, but whenever that happens, it’s so drowned in bullshit on all sides.

This isn’t really worth mentioning, and I don’t want this to be a play by play counter-argument like Nerdonymous’s video (if it isn’t already leaning toward that), but at the end of the Intercutting part of the video… I’ve called him dishonest before, but that’s more along the lines of twisting the truth or misrepresentation. His hypothetical reversal argument is downright lying. If you truly think that’s an honest and fair representation of RocketJump’s argument, you don’t have your head on straight. At 45 minutes in, again I want to shut off this video because this is where Nerdonymous’s credibility should be shattered, but I’m operating on the sunk cost fallacy and don’t want to.

Underneath the bullshit, I think his point is that there isn’t that much of a difference between either version, and RocketJump’s justification for the final one is weak because you can say a lot of that about the rough cut. But… no you can’t. Like, Obi-Wan’s explanation of the Force is a much better introduction to the concept than Vader just kind of namedropping it.

At the beginning of Fine Tuning he starts arguing with the editors for some reason. Like, the actual people who edited the movie. Dude, I think Paul Hirsch knows a little bit more about the editing of Star Wars than you do. He was there.

Right, so when R2D2 falls over and his head falls off, that’s a mess so don’t put that in the movie. When R2D2 doesn’t fall over and his head stays on, that’s presentable so put that in the movie. When lightsaber blades break and Darth Vader’s helmet falls off that’s a mess so don’t put that in the movie. When lightsaber blades don’t break and Darth Vader’s helmet stays on that’s presentable, so put that in the movie.

…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.

He then continues to argue with Paul Hirsch (again, one of the guys who was actually there, he is the one who edited this movie)… and then George Fucking Lucas, the guy he’s supposed to be defending. This is point #3 where I should have turned off the video.

I think the thing Paul Hirsch was talking about with the prop failures was about how difficult the production phase was, not anything to do with the post-production. This is well documented. Shooting the original Star Wars was a nightmare and Lucas ended up diagnosed with hypertension because of it. But Nerdonymous acts like Hirsch is talking about the editing, and of course, what would the editor of Star Wars know about the editing of Star Wars?

He even contradicts himself on this. “I’m beginning to think Star Wars wasn’t actually a disaster” to “Star Wars was a difficult shoot for a variety of reasons.”

Then toward the end of the video, he plays a clip of RocketJump saying that in the Rough Cut, the Death Star was not about to destroy the Rebel Base. I thought this was because he was about to either say that it was actually, or that it would be better if it wasn’t, but then he starts going off on a random tangent ranting about how he doesn’t like that people think Leia bringing the Falcon to the Rebel Base while it’s being tracked is a plot hole. And also JJ Abrams is dumb. Which of course, has absolutely nothing to do with RocketJump is talking about and is point #4 where I should have shut off the video.

Are there people who unironically think that long = smart? Because there’s so much random padding and bullshit thrown into this video for no other reason I can think of than to balloon the runtime. This video could have been 45 minutes long and nothing would be lost. Making sexual moans for a minute straight is not thoroughness. Spending 5 whole minutes proving that Lucas understands why Leia bringing the Death Star to the Rebel Base (something 95% of Star Wars fans don’t actually get btw) when pretty much nobody has any problem with that plot point, and the original video this is supposed to be a response to doesn’t even mention this, that’s not thoroughness. Repeating the same few seconds over and over and over and over again is not thoroughness. Spending 6 minutes showing footage of wild animals pooping is not thoroughness. Spending 4 minutes repeating RocketJump quotes and ANH music cues is not thoroughness.

When Nerdonymous finally addresses this, he actually does mention one scene with Tarkin which wasn’t a reshoot and would make no sense if originally the Death Star wasn’t going to destroy the Rebel Base. What was actually added was a countdown to when the Rebel Base would be in range.

Fair enough, this is the fourth good point in a two hour video. But then he ruins it by lying, saying RocketJump was implying that inserts were some magical thing editors can come up with, and that actually the inserts were actually shot by George Lucas. Needless to say, RocketJump never said such a thing and has no reason to, because he wouldn’t be fooling anyone. Inserts are a pretty self-explanatory concept and the way RocketJump talks about them makes it clear what exactly they are.

Nerdonymous’s video ends by asserting that Star Wars was a group project with George Lucas as its leader, and that we shouldn’t discredit any of the collaborators. I’d consider this the fifth good take, but it’s drenched in the blatant fucking lie that the entire video is an attempt to discredit George Lucas… for some reason.

Here’s what I think happened:

-George Lucas has been spending the last few decades lying about the creation of Star Wars. He tries to discredit other people’s contributions to the Star Wars Trilogy to make himself come off like the sole visionary creator who took no contributions from anyone else.

-A lot of people, especially in light of the unpopularity of the prequel trilogy, re-examined George Lucas in the late 2000s and early 2010s, and swung too hard in the other direction, attributing the real success to many other people: Marcia Lucas and Gary Kurtz being the biggest two names.

-RocketJump makes a video about film editing using Star Wars as an example

-Nerdonymous is upset by this video (likely inspired by the culture war in the fandom between ST fans and PT fans) and makes a low quality, knee-jerk ass video in response

-This post was made in a conspiracy specifically to waste my night, instead of going to bed early like I wanted, I watched this moron’s 2 hour video

It’s incredibly funny that toward the end of the video, he says that you’re stupid if you don’t think RocketJump intentionally slandered Lucas, and then cuts right to RocketJump giving Lucas full credit for the editing of the movie.

Death of the Author

Author
Time

/thread

George Lucas was the first Star Wars fan-editor.

My homeworld is Australia so be wary of timezones!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

Also, I didn’t know about him bashing fan preservations of the OT. That’s pretty messed up, and has sadly become a more common sentiment among some Lucas fans. I withdraw my recommendation of this channel.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

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

Author
Time
 (Edited)

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.

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

Author
Time

I’m sorry, but I can’t see the word “literally” anymore without thinking about Leafy.

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