Sign In

ToscheStation

User Group
Trusted Members
Join date
5-Aug-2011
Last activity
7-Nov-2017
Posts
86

Post History

Post
#1126917
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

Jim Smith said:

Yep, Georgie boy was definitely making things up as he went along. He never should’ve fired Gary Kurtz. ** Return of the Jedi was originally going to be about as dark as The Empire Strikes Back but George scrapped that idea much to my chagrin. Instead they went with the version of episode 6 that follows a lot of the same beats as episode 4 does. ** It’s also quite similar to episode 7. Too much repetition in this saga if ya ask me.

** If we’re going to bring up changing premises, it’s only fair to bring up the fact that the premise(s) of Empire Strikes Back/“Star Wars II” changed almost half-way into the writing process. As per the story treatment and first draft, ESB wasn’t going to leave so many loose ends as the film did. Han doesn’t get frozen in carbonite, and Luke successfully faces his “trial” - i.e. refuses to join Vader and the dark side - and is a Jedi Knight by the end of the story. Thus, the third film wouldn’t have needed to resolve what the second film left unresolved (and no need to stretch the OT’s story into nine episodes).

This post has been edited.

Post
#1123249
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

dahmage said:

But, they DID go beyond just one film, we all have seen it.

Yes, and they were only able to do so (successfully, I might add) because Lucas and co. introduced - or rather, re-introduced - connections (yes, familial) between the characters that made it more…breathable…instead of the somewhat ‘claustrophobic’ feel of the original film within the stand-alone movie paradigm.

Post
#1123230
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

What I’ll never understand is how someone can find a story as “rich”, “expansive”, and overall “emotionally satisfying”, a version of the Star Wars universe where:

  1. The main character’s parents were people that we’ve never seen or met, and will probably never get to see, barring prequels.

  2. The princess character belongs to a family that (thanks to the Death Star) we’ve never met, nor whom we will ever learn about in potential sequels.

  3. A solitary knight(Ben) with no family or progeny whatsoever.

  4. A villain who for all we know is some one-dimensional guy behind the mask. Nothing to his past, other than having once been a student of the solitary knight character.

That’s the character dynamics of the stand-alone Star Wars film, in a nutshell. I can’t see a story with such characters going beyond a single film.

Post
#1119193
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

moviefreakedmind said:

I don’t get how Obi Wan telling Luke to track down someone he used to know is “shrinking the universe.” If Han Solo happened to be the Jedi master he was referring to, or Yoda lived on Hoth, then that would be convenient and universe shrinking.

Yoda and Obi-Wan supposedly being the only Jedi survivors, while perhaps not “shrinking” the established story universe, is still convenient for the plot and how it relates to Luke. But then again, it’s part of my overall point in this argument: Leia being the Other/Luke’s sister is no more a case of “shrinking” the established story universe than is Ben (a close comrade of Luke’s father) and Yoda (Ben’s teacher) being the only surviving Jedi in the galaxy such a case.

The writer of the story having one more Jedi other than Obi-Wan Kenobi survive the purge - and just those two but no more! - is not exactly a case of “expanding” the story universe. An expanded universe would have been that Ben and Yoda thought they were the only survivors but actually weren’t (something that I originally thought the title “Return of the Jedi” alluded to before the movie came out).

Note that when originally - per the first draft of ESB - the Other/Luke’s sister wasn’t Leia but was “Neilith” Skywalker, she was said to have been undergoing Jedi training on the other side of the galaxy. A story element which, of course, implies that Jedi other than Yoda and Ben had survived the Empire/Vader’s purge (a Jedi was training her). The story universe where Leia is the Other, is logistically consistent with a story universe where only two Jedi survive the purge (and one if not both of them, had a close connection with Luke’s father - Yoda having originally supposed to have been Annikin’s teacher as well as Ben’s).

Frank your Majesty said:
There is no doubt that Lucas made it up as he went along. But that’s not what universe shrinking is about.

Sometimes the two are connected, especially if it’s a case of a storyteller writing themselves into a corner.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1119076
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

DominicCobb said:

ToscheStation said:

DominicCobb said:

Because he is a great and wise Jedi master?

Regardless, what I’m trying to say is that I don’t understand what your larger point is.

Right. So…Yoda would have been in the movies even if Ben hadn’t died in the first one?

Could have, certainly, would have, I don’t know. Again, I’m not even sure what the point of this hypothetical is.

The point is that if Lucas only* introduced Yoda because he killed Ben off, and otherwise wouldn’t have introduced a strong and wise Jedi Master character into the trilogy, then it shows that Lucas’ penchant for making things up as he goes along was something that goes back almost to the beginning of Star Wars. It’s not something that he just started doing with Return of the Jedi. The same goes with Ben’s character. The character of Ben Kenobi was created to take the place of the father character who had been killed off in the story (as of the third draft), whereas prior to that he was to have been still alive in the story (in these earlier versions, Jedi knights trained their own children). So, as Yoda was a sort of ‘proxy’ for Ben, Ben himself was a ‘proxy’ for Luke’s father.

My overall point is that the “shrinking-universe” phenomenon is part of Star Wars’ “dna”, if you will

*Lucas himself even said that prior to killing off Ben, when thinking of potential sequels, he wanted Ben to train Luke in the other two films and then maybe have him die in the third.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1119024
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

DominicCobb said:

This argument is ridiculous. Leia being Luke’s sister is universe shrinkage because they were two separate people with disparate stories and backgrounds that didn’t come together until those fateful events in the original film. Making them siblings causes their backgrounds and stories to come from the same place.

So what did or would we the audience have learned about the Organa family, what with Alderaan being destroyed in the first film? Her background is basically destroyed right then and there…

DominicCobb said:
Vader’s story, on the other hand, is already intertwined with that of Luke’s father. Key difference.

True. Though, he still need not be the same person as Anakin/Annikin/the father character that Ben talked about in the first film.

DominicCobb said:
The stuff about Yoda doesn’t even make sense.

Had Ben not died in the first film, would he have still continued to have taught Luke, when his teacher Yoda was still an option? Especially if he had thought he had failed with Vader…

Post
#1119016
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

Frank your Majesty said:
One obvious consequence is that if Leia and Luke are siblings, Vader is also Leia’s father. Vader was directly facing her in Star Wars, being near her for a long time while she’s on the Death Star, and he never sensed anything through the force?

That ties into another point of mine. If they were going to be siblings, I saw no need for them to be full siblings, let alone twins. I would have preferred half-siblings, where she and Luke had the same mother, but different father(s). And she would have been somewhat older than Luke, rather than younger, as the public script of the first film suggested (her being two years younger than Luke). But you’re right, the easiest thing would have been to have not have them be siblings because of Leia and Vader’s previous interactions.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1119012
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

I think the term universe shrinking can’t really be applied to Star Wars and Empire. What you criticize, is that they don’t establish a very vast universe, but universe shrinking means that the established world is retroactively made smaller. Leia being Luke’s sister has consequences for the other movies before Jedi, while not offering anything interesting to the plot.

Well, it’s not a ‘criticism’ actually, but a reduction ad absurdum, that I am applying to Star Wars and Empire.

First I agree about Leia being the sister not offering anything to the plot of ROTJ. That, for me, is the problem I have with it. Leia’s character doesn’t really change, and her character arc/role in the story seems like the way it would have been had she not been Luke’s sister.

Second, about consequences to the previous two films: so it turned out she wasn’t ‘really’ an Organa. Since Alderaan was conveniently (there I go again) destroyed in the first film, how much would we have really learned about the Organa’s in future Star Wars stories, had Lucas not pursued the sibling angle? This question of course also ties into whether this made the established universe of the first film(s) that much smaller.

The same thing applies to Vader’s character. My belief is that Vader was always (always meaning since the first film was produced) meant to have a ‘secret identity’, iow, he was going to be someone other than ‘just’ Darth Vader under the mask. Whether that identity was that of another Skywalker, a father of Luke (perhaps an illegitimate one, and not Anakin), an older brother, an uncle, or even Ben Kenobi’s estranged son, etc. I believe that Vader just being Darth Vader under the mask, was for the benefit of Star Wars as a stand-alone concern only.

Frank your Majesty said:

The Yoda subplot is interesting enough on its own, so most people don’t care about the setup being too convenient or not.

Perhaps. And if they do, maybe only in hindsight. And certainly not as an introduction to the series (with SW and ESB being the first films produced and released from the franchise). The only ‘consequence’ that Yoda has for the previous film (that I can think of) is for the audience to wonder whether speaking in-universe was Ben/Obi-Wan going to be Luke’s teacher for the long-haul, or was he always intending to have Luke trained under Yoda (had Ben not died/sacrificed himself so early into the franchise?)

This post has been edited.

Post
#1119007
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

Frank your Majesty said:

If Yoda and Obi-Wan didn’t know each other, how would Obi-Wan be able to tell Luke where to find him?

I said that them knowing each other was ‘convenient’ for the story/plot, not that none of the characters should know each other. Though, I wonder if it makes any difference whether Yoda was envisioned back then (when the OT was made) as having taught many Jedi, or just Ben/Obi-Wan and maybe also Annikin/Anakin (before he was ret-conned into having been Kenobi’s student)?

If we’re talking about story/plot ‘conundrums’ (the like of which you allude to above), this is in the same vein of making Leia the ‘other’ because, “otherwise, Lucas would have to bring in a totally new character that we’ve never met into the story”. Or the one about Lucas making Leia the sister only because “he couldn’t figure out how to resolve the romance of Luke/Leia or Han/Leia.” In the case of ESB, it was the conundrum of “who would take the place of Obi-Wan as Luke’s teacher”? He probably should have thought about that before he killed him off in the first one though, if you think about it. Conundrum aside, killing off Ben certainly made the first film work as a stand-alone.

The reductio-ad-absurdum of the Jedi as portrayed in SW and ESB is to illustrate why the ‘shrunken-universe’ criticism is misused when applied to Return of the Jedi (as a critique mostly used against Leia as the sister, but sometimes also against Vader being Luke’s father).

This post has been edited.

Post
#1118846
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

To those that posit that that Star Wars (mostly the original film, but for some, ESB as well) had a ‘big-universe’ until ROJT shrunk it with that Leia sister nonsense: Obi-Wan being the only* Jedi alive (not counting Vader) by the time of the first Star Wars film (and best of friends with Luke’s father at that - how convenient)…would like a word with you.

*and ESB’s ‘fix’ for that? “Okay, Obi-Wan wasn’t the only survivor…there was Yoda too!” And is Yoda just some random Jedi? Nope! He was Obi-Wan’s teacher…once again: convenient

This post has been edited.

Post
#1113589
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

NeverarGreat said:

To answer the decade old question, yes, I can disregard Leia as Luke’s sister, for the simple reason that there’s no real proof that they’re related. Ben merely says ‘Your insight serves you well’ in response to Luke’s intuition. He’s already known to lie when it serves his purposes, so he could merely have been allowing Luke to believe that Leia was his sister to make sure that the real twin stayed ‘safely anonymous’.

The hint of Leia’s Force sensitivity only appeared after Luke basically said that she should be terrifyingly powerful with the Force, and this tracks in my mind to how the Force should really work - if you believe in it, you can become strong in it. Even The Force Awakens doesn’t ruin this idea, since she would have had 30 years to develop some real Force ability and Ben junior would have grown up believing that he was destined for greatness.

There you go. ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

Post
#1112808
Topic
Anyone else totally disregard Leia being Luke's sister?
Time

To Anchorhead:

Well, I was there too, back in 1977. I get it. I only like the original three movies. And Splinter, and SOME of the EU. I also used to follow zombie’s thesis from 10 years ago. I no longer do so. It’s occurred to me that, while the characters from the original film not being related to each may or may not hold an appealing asthetic, it’s very possible that this ‘non-relatedness’ was only put there by Lucas as an ‘insurance policy’ to make Star Wars work as a stand-alone film, should it bomb and no sequels get made. And let’s be clear: it’s been revealed from research (that wasn’t available when zombie did his book) that Lucas was planning sequels as early as December of 1975, one of in which we would learn “who Darth Vader is”. And as I’ve said before, in this original version, Vader as Luke’s father didn’t necessarily entail him being the same person as the father character (Annikin/Anakin or “Tan” Skywalker) that Ben talked about in the first film.

Regards,
Steve “Tosche_Station”

Post
#1107393
Topic
The problem of Owen Lars
Time

yotsuya said:

Wow… that is some complicated nonsense. Vader is Luke’s father but not Anakin… that makes no sense at all.

Vader being Luke’s father doesn’t automatically mean he specifically used to be Anakin. Don’t get me wrong; I used to think that it did as well, until I looked into it a bit more. Vader and Anakin remaining separate people - with the former being the father of Luke rather than the latter - makes for a better explanation for why Ben and Yoda don’t warn Luke about this in ESB, and coheres with what Ben told Luke in the first film, without the whole “certain point of view” thing. And as I asked before: how can Ben be absolutely certain that his friend (Annikin/Anakin) was Luke’s (biological) father? Of course, this is predicated on Yoda and Ben - and of course, the Emperor - all assuming the Anakin was the father, and not knowing that it was actually Vader. There’s also that line of Vader’s from ESB: “Obi-Wan never told you what happened to your father.” How could Vader know this? Unless…Vader knew something that Obi-Wan didn’t know.

yotsuya said:

The name Anakin hadn’t come up yet when Vader, in James Earl Jones’s voice (or in the novel if you read that first), said he was Luke’s father.

Actually, it had come up by then, but it was spelled Annikin, instead. It was in a continuity discussion between Carol Titleman and SW director or marketing Charles Lippincott dated July/August of 1977. For whatever reason, Lucas wasn’t using it in his ESB notes. Another name, that of “Tan Skywalker” was used in some licensing material from 1979 (the Russ Manning Sunday Comic strip authorized by Black Falcon LTD, an LFL subsidiary). Otherwise, he kept Luke’s father as a nameless character, until ROTJ, when he finally decided upon Anakin.

yotsuya said:

We have no idea when Lucas decided that was going to be the story, but script hints at it with the consistent lack of any line at that location (referring instead to inserted dialog). We only know that sometime between the dated first draft in Feb 78 and the completion of filming in Sept 79 that Vader was Luke’s father. It could have been earlier (and not included in what he gave Leigh Brackett on the story), but we really don’t know. It was almost certainly in the script that the novelization writer worked off of, but that was about the same time.

In my opinion, what I think is more improbable/ludicrous (or what you would call, “nonsense”) is the idea that Lucas suddenly came up with Vader=Anakin, in the Spring of 1978 (the period you refer to), with no prior precedent.

yotsuya said:

Lucas claims he had that in mind from earlier, but with his track record at reconning the past, he can’t be completely trusted. But, others can. Hamill, Kershner, and Kasdan had no reason to lie and according to them it was intended that way from Hamill’s performance on set and had been that way in the full screenplay (not the shooting copies given to the crew) for quite some time. The earlier drafts of the screenplay bear this out by having a reference to inserted dialog.

All that says is that they were told that Vader would claim to be Luke’s father…still a far cry from establishing that he’s the same father character that Ben talked about in the first film, or the Anakin of ROTJ.

yotsuya said:

According to the book Star Wars: The Annotated Scripts (by Laurent Bouzereau), it was the second draft that had the first version of the iconic “I am your father” scene. That was the draft Lucas did himself before Kasdan came on board. This doesn’t quite back Lucas up, but it does place it very early in the story development.

Yes, and in this same draft, Yoda still tells Luke that his father and Ben were both his students and that they trained on the bog planet, just like he says in the first draft. Vader was still being said to have been Ben’s student. So even with Vader being Luke’s father, he most likely wasn’t supposed to be the same father character that Ben talked about in the first film, if that man, along with Ben, were both trained by someone else (in this case Yoda)> This was subsequently changed in one of Lucas’s re-writes (the typed version of the Second Draft), where Yoda says that he trained Ben, who then trained Luke’s father. Which, btw, doesn’t indicate necessarily that by then, Anakin and Vader were the same person. Marvel Comics, in a story flash back (from the Annual issue #1 dated 1979), took it as meaning that Ben had TWO apprentices, Skywalker Sr. and Darth Vader. The later drafts, from the Third draft (by Kasdan) onwards, dropped the whole subject of who trained Luke’s father from the script entirely, leaving that matter up to the next film. But please not that in the final film, Skywalker Sr. and Vader are still spoken of as separate people by the Emperor, and only Vader is still spoken of as Ben’s (former) student.

To sum up, it was only with ROTJ that is was established that:

  1. Vader was Luke’s father
  2. That he used to be Anakin - the same friend and father of Luke that Ben talked about in the first film
  3. That Anakin was trained by Ben (Obi-Wan)

edit to add:

ATMachine said:

The idea of Vader and Anakin being the same person seems to date from the making of ESB, as you say. But the notion of Vader being a secret Skywalker (Luke’s brother, uncle, illegitimate father) seems to have been present even on the first film: in a 1975 conversation with Alan Dean Foster, Lucas said the second SW film was when we would “learn who Darth Vader is”.

^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^This.

ATMachine, I think the “stumbling block” for a lot of people on the “secret Skywalker” thing for Vader’s former identity pre-Vader, is the forgone conclusion that Anakin Skywalker was envisioned as an only child back when Star Wars was made, just like he is in the PT.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1104620
Topic
The problem of Owen Lars
Time

I think the very ‘linear’ proposal that Lucas came up with Vader=Anakin totally out-of-the-blue, in the Spring of '78 while writing (or re-writing) TESB, is the least probable scenario.

Yotsuya, Obi-Wan wasn’t lying in the scenario that I propose. His ‘funny face’ or hesitation is the due to the fact that he knew that Owen never told Luke that his father was murdered. In the alternate scenario (while ‘alternate’ I think it’s more probable than the orthodox version(s) we are told to believe), Annikin/Anakin was indeed killed by Vader, the twist would have been that Vader - or whoever Vader really was beneath the mask - was the actual father of Luke, or barring that, family member X. And let’s be honest: how could Ben know for a certainty that his friend Annikin (original spelling) was Luke’s father? All the story really needed was the presumption that he was. And from Ben’s point of view, with his assumption of Annikin’s role in Luke’s paternity, he would have no reason to believe that his former Jedi student was the actual biological father of Luke, whoever he was prior to becoming Vader.

The genesis of a ‘secret identity’ for Vader goes all the way back at least to December of 1975, in a story conference which Lucas held along with writer/novelist Alan Dean Foster, FX supervisor John Dykstra, and a few others (Kurtz of course knew). How David Prowse could have found out about this is anyone’s guess. However, Lucas realized in Jan of 1976 that Star Wars might only be realized as a single film, so he re-worked the script to make the movie read as a stand-alone. Thus, a bigger role for Tarkin, superseding that of Vader. And Vader - on a surface reading at least - is just Vader, and had no other name.

When SW became a hit, and actuall full-budget sequel movies became a real possibility, Lucas re-visisted the ‘secret identity’ aspect of Vader’s character.
edit: For all the talk of the orthodox version* of Star Wars (*i.e. where there are absolutely no familial connections among the main characters whatsoever) exhibiting a ‘larger universe’ until the familial retcons in the sequels ‘shrunk’ that universe, this version of Star Wars would have been a stand-alone movie that would have inspired ONE sequel, at best. (say, something in the vein of Splinter of the Mind’s Eye, except where Luke would have possibly killed Vader), and probably only ONE prequel.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1104498
Topic
The problem of Owen Lars
Time

Possessed said:

Well I think it was at least before post production, I remember an interview with Mark where he said George pulled him aside before shooting the scene and told him so he would know to react stronger than expected.

To be more clear, I was proposing that the idea of Vader being the same person as Annikin/Anakin - the man the Ben talked about in the first film - was not put in place until Lucas started on ROTJ, or very late in (post) production for TESB (my more ‘charitable’ estimate). Vader was indeed Luke’s father when TESB was made, but he was someone else under the mask - not Annikin/Anakin, but possibly another Skywalker (brother of Annikin), or even Ben’s son. Even if the relationship wasn’t a paternal one, still some sort of familial relationship and ‘secret identity’ was meant to be there when the first film was being made. However, the idea was temporarily set aside in order that the movie would work as a stand-alone.

This post has been edited.

Post
#1102985
Topic
The problem of Owen Lars
Time

Anchorhead said:

SilverWook said:

You were never curious about how much they knew and were keeping from Luke?

Not at all. Other than Beru mentioning that “he’s too much like his father”, it never felt like there was anything there. From what we’ve known since then (early script\story\characters\Original Vision nonsense), there wasn’t anything there. Owen, Beru, and Ben let us know that Luke’s father was a good pilot, a good man, and was killed when Luke was young.

They were a character vehicle to get a farm boy out in the middle of nowhere and have him feel less attached to his family because they aren’t his parents. They’re in the film to add a bit of depth on our main character.

Since Vader wasn’t his father in the 70s, there was no reason to ponder anything that Lucas retconned about Luke’s parents in the 80s and 90s. I never gave them any thought because there wasn’t anything there in 1977.

I think Luke was related to Vader in some familial fashion already when the film was made. But yeah, Vader most definitely wasn’t Annikin/Anakin Skywalker in 1977, nor even in 78 pre-production for TESB. I maintain that Lucas didn’t make that switch until he started on the third film (or, very, very late in TESB’s post-production period). A Vader who is not Anakin/Annikin but is Luke’s biological father doesn’t explicitly contradict what Ben told Luke. No certain point of view required, or “metaphorical” death, since Annikin/Anakin would have been killed in this scenario as well. There probably was a ‘secret identity’ involved with Vader’s character, but this aspect was of course muted so that Star Wars could work as a stand alone movie, should the planned “books two and three” sequels not get made. To me, that’s where the whole “no there, there” comes in.

This post has been edited.

Post
#914706
Topic
Legacy of Sequel Trilogy?
Time

flametitan said:

Dek Rollins said:

What?!?! I have no idea what you mean by all that. If Vader wasn’t “the elder Skywalker”, then how could he be Luke’s dad? If Ben didn’t know Vader was Luke’s dad, who was this other lightsaber wielding good friend that he assumed was his dad, and why didn’t he know who his dad was in the first place? Whoever thought of this convoluted idea is thinking too hard.

The idea is that Skywalker’s lover (Luke’s mother) had an affair with Vader that Ben never knew about, leaving him to assume that clearly this child is a Skywalker, when Luke was actually a Vader.

Thank you.

Post
#914647
Topic
Legacy of Sequel Trilogy?
Time

Dek Rollins said:

What do you mean? It was ESB when we found out that Vader was Luke’s father, meaning Ben was lying to him in Star Wars.

ESB could have meant many things…not [i] necessarily [/i] that Vader used to be the elder Skywalker. An alternate scenario is that booth Vader and Ben could have still been telling the truth (as far as they knew), but difference being that Ben was mistaken about who Luke’s biological father was.*

*a scenario which would also explain why neither he nor Yoda warned Luke about what Vader might claim, and the Emperor going along with Vader’s plan (i.e. the Emperor mistakenly thought Luke was Annikin’s son as well).

This post has been edited.

Post
#914636
Topic
Legacy of Sequel Trilogy?
Time

Bingowings said:

Okay after hearing Ben’s ‘nostalgia for Weimar’ we were led to believe that before the Empire the world was a better place and the Empire just ruined it all.
But if ESB told us one thing it’s Ben is not a reliable narrator.

Actually, it was ROTJ that told us that Ben is an unreliable narrator…

Post
#757882
Topic
The SW Saga of 1975: ATM's Take
Time

  Come on!  ATMachine is clearly taking recreational drugs and channeling 1969 era David Bowie, because he's, like, you know,  coming up with his own version of Star Wars, but not being paid by a film studio to do so!!!!

(end sarcasm)

ATMachine said:

"Who ever said George Lucas was a good writer?

Besides, in the 1974 rough draft, he very clearly stated that Princess Leia Aquilae had auburn hair and blue eyes, while both secondary protagonist Clieg Whitsun and Annikin Starkiller's brother Deak were blond.

Of course, back in the 1970s, GL had a certain amount of flexibility when it came to the appearance of his characters. Han Solo was almost played by a black actor, remember, and the first choice for Obi-Wan Kenobi was actually Toshiro Mifune.

Luke Starkiller himself was almost played by dark-haired Jewish actor Will Seltzer. But Mark Hamill, who turned up almost at the end of the casting sessions, not only had the acting chops; he also fit GL's vision of Luke as a blond Flash Gordon type.

Mind you, this flexibility seems to have evaporated by the time of the prequels.

Watch the making-of documentary on the TPM DVD and you'll see GL pass over a child actor who was clearly the better choice for young Anakin, in favor of the "cuter" (and blonder) Jake Lloyd, who was much worse in terms of flubbing his lines.

That's the peril inherent in trying to find an actor to fit your pre-existing mental image precisely. GL should have remembered the wisdom of his younger self."

^^^^^^^^^^This.   Home....freakin'.....run. 

 

This post has been edited.

To the top