How Star Wars was NOT saved in the edit.

[Elfdart]

There's been a popular notion among Nerd Ragers that George Lucas is an imbecile who doesn't know how to make movies and if his movies succeeded, it was spite of his efforts rather than because of them.

Rick Worley describes the smug stupidity of this line of thought:

LINK

It’s been a popular notion for some time now that Star Wars needed to be saved from George
Lucas. It took me a long time to work out how people could seriously think something so
nonsensical.
There is no Star Wars without George Lucas. Where do these people think that Star Wars came
from?

To get around the conundrum of loving Star Wars but hating George Lucas, fans have created
entire alternate realities. The Secret History of Star Wars is a book-length attempt by fan/possible
mental patient Michael Kaminski to give credit for everything good about the original three films
to somebody, anybody, besides George Lucas. It was Ralph McQuarrie, Gary Kurtz, it was
Lawrence Kasdan, Irvin Kersher, Marcia Lucas, it was maybe the craft service guy, but it was
most definitely not the guy who wrote, directed, and originated the entire thing. Kaminski makes
baroque conspiracy theories about how Lucas has lied about the development of all of the films,
based on the fact that Kaminski has “uncovered” that the story did in fact evolve over the
different script drafts and didn’t originate fully formed in the version that Lucas has chosen to
finally present. The way that fans are able to twist reality to fit their preferred version of events is
displayed in fact that he presents these revelations as “secret” when he has no special access of
any kind and all of his research is based on information readily made available by Lucas and
Lucasfilm themselves

The guy who makes hour-long videos about mutilating women in his basement and humping cats is also a major proponent of this crank theory, as is RocketJump, a dishonest movie "expert" who runs a fake film school on YouTube: a movie buff's version of PragerU. The fake film school's thesis is that Star Wars was an unwatchable mess before Richard Chew, Paul Hirsch and Marcia Lucas turned George Lucas' lemon into lemonade*. The Red Letter Moron made a similar assertion by posting a few seconds of the reaction to a rough cut of The Phantom Menace, and using the deductive reasoning one normally only hears from anti-vaccine crackpots, surmised that the movie was awful. It's tempting to bring up Martin Scorsese's quote that rough cuts make him sick to his stomach, but pointing out the obvious to those who despise George Lucas is like mentioning iambic pentameter to a troop of baboons.

* This implies that Star Wars movies are the only ones that get edited, when in fact every motion picture ever made has been edited.

Well it now appears that YouTube isn't just the lair of Lucas-bashing halfwits anymore. One bright YouTuber with the handle of "Nerdonymous" went to the trouble of fact-checking the fake film school's video/exercise in character assassination and presented his findings in a video of his own:



It's quite informative and entertaining and meticulous in citing sources -so much so that the only criticism is that it's two hours long. It's like the way Stoklassholes responded to Jim Raynor's essay not by trying to rebut the points he made, but by whining that it's over a hundred pages long.

[Darth Yan]

Lucas isn’t a hack by any means but he has his weaknesses just like everyone else. I can buy that people might have helped polish the dialogue at times for instance.

[Elfdart]

Just about every filmmaker has script polishers, visual consultants or others who add the finishing touches on a film. The difference is that this particular fact is used to make the case that one filmmaker -and one filmmaker only- is incompetent. For example, in addition to helping edit her husband's movies, Marcia Lucas helped George Lucas film screen tests for The Godfather (like the footage of Robert De Niro trying out for the role of Sonny). She lobbied harder than anyone for Al Pacino to get the part of Michael Corleone when the studio (especially Robert Evans and Peter Bart, who oversaw the production at Paramount) really wanted Ryan O'Neal or Robert Redford for the part.

Now imagine if a film buff (like one from a fake film school, and many an internet neckbeard) who disliked some of Francis Coppola's later films, and developed a major case of ass-hurt because he re-cut one or more of his classic films (which by the way he's done for the Godfather films as well as Apocalypse Now*) decided to use this bit of trivia to "prove" that Coppola is a barely functioning cretin who doesn't know how to make movies. One could do the same for Steven Spielberg, since as Marcia Lucas points out in this interview (6:30 mark) Spielberg forgot to shoot the second to last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy and Marion are walking down the steps inside the capitol building -which would leave viewers thinking Indiana Jones might have left her on the island of melted Nazis:

LINK

Which led to Mr and Mrs Lucas hurriedly bringing in Karen Allen and Harrison Ford and shooting the scene at San Francisco City Hall.




* I could easily see the Red Letter Moron using footage from Hearts Of Darkness about how difficult the movie was to make and saying what an incompetent director Coppola is. Stoklasa really is that much of a fucktard.

What's baffling is how George Lucas is the one who is subjected to such hysterical abuse almost a decade after he made his very last movie.

[Solauren]

Why are people hating on Lucas?

Because he had a successful trilogy, made some changes he wanted, and re-released it. That affected their fragile little egos, because it 'changed their childhood/ruined it'.

In reality, they're jealous that he was able to shot like, 10 minutes of new footage, and then make millions of dollars off it.

They're upset he put his vision on screen (the prequels), and it didn't line up with their expectations, yet he still made millions of dollars.

They're projecting their own issues onto Lucas. Simple as that.

[Darth Yan]

Just about every filmmaker has script polishers, visual consultants or others who add the finishing touches on a film. The difference is that this particular fact is used to make the case that one filmmaker -and one filmmaker only- is incompetent. For example, in addition to helping edit her husband's movies, Marcia Lucas helped George Lucas film screen tests for The Godfather (like the footage of Robert De Niro trying out for the role of Sonny). She lobbied harder than anyone for Al Pacino to get the part of Michael Corleone when the studio (especially Robert Evans and Peter Bart, who oversaw the production at Paramount) really wanted Ryan O'Neal or Robert Redford for the part.

Now imagine if a film buff (like one from a fake film school, and many an internet neckbeard) who disliked some of Francis Coppola's later films, and developed a major case of ass-hurt because he re-cut one or more of his classic films (which by the way he's done for the Godfather films as well as Apocalypse Now*) decided to use this bit of trivia to "prove" that Coppola is a barely functioning cretin who doesn't know how to make movies. One could do the same for Steven Spielberg, since as Marcia Lucas points out in this interview (6:30 mark) Spielberg forgot to shoot the second to last scene in Raiders of the Lost Ark where Indy and Marion are walking down the steps inside the capitol building -which would leave viewers thinking Indiana Jones might have left her on the island of melted Nazis:

LINK

Which led to Mr and Mrs Lucas hurriedly bringing in Karen Allen and Harrison Ford and shooting the scene at San Francisco City Hall.




* I could easily see the Red Letter Moron using footage from Hearts Of Darkness about how difficult the movie was to make and saying what an incompetent director Coppola is. Stoklasa really is that much of a fucktard.

What's baffling is how George Lucas is the one who is subjected to such hysterical abuse almost a decade after he made his very last movie.

True. Lucas does have a lot of talents. As TvTropes pointed out he has "an incredible eye for casting, conception visual style and dramatic instinct. At the same time he has himself admitted to being "the King of Wooden dialogue". Some people were in denial about that and when Lucas's flaws were more apparent they reacted by going in the other extreme rather than admit that he had both skills AND flaws.

[Elfdart]

They're projecting their own issues onto Lucas. Simple as that.

I'm sure that's a good part of it, as is a total lack of perspective (and ignorance of film history as well). I mean, quite a few filmmakers are downright cruel to cast and crew alike. Some of the all-time greats like Otto Preminger, Sam Peckinpah, Robert Altman, Alfred Hitchcock, Michael Curtiz (who actually had an extra lash Errol Flynn with a real whip on the set of The Sea Hawk) and John Ford reveled in their well-earned harsh reputations. Which is why I never took seriously the allegations about Joss Whedon being an asshole on set: I figured that even if it was all true, it's small potatoes compared to how Hitchcock treated Tippi Hedren on Marnie.

And don't get me started on Quentin Tarantino, who caused serious injuries to Uma Thurman and almost got her killed on one of his movies. Her permanent neck and knee injuries thanks to Tarantino led her to compare him to his producer, Harvey Weinstein:

After the extent of Weinstein's abuse was exposed in the press back in October, Thurman renewed her efforts to pressure Tarantino into handing over the footage. He finally relented, with the footage being published on the Times' website.

"Harvey assaulted me but that didn't kill me," she says.

Yikes!

True. Lucas does have a lot of talents. As TvTropes pointed out he has "an incredible eye for casting, conception visual style and dramatic instinct. At the same time he has himself admitted to being "the King of Wooden dialogue". Some people were in denial about that and when Lucas's flaws were more apparent they reacted by going in the other extreme rather than admit that he had both skills AND flaws.

The number of people who think George Lucas was one of the all-time greats at handling actors or writing clever dialogue would fit on a bus. Neither he nor the PR department at Lucasfilm were ever shameless enough to even imply something so ridiculous. I think some fans got overly defensive when Stoklassholes and their ilk jumped from "Lucas isn't anything special at acting/dialogue" to "Lucas is one of the very worst at directing actors/screenwriting -and he sucks in every other aspect of filmmaking, too!".

[Gandalf]

I like to think of it along the lines of issues people have with Jerry Bruckheimer. Bruckheimer makes Bruckheimer films. Lucas makes Lucas films.

For better or worse, they have their own signature bits.

[Elfdart]

I like to think of it along the lines of issues people have with Jerry Bruckheimer. Bruckheimer makes Bruckheimer films. Lucas makes Lucas films.

For better or worse, they have their own signature bits.

Does anyone make hour-long videos about why Jerry Bruckheimer is a bad movie producer? Or that his accomplishments were actually the work of others?

[Solauren]

I like to think of it along the lines of issues people have with Jerry Bruckheimer. Bruckheimer makes Bruckheimer films. Lucas makes Lucas films.

For better or worse, they have their own signature bits.

Does anyone make hour-long videos about why Jerry Bruckheimer is a bad movie producer? Or that his accomplishments were actually the work of others?

Are there people that are 'fans' of his work with OCD issues enough to bother?

[Gandalf]

Shit, I was thinking of Michael Bay. Bay films look like Bay films. You know what you're getting going in.

Sorry all.

[KraytKing]

Why are people hating on Lucas?

Because he had a successful trilogy, made some changes he wanted, and re-released it. That affected their fragile little egos, because it 'changed their childhood/ruined it'.

In reality, they're jealous that he was able to shot like, 10 minutes of new footage, and then make millions of dollars off it.

They're upset he put his vision on screen (the prequels), and it didn't line up with their expectations, yet he still made millions of dollars.

They're projecting their own issues onto Lucas. Simple as that.

Don't tell me you actually like the special edition edits. We really needed some gross CGI animals taking up screenspace on an already good movie? More Jawa physical comedy? I agree, that bonus scene between Harrison and CGI Jabba really completed the movies, definitely felt like something was missing without it. And I always hated the original Emperor hologram in Empire, his face was too dark! I needed to see that Ian McDiarmid face and hear the re recorded lines. And don't even get me started on the final Vader scene, how was I supposed to know it was Anakin's ghost without Hayden Christiansen!

No problem with him being rich. I like movies, people getting rich off movies means that more movies happen. Except, obviously, when the moviemakers of the last century get TOO rich and kick down the ladder so they can keep being famous and directing the next movies, strangling competition in the cradle because they can, but generally speaking I don't mind if Georgie makes some more money doing what he loves. All power to him. That doesn't mean I have to like what he shits out, and I can be annoyed that I can't find the fucking good versions.


Regarding the wider thread, I can agree that those YouTubers are some dumb cunt morons, but I disagree with the conclusion. Georgie did well with ANH, and that's essentially the end of his success. He was a freshman director surrounded by phenomenal crew. It isn't hard to infer what exactly happened. He may have written a good movie, but he was probably impacted heavily by other people's ideas, far more than he could possibly be after he's a billionaire responsible for a massive cultural event.

We see the effects. ANH is a great film, but Empire is one for the ages. Where was George? Fuming in the corner, slighted by a superior director. No matter the specifics, it is undoubtable that this was the movie George was involved in the least. Come back to ROTJ, and it's still good--but not great. George is back, some dumbass is directing, and the movie is pretty weak. Then we get to the prequels, movies made by movie God, for all intents and purposes, and they are nauseating. Don't dismiss me as one of the "it ruined my childhood" crowd--I hadn't been born when TPM came out, let alone the original trilogy. They were my childhood, and by God I regret it. My peers seem to like something about them, but the movies are a kick in the face, and insult not just to Star Wars, but to the art of filmmaking overall. Barely concealed racism, terrible writing, terrible effects and terrible USE of those effects, and a stupid, stupid story. And who was the king who made them? Lucas.

[Darth Yan]

You're a teenager? Guess that explains a lot.

Lucas DOES have talent and good ideas. He's not perfect and has weaknesses but Star Wars is only good because he was involved. Same with Empire. Even when he misses you can understand what he's trying to do even if the execution is lacking (see the Prequels).

Return is a mixed bag; Lucas WISELY put his foot down on Kasden's idea of having Luke go dark, and Kasden suggested the overly complex rescue plan. Lucas also did come up with the "Vader is Luke's dad" plot twist entirely on his own. The fight between Luke and Vader is great.

So overall you just come across as a whiny petulant teenager

[Solauren]

... So overall you just come across as a whiny petulant teenager

And his post actually back up my point about fragile little egos.

[KraytKing]

You're a teenager? Guess that explains a lot.

Lucas DOES have talent and good ideas. He's not perfect and has weaknesses but Star Wars is only good because he was involved. Same with Empire. Even when he misses you can understand what he's trying to do even if the execution is lacking (see the Prequels).

Return is a mixed bag; Lucas WISELY put his foot down on Kasden's idea of having Luke go dark, and Kasden suggested the overly complex rescue plan. Lucas also did come up with the "Vader is Luke's dad" plot twist entirely on his own. The fight between Luke and Vader is great.

So overall you just come across as a whiny petulant teenager

My age is listed on my profile. I don't make a secret of it. Make what you will of that information.

A New Hope is definitely his brainchild, nobody else could have brought that combination of ideas and skilled people together at the right time. But he's no genius director, because to be good at directing you have to have be somewhat consistent. He works well with others, I don't deny it. It's when he has ultimate power, like the prequels, that his stupidity becomes apparent. Suggesting perhaps that his worse ideas always existed, they just tend to get silenced in a collaborative project.

I'm not denying the successes of the collaboration, I'm just saying that it only works when he has people to put him down.

[Darth Yan]

Lucas also had roles in ESB being a success and you tried to ignore that. Some of his collaborators also had stupid ideas or were responsible for weaknesses too. Yet you ignore that.

[KraytKing]

I'm not one of the dumbass youtubers linked above, I'm not determined to prove that George Lucas is the worst director that ever was. I'm just saying that he doesn't deserve the praise heaped upon him. When he is unquestionably in charge, the movies are terrible. When he is a minor player, the movies are excellent. Seems suggestive.

I mean, you do kind of encourage my other point. Spielberg, in his recent movies, has become dictator and guess what? They aren't as good. Kasdan helped write some of the sequels, and boy are they shitty. Maybe we should let these directors have their moment, then sort of...shuffle them on out. Make room for the new blood.

[Darth Yan]

He deserves a fair amount; ESB was largely him as well. And I agree that Lucas has flaws that others helped reign in. But you implied he didn't deserve credit for ESB when he does to a large amount

[Darth Yan]

A compatriot of mine had this theory. The dialogue has always been weird but the OT was better STRUCTURED. ESB is one of the best structured movies ever made, and AHN while it feels a wee bit overlong at points holds up well.

AOTC was a mess structurally, and while ROTS was better it wasn't perfect. Phantom Menace's climax was overly divided as well.

The OT is better on a STRUCTURAL level. The Prequels however you can respect for what they TRIED to do. They missed the mark but overall there was genuine passion.

[Ralin]

You're a teenager? Guess that explains a lot.

It's 2021. The Phantom Menace came out in 1999.