Revenge of the Sith

[Uxi]

Heh, thanks Hurin. Just trying to look at the bigger picture instead of getting lost in the details.

I always thought the prequels would have been better if Maul had stayed the whole trilogy. Obi-wan could have let himself drop from the shaft in homage to Luke in TESB. Maul realizes the gig is up, the Jedi Council is about to arrive, and splits.

Dooku would have been a pawn of Sidious in rival to Maul in AOTC. Dooku would be the public face of the Separatists while Maul was the hidden one (instead of Sidious). Dooku would flee the Arena and the Jedi would chase him to Maul for the hangar duel. Facing Maul would be a great feat for Obi-wan while Anakin faces Dooku. Naturally they're both defeated (and Anakin still loses his hand). Then Yoda comes and whoops it on with Maul AND Dooku and the Sith Lords flee. Both of whom would see action in the Clone Wars (with their minions Asajj Ventress, Durge, and Grevious).

Maul would replace Grevious in Ep 3 and the rest of Ep 3 goes largely the same with Dooku dispatched on the flagship and Obi-wan chasing down Maul to Utapau, where he's finally able to beat him. Only to face Order 66 and Anakin's betrayal.

Now I'm not displeased with the execution of the prequels and like the character of General Grevious, but just think Maul would have filled the same roll better. Possibly making Dooku Anakin's father (possibly revealed after he de-hands him at the hypothetical end to AOTC) would give even more similarity (and tragedy) to the subsequent actions.

[Uxi]

The ROTJ novelization is still good. I bought the hardback compilation of all 3 originals when I bought the novelization of Return of the Sith and read them semi-concurrently.

Some of the detail from the original intent is way off (Ben's reference to Owen being HIS brother, etc), but all such detail is irrelevent minutia IMO. It DOES still hold up IMO and it more closely correlates Luke with Anakin. The way the films are right now, the differences are more stark but the novelizations bring father and son, and their choices, closer in parallel and detail the contrasts between the circustances and decisions of the two.

All of the previous introspection is centered on his evaluations of Luke and his plotting against of the Emperor. None of which is really relevent to Revenge of the Sith. Anakin's final introspection in the novelization IS quite moving, tho it would be hard to add to the movie I think. That one line would have been great, though.

Edited May 21, 2005 by Uxi

[Mr March]

I've always felt the imbalance in the force was all the force users with the exception of Qui Gon Jinn.

You've always felt this way? Or you've felt this way since TPM when the prophecy regarding balance was first mentioned and the end of RotJ was changed from "Luke ends the Empire and the Jedi return when Vader kills the evil Emperor" to "Balance is restored to the force."

I like Uxi's explanation as it retains the original meaning to the end of the RotJ. That was a fantastic post, Uxi!

The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years. And yes, Lucas had always invisioned a saga of nine parts and the original trilogy itself went through countless drafts in which entire character arcs and storylines were added and removed. This would include three earlier chapters. To use your own debating standards:

Hence the name, "Episode IV"

Regardless, Star Wars (and RoTJ specifically) was always about Darth Vader's fall from grace and his redemption. But you don't realize this until one watches the prequels. If the prequels were about Han Solo as a child and growing up, our perception of the original trilogy is again expanded and embelished, but the material in the original trilogy is still there. Han grows, turns back on his criminal ways, falls in love, and eventually becomes the man who destroys both Death Stars. However, Han is a harder sell between prequel and OT because he is a secondary character, unlike Darth Vader who is and always has been the primary Star Wars protagonist/antagonist throughout ALL the Star Wars films...in 1985 and now.

Sequels change our perception of the original film or films. They are sequels. They embelish and expand. Sorry for saying so, but in your attempt to claim Lucas has somehow dupped us only proves that you are putting your head in the sand. You may ignore the prequels if that is your choice, but the saga is complete and must be examined with a unifying theory, not piecemeal.

Incidentally, this is why people (especially fandom in general) are so enraged by bad sequels. A poor sequel infringes upon the original product which fandom consider sacred. Regardless, the universe at a whole is examined once further product is released. One can plug their ears and hum real loud in protest, but ALL the franchise films as a whole is the true, complete story.

Edited May 21, 2005 by Mr March

[Duke Togo]

One can plug their ears and hum real loud in protest, but ALL the franchise films as a whole is the true, complete story.

They can't hear ya, March, they have their fingers in their ears.

[Hurin]

The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years.  And yes, Lucas had always invisioned a saga of nine parts and the original trilogy itself went through countless drafts in which entire character arcs and storylines were added and removed.  This would include three earlier chapters.

The "nine episodes" angle is a myth, and Lucas himself has said so:

"This was never planned as a nine-episode work," Lucas said. "The media [pounced when] I made an offhand comment, 'It might be fun to come back when everyone's 80 and do another one of these.' But I never had any intention of doing that."

Lucas said he only decided to do the back-story trilogy — which "Sith," due next May, will cap — because he realized he had already written it in order to tell the story in the first "Star Wars" films. "The original 'Star Wars' was only three films, and that was what it was meant to be," he said. "After a lot of pondering and thought, I went back to do the back story, but that pretty much tells the story. Episode six is the end. There isn't any more to it."

And this really validates a lot of what the more realistic people out there have thought all along. Lucas never had all "nine" (or even six) episodes written down as even fully developed outlines with characters. Heck, it's pretty friggin' obvious that Leia wasn't even Luke's sister when ANH was shot. The guy was flying by the seat of his pants back then (and well, I might add) and just liked perpetuating the myth that he had it all figured out ahead of time.

And, if you believe that there were nine episodes. . . how can Star Wars then be about Vader's birth, rise, fall, and redemption if he's dead for the last three films?

To use your own debating standards:

Hence the name, "Episode IV"

You are aware that it was originally just "Star Wars" and they actually changed the name and the opening crawl to add "Episode IV" to it after it was successful and sequels became inevitable. Right?

Regardless, Star Wars (and RoTJ specifically) was always about Darth Vader's fall from grace and his redemption.  But you don't realize this until one watches the prequels.

Actually, Star Wars was the story of a Galactive Civil War and principally about the heros of that war (Luke, Han, Leia). . . until Lucas decided to change the focus and make it all about Anakin. Now, he can do that if he wants. But we have the right to bemoan it too.

Sorry for saying so, but in your attempt to claim Lucas has somehow dupped us only proves that you are putting your head in the sand.  You may ignore the prequels if that is your choice, but the saga is complete and must be examined with a unifying theory, not piecemeal.

I don't think he's duping anyone. He's altered things openly. I just think people are duping themselves if they think that what we're getting now is what he "always envisioned."

If you really think that Lucas had the plots and details of the prequels (and even the mythical episodes 7-9) written down and fleshed out, and that these new films represent his complete and full vision of Star Wars as he originally had it, I can't help you.

One can plug their ears and hum real loud in protest, but ALL the franchise films as a whole is the true, complete story.

Yes, it's a pity that he waited twenty years to complete it, and thus there are such dramatic, and jarring discontinuities in tone and meaning between them then, isn't it? Or do you really think that this is how he envisioned it as he wrapped up filming on the original movie in 1977, or even RotJ?

H

Edited May 21, 2005 by Hurin

[Uxi]

Lucas went back and forth on the 9 episode thing for awhile in the late 90s period. This was well documented on USENET (rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc IIRC) a few years ago. His stance for the last few years has been pretty consitently against, however, though there's nothing to preclude Lucas from changing his mind again in 10-15 more years.

Noone can say for sure since Lucas isn't entertaining the ideas of the third trilogy right now, but the most appropriate angle would be Luke's son dealing with the dark side and a possible reappearance of the Sith. Besides, if the scope of Star Wars changed before (though i'd argue against that... the POV and details possibly changed but the broad story arcs have been set for near 30 years IMO), what's to say it couldn't change again to encompass a new trilogy?

[MSW]

Star Wars was NOT originaly envisioned as a nine part film series...Lucas wrote the original script, found he had too much stuff in it that wasn't filmable back then...chose the best parts and the result was the 1977 Star Wars film...

The subtitle "Episode 4: A New Hope" wasn't on the original release...it was added to the 1980 re-release prier to the release of ESB...for proof look at the documentary on the SW OT DVD set...it even shgows the original opening and discusses all these issues

[Mr March]

The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years.  And yes, Lucas had always invisioned a saga of nine parts and the original trilogy itself went through countless drafts in which entire character arcs and storylines were added and removed.  This would include three earlier chapters.

The "nine episodes" angle is a myth, and Lucas himself has said so:

"This was never planned as a nine-episode work," Lucas said. "The media [pounced when] I made an offhand comment, 'It might be fun to come back when everyone's 80 and do another one of these.' But I never had any intention of doing that."

Lucas said he only decided to do the back-story trilogy — which "Sith," due next May, will cap — because he realized he had already written it in order to tell the story in the first "Star Wars" films. "The original 'Star Wars' was only three films, and that was what it was meant to be," he said. "After a lot of pondering and thought, I went back to do the back story, but that pretty much tells the story. Episode six is the end. There isn't any more to it."

And this really validates a lot of what the more realistic people out there have thought all along. Lucas never had all "nine" (or even six) episodes written down as even fully developed outlines with characters. Heck, it's pretty friggin' obvious that Leia wasn't even Luke's sister when ANH was shot. The guy was flying by the seat of his pants back then (and well, I might add) and just liked perpetuating the myth that he had it all figured out ahead of time.

And, if you believe that there were nine episodes. . . how can Star Wars then be about Vader's birth, rise, fall, and redemption if he's dead for the last three films?

To use your own debating standards:

Hence the name, "Episode IV"

You are aware that it was originally just "Star Wars" and they actually changed the name and the opening crawl to add "Episode IV" to it after it was successful and sequels became inevitable. Right?

Regardless, Star Wars (and RoTJ specifically) was always about Darth Vader's fall from grace and his redemption.  But you don't realize this until one watches the prequels.

Actually, Star Wars was the story of a Galactive Civil War and principally about the heros of that war (Luke, Han, Leia). . . until Lucas decided to change the focus and make it all about Anakin. Now, he can do that if he wants. But we have the right to bemoan it too.

Sorry for saying so, but in your attempt to claim Lucas has somehow dupped us only proves that you are putting your head in the sand.  You may ignore the prequels if that is your choice, but the saga is complete and must be examined with a unifying theory, not piecemeal.

I don't think he's duping anyone. He's altered things openly. I just think people are duping themselves if they think that what we're getting now is what he "always envisioned."

If you really think that Lucas had the plots and details of the prequels (and even the mythical episodes 7-9) written down and fleshed out, and that these new films represent his complete and full vision of Star Wars as he originally had it, I can't help you.

One can plug their ears and hum real loud in protest, but ALL the franchise films as a whole is the true, complete story.

Yes, it's a pity that he waited twenty years to complete it, and thus there are such dramatic, and jarring discontinuities in tone and meaning between them then, isn't it? Or do you really think that this is how he envisioned it as he wrapped up filming on the original movie in 1977, or even RotJ?

H

The nine episodes is not a myth Hurin.

If you're debating about what Star Wars means in 1977, 1985, and 1999, why don't you try at least being consistant with your own standards. Right now, Lucas is saying no more planned films. HOWEVER, Lucas did very much consider doing nine episodes at numerous times in the history of the film franchise. Using your own "original trilogy time period only" standard, Lucas, AT THAT TIME, still had nine episodes planned/considered.

Behind the Magic, From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, The Insider, and Lucas's own original writing all declare, from his own words, that nine stories were planned/considered many times from 1975 onward.

You should be aware Lucas ALWAYS wanted "Episode IV" in the opening crawl, but the studio objected for reasons of audience confusion. Hence, the title was cut. Not because only three films were ever planned, not because the 9-part saga is a myth, not because Star Wars was about the rise and fall of Vader, nor any of the other attempts you'll make to give this trivia credence to an "OT only" theory.

I would appreciate if you handle what I write specifically and stop playing spin. Of course all nine episodes were NOT all fleshed out, written, and planned in 1985 and I never wrote as such. Lucas had his treatments and notes and Lucas ALWAYS wanted to do the sequels, even BEFORE the first Star Wars was made. His own contract for the original movies and sequels stated such.

Finally, Star Wars is about Darth Vader's fall and redemption now. If three more films were made, our perception (theres my point again) would change yet again and no doubt Vader's role as the driving force behind the 9-part saga would have even more meaning as Vader's son fulfills the creation of a new force using society. Though this is speculation at best...as is "how can a nine part saga be about Vader?" Funny that.

As for everything else in your post, I'll treat it as frustrations you've no doubt launched at others for whatever reasons you may have. The key word being "others" as in, does not apply to me or what I've written here on MW.

[Mr March]

Lucas went back and forth on the 9 episode thing for awhile in the late 90s period.  This was well documented on USENET (rec.arts.sf.starwars.misc IIRC) a few years ago.  His stance for the last few years has been pretty consitently against, however, though there's nothing to preclude Lucas from changing his mind again in 10-15 more years.

This is about as much truth about the nine episode saga as can be said for certain.

Edited May 21, 2005 by Mr March

[Mr March]

Star Wars was NOT originaly envisioned as a nine part film series...Lucas wrote the original script, found he had too much stuff in it that wasn't filmable back then...chose the best parts and the result was the 1977 Star Wars film...

The subtitle "Episode 4: A New Hope" wasn't on the original release...it was added to the 1980 re-release prier to the release of ESB...for proof look at the documentary on the SW OT DVD set...it even shgows the original opening and discusses all these issues

Incorrect. Creative concessions and the reality of a viable story on film does NOT preclude the fact that Lucas originally planned a 9-part saga. In fact, the very source you quote has Lucas indicating as much and the reasons why he chose episode IV to VI.

[Mr March]

One can plug their ears and hum real loud in protest, but ALL the franchise films as a whole is the true, complete story.

They can't hear ya, March, they have their fingers in their ears.

I'll defend my posts as usual. Nothing more. If some choose not to listen, the loss is theirs.

[Sundown]

Just wondering, why was Ahmed Best listed on the end credits if Jar-Jar Binks had absolutely zero lines throughout the film?

He had one line.

I believe it was "excuse me".

Okay, that was the one entirely out of place line that jarred me. Thought it was a droid, cause it sounded just as silly. It felt entirely purposeless and distracting... not to mention adding zero to the value and mood of the scene. It really isn't a big deal, and it doesn't begin ruin the film for me. But I keep wondering why Lucas insists on inserting these little jarring bits and antics into the movie. I guess it's for the kids... but the same sorts of things in the OT occurred without bugging the adults into thinking... "what the heck..?" With possible exception to the ewoks (whom I'm impartial either way about).

-Al

[JsARCLIGHT]

I saw RotS opening night with my wife but have avoided posting in these threads. I used to be a giant SW dork, complete with toy colleciton. I never quoted yoda or owned a lightsaber or wore a stormtrooper costume but I still thought of myself as a SW dork... until the prequels came out. I completely lost faith in SW after TPM and lost even more after AOTC. I sort of grudgingly went to see this last one just to have "closure" on the story... plus my wife went and got tickets for us before I could tell her to wait until later so we don't have to fight the crowds and sit with the lightsaber wavers.

To my happiness the theater we went to was not that crowded, there where no dorks in costume and no one had a plastic lightsaber.

My thoughts on the movie are still forming in my brain but for the most part I liked it... there where a lot of things both my wife and I thought were terrible (such as Lucas' seeming inability to craft dialogue that does not come off as stilted). All in all it still fits with the other two prequel movies in look and pacing but it seems that Lucas substituted "dark" for "upbeat" in this last one. Other than the tone of the movie I did not see a whole lot that differed thematically from the other two prequels. I sort of wish he would have handed the script and directing duty off to someone else so we could have a slightly alternate take on things for the final chapter but I guess Lookie only trusted himself to do the final round.

All in all I give the movie a closed fist... not a thumbs up or a thumbs down, just a neutral. A lot of the movie went against what I thought should have happened but then again you can't hold that against the movie. My wife really didn't like it that much as her favorite new trilogy character, Padme, was changed from a strong charactered female lead into a whimpering stereotype.

As for all the stuff about how the movies butt together now that the story arc is complete... meh. I bet people are still trying to figure out where that kid that became the new Jason in Friday the 13th the New Beginning went to between the end of that movie and the start of the next one. I think any gaps or inconsistencies in the story after all this will be swept up in the TV show that is planned.

[yellowlightman]

Okay, that was the one entirely out of place line that jarred me. Thought it was a droid, cause it sounded just as silly. It felt entirely purposeless and distracting... not to mention adding zero to the value and mood of the scene. It really isn't a big deal, and it doesn't begin ruin the film for me. But I keep wondering why Lucas insists on inserting these little jarring bits and antics into the movie.

I felt the same way. The droids were particularly poorly done I thought, especially what smart asses some of them were. Palpatine also made a number of weird noises and quips that could have been left out; like the sound he makes during the Anakin/Dooku battle and just random grunts and groans throughout the movie.

Don't understand why a lot of that was left in, most of it wasn't funny and ended up being awkward.

[bsu legato]

All in all I give the movie a closed fist... not a thumbs up or a thumbs down, just a neutral.

JsARC, you should know by now that neutrality can and will not be tolerated in these threads. You're either with us, or you're our enemy.

[JsARCLIGHT]

Well, if I simply must pick a side then I guess I have to fall on the side I'm leaning towards anyhow: which is liking it with reservations. I mean, it wasn't a totally terrible movie like Ewe Bol's House of the Dead (which I accidentally watched on cable a few weeks back... ugh it was so bad I think it gave me cancer).

I just think Lucas should have stuck to thinking the big thoughts and letting someone with actual directing and scriptwriting talent massage his grand visions into more palatable final versions. You have to admit that just like TPM and AOTC, ROTS has dialogue so horrid it cuts beef with the blunt end. I think I winced on a few lines.

[MSW]

Star Wars was NOT originaly envisioned as a nine part film series...Lucas wrote the original script, found he had too much stuff in it that wasn't filmable back then...chose the best parts and the result was the 1977 Star Wars film...

The subtitle "Episode 4: A New Hope" wasn't on the original release...it was added to the 1980 re-release prier to the release of ESB...for proof look at the documentary on the SW OT DVD set...it even shgows the original opening and discusses all these issues

Incorrect. Creative concessions and the reality of a viable story on film does NOT preclude the fact that Lucas originally planned a 9-part saga. In fact, the very source you quote has Lucas indicating as much and the reasons why he chose episode IV to VI.

Lucas has NEVER stated, hinted or even alleged that he started createing Star Wars with the intention of developing a nine part series...

Lucas has stated time and time again that he set out to create a single story, and that the story got too big to film...so he took the best filmable parts rolled them into one script and developed SW:ANH as we know it...he shelved the rest with the hope that maybe someday he could film it or include ideas into other projects...SW became a huge hit, and that allowed him to continue with the stories...only problem was he assembled ANH from bits of the overall story and he needed to reevaluate how things were to proceed.

He has strongly hinted that in the original story the Deathstar would have been distroyied at the end of what we now know as episode 6 (but at the time it was one big story...never got segmented int episodes untill the film became popular enough to warrent sequels)...and that the wookies took the place of ewoks...there is even pre-production art from 1975 showing this....hell, Lucas even states as much on the documentary how he took the best ideas largely from the middle section and rewrote the pared down script.

Lucas did wake up one morning and say "I'm going to develop a sci-fi opera film idea!"

Lucas did NOT wake up one morning and say "I'm going to develop a nine part sci-fi opera film idea!"

[Sumdumgai]

I wonder if Palpatine had that lightsaber hidden in his sleeve since TPM... Since he's been a Sith Lord for Lucas knows how long, I'll bet that he's made a butt-load of spare lightsabers when he wasn't plotting. I mean he got a replacement lightsaber after Windu's death pretty damned fast.

I'll bet if you dismantel his office and stuff you'll find lightsabers all over the place!

I want one, I liked the style of his lightsaber. It looked wierd, yet I liked it.

Maybe I should get a Master Replica's one...

No! NO NO NO NO NOOOOOO! It's too expensive for a handle!!!!

[Hurin]

If you're debating about what Star Wars means in 1977, 1985, and 1999, why don't you try at least being consistant with your own standards.

If you would please explain how I'm not being consistent or my standards are changing, I'd appreciate it. I'm not even sure what you mean here.

Right now, Lucas is saying no more planned films. HOWEVER, Lucas did very much consider doing nine episodes at numerous times in the history of the film franchise. Using your own "original trilogy time period only" standard, Lucas, AT THAT TIME, still had nine episodes planned/considered.

Behind the Magic, From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, The Insider, and Lucas's own original writing all declare, from his own words, that nine stories were planned/considered many times from 1975 onward.

First, he is saying now, unequivocally, that he never intended to make the latter episodes. And he even comes clean about letting the press think that he did and even encouraging the myth as it grew. From here:

"Well," insisted the man whose plaid shirt and jeans have become as symbolic a costume as a Jedi robe, "that was sort of a figment of the press' imagination."

"I sort of played into it," he admitted, "but I probably shouldn't have. The joke I said was, 'It would be fun to come back when everybody's 70 and make a sequel.' But I realized when everybody's 70, I'd also be 70. That idea, now that I'm 60, isn't quite so appealing."

I would be thrilled if you could find me a quote of Lucas himself saying: "I originally planned on nine films." Though, really, I'm not sure what that would prove other than he. . . well. . . once planned to do nine films. I merely brought up the nine films myth because it shows just how nebulous this whole idea was that he has some wonderful notebook in which the history of a Galaxy Far Far Away is written, and he merely consults that when he creates his films.

You should be aware Lucas ALWAYS wanted "Episode IV" in the opening crawl, but the studio objected for reasons of audience confusion. Hence, the title was cut. Not because only three films were ever planned, not because the 9-part saga is a myth, not because Star Wars was about the rise and fall of Vader, nor any of the other attempts you'll make to give this trivia credence to an "OT only" theory.

What the heck are you talking about? I never said that he never intended to make any other movies beyond original trilogy. I fully believe that he had a vision of what took place before the OT, since he dreamt up the world in which it took place. I just don't believe in the "notebook" myth that all six (or nine) were written at the same time and are now coming out on film untouched by the years or Lucas's changing worldview(s). Which bring us to. . .

I would appreciate if you handle what I write specifically and stop playing spin.

And I would appreciate it if you calmed down and stopped acting like all this offends you personally. Also, kindly explain how I'm "playing spin."

Of course all nine episodes were NOT all fleshed out, written, and planned in 1985 and I never wrote as such. Lucas had his treatments and notes and Lucas ALWAYS wanted to do the sequels, even BEFORE the first Star Wars was made. His own contract for the original movies and sequels stated such.

Finally, Star Wars is about Darth Vader's fall and redemption now. If three more films were made, our perception (theres my point again) would change yet again and no doubt Vader's role as the driving force behind the 9-part saga would have even more meaning as Vader's son fulfills the creation of a new force using society. Though this is speculation at best...as is "how can a nine part saga be about Vader?" Funny that.

Yes, that's what the trilogy is about now. And if you recognize that this retroactively changes what the OT originally meant, that's fine. And we can debate whether it is a good or a bad change. But what troubles me are the people who come up with odd ways of looking at things such as the "balance prophecy." When they are given one interpretation that still fully fits with all six films but instead choose one that really contradicts the OT and merely assert that the prequels supercede the OT. . . that's where problems arise.

At that point, someone is essentially saying: "I don't have to take the interpretation that fits into all six movies because the newer movies are the newer, better, final views of the author that supercede what he did before because he is now simply revealing to us what the OT was supposed to mean all along. It's not that the themes or meaning of the OT have changed, it's just that we understand them better now because he's finally revealed the whole story to us."

I find that outlook problematic because it buys into the idea that the notebook myth is real, and that the OT never really meant what it said. We were just ignorant all along for the last twenty years as to its true intentions, themes, and meanings.

I don't believe, when Lucas wrote The Return of the Jedi that he then intended to portray the Jedi as essentially unsympathetic (and I'm not even sure now that he intended to do so in the prequels, but the prequels have had that effect). I don't think, when the Empire was ended and Palpatine killed, that he intended for us to believe that this was actually a restoring of "balance" to the force. I don't think, when he introduced Luke in ANH that he intended Luke to be only a tool for furthering the story of Luke's father.

I think that the always wanted ot flesh out the "back story" more through films. But that "back story", in my view, would have been dramatically different had he written it twenty years ago. If someone understands all this, great. But saying that the OT always meant this in Lucas's mind and we're now just finally getting a true understanding of his grand vision is. . . again. . . problematic. And, Mr. March, you come perilously close to explicitly stating this when you say: "The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years."

As for everything else in your post, I'll treat it as frustrations you've no doubt launched at others for whatever reasons you may have. The key word being "others" as in, does not apply to me or what I've written here on MW.

Uh. . . okay.

Late Edit: Re-reading your posts to find some common ground (because I think we're actually misunderstanding each other quite a bit), I was struck by this:

Sequels change our perception of the original film or films. They are sequels. They embelish and expand.

You keep referring to "sequels". . . but normally sequels take place chronologically later than the original in the fictional timeline. As such, they really don't have as much impact on the original as a prequel, which is what we are discussing. And, in prior non-SW "prequels", care is usually taken to make it entirely episodic so that it doesn't change or spoil the first movie which it fictionally preceds (think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, though I've always wondered why Indy would claim he's not superstitous in Raiders after seeing all that crazy sh*t go down!).

These prequels have a much greater impact on the OT than the average sequel would in any other given movie series. And therefore, I don't think you can use the same sequels change things, that's what they do, perspective so easily. I think intepreting prequels demands that you give the original movies just as much respect and authoratativeness as the new ones. Or, to put it another way, we have to be careful in interpreting them. Some might argue we need to be more careful in interpreting them than Lucas was in writing them.

Edited May 22, 2005 by Hurin

[HWR MKII]

Did anyone else think that the SBDs were more intimidating when they didnt talk? That and the voices didnt match at all. Also why does a droid need o make a death moan like most did at the beginning of the film. I just watched it again tonight with the wife and even she felt that alot of the droid lines were completely unnecessary. A good example was mentioned earlier with the one droid saying excuse me as it went by its captives and then saying your welcome to Grevious when he snatches the Lighsabers from its hands. What was the point of it all droids (aside from R2 and 3PO) dont need to be humanised

[Dobber]

I agree,those were my least favorite things about the movie.

Chris

[Myriad]

I would rather have the droids making funny noises then Jar Jar.

Was order 66 a secret command somehow encoded in the clones DNA? Surely every clone whispering about it would have it come out at some point.

Was it Palp's master who could create life? If so, surely he would not just "seed" one woman. Seed a few and play roulette hoping one of your numbers comes up. Sure the force is strong and can make things come together, but it is a big galaxy. Using that seeding power and knowing about the prophecy, sure is a great way to make a Jedi's head spin. Bringing balance one way or the other just depends on your opinion.

The power of creating and saving life could all just be lies created by Palpy tho.....

Boba could help hunt down other Jedi the way the story ended........

[Mr March]

Lucas has NEVER stated, hinted or even alleged that he started createing Star Wars with the intention of developing a nine part series...

I'm going to use this post as an opportunity to clearly state my position, since many attempts are being made to debunk my original post with incorrect information or simple misunderstanding. I'll spell out my case specifically from beginning to end.

Not even George Lucas knew what path the Star Wars story would take when he first started writing back in '72. When he did start, he had so many ideas, that numerous incarnations of the Star Wars stories created the possibility for many chapters and in turn, many stories. Creative realities, limitations of technology, and ecomonic factors all acted to prevent all of them from becoming a reality, at least early in Lucas' career. So Lucas created a six part saga and chose to make episodes IV, V, and VI. But that's just the beginning. Not only were nine films at one time considered by Lucas, early interviews quote him as saying the possibility for as many as 12 films existed, with Lucas stating "three trilogies and three spin offs". I source BTM.

Nowadays, Lucas has no intention of doing more Star Wars films and has currently declared ("currently" meaning 1999 to present) that episodes VII, VIII, IX don't exist and have "never existed". I source Empire Magazine.

Moving along, the statement "There has never been any intention of nine films and Lucas has never stated such" is a falsehood and error. Lucas stated in the 70's that there were the possibility for 9 or 12 films and has stated in the 90's that there never was any plans for 9 films. Whatever fashion in which you choose to personally reconcile what Lucas said in the early years compared to what Lucas said in the present is your business. For my part, Lucas has said there were plans for nine films, then changed his mind years later. No big deal to me, but it means that at one time, long ago, there were "PLANS" and Lucas "STATED" them. Regardless, I have defended my original post regarding the 9-part saga and I'm content.

[Mr March]

If you're debating about what Star Wars means in 1977, 1985, and 1999, why don't you try at least being consistant with your own standards.

If you would please explain how I'm not being consistent or my standards are changing, I'd appreciate it. I'm not even sure what you mean here.

Right now, Lucas is saying no more planned films. HOWEVER, Lucas did very much consider doing nine episodes at numerous times in the history of the film franchise. Using your own "original trilogy time period only" standard, Lucas, AT THAT TIME, still had nine episodes planned/considered.

Behind the Magic, From Star Wars to Indiana Jones, The Insider, and Lucas's own original writing all declare, from his own words, that nine stories were planned/considered many times from 1975 onward.

First, he is saying now, unequivocally, that he never intended to make the latter episodes. And he even comes clean about letting the press think that he did and even encouraging the myth as it grew. From here:

"Well," insisted the man whose plaid shirt and jeans have become as symbolic a costume as a Jedi robe, "that was sort of a figment of the press' imagination."

"I sort of played into it," he admitted, "but I probably shouldn't have. The joke I said was, 'It would be fun to come back when everybody's 70 and make a sequel.' But I realized when everybody's 70, I'd also be 70. That idea, now that I'm 60, isn't quite so appealing."

I would be thrilled if you could find me a quote of Lucas himself saying: "I originally planned on nine films." Though, really, I'm not sure what that would prove other than he. . . well. . . once planned to do nine films. I merely brought up the nine films myth because it shows just how nebulous this whole idea was that he has some wonderful notebook in which the history of a Galaxy Far Far Away is written, and he merely consults that when he creates his films.

You should be aware Lucas ALWAYS wanted "Episode IV" in the opening crawl, but the studio objected for reasons of audience confusion. Hence, the title was cut. Not because only three films were ever planned, not because the 9-part saga is a myth, not because Star Wars was about the rise and fall of Vader, nor any of the other attempts you'll make to give this trivia credence to an "OT only" theory.

What the heck are you talking about? I never said that he never intended to make any other movies beyond original trilogy. I fully believe that he had a vision of what took place before the OT, since he dreamt up the world in which it took place. I just don't believe in the "notebook" myth that all six (or nine) were written at the same time and are now coming out on film untouched by the years or Lucas's changing worldview(s). Which bring us to. . .

I would appreciate if you handle what I write specifically and stop playing spin.

And I would appreciate it if you calmed down and stopped acting like all this offends you personally. Also, kindly explain how I'm "playing spin."

Of course all nine episodes were NOT all fleshed out, written, and planned in 1985 and I never wrote as such. Lucas had his treatments and notes and Lucas ALWAYS wanted to do the sequels, even BEFORE the first Star Wars was made. His own contract for the original movies and sequels stated such.

Finally, Star Wars is about Darth Vader's fall and redemption now. If three more films were made, our perception (theres my point again) would change yet again and no doubt Vader's role as the driving force behind the 9-part saga would have even more meaning as Vader's son fulfills the creation of a new force using society. Though this is speculation at best...as is "how can a nine part saga be about Vader?" Funny that.

Yes, that's what the trilogy is about now. And if you recognize that this retroactively changes what the OT originally meant, that's fine. And we can debate whether it is a good or a bad change. But what troubles me are the people who come up with odd ways of looking at things such as the "balance prophecy." When they are given one interpretation that still fully fits with all six films but instead choose one that really contradicts the OT and merely assert that the prequels supercede the OT. . . that's where problems arise.

At that point, someone is essentially saying: "I don't have to take the interpretation that fits into all six movies because the newer movies are the newer, better, final views of the author that supercede what he did before because he is now simply revealing to us what the OT was supposed to mean all along. It's not that the themes or meaning of the OT have changed, it's just that we understand them better now because he's finally revealed the whole story to us."

I find that outlook problematic because it buys into the idea that the notebook myth is real, and that the OT never really meant what it said. We were just ignorant all along for the last twenty years as to its true intentions, themes, and meanings.

I don't believe, when Lucas wrote The Return of the Jedi that he then intended to portray the Jedi as essentially unsympathetic (and I'm not even sure now that he intended to do so in the prequels, but the prequels have had that effect). I don't think, when the Empire was ended and Palpatine killed, that he intended for us to believe that this was actually a restoring of "balance" to the force. I don't think, when he introduced Luke in ANH that he intended Luke to be only a tool for furthering the story of Luke's father.

I think that the always wanted ot flesh out the "back story" more through films. But that "back story", in my view, would have been dramatically different had he written it twenty years ago. If someone understands all this, great. But saying that the OT always meant this in Lucas's mind and we're now just finally getting a true understanding of his grand vision is. . . again. . . problematic. And, Mr. March, you come perilously close to explicitly stating this when you say: "The story of Star Wars hasn't changed, only the amount of information we are given has altered in the past 20 years."

As for everything else in your post, I'll treat it as frustrations you've no doubt launched at others for whatever reasons you may have. The key word being "others" as in, does not apply to me or what I've written here on MW.

Uh. . . okay.

Late Edit: Re-reading your posts to find some common ground (because I think we're actually misunderstanding each other quite a bit), I was struck by this:

Sequels change our perception of the original film or films. They are sequels. They embelish and expand.

You keep referring to "sequels". . . but normally sequels take place chronologically later than the original in the fictional timeline. As such, they really don't have as much impact on the original as a prequel, which is what we are discussing. And, in prior non-SW "prequels", care is usually taken to make it entirely episodic so that it doesn't change or spoil the first movie which it fictionally preceds (think Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom, though I've always wondered why Indy would claim he's not superstitous in Raiders after seeing all that crazy sh*t go down!).

These prequels have a much greater impact on the OT than the average sequel would in any other given movie series. And therefore, I don't think you can use the same sequels change things, that's what they do, perspective so easily. I think intepreting prequels demands that you give the original movies just as much respect and authoratativeness as the new ones. Or, to put it another way, we have to be careful in interpreting them. Some might argue we need to be more careful in interpreting them than Lucas was in writing them.

Hurin, I have never said, nor implied that all these supposed 9 films were "already written" in some magical book of the Lucas lore. Idea, concept, treament, and script are all radically different things. Planning at one point in the development of a story to do 9 films, then changing your mind to do only 6 in no way implies that there was NEVER any intention to do 9 films. Lucas once considered doing 9, he's done 6, and now has said he will never do any more. That's it...that's the point I made...nothing else.

If you really think that Lucas had the plots and details of the prequels (and even the mythical episodes 7-9) written down and fleshed out, and that these new films represent his complete and full vision of Star Wars as he originally had it, I can't help you.

This is spin. An attempt to take what I wrote and equate it to "Lucas had all 9 stories written out in a book back in the 1977 and Mr March thinks so." So once again, I ask that these assumptions upon my own case be sent to where they belong...in a conversation with someone who actually thinks that way.

The "nine episodes" angle is a myth, and Lucas himself has said so:

This is what I mean by standard. You are using a current interview in an attempt to debunk the creative process through which Star Wars travelled decades ago. You say "This is what Star Wars was in 1977" but you are using an interview conducted in 2005 to prove it. In the 70s, Star Wars was once considered to be nine parts. So once again, if you're debating what Star Wars means in 1977, 1985, and 1999, use what Lucas said and what he considered in those years as proof of your claim, not what Lucas says in 2005 (especially when said quote by Lucas contradicts what he said in the past).

And I would appreciate it if you calmed down and stopped acting like all this offends you personally.

This is a nice attempt to get the conversation on some "common ground" I'll ignore this for now in the hopes you actually want the discussion to get better.

[Hurin]

This is what I mean by standard. You are using a current interview in an attempt to debunk the creative process through which Star Wars travelled decades ago. You say "This is what Star Wars was in 1977" but you are using an interview conducted in 2005 to prove it. In the 70s, Star Wars was once considered to be nine parts. So once again, if you're debating what Star Wars means in 1977, 1985, and 1999, use what Lucas said and what he considered in those years as proof of your claim, not what Lucas says in 2005 (especially when said quote by Lucas contradicts what he said in the past).

I'm really at a loss here. You're actually saying that his current words have no validity, even when he is directly addressing the very rumors that he had "plans" for nine films? I'm sorry, but that's sorta. . . odd.

You yourself seem only to come up with quotes where he says that there is enough material in his imagination for 9-12 films. That is not the same as saying that he was planning on 9-12 films. Or that he developed the latter ones any farther than musings.

Yes, it is true that we used to think of Star Wars as nine parts. And now Lucas is directly addressing that and saying that this was a myth that he himself helped to perpetuate, and that he never planned for nine films. And you consider that irrelevant. The creator of the friggin' films is telling you flat out that there have been mistaken impressions, that he allowed them to go on, and even played into them, while correcting the record about "what Star Wars was in 1977."

I'm seriously just at a loss to explain why I must only take into account what he said back then (especially since what you've found isn't definitive) and not take into account his retraction and explanation regarding the very things you say should be the only things I can take into account!

What Lucas has to say today, especially when he's openly and directly addressing exactly what he said before (upon which your argument hangs), why he said it, and how he feels a bit remorseful about it, is very relevant. Ignoring it or claiming it is irrelevant seems awfully convenient.

Re-reading your post (because I'm sure I must be missing something), I'm not sure, but I think you're saying that my knowledge of there being nine films affected my understanding of what Star Wars was. . . and that this new revelation regarding whether he ever really planned around nine can't possibly have changed what I knew about them back then or what they meant. But, all I can say to that is: The meaning of the three movies wasn't changed much by knowledge back then that there were a possible six other films. The movies said what they said, and meant what they meant. And at that point we didn't know the focus of the prequels or sequels. We certainly had no inkling (and I would argue, neither did Lucas) about Padme, Qui-Gonn, or that the prequels would even center around Vader as much as they did. The meaning of the films can only be changed when the other three or six films are created and released. And since that happened twenty years later, things are more problematic. My only point in this has been that people can't look at the prequels and say to themselves: "That's what Lucas had in mind all along and the OT should be viewed retroactively in that light because Lucas knew all this even when he made them twenty years ago."

Edited May 22, 2005 by Hurin

[Duke Togo]

I think its pretty safe to say Hurin has ruined this thread for everyone wanting to discuss Episode III. Good job.

[EXO]

You know... he did the same for the Kingdom Of Heaven thread.

[Sundown]

Palpatine also made a number of weird noises and quips that could have been left out; like the sound he makes during the Anakin/Dooku battle and just random grunts and groans throughout the movie.

Don't understand why a lot of that was left in, most of it wasn't funny and ended up being awkward.

Now you mention it, that set me off too. Maybe Palpatine just wanted to remind you constantly that he's still there. Throughout the movie, Palpy just had... weird moments. One moment he'd be his old imposing self. Next moment he'd be this fruity ham of sorts. I'm not entirely sure I enjoyed his squealing for help at Windu's feet. Yeah, it got the job done, and got Anakin to respond. But I dunno... is there any way he can beg for mercy or aid without sounding so... pathetic?

Yes, yes, I understand some will say that's the whole point. Palpy is pathetic. But he made a better villian just being scary, menacing, mocking, and creepy in ROTJ.

One thing I realize now that I do like a lot about that scene. Anakin's action that causes his fall is exactly the same one that redeems him. He saves Palpatine from Mace at the last moment just as he saves Luke from the Emporer. I guess he has a soft spot for squealing and watching folks suffer slowly. At least when he's not getting to do it himself.

-Al

[mikeszekely]

Hey, here's a question that was never really answered.

In Episode II, the Kaminoans told Obi-Wan that it was former Jedi Master Syfo-Dyas who placed the order for the clones, years before, right? But who exactly was he? And if the clone army was part of Palpatine's plans, how was Syfo-Dyas related?

Did anyone else think that the SBDs were more intimidating when they didnt talk?

Not really. I mean, they never struck me as intimidating at all, until I played Republic Commando.

Was order 66 a secret command somehow encoded in the clones DNA?

I think it was embedded in their training/programming.

[Warmaker]

I would rather have the droids making funny noises then Jar Jar.

Was order 66 a secret command somehow encoded in the clones DNA? Surely every clone whispering about it would have it come out at some point.

Was it Palp's master who could create life? If so, surely he would not just "seed" one woman. Seed a few and play roulette hoping one of your numbers comes up. Sure the force is strong and can make things come together, but it is a big galaxy. Using that seeding power and knowing about the prophecy, sure is a great way to make a  Jedi's head spin. Bringing balance one way or the other just depends on your opinion.

The power of creating and saving life could all just be lies created by Palpy tho.....

Boba could help hunt down other Jedi the way the story ended........

Order 66, IMO, was something taught to the Clones before being released to the Republic. It wasn't encoded into their DNA since it wasn't necessary. What was encoded was their unquestionable loyalty to the Chancellor / Palpatine. With thorough training and loyalty, there's no need to whisper in the dark about these secret orders. It's probably as instinctive to them as picking up a blaster and pulling the trigger. Also, the Clonetroopers may have taken orders from the Senate and led by the Jedi during the Clone Wars. But the training and very nature made them always loyal to Palpatine.

You also have to remember that the Clonetroopers are Clones of Jango Fett, a Mandalorian. And some of us know the nasty history between Mandalorians and the Jedi Order have been gloriously expanded upon in such places like Knights Of The Old Republic.

As for the whole creating life bit, I don't believe that Darth Plagess (sp?) could have created Anakin (that whole Midichlorian mess). Palpatine said that Plagess taught his apprentice everything and there's alot of implying that Sidious was Plagess' apprentice. Once Sidious learned all that he wanted, he murdered his master.

So, it could be a fair guess that Sidious created Anakin. As for not creating multiple "Anakins" who knows? This process could be very demanding in many ways that we don't know about.

Sidious says to Yoda during their fight is that Anakin would become far more powerful than both of them. IMO, it would be so given time. Remember, Anakin was still quite young in Ep.3 with untold potential with the Force and the Dark Side. What's interesting is that Sidious would create, seduce to the Dark Side, and train someone who could destroy him. Maybe he felt that Vader could further the cause of the Sith more than he could? This despite the well known fact that betrayal is the very nature of the Sith?

Edited May 22, 2005 by Warmaker

[Warmaker]

By the way, I realized something amusing when I was in the parking lot after the movie ended:

Jango Fett gets the last laugh. Yes, Mace Windu screws him hard at Geonosis. But he gets his revenge on the Jedi through his Clones! With Palpatine giving the "Order 66" to the Clone Army, it's like Jango Fett reaching from the grave to slaughter the Jedi.

From Attack Of The Clones, Jango Fett says to Obi-Wan: "They'll do their job."

And boy do they do their job

In a way, for the fans of Knights Of The Old Republic I & II, the Mandalorians exact a bit of revenge after so many years.

[mikeszekely]

What's interesting is that Sidious would create, seduce to the Dark Side, and train someone who could destroy him. Maybe he felt that Vader could further the cause of the Sith more than he could? This despite the well known fact that betrayal is the very nature of the Sith?

It seems to be the attitude of the Sith that an apprentice will prove he or she is ready to assume the mantle of Dark Lord of the Sith once he or she is capable of betraying the master. That is, a Sith Lord comes to power by betraying his/her master, accepting that one day he/she will be betrayed in turn.

[Hurin]

I think its pretty safe to say Hurin has ruined this thread for everyone wanting to discuss Episode III. Good job.

Yeah dude, you should talk.

I'm not the one calling names. I'm not the one claiming to be insulted as you did, Togo. I'm not the one who was warned to "take it down a notch or two." Though, out of fairness, having said that, I probably will be now. Apparently, disagreement that you can't dismantle through petty insults = ruined thread.

Seriously people, stop being a bunch of babies. Whenever a couple of people stridently disagree and write more than a few paragraphs, you all start the "Stop being mean! We're only about hugs and love around here!" BS.

I really don't see what the big deal is. We're discussing Star Wars. In fact, our discussion is related to the "balance of the force" issue. If I'm not mistaken, that's what the thread is for. . . if you don't like the exact details of this particular debate, move on to parts that you do like.

Nobody's stopping you from doing what you want to do, reading what you want to read, and writing what you want to write. Grow up.

P.S. Judging by the three posts since you wrote that are freely discussing the movie without any reference to my debate with Mr. March, the thread is hardly ruined.

Edited May 22, 2005 by Hurin

[bsu legato]

Re: the 9 SW film myth...

From Once Upon a Galaxy: The Making Of The Empire Strikes Back

Alan Arnold: Tell me more about the overall concept of the Star Wars saga.

George Lucas: There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. the first trilogy is about the young Ben Kenobi and the early life of Luke's father when Luke was a little boy. This trilogy takes place some twnety years before the second trilogy which includes Star Wars and Empire. About a year or two passes between each story of the trilogy and about twenty years pass between the trilogies. The entire saga spans about fifty-five years.

AA: How much is written?

GL: I have story treatments on all nine. I also have voluminous notes, histories, and other material I've developed for various purposes. Some of it will be used, some not. Originally, when I wrote Star Wars, it develped into an epic on the scale of War and Peace, so big I couldn't possibly make it into a movie. So I cut it in half, but it was still too big, so I cut each half into three parts. I then had material for six movies. After the success of Star Wars I added another trilogy but stopped there, primarily because reality took over. After all, it takes three years to prepare and make a Star Wars picture. How amny years are left? So I'm still left with three trilogies of nine films. At two hours each, that's about eighteen hours of film!

AA: What is the next chapter be?

GL: The next chapter is called "Revenge of the Jedi." It's the end of this particular trilogy, the conclusion of the conflict begun in Star Wars between Luke and Darth Vader. It resolves that situation once and for all. I won't say who survives and who doesn't, but if we are ever able to link together all three you'd find that the story progresses in a very logical fashion.

[Hurin]

Re: the 9 SW film myth...

From Once Upon a Galaxy: The Making Of The Empire Strikes Back

Alan Arnold: Tell me more about the overall concept of the Star Wars saga.

George Lucas: There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. the first trilogy is about the young Ben Kenobi and the early life of Luke's father when Luke was a little boy. This trilogy takes place some twnety years before the second trilogy which includes Star Wars and Empire. About a year or two passes between each story of the trilogy and about twenty years pass between the trilogies. The entire saga spans about fifty-five years.

AA: How much is written?

GL: I have story treatments on all nine. I also have voluminous notes, histories, and other material I've developed for various purposes. Some of it will be used, some not. Originally, when I wrote Star Wars, it develped into an epic on the scale of War and Peace, so big I couldn't possibly make it into a movie. So I cut it in half, but it was still too big, so I cut each half into three parts. I then had material for six movies. After the success of Star Wars I added another trilogy but stopped there, primarily because reality took over. After all, it takes three years to prepare and make a Star Wars picture. How amny years are left? So I'm still left with three trilogies of nine films. At two hours each, that's about eighteen hours of film!

AA: What is the next chapter be?

GL: The next chapter is called "Revenge of the Jedi." It's the end of this particular trilogy, the conclusion of the conflict begun in Star Wars between Luke and Darth Vader. It resolves that situation once and for all. I won't say who survives and who doesn't, but if we are ever able to link together all three you'd find that the story progresses in a very logical fashion.

Dude! You're ruining the thread! Stop it!

In all seriousness though, good find.

So really, the point here is: One way or another, Lucas is a liar.