lakamosque said:
oojason said:
So without Marcia introducing that âtime-elementâ - âa countdown clockâ - the âDeath Star wasnât about to destroy the Rebel Baseâ⌠this is what RocketJump alludes to, no?
The time clock came later in the editing to prop up the tension however the story point for the Death Star intending to destroy the Rebel Base was always there.
I donât and didnât dispute that. Read what I posted above again.
Â
Itâs hilarious how RJ credits almost everything to Marcia. The intercutting? Marcia. The time clock? Marcia. Removing Lukeâs first run? Marcia.
To which each point, it actually goes:
The intercutting? Richard.
The time clock? Unknown, but wouldnât surprise me if it was Richard yet again.
Removing Lukeâs first run? Unknown.
Well, Marcia did recut the whole âTrench Runâ - as requested by George. You already know this - it is clearly stated in the video interview with Marcia and Ben Burtt, yes?
^ the âtime clockâ - Marcia. Removing Lukeâs first run - Marcia.
Â
And yet so what if it did highlight Marciaâs contributions, or Richard Chew, or Paul Hirsch - or all 3 of them. Why not? It doesnât take away from George - nor attacks or discredits him - it simply highlights the effect good and clever editing can have upon a film.
That would be fine IF it was true, but it isnât.
And if it was about the editors, how come they never mention John Jympson? It gives the impression George made the first cut, called the British cut in Rinzlerâs book, implying all the poor editing choices were on him instead of John. George never intended the movie to be like that cut. They intentionally mix all the cuts together.
As clearly stated in the blurb of the RocketJump video:-
âA video essay exploring how Star Warsâ editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it becameâ
As you even say yourself⌠âGeorge never intended the movie to be like thatâ (John Jympsonâs cut). Hence JJ was fired / let go - and other editors given the task of re-cutting the film⌠the main focus of the RocketJump video; that editing team.
Â
It was after George fan-boys & zealots watched that vitriolic Nerdonymous video did they seemed to be triggered into somehow thinking what you claim above.
Iâve always disagreed with George on so many different topics including not releasing the original cut on home video. I watched RJâs video first, I couldnât put it in words but I could tell something was off about it. I didnât watch Nerdonymousâs video until much later and since then Iâve been cross-referencing to check how accurate all these videos that talk about the behind the scenes really are.
How have you have found cross-referencing the video interviews with Marica Lucas in the links provided? Where Marcia herself confirms what you still claim otherwise above? (in your âItâs hilarious how RJ credits almost everything to Marciaâ segment.)
Â
^ Nerdonymous seems to get quite triggered and angry about it too⌠the agenda seething through⌠as he progresses with his âsome fansâ⌠âthey want to burn him (Lucas) to the groundâ & âthey want to take everything away from himâ spiel; whilst showing a FactRepublic image stating some of Marciaâs contributions to the film, and some of what she edited - for which she won an Oscar for (along with Hirsch and Chew).
First of all, Nerdonymousâs full quote for proper context:
âSome fans who donât like what Lucas did with the Special Editions and or donât like what he did with the Prequels arenât satisfied with criticizing him on these bases. They want to burn him to the ground, they want to take everything away from him. Because they believe they did something unseemly to their childhood or something. That is why Star Wars was saved in the edit as opposed to it just went through the normal editing process that all films go to through.â
Second, Iâve never got the impression this meant he is âanti-fan preservationâ. Itâs crystal clear âeverythingâ in this context means Georgeâs contributions because thatâs what the whole subject of the video is about.
Watch the video again and note what is on in the background when he gives the âsome fansâ⌠âthey want to burn him (Lucas) to the groundâ & âthey want to take everything away from himâ spiel. It is clear for all to see - much more than an âimpressionâ - with his agenda seething through.
Â
So when you try to claim: âIt just makes everyone that wants to see the theatrical versions look bad.â - is that an attempt at gaslighting? (I hope not). If it is, kindly knock it off.
Thatâs a textbook example of accusing others of what YOU are guilty off, especially with the weak excuses provided.
It was a question - with a heads-up that if you were gaslighting, that it doesnât go down well on here. Interesting you didnât deny that - and instead accuse someone with a different view of doing the same.
You may want to think about wising up there - doing something a little more constructive other than being an apologist for a vitriolic youtuber⌠who has issues with fan preservations.
Look in a mirror, youâre being an apologist for deceptive fans or, in this case, a pretend film school. And for the last part, either provide proof this is the case or knock it off.
Nope. I provided proof with content from Marcia herself - which you ignored (despite claims of crosschecking)⌠and you are still attempting a lengthy defence of Nerdonamousâ vitriolic video.
Â
On here, we acknowledge and highlight the many contributions of everyone who worked on the Original Trilogy films - especially those who have been written out of the official history, or have had their roles downplayed, or diminished.
And when were Marcia or Paul or Richard written out of the official history? Rinzlerâs book wouldnât exist otherwise. If that somehow is not âgood enoughâ in Marciaâs case, he interviewed her in his Howard Kazanjian book.
When you say âAnd when were Marcia written out of the official history?â (I didnât say Hirsch or Chew were) - Iâm not sure how you can say with a straight face after you read / âcross-referencedâ the listed links to Marciaâs contributions. It has been there for all to see - and has been for many years. Including not only others at Lucasfilm stating just that - yet also Marcia herself, yes?
You are aware a few others have also been written out of the official history, too? As previously stated⌠there some content about that on here - well worth a read.
Â
Just because it makes some get so triggered to the point of fuming, hereâs yet another video that goes much more in depth dispelling the Marcia and/or the editors âsavedâ the movie narrative:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3LsxGGjyZ_Q
No, thanks. Iâd rather not watch another Honeycutt video, thank you.
I tend to stick with more factual and insightful videos - from actual people involved in the process. I leave the vitriolic / clickbait / agenda videos to those that enjoy them.
Or a good book - âThe Secret History Of Star Warsâ - now thereâs a good book (an audio version is available, too).
Â
If youâre going to attack George, do it for the things he ACTUALLY did. Like his handling of David Prowse, insisting the saga was âalwaysâ about the tragedy of Darth Vader when for a time there was material, like the first editions of the books, that officially called it âFrom the Adventures of Luke Skywalkerâ and/or the old reliable âGreedo shootsâ. Donât make up false narratives or straight up lie in how much he was involved in his films just to dunk on him.
Again, talking about the editing team on Star Wars does not detract from George - nor is it âan attackâ on GeorgeâŚ
âI think Georgeâs âace in the holeâ 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.â
^ RocketJump in the summing up their video.
Once more, the reason why they donât talk about Georgeâs shortcomings and issues is⌠that is not what this video is aboutâŚ
âA video essay exploring how Star Warsâ editors recut and rearranged Star Wars: A New Hope to create the cinematic classic it becameâ
Â
Look, your mind is obviously made up⌠so I wonât waste time any further confusing you any further with facts (from Marcia herself).
If you donât want to view or acknowledge them - that is up to you, of course. Yet those facts donât cease to be because you simply ignore them - or your issues with âMarcia Marcia Marciaâ⌠as you yourself put it.
Having said that, why not go watch that Honeycutt video you like to recommend again? Or nerdonymousâ video again? Maybe itâll help with the Marcia issues a bit - or at least put a smile on your face. Good luck with it. đ
Â