The Reason why George Lucas needs to make episodes 7-8-9

I wouldnt say the sith lie without reason. Usually they have a motive but I agree Fenn.

 

He didn't lie about it, he was just being up front about the fact that he never came up with more story past the destruction of Sidious.

Originally he was talking about possibly doing 12 films, but later decided to wrap things up with Return of the Jedi.

So when he says he didn't come up with more material past Episode 6, he's telling the truth.

The Media assumed there was more story to tell after ROTJ, but that was a myth they themselves perpetuated.

 

To be fair, he didn't exactly put a damper on the speculation. He only started denying it relatively recently. For example, I remember an interview in the Star Wars Insider as the prequel hype was ramping up, where Lucas was asked about the sequels. He said something to the effect of "I'm going to get the prequels done first." Which is partially just a dismissive answer, but also suggests that he hadn't firmly decided not to do them, even by that point. I suspect (due to some quotes I have seen) he probably did have some vague ideas for the sequels, even after resolving a lot of plot threads in ROTJ. I also think maybe it was the experience of making the prequels that reminded him of how strenuous it was, and that also played a part in his decision not to make any further SW films (he has said as much).

 

He did come up with more material past RotJ as evidenced by his Time interview, Icons: Intimate Portrait, his foreward to SotME:SE, and Magic of Myth, among other interviews and Lucas produced merchandise. It's been a while, but I could swear the laser disc of the OT made mention of 9 episodes.

7-9 is not a media driven/created myth as you assert, it was Lucas' official stance from 1983 until sometime after 1999.

 

Excerpt from Wapedia, concerning the Star Wars sequel trilogy:

There are no plans to produce such films. Lucasfilm's stance is that the six Star Wars films comprise the entire story Lucas intended to tell, despite mentions to the contrary in the press and official publications over time.

In a 1997 issue of the Star Wars Insider, Lucas said:
"The whole story has six episodes.... If I ever went beyond that, it would be something that was made up. I really don't have any notion other than 'Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.' It wouldn't be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing."

In a 1999 interview with Vanity Fair , Lucas denied ever having any plans to make nine Star Wars movies. "When you see it in six parts, you'll understand", Lucas said at the time. "It really ends at part six." When asked about the possibility of someone else taking over the film franchise, Lucas said "Probably not, it's my thing."

In March 2007, Lucas stated that the idea of a sequel trilogy was "amusing" but didn't seem realistic at the time.

In May 2008, speaking about the upcoming Star Wars: The Clone Wars, Lucas maintained his status on the sequel trilogy, stating that there was no story to tell, and that no sequel will be made. He said:
"I get asked all the time, 'What happens after Return of the Jedi?,' and there really is no answer for that. The movies were the story of Anakin Skywalker and Luke Skywalker, and when Luke saves the galaxy and redeems his father, that's where that story ends."


So, for how long was it really Lucas's official stance that there were concrete plans for a sequel trilogy?





Plans - sometimes, they're altered
/LM

 

From the early '80's to the mid '90's , when he clearly began to cool to the idea of more films after his deep involvement in a prequel trilogy.
I would not be surprised at all if some of his earlier concepts or even ideas for a sequel trilogy worked their way into the prequels.

 

Too bad you left out the begining of the Wikipedia article which corroborates what I have been saying:

In 1983 the nine-film saga was reported by a Time article[6] and The Times review of Return of the Jedi,[7], in The Washington Post,[8] and the "9-film epic saga" plan continued to be repeated as late as 2000.[9][10] The authors of the 1983 Time article briefly described the prequel trilogy, which they said would portray the "political intrigue and Machiavellian plotting that led to the downfall of the once noble Republic". Of the sequel trilogy, they wrote, "Their main theme will be the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong. There was never any doubt in the films already made; in those the lines were sharply drawn, comic-book-style. Luke Skywalker, who will then be the age Obi-Wan Kenobi is now, some place in his 60s, will reappear, and so will his friends, assuming that the creator decides to carry the epic further."[6]

In the book Icons: Intimate Portraits by Denise Worrell, Lucas is reported to have only a vague notion of what will happen in the three films of a sequel trilogy. He is quoted as saying, "If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems. The sequel is about Jedi Knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned." [11] In the foreword of the special edition of Splinter of the Mind's Eye George Lucas stated, "As the saga of the Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that could take at least nine films to tell - three trilogies." [12]

So, just as I've said, as of 1983, 1989, and 1994 Lucas HIMSELF mentions and DESCRIBES the sequel trilogy - even telling how Episode 9 would end. The Magic of Myth book takes that up until 1997. Those are in print and cannot be denied by Lucas or anyone else. This does not include TV interviews, licensed products, or the laser disks, which as even the Wik says continued to be repeated as late as 2000.

If he changed his mind, that is fine, but do not try to rewrite history by saying it was never supposed to be 9 Episodes.

 

"From a certain point of view..."

There can't be any doubt that GL once had plans to make films past ROTJ - he was quoted on many, many occasions as saying he did. How serious these plans were is up for debate, but it can't be denied that it was once on the cards.

However, this doesn't mean he actually developed anything at all, & one can hardly classify those vague concepts he does mention as 'material'. I think when he does dismiss the Sequel Trilogy as a media invention, this is what he means - he was constantly asked what happens after the third film, so he came up with a few ideas, should he ever make any actual films. It kept the press & public happy, but there wasn't really anything beyond the comments, no real plot, apart from what would logically happen, i.e. rebuilding the Republic & the Jedi Order, & he coloured this very broad vision in with the comments that the films would be "more philosophical in tone".

At some point, GL decided that these sequel films weren't going to happen, & there wasn't any real necessity to make them the same way there was with the prequels (having the films 'start' at Episode IV left a gap of three unseen episodes). As time passed, whatever faint ideas he had as happening past ROTJ faded & were most likely obliterated with ideas he developed for the PT (or were taken & used in the PT). The Sequel Trilogy, in a way, ceased to exist, so it was easier to deny it ever having existed in the first place, having been a 'media invention'. That's not exactly true - when asked, he was the one who said, yes, there are more stories - but it was very much prompted by public curiosity & the tiniest, vaguest little tidbit from the Creator was immediately seized upon & broadcast to the world as gospel.
A very recent, & perhaps the most accurate, quote GL has made about the ST was that it was something he "played into, but probably shouldn't have."

Now, it's possible that he did develop some material which we're not privy to, but we don't know. Of course, we'd all love to think that there's three more story treatments that were developed way back in the 1970s, but considering how little he actually had developed already for the PT & had to fill in, I can't see there being much material for a series of films he denies having existed in the first place.

 

But here's the rub Nub.

Everyone here seems to think Kurtz was lying or imagining things when he said the original plan was to have a sequel trilogy dealing with ":the other" and the emperor, etc.

However, if you look at the earlier scripts for both ESB and RotJ there were nuggets that support his assertion.

"The other" was supposed to be someone on the othr side of the galaxy. Luke confronted Vader, only Vader, in the earlier drafts of RotJ. The emperor wasn't around.

So I agree with you that Lucas played into a lot of the folks pushing him. And little vague plot points, even like the ones I mentioned, does not make a story. Still, I think there was some idea about what he wanted to do in a bare outline for an ST.

And even Rick McCallum mentioned that Lucas had all the stories.

So I think the truth may be somewhere in between "it was completely made up by the media" and "Lucas had an entire yellow pad full of ideas".

 

That's pretty much the way I see it, & given that we're dealing with a storyline that never made it past the developmental stage, it's hard to pin down any sort of 'truth' regarding its content. Just because quotes from GL & Gary Kurtz seem to contradict certain other facts doesn't mean they weren't true at some point in time.

Legendary producer Robert Evans summed it up best:

"There are three sides to every story.
Your side, my side, and the truth. And no one is lying. Memories shared serve each one differently."

While ESB & ROTJ were being made, GL, Gary Kurtz, Irvin Kershner, Lawrence Kasdan & Richard Marquand were all involved in the development of the story of SW. They discussed it, they made suggestions, they hammered out the scripts. Some had more control than others, but all were involved & remember various ideas being hurled around. The prequel & sequel trilogies no doubt came up at different times, & the content & nature of these storylines would be just as fluid as the plots to the films they were making at the time - more so, in fact, as events changing in ESB & ROTJ would affect what was meant to happen in Eps I-III & VII-IX. Just because Eps I-III 'occurred' chronologically before the OT doesn't mean they were set in stone, quite the contrary. Same with Eps VII-IX.

At one point, the Other may have been Luke's sister on the other side of the galaxy. A year later, in the mind of GL, it may have been someone else. Then, a year after that, it was Leia. Does this mean Gary Kurtz was wrong, or lying? Of course not. The storyline of the Sequel Trilogy changed, just as did that of the OT. He may have been mistaking this sister with the character that appears in the first draft of ESB, or he may be referring to a discussion which happened a couple of years later, where Luke's sister does appear in a sequel.

The 'pad full of ideas' no doubt existed, there were probably multiple pads. However, that's all they were - ideas. If one could track down these legendary notes for the ST, I suspect most of them would be redundant, having been either used in ROTJ & the prequel trilogy, or contradicted by the same.

 

^ Well said.

 

I don't agree with this being prompted by the public or media. When GL says the story would take 9 episodes in the foreward to SotME:SE for example, HE is the one initiating the talk. There is no media person interviewing him. Same for Official merchandise such as Magic of Myth, Icons:IP, Bantha Tracks/Insider, and the laser disk. Lucas has control over those products and was the one voluntarily giving that info.

When he says he would make the PT 1st and then the ST in order to let the actors age naturally because there is roughly a 20 year gap between each of the 3 trilogies and that only the droids are in all 9 episodes (with 9 ending with a flashforward and the droids telling the story to children), that is not media specualtion, that is GL planning on how to make/complete the movies. We all know this was derailed because of his divorce so just say it.

This isn't a fair assessment. The info we have of the ST was provided by Lucas AFTER the release of RotJ, therefore it would not have been used in RotJ since this movie was already made. The PT does not re-establish the Jedi order and the republic or have their main theme be the necessity for moral choices and the wisdom needed to distinguish right from wrong. Luke Skywalker, who will then be the age Obi-Wan Kenobi is now, some place in his 60s, did not reappear. Nor is the PT about Jedi Knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.

While this may be a vague outline, it is the same kind of outline he had when developing the PT. The core of the story is there, it just needs to be fleshed out with locations and action.

 

The problem is that the way the saga plays now, the core of its story is tightly interwoven with the destiny of Anakin Skywalker. How would Lucas keep Anakin's destiny in the mix?
Furthermore, what would the climax of the saga be? We have seen the Republic fall, we have seen Anakin fall with it, we have seen Anakin return to the light to save Luke, thereby vanquishing the Sith and assisting the Rebels in bringing down the Empire.
What would top that?





Anakin - he's in the mix
/LM

 

I think you're missing my point - yes, GL made quotes regarding the ST that weren't necessarily in response to direct questions, but I do believe that the very idea of there being sequels beyond ROTJ originated from public & media pressure. He seems to acknowledge this in Once Upon A Galaxy, when he said "After the success of Star Wars I added another trilogy."
I do believe that for some time he did consider this third trilogy as a legitimate part of his saga, but considering how vague it was, & having been more of an afterthought, he didn't feel the same compulsion to make it as he did the PT. It certainly wasn't necessary.

As for my comments about how ROTJ & the PT made the ST redundant, I was referring to whatever details he may have fleshed out, not the broad outlines we know about. Certainly the character of the 'Other' was, when the term was applied to Leia. If Gary Kurtz's comments are to be believed, ROTJ also killed off Luke's sister living on the other side of the galaxy.

It also occurred to me when replying to the thread on the term 'Sith' in this forum that the ST may have featured the other Sith Lords roaming the galaxy that appear in the earlier drafts of SW, & are hinted at in the novelisation, but the 'Rule Of Two' created for the PT eliminated their existence. It's just speculation, but it's an example of how something created earlier could no longer be applicable, due to the plot developments of the films that do get made.

 

I don't have that source; is it clear from his words which trilogy he "added"? There is a Bantha Tracks issue from around the time of ESB where he mentions having added a fourth trilogy, but later decided those films were "tangential" to the story of the saga. Given the time period when Once... came out, it's plausible that he might be referring to that second sequel trilogy.

 

The full quote in Once Upon A Galaxy to Alan Arnold in 1979 is:

"The first script was one of six original stories I had written in the form of two trilogies. After the success of Star Wars I added another trilogy. So now there are nine stories. The original two trilogies were conceived of as six films of which the first film was number four."

So what he's saying is - his original 'plan' was Eps I-VI, the PT & OT, then after SW was a smash hit he added Eps VII-IX.

As for the 'fourth trilogy' - that never existed as such, & he never claimed that it did. What did exist, prior to the nine-film saga structure, was the concept of there being twelve episodes in the ongoing Star Wars series (this was mentioned in the earliest issues of Bantha Tracks). This would not, however, exist as four trilogies, it was to be a continuous series which would not necessarily follow chronological order (quoted in Once Upon A Galaxy). One episode may have followed the adventures of a young Ben Kenobi, another may have looked at the origins of the Jedi Knights.

So, although there was once meant to be three more films overall, the structure didn't exist as four separate narratives which comprised one big saga. This also doesn't mean there were twelve stories, it was just a number which made sense to GL, as the old movie serials used to have twelve episodes. This structure was abandoned when he decided that the backstory to the current story would comprise a whole trilogy to itself, & that the current story would be wrapped up by its third instalment.

 

By having his destiny not settled at the end of RotJ. Luke must do some things in the ST to help his father gain his identity and achieve full redemption. Maybe Luke is presented at times with difficult choices for his father's destiny and the greater good of going against that to keep the galaxy together? Maybe Vader's selfless act in RotJ becomes the beginning of his redemption, not the end.

I don't know. Philosophical choices. Moral dilemmas.

It would keep Anakin in the mix, but would still be Luke-centric.

It would also be interesting if the villain of the piece was also not so much a villain from a certain point of view. maybe he would have knowledge that Vader was Luke's father and would use that against him in some way?

 

Ah, which is why Anakin transmuted at the end of the film...interesting.

You know, my biggest gripe about ROTJ is that Vader was a passive agent in his own redemption. No remorse. No contrition. A mass-murderer and torturer saves his kid at the last possible moment and consequently earns his angel wings.

If a ST extended this redemption story, then sign me up.

 

It's interesting because if you think about it, the PT, with the whole Qui-Gon discovered how to retain his identity, kinda set this up.

 

No remorse. No contrition.

"You were right about me. Tell your sister... you were right." -- Darth Vader's last words

Luke was "right about" that there was still good in Vader. Thus these last words are confessional; here Vader admits that he, Vader, was evil in life (otherwise the presence of good in him would have been homogenous and therefore unnecessary to point out), and that Luke was in the right. These are words of implicit apology -- "you were right: I was wrong" -- even if the word "sorry" is not spoken aloud.

Further remorse and contrition can be heard in the actor's voice, in support of which idea I contend that tone and vocal delivery are equally important in discerning meaning as the spoken words themselves.

Please note I'm not saying it wouldn't be fun to further explore Anakin's redemption in a sequel trilogy; I mean only to correct what I perceive to be a misstatement of SW metaphysics.

 

Shaw's tone is that of an expiring old man's relief at having performed a salvic act.

Vader is not at all apologetic. In fact, he has the temerity to declare he's saved--hardly befitting a man who tortured his family and plunged the galaxy into totalitarianism.

All things considering, "Tell your sister...forget about me" would be a more appropriate final wish. And yet Anakin, ever the narcissist, makes it all about him--presuming that the daughter he brutalized gives a flying fig about his fate.

C'mon Lucas, make a sequel trilogy, and inject a dose of Dostoevskian guilt into your narrative!

 

To me it sounds like he's saying Luke saved him from the dark side. Luke want's to save his -life-, but Anakin accepts his fate brought on by his mis-deeds.

 

Well, that explanation seems pretty parsimonious - and thanks for the quote on the six-film concept.

(I had a big paragraph in here about the sequels but I decided it didn't add much to what you said.)

 

...except that we know the PT-CT (two trilogy) concept didn't exist from the very beginning. But you even took care of that in talking about the structure changing to include trilogies and the backstory. and I have no trouble believing that Lucas came up with more definite plans in relation to the CT and its backstory than the sequels, which is what I presume him to have meant.

 

Exactly! You and I think alike

I've been thinking along those lines, too. In fact, I've been working on developing the story for a sequel trilogy since... I don't know, 2002? The story has gone through a multitude of revisions and recently arrived at something that I think feels quite right.
I just felt the need to throw this question out there, to get someone else's perspective on things. You've actually contributed a great deal just by mentioning the term "full redemption". I've thought a lot about "forgiveness" and "fulfilment", but oddly enough, "redemption" never made it into the thought process(even though it's an inherent part of my story).
Thanks a lot, ShaneP!

About the end of ROTJ: The way I see it, Anakin has taken an important step towards fulfilment; He has learned compassion. He sacrificed his own life to save someone that he loved.
What he may have yet to learn is to let go of those that he loves and to let go of the past. One of his family members, or all of them, may have to sacrifice their lives for what they believe in and Anakin may have to learn to accept that.

I also believe that the sequel trilogy would put some emphasis on the relationship between Anakin and Leia.





Leia - she has a father and a "father"
/LM