I find it hilarious how their video is phrased in a way that suggests that Star Wars was doomed before the edit, but the editors were just doing things that editors are supposed to do, literally what they’re hired for.
@@minecrafter3448 umm..editing isn't just a plug and play role moron...especially when you are moving major pieces of the story around. There is art in editing..of course you dont get this because you have no idea what you are talking about.
This made me realize I blindly went along with Red Letter Medias views on the matter. I enjoy them but I believe their views on Lucas are heavily flawed when you look at actual behind the scenes facts. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Eh this video is also hyper biased. Yes the editors did editing things but the point of the initial video, to me, was to show the power of editing. How things not thought of or planned out can be pieced together by other shots. This absolutely is a lesson George learned from episode 4 as it was ironically a massive issue of his in episode 1 that he over-relied on it.
@@Mnkeysbiased how? If the original video is dishonest in main points to this degree, distorting events, creating a narrative that is not historical, then what value could it have?
@@histguy101, "If the original video is dishonest in main points to this degree, distorting events, creating a narrative that is not historical, then what value could it have?" Allowing for masterpieces like the one we're watching to be created, that's how.
You know the most annoying part about this rumor going around that Lucas didn't do anything that made this movie a success is that people are now acting like his wife was the real mastermind behind everything but Lucas wanted all the success for himself when every single documentary or book I've ever seen/read about the making of Star Wars has always mentioned Marcia. Like guys, literally, I've known about Marica Lucas since I was a kid.
I think Lucas' critics haven't actually seen any George Lucas movies other than Episodes IV and V. Lucas has been quite generous as sharing credit, and most people give credit right back. Only a few coworkers like Gary Kurtz really want to take that credit for themselves.
Yes. That's what edit means. transitive verb 1a: to prepare (something, such as literary material) for publication or public presentation b: to assemble (something, such as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose (To be clear, I'm agreeing with you and just providing the dictionary definition. Star Wars was saved in the edit because, before it was edited, it was not yet a movie.)
Ultimately, every film under the sun is saved in the edit, and even then, George Lucas was an auteur; he had total involvement in the editing suite. People who say the reason Episode 4 was successful is because of the editing, and Lucas got lucky, are the same people who only watch blockbusters and don't understand even the most basic elements of cinema - oh so basically, every Prequel hater under the sun!
@@Wackaz Isn't it the job of every film director to oversee the editing process? Contrary to popular belief, a director does much more than just interpret the script and guide the actors.
@@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassive all of which he had other writers supporting him/adding ideas of their own. Last of us 2 was pure unadulterated Druckman and Uncharted 4 was mid at best.
I would also point out that Revenge of the Sith was also very confusing in the first cut. And GEORGE LUCAS himself was the one who edited the movie to focus on Anakin Skywalker downfall. I hope people will realise that George Lucas is a way better filmaker than they give credit for
@@manakin5 LOL, you keep telling yourself that nonsense but nobody believes you anymore, the prequels are cinematic masterpieces and there is nothing you can do about it
@@manakin5 First off I loved the prequels years before the sequels even existed, secondly yeah they’re the same great movies they always were you’ve just drunk to much Cool-Aid to see it, I assume because you’ve bought into bogus criticisms and nitpicks that could easily be turned on the OT, but who cares about facts or your obvious hypocrisy when the prequels hurt your feelings because Anakin wasn’t Badass enough
The amount of effort to refute bullshit is exponentially higher than the effort to make it. The original video’s dishonest pricks gave 0 effort. This guy had to give all the effort to clean their mess.
In RJ's video, he painted Lucas as being without focus or vision of his movie. When it was quite the opposite. I just finish watching the entire video, and I have to say, I really thoroughly enjoyed it. It was, way, way , better than RJ's.
@@Seth9809 "He painted Lucas as being..." Painted in this context means to suggest or imply, not to outright say. English is a wonderful language when one understands the meaning of words.
I feel like the most important thing to get from this video is not something about Star Wars, but rather how hard it can be to find well researched information on the Internet these days.
@@meinerHeld Sorry, I may have mixed up some of my english vocabulary. I actually meant videos based on proper facts and research. I edited it in the original comment.
@@paytonestrada7746please elaborate. I wouldn't want to assume you're just saying that because he wants to bring up missing information Rocket Jump neglected in their video and how that information disagrees with the narrative set up in Rocket Jump's video and argues that George Lucas was competent in his craft when creating A New Hope. That would be disingenuous and close-minded.
The biggest frustration of the "saved in the edit" argument is that there has never been (and never will be) a single piece of art that will not be improved by edits. Poems, short stories, novels, films, games... a first draft is ALWAYS just a first draft.
And the other big frustration is that Lucas has ALWAYS said that movies are BUILT in the edit. "That's where the movie is made," or some other wording. So how can a movie be "saved" in the edit if that's where the movie--the arrangement that is presented to the public--is actually made? It's like saying "the cake was saved in the oven." No, that's where it goes from a bunch of ingredients to the thing you eat.
Even dumber than that is the fact that ALL movies are saved in the edit. You don't see rough cuts of films in the movie theater. That would be stupid. All films go through an editing process before you even see them. People really argued with me about this very obvious point.
@@kwameadu0075 but they’re right, we should all go to the sets of movies as they’re being shot and watch them from the sides as the actors pratice their lines to themselves!
To this day, the mystery of Nerdonymous has yet to be solved. This man came out of nowhere, dropped three of the best Star Wars videos on TH-cam, and over a year later, hasn't returned since...
You guys don’t really get it do you? Yes every film goes through edits and scenes are cut from films all the time, but Star Wars was unique, as it has the honor of being totally a different film compared to its final release in terms of tone, pacing, and emotion, the fact is that it’s one of the films in which the history behind its creation and insane recut is just as entertaining as the film itself. There are films that just were “edited” and then there are films where the “re-edits “ completely changed them. Star Wars is one of those.
@@DJKi2463 no one said that doesn't happen, what's being stated here is that George Lucas was crucial in the success of Star Wars (since, it's his mythos and characters that gave the film meaning) and that attempting to discredit him in a poorly-cited manner is not a good way to create discourse.
Lucas himself admits in the bonus matterial DVD that the first cut of the film was a disaster and that he had to fire the first editor and bring in another one…so yeah, sometimes films get saved in the edit.
Exceptional work here. I had always taken that whole narrative with a grain of salt, based on the mostly intuitive idea that if George Lucas directed a movie that is stylistically coherent with everything else he's ever done, he probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for how it turned out. But this really drives the point home and then some. Watching the rest of your stuff soon.
@@brandonsmith9098 the pace of edits, the framing of the shots, the lighting, and the use of specific wipe transitions. The prequels have a nearly identical cinematic DNA to the OT. The differences are in writing and costumes.
@@brandonsmith9098 i'm gonna be short and sweet. You don't know what you're talking about, and you shouldn't let poorly researched youtube videos determine your judgement. Because you are just spitting out the same tired youtube reviewer tropes. Almost every shot in the prequels has a mirror shot in the ot by design. Shot reverse shot isn't some great evil, its literally film making 101 and is also overwhelmingly present in the ot, as well as almost every film ever made. You like the sopranos? Godfather? Citizen kane? 2001? Well thats just shot reverse shot you plebian. The prequel's shot composition contains just as much thematic resonance as the OT, if not more. In fact, the reason people don't like the prequels is because they are too thematically dense compared to the ot. Because they are thier own thing while simutaneously complementing and enhancing the ot. One day you'll understand just how interconnected and resonant the ot and pt are; they are literally fused at the hip.
@Nerdonymous, please do a video essay on "How much influence George Lucas had on Empire Strikes Back" because there is this annoying argument that he had hardly any involvement and did not write the story and consequently episode V is the best Star Wars film. I don't believe that. George Lucas was very much involved in episode V and it is his creation!! Thank you!
I agree! Kershner didn't write the script: Lucas did. Brackett's story treatment was thrown out. All the things fans loved? Lucas' ideas. Kershner was, dare I say it, a "yes man" they accuse the prequel team of being.
Well he didn't except for creating the story and characters, writing the script, and being involved in all aspects of pre-production, production and post-production and everything else. Other than that nothing! ROFL!!! Seriously though everything is literally in The Making of The Empire Strikes Back and all the other books, videos, interviews etc etc. Those people who try to pretend that it was everyone else but Lucas are of the same ilk who did the RJ video. I'm surprised that RJ didn't do a follow-up "How The Empire Strikes Back was saved in the writing, directing and editing" No doubt it'd be another stellar achievement!
@@Tareltonlives There was no Brackett story treatment. The one and only story treatment was from Lucas himself which he relayed to her then she went and wrote her script which was not at all what Lucas wanted so it was thrown out. Then he wrote the actual first draft himself from his own story. He gave Brackett the writing credit because he liked her and she tried. No one on any of the movies were "Yes men" to Lucas. He wouldn't bother having people like that around as he wanted creative input from everyone but he also knew what he wanted in his movies and what he didn't. Kershner got a leeway that nobody else had because Lucas respected decisions that a veteran director like IK would make. Kershner wasn't changing anyway but doing his version of the story that Lucas wanted. That doesn't mean Lucas would have done it that way exactly but the end point was still where he wanted it to be. He just would have got there a little differently at times. It's like Lucas said about John Williams music. "90% is great, 5% I change and another 5% I let go."
Didn't Kershner's first cut literally almost give Lucas a heart attack, where Lucas had to reedit and reshoot a bunch of scenes? if I'm wrong please correct me, but I have heard this before.
@@REDDAWNproject that's very wrong indeed, in many ways. -First of all, there were no heavy reshoots at all. -Second, there was no "Kershner's cut" either. -The editor Paul Hirsch had been making a rough assembly of the film while they were shooting. He had edited the first 30 minutes of the film, using the script as a guide. When Lucas came to visit the set, he didn' like the edit and since they didn't have much time, he re-edited those 30 minutes, finding a new structure and deleting many scenes (which stayed that way). Kershner and Hirsch didn't like the edit at all, but they were able to make a few adjustments and find a balance between them.
Mike Stoklasa also peddles the myth that Ringo Starr was a terrible drummer who only gets merit because he was in the Beatles, when that is also demonstrably untrue and originates from a misquote of something John Lennon never actually said. So he's a hack on two fronts simultaneously.
Videos bashing Lucas with paper-thin evidence: Thunderous applause. Videos like this that actually did research and use evidence: Obscure with an overinflated dislike count. Kinda makes you sick doesn't it?
@@squirt3299 the world deserves More logic and reason in general...........and not the new age "science is a religion" bullshit just straightforward smarts no knowledge confused with wisdom......................................................................................sorry i am just SICK off pseudo intellectuall style ppl these days.
What saddens me the most, is that even with the information in this video and the very book Professor Jump uses, disproving what he says, people still believe it. People dislike Lucas so much that even when presented with evidence, they'd still rather just stick their fingers in their ears and scream how he was never good and it was all his wife.
@@hermos3602 yup. Going to RLM videos regarding Lucas, people still peddle the same lie. Even before the Professor there were articles undermining Lucas and praising Marcia in the same way. Guess if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes true.
@@nohbuddy1 nope he let the visual effects and costume teams do their own thing and Lucas offered the job of directing to many big time Hollywood directors including Spielberg but they turned it down and said george should dot it
@@nohbuddy1 bro that's literally unrelated to the fact that people disregard Lucas' contributions to the original film, in an attempt to discredit his abilities as a filmmaker. You're proving this point, by using the prequels, as some gotcha.
Also... Since George's movie was such a success, everyone in it (except probably Harrison Ford haha) would want to jump in and claim that the success was partially because of them. Hd it been a failure, everyone would be blaming everyone else. (And probably mostly George. No person can make a movie (specially this kind of movie) by themselves, so obviously in the end, a lot of people contributed to the movie. That's absolutely no discredit for George or anyone involved either.
@@Grivian I see it more like commandeering a ship. Lucas was the captain and everyone else was the rest of the crew working with the captain's orders :)
Yeah, it's actually kind of silly how minor some of the changes those people made that they claimed was the reason Star Wars was so successful in spite of Lucas. Most of the changes Mark, Carrie, Harrison Ford, and Alec Guinness claimed to have made involved dumbing down the dialogue, like how Mark went on talk shows to basically say "yeah, the complicated science mumbo jumbo was so cringe. We cut that out," of Marcia being like "it was boring, so I cut out as much of the dialogue as I could get away with." It kinda sounds like it was originally more like a Star Trek episode, but it was made more accessible by 'basic bitches' who didn't like Star Trek.
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917 I remember I read a short story in primary school about the editor of a famous book. the entire thing was about the mfer pondering over wheter he should add a comma to literally one paragraph of the entire thing or not, and in the end, he finally does. he then goes on to claim that this insignificant addition is what made the book so successful. even as a kid I thought it was a crock of shit. same with these Star Wars revisionists.
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917, I always thought the dialogue changes were necessary because they didn't fit where they were supposed to go. Like that line Mark Hamill always talks about? On its own, that line is perfectly fine. But it would've made no sense for Luke to say it at the time he would've said it. George likely realized this, and that's why he cut it.
George Lucas is the reason Star Wars was great. He got the people necessary onto project to get his vision from the page to the screen. He also listened to people from the acting, set designs, concept art, visual effects and got John Williams to do the music and made decisions to ensure the film would be as good as it could be. He also edited the film in addition to the three editors who got credit for ending the film, yet left his own name off when editing came along in the credits and since many people point to the editing that makes the film great as well as how Marcia Lucas, Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew won Academy Awards for their editing efforts, thus showing how they truly made Star Wars great since they won the Oscar for Editing and George lost writing and directing to Woody Allen for Annie Hall. I’ve actually seen some people write that George clearly doesn’t have much talent since he doesn’t have an Oscar at all and so praise goes to the editing, especially with most of the praise going towards Marcia and basically the other two left out of the conversation despite her having to leave editing Star Wars to cut New York, New York for Scorsese and so George, Paul and Richard then had to finish cutting the film together in the end. Yes, the editing is absolutely important in the film world, but so is virtually everything else where if you didn’t have much to work with at all that’s good, then you can’t edit together something that could truly resemble anything that can be seen as being decent. Thank you for this video man, your videos on Star Wars are excellent and I can’t wait to see what you do next. Hopefully you’ll get more views and subscribers!
He tried to do the same for the prequels by getting Ron Howard, Brian de Palma and Steven Spielberg to direct but they passed so he had to do it himself and he himself has admitted he not a good director he's in fact a genius but he doesn't do evreything good
@NATHANIEL AMAYA yes, he's has great creative mind and always knew who could help bringing his vision to life, like Williams and Ralph Maguire, and all of that just makes me wish more he stayed for the sequels.
@@disma4191 I think Lucas is a very good director when you realize he’s into making films as if they’re silent films and the dialogue in the films are used as sound effects. His films are very visual that you don’t have to hear people talking to understand what’s going on. He may not be the best at writing dialogue, but when it comes to Star Wars and the fact it’s a space opera, I think the dialogue fits. It may be awkward at times or theatrical, but that works for the genre. It’s reminiscent of the 1930s Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials. He’s often said he’s the weakest at writing, particularly the dialogue, but with Star Wars he was able to find where his weakness would work well.
@C man Man I say that because that’s what Lucas himself has said regarding his dialogue. People do quote his dialogue, but I’m just quoting what he’s said.
1:47:05 "The luckiest man in show business except for Ringo Starr" The funny thing is that I've been told by several drummers that Ringo is a _fantastic and underappreciated_ drummer who did a lot of really creative and unorthodox things on the drums that simply fly over the heads of those pf us without the trained ear of a percussionist.
Yeah not sure why people think Ringo was a shit drummer, he’s the worst songwriter of the 3 but an exceptional drummer lol especially when compared to Pete best
@@Paccyd33 Ringo is not a shit drummer, but even the greatest drummer in the world would have arguably been the luckiest person in showbiz to have got the job to drum with the other three.
@NATHANIEL AMAYA I get your point. But for me the original does not at all attack Lucas. This guy here obviously thinks it was. But for me it just explains the power of movie editing. Movies sometimes go through dramatic changes during making before they get to the theatre - i find this very interesting. And: I am not sure if the movie had sucked if it had not be recut. But in my opinion the reediting is an impressive improval.
@@derDeja no, the fundamental problem is that RJ's narrative of how the reedit went is mostly fabricated. Yes, the importance of editing cannot be understated, and there are nice little "cat poster" factoids about the value of editing, but changing the facts to make the reedit of star wars seem like the editors fixed everything ever wrong and George Lucas just basked in their omnipotent glow is patently false.
@@derDeja "The editing is an improval" Funny thing though is that based off of what this video proved, George Lucas helped a lot with making the better version of Star Wars, and the original cut of the film that was so "problematic" was the version edited by Marcia Lukas. Despite that, Rocket Jump pretends that George Lukas made the bad cut and Marcia Lukas made the good cut, so yes Rocket Jump is attacking Lukas but removing credit he is due, and blame all of the problems of the original cut on him. You would have known this if you watched the video.
Big suprise that a movie early into its production was unfinished. That's what production is for. To finish it. Also George never gets the credit he deserves regarding his vision for his movies and how amazing it is that he always maintained control for all 6 movies.
1:19:50 What's also hilarious is that in Empire of Dreams, we get to see dialogue from the scene with Han and Leia discussing the tracker that was cut from the final film. It goes into much greater detail about the Death Star destroying systems until they find the base. Leia also outright says that the intent of going to Yavin was that the Empire would bring the Death Star with them so the Rebels could exploit its weakness and destroy it. My guess would be that Lucas cut that dialogue, as it was a little too obvious, and assumed the audience would be intelligent enough to put two and two together themselves based on the fact we know the Death Star can destroy a planet, and Tarkin constantly speaks of his intent to destroy the Rebel base with it. If only he had the clairvoyance to know that 40 some odd years later moronic TH-cam film critics would be a thing.....
30:05 actually the DIRECTOR is responsible. Just like he’s responsible for everything. The editors do nothing without the director’s approval. Lucas has edited his own films for decades, working with his editora
@@mainstreetsaint36 To be honest, I do actually agree that the Jabba addition in ANH was rather unecessary. It just repeated the exposition that had been moved to the Greedo scene. I suppose it was still kind of neat how they animated Jabba for that segment though. Aaaand that's really my only issue with the SE changes. The new musical number is Jabba's Palace was better as it has a much more elaborate set up than the original and improves pacing :)
@@onemoreminute0543 No way. "Jedi Rock" is too bombastic and it includes two CGI characters that don't blend well in with the background. "Lapti Nek" is catchy and alien-like, even if some of the puppets haven't aged well.
@@vetarlittorf1807 Lol I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion. I just thought that it helped pacing wise and was more visually appealing. The CG isn't too jarring , and because it's quickly used doesn't break the immersion too much (mainly due to the lighting). I think they went a little too far with having the brown alien go right in front of the camera, but at the same time I suppose there is a level of self-awareness which is kinda funny :)
@@mainstreetsaint36 ok, so he wasn't perfect, who is? Yes, some things added were not necessary, I'll be the first to admit that. But Alot of things were added that made it better. Compare the old death star explosion to the new one, the victory scene on Endor, and so many other things
I hate that contemporary audiences need everything spelled out, but get mad when it's spelled out. No wonder the industry was tanking before Covid. Films don't need reboots, audiences do.
"Films don't need reboots, audiences do." Can I use this? No other truth been presented greater than people getting dumber and dumber consuming the McDonalds of Art and Media.
I always blame the consumer, because the product is always crafted thinking about them, and they always vote with their wallets. If movies are bad it's because viewers suck.
When the film explains something it’s “lots of unnecessary exposition that drags down the story with useless information” When the film doesn’t explain somethings it’s “what’s happening nothing is explained how are we supposed to follow this?”
Jesse Gender just did an "essay" and it's Lucas bashing old goodies all over again. From unsubstantiated claims that Lucas’ choice to revisit the SE was motivated by spite and ego, to censure Marcia’s contributions. It posits that auteur theory is an extension of facistic thought which is fu*king ridiculous. Not to mention, it double dips into classic Star Wars production myths, 90% of which are total horseshit (marcia saved it in the edit, esb had no influence from GL).
Yes. Period. Everything that lasts, no exception, has ONE great, uniting vision behind it. Nothing worthwhile has ever been made by a committee and never will be. @@bigtastyben5119
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this? I undertsand you might think this is a strange thing to request... and you'd be right. But if there's one I enjoy as much praising a good video about Star Wars, it's laughing at a bad video about Star Wars.
People do the same thing with Stan Lee. To be fair, his artists did do the heavy lifting, but people want to remove him from the creative process entirely.
The man became a greedy busines man and shat out the horrible prequels. It just shows that without the people that made the original trilogy work he either lost his spark or never had any talent to begin with.
The whole "Marcia Lucas is the real author of Star Wars" narrative reeks so badly of starting with a conclusion (George is bad) and then through malice or incompetence or both twisting facts and evidence to fit that conclusion. It's a disease particularly prevalent among Star Wars fans, but also film "critics", political commentators, and just people in general. So much intellectual laziness, duplicity, and misinformation gets millions of views and eyeballs and clicks and meanwhile the actual proper analyses that let the evidence lead them to a conclusion instead of the other way around get far fewer attention. A darn shame.
There's also the thing where some people have an unfortunate tendency to want to virtue signal and/or overcompensate for perceived past injustices by trying to make out that the achievements of some world renowned male creative artist or scientist were in fact the product of some female not given her proper due cos of misogyny and/or the patriarchy. Other examples include Einstein and Bach. Maybe even Shakespeare too but the theory that his plays were in fact written by Queen Elizabeth I might not count cos I'm not altogether sure that whoever came up with it wasn't just taking the piss.
It goes like this: "I hated the prequels, George Lucas directed the prequels, he also directed episode 4, which I loved, so now I have to explain why George Lucas is a terrible director, i.e. isn't responsible for the success of episode 4, because it is literally impossible for a human being to create both something I like and something I don't like. Everyone is either a flawless genius who can do no wrong, or a terrible person who is the devil incarnate and turns out nothing but s#!t."
Which is why Lucas was barred from writing, directing, or editing the remaining two films in the original trilogy?? & why when Lucas got his prized "creative control" he made the God damn prequels? Nah, I'll let history be my teacher, & not some simping, fawning adoration for the idea of "George Lucas the Creator Genius." Which itself is the narrative filled w/ duplicity, rose colored glasses, selective memory, & hero worship.
Palpatine: exits his shuttle in ROTJ RocketJump: "Who the heck is that? what is he doing? walking, talking, more walking, more talking. Clearly there is a problem with this"
THANK YOU- I despise videos like How Star Wars was saved in the edit... cherry pick what data points to mention and which to skip, put it all in a slick package to convince people of a false narrative that 90% of the audience will swallow whole, because they'll never do any homework themselves. The worst part is that the 90% then get this cocky attitude, like they're experts now and know the 'real' story because they unquestioningly watched one, highly-biased take. And a great response video like this never gets as many views as the original, but thankfully this one has a lot.
No, it’s more like watching a two hour vid of a guy calling out the bullshit of the George Lucas Raped Our Childhood Movement Okay, I guess that’s what it is but still
I suppose part of the reason why the 'Marcia saved Star Wars' narrative is so popular is because of how it can get spun into a personal issue: "Oh , George hated Marcia after they divorced! That's why we barely hear anything about her! That evil hack George Lucas is trying to silence her saving of his movie!" There's also the narrative that the whole reason Lucas made the Special Editions was because Marcia (SOMEHOW) got legal rights to the original films after divorce. Well, why did George wait TEN YEARS to do the changes then? In actuality, the reasons for the Special Editions were: -To celebrate the upcoming 20th anniversary of SW -To test the CGI for the prequels -To restore the original films quality due to the prints deterioration -To add in scenes/concepts that Lucas had originally wanted -To fix technical errors such as lightsabers changing colour as well as matte lines Changes post 97 were mainly meant to fix more technical errors and allow for stronger continuity with the prequels :)
@@rclark777 This issue is a bit more complicated than people make it out to be: The thing is, he HAS released the original versions- he did so for a limited time in 2006. Plus, prior to the SE release in 1997, there was a huge marketing campaign in the mid 90's to sell copies of the OG trilogy , signed copies which basically gave the message of 'get them while you still can!' And to my knowledge, Lucasfilm has never pursued legal action against creators of the despecialized editions despite the fact that they breach copyright. You can still get the OG versions, just not explicitly on the store front as the whole idea is to put the authors preferred version on display. You could probably find copies on eBay. When Tolkien re-released altered versions of the Hobbit book in the 50's and 60's, they replaced the original print. The originals weren't destroyed- they were just superceded by the revised versions which we still have to this day. The same applied with SW. I know many people have said that Lucas should have done it so that you have two discs - the SE and the non-SE. But the question is : which non-SE? People forget there were changes to SW: -In the initial and wider releases of the movies -On different mm -On TV -On VHS -In reissues in the cinema (like 1980) -On VHS and Laserdisc -In the aforementioned SE's -In the the DVD releases -In the Blu-ray release -In the 4K Disney + release. So... which 'original' version do you have? That's not even mentioning the changes that were also made to the prequel trilogy in re-releases... :)
Their also trying to paint the narrative that George is a bad filmmaker who doesn't know what's he doing. That couldn't be anymore farther from the truth.
Yup. It being a personal thing, where people can vilify evil old George, is just part of the reason it took off. People were so mad about how he "ruined their childhood" or whatever, they started inventing little narratives, to discredit him and make him look like a bad person.
George Lucas ain’t perfect, but I am sick of people’s efforts to tarnish his rep. as a film maker. The man is responsible for the movie magic we now take for granted
he tarnished his own rep with the prequels when he started to enjoy the smell of his own farts. Films are always collaborative effort and not created in a vacuum.
@@bleekcer not you but some other people I was having a discussion with. Lucas works better when he isnt surrounded by sycophants like a certain Rick McCallum.
@@purefoldnz3070 producers are supposed to do what the director wants them to do and make it happen, which is what Rick McCallum did, and Gary Kurtz failed to do.
I wonder if Mike from RLM ever watched this video to the end. Just imagine how must it feel, having seen all that evidence pointing to A, then seeing a clip of yourself so confidently saying B.
Thank you much for making this video, a real service to the community! If I were to offer one piece of criticism, I’d say that I personally think it would have been a bit more effective had you tempered some of your contempt for the original video, and instead remaining dispassionate until you get to the point of the video where you explain the intent of Rocket Jump’s video, basically that it was a hit-job. Then again, I’m ethically British, so very stiff upper lip, if you know what I mean
Its because the movie is over 40 years old that people don't realize Luke took an INSANE risk not using the targeting computer! Having him try first using it and failing so he used the Force on his second try makes sense in the script.
But it was redundant because one of the other rebel pilots attempted and failed the trench run so having that Pilot attempt and Fail then having luke attempt it and fail and then doing it is redundant so i think the final cut is better done
@@disma4191 No one is saying it isn't. I'm just saying I could see why the script would originally write two trench runs. That's the point of editing. Its realizing what's necessary and what isnt. Every movie has lots of deleted scenes that were written and shot but during the editing process the filmmakers decided weren't needed or were redundant.
The weird thing is that I kind of remember Luke having two runs from my childhood when I watched ANH. Maybe I just misremember but I thought it was really good. I was quite disappointed when I rewatched the movie years later and realized he only had one run
@@disma4191 From a story perspective 2 runs is perfect. - First another rebel pilot tries and fails. You understand that it is a very difficult task to accomplish - Then Luke tries with the computer. You have seen someone else fail but this time it is Luke the hero he can do it. But he fails and the tension increases. How on earth can they destroy this thing if even Luke fails? - Third time Luke tries again. But this time everything goes wrong. Biggs dies, Wedge has to flee. Vader is on his back about to kill him. How could he succeed? He decides to use the force, Han helps him and he does the impossible. Luke trying with the computer first shows us that it is impossible to do without the force.
@@Grivian Some of the things people misremember about Star Wars are present in the novelization and other content that was released around the same time as the movie but contain elements that were edited out of the final cut. Star Wars didn't come out on home video until 1982 so in order to experience the story again the only way to do it at the time was through books and other media so that has combined with the movie experience in a lot of peoples' minds. I have the Star Wars storybook that has the scenes with Biggs on Tatooine in it and I remember realizing that some of the pictures in the book were not actually in the movie which shattered the illusion a little bit but only made me appreciate the creative process more.
I'm so glad videos like this exist. The many fabricated Lucas hit-pieces masquerading as fact have done so much harm to the guy's reputation for the sake of convenient revisionist boogeyman scapegoatism. As we've seen since Disney took their disastrous stab at recreating Lucas' canvas, he really is the heart and soul of this series.
Well, Abrams, Johnson, Filoni, Favreau, Rodriguez et al are actually far closer to George Lucas' canvas than you care to admit. The Disney era actually feels very organic, is far more canon than any of the Extended Universe novels ever were. (The books in between the films and streaming material are still a fucking mess, but the visual material is incredibly solid.) I look at this material and I see nothing but love, reverence and respect for what George had done before. To me, Lucas bashers and Disney haters aren't that different from each other, in fact I think they overlap quite a bit. And that those who deny those fact and connections about the Disney era are the same as those who deny Lucas his due credit for the original saga. And that many, (But NOT ALL) people who defend the prequels but hate Disney are guilty of rank hypocrisy. Because they often use a reskinned version of the Lucas basher arguments to build their anti-Disney narrative. (And I'm just talking about those who attack it in every way other than "Get woke go broke," a stupid and vapid, meaningless expression if I ever heard one.) Because let's be honest. Attacking Kathleen Kennedy and those who write and direct the Disney film and streaming material is exactly the same as attacking Lucas and attacking people alongside him like Rick McCallum. It's exactly the same as saying "Marcia is the savior" or "Gary Kurtz did everything." (If anything, I consider Gary Kurtz to be the grandfather of all of this, continually flaring his petty grievances to the point he started an entire bullshit industry. Forgive me for saying...FUCK GARY KURTZ.) So many of these arguments are borne forth from Dunning-Kruger writ large, being wedded to a mental image of the characters, a vision they have (Vader is the ultimate bad and killing machine and pure evil, Luke is always the selfless hero who can't fail and basically is someone who can walk on water), seeing contrary evidence, and then refusing to admit it. Rather than looking at something honestly, and going, "I had this idea of what happened or who they were, but I was wrong," they lash out and say, "I'm not wrong, George Lucas is wrong, J.J. is wrong, Rian Johnson is wrong." That this distorted mental image of the original trilogy (and/or EU material and/or the prequels) is some kind of holy text, a major element of the cathedral of St. Gary Kurtz, St. Marcia, or whoever, and that any deviation is a heresy. That those who commit these acts effectively deserve a social version of a heretic's death. For my part, I not only embrace George's vision, but I embrace the wonderful, expansive palette that the Disney era has brought us, filling out every corner of the galaxy, making terra incognita appear on the map for the first time, filling out the characters, enriching their stories, and giving us memorable new ones to boot. And the vast majority of the public and the fans do, too, embracing every aspect of Star Wars canon, thrilling along to several generations of stories. I also know there's no such thing as "objectivity", necessarily, in this or any fandom. After all, some of you would probably attack ME as a hypocrite for my saying that "I hate Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection for being illogical followups to the first two, but I think Prometheus was really good, though Covenant disappointed, and I really think the best thing for the Alien franchise would be for Disney to allow Neill Blomkamp's film to get made and to tie back to Prometheus as well," or that "I think Dark Fate is a worthy followup to Terminator and T2," but also agreeing "GOT sucked at the end. It's not that this ending is wrong, especially Dany's turn, but the execution was horribly botched and rushed." I can hold all these multiple views at the same time, and give a massive summation of evidence to back it all up. But I'm no more "objective" than the rest of you. I accept that.
@@TTarps Lucas bashers and Disney haters are extremely alike. It's hypocritical to defend George against certain points, and then use them against the Disney era. It's likewise hypocritical to make ringing defense against George, and then say they aren't valid for Disney. One can easily make a shlocky compilation of "Uhs" for George to make him look like an idiot and make him seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Nerdonymous would call that sacrilege and disgusting. But he weaponizes it against Abrams. It's absolutely appalling. The truth is that Disney has nothing but reverence and care for what George did, especially given that the recent London announcements are going to basically use George's ideas, especially the Whills and whatnot, as a jumping off point. So George has not been "treated shabbily," and is not being erased. And everything that has happened in this era, that's where things logically go. This is the most realistic way for the history of the galaxy to unfold, and saying "No it doesn't" is the same as saying "that's not how Darth Vader should be in the prequels." Because you go from an image, when all you have is a visual image, but no idea of what's underneath. And let's remember, so many of you, regardless of where you stand, have the same idea: "This is a sacred text, deviation from it is heresy, you will get punished like a heretic should." Putting Kathleen Kennedy, Abrams, Johnson, Filoni, Favreau, Rodriguez and the like in the exact same spot where George and Rick McCallum were, on the rack, and turning Star Wars into the cathedral of St. Gary Kurtz. Meanwhile, the vast majority of the public and the fans love and embrace every element of the saga with open arms, accept it as canon, because...it is. Cope.
I think what can't be stressed enough is how important the timeline is to the making of Star Wars and how misrepresented the original video is. I mean, think about it logically: If Lucas friends saw the film in February 1977 and the film was so disastrous, how could it be that the film was ready for theaters only 2-3 months later? Are they supposed to have completely cut and finished a movie in just that short amount of time? I don't know exactly what Lucas was showing his friends at the time, but it can't be possible that Star Wars was that unfinished in February 1977. Maybe it was an older version. And maybe his friends ruled so harshly because they were all experimental film nerds who had no appreciation for such a "superficial" action adventure. And what also needs to be emphasized: Marcia Lucas left the production back in November 1976. So what Lucas showed his friends was her work, her editing. But when the film was edited for months after that and brought into its final form, Marcia was no longer involved at all. So her worship among so many fans doesn't make any sense logically either. As you pointed out, many of the scenes that Lucas cut out, she wanted to keep in. Yes, she cut the Death Star sequence well, but that's the job of an editor. And yes, she had a good idea regarding Obi-Wan's death. But that was about it. Beyond that, it's so unclear where all this information is supposed to come from. I don't know of any book describing how the scenes were rearranged or how the Death Star sequence was restructured. In fact, The Making of Star Wars by Rinzler says almost nothing about it. It almost feels like the authors made up all this information (which is true to a large extent).
The cut that Lucas showed to his friends in Feb.1977 was really close to the final edit, the only difference being the placement of the early Death Star scenes. It was the same cut he showed to John Willians a month earlier. His friends reacted badly because... the effects weren't finished and the music wasn't there and they just couldn't get it. But it was pretty much the same edit that was released three months later. The "disastrous" first cut that included all the scenes was the first cut, in which all three editors worked. So they ended up "saving" their own cut (although, as you say, Marcia left the film in Nov.1976 and Chew left the film a month later.
@@oieretxaburu7011 also his friends reacted badly is itself an overstatement. Spielberg was at the same screening and he predicted it would make $100 million (at a time when that was the ceiling for blockbusters). A Fox exec who saw the same cut told his wife he had seen the best film ever made and then went and bought stock in Fox. De Palma was a shit talker. In the HBO Spielberg documentary he's seen criticizing Spielberg's technique while operating an 8mm camera.
@@oieretxaburu7011 I thought the disastrous first cut was the John Jympson edit where he just assembled all the footage to match the script, and Lucas hated it.
@@fallspeed the Jympson cut was just a first assembly that was never finished (at the very least, he didn't edit any of the final battle using WWII footage, and he was probably fired before shooting was finished). The "official" first cut was done by Chew, Hirsch and Marcia by October/November 1976 and it did include all the scenes in script order. Neither of those cuts were shown to Lucas' friends in February 1977.
@@fallspeed Lucas hated it but it wasn't because it matched the script. That's a misconception created by Rocket Jump's video because Rocket Jump didn't really understand what the problem was. When they shoot a given scene the actors will do the same thing over and over again and the director and cinematographer will shoot that performance from a multitude of angles. The editor's job is to take all that footage and build it into a single version of that scene cutting between different vantage points. How long you hold onto a single shot before cutting to the next determines the pacing of a scene. Lucas wanted the amount of time each shot was held on screen to be shorter than what Jympson was giving him. The pacing felt slower than what Lucas wanted. David West Reynolds described the cut as feeling more documentary like.
It's pretty clear how slanted and fabricated the "Marcia saved George's ass" narrative is, but just going along with it for a moment... even if George was full of bad ideas on how to edit and didn't have any involvement in the final edit (neither thing is true), he still was the one that chose and hired the editors. If nothing else, he recognized talented people to bring onto his project so that it could be as good as possible. No one went behind his back and turned in something that he didn't approve. That's the worst take that could be had while claiming that the editors fixed his movie for him without his involvement. Of course, the truth is much more favorable to him.
@@Seth9809 Never said what? That's the whole narrative of the original video, and it could only achieve that narrative by deliberate omission, deliberate falsehoods, deliberate half-truths, and deliberately deceptive language.
@@Seth9809 he literally said everyone hated star wars and editors saved a piece of garbage which the video was full of lies and half lies and even at some point said Lucas's ace is talented people around him, still leaving him unquestionably miserable otherwise. Star wars went down the most basic of the editing phases you could ever find. There are thousands of better examples for editing saving a movie rather than filling it with lies
I want see a version of their video for every department in the production. How SW was saved in the makeup chair. How SW was saved by the location scout How SW was saved by the Second Unit AD. How SW was saved in the costume shop How SW was saved in the accountants office.
It's fascinating (and disturbing) how quick people are to completely turn on a man who injected so much joy and excitement into their lives, even if it's based on complete bullshit.
@@MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch and people said independance day is a bad movie? Just goes to show people and fanbase's words are to be taken with a truck full of salt!
Ironically, the professor is probably the same type of fan that criticizes Lucas for not introducing Anakin until he becomes a part of the story in The Phantom Menace.
20:46 - In the novelization of the movie, this intro (with Biggs) is there AS in the script. Only while editing Lucas decided to cut it. Lucas is Notorious about what were his past decisions, as Rinzler showed.
@ECKohns Also in Ep VI, the novelization there made a connection between the moment Leia was wounded (in the upper arm) & Luke trying hard to hide her in his mind from Darth Vader's probing (while he was looking for him after the bridge collapsed), so that the pain she felt was felt also by Luke, who because it was so sudden, he failed to hide it and so it was detected by Vader & this was how he knew she was Luke's sister. This was not in the Shooting Script (in the book "The Art of Return of the Jedi') and I wish for a new edit to connect these scenes.
@@robertlauncher i think the special editions look like shit whenever theres a cgi insert etc, buuut these people extrapolate that into "george lucas was simply incompetent and had nothing to do with anything"
@@cesarcampos8746 Oh yeah I don’t like some of the SE changes either, but like I said, it’s his art. Once you create something, I feel like it’s harder to disregard Lucas’ points. Putting something you’re not satisfied with out there has to be terrifying even if people love it.
@@robertlaunchersome SE tweaks are cool, others feel a bit too enthusiastic. I enjoy owning the dvd set where the OT comes with original releases on a second disk.
You see these comments trying to insult the guy who made this video and say he sucks? Yeah that proves hes right. Just accept it bois.....the Internet was wrong..... Just like they were about game of thrones.
Saying Star Wars was saved in the edit is like saying [your favorite album here] was saved in the mix. Like, no shit all those audio engineers and record producers took the bands unpolished demos and made them into a proper album. The record is saved!!!!
Bro this is honestly one of the best videos on youtube. Your script is thorough and precise whilst being immensely entertaining. PLEASE come back and make another vid.
I do hope you do more of this kind of video debunking bad-faith attacks on Lucas that spreaded misinformation. There's a lot more of this kind of deception in "The Secret History of Star Wars"
To a degree but "Secret History" is more about presenting the actual facts then surreptitiously slipping in opinion in such a way that it seems the most reasonable conclusion. I've read it and based on everything else I've checked it against it's actually quite good so the author was pretty good in keeping his bias in check. I mean when you compare it to the other sites he once had where he is very openly anti-Lucas.
@@ariesroc It has the VENEER of being factual and unbiased, but clearly isn't if you actually think about it. He manages to avoid outright lying himself by simply making quotes by anti-Lucas people.
@@Tareltonlives To a degree but he does also throw in plenty of admiration for Lucas as an artist but more against his corporate decisions (like the SE's) at the same time so I'd say he's more balanced in that way. His information does have facts that check out. Now he does do a lot of supposition about Lucas' decisions but I find that plenty of those are also positive or non-negative. I didn't find out he was anti-Lucas until after I first read the book so I can't say I noticed. It was only afterwards that I did know he was that I then was able to read it that way but even then so much was subtle so I don't know that anyone just reading it would take it that way. I certainly didn't.
@@Tareltonlives That's very insightful if you didn't know his bias before reading it then. As I said I came out of reading it that he was very positive to Lucas overall. This would be unlike other well researched books that have good information but upfront are clear that they want to tell you the lie that Lucas was just a guy who had some OK ideas but it was everyone else and the tea lady that made it all work and his best attribute was some toy business savvy! Those are fun to read in the sense of seeing how warped the author's are.
It's shocking how easy it is to rewrite history. Everyone involved in the production of Star Wars saw and commended Lucas for his vision and dedication. Then some decades pass. Some rando with a computer and a microphone can spout any lie they want and it will be convincing because it fosters an incredibly naive but emotional sentiment: guy who made bad thing couldn't possibly have made good thing.
Which is already based on the bad thing that most people won't even rewatch or genuinely look at without bias. I didn't like the prequels for a while, but rewatching them I realized they're actually really good movies, like better then the majority. The OT had the benefit of being the first, if the trilogy's had flipped people would hate the OT because it wasn't the prequels. People tend to let nostalgia blind them
@@Aquatarkus96like holy shit. as someone who used to watch them every single day as a kid, stopped watching them for decades, then watched them all again a few days ago, I can confidently say that they're legit great films. nostalgia is not a factor in my opinion. these movies have been overhated and laughed at for years, and slobs like RLM or Rocket Jump have attracted millions of followers by making baseless claims or low effort takedowns of the movies. it's disgusting really.
Really is crazy how divorces in America works. Marcia cheated on Lucas, sure, gave some feedback and helped edit, but walked away with half his money... What!!??
It’s almost as if, and just hear me out here, filmmaking is ultimately a collaborative process, where hundreds of people work together to make someone’s initial vision a reality.
Thank you for this. I had been planning on doing something like this but now I don't have to. Although there are other issues with RocketJump that need to be addressed. Namely he doesn't really understand what the craft of editing mostly entails. He thinks it means reordering scenes and taking scenes out as opposed to what it really is which is deciding what angle to use at which moment in a given scene. That's the most time intensive part of the job and why Lucas brought on three editors because they were under a time crunch. To be fair most don't understand this. Thankfully Lucasfilm released 30 minutes of coverage from Yoda's death scene which can be used to illustrate this principle. A TH-cam channel called Star Wars Edit Droid uploaded all of it and it can be used to make alternate versions of the scene.
Lucas-bashing AND Ringo-bashing: wow, a twofer from Mike, I'm pretty pissed off, actually. This kind of crap always seems to come from people with a very limited understanding of the craft they're supposed to be analyzing, doesn't it?
"Ringo-bashing" lol, honestly Mike was born a decade after the Beatle's broke up too. I feel like you had to exist in that cultural zeitgeist to deserve that joke.
The sheer obnoxiousness in his tone just makes my blood simmer. The guy is such a prick. He releases shit like "spacecop" and then still has the nerve to tout himself as someone who knows what he's talking about.
@@MrZackavelli Agree. Mike is the worst thing any creative mind could have have cursed upon them in the form of a "fan". He is literally the definition of toxic fandom yet Disney apparently loves him. I honestly believe Mike did more damage to Star Wars than Disney did.
You probably won't see this but I'm so glad your video is getting more attention from creators like So Uncivilized, I really hope you make more in the future. You really seem passionate and it shows in your work.
@@daneoman1000 PLUS Rick McCallum, John Knoll, Doug Chiang and so many other people...except that without Lucas every single one of them is just waiting around twiddling their thumbs because he is where the concepts,story, characters, scenes and everything comes from in the first place.
@@ariesroc Being a good director means being a firm but fair boss. you push your staff to create the best things they can because you know they can, and they want to. George has never gone. not only that, but the Academy had a vested interest in fucking over Lucas, he became an actual successful producer/filmmaker outside of the system, and it was considered a massive middlefinger. So I'm not surprised we see this narrative grow over time.
Giving all the credit to Georrge is just as much of a fallacy as placing it all on his team. George was a core part of the movies creation, but he could not have done it alone. Idk why thats such a controversial statement.
@@SeanLaMontagne then why doesn't anyone do this for any other movie director? Why don't people do this for Speilberg, Hitchcock or Christopher Nolan? Why don't you praise the DP of photography of Saving Private Ryan, or the editors of that movie, or the grips or the sound designers? Why doesn't the camera operators for Stanley Kubrick get as much praise or entire videos devoted to their impact in his movies? Why do people specifically claim that george lucas might have created star wars and that everyone else saved his movie and that Star Wars is only successful in SPITE of Lucas and not because of him? It's because they view him AS the problem. No other director gets this amount of shit for the normal directorial process.
Finally! I've been waiting a long time for someone to put together a good rebuttal to that video. Excellent work, you've earned a subscriber. I hope this gets spread far and wide, and I hope you keep making videos like this.
that's what happens when they shat over lucas for more than 10 years, it's really a child's logic. When i was a kid and saw the OT it was amazing, when as an adult i saw the prequels they were shit. Then they read the behind the scenes stuff and saw that Lucas had other people other than himself that worked on the movies, and since the "ingenius editors" and "ingenius director" and "ingenius scriptwriter" didn't work on the prequels that means that lucas is a hack and those that worked on the OT were the real creators. Truly fuck the prequel haters.
Correct: 'I personally dislike the prequels, which George had complete control of, therefore the quality of the original movie can't have much to do with him! Eureka!' 🤣
@Franco Sinatra nah go watch attack of the clones. its a legitimately good movie. the OT is fun in a swashbuckling way but as i get older the prequels just look more fantastic. the amount of detail oozing in every scene, the fact that the amount of CGI effects had never been done before on that scale. we take all that sh*t for granted nowadays.
RJ: "They don't explain who Luke is in his first scene!" Also RJ: "All this exposition on who Tarkin is, why there's a DEath Star and why it's important, what is the senate, and why the Empire is evil isn't necessary!" RJ: "Luke talking to his friends is boring" Also RJ: "Seeing the droids bicker for 20 minutes is cruical to the plot"
You: That's a complaint about the same character! Also you: Exposition about lesser characters is exactly the same as exposition about the main character!
I really liked that RocketJump video, because I care deeply about editing, and about Star Wars, and about what made it a success. Even if it _is_ the norm for movies, the idea that Star Wars was restructured in editing to be more successful is very intoxicating. But editors should not aspire to be the righteous saviors of a story. I truly believe we should be humble, with respect for the work we are cutting apart. We should be in conversation with the screenwriter and director, not fighting to save a project from them. We all want the thing to be good, in the end! And so, I appreciate this video for setting the record straight. There's no value in thinking that ideas originated in editing that literally did not; truly, those who care deeply about editing should be familiar with its realities, and not egotistic fantasies, like those peddled by Paul Hirsch. It's clear that a significant amount of research went into uncovering "What Really Happened," and _that's_ valuable.
Everything in the RocketJump video seems to be correct. I found the pre-shooting script (4th draft) and it has all the scenes out of order that he says were moved, C-3PO saying "I'm melting" at the start of the script, a second trench run by Luke (which is why Biggs says "They're coming in _much faster this time"),_ and no sign of a countdown: "Rebel base three minutes and closing." "Rebel Base one minute and closing." "Rebel Base 30 seconds and closing." "The Death Star has cleared the planet; the Death Star has cleared the planet!" "Rebel Base in range." "You may fire when ready." "Commence primary ignition." In the movie we know, C-3PO is on when they talk about Luke's father, then turns off when Ben gives Luke the lightsaber, then he's back on when Artoo plays the message, then he's off as Ben tells Luke he must learn about the ways of the Force if he's to go to Alderaan. This shows that the scene was re-ordered as Rocketjump says. www.starwarz.com/starkiller/star-wars-the-adventures-of-luke-starkiller-revised-fourth-draft/
@@sandal_thong8631 Just from what you presented alone does not therefore follow as RJ posits that Marcia Lucas recorded those voice lines and saved Star Wars.
@oyeaux The argument as I understand it here (the mocking is difficult to get past) is that _Star Wars_ as seen in 1977 was filmed as written and anything to suggest the contrary is asinine. This doesn't seem to be correct, and scenes were deleted and changed in the order they were originally intended. R.J. says this was a substantial improvement in storytelling. Also, a lot of editing work was done to get _Star Wars_ to the finished project, dealing with film, sound effects, model shots, music, etc. Academy people in Hollywood recognized that and awarded the three editors (limit 3 so G.L. wasn't included?) with an Academy Award. If they had botched it, then it could have been like a B-movie. Imagine just showing the fighter pilots and not the battle. I'm not sure what problem you have with the idea that a countdown was added in post to make it more urgent to destroy the Death Star before it destroys the rebel base. I watched a video months ago that re-edits it to show how boring were two trench runs by Luke and company and no countdown.
@@sandal_thong8631 I don't know why your talking about the editors botching it. Neither video mentions editors botching the film apart from John Jympson, whom was fired while working on the film and I certainly didn't bring up that topic. The problem with the idea that a countdown was added in post is that Marcia Lucas was not a sound editor, she would not be directing actors to produce new dialogue for the film, nor would she do this without George Lucas' knowledge or permission and it is Paul Hirsch whom claimed to have edited the Trench run. And again, Paul Hirsch was an editor, the job of recording new lines for the film would for the Sound Department and/or the Film Director, so credit to adding new lines to the film would not belong to the editors, whose job it was to splice film. Editors would not be able to conjure up new footage or new dialogue unless it was provided to them.
There is a comic that was published published like 10 years ago which it is based on one of the original versions of Star Wars, the name of the comic is The Star Wars. Right in the beginning of the comic there is an opening crawl, and the script that the comic uses is dated from 1974, a good time before the movie recordings even began. The narrative that Depalma created the opening crawl is beyond absurd to me
For a film class I'm enrolled in at University we watched Rocket's Jump's original video, and I couldn't help but feel pain inside as everyone took it so seriously.
I'm afraid that I too was one that believed the 'saved by the edit' stuff, but this excellent breakdown, backed up with evidence from those that were there (and not quoted out of context), has certainly made me disbelieve that notion now. Marcia herself has pretty much dismissed that idea and Luca's own notes show the movie presented was pretty much what he wanted from the beginning. Great work - the amount of research and evidence you've provided is outstanding. Hopefully the idea of SW being saved by the edit can be taken out of the mainstream and people see GL for the genius he truly is. People give him a hard time, yet his influence on the film industry wasn't just with SW. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the improved SPFX we have today (ILM), no surround sound (5.1 and now Atmos etc), and no improved quality of presentation in theatres (standards and THX). There are probably lots more things but I think GL has single headedly improved the film industry beyond what any other individual ever has, and we should be grateful instead of bickering about the original SW movies.
thing is he kinda did all of that as an outsider, and I guess Hollywood is still salty about that (but they gladly take his innovations and present it as their own lmao)
It's really sad to see how the original video was able to get millions of views through clickbait and lies while this video barely scratched 50k for explaining a much more complicated truth. Well done, hope you continue to make more videos at some point.
I think the length of this one is the primary reason for that. RJ's video is less than 20 minutes. You can watch that during your lunch break. Watching this one is a decent time investment...but I'm glad I did.
It's because he was a pioneer and didn't like Hollywood, he also "tricked" the studios which pissed a ton of people off and essentially was able to finance his own vanity projects off his success.
Nerdonymous explained in the video. They hated what George did with the Special Editions and the Prequels, he "ruined their childhood" (or some other garbage), and now they want to take everything away from him, because they despise him that much. What was that thing Yoda said once? "Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering."
@@BreakEm22 The fact that he side stepped the whole studio system after A New Hope is one of my favourite things about George. The Star Wars films are basically the biggest independent films of all time from a certain point of view.
@@zero-pl3tt But then...Lucas was thenceforth incapable of stepping out of his own empire, despite undeniably having the means to do so once in a while. Give me Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese’s careers every day of the week. Despite having “made it”, along with their own stumbles, each new film they make says something about them we never knew fully before. I can’t say likewise for George Lucas.
@@Wired4Life2 All his movies after that say something about him. You might want to go back and look back on his filmography. Let me give you an example: Why do you think the Pod Race exist? Clue: Go back to his early days.
Cutting the stuff with Biggs on Tattooine was a good call for the flow of a ~2 hour film. It would've interrupted the tension and momentum of the opening sequence. We needed to stay with one situation long enough to map out the story. I believe the intercuts with Luke were put in by the editor in England, and Lucas hated his edit. It might've worked later but the film would've become a little long, and really didn't contribute much except that "Luke had friends". It was fine in the radio drama, probably would've been fine in a TV series. But it was a good call.
True. Those scenes are nice, but they would not have worked so well in the Movie. In a TV Show or the Radio Drama though? Sure. I actually really liked Biggs' and Luke's talk. About how Luke will be the only one of the friends who will ever make it off of Tatooine because he is the only one who really has ambitions. His friends are either fine with their boring little lives and what they achieved, are a follower, or, in the worst case: the follower of a follower.
Now we see it for what it is, yet another George Lucas hit piece. Lucas' reputation has been dragged through the mud for nearly two decades, for _absolutely no reason._ I've lost all respect for Red Letter Media.
I wouldn’t say no reason, I think a lot of people would say he became disenchanted with Star Wars, myself included, and during the making of the prequels, seemingly surrounded himself with yes-men. I still admire the guy a lot, one of the greatest and most thoughtful writers of all time, but man does he have some strong weaknesses.
@@gnbman in what way was he dragged through the mud, most of the criticism I’ve seen was directed towards the bad changes towards the OG trilogy, and the bad dialogue and inconsistent characters in the prequels, both of which are valid criticism, sure it went overboard but it’s the biggest movie franchise of all time, of course so many people were gonna dog on the bad decisions all at once. I would say the people that deserve the sympathy are the actors for the prequels, most of their careers tanked after those films.
I'll admit that Rocket Jump's video completely had me misinformed, and I came here biased against anything you had to say, but you were so thoroughly, and I say this unironically, based and logical with everything that you said here that I see his video for what it is now.
A truly rewarding and satisfying film trilogy is A New Hope, followed by How Star Wars Was Saved In The Edit, then finished off with How "How Star Wars Was Saved In The Edit" Was Saved In The Edit. Perfect afternoon.
Try and remember it was the SEVENTIES and most imagination was DISCOURAGED which is why Star Wars had to be edited for an audience used to realistic films only
Nah, this video is actually good and well-researched. Contrary to YMS's so-called "debunking" video which doesn't debunk much (the original claim from 1994 was not that TLK was a Kimba rip-off, but simply that Kimba was an unacknowledged source of inspiration. *ONE* source among many others). Screaming like a banshee "IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!!!!" again and again and again is plain stupid, not to mention it's just stating the obvious. Like manga artist Machiko Satonaka said in the open letter she sent to Disney in 1994: "no one is claiming the stories are identical". And indeed, they are not. People who have actually watched and/or read Kimba know that on the whole, the 2 properties are vastly different. Anyway, YMS's video is nothing but a long and biased anti-Kimba rant, that (deliberately?) misrepresents the old TV shows from the 60s and the characters. A long rant filled to the brim with logical fallacies, false equivalences, hasty conclusions, weak "yes, but..." excuses, blatant lies, and basically Adum Johnston playing devil's advocate for 2 and a half hours, jumping to conclusions, and omitting important facts (like failing to mention the fact that the animators had access to the Kimba manga at some point during production. Manga which they studied and compared to the film they were working on, even if they deny that they were directly influenced by Kimba in any way). That being said, I totally understand why Adum did that. He most likely wanted to give a taste of their own medicine to all those people who had been making dishonest and misleading comparative articles and videos on the subject for years, either out of dumb ignorance or out of pure malice. But it doesn't change the fact that on the whole, YMS's video is pretty much on the same level as the video made by RocketJump: they both look extremely convincing and well-researched on the surface, with solid arguments and lots of references, but when you dig a bit further you quickly realize that they are in fact terribly flawed and disingenuous.
@@Right_Said_Brett Again, no. He said a lot of BS with a few relevant things here and there. But as I said, his video is very well-made and it can therefore seem very convincing, especially to people who haven't done any serious research on the subject.
@@Megrez-Alberich I fail to see in what manner The Lion King is a rip-off of Kimba the White Lion. They're the same species, sure. Aside from that, what are the common links?
@@Right_Said_Brett I never said that TLK was a Kimba rip-off. I even said that the Japanese were absolutely right when they said in their open letter to Disney that "no one is claiming the stories are identical". TLK is a patchwork of different sources of inspiration: Hamlet, Bambi, the Biblical stories of Joseph and Moses, and there was most likely also quite a bit of Kimba added to the mix. The same way Jungle Emperor was heavily inspired by Disney's Bambi, but also by Hergé's Tintin in the Congo, Jean de Brunhoff's Babar the elephant, Edgar Rice Burroughs's adventures of Tarzan, Ed Hunt's Simba~King of the beasts, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, etc. The problem is not whether there was deliberate inspiration or not on Disney's part. After all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired by somebody else's work, as it spurs creativity, which is a good thing. It's the way Disney handled the whole situation which is truly embarassing, with all their lies and their backpedalling, and them changing their tune, and then going so far as to try to stop the screening of the Jungle Emperor Leo movie at the Fant'Asia Festival. One important thing that too many people seem to forget is that Kimba is not some "obscure, crappy Japanese cartoon that nobody knows or remembers outside of Japan". Before TLK came out, it was *THE* reference all around the world as far as animated cartoons about the adventures of a young lion prince, whose father has died, are concerned.
![[#2024MAMA] ROSÉ (로제), Bruno Mars - APT. | Mnet 241122 방송](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/dgGqD28J6aQ/mqdefault.jpg)
I find it hilarious how their video is phrased in a way that suggests that Star Wars was doomed before the edit, but the editors were just doing things that editors are supposed to do, literally what they’re hired for.
don't overlook that Paul McCartney *also* played a hand in Star Wars' success
Umm no....not how it works
@@arthurhall8238 yes, how it works. They did things editors are supposed to do.
@@minecrafter3448 umm..editing isn't just a plug and play role moron...especially when you are moving major pieces of the story around. There is art in editing..of course you dont get this because you have no idea what you are talking about.
@@minecrafter3448 now... get back to your video games kid and stop bothering us...
This made me realize I blindly went along with Red Letter Medias views on the matter. I enjoy them but I believe their views on Lucas are heavily flawed when you look at actual behind the scenes facts. Thanks for opening my eyes.
Eh this video is also hyper biased. Yes the editors did editing things but the point of the initial video, to me, was to show the power of editing. How things not thought of or planned out can be pieced together by other shots.
This absolutely is a lesson George learned from episode 4 as it was ironically a massive issue of his in episode 1 that he over-relied on it.
@@Mnkeysbiased how? If the original video is dishonest in main points to this degree, distorting events, creating a narrative that is not historical, then what value could it have?
@@histguy101, "If the original video is dishonest in main points to this degree, distorting events, creating a narrative that is not historical, then what value could it have?"
Allowing for masterpieces like the one we're watching to be created, that's how.
Oh be quiet. You’re just trying to save face.
I continue to love RLM, but they're still wrong about quite a few things-especially when it pertains to Lucas.
You know the most annoying part about this rumor going around that Lucas didn't do anything that made this movie a success is that people are now acting like his wife was the real mastermind behind everything but Lucas wanted all the success for himself when every single documentary or book I've ever seen/read about the making of Star Wars has always mentioned Marcia. Like guys, literally, I've known about Marica Lucas since I was a kid.
Also, Marcia herself said that George was the mastermind
@@orlandofurioso7329 umm..what do you think she is going to say?
Lucas deserves the credit for being the architect...but he's a horrible director, editor, dialogue creator, and screenwriter
I think Lucas' critics haven't actually seen any George Lucas movies other than Episodes IV and V.
Lucas has been quite generous as sharing credit, and most people give credit right back. Only a few coworkers like Gary Kurtz really want to take that credit for themselves.
@@Tareltonlives thats probably a good thing
As someone who’s been learning about writing, _every_ work is saved in the edit. The entire purpose of editing is to refine a work of writing or art.
RIGHT?!
Yes. That's what edit means.
transitive verb
1a: to prepare (something, such as literary material) for publication or public presentation
b: to assemble (something, such as a moving picture or tape recording) by cutting and rearranging
c: to alter, adapt, or refine especially to bring about conformity to a standard or to suit a particular purpose
(To be clear, I'm agreeing with you and just providing the dictionary definition. Star Wars was saved in the edit because, before it was edited, it was not yet a movie.)
Not every work. Some works are actually ruined by the edit believe it or not.
Ultimately, every film under the sun is saved in the edit, and even then, George Lucas was an auteur; he had total involvement in the editing suite. People who say the reason Episode 4 was successful is because of the editing, and Lucas got lucky, are the same people who only watch blockbusters and don't understand even the most basic elements of cinema - oh so basically, every Prequel hater under the sun!
@@Wackaz Isn't it the job of every film director to oversee the editing process? Contrary to popular belief, a director does much more than just interpret the script and guide the actors.
This was incredibly eye-opening. People seem to hate on Lucas despite loving the hell out of him.
You see similar libel, slander, and delusion right now happening with toxic fans smearing Neil Druckmann and crediting others for his work.
@@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassivelast of us 2 sucked, and Neil Druckman either needs another writer to push back on his bad ideas or he lost his touch.
@@justadude3789 He's still responsible for TLOU1 and was involved in Uncharted 1, 2, and 4.
@@MildMisanthropeMaybeMassive all of which he had other writers supporting him/adding ideas of their own.
Last of us 2 was pure unadulterated Druckman
and Uncharted 4 was mid at best.
@@justadude3789 TLOU1 was pure Druckmann. TLOU2 he had a co-writer.
He mostly did programming and level design for UC1 and UC2.
I would also point out that Revenge of the Sith was also very confusing in the first cut.
And GEORGE LUCAS himself was the one who edited the movie to focus on Anakin Skywalker downfall.
I hope people will realise that George Lucas is a way better filmaker than they give credit for
@BK Beatty And look what happened when they tried making a Star Wars movie without Lucas, we got the Abortion known as TFA, good job mindless fanboys
The prequels are terrible movies.
@@manakin5 LOL, you keep telling yourself that nonsense but nobody believes you anymore, the prequels are cinematic masterpieces and there is nothing you can do about it
@@manakin5 First off I loved the prequels years before the sequels even existed, secondly yeah they’re the same great movies they always were you’ve just drunk to much Cool-Aid to see it, I assume because you’ve bought into bogus criticisms and nitpicks that could easily be turned on the OT, but who cares about facts or your obvious hypocrisy when the prequels hurt your feelings because Anakin wasn’t Badass enough
@@manakin5 nnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnnope. Prequels are great.
Did I just watch a two-hour documentary about a documentary about Star Wars?
Yes becouse starwars inst some low level schlock
Documentary about fake documentary.
@@Сайтамен I now want to see a documentary praising the documentary about said false documentary
@@A.C.E. Here you go: th-cam.com/video/fwje-JtKJA8/w-d-xo.html
The amount of effort to refute bullshit is exponentially higher than the effort to make it. The original video’s dishonest pricks gave 0 effort. This guy had to give all the effort to clean their mess.
In RJ's video, he painted Lucas as being without focus or vision of his movie. When it was quite the opposite. I just finish watching the entire video, and I have to say, I really thoroughly enjoyed it. It was, way, way , better than RJ's.
He didn't say that though.
@@Seth9809 "He painted Lucas as being..."
Painted in this context means to suggest or imply, not to outright say.
English is a wonderful language when one understands the meaning of words.
@@bigdoubleu117 sometimes all you have to say is sarcasm!
@@bigdoubleu117 come on, don't be condescending
That’s the basis of the video
I feel like the most important thing to get from this video is not something about Star Wars, but rather how hard it can be to find well researched information on the Internet these days.
well funded?
@@meinerHeld based on facts obtained from actual research
@@skynet5828 by funded do you mean money? so you're saying if something isn't done for money it's not going to return a good result?
@@meinerHeld Sorry, I may have mixed up some of my english vocabulary. I actually meant videos based on proper facts and research. I edited it in the original comment.
@@skynet5828 cool yea
Came here from the Star Grift podcast. Really glad they recommended this video
Sameeeee
Same here. I saw the original video years ago and didn’t think about it that critically. Glad I heard about this counter.
Of course they would.
Good on them. This video deserves more views.
Dude drops a 2 hour banger and is never heard from again
He's got two other bangers on his channel. I hope he'll post something again one day.
@@JamesSmith-bg6dk I may disagree, with those other two bangers, however they are well researched.
Im fine with only having three, the OT of nerdonymous
More like 2 hours of trash.
@@paytonestrada7746please elaborate. I wouldn't want to assume you're just saying that because he wants to bring up missing information Rocket Jump neglected in their video and how that information disagrees with the narrative set up in Rocket Jump's video and argues that George Lucas was competent in his craft when creating A New Hope. That would be disingenuous and close-minded.
The biggest frustration of the "saved in the edit" argument is that there has never been (and never will be) a single piece of art that will not be improved by edits. Poems, short stories, novels, films, games... a first draft is ALWAYS just a first draft.
And the other big frustration is that Lucas has ALWAYS said that movies are BUILT in the edit. "That's where the movie is made," or some other wording. So how can a movie be "saved" in the edit if that's where the movie--the arrangement that is presented to the public--is actually made? It's like saying "the cake was saved in the oven." No, that's where it goes from a bunch of ingredients to the thing you eat.
Justice Leauge was made worse by editing it. The Snyder cut is a far better movie.
@@MsPhysics22100 Em... from writing point, not really.
Even dumber than that is the fact that ALL movies are saved in the edit. You don't see rough cuts of films in the movie theater. That would be stupid. All films go through an editing process before you even see them. People really argued with me about this very obvious point.
@@kwameadu0075 but they’re right, we should all go to the sets of movies as they’re being shot and watch them from the sides as the actors pratice their lines to themselves!
To this day, the mystery of Nerdonymous has yet to be solved. This man came out of nowhere, dropped three of the best Star Wars videos on TH-cam, and over a year later, hasn't returned since...
They still whisper his name on the wind...
I hope he’s cooking something good for us..
His career mirrors that of george Lucas. He will return in 20 years to drop 3 more star wars videos then he will sell the channel
@@treehavn 'Its like poetry, it rhymes'.
@@treehavn people wont like those videos but they will slowly gain a following. Then nerdonymous will make an animated series based on them.
"Saved by the edit" is like saying "this raw steak was SAVED by being grilled!"
No shit.
You forgot the part where you would claim another person cooked it too...
@@tegridyfarms6197well no it’s more like claiming the cook raised the cow, killed it, and butchered it.
You guys don’t really get it do you? Yes every film goes through edits and scenes are cut from films all the time, but Star Wars was unique, as it has the honor of being totally a different film compared to its final release in terms of tone, pacing, and emotion, the fact is that it’s one of the films in which the history behind its creation and insane recut is just as entertaining as the film itself. There are films that just were “edited” and then there are films where the “re-edits “ completely changed them. Star Wars is one of those.
@@DJKi2463 no one said that doesn't happen, what's being stated here is that George Lucas was crucial in the success of Star Wars (since, it's his mythos and characters that gave the film meaning) and that attempting to discredit him in a poorly-cited manner is not a good way to create discourse.
Lucas himself admits in the bonus matterial DVD that the first cut of the film was a disaster and that he had to fire the first editor and bring in another one…so yeah, sometimes films get saved in the edit.
Exceptional work here. I had always taken that whole narrative with a grain of salt, based on the mostly intuitive idea that if George Lucas directed a movie that is stylistically coherent with everything else he's ever done, he probably deserves the lion's share of the credit for how it turned out. But this really drives the point home and then some.
Watching the rest of your stuff soon.
Love your videos.
Love you're videos! They are very civilized
@@brandonsmith9098 cinematically? Absolutely.
@@brandonsmith9098 the pace of edits, the framing of the shots, the lighting, and the use of specific wipe transitions.
The prequels have a nearly identical cinematic DNA to the OT. The differences are in writing and costumes.
@@brandonsmith9098 i'm gonna be short and sweet. You don't know what you're talking about, and you shouldn't let poorly researched youtube videos determine your judgement. Because you are just spitting out the same tired youtube reviewer tropes.
Almost every shot in the prequels has a mirror shot in the ot by design. Shot reverse shot isn't some great evil, its literally film making 101 and is also overwhelmingly present in the ot, as well as almost every film ever made. You like the sopranos? Godfather? Citizen kane? 2001? Well thats just shot reverse shot you plebian. The prequel's shot composition contains just as much thematic resonance as the OT, if not more.
In fact, the reason people don't like the prequels is because they are too thematically dense compared to the ot. Because they are thier own thing while simutaneously complementing and enhancing the ot.
One day you'll understand just how interconnected and resonant the ot and pt are; they are literally fused at the hip.
@Nerdonymous, please do a video essay on "How much influence George Lucas had on Empire Strikes Back" because there is this annoying argument that he had hardly any involvement and did not write the story and consequently episode V is the best Star Wars film.
I don't believe that. George Lucas was very much involved in episode V and it is his creation!!
Thank you!
I agree! Kershner didn't write the script: Lucas did. Brackett's story treatment was thrown out. All the things fans loved? Lucas' ideas. Kershner was, dare I say it, a "yes man" they accuse the prequel team of being.
Well he didn't except for creating the story and characters, writing the script, and being involved in all aspects of pre-production, production and post-production and everything else. Other than that nothing! ROFL!!! Seriously though everything is literally in The Making of The Empire Strikes Back and all the other books, videos, interviews etc etc. Those people who try to pretend that it was everyone else but Lucas are of the same ilk who did the RJ video. I'm surprised that RJ didn't do a follow-up "How The Empire Strikes Back was saved in the writing, directing and editing" No doubt it'd be another stellar achievement!
@@Tareltonlives There was no Brackett story treatment. The one and only story treatment was from Lucas himself which he relayed to her then she went and wrote her script which was not at all what Lucas wanted so it was thrown out. Then he wrote the actual first draft himself from his own story. He gave Brackett the writing credit because he liked her and she tried. No one on any of the movies were "Yes men" to Lucas. He wouldn't bother having people like that around as he wanted creative input from everyone but he also knew what he wanted in his movies and what he didn't. Kershner got a leeway that nobody else had because Lucas respected decisions that a veteran director like IK would make. Kershner wasn't changing anyway but doing his version of the story that Lucas wanted. That doesn't mean Lucas would have done it that way exactly but the end point was still where he wanted it to be. He just would have got there a little differently at times. It's like Lucas said about John Williams music. "90% is great, 5% I change and another 5% I let go."
Didn't Kershner's first cut literally almost give Lucas a heart attack, where Lucas had to reedit and reshoot a bunch of scenes? if I'm wrong please correct me, but I have heard this before.
@@REDDAWNproject that's very wrong indeed, in many ways.
-First of all, there were no heavy reshoots at all.
-Second, there was no "Kershner's cut" either.
-The editor Paul Hirsch had been making a rough assembly of the film while they were shooting. He had edited the first 30 minutes of the film, using the script as a guide. When Lucas came to visit the set, he didn' like the edit and since they didn't have much time, he re-edited those 30 minutes, finding a new structure and deleting many scenes (which stayed that way). Kershner and Hirsch didn't like the edit at all, but they were able to make a few adjustments and find a balance between them.
Mike Stoklasa also peddles the myth that Ringo Starr was a terrible drummer who only gets merit because he was in the Beatles, when that is also demonstrably untrue and originates from a misquote of something John Lennon never actually said. So he's a hack on two fronts simultaneously.
ringo at the time was the most sought after drummer in the uk and the Beatles luckily picked him up.
He what?
@ECKohns “How The Beatles were saved in the Drumline.”
Red Letter Media is garbage
I play drums, don’t really care for the Beatles but I always thought Ringo was good. Most drummers do.
Videos bashing Lucas with paper-thin evidence: Thunderous applause.
Videos like this that actually did research and use evidence: Obscure with an overinflated dislike count.
Kinda makes you sick doesn't it?
Its a Curse to be Smart
It does...
Always will.
Luckily the likes outnumber the dislikes here. I just think this video deserves way more views
@@squirt3299 the world deserves More logic and reason in general...........and not the new age "science is a religion" bullshit just straightforward smarts no knowledge confused with wisdom......................................................................................sorry i am just SICK off pseudo intellectuall style ppl these days.
What saddens me the most, is that even with the information in this video and the very book Professor Jump uses, disproving what he says, people still believe it. People dislike Lucas so much that even when presented with evidence, they'd still rather just stick their fingers in their ears and scream how he was never good and it was all his wife.
I looked at the comments from that video and even months ago, people still believe as ll the lies Professor spewed out.
@@hermos3602 yup. Going to RLM videos regarding Lucas, people still peddle the same lie. Even before the Professor there were articles undermining Lucas and praising Marcia in the same way. Guess if you tell a lie long enough, it becomes true.
Wheats funny is that his comment applies to rlm more than George because plinkett just got big because they were first not because they were good.
@@nohbuddy1 nope he let the visual effects and costume teams do their own thing and Lucas offered the job of directing to many big time Hollywood directors including Spielberg but they turned it down and said george should dot it
@@nohbuddy1 bro that's literally unrelated to the fact that people disregard Lucas' contributions to the original film, in an attempt to discredit his abilities as a filmmaker. You're proving this point, by using the prequels, as some gotcha.
Also... Since George's movie was such a success, everyone in it (except probably Harrison Ford haha) would want to jump in and claim that the success was partially because of them. Hd it been a failure, everyone would be blaming everyone else. (And probably mostly George. No person can make a movie (specially this kind of movie) by themselves, so obviously in the end, a lot of people contributed to the movie. That's absolutely no discredit for George or anyone involved either.
Absolutely. Every movie needs a general (George). But it wouldn't work without the medics, intelligence officers, recon, tank drivers and pilots.
@@Grivian I see it more like commandeering a ship. Lucas was the captain and everyone else was the rest of the crew working with the captain's orders :)
Yeah, it's actually kind of silly how minor some of the changes those people made that they claimed was the reason Star Wars was so successful in spite of Lucas. Most of the changes Mark, Carrie, Harrison Ford, and Alec Guinness claimed to have made involved dumbing down the dialogue, like how Mark went on talk shows to basically say "yeah, the complicated science mumbo jumbo was so cringe. We cut that out," of Marcia being like "it was boring, so I cut out as much of the dialogue as I could get away with."
It kinda sounds like it was originally more like a Star Trek episode, but it was made more accessible by 'basic bitches' who didn't like Star Trek.
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917 I remember I read a short story in primary school about the editor of a famous book. the entire thing was about the mfer pondering over wheter he should add a comma to literally one paragraph of the entire thing or not, and in the end, he finally does. he then goes on to claim that this insignificant addition is what made the book so successful. even as a kid I thought it was a crock of shit. same with these Star Wars revisionists.
@@ashblossomandjoyoussprung.9917, I always thought the dialogue changes were necessary because they didn't fit where they were supposed to go. Like that line Mark Hamill always talks about? On its own, that line is perfectly fine. But it would've made no sense for Luke to say it at the time he would've said it. George likely realized this, and that's why he cut it.
George Lucas is the reason Star Wars was great. He got the people necessary onto project to get his vision from the page to the screen. He also listened to people from the acting, set designs, concept art, visual effects and got John Williams to do the music and made decisions to ensure the film would be as good as it could be. He also edited the film in addition to the three editors who got credit for ending the film, yet left his own name off when editing came along in the credits and since many people point to the editing that makes the film great as well as how Marcia Lucas, Paul Hirsch and Richard Chew won Academy Awards for their editing efforts, thus showing how they truly made Star Wars great since they won the Oscar for Editing and George lost writing and directing to Woody Allen for Annie Hall. I’ve actually seen some people write that George clearly doesn’t have much talent since he doesn’t have an Oscar at all and so praise goes to the editing, especially with most of the praise going towards Marcia and basically the other two left out of the conversation despite her having to leave editing Star Wars to cut New York, New York for Scorsese and so George, Paul and Richard then had to finish cutting the film together in the end. Yes, the editing is absolutely important in the film world, but so is virtually everything else where if you didn’t have much to work with at all that’s good, then you can’t edit together something that could truly resemble anything that can be seen as being decent. Thank you for this video man, your videos on Star Wars are excellent and I can’t wait to see what you do next. Hopefully you’ll get more views and subscribers!
He tried to do the same for the prequels by getting Ron Howard, Brian de Palma and Steven Spielberg to direct but they passed so he had to do it himself and he himself has admitted he not a good director he's in fact a genius but he doesn't do evreything good
@NATHANIEL AMAYA yes, he's has great creative mind and always knew who could help bringing his vision to life, like Williams and Ralph Maguire, and all of that just makes me wish more he stayed for the sequels.
@@disma4191 I think Lucas is a very good director when you realize he’s into making films as if they’re silent films and the dialogue in the films are used as sound effects. His films are very visual that you don’t have to hear people talking to understand what’s going on. He may not be the best at writing dialogue, but when it comes to Star Wars and the fact it’s a space opera, I think the dialogue fits. It may be awkward at times or theatrical, but that works for the genre. It’s reminiscent of the 1930s Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers serials. He’s often said he’s the weakest at writing, particularly the dialogue, but with Star Wars he was able to find where his weakness would work well.
@@Jared_Wignall that's not how they talked in movie serials and sadly for Lucas films are not silent and good writing is key for a great movie
@C man Man I say that because that’s what Lucas himself has said regarding his dialogue. People do quote his dialogue, but I’m just quoting what he’s said.
These film "genius" youtubers can be so irritating. Thank you for keeping them in check. They talk with such authority about cinema rules.
1:47:05 "The luckiest man in show business except for Ringo Starr"
The funny thing is that I've been told by several drummers that Ringo is a _fantastic and underappreciated_ drummer who did a lot of really creative and unorthodox things on the drums that simply fly over the heads of those pf us without the trained ear of a percussionist.
Yeah not sure why people think Ringo was a shit drummer, he’s the worst songwriter of the 3 but an exceptional drummer lol especially when compared to Pete best
@@Paccyd33 Ringo is not a shit drummer, but even the greatest drummer in the world would have arguably been the luckiest person in showbiz to have got the job to drum with the other three.
@@Paccyd33its been something that was said on TV even back in the 70s and just became accepted in pop culture
This man went through 100x more effort than the RocketJump vid for a fraction of the views, quite unfair
Because this one is destructive and the other was constructive? Just guessing.
@NATHANIEL AMAYA I get your point. But for me the original does not at all attack Lucas. This guy here obviously thinks it was. But for me it just explains the power of movie editing. Movies sometimes go through dramatic changes during making before they get to the theatre - i find this very interesting.
And: I am not sure if the movie had sucked if it had not be recut. But in my opinion the reediting is an impressive improval.
@@derDeja no, the fundamental problem is that RJ's narrative of how the reedit went is mostly fabricated.
Yes, the importance of editing cannot be understated, and there are nice little "cat poster" factoids about the value of editing, but changing the facts to make the reedit of star wars seem like the editors fixed everything ever wrong and George Lucas just basked in their omnipotent glow is patently false.
@C man Man the re-edit
@@derDeja "The editing is an improval"
Funny thing though is that based off of what this video proved, George Lucas helped a lot with making the better version of Star Wars, and the original cut of the film that was so "problematic" was the version edited by Marcia Lukas.
Despite that, Rocket Jump pretends that George Lukas made the bad cut and Marcia Lukas made the good cut, so yes Rocket Jump is attacking Lukas but removing credit he is due, and blame all of the problems of the original cut on him.
You would have known this if you watched the video.
I’m so glad mauler talk about this channel or I probably wouldn’t have seen these great videos
Link?
Big suprise that a movie early into its production was unfinished. That's what production is for. To finish it.
Also George never gets the credit he deserves regarding his vision for his movies and how amazing it is that he always maintained control for all 6 movies.
He's a visionary and pioneer to the degree of Picasso.
1:19:50
What's also hilarious is that in Empire of Dreams, we get to see dialogue from the scene with Han and Leia discussing the tracker that was cut from the final film. It goes into much greater detail about the Death Star destroying systems until they find the base. Leia also outright says that the intent of going to Yavin was that the Empire would bring the Death Star with them so the Rebels could exploit its weakness and destroy it.
My guess would be that Lucas cut that dialogue, as it was a little too obvious, and assumed the audience would be intelligent enough to put two and two together themselves based on the fact we know the Death Star can destroy a planet, and Tarkin constantly speaks of his intent to destroy the Rebel base with it. If only he had the clairvoyance to know that 40 some odd years later moronic TH-cam film critics would be a thing.....
Would it not be better to keep the base hidden and strike at the Death Star?
@@PatrickOMulligan They were being tracked anyway, so they took advantage of the situation whilst also being forced into it.
@@PatrickOMulligan What would stop the Death Star from lightspeeding away the moment it's attacked?
30:05 actually the DIRECTOR is responsible. Just like he’s responsible for everything. The editors do nothing without the director’s approval. Lucas has edited his own films for decades, working with his editora
Lucas imagined, visualized, and carved the statue; just because others helped polish it, doesn't change who made it.
Explain the special edition where he added unneeded stuff. Jabba wasn't needed in New Hope, the new dance/song number in Return of the Jedi.
@@mainstreetsaint36 To be honest, I do actually agree that the Jabba addition in ANH was rather unecessary. It just repeated the exposition that had been moved to the Greedo scene. I suppose it was still kind of neat how they animated Jabba for that segment though.
Aaaand that's really my only issue with the SE changes. The new musical number is Jabba's Palace was better as it has a much more elaborate set up than the original and improves pacing
:)
@@onemoreminute0543 No way. "Jedi Rock" is too bombastic and it includes two CGI characters that don't blend well in with the background. "Lapti Nek" is catchy and alien-like, even if some of the puppets haven't aged well.
@@vetarlittorf1807 Lol I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion. I just thought that it helped pacing wise and was more visually appealing.
The CG isn't too jarring , and because it's quickly used doesn't break the immersion too much (mainly due to the lighting). I think they went a little too far with having the brown alien go right in front of the camera, but at the same time I suppose there is a level of self-awareness which is kinda funny :)
@@mainstreetsaint36 ok, so he wasn't perfect, who is? Yes, some things added were not necessary, I'll be the first to admit that. But Alot of things were added that made it better. Compare the old death star explosion to the new one, the victory scene on Endor, and so many other things
I hate that contemporary audiences need everything spelled out, but get mad when it's spelled out. No wonder the industry was tanking before Covid.
Films don't need reboots, audiences do.
"Films don't need reboots, audiences do."
Can I use this? No other truth been presented greater than people getting dumber and dumber consuming the McDonalds of Art and Media.
I always blame the consumer, because the product is always crafted thinking about them, and they always vote with their wallets. If movies are bad it's because viewers suck.
Friggin BASED
How do you favourite comments, or add them to a list to come back later to!? :D
When the film explains something it’s “lots of unnecessary exposition that drags down the story with useless information”
When the film doesn’t explain somethings it’s “what’s happening nothing is explained how are we supposed to follow this?”
Jesse Gender just did an "essay" and it's Lucas bashing old goodies all over again. From unsubstantiated claims that Lucas’ choice to revisit the SE was motivated by spite and ego, to censure Marcia’s contributions. It posits that auteur theory is an extension of facistic thought which is fu*king ridiculous. Not to mention, it double dips into classic Star Wars production myths, 90% of which are total horseshit (marcia saved it in the edit, esb had no influence from GL).
The "great man theory" is correct.
No @@DestroyedArkana
Who cares what he has to say
Yes. Period. Everything that lasts, no exception, has ONE great, uniting vision behind it. Nothing worthwhile has ever been made by a committee and never will be. @@bigtastyben5119
Would you be so kind as to provide a link to this? I undertsand you might think this is a strange thing to request... and you'd be right. But if there's one I enjoy as much praising a good video about Star Wars, it's laughing at a bad video about Star Wars.
It's amazing how people can hate so much the man who created what, supposely, is their favorite movie... It's disgusting.
I gave you your 66th like
It makes me appreciate George Lucas even more.
People do the same thing with Stan Lee. To be fair, his artists did do the heavy lifting, but people want to remove him from the creative process entirely.
The man became a greedy busines man and shat out the horrible prequels. It just shows that without the people that made the original trilogy work he either lost his spark or never had any talent to begin with.
@@spinnenente it’s seems u didn’t even watch the video
The whole "Marcia Lucas is the real author of Star Wars" narrative reeks so badly of starting with a conclusion (George is bad) and then through malice or incompetence or both twisting facts and evidence to fit that conclusion. It's a disease particularly prevalent among Star Wars fans, but also film "critics", political commentators, and just people in general. So much intellectual laziness, duplicity, and misinformation gets millions of views and eyeballs and clicks and meanwhile the actual proper analyses that let the evidence lead them to a conclusion instead of the other way around get far fewer attention. A darn shame.
There's also the thing where some people have an unfortunate tendency to want to virtue signal and/or overcompensate for perceived past injustices by trying to make out that the achievements of some world renowned male creative artist or scientist were in fact the product of some female not given her proper due cos of misogyny and/or the patriarchy. Other examples include Einstein and Bach. Maybe even Shakespeare too but the theory that his plays were in fact written by Queen Elizabeth I might not count cos I'm not altogether sure that whoever came up with it wasn't just taking the piss.
Does it?
@@mattjindrak Does it what?
It goes like this: "I hated the prequels, George Lucas directed the prequels, he also directed episode 4, which I loved, so now I have to explain why George Lucas is a terrible director, i.e. isn't responsible for the success of episode 4, because it is literally impossible for a human being to create both something I like and something I don't like. Everyone is either a flawless genius who can do no wrong, or a terrible person who is the devil incarnate and turns out nothing but s#!t."
Which is why Lucas was barred from writing, directing, or editing the remaining two films in the original trilogy?? & why when Lucas got his prized "creative control" he made the God damn prequels?
Nah, I'll let history be my teacher, & not some simping, fawning adoration for the idea of "George Lucas the Creator Genius." Which itself is the narrative filled w/ duplicity, rose colored glasses, selective memory, & hero worship.
Palpatine: exits his shuttle in ROTJ
RocketJump: "Who the heck is that? what is he doing? walking, talking, more walking, more talking. Clearly there is a problem with this"
RocketJump is clearly someone with ADHD. It's embarrassing.
@@theunknowncommenter725Don't lump him in with us.
@@theunknowncommenter725 Fuck off, thats unfair
@@VinVonVoom yea we aren't nearly as scatter brained as this... thing
Huh sounds like CinemaSins was apart of that
THANK YOU- I despise videos like How Star Wars was saved in the edit... cherry pick what data points to mention and which to skip, put it all in a slick package to convince people of a false narrative that 90% of the audience will swallow whole, because they'll never do any homework themselves. The worst part is that the 90% then get this cocky attitude, like they're experts now and know the 'real' story because they unquestioningly watched one, highly-biased take. And a great response video like this never gets as many views as the original, but thankfully this one has a lot.
This is like watching a teacher grade a paper in real time.
That's a hilariously accurate way of putting it 😅
Pin this comment!!!!!!!❤
That is accurate
No, it’s more like watching a two hour vid of a guy calling out the bullshit of the George Lucas Raped Our Childhood Movement
Okay, I guess that’s what it is but still
RocketJump "film school" is gonna lose funding
I suppose part of the reason why the 'Marcia saved Star Wars' narrative is so popular is because of how it can get spun into a personal issue:
"Oh , George hated Marcia after they divorced! That's why we barely hear anything about her! That evil hack George Lucas is trying to silence her saving of his movie!"
There's also the narrative that the whole reason Lucas made the Special Editions was because Marcia (SOMEHOW) got legal rights to the original films after divorce. Well, why did George wait TEN YEARS to do the changes then?
In actuality, the reasons for the Special Editions were:
-To celebrate the upcoming 20th anniversary of SW
-To test the CGI for the prequels
-To restore the original films quality due to the prints deterioration
-To add in scenes/concepts that Lucas had originally wanted
-To fix technical errors such as lightsabers changing colour as well as matte lines
Changes post 97 were mainly meant to fix more technical errors and allow for stronger continuity with the prequels :)
Still doesn't justify Lucas' odd refusal to release the original versions. I blame WB for screwing with THX which probably broke George.
@@rclark777 This issue is a bit more complicated than people make it out to be:
The thing is, he HAS released the original versions- he did so for a limited time in 2006.
Plus, prior to the SE release in 1997, there was a huge marketing campaign in the mid 90's to sell copies of the OG trilogy , signed copies which basically gave the message of 'get them while you still can!'
And to my knowledge, Lucasfilm has never pursued legal action against creators of the despecialized editions despite the fact that they breach copyright.
You can still get the OG versions, just not explicitly on the store front as the whole idea is to put the authors preferred version on display. You could probably find copies on eBay.
When Tolkien re-released altered versions of the Hobbit book in the 50's and 60's, they replaced the original print. The originals weren't destroyed- they were just superceded by the revised versions which we still have to this day. The same applied with SW.
I know many people have said that Lucas should have done it so that you have two discs - the SE and the non-SE. But the question is : which non-SE?
People forget there were changes to SW:
-In the initial and wider releases of the movies
-On different mm
-On TV
-On VHS
-In reissues in the cinema (like 1980)
-On VHS and Laserdisc
-In the aforementioned SE's
-In the the DVD releases
-In the Blu-ray release
-In the 4K Disney + release.
So... which 'original' version do you have? That's not even mentioning the changes that were also made to the prequel trilogy in re-releases...
:)
Their also trying to paint the narrative that George is a bad filmmaker who doesn't know what's he doing. That couldn't be anymore farther from the truth.
Yup. It being a personal thing, where people can vilify evil old George, is just part of the reason it took off. People were so mad about how he "ruined their childhood" or whatever, they started inventing little narratives, to discredit him and make him look like a bad person.
@@DMCMaster550 Exactly.
Can't believe this guy dropped the hardest 2 hour long diss track ever and then disappeared on us. Truly Nerdonymous was a God among men
Yeah... I said that a month ago...
Nevertheless
@@KRobinson-ko1ne just sayin - I said this WORD FOR WORD. Creepy.
@Jaggerbush it's the truth and an observation you can't help but make. This video was so good I had to see what else he's done
George Lucas ain’t perfect, but I am sick of people’s efforts to tarnish his rep. as a film maker. The man is responsible for the movie magic we now take for granted
he tarnished his own rep with the prequels when he started to enjoy the smell of his own farts. Films are always collaborative effort and not created in a vacuum.
@@purefoldnz3070 And who said it isn't collaborative effort? George Lucas?
@@bleekcer not you but some other people I was having a discussion with. Lucas works better when he isnt surrounded by sycophants like a certain Rick McCallum.
@@purefoldnz3070 prequels were generally better then the man babies of the 90s claimed, but yeah generally speaking you're right.
@@purefoldnz3070 producers are supposed to do what the director wants them to do and make it happen, which is what Rick McCallum did, and Gary Kurtz failed to do.
I wonder if Mike from RLM ever watched this video to the end.
Just imagine how must it feel, having seen all that evidence pointing to A, then seeing a clip of yourself so confidently saying B.
I doubt it.
Even if they did, they would make fun of this video and still say BS about Lucas.
Guessing he’s never even heard of it
Saying a movie is saved in the edit is like saying a cake is saved in the mix, or a car is saved in the assembly.
Thank you much for making this video, a real service to the community! If I were to offer one piece of criticism, I’d say that I personally think it would have been a bit more effective had you tempered some of your contempt for the original video, and instead remaining dispassionate until you get to the point of the video where you explain the intent of Rocket Jump’s video, basically that it was a hit-job. Then again, I’m ethically British, so very stiff upper lip, if you know what I mean
Its because the movie is over 40 years old that people don't realize Luke took an INSANE risk not using the targeting computer! Having him try first using it and failing so he used the Force on his second try makes sense in the script.
But it was redundant because one of the other rebel pilots attempted and failed the trench run so having that Pilot attempt and Fail then having luke attempt it and fail and then doing it is redundant so i think the final cut is better done
@@disma4191 No one is saying it isn't. I'm just saying I could see why the script would originally write two trench runs. That's the point of editing. Its realizing what's necessary and what isnt. Every movie has lots of deleted scenes that were written and shot but during the editing process the filmmakers decided weren't needed or were redundant.
The weird thing is that I kind of remember Luke having two runs from my childhood when I watched ANH. Maybe I just misremember but I thought it was really good. I was quite disappointed when I rewatched the movie years later and realized he only had one run
@@disma4191 From a story perspective 2 runs is perfect.
- First another rebel pilot tries and fails. You understand that it is a very difficult task to accomplish
- Then Luke tries with the computer. You have seen someone else fail but this time it is Luke the hero he can do it. But he fails and the tension increases. How on earth can they destroy this thing if even Luke fails?
- Third time Luke tries again. But this time everything goes wrong. Biggs dies, Wedge has to flee. Vader is on his back about to kill him. How could he succeed? He decides to use the force, Han helps him and he does the impossible.
Luke trying with the computer first shows us that it is impossible to do without the force.
@@Grivian Some of the things people misremember about Star Wars are present in the novelization and other content that was released around the same time as the movie but contain elements that were edited out of the final cut. Star Wars didn't come out on home video until 1982 so in order to experience the story again the only way to do it at the time was through books and other media so that has combined with the movie experience in a lot of peoples' minds. I have the Star Wars storybook that has the scenes with Biggs on Tatooine in it and I remember realizing that some of the pictures in the book were not actually in the movie which shattered the illusion a little bit but only made me appreciate the creative process more.
The SASS and subtle jabs in this video had me cracking up so much! Especially the "stupid, drunk, and high" segment.
Greatest one hit wonder in TH-cam history.
That excerpt about lightsaber colors broke my bullshit-o-meter.
He forgot to mention that everyone stood up and clapped.
time stamp please
@@theIJPmexican 1:50:54 all the way to the end to understand the full context.
The source work on this alone is staggering. This man is a legend.
I'm so glad videos like this exist. The many fabricated Lucas hit-pieces masquerading as fact have done so much harm to the guy's reputation for the sake of convenient revisionist boogeyman scapegoatism. As we've seen since Disney took their disastrous stab at recreating Lucas' canvas, he really is the heart and soul of this series.
Well, Abrams, Johnson, Filoni, Favreau, Rodriguez et al are actually far closer to George Lucas' canvas than you care to admit. The Disney era actually feels very organic, is far more canon than any of the Extended Universe novels ever were. (The books in between the films and streaming material are still a fucking mess, but the visual material is incredibly solid.) I look at this material and I see nothing but love, reverence and respect for what George had done before.
To me, Lucas bashers and Disney haters aren't that different from each other, in fact I think they overlap quite a bit. And that those who deny those fact and connections about the Disney era are the same as those who deny Lucas his due credit for the original saga. And that many, (But NOT ALL) people who defend the prequels but hate Disney are guilty of rank hypocrisy. Because they often use a reskinned version of the Lucas basher arguments to build their anti-Disney narrative. (And I'm just talking about those who attack it in every way other than "Get woke go broke," a stupid and vapid, meaningless expression if I ever heard one.) Because let's be honest. Attacking Kathleen Kennedy and those who write and direct the Disney film and streaming material is exactly the same as attacking Lucas and attacking people alongside him like Rick McCallum. It's exactly the same as saying "Marcia is the savior" or "Gary Kurtz did everything." (If anything, I consider Gary Kurtz to be the grandfather of all of this, continually flaring his petty grievances to the point he started an entire bullshit industry. Forgive me for saying...FUCK GARY KURTZ.)
So many of these arguments are borne forth from Dunning-Kruger writ large, being wedded to a mental image of the characters, a vision they have (Vader is the ultimate bad and killing machine and pure evil, Luke is always the selfless hero who can't fail and basically is someone who can walk on water), seeing contrary evidence, and then refusing to admit it. Rather than looking at something honestly, and going, "I had this idea of what happened or who they were, but I was wrong," they lash out and say, "I'm not wrong, George Lucas is wrong, J.J. is wrong, Rian Johnson is wrong." That this distorted mental image of the original trilogy (and/or EU material and/or the prequels) is some kind of holy text, a major element of the cathedral of St. Gary Kurtz, St. Marcia, or whoever, and that any deviation is a heresy. That those who commit these acts effectively deserve a social version of a heretic's death.
For my part, I not only embrace George's vision, but I embrace the wonderful, expansive palette that the Disney era has brought us, filling out every corner of the galaxy, making terra incognita appear on the map for the first time, filling out the characters, enriching their stories, and giving us memorable new ones to boot. And the vast majority of the public and the fans do, too, embracing every aspect of Star Wars canon, thrilling along to several generations of stories.
I also know there's no such thing as "objectivity", necessarily, in this or any fandom. After all, some of you would probably attack ME as a hypocrite for my saying that "I hate Alien 3 and Alien Resurrection for being illogical followups to the first two, but I think Prometheus was really good, though Covenant disappointed, and I really think the best thing for the Alien franchise would be for Disney to allow Neill Blomkamp's film to get made and to tie back to Prometheus as well," or that "I think Dark Fate is a worthy followup to Terminator and T2," but also agreeing "GOT sucked at the end. It's not that this ending is wrong, especially Dany's turn, but the execution was horribly botched and rushed." I can hold all these multiple views at the same time, and give a massive summation of evidence to back it all up. But I'm no more "objective" than the rest of you. I accept that.
@@TTarps Lucas bashers and Disney haters are extremely alike. It's hypocritical to defend George against certain points, and then use them against the Disney era. It's likewise hypocritical to make ringing defense against George, and then say they aren't valid for Disney.
One can easily make a shlocky compilation of "Uhs" for George to make him look like an idiot and make him seem like he doesn't know what he's talking about. Nerdonymous would call that sacrilege and disgusting. But he weaponizes it against Abrams. It's absolutely appalling.
The truth is that Disney has nothing but reverence and care for what George did, especially given that the recent London announcements are going to basically use George's ideas, especially the Whills and whatnot, as a jumping off point. So George has not been "treated shabbily," and is not being erased. And everything that has happened in this era, that's where things logically go. This is the most realistic way for the history of the galaxy to unfold, and saying "No it doesn't" is the same as saying "that's not how Darth Vader should be in the prequels." Because you go from an image, when all you have is a visual image, but no idea of what's underneath.
And let's remember, so many of you, regardless of where you stand, have the same idea: "This is a sacred text, deviation from it is heresy, you will get punished like a heretic should." Putting Kathleen Kennedy, Abrams, Johnson, Filoni, Favreau, Rodriguez and the like in the exact same spot where George and Rick McCallum were, on the rack, and turning Star Wars into the cathedral of St. Gary Kurtz.
Meanwhile, the vast majority of the public and the fans love and embrace every element of the saga with open arms, accept it as canon, because...it is. Cope.
@@luv4hutchlol the Disney movies suck, cope harder nerd.
The original Star Wars movie was filmed in a desert and had technical issues, so, of course, the movie would've had issues during the filming.
@C man Man And it did: the Podrace set was wrecked by a sandstorm
@C man Man well, there is sand. and it does get everywhere.
I think what can't be stressed enough is how important the timeline is to the making of Star Wars and how misrepresented the original video is. I mean, think about it logically: If Lucas friends saw the film in February 1977 and the film was so disastrous, how could it be that the film was ready for theaters only 2-3 months later? Are they supposed to have completely cut and finished a movie in just that short amount of time? I don't know exactly what Lucas was showing his friends at the time, but it can't be possible that Star Wars was that unfinished in February 1977. Maybe it was an older version. And maybe his friends ruled so harshly because they were all experimental film nerds who had no appreciation for such a "superficial" action adventure.
And what also needs to be emphasized: Marcia Lucas left the production back in November 1976. So what Lucas showed his friends was her work, her editing. But when the film was edited for months after that and brought into its final form, Marcia was no longer involved at all. So her worship among so many fans doesn't make any sense logically either. As you pointed out, many of the scenes that Lucas cut out, she wanted to keep in. Yes, she cut the Death Star sequence well, but that's the job of an editor. And yes, she had a good idea regarding Obi-Wan's death. But that was about it.
Beyond that, it's so unclear where all this information is supposed to come from. I don't know of any book describing how the scenes were rearranged or how the Death Star sequence was restructured. In fact, The Making of Star Wars by Rinzler says almost nothing about it. It almost feels like the authors made up all this information (which is true to a large extent).
The cut that Lucas showed to his friends in Feb.1977 was really close to the final edit, the only difference being the placement of the early Death Star scenes. It was the same cut he showed to John Willians a month earlier. His friends reacted badly because... the effects weren't finished and the music wasn't there and they just couldn't get it. But it was pretty much the same edit that was released three months later.
The "disastrous" first cut that included all the scenes was the first cut, in which all three editors worked. So they ended up "saving" their own cut (although, as you say, Marcia left the film in Nov.1976 and Chew left the film a month later.
@@oieretxaburu7011 also his friends reacted badly is itself an overstatement. Spielberg was at the same screening and he predicted it would make $100 million (at a time when that was the ceiling for blockbusters). A Fox exec who saw the same cut told his wife he had seen the best film ever made and then went and bought stock in Fox. De Palma was a shit talker. In the HBO Spielberg documentary he's seen criticizing Spielberg's technique while operating an 8mm camera.
@@oieretxaburu7011 I thought the disastrous first cut was the John Jympson edit where he just assembled all the footage to match the script, and Lucas hated it.
@@fallspeed
the Jympson cut was just a first assembly that was never finished (at the very least, he didn't edit any of the final battle using WWII footage, and he was probably fired before shooting was finished).
The "official" first cut was done by Chew, Hirsch and Marcia by October/November 1976 and it did include all the scenes in script order.
Neither of those cuts were shown to Lucas' friends in February 1977.
@@fallspeed Lucas hated it but it wasn't because it matched the script. That's a misconception created by Rocket Jump's video because Rocket Jump didn't really understand what the problem was. When they shoot a given scene the actors will do the same thing over and over again and the director and cinematographer will shoot that performance from a multitude of angles. The editor's job is to take all that footage and build it into a single version of that scene cutting between different vantage points. How long you hold onto a single shot before cutting to the next determines the pacing of a scene. Lucas wanted the amount of time each shot was held on screen to be shorter than what Jympson was giving him. The pacing felt slower than what Lucas wanted. David West Reynolds described the cut as feeling more documentary like.
It's pretty clear how slanted and fabricated the "Marcia saved George's ass" narrative is, but just going along with it for a moment... even if George was full of bad ideas on how to edit and didn't have any involvement in the final edit (neither thing is true), he still was the one that chose and hired the editors. If nothing else, he recognized talented people to bring onto his project so that it could be as good as possible. No one went behind his back and turned in something that he didn't approve. That's the worst take that could be had while claiming that the editors fixed his movie for him without his involvement. Of course, the truth is much more favorable to him.
Yeah, but RJ never said that....... Are you high?
@@Seth9809 Never said what? That's the whole narrative of the original video, and it could only achieve that narrative by deliberate omission, deliberate falsehoods, deliberate half-truths, and deliberately deceptive language.
@@histguy101 He never said that she saved his ass.
The narrative is that editors are important, that was the narrative.
@@Seth9809 nincompoop, that you are. That’s exactly what RJ is saying.
@@Seth9809 he literally said everyone hated star wars and editors saved a piece of garbage which the video was full of lies and half lies and even at some point said Lucas's ace is talented people around him, still leaving him unquestionably miserable otherwise. Star wars went down the most basic of the editing phases you could ever find. There are thousands of better examples for editing saving a movie rather than filling it with lies
Fancy a chat sir? I found this video super informing and well produced, would be interested in picking your brain o/
oh hey, you're that guy. get this guy on an efap ASAP. I binged all his videos in 1 day
MAULER!!! My main man! You need to get this man on EFAP or at least give this video some coverage to help it grow more.
Chad.
The video was awesome right Mauler when did you find it?
Long live the long empire
Thank GOD they cut out 2 seconds of Luke running! It went on FOREVER!
I want see a version of their video for every department in the production.
How SW was saved in the makeup chair.
How SW was saved by the location scout
How SW was saved by the Second Unit AD.
How SW was saved in the costume shop
How SW was saved in the accountants office.
How Star Wars Was Saved By An Intern's Coffee Making Abilities
@@supersts7628 And the subsequent “How Star Wars Was Not Saved By That Same Intern’s Producing Abilities”
@@supersts7628most things are saved by interns making coffee though.
It's fascinating (and disturbing) how quick people are to completely turn on a man who injected so much joy and excitement into their lives, even if it's based on complete bullshit.
"Isn't it amazing how quickly everyone can turn against you?"
- President Whitmore, 'Independence Day'
@@MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch and people said independance day is a bad movie? Just goes to show people and fanbase's words are to be taken with a truck full of salt!
@@erikbihari3625 Indeed.
@@MaryBrownIsTheBlairWitch nicest conversation I had on the internet whole year!(figures, once you get away from Sonic things go right.)
@@erikbihari3625 Aww, my pleasure 😘
Rocket Jump's so called, "film school" is truly its own circle of Hell.
Ironically, the professor is probably the same type of fan that criticizes Lucas for not introducing Anakin until he becomes a part of the story in The Phantom Menace.
He probably also one of those people that hates that anakin is a kid in the 1st film
@@rayvonvelez3129 what does that have to do with anything lol
@@blarpax9061 it means pathetic lucas bashers will bitch and whine over anything George does
20:46 - In the novelization of the movie, this intro (with Biggs) is there AS in the script. Only while editing Lucas decided to cut it. Lucas is Notorious about what were his past decisions, as Rinzler showed.
@C man Man Space is the final frontier.
@ECKohns Also in Ep VI, the novelization there made a connection between the moment Leia was wounded (in the upper arm) & Luke trying hard to hide her in his mind from Darth Vader's probing (while he was looking for him after the bridge collapsed), so that the pain she felt was felt also by Luke, who because it was so sudden, he failed to hide it and so it was detected by Vader & this was how he knew she was Luke's sister.
This was not in the Shooting Script (in the book "The Art of Return of the Jedi') and I wish for a new edit to connect these scenes.
They cant accept that Lucas was competent in making Star Wars for some reason. The credit MUST lie somewhere else in their eyes.
Salty about the special editions I suppose. I’m not the biggest fan, but it’s his art so he can do what he wants
@@robertlauncher i think the special editions look like shit whenever theres a cgi insert etc, buuut these people extrapolate that into "george lucas was simply incompetent and had nothing to do with anything"
@@cesarcampos8746 Oh yeah I don’t like some of the SE changes either, but like I said, it’s his art. Once you create something, I feel like it’s harder to disregard Lucas’ points. Putting something you’re not satisfied with out there has to be terrifying even if people love it.
@@robertlaunchersome SE tweaks are cool, others feel a bit too enthusiastic.
I enjoy owning the dvd set where the OT comes with original releases on a second disk.
This is cause people irrationally hate the prequels and can’t accept they are good and competently made films
TLDR: some morons think that movie editors work without director's supervision.
There appears to be several million of them.
You see these comments trying to insult the guy who made this video and say he sucks?
Yeah that proves hes right.
Just accept it bois.....the Internet was wrong.....
Just like they were about game of thrones.
100% this.
Saying Star Wars was saved in the edit is like saying [your favorite album here] was saved in the mix. Like, no shit all those audio engineers and record producers took the bands unpolished demos and made them into a proper album. The record is saved!!!!
I’ve seen a lot of points from that video regurgitated too often, thanks for dismantling them bit by bit.
Bro this is honestly one of the best videos on youtube. Your script is thorough and precise whilst being immensely entertaining. PLEASE come back and make another vid.
I do hope you do more of this kind of video debunking bad-faith attacks on Lucas that spreaded misinformation.
There's a lot more of this kind of deception in "The Secret History of Star Wars"
To a degree but "Secret History" is more about presenting the actual facts then surreptitiously slipping in opinion in such a way that it seems the most reasonable conclusion. I've read it and based on everything else I've checked it against it's actually quite good so the author was pretty good in keeping his bias in check. I mean when you compare it to the other sites he once had where he is very openly anti-Lucas.
@@ariesroc It has the VENEER of being factual and unbiased, but clearly isn't if you actually think about it. He manages to avoid outright lying himself by simply making quotes by anti-Lucas people.
@@Tareltonlives To a degree but he does also throw in plenty of admiration for Lucas as an artist but more against his corporate decisions (like the SE's) at the same time so I'd say he's more balanced in that way. His information does have facts that check out. Now he does do a lot of supposition about Lucas' decisions but I find that plenty of those are also positive or non-negative. I didn't find out he was anti-Lucas until after I first read the book so I can't say I noticed. It was only afterwards that I did know he was that I then was able to read it that way but even then so much was subtle so I don't know that anyone just reading it would take it that way. I certainly didn't.
@@ariesroc Eh, I noticed right away and he was very ready to accuse Lucas of incompetence and greed
@@Tareltonlives That's very insightful if you didn't know his bias before reading it then. As I said I came out of reading it that he was very positive to Lucas overall. This would be unlike other well researched books that have good information but upfront are clear that they want to tell you the lie that Lucas was just a guy who had some OK ideas but it was everyone else and the tea lady that made it all work and his best attribute was some toy business savvy! Those are fun to read in the sense of seeing how warped the author's are.
It's shocking how easy it is to rewrite history. Everyone involved in the production of Star Wars saw and commended Lucas for his vision and dedication. Then some decades pass. Some rando with a computer and a microphone can spout any lie they want and it will be convincing because it fosters an incredibly naive but emotional sentiment: guy who made bad thing couldn't possibly have made good thing.
Which is already based on the bad thing that most people won't even rewatch or genuinely look at without bias. I didn't like the prequels for a while, but rewatching them I realized they're actually really good movies, like better then the majority. The OT had the benefit of being the first, if the trilogy's had flipped people would hate the OT because it wasn't the prequels. People tend to let nostalgia blind them
@@Jiub_SN The prequels are some dang gorgeous movies. I also really love how big and varied it makes the galaxy feel compared with the OT.
@@Aquatarkus96like holy shit. as someone who used to watch them every single day as a kid, stopped watching them for decades, then watched them all again a few days ago, I can confidently say that they're legit great films. nostalgia is not a factor in my opinion. these movies have been overhated and laughed at for years, and slobs like RLM or Rocket Jump have attracted millions of followers by making baseless claims or low effort takedowns of the movies. it's disgusting really.
What bad thing did Lucas make? 🤔
Lucas was the one rewriting history.
Really is crazy how divorces in America works.
Marcia cheated on Lucas, sure, gave some feedback and helped edit, but walked away with half his money...
What!!??
It’s almost as if, and just hear me out here, filmmaking is ultimately a collaborative process, where hundreds of people work together to make someone’s initial vision a reality.
Thank you for this. I had been planning on doing something like this but now I don't have to. Although there are other issues with RocketJump that need to be addressed. Namely he doesn't really understand what the craft of editing mostly entails. He thinks it means reordering scenes and taking scenes out as opposed to what it really is which is deciding what angle to use at which moment in a given scene. That's the most time intensive part of the job and why Lucas brought on three editors because they were under a time crunch. To be fair most don't understand this. Thankfully Lucasfilm released 30 minutes of coverage from Yoda's death scene which can be used to illustrate this principle. A TH-cam channel called Star Wars Edit Droid uploaded all of it and it can be used to make alternate versions of the scene.
Lucas-bashing AND Ringo-bashing: wow, a twofer from Mike, I'm pretty pissed off, actually. This kind of crap always seems to come from people with a very limited understanding of the craft they're supposed to be analyzing, doesn't it?
And at the same time this people are ones that have biggest audience. Looks like everybody just stopped thinking for themselves.
"Ringo-bashing" lol, honestly Mike was born a decade after the Beatle's broke up too. I feel like you had to exist in that cultural zeitgeist to deserve that joke.
The sheer obnoxiousness in his tone just makes my blood simmer. The guy is such a prick.
He releases shit like "spacecop" and then still has the nerve to tout himself as someone who knows what he's talking about.
@@MrZackavelli Agree. Mike is the worst thing any creative mind could have have cursed upon them in the form of a "fan". He is literally the definition of toxic fandom yet Disney apparently loves him. I honestly believe Mike did more damage to Star Wars than Disney did.
@@123mandalore777 yeah he kissed Disney's ass for the force awakens.
You probably won't see this but I'm so glad your video is getting more attention from creators like So Uncivilized, I really hope you make more in the future. You really seem passionate and it shows in your work.
Just discovered this video through So Uncivilized xD
Boy am I glad I didn't watch the original video. I would've pulled my hair out, it's frustratingly dishonest.
bro dropped a banger then disappeared
Hmmm a month ago I posted "dude dropped a two hour banger and never heard from again" 🙄
The video should have been called "How Star Wars was...Edited"
1:05:28 I remember watching this in the Plinkett reviews. lmfao. I had no idea that RLM completely took it out of context. Mikey boy did George dirty.
He made a career of it
I find your smug and snarky commentary on PJ's smug and snarky commentary oddly satisfying. Should I feel guilty about it....NOPE!!!
Star Wars success is George Lucas genius plus John Williams’ and Ralph McQuarrie’s.
PLUS Dennis Muren, Phil Tippet, Paul Hirsh, Joe Johnson and Ivan Kershner.
@@daneoman1000 PLUS Rick McCallum, John Knoll, Doug Chiang and so many other people...except that without Lucas every single one of them is just waiting around twiddling their thumbs because he is where the concepts,story, characters, scenes and everything comes from in the first place.
@@ariesroc Being a good director means being a firm but fair boss. you push your staff to create the best things they can because you know they can, and they want to. George has never gone.
not only that, but the Academy had a vested interest in fucking over Lucas, he became an actual successful producer/filmmaker outside of the system, and it was considered a massive middlefinger. So I'm not surprised we see this narrative grow over time.
Giving all the credit to Georrge is just as much of a fallacy as placing it all on his team.
George was a core part of the movies creation, but he could not have done it alone. Idk why thats such a controversial statement.
@@SeanLaMontagne then why doesn't anyone do this for any other movie director?
Why don't people do this for Speilberg, Hitchcock or Christopher Nolan? Why don't you praise the DP of photography of Saving Private Ryan, or the editors of that movie, or the grips or the sound designers? Why doesn't the camera operators for Stanley Kubrick get as much praise or entire videos devoted to their impact in his movies?
Why do people specifically claim that george lucas might have created star wars and that everyone else saved his movie and that Star Wars is only successful in SPITE of Lucas and not because of him?
It's because they view him AS the problem. No other director gets this amount of shit for the normal directorial process.
Finally! I've been waiting a long time for someone to put together a good rebuttal to that video. Excellent work, you've earned a subscriber. I hope this gets spread far and wide, and I hope you keep making videos like this.
U destroyed that guys video of misinformation. 😂
I swear more people want to give GL less and less credit for Star Wars. Fuckin hell!
that's what happens when they shat over lucas for more than 10 years, it's really a child's logic. When i was a kid and saw the OT it was amazing, when as an adult i saw the prequels they were shit. Then they read the behind the scenes stuff and saw that Lucas had other people other than himself that worked on the movies, and since the "ingenius editors" and "ingenius director" and "ingenius scriptwriter" didn't work on the prequels that means that lucas is a hack and those that worked on the OT were the real creators. Truly fuck the prequel haters.
@@itusjr69 prequels were awesome.
Correct: 'I personally dislike the prequels, which George had complete control of, therefore the quality of the original movie can't have much to do with him! Eureka!' 🤣
@Franco Sinatra nah go watch attack of the clones. its a legitimately good movie. the OT is fun in a swashbuckling way but as i get older the prequels just look more fantastic. the amount of detail oozing in every scene, the fact that the amount of CGI effects had never been done before on that scale. we take all that sh*t for granted nowadays.
@Franco Sinatra like....bruh. watch this scene then get back to me lmao. i'd rather watch this 2 min clip in a theater than any marvel movie.
RJ: "They don't explain who Luke is in his first scene!"
Also RJ: "All this exposition on who Tarkin is, why there's a DEath Star and why it's important, what is the senate, and why the Empire is evil isn't necessary!"
RJ: "Luke talking to his friends is boring"
Also RJ: "Seeing the droids bicker for 20 minutes is cruical to the plot"
You: That's a complaint about the same character!
Also you: Exposition about lesser characters is exactly the same as exposition about the main character!
So 110 people were so stupid, they think that minor characters hogging screen time and then disappearing forever is good?
@@srj34 Tarkin is important character
love to see Rocket Jump's fans (all two of them!) vigorously defending their idol in the comments lmao. definitely not pathetic in any way
I really liked that RocketJump video, because I care deeply about editing, and about Star Wars, and about what made it a success. Even if it _is_ the norm for movies, the idea that Star Wars was restructured in editing to be more successful is very intoxicating.
But editors should not aspire to be the righteous saviors of a story. I truly believe we should be humble, with respect for the work we are cutting apart. We should be in conversation with the screenwriter and director, not fighting to save a project from them. We all want the thing to be good, in the end!
And so, I appreciate this video for setting the record straight. There's no value in thinking that ideas originated in editing that literally did not; truly, those who care deeply about editing should be familiar with its realities, and not egotistic fantasies, like those peddled by Paul Hirsch.
It's clear that a significant amount of research went into uncovering "What Really Happened," and _that's_ valuable.
Everything in the RocketJump video seems to be correct.
I found the pre-shooting script (4th draft) and it has all the scenes out of order that he says were moved, C-3PO saying "I'm melting" at the start of the script, a second trench run by Luke (which is why Biggs says "They're coming in _much faster this time"),_ and no sign of a countdown:
"Rebel base three minutes and closing."
"Rebel Base one minute and closing."
"Rebel Base 30 seconds and closing."
"The Death Star has cleared the planet; the Death Star has cleared the planet!"
"Rebel Base in range."
"You may fire when ready."
"Commence primary ignition."
In the movie we know, C-3PO is on when they talk about Luke's father, then turns off when Ben gives Luke the lightsaber, then he's back on when Artoo plays the message, then he's off as Ben tells Luke he must learn about the ways of the Force if he's to go to Alderaan. This shows that the scene was re-ordered as Rocketjump says.
www.starwarz.com/starkiller/star-wars-the-adventures-of-luke-starkiller-revised-fourth-draft/
@@sandal_thong8631 Just from what you presented alone does not therefore follow as RJ posits that Marcia Lucas recorded those voice lines and saved Star Wars.
@oyeaux The argument as I understand it here (the mocking is difficult to get past) is that _Star Wars_ as seen in 1977 was filmed as written and anything to suggest the contrary is asinine. This doesn't seem to be correct, and scenes were deleted and changed in the order they were originally intended. R.J. says this was a substantial improvement in storytelling.
Also, a lot of editing work was done to get _Star Wars_ to the finished project, dealing with film, sound effects, model shots, music, etc. Academy people in Hollywood recognized that and awarded the three editors (limit 3 so G.L. wasn't included?) with an Academy Award. If they had botched it, then it could have been like a B-movie. Imagine just showing the fighter pilots and not the battle.
I'm not sure what problem you have with the idea that a countdown was added in post to make it more urgent to destroy the Death Star before it destroys the rebel base. I watched a video months ago that re-edits it to show how boring were two trench runs by Luke and company and no countdown.
@@sandal_thong8631 I don't know why your talking about the editors botching it. Neither video mentions editors botching the film apart from John Jympson, whom was fired while working on the film and I certainly didn't bring up that topic.
The problem with the idea that a countdown was added in post is that Marcia Lucas was not a sound editor, she would not be directing actors to produce new dialogue for the film, nor would she do this without George Lucas' knowledge or permission and it is Paul Hirsch whom claimed to have edited the Trench run. And again, Paul Hirsch was an editor, the job of recording new lines for the film would for the Sound Department and/or the Film Director, so credit to adding new lines to the film would not belong to the editors, whose job it was to splice film. Editors would not be able to conjure up new footage or new dialogue unless it was provided to them.
I'd love to see a long form discussion between you and EFAP.
There is a comic that was published published like 10 years ago which it is based on one of the original versions of Star Wars, the name of the comic is The Star Wars. Right in the beginning of the comic there is an opening crawl, and the script that the comic uses is dated from 1974, a good time before the movie recordings even began. The narrative that Depalma created the opening crawl is beyond absurd to me
For a film class I'm enrolled in at University we watched Rocket's Jump's original video, and I couldn't help but feel pain inside as everyone took it so seriously.
Dear god that doesn't speak well of the universities standards does it?
I can't think of why this doesn't have millions of views, other than the algorithm
Disinformation gets promoted more. Then the actual truth
I'm afraid that I too was one that believed the 'saved by the edit' stuff, but this excellent breakdown, backed up with evidence from those that were there (and not quoted out of context), has certainly made me disbelieve that notion now. Marcia herself has pretty much dismissed that idea and Luca's own notes show the movie presented was pretty much what he wanted from the beginning. Great work - the amount of research and evidence you've provided is outstanding.
Hopefully the idea of SW being saved by the edit can be taken out of the mainstream and people see GL for the genius he truly is. People give him a hard time, yet his influence on the film industry wasn't just with SW. If it wasn't for him, we wouldn't have the improved SPFX we have today (ILM), no surround sound (5.1 and now Atmos etc), and no improved quality of presentation in theatres (standards and THX). There are probably lots more things but I think GL has single headedly improved the film industry beyond what any other individual ever has, and we should be grateful instead of bickering about the original SW movies.
Same
🙄😒
thing is he kinda did all of that as an outsider, and I guess Hollywood is still salty about that (but they gladly take his innovations and present it as their own lmao)
I keep coming back to this video baffled that it has only 45k thousand views
It's really sad to see how the original video was able to get millions of views through clickbait and lies while this video barely scratched 50k for explaining a much more complicated truth.
Well done, hope you continue to make more videos at some point.
It has 55k right now
@@yaj_5002 That changes everything
@@yaj_5002 61k
Cause it's bullshit
I think the length of this one is the primary reason for that. RJ's video is less than 20 minutes. You can watch that during your lunch break.
Watching this one is a decent time investment...but I'm glad I did.
I don’t get the constant need for “fans” and people in the industry to downplay how much Lucas was involved in the success of Star Wars.
It's because he was a pioneer and didn't like Hollywood, he also "tricked" the studios which pissed a ton of people off and essentially was able to finance his own vanity projects off his success.
Nerdonymous explained in the video. They hated what George did with the Special Editions and the Prequels, he "ruined their childhood" (or some other garbage), and now they want to take everything away from him, because they despise him that much.
What was that thing Yoda said once?
"Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate... leads to suffering."
@@BreakEm22 The fact that he side stepped the whole studio system after A New Hope is one of my favourite things about George. The Star Wars films are basically the biggest independent films of all time from a certain point of view.
@@zero-pl3tt But then...Lucas was thenceforth incapable of stepping out of his own empire, despite undeniably having the means to do so once in a while.
Give me Steven Spielberg and Martin Scorsese’s careers every day of the week. Despite having “made it”, along with their own stumbles, each new film they make says something about them we never knew fully before.
I can’t say likewise for George Lucas.
@@Wired4Life2 All his movies after that say something about him. You might want to go back and look back on his filmography. Let me give you an example: Why do you think the Pod Race exist? Clue: Go back to his early days.
Hey all. Mauler sent me.
All hail the Longman!
Which video did he talk about it?
@@DayTripperrr During Star Grift. Don't know which. Good luck
@@DayTripperrr he mentioned it again during "Last Orders" Open Bar catchup just today, which brought me here.
Good. This video deserves more views.
Cutting the stuff with Biggs on Tattooine was a good call for the flow of a ~2 hour film. It would've interrupted the tension and momentum of the opening sequence. We needed to stay with one situation long enough to map out the story. I believe the intercuts with Luke were put in by the editor in England, and Lucas hated his edit. It might've worked later but the film would've become a little long, and really didn't contribute much except that "Luke had friends". It was fine in the radio drama, probably would've been fine in a TV series. But it was a good call.
True. Those scenes are nice, but they would not have worked so well in the Movie.
In a TV Show or the Radio Drama though? Sure.
I actually really liked Biggs' and Luke's talk. About how Luke will be the only one of the friends who will ever make it off of Tatooine because he is the only one who really has ambitions.
His friends are either fine with their boring little lives and what they achieved, are a follower, or, in the worst case: the follower of a follower.
IMO, the movie would still work fine either with the Biggs scenes added or as is.
Now we see it for what it is, yet another George Lucas hit piece. Lucas' reputation has been dragged through the mud for nearly two decades, for _absolutely no reason._ I've lost all respect for Red Letter Media.
I wouldn’t say no reason, I think a lot of people would say he became disenchanted with Star Wars, myself included, and during the making of the prequels, seemingly surrounded himself with yes-men. I still admire the guy a lot, one of the greatest and most thoughtful writers of all time, but man does he have some strong weaknesses.
@@GrandMasterBruh That's no reason to drag him through the mud for two decades. It's ok to critique.
@@gnbman in what way was he dragged through the mud, most of the criticism I’ve seen was directed towards the bad changes towards the OG trilogy, and the bad dialogue and inconsistent characters in the prequels, both of which are valid criticism, sure it went overboard but it’s the biggest movie franchise of all time, of course so many people were gonna dog on the bad decisions all at once. I would say the people that deserve the sympathy are the actors for the prequels, most of their careers tanked after those films.
You seriously at one point even respected rlm? lol
@@anthonygarcia8749 Good point.
I'll admit that Rocket Jump's video completely had me misinformed, and I came here biased against anything you had to say, but you were so thoroughly, and I say this unironically, based and logical with everything that you said here that I see his video for what it is now.
That's why you should never fully trust what anyone says online.
A truly rewarding and satisfying film trilogy is A New Hope, followed by How Star Wars Was Saved In The Edit, then finished off with How "How Star Wars Was Saved In The Edit" Was Saved In The Edit.
Perfect afternoon.
This is like...the best Star Wars video on TH-cam. I salute you, sir.
Well, next to Star Wars Apocrypha parts 1&2
Thank you from all russian Star Wars fans. Such a brilliant analysis of a such blithering nonsense.
Try and remember it was the SEVENTIES and most imagination was DISCOURAGED which is why Star Wars had to be edited for an audience used to realistic films only
and because of that, it worked way better than it would have otherwise
This is the greatest debunk since YMS' video takedown of the "Disney stole the plot of Lion King from Kimba the White Lion" rhetoric.
Nah, this video is actually good and well-researched. Contrary to YMS's so-called "debunking" video which doesn't debunk much (the original claim from 1994 was not that TLK was a Kimba rip-off, but simply that Kimba was an unacknowledged source of inspiration. *ONE* source among many others). Screaming like a banshee "IT'S NOT THE SAME!!!!!!" again and again and again is plain stupid, not to mention it's just stating the obvious. Like manga artist Machiko Satonaka said in the open letter she sent to Disney in 1994: "no one is claiming the stories are identical". And indeed, they are not. People who have actually watched and/or read Kimba know that on the whole, the 2 properties are vastly different.
Anyway, YMS's video is nothing but a long and biased anti-Kimba rant, that (deliberately?) misrepresents the old TV shows from the 60s and the characters. A long rant filled to the brim with logical fallacies, false equivalences, hasty conclusions, weak "yes, but..." excuses, blatant lies, and basically Adum Johnston playing devil's advocate for 2 and a half hours, jumping to conclusions, and omitting important facts (like failing to mention the fact that the animators had access to the Kimba manga at some point during production. Manga which they studied and compared to the film they were working on, even if they deny that they were directly influenced by Kimba in any way).
That being said, I totally understand why Adum did that. He most likely wanted to give a taste of their own medicine to all those people who had been making dishonest and misleading comparative articles and videos on the subject for years, either out of dumb ignorance or out of pure malice.
But it doesn't change the fact that on the whole, YMS's video is pretty much on the same level as the video made by RocketJump: they both look extremely convincing and well-researched on the surface, with solid arguments and lots of references, but when you dig a bit further you quickly realize that they are in fact terribly flawed and disingenuous.
@@Megrez-Alberich Believe me, nobody hates Disney more than me! Adam was spot on though.
@@Right_Said_Brett Again, no. He said a lot of BS with a few relevant things here and there.
But as I said, his video is very well-made and it can therefore seem very convincing, especially to people who haven't done any serious research on the subject.
@@Megrez-Alberich I fail to see in what manner The Lion King is a rip-off of Kimba the White Lion. They're the same species, sure. Aside from that, what are the common links?
@@Right_Said_Brett I never said that TLK was a Kimba rip-off. I even said that the Japanese were absolutely right when they said in their open letter to Disney that "no one is claiming the stories are identical".
TLK is a patchwork of different sources of inspiration: Hamlet, Bambi, the Biblical stories of Joseph and Moses, and there was most likely also quite a bit of Kimba added to the mix.
The same way Jungle Emperor was heavily inspired by Disney's Bambi, but also by Hergé's Tintin in the Congo, Jean de Brunhoff's Babar the elephant, Edgar Rice Burroughs's adventures of Tarzan, Ed Hunt's Simba~King of the beasts, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's The Lost World, etc.
The problem is not whether there was deliberate inspiration or not on Disney's part. After all, there's absolutely nothing wrong with being inspired by somebody else's work, as it spurs creativity, which is a good thing.
It's the way Disney handled the whole situation which is truly embarassing, with all their lies and their backpedalling, and them changing their tune, and then going so far as to try to stop the screening of the Jungle Emperor Leo movie at the Fant'Asia Festival.
One important thing that too many people seem to forget is that Kimba is not some "obscure, crappy Japanese cartoon that nobody knows or remembers outside of Japan". Before TLK came out, it was *THE* reference all around the world as far as animated cartoons about the adventures of a young lion prince, whose father has died, are concerned.