Did Lucas Make the Wrong Trilogy?

Well, to me, it seems like it has all come down to opinion. It seems like we're now discussing whether or not you liked him. If you feel that there is something to still debate, then lay the topic out nicely so we all can understand.

Cometgreen

 

Stop just insulting each other and get to the discussion at hand, please.

 

A sequel trilogy would have nowhere to go. Luke is a Jedi, Leia and Han's relationship is solid, and the Empire has been defeated. There's no further development for them. Many have accused Lucas of making the movies solely for money. If he had made sequels beyond Jedi, that would have proved it. Those characters reach the end of their development in Jedi.

Prequels are a big risk, but they do have important information. The original trilogy never lets us meet Luke and Leia's mother, or Leia's stepfather. It can tell you that Darth Vader was once Obi-Wan's student, but it can't show you what the relationship was like. Or what the Clone Wars were like.

 

"Or what the Clone Wars were like."

Only the very beginning and end.

 

Obi-Ewan - your statement is partailly true. At this point, any sequels to Jedi would be pointless, but Lucas grew tired and decided just to wrap all the loose ends that he and Kurtz had discussed in Jedi.

By making Luke and Leia siblings makes the love triangle simplistic and a easier way out for Lucas. All the detailed nuances (according to Kurtz) in ESB would have led to a big adult straight forward pay-off in Jedi.

A sequel trilogy would have plenty to offer like Luke searching for his sister amongst the galaxy and confronting the emporer.

In a lot of myth stories, the hero's father's life isn't explained as a separate storyline all on its own to be given his own movie, but rather through exposition. Yes I do know that it did happen w/Kenobi and Luke about Luke's heritage.

johnkuehl233 - I agree with what you wrote. Continuing with the proposed episode 7 and beyond would have been a much more imaginative and engaging experience given that (A) we as the audience are already invested in the main character and (B) we wouldn't know what would happen.

 

Nope I'm gald he made the PT and OT. That is all that is importent.

 

Christ, man. You want me to "convince" you otherwise, and then keep hiding behind the "it's all opinion" argument? Ridiculous. That's exactly why I'm not going to waste my time debating this issue with you, to see you run away yelling "Well, it's my opinion!" regardless of what I say.

Look you used a subjective statement in the comment I was referring to. Its fine to say in an objective way that Jar Jar has no purpose, but you didn't so you can't complain.

 

I can and will complain, and that's a fact.

 

Yes I do know that it did happen w/Kenobi and Luke about Luke's heritage.


You can't get all the nuances of their relationship without seeing the prequels. You know nothing about Padme--not even her name--without the prequels. You don't know what issues led to the start of the Clone Wars without the prequels. You don't know Bail Organa without the prequels.

 

Obi-wan, while I do understand and don't deny the point you are making, keep in mind that the OT has been extremly successful for 20+ years despite such "gaping holes" in knowledge on the audiences' part.

Here's something I posted in another thread...

---

I recently ran across this quote, which makes more sense than the "I always had a backstory" scenario...

[blockquote][b][i]Q: You're only now making the beginning of the Star Wars series. Why didn't you start with the beginning in 1977, instead of with Episode IV?

A: Originally when I wrote Star Wars, it was meant to be one episode of a Saturday-matinee serial and you came in in the middle of it. I wrote a couple of screenplays, and they got very big, so I took the first act and made a movie out of that, but I swore to make the rest of the movie in three parts. In order to do that, I had to write a back story, so I said maybe I'll do the prequels.[/i][/b][/blockquote]
It's not so much that he had the Prequels fleshed out, but moreso that he wanted to start his story "en media res". Thus, it might eventually necessitate a backstory be fleshed out.

In his defense, he has stated that he had a general outline, and has added details to it for the Prequels. Case in point - where did the chracter Darth Sidious come from? That was never mentioned in the OT.[hr]

Point being, the OT was sucessful just the way it was. The clamoring for "more" certainly added to its appeal, and spawned a tremendous amount of literature (EU and making's-of books) to "fill the gaps". It fueled the audience's imagination for more, and the fact that the PT [i]hadn't[/i] been made for 25 years did not hurt the OT [u]in the slightest[/u], otherwise there wouldn't have been huge crowds to see the re-released SE's.

Sometimes less is more. This has been proven by the OT in terms of classic appeal, and by the PT in terms of substance (See: Jar Jar ;) )

 

You're right, we don't necessarily need the prequels. Hell, I'd probably be the first to tell you he didn't originally plan to make them. But the old trilogy came to the end of its story, and showing how it came to be at that point makes more sense than wearing out the old characters.

 

Well, for the most part, I do enjoy the EU (novels, except for that damned Jedi Academy Trilogy ) Of course, I don't necessarily confuse the EU with the films anyways. That being said, Lucas never allowed EU to occur during the Prequel area (with one or two notable exceptions) because he always wanted to go back and tell his story. Since he wrapped up Eps. 7-9 into ROTJ, everything after that was fair game.

I've honestly enjoyed the different takes on the SW Saga and its themes given by different authors. The fresh perspectives and reasoning add a lot the Saga, IMHO.

 

Who are you kidding, a sequel trilogy would have anywhere to go. How about the death of Luke Skywalker? The fact is, each part of the Saga focuses on one of the male Skywalker's and their struggle with the darkside. So it would be simple enough to have a new skywalker introduced in episode 7. And to anyone that thinks George Lucas did these for money, please! The guy is rich beyond many of our wildest dreams. The guy owns ILM, has anyone ever heard of them? They are just this little special effects company. Not to mention THX, Skywalker Sound. Did I mention that he has a ranch? But back to Star Wars. To have a sequel after the originals would be better just because it would open up a whole new chapter in the Star Wars universe. If you know what is going to happen, the only point of seeing II would be for the nostalgia of knowing how Vader becomes Vader

-Star Wars Episode VII Return of the Sith, culminates with the death of Luke Skywalker at the hands of Dark Jedi Hannah Solo.

 

"Who are you kidding, a sequel trilogy would have anywhere to go."

Uhm, I'm not kidding anyone. The "compressing" of Eps. 7-9 into ROTJ was considered a well-known fact until you came along. Lucas said he won't do any more SW films. Whether or not you think it's possible to continue to the story line after ROTJ isn't going to change Lucas' opinion.

 

Given the "condensation" of ROTJ, the log-jamming of all the important elements of the PT into EPII has some precedence, at least!

 

Making the PT is like making a series of movies off the cliffnotes at the end of the 3rd book of The Lord of the Rings or making a movie about the war of the ring about Isildur and Elrond. Pointless, useless, and a waste of time.

It's just too bad that Lucas jammed episodes 7-9 into Jedi. He could have expanded his gem but instead warps its.

 

"Given the "condensation" of ROTJ, the log-jamming of all the important elements of the PT into EPII has some precedence, at least!"

So true! I hadn't even made that connection!

Of course, finishing scripts at the very last second for all three films doesn't help, either.

Lucas: "Aw, scratch those ideas. We'll save them for the next episode. That'll give me plenty of time to shoehorn them in. Hey Rick! Which episode are we up to now?"

Rick: [sarcastically] "Uhm, I believe we are up to number four, George. Want me to go in the back and crank up the time machine?"

Lucas: "Aw, crap! I guess we'll have to put this stuff in the SE's."

 

MayBeJedi -- LOL, so true! Sad but true.

 

The fact is, each part of the Saga focuses on one of the male Skywalker's and their struggle with the darkside. So it would be simple enough to have a new skywalker introduced in episode 7.

The saga as is does indeed focus on two different Skywalkers--thank you for not falling into the camp of "All six are about Anakin and the old trilogy always was about Anakin too!" That being said, Episode I and Episode IV both set up a similar conflict: the Empire and the Sith. By ROTJ, both have been eliminated. Sequels would not be so much a continuation as a jump start. The early EU novels, lacking an original storyline, simply decided that the Empire hadn't really been defeated, thus backtracking over ROTJ. The films are concerned with the Empire, which IS defeated in ROTJ, and after that conflict is resolved, the story is over.

 

Actually, my interpretation is that the Saga is about Anakin, but the OT is told from Luke's POV. Of course, some people take this scenario to indicate that Luke is the Chosen One.

Most interpretations have some inherent problem. Remember that Lucas said the Saga was to be told from the droids POV.

 

Actually, my interpretation is that the Saga is about Anakin, but the OT is told from Luke's POV

No, Luke was meant early on to be the central character; hence the working title "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker." Lucas didn't start verbally reducing him to a POV character until 1995. But Luke's development is always the focal point, and that's something even the prequels can't change.

 

"No, Luke was meant early on to be the central character; hence the working title "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker."

Actually, it went in this order..
1) The Star Wars - Rough Draft [First of four major screenplay drafts]
2) THE ADVENTURES OF THE STARKILLER: (episode one): "The Star Wars"
3) "THE STAR WARS": From The Adventures of Luke Starkiller (which also includes the Journal of the Whills), and
4) S T A R W A R S: The Adventures of Luke Starkiller: as taken from the"Journal of the Whills": (Saga I)

There are several changes, some cosmetic and some major, between all the drafts. Hell, the 4th draft has both "Luke Skywalker" and "Luke Starkiller".

I'll also repost this old quote...

Q: You're only now making the beginning of the Star Wars series. Why didn't you start with the beginning in 1977, instead of with Episode IV?

A: Originally when I wrote Star Wars, it was meant to be one episode of a Saturday-matinee serial and you came in in the middle of it. I wrote a couple of screenplays, and they got very big, so I took the first act and made a movie out of that, but I swore to make the rest of the movie in three parts. In order to do that, I had to write a back story, so I said maybe I'll do the prequels. - Time Magazine

ANH does exactly this - we are dropped "en media ras" into the story. Something happened prior to what we see onscreen. The extent to which this was fleshed out is very much in debate, but the intent was still there.

 

The intent was not for it to be the second half of Anakin's story, but Luke's story in its entirety.

 

A NEW HOPE

Guess who the "old hope" was.

 

Guess who the "old hope" was.

You know, I always figured that the titular new hope refered more to the emergence of hope when all other chances for salvation had been extinguished, rather than there being any one old hope at all. Of course, I think that interpretation is formed by looking at it as a reference to the political climate of the galaxy.

If we're thinking of it in terms of "the prophecy" (and element of the PT which I don't care for) than the old hope/new hope dichotomy fits.