I've been countering the argument DF. My contention is this: the argument made was weak. Secondly, a first year film or lit student could easily pick out most of the bits taken from other sources. Not a big deal. This has been an 'open secret' since the earliest reviews. The idea that Lucas is 'guilty' of something is a joke. As far as he's been able he's pointed out the sources for SW. Maybe he's missed a few, or those statements have been edited out of interviews as superfluous material or you haven't read everything he's said about SW. I could easily argue that most of SW was derived from Alex Raymond's Flash Gordon comic, L. Frank Baum's Oz series, Frank Herbert's Dune or the Orestia by Aeschylus. What's the point? There's a ton of stuff in there. Scrooge McDuck is in there [and acknowledged source]! It comes from all over the place. As I said before, and Lucas has stated this many times, SW is an excersise in editorial creativity. There isn't a single source. The whole concept is to fuse sources into new juxtopositions which suggest a unique narrative thread; this is impressionism, or a form of impressionism. e.g. SW works least when it attempts to operate like a novel or conventional drama - the most effective references are those which have no real back story. Why? See above. It's part and parcel of the aeshetic. I've found familiar shots in Fritz Lang, Satyajit Ray and Korda Bros. films to name a few. Woo-hoo! Studying sources is one thing but accusing the man of something he hasn't done - namely steal - is another. * PS: When I say Dritz Lang I don't mean Metropolis. Can you tell me what shot I'm talking about specifically? C'mon, you're a jr. movie detective you can do it!