It was a top-notch riposte. Your loss for not reading it.
Give me back Sebastian Shaw at end of ROTJ
- Thread starter jediscout
- Start date
It was a top-notch riposte. Your loss for not reading it.
PHArchivist
Master Member
Completely agreed...
After which, "Lost" co-creator Damon Lindelof reportedly said: "I just want to apologize to Mr. George Lucas for everything I said about the prequels."
Apparently Lucas has this ability to abolish every bad thought you have about the prequels by simply saying you do good work. And I wasn't even a fan of Lost.
So Lucas likes Lost. Big deal. He also loved Battlefield Earth.
Solo4114
Master Member
No, but in fairness, the letter does satisfy my challenge where I asked folks to find a quote of him saying "I make it up as I go." And while that's entertaining (and probably more than just a little true) there's still plenty of other discussions where he has alluded to, suggested, or outright stated that he planned/meant/intended/originally wanted to do XYZ in the films.
Basically, my point overall is this:
It doesn't matter what you INTENDED to do, or what you wrote on a notepad 30 years ago, or what you say you meant to do, or any post hoc explanation you provide for the inconsistencies in your work. The fact is that you're still having to explain away perceived inconsistencies. If that's happening, chances are you dropped the ball on whatever point you're having to explain. You didn't get your point across to the audience, you confused them, or you simply lost it on continuity. Sometimes this is on something totally irrelevant like "parsec" as a measure of speed. Other times it's on something where the "rules" of your universe are well established, and now you're contradicting them, as in the midichlorians.
Another example is the whole Vader-as-father concept. Did Lucas ALWAYS intend for Vader to be Luke's father? Does Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" speech really work? That'd be up to the audience, I guess, but at least there's an IN-FILM attempt to explain away the inconsistency of "Ben, you said he KILLED my father, not that he WAS my father. WTF?" Interestingly, Luke in that scene takes the place of the audience after the big reveal in ESB. But the FILM at least makes some attempt at explaining what happened and why, no, no, the original statement hasn't been contradicted by subsequent events. Maybe it's a ham-handed way to get the point across (again -- debatable), but at least it's an attempt on screen instead of explaining things away in interviews, director's commentary, and other stuff that doesn't actually appear in the films themselves. What's most interesting to me is why -- given his penchant for post hoc edits -- he doesn't simply insert stuff in that fixes all of his contradictions.
Basically, my point overall is this:
It doesn't matter what you INTENDED to do, or what you wrote on a notepad 30 years ago, or what you say you meant to do, or any post hoc explanation you provide for the inconsistencies in your work. The fact is that you're still having to explain away perceived inconsistencies. If that's happening, chances are you dropped the ball on whatever point you're having to explain. You didn't get your point across to the audience, you confused them, or you simply lost it on continuity. Sometimes this is on something totally irrelevant like "parsec" as a measure of speed. Other times it's on something where the "rules" of your universe are well established, and now you're contradicting them, as in the midichlorians.
Another example is the whole Vader-as-father concept. Did Lucas ALWAYS intend for Vader to be Luke's father? Does Obi-Wan's "certain point of view" speech really work? That'd be up to the audience, I guess, but at least there's an IN-FILM attempt to explain away the inconsistency of "Ben, you said he KILLED my father, not that he WAS my father. WTF?" Interestingly, Luke in that scene takes the place of the audience after the big reveal in ESB. But the FILM at least makes some attempt at explaining what happened and why, no, no, the original statement hasn't been contradicted by subsequent events. Maybe it's a ham-handed way to get the point across (again -- debatable), but at least it's an attempt on screen instead of explaining things away in interviews, director's commentary, and other stuff that doesn't actually appear in the films themselves. What's most interesting to me is why -- given his penchant for post hoc edits -- he doesn't simply insert stuff in that fixes all of his contradictions.
So in three sentences or less, what is your overall opinion on the matter?
PHArchivist
Master Member
Let's not be (fill in the blank)...
Solo4114 writes many words (occupational hazard), but his words are always right on task.
PHArchivist
Master Member
Just for the sake of discussion, we do all know that it is a documented fact (well - published in The Annotated Screenplays, at least); that George & Crew DID in fact pull this one out of their collective ass, right...?
The concept of Vader being Luke's father was clearly derived upon during the writing process of ESB, and was not part of even the initial draft.
I'm just asking for his overall opinion PH. If he doesn't want to restrict it to three sentences, he doesn't have to. Now quit being a (fill in the blank).
Solo4114
Master Member
:rolleyes
Fine. I'll do it in one sentence:
If it doesn't appear on screen, it doesn't count.
I haven't seen the Annotated Screenplays, but I'll take your word for it. I'd also heard that "Darth Vader" was supposed to be analogous to "Dark Father," though.
I mean, whatever he's said to the contrary OR in support of the position that he made it all up as he went OR that he planned it all along, I think the films themselves -- even the OT -- pretty clearly show that while certain themes or plotlines might've survived initial drafts/concepts/ideas, the film saga as a whole was sort of made up on the fly. I mean, hell, just take the Ewok battle thing. Lucas has said on video that he'd originally planned to have that be with wookiees, but decided they'd become too technologically advanced over the course of the films, and he wanted something more primitive. That right there is an example of "What? I changed my mind."
All that is just fine. I just don't buy into the "Cult of Lucas" thing where he's viewed as this genius who had the whole thing planned all along. I think he had probably a lot of different ideas -- many of them conflicting or competing ideas -- and he ended up stringing a bunch of them together into films, while also filling in the blanks as he went. I suspect much of the creative process goes like that, and that's all fine and dandy. Did J.K. Rowling plan out EVERY SINGLE SCENE of the Harry Potter books before writing them? Probably not. She probably had certain scenes clearly in mind, and then needed to figure out how you get from one scene to the next. I'd bet the same is true for Lucas. The "Duel above the lava" was something I'd heard about YEARS before ROTS came out, so I'd bet that it was one of those "original ideas." Did that duel involve swinging back and forth on wires or hopping from melting droid to melting droid? Probably not. That doesn't really matter, though.
I just no longer buy the apologist line (and this is for any movie, by the way) that if you actually read the NOVEL version of the film, or play the tie-in video game, or read the prequel comic books, or basically refer to any source OTHER than the movie, the movie makes perfect sense. The movie should make sense on its own (unless it doesn't by design). Unless you're making your film intentionally ambiguous, or open-ended, or thought-provoking, you gotta tie that stuff up. Essentially, I no longer accept references to external sources. That stuff is often interesting, sometimes fun (sometimes moreso than the films themselves), but it doesn't really "count" and ought not be relied upon to explain away inconsistencies, or fill in gaps.
Last edited:
nickytea
Master Member
Yes.
If there's one thing the overall incompetently written "Secret History of Star Wars" book gives us it's that through the development of ESB, Vader and Father Skywalker were intended as separate characters.
Not that we needed the book to tell us, it just provides some great concrete details you can point to. There is no way the first movie would have been structured the way it had if that was always the intent. Now we just have a lot of facts that back it up.
It's my belief that the "Dark Father" meaning is a cosmic coincidence, as most evidence points to Vader being derived from "Dark Invader".
PHArchivist
Master Member
Even Vader's mask was not wholly George's idea (if we're to believe what we read).
I think in even the most ubiquitous SW reference books (The Art of... Chronicles, etc) it is stated that Ralph McQuarrie read the drafts of the script, noting the character had to cross from ship to ship, presumably in space, so he created a concept drawing with the mask.
Apparently Lucas liked it, and the rest is history.
Though, this is not a criticsm, nor a contradiction on the part of Lucas. More of an example of the wonderfully collaborative nature of the film making art.
I think in even the most ubiquitous SW reference books (The Art of... Chronicles, etc) it is stated that Ralph McQuarrie read the drafts of the script, noting the character had to cross from ship to ship, presumably in space, so he created a concept drawing with the mask.
Apparently Lucas liked it, and the rest is history.
Though, this is not a criticsm, nor a contradiction on the part of Lucas. More of an example of the wonderfully collaborative nature of the film making art.
Fitting since the first thing he does is make one heck of an entrance as his forces invade the Taintive 4.
nickytea
Master Member
To be fair, the name was assigned long before that scene, or even the character as we know it existed. In one of the earlier drafts, he was a mask-less general in vein of Tarkin ... not even the main villain!
niennumb1
Master Member
I also agree with you. Jedi Rocks was one of the biggest letdowns for me in changes. The Hayden thing I can live with, but it does look odd next to old Ben and old Yoda. But I understand the logic behind it back when Obi Wan states to Luke that "He ceased to be Anakin Skywalker and became Darth Vader. When that happened the good man who was your father was destroyed." So basically saying Anakin died, but his soul was trapped in hate as a Sith lord ("A SITH LAAWWWD?") and then after death was finally released. BUT we do see the good Anakin come back enough to throw the Emperor over the pit, which means good Anakin was in there somewhere BEFORE he ultimately passed. So Shaw's Anakin would seem to me be the logical choice to stay in the final shot of him at the end with the celebration.
Had Vader got out of the Empire and decided to join the rebels I don't think it would have ended well for him. He'd be tried for the murder of many children and the guy would have been put away for life, ha! Of course maybe they'd just say, "Ah that's okay. Past is the past and you seem like you've learned your lesson! Welcome home!"
niennumb1
Master Member
OR.... If it doesn't appear on screen or is an animated TV series it doesn't count
hehe....
Here's where I have a problem with that. Anakin was NOT a good man at that point. He committed genocide before the war, and he murdered an unarmed Dooku during the war. He was still impatient, stubborn, manipulative and rude to others, so what is this "good man" that Obi-Wan is referring to? How can Anakin's depiction in Revenge of the Sith be the highlight of him being on good terms with the force? If anything, what he did in Return of the Jedi was probably the most selfless thing he ever did in his adult life, not to mention it finally brought him peace and satisfaction. So why the heck revert to a stage in his life where he was as far away from the light side as anyone could be?
Pappy
Well-Known Member
Well not just that,
they should only re appeared in the same form when they died,poor old Yoda and Ben is like that,why Anakin be any different? I guess "Ani's" appearance is just what GL loves to do,stuffs like,young Owen Lars standing with two suns on the background,darth maul-emperor death,its okay,but its getting worse year after year.
the good man who was used to be Luke's father was destroyed. according to Ben that is,now the prequels had been done,the 'final truth' was revealed,and Ben were 'proved' lied twice on Luke for Anakin.:rolleyes he's more sissy were than man.
they should only re appeared in the same form when they died,poor old Yoda and Ben is like that,why Anakin be any different? I guess "Ani's" appearance is just what GL loves to do,stuffs like,young Owen Lars standing with two suns on the background,darth maul-emperor death,its okay,but its getting worse year after year.
the good man who was used to be Luke's father was destroyed. according to Ben that is,now the prequels had been done,the 'final truth' was revealed,and Ben were 'proved' lied twice on Luke for Anakin.:rolleyes he's more sissy were than man.
Uh..... ok.
Similar threads
