Star Wars is better than everything

[Brando 1,864]

39 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

Bonus point if you cannot listen to ~7:20 of The Last Battle (~10:28 on the original LP) without making Artoo's scream

 

8 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

I’VE LOST R2!!!!!!!!

These two posts make me feel a little better about myself now that I'm not alone

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

From "I'VE LOST R2!!!!!!!" onwards, I cannot not recite the narration for "The Story Of Star Wars":

"His wingman's TIE fighter disintegrates".

"What?!"

"Yahoo!"

[JTN 2,030]

 

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

Hmm. It's a not bad idea, but the score needs to be a bit "smaller", sonically. It's got to sound like an early 1940s recording; all upper mid-range, with no top or bottom.

[Chen G. 3,949]

I never found the whole "its a silent movie" idea to be very merited: insofar as Star Wars is based on films of the past, they're overwhelmingly "talkies": Flash Gordon, Flash Gordon Conquers the Universe, Hidden Fortress, The Searchers, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Casablanca, Forbidden Planet. Just about the only relic of the silent age is C3PO, designed after the Metropolis robot.

 

And really - and this is true of all six films - they're fairly talkative movies, all things considered. 

[Tallguy 3,398]

You show me how Han Solo or Leia Organa or even for that matter Darth Vader work in a silent film. They are dialog driven parts. Vader is not Odd Job or Jaws.

 

Heck, even Threepio and Artoo. It's Threepio's half of the conversation that makes the beeps and boops work.

[JTN 2,030]

“The 'Star Wars' movies are, in essence, silent movies because they are stories that are told visually; and in silent movies the relationship between image and music is everything. A lot of the story and a lot of the emotion are told through the music. It is one of the most important elements of a film."

– George Lucas

[Tallguy 3,398]

"Jar Jar will be a compelling character and everyone will love him."

-- George Lucas

 

"I always meant for Darth Vader to be Luke and Leia's father."

-- George Lucas

 

"Han always shot second, I just didn't edit it so that you could see it."

-- George Lucas

[JTN 2,030]

20 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

"Jar Jar will be a compelling character and everyone will love him."

-- George Lucas

 

"I always meant for Darth Vader to be Luke and Leia's father."

-- George Lucas

 

"Han always shot second, I just didn't edit it so that you could see it."

-- George Lucas

And these quotes contradict the Lucas-quote about the Star Wars movies being silent films, how? Just because you disagree with him, doesn't mean he doesn't think so. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

Point is, George Lucas lies.

 

A lot.

 

Or, in this case, not so much "lies" as heaps a lot of affectations over himself and his films.

[mstrox 6,651]

George Lucas also made either 1 or 2.5 good Star Wars movies out of 4 or 6, depending on whether you consider Kershner’s and Marquand’s movies as movies Lucas made.  So why it matters what he says overall about anything has always been a matter of confusion to me.

[Naïve Old Fart 9,537]

He lied. He lied to us. Terminate him. Immediately!

[JTN 2,030]

35 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Point is, George Lucas lies.

 

A lot.

That's a very harsh remark about the Creator of Star Wars. Again, you don't have to agree with him, but calling him a liar is imho unacceptable for a Star Wars fan. It's his vision, his universe, his works of art, and if he says that to him the Star Wars movies are silent films, then we should accept it, whether we agree with his statement or not. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, JTW said:

That's a very harsh remark about the Creator of Star Wars.

 

It is.

 

Its also true beyond any possible shade of doubt.

 

When Lucas says all the Star Wars films were planned, and indeed written out of one "giant" script - he lies.

When Lucas says his next films would be "experimental tone poems" - he lies.

When Lucas says he was an anthropology major - he lies.

When Lucs says he made Coppola take "The Godfather" - he lies.

When Lucas says Vader was always Luke's father - he lies.

 

Don't believe me? Ask Steven Spielberg, Lucas' friend:

 

Quote

George said if I directed the first one then I would have to direct a trilogy. He had three stories in mind. It turned out George did not have three stories in mind and we had to make up subsequent stories.

 

[JTN 2,030]

20 minutes ago, mstrox said:

George Lucas also made either 1 or 2.5 good Star Wars movies out of 4 or 6

I believe he made six Star Wars films, three out of which I love (the OT), three I don't. The OT films are great, and the majority of fans agree that Episode III is great (I'm not one of them). 

All six represent his vision, his story. He had total creative control over all three of the OT films, so in that sense Empire and RotJ are also his films, regardless of who the actual director was. 

 

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, JTW said:

He had total creative control over all three of the OT films, so in that sense Empire and RotJ are also his films, regardless of who the actual director was. 

 

I think that's an incredibly demeaning thing to say of Richard Marquand, Lawrence Kasdan and especially of Irvin Kershner. Close examination of the making-ofs, as well as the distinctive feeling that Kasdan and Kershner bring to The Empire Strikes Back (which, to me personally, doesn't feel a thing like the previous film) would show that this is nonesense.

 

And, again, ultimately we have to see the movies and judge by ourselves: Lucas can say they're silent movies. But what does that even mean? If you examine the films, you see they're fairly talky movies. Even an action sequence like the Trench Run has the chatter of the pilots all over it, and some characters like C3PO and Vader cannot even be seen mouthing words, and so must rely on audible dialogue to be understood. The proof is in the pudding.

[JTN 2,030]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

When Lucas says all the Star Wars films were planned, and indeed written out of one "giant" script - he lies.

 

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

I think that's an incredibly demeaning thing to say of Richard Marquand, Lawrence Kasdan and especially of Irvin Kershner.

But calling George Lucas a liar isn't? Come on!

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

Lucas can say they're silent movies. But what does that even mean?

It means that he thinks of them as so. Nothing more, nothing less. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 minutes ago, JTW said:

 

Lucas claims he wrote a 300-page script, divided it three ways et voila, the whole trilogy, made and ready. The script you quote is 156 pages long, and covers absolutely no ground for either of the two sequels.

 

The same is true for the earlier drafts: The Rough draft is 129 pages long (so even shorter), and has less than twenty pages' worth of ideas that are reprised elsewhere: the Asteroid Field is used in The Empire Strikes Back, and the whole "recruiting local primitives to fight a technologically-superior foe" is used in both Return of the Jedi and The Phantom Menace.

 

Ergo, George Lucas is lying.

 

He's hardly the first artist to bend the truth to suit an agenda: David Lean says Sam Spiegel recut Lawrence of Arabia behind his back, but we now know it was all Lean. Richard Wagner says he was inspired in his youth by a performance of Wilhelima Schroder-Devrient in Fidelio, but contemporary scholarship believes she appeared instead in Bellini's I Capuleti e i Montecchi.

[JTN 2,030]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Lucas claims he wrote a 250-page script, divided it three ways et voila, the whole trilogy, made and ready. The script you quote is 156 pages long, and covers absolutely no ground for either of the two sequels.

It says "SAGA I". It means there are more than one sagas that this film is a part of. 

In "The Making of Star Wars: The Definitive Story Behind the Original Film" by J. W. Rinzler there are scanned handwritten manuscript pages by Lucas. I don't remember exactly, I read it years ago. The story he created was too big to tell in one film, or in three, so he divided it into three separate trilogies. Whether it's true or not, I don't care. If it's not, why did he rename 'Star Wars' "Episode IV: A New Hope" in 1981 then? Gary Kurtz said that Lucas and his creative team had been planning on renaming 'Star Wars' since Empire's production. He knew it was going to be the fourth episode of a multi-part saga.

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, JTW said:

It says "SAGA I". It means there are more than one sagas that this film is a part of. 

 

 

Well, yeah. Again, contrary to what Lucas says, he knew Star Wars would probably turn a decent profit, and thought it would be fun to try and pursue sequels. But he most definitely didn't have those sequels planned in advance, much less written out of one giant script.

 

6 minutes ago, JTW said:

He knew it was going to be the fourth episode of a multi-part saga.

 

Nope. ALL the early drafts for Star Wars, when they have episode designations at all, are "saga one" or "Episode I", and ALL the early drafts for The Empire Strikes Back are "Episode II", "Episode two", "Chapter II", "Star Wars II" or "Star Wars sequel." Even when Lucas decided that it ought to be something else, his first instinct was to make it "Episode Seven"!

[JTN 2,030]

10 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

when Lucas decided that it ought to be something else, his first instinct was to make it "Episode Seven"!

Thank you. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

Who knows if Lucas is knowingly lying at this point, and is bending the facts to shape his legacy. Maybe the actual facts are lost to him in the fog of time, and he's come to believe his version of the truth.

 

I've heard Spielberg say some revisionist things too, that contradict what collaborators have said. Intentionally? Who knows for sure. Everybody's getting older and the memory can play tricks...

 

We may get a better picture of the truth by gathering information from everyone closest to Lucas during these years, like Marcia Lucas—cuz I think it's wise to take what George says with a pinch of salt.

[Chen G. 3,949]

29 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Who knows if Lucas is knowingly lying at this point, and is bending the facts to shape his legacy. Maybe the actual facts are lost to him in the fog of time, and he's come to believe his version of the truth.

 

It varies, but I think in Lucas' case its more a proclivity for revisionist history than faulty memory. The first suggestions that Lucas wrote all the Star Wars films in advance is from March 1978, which is not so long after writing Star Wars for Lucas to misremember it so grossly.

 

Comparativelly, when Ralph McQuarrie in the 2000s reminisces about how Lucas brought him about about "Medieval Japan" and its actually Donald Richie's "The Films of Akira Kurosawa" or "pulp illustrations from the 30s" and its actually an illustration from 1975...THAT's faulty memory. About half the stuff Gary Kurtz said about Star Wars in the 90s is faulty memory. The Lucas case is usually not that.

 

And its not just that Lucas misremembers: he also doctors evidence. There is a draft of the original film, appended to The Art of Star Wars book, and presented for all intents and purposes as the script, which has the title "Episode IV: A New Hope", carries a January 1976 date, had been edited to fit the final cut of the released film, and includes the Jabba scene, now with a description "He is a fat, slug-like creature with eyes on extended feelers and a huge ugly mouth." None of this is genuine: its been doctored.

 

Even more damning, in his blog Rinzler admits that a passage in his book, quoting an interview of Lucas' from August 1977, had been doctored by Lucas to make it seem like he was talking about Midichlorians back in 1977. Neither of those examples, surely, is just faulty memory!

 

Maybe there's more room for bad memory when it comes to Lucas' early life: for instance, his overly-melodramatic account of his car collision at 17. But, even then, surely a man would remember that he does not, in fact, have a degree in Social Science, as Lucas pretends to have!

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

Well, if all that's true, I can see your point.

 

But the problem for Lucas shouldn't be to create a case for Midichlorians existing in 1977, it should be to erase their existence in 2023.

 

I remember cringing at that bit of exposition in 1999, that effectively demystified the Force and reduced it to a biological function...

 

When Anakin earnestly asked: "I've been wondering... What are Midichlorians?", I was hilariously reminded of the old 16mm educational films they showed in school explaining reproduction.

 

"I've been wondering... Where do babies come from?" 

[Schilkeman 964]

For the thousandth time, Midichlorians are not the Force. They “tell us the will of the Force.” It is still an energy field created by all living things.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Tomato tomato.

 

But at least I guess its a nice paradigm for the "symbiont" relationship between the Naboo and the Gungans that runs through the film. Its just about the only fable-like element to cling to Star Wars after 1985. Clearly, Lucas liked his Edgar Rice Burroughs...

[Tallguy 3,398]

3 hours ago, JTW said:

That's a very harsh remark about the Creator of Star Wars.

 

He's earned it.

 

3 hours ago, JTW said:

and the majority of fans agree that Episode III is great (I'm not one of them). 

 

Our numbers grow.

 

3 hours ago, JTW said:

He had total creative control over all three of the OT films

 

As has been said upthread, this isn't true. His reaction to Empire (which whatever he thought of the quality almost bankrupted him) is evidence enough. But then he still turns around (to justify monkeying with someone else's film for the SEs) and says that Empire would have been the same if he had directed it.

 

1 hour ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I've heard Spielberg say some revisionist things too, that contradict what collaborators have said. Intentionally? Who knows for sure. Everybody's getting older and the memory can play tricks...

 

Again as pointed out above, Lucas has been doing this almost my entire life.

[Chen G. 3,949]

2 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

But then he still turns around (to justify monkeying with someone else's film for the SEs) and says that Empire would have been the same if he had directed it.

 

Really, where is that?

[Tallguy 3,398]

4 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

 

Really, where is that?

 

I don't remember. It was an interview, mid 2000s I think, where (IIRC) they were asking about the two movies he didn't direct. Nothing so ballsy as "Hey you said that nobody should alter a film without the original director." That would have been fun.

[Chen G. 3,949]

Lucas' apocryphal stories range from maddening - as in "just how stupid do you think we are, George?" - to hillarious.

 

One of my favourites is his suggestion that he has "a major in anthropology." My man, an Associate of Arts, during which you took a Sociology course in a small community college and got a B, is NOT a major in anthropology! 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

36 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

For the thousandth time, Midichlorians are not the Force. They “tell us the will of the Force.” It is still an energy field created by all living things.

I don't like that one's ability to commune with and wield the Force depends on the number of critters in one's blood. I just didn't need that explained—but it was required to set up the whole "Chosen One" thingy.

 

12 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

One of my favourites is his suggestion that he has "a major in anthropology."

Why doesn't some institution just give him an honorary doctorate in Anthropology and make it official. lol

[Edmilson 7,466]

3 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I just didn't need that explained—but it was required to set up the whole "Chosen One" thingy.

Here's one of my biggest doubts regarding Star Wars: is all that Chosen One stuff something Lucas created for the prequels but wasn't present on the Original trilogy?

 

Honestly, this is one of Star Wars' plot points that I find very weird and underdeveloped. So the Chosen One is really Anakin? He was supposed to bring balance to the Force? And hewas supposed to do that how exactly, destroying the Jedi Order and strengthening the Sith? Or was it by killing the Emperor and thus destroying the Sith (temporarily)? Perhaps both at the same time? Because by the end of Return of the Jedi we have exactly one Jedi (Luke)* and zero Sith. So the Force wanted wielders from both sides to be terminated and reduced to a minimum? That would make it "balanced"?

 

TL;DR: what does "bringing balance to the Force" even mean?

 

*Yeah, I know there are a lot of Jedi who escaped Order 66 and survived the Empire, etc., but I'm considering just Lucas' 6 films, which was what he had in mind when he wrote that prophecy.

[Schilkeman 964]

Episode I is rife with circle symbolism. Midichlorians are as much a thematic element as a plot convenience, and they’re really a measure of Force potential rather than Force ability. It still requires intense training to master.

[Chen G. 3,949]

3 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

Here's one of my biggest doubts regarding Star Wars: is all that Chosen One stuff something Lucas created for the prequels but wasn't present on the Original trilogy?

 

Yes.

 

I mean, if you take the original, 1977 film in isolation, even Luke isn't a "Chosen One": He's an everyman hero like Bilbo Baggins.

 

Then in the next two films, Luke is very clearly the Chosen One: not Anakin. And only then, in Episode I does Anakin become the Chosen One. In fact, its only in the Second or Third draft of that film that the prophecy (and Midichlorians) was even added!

[Schilkeman 964]

4 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

That would make it "balanced"?

Balance in the Force is treated more like an illness in the body. Balance is the lack of dark side power, and just as one virus is enough to make us sick, one Sith is enough to put the Force out of balance. So yes, Anakin fulfills the prophesy, and brings balance to the Force, by destroying Palpatine. 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

40 minutes ago, Schilkeman said:

Anakin fulfills the prophesy, and brings balance to the Force, by destroying Palpatine. 

Couldn't resist.

 

 

 

[Edmilson 7,466]

It is weird that, before fulfilling the prophecy and destroying them, he helped the Sith reach their all time high, controlling the galaxy. It makes that addition to the plot feel even more "tacked on". 

[Schilkeman 964]

22 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Couldn't resist.

 

 

 

I just report on George’s movies. Whatever happened after that is apocryphal.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 minute ago, Schilkeman said:

Whatever happened after that is apocryphal.

 

Well, except for Episode VII: Lucas greenlit and sketched much (but not all) of the plot of Episode VII.

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

52 minutes ago, Edmilson said:

It is weird that, before fulfilling the prophecy and destroying them, he helped the Sith reach their all time high, controlling the galaxy.

I guess the prophecy didn't say how it would be fulfilled—only that it would. But yeah, it's totally weird—the notion of a saviour leaving a trail of death and destruction on his way to (inadvertently) bringing balance and peace.
 

But it's kinda brilliant too, and makes for a great redemption arc for Anakin by making him into this kind of fallen angel who falls really far. Whether or not Lucas had this all planned from the get-go, it all works pretty well I think.

[Groovygoth666 670]

Don't forget Yoda said "A prophecy that misread could have been", all we know is the Jedi think it says there will be a choose one and they will bring balance to the force. What's the origin of this prophecy, the gods of Mortis know of it, did they create it or does it predate them? Is it a simple translation error or that it's meaning has changed over time? 

[Schilkeman 964]

2 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Whether or not Lucas had this all planned from the get-go, it all works pretty well I think.

This is how I feel about it. I just watched 1-6 recently, and, especially in SE form, they flow together very well. I don’t really care about how well it was planned. I care about the final, finished version, which is not the notes, outlines, scripts, or even the first versions of the films.
 

What George wanted to say evolved greatly over time, and it took him a while to say it the way he wanted, but I think he got there in the end. I know a lot of people don’t, and that’s their prerogative, but for me, what Star Wars has to say about the destructive nature greed, violence, and unhealthy attachment, and the restorative nature of compassion and selflessness, is profound, and has had a great influence on my life and how I view the world. 
 

[Mr. Hooper 1,792]

1 hour ago, Groovygoth666 said:

Don't forget Yoda said "A prophecy that misread could have been"

Forgot that part. Anyway, did Lucas ever confirm that Anakin was in fact the "Chosen One"? It was only Qui-Gon who felt strongly that he was, but maybe he wasn't? Oh—better not give Disney any ideas. They'll anoint Rey the Chosen One in her next trilogy...

[Groovygoth666 670]

4 minutes ago, Mr. Hooper said:

Forgot that part. Anyway, did Lucas ever confirm that Anakin was in fact the "Chosen One"? It was only Qui-Gon who felt strongly that he was, but maybe he wasn't? Oh—better not give Disney any ideas. They'll anoint Rey the Chosen One in her next trilogy...

Understandable, it's easy to forget that line as no one in the scene really acknowledges it and still refer to Anakin as the chosen one later. I'm not sure on the origin but here's a clip of Lucas talking about it - 

 

But Disney wouldn't let the words of George Lucas stand in their way, I'm sure the Rey solo film will reveal her daughter to be the true chosen one. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

7 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

This is how I feel about it. I just watched 1-6 recently, and, especially in SE form, they flow together very well.

 

I to this day don't think it does. All the discussions about drafts and such are ultimately secondary to the fact that, as a viewing experience, I don't think these films hold together well at all. The fact that Lucas jumps through hoops to try and present it as if they do is all the more evidence that they don't: if they had, he could have let the art speak for itself. But being as though it can't, he does the talking.

 

The visual look of the films completely changes with just about every passing entry: Episode I is 35mm anamorphic, Episode II is 960p anamorphic, Episode III is 1080p spherical, Star Wars is 35mm anamorphic but with a smaller budget ans 1970s optical effects, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are the same, but with different directors and about three times the budget each...

 

The sensibility of the films is very different: The George Lucas who made Star Wars in 1976 was a very different man to the George Lucas who made the prequel trilogy in 1997-2004. Irvin Kershner has a directorial sensibility completely and totally unlike Lucas', and Lawrence Kasdan writes very differently from Lucas, as well.

 

Plot elements don't cohere: Anakin performs a huge massacre not halfway through Episode II, but then in the second half of Episode III, the audience is asked to say: "Oh, he killed Younglings!? ANAKIN!?! O THE HORROR!!" There are continuity headscratchers left and right. Characters change inexcplicably: as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vader of Star Wars is much more the barking seargent type compared to the cool, master of evil that we find in The Empire Strikes Back. Han somehow becomes the class clown in Return of the Jedi. There are blatant, overt retcons like Leia being Luke's sister, that not even seeing Revenge of the Sith first could convince me emotionally.

 

The overriding plot moves at fits and starts: the whole of Episode I basically plays like an overblown, 130-minute prelude, with a huge, yawning 10-year remove from the rest of the prequel narrative, and Anakin turning into in effect a completely new and different character between entries. The conflict reaches its greatest scale and intensity not at the very end, but rather during the events of Revenge of the Sith, halfway through the overriding narrative. The concluding entry, rather, being one of the least intense and most provinicial of all six entries.

 

I could go on and on and on...

[HunterTech 994]

I sometimes wonder how you manage to enjoy things

[Chen G. 3,949]

I enjoy many of the entries - even the less popular ones - individually.

 

But as a "saga", it falls apart more often than not.

[Jurassic Shark 12,079]

8 minutes ago, HunterTech said:

I sometimes wonder how you manage to enjoy things

 

He finds enjoyment in critical appreciation, something more people should. 

 

38 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vader of Star Wars is much more the barking seargent type compared to the cool, master of evil that we find in The Empire Strikes Back.

 

So he evolved. 

[Chen G. 3,949]

10 hours ago, Mr. Hooper said:

I guess the prophecy didn't say how it would be fulfilled—only that it would. But yeah, it's totally weird—the notion of a saviour leaving a trail of death and destruction on his way to (inadvertently) bringing balance and peace.

 

Hmm, if only I could think of a movie with flashbacks, from somebody that Lucas looked at as a big brother and clearly wanted to emulate, in which a child of nine years of age lives in destitution, loses his mother, leaves his home, falls in-love, and then falls into a life of wickedness, that then goes on to impact his son's life... 

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

3 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I to this day don't think it does. All the discussions about drafts and such are ultimately secondary to the fact that, as a viewing experience, I don't think these films hold together well at all. The fact that Lucas jumps through hoops to try and present it as if they do is all the more evidence that they don't: if they had, he could have let the art speak for itself. But being as though it can't, he does the talking.

 

The visual look of the films completely changes with just about every passing entry: Episode I is 35mm anamorphic, Episode II is 960p anamorphic, Episode III is 1080p spherical, Star Wars is 35mm anamorphic but with a smaller budget ans 1970s optical effects, The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi are the same, but with different directors and about three times the budget each...

 

The sensibility of the films is very different: The George Lucas who made Star Wars in 1976 was a very different man to the George Lucas who made the prequel trilogy in 1997-2004. Irvin Kershner has a directorial sensibility completely and totally unlike Lucas', and Lawrence Kasdan writes very differently from Lucas, as well.

 

Plot elements don't cohere: Anakin performs a huge massacre not halfway through Episode II, but then in the second half of Episode III, the audience is asked to say: "Oh, he killed Younglings!? ANAKIN!?! O THE HORROR!!" There are continuity headscratchers left and right. Characters change inexcplicably: as I've mentioned elsewhere, the Vader of Star Wars is much more the barking seargent type compared to the cool, master of evil that we find in The Empire Strikes Back. Han somehow becomes the class clown in Return of the Jedi. There are blatant, overt retcons like Leia being Luke's sister, that not even seeing Revenge of the Sith first could convince me emotionally.

 

The overriding plot moves at fits and starts: the whole of Episode I basically plays like an overblown, 130-minute prelude, with a huge, yawning 10-year remove from the rest of the prequel narrative, and Anakin turning into in effect a completely new and different character between entries. The conflict reaches its greatest scale and intensity not at the very end, but rather during the events of Revenge of the Sith, halfway through the overriding narrative. The concluding entry, rather, being one of the least intense and most provinicial of all six entries.

 

I could go on and on and on...

 

So what are you trying to say?