The ILM guys also profusely thanked him and said none of it would have been possible without him.
Unaltered Original Star Wars Trilogy on Blu Ray?
- Thread starter Edraven99
- Start date
The ILM guys also profusely thanked him and said none of it would have been possible without him.
At the risk of throwing too much 40yo personal gossip around . . . I think the reasons for George's separations are mostly known and they don't paint him in THAT bad of a light.
He separated from Gary Kurtz because GK overran the schedule/budget of ESB to an extent that would have absolutely fried George's nerves. George had bet his fortune on that movie. GK and Kershner produced a great result, but George was forced to get another bank loan to finish it. (And that was a sequel in the 1970s. The banks basically thought they were funding 'Star Wars 2: Electric Boogaloo'. They didn't have the hindsight of knowing SW was a series and ESB would be another monster hit.)
Marcia - George was a workaholic in the OT era and she was involved with another man by the time of ROTJ. She probably left because he was absent rather than because he was difficult. It bears noting that George was compromising the ROTJ storyline to get the series concluded so he could take some time off.
Richard Marquand is an enigma because he died so young. But just from reading the Rinzler book on ROTJ, I was surprised how much influence he had on that movie. George was definitely a hands-on producer but there was was a legit collaboration and it is RM's movie too.
Last edited:
I seem to have missed the part where you were there in the room when Lucas was working as an editor, thus allowing you to observe his creative process, or your well-reasoned and well-cited breakdown as to WHY he is not a good editor.
On the flipside, I seem to recall numerous Lucas friends and industry professionals—including “real” editors (to say nothing of film festivals and whatnot) praising the editing of both his early films and his editorial contributions to his later films, even those which had others credited as the editors. Lucas got into the film business largely on the strength of his innate talents as both an editor and a documentary cameraman.
I can only speak from experience, but I see them as all separate jobs… when a movie works, it’s because all those jobs are being done to the best they can by the best chosen for that job.
Meaning I don’t think Lucas is a great director, but he has great ideas and knows who to hire to get those ideas on screen… he knows story… or at least how to put one together (sometimes). Also doesn’t mean every story he has in him is good… just a few were some of the greatest.
Of my creative friends I’d say I’m easily the best with story… I’m above average editor… not the best director…. Terrible with sound/music (thus there’s always a sound editor)… I’m good with ideas or making ideas work, but I’m not technical at all… so lenses, why a shot works… I dunno. But I know guys who do know! So I rely on them. If I tried to write, direct, edit something on my own…. It would be a cluster-f
Lucas had a hugely talented group of friends (I believe they didn’t enjoy his first cut either… but it’s been years since I’ve read any of those stories) and he was probably the most “creative” out of those… had stories he wanted to tell… not others peoples stories he wanted to direct… and was ambitious as heck and had a vision of what could be done…
But he probably couldn’t draw a good space ship.
I don’t think he was always a bad director, he was just surrounded by the best probelem solvers… which was part of his great direction… at the time.
I feel later on he bought into his hype and believed he could still direct the same way in a different time…
I can see I’m mostly just rambling at this point. But I remember watching “Cherry” and thinking “huh… The Russo’s aren’t so hot without their storytellers, Marcus and Mcfeely….”
Good thing the Russo’s know it and started a company with them…
What was I posting about?!
Yeah I can watch a movie. On my TV even.
I mean the final edit shown has NOTHING to do with his Avid hot key setup.
THE EMPIRE STRIKES BACK was clearly a turning point for him. All accounts state that it was by far the most difficult of the original trilogy films to make. Lucas had put considerable money and risk into the film, and the budget and schedule overruns were clearly very stressful for him. Combine that with the disastrous HOLIDAY SPECIAL, and you can easily see the beginnings of Lucas being much more of a control-freak, and being much less willing to allow others to potentially run both his characters and the future of his company off the rails.
Remember, too, that the five sequels/prequels Lucas produced are the most successful independent films of all time. Lucas fought and bled to cut ties with the studio system, and he succeeded beyond his wildest dreams. So, of course, after being seduced by the whispers of Bob Iger and selling his baby to the “white slavers”, it only makes sense that both the slavers and the entertainment media complex would punish him for decades of thumbing his nose at the Hollywood establishment by dragging his name through the mud and perverting his creation.
And here’s a crazy thought: Despite considerable financial success and a healthy franchise for years afterward, the media and the Hollywood establishment made it sound like the prequels were among the worst and most hated films of all time, and that the characters promoted racist stereotypes, etc. But, your average fans, while perhaps having complaints and problems with those films, still went to see them, still bought the merchandise, and still eagerly awaited the next installment. There’s a part of me with a sneaking suspicion that a lot of the backlash came from both the media and a toxic, vocal minority, not the core fanbase.
It is therefore deeply ironic that we now live in an era where the core fanbase has utterly rejected the Disney films, and where both the media and a toxic, vocal minority continue to bend over backwards to defend them at all costs.
Funny, that.
Last edited:
Predictable snark aside, that sounds like a “no” to me, then. Thanks!
I’m familiar with the invisible art of editing, thanks. I took film studies classes, and know all about things like the 180-degree rule, proper intercutting of masters with coverage, etc.
And that’s still not any kind of answer to the question posed. Please provide some actual, tangible evidence as to why George Lucas is a bad editor, and why no “real” editor would praise his editing skills.
But of course you won’t, so…
Bored now. Bye.
Oh Okay… the dismissive goodbye.
I’d “take you to film school” but gosh you already took that one course so what could I possibly explain to you!?
Your post is a literal joke.
“A film studies class”
Well I took “grade 10 business education” lemme setup a financial plan for you… do you own a house? I once read about remortgaging,..
I’d “take you to film school” but gosh you already took that one course so what could I possibly explain to you!?
Your post is a literal joke.
“A film studies class”
Well I took “grade 10 business education” lemme setup a financial plan for you… do you own a house? I once read about remortgaging,..
Well I should back up I absolutely love Lucas, and feel weird I’m arguing against him…
He’s directed one of my fave movies of all time, and the reason I get to do what I do, and anyone who directs and successfully lands a movie that big and groundbreaking is amazing…
I mean that movie (A New Hope) comes up daily in one way or another at work…
I mean I’m working with the guy who’s first gig at ILM was adding “A New Hope” to the opening scroll… (yeah he’s old)
Solo4114
Master Member
Related to Lucas, I think that we as an audience (really as people generally) tend to look to singular individuals for a lot of stuff. Within art, that means we buy into the notion of the "auteur," the singular person whose vision is realized on screen and who is responsible for the entirety of what you see. We don't think of filmmaking as a collaborative effort requiring a crackerjack team of professionals who likewise share and are able to execute on the vision of the "auteur." But, based on my understanding, that's exactly what it is. Films wouldn't be what they are without pretty much the whole team pulling in the same direction.
So, sure, you need someone at the helm, someone who's spearheading the vision, but that person's own choices are influenced by those around them, and the execution of whatever vision they have is entirely a collaborative process.
Take a look at a guy like Mike Flanagan. He's made some amazing stuff, especially in the past few years. One thing you might have noticed is that he keeps featuring the same actors. My guess is he also ends up working with the same or a very similar crew. Same DP, same editor, same sound and f/x teams, etc. I suspect that's because he's had real success and because he's managed to create this little cinematic family with whom he works really well and who are all able to -- in collaboration -- create this vision that he spearheads.
But he's not an island. He's not a demi-god. He's not the sole progenitor of what we see on screen. He's the driving creative force behind it, sure, but it ain't just him that gets us the final product.
So, too, with Lucas, and I think it's fair to say that the quality of work produced by Lucas and his teams changed over time at least in part because the team changed, the collaborative forces around him changed. In some cases, that's not a bad thing. Going from Ralph McQuarrie to Doug Chiang isn't a bad thing. (Especially when Ralph was kinda burnt out on Star Wars as it is.) I think Doug's designs are pretty awesome. In other cases (e.g., Rick McCallum), I think the focus shifted from being a "let's try to get a movie made" producer to a "let's implement what George wants" producer. In that respect, I think McCallum was probably terrific at his job. If your job is "implement what the bossman tells you," then by God Rick did what he was paid to do. Rick was a subordinate, whereas I suspect that Gary Kurtz may have viewed himself as more of a creative equal, just with a different portfolio than George's. And that dynamic was, apparently, not what George wanted.
Anyway, I think the auteur notion is BS. George deserves credit in some instances, blame in others, and shares both in still more. He's not the singular guy, even if he's the visionary who pulled it together. It's not the same thing, though I think we forget that from time to time.
On a separate note, following the Sequel Trilogy, I've come to look at much of Star Wars differently. I still love aspects of the Sequel Trilogy, but I've also come to really enjoy aspects of the Prequel Trilogy too, and I used to HATE it with the fire of 1000 exploding Death Stars. I still think that, as stories, the PT is deeply, deeply flawed...but I've also come to really respect several aspects about it. It's not just a rehash, although there are certain common elements/themes. It's ambitious, too. I don't think it necessarily succeeds in all of its ambitions, but over time I've become more and more appreciative of that ambition and the fact that it tried.
When I compare that to the overall approach to the Sequel Trilogy, I'm struck by how certainly the first and final films just feel like embiggened retellings of stuff we've already seen, rather than ambitious attempts to tell new stories. Or even to tell old stories in new ways (unless "new ways" means "Tell it faster and with less coherence"). Again, there are still things I really enjoy about the Sequels, and as popcorn rollercoaster rides, they're pretty good. (Well, TLJ is a lousy rollercoaster ride, but a great film in my opinion -- which is a big part of why it feels so out of place with JJ's bookends.)
Both the PT and the ST, though, have aspects where they don't feel like a proper trilogy. With the PT, TPM feels out of place with AOTC and ROTS. With the ST, well, TLJ is like slamming modal jazz into the middle of your I-hate-that-I-kind-of-enjoy-this pop tune. You can like (or at least grudgingly enjoy) both things, but the two together...eesh. I love porcini mushrooms. I also love lemon custard (in judicious amounts). I do not want porcini mushrooms in my lemon custard, nor lemon custard drizzled over my porcini mushrooms, but that's kinda what the ST ends up being.
So, sure, you need someone at the helm, someone who's spearheading the vision, but that person's own choices are influenced by those around them, and the execution of whatever vision they have is entirely a collaborative process.
Take a look at a guy like Mike Flanagan. He's made some amazing stuff, especially in the past few years. One thing you might have noticed is that he keeps featuring the same actors. My guess is he also ends up working with the same or a very similar crew. Same DP, same editor, same sound and f/x teams, etc. I suspect that's because he's had real success and because he's managed to create this little cinematic family with whom he works really well and who are all able to -- in collaboration -- create this vision that he spearheads.
But he's not an island. He's not a demi-god. He's not the sole progenitor of what we see on screen. He's the driving creative force behind it, sure, but it ain't just him that gets us the final product.
So, too, with Lucas, and I think it's fair to say that the quality of work produced by Lucas and his teams changed over time at least in part because the team changed, the collaborative forces around him changed. In some cases, that's not a bad thing. Going from Ralph McQuarrie to Doug Chiang isn't a bad thing. (Especially when Ralph was kinda burnt out on Star Wars as it is.) I think Doug's designs are pretty awesome. In other cases (e.g., Rick McCallum), I think the focus shifted from being a "let's try to get a movie made" producer to a "let's implement what George wants" producer. In that respect, I think McCallum was probably terrific at his job. If your job is "implement what the bossman tells you," then by God Rick did what he was paid to do. Rick was a subordinate, whereas I suspect that Gary Kurtz may have viewed himself as more of a creative equal, just with a different portfolio than George's. And that dynamic was, apparently, not what George wanted.
Anyway, I think the auteur notion is BS. George deserves credit in some instances, blame in others, and shares both in still more. He's not the singular guy, even if he's the visionary who pulled it together. It's not the same thing, though I think we forget that from time to time.
On a separate note, following the Sequel Trilogy, I've come to look at much of Star Wars differently. I still love aspects of the Sequel Trilogy, but I've also come to really enjoy aspects of the Prequel Trilogy too, and I used to HATE it with the fire of 1000 exploding Death Stars. I still think that, as stories, the PT is deeply, deeply flawed...but I've also come to really respect several aspects about it. It's not just a rehash, although there are certain common elements/themes. It's ambitious, too. I don't think it necessarily succeeds in all of its ambitions, but over time I've become more and more appreciative of that ambition and the fact that it tried.
When I compare that to the overall approach to the Sequel Trilogy, I'm struck by how certainly the first and final films just feel like embiggened retellings of stuff we've already seen, rather than ambitious attempts to tell new stories. Or even to tell old stories in new ways (unless "new ways" means "Tell it faster and with less coherence"). Again, there are still things I really enjoy about the Sequels, and as popcorn rollercoaster rides, they're pretty good. (Well, TLJ is a lousy rollercoaster ride, but a great film in my opinion -- which is a big part of why it feels so out of place with JJ's bookends.)
Both the PT and the ST, though, have aspects where they don't feel like a proper trilogy. With the PT, TPM feels out of place with AOTC and ROTS. With the ST, well, TLJ is like slamming modal jazz into the middle of your I-hate-that-I-kind-of-enjoy-this pop tune. You can like (or at least grudgingly enjoy) both things, but the two together...eesh. I love porcini mushrooms. I also love lemon custard (in judicious amounts). I do not want porcini mushrooms in my lemon custard, nor lemon custard drizzled over my porcini mushrooms, but that's kinda what the ST ends up being.
The Goon
Sr Member
I would hope not; it's pretty obvious that George Lucas has never dieted in his life.
George didn't do the OT alone. But he wasn't exactly replaceable either.
In hindsight I think we tend to forget how many 'obvious' aspects of the OT and modern blockbuster filmmaking came from him. People like JJA or Filoni wouldn't even be able to make imitations of the OT on their own.
Everyone knows that JJA should be mailing his 'Super-8' royalty checks to Spielberg. But the early-Spielberg style is still visible. It's not so ubiquitous that it disappears into the "normal" of pop culture. George's contributions do, for the most part. Probably more than any other modern filmmaker.
In the Rinzler book about ANH, there is a comment from somebody (Richard Chew?) after seeing the whole movie for the first time. He said he was blown away by how thoroughly George the whole movie felt. The look, the feel, the details, just all of it. He was really struck by the connection.
Who is gonna see ANH for the first time today and think "this feels like a dose of a specific person's psyche"? Nobody. To modern eyes, ANH probably feels like a very predictable movie produced by a studio committee - because the modern committees learned everything from George.
The OT was a helluva struggle to get made. The PT was absolutely a breeze in comparison.
With how big of a hit the OT was, how influential, how well it has aged . . . . I would surprised if it wasn't a big struggle to get made. They took so many risks. Creative, tech, financial, etc.
Is struggle necessary to create great art? It isn't a requirement but there is definitely a correlation. George took it too easy during the PT after he ran himself terribly hard during the OT.
Last edited:
joberg
Legendary Member
He's suffering from type 2 diabetes for more than 50 years now. It's a daily job to control your weight/diet 24/7!I would hope not; it's pretty obvious that George Lucas has never dieted in his life.
I would agree. Struggle isn't necessary for great art... but great art often comes though the refiner's fire of great struggle.
The 1977 Star Wars was lightning in a bottle. Unique yet so derivative, in the best of ways, of the old Westerns, serial sci-fi, and samurai films that came before.
The Empire Strikes Back was a totally (and tonally) different film. It was a brawler that punched you repeatedly in the gut.
ROTJ was an exercise in extremes. Brilliant plot points and scenarios interspersed with hammy, pedestrian ideas and stilted acting. Carrie was... on something, Ford was just not feeling it, and Hamill was a solemn totem till the last shot of the film.
There's a line from U2's "The Fly" that has always resonated with me: "Every artist is a cannibal. Every poet is a thief. All kill their inspiration, then sing about their grief." And also this, from Miguel de Cervantes Saavedra: "Hunger is the best sauce in the world."
While creative types remain creative all the way through, the angst of being young, whether the initial figuring-out-of-oneself as a teen, the anguish of the first time or twelve of having your heart broken, the frustration of not having enough money to survive, or even just the desperate need to convey something you've figured out to others -- all of that tends to sharpen one's artistic output. That drive tends to fade with success, unless one learns to channel the pressure of increased expectations, from themselves and others, into that creative space.
Certainly we've talked on here about how John Williams peaked in the late '70s to roughly the late '80s, how, while he's absolutely still a competent composer and totally an engaged conductor and musician, the spark of inspiration has been falling off since. Jurassic Park was probably the last original and stirring complete score I can think of from him. He's come up with some nice themes since -- although he repeated the one he came up with for Hook in Harry Potter and Attack of the Clones (you hopefully can tell those are separate films, but god -- now I want to see Harry Potter and the Attack of the Clones), which is less than original.
My personal favorite 20th century composer/musician is Vangelis. I have a sizable chunk of his discography, though not some of the absurdly-limited-foreign-release sets, and none of the frustrating number of his film scores that have never been released. He also seems to have had his period of the most creative need through the '70s and '80s. He'd see things and be inspired and BAM! another studio album. While also working on the score for his latest Frederic Rossif wildlife film and another studio album that inspired him to create. And maybe another film score besides all that. Now he's in his 70s and creating something every few years. It's still good... It's just definitely less.
And how many pop songs, in just about any genre/language/culture, can I point to for the last century and find a theme of, at essence, somebody pining after somebody else? Many. Many many. Or its close cousin, venting about someone they had previously been pining for. And then the ones that aren't tend to be about the pain of inventing/reinventing oneself as a person and/or the perceived expectations of others. There's not that many that are "Life is great. Everything's awesome. I just paid off my credit cards. My sweetie is wonderful. I know what my life is about, and I'm comfortable and happy." Because comfortable and happy people tend not to produce Great Art™.
Ironically, comfortable and happy writers tend to be in a better position to get to the Weird Writing Place™. Maybe that's why Empire worked so well. George was under pressure and creatively dissatisfied. Leigh and Larry were established screenwriters. One had the germ of the idea. The others knew intimately and comfortably the nuts and bolts of how to string those into an engaging narrative. Maybe that's where the path to greatness lies: Hungry and comfortable meeting and collaborating, the latter providing a means, channeling the energy of the former in ways they wouldn't have been able to avail themselves of on their own? Vangelis and Ridley Scott -- BAM! Blade Runner. John Williams and Dick Donner -- BAM! Superman. Tim Burton and Danny Elfman -- BAM! Anything (but especially Batman).
I see it in the writing arena all the time with established authors teaming up with new/newer ones to assist in fleshing out their idea into a book. Maybe that's the best of both worlds in any of this... One person's comfort zone shoring up the discomfort of the other, and vice versa. I feel like the "lone auteur" is as much of an outlier as the "true self-made man". 99% of us only get anywhere good as a result of the connections we make along the way.
While creative types remain creative all the way through, the angst of being young, whether the initial figuring-out-of-oneself as a teen, the anguish of the first time or twelve of having your heart broken, the frustration of not having enough money to survive, or even just the desperate need to convey something you've figured out to others -- all of that tends to sharpen one's artistic output. That drive tends to fade with success, unless one learns to channel the pressure of increased expectations, from themselves and others, into that creative space.
Certainly we've talked on here about how John Williams peaked in the late '70s to roughly the late '80s, how, while he's absolutely still a competent composer and totally an engaged conductor and musician, the spark of inspiration has been falling off since. Jurassic Park was probably the last original and stirring complete score I can think of from him. He's come up with some nice themes since -- although he repeated the one he came up with for Hook in Harry Potter and Attack of the Clones (you hopefully can tell those are separate films, but god -- now I want to see Harry Potter and the Attack of the Clones), which is less than original.
My personal favorite 20th century composer/musician is Vangelis. I have a sizable chunk of his discography, though not some of the absurdly-limited-foreign-release sets, and none of the frustrating number of his film scores that have never been released. He also seems to have had his period of the most creative need through the '70s and '80s. He'd see things and be inspired and BAM! another studio album. While also working on the score for his latest Frederic Rossif wildlife film and another studio album that inspired him to create. And maybe another film score besides all that. Now he's in his 70s and creating something every few years. It's still good... It's just definitely less.
And how many pop songs, in just about any genre/language/culture, can I point to for the last century and find a theme of, at essence, somebody pining after somebody else? Many. Many many. Or its close cousin, venting about someone they had previously been pining for. And then the ones that aren't tend to be about the pain of inventing/reinventing oneself as a person and/or the perceived expectations of others. There's not that many that are "Life is great. Everything's awesome. I just paid off my credit cards. My sweetie is wonderful. I know what my life is about, and I'm comfortable and happy." Because comfortable and happy people tend not to produce Great Art™.
Ironically, comfortable and happy writers tend to be in a better position to get to the Weird Writing Place™. Maybe that's why Empire worked so well. George was under pressure and creatively dissatisfied. Leigh and Larry were established screenwriters. One had the germ of the idea. The others knew intimately and comfortably the nuts and bolts of how to string those into an engaging narrative. Maybe that's where the path to greatness lies: Hungry and comfortable meeting and collaborating, the latter providing a means, channeling the energy of the former in ways they wouldn't have been able to avail themselves of on their own? Vangelis and Ridley Scott -- BAM! Blade Runner. John Williams and Dick Donner -- BAM! Superman. Tim Burton and Danny Elfman -- BAM! Anything (but especially Batman).
I see it in the writing arena all the time with established authors teaming up with new/newer ones to assist in fleshing out their idea into a book. Maybe that's the best of both worlds in any of this... One person's comfort zone shoring up the discomfort of the other, and vice versa. I feel like the "lone auteur" is as much of an outlier as the "true self-made man". 99% of us only get anywhere good as a result of the connections we make along the way.
