No, it's not a meme thread, but I couldn't resist... Just thought I'd start a thread to discuss the anomalies that are the accounts of Gary Kurtz regarding the 'original' vision for the Star Wars Saga. Since 1999, Kurtz has made various statements at conventions and in interviews that describe a 'bittersweet' version of Return/Revenge of the Jedi, a different structure for the prequels, and even a few details of Episodes VII-IX. Here's a sampling: http://www.theforce.net/latestnews/story/gary_kurtz_reveals_original_plans_for_episodes_19_80270.asp http://www.filmthreat.com/interviews/8/#ixzz27BYk3Gm6 http://au.ign.com/articles/2002/11/11/an-interview-with-gary-kurtz?page=4 http://herocomplex.latimes.com/2010...2-filmmakers-george-lucas-and-gary-kurtz-wer/ zombie has addressed some of the inconsistencies in these accounts in an appendix to TSHOSW - for a start, Luke's mysterious sister on the other side of the galaxy turning up in Episodes VII-IX is clearly a recollection of the sister mentioned by the ghost of Luke's father in the obsolete Brackett draft of ESB - however, Kurtz's ROTJ simply doesn't fit anywhere, and zombie doesn't come to any conclusion about it. Is Kurtz's description of the PT actually an elaboration of the strange 5-episode prequel outline that appears in JW Rinzler's The Making of The Empire Strikes Back? Some questions may be answered next year with the publication of Rinzler's The Making of Return of the Jedi, or maybe not. My main question is about when Kurtz left the SW family, and just what involvement he had with the early stages of ROTJ, if any. And pIease - I really don't want this to be a bashing thread, either of Gary Kurtz or George Lucas. Kurtz's tone in the interviews may seem to be very derogatory of GL (and sometimes is), but for the most part he's being given very leading questions, and the real bashing is on the part of the journalists, particularly in the 2010 LA Times interview. All I'm interested in is how people might think these accounts can fit in with the development history we already have, or how true they really are. Given that the 'Kurtz vision' doesn't fit with the one which can be traced to extant drafts and notes that are, for the most part, available to read, I think it's not a bad idea to keep it somewhat separate.