StarDestroyer.Net BBS

LordOskuro wrote: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.”

They also liked Bathtub Girl.

Vympel wrote: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.

With the exception of Padme, they are all about as well-written as the ones in the Original Trilogy. You don't think wide-eyed youths, mercenaries with hearts of gold, bitchy heoines, wise old sages, bickering sidekicks and villains who are either disfigured or worse yet, British were anything new in 1977 do you?

The fact that people can't (or won't) describe some of the characters only proves that they (the characters) haven't been part of pop culture for 25-30 years. And that Heathcliff's sampling methods are suspect.

To elaborate on my constructive criticism of this "review" (which is longer than half the actual film): It's a six-minute Big Train-like sketch about a psycho serial killer come movie critic, stretched out by a factor of ten and watered down to imitate the "I hate the prequels" list. The reason for this is, I suppose, so that the filmmaker can pretend to be ironic by mixing retarded points with less retarded points, like the aforementioned list, and also so that when someone points that the review is too long to work as a joke, he can say that it's not meant to be very funny as it's supposed to be a critique.

If you watch the reviews he does of the TNG films, though, those are pretty much done in the same fashion; they're between 30-40 minutes long, and although he starts off making the occasional joke about murdering his wife and sending pizza rolls in the Generations review, he's almost as crazy in the Nemesis review as in the TPM review. This leads me to believe that the non-sequitur tangents are more like a gimmick that he's been steadily escalating.

Elfdart wrote:

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.

For the prequels?

The Best Original Screenplay and Best Director nominations were for American Graffiti and Star Wars ANH.

Elfdart wrote: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.

Oh, that's rich. I suppose I'd be giving you too much credit in assuming that you're aware of the well-documented brainstorming sessions Lucas had with his screenwriter pals throughout the development and production of the original Star Wars. He would literally shitcan entire scripts after receiving the kind of feedback that you're saying he never gave a flying fuck about.

Elfdart, I liked Revenge of the Sith, and I don't mind the prequal trilogy. But some of what George did was godawful (Padme's love lines.) Sometimes when the editors suggest something, they are actually correct. Look at Star Trek. The only series that is truly beloved is the one where Gene Roddenberry was muzzled and on a leash. George Lucas isn't perfect. The movie that is truly beloved (Empire strikes back) is the one where lucas wasn't involved. It's also dubious that he had everything planned out in the beginning (he said in 91 that he had planned on three trilogies, which equaled nine movies.) You seem to think that he's perfect, and I find that silly.

back in the seventies he discussed things with his friends, and they gave him ideas. In empire strikes back, lawrence kasden wrote the script. Face it man. Galvatron might actually have a point, and you might be wrong

Elfdart wrote:The fact that people can't (or won't) describe some of the characters only proves that they (the characters) haven't been part of pop culture for 25-30 years. And that Heathcliff's sampling methods are suspect.

TPM has been out a good decade. If it's going to make an impact on pop culture, it's already made it.

Darth Yan wrote:The movie that is truly beloved (Empire strikes back)

As opposed to Star Wars, which was greeted with indifference, right?

is the one where lucas wasn't involved.

Other than writing the story, creating the characters, hiring the director and screenwriter, overseeing the special effects crews, paying for the film out of his own pocket AND fighting the DGA, who wanted to block the release of the movie.

It's also dubious that he had everything planned out in the beginning

Who cares? He could have made it all up while shooting for all I care. But then, I don't delude myself into thinking that I personally should have a say in the film. Unlike some others I could name...

(he said in 91 that he had planned on three trilogies, which equaled nine movies.)

Even Gary Kurtz says this claim is bullshit.They only kicked around the idea of doing more movies. Nothing was planned.

You seem to think that he's perfect, and I find that silly.

Take your straw man and stick it right up your ass.

back in the seventies he discussed things with his friends, and they gave him ideas.

And he gave them ideas. The newspaper montage scene in The Godfather was Lucas' idea. As was the last scene in Bram Stoker's Dracula, where Mina beheads the Count. But only a total fucktard with an axe to grind against Francis Coppola would use those instances as evidence that he's some kind of idiot savant who has to be handheld through making a movie.

Elfdart wrote:

Darth Yan wrote:(he said in 91 that he had planned on three trilogies, which equaled nine movies.)

Even Gary Kurtz says this claim is bullshit.They only kicked around the idea of doing more movies. Nothing was planned.

Good luck convincing anyone else of that, especially since the link you provided actually has quotes by Lucas himself on page two stating the exact opposite.

While I'm at it, I think it's time to bury once and for all the notion that George Lucas is some sort of control freak:

Mr. Beaks at AICN

I didn't walk into my interview with Sir David Hare, one of the world's greatest living playwrights (and the screenwriter of THE READER), looking for a STAR WARS scoop. But that's what I got when I decided to wrap up our chat with a seemingly innocuous question about his having directed an installment of THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES ("Paris").

Okay, maybe I led him a little...

Seriously, all I expected to learn was that he had been asked to do an uncredited polish on one or two of the STAR WARS prequels (as his friend Tom Stoppard reportedly did for REVENGE OF THE SITH). Here's what I got instead:

Mr. Beaks: One last thing I wanted to touch on: you directed an episode of THE YOUNG INDIANA JONES CHRONICLES.

David Hare: You're very good, aren't you? You really are good! Nobody has ever asked me this question. Ever.

Beaks: I didn't realize you'd done one until I saw it there on the IMDb. I would've never put this together otherwise. How did that opportunity come along? And did you ever... because Tom Stoppard has done some rewriting for George Lucas over the years. Did Lucas ever come to you and--

Hare: Do you want a real scoop?

Beaks: Sure! Why not?

Hare: I was asked to co-direct STAR WARS IV.

Beaks: The fourth, so that's--

Hare: The fourth STAR WARS. And I was asked to write the fifth and sixth, but I didn't.

Beaks: So you were asked to co-direct THE PHANTOM MENACE?

Hare: Whichever one got the series going again, that's the one. George said would I co-direct it with him. I would direct the actors, and he would direct the action. So you have a scoop. (Laughs) Nobody has ever asked me that question.

Beaks: Did you seriously consider it?

Hare: I didn't think it was my thing. I shot an episode for George's series, which I really did because I knew I could get some fantastic actors and thought it would be fun. I enjoyed working with him, and he asked me to work more seriously with him. But that is so not what I do. It was a lovely idea that he would be able to do all the action and the stuff that he loves. He loved the fact that the acting was so good in my episode. He said, "You really love actors. I never really feel I understand actors as well as you do, so why don't you direct the actors and I'll do the action." It was a lovely offer, and it would've made me very, very rich. I would be sailing in a yacht on the South of France.

The other two I was just asked to rewrite, but I just couldn't. I just don't think they're me. I like things that, as with Stephen [Daldry]... we go through a long process together. I'm better at that stuff. I don't think I'm a very good rewriter.

Another Nerd Rage fantasy bites the dust.

I always had that nagging feeling about TPM being off. I'm glad someone put it into a funny youtube video. Episode I is just a bad movie that did well. It happens sometimes. Besides being hamstrung by being a prequel in the form of media ill-suited to prequels (or continuity), it seems like everything about TPM had to be fixed by the next movie.

red herring. the fact that he gave them ideas doesn't mean they didn't give him ideas. And he only mapped out the story, Kasden's the one who actually wrote the dialogue, script, everything. I won't deny that he did a great deal, but he also had cowriters helping him out. Look at the ones were he was full writer (the prequal trilogy) and tell me it has no clunkiness.

As for empire strikes back, that is the one people think of as the greatest star wars movie.

Aww, you actually came back. It's so cute and heart-wrenching -- like Tiny Tim begging for more.

Elfdart wrote: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.

Um...wrong. Yes, the goal of an artist is to create art, but also to continually improve one's art. The only way to do this is through critique. The artist can completely disagree with every criticism leveled against him, but he at the very least should be aware of it and weigh it before dismissing it. This is the guiding philosophy of every artist I've ever, ever met.

Further, any artist that outright rejects critique is generally viewed by other artists as a primadonna and, more often than not, their work shows it. It may be flashy and stylish, but it also exhibits fundamental, structural flaws (bad perspective, proportion, etc.). In the field of comic art, take Rob Liefeld. The dude is prolific, but is in fact a terrible artist. He's roundly criticized.

Your argument seems to be that the fact that he's prolific outweighs his complete lack of objective talent. Which, y'know, is fine -- but is also completely wrong.

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.

My statement: Artists should be open to critique.
Your rebuttal, summarized from above: artists should ignore all naysayers.

That there's what we call a strawman.

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.

This McCallum tangent is completely irrelevant. McCallum, Burtt, Stoppard, the actors -- any of them might have spoken up.

Wrong. He started writing TPM in 1994.

You're correct on this; my mistake. I conflated the duration of the writing process with the time between the writing process beginning and the art department's design process beginning. So, yes, egg on my face for that one.

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.

Okay, I'm going to address this once, and if you repeat it, I'm going to ignore it: I don't care enough to have "nerd rage" about TPM. I might have several years ago, but at this point, I'm debating you on purely academic grounds. I found the review amusing, and it gave me some insight into TPM that I hadn't really put together for myself before. Beyond that, I think you're being a moron and find it an amusing way to pass the time to take you to task for it.

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.

You completely missed the point. Burtt is talking about the failure of the climax to have the proper emotional resonance. This is absolutely an enormous flaw in the movie: there's too much going on at the climax, thereby making the entire endeavor seem muddied. If you have four discrete storylines that you have to then tie together, doing that successfully or not is pivotal to the success of the movie. American Graffiti did it well. TPM did it poorly.

Just because Lucas had great films twenty years prior to this one, anything he shits out is automatically gold? Sorry, no.

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.

Yes, twenty years prior to this film. Are you going to argue now that a person's talent and success are automatically continuous, despite the passage of time and major life changes (like, um, having kids and the departure of his wife, who by all appearances was an integral component to Lucas's successes)? If so, I'll just sit back and watch you make an ass of yourself.

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.

The producer's role is logistical and makes him the best-positioned to have a high-level view of the entire production. It's not his job to offer creative input, but he's well placed to make suggestions.

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

Spin it however you like. When the editor says the climax of your movie lacks emotional resonance, and even the writer/director says "I may have tried to do too much," your movie has problems. Period.

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?

Straaaawman.

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.

Wait, what's that I hear? Oh, right, it's the sound of me accepting your concession.

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.

Maybe he did. I'm putting words into his mouth that tend to be common consensus on the film's weaknesses. Maybe McCallum did get actively involved and maybe he's the very reason the prequels -- and TPM in particular -- are flawed. Maybe he convinced George to write the shitty romance dialogue in AOTC and ROTS! Why, Elfie, I think you've just discovered the fundamental flaw in the whole thing!

Or, y'know, not.

Concession accepted.

Sorry, pal, the onus is on you for this one.

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

Gosh, maybe I should! People definitely can't disagree about interpreting body language, after all.

And yet you won't answer the question.

I also refuse to answer the question, "Does God exist?" until someone defines "God," because I think the question, on its face, is absurd -- just as I think you're being absurd.

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.

Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is also a very successful movie. Would you like to hold it up as paragon of screenwriting? Success and quality are not one in the same. If you want to argue TPM's financial success, I think you'll find I'm in complete agreement with you: it was mind-numbingly successful on that count. If that's the only count that matters to you, fine.

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.

I love the sound of "fap fap fap" in the morning.

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.

I couldn't tell you the last time I bothered to watch TPM when it hadn't been re-edited (and it's been quite some time since even that), so that's half of your statement that's flat wrong, as it applies to me.

As to the volume, I don't know why you'd be surprised. Star Wars had far more of a cultural impact than The Godfather did, had far more of an impact on the way movies were made, and caters to a much more vociferous audience. That doesn't make TPM good.

Other than writing the story, creating the characters, hiring the director and screenwriter, overseeing the special effects crews, paying for the film out of his own pocket AND fighting the DGA, who wanted to block the release of the movie.

Ohh, that's rich. You mean the director that he actively clashed with during filming, because he didn't like the direction he was taking? And then Lucas went and tried to re-edit the film to his own liking, and realized that it was a trainwreck, so gave the reins back to Kirsh? That director?

And he gave them ideas. The newspaper montage scene in The Godfather was Lucas' idea. As was the last scene in Bram Stoker's Dracula, where Mina beheads the Count. But only a total fucktard with an axe to grind against Francis Coppola would use those instances as evidence that he's some kind of idiot savant who has to be handheld through making a movie.

Red herring, as Darth Yan pointed out. No one's making the claim that Lucas doesn't have some great ideas. The richness of the prequels is undeniable. They're astonishing, in that regard. But when it comes to crafting a story about people, Lucas himself acknowledges his weakness, and for the OT had an army of people helping him refine the stories and dialogue (what of it he even wrote for the latter ones, as Yan points out as well). He didn't have that on the prequels, as a matter of historical record. Everyone he went to told him that it was his own thing, which has nothing to do with whether they thought it was any good at the state it was in.

Bottom-line, the OT was a more collaborative storycrafting endeavor, and Lucas's weaknesses were polished away by those who lacked those weaknesses. Without Lucas, Star Wars wouldn't exist, but without those others, Star Wars wouldn't exist as it does. He didn't have that same level of collaboration and refinement on the prequels -- again, as a matter of historical fact -- and it shows. QED.

I don't understand how anyone can look at the behind the scenes stuff and not immediately pick up on the fact that Rick McCallum is a worthless sycophant who should've lost his job years ago.
He and people like him are Lucas' greatest problem. Who has ever said that Lucas didn't have ideas? He's clearly a very imaginative and talented man. The problem is when you take an imaginative and talented man and surround him with gormless yes men who never question or argue with him.
The closest McCallum ever came to arguing with George Lucas was him insisting that they should put the Yoda landing on Dagobah scene back in the end of RotS, a move so rock-stupid that Lucas himself took it out in the first place!

While the review is long-winded and the character of Walter Mathau: Movie critic and serial killer is.. downright silly I have to echo the sentiment that the original Star Wars movies are so great because of adversity, because nobody knew who Lucas was or cared, because they told him it couldn't be done, because he had to fight and punch and scream and everything that could go wrong did. The prequel trilogy was made in a safe, comfortable enviroment where nothing was questioned and it suffers for it.

McC wrote:Okay, I'm going to address this once, and if you repeat it, I'm going to ignore it: I don't care enough to have "nerd rage" about TPM. I might have several years ago, but at this point, I'm debating you on purely academic grounds. I found the review amusing, and it gave me some insight into TPM that I hadn't really put together for myself before. Beyond that, I think you're being a moron and find it an amusing way to pass the time to take you to task for it.

This.

The "nerd rage" card is a recurring theme in Elfdart's repertoire and his de facto method of handwaving any criticism leveled against George Lucas, but I don't think he realizes just how trite it's become.

sad. I like elfdart. I don't always agree with him on everything (mainly involving the star wars eu), but I still think he's a great guy to chat and interact with (we also have very similar political views.) But he does seem overeager to defend George Lucas.

Darth Yan wrote:sad. I like elfdart. I don't always agree with him on everything (mainly involving the star wars eu), but I still think he's a great guy to chat and interact with (we also have very similar political views.) But he does seem overeager to defend George Lucas.

Eh, you have to compartmentalize around here (see Debating Rule #2). In some ways, think of a person in a given thread as a different person for that particular thread. Elfdart in this thread isn't the same person as Elfdart in some other thread. In this thread, he's a moron. In some other thread, I may think him a genius. So it goes.

I just have one question. Who the hell has the patience and the auditory resilience to listen to this for 70 fucking minutes? I mean, I can barely bring myself to watch a music video on Youtube without tabbing away to something else in the middle of it. And this guy's voice is... euragh. Not good at all.

Vehrec wrote:I just have one question. Who the hell has the patience and the auditory resilience to listen to this for 70 fucking minutes? I mean, I can barely bring myself to watch a music video on Youtube without tabbing away to something else in the middle of it. And this guy's voice is... euragh. Not good at all.

I turned it off after three minutes the first time, too. I thought it was just some dude narrating in his usual voice, which was grating as hell. It was only after several coworkers urged me to watch it that I gave it another chance. If you think of the dude as a character rather than a serious narrator, it helps a lot.

Any idea if he'll review the other prequels too?

Saw this a few days ago. Pure gold.

At first I hated his voice, but now I find it hilarious.

Best part of the review was:

I surveyed a team of cheerleaders, and their unanimous conclusion was that if I let them go, they wouldn't tell nobody.

McC wrote:Um...wrong. Yes, the goal of an artist is to create art, but also to continually improve one's art.

Why? Because you say so?

The only way to do this is through critique.

Really? An artist can't decide to do better on his or her own? Are all artists retarded or something?

The artist can completely disagree with every criticism leveled against him, but he at the very least should be aware of it and weigh it before dismissing it.

And a dog should heed its fleas and ticks before ridding itself of them.

This is the guiding philosophy of every artist I've ever, ever met.

You must hang with some seriously retarded artists.

Further, any artist that outright rejects critique is generally viewed by other artists as a primadonna and, more often than not,

That's their problem, not the artist's.

their work shows it.

Yeah, Frank Frazetta's work suffered when he ignored critics and sketched and painted his way.

It may be flashy and stylish, but it also exhibits fundamental, structural flaws (bad perspective, proportion, etc.). In the field of comic art, take Rob Liefeld. The dude is prolific, but is in fact a terrible artist. He's roundly criticized.

I don't keep up with comic books, but if he's still working, then someone must like his drawings. Why should he change his style based on what others think?

Your argument seems to be that the fact that he's prolific outweighs his complete lack of objective talent. Which, y'know, is fine -- but is also completely wrong.

Out of curiosity I read this Wikipedia page and I had to laugh. Liefield is a bad comic book artist because he draws characters with absurdly over-muscled physiques and bizarrely exaggerated anatomies? Well that means every comic book illustrator since the genre began is a bad artist.

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.

My statement: Artists should be open to critique.
Your rebuttal, summarized from above: artists should ignore all naysayers.

No, fucktard. My point is that if Lucas listened to his critics back then, there wouldn't be a Star Wars at all. Or any sequels.

That there's what we call a strawman.

No, it's what is known as lack of reading comprehension on your part.

This McCallum tangent is completely irrelevant. McCallum, Burtt, Stoppard, the actors -- any of them might have spoken up.

1) Why should they? Has it ever occurred to you that maybe they agreed with what Lucas was doing?
2) Who says they didn't?

Okay, I'm going to address this once, and if you repeat it, I'm going to ignore it: I don't care enough to have "nerd rage" about TPM.

You could have fooled me.

You completely missed the point. Burtt is talking about the failure of the climax to have the proper emotional resonance. This is absolutely an enormous flaw in the movie: there's too much going on at the climax, thereby making the entire endeavor seem muddied.

Either it wasn't much of a flaw or Lucas and the editors fixed what was wrong with the rough cut because even most of the people who panned the movie liked the last part of it.

If you have four discrete storylines that you have to then tie together, doing that successfully or not is pivotal to the success of the movie. American Graffiti did it well. TPM did it poorly.

In your opinion it was done poorly.

Just because Lucas had great films twenty years prior to this one, anything he shits out is automatically gold?

You may also stick this strawman right up your ass. The video claims that having four parallel story lines is an example of bad moviemaking. I pointed out one great movie made by George Lucas that does just that.

The producer's role is logistical and makes him the best-positioned to have a high-level view of the entire production. It's not his job to offer creative input, but he's well placed to make suggestions.

Who says he didn't? Besides, why should Lucas give a flying fuck what a producer thinks?

Spin it however you like. When the editor says the climax of your movie lacks emotional resonance, and even the writer/director says "I may have tried to do too much," your movie has problems. Period.

It was a screening of the rough cut, not the finished movie. When Star Wars was first screened in rough cut form, most of the people in attendance ridiculed the movie or offered condolences for Lucas' "failure".

Wait, what's that I hear? Oh, right, it's the sound of me accepting your giving my concession.

You stand corrected.

Maybe he did. I'm putting words into his mouth

No kidding.

I couldn't tell you the last time I bothered to watch TPM when it hadn't been re-edited (and it's been quite some time since even that), so that's half of your statement that's flat wrong, as it applies to me.

Again your Nerd Rage slip is showing. A re-edited version?
Typically, when a person doesn't like a movie, they don't watch it again, period. They do not track down a copy that's been custom edited by the type of wanker who thinks he should have a say in making the actual movie. Only a Nerd Rager does something so idiotic. It's like buying a music CD that you claim to dislike, then overdubbing your own singing or playing onto the disc.

Other than writing the story, creating the characters, hiring the director and screenwriter, overseeing the special effects crews, paying for the film out of his own pocket AND fighting the DGA, who wanted to block the release of the movie.

Ohh, that's rich. You mean the director that he actively clashed with during filming, because he didn't like the direction he was taking? And then Lucas went and tried to re-edit the film to his own liking, and realized that it was a trainwreck, so gave the reins back to Kirsh? That director?

For someone who claims to work in "commercial art", you seem awfully surprised that an executive producer and a director might have arguments about making a movie. I hope you're sitting down when you hear the news that actors often get into arguments with directors, too.

And he gave them ideas. The newspaper montage scene in The Godfather was Lucas' idea. As was the last scene in Bram Stoker's Dracula, where Mina beheads the Count. But only a total fucktard with an axe to grind against Francis Coppola would use those instances as evidence that he's some kind of idiot savant who has to be handheld through making a movie.

Red herring, as Darth Yan pointed out. No one's making the claim that Lucas doesn't have some great ideas.

I didn't say you did, you lying fucktard. On the other hand, you, Galvatron and the delusional fuckwit who wrote the e-book Galvatron has been pimping for over a year are trying to paint George Lucas as some sort of hapless loser who can't make a movie without the aid of [insert name of the Nerd Ragers' latest cipher].

The richness of the prequels is undeniable. They're astonishing, in that regard.

Not according to Heathcliff.

But when it comes to crafting a story about people, Lucas himself acknowledges his weakness, and for the OT had an army of people helping him refine the stories and dialogue (what of it he even wrote for the latter ones, as Yan points out as well).

An army? Try three people: Willard Huyck and Gloria Katz, who did a script polish on Star Wars, and Brian DePalma, who re-wrote part of the opening crawl. The story, characters and almost all of the dialogue were written by Lucas. What's at work here is an attempt by the Nerd Ragers to insinuate that George Lucas didn't "really" create Star Wars rather, it was the work of many. This way, they can indulge their fantasies about how if only George Lucas had listened to a mob of Nerd Ragers, who know so much more about creating stories and making movies than he does, maybe the movies would be more like the fan fiction that has been dancing in their heads for many years.

He didn't have that on the prequels, as a matter of historical record.

You know this how, exactly?

Vehrec wrote:I just have one question. Who the hell has the patience and the auditory resilience to listen to this for 70 fucking minutes? I mean, I can barely bring myself to watch a music video on Youtube without tabbing away to something else in the middle of it. And this guy's voice is... euragh. Not good at all.

Let me guess: You don't think George Lucas should have consulted you personally about making the movie?

The "nerd rage" card is a recurring theme in Elfdart's repertoire

If the shoe fits, wear it.

Darth Yan wrote:red herring. the fact that he gave them ideas doesn't mean they didn't give him ideas. And he only mapped out the story, Kasden's the one who actually wrote the dialogue, script, everything.

The story Kasdan scripted is the same one Lucas gave him.

I won't deny that he did a great deal, but he also had cowriters helping him out. Look at the ones were he was full writer (the prequal trilogy) and tell me it has no clunkiness.

Lucas was a "full writer" on Star Wars. The only movie in the series to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay. On the other hand, the prequel that is generally considered to have the worst screenplay (AOTC) was co-written with Jonathan Hales. So much for your little theory.

As for empire strikes back, that is the one people think of as the greatest star wars movie.

Which people? The moviegoing public? They voted for ANH with their feet and their ticket dollars. Critics? Until Revenge of the Sith came out, ANH had the best reviews of any in the series when they were first released. All the prequels did better with critics than TESB did when it first came out. The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences? ANH is the only film in the series to be nominated for best picture, directing, acting, and supporting actor. So which people are you referring to?

I don't understand how anyone can look at the behind the scenes stuff and not immediately pick up on the fact that Rick McCallum is a worthless sycophant who should've lost his job years ago.

I guess you and McC have Jedi Powers or something. Intelligent people know better than to try to read the body language of a total stranger and try to guess the stranger's motives.

He and people like him are Lucas' greatest problem. Who has ever said that Lucas didn't have ideas? He's clearly a very imaginative and talented man. The problem is when you take an imaginative and talented man and surround him with gormless yes men who never question or argue with him.

Translation: Why didn't he make the movie for meeeeeeeeeee!

The closest McCallum ever came to arguing with George Lucas was him insisting that they should put the Yoda landing on Dagobah scene back in the end of RotS, a move so rock-stupid that Lucas himself took it out in the first place!

So McCallum is a douche for not telling Lucas what he thinks, but he's also a douche because his ideas are "rock-stupid"?

elfdart, there have been many cases of authors and artists being given free reign and making work that is subpar. Francis Ford Coppola and Dennis Hopper spring to mind. In addition, what he is saying is that you should be open to critique from others. Many people who ignore critique make work that is, well, shit. Karen Traviss didn't listen to critique at all, and her series went the way of the dodo to most sane star wars fans (towards the end even her fanwhores were forced to acknowledge that her work was crap.)

as for the director thing. Red herring. You ignored the part where George Lucas Re edited it to his liking AND REALIZED THAT HIS OWN VERSION SUCKED DONKEY BALLS. Get it? If George Lucas's cut had been made the series might have gone the way of the matrix (many liked the first, and the second and third are widely considered sub par.)

Huyuck and Katz still polished the script, and George didn't write the screenplay for empire strikes back. Lawrence Kasdan and Leigh Brackett did that.

Yes. and if GL wrote the dialogue it would have sucked donkey balls. Even George admitted that. And how do you know Hales wasn't a yes man who went along with lucas. Phantom menace was written alone, and that is also considered one of the weaker films in the trilogy.