Last week during Lost Live: The Final Celebration, ABC network executive Barry Jossen read a letter George Lucas wrote to Lost executive producers Damon Lindelof and Carlton Cuse. In the letter, Lucas finally admitted the obvious he had no idea where the story was going when Star Wars just came out, and that the trick is to pretend youve planned the whole thing out in advance.
Article linked from /Film.com
http://www.slashfilm.com/2010/05/17/...ut-in-advance/
I wouldnt pretend that I planned to make three of the crappiest prequels in the the history of movie making..
Kinda like if/when Barry Bonds ever comes forward and admits to using steroids. Meh, everyone knows it, so no big surprise on this one. What is surprising though, is that after all these years after saying he knew how it was all planned that he would reverse that now.
I interpreted it as he was making a joke.
I've said it countless times that he added the line to Raiders as a tongue in cheek moment.
"I don't know, I'm making this up as I go......"
Or as is spoken of Captain Jack in Curse!
"Does he plan it out or just makes it up as he goes along?"
In defense of George, I doubt anyone really knows where their characters are going.
Wonder what kind of responses you'd get if you ask some of the great authors and screenwriters if they knew where some of their characters were going after writing book series or movie franchise.
Yeah, honestly, can't say it's surprising. Doesn't really matter if it's a joke. You need look no further for proof than the contortions in the plot that'd put a Ringling Bros. act to shame.
There is an alternative explanation, though, and one that I think is more likely. It's actually a mix of this answer and the answer that he planned it all from the start.
Here goes:
He DID plan it from the start, but what he planned changed over time. We all know that early drafts focused exclusively on the droids. We've also got Gary Kurtz's statements regarding the plan for the longer term stuff.
So, a plan DID exist in one form or another. The thing is, I suspect that there are so many VERSIONS of the plan (rather than a single, coherent, master plan that fits together neatly) that he just mixes and matches stuff, and then goes back and fudges things out that don't fit, or comes up with a convoluted explanation after the fact.
The problem lies in his unwavering statements that he "always intended" XYZ, when previously he'd have said he "always intended" ABC, or simply did something in the film that is so NOT XYZ (and where, presumably, nothing stopped him from doing XYZ) that his statement rings hollow and false.
Example:
"I always intended that Han should be a good guy. This whole thing where he's this ruthless killer, that's never what I meant for him to be."
Then why'd you have him blow Greedo away in 1977, only to fundamentally alter that in 1997? I mean, it's one thing that you want to replace a cheap wolfman mask with some CG creation, but the whole "Han shot first" thing? I call bulls**t on that one.
Another famous one:
"I always intended that Leia was Luke's sister."
Then why in "From Star Wars to Jedi" did you say you were struggling to find something that'd motivate Luke to lose his ****** on Vader, and came up with Leia as the answer? And need I mention the whole "Rural Appalachia" quality of their relationship in the first two films?
Example 3:
"Hayden appears as Vader because when Anakin died, he was a young man, and Vader was a whole other character."
Then are you saying that Luke DOESN'T redeem him? Or that he wasn't old when he died? Or that his redemption at the end doesn't count because he died before but he died again when he was an old guy afterwards but the force can't figure that out so it shows him as a young guy? And why, by the way, would Luke recognize him?
The truth is that some stuff he made up as he went, other stuff he revised, and some things he (mostly) planned. And in some places HE JUST CHANGED HIS MIND.
The thing that gets me, and that I think ends up pissing off other fans, is that he REFUSES to admit that he was wrong now or wrong then, that he INSISTS that it was all part of a grand master plan, and that there's no flaws in any of his story and it's all perfectly consistent because of a whole bunch of stuff he tells folks after the fact.
When he talks about the films as "My stories" he's really serious, folks. They're HIS stories, and those stories are all in his head. There's a TON of stuff we never get to see but that I'd bet he came up with to connect things that otherwise seem totally unconnected. How and when he came up with those connections we cant' really say (that's where the "Some changed, some I thought of, some I made up 5 min ago" comes in), but it's all there. Trouble is, it's in his head and he's making movies that are on the screen. Ultimately, he is or will be judged by what's on the screen, not what was in his head.
What a minute...a thread full of folks whining about Star Wars????
I never thought I would see the day
But hey if some statement he made to someone justifies the bitterness you feel, the fear of change and rose colored classes of childhood films in days gone bye then it is well worth it. Maybe this will give some folks some closure to this trauma.
But all kidding aside, on to my real point - I have always liked the fact that as you read the original draft of Star Wars you see ideas that while cut from that film made it into all all six films. As a writer it reminds me to never throw out ideas because you may be able to plug them into something else cool down the road.
Personally I never start a story without having a general idea of the past and the future, but that would be just a general plan - details come, go and change along they way to the point I would say it is planned, but not specifically detailed and very open to change and new ideas and directions arrise - but that is just me.
I don't think anyone would ever bash good ol' George for not knowing where the story was headed. At least I do not, my gripe is with him being so smug and conceited to say, yeah I knew the whole story ahead of time, when clearly he did not. But he is a multi-millionaire, so the joke is on us. Eigther way, I was entertained and still am by the body of work he has created
Agreed, Solo4114, although example 2 is a common misperception. What he says in From SW to Jedi is that they didn't know what Vader should say to make Luke mad, so they selected a threat to Leia to be it--NOT that they invented the Leia sister thing on the spot. He came up with that prior---surely long after the original film was finished, mind you, but not in the middle of shooting a scene for ROTJ.
Well, you raise a valid point, but there's a difference in terms of the timing.DarkHelmet said:
Example:
If you tell a story and make it up as you go -- literally, on the fly, I mean, while you're letting it unfold for the audience in front of you -- that's bad storytelling. Or at least it can be when you start contradicting yourself, or end up in a place that's totally different from where you telegraphed you were going and is also unsatisfying.
Example 2:
If you start the creative process, before anyone else sees your end product, and change things at THAT stage to "make it all fit", that's perfectly acceptable. So, let's say I start out with the plan that Character X is going to end up doing ABC, but then in the writing process I realize that either I have to change how I've written Character X, or I have to change what ABC is because the two just don't fit together anymore, that makes sense. After all, this is the creative phase. When I actually start telling the story to my audience, it'll be a finished, coherent piece.
Example 3:
I could also start a story with a beginning and an end point in mind, and maybe a few highlights along the way, and then try to figure out how to get from one to the next, where I make up what fills it in. This can happen during the creative process, or as the story unfolds for the audience, but it's a LOT riskier if you do it on the fly.
Example 4:
I spend YEARS planning my story and create branching storylines so that, no matter what happens, in between, I've got it covered and it all fits together.
To ground all of this in real world examples.
Example 1: Making it Up as I Go.
Look at any existing soap opera. Or look at Battlestar Galactica (the new one). Ron Moore has admitted he had no idea who the Final Five were up through most of season 3, and he only settled on the characters he chose when he decided it'd be interesting to see how several people (IE: Tyrol and Tigh) would respond to learning they're Cylons. Sometimes this can be made to work, other times it works but with less success than if it had been plotted, and other times it's an abject failure.
Example 2: Meticulously Planned but Changed in Drafting
Focal point of ANH was originally going to be the droids, but that was later changed to Luke. Pretty simple example. The film still survives intact and, if Lucas had never said anything about it, no one would've been the wiser. Another example would be any film with deleted scenes. You write your story, you realize that this or that scene screws up the momentum or contradicts something that you plan to do later, so you cut it. Audiences see the film as it appears on screen and, if you never put the original screenplay or deleted scenes out to the public, no one knows any differently (ideally).
Example 3: Filling In the Gaps
J.K. Rowling knows about the circumstances of the death of Harry Potter's parents, and knows that Harry will eventually confront Voldemort and kill him by allowing Voldemort to use a death curse on him (magic judo?). She also has envisioned how Quiddich works and knows that Harry will prove to be a star at it in his first year, and has imagined the confrontation with the basilisk, and that Dumbeldore will sacrifice himself in battle. She then fills in the blanks, writing first a general outline, then fleshing out more detailed versions, and finally writing the individual books. She connects the dots, and nobody knows or cares that she didn't, from day 1, know that Snape's the one who kills Dumbeldore, that Ron and Hermione end up together, that Harry's first kiss is with a girl named Cho, or how many horcruxes there are.
Example 4: Meticulously Plotted but Adaptable on the Fly
J. Michael Stracynski claims to have done this with Babylon 5 where he created "trapdoor" stories for various characters that would allow them to exit the story, while the overarching tale continues coherently. So, Talia Winters (Andrea Thompson's character) might've originally been the only telepath main character intended to be on the show. But then Thompson says "I want to quit to do something else", so now he writes her out. No problem, because the trapdoor mechanism is in place and he's already got Lyta Alexander planned out to neatly step in and assume the role of the central telepath.
The ultimate difference is in managing audience expectations. When you build something up as a grand mystery, the audience assumes that you've planned the entire thing and that it will all fit together neatly. You know where the story's going, you know how you're going to get there.
This is LESS of a problem in movies, but can still be a problem when later entries into the series (in terms of when they're produced and released to the public, not when they fall on the in-universe timeline) end up contradicting or failing to effectively pay off something you've built up previously. So, for example, if in Iron Man 2 there was no appearance of War Machine, not a HUGE deal that Rhodie in Iron Man 1 says "Next time, baby." If, on the other hand, in Iron Man 2, the producers magically retcon that Tony came out as Iron Man at the end of Iron Man 1, people might take issue.
In Television, though, I view it as a cardinal sin to mislead your audience this way. It's my main criticism of Ron Moore's Galactica, and a HUGE reason why I haven't watched a single full episode of LOST ever. I do NOT trust the producers of that show to successfully pull off the feat of building up this grand mystery and effectively paying it off. I know what happened to the X-Files. I also knew what happened to Carnivale and Twin Peaks. I was not about to let that happen to me with LOST.
Mystery/puzzle shows, or shows that CLAIM to be driven by some mystery (IE: "And they have a plan....") strike a bargain with the audience: watch our show, and we promise you an entertaining mystery where, yes, the journey is important, but the end result involves satisfactory revelations while it gradually teases the information out. Failing to pay that off after so much time invested by audience members is just...well, it's the artistic equivalent of a crime, I'd say.
Yeah, just to be clear, I don't begrudge a writer revising their approach as they go -- if it works. My main gripe is when a storyteller lies to his audience, either by saying "Trust me, I know where I'm going" when he doesn't (leading you to waste your time on a story that ended up being crappy), or when a storyteller says "No, no, I really did have it all planned out even if it doesn't look like that." First, no you didn't, and second, even if you did, so f-ing what? If I don't see it up on the screen, it doesn't matter. "Oh, well they're my stories." Great! Then keep 'em to yourself and don't waste my time.MooCriket said:
I don't think anyone would ever bash good ol' George for not knowing where the story was headed. At least I do not, my gripe is with him being so smug and conceited to say, yeah I knew the whole story ahead of time, when clearly he did not. But he is a multi-millionaire, so the joke is on us. Eigther way, I was entertained and still am by the body of work he has created
Ah, good point. But ultimately, my point is that it wasn't "planned all along." Insisting that it was just makes him look like an ass. The same holds true of politicians who get caught saying XYZ when they previously sad "polar opposite of XYZ" and then come up with some lame excuse as to why the two diametrically opposed positions are, in fact, in perfect harmony.Treadwell said:
+1 x 100 on that.EvilRocketeer said:
well you figure he is the most powerful , rich and respected anything in the movie industry bar none , so he can do whatever he wants.
I am pretty sure there are CRAPPIER Prequels than your view of the Star Wars Prequels, I can name 5 at least....starting with Dumb and Dumberer (Not that the original was a gold mine mind you).
Does it ultimately matter? Seriously
With all the discrepancies between the PT and OT is anyone REALLY that surprised?
I'm not surprised at all. My favorite quote of his is the one about special effects being there to support the story. I guess he forgot about that one and I really don't care if someone comes into this topic and says "You're just haters/bashers." No. I loved the Star Wars films and I still do. But that doesn't mean I have to enjoy the prequels that make me more happy to view a Star Wars video game cut scene than to watch that empty special effects toy selling extravaganza again.
Is it possible, and yes I am serious, that perhaps George Lucas is not a perfect human being?
I know I have made PLENTY of mistakes and misspoken on occasion. Well, I mis-speak everyday. lol
True.KnightAsylum said:
I've always been one of the purist who loves the idea that Darth Vader was a separate character who killed Anakin, just as OBW explained to Luke in his hut.
I think Lucas took that plot point and simply replaced Anakin and Vader with Qui-Gon and Maul.
Really, who cares?
Even Tolkien went back and revised The Hobbit when he wrote Lord of the Rings.
I can't believe this is an issue. That people think creative works require to be conceived in whole, in one sitting, in minute detail to be valid is utterly retarded.
If only it were so simply dualistic as the "planned out" and "not planned out" that people seem to enjoy labeling works.
Obviously Lucas did not have the entirety of Star Wars planned out when he made the first movie. There are big aspects he hadn't yet created about even Empire at that point.
The recently leaked 1978 Leigh Brackett draft of "Star Wars Sequel" gives a great deal of insight to Georges creative process. There are some abandoned plot points that bare a great similarity to those that appear in the prequels.
He seems to have an evolving pool of concepts that he has an affinity for, that he tries to build into as dramatic a structure as is possible with each movie. Each is a new endeavor, building on the last, and until they are shot, they are malleable and subject only to the general thrust he has in mind.
There's nothing wrong with this process. It's far less gung-ho than the method of writer's like Stephen King, who abhor outlining and prefer stream-of-consciousness spewing followed by severe rewrites that pretty much equate to outlining after-the-fact. At the end of the day, it's the product that will be judged aside from authorial intent or writer's method. As it should be.
I also think a lot more is read into the claims of creators. In the LOST example, I can't personally recall ever being promised a grand scheme, but felt safe in the hands of the show's writers regardless.
I think it's more the viewer's perception of the show's content or concept that leads them to the attitude that, without a "grand scheme", the show is worthless. For me, it makes no difference when the quality is upheld. Quite frankly, a story of this kind couldn't be told without some concept of the general thrust of things, leaving a good measure of writing to be done "in the moment". (Episode by episode.) It's never one thing or the other.
David Fury was honest about it. Got him fired, but still.
I think there is more than enough evidence out there to conclude that Lucas had a ton of ideas and maybe even a rough outline of where he wanted to go, but changed his mind more than a few times along the way and tried to make plot points after the fact. Lucas is a talented guy, just not a great script writer.
His approach to the films has been chaotic and had me baffled a few times and I think that happened because Lucas sees the films very differently because he knows the whole picture and doesn't always build on the actual stuff on screen, but the stuff in his mind. That's why he seems so arrogant about it, he doesn't understand we only have the films to go on, he has too much information and probably glosses over a lot of stuff we consider important.
Reply with Quote
