Elfdart wrote:Why? Because you say so?
<...all the way to...>
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.
Concession accepted.
In your opinion it was done poorly.
Um...yes? And?
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.
This is a lie. The video claims that having four parallel story lines building toward
different emotional climaxes that are not adequately juxtaposed is an example of bad movie making. It has nothing to do with the
number of stories, but with how they all match up.
Who says he didn't? Besides, why should Lucas give a flying fuck what a producer thinks?
I'm happy to concede both of these points.
Maybe he did speak up, and
maybe Lucas did ignore him. I said as much in my last post, too, but since it would derail your moronic tirade, you overlooked that.
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".
I don't necessarily doubt this, but I'm not about to start letting you make claims and just swallow them whole cloth, given how much other horseshit you've had in your posts. Post proof or retract.
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.
I watch re-edits of movies I love, too. I find re-edits interesting on an academic level: can clever re-editing alone fix a flawed movie to the point where it's better?
If you don't, fine. Don't pin your fantasies of being surrounded by nerd ragers on me for it.
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.
Darth Yan answered this line of horseshit.
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].
Yeah, heaven forbid the guy do some independent research, factually backed up by a ton of sources, and that just so happens to very closely line up with the same findings published by the authorized version of the same book, written by J.G. Rinzler.
On this, you are
factually, unarguably wrong. Concession accepted.
The richness of the prequels is undeniable. They're astonishing, in that regard.
Not according to Heathcliff.
False. Part 2, 2:20
McCallum: It's so dense. Every single image has so many things going on
Narrator: This is part of the reason why I find the special editions so fucking offensive. 'cause you're into what's happening in the movie and they keep shoving more shit on the screen to distract you. It reminds me of a child waving his arms in the background for attention.
Doesn't Lucas realize that cluttering the frame up with shit is not what makes Star Wars good?
And he's correct in that regard: Star Wars isn't good because of all the stuff on screen. But that all that stuff being on screen in the prequels isn't
rich is an entirely different matter.
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.
Of course Lucas created Star Wars. This is a retarded strawman and I will happily join you in lambasting anyone who claims otherwise.
But Lucas did not
craft Star Wars, whole cloth, as a lot of Lucaswankers like to pretend. The story was the work of many, with input from many (Lucas's frequent gathering of director-friends, for example, which included some of those you mentioned and many more). Further, you omitted Marcia Lucas, a key behind the scenes player in Star Wars as well. Or do you want to just ignore her Academy Award for film editing on Star Wars and pretend that the guy's
wife wouldn't have had a hand in helping polish the work?
You know this how, exactly?
It's called inference. Look it up. Do you have
evidence to the contrary? No? Concession accepted.
If the shoe fits, wear it.
The shoe that fits best here is the one painting
you as the nerd rager, but coming from the opposite direction. "zomg they r insultin mah idollll!!1!!1!! rar attack!"
The story Kasdan scripted is the same one Lucas gave him.
Emphasis added.
No one is denying that Lucas can spin a good
story. Indiana Jones, Willow, the OT all serve as testament to this. What's in question is whether or not he can, himself, write a good
script without his former network of support, and especially post-divorce. I don't think he can.
Lucas was a "full writer" on Star Wars. The only movie in the series to be nominated for Best Original Screenplay.
And isn't that interesting, given how many people--even just counting the ones you're actually willing to acknowledge--were involved in the script polish. And before you go off on some
other tangent, no, I'm not insinuating that Lucas is trying to "cover up" anything, or take undue credit.
I'm just pointing out that movie credits are not tell-all when it comes to screenplays.
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.
Right, because reading body language isn't something human beings naturally do when encountering another human being.
Oh wait. Concession fucking accepted.
Uranium235 wrote:what's the basic disagreement here
My stance is that the prequels are weaker films than the originals on the grounds that fewer people helped shepherd Lucas's screenplay, as they had on the original trilogy. They were subject to less stringent revision, and suffered for it. When making this statement, I didn't expect it to be at all controversial, but I didn't count on someone who made fapping at the Altar of Lucas a daily ritual.
