From "The Annotated Screenplays": The Origins of Darth Vader, Anakin Starkiller, and Luke's Father

And continued writing and filming until 2005. He's talking about the saga, not the original film.

 

"You have to remember that originally Star Wars was intended to be one movie, Episode IV of a Saturday matinee serial. You never saw what came before or what came after. It was designed to be the Tragedy of Darth Vader. It starts with this monster coming through the door, throwing everybody around then halfway through the movie you realize that the villain of the piece is actually a man and the hero is his son. And so the villain turns into the hero inspired by the son. It was mean to be one movie, but I broke it up because I didn't have the money to do it like that - it would have been five hours long. As the icon of Darth Vader took over, the tragedy of Darth Vader got diminished. It was harder to see that it was actually a story about a guy who becomes redeemed."

- George Lucas, "Star Wars: Episode III" by Anwar Brett, BBC Online, May 18, 2005.



"I began with a seven- or eight-page outline - a simple story about an evil man who's redeemed by his children. As I was writing the script, I went back at one point and wrote a few paragraphs of exposition about the main character, Darth Vader, and he became the villain that he was. But this was only the kind of basic back-story development you do when you write a novel. Further in the writing, I realized the story couldn't be contained in one movie, so I decided to stretch it into three."

- George Lucas, from "Director George Lucas Takes A Look Back -- And Ahead" by William Arnold, Seattle Post-Intelligencer, May 12, 2005



"The films are designed to be one movie. It started out as the tragedy of Darth Vader, it was meant to be one movie, you never knew what came ahead, you never knew what came behind, but in order to write it, I had to write a backstory first...and the subtitle of the movie really was The Tragedy Of Darth Vader. It started out with this monster coming in, throwing everybody around, threatening people, choking guys, and halfway through the movie you realize the monster is actually a man. He's the father of the hero. And then at the end of the movie you realize that this son inspires the monster, or the father, to be the hero of the movie, and that he'd been living this terrible life. You know, trapped in this suit, he sold his soul to the devil - and all that stuff was supposed to be stronger than it was when I ended up breaking it into three parts. And the icon of Darth Vader became so strong that he was the icon of evil, it was hard to sort of think of him as a tragic character...now with the prequel trilogy in place, I hope people think of it as, The Tragedy of Darth Vader, which the story was originally meant to be."

- George Lucas, "Revenge Of The Sith" DVD commentary, 2005

 

I was clarifying a point that was referring solely to what was said on the Episode III DVD during "The Chosen One".

 

Nevertheless, the quotes that I posted shows that Lucas was saying that it was 'always' intended to be that way - that the 'original' Star Wars was conceptualized and even 'written' in that way even though it wasn't actually produced and presented in that manner.

 

Of course, and I wasn't disputing that.

 

My bad! Its inclusion cements your essay as the most complete history of Darth Vader's development and origins ever composed. Bravo, Zombie!

 

Jedimasterbac, you are correct in that Lucas was attempting to convince us that the entire STAR WARS Saga could be subtitled "The Tragedy of Darth Vader". However, as of 1973-1978 there -was- no "Saga", only a single story which had evolved through various drafts to reach its final form in the original film. There was nothing -before- that story except backstory notes (ie, no prequel scripts or even treatments -- just notes, which Lucas himself has admitted in numerous places), and nothing -after- it except the Wookiee Battle and the destruction of the Emperor, which could not be included in the 1977 film for budgetary reasons and so were moved to the final film (and the Wookiees made into Ewoks, of course) once the original became unthinkably successful.

Thus, Lucas' contention that the story was "always" about an evil man who was redeemed by his children is disingenuous at best and an outright lie at worst. (Sorry, I love the man, but it's true.) Furthermore, the original STAR WARS was first subtitled "The Adventures of Luke Skywalker," further driving the nail in the coffin of the "Tragedy" subtitle idea.

 

Is anyone else annoyed at the continual referance of Lucasfilm to Deak Starkiller as "Luke Skywalker"? I ignored it when it was referenced throughout the collectable statue of the famous McQuarrie production painting of him and Vader, but now the new CIV exclusive figure bears the same mistake. And its clear now that its not just a mistake--its a deliberate spin. Its made so that it looks like the climactic lightsaber battle between Luke and Darth was always a part of the early material. I wouldn't have a problem with them labelling Deak as Luke because "Deak Starkiller would later become known as Luke Skywalker"--this is how they are justifying it--but Deak doesn't become Luke. Luke Starkiller and Deak Starkiller exist at the same time, and Luke rescues him because Deak gets the crap beaten out of him by Vader in that famous painting that they are referencing! I guess this parallels the whole process revolving around "Anakin" and "Darth Vader" being the same character when really they exist as seperate--and very demonstratably seperate--people. If they start going as far as labelling that pre-production art as "Luke battling his father" I might have to freak out since Deak, Luke and Darth are three seperate people.

 

I told you this was going to happen eventually, zombie!!

 

I could accept that Deak "became" Luke insofar as Deak was the brother who fought and was defeated by Darth Vader, only to be rescued by his sibling. Of course, by that logic, Luke Starkiller "became" Princess Leia, and we don't exactly have any commemorative figurines celebrating /that/ relationship!

In fact, if memory serves, in the second draft, Deak Starkiller took the role that Leia had in all the other drafts -- putting the plans into Artoo, being captured by Vader, etc. So, in that sense, Deak did not "become" Luke, but did in fact "become" Leia!

The disingenuousness of Lucasfilm regarding their characters' origins continues to astound and astonish me in new and ever-surprising ways.

 

It kind of makes me wonder about the new making of book by J.W. Rinzler that's coming out this week.....

 

I just recently read an old Starlog, or some other magazine from back in the day that actually mentioned the 'Making of Star Wars' by Charles lippincott, pretty cool to see its finally coming out after all these years.

 

Vortigern
However, as of 1973-1978 there -was- no "Saga", only a single story which had evolved through various drafts to reach its final form in the original film.

That's right. And any examination of the actual mid-70's SW drafts/the Whills notes,etc. shows this to be the case.

The "backstory" became the "backstory" only after SW was a success and Lucas developed Vader to be Luke's father....later.

But hey......they can just post Lucas quotes from this year for accuracy about something that happened over 30 years ago. Why actually read those drafts or treatments?

edit
zombie
Its made so that it looks like the climactic lightsaber battle between Luke and Darth was always a part of the early material.



Wha?! Isn't that supposed to be the guy who fights Vader with that breath-mask on? They have a saber fight in the freighter after the doors are all blown out and he needs this mask to breathe. Vader then sucks the Force out of him or something onboard the freighter.
Isn't that what McQuarrie based the painting on?

Why is Lucasfilm doing this? Well, I know why and it's nefarious. Sad.

 

No, that is Deak Starkiller. Luke Skywalker is on Tatooine at this point in time, working on the moisture farm. Instead of the droids bringing him the message that Leia is captured, they bring him the message that Deak is captured. I don't even think Luke touches a lightsaber in this draft.

 

Sorry, by "the guy" I meant Deak, not Luke. Deak fights Vader in the ship. I can't remember where Luke is. So, he's a farmer in this draft? In this one isn't Luke short and pudgy with curly hair?

Is this the draft that has Kane as their father or was that even earlier?

 

I really find this hard to swallow. Btw, great thread!

 

Of course, and not least because the written evidence - i.e. script drafts, early interviews, and such - contradicts such notions as those in the sampled paragraphs (courtesy of zombie's research).

 

The way we have understood SW to have evolved is far more interesting.

 

Zombie, I've quite literally just finished reading your book. It's a very insightful and interesting read. My only real complaint is that some of it seems to repeat itself. At times you'll use a quote or make a point and use the same quotes or points a few paragraphs later.

I've never doubted that Lucas had plans for more than one Star Wars film and there is evidence of that in the movie itself, but the big talking point has always been the origin of Darth Vader. Was he always the father? Well, no. But I honestly don't think it matters.

One of the themes of your book is about Lucas' creativity and ability to adapt and essentially improvise and i think Lucas should be praised for that, not criticised as some have done. It's actually a gift he seems to share with Tolkein.

The fact is, at some point, Lucas decided to merge two characters into one...and that act resulted in one of the most memorable reveals and cliffhangers, not only in the history of cinema but in storytelling as a whole.

Hoever Lucas got to that point doesn't matter...what matters is the final result and whether it was by accident or design, the result was a trilogy that will be remembered for years to come.

As for the prequels, again, it doesn't matter if Lucas' original concept differs from the final product in some areas. Return of the Jedi reshaped what the prequels would become, and again, Lucas should be praised for his creativity.

I suppose the big issue isn't really about the movies themselves and where they came from and how they changed over the years. The big debate is about Lucas, about comments he's made, especially in recent years that contradict what he had said back when he was making the original trilogy.

To be honest, it doesn't bother me. If Lucas wants to contradict himself, that's his choice, what matters to me is that ultimately, he gave the world a story that in my opinion is on a par with the works Tolkein, Shakespeare and even Homer. Sure the story changed and evolved over the years, but what story doesn't?

The Illiad didn't tell the complete story of Troy as we know it today, a lot of it was finished in the Aeniad. Tolkeins sequel to the Hobbit, was supposed to be a direct sequel, another light-hearted child-friendly tale of magic and wonder...but it evolved into an epic saga called Lord of the Rings. And Star Wars may have begun as a sci-fi remake of The Hidden Fortress, but it evolved into the epic story we have today.

And THAT's what matters most.

Great read Zombie.

 

jedisithor
but the big talking point has always been the origin of Darth Vader. Was he always the father? Well, no. But I honestly don't think it matters.

I would agree that it wouldn't matter if Lucas himself would quit claiming that it does(Tragedy of Darth Vader, etc).

BTW, the new making of SW book by Rinzler arrived at my doorstep last night. It's fantastic. Great, great book.



However...

Here: pg. 42, bottom paragraph, last sentence:

Lucas: "It was at that moment(Spring, 1975) that I came up with the idea that Luke and the princess are twins. I simply divided the character in two."

There is no written or dated documentation to back up this assertion in the book. And it even contradicts his later work on the early ESB drafts where Luke's sister was from another part of the galaxy.




Still, great, great book. Get the deluxe edition if you can.

 

Yeah, especially since in a conference with Alan Dean Foster he says that he wants Luke and Leia kissing in the sequel, calling it "Gone With the Wind In Outer Space." This comment about them being twins is obviously one of the rarer modern comments interspersed in the vintage 1970's material. Its is true that they are a pair though--they are metaphorical twins, in the same way that Han and Luke are metaphorical brothers. Han came out of Luke as a contrast to him, and same with Leia, as Lucas tells to Alan Arnold a few years later--Leia is like Luke but is strong where he is weak. Also, they can't be twins because the script explicitly specifies that she is the precise age of 16, whereas Luke is eighteen.

 

Yeah, if you look in the back of the book you'll find that Rinzler interviewed Lucas 3 times in '06 for this book.

Interestingly, Rinzler mentions at the first thet he was working on another book with Lucas when he thought of this one. This was after the ROTS making-of.

I wonder what that book might be?

Zombie, did you read the "Lucas expands the SW universe" section at the end? Great stuff.

zombie
Yeah, especially since in a conference with Alan Dean Foster he says that he wants Luke and Leia kissing in the sequel, calling it "Gone With the Wind In Outer Space." This comment about them being twins is obviously one of the rarer modern comments interspersed in the vintage 1970's material

Oh, I forgot about that part of the book. That was with one with John Dykstra in his office correct? Yeah, he then says the third story will be about the end of the empire.

BTW, did you say that Dykstra "borrowed" some of Lucas' ideas for future SW stories in the late '70's for Battlestar Galactica?

 

Zombie, it's just a marketing strategy to sell vinyl toys not a grand conspiracy to hide the truth. About 90% of the Star Wars collectors out there probably don't even know who Luke Starkiller is much less who Deak Starkiller is. If you're trying to sell a Star Wars toy you're going to want people to buy them so you're going to make it as familiar as possible to your potential customer. The problem with your conspiracy theory is I just got my Star Wars Insider and there's an article about the Ralph McQuarrie concept art turned Koto vinyl toy and throughout the article the duelist is continually referred to as Deak Starkiller and is only referred to as Luke by a Koto employee.

 

I would think that most people who spend half their savings on Star Wars collectables are familiar with the very well known background lore about Luke "Starkiller" since it is talked about quite a bit. In this article, which probably was the one i was originally referring to, LFL continuously refers to him as Luke, and then the modelmaker does as well. I'm not saying they are all in cahoots with some evil dark circle of conspirators, I'm just pointing out that its one more "spin" on information that overlooks the contradictory nature of the early material.

 

Jedisthor, though your post was addressed to Zombie, I, as the originator of this thread, feel I must respond. For what it's worth, I happen to agree with your assertions (paraphrased) that the creative process is by its very nature fluid, and that what truly matters is the end product. That Tolkien, for example, changed key passages in subsequent editions of The Hobbit to reflect the modifications in plot and tone that he had developed in its sequel, LOTR, is not as important as the work itself. However, the key difference there is that Tolkien was explicitly honest about the changes! At least half of all scholarly attention devoted to such works as The Iliad and, say, the Arthurian Cycle, lies in figuring out the origins and inspirations of its authors. With such ancient material, this process of discovery is labyrinthine and shrouded in mystery. STAR WARS, on the other hand, has been created right here in our present time! Its creator is still among us! If Lucas were as honest as Tolkien was about the development of his Saga, what a gift that would be to future generations! Unfortunately, centuries from now students of film and literature, and lovers of STAR WARS in general, will have been deceived into accepting a fallacious version of its origins.

The creative process is important, if not essential, to understanding a work of art; and where the truth is obscured by prideful vanity I, for one, am compelled to seek out the reality behind the hogwash. Hence the creation of this thread and hence Zombie's magnificent book.