PT Does the "Secret History of SW" paint an accurate picture of the making of the PT?

I love that commercial.

I was so happy to find the original Starlog Article online. It just shows that website had an agenda to smear Lucas. They would have been better off just making **** up that couldn't be traced back and fact checked.

 

It really sickens me how people go out of there way and make up these agendas to try and destroy Lucas' character.

 

The ones who intentionally do it are the ones who give fandom a bad name. That's where fan entitlement comes from. That's why I say that the worst thing that could happen was the existence of a fandom. A fan base that is dedicated to something. Fans are the worst thing about fandom. It's one thing to have constructive criticism and disagree regarding what you like and dislike. It is another to be an ass about it.

 

darth-sinister, completely agreed.

 

Wow, Gallandro. Thank you for thoroughly debunking the various myths surrounding Gary Kurtz and the status of "the real genius behind SW" that he's been assigned. From what I can see, PT-dislikers gave him that status because he, in various interviews, told them exactly what they wanted to hear: about ROTJ, about the prequels and Lucas allegedly surrounding himself with yes-men (how would he know what went on when the prequels were filmed, anyway? He wasn't there!), and so on.

PT-dislikers were so happy to get told what they wanted to hear that they never bothered to fact-check anything Kurtz said; everything that came out of his mouth in the aforementioned interviews was treated like the absolute, incontrovertible truth. When I asked one of them why they used "Kurtz said so" to "prove" an assertion, the answer was: "He's never been caught in a lie like Lucas has." Actually, he's been "caught" in many lies. Not that that means anything to those who are determined to make him some kind of messiah.

I think it was very nice and forgiving of Lucas to invite Kurtz to participate in anniversary projects, and to his AFI ceremony, considering Kurtz had been making a cottage industry of sniping at him and everything he's done since 1980, saying the prequels have "no depth," accusing him of putting racist stereotypes in the prequels. I recall the odious Chris Gore's revolting brown-nosing of Kurtz at the beginning of his interview...something about how he was the man behind "Return to Oz" and "The Dark Crystal," not bothering to take into account that Lucas (the same guy that Kurtz supposedly "babysat") stepped in to save RtO after Kurtz nearly ran it into the ground, and Jim Henson detested working with him on TDC so much that he wanted to remove his name from the credits.

But of course the Lucas Derangement Syndrome, as I've seen it be called, has gotten so strong that no one takes that into consideration. No, Lucas wasn't being nice and forgiving, he was merely allowing "the real talent and genius behind ANH and ESB" to speak about the movies he made great.

To be fair, I think Kurtz is a kind person in many respects, or at least, he was at one point. Mackenzie Phillips, in her autobiography, spoke of his kindness to her during the filming of "American Graffiti" -- she was a minor, so he became her temporary guardian for the filming and she stayed at his house. But I think it is extremely tacky, not to mention opportunistic, of Kurtz to jump on the anti-prequel bandwagon and cynically pander to the anti-prequel crowd, to reclaim the credibility and status that he squandered long ago through his own ineptitude. No, he and Lucas were not buddies, but Lucas has been remarkably tolerant of Kurtz's disrespect. In fact, he's been remarkably tolerant of many people who have thrown mud at him to further their own agenda. Yet we're supposed to think of him as this tyrant who absolutely refuses to hear other people's viewpoints or criticism.

 

From everything that I have read, it makes sense that the SW history was there, in many different forms, but was always there. Lucas changed what he had to and most of us our grateful he did. As for the PT, the first two films still have the original story with Lucas filling in where he may, but ROTS delivers the goods. I feel we would think differently about these PT films if there was less CGI and the design of the ships/sets looked more ancient. I'm ok with the ships/sets having that sleek chrome '50's feel, but less CGI is a consensus from all the fans. IF anyone cares to post some links as to the early drafts, please do, as I am always looking for a good read on how the story evolved before and during the PT days. (video links are great too)

 

I went from being 100% pro Lucas in the 90s to a big anti-Lucas guy after the prequels, but I will defend him here as a writer. You cannot make judgements off tossed ideas and drafts. Only the final product matters.

Part of the writing process is to explore every possible angle. The fact that he scrapped that idea (thankfully) is worthy of praise.

 

??!!

If (as you do) you argue the 'truth' of an issue based upon Lucas' word and memory on the matter then...surely whether he 'lied' or 'exaggerated' matters quite a bit.

 

When it comes to how many films he had in mind, it doesn't matter. It's a dead issue that no longer matters since they are being made. Why bring this up now, months later, is beyond me.

 

??!

That isn't what you were arguing. That wasn't about how many movies there were or weren't going to be.... I can read as well as anyone here...

 

Because certain people are complaining about how making a ST is against Lucas' vision. By showing that the vision was rather fluid from year to year, it becomes a valid line of reasoning that the argument is illogical.

 

If you can read me, then you'd understand what I'm saying in our other discussions. You just assume something, often incorrectly, about what I'm saying.

And none of that matters anymore. So it is a dead issue that didn't need to be necroed.

 

The issue is one of credibility.

 

I well agree it's not that important in the end for the vast majority of viewers and fans. Whether Lucas exaggerated or obfuscated the actual creative process or not, we like the movies as they are very much, and it's an understatement... No matter the notion of father Vader was there from 1974 or not, no matter they were full treatments for 6 movies from 1980 or not etc....

I was personally completely unaware and ignorant of this (little) controversy until 2007 and Zombie's book, being only a casual fan of the movies. I never said it was that crucial by the way.

But it's clearly an issue if you care for movie-making history, and creative writing process for such iconic and famous pop culture piece of work as is the Star Wars saga. Although it's "behind the scene".

Basically that's it, yes.

Most of SHOSW's points and arguments on this issue are quite convincing. Even if there can be no absolute certainty on it, given Lucas insisting claims (Father Vader etc...).

That's why to me, in the end, I aknowledge the subject will always remain ancilliary.

 

People don't keep records of everything they ever thought of or worked on. Not everything George Lucas ever wrote has been released. People have never even seen his 2 drafts of Empire Strikes Back. When you assume someone is a liar without seeing the whole picture, it's an issue of your own credibility. It reflects on you.

 

I don't know what George Lucas' motivations or reasons are for being less than always accurate in what he says. Any issue that I may have isn't even necessarily directed at Lucas*

What I do have an issue with is when, within discussions on these boards, quotes by Lucas are used to 'prove' an argument, as if his word is in some way sacrosanct and unerring.

*The issue I do have is one which I think Lucas has brought on himself. Within his campaign to preserve old movies in their original form he made a lot of claims regarding artistic rights of films. Within that he rejected ownership as giving artistic ownership, arguing that (particularly) directors have artistic ownership.... Yet he insists still on artistic ownership of the three OT movies, two of which he didn't direct. As I see it , when he made the PT he went about subverting what many 'thought' the OT movies were 'about', claiming that it was always intended to be thusly. It is that claim which I object to. It is a claim I think he has no right to make in terms of artistic ownership. It may well be that he would have preferred if those films had always been what he later claims they are but the latter two, particularly, were not, in many ways, what he claims they are. I would argue that a great deal of the power of those movies, of what made those movies as iconic as they were was out of his hands. I'm not even convinced that he understands what made those movies.

Some people are great 'ideas' people...but they aren't necessarily great at putting those ideas into a form that is as great as their ideas. Being able to recognise that brings out the best in them, because they work with others who tease the best out of what they have imagined. I've been a motor racing fan for years so I'll give the example of Colin Chapman. A brilliant innovative thinker...but he knew he was no draughtsman, knew he wasn't the most precise engineers so employed talented engineers to put his ideas into practice. To me that doesn't lessen the impact Chapman had on the designs that came to be iconic. I think with the OT the people Lucas worked with helped him to best express his ideas...and I don't think he acknowledges that, I don't think he gives enough credit to them for that....I also don't think a lot of fans see that either.

 

Here's the thing. In the original rough draft, the villain was a Sith Knight named Valorum who was redeemed by the hero Annikin Starkiller at the end of the story. The hero's father, Kane Starkiller, was also a character, a cyborg who had lost his humanity and needed to make a sacrifice to reclaim it. At some point, Lucas eliminated the hero's father as an active character in the story, and transferred his defining characteristic--his status as a cyborg who had lost his humanity--to the Sith villain, now named Darth Vader. Both Valorum and Kane Starkiller are characters who are linked thematically as good men who have become consumed by a mechanical system. In the original story, Valorum's redemption by Annikin Starkiller is a triumph meant to make up for the earlier tragedy of Kane Starkiller's sacrifice and death. Are you telling me that not once did the idea ever occur to Lucas that the Sith villain should be a father figure for Luke, even if not literally?

For my part, I think Lucas did indeed consider making Darth Vader Luke's true father, then decided against it, because the original story of a hero redeeming a villain who isn't even related to him seemed more powerful at the time. However, as he started writing his own drafts of Empire Strikes Back, he realized that the story was missing in pathos, and that Vader revealing he was Luke's father would be a compelling dramatic twist, even if it would partially undermine the power of the redemption arc that was to come in the next movie. I think it's just too convenient for Lucas to have partially combined the villain character and the father character to create A New Hope's Darth Vader, but to never have even considered combining them completely, as he was to actually do a short amount of time later.

 

But look at how the Vader character grew and evolved.
The first time there is a Vader character, he is a human General and a minor character. Sort of like a Piett or Veers. And he can't be the father of the hero as Kane is in the script. Plus he dies at the end.
Then Vader becomes a Sith Lord and the father character is alive but has less of a part. But Vader still dies in the end. It takes another few scripts and the father is now dead and now Vader is left alive at the end. Then first draft of ESB still has Vader as separate from the father.

The character goes from minor villain who dies, to major villain who dies, to major villain that lives to fight another day to be the father of the hero. That is a fairly logical progression. But if Vader started as the father then becomes this minor villain and then major villain. That makes less logical sense in terms of character growth.
The first time the Vader character is in the script he can't be the father and later he dies so still can't be the father. And the first draft of ESB he is still not the father.

So based on the available evidence the simplest and most logical explanation is that Vader grew and eventually became the father.

Bye for now.
Old Stoneface

 

George Lucas put the Star Wars saga into the form it is in. That's why we're here. Isn't it?

 

I've read the available scripts. Scripts don't give a full picture of someone's creative process. You need interviews to fill that in. When Lucas talks about how his vision of Apocalypse Now morphed into Return of the Jedi, why should I question such things? All I have is his word. Why suspect people just because you lack documentation? Fandom is not a bureaucracy where every word spoken by the artist must have submitted documentation or it will be rejected.

The Secret History of Star Wars simply points out differences in available documentation and Lucas interviews. Of course there are differencdes. Not everything is made available. Lots of writing is just sitting and thinking, or talking it out informally, off the record.

Write a whole movie and then tell me you wrote down or recorded every idea you came up with. It's not possible.

 

A couple of points,

First, we do have some Lucas interviews or quotes from the 70's and a lot of what he says there fits with the early scripts of ANH. Lucas talks about the battle of Condawn where Luke's father is killed and later Obi-Wan and Vader fights on a volcano.
So it is not older scripts vs what Lucas says now. It old scripts plus what Lucas said back then vs what Lucas says now.

Second, if we demand that ALL facts must be known before making any kind of judgment about whether it is true or not raises the burden of proof to impossible levels. How can you ever know if you have ALL the facts?

Third, about the creative process, yes ideas come and go and trying to pinpoint all of them could be hard. But you can also have the blurring of memory. That you assume that what you think about something now is how you always thought about it. Say that Lucas came up with the idea about Vader being Luke's father back in 1978. This was decades ago and Lucas have lived with this idea for so long that he might think that Vader was always Luke's father.
That is one reason why old scripts and interviews from back then might be more accurate than what someone remembers decades later.

Fourth, there have been the three Rinzler books and they have been quite in-depth and gone over a lot of data. But as far as I know the ANH book have no scripts or notes where it is said that Vader is Luke's father.
Is it possible that Lucas thought about the possibility that Vader is Luke's father before 1978?
It is possible but based on the available evidence he never wrote it down or told anyone and in fact wrote down and said the exact opposite. And I think Lucas have said that he did write it down in a script called "The Tragedy of Darth Vader." But as far as I know, that script has not seen the light of day.

Assuming that Lucas is a liar based on nothing is not good but treating his statement as absolute fact is an appeal to authority fallacy and also not good. Look at all the available facts and then make up your own mind about what you think happened.

Bye for now.
Blackboard Monitor

 

The thing is that when it is something that can be proven with written evidence, such as the script drafts, then it shows a consistency in his later statements. If the Force was designed as a religion in 1974, then it was a religion in 1976 and 77.

Even before that speech, there was a general feeling that the other two films were still his baby even though they were being directed by someone else. Hence having a somewhat hands on approach during the making of those films. Most of what he changed on TESB, which was minor, wasn't too far removed from what Kershner would have wanted to change. And having ownership allowed him to do that. Just as it has with Peter Davis and William Panzer and what they have done with the third, fourth and fifth "Highlander" films.

He wrote and co-wrote those stories, so yes, he has a right to make any changes in the story through the PT. He is no different from any other author who has done that in any medium. Regardless of you liking those ideas or not, he had the right to change the overall message and tone. And some of what you object to was part of the story before he made the PT. Even if you didn't catch on in the first place.

 

As a more general comment (I did say I'd keep criticism of the author to a minimum after saying my piece earlier)...

I think it's a little sad how animated some alleged Star Wars fans get over what Lucas reputedly altered or backtracked on. It often involves, on their part, I've noticed, a certain pedantry and miserliness: an obsessing over cherry-picked and fussily-collated details that don't really matter a whole lot or necessarily add up to much in practice.

What if, instead, some of that same mental energy was spent on admiring the existing Star Wars saga as a marvellous cinematic poem: an epic work of visual and narrative art in its own right? How is it that so much of the bland mechanics of the storytelling process are focused on with the intent of proving Lucas wrong or a liar (perhaps that is the answer to my question), while so little creative or intellectual endeavour is lavished on the finished art-form and the treasures therein?

It's like looking at some moulding flecks of paint and missing the elephant in the room. Seems rather petty (in my opinion) and I'm not sure I quite understand it.

 

My response won't endear me to others, but I feel it needs to be said. It is a sense of entitlement. Some people take the idea of audience ownership a bit too seriously. Regardless of Lucas releasing or not releasing the THX editions in a DVD/Blu-Ray format, there are still people who get all angry at the idea of change, regardless of how well it is done. It is also nostalgia taken to the extreme. They want to see it as they remembered it the first time and dislike any change to that memory. Which also extends to wanting to preserve the twists by showing the OT first and then the PT, because they want their children or friends or whoever to experience their feelings and memories.

And beyond the nostalgia, it really is that they're upset with Lucas for doing anything that they disprove of. Whether it is changing the OT films, or changing his views about how the films were developed. Or that he even made the PT the way that he did and not just in terms of effects, but story telling decisions. Fans are passionate, but sometimes too passionate. That's part of the reason why I say that fandom is the worst thing to happen. It can bring out the best and worst in a particular genre.

 

That is the key point that everyone has to consider.

Some people are so obsessed with the script they seem to totally overlook that it's not the only thing that a writer thinks of.

Lucas had literally thoughts ranging in every way shape and form of how to get to the story he wanted. 32 years after starting the process he was still changing and reworking and reinventing everything.

The thing he least likes to do is paint himself into a corner by locking down every single detail and then saying to himself that is the way it has to be. It's quite the opposite. He doesn't lock himself down until he has to give the film up to get out in the theaters and that still doesn't stop him from reworking it all decades later as the PT was always intended to turn the storytelling of the OT into ways no one could have possibly imagined including himself!

They don't want to let the reality of all the movies were made interfere with their fantasy version that was formed in the 1970's and 80's.

When Lucas "took" their story from them they decided to reply in kind and take "their" story back and rewrite history back on Lucas the way he did it to them and so they promote the "real" story of how everyone but Lucas should be credited for TESB etc etc and how he was only surround by yes-men on the PT and the rest of that nonsensical rubbish about how the movies were made.