BTS The Secret History of Star Wars

OK, a couple of points.

1. I asked the question about the Star Wars Conspiracy because I was genuinely interested to know what the term meant. I've been around here since early 2001 and in all that time I've never come across this term. As we've gone along I've figured out that it relates to the changes Lucas made to the story of the Saga, but initially I didn't know this.

2. I DID start reading the book and came across the dedication to fans of the original Star Wars within the first few seconds. It made me stop and pause, because I started to wonder if this book would be for me at all. However, later in the evening I read up to page 20. I'll not be commenting on the e-book now until I finish, which knowing the way I read may take until 2012.

 

I've read 200 pages (up to the end of first trilogy) and I am absolutely enthralled.


This is absolutely mind-blowing stuff. It's just unbelievable!

Granted, I've thought about a lot of these ideas over the years (and we've discussed--and argued about-- some of them here), but I've never seen such a logical, detailed, and cohesive project that tackles the whole story of the films' evolution (for good or bad). The book could use some spelling and grammatical corrections, but the ideas and theories are extremely well-thought-out, and the sourcing of quotes and other info is utterly meticulous.

I'll be sending suggestions and ideas for improvement to the author once I'm done reading, and I suggest that anyone else who reads this e-book should do the same.

This is almost certainly the definitive "smoking gun" where Lucas' "it was all planned from the start" excuse and his constantly-changing ideas for the films are involved. And I'm not saying that so as to pass judgment on the man or his work, and I don't think Zombie is either. Zombie may use words like "lie", "deception", and "forged" in the book, and while those words are technically correct in the context of the evidence presented, they could easily be misinterpreted by readers as "proof" that Zombie has some kind of anti-Lucas agenda going on here.

This is absolutely not the case. Despite the use of the terms mentioned above, this book takes pains to be quite logical and quite impartial. It does not try to pass judgement on Lucas, or on the films. It tries to seek THE TRUTH, regardless of how shocking or painful it may be to hardcore fans. In fact, such revelations are very illuminating, and a very powerful look inside the creative--and sometimes painfully difficult--process of filmmaking.


In fact, setting aside that aspect, the actual analysis of the gradual shaping of the films' storylines is utterly fascinating, and is a celebration of the creative process, one which all Star Wars fans should greatly enjoy. Bit by bit, the book traces the origins of the films in a very entertaining and enlightening way. I sense love here, not hate.


I'm glad Zombie doesn't really take a stance on the theories that he proposes, but instead tries to weave together a picture of these events as they most likely happened (though, predictably, some people on forums like this one are already calling him a "Lucas-basher" who has a negative agenda).

From a stand-alone film, to a series of stand-alone films, to the "Original Trilogy" (and the "Vader-as-Father Skywalker" plot point that changed the course of the series forever) to the final, six-film "Saga", it's all here.


The book is absolutely enthralling. It may be one of the single most impressive--and important--fan-written Star Wars books of all time. The work is practically dripping with passion and meticulous attention to detail. This book really needs to be spread out as far as possible, either by xeroxed manuscripts to be handed out at conventions, or maybe an actual published (and unauthorized) book. It should be seen NOT as some kind of hateful manifesto that contains a madman's rantings about how Lucas is a liar and the films are terrible, but as a fascinating chronicle of the behind-the-scenes creative process that brought the films to life, and the direction they eventually took (for good or bad).

Does it occasionally go astray in some areas, or make some possibly erroneous assumptions? Maybe. Which is why I'm going to submit my suggestions for improvement when I'm done reading, and I suggest everyone else do the same. We should aid Zombie in making this the best book it can be, one which is truly exhaustive and truly defintive.


You've created something really fantastic here, Zombie. Don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Don't get discouraged by small-minded people who can't even attempt to accept the fact that The Holy Star Wars Saga That Was Obviously Planned From The Start was created by a fallible human being, and that the films themse

 

well this topic sure exploded...

I thought about just staying out of it and letting it sort of evolve itself but i feel as though there are a few things i should address so that people might read with a "better conscience"...

I addressed this issue before, and i did so on the website as well because i knew there would be a certain type of fan that would take issue with some of the content, simply out of the controversial nature of it. I have to say that even i am a little taken back by the vehemensy of some rejection. But, i think interestingly, its not rejection of the content itself but rather a (mis)percieved assumption about what it represents.

I am still outright shocked that people are replying that i am trying to discredit Lucas because i am revealing how much the story changed, or that i am trying to reveal him as some incompetant theif or that the sequels all sucked because they deviated from the original plan. This judgement surprises me because my book actually is meant to show the complete opposite--that the success of the original film was due its continued evolution as it weeded out the weak links and grew stronger, and that the film never once stayed constant but rather was constantly in a state of flux and upheaval even when we all thought that everything was as George planned it. It is a testimony to Lucas' brilliance that such an epic story as what it has now become required such a lengthy period of distillation. Some fans apparently take the very notion that revealing that Lucas did not write down everything exactly as it was in one sitting as a criticism--to which i can only say that is just completely irrational. This kind of behavior is almost akin to a form of religious fanaticism, as if berating a scholar for revealing that the Bible had actually been revealed and written over the course of centuries instead of handed down from god himself as a completed document.

I am also shocked to discover that i am percieved as a basher, or someone with an anti-Lucas or anti-Star Wars (??) agenda. This is an entirely insecure reaction of your own political pre-conceptions. Many people of this mindset no doubt will interpret any criticism of anything LFL related as some kind of hate agenda. There is a thing called balance--a work only in support and praise of an individual is called boot-licking and its generally regarded as a hollow scholarly practice. Most of the official LFL-sanctioned material is guilty of this, i suppose not surprisingly, and with this material utterly dominating the marketplace perhaps some fans simply aren't used to a realistic portrayal of the man and his work. The work is utterly in praise of Lucas, but really--where is the supposed "bashing"? Honestly, if you read it you will find none, except of course if "bashing" can be applied to saying "Lucas' story was not set in stone in 1977", in which case you re-defined bashing to suit whatever need you may have of it. There is actually very little judgements of my own on the man in here, or his work for that matter. There is but only one or two areas where this became necessary because the nature of the issue required an interpreter to read between the line--one is the star wars conspiracy for example, and this is the only instance where i go off on a tangent and the only instance where i actually berate Lucas, in this case for the covering up of certain aspects of the story, which, placed in the context they are, I don't believe is out of place. At other times in ROTJ i show how Lucas accidentally self-sabotaged himself in certain ways, which i then back up with quotes where Lucas even acknowledges this, such as admitting Luke telling Leia he is her brother is "hard to swallow" and that his story was "stretched thin" and needed padding. A negative outlook? Sometimes reality is not as rosy as fans would wish. These instances where Lucas stumbled are of course greatly swallowed up by the surrounding segments where he is successful beyond his own wild imagination.

In another instance i am accused of being sympath

 

Now here's what I'm talking about. You say his point was to show that Star Wars was more than an "offshoot" of Saturday matinee serials. That angers me when people have to boil down a movie to "oh I see where this came from" or "he just got that idea from here." zombie states many times in his book that almost all fiction is based of another person's idea. He referred to Kurosawa and Shakespeare at one point. Yet he then goes on to show where every single idea in Star Wars came from, but fails to point out how Lucas changed the original notion. Take for example his Hidden Fortress example. The two peasants in Hidden Fortress are like R2 and 3PO, many people accept that. But he never once says that Lucas reinvisions Kurosawa's idea in a new a interesting way. That is what interests me, not that Scene 133 was based upon Buck Rogers TV Episode #4F2H. Those are just statements and not an actual thesis, which I think zombie is claiming he's made. The thesis being that there's a secret history to Star Wars that Lucas has tried to cover up over the years and that the basis for his films were from various ideas from other people.

Going back to Hidden Fortress I think it's awesome how Lucas not only recreated those two peasants in a totally original futuristic world, but that he invented a chemistry and comedy between them that was far different and better than Hidden Fortress. All Lucas did was take the idea to focus the movie around the least significant people. It's not as if Hidden Fortress even came up with that notion (see several Chinese and Japenese fables). That's just an idea that's been around for ages. But Lucas created two completely original characters that we've grown to love and that don't exhist at any other point in time. That's his originality. That's why he's great. Its not because he changed ideas throughout production. Lucas is no doubt flawed, but being inspired by your favorite filmakers is not one of them.

 

I think all the info on where Star Wars originated from (Flash Gordon serials, Hidden Fortress etc) is precise and well explained. I enjoyed very uch looking into all that in more detail.

I just feel that the thread running through the book that Lucas is a liar and has been trying to decieve us Star wars fans over the years are both false and to some extent, disrespectful. There seems to be a one dimensional conclusion made from the seemingling contradictive quotes that Lucas has made over the years.

I will focus on one of the main issues -that Lucas is lying when he said Star Wars was always about the tragedy of Darth Vader. Zombie states that this is an obvious lie and a "ridiuclous" assertion to make. He concludes this from the quotes of Lucas. But at the same time, he brings up the point that each character evolved and swtiched places. Keep in mind that it's also apparant that there is information (notes etc) that Lucas has not released concerning Star Wars. The backstory notes for the saga is probably a good example of this.

Zombie mentions that Prince Valorum was probably the character closest in the original draft to the Darth Vader character we know today. Well, Valorum is a Sith Knight who realises the error of his ways and is "redeemed". Is this not the story of Darth Vader as we know it? And like I said, keep in mind that the backstory wasn't revealed at this point. It's concievable that Lucas had outlined Valorums early days - basically falling to evil as we know Vader did.

So essentially my point is that Star Wars, as in the entire saga, has always been about (focused upon) the rise, fall and redemeption of a person. It always had the tragedy of Darth Vader - he just didn't have that name then!

There could also be the argument made that Lucas is talking about Star Wars as we know it - when it came to be something like the Star wars we know today. When he says "Star Wars was always the tragedy of Darth Vader", could he not be talking about the saga when the drafts became closer to what is on screen today? I think its also important to note that Lucas may not be referring to the scripts all the time - he may be saying that when from the first film was made and released, Star Wars was "all about the tragedy of Darth Vader"...at least, in his mind it was. He was able to realise that with TESB.

My point is I don't see why it has to be absolute that Lucas was lying and that his claims are ridiculous. I for one see in his earliest drafts the same core story that we see on screen today.

It can also be said that Lucas doesn't, naturally, plan everything he says when quoted. Given the opportunity to sit down and write about how he formed Star Wars from 1973-present, I believe it would be completely accurate and would have no cotradictions. But when you quote anyone who is talking informally then mistakes can be made. Facts can be forgotten. Zombie brings up the fact that the original script was about a hundred and fifty pages whereas Lucas said it was around four hundred pages! Big deal! Firstly, perhaps he had that many notes or whatever on it, but the script itself was less? Or perhaps, shock horror, he was exaggerating. We all do it when describing something. "I've been waiting for a million years!".

But my argument against these assertions really comes down to my knowledge of Lucas himself - the man. I believe Lucas is a great man. An honest man who seeks to help others rather than himself. That to me appears to be his mantra. And where like any good business man and filmmaker he will seek to promote his product, I don't believe he crosses the line and ever purposefully seeks to decieve. His movies make the point about evil people being liars who will always be found out. George Lucas is not a hypocrite. He's not the kind of man that needs to lie to big himself up.

For me, Star Wars has always been about the common "Lucas" themes - compassion, freedom, change and destiny etc. Star Wars has always had a character who rose, feel and was redeemed. He may have made a few incorrect statement

 

I think Lucas is fundamentally a good guy.

But some of his decisions are questionable.

I could comment on him becoming what he was opposed to (which he himself has commented upon), marketing the films to kids via evil corporations like fast food conglomerates or refusing to release the original films on DVD and then rushing out a non-anamorphic release, but let's put that aside.

Lucas has obfuscated the truth. While I'm with you guys on the points you've made, and actually feel zombie does need to modify his text quite considerably in various ways (I keep this saying, but: more later), I think the case is made that Lucas has purposefully covered things up.

But here's the thing: I don't think he's actually lied about the redemptive aspect of Vader, as the Prince Valorum example provides reinforcement of (even though the contexts are different -- Anakins fall to evil and redemption are much more profound), but I think his conflation of Vader being Anakin, and hence Luke's father, with the redemptive aspect ... I think THAT is the lie. Lucas had already put in redemption and familial bonds, including father / son relationships, as seen in earlier drafts, and it was clearly something that dominated his psyche (given his uneasy relationship with his own father), but he didn't tie them together until after 1977. But he has since made comments that suggest they were synched up all along. zombie actually presents a very compelling piece of evidence on p. 324 and 325. It's a brief transcript with annotations of a meeting between Coppola and Lucas as shown in a 1999 BBC interview. I remember taping it at the time, but I lost the tape soon after; I specifically remember the starting music as Lucas drove to work ["Body movin..."], and Ewan McGregor privately watching "Star Wars" and saying, "Quite graphic, ennit?" when the deaths of Owen and Beru came up -- that's burned into my brain, (pun intended)! I also remember the slightly strained atmosphere between Coppola and Lucas that zombie describes. Read through his transcript and it strongly suggests, in concert with all the other evidence, that Lucas has modified the historical record, even if not to the extent that zombie might be claiming.

Where zombie has sold himself short, I feel, is in some of the genesis of "Star Wars". As much as I chewed DARTHIRONCLAD/the_immolated_one out, he had a point. Even though Lucas didn't put in loftier concepts like the Force initially, or even the Jedi or the Sith, he was probably already thinking along those lines and working up to them. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. This selling-oneself-short aspect becomes more prominent when zombie barely comments upon the starting prophecy -- "The Son of the Suns" -- at all. Clearly, regardless of where the focus lay concerning Anakin / Vader / Luke, Lucas *was* thinking of mythological aspects from that moment on. It's significant that the prophecy *and* the Force BOTH entered the second draft at the same time. zombie downplays the prophecy as a simple emulation of the religious aspects of "Dune", which was clearly a big influence on Lucas (spice, Tatooine etc.), but given that the Force (as "The Force Of Others") was first seen at this same time, it seems that a door was opened that could never be shut. zombie also plays this aspect down, saying destiny is not really a significant part of "Star Wars" -- but isn't it? Obi Wan tells Luke that the Force both obeys and CONTROLS his actions, and later assures him that his destiny lies along a different path, and in his lightsaber clash with Vader, Vader tells Obi Wan, "the circle is now complete", in a phrase loaded with overtones of inevitability / destiny. Just because Lucas didn't include every aspect in the most literal sense doesn't mean they're not there -- especially when early drafts indicate he was already thinking of them.

Then again, on a topic such as this, one MUST play Devil's Advocate, and in that sense, it might equally be that Lucas consciously downplayed and outright eliminated aspects, only t

 

I agree with all that, bar the last paragrapth!

I think the line "Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence" is something that Zombie really needs to take into consideration. I also think that when things of this nature are written its the responsibility of the person to seek out the subject case itself - in this case Lucas, so he can defend, should be inclined to, the insinuations against his character. Obviously, a very doubtful scenario!

From my knowledge however, I find that there is a different way of interpreting the quotes that result in the negative claims against Lucas. Its the absolute conviction Zombie uses that I dont buy into. He has just used the information available and presented it in a way that back his argument. Im not saying what he has written is wrong. It may indeed be correct in many places. I just don't think its absolute. I think this because I trust lucas and because through looking at it with a truly objective and open mind, its durable to interpret the quotes differently.

I think a point i'd like to raise briefly is that early drafts and scripts really are just a development process towards creating your true vision. Hence, when Lucas refers to what Star Wars was always about, he is referrin to the finished article - not drafts or his early notes. He may include those at times in his discussions but that doesnt mean that every time he talks about what Star Wars to begin with he is referring to those early ideas.

I can't really go into depth great here and I not to concerned with having a full blown debate over Lucas' character. I think i'd have to right a 400 page book to make a worthy poinyt! All I can say is that I see Lucas and his comments in a different light and have myself come to the conclusion that he didn't tell lies, but presented the truth as he knows (and remembers!) it.

 

Shaitan, Lucas literally says, and i am paraphrasing, that Star Wars "was meant to be episode IV of a serial, called the tragedy of Darth Vader. It starts with the monster coming through the door and killing everyone and then later you discover that the monster is the father of the hero, and then he is redeemed." Nothing like this ever happens. It is not comparable to Valorum, and, as I point out in the section relevant to that draft, Valorum's rununciation of the Empire is of a totally different nature than Vader's. It is based on a samurai tradition of honor and comes from the character of General Todokoro (sp?) in Hidden Fortress. Theres no Vader, no tragedy, no father and no redemption. How does this not constitute a lie?? If you have even read the rough draft you will see that it is nothing at all like the final saga, not in style, character, no plot, as far as this aspect is concerned. Lucas knows exactly what he is talking about and here is very deliberatly misleading one to believe that his early drafts were specifically about Darth Vader, about how he is introduced as a villain, revealed as Luke Skywalker's father and then redeemed in a poignant and tragic manner, essentially the entire OT rolled into one film. Once again, how does this not constitude an outright lie?? For that matter, what would constitute a lie if this does not? I am merely calling a spade a spade.

As for the thread of Lucas changing and lying running throughout the book--i don't know where you are getting this. Perhaps such notions are so shocking that they seem to carry more presence than they have. The only sections that deal with this are at the end of Chapter III, during certain parts on Chapter II, and in the intro and conclusion. Why did i make this emphasis? Not to discredit Lucas, but to clarify the truth, because these deceptions are so ingrained in fans that it would take a fairly elaborate argument to break them. That is disrespectful?? Then blame Lucas--he is the one who has set himself up for disrespect. Uncovering the truth and calling a spade a spade is not disrespectful, it just reveals Lucas as not the truthful figure you thought he was; i can't help that.

It is kind of sad to see so many fans upset that any criticism is displayed towards Lucas, as if he is above such things, as if he is the pope or something. Like I said, sometimes things are simply not as rosy as fans want them to be. Why do you think revealing that Lucas had deliberatly and consistently, over the years, obscured the "completeness" and origins of the series? Okay, it makes him a bit deceptive, but really--thats it. Is the story any less brilliant? Are the films any less enjoyable? Is he any less talented? No! In fact i think it makes it all the more interesting. As i even said, I sympathise and can even understand the reasoning for some of these deception--if thats not a totally biased, Star Wars fan-based defence of Lucas, i don't know what is; i would fear for your emotional health if you ever read a more non-biased appraisal by someone without a childhood-ingrained idolisation of Lucas as i have. Star Wars deserves to have an accurate account of it made, and unfortunately for Lucas that means exposing some of his inaccuracies.

 

Wow, someone is taking a note from Lucas here huh! First the tragedy of Darth Vader is an early draft and is another way of describing Valorum--now its not the early draft at all but actually the final film! Nice. Which is even less consistent because at least Valorum had a renunciation. As i point out in the section covering the development to the final film, there is nothing at all to indicate that Vader was a tragic character, and his redememption, if you read the ROTJ section, was a fairly organic process that occured in 1981. The 1977 villain was purely two-dimensional--he was the serial henchman. How can people be so deluded as this?

As for not touching on the droids, i didn't see much to comment on. Yes, R2-D2 visually is taken from Silent Running and C-3P0 visually from Metropolis. To me, that has been said ad nauseum that it didn't really seem relevant, especially since i was dealing with story and not visuals--if i included that the book would be another 200 pages and it would loose its focus. In terms of character, there actually isn't much difference between them and the characters of Tahei and Matashichi from Hidden Fortress--in fact they have the same story points and dialog! The "identity" of C-3P0 is entirely to the credit of Anthony Daniels, who took that Kurosawa character and made it his own through his interpretation as a finicky english butler-type (Lucas' original conception, frequently equated with a used car-dealing--in other words, an energetic and louder version, is still remarkably close to Kurosawa).

 

When Lucas such things, "Its always been the tragedy of Darth Vader", what makes you think he is referring back to the old drafts? Is he simply not saying that, when he filmed ANH that from then on it was the tragedy of Darth Vader - at least, thats how he saw it?

When he mentions the earlier drafts I see that as unrelated to his other statements concerning how the saga was concieved. All the aspects of the tragedy of Darth Vader were in ANH and in the backstory notes he had made. Vader a good Jedi turned evil, he got badly injured in a battle with Kenobi and became man in suit. Whether he was always the father - I think there is reason to believe Lucas designed this when writing ANH. Vader himself is clearly a tragic hero. I cant remember the quote exactly, but I think Joseph Campbell had a feeling this would be the case after watching ANH. But obviously, Lucas couldt give too much away in ANH and at the same time had to have it work as a single movie. So I see him designing the film so he could go further with the Vader story line should he get the go ahead to make sequels. The fact that Vader was a cripple and obviously also a good person shows that he once fell from grace. Obviously we dont get to see the redemption of the character in ANH - but that doesnt mean it wasnt planned by Lucas. Either way - there's the tragedy element.

But what I really dont get it this - why would Lucas lie?

Firstly, what would lying about the origins of Star Wars bring Lucas? It was already hugely successful and about 99.9% of cinema goers really couldnt give a damn if Star Wars was intended as Vader's tragedy all along. Lucas has nothing to prove. He has shown himself to be a great director.

Secondly, Lucas revealed all the information you are now using against him. Lucas knows all his early scripts are out there. So how could he think he would get away with lying about it all?

It just doesnt add up in that respect.

I think the main problem here is taking all this vast information, all these quotes and comments and attempting to put them together.

Like I said, when Lucas says "Star Wars was always meant to be...", could he not be referring to Star Wars post-ANH? Because its really from that film that people had preconceptions. Perhaps he is referring to the OT. People then had preconceptions of what the saga was about. Can he simply not be saying that the PT revealed the whole truth behind what Star Wars was? I just dont think everything he says relates back to those old early drafts. Do you see what i'm saying?

EDIT:

Im just offering alternatives, not absolutes. I think the tragic/main story idea of Vader (rise, fall and redemption) has always existed, be it with Valorum. But I think its also likely that Lucas isnt referring to the early scripts all the time 9when discussing what Star Wars was all about). I think he was talking about how people believed the PT changed the OT, or how ROTJ changed TESB. Or how TESB changed ANH. They didn't really. The tragedy of Vader was always there.

 

Maybe it has something to do with the fact that Lucas moved him to the front of the story -- after previously including the concept of someone who renounces their ways, even if they do so under different circumstances and for different reasons -- AND because, once moved to the front of the story and all the other elements were fitted into place, Lucas has Obi Wan taking him on and sacrificing himself so Luke can flee, implying that defeating Vader through violence won't be the answer, which in turn suggests all manner of other things. Yes: I know that Obi Wan was only killed off during filming, and that's pretty damn HUGE in its own right, and that Obi Wan could have sacrificed himself because he didn't feel he was strong enough to kill Vader, or merely to create the kind of diversion he ultimately does, but it FEELS like there is something more to it. "Star Wars" is as much about GENERATING story POSSIBILITIES as REVEALING story OUTCOMES. That's why people have continued to respond so powerfully to it.

But story and visuals are intertwined: "Star Wars" is cinema, and cinema is visually driven. You also talked about Vader's actual look, which was obviously pertinent to your approach, but to skip over the appearance of the droids, especially when you're not providing anything to soften the claim that Lucas lifted the droids clean out of "The Hidden Fortress", strikes me as ... ODD. One of the fun things about the first film is that, just in a visual sense, it looks like Threepio, being the tall one, should be taking care of his little "trashcan" friend, but it actually ends up being the other way around. It's fun. It also builds up the theme of not underestimating a person due to size -- a theme fully exploited to powerful effect in TESB. Although I haven't finished, I haven't noticed any discussion on the evolution of the role and function of the droids through the films, either; even if Lucas DID just lift them from "The Hidden Fortress", he clearly took them to new heights, weaving them more and more tightly into the saga-narrative.

Also: I'm sorry to be blunt, but there is a SHOCKING amount of repetition in the book; at least as far as I've read. You must refer to the same aspects of the first synopsis / drafts of "Star Wars", and how it's linked to "The Hidden Fortress", AT LEAST half a dozen times. Once is enough! I also noted a more extreme form of repetition within a single paragraph on p. 56. You need to tighten this baby up CONSIDERABLY, IMO. That would leave you plenty of space for elaborating in other areas, perhaps restoring certain quotations that you say you've omitted. On the other hand, you could just cut the fat and leave your book lean and mean. It's up to you, but either way, I do think it needs some heavy-duty editing.

 

Because he says that this occured in his early drafts. Even you, a moment ago, attempted this interpretation because thats what he directly implies.

No, because the tragedy of Darth Vader didn't really take hold until the final two or three drafts of ROTJ. The center of Lucas' "tragedy of Darth Vader" story is about how Vader is the hero's father and that the son brings him back to goodness--not only was Vader not even Luke's father until 1978, but he wasn't redeemed until 1981. So for him to imply any connection to the 1977 film is just outrageous. Lucas knows exactly what he is talking about, he knows what the 1974 rough draft was about, and a long time passed between 1977 and 1981 so its not like he revised it right away or anything--and even in 1981, it was just a subplot in the film.

Lucas says that the entire saga was conceived in his first draft, which had all three films as one extra-big script. So no, they are not unrelated, they are the complete opposite.

Thats not the tragedy of Darth Vader. The tragedy of darth vader is that he was a hero who became a monster, reveals himself to his son and has his son's love bring him back to goodness. Nothing of the sort ever happens in Star Wars. Vader's backstory was that he was a fairly two-dimensional character, being an impatient student who abandons Kenobi, kills Father Skywalker and is avenged by Obi Wan, resulting in him being encased in the suit. He's a serial-based henchman archetype.

Wow, how ignorant of the facts. I am getting the impression that you have not read my book because all of these issues are completely dealt with and laid out.

Ah, now we come to the heart of it. The truth is--no one knows but Lucas. I attempted to formulate a hypothosis but some guy thought i was an unqualified fruitcake for attempting to psychoanalyse Lucas.

Think about this: Lucas didn't hope for much from Star Wars. It was a childhood dream to see a space opera film on screen, and he wanted to create a children's fairy tale to bring back the sense of fun and adventure that he felt was sorely lacking in 1970's America. When it came out in May of 1977, that is basically how it was treated: as a f

 

Well - it does occur in the early drafts.

I disagree. The tragedy part is more about why Vader went bad and whta it cost him.

My bad - I didnt mean that. I was meant to say what happened in the earlier drafts is unrelated to things he says now and again regarding the origins of the saga. I.e. he is talking about the films, not the drafts. What can I say? Its sunday!

Vader's backstory, as we ee in ANH, is that he was once a Jedi who turned bad and was crippled. Thats the tragic element. It wasnt spoken of much on screen, but its clear to see he paid a great price for being evil and ends up with very little. In ANH he is just a lacky. And who is to say that Lucas wasnt planning his rememption from the start (ANH). As for the early drafts, again the Vader character (be it in the later drafts or his early incarnations as a differently named character) had the thread of tragedy. He was a person who went bad and had to be redeemed.

 

Really? There is a draft where "it starts with the monster coming through the door, throwing everyone around and then halfway through the story you realise the monster is the hero of the father and the monster becomes the hero inspired by his son"? Those are Lucas' words. Please, enlighten me where this plot--The Tragedy of Darth Vader--exists?

Right, which necessitates a sympathetic outlook on the character. Compare the revised rough draft of ROTJ to the final draft of ANH and see how the existance of a sympathetic outlook on the character changes his portrayal.

But Lucas implies that his Tragedy of Darth Vader is an early draft--not the final 1977 film. Clearly it could not possibly be the 1977 film because he talks about revealing him as the father and being redeemed--he would have to be talking about the actual final 1983 completed trilogy. But Lucas very clearly refutes this--he very clearly says that it was one long script that he wrote before he wrote all the other drafts. So there goes that argument out the window.

Exactly. He is a serial henchman. Just because he had been wounded does not make him a sympathetic character--how many audiences found him "sympathetic" or "tragic" in 1977, or even after the heard the backstory later that year? A good parallel is Doctor Doom, whom likely inspired Lucas to a fair degree--do you think Doctor Doom, circa his introduction period, was portrayed as a sympathetic character just because he was crippled?

Thats unfalsifiable. Who is to say that Lucas didn't have Vader originally planned as a green-skinned twilek woman who revealed she was really Luke's great aunt Bertha Skywa

 

Wow, talk about a good thing being torn to pieces. This is ridiculous. I'm all for good analysis, but all this criticism is absurd. Zombie has written an insanely good book here.

There is no question the SW saga has been molded and changed from the beginning to now, as is evidence by the script drafts themselves. How can this be debated? How can anyone debate whether Vader was always Luke's father, when we know they had a Father Skywalker character in early drafts of Empire? How can any self respecting SW fan think Lucas knew Luke and Leia were siblings after seeing that kiss in Empire? How can anyone not realize that Leia remembering her mother is an indication of a lack of backstory? These are not criticisms!!!! SW is the greatest set of movies ever, IMO. Lucas is a genius.

Look, Lucas came out of editing. He has talked about this a million times. His artistic style of working is to constantly rework and remold, as is especially evidenced with the technology he created for the prequels. This is how SW was written. In fact, he was still changing them years later with the Special Editions. By changing the Emperor-Vader scene in Empire, he manipulated story. He knew Vader wouldn't possibly know about his son, after seeing how the prequels would play out. The story changed over time.

I believe if presented with this book, Lucas would confirm everything it says, and he would shrug it off to the malleable nature of storytelling. He'd say that even when all the story elements weren't established yet, the wheels were in motion with that original SW movie, and the changes he would make were inherent in the story that came to exist. It's possible Lucas had the idea for the Vader-father thing, but didn't think it'd be that good, until after Vader became a legend. Until SW came out, why would Lucas even care that much about the specifics of his sequels? We don't know where the father idea came from. He may have seen it done somewhere else, in some old serial or myth, and borrowed it for SW, so in reality, it might not have been nearly as genius to him as it was to the rest of us.

Anyway, great work, Zombie. I'd say it is the single best piece of writing I've ever read about SW. How anyone could read this and question your SW allegiance, or Lucas allegiance, is shocking. How the hell could you have written it if you weren't a die-hard fan? Your critics are simply jockeying to position themselves as better fans than you. They aren't.

By the way, Zombie, not that you haven't done enough, but if you ever want to write another book...

How about detailing all the rumors, true and false, that came out during the making of these movies that we fanboys chewed over for all those years? Just as there was always a changing "mythic" SW story in George's head, the fans were guessing and creating their own ideas, mixed with set rumors, expectations, truths and untruths. These years, from around 94 to 99, to me make up an important chapter in SW. At that time, there was no negativity at all about SW. How close to the final visions did the fans come in their predictions? Why were so many people unhappy?

ANyway, again, nice job!

 

Agreed. Zombie has written a true masterwork here. The fact that it says things many people don't want to hear is beside the point. It really just needs some polish in a few areas, and I'm eager to write out and send a list of suggestions and additional info to him to help improve the work.

By the way, I've been told that Lucas rather freely attributed the idea of Vader-as-Father Skywalker to Leigh Brackett in some old interview. If anyone can confirm this, or dig the interview up, this would surely be a useful addition to the book.



I'm not surprised by the irrational criticism of the book seen here. There are lots of people out there who simply refuse to accept that Lucas or the films are flawed in any way.

Is Zombie calling the man evil and his work garbage? No. He's simply trying to get to The Truth, even if it reveals things most people would rather not accept (like the films being made in large part on the fly). Zombie's passion for Star Wars is clearly present on every page. Why else would he spend so much time and energy writing the book?

The book is both a celebration of the entire series and a pulling back of the curtain on it.

It seems that many fans, like Lucas himself, will bend over backwards to defend and maintain the notion of the Holy Saga That Was Planned From The Start.

Why does that seem such an important a thing to do? What purpose does it serve? No creation exists in a vacuum. Human creativity (both in art and science) is largely a result of feeling around, making mistakes, and going in unexpected directions. Star Wars is no exception.

Does that make the films less enjoyable? No.

 

Actually, far from it - I argue that the saga, no saga, is conceived immediately. Obviously.
Nor am I here defending Lucas because I believe him infallible.
My point is that I simply believe the assertions made that he lied about the formation of the saga and what it was originally about is far from absolute.

I believe Lucas may have at times passed on false information, but if he did, that would be by accident. Lucas appears to be a very honest and decent man (from my readings of him) and also, I see no real or strong view concerning why he would lie. Especially considering that he allowed the release of all the past scripts and drafts and thus the idea of then lying about them seems very odd.

Furthermore, I believe the analysis made of some of the quotes and comments to be potentially false. I think there is a high possibility that Lucas has been taken out of context. For instance, whenever Lucas says something like "it was always about the tragedy of Darth Vader", as he has done recently, that is perceived to mean that the original drafts were always about that. Well, that could be wrong. Lucas could simply be saying that since the OT, it was always about the tragedy of Darth Vader. Is it not true that a lot of fans, even after ROTJ and leading up to the PT didn?t view Vader's story as a tragedy, when if fact it always was? My point is, when someone is trying to form an argument its always very easy to take things out of context and have them automatically support your views. I have done it many a time with Lucas' quotes. It is a mine field.

Zombie himself above says that "its clear Lucas implied....", well hold on. When dealing with second hand quotes, different sources and generally interviews and casual conversations that you have merely read and not witnessed then they can be interpreted in many different ways.

He uses the term "conspiracy" at some point. And for me, it is a classic conspiracy theory. Like all these theories, it's a case of having a view about something, a strong view. Finding all the information out and then putting it all together so it actually supports what you believe in. That?s how conspiracy theories work. But when you deal with each fact one by one, there is a plausible answer. Our whole lives are narratives. We form them each and every day. Its how we process information. Its how conspiracy theories are formed. But until you hear the words from the horses mouth or at least give him a chance to sit down and formally discuss or write down the events then you are only ever going to be dealing in half truths.

I trust George Lucas. I don't see any reason why he would lie - nor do I think he would be stupid enough to lie about it. If I may be frank, I think Zombie became very engrossed in a debate and took a certain side. We're all experienced in this. And you know that when this happens you can become quite stubborn (no offense, just talking from experience!). And you try to make your argument stronger. In doing so you end up taking whatever information you can find and stick it all together. I think that Zombie simply became attached to this particular part of his debate. And thus its rewarding when you come up with a narrative that seems to work. It fits your view! And from then on it becomes hard to think from an objective point if view. Because if you are to accept the other views then you are basically saying that what you believe in is wrong. And that, for us mere mortals, is deflating.

But I will say this to even things out. Zombie has done a brilliant job. He has formed a very good argument and compiled the information very well. I enjoyed very much the parts about how Star wars was formed and its influences. I did learn a great deal.

But I felt that there was a thread running through the book that was anti-Lucas and I felt the reasoning behind that wasn't fair or absolute - and thus my argument against.

I apologise if I offended you Zombie. I applaud the hard work you put it. You are a greater man than I. Perhaps one day you will get the views of Lucas. I su

 

With all due respect Zombie, I've only read about 117 but I'm going to go ahead and weigh in.

I know I've only read 117 pages and perhaps you mention this later on in "The Secret History of Star Wars" but since it seems the book is now focusing on "The Empire Strikes Back" so I'm wondering why you never mentioned that in the prologue of "Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" which I'm sure you know is a small back story about the Old Republic, the Jedi, Palpatine, and the governors. I'm sure you're familiar with it because your book speaks volumes of your love for Star Wars but here it is for anyone might not know about it:

Another galaxy, another time.
The Old Republic was the Republic of legend, greater than distance or time. No need to note where it was or whence it came, only to know that ... it was the Republic.
Once, under the wise rule of the Senate and the protection of the Jedi Knights, the Republic throve and grew. But as often happens when wealth and power pass beyond the admirable and attain the awesome, then appear those evil ones who have greed to match.
So it was with the Republic at its height. Like the greatest of trees, able to withstand any external attack, the Republic rotted from within though the danger was not visible from outside.
Aided and abetted by restless, power-hungry individuals within the government, and the massive organs of commerce, the ambitious Senator Palpatine caused himself to be elected President of the Republic. He promised to reunite the disaffected among the people and to restore the remembered glory of the Republic.
Once secure in office he declared himself Emperor, shutting himself away from the populace. Soon he was controlled by the very assistants and boot-lickers he had appointed to high office, and the cries of the people for justice did not reach his ears.
Having exterminated through treachery and deception the Jedi Knights, guardians of justice in the galaxy, the Imperial governors and bureaucrats prepared to institute a reign of terror among the disheartened worlds of the galaxy. Many used the Imperial forces and the name of the increasingly isolated Emperor to further their own personal ambitions.
But a small number of systems rebelled at these new outrages. Declaring themselves opposed to the New Order they began the great battle to restore the Old Republic.
From the beginning they were vastly outnumbered by the systems held in thrall by the Emperor. In those first dark days it seemed certain the bright flame of resistance would be extinguished before it could cast the light of new truth across a galaxy of oppressed and beaten peoples...
From the First Saga
Journal of the Whills


We can clearly see that almost everything from that prologue is now what is called Episode I, II, and III. There were even scenes filmed about the formation of the Rebel Alliance but were cut because Lucas claims he wanted Anakin/Vader to be the main focus of "Revenge of the Sith". The only contradiction is that the Imperial governors were in control of the Emperor.
So I'm wondering why this was omitted from your book or does your book touch upon this somewhere else? I'm wondering this because the prologue of "Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker" has a copyright of 1976 and the prologue is clearly defined as "From the First Saga". Now perhaps I'm missing something here and perhaps you could enlighten me? Perhaps this prologue was added to the book "Star Wars: From the First Saga" after the release of original movie? Do you think that is the case. Do you have evidence that that is the case.

See my issue is not with your extensive research, which like I said I do enjoy reading because it is obvious you share my love of Star Wars, no, my issue is that you have omitted the prologue of "Star Wars: From the Adventures of the Luke Skywalker" from your book or perhaps there is something later on in the book that clears my issue up. I don't know as of yet. "Star Wars: From the Adventures of the Luke Skywalker" was publishe

 

Yes, that has happened, which is why i often had to go to the earliest possible quotes on certain matters, because facts that were fresh in his mind in the late 70's became generalised and indistinct by the millennium.

I totally agree, he is, for the most part, a very intelligent and warm human being who is of high moral fibre--his films definitly reflect him in this respect. But thats not what the issue is.

It very much is. However, the lack of motive is not reason for its dismissal because the contradictions are self-evident--however, i think i have provided a very reasonable motive, if we are to merely hypothesize on what is going on in his mind.

Perhaps you should investigate this further and come to a conclusion. Read the sources from which i drew and see if they are out of context--i cited them all. Don't just say they are out of context because they violate your pre-concieved principle (ie Lucas' word precludes evidence no matter the quality and quantity).As i said before, how can i be taking them out of context when one of the main purposes of my book was to put them back in context--back in the historical context with which they were made.

I stated previously "first you defended The Tragedy of Darth Vader as an early draft of Lucas', then when that was shot down you did a complete 180 and said he was really referring to the final film--what will you come up with next?" Well here it is, consistent with the inconsistency of such an argument, once again. I already refuted such a possibility in the previous post of mine, which you have ignored once again. Lucas makes it very clear that this was a script of his that precursed the original 1977 film, and the the OT was then drawn from this--its a transformation of his previous statements in which the 1974 rough draft supposedly was really just ANH-ESB-ROTJ. He even recounts the basic theme and plot of this script, and approximates its number of pages.

If they thought about it, yes, it very clearly has a tragic ring to it, and Obi Wan Kenobi's tale in ROTJ is full of heartbreak and tragedy--i think it boils down to not many people thinking too heavily about Vader's story since it was just a subplot in the series.

They are not second-hand quotes. They are first-hand quotes from the mouths of people involved. I would estimate that about 70% of all quotations in this book come from Lucas himself, so i am not biased or unbalanced in the least when it comes to him.

 

Yeah, I found it and I notice you didn't bother shedding any light upon the fact that the prologue is "From the First Saga".
So you're telling me I should just disregard this 1976 copyrighted novel that clearly defines a Star Wars timeline over manuscripts that were constantly subject to change and never intended to be viewed by the public? Why does a manuscript take precdent over a copyrighted novel? In my eyes Lucas clearly laid down, in no uncertain terms that the prologue of "Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker", a timeline that shows the original movie was not the beginning of the story. If what you say is true that the original was Episode I then why would studio executives think that would be confusing to an audience?
Another thing I would like to point out about "Star Wars: The Adventures of Luke Skywalker" is that Han does not shoot first.

 

Hey Zombie,

Curious to get your thoughts on some SW related ideas not discussed in the book. You've obviously poured over everything, and I'm curious if you've found anything substantial on the Han and Chewie backstory.

Forget EU. I actually loved the Han book series, and I thought it felt really right, but of course they conveniently left out the big moments by skipping over them between books. I want to know what the original ideas were, and whether or not they in some way also changed for convenience sake.

For instance, the original myth, as I knew it, was that Chewie was enslaved by the Empire, and a young Han, who had been kicked out of the Imperial Academy for cheating, rescued him. Thus, Chewie owed him a life debt. I'm fairly certain the gist of this legend was spoken about by Harrison, if not Lucas himself.

Now, of course we know that Lucas was gonna put a young Han on Kashhyyyk in ROTS, which contradicts (at least to a degree) the earlier myth. Obviously, this idea came out of convenience, and then was dropped because it would've been lame. Also, having Chewie with the Jedis slightly contradicts things, IMO. Maybe not literally, but whatever Chewie said when Han said, "You said it, Chewie" couldn't have jived with his previous Jedi experience. Mayhew's dialogue on set proves this further.

Basically, what was the original backstory for Han and Chewie?

Also, when Han won the Falcon from Lando, was it with the dice hanging inside the Falcon's cockpit? There is something hanging in there, and that was always a rumor. Any evidence on this? I know the role playing game created Sabaac card rules, but that is EU, and I don't know if dice are ever used when playing.

Also, I noticed you didn't mention John Flynn's bogus Fall of the Republic Episode III script that was out there all those years. I understand that it may have been off topic, as it clearly had no impact on the actual saga. However, that script played a big part in at least my own visions of things, and it cleverly made use of many of the things in Lucas' early drafts, like the Kiber Crystal, and in a lot of ways, it was fairly accurate. Is there any information about this script, why he wrote it, etc??? Seeing such a complete, comprehensive history of SW, I wanted to see that in there, too.

Also, do you remember the cool Obi Wan comic that showed him as a young man. Did Lucas ever have any contact with Marvel back then regarding this stuff, like how he censors things today? Clearly the comic stories had to lead to Empire, but this issue was a backstory, and may have slipped by. Obi Wan was way different, and back then, that was as close as it got to seeing prequels.

Also, what about the Holiday Specials? Any cool or interesting info on these we might not know about? Was this thing meant to be canon? I mean, they introduced Boba. As a kid, I watched it over and over on a Betamax tape, and to me, it was part of SW. A strange and silly part, but still a part (then again, maybe that's why I didn't hate Jar Jar as much as everyone else). Was it only later that Lucas disowned them?

Sorry to throw all these questions at you, but then who the hell else could I ask, right?

 

That "from the first saga" thing in the novel was just to indicate that Luke Skywalker's story is part of a larger one, but that doesn't mean movies were going to be made about it. It's just like any prologue. It was simply a dramatic device to give the story an epic feel.

 

Well I suppose you could choose to believe the anecdote that says that Star Wars was going to be called "Episode IV" but FOX struck that down because it would "confuse audiences"..........or, you could believe the alternate anecdote that says that the only thing that FOX wanted changed about the title, was the definite article, i.e. it was going to be called "THE Star Wars", and as per FOX's suggestion, 'the' was dropped.

And then there's the fact that none of the script drafts contained the number "4" in the title(s).

I second that.

 

I never said anything about movies were going to be made about it, but the simple fact is movies were made about it. Not only were movies made about the prologue with a '76 copyright but if one was to write a one page essay about the prequels one could plagiarize the prologue almost verbatim so to say that Lucas had no master plan whatsoever is open to rational debate. I'll also direct your attention to Page 97 of "The Secret Story of Star Wars"
"But the script that was filmed was titled:

The Adventures of Luke Starkiller
as taken from the 'Journal of the Whills'
by
George Lucas

(Saga I)
Star Wars

Revised Fourth Draft
March 15, 1976
Lucasfilm Ltd.
20th Century Fox

"Every previous draft of the script was labeled as "Episode I." Now it changed in the fourth draft to "Saga I" Star Wars was to be the first film in the series--the series of Luke. You will notice that "Star Wars" was never the name of the series, it was the name of the entry in the series--the series itself was The Adventure of Luke Starkiller, which was then changed to The Adventures of Luke Skywalker after Lucas altered the protagonist's name prior to shooting."

So by zombie's own admission the original movie is part of "Saga I" but as we can clearly see the prologue of "Star Wars: From the Adventure of Luke Skywalker" is clearly defined as "Saga I" as well so here you have it. Clearly before the original movie was released we have evidence that the original movie is not the starting point of "Saga I'

We can bat this back and forth forever but the simple fact is an outline for the prequels existed and not only existed but was even protected under copyright laws before the original movie was viewed by the general public. Now I'm not saying zombie does not bring an impressive array quotes. Hats off to zombie for the zeal and laborious efforts put into his fine work but a work nevertheless that is rife with conjecture.

 

Actually, there is a very simple answer to your question, and it is 100% consistent with my conclusions.

Yes, Star Wars is Saga I/Episode I of the Adventures of Luke Skywalker
But the novel prologue is The First Saga of the Journal of the Whills

They are two different things--you are comparing them in a manner which is illogical.

First you have to understand what the Journal of the Whills was--it was an in-universe concept, a chronicle which detailed the history of the universe. The movie itself was a portion taken from this, only a small section of the Journal of the Whills. Star Wars is Saga I or Episode I of The Adventures of Luke Skywalker, which itself is a dedicated section of the Journal of the Whills. The novel prologue is from "The First Saga" of the Journal of the Whills. Perhaps The Adventures of Luke Skywalker is "the second saga"--or perhaps "the third saga." Essentially, there are levels of storytelling and division--Saga, then individual chapters. The Adventures of Luke Skywalker may very well constitue "the second Saga", and the first chapter--or Episode--of this is the film known as Star Wars. Think of it in terms of the Bible--there is an Old Testament, and then a New Testament, each with individual books within the sections. The Old testament has Exodus, Genesis, Leviticus, etc., while the New Testament has Matthew, Mark, Luke, etc. Saga One is like the Old Testament--it has its own books, but we are not privy to what they are. The next Saga's have their own books as well--one of them is The Adventures of Luke Skywalker, which is then divided into Episodes, the first of which is of course Star Wars,