BTS The Secret History of Star Wars

I work with about 400 people and I'm the only one out of 400 that has watched the Star Warsmovies more than once. The people I work with look at me like I'm stupid when I talk about Star Wars. Other than a bunch of bashers here at theforce.net does anyone even care if Darth Vader wasn't really Luke's dad in 1977?

I like the way you called G.L. insecure. So you're a psychoanalyst because you copied and pasted some George Lucas quotes?
The only reason G.L. runs around saying it was always about Anakin is because he wants the viewer to see it that way because other than the original movie the stupid story is about Anakin. Damn man all the guy is doing is selling a fictional story to a bunch of kids.

And I think the Marcia Lucas quote where she says George is "bitter and vindictive" just shows how you'll stoop to any means to discredit and embarrass George Lucas. Of course the guy was bitter and vindicitive. I would be too if my wife was doing the nasty with another man and then took half of everything. Oh I forgot she was real driving force behind the success of Star Wars because she made him leave in the mouse droid scene because everyone knows without the mouse droid and "for luck" scene Star Wars would have never amounted to anything.

I liked your book more when it was titled "The Basher's Sanctuary"

 

Ouch. But to be frank - I see the_immolated_one's point.

 

I've still not had time to download this yet, but from what I know of Zombie's posts, that seems a tad harsh?

 

Yeah, it is a bit harsh. But from what i've read so far, it does seem highly anti-Lucas. I may be wrong. Others may not feel that way. But thats the impression I get.

Still a well formed piece of work though.

 

I don't.

There's constructive criticism ............. and then there's THAT.

I don't have an acceptable word for it, so I'll leave my direct remarks on *that* post there.

zombie has clearly constructed an elaborate polemic. And polemical texts tend to incite ire, regardless of how dilligently they're written. I have seen it in the Elvis World with "Elvis: What Happened?" Although that book was clearly sensationalised, some fans have difficulty accepting the truth it contains, and the reasons it was written, even now. Such is the way of things, the way of the Force, apparently.

But the thing is: you cannot argue with truth. You can try and shut it out, but like the sun, it ain't going away. Broadly speaking, there are two approaches to everything in life: seeing things for what they are .......... or seeing things the way you wish them to be. While zombie's manner can be contested, I think it's harder to argue with his actual research and the basic conclusions he appears to have drawn. However ........ some people will refuse to see them. Welcome to the Spanish Inquisition, folks!

 

Here's the deal, Cryrogenic. I accept the truth just fine. I've read the story treatments and rough drafts. And anyone can see that there's nothing that shows Vader is Luke's father in them. My point is I don't freaking care because it's a fictional movie and about 99.9% of the human population feels the same as I do. You want to talk about someone who keeps a closed mind then you want to talk to the bashers who think this book will somehow expose the evil George Lucas and vanquish him to the fiery depths of Hell for the all the lies he has told about, say again, A Fictional Story for Children.

How you can defend Zombie is just beyond me. Cryrogenic, you think Zombie hangs out with George Lucas? Do you? How can Zombie know if George Lucas is insecure? How can Zombie know what goes on in Lucas? head.

?THAT? There was nothing in ?THAT? that wasn?t the truth.

Elvis? Elvis was a real man. Anakin was not a real man so who cares if he wasn?t a real father?

This book, if you can call it that because all I saw as I was hitting the Page Down button was a copy and paste bonanza, was nothing but an assault on a guy who just made some children?s stories.

You know what the truth is. The truth is this: These bashers are the ones who are insecure. They are jealous of the Lucas? success and wealth. They?re the ones who are insecure because they know they?ll never and I mean never come close to pulling off in their lifetime what Lucas pulled off in his lifetime.

Lucas came out of film school with nothing and created a multibillion dollar industry and of course there are going to be people out there that are going to want to break him down so they can build themselves up. Look at the facts.

Now that?s the truth.

I noticed as I was pressing the Page Down button that Zombie writes: ?Interesting to note that Indiana Jones and Star Wars were both conceived of at about the same time, and from the same source--matinee adventure serials, one about the globe-trotting treasure seeker and the other about empire-battling space heroes.?
See this is where Zombie?s absolute hatred of Lucas prevents Zombie from seeing the truth. Cryrogenic, do you know why Indiana Jones, Star Wars, and Willow were all conceived at about the same time? Since you?re not going to talk about ?THAT? with me then I?ll tell you. Because they?re all the same type of story telling as Zombie writes but it?s a little deeper than just they?re offshoots of Republic serials. They?re all spiritual stories. Within all three of these stories there is something divine looking over the mortals of the story but the audience never gets to see the divine and that?s the point. That?s why there?s three different gods in the Indy trilogy. That?s why there?s different version of divinity in ?Star Wars?. That?s why there?s prophecies, magic, and a baby girl savior in ?Willow?. We never see divinity because it?s a freaking secret to the mortals of the story because if it wasn?t a secret then the mortals of the story would know that they have to do the right thing or they?re going to Hell. That?s Lucas? stupid vision. It?s not whether or not Vader was a not-so-proud papa or not. Unlike movies such as ?Jason and Argonauts? and ?Clash of the Titans? the audience is not shown divinity but it?s there so the mortals have to do the right thing because the mortals are being tested and used by divinity. Zo

 

Cheers for pointing this out Cryo. I've just downloaded the ebook and I'm planning to read it on and off over the weekend. I was just reading the introduction and I read this line about the book being a gift to all those that have been fans of the original Star Wars.
Now, don't get me wrong, I'm a fan of the original Star Wars (I was born in 1977, so you could say I spent my entire early childhood growing up with this movie around me) But I'm also a fan of the Star Wars Saga. Thats the old movies and the new movies. Infact, I personally believe the new movies have just as much merit (but in differant ways) as the old movies.

So, I've got to this line and now I'm wondering whether me being a fan of a 6 part saga, as opposed to one movie, exclude's me in some way from this book? Does Zombie want to engage with me? Or does he just want to have a conversation with those fans who only like the original film and at most the original three movies? If this book is about reaching out and engaging in a dialouge with the star wars community as a whole group and dispelling all those myths, rumours and false-hoods that surround the movies and Lucas then I believe a tremendous amount of good can come from this. However, if by its nature its only inclusive to one section of the fans, and excludes other sections of the fandom, then the division will just go on, and quite honestly I've got better things to do with my weekend.

 

It's a nice piece of work, very impressive, but there is an undeniable negative undercurrent present that devalues the writing and causes loss of interest relatively early on. You cannot stand to have your objectivity compromised when writing a work of this sort.

 

I'm going to have to completely agree with you Master Shaitan. I read through Page 99 and I just had to stop because I kept asking myself, "what's the point of this book?" After I realized that it was to show how the idea of Star Wars changed I really didn't care. It's almost as if you are scrutinizing Mr. Lucas for work that he never intended to put on the screen as a final project. Even the shooting script wasn't a Holy Bible. The final edit was the be-all-and-end-all story. The storyies link together and synchronize perfectly in my mind and that's really all that matters to me. Weather the "original" story had Gen. Luke Starkiller and Prince Valorum is insignificant, futile and worthless to me. I appreciate the time you put into this subject, but I didn't care for it in the least. The Immolated One, although he lacks any respectfulness, courtesy and niceness, is right when he says, "See Lucas learned a long time ago that art house movies will ruin a company so he figured he would disguise them under the banner of STAR WARS but see people like Zombie just scoff at this idea and that my friend is the definition of closed mindedness."

 

Another great point.

 

Zombie - good to see you put your questions and passion to good use.

Immolated - I've got to say for someone who presents himself as one of the 99.9% of the rest of the people... that you've got a pretty passionate and vested interest in the series to be hanging out with this .1% minority. In fact, I find your tone and behavior better left to PM with the author. I do, however, appreciate your view however... coarse a delivery it might've been sent in. The fact that someone is willing to point out biases is a very valuable point of reference for any nonfiction author. It's hard to accept criticism of an author's bias when the critic's so clearly biased himself. Although that's the problem with bias and points of view... they're inherently that way. Maybe just... find a better way to share your criticism?

-TJ

 

You know what the truth is. The truth is this: These bashers are the ones who are insecure. They are jealous of the Lucas? success and wealth.

*sigh* Now that the_immolated_one is gone, let's get back to a serious discussion free of insults.

And frankly, I don't understand this notion that in order for SW to be good, it has to be a hidden art-house film, nor do I under why any thinks that it is slanderous to say that GL like Republic serials and wanted to make high quality versions of them. Where do people get the idea SW and Jones were based off things like Flash Gordon and old adventure movies? Aside from the contents of the film, we get it from GL.

 

MOD EDIT: Eh, no, we're not telling people off, not in my forum.

 

Superbly stated.

That said: I also agree with what zombie wrote: "When you analyse an artist you inevitably have to pass some amount of judgement on him."

Sure, but its all in the language. Opinions should be worded in such a way that conveys the idea of opinion and not a claim to fact. And I'll admit, zombie, since I haven't read your book yet I don't know how well you handle this, I am merely making this statement based on the posting styles of many who I think have a good grasp on the "secret history", as you call it, yet dilute relaying information on the subject by making opinion based statements as if they were factual. (To note: all angles of the SW fanbase do this, so it isn't some exclusive trait of "bsshers", but present there, nonetheless.)

Since opinion cannot be fact, by stating it as fact it give leverage to those who resist the notion of a secret history to reject the idea by saying "well, he's obviously full of himself", and be done with it. I use to see this all the time when I modded over in SWC and PT, and I would hate for it to containment a work like this.

Also, the notion that the story changes should not be held against SW (unless one wants to point out possible continuity issues, but understand the non-fan won't care about this, so continuity is a weak point to hammer a film on, outside of a fanbase discussion). If quality of a work is to be questioned, it should be examined each film by artistic standards within the film itself, not as a matter of what was, or wasn't going to happen. However, it is good to make note of the changes, which I feel is the more important point of a work like this, simply for historical reasons, context and perspective.


But this is also where I come back to agreeing with Stryphe. Take the final line of the introductory text: "Consider this my gift to all you fans out there who have kept watching that classic film for all these decades." I wasn't even born till 1983 and didn't properly sit down and encounter "Star Wars" (i.e. watch the film) until the 1990's.

Yeah, I'm with Cyro. There is a definite portrayal of bias in this, whether initial or not. Perhaps you meant something else, but it came off wrong, so I will merely ask for clarification to that statement's true intent and discuss it from there.


It sounds like you're talking to a smaller audience, and when an author does something like that, they're putting up a kind of barrier between themselves and the reader ... IF the reader falls outside of that limited demographic.

Exactly. If you don't want to limit your audience, you have to be mindful of such things.


If this is a history book, then history should be for everyone, and the language needs to reflect that as powerfully as possible.

Also agree. My encouragement would be to write this not to a SW fanbase, but to historians of film and/or pop-culture. Think in those terms, because that's what will really matter in terms of the SW legacy. The SW fanbase is already a vast minority in terms of people who both appreciate and\or were influenced (even in some small way) by SW.


I work with about 400 people and I'm the only one out of 400 that has watched the Star Warsmovies more than once. The people I work with look at me like I'm stupid when I talk about Star Wars. Other than a bunch of bashers here at theforce.net does anyone even care if Darth Vader wasn't really Luke's dad in 1977?

Ah, see, here you're making my point for me. Do most people? Not really, but you're thinking in comtempary terms. Let me put it like this, if an undiscovered, early draft of Halmet were uncovered, would historians and/or literary scholars care? Absolutely. Does that mean they are fans of Hamlet, or even Shakesbear? Not neccessarily, but Shakesbears writings are considered important and information on them, as well as the works themselves, are often studied and appreciated. Likewise with SW.

If there is a history and story behind SW that has not been recorded, it should be,

 

Yes Stryph, there was a lot of "stuff" that went down between George and Marcia Lucas and I wouldn't have thought that her comments about Lucas anytime from 1982-1983 onwards??? Should really be taken seriously. I'm sure if you asked George at the time, he would have said some pretty negative things about his ex-wife, as well.

In relation to the stuff about the changes that were made to the story of Star Wars as the movie developed, and then changed further through the sequels and prequels, my understanding isn't so much that Lucas's critics don't like the fact that the story changed and evolved, but a lot of them, rightly or wrongly, feel that Lucas has told half truths and even lies about all of these changes. Almost like he has deliberatly set about creating the myth that he had it all mapped out in his head, when really he didn't and they think he is lying about it.
I mean, my reponse as someone who enjoys the movies (ALL the movies) would be that I don't really care if Lucas is less than honest about the creative side of things. I don't require a storyteller to be completely truthful in all areas, to enjoy the story they are telling, but I think a LOT of people get really upset about this perhaps rather unfortunate trait of Lucas's personality to be less than honest and to sometimes exagerate about how he created the Saga. And (I may be wrong about this, as its a term I've not come across) I assume this is whats meant by The Star Wars Conspiracy? I actually think its a rather trivial matter - Certainly when compared to the MUCH more important issue of how he has treated the old, classic movies - But many people do get really, really hung up about it.

 

duplicate post

 

Guys,

I have been critical of zombie and others in the past. They have annoyed me as much as they appear to have annoyed some of you ... but the circumstances were different back then. Previously, there was something harsh and shrill about the way they'd endlessly post (from my POV) just to seemingly tear Lucas down and act as if they were teaching us all something we either didn't know or were consciously denying. It's like they were thumbing their noses at Lucas and us combined (again, from my POV). But I don't see that happening here. Sure, the book still appears to contain the same passion that gave rise to those earlier behaviours (again, just my POV), but it's clearly more than just a 400+ page diatribe. To write it off in that way is callous and disingenous.

You're really DARTHIRONCLAD, aren't you? And let it be known: I greatly admire everything you've done to bring the mythological depths of the saga to light. But that post is loaded with strawmans.

1) You may not care, but you are conflating your opinion with that of everyone else's.

2) If it's a fictional "movie" (sic) (I'm sure you meant "movies"), then why have you gone into such detail on the mythological depths of the saga, why are you as angry as you are, and why are you posting on a "Star Wars" community at all? Deeming something unworthy of stringent historical treatment because the final product of that effort is a work of fiction is also erroneous -- art and culture define us as a species.

3) While some bashers will look for any attack (just as some gushers will look for any defence), most people are found somewhere between those poles. To simplify the book so heinously is no different than people snubbing your detailed mythological analyses and proclaiming, "They're just movies!" ... OR ... "Lucas stuffed up, so why should I care?" ... OR ... "You're just leeching off the work of a great man, so why should I listen to you?"

4) See all above points on the assertion that these are "fictional stor[ies] for children".

More strawmen.

If this line of fallacious logic is followed through to its conclusion, then no one can possibly know what is going on inside anyone else's head (true from a certain POV), and no one is right to run for office, become a counsellor or write biographical texts on historical figures and their life and work. Clearly, something is wrong with that logic.

Another strawman.

I wasn't affirming or exploring this difference in my earlier analogy at all.

But your very post is DIRECT PROOF of everything I said IN my analogy.

Strawmen:

1) "Copy and paste bonanza": Are you talking about the mountain of quotations, or is this charge more endemic and related to the body of text itself? Are you accusing zombie of being thorough, or are you charging him of plagiari

 

Cryo I don't want to start a battle with you because you are too elegant and too informed for me, but I've got to say that when you know your right you don't stop! That's a compliment by the way. In my defense I'm going to have to say that asking me why I read the book in the first place was a little silly. I don't read or view things based solely on what I think about a subject beforehand. I read to learn new ideas and logics that may be different than my own. When I read the title I was intrigued and the first chapter really had my interest. But I then realized that George Lucas is not a perfect guy and that he may have lied about when he knew things. Hell do you remember what you did on May 25, 1973? My point is that I knew this already and even if I hadn't I didn't need a 400-some page book to tell me about it. It's like writing a book about Captain Kidd only instead of focusing on the pirating and pillaging you focus on his three-month stay in London. Although it may be relevant, it was only minutely and not worthy of such a large treatment. Although I must say that my biggest problem with the book was that he never actually talked to George Lucas or any of his relatives or working partners. No offense Zombie, that's a tall order, but for me to believe his conjectures I have to see questions from him to important people. It was just a fact-finding mission that didn't turn up very any facts, only beliefs. As to your be-all-end-all edit remark, the point it conceded. However, I agree with Lucas that the editing process doesn't have to stop after the movie's released. Let me just end by saying that the-immolated-one, albeit coincidentally, got this thread going a little too hot for everybody and that we all need to take our temperatures.

 

I do thank you Zombie, however, for bringing back worthy discussion to the forums. THANK YOU!!!!!!

 

Thank you, skgai1!

(And you're very right. Anakin time: "Oops!" )

We've always been cool with each other.

I admire the different perspectives and ideas you bring to discussions, but you didn't seem to bring anything good to this one. That sounds awful, I know ... as if I'm justified to weigh up someone's post in that manner, let alone criticise them over it! But MORE than that, and tied to what I just said, you seemed to be unfairly putting the book down, and that's what got to me.

Ah, but that's NOT the point!

That's not even in the same galaxy of being the point.

The point is that Lucas has WILLFULLY distorted the truth behind "Star Wars". It is written into the very fabric of the films themselves, in fact.

But this is worthy of a large treatment.

It's the story OF the story of "Star Wars". Sure, on that basis, it's not the first book to come along, and it certainly won't be the last, but it's the first to really examine all the avenues that the story has gone down and speculate as to WHY it's gone down them, and what that means for what we see as the completed art today.

It turned up many facts -- by examining MANY sources.

By his own admission, zombie isn't a journalist or writer by trade. But he doesn't need to be. His point is, to use "The X-Files" maxim, that THE TRUTH IS OUT THERE. And he has been the one to gather it all up and weave it together.

You imply anger where none exists. I'm not angry. I am perfectly calm and rational. My responses aren't predicated on an extreme emotional response in here. If you think they are, then I'm sorry -- you're wrong. But other people's clearly are (not yours, necessarily). However, even THAT is beside the point. I merely responded to address logical fallacies and query certain points of view, throwing in my own opinion to tie everything together. It's rather the same with zombie and his book, I feel. But you may certainly quibble my approach, just as you may quibble zombie's. It's the sweeping nature of some of the assertions -- including the one you just made about anger -- that's troubling. I don't see them as fair or constructive. And I think a book like this requires cool heads. [EDIT: Unless I'm now doing the SAME thing as you? Eek! See: these sorts of things get cyclical real quick!] We can take each other to task, but let's do it reasonably. I already have some new criticisms to make of the foreword, which my long post gave rise to my thinking about. I'll post them later.

 

That statement wasn't directed at you. Sorry, it did come across that way I see now.

Ah Cryo, but that's my point! He doesn't prove Lucas distorted the truth behind Star Wars. He tries to persuade the reader, but his lack of cold hard facts don't persuade me. Although I think that Zombie is probably right (there are many points that can be made for his opinion), he doesn't prove anything. And since he doesn't prove anything he is only slandering Lucas' good name. I mean there are many ways to know the bonafide truth. Ask Marcia, ask Gary Kurtz, ask Francis Ford Coppola, ask Alan Ladd, Jr., ask the documentarian on Empire of Dreams, hell ask George himself (although you probably wouldn't get a straight answer out of him). I'm saying that for a book of this nature, firsthand accounts are necessary. That was not the point of the book I know, but the ideas behind the book necessitated it. I really hate to be so negative (I really, really do), but I just don't see any other way.

 

But you only read the first 100 pages. That's 1/4 of the book. The text is very persuasive. Admittedly, I haven't read it all yet (far from it), but I have dipped in at different points, and every step of the way, something was in the process of being presented and asserted on the matter. You can never directly prove any fact, but you can propose an idea and then fail to disprove it. It appears that zombie has done just that.

EDIT: Only reading to p. 99 / 100 also only takes you as far as the end of production on "Star Wars" / "A New Hope". The central revelation and core change that is the real foundation of the book, and the saga itself, is only alleged to have taken place in 1978 -- one year later. No wonder you feel that zombie has proven nothing to you.

EDIT (II): And I almost can't believe we're arguing with this. Look what I had to write above: "Star Wars" / "A New Hope". The film has two titles -- BECAUSE Lucas retrofitted a second one later! Revisions, revisions, revisions. If you can't handle the idea that Lucas has lied, at least accept that exploring the way the saga has evolved is worthy of a textual treatment.

EDIT (III): Also bear in mind the decade that "Star Wars" was made in: the 70's. It was a different time. Sequels weren't thought of so much back then. Rather, the emphasis was on self-contained stories and fictional realities. Of course, there were exceptions: e.g. "The Godfather" (followed closely by "The Godfather, Part II", and much later by "The Godfather, Part III"). "Superman" was also made simultaneously with "Superman II", but those two pictures were collectively thought of as one giant tale, so it was effectively the same thing. Lucas was almost certainly thinking ahead to more films, but he wasn't sure what form they would take, or what he was capable of bringing to the screen with the money and technology of the time. Lucas has also changed and grown as a person over the years, and I think the saga has changed and grown with him. This is the true power of the book.

What qualifies as a "firsthand" account to you?

Script drafts? Check.

Storyboard analyses? Check.

Production notes? Check.

Interviews with cast and crew? Check.

Pretty much everything is in there somewhere. Or so it appears. There is a MOUNTAIN of sources pointing to the idea that Lucas has changed his mind and then presented a different reality in interviews, statements, commentaries etc. True, it's not like the guy has done anything like committing fraud or legal perjury, but he hasn't been entirely honest when describing the genesis and evolution of "Star Wars", either. Of course, concurrent with the saga's own philosophy, you could probably find a way of arguing that Lucas has always told the truth, from a certain point of view. And maybe he's done that, too. But I feel, regardless of your interpretation, SOMETHING involving a distortion / blurring of reality has taken place, and it's worth being written about, and the case is well argued therein.

 

I'm going to have to refute you Cryo every step of the way.

You are right that I haven't read the entire book, but I saw where he was going and have seen it so many other times. I skimmed through the rest of the book to make sure he didn't go off in any new direction and he didn't. That being said, neither of us have actually finished this thing so we probably shouldn't be going back and forth on this issue.

Lucas could have called it Star Wars because he didn't think the movie would make any money. Zombie points that fact out numerous times in his book. I mean would Battlefield Earth sell more tickets as Battlefield Earth of Battlefield Earth: A Saga of the Year 3000. (Not that it probably would have sold many tickets anyhow.) After he realized he could actually make the sequels he had to go back and correct the first movie. Now no I can't prove this, but you can't prove your point either.

Of course Lucas changed and so did the scripts and ideas, but the basic premise could have been there in 1977. No doubt Lucas' newfound lessons of life altered some of his ideas, but that doesn't me a complete 180. Also bear in mind that in the 70s anything was possible! People's wildest ideas had been realized.

By firsthand accounts I mean new interviews with the people in question. There's a better word for it, but I can't remember it. zombie states, "There h

 

I'll respectfully agree on this, since it's something I can fully agree on, and go back to reading. This thread requires fresh input, and as I see it, I have pretty much defended zombie's work, as I currently perceive it, to the best of my ability. Time for other people to have their say.