criterionforum.org

I never heard anyone suggest A New Hope is Seven Samurai remade...

I'm sure he means Hidden Fortress.

I am speaking from personal experience of a high school teacher showing the whole of Seven Samurai in class because it was the basis for Star Wars. I think it's a by-product of the apparent fact Kurosawa was a big influence that it has somehow confounded the idea that Star Wars itself is at all similar to Seven Samurai (which it isn't on more than the most basic technical levels). I may just have a strange personal experience that's clouded my understanding of how people generally represent Kurosawa's influence on Star Wars, though.

Um, nobody has ever said that ever. Like was said before the Kurosawa film which influenced Lucas was The Hidden Fortress. Teaching something in a high school class doesn't really pose an once of authority.

Ribs wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:

Being wrote:What's lacking at Lucasfilm right now is an artist with vision and imagination. At this point, Lucasfilm is just recycling and rearranging George's ideas from 40 years ago. I'm sure the main saga will be fine at least through Episode 9, but what Lucasfilm really needs now is not a bunch of Han Solo and Obi Wan and Boba Fett fan-service standalone films that have to operate in this confined, small little time period, they need another big, original saga, with bold, brand-new ideas, set either long before or long after the Skywalker saga, so the two sagas are unrelated in terms of direct storyline connections, aside from the Force.

Lucas ultimately envisioned SW as a space opera and family soap opera, so that's the angle I'm sticking with until further notice. According to his biographer, he apparently also had an outline for Episodes X-XII, so who knows what will become of that...

Nothing, considering his notes were not consulted for Episodes 7-9?

So far this was only confirmed (by Lucas himself) for Episode VII, no? This is a rather odd move, considering said biographer considered the VII-IX outline by far the best of the 3 (at-the-time) still-unproduced proposed trilogies. Also, considering Rian Johnson a) isn't a nostalgia-fixated hack like Abrams, and b) is one of the few filmmakers who has acknowledged an appreciation for the prequels (or, at least, what Lucas tried to do in them), I'd be more inclined to think he might try to uphold the creator's vision more than the average filmmaker who would just be content to say 'I made a Star Wars movie!'. :-k

MoonlitKnight wrote:So far this was only confirmed (by Lucas himself) for Episode VII, no?

It's my understanding that the changes from Lucas' version of Episode VII to the Disney version were so fundamental that they essentially throw Lucas' vision for that entire trilogy away.

As a bit of an aside, I'm just barely old enough to remember that in interviews circa '77, Uncle George said that he'd conceived of nine films, although prequels weren't mentioned. In subsequent years he kept changing his story ... six films, no, only three, no wait ... maybe twelve. Regretfully I don't have references to point to but trust others witnessed this too. Given Lucas' varying and conflicting accounts of numerous aspects of his SW vision, I'm not sure there's every really been a solid plan. That became especially evident in the supplementary material on the prequel DVDs in which Lucas appears to be coming up with the concepts for each subsequent film on the fly. Then there's the fact that the chronological trajectory of the prequels was so awkward, especially so in "Sith" in which Anakin's turn to evil and Amidala's demise seemed absurdly rushed. I'd like to think that if these stories had been well-conceived many years in advance, the pacing would have been better.

There's such a rich history of might-have-beens coinciding with the films that have actually been made. As previously discussed this is clearly the case with Rogue One.

xoconostle wrote:As a bit of an aside, I'm just barely old enough to remember that in interviews circa '77, Uncle George said that he'd conceived of nine films, although prequels weren't mentioned. In subsequent years he kept changing his story ... six films, no, only three, no wait ... maybe twelve. Regretfully I don't have references to point to but trust others witnessed this too. Given Lucas' varying and conflicting accounts of numerous aspects of his SW vision, I'm not sure there's every really been a solid plan. That became especially evident in the supplementary material on the prequel DVDs in which Lucas appears to be coming up with the concepts for each subsequent film on the fly. Then there's the fact that the chronological trajectory of the prequels was so awkward, especially so in "Sith" in which Anakin's turn to evil and Amidala's demise seemed absurdly rushed. I'd like to think that if these stories had been well-conceived many years in advance, the pacing would have been better.

Considering even the dynamic of the OT was vastly changed by the fact that, unlike in today's movie climate, Lucas had no idea he'd ever get to make Episodes V & VI when he was making Episode IV and thus ended up putting the trilogy's climactic endgame battle against the Death Star (which wasn't supposed to be complete and fully operational until ROTJ, hence the appearance of a second one in that finished movie) at the end of that first movie, who knows how things could've ultimately gone? I still consider the possible complete dismissal of Lucas' general storyline for this new trilogy akin to the Game of Thrones producers hypothetically kicking George R.R. Martin to the curb (particularly now that the series has caught up to his books). Ultimately, I'd love to see the entire saga remade with all continuity conflicts accounted for (though this would obviously mean a new climactic battle for ANH where Luke would still get to be the hero with Han coming in with an eleventh-hour assist, and a new McGuffin for R2 to be carrying), but I doubt this will ever happen in my lifetime.

Also Lucas never intended Luke and Leia to be siblings, that was a creation of return of the Jedi to accommodate the fact that ford and Fischer had better chemistry and one cannot continue to develop the ANH Luke/Leia romance subplot if Luke is separated from Leia for most of the second film and she clearly falls in love with Han in that film. But the psychic connection with Luke at the end and the kiss at the beginning of empire was meant to further develop their romance. Their being siblings was a retcon to avoid a love triangle in the last two thirds of the third movie. Definitely not part of Lucas vision because he always intended the hero Luke to get the girl.

xoconostle wrote:As a bit of an aside, I'm just barely old enough to remember that in interviews circa '77, Uncle George said that he'd conceived of nine films, although prequels weren't mentioned. In subsequent years he kept changing his story ... six films, no, only three, no wait ...

Yeah, I remember this being the case, too.

I stopped taking Lucas' word seriously after he insisted his original intention with the cut "Jabba The Hutt" scene from Episode IV was to use the costumed actor playing the galactic gangster as a placeholder to be replaced by a stop-motion animated creature in the finished film. There's no way a director in 1976 would have blocked the scene with the two main characters moving around each other as they do believing the effects department could later optically matte in an animated character successfully. ILM still had trouble pulling it off twenty years later using the CGI Jabba! It seems that Lucas just couldn't bear to admit that Jabba was going to be humanoid until re-imagined for Return of the Jedi.

I have no doubt that Lucas had much larger ideas that he paired down for the original film. But the idea that he had exact ideas that were never reworked is absurd. These things were always large brush strokes that morphed multiple times until each film was produced (and this includes the Prequels).

Roger Ryan wrote:I stopped taking Lucas' word seriously after he insisted his original intention with the cut "Jabba The Hutt" scene from Episode IV was to use the costumed actor playing the galactic gangster as a placeholder to be replaced by a stop-motion animated creature in the finished film. There's no way a director in 1976 would have blocked the scene with the two main characters moving around each other as they do believing the effects department could later optically matte in an animated character successfully. ILM still had trouble pulling it off twenty years later using the CGI Jabba! It seems that Lucas just couldn't bear to admit that Jabba was going to be humanoid until re-imagined for Return of the Jedi.

For what it's worth, there is original art that depicts the intended stop motion overlay, and one of the screenplays described him as a "fat, slug-like creature with eyes on extended feelers and a huge ugly mouth".



He then morphed into this for the Marvel comic adaptation, who only received instruction was that he was not human.



Jabba's design history can be seen here: http://www.thegeektwins.com/2014/01/wha ... HlePVw9-Uk" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;

movielocke wrote:Also Lucas never intended Luke and Leia to be siblings, that was a creation of return of the Jedi to accommodate the fact that ford and Fischer had better chemistry and one cannot continue to develop the ANH Luke/Leia romance subplot if Luke is separated from Leia for most of the second film and she clearly falls in love with Han in that film. But the psychic connection with Luke at the end and the kiss at the beginning of empire was meant to further develop their romance. Their being siblings was a retcon to avoid a love triangle in the last two thirds of the third movie. Definitely not part of Lucas vision because he always intended the hero Luke to get the girl.

That' true as well. From what I've heard there WAS going to be another character introduced in ROTJ who was Luke's actual twin sibling, but Lucas instead took said short cut of retconning Leia into that character so as not to have to introduce such a significant character so late in the trilogy (which also retroactively then made her sensing of Luke's calls for help at the end of TESB a case of Force sensitivity).

Some have even speculated that Vader and Luke were never supposed to be father and son and that the story Obi-Wan told Luke in ANH was actually true (NOT merely from 'a certain point of view')... though this would then make the fact that 'vader' also being the Dutch word for 'father' (in spelling, at least, if not pronunciation) a pretty huge coincidence. :-k

captveg wrote: For what it's worth, there is original art that depicts the intended stop motion overlay, and one of the screenplays described him as a "fat, slug-like creature with eyes on extended feelers and a huge ugly mouth".

Is there any indication when this artwork was developed? Could it actually be from the 90s when Lucas was considering overlaying the actor with the CGI Jabba? It's not that I don't believe Lucas would have wanted the character to have a more fanciful "slug-like" appearance when developing the film in the mid-70s, but it's just illogical to have blocked the Jabba/Han Solo scene the way he did thinking actor Declan Mulholland could be replaced optically. Ray Harryhausen had combined real actors with stop-motion animated characters for a couple of decades by '76 and, when shooting the live footage, some empty space would be left in the frame for the animated creatures to be superimposed over. If the thought was to include an animated Jabba, provided there was enough money and time in post-production, then all Lucas needed to do was shoot the scene twice: once with the actor in costume as a compromise that would guarantee the scene could be used in the finished film and once with Harrison Ford playing to an empty space that the animation could be superimposed onto later. That he didn't do this suggests the animated creature was an after-thought or an idea that had been abandoned by the time he actually shot the scene.

^^I distinctly remember seeing that drawing included in one of the 'Making-of' documentaries back in the day, so it definitely wasn't from the '90s... though I'm still not sure of the exact date of it. However, the full drawing clearly shows not only Jabba in front of the Millennium Falcon, but Han (in his ANH garb) as well:

The main line that doesn't ring true in the scene is at the end where Han refers to Jabba as a 'wonderful human being.' :-k Gary Kurtz has suggested that the crew had technical difficulties the day they filmed the scene, and it was actually scrapped because of this (with the scene with Greedo being amended as a result to include some of the same info from this scene -- some of the dialogue in the 2 scenes is almost verbatim, after all). Marcia Lucas suggested it was ultimately cut for both pacing reasons AND because George didn't like the appearance of Jabba's henchmen, which were virtually all cheap-looking Rodians, as originally filmed. So, make of all this what you will.

One other significant amendment of his original OT outline Lucas made along the way: the decision to kill Obi-Wan. Originally, Obi-Wan was supposed to continue training Luke through the rest of the story; thus, Yoda originally didn't exist, and was invented when work began on TESB for the necessity of replacing Obi-Wan's character for the remainder of the trilogy (whether Obi-Wan was also supposed to die of natural causes in ROTJ as Yoda ultimately did, I'm still not sure). However, seeing that there was really nothing for the character to do in the final act of ANH, he made the decision to have Vader kill him at the end of the second act. Of course, Alec Guinness also laid claim for credit of this decision (particularly so that he didn't have to say that many more of those 'bloody awful, banal lines,' as he put it), but, considering how much of a thorn in his side he came to consider these movies over the last 20+ years of his life, who knows what his truth/resentment ratio actually was/is for this claim?

MoonlitKnight wrote:

movielocke wrote:Also Lucas never intended Luke and Leia to be siblings, that was a creation of return of the Jedi to accommodate the fact that ford and Fischer had better chemistry and one cannot continue to develop the ANH Luke/Leia romance subplot if Luke is separated from Leia for most of the second film and she clearly falls in love with Han in that film. But the psychic connection with Luke at the end and the kiss at the beginning of empire was meant to further develop their romance. Their being siblings was a retcon to avoid a love triangle in the last two thirds of the third movie. Definitely not part of Lucas vision because he always intended the hero Luke to get the girl.

That' true as well. From what I've heard there WAS going to be another character introduced in ROTJ who was Luke's actual twin sibling, but Lucas instead took said short cut of retconning Leia into that character so as not to have to introduce such a significant character so late in the trilogy (which also retroactively then made her sensing of Luke's calls for help at the end of TESB a case of Force sensitivity).

Some have even speculated that Vader and Luke were never supposed to be father and son and that the story Obi-Wan told Luke in ANH was actually true (NOT merely from 'a certain point of view')... though this would then make the fact that 'vader' also being the Dutch word for 'father' (in spelling, at least, if not pronunciation) a pretty huge coincidence. :-k

iirc, Luke and Vader were always father and son back to the original adventures of Luke starkiller first draft, right?

movielocke wrote:

MoonlitKnight wrote:

movielocke wrote:Also Lucas never intended Luke and Leia to be siblings, that was a creation of return of the Jedi to accommodate the fact that ford and Fischer had better chemistry and one cannot continue to develop the ANH Luke/Leia romance subplot if Luke is separated from Leia for most of the second film and she clearly falls in love with Han in that film. But the psychic connection with Luke at the end and the kiss at the beginning of empire was meant to further develop their romance. Their being siblings was a retcon to avoid a love triangle in the last two thirds of the third movie. Definitely not part of Lucas vision because he always intended the hero Luke to get the girl.

That' true as well. From what I've heard there WAS going to be another character introduced in ROTJ who was Luke's actual twin sibling, but Lucas instead took said short cut of retconning Leia into that character so as not to have to introduce such a significant character so late in the trilogy (which also retroactively then made her sensing of Luke's calls for help at the end of TESB a case of Force sensitivity).

Some have even speculated that Vader and Luke were never supposed to be father and son and that the story Obi-Wan told Luke in ANH was actually true (NOT merely from 'a certain point of view')... though this would then make the fact that 'vader' also being the Dutch word for 'father' (in spelling, at least, if not pronunciation) a pretty huge coincidence. :-k

iirc, Luke and Vader were always father and son back to the original adventures of Luke starkiller first draft, right?

Considering the entire Star Wars mythos, plot and characters are nicked from Jack Kirby's Fourth World comics (including the detail of the primary hero turning out to be the son of the primary villain - Orion and Darkseid in the comics), it seems highly likely that this was always part of Lucas's plan.

Vader means "father" in Dutch. The Dutch always knew what was going to happen.

I thought I'd read somewhere that the original Lucas plan was for the final showdown between Luke, Vader and the Emperor to take place in Episode IX, but Lucas decided he'd had enough of the hype machine and compressed everything into RotJ. At this point, there are so many versions of Lucas's "original" intent that I'm inclined to just shrug my shoulders and say, "It's the guy who made Phantom Menace. Who cares what his plans were?"

Usually hands are wrung over canonical missteps in the prequels ... Gunguns, Midichlorians, Anakin-built-C3PO , R2D2-can-fly and such, but here's a heretical view that might elicit physical violence in the company of some geeks: Yoda's annoying. And inconsistent. Some might even say a bit offensive in the Star Wars manner of evoking old cinematic ethnic stereotypes, but most of all, corny in "Empire," alternately crotchety and ridiculous in the prequels. The first Star Wars muppet. The original Jar-Jar.

I accept Yoda and have come to like him, but wanted to throw this out there for consideration and a bit of heresy.

Who are we kidding with that question mark, this will never end.

I also would have accepted a dollar sign.

MoonlitKnight wrote:To my dying day I'll maintain that if the prequels had a more skilled screenwriter adapting Lucas' general storyline - and perhaps a more actor-friendly director - they would've been held in almost as high a regard as the OT and - though I totally disagree - the botched surgery that was TFA

By chance I came across this short video about “the prequels’ secret brilliance” (as narrative, not films). I’m not a big enough Star Wars fan to have closely analyzed the saga’s storylines and themes, but does anyone who's digged more deeply into these films feel this guy has a point?

I remember the plot outline being fine if not exactly evidence of some untraceable level of brilliance, but the nooks and crannies being so fucking bogged down by intergalactic politics, bizarrely dull and worthless to the storytelling that was going on. The best aspects of those prequels were the visual ideas (pod racing being my favorite) that never had anything resembling a good enough script and director to hold them up. I'm not sure what happened to George Lucas since 1977, aside from acquiring a positively delightful amount of money, but I feel mostly sad when I think about the prequels that his filmmaking talent is just totally gone.