logo Sign In

The Secret History of Star Wars — Page 3

Author
Time
Post link
I'm closing in on the halfway mark of the 420-page tome, but it's going by so fast that I'm sad that I'm already that far into it. It's been a wild and fun romp so far and very, very informative. I've probably learned more about the production of Star Wars in the past week than I have in years. It makes Empire of Dreams just look like more marketing fluff. You really ream George when he deserves it, but I too find a sympathetic hook to him reading this. It's not especially biased. It points out when he's obviously lying but in an objective way and has just as much praise for him as well. My only complaint is the repetition of a lot of things, but with a book this huge and having had no editor, it seems inevitable, and it's certainly not enough to make me put it down.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
On a sort-of-related aside, we were talking about the naming of the characters and I just noticed this.

Heretics of Dune p. 322
"He's a three P. O. they said, meaning that such a person surrounded himself with cheap copies made from déclassé substances".

Now this came out in 1984, but is there any other mention of this in Frank's earlier books. Maybe it is just an homage.
Author
Time
Post link
WOW. What an insightful week this has been since just discovering this work. Christmas came twice this year.
Thank you Zombie84 for this. I just printed out all 400 pages and well worth it. I've always argued and defend these facts, but from many different and hard to find sources. This has placed them all together plus many new items I never knew.

This would be an inspiring teaching guide for new film makers and writers showing the process of creating. At least for the first half I was more inspired. Lucas was driven and wouldn't settle for less then the right idea for "The Star Wars". Finding that right blend of story and characters. Doing draft after draft. Involving many people for their opinions and starting over again. Early artists concepts turning the plot to new directions that he wasn't intending. More rewrites.
But the it all began to change.
Instead now, we have Lucas claiming he was a genius from the beginning and his condescending attitude that we all wish we were a genius's like him too.
It takes a bigger man to admit his faults rather then claiming his perfection.
We've analyzed their attack, sir, and there is a danger.
Author
Time
Post link
Zombie84 - you bastard! It's 4:40 AM and I have to get up at 6:00 AM to get ready for work - but I can't stop reading.

I'm making myself stop on page 143.

Very nice work, sir.
Forum Moderator
Author
Time
Post link
Now that I've finished the Making of Star Wars book, I've been reading your Secret History of Star Wars and I am very much enjoying it. It's pretty much says what I've been saying for years but with actual references to back things up. As much as I've read about Star Wars over the years, it's not so easy to remember the sources of all the information. This is quite a handy and entertaining read.

When I finish, I hope to have some more comments on the content. So far, though, I agree with what I've read and haven't come across anything I believe to be errors, except one common one which I'll mention in the next paragraph. Nitpick-wise, It could probably use a scrub to rid it of the misuses of "loose" when it should be "lose" (probably my biggest internet pet peeve, ever- "If your shoelace is loose, you might lose your shoe.").

(It's ironic that this always bugs me, since I am not religious in the least, but...) The error is that Anakin was not born by "Immaculate Conception" in imitation of Jesus. The phrase "Immaculate Conception" actually refers to the Virgin Mary, not to Jesus. It is the Roman Catholic dogma that states that Mary was born free of Original Sin and in a state of Grace making her "worthy" of giving birth to Jesus. Jesus' conception is referred to as the Incarnation and then the Virgin Birth. In short, Mary was the result of the "Immaculate Conception", not Jesus. Immaculate Conception has nothing to do with Virgin Birth. As I said, it is a common error, but one that should be fixed in the next edition.

Anyway, keep up the good work. I can't wait to finish it.
Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, I was thinking that when I first read that part. There is no reference in the films whatsoever to Anakin being immaculately concieved. And it wouldn't make sense if there was as SW usually only deals with a fairly black and white morality and never had any mention of sins or children being bore stained with the sins of their fathers. The only mention of his birth at all is when his mom says that there was no father and that she couldn't explain how she got pregnant. Hmm, and if you really think about it, that isn't even to say that he was born of a virgin, since we don't know if his mom was actually a virgin or not, it just means he was concieved asexually...

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Yeah, some good points. It's just a common error to call a Virgin Birth (or even just a parthenogenesis having nothing to do with "sin") an Immaculate Conception when the two are completely different events.
Author
Time
Post link
I read a large portion of the book and I found it really interesting.

What it really did well was show how inflated Lucas' ego got.

There was a lot of assertions that the Vader = Father and Leia = Sister thing were weak storypoints that Lucas had to do because he wrote himself into a corner. But I've always felt that that is simply a part of art

It is interesting though- a character like GL we can feel very sympathetic for delving into evil.
Author
Time
Post link
Zombie84- I've finished the body of this book, and am just starting the 2nd appendix, and all I can say is WOW.
Like others have stated, there was a lot I knew or suspected about the history, but to see it presented so thoroughly was extremely impressive.
I gotta say, though, that it's disappointing to learn the truth about the "Journal of the Whills". I remember when I first read the Annotated screenplays years ago (I was a very casual fan then), and was heavily intrigued by this journal I had never heard of. Now, years later, I learn that it was really nothing. Damn. Although, it is pretty cool that Lucas managed to find a way to include it in some capacity ("Will of the Force").
Oh, and at the end, when you mentioned the shouting of "Son of the Suns" during the Coruscant celebration scene at the end of ROTJ, well, I immediately popped in my dvd and sure enough, you can hear it! That was pretty cool.

Anyway, thanks for busting your ass to write that awesome book, Zombie84. Absolutely terrific job!
I'm nice men.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: rolla
Zombie84- I've finished the body of this book, and am just starting the 2nd appendix, and all I can say is WOW.
Like others have stated, there was a lot I knew or suspected about the history, but to see it presented so thoroughly was extremely impressive.
I gotta say, though, that it's disappointing to learn the truth about the "Journal of the Whills". I remember when I first read the Annotated screenplays years ago (I was a very casual fan then), and was heavily intrigued by this journal I had never heard of. Now, years later, I learn that it was really nothing. Damn. Although, it is pretty cool that Lucas managed to find a way to include it in some capacity ("Will of the Force").
Oh, and at the end, when you mentioned the shouting of "Son of the Suns" during the Coruscant celebration scene at the end of ROTJ, well, I immediately popped in my dvd and sure enough, you can hear it! That was pretty cool.

Anyway, thanks for busting your ass to write that awesome book, Zombie84. Absolutely terrific job!



That's actually turned out to be a myth--I guess you downloaded an older version of the book. Starwars.com went back to the master sound tapes from Skywalker Ranch and shows that they are just speaking random huttese type stuff--but it really does sound like "son of suns" when mixed in there.
Author
Time
Post link
I just finished the body of the book a short time ago and really got a lot out of it. Thhanks for the hard work you've put into it Zombie.
There's good in the Original Trilogy, and it's worth fighting for.
"People should not be afraid of their governments. Governments should be afraid of their people."
http://www.myspace.com/harlock415
Author
Time
Post link
zombie 84- as someone who saw star wars at the cinema in 77, to read about the earlier ideas for the film was absolutly fascinating, and as been said i do see the prequels in a different light. so much so i registered to this forum after lurking for over a year to say "good job!"
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: zombie84
Originally posted by: rolla
Zombie84- I've finished the body of this book, and am just starting the 2nd appendix, and all I can say is WOW.
Like others have stated, there was a lot I knew or suspected about the history, but to see it presented so thoroughly was extremely impressive.
I gotta say, though, that it's disappointing to learn the truth about the "Journal of the Whills". I remember when I first read the Annotated screenplays years ago (I was a very casual fan then), and was heavily intrigued by this journal I had never heard of. Now, years later, I learn that it was really nothing. Damn. Although, it is pretty cool that Lucas managed to find a way to include it in some capacity ("Will of the Force").
Oh, and at the end, when you mentioned the shouting of "Son of the Suns" during the Coruscant celebration scene at the end of ROTJ, well, I immediately popped in my dvd and sure enough, you can hear it! That was pretty cool.

Anyway, thanks for busting your ass to write that awesome book, Zombie84. Absolutely terrific job!



That's actually turned out to be a myth--I guess you downloaded an older version of the book. Starwars.com went back to the master sound tapes from Skywalker Ranch and shows that they are just speaking random huttese type stuff--but it really does sound like "son of suns" when mixed in there.


Heh, heh, really? Damn. Huttese, on Coruscant? Oh well.

I'm nice men.
Author
Time
Post link
So SW has no mythological overtones in it? Then what is SW, just some campy film that made a lot of money and then milked in sequels up to this day? Did he never even read Joseph Campell?
Author
Time
Post link
Well since I put out the original version of this thing in March I haven't stopped working on it, and after 9 months I've now completed the SECOND EDITION of The Secret History of Star Wars.

This edition has many corrections and expansion, edits and re-formatting, a new font face, two new appendices and a very handy index feature for quick referencing. Anyone who read this in July or August might not get a whole lot benefit from a second read but those who first downloaded this in its first months of release might find it to be a very different book if they were to revisit it.

http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com
Author
Time
Post link
Woops, I still haven't gotten around to reading this (it's still sitting on my desktop though). I'll download the updated version and hopefully start reading it soon. (Maybe I'll print it out since I'm not a huge fan of reading on the computer.)

"Now all Lucas has to do is make a cgi version of himself.  It will be better than the original and fit his original vision." - skyjedi2005

Author
Time
Post link
"Maybe I'll print it out since I'm not a huge fan of reading on the computer."

Yeah, I find that a bit distracting too. I have enjoyed what I've read tho. I'll take a look at the new version. Thanks Zombie84 for sharing this
Author
Time
Post link
I got nailed for printing this out at work, even though I printed it as 4 pages per page. Great read. What Appendicies are new, and of the revisions you've made which section got the most overhaul, i'd be interested to see how things changed.

Nevermind: http://www.secrethistoryofstarwars.com/whathaschanged.html this explains it.
none
Author
Time
Post link
The most noticeably altered sections are Chapter II and III on Star Wars. The have had the most additions since the first edition, mainly because of the new Making-of book.
Author
Time
Post link
zombie, i'll happily read (or re-read) the revised edition. its some great work already, but i hope this isn't a "special edition"
*gets hat, coat, leaves*
Author
Time
Post link
Content is excellent, as before. I did notice that the new edition still refers to Anakin's virgin birth as an "immaculate conception." Immaculate conception is not virgin birth. It is a Roman Catholic concept created to reconcile how Mary, as a human and subject to Original Sin, as are all humans, could give birth to a sinless Jesus. It was decided that Mary, unique among humans, was gifted a special grace by God and was not stained by Original Sin from the moment of her conception by normal sexual intercourse. So of Anakin Skywalker, Christ, Buddha, or Heracles, none was born by immaculate conception. Mary was.

The Roman Catholic doctrine of Incarnation refers to the virgin birth of Christ. Immaculate Conception and Incarnation are specifically Roman Catholic doctrines rather than generic terms for the concepts to which they refer.


Oh, and it still has the "loose/lose" misspellings. Loose with two O's means not tight. Lose with one O means to not win or to misplace. Sorry, but that one drives me nuts.
Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
Loose with two O's means not tight. Lose with one O means to not win or to misplace. Sorry, but that one drives me nuts.


I am pretty sure Zombie knows the difference between lose and loose. When proof reading such a large work, it is very easy to miss little things like that. I reassure you more scholarly works than Zombie's book have gone two or three editions without catching a mistake as small as the difference between loose and lose.

As for the immaculate conception, I can back caligula up on that one, it refers to Mary, not Jesus. Immaculate conception (clean conception, meaning conception without sin, not without the participation of a male as in the virgin birth), is often confused with the incarnation or virgin birth by non Catholics. I am not a Catholic, and have been corrected on the matter myself, for me it had always seemed natural to assume that "clean conception" refered to a conception without the "dirtiness" of sex. While most people probably don't even notice it, that bit does come off as a glaring mistake to anyone who knows the difference.

"Every time Warb sighs, an angel falls into a vat of mapel syrup." - Gaffer Tape

Author
Time
Post link
Hmm, did zombie mess that one up? I've read the whole book (the earlier edition) and don't recall noticing it. I remember heated debates about the difference between the two on these boards, and I could have sworn zombie was the one with the knowledge on the subject. Oh, well. Like 3PX said, it's a huge (and very awesome) book, so some mistakes are bound to slip past once in a while.

There is no lingerie in space…

C3PX said: Gaffer is like that hot girl in high school that you think you have a chance with even though she is way out of your league because she is sweet and not a stuck up bitch who pretends you don’t exist… then one day you spot her making out with some skinny twerp, only on second glance you realize it is the goth girl who always sits in the back of class; at that moment it dawns on you why she is never seen hanging off the arm of any of the jocks… and you realize, damn, she really is unobtainable after all. Not that that is going to stop you from dreaming… Only in this case, Gaffer is actually a guy.

Author
Time
Post link
Originally posted by: C3PX
Originally posted by: caligulathegod
Loose with two O's means not tight. Lose with one O means to not win or to misplace. Sorry, but that one drives me nuts.


I am pretty sure Zombie knows the difference between lose and loose. When proof reading such a large work, it is very easy to miss little things like that. I reassure you more scholarly works than Zombie's book have gone two or three editions without catching a mistake as small as the difference between loose and lose.


...and since they're both real words, spellcheck wouldn't pick up on it either.

My biggest pet peeve (not in Zombie's work but just in general) is the "there", "they're", and "their" mix-up.