Clement Rage
Pro Adventurer
Sup folks. So, I appear to post a lot about Star Wars lately, and have recently ended up doing a kind of hostile takeover of the Star Wars thread by accident. Rather than force everyone to read it all the time, I figured I should quarantine at least some of it, starting from the latest post. If this is spamming, impolite or breaching some forum rule, by all means let me know. I'll start from the most recent posts.
You cannot reasonably use something that Lucas didn't edit at all as an example of Lucas's poor editing skills. Every director shoots more than they need, it's just good policy, because it can always be cut later, but if something's missing, then you have to spend 200k going back to Tunisia to do a reshoot. Raw unedited footage is never intended to be the final product.
Every film is edited down from the rough cut, every film is intended to be edited down from the rough cut. It is not a fair reflection on anyone involved to treat an unpolished draft as the final product. From the same article:
At the absolute worst, that still isn't an example of Lucas' bad editing. Because he did no editing (although he was involved in the subsequent cut, the 'good' one).
Calling Anakin 'whiny' is like calling AC Cloud whiny. How many people does one need to watch die before it's acceptable to be upset about it?
OT stormtroopers are not confirmed to be identical clones (and in canon, were not by then.) OT stormtroopers do have varying heights and different voices, etc. Wookiees do not have to be entirely identical.
What is the reason it's so constantly criticised, apart from general dislike of CGI and the prequels?
Your article appears to disagree:
It was also cut together without the help or vision of George Lucas or producer Gary Kurtz.
Directors shoot expecting what they do to be edited later, this was never intended to be the final product and Lucas disliked it so much he hired new editors. It is very unfair to call it the result of poor editing choices by Lucas when he didn't edit it and didn't like the edit he saw.
There's a ton of cloudy information around this particular cut of the film and the nature of that relationship, and I have yet to find anything that talks definitively about him being fired from the film as its main editor either, because some places talk about him being let go, others talk about him only ever being an assembly editor, all of it's varying degrees of unspecific.
As a blueprint, the outline is still the one that George Lucas had created from storyboards and that was composed from all of the footage that he choose to shoot. None of that is the call of the editor. That's all the call of the director that that footage exists and how it was meant to tie together. Again, per that article I linked: George Lucas enlisted the help of John Jympson, a British editor, and allowed him to take the production footage that was shot up until that point and create a rough cut of the film. What John did was take whatever footage was completed at the time and assemble a rough cut of the film, putting the shots in their proper sequence, to give Lucas an idea of the narrative flow of the film. Any way you slice it, regardless of their relationship, that's STILL 100% raw George Lucas' own output just cobbled together on film.
The issue is that the editor didn't cut away enough of everything that George filmed and planned to make it work as a film. That's still clear that George's skills aren't in editing his own material, and that he needs to be curated. That's the whole point about Star Wars being saved in the edit.
The most overwhelmingly apparent thing is that – every single one of the editorial issues that were present in that "Lost Cut" workprint of the original Star Wars, are also all over the prequels. The pacing issues, the cutting back-and-forth constantly to show events in real-time, the over-delivery of information that no one cares about from a whiney kid, literally ALL of it. That's George Lucas unfiltered. He is a terrible editor. That's WHY he needed an editorial team that would do all of that for him to make Star Wars as great as they were.
Re clone troopers, matte paintings are fine for troopers at parade rest, but the Clone troopers had to fight in large battles. There would be an obvious discrepancy if the close in shots were practical, and you'd run into problems lke making sure every extra was the exact same height, weight, shoe size etc. It's just swapping one set of problems for another set of problems.
I mean... they managed just fine for the Stormtroopers in the OT being large groups of people the same body size and height. That's literally all something that's VERY achievable with casting calls for faceless extras. They also did a mix of CGI and practical costuming for the Wookiees just fine, and they're much better off for it. There's literally NO reason that that was a non-option for the Clones. It was a piss poor decision, and there's a reason that it's constantly criticized.
X
You cannot reasonably use something that Lucas didn't edit at all as an example of Lucas's poor editing skills. Every director shoots more than they need, it's just good policy, because it can always be cut later, but if something's missing, then you have to spend 200k going back to Tunisia to do a reshoot. Raw unedited footage is never intended to be the final product.
Every film is edited down from the rough cut, every film is intended to be edited down from the rough cut. It is not a fair reflection on anyone involved to treat an unpolished draft as the final product. From the same article:
There are no rules that say a rough cut has to follow the script but usually the key is to make the film flow as it was originally intended with the assumption that it will be heavily changed as the postproduction phase continues. This rough cut gives the filmmaker a good look at what’s been shot and how it flows from scene to scene. Some things will work, some things won’t. Some scenes will be too slow and some scenes won’t be necessary at all to advance the story. Some scenes will be moved to different parts of the film, if needed. Whatever the case may be, the rough cut provides a nice work print or blueprint for the film, much like a blueprint drawn by an architect gives a construction company the visual toolbox it needs to build a house from the ground up.
At the absolute worst, that still isn't an example of Lucas' bad editing. Because he did no editing (although he was involved in the subsequent cut, the 'good' one).
Calling Anakin 'whiny' is like calling AC Cloud whiny. How many people does one need to watch die before it's acceptable to be upset about it?
I mean... they managed just fine for the Stormtroopers in the OT being large groups of people the same body size and height. That's literally all something that's VERY achievable with casting calls for faceless extras. They also did a mix of CGI and practical costuming for the Wookiees just fine, and they're much better off for it. There's literally NO reason that that was a non-option for the Clones. It was a piss poor decision, and there's a reason that it's constantly criticized.
OT stormtroopers are not confirmed to be identical clones (and in canon, were not by then.) OT stormtroopers do have varying heights and different voices, etc. Wookiees do not have to be entirely identical.
What is the reason it's so constantly criticised, apart from general dislike of CGI and the prequels?