BTS The Secret History of Star Wars

Maby you could add something along the lines of this to your book that way fans like me can understand the levels of normality your findings and research come from, because without it it just seems more like a bunch of information made to form a "conspiracy" thats heavily opinion driven.

Hope my advice helps to aid your cause.

 

I hope my last post didn't sound too dismissive of Zombies work? It really is an outstanding piece of work. I'll admit a few parts of it came across as being a bit hostile to Lucas and I still don't like the opening of piece, for the reasons that have been stated, but overall I felt it was reasonably balanced and it was certainly an absorbing read for this Star Wars Saga fan. Moreover its sparked one of the most thoughful and intelligent debates on these forums that I've had the privlage to read and take part in, so well done Zombie.

I may have came away saying whats the big deal about the "conspiracy" angle of things, but that doesn't make the work itself any less absorbing. Its the best piece of fan work I've read thats for sure.

 

My thoughts exactly. Although I still am a bit sceptical.

 

The problem here is, vox-populi, your insistence on GL supposedly intending to call SW episode 4, when your 'evidence' for that is pure 'he said/she said' hearsay (and probably not even that, unless you have evidence of any spokespeople from FOX to confirm that to be the case). Like I had brought up before, there's your particular anecdote, and then there's the no less prevalent one that says that the only 'quibble' FOX execs had with the title was the definite article in "THE Star Wars"....even with your version, why would the studio's problem with the title preclude any episode number 4 being in any contemporary version of the script? I know you're aware of the fact that no number #4 appears in any version of the script contemporary with the time that it was written in.

No, yours just depends on unfalsifiable criteria (or at least that the mere existence of backstory constitutes SW as being 'episode 4', and because Lucas said it was always so - no matter how contradictory the evidence and even his own 'versions' of the history are...).

 

vox-populi I just want to give you some support for your ideas. Your getting beaten around on this board (probably kicked out once) and all because you give people arguments that they choose not to substantionally address. Oh, and your bitterness and hatred for zombie. But, nonetheless you've been making all the right points and I'd argue with you, but the arguments coming back from these people are so insane that I can't lower brain low enough to come back with anything.

You might as while give it a tax title like Saga II-B. A saga within a saga might just be the funniest thing I've heard all day.

 

Wrong, wrong wrong! Check out TPM DVD. In a documentary dated 11/01/94 Lucas already talks about the Anakin and Vader storyline (and that he developed quite a long time before that.]

What the hell was TPM about then if it wasn't about Anakin? He's the main character through and through it was just a brilliant idea by Lucas not to even see the main character until thirty minutes into it. I guess he should just apologize to you for actually trying to create new characters and develope them. "We will watch your career with great interest." That line of dialogue was supposed to be subtle for 10-year olds not writers.

 

I have some interesting information to share regarding many issues raised in Zombie's book. Its from a biography of George Lucas by John Baxter - whom Zombie does credit (but I think that may be a different book, Mythmaker. I remember reading it a while back and a few comments in Zombies book didnt strike accord - there seems to be some contradiction. I havent finished re-reading the book as I only started last night at 9pm (I got to pae 169, so I don't think that's too bad going!). The book itself is inetresting and gives deep insights into Lucas' life. I will say that, once again, there seem to be a negative tone to it. Sure, Lucas is far from infallible. He has made mistakes and isn't a perfect person. But I did notice that some information was left out which didnt balance some arguments or offer the "other side of the coin". Zobie has also argued how Baxter ussd incorrect information in his book, Mythmaker - and thus probably the same with the biogrpahy.

Anyway, I will briefly state a few of the points:

Darth Vader was really a combination of "Death Water" (which at some point was considered as the name of Mustafa - this point is from my own memory, not the book - I may be wrong! Also, I have no idea what "Death Water" is) and "Dark Father".

Baxter writes that Lucas didn't visualise Star Wars as an epic or imagine it going beyond one film.

It is said that the scripts reflected the comic books of Jack Kirby a great deal (The New Gods). This story was based upon a superhero, orion, who battled with a villain, Darkseid, who turned out to be his father. A Kirby scholoar and editor of The Kirby Collector believes: "There are just too many similarities for me to believe Kirby wasn't some kind of influence on Lucas".

Kurtz says that they went in at episode our with no thought of sequels or prequels. They started at this point so they would get right into the action without any expositon.

There is a lot of informtion on the development of Leia's character as well as chewies (But I can't remember if Zombie said anything about these).

The interesting notion however is that Star Wars was written as a stand alone film, with no real thought of a sequel or prequel.

Considering this, I think it's hard to idenitfy what version Lucas is referring to when he talks about what "Star Wars was originally about. Is he talking about it once is actually become a full blow saga? Is he talking about the original screenplays which are shown to be jumping in at a midway point with no explanation of what came before or after?

Could we ever know for sure if Lucas planned Star Wars to be about Vader being the father all along but chose to hide it from everyone to keep it a secret?

Did he design the scripts to be more "studio exec friendly?"

Has not Lucas at some point also said about writing four different screenplays (in 1973) reagrding Star Wars searching for the right ingrediants? Could that not suggest that there is some unreleased material that outlines Vader as the father and tragic hero? Who is to say he released everything? We know he is many backstory notes he never released.

Anyway, Zombie may or may not have the information above in his book. I can't remember. There is just too much info on Lucas in too many places to remember where all this stuff comes from!! But I recommend reading the autobiography, despite it being unofficial, as it fills in some blanks and also offers a different viewpoint in some respects. Thought i'd just share it.

My questions were rhetorical by the way, so dont worry about answering them...i'm sure they have been debated enough!

 

Again, we are getting into areas of complete unfalsifiability. I don't know if Lucas truely meant this--BUT, looking at all the evidence and factors we recognize a pattern.

There are many reasons why i believe this. First, the fact that the sequel was designated as Chapter II. Now, it is true to say that the finished film of Empire Strikes Back might as well constitute an entirely different series but this notion does not hold true for the first draft. It is more or less consistent with the original film, containing the orthodox Father Skywalker story as well as retaining the quick pace and relative lightness of the original, and ending on a resolved note. There is no reason to arbitrarily exclude this, because there is no indication that it deviated from Lucas' original plan. Therefore, if Star Wars really was meant to be the fourth episode--whether stand-alone or as part of a series--but was forced to take out the episode titling by the studio, why would he, when finally getting a chance to use this feature, re-title it as "Chapter II" and not "Chapter V"? This seems very suspicious.

Secondly, Star Wars is what begins the story. While it is clear that Lucas visuallised continuing the tale onward and had even made preliminary plans to do so, there were no plans to film what came beforehand, as Lucas admits. There is an extremely crucial point here that you are missing so i am going to make it obvious: The name of the series is The Adventures of Luke Skywalker. Star Wars is merely the entry within that series. Therefore, it is impossible for Star Wars to be Episode IV. What would episodes I-III be, Luke repairing moisture vaporators and getting picked on at toshe station? Star Wars introduces the character to the audience and sets up the rest of his story. I can't believe that Lucas would want to devote six hours to a "Little House on the Tatooine Prairies", even if this was just a storytelling device.

Thirdly, the wording of the title itself makes it clear that Star Wars is the beginning. The title is, to make the wording clearer "Star Wars, which is Saga I of the Adventures of Luke Skywalker." So the script makes it explicit that Star Wars is the first entry in the series which is "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker."

To re-inforce these things we see that an earlier draft had the alternate title "Episode I: The Star Wars," and that the proper prequel trilogy itself only came into existance once Lucas merged Father Skywalker and Darth Vader in 1978 and changed ESB to Episode V. Therefore, taking all these things into account, we can conclude that Lucas simply altered the wording to "Episode." Whatever you want to call it--Saga, Episode, Chapter--the point is that Star Wars was always supposed to be the first entry in the series and that is all that matters. Think "Saga I" is a stupid way of titling a single entry? Bring it up with Lucas because i didn't write that, he did. Whether you think it is coherant or not, the fact is that Star Wars was meant to the first entry in The Adventures of Luke Skywalker, and it was indicated by the designation of "Saga."

Now, this leaves us with the novelisations "From the First Saga". You are correct in that "Saga" typically refers to a work of larger than scope than an "episode" or "chapter." However, this is irrelevant. If the novel is directly contradicted by the film then we have to take the film as having precedence. For instance, Foster also names Palpatine as being elected "president" but elsewhere in the book he implies that the rulers of the republic

 

Shaitan,

It's my understanding, like everyone else here, that Lucas originally had a large script that he cut into three parts, meaning the first act, he turned into Episode IV. I think that's what Lucas really means when he talks about whether or not he'd get to sequels.

Sure, Episode IV is a standalone film but at one point during his writing process, he had a script that was too big that he had no choice but to cut it into pieces.

I think it is reasonable to assume that Lucas really did have one film in mind but the problem is that when he finally looked at the work he had, he had too much for just one film....hence he quotes saying "he put the other parts on the shelf."

 

Shaitan: Yeah, i read Baxter's bio. It is called Mythmaker and contains all the info you describe. You seem to think that you have one of a different title so perhaps it has been re-released under a different name.

If you pick up any Lucas bio or Star Wars history book you will find a lot of errors or inconsistencies. For instance, many of them--possibly even Baxter's, though i can't remember--state that Lucas began writing in 1972, and in most cases they simply go off what Lucas and Lucasfilm reps tell them, which is why they all state how Lucas wrote an extra-long script that he divided into thirds and set aside as a trilogy. Who knows, pretty soon perhaps they will begin to state how lucas originally wrote a screenplay about "the Tragedy of Darth Vader."
The info in there that i did not include in my book i did so because i discovered that the statements weren't true, either because they were completely false or because a more accurate version of the same statements existed elsewhere. There was only three instaces, if i remember correctly, where i chose not to include info exclusive to that book. One is the "death water" comment by Lucas, simply because it doesn't make any sense nor have any relevance to the main "Dark Father" issue when subjected to scrutiny(though perhaps it should be granted a mention in my appendix on the matter). Another was a comment Kurtz made about wanting to start in the middle--however, this cannot be made compatible with Lucas' own admission that the backstory was simply backstory, that there was no prequels before the later 1970's, and that his only plans were to continue Luke's tale if he could. This is also aided by the fact that all of Lucas work had been done on and in support of "The Adventures of Luke Starkiller" and that making any of the pre-history materials into movies would have been a) logistically improbably b) financially improbable and c)there was very little story or character to construct a film about, especially not one which was exciting. My conclusion is that, likely after the completion of the especially-convoluted second draft, when Lucas consulted Kurtz about how to better shape the story (as he often did) he may have asked "well i also have these background notes of the fall of the Old Republic and the Jedi order and all that, what if i tried starting over on that?" but Kurtz told him that that would be even worse and that the most interesting and exciting part of his galaxy was the middle part where Luke joins the rebels--and its no surprise that this was the most exciting because from the very beginning this was what the movie was supposed to be about, so everything was made to support this, with the other background material simply being expository information to flesh out the environment.

 

I'm agreeing with you. I'm saying that my hypothesis was that the Anakin-centric plot was a 1993 creation, and that he had talked about such things before 1998.

BUT, what i am also saying is that there are many things that indicate the PT wasn't always supposed to be just about Anakin, and that it wasn't supposed to be a character study of him and that the I-VI Saga may not necessarily have been planned to be his life's story until after that date. One fact is TPM itself--because, no, its not about him. The central character is Qui Gon, and the plot revolves around Padme. Obviously, though, the PT overall focuses on Anakin. But compare ROTS to TPM--in ROTS, Lucas deliberately cut every scene that wasn't about Anakin. As he says, the focus of the film is Anakin--but this process only occured in post-production. It wasn't the original plan, not even the one that was filmed. The final post-2003 version of ROTS is an entirely different entity from what Lucas started with, TPM, and even in AOTC you can see that Anakin is only a co-star and not the sole focus, as he is ROTS. With each film Anakin took more and more prominence until Lucas, in 2004--not 1994, when he wrote TPM--decided that only Anakin's story was important and that everything had to revolve around him. If Lucas had made TPM under this POV, Anakin would not be introduced in the second act of the film and occupy less screentime than Jar Jar.
Obviously though, TPM is just an intro. Kenobi has a small role as well, even though it is obvious that his would grow in the sequels. My point is that the original concept seems to imply that, although Anakin and his fate would be the focuses of the overall trilogy and drive a lot of the plot, it was a much more balanced and ensemble piece where his story was just one of many. Certainly

 

A few more notes, Zombie...




You might want to mention that the minor Imperial musical motif in STAR WARS was replaced by the grand Imperial March/Vader's theme for EMPIRE, as Vader had now become an ubervillain. You may also want to mention that John Williams clearly constructed this theme to be menacing and evil, only to turn twisted and tragic by film's end (a testament to the theme's versatility, which would later become even more apparent when it was mutated into "Anakin's Theme" for Episode I).

Of course, the Imperial March now appears in every film except STAR WARS (though it has been rumored for years that scenes from the film would be rescored with the March in a future release). This incongruity is one more thing that makes the first film seem out of place with the rest. In fact, Episodes I, II, III, V, and VI work pretty well together, but IV is the odd duck that doesn't quite fit in with the rest. This is indicative of the major changes made to the backstory (and fore-story) after the first film's release.


Also, some have accused EMPIRE of being the first of the "toy commerical" Star Wars films, and you may wish to address this in the book. The film featured a plethora of new characters, vehicles, and clothing changes (as well as a new hairstyle for Leia), all of which received action figures (which were released before the film was, unlike the unique situation in the first film, with the "empty box" Early Bird incident).


Another indicator of changes made to the orignal film by way of new context involves the Millennium Falcon. In the original version of STAR WARS, the big reveal of the ship in Docking Bay 94 (before the Jabba scene added in 1997 ruined it) is a "wow" moment for the audience. Then there's a beat, and Luke calls the ship a piece a junk. Wonderful scene. Indeed, the rest of the film strongly indicates that the ship is literally a piece of junk, and that Han Solo is just a B.S. artist with a lot of pride in the old, run-down ship.

However, in EMPIRE and JEDI, the Falcon has suddenly become a swooping, acrobatic vessel, and the "fastest hunk of junk in the galaxy". While it is still referred to in a deragatory fashion, now the ship really does seem to have it where it counts. Changed premise, or did the advances in motion-control technology between films allow Lucas to finally show off his "original vision" of the ship better?

 

If this were true, though, then why does Lucas say (on the '04 ROTJ DVD commentary) that by the time he got to start ROTJ, the original outline for the post-SW films had gotten "too thin"?

More importantly however, as all the published material concerning all four drafts of SW shows, it was the rough/first drafts that had the elements that ultimately wouldn't make it into SW and would later be used for ESB and ROTJ. But, after all, it was only a handful of elements, not exactly a 'plot summary' of what would become ESB and ROTJ.

 

I must disagree. The extra dialog, as far as i can tell, was not included in the shooting script. Perhaps there were a few lines taken out in the edit, as is common, but the version that i provide in the book (and which is in the novelisation) i got from i believe it was the third draft.

The copy of the script I have, which I got a few years before the PT, has Obi-wan talking about Owen being his (Obi-wan's) brother, and I think it mentions Padme (but not by name) living past the events of the PT.

Anyway, I have to say at this whole Saga vs. Chapter vs. Episode debate is just getting bent out of shape. At this point, I don't know what points any of you are trying to make, nor do I think you're even arguing the same thing, at all. I think it's really more a side point. Who cares what words he used? Once SW was "I" later it was "IV", that's more the point, isn't it?

 

I love this thread. Impassioned, intelligent, critically minded SW fans debating a subject they love, and doing so (mostly) with integrity and respect. What a thing zombie has started!

zombie: I have more to say (as ever), but am about to retire to bed. It's been a long day. I may not get to say the rest for a day or two, but there's one thing I want to address. I still have my doubts concerning "Revenge of the Jedi", but the scope and thoroughness of your defence is winning me round. I have a single and simple recommendation for you: contact darth-sinister. He once said something to me about Lucas loving "Dark Empire", the ambitious post-Thrawn tale where Luke turns to the Dark Side. It may just provide another piece of the puzzle. Perhaps some part of Lucas *was* thinking of making Luke at least a little darker and his response to "Dark Empire" might be a reflection of his thoughts and desires at the time. I balked at this when sinister said Lucas supposedly loved the story, but this side argument we've had over "Revenge" has sparked that memory and made me consider things in a new light.

 

That reminds me of something.

Okay, in STAR WARS, Luke wears a white top with khaki pants. In EMPIRE, he wears khaki-colored rebel pilot fatigues. In JEDI, he wears a black jumpsuit, which was then supposed to be a Jedi uniform ("Very Vaderish", as Mark Hamill said).

Of course, the sequels/prequels took the odd step of turning Ben's Tatooine robes into the Jedi uniform.


Anyway, in the prequels, Anakin starts off in khaki-colored slave clothes. In Episode II, then in Episode II he wears a Jedi uniform composed of dark browns (with leather tabbards to foreshadow Vader's leather bodysuit), and in Episode III, the browns are so dark, they're almost black.

This all creates a character arc through color, as Anakin's clothes get darker and darker until he becomes the black-suited Vader. This also resolates with Luke's (Unintentional?) color shift in the original trilogy. Interestingly, Luke starts off in white and ends in black, but doesn't turn evil, while Anakin starts off in brown and ends up in a very dark brown, and then he does turn evil.



Also, in each prequel, Anakin pilots a yellow ship (a Naboo starfighter, a borrowed Coruscant speeder, and a Jedi starfighter), which is visually symbolic of his main character flaw: Fear. Naturally, yellow is the color of fear!

 

Sorry to just in and out, but I read a little more last night in the Lucas Biography by John Baxter.

Lucas says that when making ANH the idea of sequels was more academic than real. He thought that if he did go any further with it it would take the form of tv - perhaps cartoons. The idea of the PT and sequels came after the success of ANH. He then thought "gee, I could do these back stories.

He describes the idea of further sequels as an afterhtought. He says he didnt have a script or story. It was a fun idea but when he got around to thinking about it, he realised he would be too old! It was never a reality.

The book seems to suggest that Lucas had designed a large story for Star Wars. But that ANH, and the drafts leading up to it, were just condensed and designed to be one film. That seems to suggest to me that he could possibly have had thoughts of the entire saga being based around Vader or Vader being the father, but opted to make a less complex tale in the form of ANH as a stand-alone movie.

Again, thats the impression I get from Baxters book...thus far!

 

"If this were true, though, then why does Lucas say (on the '04 ROTJ DVD commentary) that by the time he got to start ROTJ, the original outline for the post-SW films had gotten "too thin"?"

Probably because, it was. I mean, does the entire Jabba the Hutt sequence in Episode VI really, truly gel in tone with the rest of that film? What about the Ewoks?

I'm not complaining because I like the film as is, but they don't mesh particularly well with the story of Luke, Vader, and the Emperor. He made it work but they seem to be cut from different stories all together.

 

A few more thoughts, Zombie:


The main title theme for STAR WARS is a big version of "Luke's Theme", which makes sense, since Luke is the main character of the film (and the original trilogy). Shortly before the prequels were released, there was speculation that a new main title theme would be composed, since Luke's role in the prequels would be microscopic. However, perhaps due to the public's identification of that theme with Star Wars, it was retained. Still, the prequels rarely use the theme beyond the main and end titles.

Also, the theme for Ben Kenobi/The Force from the first film was designed as a somewhat mournful theme, one that sadly recalled the former majesty of the Jedi Knights. In this aspect, it is reminiscent of Princess Leia's theme, which is all about her desire to return to a simpler time, a time when justice and freedom prevailed. In the original trilogy, Ben's them works very well because of this. However, for the prequels, it is used as a standard leitmotif for the Jedi, and the slightly melancholy theme seems a little incongruous in that context. It's like funeral music playing while someone is still alive!


You may also want to detail Lucas' attempts to suppress the original versions of the first three films. After all, he's allegedly prevented them from being shown at film festivals, and has hunted down and destroyed as many prints as he can find, while stating that "the Special Editions are the movie" (of course, this was before he tinkered with them again for the 2004 DVDs).


You could also describe in more detail how the prequels are deliberated designed to echo scenes, dialogue, characters, events, and visuals from the original trilogy.

 

I get your point, but my comment came about because it seemed as though you were proposing (the part of your post addressing Shaitan that begins, "It is my understanding...") the 'old' story given by Lucas about the OT being the result of this 'massive script' that was cut into thirds (which interestingly, he doesn't say as much about that these days...). Hence why I questioned the validity of that bit of 'history' on SW.

I more or less agree...

 

Anakin's story is so dense and complex that it can not simply be told from his point of view. Thus, dozens of characters were introduced to the PT and Anakin was not given entire screen time. ANH started off with two droids and they were essentially the "main" characters, but the "MAIN" character was Luke. Anakin's story can not be told without his teachings from Qui-Gon or our understanding of Obi-Wan's origins. Anakin's story can not be told without Padme and her story can not be told without the history of Naboo. Anakin's story can not be told without Palpatine and Palpatine's story begins with Darth Maul as his appretince and our having some knowledge of how the galaxy works and how the governement functions. Anakin's story can not be told without Jar Jar as he supplies Palpatine with the opportunity as well as giving the audience someone to root for in the Gugan battle (imagine ROTJ without Lando). Anakin's story can not be told without his mother who gives Anakin all of his reasons for everything he's about to do. Anakin's story can not be told without Watto who owned him and gave him to opportuninty to pod race which without would hot have given Qui-Gon, Padme, Obi-Wan a way home. The entire final 10 minutes clearly tell the view what the film is about and what the next two films will be about. John Williams supplies us with an excellent rendition of the the Emperor's them in the celebration at the end of the movie, implying the Palpatine is twisting everything and everyone. And that is made even more disturbing when he tells Anakin "We'll be watching your career with great interest," and why at the funeral scene Anakin is prominetly seen with Palpatine foreshadowing numerous

 

I think you are misunderstanding the point i was trying to make. I said that the PT was always supposed to focus on Anakin--one would only have to look at the dozens of interviews from 1993-1999 where he makes this very clear. What i am saying is that, while Anakin was always the main focus of it, he wasn't meant to be the star player that we ended up with. It is sort of like Luke in the OT--Luke is clearly the main character, but the plot is shared and we are instead treated to a macro story of Rebels vs Empire, which includes co-starring with people like Han and Leia. The PT inevitably became a micro story--it ends up focusing on Anakin, and solely on him. What i am getting at was that this was not the starting plan--not in 1994, not even in 2003. When you trace backwards you discover that Anakin was considered less and less important the farther back you go.

-in 2004 Lucas decides to cut every non-Anakin scene out of the movie, shifting the focus to his emotional journey and making the film into a character study of Anakin
-in 2002 Lucas decides to totally re-write his story for ROTS, eliminating all the side stories and tangents in order to keep more focus on Anakin

So the outlook that AOTC was made under--and which Lucas initially approached ROTS with--was a far more balanced one in terms of how the movie is focused. Obviously, Anakin is stil the central character though. But then when you look back at TPM you see that Anakin is even less prominent, and the movie truely is a macro story, much like the OT, balancing the big picture and treating the film as an ensemble cast with Qui Gon as the central character. So when you look at things chronilogically, Anakin grows and grows in the story until 2002 when Lucas began to consciously re-organise things to really emphasize him. But it wasn't the plan that he started with. It was a product of the organic process of writing.


On an unrelated note, for those interested--i know it was suggested here--i have added another article to my website which explores the visual development of Darth Vader; so there are some interesting production artwork and comparisons to The Lightning from Fighting Devil Dogs and a look at how the costume changed in the sequels to reflect the cyborg angle.

The Visual Development of Darth Vader

 

Great article! However, the last of the Vader photos from STAR WARS, underneath this block of text--

The suit was meant to be a well-worn armored space suit, which Vader had decorated with his Sith robes, which cover much of the armor. The costume even has scuff marks and a dull finish, being part of the "used universe", indicating that Vader has had his suit for a while now and has seen a lot of action with it.

--is actually a photo of a suit from JEDI.


Also...

His control box was also significantly overhauled. In Star Wars it was merely a device to control his respirator, and was fastened with straps similar to the ones the Rebel pilots use on themselves for similar space-travel related matters. For Empire , the box was instead more integrated into Vader's body, and the "coin slots" were re-designed so as to look more high-tech. Finally, blinking lights and LEDs were added. The same facelift was given to the electronic devices on his belt.


The chestbox wasn't really "integrated" in EMPIRE. It still used straps as it did in STAR WARS (the ROTS version was actually attached, and had no straps). The designs of Vader's STAR WARS chestbox and the Rebel pilots' chestboxes are similar, implying similar functions.

The coinslots weren't redesigned for EMPIRE. The only difference is that the blinking lights were added. Additional metal switched were added in-between the square buttons and the rocker buttons, and alien writing was added in-between the coinslots.


Also, Vader's helmet WAS a three-piece arrangement in EMPIRE. In the meditation chamber scene, Vader's helmet AND upper mask (locked together) are lowered onto his naked head and lower mask/neckbrace. However, the separation line between the upper and lower mask changed between EMPIRE and JEDI.


Finally, there hve been inconsistent reports reagrding Vader's lungs as of ROTS. Some sources say he has human lungs, albeit badly damaged ones, while other sources say that his lungs have been totally replaced by machinery.




By the way, Zombie, I'm pleased as punch that you made use of some of my observations and suggestions. I'm honored!

 

True! The photo i scanned was from a costume display in The Lucasfilm Archives book which lists it as the model used for Star Wars--the red-tinted eyes and generally unreflective finish looked good to me, but now that you mention it it appears to actually be the ROTJ costume. I suppose this could be due to the fact much of the original costume details from ANH were cannibalised into the upgraded version seen in the other films, thus the "original" Vader may not technically exist (ie it is believed that the original helmet was simply modified and given a gloss coating).


Also...

True, but i guess i was speaking in more generic terms--i guess the "coinslots" themselves weren't modified but the "button layout" of the overall pack was modified.

Yup, though i never stated that the ESB helmet was a two-piece (only Star Wars). Although it could be argued that the ESB helmet is a two-piece, just in different sections--the neck/mouth piece as one, and then the entire helmet as a seperate piece that is lowered. After all, if the whole mask/brim section can be placed on Vader's head as a single unit as we are shown in ESB, what reason would there be to break it up? It may very well be that the helmet at the time of ESB was intended to have the whole head section slip onto the mouth/neck section as we are shown.

Yeah. As i said, going off the film itself it appears that there is absolutely no "iron lung" issue at all. The lung business exists as a purely EU creation, created because the EU had already irreversibly established that Vader has an iron lung, so a contrived "retcon" to ROTS was made in order for the EU to keep continuity with itself(ie "his lungs were destroyed by breathing in the fumes, but the Force magically kept him alive--despite the very clear inhaling we see Hayden Christensen doing--and then the medical chamber was somehow designed in a way in which oxygen is magically pumped into his lungs w