Support NeoGAF

[Lunarorbit]

George Lucas and George RR Martin are 2 sides of the same coin. Both thought in their old age that they could go it alone; martin firing their editor and Lucas on star wars after return of the jedi.

The amount of collaboration in the original trilogy is awesome. Contrasted to that video of Lucas talking to his assistants during phantom and them all looking around wondering if any of them are gonna call.out his stupid ideas

 

[BlackTron]

That's not exactly true. Lucas wasn't blocking it, Spielberg didn't want to direct another Indy movie and only wanted to produce any further Indy movies. But back then Harrison Ford wouldn't return if Spielberg was only producing.

I haven't thought about this since Crystal Skull came out, so I turned to wiki for a refresher...Lucas had the idea for aliens in Indy since 1992. While your story is true, running parallel to that is Speilberg resisting Lucas' idea to make the next with aliens. Kinda wordy, but here it is.

As Young Indy aired, Ford played Jones in one episode, narrating his adventures in 1920 Chicago from 1950 Wyoming. When Lucas shot Ford's role in December 1992, he realized the scene opened up the possibility of a film with an older Indiana set in the 1950s. The film could reflect a science fiction 1950s B-movie, with aliens as the plot device.[16] Just like how the 1930s Saturday matinée serials inspired the first three Indiana Jones films as well as Star Wars, Lucas felt that B-movies such as The Thing from Another World (1951), It Came from Outer Space (1953) and Them! (1954) could give them a whole new film genre to play with and add a new texture to the story, giving him the idea of using extraterrestrials.[44] Meanwhile, Spielberg believed he was going to mature as a filmmaker after making the trilogy and felt his role in any future installments would be relegated to that of mere producer.[27] Ford told Lucas, "No way am I being in a Steven Spielberg movie like that."[17] Spielberg himself, who depicted aliens in Close Encounters of the Third Kind (1977) and E.T. the Extra-Terrestrial (1982), resisted it.[16]

Perceiving that Ford and Spielberg opined that the film was too much an obvious Lucas-Spielbergian idea, Lucas personally felt that Ford and Spielberg didn't fully understand the franchise's malleability; instead of doing the exact same movie all the time, all they had to do was to test different genres with each installment and it wouldn't stop being an adventure of the title character looking after some artifact as long it were a believable MacGuffin with an archaeological or historical background.[44] He came up with a story, which Jeb Stuart turned into a script from October 1993 to May 1994.[16] (Stuart had previously written 1993's The Fugitive, which starred Ford.) Lucas wanted Indiana to get married, which would allow Henry Jones, Sr. to return, expressing concern over whether his son is happy with what he has accomplished. After he learned that Joseph Stalin was interested in psychic warfare, he decided to have Soviets as the villains and the aliens to have psychic powers.[45] Following Stuart's next draft, Lucas hired Last Crusade writer Jeffrey Boam to write the next three versions, the last of which was completed in March 1996. Three months later, Independence Day was released, and Spielberg told Lucas he would not make another alien invasion film. Lucas decided to focus on the Star Wars prequels.[16]

In a 2000 interview, Spielberg said that his children constantly asked when he would make the next Indiana Jones film, and that the project would soon be revived.[46] The same year, Ford, Lucas, Spielberg, Frank Marshall and Kathleen Kennedy met during the American Film Institute's tribute to Ford, and decided they wanted to enjoy the experience of making an Indiana Jones film again. Spielberg also found returning to the series a respite from his many dark films during this period, such as A.I. Artificial Intelligence (2001), Minority Report (2002), and Munich (2005).[18] Lucas convinced Spielberg to use aliens in the plot by saying they were not "extraterrestrials", but "interdimensional", with this concept taking inspiration in the superstring theory.[

 

[PaintTinJr]

LOL the prequels have never, will never be well made films, or "good".

They do some things that add value to Star Wars, which they always did. It becomes more apparent because Disney is even worse adding pretty much nothing in exchange for what you need to sit through, but they're still absolutely terrible films and Lucas should be embarrassed he directed them.

Sugar-coated shit does not become gold just because someone took an even bigger shit with no sugar on it.

Concerning his directing abilities, we have a case study on this called Star Wars 1 2 and 3, where he was free to direct in any way he chose in an unmitigated fashion, and the results were put simply, horrible scenes you can't believe escaped production or met his standard. You could pick it apart but why bother, we've all seen it, we all know it was bad.

I never said the only problem with Indy was aliens. I thought the premise that Lucas blocked the movie until Spielberg agreed to do aliens was enough to make the point. They met some sort of compromise after much talking, implying George wanted more Aliens but Spielberg managed to contain it somewhat.

Edit: To be clear, would I prefer more badly directly Lucas SW to Disney SW? Absolutely! At least in exchange for suffering through the horrific execution, you got some cool story and characters, even if you wouldn't want to watch it again right away (Star Wars '77), or with somebody next to you because it's too stupid. Disney executes better, unfortunately, they execute bad decisions, storylines and characters.

I completely disagree, I've probably watched the original trilogy more times than one should have, and I laugh at the yearly trilogy viewing in How I Met Your Mother, but you and they are completely wrong IMHO about the prequels.

Revenge of the Sith is by far the best of SW (IMHO)with its maximum payoff revealing the Macbethian way in which Palpatine comes to be, and plays Anakin so easily, how SW: The Adventures of Mace Windu finishes in failure despite his skills, how Yoda fails, how Obi-Wan succeeds and fails, and most importantly how Anakin fails and Vader wins, and how the Clone Wars ends like it never happened.

The prequels even gave birth to the Clone Wars series which is far more Lucas SW greatness than Disney rubbish, with an amazing payoff at the end forever changing and enhancing the way I look at the opening act of Empire, which is already fantastic.

Watching New Hope, Empire or Jedi 100x more isn't going to change my comparison opinion of films I know like the back of my hand already.

 

[BlackTron]

I completely disagree, I've probably watched the original trilogy more times than one should have, and I laugh at the yearly trilogy viewing in How I Met Your Mother, but you and they are completely wrong IMHO about the prequels.

Revenge of the Sith is by far the best of SW (IMHO)with its maximum payoff revealing the Macbethian way in which Palpatine comes to be, and plays Anakin so easily, how SW: The Adventures of Mace Windu finishes in failure despite his skills, how Yoda fails, how Obi-Wan succeeds and fails, and most importantly how Anakin fails and Vader wins, and how the Clone Wars ends like it never happened.

The prequels even gave birth to the Clone Wars series which is far more Lucas SW greatness than Disney rubbish, with an amazing payoff at the end forever changing and enhancing the way I look at the opening act of Empire, which is already fantastic.

Watching New Hope, Empire or Jedi 100x more isn't going to change my comparison opinion of films I know like the back of my hand already.

I feel like my point went over your head? I already agreed that the prequels have a good story. You just wouldn't know it without being a Star Wars fan capable of sitting through all that.

ROTS has the least-bad directing of the 3 but in order to get to it, you have to make it past a few tough bosses like Jake Llyod, Jar Jar and the Anakin/Padme romance section.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see the prequels as almost one-offs that maybe you skip ahead to a scene or use Youtube recaps later. You definitely need the story the delivery just sucks. When I dropped SW 77 I meant it as an example you WOULD watch again.

Meanwhile ST is not even worth watching at all.

 

[existensmaximum]

That certainly doesn't bode well. These guys haven't shown any good judgment for the last 40 years or so.

 

[PaintTinJr]

I feel like my point went over your head? I already agreed that the prequels have a good story. You just wouldn't know it without being a Star Wars fan capable of sitting through all that.

ROTS has the least-bad directing of the 3 but in order to get to it, you have to make it past a few tough bosses like Jake Llyod, Jar Jar and the Anakin/Padme romance section.

I guess what I'm trying to say is that I see the prequels as almost one-offs that maybe you skip ahead to a scene or use Youtube recaps later. You definitely need the story the delivery just sucks. When I dropped SW 77 I meant it as an example you WOULD watch again.

Meanwhile ST is not even worth watching at all.

You could level the exact same criticisms at the cowboy films Lucas watched growing up or Lord of the Rings or anything that isn't an instant handheld film for all that New Hope is, Empire isn't, and Jedi is and isn't at the same time.

Focusing criticisms on characters feels like a personal opinion issue and has nothing to do with the fantastic direction of the film for actual SW fans that like the delivery.

Anyone unable to follow it all, but like the cinematography are free to become just another SW fan, much like they would with Tolkien's work, which I'm pretty sure would have been Lucas' feeling on the writing and direction considering it was the best known franchise on the entire planet making him unbelievable wealthy for at least a decade or more, and still propping up subscriber numbers on Disney+, today.

I agree with you totally about ST.

 

[BlackTron]

Focusing criticisms on characters feels like a personal opinion issue and has nothing to do with the fantastic direction of the film for actual SW fans that like the delivery.

There is no part of this conversation that is not a personal opinion issue because we are talking about a movie.

 

[PaintTinJr]

There is no part of this conversation that is not a personal opinion issue because we are talking about a movie.

I get that, but your context was Lucas' quality of directing, which I completely disagree with and don't think critique of his cast validates that opinion of his directing and is just a you issue with the casting; especially when the relationship with padame/anakin using different voice actors is faithfully reproduce in the Clone Wars series.

 

[TerribleAtThisGame]

The most worrying part has been the ganeplay they've shown. The combat especially looked ridiculous. Indy whipping dudes at snail speed while they're pointing guns at him.

The whole thing looked awkwardly on rails and stiff as hell. I'd be all for an Adventure game with puzzles etc. first but none of that even looked exciting.

 

[BlackTron]

I get that, but your context was Lucas' quality of directing, which I completely disagree with and don't think critique of his cast validates that opinion of his directing and is just a you issue with the casting; especially when the relationship with padame/anakin using different voice actors is faithfully reproduce in the Clone Wars series.

Oh, I see. It wasn't directing, it was just the actors.

I disagree here, Hayden Christensen is not/was not a bad actor. Everyone sure thought he was though, in the hands of George Lucas. The most top talent carry SW despite Lucas, not because of him. Even Episode 3 had many situations where Ewan McGregor had bad or awkward line delivery. I don't think Ewan fucked up, I think Lucas is just a bad director, even if creative genius. You get talent like Sam Jackson and Natalie Portman and all their combined talent can really do is help contain the disaster, still not great.

Gonna have to agree to disagree there dawg.

 

[Topher]

Lucas and Spielberg being involved isn't necessarily a good thing, but hopefully the game turns out to be great. I have doubts.

LOL the prequels have never, will never be well made films, or "good".

They do some things that add value to Star Wars, which they always did. It becomes more apparent because Disney is even worse adding pretty much nothing in exchange for what you need to sit through, but they're still absolutely terrible films and Lucas should be embarrassed he directed them.

Sugar-coated shit does not become gold just because someone took an even bigger shit with no sugar on it.

Concerning his directing abilities, we have a case study on this called Star Wars 1 2 and 3, where he was free to direct in any way he chose in an unmitigated fashion, and the results were put simply, horrible scenes you can't believe escaped production or met his standard. You could pick it apart but why bother, we've all seen it, we all know it was bad.

I never said the only problem with Indy was aliens. I thought the premise that Lucas blocked the movie until Spielberg agreed to do aliens was enough to make the point. They met some sort of compromise after much talking, implying George wanted more Aliens but Spielberg managed to contain it somewhat.

Edit: To be clear, would I prefer more badly directly Lucas SW to Disney SW? Absolutely! At least in exchange for suffering through the horrific execution, you got some cool story and characters, even if you wouldn't want to watch it again right away (Star Wars '77), or with somebody next to you because it's too stupid. Disney executes better, unfortunately, they execute bad decisions, storylines and characters. If you could combine Lucas' creative genius with some balances and outside direction, you'd have PERFECTION. Oh wait, that's OT.

To me, both Star Wars and Indiana Jones would have been better off if they had stopped with the original trilogies. Everything after those have been a disappointment. At that point, the magic was just gone.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Oh, I see. It was directing, it was just the actors.

I disagree here, Hayden Christensen is not/was not a bad actor. Everyone sure thought he was though, in the hands of George Lucas. The most top talent carry SW despite Lucas, not because of him. Even Episode 3 had many situations where Ewan McGregor had bad or awkward line delivery. I don't think Ewan fucked up, I think Lucas is just a bad director, even if creative genius. You get talent like Sam Jackson and Natalie Portman and all their combined talent can really do is help contain the disaster, still not great.

Gonna have to agree to disagree there dawg.

No worries, I've made the case I wanted to make, as McGregor has said he's yet to actually meet a SW fan - despite being one himself - so feel free to do you, if you watch the films don't think they deliver and don't enjoy them as a SW fan and think Lucas' is a bad director, that's cool, I'll still be enjoying them without any impact of negative internet opinion, so no reason for me to want you to do the opposite.

And on topic. I hope Lucas(& Spielberg) has had input in the game , this part of the piece you quoted seems relevant

"Perceiving that Ford and Spielberg opined that the film was too much an obvious Lucas-Spielbergian idea, Lucas personally felt that Ford and Spielberg didn't fully understand the franchise's malleability; instead of doing the exact same movie all the time, all they had to do was to test different genres with each installment and it wouldn't stop being an adventure of the title character looking after some artifact as long it were a believable MacGuffin with an archaeological or historical background"

 

[BlackTron]

No worries, I've made the case I wanted to make, as McGregor has said he's yet to actually meet a SW fan - despite being one himself - so feel free to do you, if you watch the films don't think they deliver and don't enjoy them as a SW fan and think Lucas' is a bad director, that's cool, I'll still be enjoying them without any impact of negative internet opinion, so no reason for me to want you to do the opposite.

And on topic. I hope Lucas(& Spielberg) has had input in the game , this part of the piece you quoted seems relevant

"Perceiving that Ford and Spielberg opined that the film was too much an obvious Lucas-Spielbergian idea, Lucas personally felt that Ford and Spielberg didn't fully understand the franchise's malleability; instead of doing the exact same movie all the time, all they had to do was to test different genres with each installment and it wouldn't stop being an adventure of the title character looking after some artifact as long it were a believable MacGuffin with an archaeological or historical background"

Please don't remind me of the people who say "The ones who hate Star Wars the most are Star Wars fans". I've had enough of this contention that you have to accept everything about it, or you aren't a "real fan".

Most people into SW got that way from the OT and have been on life support grabbing any vestiges of magic that they can.

I suppose you aren't a SW fan either because you don't like the ST. McGregor is just the only actual fan alive then. Fair enough.

 

[Kagoshima_Luke]

Spielberg was also involved with E.T. for Atari. He tried the final game and went on record saying it was amazing.

 

[JohnnyFootball]

Game looks mid af.

How so? I just want it to be fun and have no major performance issues. I don't need it to be a masterpiece.

 

[PaintTinJr]

Please don't remind me of the people who say "The ones who hate Star Wars the most are Star Wars fans". I've had enough of this contention that you have to accept everything about it, or you aren't a "real fan".

Most people into SW got that way from the OT and have been on life support grabbing any vestiges of magic that they can.

I suppose you aren't a SW fan either because you don't like the ST. McGregor is just the only actual fan alive then. Fair enough.

I wasn't being literal with the word fan(atical), although it is why I describe myself as a football supporter when I remember to check myself....

Disney SW isn't support of its creator or not. Lucas SW, that's surely the minimum, no? like Supporting a team, and liking the club and the history of the club - as a United fan the Glazer dilemma seems to fit here.

But no, like your point is eluding everyone is entitled to choose their own level for being a SW fan(but I do agree with McGregor, sadly).

 

[knguyen]

Yes and James Cameron thinks whatever Terminator movie is being shat out is the best yet.

This game is officially screwed!

 

[diffusionx]

Spielberg was also involved with E.T. for Atari. He tried the final game and went on record saying it was amazing.

More recently he helped design the game Boom Blox which was very good.

 

[adamsapple]

Hyped for the game, but not hyped for Lucas Films to be the one dictating where it goes.

 

[Kacho]

A meaningless association for marketing purposes.

I play Bethesda games without question so I'm in regardless. Not very hyped though.

 

[MacReady13]

Lucas is a brilliant dude but he's just a straight up bad director

A bad director? American Graffiti is fantastic. THX 1138 is a visual delight and Star Wars changed films forever. The prequels weren't what some wanted, but go back and read The Phantom Menace Roger Ebert's review on the film. The guy can direct fine.

 

[BlackTron]

A bad director? American Graffiti is fantastic. THX 1138 is a visual delight and Star Wars changed films forever. The prequels weren't what some wanted, but go back and read The Phantom Menace Roger Ebert's review on the film. The guy can direct fine.

Star Wars changed films forever. Lucas was surrounded with checks and balances and could not do everything the way he wanted. Even his wife changed the film. Lucas did not direct ESB or RotJ.

When he could do everything the way he wanted, with nigh infinite resources, with no one to answer to. The result was very bad.

When TPM came out I was its exact target audience age and I saw it in the theater 4 times. When Lucas said it was a movie for 13 year olds he wasn't kidding. While people love to point out Star Wars was always "meant for" and inspired by stuff Lucas himself watched as a kid, the result was an imaginative movie for everyone. The Lion King is a kids movie. It does not turn into a bad movie when you grow up, but TPM does.

I read Ebert's review when it came out. I don't remember what it said. I don't really care what it said because I've seen the movie myself. I have a vague recollection of Ebert giving it a pass because it's "Ep1 and needs to set up characters" only to backpedal with 2, making 1 retroactively worse. Lucas likes to say "this is the movie I wanted to make" but I think he tightened up his chops for 3 only because the world was exasperated by how bad 1 and 2 is. Sure SW fans geek out from Yoda spinning around and that puts on blinders from what a badly made movie it just was.

So my ultimate point isn't "George Lucas sucks". My point is just that he's a bad director. We couldn't have Star Wars without him. I suspect that if he went on to direct ESB we might not have SW at all today.

 

[Rentahamster]

I have no idea if that's a good thing or a bad thing anymore.

 

[Badlucktroll]

 

[MacReady13]

Star Wars changed films forever. Lucas was surrounded with checks and balances and could not do everything the way he wanted. Even his wife changed the film. Lucas did not direct ESB or RotJ.

When he could do everything the way he wanted, with nigh infinite resources, with no one to answer to. The result was very bad.

When TPM came out I was its exact target audience age and I saw it in the theater 4 times. When Lucas said it was a movie for 13 year olds he wasn't kidding. While people love to point out Star Wars was always "meant for" and inspired by stuff Lucas himself watched as a kid, the result was an imaginative movie for everyone. The Lion King is a kids movie. It does not turn into a bad movie when you grow up, but TPM does.

I read Ebert's review when it came out. I don't remember what it said. I don't really care what it said because I've seen the movie myself. I have a vague recollection of Ebert giving it a pass because it's "Ep1 and needs to set up characters" only to backpedal with 2, making 1 retroactively worse. Lucas likes to say "this is the movie I wanted to make" but I think he tightened up his chops for 3 only because the world was exasperated by how bad 1 and 2 is. Sure SW fans geek out from Yoda spinning around and that puts on blinders from what a badly made movie it just was.

So my ultimate point isn't "George Lucas sucks". My point is just that he's a bad director. We couldn't have Star Wars without him. I suspect that if he went on to direct ESB we might not have SW at all today.

Yep, George Lucas did NOTHING and it was only the people around him that "fixed" Star Wars. What a crock of shit and a very common misconception. Believe what you like if that narrative makes you feel good but Lucas didn't need anyone to help "fix" Star Wars.

 

[BlackTron]

Yep, George Lucas did NOTHING and it was only the people around him that "fixed" Star Wars. What a crock of shit and a very common misconception. Believe what you like if that narrative makes you feel good but Lucas didn't need anyone to help "fix" Star Wars.

Not what I said, actually pretty much overwriting what I said to put words in my mouth at this point, so you're either strawmanning or just bad reading comprehension.

Literally said we couldn't have Star Wars without George Lucas. Somehow we go from there to YEP HE DID NOTHING RIGHT LOL.

I'm actually very very confident in my assertion he needed help based on the single example that in the first movie, the Death Star was not even going to attack the rebel base. It was just going to be Rebels attempting to destroy it. His wife insisted the rebels should be attacked and there needed to be tension. They made this change in the editing room. Actually, his wife was the editor and she did it herself. But of course the movie wouldn't exist to begin with without him. That's my point, he is a creative genius, but he thinks he can do a lot more on his own than he really can.

There was nobody around to say these things, not even a representative of a finance company, when he made the PT.

He didn't self-finance ESB and ROTJ. Sure he had more clout than before SW blew up, but he was still accountable and they hired writers/directors to help.

So I'm not seeing how this is a "misconception".

 

[ManaByte]

Yep, George Lucas did NOTHING and it was only the people around him that "fixed" Star Wars. What a crock of shit and a very common misconception. Believe what you like if that narrative makes you feel good but Lucas didn't need anyone to help "fix" Star Wars.

It's not like the production of those three movies is well documented or anything. That theory is easily debunked.

 

[mpgeist]

Spielberg has been over the franchise since Last Crusade.

 

[ManaByte]

He didn't self-finance ESB and ROTJ. Sure he had more clout than before SW blew up, but he was still accountable and they hired writers/directors to help.

ROTJ turned out the way it did because Lucas was doing what he wanted. Gary Kurtz left him to produce The Dark Crystal because Lucas was letting the merchandise dictate how ROTJ went. The original version Gary Kurtz was working on was vastly different than the happy signing teddy bears we got:

Leia was not the sister. The sister was going to be Nellith Skywalker from the Leigh Brackett first draft of ESB, but not introduced until the 4th movie.
Han died in a raid on an Imperial fort.
Vader doesn't die.
Leia becomes queen and gets married to someone else in the movie.
Luke goes off on his own to be alone like the Man with No Name at the end.

It wasn't a happy ending. But George wanted to sell toys, so he made it a happy ending.

 

[BlackTron]

ROTJ turned out the way it did because Lucas was doing what he wanted. Gary Kurtz left him to produce The Dark Crystal because Lucas was letting the merchandise dictate how ROTJ went. The original version Gary Kurtz was working on was vastly different than the happy signing teddy bears we got:

Leia was not the sister. The sister was going to be Nellith Skywalker from the Leigh Brackett first draft of ESB, but not introduced until the 4th movie.
Han died in a raid on an Imperial fort.
Vader doesn't die.
Leia becomes queen and gets married to someone else in the movie.
Luke goes off on his own to be alone like the Man with No Name at the end.

It wasn't a happy ending. But George wanted to sell toys, so he made it a happy ending.

I recognize Lucas "did what he wanted" and that's why we have Ewoks. But he also did not direct the movie, which is why don't have awkward scenes and stunted line delivery all over the place.

 

[thicc_girls_are_teh_best]

George Lucas and George RR Martin are 2 sides of the same coin. Both thought in their old age that they could go it alone; martin firing their editor and Lucas on star wars after return of the jedi.

The amount of collaboration in the original trilogy is awesome. Contrasted to that video of Lucas talking to his assistants during phantom and them all looking around wondering if any of them are gonna call.out his stupid ideas

The prequels were the last good Star Wars films tho; they just got a lot of unreasonable hate at the time until the Disney stuff showed just how mediocre Star Wars could truly be in the wrong hands.

It's not like the production of those three movies is well documented or anything. That theory is easily debunked.

People legit trying to say Lucas contributed nothing to Star Wars will never not be funny.

Not what I said, actually pretty much overwriting what I said to put words in my mouth at this point, so you're either strawmanning or just bad reading comprehension.

Literally said we couldn't have Star Wars without George Lucas. Somehow we go from there to YEP HE DID NOTHING RIGHT LOL.

I'm actually very very confident in my assertion he needed help based on the single example that in the first movie, the Death Star was not even going to attack the rebel base. It was just going to be Rebels attempting to destroy it. His wife insisted the rebels should be attacked and there needed to be tension. They made this change in the editing room. Actually, his wife was the editor and she did it herself. But of course the movie wouldn't exist to begin with without him. That's my point, he is a creative genius, but he thinks he can do a lot more on his own than he really can.

There was nobody around to say these things, not even a representative of a finance company, when he made the PT.

He didn't self-finance ESB and ROTJ. Sure he had more clout than before SW blew up, but he was still accountable and they hired writers/directors to help.

So I'm not seeing how this is a "misconception".

Again, the prequels IMO are mostly just misunderstood. The media attempting to turn Jar Jar into a meme before memes were a thing, didn't help, as that purposefully misdirected audiences. Sure the prequels have flaws, but you have to understand where sci-fi was at in entertainment so see where some of the hate was coming from.

I think if the prequels were more like The Matrix, or Lost, or other sci-fi of that style, it wouldn't have gotten the hate it did. People really underestimate how much The Matrix changed everything for mainstream sci-fi in film and television; compared to that the SW prequels would've had to been revolutionary to not disappoint. Things people hold against them still like the dialog...well on one hand some of it is unnatural yes, but I also think you're meant to look at it more like prose from a theatrical play. They could've pulled it off better with more direction & editing though.

 

[BlackTron]

Things people hold against them still like the dialog...well on one hand some of it is unnatural yes, but I also think you're meant to look at it more like prose from a theatrical play. They could've pulled it off better with more direction & editing though.

The whole thing is of grand scope, majestic with insane SFX. But bad dialog/delivery and fart jokes aren't things people "misunderstand". I said it myself prequels have a good story. Even if I appreciate the story and find it integral to Star Wars lore, I can still objectively say they were badly directed, though it's a contest whether 1 or 2 was worse at it. 3 is fine, but I think it only appears "well done" next to 1 and 2. The directing in that movie is like the gameplay in a Sonic title that merely doesn't suck: OMG THEY DID IT ITS PERFECT!!!

 

[ManaByte]

But he also did not direct the movie, which is why don't have awkward scenes and stunted line delivery all over the place.

But he did. Marquand didn't know how to handle the visual effects or action at all, so Lucas directed something like 90-95% of the movie. Marquand's stuff is mostly the close-up dialog scenes.

 

[Bernardougf]

I blame them for unleashing Krazy Kathleen into the world of popular franchises.

 

[BlackTron]

But he did. Marquand didn't know how to handle the visual effects or action at all, so Lucas directed something like 90-95% of the movie. Marquand's stuff is mostly the close-up dialog scenes.

Dialog scenes are precisely where Lucas needs help.

 

[ManaByte]

Dialog scenes are precisely where Lucas needs help.

Yea but Marquand had a habit of shoving the camera so far into their face they could almost fog up the lens. That's why there are so many extreme close ups in ROTJ compared to ESB or ANH.

 

[djjinx2]

Yes they might where involved.

So did this guy...

I always wondered what happened to Kevin.

 

[BlackTron]

Yea but Marquand had a habit of shoving the camera so far into their face they could almost fog up the lens. That's why there are so many extreme close ups in ROTJ compared to ESB or ANH.

Okay you're right. I don't wanna see Luke up close. Instead I want to watch Natalie Portman struggle.

Wait, that sounds wrong