Where? Where in this interview do you see this proof? Yes, it goes along with Gary Kurtz's recollections of the third trilogy, but that's not what we're dealing with. I'm not one to bring insults into a debate, but I seriously have to bring your reading comprehension skills into question here. George states in this interview that the storyline would conclude with the third movie. Luke's and Vader's storyline would be over, just like it ended up being. He clearly states that. Do you need me to quote it for you? Okay, fine, I will. "The next chapter is called 'Revenge of the Jedi'. It’s the end of this particular trilogy, the conclusion of the conflict begun in Star Wars between Luke and Darth Vader. It resolves that situation once and for all." He also says that there was to be a generational gap in between each trilogy. Again, quote: "There are essentially nine films in a series of three trilogies. The first trilogy is about the young Ben Kenobi and the early life of Luke's father when Luke was a little boy. This trilogy takes place some twenty years before the second trilogy which includes Star Wars and Empire. About a year or two passes between each story of the trilogy and about twenty years passes between the trilogies. The entire saga spans about fifty-five years." So that is all the proof you need that there was an idea for a third trilogy, completely separate from what we already have. While George does not elaborate on the third trilogy, he does make it clear, based on what we know now, that it does not contain any major plot points that ended up being used in the final "Return of the Jedi." So there is no way to defend him here. In capital letters: HE IS CLEARLY LYING WHEN HE SAYS THAT THERE WAS NEVER AN INTENTION FOR A THIRD TRILOGY. How can you possibly look at all this evidence and continue to push this point? It simply does not make any sense. In order to defend Lucas, you are arguing against everything that he is saying in this interview.