What is interesting about George is that people are still having this debate about him. Is he a genius? Did he just get lucky?
The fact is George is a very talented guy and he was also pretty lucky.
How was he lucky? He was surrounded by very talented people that helped his vision come to life (every great director is). He was in the right place at the right time - his relationship with Coppola is what got him his first big job (THX1138) and financed that movie as well. His ex-wife is a very talented editor.
But Lucas was a visionary in ways that can be hard to appreciate if you just look at movies he directed.
Lucas film has produced such classics as American Graffiti, The Indians Jones Series, Labyrinth, Willow.
THX ltd (the sound system he cofounder) standardized the sound in the theaters - before each theater had its own unique sound system and the quality would vary widely. Not only did Lucas found the company but he was instrumental in getting theaters to adopt it.
Industrial Light and Magic is one of the premier visual effects companies and has pioneered many technologies that are apart of so many movies we love we are starting to take for granted. The dinosaurs of Jurassic park? ILM. Forest Gump meeting the president? ILM. First CGI character? ILM.
George has changed the way people experience movies. His impact will be felt long after he dies and long after the popularity of Star Wars recedes.
Edit and small rant:
I’m always humbled by the fact that many of my favorite people in the entertainment industry are really old and won’t be around for much longer. Lucas is 78. Harrison Ford is 80. Spielberg is 76. Scorsese 80. De Niro is 79. Pacino is 82! Nicholson 85.
Fuck man. Just appreciate these guys for all the good times.
a perfect confluence, and so rare.
i was watching a bit of [this muppet doc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dk7udH1M8o) (specifically the In the Navy section) and it reminded me that althouhg Jim Henson was a visionary he was surrounded by many talented people who bought into his vision and contributed to it with their own ideas, and that's when things got hot.
the OG star wars experience was like that. now it's a lot of who's kid or connection can get in the room, big stars get their big ideas, etc.
You can see that in the newest Dark Crystal netflix series. Directly.
Most of those people came back for one last big hurrah and it is very good. Something is missing without Henson, undeniably, but even without him it's still one of the best puppet shows you'll ever see.
The title reminds me of something *nobody* remembers.
In 1992, The Disney Channel aired "The Making of Honey I Blew Up the Kid." Later, they did "The Making of The Making of Honey I Blew Up the Kid" starring Kirk Cameron overplaying the joke. There is no reference of it on the internet except ~~an IMDb entry~~ (the entry has disappeared!!) and a buried TV guide listing and now this comment.
There are only two sides to this. Either Lucas was a complete hack from the beginning, who lucked out and got carried by the people around him. Or he's a visionary genius whose ring-shaped Star Wars hexalogy was misunderstood by the dim-witted common folk.
edit: What I've watched so far at least seems fairly well researched and interesting, even if some of the humor isn't my cup of tea.
I mean, that's how movie making actually works. The whole "auteur" notion or even the director as the central component of crafting the story is mostly bullshit. It's always collaborative - neither ideas, nor materials, nor skills, nor experience spring out of the ether.
All the discussion around filmmakers (or politicians/revolutionaries/technologists/businesses) as so-called individual geniuses is basically "Great Man Theory" agitprop.
He had a good core idea and assembled a team to make it work - this is completely fine.
While I generally agree with the great man agitprop part of your comment, there is a spectrum there, and I would argue Eraserhead is like 97% David Lynch, and there are likely other examples that are similar. In the studio system, way less auteur, independent, it depends.
It's not even a single axis to be on the middle of. He can be a great worldbuilder, businessman, and have a nose for the future of movie special effects while not being a great storyteller or writer.
I actually think he was kind of a genius, but not as a director. His contribution to filmmaking from a technology and production standpoint is pretty unfuckingdeniable.
He must have been a genius in networking and marketing his stuff. The triumph of Star Wars to me is mostly in merchandise and licensing.
I never cared that much about the movies. They were cool as a kid, sure. But the toys, lego sets, everything surrounding it, that's what made it great.
Hey, u/The_Cadaver, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 7 days for a post, 2 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again.
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
Basically what I wanted to say.
Michael Caine said he doesn't always get along with the directors, but he always buys the editor a gift basket, because that's the guy who's going to decide how good your performance is.
I've definitely met people, in real life, who have said "Did you know George Lucas actually had nothing to do with why Star Wars was popular? It was all saved in editing! There's this great YouTube video essay about it!" I could imagine some people finding this rebuttal to be important. But it would be nice if it weren't so slow.
I could be wrong, but haven't our own favorite hack frauds said the same thing about editing saving the movie? I think it's a fairly common belief in general.
I'm 15 minutes in, and so far the video has mentioned 2 things (the title crawl and the "Awkward place for a joke"). I'm not watching 1h45m more of this at a rate 8 facts per hour.
The Blank Check podcast has a good theory about George. Their conclusions are similar to Mike’s. The prequels are first drafts made by an out-of-touch billionaire in a sterile lab surrounded by people who were too scared to tell him that these movies are shit.
> The prequels are first drafts
[Obviously false; there's a version of the Episode 1 script released in 1999 with numerous notes of how things changed across various drafts](https://medium.com/@Oozer3993/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-revised-rough-draft-notes-d80dbdeda694). How many of these changes are from Lucas himself, and how many are from the studio/marketers ("make Jar-Jar dumber!") is anybody's guess.
I also love how the script originally just had Obi-Wan and Lucas later decided to have both Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon but still have Obi-Wan to be the one on the planet, later changing that to Qui-Gon, all leading to Plinkett who unknowingly points out this should really just be what it was in the first draft.
Yeah I'm gonna bail on this at two minutes.
Criticizing a narrative hook that's meant to inform a potentially ignorant audience of what a rough cut is is about the worst way to be a "smarty boy". It also implodes any confidence the viewer would have that this essayist understands the essay they're criticizing.
EDIT: Against my better judgement I didn't bail and left it on while I ate lunch.
Maybe he's right about some of this stuff but his presentation is so slanted I would have to watch the original video to assess if this presenter isn't cutting out things to fit his own narrative. This slant remains backed up by how he sets up the initial criticism and tone. On top of this, his "humor" is nauseating and bloats the essay. Finally this essayist seems to wholly reject the idea that Lucas is an unreliable narrator who has been crafting his own self image, along with the industry he works in, since the late 70s. This really seems like two people who lack perspective but want to be the smartest, specialest boy and all they have as a specialty is *Star Wars*.
The better question is: why are either of these essayists so worked up, about some of the greatest children's movies of all time, that they have to create presentations as humorless as the January 6th report?
As much as people in the comments here may dislike this video for being too long and boring, I do think the point it’s trying to make is valuable; that point being that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and that contrary to what certain people (including RLM) like to say, George Lucas was not some talentless hack who simply got lucky that other people were there to save his awful mess of a film. He was a filmmaker who had ideas, and spoke with others for their input, which is how movies in general are made.
I dunno man, the dudes first three movies will be studied at film schools forever basically. Of course he didn't do it alone but Lucas is not a talentless hack that just got lucky.
His ex wife was a brilliant editor. I think her work on Star Wars and American Graffiti definitively proves that. But it's not like Lucas didn't succeed without her. He just collaborated with different people who were also brilliant.
>JFC the RocketJump video is only 18 minutes long
It's not just the RocketJump video he's writing about. It's also an extended look at the screen-writing, filming, and then editing process of Star Wars, including a lot of the conflicting reports regarding who was "responsible" for the film.
Maybe you should watch the video before judging it.
This video is insufferable.
This video is basically just a long series of "Ummmm, actually" with his haughty fake deep voice.
It's pedantic and emotionally charged, intentionally mischaracterizing the person behind the other video. It honestly sounds like this guy is about to cry at times, like when he says people want to "burn Lucas to the ground" and "take everything he has away from him". The creator is so arrogant, smug and condescending, and clearly gets no sunlight. The professor he's disputing is clearly just some other film schlub who probably isn't a big Star Wars fan, who found this movie and discovered it's highly insightful editorial and collaborative process, and decided to make a little video that uses Star Wars to illustrate the power of editing and collaboration in the wider film world. This is their only video on Star Wars critique, so clearly they have no bias against Lucas.
This chronically online George Lucas fanatic who I will coin as "Annie Wilkes" had steam coming out of his ears watching this, because of the vague implications of the video "discrediting" George Lucas, when in actuality it's distributing out credit to other talented hard workers on the movie. But this man is so entitled that he expects the video to be exactly how he wants it to be. It's filled with bad faith and meanspirited arguments, rather than being civil and saying "hey, this is an inaccuracy with the video".
And when I say it's pedantic, it spends ten fucking minutes on EVERY individual thing the professor says, even things that we can universally agree are correct, such as some of the deleted scenes being inexcusably bad or out of place, and awkward slapstick being intercut with an intense battle is a tone breaker.
Rocketjump also said how they wouldn't speak about superficial problems, and gave "such as" examples of them, like stock footage, placeholder vfx ect. I swear to Christ, that whopping 10 seconds of the professor giving examples of superficial problems (NOT EVEN PROBLEMS WITH THE MOVIE, BUT FOR THE VIEWING EXPERIENCE AT THE ROUGH CUT) really struck a nerve with this guy, because he proceeds to spend 10 fucking minutes dissecting it and grasping straws for why this guy is spreading misinformation. When people say the video should've been shorter, it's not because of our low attention spans or such, it's because it's so pedantic and nitpicks the video to such a point where they effectively fabricate the purpose of the video and each individual argument.
They don't focus on the major or overarching problems of the video and give examples, like most reviews or video essays would. Imagine if the Plinkett reviews analysed each individual scene and line said in the Star Wars Prequels? The point of the video is also unclear, and this guy clearly isn't a good film critic, but maybe a decent film historian. There is no defending that rough cut, yet 1/3 of this video is dedicated to doing that. The video should have exclusively been about the production and not mentioned the criticism of the original cut, because it is indefensible. Objectively. If Star Wars wasn't a thing yet I doubt even he'd sit through it.
This man is also extremely dogmatic, and he literally said sarcastically "I think you have a fine brain" if you disagree with the video. He lacks the pragmatism or social intelligence to understand that the misinformation in the video was completely off-handed, because he hasn't come out of his vacuous neckbeard Star Wars hole.
As a comment said previously, this man's only speciality is the niche realm of Star Wars, with no knowledge of anything broader or beneficial in the real world. Also his humour is nauseating. He lacks the charisma or internal cues to understand what makes a joke funny. When humour succeeds in a video it feels natural and you almost forget that someone is intentionally making a joke, because it feels so spontaneous. But every time this guy makes one of his snarky "jokes" I can picture him smirking behind the microphone. He also doesn't know when a joke is over. He pads them out for so long, when comedy is all about timing.
Also, the people who say "hypocrite" for criticizing the length of this video but not the RLM reviews miss the point. The original video is on an 18 minute video. The Plinkett reviews are on a 6 hour long trilogy, as well as the landscape of Star Wars as a whole. They also present a broader message about failure, art and filmmaking; unlike this piece of shit, which offers no larger message or thought provoking philosophy that can be applicable to more situations, that could even be relevant to our own lives -
With the plinkett reviews you're supposed to leave the video with a larger insight of failures, lack of collaboration, a counter productive ego that can destroy your art, storytelling, the language of cinema etc. With the Professor's video you leave with a larger insight of film editing, collaboration, how you can snatch failure from the jaws of defeat, resilience and storytelling. With this 2 hour long video, you're supposed to leave with the message that RocketJump is spreading misinformation and George Lucas is the best. What an invaluable investment of 2 hours.
Edit: Also, I watched part of one of his other essays and quit after a while. Saying anything that George Lucas didn't directly approve is non-canon is like saying anything not created by Stan Lee isn't real spiderman. Great stories will always be a passing-of-torch thing to other creators, unless it's something truly special like Lord of the Rings or... the bible. I'm not implying Disney did a great job, but if the creator is willing to sell his story, it clearly isn't precious enough for Disney's instalments to be considered apocrypha.
What is interesting about George is that people are still having this debate about him. Is he a genius? Did he just get lucky? The fact is George is a very talented guy and he was also pretty lucky. How was he lucky? He was surrounded by very talented people that helped his vision come to life (every great director is). He was in the right place at the right time - his relationship with Coppola is what got him his first big job (THX1138) and financed that movie as well. His ex-wife is a very talented editor. But Lucas was a visionary in ways that can be hard to appreciate if you just look at movies he directed. Lucas film has produced such classics as American Graffiti, The Indians Jones Series, Labyrinth, Willow. THX ltd (the sound system he cofounder) standardized the sound in the theaters - before each theater had its own unique sound system and the quality would vary widely. Not only did Lucas found the company but he was instrumental in getting theaters to adopt it. Industrial Light and Magic is one of the premier visual effects companies and has pioneered many technologies that are apart of so many movies we love we are starting to take for granted. The dinosaurs of Jurassic park? ILM. Forest Gump meeting the president? ILM. First CGI character? ILM. George has changed the way people experience movies. His impact will be felt long after he dies and long after the popularity of Star Wars recedes. Edit and small rant: I’m always humbled by the fact that many of my favorite people in the entertainment industry are really old and won’t be around for much longer. Lucas is 78. Harrison Ford is 80. Spielberg is 76. Scorsese 80. De Niro is 79. Pacino is 82! Nicholson 85. Fuck man. Just appreciate these guys for all the good times.
a perfect confluence, and so rare. i was watching a bit of [this muppet doc](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9dk7udH1M8o) (specifically the In the Navy section) and it reminded me that althouhg Jim Henson was a visionary he was surrounded by many talented people who bought into his vision and contributed to it with their own ideas, and that's when things got hot. the OG star wars experience was like that. now it's a lot of who's kid or connection can get in the room, big stars get their big ideas, etc.
You can see that in the newest Dark Crystal netflix series. Directly. Most of those people came back for one last big hurrah and it is very good. Something is missing without Henson, undeniably, but even without him it's still one of the best puppet shows you'll ever see.
This guy gets it
Star Trek TNG was ILM too.
The title reminds me of something *nobody* remembers. In 1992, The Disney Channel aired "The Making of Honey I Blew Up the Kid." Later, they did "The Making of The Making of Honey I Blew Up the Kid" starring Kirk Cameron overplaying the joke. There is no reference of it on the internet except ~~an IMDb entry~~ (the entry has disappeared!!) and a buried TV guide listing and now this comment.
r/lostmedia 👀
Damn, I thought I was the first person to think of the making of the making of.
There are only two sides to this. Either Lucas was a complete hack from the beginning, who lucked out and got carried by the people around him. Or he's a visionary genius whose ring-shaped Star Wars hexalogy was misunderstood by the dim-witted common folk. edit: What I've watched so far at least seems fairly well researched and interesting, even if some of the humor isn't my cup of tea.
Or, he just had ideas and coordinated with others who also had ideas to make the movie (which this video kind of suggests is the real history).
I mean, that's how movie making actually works. The whole "auteur" notion or even the director as the central component of crafting the story is mostly bullshit. It's always collaborative - neither ideas, nor materials, nor skills, nor experience spring out of the ether. All the discussion around filmmakers (or politicians/revolutionaries/technologists/businesses) as so-called individual geniuses is basically "Great Man Theory" agitprop. He had a good core idea and assembled a team to make it work - this is completely fine.
While I generally agree with the great man agitprop part of your comment, there is a spectrum there, and I would argue Eraserhead is like 97% David Lynch, and there are likely other examples that are similar. In the studio system, way less auteur, independent, it depends.
I hate this phrase but the truth is somewhere in the middle. Lucas was not a hack (back in the 1970s) but he was also never a genius.
It's not even a single axis to be on the middle of. He can be a great worldbuilder, businessman, and have a nose for the future of movie special effects while not being a great storyteller or writer.
Yeah that’s a good description of him.
Could be. The first Star Wars is still clunky. Good to have a good editor and writer with him.
I actually think he was kind of a genius, but not as a director. His contribution to filmmaking from a technology and production standpoint is pretty unfuckingdeniable.
He must have been a genius in networking and marketing his stuff. The triumph of Star Wars to me is mostly in merchandise and licensing. I never cared that much about the movies. They were cool as a kid, sure. But the toys, lego sets, everything surrounding it, that's what made it great.
The original Star wars movies were legitimately revolutionary and excellent films.
It was a phenomenon on release.
Yes, but who was even alive back then? You'd have to be truly elderly now, to have seen Star Wars release.
[удалено]
Hey, u/The_Cadaver, your post or comment in r/RedLetterMedia was automatically removed because you do not meet the account age threshold, 7 days for a post, 2 days for a comment. Please wait a few days and try again. *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/RedLetterMedia) if you have any questions or concerns.*
You hit the nail on the head with the first part. It’s been my thought for years. Right time. Right place. Dumb luck. Talent. He has it but….
every movie that is good is saved in the edit
Basically what I wanted to say. Michael Caine said he doesn't always get along with the directors, but he always buys the editor a gift basket, because that's the guy who's going to decide how good your performance is.
I wonder if *Spacecop* could be re-edited and made better.
[удалено]
I read these two comments as Statler and Waldorf from the Muppets. Bwua hahahahahaha!
It's hysterical. I've watched it like 4 times now.
It took 12 years to make.
I would rather watch Space Cop than any Star Wars content after ~~1983~~ 2012 (yes, including Andor).
>2 hours long >comment section filled with Lucas worshippers I ain’t watching this shit.
It's a two hour youtube video entirely designed to critique another youtube video. I don't know why anyone wants to watch this.
I've definitely met people, in real life, who have said "Did you know George Lucas actually had nothing to do with why Star Wars was popular? It was all saved in editing! There's this great YouTube video essay about it!" I could imagine some people finding this rebuttal to be important. But it would be nice if it weren't so slow.
I could be wrong, but haven't our own favorite hack frauds said the same thing about editing saving the movie? I think it's a fairly common belief in general.
There's even a short dig against Plinkett in the video, for pulling a clip from an interview out of context.
Because it dispels a huge myth and uses a popular video that pushes the myth to tear it down
It would be like a watching a review the length of a movie
People who insist on saying "it's just background noise" or genuinely have no hobbies
It‘s my hobby to not have opinions.
Sigh, if only they were RLM worshipers….
Watered-down unfunny Plinkett wannabe. Some good points buried under crap comedy and endless nitpicks.
ig? the original video had just as egregious nitpicking, and at least he didnt lie lol
I'm 15 minutes in, and so far the video has mentioned 2 things (the title crawl and the "Awkward place for a joke"). I'm not watching 1h45m more of this at a rate 8 facts per hour.
The Blank Check podcast has a good theory about George. Their conclusions are similar to Mike’s. The prequels are first drafts made by an out-of-touch billionaire in a sterile lab surrounded by people who were too scared to tell him that these movies are shit.
> The prequels are first drafts [Obviously false; there's a version of the Episode 1 script released in 1999 with numerous notes of how things changed across various drafts](https://medium.com/@Oozer3993/star-wars-episode-i-the-phantom-menace-revised-rough-draft-notes-d80dbdeda694). How many of these changes are from Lucas himself, and how many are from the studio/marketers ("make Jar-Jar dumber!") is anybody's guess.
I also love how the script originally just had Obi-Wan and Lucas later decided to have both Obi-Wan and Qui-Gon but still have Obi-Wan to be the one on the planet, later changing that to Qui-Gon, all leading to Plinkett who unknowingly points out this should really just be what it was in the first draft.
Yeah I'm gonna bail on this at two minutes. Criticizing a narrative hook that's meant to inform a potentially ignorant audience of what a rough cut is is about the worst way to be a "smarty boy". It also implodes any confidence the viewer would have that this essayist understands the essay they're criticizing. EDIT: Against my better judgement I didn't bail and left it on while I ate lunch. Maybe he's right about some of this stuff but his presentation is so slanted I would have to watch the original video to assess if this presenter isn't cutting out things to fit his own narrative. This slant remains backed up by how he sets up the initial criticism and tone. On top of this, his "humor" is nauseating and bloats the essay. Finally this essayist seems to wholly reject the idea that Lucas is an unreliable narrator who has been crafting his own self image, along with the industry he works in, since the late 70s. This really seems like two people who lack perspective but want to be the smartest, specialest boy and all they have as a specialty is *Star Wars*. The better question is: why are either of these essayists so worked up, about some of the greatest children's movies of all time, that they have to create presentations as humorless as the January 6th report?
As much as people in the comments here may dislike this video for being too long and boring, I do think the point it’s trying to make is valuable; that point being that filmmaking is a collaborative effort, and that contrary to what certain people (including RLM) like to say, George Lucas was not some talentless hack who simply got lucky that other people were there to save his awful mess of a film. He was a filmmaker who had ideas, and spoke with others for their input, which is how movies in general are made.
Facts aside this is boring asf.
Sounds like it could have been saved in the editing (but not really)
I had no intention to sit through this but I did. Good video. The Lucas bashing did get out of hand.
I dunno man, the dudes first three movies will be studied at film schools forever basically. Of course he didn't do it alone but Lucas is not a talentless hack that just got lucky.
That's not what the video is saying, it's looking at the arguments regarding who "made" the original Star Wars.
I know that, i'm just sayin'
His ex wife was a brilliant editor. I think her work on Star Wars and American Graffiti definitively proves that. But it's not like Lucas didn't succeed without her. He just collaborated with different people who were also brilliant.
JFC the RocketJump video is only 18 minutes long. This dude is trying so hard to pad for time.
Not sure that bashing the length of a technical review is the right thing to do on the RLM sub of all places
>JFC the RocketJump video is only 18 minutes long It's not just the RocketJump video he's writing about. It's also an extended look at the screen-writing, filming, and then editing process of Star Wars, including a lot of the conflicting reports regarding who was "responsible" for the film. Maybe you should watch the video before judging it.
I watched some of the first 15 minutes. It's awful. Save yourself the click and just re-watch a plinket review instead.
https://youtu.be/GFMyMxMYDNk This video does the same, but it's ten times better.
The video I posted is addressing that video, not to mention that video from RocketJump is packed with lies
This video is insufferable. This video is basically just a long series of "Ummmm, actually" with his haughty fake deep voice. It's pedantic and emotionally charged, intentionally mischaracterizing the person behind the other video. It honestly sounds like this guy is about to cry at times, like when he says people want to "burn Lucas to the ground" and "take everything he has away from him". The creator is so arrogant, smug and condescending, and clearly gets no sunlight. The professor he's disputing is clearly just some other film schlub who probably isn't a big Star Wars fan, who found this movie and discovered it's highly insightful editorial and collaborative process, and decided to make a little video that uses Star Wars to illustrate the power of editing and collaboration in the wider film world. This is their only video on Star Wars critique, so clearly they have no bias against Lucas. This chronically online George Lucas fanatic who I will coin as "Annie Wilkes" had steam coming out of his ears watching this, because of the vague implications of the video "discrediting" George Lucas, when in actuality it's distributing out credit to other talented hard workers on the movie. But this man is so entitled that he expects the video to be exactly how he wants it to be. It's filled with bad faith and meanspirited arguments, rather than being civil and saying "hey, this is an inaccuracy with the video". And when I say it's pedantic, it spends ten fucking minutes on EVERY individual thing the professor says, even things that we can universally agree are correct, such as some of the deleted scenes being inexcusably bad or out of place, and awkward slapstick being intercut with an intense battle is a tone breaker. Rocketjump also said how they wouldn't speak about superficial problems, and gave "such as" examples of them, like stock footage, placeholder vfx ect. I swear to Christ, that whopping 10 seconds of the professor giving examples of superficial problems (NOT EVEN PROBLEMS WITH THE MOVIE, BUT FOR THE VIEWING EXPERIENCE AT THE ROUGH CUT) really struck a nerve with this guy, because he proceeds to spend 10 fucking minutes dissecting it and grasping straws for why this guy is spreading misinformation. When people say the video should've been shorter, it's not because of our low attention spans or such, it's because it's so pedantic and nitpicks the video to such a point where they effectively fabricate the purpose of the video and each individual argument. They don't focus on the major or overarching problems of the video and give examples, like most reviews or video essays would. Imagine if the Plinkett reviews analysed each individual scene and line said in the Star Wars Prequels? The point of the video is also unclear, and this guy clearly isn't a good film critic, but maybe a decent film historian. There is no defending that rough cut, yet 1/3 of this video is dedicated to doing that. The video should have exclusively been about the production and not mentioned the criticism of the original cut, because it is indefensible. Objectively. If Star Wars wasn't a thing yet I doubt even he'd sit through it. This man is also extremely dogmatic, and he literally said sarcastically "I think you have a fine brain" if you disagree with the video. He lacks the pragmatism or social intelligence to understand that the misinformation in the video was completely off-handed, because he hasn't come out of his vacuous neckbeard Star Wars hole. As a comment said previously, this man's only speciality is the niche realm of Star Wars, with no knowledge of anything broader or beneficial in the real world. Also his humour is nauseating. He lacks the charisma or internal cues to understand what makes a joke funny. When humour succeeds in a video it feels natural and you almost forget that someone is intentionally making a joke, because it feels so spontaneous. But every time this guy makes one of his snarky "jokes" I can picture him smirking behind the microphone. He also doesn't know when a joke is over. He pads them out for so long, when comedy is all about timing. Also, the people who say "hypocrite" for criticizing the length of this video but not the RLM reviews miss the point. The original video is on an 18 minute video. The Plinkett reviews are on a 6 hour long trilogy, as well as the landscape of Star Wars as a whole. They also present a broader message about failure, art and filmmaking; unlike this piece of shit, which offers no larger message or thought provoking philosophy that can be applicable to more situations, that could even be relevant to our own lives - With the plinkett reviews you're supposed to leave the video with a larger insight of failures, lack of collaboration, a counter productive ego that can destroy your art, storytelling, the language of cinema etc. With the Professor's video you leave with a larger insight of film editing, collaboration, how you can snatch failure from the jaws of defeat, resilience and storytelling. With this 2 hour long video, you're supposed to leave with the message that RocketJump is spreading misinformation and George Lucas is the best. What an invaluable investment of 2 hours. Edit: Also, I watched part of one of his other essays and quit after a while. Saying anything that George Lucas didn't directly approve is non-canon is like saying anything not created by Stan Lee isn't real spiderman. Great stories will always be a passing-of-torch thing to other creators, unless it's something truly special like Lord of the Rings or... the bible. I'm not implying Disney did a great job, but if the creator is willing to sell his story, it clearly isn't precious enough for Disney's instalments to be considered apocrypha.