StarDestroyer.Net BBS

Well worth the time

Not sure if it's already been posted, it's quite well known (and Simon Pegg approved!). A pretty thorough summary of which TPM is a bit of a turd-fest.

I linked to the main page because there's also some quality reviews of Star Trek Insurrection, Generations, Nemesis and First Contact that are even more amusing.

Nice review.

I liked this review and he stated a lot of the reasons I felt the PT fell flat for me.

I really loved how he delivered it with a really fucked-up sounding voice, half mumbling and seemingly barely coherent and segueing into totally psychotic non-sequiturs with dead hookers and shit. I loved how he can't even pronounce 'protagonist', and I think it would've helped if in the later parts he wasn't so coherent in bringing about his rather astute points re: PT but was more, well, rambling and mumbling and incomprehensible.

So, this is an ironic collection of all idiotic complaints ever made about the movie, and that is why it's worth 70 minutes?

Or is it for the hilarious "lol u r rite" comments?

Something I said to a coworker just now:

I just had an epiphany. It comes from something this guy mentioned off-hand, and also my own experiences writing.

George didn't revise. At all. The random incoherence of a story is actually a good thing when you're writing your first draft. Just write. Get it all down. Fix the gaping holes and inconsistencies later. That's all well and good for the first draft. Let any idea that appeals to you just go into the story and figure out how to work it in properly later...but you have to do that second part for it to ultimately work. After you finish the first draft, you have to revise. And not just commas and periods and word order. You need to overhaul the whole thing so that it makes sense with all of the ideas, or cut stuff that doesn't/can't make sense, etc.

George just never did. And no one did it for him.

If you look at the original drafts of the Star Wars scripts, they went through huge revisions. The first draft looks almost nothing like the final movie. But if you look at the available drafts of the Phantom Menace? Very, very, very similar.

Every indication was that he had a ton of friend-directors, his editor/writer-wife, and a bunch of other people helping him turn the original script into something great. On his first reading of the script to his friends, they told him it was terrible. But now he's King George. Who the hell would question him? Rick McCallum is the worst example of this. The dude is the biggest friggin' yes-man there is, and he was the one best-placed to do something.

Obviously, I've known all of these pieces for quite some time, but the full weight of them didn't hit me 'til watching this.

So let me get this straight: You knuckleheads sat through all 70 minutes of that pile of shit (I had to shut it off after 3:07), but The Phantom Menace was bad? You guys can all just pucker up and kiss my ass.

I just had an epiphany. It comes from something this guy mentioned off-hand, and also my own experiences writing.

You know, Galvatron has this "epiphany" once a week and spews this kind of bullshit so much better than you do.

George didn't revise. At all. The random incoherence of a story is actually a good thing when you're writing your first draft. Just write. Get it all down. Fix the gaping holes and inconsistencies later. That's all well and good for the first draft. Let any idea that appeals to you just go into the story and figure out how to work it in properly later...but you have to do that second part for it to ultimately work. After you finish the first draft, you have to revise. And not just commas and periods and word order. You need to overhaul the whole thing so that it makes sense with all of the ideas, or cut stuff that doesn't/can't make sense, etc.

George just never did. And no one did it for him.

How do you know what he did or didn't do when writing the movie?

If you look at the original drafts of the Star Wars scripts, they went through huge revisions. The first draft looks almost nothing like the final movie. But if you look at the available drafts of the Phantom Menace? Very, very, very similar.

And? Both Frank Darabont and Lawrence Kasdan were asked to work on the script and both declined because they thought it was just fine as it was.

Every indication was that he had a ton of friend-directors, his editor/writer-wife, and a bunch of other people helping him turn the original script into something great. On his first reading of the script to his friends, they told him it was terrible. But now he's King George. Who the hell would question him? Rick McCallum is the worst example of this. The dude is the biggest friggin' yes-man there is, and he was the one best-placed to do something.

How exactly do you think a line producer is going to "do something" when the writer/director/executive producer/creator/owner overrules him? And what exactly do you think he could have done? Held his breath until he turned blue? Taken the crew hostage? While we're at it, how do you know McCallum is a "yes-man"? Were you on the set?

All this talk about how George Lucas should have been told what to do on his own fucking movie is absurd. It's really code for: "I can't believe George Lucas didn't consult me personally about his movies!"

Elfdart wrote:You know, Galvatron has this "epiphany" once a week and spews this kind of bullshit so much better than you do.

Oh look, someone had his garden pissed in and is spoiling for a fight. Color me unimpressed.

How do you know what he did or didn't do when writing the movie?

Well, gosh. Maybe it stems from the fact that several incredibly disparate drafts of the original Star Wars script are readily available, but such disparate drafts are unavailable (or, um, don't exist) for TPM. Given the massive amount of attention usually given to the various permutations of the screenplays, I doubt Lucasfilm would not publish and earn money on them. This leads me to the reasonable conclusion that he didn't revise these scripts nearly as much, and didn't have nearly as much external feedback on them.

Do I know this? No, of course not. It just seems likely and the available evidence supports it.

And? Both Frank Darabont and Lawrence Kasdan were asked to work on the script and both declined because they thought it was just fine as it was.

Post some proof of this, please. All I can find is a mention that Darabont and Carrie Fisher were at one point working on the script as script doctors, but that this was early in production. Kasdan turned down the opportunity to write because he though Lucas should be the sole writer (way to go, Larry...) and it had nothing to do with any script he read. It was a philosophical decision.

Further, if you had bothered to watch the whole video, you'd see the shocked, disgusted reactions to the crew -- including George! -- on first screening TPM. They discuss how to salvage it, with George saying that the parts are too tightly integrated to change at this point. They're basically acknowledging that it was a clusterfuck.

Sorry. I think my TPM crew trumps your maybe-but-probably-not-really-attached writers as far as evidence goes.

How exactly do you think a line producer is going to "do something" when the writer/director/executive producer/creator/owner overrules him? And what exactly do you think he could have done? Held his breath until he turned blue? Taken the crew hostage?

By all indications, he was the one working closest with George. Could bring any practical leverage to bear? No, probably not. Could he have challenged George on a conceptual level in the pre-production phase? Probably.

While we're at it, how do you know McCallum is a "yes-man"? Were you on the set?

Have you ever watched behind-the-scenes footage? Interviews? The dude comes off as a walking mouthpiece for Lucasfilm, if not Lucas himself. You can chalk that up to editing, or spinning an interview a certain way if you want, but I've seen no evidence to support that interpretation.

All this talk about how George Lucas should have been told what to do on his own fucking movie is absurd. It's really code for: "I can't believe George Lucas didn't consult me personally about his movies!"

Really? Are you so dense as to think critique and constructive feedback isn't valuable to an artist?

Lucas made a product that didn't live up to the legacy of that which came before. The reasons for this seem fairly self-evident: he didn't have anyone challenging him and critiquing his work. He's entitled to do that, too. Any artist is free to ignore any criticism someone levels against them. Consumers are just as entitled to point out the flaws in the resultant product and also to trace where those flaws came from, which is precisely what we're doing.

If that rubs you the wrong way, well, fuck you. Go find some other thread and cry there, instead.

McC wrote:Well, gosh. Maybe it stems from the fact that several incredibly disparate drafts of the original Star Wars script are readily available, but such disparate drafts are unavailable (or, um, don't exist) for TPM.

Riiiiiiiight. The one labeled the Third Draft (revised) was in fact the first and only draft. You have no idea what was in drafts 1 and 2.

Given the massive amount of attention usually given to the various permutations of the screenplays, I doubt Lucasfilm would not publish and earn money on them. This leads me to the reasonable conclusion that he didn't revise these scripts nearly as much, and didn't have nearly as much external feedback on them.

It's only "reasonable" if you think the Third Draft wasn't really the third one, but actually the first one and Lucas is deliberately falsifying the number of drafts just to fuck with...

YOU!

And when exactly did these drafts become available? The Annotated Screenplays didn't come out until 1997. The fact that they haven't published early drafts of the script proves nothing.

Do I know this? No, of course not. It just seems likely and the available evidence supports it.

So you admit you're just pulling it out of your ass.

Further, if you had bothered to watch the whole video, you'd see the shocked, disgusted reactions to the crew -- including George! -- on first screening TPM. They discuss how to salvage it, with George saying that the parts are too tightly integrated to change at this point.

Ooooooh! FEEL the Nerd Rage! They are talking about one scene -not the entire movie, not most of the movie, not even a very important scene, but a cross-cut between the different threads in the story toward the end. Oh noes! How can anyone "salvage" this kind of shitty film-making?

As it turns out, George Lucas' first successful movie, American Graffiti , did the exact same thing -carrying it all the way through from beginning to end. When it comes to making movies, I think George Lucas is more qualified than this fucktard on YouTube, and certainly more qualified than someone who takes his cues from a fucktard on YouTube. Like you.

They're basically acknowledging that it was a clusterfuck.

So now you can read minds? It couldn't possibly be a case of the film-makers simply being tired after putting together a rough cut and sitting through it while taking notes of things they need to do to finish the movie, now could it? I underestimated you. I thought you were the typical "Lucas Raped My Childhood" type, convinced that Lucas needed your personal input on Star Wars, but I was wrong: You think you're a Jedi endowed with psychic powers!

Sorry. I think my TPM crew trumps your maybe-but-probably-not-really-attached writers as far as evidence goes.

Whatever you say, Jedi Master.

By all indications, he was the one working closest with George.

What indications (aside from your Jedi mind-reading abilities, I mean)? Did he have any input on the story or characters or any other creative aspect of the film? Or was he the guy who does what the Executive Producer tells him to do (you know, being a producer and all)?

Could bring any practical leverage to bear? No, probably not. Could he have challenged George on a conceptual level in the pre-production phase? Probably.

And how exactly would he "challenge" George Lucas?

While we're at it, how do you know McCallum is a "yes-man"? Were you on the set?

Have you ever watched behind-the-scenes footage? Interviews? The dude comes off as a walking mouthpiece for Lucasfilm, if not Lucas himself. You can chalk that up to editing, or spinning an interview a certain way if you want, but I've seen no evidence to support that interpretation.

Congratulations! You have proved your case beyond any doubt. Everyone knows that a movie producer, when being interviewed or appearing in a "making of" documentary for a film will use that opportunity to sandbag the production, second guess the writer/director/exec. producer/owner and say things like "I told George not to do it that way, but he ignored me -so if the movie sucks it's not my fault!"

Good show!

Really? Are you so dense as to think critique and constructive feedback isn't valuable to an artist?

Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique. Why on earth should one of the greatest film-makers of all time give half a shit what someone else thinks?

Lucas made a product that didn't live up to the legacy of that which came before.

Nothing released since the early 1980s by any film-maker compares to what Lucas did back then. I guess they should have shut down the movie business in 1983.

The reasons for this seem fairly self-evident: he didn't have anyone challenging him and critiquing his work.

Yeah, Lucas needs to hear advice from a Johnny-come-lately on how to make movies -just like Rembrandt needed advice from his inferiors on how to paint.

He's entitled to do that, too.

How generous of you.

Any artist is free to ignore any criticism someone levels against them.

And I'm glad George Lucas and other artists ignore critics and and naysayers and do what they want anyway. After all, if critics and and naysayers knew so much about how to make movies, they would be making movies of their own, now wouldn't they?

Consumers are just as entitled to point out the flaws in the resultant product and also to trace where those flaws came from, which is precisely what we're doing.

No, you are starting with the assumption that the movie is terribly "flawed", then twisting everything to fit your preconceived ideas.

So let me get this straight: You knuckleheads sat through all 70 minutes of that pile of shit (I had to shut it off after 3:07), but The Phantom Menace was bad? You guys can all just pucker up and kiss my ass.

The style might not be everyone's cup of tea (I found it hilarious) but most of his points are IMO valid. It's a seriously flawed movie.

Especially the characters. You can't tell me they're well written or on par with those of the OT. The part where he asked people to describe character's from TPM without reference to what they look like / what they do / what they wear etc compared to doing the same for OT characters was particularly insightful, I thought. I wouldn't know the first thing to say in response.

^This. The part about the characters, as well as the need of a main character the audience can relate too is what really got my attention, they were flaws I really hadn't thought about before, and are a good thing to keep in mind when creating your own characters or plots.

I personally found the whole thing hilarious, but it is a bit long, although splitting it in several parts and themathic points makes up for the length a bit.
I find it particularly interesting when dealing about points not specific to the movie, but to filmmaking or storytelling in general (like the brevity quote from Shakespeare), since having graphic examples of how these things can flaw a movie is priceless both to storytellers and audiences.

As for whose fault the whole thing is, yes, George Lucas had too much control, and yes, that can be bad (I mean, look at Michael Bay), but then again, some filmmakers have had similar amounts of control and produced good movies (*cough* Stanley Kubrik *cough*). Seeing how ROTS was vastly superior as a movie, I'd chalk it up to George being a relative rookie in this style of filmmaking (both regarding the level of uncontested control he had, as well as the whole integration with FX), and needing to hone his skills a bit.
Nothing drastically bad about it though, I mean, I might dislike his way of doing things, but I'm more disturbed by people who treat these films as the cornerstone of cinematic greatness or something and go about ranting endlessly about obscure minutae and pointless feuds. Oh wait....

On a side note, I just watched this guy's Star Trek reviews, and holy fuck did I laugh. The voice gets a bit tiresome after a while, as do the pizza rolls, but this guy knows his Star Trek. He's a bit nitpicky, but gets some nice ones that I hadn't caught 'cause I don't know the series that well.

It's a bit like Sonnenburg, wich also means I can't wait for him to give these movies a fair beatdown.

Oh, and this:

I loved the part of the Generations review where Picard discards the priceless artifact which was a gift from his archaeology professor in "The Chase" like so much junk. Even though his reaction to it in the episode is the most memorable thing about the episode.

I love the part where Lucas is going on about SFX not being good without a story...

^Pure gold.

I laughed out loud at the Buggy scene in Nemesis, as well as his final comment "Wait, none of it happened!".

Oh, and what happens when they let a woman drive the Enterprise?

Elfdart wrote:<a whole lot of bullshit about "those who can't do, _____" and some sort of bullshit about "mind-reading">

Right, so you did want to be dismissed as a self-indulgent, masturbatory idiot with no concept of how commercial art is produced. Got it. Just say so next time; it'll save me the time of reading your worthless post and bothering to reply.

McC wrote:

Elfdart wrote:<a whole lot of bullshit about "those who can't do, _____" and some sort of bullshit about "mind-reading">

Right, so you did want to be dismissed as a self-indulgent, masturbatory idiot with no concept of how commercial art is produced. Got it. Just say so next time; it'll save me the time of reading your worthless post and bothering to reply.

What? No rebuttal?

Concession accepted.

Elfdart wrote:What? No rebuttal?

Concession accepted.

You accept the concession that I accepted your concession (since your "argument" was an incoherent bunch of rambling nonsense)? Okay.

You lost any credibility when you said

Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique. Why on earth should one of the greatest film-makers of all time give half a shit what someone else thinks?

Continued development as an artist (which, um, is the goal of every artist with whom I've ever interacted or even read about) depends on useful critique. Particularly from other artists, but anyone with half an understanding of the process is welcome, too.

But, since you seem to be inclined to be a fucking asshat who's going to try to shove George's dick so far down his own throat so as to suffocate on it, I'm going to be a sucker and indulge you.

Riiiiiiiight. The one labeled the Third Draft (revised) was in fact the first and only draft. You have no idea what was in drafts 1 and 2.

How long did Lucas spend writing ANH? Two or three years, wasn't it? How long did he spend writing TPM? Six months? Tops? A guy who is on record detailing his flaws as a writer -- this isn't about his filmmaking ability as a whole; just his writing -- spends less time, with less-to-no external input on a script, and you're seriously going to try and argue that it underwent enough revision? Really? And you don't think this leaves you as the one with the egg on your face? Fuck off.

The Annotated Screenplays didn't come out until 1997. The fact that they haven't published early drafts of the script proves nothing.

Funny, didn't I say just this?

McC wrote:Do I know this? No, of course not. It just seems likely and the available evidence supports it.

Oh, look, I did. Shocking.

Elfdart wrote:So you admit you're just pulling it out of your ass.

If "forming an opinion based on available evidence" equates to "pulling it out of your ass" to you, then so be it. You must live in a fucked up world.

They are talking about one scene -not the entire movie, not most of the movie, not even a very important scene, but a cross-cut between the different threads in the story toward the end.

I'll have to go back and check the actual full behind-the-scenes segment (I sure as hell am not taking your word for it), but I recall it being a full rough cut review.

When it comes to making movies, I think George Lucas is more qualified than this fucktard on YouTube, and certainly more qualified than someone who takes his cues from a fucktard on YouTube. Like you.

First, this is about Lucas's writing ability, which he himself has acknowledged as a weakness.

Your attack on qualifications is utterly irrelevant when it comes to critiquing someone's storytelling ability, but also ridiculous, given that I actually do work in commercial art. Have you yelled at Wong for not being a qualified engineer lately? I'm not even going to pretend to indulge in a dick-waving contest over film critique qualifications with you.

So now you can read minds?

Yes, because inferring people's moods from watching their body language and listening to what they're saying implies mind-reading. Seriously, you have no case. Just go the fuck away.

I thought you were the typical "Lucas Raped My Childhood" type

Actually, no. I think anyone who complains about someone "raping their childhood" is a melodramatic idiot and needs to get his head out of his ass. I just think Lucas produced some weak work, and think critiquing it and identifying why is a valid thing to do.

Instead, you seem inclined to masturbate to your shrine of George. Which, y'know, go you. But don't lie about what you're doing by making it seem as though I'm somehow off base.

Did he have any input on the story or characters or any other creative aspect of the film? Or was he the guy who does what the Executive Producer tells him to do (you know, being a producer and all)?

Given the fact that he was omnipresent (if the set documentaries and such are to be believed), he was placed to have input. Whether or not he took the opportunity to provide it...who knows?

In a good, collaborative creative endeavor (which, um, movies and other forms of commercial art are), anyone should be free to offer advice to the director. The director's also free to ignore it, of course.

And how exactly would he "challenge" George Lucas?

"Hey George, I think making Anakin older might work better."
"Hey George, I think this Jar-Jar character is a little silly. Maybe we should tone him down a bit."

Everyone knows that a movie producer, when being interviewed or appearing in a "making of" documentary for a film will use that opportunity to sandbag the production, second guess the writer/director/exec. producer/owner and say things like "I told George not to do it that way, but he ignored me -so if the movie sucks it's not my fault!"

I'm not going to go dig up every single prequel set documentary and behind-the-scenes piece and point out word-by-word what I'm talking about because that would be ridiculous. This is my interpretation of his words, his way of speaking, and his body language. You're welcome to disagree.

I just think you're a dipshit.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique. Why on earth should one of the greatest film-makers of all time give half a shit what someone else thinks?

I already mentioned this gem. Really, just...wow. The level of ignorance displayed by this comment is astonishing.

Nothing released since the early 1980s by any film-maker compares to what Lucas did back then. I guess they should have shut down the movie business in 1983.

Filmmaking, yes. Storytelling, no. Stop trying to turn this argument into something other than what it is. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing if you're going to be a dishonest piece of shit.

After all, if critics and and naysayers knew so much about how to make movies, they would be making movies of their own, now wouldn't they?[/qoute]
This ranks up there with your other comment.

No, you are starting with the assumption that the movie is terribly "flawed", then twisting everything to fit your preconceived ideas.

Again, if you want to indulge in your masturbatory worship of The George, be my guest. You look like an idiot doing it.

I also found that after the sociopathic reviewer's barely-incoherent lunacy, his tangent on the nature of lightsaber fights was actually a very lucid and astute one. He's right, we barely feel any personal connection to the PT characters. Man.

The reviews in some ways don't change. But what I find rather hilarious is the of who do remember of the PT characters, and the only one that stuck to my mind was Qui-Gon Jinn. Mace Windu was Sam Jackson with a purple lightsaber, Christopher Lee's character was target #2, and all I really remember of Luke's mom was her heaving, and crying, and grimacing.

I still find that a failing of the PT that I remember a one shot Jedi master never mentioned and gets bitched by Wolverine the Sith.

Loved the review, but I'm sure that surprises nobody.

McC, you might be interested in reading this article by Michael Kaminski about the (de)evolution of George's screenwriting process throughout the saga. It should help you clarify some of your arguments.

Hi Elfdart!

Galvatron wrote:McC, you might be interested in reading this article by Michael Kaminski about the (de)evolution of George's screenwriting process throughout the saga. It should help you clarify some of your arguments.

I've read it. Thanks, though.

When I started watching it, I winced, because I thought for sure this was one of those terrible videos put together by some dude with an awful voice. After I got what was going on, I thought it was deliciously funny and amusing and agreeable.

Then I saw that he did reviews for all the TNG movies, and I consumed those too. Someone else here recommended them, and I have to second, he also nails the flaws of the TNG movies pretty well.

Apparently, the review is liked by the interwebs:

the way I learned about the video was from Lost co-creator and Star Trek producer Damon Lindelof, who said “Your life is about to change. This is astounding film making. Watch ALL of it.”

McC wrote:You lost any credibility when you said

Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique. Why on earth should one of the greatest film-makers of all time give half a shit what someone else thinks?

Continued development as an artist (which, um, is the goal of every artist with whom I've ever interacted or even read about) depends on useful critique. Particularly from other artists, but anyone with half an understanding of the process is welcome, too.

The goal of an artist is to create art, you pretentious fucktard. An artist with integrity (always a rare thing) will create works that please himself or herself without giving a flying fuck what others think. After all, if George Lucas had listened to others, there wouldn't be any such thing as Star Wars. Lucas' mentor at the time, Francis Coppola, didn't want Lucas to do Star Wars at all, but wanted him to do Apocalypse Now instead. Now Francis Coppola is probably the only artist on the face of the earth with the clout and stature (as well as being a close friend) to influence George Lucas and (a) Coppola was wrong and (b) Lucas ignored him. Thank goodness.

So why should Lucas listen to, let alone ask for, advice from a producer when it comes to story or characters? As much as Robert Evans was an asshole during filming of The Godfather, he never once tried to get Coppola to re-write the characters or change the story, and Evans had some clout with the studio -something McCallum never had.

How long did Lucas spend writing ANH? Two or three years, wasn't it? How long did he spend writing TPM? Six months? Tops? A guy who is on record detailing his flaws as a writer -- this isn't about his filmmaking ability as a whole; just his writing -- spends less time, with less-to-no external input on a script, and you're seriously going to try and argue that it underwent enough revision?

Wrong. He started writing TPM in 1994.

Really? And you don't think this leaves you as the one with the egg on your face? Fuck off.

You're the one who was off by three years, asshole.

If "forming an opinion based on available evidence" equates to "pulling it out of your ass" to you, then so be it. You must live in a fucked up world.

No, I live in the real world -where people often get tired after working on a project for several hours straight. You, on the other hand, live on the planet Nerd Rage VII, where anything short of beating off at the rough cut is taken as evidence that the movie sucked.

They are talking about one scene -not the entire movie, not most of the movie, not even a very important scene, but a cross-cut between the different threads in the story toward the end.

I'll have to go back and check the actual full behind-the-scenes segment (I sure as hell am not taking your word for it), but I recall it being a full rough cut review.

Since you're so bashful on the subject, I'll just post Heathcliff's video here (1:15):



You are such a lying twat. They are clearly talking about one scene near the end, where four story lines are running parallel to one another. Now Heathcliff thinks this is an example of bad film-making, as apparently do the collected retards here who, incapable of forming their own opinions, take their cues from a moron on YouTube doing a bad impression of Heathcliff the Cat, a cartoon character known for his mind-numbing stupidity.

How stupid? American Graffiti has four main story lines running throughout the movie. On top of that, the fate of each male character is presented in a title card epilogue. I guess that's another example of bad moviemaking.

First, this is about Lucas's writing ability, which he himself has acknowledged as a weakness.

It's not much of a weakness, considering that his peers nominated him twice for Best Original Screenplay and twice for Best Director. But what do they know about writing and directing? Maybe they could use some "continued development" and a "useful critique" or two from a guy who talks like a lame cartoon character on YouTube -or better yet, morons who think Heathcliff impersonators are kewl.

Your attack on qualifications is utterly irrelevant when it comes to critiquing someone's storytelling ability, but also ridiculous, given that I actually do work in commercial art. Have you yelled at Wong for not being a qualified engineer lately? I'm not even going to pretend to indulge in a dick-waving contest over film critique qualifications with you.

I think I just hit a nerve here. If you really do "work in commercial art" (whatever that means), then you would know that a producer's job has nothing to do with the creative side of making a movie (unless the producer is also the writer, director or in some other role), but the execution of the movie.

So now you can read minds?

Yes, because inferring people's moods from watching their body language and listening to what they're saying implies mind-reading. Seriously, you have no case.

When they twist a brief shot of a few exhausted men in a screening room into some bizarre paranoid fantasy, yes.

Just go the fuck away.

Not a chance.

Did he have any input on the story or characters or any other creative aspect of the film? Or was he the guy who does what the Executive Producer tells him to do (you know, being a producer and all)?

Given the fact that he was omnipresent (if the set documentaries and such are to be believed), he was placed to have input. Whether or not he took the opportunity to provide it...who knows?

NOW you admit you don't know what McCallum did or didn't do. Will you at least try to get your bullshit story straight?

In a good, collaborative creative endeavor (which, um, movies and other forms of commercial art are), anyone should be free to offer advice to the director. The director's also free to ignore it, of course.

How generous of you.

And how exactly would he "challenge" George Lucas?

"Hey George, I think making Anakin older might work better."
"Hey George, I think this Jar-Jar character is a little silly. Maybe we should tone him down a bit."

And now you let the cat out of the bag. I've always been of the opinion that all this talk about how Rick McCallum is a stooge and a yes-man who should have told George Lucas what to do on his own movie is really just using McCallum (or Lucas' ex-wife, or Gary Kurtz, or the caterer or anyone else) and a stand-in for their own Nerd Rage fantasies. They think Lucas should have consulted them personally about making the movies. Comments like the one from Jedi Master McC prove my point since they assume that McCallum (or the ex-wife or ex-producer or caterer) agrees with them. They assume that their idiotic opinions are facts when for all they know, McCallum and the others might have wanted Anakin to be even younger, and Jar Jar Binks even more outrageous.

Everyone knows that a movie producer, when being interviewed or appearing in a "making of" documentary for a film will use that opportunity to sandbag the production, second guess the writer/director/exec. producer/owner and say things like "I told George not to do it that way, but he ignored me -so if the movie sucks it's not my fault!"

I'm not going to go dig up every single prequel set documentary and behind-the-scenes piece and point out word-by-word what I'm talking about because that would be ridiculous.

Concession accepted.

This is my interpretation of his words, his way of speaking, and his body language.

This bullshit again? Why not use a Ouija Board, too?

You're welcome to disagree.

That's awfully big of you.

Those who can, do. Those who can't, critique. Why on earth should one of the greatest film-makers of all time give half a shit what someone else thinks?

I already mentioned this gem. Really, just...wow. The level of ignorance displayed by this comment is astonishing.

And yet you won't answer the question.

Nothing released since the early 1980s by any film-maker compares to what Lucas did back then. I guess they should have shut down the movie business in 1983.

Filmmaking, yes. Storytelling, no. Stop trying to turn this argument into something other than what it is. I'm not going to waste anymore time arguing if you're going to be a dishonest piece of shit.

First of all, you lying fuckhead, the subject is The Phantom Menace, a very successful movie that still has pretentious twerps (and retards on YouTube) fuming over a decade after it was released.

After all, if critics and and naysayers knew so much about how to make movies, they would be making movies of their own, now wouldn't they?

This ranks up there with your other comment.

And yet you still have no answer.

What all this gnashing of teeth by the Nerd Rage crowd shows is that George Lucas is easily the greatest film-maker of all time. Even people who claim to hate his movies still watch them and can't stop talking about them more than ten years after they were released. The amount of monkeyshit flung at Coppola over Godfather III looks like a few specks compared to the volume of excrement hurled at George Lucas over the Prequels. Yet people still feel the need to watch The Phantom Menace and talk about it.