Jump to content

Star Wars Disenchantment


John
 Share

Recommended Posts

Idk, considering right around the same time he was cooking up the idea that Marion should be like 12 or whatever when Indy hooked up with her, I could believe it lol. I think he was a bit of an edgelord. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, mrbellamy said:

Idk, considering right around the same time he was cooking up the idea that Marion should be like 12 or whatever when Indy hooked up with her, I could believe it lol. I think he was a bit of an edgelord. 

 

It's clearly implied that Marion is very young "ten years ago". But 12? I know she says she was "a child" but I think that's people taking it too literally because they want to get bent out of shape. (People seem less upset that Dr. Jones was clearly romancing his students.)

 

Since Allen was 30 when Raiders came out it would stand to reason we're talking late teens when Indy would have been in his late 20s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In the story conferences, Lucas came up with the idea that they had an inappropriate relationship. He facetiously brought-up that she might have been 11, but then suggested a more reasonable (but still creepy) 14-15. Oddly enough, the idea wasn't immediately discarded with: Spielberg was oddly into the concept, but in the finished film its very vaguely hinted at.

 

That isn't to say that I think Leia being Luke's sister was ever planned: it wasn't. Williams had written Leia's theme as a love theme for her and Luke, and in late 1975 when Lucas was musing about hypothetical sequels, he said he wanted Leia to end-up with Luke. Even Luke communicating with Leia via The Force isn't really hinting towards kinship.

 

Actually, the love triangle that Lucas teases in the original Star Wars never really materializes. They had shot some material that pays lip service to it for The Empire Strikes Back and didn't use it, but either way it never becomes a real triangle. Leia loves Han, and that's it.

 

This is all very à propos because it shows the fallacy of Mattris' arguments all the more. Star Wars had never had any real planning involved.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 13/10/2021 at 5:56 AM, Naïve Old Fart said:

Here's a special message for all those who take all things SW far too seriously...

 

On 13/10/2021 at 9:01 AM, Naïve Old Fart said:

I've always wondered why Ben leaves Anakin laying by the lava flow. Why didn't he try to help him?

Oh, wait! I know the answer. It's only a movie :lol:

 

Snide comments from someone who doesn't understand - or probably even care - about Star Wars... which, mark my words, had a grander purpose than being "only a movie". (George Lucas even said as much.)

 

In case you weren't aware, Star Wars was released as a book five months before the movie opened.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 9:59 AM, Chen G. said:

Its not. The very idea that Vader was a burn-victim at all was not present when the original Star Wars was being shot and edited: he was just wearing a spacesuit like the Stormtroopers do in the film.

 

Lucas came-up with the idea either late in post-production or while the movie was being released, but it changed a lot: I think at one point Lucas had said Vader fell into a reactor shaft; and of course it was only later still that he decide Vader was Anakin.

 

I never really held to this idea that Lucas had written rigorous backstories for his characters - what little we're actually provided with of Lucas notes is more a kind of "stream of consciousness" process of working out the script itself on paper, rather than some bios of the characters in the film: I bet in 1977 if you asked him twice about Vader's backstory, you would have gotten a different answer each time.

 

The fact is, Chen, you know nothing of Lucas' thought process, his intention for Star Wars, or how many episodes/trilogies he planned the story to be. Though, you  did recognize that, over the years, George Lucas' various creative development recollections have been... contradictory.

 

Regardless of the reason for this, it follows that either only one of those possible narratives can be true... or none of them are true. In either case, the masses - you included - are still in the dark.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 10:45 AM, SilverTrumpet said:

I don't mean he write it in a series bible in 1976 or something. I know he's not that planned ahead at all.

 

I have concluded that evidence from the films, scripts, and novelizations indicate that George Lucas planned ahead quite a bit.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 10:52 AM, Chen G. said:

Oh, it was in 1977, but only after the film was released. When they were actually making the film, they had a completely different concept. Vader being a burn-victim is the first Star Wars retcon, really.

 

http://fd.noneinc.com/secrethistoryofstarwarscom/secrethistoryofstarwars.com/visualdevelopmentofdarthvader.html

 

So the story of the story goes. Regarding Darth Vader, I'll just say this: Anyone thinking that important facets of the character were largely being made up as the story unfolded doesn't understand the story.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 1:07 PM, Chen G. said:

There's also no indication he uses the Force, but then in the original film anyone can potentially use The Force, anyway.

 

While the original film did not literally 'indicate that the Emperor could have used the Force', it was implied since the Emperor superseded Darth Vader, who was a wielder of the Force.

 

Speaking of the Imperial Senate, Grand Moff Tarkin announced to his senior officers that "the Emperor has dissolved the council permanently". At the beginning of an extended version of that scene, one of the Generals said of Vader, "I tell you, he's gone too far. This Sith lord sent by the Emperor will be our undoing."  This turned out to be an apt prediction since it was Vader who allowed the Death Star plans to fall into the hands of the Rebels, against Tarkin's better judgement.

 

Darth Vader physically - and through the Force - choked those he had reason to punish or make a statement of superiority. Even if the Emperor did not 'lack faith in the Force', what reason could possibly exist that a violent, risk-taking, Force-enabled Darth Vader wouldn't be completely in control of the Empire? He wasn't even #2 in charge, as Tarkin was Vader's superior in the film. "As you wish."

 

Bottom line: With only the original film in 1977, it could have been logically deduced that the Emperor was Vader's master and could use the Force.

 

@Chen G., what do you mean by this: "... in the original film anyone can potentially use The Force, anyway."

 

On 13/10/2021 at 1:07 PM, Chen G. said:

Essentially, in the world of the 1977 film, the one who really pulls the strings of the Empire is Tarkin, and the meeting of his we see with the other Imperials isn't just some staff meeting: that's the top brass of the entire Empire. With the destruction of the Death Star, they are killed and the Empire is ended. That was obviously immediately retconned when they started working on a sequel.

 

Nonsense. Even with the destruction of the Death Star, Darth Vader and the Emperor were still alive. Yes, thousands of Imperials were killed, but no other capital ships were lost... by an Empire that spanned - and controlled - the entire galaxy.

 

Claims like 'George Lucas started working on a sequel only because of the success of the first film' are spoken out of complete ignorance. This will be proven beyond a shadow of a doubt.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 3:32 PM, Chen G. said:

It’s very different to what we got: there emperor is just a beaurocrat who serves as a puppet of others, not the mastermind and powerful sorcerer we see in the prequel trilogy; the timeframe is much longer, with the Empire being around for at least three decades rather than a mere 19 years.

 

The Imperial officers only think the Emperor is beaurocrat or needs them to "maintain control". Throughout this story, it is a common theme that some characters are led to believe things that are untrue.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 3:32 PM, Chen G. said:

The original Star Wars doesn’t have prequels: the Empire Strikes Back does.

 

How do you know that, when George Lucas made Star Wars (the film), he didn't intend the story to have prequel and/or sequel episodes?

 

On 13/10/2021 at 3:53 PM, Naïve Old Fart said:

This is rumour control, here are the facts.

In '74, Lucas was just another punk kid director (one of many young punk kid directors from USC/UCLA), who'd gotten lucky with some period piece nostalgia flick he'd just released.

He wrote a script for a space movie, and sent it to just about everybody, until Fox said "yes". Cut to Summer of '77: the space movie is the hit of the century, and Fox rubs its hands with glee, and says "more, please", at which point Mr. Lucas decided that he needs to expand upon this film, and create a "universe". There's nothing wrong, with that, but don't tell me, he had if all mapped out, because he plainly didn't.

 

How do you know those are "the facts", and there's nothing else to it? 

 

Using evidence from the films, scripts, and novelizations, it's clear to me that Mr. Lucas had the basics of story of the Saga mapped out by the time the original film was made.

 

You, on the other hand, have made conclusions based on wildly-held assumptions and what the public has been told.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 6:40 PM, Tallguy said:

Rule #1: If you have it "all mapped out" then don't turn the romantic leads of your first movie (and part of your triangle in the second) into SIBLINGS in the third!

 

I'm glad he didn't make certain story/character elements so obvious. That being said, some things that transpired could/should have been predicted.

 

On 13/10/2021 at 10:51 PM, Chen G. said:

That isn't to say that I think Leia being Luke's sister was ever planned: it wasn't. Williams had written Leia's theme as a love theme for her and Luke, and in late 1975 when Lucas was musing about hypothetical sequels, he said he wanted Leia to end-up with Luke. Even Luke communicating with Leia via The Force isn't really hinting towards kinship.

 

Actually, the love triangle that Lucas teases in the original Star Wars never really materializes. They had shot some material that pays lip service to it for The Empire Strikes Back and didn't use it, but either way it never becomes a real triangle. Leia loves Han, and that's it.

 

Over the years, John Williams has said many simplified/strange/seemingly-ignorant things about Star Wars. In this thread, I noted some of his more recent curious statements, including that Episode IX's "ending will put you all away. I think you will love it."

 

On 13/10/2021 at 10:51 PM, Chen G. said:

This is all very à propos because it shows the fallacy of Mattris' arguments all the more. Star Wars had never had any real planning involved.

 

'The fallacy of my arguments'? Please.

 

In this thread, it's clear that your Star Wars knowledge is limited to recounting what has been reported to have transpired  in the making of these films.

 

I, on the other  hand, have already correctly predicted major story/character elements. I expect that many of my other predictions will be confirmed if yet another comes to pass: Another Star Wars trilogy is imminent, with the first installment already made.

 

In time, you will come to realize that the fallacy was all yours.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

16 minutes ago, Mattris said:

Another Star Wars trilogy is imminent, with the first installment already made.

 

Funny, but not as funny as my signature.

 

Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Trust me, @Chen G.. I have so many more "funny" observations, theories, and predictions that posting them all at once might result in you dying of laughter. Perhaps I will present some of them if I deem the circumstances beneficial to me.

 

Here's one for now: You will remove your current 'signature' after Episode X is released. (Not that I have to look at it.)

 

And finally, I notice you have a habit of referencing me but often choose to ignore my responses to your statements, whilst avoiding my direct questions.

 

Try harder.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 minutes ago, Mattris said:

You will remove your current 'signature' after Episode X is released.

 

No I won't.

 

Quote

you have a habit of referencing me but often choose to ignore my responses to your statements, whilst avoiding my direct questions.

 

Yes I do.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I see. Then by keeping that (rather pathetic) attempt to make fun of me (site-wide, in perpetually), one (or more) of the following must be true:

 

- You don't think there will be an Episode X.

- Episode X will eventually be released. But you don't think it's contents will make you seem petty for keeping that signature.

- You don't care if your forum peers consider you petty.

- Your pride will keep you from acting in your best interest.

 

Which is it, @Chen G.?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Chen G., since I'm confident in all of my latest 'guesses', I'll ask you directly:

 

If  there is an Episode X - and it's contents indicate to you that Rey saying that alien phrase was, indeed a deliberate anagram for "I am a Palpatine." - will you remove your signature indefinitely?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you want to see his signature, turn signatures on.

Or you could just read my previous four posts to logically figure it out.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Demodex said:

I have signatures turned off. What does his signature say?

 

Its as follows:

 

Quote

Let this be an everlasting testament, that these words were spoken unironically on this board: ROTFLMAO

 

On 12/10/2020 at 1:19 PM, Mattris said:

Rey's first words in The Force Awakens ("Tal'ama parqual!") are an anagram for "I am a Palpatine."  Some characters need to be flipped or mirrored (which form "pine", as in Pinewood Studios, where the films principal photography took place). Also, an 'r' is leftover... for "Rey".

https://youtu.be/Q4qDikRrDFQ?t=104

 

It still happens that I look at my own signature and burst into laughter over how ludicrous it is. Mattris has said a lot of crazy stuff, but he'll never top that.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

😄😄😄

6 hours ago, Mattris said:

@Chen G., since I'm confident in all of my latest 'guesses', I'll ask you directly:

 

If  there is an Episode X - and it's contents indicate to you that Rey saying that alien phrase was, indeed a deliberate anagram for "I am a Palpatine." - will you remove your signature indefinitely?

 

How the hell can it be indicated that was true?  Abrams would have to come out and say it.  I don't think Rey being a Palpatine was planned until TROS was horribly written. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 minutes ago, Demodex said:

😄😄😄

 

How the hell can it be indicated that was true?  Abrams would have to come out and say it.  I don't think Rey being a Palpatine was planned until TROS was horribly written. 

Forget it, Dem, it's Mattris Town ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oh god. I accidentally visited this twice this morning. Well, like Mark Twain said, "'Read a bat stuff crazy Star Wars post first thing in the morning and nothing worse will happen to you the rest of the day."

Link to comment
Share on other sites

12 hours ago, mrbellamy said:

Idk, considering right around the same time he was cooking up the idea that Marion should be like 12 or whatever when Indy hooked up with her, I could believe it lol. I think he was a bit of an edgelord. 

 

10 hours ago, Tallguy said:

It's clearly implied that Marion is very young "ten years ago". But 12? I know she says she was "a child" but I think that's people taking it too literally because they want to get bent out of shape. (People seem less upset that Dr. Jones was clearly romancing his students.)

 

Since Allen was 30 when Raiders came out it would stand to reason we're talking late teens when Indy would have been in his late 20s.

 

10 hours ago, Chen G. said:

In the story conferences, Lucas came up with the idea that they had an inappropriate relationship. He facetiously brought-up that she might have been 11, but then suggested a more reasonable (but still creepy) 14-15. Oddly enough, the idea wasn't immediately discarded with: Spielberg was oddly into the concept, but in the finished film its very vaguely hinted at.

 

 

The transcript of this story conference has been online for ages.  You can read exactly what they said!

 

“RAIDERS OF THE LOST ARK”
Story Conference Transcript
January 23, 1978 thru January 27, 1978
George Lucas, Steven Spielberg, Larry Kasdan

G = George Lucas

L = Lawrence Kasdan

S = Steven Spielberg

 

G — He comes in and saves her. You sort of introduce her as a damsel in distress. In the other way she's sort of a tough girl. Or you could do both. You could have him come and haggle with her, and have her say no way. “No money. No deal.” He gets sort of pissed off and goes out. He comes back later and the place is empty and they're in there torturing her.

L — The thing hasn't been worth anything up until now. So she wears it around her neck, or it's on the mantle. It's like a joke.

G — Obviously it could be something semi-precious to her because her father gave it to her. We'll assume that she did love the old coot.

L — He goes off to his room for the night. He gets up; he's going to steal it. In the interim the Germans have arrived. When he goes down to steal it, he winds up rescuing her. He stumbles into this heroic role. She could doubt his motivation from then on. “You didn't come down there to save me.”

G — We have to get them cemented into a very strong relationship. A bond.

L — I like it if they already had a relationship at one point. Because then you don't have to build it.

G — I was thinking that this old guy could have been his mentor. He could have known this little girl when she was just a kid. Had an affair with her when she was eleven.

L — And he was forty-two.

G — He hasn't seen her in twelve years. Now she's twenty-two. It's a real strange relationship.

S — She had better be older than twenty-two.

G — He's thirty-five, and he knew her ten years ago when he was twenty-five and she was only twelve.

G — It would be amusing to make her slightly young at the time.

S — And promiscuous. She came onto him.

G — Fifteen is right on the edge. I know it's an outrageous idea, but it is interesting. Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore. But if she was fifteen and he was twenty-five and they actually had an affair the last time they met. And she was madly in love with him and he…

S — She has pictures of him.

G — There would be a picture on the mantle of her, her father, and him. She was madly in love with him at the time and he left her because obviously it wouldn't work out. Now she's twenty-five and she's been living in Nepal since she was eighteen. It's not only that they like each other, it's a very bizarre thing, it puts a whole new perspective on this whole thing. It gives you lots of stuff to play off of between them. Maybe she still likes him. It's something he'd rather forget about and not have come up again. This gives her a lot of ammunition to fight with.

S — In a way, she could say, “You've made me this hard.”

G — This is a resource that you can either mine or not. It's not as blatant as we're talking about. You don't think about it that much. You don't immediately realize how old she was at the time. It would be subtle. She could talk about it. “I was jail bait the last time we were together.” She can flaunt it at him, but at the same time she never says, “I was fifteen years old.” Even if we don't mention it, when we go to cast the part we're going to end up with a woman who's about twenty-three and a hero who's about thirty- five.

 

https://indiefilmhustle.com/raiders-of-the-lost-ark-story-conference-transcript/

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Jay said:

Once she's sixteen or seventeen it's not interesting anymore.

 

Well I soundly lost that argument. Eww. I'll go with the actor's ages to define where they actually went in the film (otherwise I can't watch Raiders of the Lost Ark anymore). But wow. What is wrong with these people?!?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Harrison Ford was 38 when Raiders filming began, and he turned 39 midway through the shoot.

 

Karen Allen was 29 when Raiders was filmed

 

In 1936 when the film is set, Indy would be 37 and Marion would be either 25 or 26

 

The incident in the past they talk about in the scene took place in 1925 when Indy was 26 and Marion was 15 or 16

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's not even half of it! In a couple hours you'll get to hear how even back then Lucas was obviously planning their son, Mutt, and the aliens and whatever and whoever is in 5 that I already know. Also "This is it. This is where Forrestal cashed in." is an anagram for "Toby Jones is a time travelling Hitler" if you switch out all the letters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Holko said:

Also "This is it. This is where Forrestal cashed in." is an anagram for "Toby Jones is a time travelling Hitler" if you switch out all the letters.

 

And its true, until proven false; because logic!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, Demodex said:

How the hell can it be indicated that was true?  Abrams would have to come out and say it.  I don't think Rey being a Palpatine was planned until TROS was horribly written. 

 

I have no doubt that he - or someone at Lucasfilm - will eventually confirm it.

 

You don't think Rey being a relative/creation of Palpatine was planned because you don't know what I know.

 

4 hours ago, Chen G. said:

And its true, until proven false; because logic!

 

The 'Star Wars things I know to be true' are based in a list of consistent evidence a mile long. Logic, reason, and Occam's Razor all apply.

 

9 hours ago, Chen G. said:

It still happens that I look at my own signature and burst into laughter over how ludicrous it is. Mattris has said a lot of crazy stuff, but he'll never top that.

 

You only think this because you can't fathom that you - and so many others - could be that wrong.

 

Concluding that known mystery box writer/producer/director JJ Abrams...

 

[1]  did not have a plan for his Star Wars Saga trilogy and

[2]  did not present evidence of this (foreshadowing, metaphors, anagrams, etc.) within the films, supported by the tie-in Star Wars canon material

 

... is what I would call "ludicrous".

 

Since you, once again, avoided my direct question, I'll say what I think will be the most likely eventuality:

 

- Episode X will be released.

- It will indicate to you that Rey saying that specifically-composed alien phrase (her first words) was a deliberate anagram for "I am a Palpatine."

- You will not remove your current signature.

- Your behavior will be an example of pride, regardless of what you say or what others think of you.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, blondheim said:

"Feeeed the trolls, tuppence a bag..."

 

What do you get when you feed the trolls? Fat trolls! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 hours ago, Mattris said:

You don't think Rey being a relative/creation of Palpatine was planned because you don't know what I know

 

If you truly know something please tell me what it is that we are all missing except for you. Message me if you want. But until you tell me what it is that is so elusive to the rest of us, kindly shut the fuck up. Please. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Demodex. Just for you, here is a list of things you clearly haven't learned yet:

 

1.  I will never message you under any circumstance. (I already told you this.)

2.  The less I am spoken to - or about - the less likely I am to post.

3.  If you don't want to see my posts, you can avoid this thread... or just hide my posts.

4.  Anything I choose present will be on my own terms - not because of anyone's demands or impatience.

5.  The more rudeness I receive, the less likely I am to share what "elusive" things I think are on the horizon.

 

If you have nothing of substance to contribute, kindly follow your own suggestion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

6 hours ago, Mattris said:

2.  The less I am spoken to - or about - the less likely I am to post.

 

Your heard him, boys! 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, Demodex said:

I can't wait for all of the secrets to be revealed to all us peons that are currently unworthy of such enlightenment.

 

As unwise, undeserving peons, you must wait to be enlightened.

 

But not as long as you might think.  ;)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines.