BTS Lucas Quotes and Interviews about the starwars saga.

Well, then. There it is.

 

I don't know if the gap was going to be 30-40 years at that point, though. It might have been just five or ten, because back then I think Lucas thought the PT would only take a few years to make. In that case it might be more like the gap in time between the OT and the Thrawn Trilogy or something, which would also make more sense with the lost-sister storyline being part of the ST.

Interesting quote from the Leigh Brackett story conferences, though!

I should note that Lucas also says in those story conferences that "The introduction of the Emperor is a major plot development. He may be the one who is saved for the end. When you get rid of the Emperor, the whole thing is over. The final episode is the restoration of the Republic." So at that point, the final confrontation with the Emperor was likely always going to be in the final episode of the saga. But how many episodes would that be? It's evident from other statements in the story conferences that Lucas had not fixed the number of episodes at three.

For instance, here he is speaking about Lando: "If we set him [Lando] up as a clone, maybe in one of the other Episodes, we can have him run across a clan of them who are all exactly like him."

And about Luke's sister: "She also becomes a Jedi—she’s doing the same thing simultaneously that Luke is doing. Eventually in some episode, not this one, we could cope with Luke and his sister, and how she is the female Jedi and he is the male Jedi."

So I do think Lucas would always have wrapped up the Vader storyline in the third film, but where the confrontation with the Emperor happened was going to depend on how long the saga turned out to be. Which fits with the statements of both Gary Kurtz and Craig Miller.

In regards to what might perhaps be a later conception of the "Sequel Trilogy", there's also Lucas' intriguing suggestion from another interview that he wanted to do a single ST film - an "odd film", as he calls it:

There's a typical degree of Lucas exaggeration in that quote about how much he actually had written. But a single ST film? That suggests a much more malleable conception than most fans might have imagined.

 

Some of the quotes from the first few pages of this thread are referenced as CUT interview 1999.

Does anybody know what CUT is? Searching the internet for a CUT magazine or TV show is yielding nothing promising.

 

It's a japanese entertainment magazine.

 

But I believe that this "ending" scenario (for the third film), even with the above statements*, includes the Emperor and the Empire in general. As far back as December 1975, Lucas was saying that the third "book" would wrap up the Rebel vs Empire plot. Now, I realize that at that time in question (the pre-production phase of SW), the Emperor may not have been envisioned to have been a dark side user and Force master of Vader, but even with that in mind, it looks like by the time TESB was in preparation, even with an evil-wizard type Emperor, Lucas was still committed to ending the story with the third film.

*I seem to remember a quote mentioning Kurtz being concerned that the third film would have to resolve so many plot points. Might have been in Alan Arnold's making of book ("Once Upon A Galaxy", 1980), or from a sci-fi/film magazine article, but I'm not sure.

But on the other hand, you have Lucas in 1978 deliberately signing on Mark and Carrie for two more films (i.e. the SW sequel plus that film's follow-up), which would seem to indicate that he wasn't planning on killing Leia* off in the third film at least. Then, in the earliest drafts of the script for ROTJ (including the early story outline/treatment), none of the three characters (Luke, Han, Leia) are killed off. He started writing this in the summer 1980 while Raiders of the Lost Ark was in principle photography. If he was ever considering killing one of them off, it looks like he had changed his mind already by then. As far as that Bantha Tracks quote goes, keep in mind that Lucas had said that the "Other" line in ESB was also meant to make audiences think that Luke's character was expendable.

*Han's character might have been another story, but I believe that depended on whether Harrison would commit to doing the third film (apparently re-casting the character was never an option for them).

edit:

I think oierem's point about the ST being 30-40 years later* is that Lucas saying this in 1979 raises some doubt about him ever planning to have the OT or specifically the Rebel vs Empire and Emperor confrontation be dragged out beyond the third film going into six films.

*I believe that in the Lucas quote, which was from an interview done while the Dagobah scenes were being filmed (August of 1979 or so), he says that there are 20 years of story time in-universe gaps between each set of trilogies.

edit to add:

The "simutaneously" part of the quote, is probably what made Lucas drop that whole bit from the story. Yes, it would have saved them time in not having to train another Jedi hopeful from scratch should Luke fail, but then it would raise questions about other Jedi having survived the Empires' purge of them other than Yoda and Obi-Wan. Another Jedi apparently somewhere else in the galaxy training Luke's sister....

 

That doesn't compute. She would need to be in the third film if she is to be killed off in it.
What GK said, though, was that she would end up isolated as Queen of her people, not die.

 

You're right.

What's more telling for me, though, is that in all of Lucas' story synopsis/treatments (plural - there were supposedly 3 versions?), Luke/Han/Leia all survive the ending of the third film/story (though undated, these may have been written as early as the Summer of 1980). And to be honest, I guess that I just find it dubious - considering the type(s) of film(s) that Lucas was making - he would have Han be frozen, then brought back (once he and Kazanjian knew that Harrison would commit to the third film, which was as early as April 1980), only to kill off Leia in the third film. That single Lucas quote from Bantha Tracks 1980 doesn't do it for me.

edit:

Right.

@BlackRanger:
Any idea of where Craig Miller got his source(s) from?

 

continued from post #307

The "deliberately signing Mark and Carrie for two more films" part raises another question:

If, a) GL was planning on the OT story being a six-movie series rather than a trilogy
b) wanted Luke to survive the third movie and continue on through the "sequel stories" to the conclusion
c) wanted Leia to die in the third

...why would he then have Mark Hamill sign up for only two further SW films (number II and III), instead of signing up for five more films?

 

I checked the interviews with George Lucas in Once Upon A Galaxy, and in the July 19, 1979, entry he does mention the "trilogy of trilogies" idea, as well as the idea that the Sequel Trilogy was something of an afterthought - which lines up with Lucas' mention of the idea of doing a single sequel film cited earlier:

Later in the October 29, 1979, entry, Lucas specifically mentions a Sequel Trilogy taking place 20 years or so after the OT:

There's more of Lucas' usual puffery about having written the entire saga at once, but it does seem that the idea of a Sequel Trilogy taking place 20 years or so after the OT was definitely around by that point.

The question is, how much of the "trilogy of trilogies" idea was in place when Lucas was talking to Leigh Brackett about plot ideas like Luke's lost sister in autumn 1977? At that point, the idea he had in mind might have been a 12-film saga, much like the standard 12-episode length of 1930s serials, loosely centered around the idea of the "Adventures of Luke Skywalker". After all, at that point Lucas seemed to want the first three SW films to form a thematic unit, but he also evidently wasn't sure when he wanted to wrap up the saga. Certainly, if the idea of a "trilogy of trilogies" wasn't in place by then, then it would make sense for more episodes to deal with Luke's lost sister, and potentially having Han and Leia killed off at some point.

Also, in the August 23, 1979, entry in Once Upon A Galaxy, where Lucas talks about the origins of Lando Calrissian, he uses a very telling phrase to describe SW as a whole: "Since the Star Wars saga is essentially about Luke's background and his destiny, I decided to round out Han Solo's character a little more. So I brought in a character who was from Han's past, a kind of alter ego for Han." So Lucas envisioned the SW series as being about "Luke's background and his destiny" - not "the Tragedy of Anakin Skywalker", as Lucas would often describe SW during the making of the prequels.

Here's another quote from the 1977 story conference transcripts of Lucas speaking to Leigh Brackett, talking about the planets that could maybe appear in the film:

The idea here that the city-planet might not appear "in this Trilogy" is interesting. Was Lucas intending to save that planet for the prequels, or the finale where the Emperor is defeated, or both?

And, as I mentioned, in an interview in Bantha Tracks issue #8 from Spring 1980, there's an interview with George Lucas with this exchange:

So the other 3 films were "tangential" somehow. Was that perhaps the lost-sister plotline, or just more ephemeral "slice-of-life in a galaxy far, far away" ideas of the sort seen in the Droids and Ewoks TV series?

And how serious was Lucas when he spoke of "the character that survives Star Wars III"? Was he simply trying to avoid giving out spoilers, or was he reverting back to a plotline he'd considered about killing off Han & Leia back in 1977, or reverting to that plotline to avoid giving out spoilers?

 

Regardless of when Lucas decided to stick with the "trilogy of trilogies" (aka "the original story was two trilogies, and after the success of the first film I added another trilogy), it does seem likely that, from the beginning, he wanted the first three films to feel like a "thematic unit", as @BlackRanger says.

But I have a very hard time believing that Lucas EVER considered killing off Han or Leia. There is absolutely nothing backing up that idea, except tfor hat quote ("the character that survives Star Wars III"), which is absurd because, if taken literally, it would mean that everyone except one character dies in SWIII.
But most importantly, that idea is completely at odds with the kind of fairtytale/adventure story Lucas wanted to make in the first place.
Not to mention that, dramatically, freezing Han in Empire (a figurate death), re-birthing him in Jedi and having him die AGAIN is just dumb storytelling.

 

Well, Harrison Ford didn't sign on for the sequels like the rest of the cast, so I suppose Lucas figured killing his character might be necessary.

 

If Lucas did consider killing off Han & Leia, Han being frozen in carbonite might be one reason why that storyline was abandoned. In the story outline Lucas gave to Leigh Brackett, and the subsequent script, Han isn't frozen. Rather, he escapes with the rest of the heroes, and at the end of the film he goes off across the galaxy to try to recruit his foster father, a powerful crime boss, to the Rebellion. After reading Brackett's script, Lucas realized the story in ESB didn't have enough "stakes", and that was one of the things he changed. It also fit with Harrison Ford perhaps not coming back for the third film, due to signing a contract just for ESB (mostly due to Ford's reluctance to continue doing the series, rather than Lucas wanting to write out Han Solo, I'd guess).

The idea of killing off Han & Leia might have been a knee-jerk reaction to the fact that Carrie Fisher and Harrison Ford were having an affair, and therefore it made sense to pair up Han and Leia, rather than Leia and Luke as Lucas likely originally wanted. Again, it makes more sense with the idea of further films that take place immediately after the OT, rather than a Sequel Trilogy taking place decades later.

 

As @BlackRanger said, Lucas had other options to get rid of Han without killing him.

I agree.
The ending of Empire makes it very clear that Han is going to be rescued. But the storyline of Han being frozen could've been played out in another way, if Harrison didn't want to come back.
Anyway, l think the idea of Harrison not wanting to come back is something that fans exaggerate based on Harrison Ford's later comments about how he didn't want to do more Star Wars. But before Empire was released he had confirmed that he would come back (even in public interviews).

 

How about this? Luke, Leia and Chewbacca waylay Boba Fett long before he gets to Tatooine. Rather than surrender, Boba shoots a hole through Han's carbonite block, killing him instantly. An enraged Leia then tears Boba (and everything else) apart, with a force storm...suggesting that she may just be "the other" that Yoda was talking about.

 

Thing is, this scenario would require TESB to have to have an 'extended' ending (or there'd be an episode between ESB and ROTJ?)

 

The way I personally see it is that Lucas always envisioned the main story to be six films, but only added on three others due to how successful ANH was. He basically said as much in 1980.
"The original screenplay, which was very involved and lengthy, like War and Peace, took me about eight months to write. Afterward, I said, 'I can't possibly shoot this movie; it's going to cost eighty million dollars, and take five years to make. I'll cut it in half and make two screenplays' So I did, and rewrote the second half. When I looked at that screenplay, it was still very long and complicated. ... A little over 200 pages. ... So I took the screenplay and divided it into three stories, and rewrote the first one. ... When the smoke cleared, I said, 'This is really great. I'll do another trilogy that takes place after this.'"

Maybe it's just me, but this gave me the impression that he may have intended the story to be six films when he first conceived the overall saga while making TESB.

 

Hello all,

I think it's safe to say that both the "Annotated Screenplays (1997)" by L. Bouzereau and the J.W. Rinzler "Making Of" books are not the whole story when it comes to notes/drafts/treatments/outlines concerning the development of (the Original Trilogy) Star Wars. The books themselves (especially Rinzer's) aren't presented as 'exhaustive' and even (especially Rinzler's) mention or hint a material that was omitted. Several things from outside of the aforementioned books seem to shed light on this. One is (A) Dale Pollock's "Skywalking" where he describes what seem to be 'drafts-in-between-drafts'. Then there's (B) Marvel Comics: in their 'fan mail/letter's to the Editor' section at the end of each issue, in one of the late 1977/early 1978 period, Story Editor-in-Chief Roy Thomas mentions having read early outline by Lucas, that reads as though it takes places "years" before the current Star Wars period - iow, a 'prequel'. To me, that doesn't seem to describe the publicly known drafts. Were such material to be publicly shown, would it possibly call into question some of the 'evolutionary' steps in the development of SW that we've sort of been conditioned to view as the 'accepted story'?

Now, in regards to Lucas' claims about having written a big script' that he 'cut in half': he's been saying this at least since ESB was in production (in 1979, as mentioned in Alan Arnold's "Once Upon A Galaxy" making of journal book). It wasn't something he only started claiming in the early Nineties...

 

When you read the first draft of ANH, you can see bits and pieces of at least four films in that script. TPM, AOTC, ANH and ROTJ evolved from that script. The second draft more closely resembles ANH. Also, the first draft is rather stand alone with its ending, while the second draft purposely hints at a sequel film.

This is what he meant by breaking up the story into three films. That first draft is pretty dense compared to the next three drafts.

 

The thing is that I don't think that the screenplay drafts that were released to the public tell the 'whole story' of the situation. That's what I meant when I brought up Marvel editor Roy Thomas. Which of the four public drafts did he read that would to him seem to take place 'years before' the time of Star Wars? Maybe the 'Journal of the Whills' outline/story synopsis? And, Lucas is rumored* to have written a 'prequel' outline about Ben and Luke's father sometime between drafts 1 and 2 (or maybe drafts 2 and 3?), but then didn't like it and tossed it out and started over.

*I don't know of a direct quote by Lucas saying that he did this, but I read it from the "Unoffical Star Wars Compendium" (1999). And when I read it at the time, it sounded vaguely familiar.

 

Another thing that I had forgotten about the SW drafts: the different openings to the story. In the 1973 story treatment, it opens with a space battle between 6 starships and the space fortress (Death Star 'prototype', if you will). The Rough and First draft (1974) open the story on the planet Utapau, where the Starkiller brothers and their father are hiding from the Sith and are attacked by a Sith Knight. Then from the Second draft (1975) onward, the tale opens with a battle between an Imperial Starship (in this version 4) and a Rebel spacecraft.