Star Wars Disenchantment

[Manakin Skywalker 4,897]

1 hour ago, Mattris said:

What was the 'good idea for a story that eventually came to fruition'?

Do you blame the man for bargaining a profitable deal on the Star Wars merchandising?

Do you think he's happy in his retirement?

 

The very first film. No I don't blame him, but you asked why George Lucas created it; He created it because he had some good ideas, then realized he could make bank with them. Do I think he's happy? No clue, but I'm pretty happy when I eat greasy food. 

[Tallguy 3,398]

6 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

I personally don't buy the explanation that only after the runaway success of the original film did Lucas become so business oriented. Lucas was always a filmmaker who had an eye for the buck: that's why he made a film with the commercial potential of Star Wars, that's why he took over merchandizing, that's why he bargained for sequel rights, that's why - once merchandizing rights were secured - he had Luke play with a spaceship toy in the foreground of a shot.

 

As for how The Empire Strikes Back would looked with less money: give Splinter of the Mind's Eye a spin...

 

You'd think he'd have sold me that damn toy I'd that was the case. Because I sure as hell wanted one. (The skyhopper became available in the late 90's, right?) 

 

I'm not asking what it would look like with more money. I'm asking what it would look like if Lucas wasn't "selling toys". 

[mstrox 6,651]

7 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

, that's why - once merchandizing rights were secured - he had Luke play with a spaceship toy in the foreground of a shot.

...

Would love to see a source for that cause/effect!

[Mattris 416]

6 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

The very first film. No I don't blame him, but you asked why George Lucas created it; He created it because he had some good ideas, then realized he could make bank with them. Do I think he's happy? No clue, but I'm pretty happy when I eat greasy food. 

 

- What were these "good ideas"?  Good guys (space) battling the bad guys, with an energy field providing certain people with special powers?

- From the outset, what do you think George Lucas intended for the story of Star Wars?

- Lucas claims that prequel and sequel episodes were always intended to complete his grand story of the Saga.  Do you believe him?

- Do you think the overall story was altered with TESB, ROTJ, the prequel trilogy, or the sequel trilogy?

 

Again, open to everyone.

[Manakin Skywalker 4,897]

25 minutes ago, Mattris said:

- Lucas claims that prequel and sequel episodes were always intended to complete his grand story of the Saga.  Do you believe him?

 

He wanted to do 12 films, so he says, then condensed it to 9, then 6. Plans change. He had absolutely no intention on continuing on after Revenge of the Sith once the prequels were finished.

 

27 minutes ago, Mattris said:

- Do you think the overall story was altered with TESB, ROTJ, the prequel trilogy, or the sequel trilogy?

 

The original story itself was heavily altered. I.e. the original draft, which we also now have in comic form. TESB itself was also a potential path forward, if the first film did well. If it didn't, then Splinter of the Mind's Eye was to be a low-budget sequel. Point is, George and his plans are constantly in flux and change at the drop of a pin.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

He wanted to do 12 films, so he says, then condensed it to 9, then 6. Plans change.

 

Before the first film was out, he talked (privately) about two sequels and a possible prequel. So the development of the concept was:

 

December 1975-August 1977: Four films.

 

August 1977-March 1978: multiple films, beginning with a trilogy.

 

March-April 1978: Twelve-film anthology, possibly beginning with a trilogy.

 

April 1978-December 1978: Twelve films, including two trilogies: "The Star Wars" trilogy (episodes 6, 7, 8) and "Clone Wars trilogy" (episodes 2, 3 and 4).

 

January 1979-Late 1980: Nominally, three trilogies, including a prequel trilogy.

Late 1980-2012: Six films.

 

2012 going forward: Nine films.

 

In each case, pretty much the only thing "planned" was the number of entries, not the contents of the entries.

[crocodile 8,017]

1 hour ago, Mattris said:

 

- What were these "good ideas"?  Good guys (space) battling the bad guys, with an energy field providing certain people with special powers?

- From the outset, what do you think George Lucas intended for the story of Star Wars?

- Lucas claims that prequel and sequel episodes were always intended to complete his grand story of the Saga.  Do you believe him?

- Do you think the overall story was altered with TESB, ROTJ, the prequel trilogy, or the sequel trilogy?

 

Again, open to everyone.

 

 

Karol

[Mattris 416]

On 11/12/2022 at 1:02 AM, Manakin Skywalker said:

He wanted to do 12 films, so he says, then condensed it to 9, then 6. Plans change. He had absolutely no intention on continuing on after Revenge of the Sith once the prequels were finished.

 

Since George Lucas had a habit of constantly changing what he said about this subject, how can you possibly know the man's true intentions regarding the story and how many episodes it was originally intended to be... and can still be?

 

Do you think George Lucas had a plan for the grander story of the Saga?  From your point of view, does that story remain to this day?  And you still haven't told me what you think...

 

What is the story of the Star Wars Saga?

 

How can the story be competently conveyed with only Episodes I through VI when nothing about the IP's lore was sufficiently explained within those 6 films?  For instance:

 

- What was the origin of the Force? Was the Force discovered? If so, how?

- Truly, what is the Force?  Is it "an energy field", like a magnetic field?

- How does the Force work?

- How is nature affected by the Force?

- Does the Force provide special powers to only certain sentient individuals?

- Can all living things 'access' the Force... or do living beings create the Force, as (defeated) Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi thought?

- How does one 'use the Force'?

- Why does the Force seem to fail/support individuals/groups at particular/crucial times?

- What does it mean to be on the 'light side' or 'dark side' of the Force?  Are these separate facets of a single 'Force'... or merely invented terms, reflective of the mental state or intent of the individual user?  What defines light/dark or good/bad?  Is the light side always good, and the dark side always bad?

- What are the circumstances of the creation of the Jedi Order/religion... and the Sith, mentioned in the novelization?

- If the Jedi Order was so utterly defeated, why should anyone trust what any surviving Jedi Knights have to say about 'the ways of the Force'?  This includes Kenobi and Yoda's instruction/training of Luke Skywalker.

 

Actually, these are just some of the major, basic questions that the Star Wars audience should have been asking after just the original film.  Throughout the subsequent 5 installments, many additional, significant matters/questions were left unexplained and unresolved... and now - with many more concepts/characters introduced throughout the canon - still unexplained after 9 episodes.  But you so confidently assume George Lucas considers/considered the story 100% complete at just 6... why?

 

On 11/12/2022 at 1:02 AM, Manakin Skywalker said:

The original story itself was heavily altered. I.e. the original draft, which we also now have in comic form. TESB itself was also a potential path forward, if the first film did well. If it didn't, then Splinter of the Mind's Eye was to be a low-budget sequel. Point is, George and his plans are constantly in flux and change at the drop of a pin.

 

What does the publicly-available "original draft" have to do with the canon story?  Wouldn't the 1976 official novelization contain more-relevant insight?  For over two decades, George Lucas claimed credit for having personally written it.

 

Do you think TESB was written only once the original film had become a great success?  Or do you think its basic story progression was planned when Lucas created the Saga?

 

How can you be so sure that "George and his plans are constantly in flux and change at the drop of a pin"?  What real evidence do you have?  An early draft and completely-dropped spin-off story (not written by Lucas) are extremely weak pieces evidence of anything substantive, if you ask me.  Over 45 years later, I would say that those non-canon volumes are all but useless  for the getting to the heart of Star Wars.

 

And finally, along the lines of my deeper consideration...

 

Can you even remotely fathom that this persistent controversy and uncertainty surrounding Star Wars - continuing to this day, stronger than ever - was by design:  purposeful deception and distraction, conceived and led by none other than George Lucas from the very beginning, with the audience-perceived chaos only being realized as part of the storytelling... once the story reaches its final phase and truly concludes?

 

Now wouldn't that  be something?

 

 

Again, open to everyone.

[enderdrag64 624]

On 26/11/2022 at 1:51 AM, Groovygoth666 said:

  

- Jabba being human

Tiny correction but I don't believe this was ever a change of intentions - from what I've read Jabba was always meant to be an alien of some kind - the scene was cut from the film because the special effect for it couldn't be realistically finished on time, the human was always just a placeholder.

[Chen G. 3,949]

44 minutes ago, enderdrag64 said:

Tiny correction but I don't believe this was ever a change of intentions - from what I've read Jabba was always meant to be an alien of some kind

 

Nope. All the script has to say about Jabba is that:

 

Quote

Jabba is the grossest of the salivering hulks and his scarred face is a grim testimonial to his prowess as a vicious killer.

 

Jabba was cast and costumed and indeed photographed as a human: the Jabba scene was shot in 35mm, not VistaVision required for compositing special effects.

 

The idea of making him an alien may have been made around July 1977, but more likely once Lucas set-up Jabba again in The Empire Strikes Back and was looking to put him back into the film for the 1981 rerelease.

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

19 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I personally don't buy the explanation that only after the runaway success of the original film did Lucas become so business oriented. Lucas was always a filmmaker who had an eye for the buck: that's why he made a film with the commercial potential of Star Wars, that's why he took over merchandizing, that's why he bargained for sequel rights, that's presumably why - once merchandizing rights were secured - he had Luke play with a spaceship toy in the foreground of a shot.

 

George's primary motivation was getting independence from the studio system. He hated the idea of studio bosses interfering with his artistry.  When he got his freedom relatively early on, he became a rebel without a cause, and so he did what rebels do...he rebelled. This time against the only other group who tried to control what he did...the fans.

 

 

[Mattris 416]

George Lucas was a rebel with a cause: telling the story he wanted, in the way he wanted.

 

What did/do the majority of Star Wars fans want from Star Wars?  Do you think George Lucas (eventually) gave his audience something else?  Do you think that, in recent years, Lucasfilm has been giving the audience something else?

[DarthDementous 1,059]

12 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

Jabba was cast and costumed and indeed photographed as a human: the Jabba scene was shot in 35mm, not VistaVision required for compositing special effects.

What’s VistaVision, and why was it necessary for compositing special effects at the time?

[Faleel 5,355]

12 hours ago, Chen G. said:

 

 

The idea of making him an alien may have been made around July 1977,

The marvel comic adaptation has him as an alien.

 

[greenturnedblue 372]

I always found it odd that Han calls Jabba a wonderful human being

[Brando 1,864]

1 hour ago, greenturnedblue said:

I always found it odd that Han calls Jabba a wonderful human being

Harrison wasn't technically wrong

[Chen G. 3,949]

7 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

What’s VistaVision, and why was it necessary for compositing special effects at the time?

 

Optical compositing results in generational loss of picture quality, so they're shot on a larger format to offset it: Star Wars used VistaVision (basically, 35mm in "landscape mode") while Close Encounters of the Third Kind used 65mm; 2001 used large-format still photographs.

 

If the Jabba scene was planned to use special effects, it would have been shot on that format. It wasn't, because Jabba was going to be human: they went to the bother of casting an actor and putting him in a costume because they had no notion of him being anything other than a human.

 

Heck, stop-motion wasn't something that was going to be used on the production until pickups in later 1977, and all the testimony is that when a stop-motion department was installed, all its efforts were directed towards the cantina sequence and the Falcon's chessboard.

[Groovygoth666 670]

21 hours ago, enderdrag64 said:

Tiny correction but I don't believe this was ever a change of intentions - from what I've read Jabba was always meant to be an alien of some kind - the scene was cut from the film because the special effect for it couldn't be realistically finished on time, the human was always just a placeholder.

 

As @Chen G. said, the scene wasn't filmed in a way that would work for adding stop motion later, things like plates, background shots etc weren't filmed, the fact Han and Jabba are walking too close and touching at several points and Han walks around behind Jabba, which was even a major headache for ILM when adding the scene back in for the special editions. That an actor was cast and a costume was designed and made, if the intent was to add something over him, they'd just used someone in normal clothes. Also there aren't any designs out there that predate 1980 that I'm aware of, which if the plan was to always add a stop motion character would have needed to been done. And of course Hans line "Jabba you're a wonderful human being", meant to be ironic in the sense he's not wonderful, not that he isn't human.

 

George decided to change Jabba to an alien sometime after filming but by the time the Marvel comic @Clockwork Angelbrings up, as the writers on that were told to make Jabba an alien but not shown any designs so picked one of the cantina ones -

Note in that comic they dropped the "wonderful human being" line as well.

[Tallguy 3,398]

1 hour ago, Chen G. said:

 

Optical compositing results in generational loss of picture quality, so they're shot on a larger format to offset it: Star Wars used VistaVision (basically, 35mm in "landscape mode") while Close Encounters of the Third Kind used 65mm; 2001 used large-format still photographs.

 

If the Jabba scene was planned to use special effects, it would have been shot on that format. It wasn't, because Jabba was going to be human: they went to the bother of casting an actor and putting him in a costume because they had no notion of him being anything other than a human.

 

Heck, stop-motion wasn't something that was going to be used on the production until pickups in later 1977, and all the testimony is that when a stop-motion department was installed, all its efforts were directed towards the cantina sequence and the Falcon's chessboard.

 

Never mind the fact that if the shot was going to use special effects it would have been locked off. Which it wasn't.

 

It's really astonishing the lengths that Lucas has gone to flat out lie about this. I mean, not bending the truth but balls out lying about it. And WHY?!?

[Chen G. 3,949]

6 minutes ago, Tallguy said:

It's really astonishing the lengths that Lucas has gone to flat out lie about this.

 

Pfff, that isn't the half of it!

 

In November 1979, Lucas produced a doctored version of the script, which now (for the first time) carries the "Episode IV: A New Hope" headline, is dated to January 1976, edited to resemble the finished film but also includes the Jabba scene, but now with the additional description (that kinda makes Jabba seem like a proto-Jar Jar) that reads:

 

Quote

 Jabba is the grossest of the slavering hulks and his scarred face is a grim testimonial to his prowess as a vicious killer. He is a fat, slug-like creature with eyes on extended feelers and a huge ugly mouth.

 

I think the motivation is clear, however risible it may be: the idea that its all "part of a plan" was important to Lucas on several different levels. One is the artistic level: Western art had always prized the idea of unity and so the idea that a film series like Star Wars should have the unity of chapters from one novels rather than being a picaresque series of isolated epiosdes.

 

Another is the idea that its not done with the eye on the buck: that Lucas wanted to make a two-hour film, it grew in the telling to a huge story outline that necessitated multiple entries and that he's only completing those entries to finish it and will then promptly return to making "experimental, non-narrative, visual tone-poems."

[Mattris 416]

"He is a fat, slug-like creature" is also found in the Star Wars script entitled 'Revised Fourth Draft, January 15, 1976'.

 

The Star Wars  novelization (published November 1976) describes Jabba as follows:

 

"A great mobile tub of muscle and suet topped by a shaggy scarred skull..."

 

 

George Lucas' vision for Jabba the Hutt is clear: The character was envisioned as a slug. Since time, budget, and technology didn't allow for a convincing practical/special effects non-human, a human was cast for the scene... which was crucially cut from the film, allowing Jabba to be first shown as a non-human creature in subsequent installments, as time, budget, and technology did  allow.

 

As we all know, filming the first Jabba scene with a human (stand-in) actor allowed the character to be replaced later with advanced computer graphics. Perhaps it was always Lucas' intention to complete the scene in the future, as technology allowed. (It certainly wouldn't be the first or only time he tinkered with his Star Wars films many years after the original production.)

 

And in doing so, another Scottish accent in the film was replaced!

 

2 hours ago, Chen G. said:

I think the motivation is clear, however risible it may be: the idea that its all "part of a plan" was important to Lucas on several different levels. One is the artistic level: Western art had always prized the idea of unity and so the idea that a film series like Star Wars should have the unity of chapters from one novels rather than being a picaresque series of isolated epiosdes.

 

Another is the idea that its not done with the eye on the buck: that Lucas wanted to make a two-hour film, it grew in the telling to a huge story outline that necessitated multiple entries and that he's only completing those entries to finish it and will then promptly return to making "experimental, non-narrative, visual tone-poems."

 

Indeed, the idea that "its all part of a plan" was important to George Lucas. That's why he had a plan and stuck to it.  The existence of this plan can be seen by noticing and properly interpreting countless literal excerpts from the novelizations, scripts, and, of course, the films themselves. Context matters, as does assessing this story on its own terms. Audience expectations of 'fan wish fulfillment' or 'escapism' run antithetical to George Lucas' stated intent for the story and themes: Star Wars is an allegory.

 

Any assumption that Star Wars started as "a two-hour film" that subsequently "grew" into something originally unintended will be proven to have been born out of pure ignorance, shortsightedness, and severe underestimation.

 

Of course, Star Wars' huge story outline necessitated multiple entries to finish it. Otherwise, the original two-hour film would have left its audience without explanation of the lore or satisfying finality.

 

On its own, the original STAR WARS film is a fantasy story featuring a naïve, adventure-seeking farm boy who saved a rebel alliance base from destruction with help from his new friends and magic powers... magic powers that the boy learned about mere hours before his big moment.

 

There was always more to the story... and there still is.

[greenturnedblue 372]

What are some examples of these "countless excerpts" ?

[Manakin Skywalker 4,897]

13 hours ago, Mattris said:

Any assumption that Star Wars started as "a two-hour film" that subsequently "grew" into something originally unintended will be proven to have been born out of pure ignorance, shortsightedness, and severe underestimation.

 

That would be physically impossible without a time machine.

[Chen G. 3,949]

9 hours ago, Manakin Skywalker said:

That would be physically impossible without a time machine.

Oh, Mr. Mattris isn't one to let such technicalities stop him!

[Mattris 416]

It's not about me, Chen.  It's about what Lucasfilm have in the works.

 

I'm just perceptive enough to have eventually realized that the evidence of the grand plan for Star Wars has been right in front of us from the very beginning. The original film, 1976 novelization, and 1976 script contain a great many things, things that directly - and literally - led to many more as the story proceeded. The masses just don't know where to look, how to look... or that they even should  be looking.

 

Also, it should be expected that George Lucas documented his research that led to the creation of Star Wars, as well as how the story came together... and where it was always leading. Some of this documentation (insightful writings, interviews, behind the scenes videos, etc.) is currently available and has been for years or decades.

 

Once the story has concluded... looking back on it all... and if one knows how to properly discern what happened - and how Lucasfilm did it - there will be no denying reality:

 

Star Wars was planned. The audience was played as fools.

 

 

A relevant excerpt from The Last Jedi  novelization:

 

"Snoke's eyes glittered with feral amusement. Few things were more entertaining than an opponent who mistook a little bit of information for the entire picture. Their downfalls were so much more satisfying - provided that before the end, they were confronted by the sheer scope of their folly and failure."

[Giftheck 916]

[Brando 1,864]

12 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Oh, Mr. Mattris isn't one to let such technicalities stop him!

This is one of the funniest things I've seen on JWFan in a little while

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

 

On 13/12/2022 at 7:36 AM, Mattris said:

Star Wars was planned. The audience was played as fools.

 

Well, at least one of them anyway.

[Mattris 416]

Indeed, @Nick1Ø66. Trust that you are "one of them".

 

With the questions I posed above (that hit to the very heart of the Star Wars lore) and throughout hundreds of posts on this forum, I have shown that I'm aware of the sheer scope of what has not been confirmed in the films or in the rest of the Star Wars canon. I've been proven right about major theories/predictions and made many intriguing observations, backed up with film/canon evidence.

 

What have you shown or theorized?

 

Have you accepted Star Wars as 'complete' and a good story without definitive answers to most - or any - of those questions above? Have you ever pondered possible answers to them? Have those-type questions even occurred to you?

 

Again, open to everyone.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

12 hours ago, Mattris said:

Indeed, @Nick1Ø66. Trust that you are "one of them".

 

With the questions I posed above (that hit to the very heart of the Star Wars lore) and throughout hundreds of posts on this forum, I have shown that I'm aware of the sheer scope of what has not been confirmed in the films or in the rest of the Star Wars canon. I've been proven right about major theories/predictions and made many intriguing observations, backed up with film/canon evidence.

 

What have you shown or theorized?

 

Have you accepted Star Wars as 'complete' and a good story without definitive answers to most - or any - of those questions above? Have you ever pondered possible answers to them? Have those-type questions even occurred to you?

 

Again, open to everyone.

I normally like to look at things holistically, however when it comes to concepts and themes that have multiple interpretations I find it far more interesting to acknowledge the different authors and thus the different perspectives behind them so I can look at how everything is in conversation with itself. If I accepted there was a singular vision behind everything then I lose that granularity of analysis and have to accept differing interpretations as contradiction instead of a conversation which I find far less interesting and also destabilizing to the franchise as a whole.

For example, Knights of the Old Republic 2 keeps fairly close to the facts established by Lucas' Star Wars movies. However, it's perspective and treatment of things such as the Force, the Jedi, and the Sith comes from a wildly different angle. Instead of seeing this as incongruent with Lucas' vision, I instead look at it from the basis of this is Lucas' Star Wars viewed from a different lens.

A lot of these concepts are philosophical in nature after all, so it feels far more appropriate to approach it in a philosophical manner where you look at it in terms of different schools of thought on the same idea, as opposed to finding one unified vision which is impossible with so many incompatibilities between said schools of thought.

[artguy360 1,843]

On 12/12/2022 at 11:36 PM, Mattris said:

It's not about me, Chen.  It's about what Lucasfilm have in the works.

 

I'm just perceptive enough to have eventually realized that the evidence of the grand plan for Star Wars has been right in front of us from the very beginning. The original film, 1976 novelization, and 1976 script contain a great many things, things that directly - and literally - led to many more as the story proceeded. The masses just don't know where to look, how to look... or that they even should  be looking.

 

Also, it should be expected that George Lucas documented his research that led to the creation of Star Wars, as well as how the story came together... and where it was always leading. Some of this documentation (insightful writings, interviews, behind the scenes videos, etc.) is currently available and has been for years or decades.

 

Once the story has concluded... looking back on it all... and if one knows how to properly discern what happened - and how Lucasfilm did it - there will be no denying reality:

 

Star Wars was planned. The audience was played as fools.

 

 

A relevant excerpt from The Last Jedi  novelization:

 

"Snoke's eyes glittered with feral amusement. Few things were more entertaining than an opponent who mistook a little bit of information for the entire picture. Their downfalls were so much more satisfying - provided that before the end, they were confronted by the sheer scope of their folly and failure."

Doesn't Snoke get cut in half because he was paying attention to the wrong thing?

[Mattris 416]

Snoke assumed the lightsaber he sensed being turned to "strike true" was the one in Kylo Ren's hand. But it was the lightsaber unseen - that he had deliberately placed himself - that Kylo used against him.

 

Snoke thought he was an old, knowledgeable, wise being... in complete control of the situation at hand. But in actuality, Snoke knew only what he had been programmed to think.  And just moments after he had those grandiose thoughts of being such a 'supreme leader', his part in the story had come to an end.

 

Like Palpatine said, "It's ironic."

 

20 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

I normally like to look at things holistically, however when it comes to concepts and themes that have multiple interpretations I find it far more interesting to acknowledge the different authors and thus the different perspectives behind them so I can look at how everything is in conversation with itself. If I accepted there was a singular vision behind everything then I lose that granularity of analysis and have to accept differing interpretations as contradiction instead of a conversation which I find far less interesting and also destabilizing to the franchise as a whole.

For example, Knights of the Old Republic 2 keeps fairly close to the facts established by Lucas' Star Wars movies. However, it's perspective and treatment of things such as the Force, the Jedi, and the Sith comes from a wildly different angle. Instead of seeing this as incongruent with Lucas' vision, I instead look at it from the basis of this is Lucas' Star Wars viewed from a different lens.

A lot of these concepts are philosophical in nature after all, so it feels far more appropriate to approach it in a philosophical manner where you look at it in terms of different schools of thought on the same idea, as opposed to finding one unified vision which is impossible with so many incompatibilities between said schools of thought.

 

If there wasn't - and still isn't - "a singular vision behind everything", I would have to conclude that Star Wars is a fairly lame IP, at least from a narrative and thematic perspective. I wouldn't see the point in being a fan or supporter of such a loose-ended, inconsistent, or (morally) ambiguous 'philosophical' story: With the help of family, friends, and mysterious special powers, the good guys battled and eventually destroyed (violently killed) the bad guys with special powers.

 

After the original film, perhaps the subsequent (and now vast array of) additional canon volumes of Star Wars are necessary - or at least contributing - parts of a larger, single story... one in which "the different authors" don't have "different perspectives", only the task of telling the story from the points of view of the story's various characters.  So yes, "everything is in conversation with itself" by way of the characters and their interactions, conflicts, adventures, plights, etc. - not from multiple writers with "different schools of thought on the same idea", each with a "different lens".

 

Could you expand on what you meant by "incompatibilities" between schools of thought? Do you perceive some Star Wars volumes incompatible with others?

 

Regarding the audience's interpretation of Star Wars, perhaps a more-measured, holistic approach would have been wise. It certainly would have been wise concerning the IP's creation.

 

Stories aimed at a wide audience - like Star Wars - shouldn't be that complicated, nor should their narrative and themes 'change' at some point in the story. If Star Wars is a good story, the audience's "multiple interpretations" are likely wrong, except one.

 

I don't see how finally defining the Star Wars lore and finishing the larger story in a conclusive and worthy fashion could be "destabilizing to the franchise as a whole". Shouldn't it have the opposite affect? I suppose it depends on what comprises the lore, how the story concludes, and one's definition of "worthy".

 

In this story - at least so far - the Sith and Jedi appeared to have vastly different schools of thought, especially concerning their actions towards others... and even themselves. But fundamentally, were the Sith and Jedi really that different? Both sought power to use for their own means and ends. (Palpatine made this very point in ROTS as part of his seduction of Anakin, one in which he said that classifying the goodness of one's thoughts and deeds depends on one's point of view.)

 

And from my point of view, that very concept is central to the overarching themes and narrative of Star Wars.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

Okay my bad, I forgot how this worked. I was expecting a conversation but instead I get a twisting of my words just so you can preach to me some more about your view of the franchise.

[Mattris 416]

How did I twist your words? Responding to me, you stated your view of the franchise. I responded to your points and, within the expansion of my views, asked a couple of follow-up questions.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

15 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

Okay my bad, I forgot how this worked. I was expecting a conversation but instead I get a twisting of my words just so you can preach to me some more

 

Some people think that's how conversations work.

[Mattris 416]

@DarthDementous: Directly responding to your points because I wanted to understand your position, I asked a couple of questions. Answering them will move the conversation forward. Getting offended and giving up will not.

[DarthDementous 1,059]

I’ve done this rigamarole so many times with you by now mate, there is no moving forward because you are remarkably stubborn. I’d be better off convincing a brick wall to fall over

[Mattris 416]

Having "done this rigamarole so many times" with me, you weren't really "expecting a conversation", were you, @DarthDementous? It was really a debate... that you gave up on... not for the first time, if I remember correctly.

 

You've shared your views on Star Wars, just as I have. But labelling me as "stubborn" is inappropriate, I think. The reality is, no one on this forum has been able to provide factual/logical/canonical evidence to give me a legitimate reason to think differently about Star Wars.

 

And why should I? I've already been proven right about major theories (citing canon evidence) in spite of so many here having laughed at, doubted, and dismissed my certain point of view.

 

For a short time, the derision resided. But it quickly came back, and as far as being vocal on this forum, I remain alone in my assessment of Star Wars. Fine. But let's be real: I'm on much firmer ground in calling you stubborn for not seriously considering my views and theories.

 

Perhaps my astute points and hard-hitting follow-up questions are causing you to think differently, and it's why you accused me of 'preaching'. Regardless, you've excused yourself from the debate.

 

Not a problem. I'll just move forward without you.

[blondheim 1,157]

Some movement forward would be nice.

[mstrox 6,651]

Yes we’ve been at the first stage of grief for like three years now.

[Chen G. 3,949]

13 hours ago, Mattris said:

labelling me as "stubborn" is inappropriate, I think

 

Is it though?

[Nick1Ø66 4,718]

17 hours ago, Mattris said:

labelling me as "stubborn" is inappropriate, I think

Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?

[Tallguy 3,398]

40 minutes ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?

 

Wait! Are you saying that you can leave a garrison here?

[Mattris 416]

18 hours ago, mstrox said:

Yes we’ve been at the first stage of grief for like three years now.

 

What exactly are we grieving?

 

17 hours ago, Chen G. said:

Is it though?

 

Yes, I explained why.

 

14 hours ago, Nick1Ø66 said:

Perhaps you think you are being treated unfairly?

 

No, I just think most here aren't taking me seriously. I'd advise my critics to set aside their pride and reconsider what I - and Lucasfilm - have brought to the Star Wars table. The evidence and reasoning supports my position and theories.

 

@Nick1Ø66, do you think Star Wars is treating its audience unfairly?

[Schilkeman 964]

On 11/12/2022 at 4:26 AM, Mattris said:

- What was the origin of the Force? Was the Force discovered? If so, how?

- Truly, what is the Force?  Is it "an energy field", like a magnetic field?

- How does the Force work?

- How is nature affected by the Force?

- Does the Force provide special powers to only certain sentient individuals?

- Can all living things 'access' the Force... or do living beings create the Force, as (defeated) Jedi Master Obi-Wan Kenobi thought?

- How does one 'use the Force'?

- Why does the Force seem to fail/support individuals/groups at particular/crucial times?

- What does it mean to be on the 'light side' or 'dark side' of the Force?  Are these separate facets of a single 'Force'... or merely invented terms, reflective of the mental state or intent of the individual user?  What defines light/dark or good/bad?  Is the light side always good, and the dark side always bad?

- What are the circumstances of the creation of the Jedi Order/religion... and the Sith, mentioned in the novelization?

- If the Jedi Order was so utterly defeated, why should anyone trust what any surviving Jedi Knights have to say about 'the ways of the Force'?  This includes Kenobi and Yoda's instruction/training of Luke Skywalker.

Star Wars isn't  allegory, though, it's (faux) history, like Lord of the Rings. Most of the questions you pose have answers in the text (not even subtext) of the films, with a couple being clarified by The Clone Wars. No need for novelizations, or spin-offs, or sequels. The only answers not directly or indirectly given by the scripts of the first six films are to these questions

- Can all living things 'access' the Force... or do living beings create the Force (not sure these would be mutually exclusive, also not sure why Obi-Wan being "defeated" would make any difference to what he said.)

- If the Jedi Order was so utterly defeated, why should anyone trust what any surviving Jedi Knights have to say about 'the ways of the Force'?  This includes Kenobi and Yoda's instruction/training of Luke Skywalker. (Why wouldn't they trust them? What purpose would it serve to put false claims about the force into a character's mouth, and then never refute them. This question makes no sense.)

 

Surely, someone with your intense and refined analytical sense could answer these questions satisfactorily without resorting to the debasement of watching the ST. 

 

[Mattris 416]

I disagree, @Schilkeman. George Lucas has been quite clear about Star Wars being an allegory, especially within interviews during the time the prequels were being produced/released. He has mentioned the facets of human emotions (light/dark side), the repercussions/rewards of one's choices, generational/familial issues, political commentary, etc.

 

In the original film, Obi-Wan Kenobi made it clear that he had been part of a group of "guardians of peace and justice in the galaxy" who were "hunted down" and made "all but extinct" by the Empire. The validity of what Obi-Wan and Yoda said to Luke (especially concerning 'the ways of the Force') should be in question because they - and the rest of the Jedi Order - didn't understand the Force. This harsh reality was confirmed by none other than Obi-Wan in the Revenge of the Sith  novelization. (And let's not forget that Obi-Wan infamously lied to Luke about his father.)

 

"What purpose would it serve...?"  To make a more interesting story, of course.

 

Merely being able to fathom plausible answers to my list of important "questions satisfactorily without resorting to the debasement of watching the ST" wasn't my point. Most Star Wars fans have probably come up with answers for their own head canon.

 

My point was that definitive answers to those questions have not been confirmed in the official Star Wars canon. We have only been presented with various assumptions and points of view from almost every major character throughout the story.

 

But if you think you've found "answers in the text (not even subtext) of the films, with a couple being clarified by The Clone Wars", I'm all ears.

[Chen G. 3,949]

1 hour ago, Schilkeman said:

Surely, someone with your intense and refined analytical sense

 

This thread continues to be full of surprises.

[Schilkeman 964]

53 minutes ago, Chen G. said:

This thread continues to be full of surprises.

I was being sarcastic, if that wasn't clear.

 

1 hour ago, Mattris said:

didn't understand the Force.

In what ways did the Jedi not understand the force?

 

“I love history, so while the psychological basis of 'Star Wars' is mythological, the political and social bases are historical” George Lucas

1 hour ago, Mattris said:

My point was that definitive answers to those questions have not been confirmed in the official Star Wars canon. We have only been presented with various assumptions and points of view from almost every major character throughout the story.

 

Would you have preferred George stop the movie for 15-20 minutes and appear on-screen to dictate these points to us? All of them are answered in the script, as written, without need of novelizations, or EU material. I need not hear George tell me what the force is. Obi-Wan tells me what the force is. All of the characters do, through action and dialog. The formation and origins of the Jedi are clear, if you think about the Jedi's relationship to the senate. The use, power and proliferation of force users and usage is clear by examining the Jedi's role in the Clone Wars. Etc, etc, etc

[Mattris 416]

10 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

I was being sarcastic, if that wasn't clear.

 

Going off my many (wordy) posts in this thread, what's very "clear" is my "intense and refined analytical sense". Most  here just think I'm reading too much into it and giving George Lucas and Lucasfilm undue credit.

 

10 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

In what ways did the Jedi not understand the force?

 

In all ways. To the Jedi, the Force was merely special powers that eventually failed them at the most crucial time.

 

10 hours ago, Schilkeman said:

Would you have preferred George stop the movie for 15-20 minutes and appear on-screen to dictate these points to us? All of them are answered in the script, as written, without need of novelizations, or EU material. I need not hear George tell me what the force is. Obi-Wan tells me what the force is. All of the characters do, through action and dialog. The formation and origins of the Jedi are clear, if you think about the Jedi's relationship to the senate. The use, power and proliferation of force users and usage is clear by examining the Jedi's role in the Clone Wars. Etc, etc, etc

 

George Lucas has been very clear that his intention for Star Wars was to convey life lessons by way of a story - not through dictation or preaching. How the story transpired (chronologically) should have made it abundantly clear that 'the ways of the Force' were left unexplained, and therefore, the story was left unresolved. (But George didn't present the story chronologically, did he? What an interesting story-telling choice... and I say, devious.)

 

With Star Wars, I have concluded that George Lucas created and designed his story very carefully, then challenged his audience to be more discerning in their interpretation of it, that is, if they were to have any hope of interpreting it properly. It should go without saying, but I do not think the majority of the audience passed the test. To quote Snoke, they "assumed... wrongly".

 

What "action and dialog" explained the Force, its origins, and how it worked? How did 'Force users' get and 'use the Force'? Thousands of generations prior to Episode I, what were the origins of the Jedi Order and the Sith? All of these major facets of Star Wars were absolutely not presented clearly or confirmed in the films. I'm aware that the non-film material addresses the origins of the Jedi and Sith... but next to nothing about the Force, certainly nothing that adds to the narrative or themes in an on-the-nose/meaningful way. And you should know by now that, in a story like this, a character saying something doesn't make it true. It's just their point of view.

 

But again, if you think these matters of the Star Wars lore have been confirmed and have resolved the story, could you please show me the evidence?

[DarthDementous 1,059]

14 hours ago, Mattris said:

The validity of what Obi-Wan and Yoda said to Luke (especially concerning 'the ways of the Force') should be in question because they - and the rest of the Jedi Order - didn't understand the Force. This harsh reality was confirmed by none other than Obi-Wan in the Revenge of the Sith  novelization.

No it wasn’t. Obi Wan never said that the Jedi Order didn’t understand the ways of the Force in that novel. He says that (paraphrasing) “he was never quite accustomed to the way the Force would suddenly come to him”

 

You won’t budge on your perspective or entertain others but I can still refute the facts you present so people who aren’t the wiser aren’t led astray