Star Wars: Episode 7, 8... and BEYOND!

[The Twilight Mexican]

Whether it's a composite of practical effects or CGI, the end result is still gross-looking green screen and actors looking at golf balls.

Excuse you. Ping pong balls.

I'd contrast that feeling with directors like Nolan where it's very difficult to find unrelevant things that are added/left in. There's enough directors that do tighter editing jobs then Lucas does for it to be noticeable that his films suffer for it.

Perhaps that's what makes it really obvious when Nolan does do it. "The Dark Knight Rises" could have used more editing, and I'm still waiting for a fan edit of the awesome chase sequence from TDK without the "This Is Bad" Cop -- who just keeps it from being perfect.

 

[Clement Rage]

To even have this conversation, you're having to really really really zoom in on the details to have things to talk about. That the films stand up to scrutiny this well is actually making me realise just how well the prequels are put together. Swarming over every detail in a way that practically no film could stand up to still isn't finding valid criticisms, to the point that people have to zoom in on stuff like that inconsequential Palpatine shot.

That is damn good filmmaking.

I think you're either overlooking X's point or underestimating the brain's ability to discern incongruities in social (e.g. facial reactions) or spatial (e.g. environmental boundaries) elements at a subconscious level. Those movies just feel off in so many places that it has to add up (down?) to a negative sum, and they always did for me, even long before I knew this tech stuff is what could be feeling so off about them.

X said "It's the culmination of all those things that plague the Prequels," and that rings so true -- to my own experience with these movies at any rate. They feel artificial in just so many ways (humor, actors' reactions to one another, environments, CGI, etc.) that it's hard to ever feel like you're looking at something that could actually exist in reality -- be it "in a galaxy far, far away" or somewhere else.

Alright, but it's very easy to say 'this thing that no one noticed is the cause of everything'. If you want to say that this thing is a reason why a film is bad, then tell me why. Surely if it's so terrible then there are better examples than something no one even noticed for ten years and then made a funny gif of.

X's own video pointed out that despite people blaming overuse of CGI, much of it was actually practical effects.

When the complaint is 'overuse of CGI' when CGI in question was actually a practical effect, then that calls into question the idea that the CGI is the problem.

The existence of lighthearted humour scenes that you don't care for isn't really an example of poor editing (for the most part, it's tricky to disentangle production from post production), it's just a storytelling choice you disagree with.

I don't see that as an editing issue, and while I could be wrong, I want to hear the explanation why.

Spoiler: Extended Rant

Here's the thing... If a major problem with the prequels is 'poor editing', why is nobody blaming the actual editors? Or bringing up examples of poor editing? Ben Burtt is not a child or an intern, he is an Academy Award winner. If he didn't challenge Lucas on something he felt was wrong, then that's on him.

There's this idea that George had 'too much control' over the prequels, and I'm not sure where it came from. He's not known for being an iron fist dictator, quite the reverse, so where does this idea come from, other than RedLetterMedia? Did professional editors decide not to do their jobs because they were star struck? If you believe that, then why do you think so? And why blame Lucas for the poor editing and not the film's editors?

TL;DR: If you're saying that things like 'poor editing' or 'overuse of CGI' are issues, then explain why. Because in so much discussion they're just taken as truth, and I'd like to understand.

@Obsidian, much of that comes off to me as believable messiness. Ask three different historians about the same event, you will get differing interpretations. And it's not like this is unique to the prequels. "What I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

 

[Obsidian Fire]

@Obsidian, much of that comes off to me as believable messiness. Ask three different historians about the same event, you will get differing interpretations. And it's not like this is unique to the prequels. "What I told you was true... from a certain point of view."

While I can see how that could be true about the things in both the Prequals and the Original Trilogy, I don't see how that can be true about things just in the Prequals.

I'm complaining about things like the concept of "show vs. tell" and how that's really badly done in the Prequals to the point I find them unbelievable.

Show vs. Tell stuff...

Anakin and Padme: Why does she even like him? She never really says why. If anything, most of their interactions are about them arguing about the meaning of aggressive negotiations and somehow this is flirting? The most I can say about them is that the movies treats their interactions like they are in love, but it's kinda like watching two teenagers in love. They're more in love with the concept of being in love then with each other. Or they're in love with the people they were eight years ago instead of who they are now. That's a valid option to. (And yes, I'm aware that my asexuality is probably making this harder to get and want more clarification on what is really going on between them.)

Anakin and Obi-Wan: Where is the really good relationship both of them act like they usually have? Most of Clones is them arguing about how Obi-Wan thinks Anakin is too aggressive. If this is what the majority of their relationship is on-screen, why shouldn't I think there relationship is different off-screen (I don't watch the TV series, this might be fleshed out a lot better there).

They actually have that good rapport in the first five minutes of Revenge but the last five minutes of Revenge is them trying to kill each other. And I still can't take the course of their relationship in that film seriously either. Why is Anakin doubting everyone? 'Cause he goes from being semi-okay with Obi-Wan to outright hating him so fast (and without protesting the change in a relationship that important) that it's laughably unrealistic in hindsight.

Anakin and Palpatine: Why does Anakin trust Palpatine? He seriously talks to him for less then half a film. If it's because Anakin's been around people who he doesn't think care about him for so long he's willing to believe anyone who says they're on his side, then the movies really, really misrepresented his overall character. If it's because something weird with the Dark Side is going on then the movie didn't drop enough hints. There's just way too little screentime of this really important relationship (It's the reason Anakin thinks the Dark Side is a valid option!) for me to take it seriously.

Both the Palpatine and Obi-Wan relationship with Anakin could have used a lot more "this is how these relationships usually work" scenes in the movies to help them feel realistic. Instead, we see all the non-normal parts of the relationships and that gives a very weird impression of characters.

To me, Anakin in the Prequels comes across as a horrible judge of character who isn't willing to stop and think about anything. He's willing to ruin a long-term friendship just because someone he barely knows says they know how to solve his problems. The girl he crushes on is basically in love with the idea of who he could be (or was) and not who he is. This leaves him in a position where he is easy to manipulate and he can't even see it. For all that it's obvious he's had long-term problems with the Jedi order, he hasn't actually done anything about it, except make it even harder for people to empathize with him. He's the kind of tragic figure that you feel sorry for who he was (Anakin in Menace), but when you see how he handles conflicts when he's older (Clones and forwards) you know he's going to have a bad end.

The thing is? I don't think that's how the audience is supposed to view Anakin in the Prequels at all... but when that's all you have on these characters, that's kinda how it comes out. From what I've heard, the TV series really help flesh out what these characters are normally like. But guess who wasn't the director of those?

 

[Clement Rage]

So, about that edit of the first Star Wars that was 'saved'... I was googling today, and I found out that that's not actually the work of George Lucas. The rough cut was done by a man named John Jymson, who Lucas fired because Lucas was unhappy with his cut. That's why the second editing team was brought in in the first place. So it doesn't really say anything about Lucas' own editing style.

Y'know, given that I found that easily with less that five minutes of searching, I think it's unlikely that the maker of that video doesn't know about it. But I don't think he mentions his name. Interesting...

Sorry if I'm coming on too strong here, but I just find that so many of the prequel criticisms are just memes that go unchallenged. Usually from RedLetterMedia, which having only watched the TPM one, I don't actually think is good criticism.

Anakin and Padme: Why does she even like him? She never really says why. If anything, most of their interactions are about them arguing about the meaning of aggressive negotiations and somehow this is flirting? The most I can say about them is that the movies treats their interactions like they are in love, but it's kinda like watching two teenagers in love.

The 'aggressive negotiations' is two lines, it's not even close to the majority of their interactions. But, yes, it's an awkward teenager romance that is convincingly an awkward teenager romance.

Spoiler: headcanon

Anakin's been unhealthily obsessed with Padme since he associates her with getting out of slavery. Then he gets to spend extended time with her across Clones, and they grow attached in an awkward teenager way, but realise that doing anything is a terrible idea so they both suppress it.. Then, in Geonosis, when they believe they're going to die, they decide there's nothing to lose by admitting love. Then they unexpectedly survive and are left with that declaration of love (which they now feel properly, having been impressed by each other) hanging over them.

It's not a perfect relationship and I don't think it's meant to be. If you went in expecting a great romance for the ages you're going to be disappointed.

Anakin and Obi Wan do have a good relationship, but Padme is Anakin's obsession so he oversteps in protecting her, forcing Obi Wan to call him on it. There's no serious rift there, (Anakin is very upset when Obi ends up in danger), it's just a minor 'teach me more' 'You're not emotionally mature enough" difference of opinion.

In Revenge, Palpatine has to make sure Anakin is on the other side of the galaxy when he makes his move on Palpatine because of their relationship. He'd rather die than leave Obi behind on the exploding ship at the start.

By the time they meet again, Anakin believes that Padme knowingly brought Obi Wan there to kill him. When he's screaming 'I hate you', he' been delimbed three times and burning alive. That kind of thing can put a dent in your relationships. It's because of their great relationship that how they part hurts hem both so much.

Re Palpatine, that does indeed happen offscreen. He has encountered him enough in Clones that Obi Wan is worried about their association.

Anakin doesn't actually think the Dark Side is a good idea, Palpatine is a means to an end to saving Padme from his premonition. Palpatine carefully implies that he's the only way to save her, and Anakin is forced to save him from Mace because he needs to learn how to prevent death. He doesn't like or trust Palpy as a Sith Lord, and plans to betray him at the first opportunity, but as long as Padme's life is being held over his head, he has to follow along, because once Mace is dead, the rest of the Jedi are not going to let that slide, they're not going to rest until Palpatine and Anakin are dead. Which leaves team Palpatine as the only way to save the person he loves.

When on Mustafar he realises that he's lost the person he did everything for, he snaps, because now everything he's just done is pointless. And then at the end of Sith, he stays on team Palpatine because there's nothing else left for him, everything he loved is gone, and it's far too late to try to redeem himself for his sins.

The thing about the films is they're about the breaking points, not the times everything is going well. There's no time to put in an hour of slice of life comedy at the Jedi temple. The Clone Wars themselves were skipped (which was genius) because they're ultimately unimportant, they're just Palpatine playing chess with himself for kicks.

All those bonds are built through long slow processes that there's no time for in films. Their being expanded on in the TV show is not because the TV shows are better directed, it's just because by its nature there's enough time to build the relationship that isn't available in the films. It's a lot easier to build a long slow relationship growth in 14 hours than 2.

 

[Obsidian Fire]

The thing about the films is they're about the breaking points, not the times everything is going well. There's no time to put in an hour of slice of life comedy at the Jedi temple. The Clone Wars themselves were skipped (which was genius) because they're ultimately unimportant, they're just Palpatine playing chess with himself for kicks.

All those bonds are built through long slow processes that there's no time for in films. Their being expanded on in the TV show is not because the TV shows are better directed, it's just because by its nature there's enough time to build the relationship that isn't available in the films. It's a lot easier to build a long slow relationship growth in 14 hours than 2.

This is everything in a nutshell I have problems with in the Prequals. Episode 4 shows us what "normal life" was for Luke before the droids come in for the audience to realize how much this will screw with his life. Episode 5 shows what an average day is like on Hoth for the Rebellion, Luke, Leia and Han before the AT-Ts show up. Episode 6 sets up what Jaba's palace normally is like before Luke shows up. In the Original Series, we have a pretty good idea about what the status quo was like before the major plot developments get going. Somehow, the Original Trilogy managed to do an okay job of showing what "normal life" is like without having to rely on long-form media. The fact that the Prequals need the TV series to make more sense is a weakness and not a strength. Actually... this all goes for The Force Awakens as well. Finn, Poe and Rey each get their "slice of life/character establishing" moments before the plot really kicks in.

In the Prequals, the plot starts before we even get to know what "normal life" is like for any of the characters. We never get to know what type of person Padme is when her planet isn't being invaded. We don't get to know what type of negotiations Obi-Wan wants to have (at least have hims talk about former ones!). The only place we get to know a little bit about what "normal life" was like for someone is what Anakin's life of a slave is like. We've got less information in the Prequals about what his life as a Jedi is like which is arguably the more important part of his characterization (set-up for Clones and Revenge).

I get that the Prequals are about "breaking points", but it's a little hard to care about what is breaking when it never feels like it was ever whole in the first place. The more I think about it, the less I honestly care about what happens to the characters. I don't have an emotional attachment to them when they're doing "normal life" (since I don't know what that even looks like), so I have no emotional investment to hope that they'll be able to get back to doing it (or what they want normal life to be like for themselves when the dust settles).

 

[The Twilight Mexican]

Alright, but it's very easy to say 'this thing that no one noticed is the cause of everything'. If you want to say that this thing is a reason why a film is bad, then tell me why. Surely if it's so terrible then there are better examples than something no one even noticed for ten years and then made a funny gif of.

I thought I did say why. Everything feels off. It's all stilted, even before comparing it against the atmosphere of the original movies.

And it's not like there's any inherent problem with any of the techniques utilized. Like any other filmmaking technique, they can enhance their film -- but the same is true of a Dutch angle. If, however, lots of Dutch angles are being used, and they're not really doing anything but being Dutch angles, that's going to be a problem.

And okay, sure, you're right: It's easy to feel that a thing you couldn't put your finger on at first is a problem once you're actually aware of it. Maybe it's something else. But how often have you been eating something and known that something was off, then found out it didn't have salt? Or onion? Or garlic? Or butter? Or baking powder? Or something else vital to melding flavors or textures?

Do you need to be Bobby Flay to have an authentic "Aha!" moment there or can you just be a person who eats?

As for that gif, I'd literally never heard of that specific example (i.e. the Darth Plagueis scene) -- nor can I recall hearing of this RedLetterMedia you've mentioned a couple of times now -- until about thirty-six hours ago, so I can't help you there. And certainly, I do doubt most viewers noticed something like that. That it happened still speaks volumes, though, about the misguided sensibilities and preoccupations at work in the filmmaking process, which I would expect could have only influenced more of the production than that scene alone.

And I don't think it's for nothing that some of the harsh criticisms of Lucas's (over)reliance on certain technologies -- or forced, unsuccessful humor -- echo the harsher critiques we (i.e. X and I; don't know or care to know about most anyone else) often level against the "Hobbit" movies or even the LotR movies the further along they go. It's definitely not nostalgia or some butthurt fan bandwagoning fueling those. I'm fairly certain we both love the LotR trilogy and at least like that prequel trilogy.

The existence of lighthearted humour scenes that you don't care for isn't really an example of poor editing (for the most part, it's tricky to disentangle production from post production), it's just a storytelling choice you disagree with.

I don't see that as an editing issue, and while I could be wrong, I want to hear the explanation why.

Many moments intended for humor aren't moving the story along in any way, particularly in dramas. There, the intention is often to break overwhelming tension. Since it can become a pacing issue, and can be done to the detriment of even establishing whelming tension, it's definitely more of an editing thing in most circumstances.

I agree that it can be a storytelling choice when it's aimed at endearing the audience to a character or building some rapport between characters.

Here's the thing... If a major problem with the prequels is 'poor editing', why is nobody blaming the actual editors?

Because it's known that the director in this case was very involved in the editing, and because his own edits of the original trilogy display the same problematic editing sensibilities that we observe in the prequel trilogy.

It's the same reason we don't blame Natalie Portman for her performance in the prequel trilogy. Since she has otherwise demonstrated that she's a great actor, we can safely determine she was doing as directed with the prequels.

 

[Clement Rage]

The thing about the films is they're about the breaking points, not the times everything is going well. There's no time to put in an hour of slice of life comedy at the Jedi temple. The Clone Wars themselves were skipped (which was genius) because they're ultimately unimportant, they're just Palpatine playing chess with himself for kicks.

All those bonds are built through long slow processes that there's no time for in films. Their being expanded on in the TV show is not because the TV shows are better directed, it's just because by its nature there's enough time to build the relationship that isn't available in the films. It's a lot easier to build a long slow relationship growth in 14 hours than 2.

This is everything in a nutshell I have problems with in the Prequals. Episode 4 shows us what "normal life" was for Luke before the droids come in for the audience to realize how much this will screw with his life. Episode 5 shows what an average day is like on Hoth for the Rebellion, Luke, Leia and Han before the AT-Ts show up. Episode 6 sets up what Jaba's palace normally is like before Luke shows up. In the Original Series, we have a pretty good idea about what the status quo was like before the major plot developments get going. Somehow, the Original Trilogy managed to do an okay job of showing what "normal life" is like without having to rely on long-form media. The fact that the Prequals need the TV series to make more sense is a weakness and not a strength. Actually... this all goes for The Force Awakens as well. Finn, Poe and Rey each get their "slice of life/character establishing" moments before the plot really kicks in.

In the Prequals, the plot starts before we even get to know what "normal life" is like for any of the characters. We never get to know what type of person Padme is when her planet isn't being invaded. We don't get to know what type of negotiations Obi-Wan wants to have (at least have hims talk about former ones!). The only place we get to know a little bit about what "normal life" was like for someone is what Anakin's life of a slave is like. We've got less information in the Prequals about what his life as a Jedi is like which is arguably the more important part of his characterization (set-up for Clones and Revenge).

I get that the Prequals are about "breaking points", but it's a little hard to care about what is breaking when it never feels like it was ever whole in the first place. The more I think about it, the less I honestly care about what happens to the characters. I don't have an emotional attachment to them when they're doing "normal life" (since I don't know what that even looks like), so I have no emotional investment to hope that they'll be able to get back to doing it (or what they want normal life to be like for themselves when the dust settles).

To a point. We get to see Luke's daily life somewhat, but then he gets attacked by sandpeople. The first time we meet Leia Stormtroopers are boarding her ship, and only the Greedo scene with Han, (which is about recent trouble he got into, not 'normal').

In ESB, we see a probe land, and then Luke gets clocked by a monster. That's not his normal life.

ROTJ, maybe this is routine Jabba. Not certain.

TFA, only Rey gets a slice of life. Finn and Poe get introduced as things go wrong for them.

But how often have you been eating something and known that something was off, then found out it didn't have salt? Or onion? Or garlic? Or butter? Or baking powder? Or something else vital to melding flavors or textures?

Do you need to be Bobby Flay to have an authentic "Aha!" moment there or can you just be a person who eats?

No, but if you're drawing the conclusion that the problem is too much salt, and then you're brought back to the kitchen and shown that they didn't use salt, then maybe the problem is something else?

Should salt be in the dish, then there's still a huge leap from 'salt exists!' to 'salt is ruining this meal!' Proving the existence of an editing technique doesn't entail that this technique is by itself a bad thing (or overused by virtue of seeing two examples).

No one has to like anything, but if the reasoning is based on things like 'overuse of CGI' when the shot was a practical effect, maybe there's another reason?

If the major case for an example of Lucas' poor editing is something that George Lucas didn't actually edit, (original cut of New Hope in that video), maybe it's worth re-evaluating that assessment?

And it's not like there's any inherent problem with any of the techniques utilized. Like any other filmmaking technique, they can enhance their film -- but the same is true of a Dutch angle. If, however, lots of Dutch angles are being used, and they're not really doing anything but being Dutch angles, that's going to be a problem.
[...]

That it happened still speaks volumes, though, about the misguided sensibilities and preoccupations at work in the filmmaking process, which I would expect could have only influenced more of the production than that scene alone.

You don't have lots. You have two. And are assuming from that that this happens way more times across the film, and that this is a problem. There's a leap there.

And I don't think it's for nothing that some of the harsh criticisms of Lucas's (over)reliance on certain technologies -- or forced, unsuccessful humor -- echo the harsher critiques we (i.e. X and I; don't know or care to know about most anyone else) often level against the "Hobbit" movies or even the LotR movies the further along they go.

Great example.

I struggle with the idea of 'overuse of CGI' a bit, maybe I just have the wrong mindset. Like, for the barrel chase or fleeing Smaug, I might be thinking 'this is long and unnecessary', but I won't be thinking 'this is overuse of CGI'. The closest I got was Rogue One Tarkin because they played him up with that dramatic turn from the window. In general I feel like Star Wars is good about 'look at the big battle' rather than 'look at our great CGI'.

'Forced humour' is another tricky one because it's subjective from person to person. The question there becomes 'do you feel that this scene is bad for the narrative, or do you just dislike the humour?'


I feel like I should either rethink my life choices or make a new thread, I'm dragging this one off track too often. Everyone okay with that?

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Alright, but it's very easy to say 'this thing that no one noticed is the cause of everything'. If you want to say that this thing is a reason why a film is bad, then tell me why. Surely if it's so terrible then there are better examples than something no one even noticed for ten years and then made a funny gif of.

While you might not notice the implementation of the technique, we are exceptionally well-tuned creatures at detecting when something feels fake, as that's the uncanny valley. Having spliced takes like this gives a sense of interactions feeling artificial without being able to put your finger on exactly why. It's only when you catch the little stitches that it starts to become apparent what's giving that sense of unease.

X's own video pointed out that despite people blaming overuse of CGI, much of it was actually practical effects.

When the complaint is 'overuse of CGI' when CGI in question was actually a practical effect, then that calls into question the idea that the CGI is the problem.

My point in posting that is that there ARE a lot of practical effects used in the Prequels, however, the choices on things to fully commit to CGI are exceptionally questionable, and also the expansion of several sets via CGI make the whole thing feel fake – Kamino in particular.

The existence of lighthearted humour scenes that you don't care for isn't really an example of poor editing (for the most part, it's tricky to disentangle production from post production), it's just a storytelling choice you disagree with.

I don't see that as an editing issue, and while I could be wrong, I want to hear the explanation why.

Since I just tl;dr'd all about this in the Humor thread: https://thelifestream.net/forums/showpost.php?p=780306&postcount=7

Here's the thing... If a major problem with the prequels is 'poor editing', why is nobody blaming the actual editors? Or bringing up examples of poor editing? Ben Burtt is not a child or an intern, he is an Academy Award winner. If he didn't challenge Lucas on something he felt was wrong, then that's on him.

There's this idea that George had 'too much control' over the prequels, and I'm not sure where it came from. He's not known for being an iron fist dictator, quite the reverse, so where does this idea come from, other than RedLetterMedia? Did professional editors decide not to do their jobs because they were star struck? If you believe that, then why do you think so? And why blame Lucas for the poor editing and not the film's editors?

TL;DR: If you're saying that things like 'poor editing' or 'overuse of CGI' are issues, then explain why. Because in so much discussion they're just taken as truth, and I'd like to understand.

Because if you go back and watch that video, and look at the editing choices that they criticize and what was changed and removed by his editors to make the film work, they are the EXACT SAME ISSUES in editing that are ALL OVER the Prequels. The most immediately obvious is the way that there are CONSTANT cuts back and forth between scenes to other scenes in real-time, just like they initially did with Luke on Tattooine that murder tonal pacing and development. This is an issue that comes down to the very bare basics of storyboarding and control of the flow of information. The fact that George re-inserted the Jabba the Hutt scene in the Special Edition of 4 heavily hammers in the fact that he doesn't REALLY understand why it was ever removed, and why it's much easier to be able to pin to him specifically.

Additionally, there's the fact that his now ex-wife Marcia Lucas' contributions as an editor were monumentally important to those changes being made. To quote the wiki: In Mythmaker: The Life and Work of George Lucas, filmmaker John Milius described Marcia Lucas' contributions to Milius' own films and those of George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, and Martin Scorsese, calling her one of the best editors he knew. She edited all of the Original Trilogy.

Improper & unnecessary overuse of CGI and George's poor editing choices come through incredibly apparently when you look at where he artificially inserted changes in the Special Editions of the Original Trilogy. Then you take all of that into account, it's REALLY easy to tell where his fingerprints in making poor choices all over the Prequel Trilogy are.





X

 

[Clement Rage]

But the original cut of Star Wars wasn't edited by Lucas. It was edited by a man Lucas fired because he didn't like the edit. So how can Lucas be blamed for that?

As for the Jabba scene, it was removed because they didn't have the time to make a convincing effect, the scene was shot with a stand in actor.

Re: Unnecessary, what should they have done instead?

 

[Obsidian Fire]

But the original cut of Star Wars wasn't edited by Lucas. It was edited by a man Lucas fired because he didn't like the edit. So how can Lucas be blamed for that?

This is the point. The Original Series has way better editing then the Special Editions and Prequels which were edited by Lucas. The fact he doesn't like the editing job on the Original Series says loads about Lucas' skill as an editor.

It seems that Lucas has a blind spot when it comes to editing film. He thinks he's a better editor then he really is. The blind spot is big enough that he doesn't recognize someone who's better at editing when he sees it. And his films suffer for it.

Actually, what I'd really say his blind spot is, is understanding the audience POV. All the plot changes in the "Saved in the Edit" documentary help the audience sympathize with the Rebels more then they would have if those changes hadn't been made. Lucas is the creator of the universe Star Wars happens in and he knows (more or less) why his characters are doing what they are doing. However, he seems to have a problem conveying those things to someone else other then himself. Both Editing and Character Motivations are a huge part of that as if both of those are done sloppily, then the audience has a hard time getting information the creator needs them to get.

What Lucas is good at is content creation. His world-building is great, his characters are great, the story he wants to tell is great. He's just not good at communicating all that good content to an audience. Having other people around him who were better at understanding how audiences view things helped balance that out. For the Prequals, it feels like he didn't have a lot of people doing that.

 

[Clement Rage]

I'm talking about the first editing job, the one by John Jympson. He didn't like that edit, so he fired that guy and handed the editing over to the second team, the one that included his ex wife. The cut he didn't like was the first one, the one the video seems to imply is his work when he's actually responsible for firing the person that did it, so evidently he didn't like it either.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

But the original cut of Star Wars wasn't edited by Lucas. It was edited by a man Lucas fired because he didn't like the edit. So how can Lucas be blamed for that?

As for the Jabba scene, it was removed because they didn't have the time to make a convincing effect, the scene was shot with a stand in actor.

Re: Unnecessary, what should they have done instead?

As the director of the film – the composition, storyboarding, and shooting was all done by Lucas. Those things all outline how it should be assembled by the editor. Especially given how much of an early draft that the "Lost Cut" of Star Wars is, it's even MORE clear that this is about as close to raw George Lucas as it gets, which reinforces that Lucas' visions are largely saved when there're editors who know how to reign him in.

EDIT: For more context, this article is a good read, especially this bit:

In his article, Reynolds describes the Lost Cut as an early prototype of the original Star Wars edited by John Jympson from Britain who also cut together such famous films as Zulu (which Peter Jackson cites as an influence for his Lord of the Rings films) and A Hard Day’s Night. What he did was take whatever footage was completed at the time (1976) 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. It was, of course, a work-in-progress as there were no visual/special effects, music or sound effects. There were slates for missing scenes that had yet to be filmed or that Jympson didn’t have access to yet.

That's all backed up even more by the fact that those same issues that are brought up are ALL OVER the Prequels. The single common thread running throughout them all is George Lucas.




Insofar as unnecessary CGI – there're plenty of times when it's the wrong tool for the job, and the Prequels and special editions of Star Wars have a plethora of shining examples of that. There're also a TON of parts in the Special Editions of the OT that didn't need changes, but changes were added unnecessarily.

You had physical stormtroopers for everything aside from massive group shots where they were painted in in the Original Trilogy. There's no reason that they couldn't have physical Clone Troopers aside from wide shots in exactly the same way. There's absolutely nothing that necessitates them to be totally CGI in every. single. fucking. part. of those films and it really shows. By the same token, no one asked for a digitally remade version of Sy Snootles in Return of the Jedi when her practical effects version is just fine.

As an example that I don't just hate ANY insertions of CGI things for miscellaneous enhancement: The Cloud City windows are an improvement to that setting. So was putting in the Sand Troopers on moving Dewbacks on Tattooine rather than just leaving the completely static versions that're present in the original film. Even Jar-Jar Binks being a mo-capped predecessor to things like Golum from LotR is just fine. He's an alien that's more suited for a digital portrayal than a physical one, and it's carefully choosing the right tool for the right job when the other tools won't do what you need them to – unlike the Clone Troopers.

The prequels did have sets & set pieces, but it also had a LOT of shots of actors on green screen / blue screen where those shots didn't work, and there should've been some degree of physical set.




X

 

[Clement Rage]

Your article appears to disagree:

It was also cut together without the help or vision of George Lucas or producer Gary Kurtz.

This version of the film was a blueprint and never meant to be seen by anyone outside of Lucasfilm. Lucas didn’t have much to do with cutting it together; therefore it can’t truly represent his entire vision.

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.

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.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Your article appears to disagree:

It was also cut together without the help or vision of George Lucas or producer Gary Kurtz.

This version of the film was a blueprint and never meant to be seen by anyone outside of Lucasfilm. Lucas didn’t have much to do with cutting it together; therefore it can’t truly represent his entire vision.

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

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Victoria Mahoney is the second unit director for Episode IX





X

 

[Animexcel]

 

[Ghost X]

It is entirely possible his expressions are taken out of context. Wouldn't read too much into it.

 

[Shademp]

I often get recommended videos that desperately try to show how Mark Hamill is in fact deeply disappointed in The Last Jedi, but the reactions are either ambiguous or taken out of context. Add to that I am also still being recommended videos about how Star Wars has been ruined forever due to TLJ.

The tenacity of all this hatred astounds me. I may not have liked Episode 8 but I clearly am not fanatic about it.

 

[Clement Rage]

True or not, making him an icon of dissent's just likely to get him in trouble with Disney/Lucasfilm's lawyers, so he should really be left alone rather than being used as a banner.

Apologies for any fanatical hatred, it was and is not my intent in any of the preceding pages.

 

[Shademp]

Apologies for any fanatical hatred, it was and is not my intent in any of the preceding pages.

And I have not spotted any fanatical hatred from your side, so you can rest easy knowing that my post was not directed at you.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

I feel that this lives alongside other videos that showed him looking unhappy after the premiere, but ignoring the context that he clarified later about the scenes at the end with Carrie hitting him REALLY hard.

I think that there're a lot of things where people try to frame Mark Hamill as being an ally to all enemies of the film because he really wrestled with the role that Luke had being moved out from being the central hero of the story, and into a more pained/tragic character, but that all of those also discount anything that he has said afterwards as being, "Disney agenda" because it doesn't fit the narrative they want it to, rather than him having more nuanced feelings on the film that ALSO center around the fact that there literally is no, "getting the band back together" any more that VERY clearly is something that still sits really heavily in his heart.




X

 

[Clement Rage]

After about...six, I think? pages of arguing why I find the ST problematic, I felt I should make sure. I really, sincerely, don't want to be that guy, and you're all welcome to call me out as necessary.

Saying anything to the Star Wars fanbase is dangerous, because they tend to take things literally. But I think there may be real distaste as well.

Either way, though, he shouldn't be used as a banner by haters, it's not fair.

At least there's a backlash to the backlash this time. Meanwhile, Simon Pegg, an actual script consultant for TFA, is able to get away with things like this.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

At least there's a backlash to the backlash this time. Meanwhile, Simon Pegg, an actual script consultant for TFA, is able to get away with things like this.

I'm genuinely not sure what you're implying that he's "getting away with" there. Disliking the prequels was something that Simon Pegg was INCREDIBLY vocal about long, long before he was ever involved with Episode VII.




X

 

[Clement Rage]

Sequel hate seems relatively civilised compared to prequel hate, is my point. Not that either is nice, but Pegg's comments are a world away from Hamill's, assuming they are indeed intended as criticisms.

 

[X-SOLDIER]

Sequel hate seems relatively civilised compared to prequel hate, is my point. Not that either is nice, but Pegg's comments are a world away from Hamill's, assuming they are indeed intended as criticisms.

Two points:

The Prequel films were alright at Star Wars films, but were generally seen as poor films by critics, (although they slowly got better). So if Simon Pegg or someone's going to say, "The prequels were terrible films" you can be speaking about them objectively failing as films, and voicing criticisms about what you didn't like. They're definitely flawed and they weren't well-received by audiences overall.

By aggregate RT scores, none of the Prequel Trilogy was seen by audience or critics as good as the worst of the Original Trilogy, which includes fans, but also film critics.

Compare that to the Sequel trilogy and things are VERY different.

Critical review still hold them up to near the same level as the original trilogy, but specifically when it comes to the audience, there is a greater disconnect.

PT Scores:
TPM: 55% (59%)
AotC: 66% (57%)
RotS: 79% (65%)

OT Scores:
ANH: 93% (96%)
TESB: 94% (97%)
RotJ: 80% (94%)

ST Scores:
TFA: 93% (88%)
TLJ: 91% (47%)


I think that if you think Sequel Trilogy hatred seems civilized, I really feel that you just haven't actually seen much of it. I'm pretty familiar with all of the flak that George Lucas & Ahmed Best dealt with during the Prequel Era, and Rian Johnson and Kelly Marie Tran have had FAR MORE repugnant and despicable stuff said about them.



tl;dr – The differences in response are largely:

PT: "The story was ok, but they really suck at making movies"
ST: "They were great films, but fuck the story and everyone involved with it"



X