Sign In

George Lucas's Sequel Trilogy — Page 3

Author
Time
 (Edited)

BedeHistory731 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

I like how the ST we got downplayed the PT (the PT being one okay movie (TPM) and two shit ones (AOTC/ROTS). The PT’s version of the force is too sci-fi for me and the proposed ST seems to double-down on that. I don’t see any Joseph Campbell in “the microbial world.”

Quotes from Joseph Campbell:

“Between mythology and biology there is a very close association. I think of mythology as a function of biology; it’s a production of the human imagination, which is moved by the energies of the organs of the body operating against each other. These are the same in human beings all over the world and this is the basis for the archetypology of myth. So, I’ve thought of myself as a kind of marginal scientist studying the phenomenology of the human body, you might say.”

"I would say that all of our sciences are the material that has to be mythologized. A mythology gives the spiritual import – what one might call rather the psychological, inward import, of the world of nature round about, as understood today. There’s no real conflict between science and religion. Religion is the recognition of the deeper dimensions that the science reveals to us. What is in conflict is the science of 2000 B.C., which is what you have in the Bible, and the science of the twentieth century A.D. You have to disengage the messages of the Bible from its science. "

“What I’m trying to say is that the structuring of a mythology is conditioned by the science at that time. There’s no use constructing a mythology based on an archaic science. I wouldn’t know what to do with an atom, but I do recognize that when we had a Ptolemaic cosmology there was a whole interpretation of the relationship of the earth to the different planes of the universe that was mythologized. What happened to that was it was given an ethical and moral value, the stages of a ladder of the heavens represented the stages of the psyche.”

None of this has anything to do with Midichlorians

Heck, I’d have loved a straight retcon of Midichlorians as a symptom of larger issues within the Jedi Order. Saying they were a bullshit idea the Order adopted in their decline as a means of selection for child abduction.

No thank you. I feel that would truly be a slap in the face to all six of George’s films and The Clone Wars. Star Wars has always been about symbiotic relationships and helping people. It’s just The Phantom Menace made it central to the plot and started to explore it on a deeper more ethereal level.

It’s funny how Mark talked in the 80’s how the Sequels may end on another plane of existence. So it does make me think George always had vague notions of going in this direction.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time

BedeHistory731 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

I like how the ST we got downplayed the PT (the PT being one okay movie (TPM) and two shit ones (AOTC/ROTS). The PT’s version of the force is too sci-fi for me and the proposed ST seems to double-down on that. I don’t see any Joseph Campbell in “the microbial world.”

Quotes from Joseph Campbell:

“Between mythology and biology there is a very close association. I think of mythology as a function of biology; it’s a production of the human imagination, which is moved by the energies of the organs of the body operating against each other. These are the same in human beings all over the world and this is the basis for the archetypology of myth. So, I’ve thought of myself as a kind of marginal scientist studying the phenomenology of the human body, you might say.”

"I would say that all of our sciences are the material that has to be mythologized. A mythology gives the spiritual import – what one might call rather the psychological, inward import, of the world of nature round about, as understood today. There’s no real conflict between science and religion. Religion is the recognition of the deeper dimensions that the science reveals to us. What is in conflict is the science of 2000 B.C., which is what you have in the Bible, and the science of the twentieth century A.D. You have to disengage the messages of the Bible from its science. "

“What I’m trying to say is that the structuring of a mythology is conditioned by the science at that time. There’s no use constructing a mythology based on an archaic science. I wouldn’t know what to do with an atom, but I do recognize that when we had a Ptolemaic cosmology there was a whole interpretation of the relationship of the earth to the different planes of the universe that was mythologized. What happened to that was it was given an ethical and moral value, the stages of a ladder of the heavens represented the stages of the psyche.”

None of this has anything to do with Midichlorians

Heck, I’d have loved a straight retcon of Midichlorians as a symptom of larger issues within the Jedi Order. Saying they were a bullshit idea the Order adopted in their decline as a means of selection for child abduction.

This fits in well with one of the themes of ANH of materialism vs spiritualism. It might be an interesting idea if the Jedi’s belief in midichlorians were a signifier of them leaning more toward materialism. If you lean into this enough you could make the case that the Jedi are only Jedi in name. Sure they run around the galaxy with laser swords, and they think they understand the Force (midichlorians), but they don’t have a connection to the spiritual.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

BedeHistory731 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

I like how the ST we got downplayed the PT (the PT being one okay movie (TPM) and two shit ones (AOTC/ROTS). The PT’s version of the force is too sci-fi for me and the proposed ST seems to double-down on that. I don’t see any Joseph Campbell in “the microbial world.”

Quotes from Joseph Campbell:

“Between mythology and biology there is a very close association. I think of mythology as a function of biology; it’s a production of the human imagination, which is moved by the energies of the organs of the body operating against each other. These are the same in human beings all over the world and this is the basis for the archetypology of myth. So, I’ve thought of myself as a kind of marginal scientist studying the phenomenology of the human body, you might say.”

"I would say that all of our sciences are the material that has to be mythologized. A mythology gives the spiritual import – what one might call rather the psychological, inward import, of the world of nature round about, as understood today. There’s no real conflict between science and religion. Religion is the recognition of the deeper dimensions that the science reveals to us. What is in conflict is the science of 2000 B.C., which is what you have in the Bible, and the science of the twentieth century A.D. You have to disengage the messages of the Bible from its science. "

“What I’m trying to say is that the structuring of a mythology is conditioned by the science at that time. There’s no use constructing a mythology based on an archaic science. I wouldn’t know what to do with an atom, but I do recognize that when we had a Ptolemaic cosmology there was a whole interpretation of the relationship of the earth to the different planes of the universe that was mythologized. What happened to that was it was given an ethical and moral value, the stages of a ladder of the heavens represented the stages of the psyche.”

None of this has anything to do with Midichlorians

Heck, I’d have loved a straight retcon of Midichlorians as a symptom of larger issues within the Jedi Order. Saying they were a bullshit idea the Order adopted in their decline as a means of selection for child abduction.

This fits in well with one of the themes of ANH of materialism vs spiritualism. It might be an interesting idea if the Jedi’s belief in midichlorians were a signifier of them leaning more toward materialism. If you lean into this enough you could make the case that the Jedi are only Jedi in name. Sure they run around the galaxy with laser swords, and they think they understand the Force (midichlorians), but they don’t have a connection to the spiritual.

The whole point of Midi-Chlorians is their connection to the Force. It’s a symbiotic relationship and very spiritual. The Midi-Chlorians and Force aren’t the same thing. It’s one of the biggest misconceptions.

“There’s this world of creatures that operate differently than we do. I call them the Whills. And the Whills are the ones who actually control the universe. They feed off the Force and the conduct is the midi-chlorians. The midi-chlorians are the ones that communicate with the Whills. The Whills, in a general sense, they are the Force.”

“The Whills are a microscopic, single-celled lifeform like amoeba, fungi, and bacteria. There’s something like 100.000 times more Whills than there are Midi-Chlorians, and there’s about 10.000 times more Midi-Chlorians than there are human cells. The only microscopic entities that can go into the human cells are the Midi-Chlorians. They are born in the cells. The Midi-Chlorians provide the energy for human cells to split and create life. The Whills are single-celled animals that feed on the Force. The more of the Force there is, the better off they are. So they have a very intense symbiotic relationship with the Midi-Chlorians and the Midi-Chlorians effectively work for the Whills."

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

SparkySywer said:
made you look

It’s a symbiotic relationship

Sure, I dig that

and very spiritual.

A material explanation for how a Jedi gets their power is the polar opposite of spiritual.

The Midi-Chlorians and Force aren’t the same thing. It’s one of the biggest misconceptions.

https://originaltrilogy.com/topic/Midichlorians-Are-Not-The-Force/id/84084/page/1#1415227

It’s spiritual in how it delves into Anakin’s origins:

“The Midi-Chlorians started the birth process in Anakin’s mother. The Whills communicated the command to the midi-chlorians, which activated the DNA that germinated the egg. That’s why Anakin doesn’t have a father. He was in a bizarre and metaphorical way touched by God, but in this case they happened to be one-celled animals.”

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time

That’s not very spiritual at all. In fact, it’s even worse. Not sure where that quote’s from, but we now have a material explanation for Anakin’s virgin birth.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

That’s not very spiritual at all. In fact, it’s even worse. Not sure where that quote’s from, but we now have a material explanation for Anakin’s virgin birth.

Nearly everything I’ve shared comes from Paul Duncan’s book where George talks in great detail about these things. I also shared bits of what he said to James Cameron in Story of Science Fiction and the Annotated Screenplays.

I find it very spiritual as the Whills are metaphorically in a sense God and how they commanded the Midi-Chlorians his birth. They took the clay more or less and made Anakin.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Spirituality, at least what I mean by it and what people mean when they criticize midichlorians for “demystifying the Force”, doesn’t really mean dealing with a higher power. There’s a materialistic explanation for the Force, the source of a Jedi’s power, and Anakin’s conception. Just because you can kind of squint your eyes and use a religious word to describe it (“God”) doesn’t mean that midichlorians aren’t totally material.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

SparkySywer said:

Spirituality, at least what I mean by it and what people mean when they criticize midichlorians for “demystifying the Force”, doesn’t really mean dealing with a higher power. There’s a materialistic explanation for the Force, the source of a Jedi’s power, and Anakin’s conception. Just because you can kind of squint your eyes and use a religious word to describe it (“God”) doesn’t mean that midichlorians aren’t totally material.

Well it’s all subjective as these things often are. It’s a good thing we can’t all see things the same way.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time

Stardust1138 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

SparkySywer said:

Stardust1138 said:

BedeHistory731 said:

I like how the ST we got downplayed the PT (the PT being one okay movie (TPM) and two shit ones (AOTC/ROTS). The PT’s version of the force is too sci-fi for me and the proposed ST seems to double-down on that. I don’t see any Joseph Campbell in “the microbial world.”

Quotes from Joseph Campbell:

“Between mythology and biology there is a very close association. I think of mythology as a function of biology; it’s a production of the human imagination, which is moved by the energies of the organs of the body operating against each other. These are the same in human beings all over the world and this is the basis for the archetypology of myth. So, I’ve thought of myself as a kind of marginal scientist studying the phenomenology of the human body, you might say.”

"I would say that all of our sciences are the material that has to be mythologized. A mythology gives the spiritual import – what one might call rather the psychological, inward import, of the world of nature round about, as understood today. There’s no real conflict between science and religion. Religion is the recognition of the deeper dimensions that the science reveals to us. What is in conflict is the science of 2000 B.C., which is what you have in the Bible, and the science of the twentieth century A.D. You have to disengage the messages of the Bible from its science. "

“What I’m trying to say is that the structuring of a mythology is conditioned by the science at that time. There’s no use constructing a mythology based on an archaic science. I wouldn’t know what to do with an atom, but I do recognize that when we had a Ptolemaic cosmology there was a whole interpretation of the relationship of the earth to the different planes of the universe that was mythologized. What happened to that was it was given an ethical and moral value, the stages of a ladder of the heavens represented the stages of the psyche.”

None of this has anything to do with Midichlorians

Heck, I’d have loved a straight retcon of Midichlorians as a symptom of larger issues within the Jedi Order. Saying they were a bullshit idea the Order adopted in their decline as a means of selection for child abduction.

No thank you. I feel that would truly be a slap in the face to all six of George’s films and The Clone Wars. Star Wars has always been about symbiotic relationships and helping people. It’s just The Phantom Menace made it central to the plot and started to explore it on a deeper more ethereal level.

A slap in the face to only three movies. The OT would be unaffected. Midichlorians were and still are stupid to me.

I like the theme of symbiosis in TPM, but Midichlorians weren’t a part of it for me. They’re a symbol of The Jedi Order’s emphasis on materialism over spirituality.

Author
Time

I’ve been trying to put into conception the issue I have with Midichlorians since the prequels were released, and I just realized something. Consider Qui-gon’s explanation:

“Midichlorians are a microscopic life form residing within all living cells…And we are symbionts with them. Without the Midichlorians, life could not exist, and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us, telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you’ll hear them speaking to you.”

Now consider Yoda’s explanation:

“My ally is the Force…and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us…and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you. Here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere. Yes, even between the land and the ship.”

Emphasis mine.

Notice the remarkable difference between these two statements. In the first, the Midichlorians are posited as a requirement for cellular life, essential building blocks that are themselves alive somehow. Logically it’s a contradictory statement to say that a life form is a requirement for the existence of all life forms, but perhaps he’s simply saying that this first life form is a requirement for everything more advanced. In either case, the Midichlorians here serve as an intermediary between the Force and all other life forms. Nowhere is it said that the Midichlorians embody the Force, but they are merely the conduit from energy to matter.

Now take Yoda’s words. He claims that life creates this energy field of the Force and makes it grow. Notice how the causal chain is reversed here. In Qui-gon’s explanation cellular life could not exist without Midichlorians, whereas Yoda claims that the Force could not exist without (presumably cellular) life. So what came first? Did cellular life arise and create the Force, or did the Force ‘create’ Midichlorians which then allowed for the emergence of cellular life? The only reconciliation I can see is that the Midichlorians were the first life form, giving rise to both the Force and cellular life and acting as the mediator between the two. Admittedly it’s a strange explanation.

That’s all well and strange, but now we get at the big difference between these two explanations. In Qui-gon’s world, the Force is a power that you have, accessible through the Midichlorians in your cells. They transmit the will of the Force to you and you transmit your intention for the Force through them. The ‘crude matter’ of a person exerts its will on the immaterial Force through the Midichlorians. Yoda, on the other hand, proclaims that cellular life and the Force are essentially one and the same. ‘Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter’ after all. He tells Luke to feel the Force - not some intermediary transmitting the will of the Force - but the Force itself, and gestures to the environment.

Qui-gon’s explanation of the Force is one of duality; matter and energy, body and soul, mortal and God. A conduit, an intermediary, is required to bridge the gap and allow for a unification. It is a religious doctrine in keeping with the doctrinaire Jedi Order and its stratified system of authority and control.

Yoda dispenses with duality, implying that matter and energy are merely two appearances of the same essence. It is a spiritual teaching aiming at the highest truth, which is that all appearances of form and difference are merely shadows cast from the light of the eternal Force.

Of course one of these explanations will feel more true than the other, which is why so many people discard Midichlorians as merely a tool for control used by the flawed Jedi Order in their final days.

You probably don’t recognize me because of the red arm.
Episode 9 Rewrite, The Starlight Project (Released!) and ANH Technicolor Project (Released!)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I found this very interesting too.

A New Hope Novelization:

Kenobi nodded. “I forget sometimes in whose presence I babble. Let us say simply that the force is something a Jedi must deal with. While it has never been properly explained, scientists have theorized it is an energy field generated by living things. Early man suspected its existence, yet remained in ignorance of its potential for millennia.”

“Only certain individuals could recognize the force for what it was. They were mercilessly labeled: charlatans, fakers, mystics, and worse. Even fewer could make use of it. As it was usually beyond their primitive controls, it frequently was too powerful for them. They were misunderstood by their fellows and worse.”

Kenobi made a wide, all-encompassing gesture with both arms. The force surrounds each and every one of us. Some men believe it directs our actions, and not the other way around. Knowledge of the force and how to manipulate it was what gave the Jedi his special power."

The arms came down and Kenobi stared at Luke until the youth began to fidget uncomfortably. When he spoke again it was in a tone so crisp and unaged that Luke jumped in spite of himself. “You must learn the ways of the force also, Luke - if you’re to come with me to Alderaan.”

“No, Luke, your cuts should flow, not be so choppy,” Kenobi instructed gently. “Remember, the force is omnipresent. It envelops you as much as it radiates from you. A Jedi warrior can actually feel the force as a physical thing.” “It is an energy field, then?” Luke enquired. “It is an energy field and something more,” Kenobi went on, almost mystically. “An aura that both controls and obeys. A nothingness that can accomplish miracles.” he looked thoughtful for a moment. “No-one, not even the Jedi scientists, were able to truly define the Force. Possibly no-one ever will. Sometimes there is as much magic as science in the explanations of the force. Yet what is a magician but a practicing theorist? Now, let’s try again.”

From The Phantom Menace novelization:

“The Jedi Knights were peacemakers; that was the nature of their order and the dictate of their creed. For thousands of years they had served the Republic, a constant source of stability and order in a changing universe. Founded as a theological and philosophical study group so far back that its origins were the stuff of myth, the Jedi had only gradually become aware of the presence of the Force. Years had been spent in its study, in contemplation of its meaning, in mastery of its power. Slowly the order had evolved, abandoning its practice of and belief in a life of isolated meditation in favor of a more outward-looking commitment to social responsibility. Understanding the Force sufficiently to master its power required more than private study. It required service to the greater community and implementation of a system of laws that would guarantee equal justice for all. That battle was not yet won. It probably never would be. But the Jedi Knights would not see it lost for lack of their trying.”

It makes me think that the true nature of what it all means and how it connects together as a whole has been lost. The discovery of what the true nature of the Force really means is what George started to explore with the Force Priestesses and solidified in his Sequels.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

“The Force is what gives a Jedi his power. It’s an energy field created by all living things. It surrounds us and penetrates us. It binds the galaxy together.” - Ben Kenobi, ANH.

So it’s an energy field. With our current contemporary understanding it might be that physics seems more mystical, but I’m not sure if that’s only because its science is less familiar to us than biology and bacteria.

For reference, this is what Qui-Gon says about midichlorians so we can see both statements back to back:

“Midi-chlorians are a microscopic life-form that resides within all living cells. (…) And we are symbionts with them (…) Life-forms living together for mutual advantage. Without the midi-chlorians, life could not exist… and we would have no knowledge of the Force. They continually speak to us… telling us the will of the Force. When you learn to quiet your mind, you’ll hear them speaking to you.”

So the Force is what gives a Jedi his power, midichlorians are the material life that channel energy and act as receptors, this is no more science fiction than officially declaring atoms in the SW universe, or that under a Jedi’s skin are muscles and a nervous system controlled by a brain. It is a communication between the conscious and the unconscious, which we can also think of as the material connecting to the spiritual world, or personal and cosmic Force.

“For my ally is the Force, and a powerful ally it is. Life creates it, makes it grow. Its energy surrounds us and binds us. Luminous beings are we, not this crude matter. You must feel the Force around you; here, between you, me, the tree, the rock, everywhere, yes. Even between the land and the ship.” - Yoda

Kenobi and Yoda were the ones to use the word power, and both were in reference to the Force. Looking at all the quotes here Qui-Gon never says the word power in reference to midichlorians, what he does say is that they can communicate the will of the Force, don’t shoot the messenger!

If you’re against demystifying the Force then maybe it’s the Whills you’re after, not the midichlorians which explain nothing about what the Force actually is, only that there is an interaction between the energy and the physical world, which is what we’ve always been told and shown from the beginning. Copper doesn’t explain electricity.

||Wow a ton of people got in and busted out the quotes already, hope I’m not too redundant, in addition here are a few more thoughts…||

Call the Jedi Order flawed and materialist leaning with their blood check approach by TPM that’s fine if you want, but I disagree with the idea that Yoda in ESB views the world all that differently from Qui-Gon in TPM, in fact I believe they are saying the same thing. Yoda acknowledges that life creates the energy, life becomes a shorthand for the details of things like molecules and cells. The force flows through everything, Qui-Gon only describes the mechanics behind that process, not the Force itself. Of course in Yoda’s scene what he’s emphasizing is the immaterial which can’t be as easily observed as the crude matter of the material world, but still addresses the symbiotic nature of the two the same as Qui-Gon.

So, the Force binds everything together, and midichlorians are the material receiver, more modern than your average fairy-tale, but far from wholly material. You need to ask the philosophical question to reach the spiritual link, the OT tells us what the Force is, the PT explains how, what remains a complete and total mystery is why. Why is this the will of the Force? According to George the Whills have something to do with it, if midichlorians are the intermediary between the body and the spirit, the Whills seem to be the intermediary between the cosmic Force and the midichlorians.

In some ways the Force has been so ignored as a point of discussion, I don’t understand why we wouldn’t want to finally get into what it really is as the largest elephant in the room, especially if we’re concluding the saga.
This is maybe just too far for people personally, for me it’s too juicy, in my heart I wanted the most mind-bending finale possible. Apart from ghosts we have only really witnessed effects of those highly in tune with the Force, I just wanted to see the other side and what the hell a Whill was!

“The ability to destroy a planet is insignificant next to the power of the Force.” - DV

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:

Qui-gon’s explanation of the Force is one of duality; matter and energy, body and soul, mortal and God. A conduit, an intermediary, is required to bridge the gap and allow for a unification. It is a religious doctrine in keeping with the doctrinaire Jedi Order and its stratified system of authority and control.

Yoda dispenses with duality, implying that matter and energy are merely two appearances of the same essence. It is a spiritual teaching aiming at the highest truth, which is that all appearances of form and difference are merely shadows cast from the light of the eternal Force.

That’s a very interesting way to put it.

Death of the Author

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’m fairly indifferent about midi-chlorians. I don’t hate them. I just think they’re an unnecessary middleman. However, I’ve never liked the concept of the Whills. And I think having these transcendent “Force gods” undercuts the pantheism of Star Wars. The idea that the sacred is inherent to all life, that it emanates from life, being felt through the unity of all living beings, is a compelling one. The Whills pull attention away from that and make the setting more traditionally theistic.

I can see why George was tempted to go in that direction. Lots of writers have that urge to eventually “pull back the curtain” and reveal answers to the mysteries they’ve created. That doesn’t always mean you should, though.

Author
Time

Servii said:

I’m fairly indifferent about midi-chlorians. I don’t hate them. I just think they’re an unnecessary middleman. However, I’ve never liked the concept of the Whills. And I think having these transcendent “Force gods” undercuts the pantheism of Star Wars. The idea that the sacred is inherent to all life, that it emanates from life, being felt through the unity of all living beings, is a compelling one. The Whills pull attention away from that and make the setting more traditionally theistic.

I can see why George was tempted to go in that direction. Lots of writers have that urge to eventually “pull back the curtain” and reveal answers to the mysteries they’ve created. That doesn’t always mean you should, though.

I agree with that. I do think the midichlorians work because it puts a more science face on the Republic era Jedi. It helps explain how out of touch they are with the force itself. They are trying to explain it. And a reverse idea is that the midichlorians are just a little critter that is attracted to the force so if you are more powerful there are more of them, rather than you are more powerful because there are more of them. I definitely think Lucas’s idea for the ST and including the Whills was a bad idea. I’m glad we did not get that.

Author
Time

NeverarGreat said:
This is so strange to me. Are aliens and clones not people to George? Besides, what about everyone Luke blew up with the Death Star? I guess as long as we don’t see their faces, their death doesn’t count. And what about the good dozen Rebels gunned down by Stormtroopers in the first scene, or Captain Antilles who had his neck crushed, or crispy Owen and Beru…

Like, I don’t want to say this flippantly, but this seems like an artist in willful denial of the content of his art.

Long delayed response but only just saw the thread (and new to the forum in general) – but I wonder if it’s possible that when George was saying “we” only killed humans once, he was talking about the good guys. Yes, the Empire (especially Tarkin and Vader in the first movie) leave behind a huge body count…but they are evil. That’s kinda their thing. The good guys, however, should be more thoughtful about taking another life.

Or this is another example of his memory, um, evolving over time, and he now thinks that good guys don’t kill humans and never, ever shoot first.

As for the topic: it’s a good point that there have been a few divergent yet all definitive summaries of George’s ideas for the sequels. Yet, as noted in the thread already, the sketches of what we got are evident in the summaries of his ideas or the concept art done before he sold Lucasfilm to Disney. I think the biggest things that tripped up the execution of these ideas was the reactive stance Abrams and company took to the prequels. It seems strange now given the state of Star Wars discourse, but in 2013-2014, the prequels were still super toxic…and all the general public wanted from the sequels was a return to “real” Star Wars. As many have noted, the first spoken line of the trilogy carries weight here: “This will begin to make things right.”

Because of that, they shied away from key details and contexts necessary to understand the state of the galaxy 30 years after ROTJ: they tried to avoid galactic politics at all costs. The belief was rampant that the Senate scenes were not only dumb but an affront to the saga. So instead of a clear setup like “Leia is still building the Republic, there are remnant Imperials fighting like ISIS, and there is a criminal/dark-side faction consolidating power”…we have a Nü-Empire that no one thinks matters but also is clearly ready to take power, we have a Republic we see for ten seconds before it is blown up, and a Resistance that is resisting the Republic but also working with the Republic but not really because the Republic who won’t resist against the First Order.

Which, uh…huh? There are like four lines in TFA that try to get all this across. And, ultimately, they really just wanted to reset the galaxy back to where it was in A New Hope because “scrappy Rebels vs big bad Empire” is the only “real” Star Wars story they could think to tell. Now, I’m in the camp that TLJ rescued a bunch of the vague threads left out by TFA and set up the sequels to become its own interesting story that echoes the other movies without just repeating them. But then TROS…well…liked that repeating idea instead.

All of this is to say: would George’s version of these stories be better? Well, it would be more cohesive and thoughtful, for sure. But the execution might have been shakier. And I think that it’s good that people have come back around to embracing George and his approach to Star Wars in the wake of the sequels…but we should remember that Lucas was persona non grata to much of the public in the early 2010s after the prequels and Kingdom of the Crystal Skull. Instead of thinking “actual sequel trilogy vs. George’s,” the actual options were probably “actual sequel trilogy vs no more Skywalker saga.”

Author
Time

The only thing i’m even remotely interested in is how fleshed out his story for Luke was and how much of the sequel would have been an organic continuation and extension of Return of the Jedi.

Not so much fanservice but character development if what i’m interested in. not really all that interested in him being a superhero who cuts star destroyers in half or waves around a lightsaber and does flashy things.

Very interested in the Jedi teacher story and the more mysterious sort of quasi religious aspects of the force, not so much the midichlorians.

I can see the Darth Maul stuff only working if he is the contrast to everything Luke and the Jedi represent and becomes an imposing antagonist, but its very hard for me to picture Maul being that.

Luke and Leia both would have to become the symbol of the New Republic. Luke and the Jedi being the guarantors of galactic stability and peace, Leia being the face of the new republics government.

Author
Time

When I heard about the most-recently-reported version of George’s ST ideas, I was heartbroken by how badly I wanted it, only to know that now it will never be.

I’m not sure about the specifics of Maul surviving and bringing in a version of Darth Talon, but putting the challenges of postwar rebuilding front and center would have been perfect for making the trilogy a relevant part of a single story, and the idea of a criminal underworld helmed by a darksider also would’ve made for a much more distinct threat than Empire 2.0 in the First Order. Of course, it also had the exact story I wanted for Luke.

And though it might not have ultimately been the best decision, even the Maul idea could have had potential if handled right. Plus, the revelation that George was considering it means that he was laying the groundwork for a Star Wars Episode VII that was never so much as teased, leaked, or hinted at all the way back in 2011, which is absolutely wild to me.

Also, while George’s interest in Talon was kind of eye-rolling to me, it also inspired some additional crazy speculation. First, consider that this Talon obviously would not have been the same character as the EU one (who lived over a century after the movies). Second, consider that Solo was the brainchild of the Kasdans and the idea of a Han Solo movie was at least on George’s mind prior to the Disney sale.

So let’s imagine that, in a world where George keeps the company, a version of Solo comes out that may differ in plenty of details but has the same broad strokes as the Disney one…including ending with Qi’ra heading to Dathomir.

Maybe George’s Qi’ra is a Force-sensitive Twi’lek who Maul takes as his apprentice…

Co-author of STAR WARS: THE RISE OF SKYWALKER - THE TEAM DALE REWRITE

Author
Time

Considering the backlash against midichlorians, I think George’s intent to explore the Whills would have led to far more things that fans would have fond fault with over what we got. I think what we got was an epic conclusion to an epic saga in the line of what George might have done if the next movie had come out in 1989 (with different, older actors portraying Han, Luke, and Leia). I think Palpatine coming back was a genius move. If the saga was going to continue past ROTJ and tie in with the other stories (the PT were always going to have the major points they did) that keeping Palpatine a the bad guy is such a nice echo of Star Wars origins in Flash Gordon. Ming always came back so it make sense that so does Palpatine. Though that seems like a last minute addition, I think there is some evidence that that was the ending that Abrams wanted to see all along. But George was going to explore the origins of the Force and I think that would have backfired. I think other things he would have done he might have done better himself, but he seems to have been derailed from the formula that made the OT such a success - and that his mythic action in space. Larger than life mythic archetypes saving the galaxy in mythic ways in space ships with space battles. I see those archetypes in the ST. I think TFA could have been much better done, but Abrams was too scared to make the movie he should have for fear of alienating fans. I think in the end he realized that he needed to make a cool movie and hope the fans came around. I think TROS took more risks and as a result made a better story. I think Lucas was going to go exploring in his world more and I don’t think fans would have liked it.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think the opposite. As even if George had made the Sequels back in the 80’s they would be vastly different to what Disney gave us.

Take into account two major bits:

“If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems… The sequel is about Jedi knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.”

A quote from George in the 80’s. He always viewed each trilogy as being different from the last but interconnected.

As well as this interview Mark Hamill did in the 80’s.

“It’s either going to be on another plane of existence, or not the same character. When you see the ending, you’ll see why it has to be the last one. Period."

https://youtu.be/_lCNn8Ys5GQ

George always seems to have seen each trilogy as being different and for that matter each film in the saga as a whole. He never settled for doing the same thrills and tricks twice. He always made each of his six films vastly different from the last. They may of had familiar elements but the context was always vastly different. Like the Death Star I and II. One represented Luke’s battle outwardly and the other represented Luke’s battle inwardly with his father.

As well as Mark talking about the saga as a whole ending on another plane of existence does make me wonder if early on George had vague notions of getting into more metaphysical subject matters as the Whills are some of the earliest least known or talked about lore. It’s vague enough on Mark’s part to not give too much away. It would be interesting to have someone ask him. He did talk a bit about how the Prequels we have are very much what he thought George described them as being back in the early days in Howard Kazanjian’s book. So I’m sure he at least had a broader sense of things as Mark says. Steven Spielberg and Rick McCallum also talked about this back in the 90’s.

“George always wanted to make nine. He wanted to make the first three. And he wanted to make the Prequels to that. Then he wanted to make the last three. And that was something that was part of his concept.”

“Rather or not George ever completes six of the nine part series or he actually ever ultimately completes the nine, it’s really nine parts of one film. It’s one big saga about a family that happens to live in a galaxy far, far away.”

Ultimately George never fell prey to giving fans exactly what they want. He always experimented and tried new things. Unfortunately many want Star Wars to be a romp and adventure series but it can be so much more as the Prequels proved. He decided to give these fans what they wanted by selling the company as he’d be sacrificing his principles as an artist making basically the same story all over again.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Stardust1138 said:

I think the opposite. As even if George had made the Sequels back in the 80’s they would be vastly different to what Disney gave us.

Take into account two major bits:

“If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems… The sequel is about Jedi knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.”

A quote from George in the 80’s. He always viewed each trilogy as being different from the last but interconnected.

If the above quote is from the “Icons: Intimate Portraits” book, then it is worth mentioning that George Lucas only refers to the possibility of there being Sequels as a vague notion in his mind.

In a 1997 issue of the “Star Wars Insider”, Lucas said “[The whole story has] six episodes…If I ever went beyond that, it would be something that was made up. I really don’t have any notion other than ‘Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.”

In a 1999 interview with “Vanity Fair”, Lucas denied ever having any plans to make nine “Star Wars” movies. “When you see it in six parts, you’ll understand”, Lucas said at the time. “It really ends at part six.”

There are more similar quotes from George. It really can be difficult to take George’s words as fact at times.

Maybe, at best Lucas’ quote of "I really don’t have any notion other than “Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.” has been incorrectly misconstrued as being his outline for his Sequel Trilogy? Because in Lucas’ own words they are not part of the main story, but may be an idea for a possible sequel or continuation of Luke’s own personal story.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Riquendes said:

Stardust1138 said:

I think the opposite. As even if George had made the Sequels back in the 80’s they would be vastly different to what Disney gave us.

Take into account two major bits:

“If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems… The sequel is about Jedi knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.”

A quote from George in the 80’s. He always viewed each trilogy as being different from the last but interconnected.

If the above quote is from the “Icons: Intimate Portraits” book, then it is worth mentioning that George Lucas only refers to the possibility of there being Sequels as a vague notion in his mind.

In a 1997 issue of the “Star Wars Insider”, Lucas said “[The whole story has] six episodes…If I ever went beyond that, it would be something that was made up. I really don’t have any notion other than ‘Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.”

In a 1999 interview with “Vanity Fair”, Lucas denied ever having any plans to make nine “Star Wars” movies. “When you see it in six parts, you’ll understand”, Lucas said at the time. “It really ends at part six.”

There are more similar quotes from George. It really can be difficult to take George’s words as fact at times.

Maybe, at best Lucas’ quote of "I really don’t have any notion other than “Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.” has been incorrectly misconstrued as being his outline for his Sequel Trilogy? Because in Lucas’ own words they are not part of the main story, but may be an idea for a possible sequel or continuation of Luke’s own personal story.

Yes, he’s always said as much since the early days that he only had vague notions of where the Sequels would go. They weren’t ever as detailed or as mapped out. He kept the Prequels we ended up getting vague enough in the event he never made them but open enough that he’d have wiggle room to continue and conclude the story more definitively.

His Sequels explored Anakin’s origins, the mystery of Sifo-Dyas, Darth Maul, the power vacuum that is indirectly mentioned, and quite a bit more established in the first three.

He also said in 1997:

“Let’s just get past the first three before we worry about the last three.”

I think he went back and forth with things but still planted seeds in the event he ever felt the urge to continue and conclude the story. He seemed to distance himself further from the idea when he got backlash for the Prequels and I can’t say I blame him as no creative person can work in a situation where people are telling you what a horrible person you are. It’s very heartbreaking as he was following his vision. Star Wars was his. It may have created a whole in our collective culture but it’s his baby. He owes no one anything but in the end he came around as in 2011 he started researching and writing up his Sequels. He decided to not make the films himself and gave certain fans exactly what they wanted by selling the company.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas

Author
Time

Riquendes said:

Stardust1138 said:

I think the opposite. As even if George had made the Sequels back in the 80’s they would be vastly different to what Disney gave us.

Take into account two major bits:

“If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems… The sequel is about Jedi knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.”

A quote from George in the 80’s. He always viewed each trilogy as being different from the last but interconnected.

If the above quote is from the “Icons: Intimate Portraits” book, then it is worth mentioning that George Lucas only refers to the possibility of there being Sequels as a vague notion in his mind.

In a 1997 issue of the “Star Wars Insider”, Lucas said “[The whole story has] six episodes…If I ever went beyond that, it would be something that was made up. I really don’t have any notion other than ‘Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.”

In a 1999 interview with “Vanity Fair”, Lucas denied ever having any plans to make nine “Star Wars” movies. “When you see it in six parts, you’ll understand”, Lucas said at the time. “It really ends at part six.”

There are more similar quotes from George. It really can be difficult to take George’s words as fact at times.

Maybe, at best Lucas’ quote of "I really don’t have any notion other than “Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.” has been incorrectly misconstrued as being his outline for his Sequel Trilogy? Because in Lucas’ own words they are not part of the main story, but may be an idea for a possible sequel or continuation of Luke’s own personal story.

Well, it depends on when George was quoted as to what he said. Early on he was talking 9 films. Never an if about the last 3. The way Mark talked sounded like it was certain he was going to do 9. As he started planning the prequels, he stopped talking about the sequels. By the time he was done with ROTS, he wasn’t planning on doing the sequels any longer. Then as time wore on, he thought about it again. I’m not sure they ever would have gotten made if he hadn’t sold Lucasfilm to Disney. Sure he roughed out treatments, but I get the impression it was more to add value to the company than because he was planning on making them at that point.

Plus, if you read the early treatments and drafts of TESB and ROTJ, they are very different than what we got in the end. That is the nature of movie story telling. It morphs from the earliest ideas to the final product. You can even see that in Colin Trevorrow’s draft and the final TROS. The story follows the same structure, but details have changed drastically.

My above comments about the Whills are aimed at the treatment that George had done, but who knows what would have happened and how the story would have changed if he had decided to start production. We probably would still be waiting for the final installment since he liked to spend 3 years on each film. But based on what he was talking about and his past track record, I think he was headed in a direction that the fans wouldn’t have liked. The fans very much wanted a new trilogy similar to the first and better than the prequels, but with a fresh story. I think going too metaphysical would have lost them. I think Abrams could have started it better. Most of the complaints come from his setup in TFA. But with that I think we got two sequels worthy of the originals. And I think the complaints about what George might have done would make the complaints about TLJ and TROS look insigificant.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

yotsuya said:

Riquendes said:

Stardust1138 said:

I think the opposite. As even if George had made the Sequels back in the 80’s they would be vastly different to what Disney gave us.

Take into account two major bits:

“If the first trilogy is social and political and talks about how society evolves, Star Wars is more about personal growth and self realization, and the third deals with moral and philosophical problems… The sequel is about Jedi knighthood, justice, confrontation, and passing on what you have learned.”

A quote from George in the 80’s. He always viewed each trilogy as being different from the last but interconnected.

If the above quote is from the “Icons: Intimate Portraits” book, then it is worth mentioning that George Lucas only refers to the possibility of there being Sequels as a vague notion in his mind.

In a 1997 issue of the “Star Wars Insider”, Lucas said “[The whole story has] six episodes…If I ever went beyond that, it would be something that was made up. I really don’t have any notion other than ‘Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.”

In a 1999 interview with “Vanity Fair”, Lucas denied ever having any plans to make nine “Star Wars” movies. “When you see it in six parts, you’ll understand”, Lucas said at the time. “It really ends at part six.”

There are more similar quotes from George. It really can be difficult to take George’s words as fact at times.

Maybe, at best Lucas’ quote of "I really don’t have any notion other than “Gee, it would be interesting to do Luke Skywalker later on.’ It wouldn’t be part of the main story, but a sequel to this thing.” has been incorrectly misconstrued as being his outline for his Sequel Trilogy? Because in Lucas’ own words they are not part of the main story, but may be an idea for a possible sequel or continuation of Luke’s own personal story.

Well, it depends on when George was quoted as to what he said. Early on he was talking 9 films. Never an if about the last 3. The way Mark talked sounded like it was certain he was going to do 9. As he started planning the prequels, he stopped talking about the sequels. By the time he was done with ROTS, he wasn’t planning on doing the sequels any longer. Then as time wore on, he thought about it again. I’m not sure they ever would have gotten made if he hadn’t sold Lucasfilm to Disney. Sure he roughed out treatments, but I get the impression it was more to add value to the company than because he was planning on making them at that point.

Plus, if you read the early treatments and drafts of TESB and ROTJ, they are very different than what we got in the end. That is the nature of movie story telling. It morphs from the earliest ideas to the final product. You can even see that in Colin Trevorrow’s draft and the final TROS. The story follows the same structure, but details have changed drastically.

My above comments about the Whills are aimed at the treatment that George had done, but who knows what would have happened and how the story would have changed if he had decided to start production. We probably would still be waiting for the final installment since he liked to spend 3 years on each film. But based on what he was talking about and his past track record, I think he was headed in a direction that the fans wouldn’t have liked. The fans very much wanted a new trilogy similar to the first and better than the prequels, but with a fresh story. I think going too metaphysical would have lost them. I think Abrams could have started it better. Most of the complaints come from his setup in TFA. But with that I think we got two sequels worthy of the originals. And I think the complaints about what George might have done would make the complaints about TLJ and TROS look insigificant.

He told USA Today in 2015 he planned to make Episode VII himself and then he’d sell to Disney. He decided against it and sold to them outright. He would definitely still be making the trilogy as he said as much to Paul Duncan in his Prequels book about taking three years with the films. I think George stopped talking about the Sequels because he wanted to focus on the stories he was making but that didn’t stop him from privately talking about these things to an extent as he talked to Rob Coleman, the Prequels animation supervisor, about R2-D2 recounting events to a Keeper of the Whills. The Revenge of the Sith junior novel also makes mention of the Ancient Order of the Whills. I think he only had vague notions and the story evolved. There was enough in the Prequels and Originals for another three films but he went back and forth on rather or not to ever make them.

Exactly. The same thing happened with The Empire Strikes Back and Return of the Jedi. He ulimately included some of his Sequel plans in Return of the Jedi as he was burnt out and more than likely his divorce took a lot out of him. So the stories did change and evolve. That’s no secret. Stories evolve and take different courses. It’s why I think he pretty much knew the story he wanted to tell with the Prequels but the Sequels he only had vague notions of where the story would go. As in using some of the original plans in the Sequels for Return of the Jedi he’d always have to rework the Sequels a bit if he did revisit them. They were never fully laid out.

I don’t think the Sequels we ended up getting are worthy of the Originals but each to their own opinion. I’m glad some can enjoy them. I wish I could see them as worthy conclusions but I can only find I enjoy The Last Jedi if I see it as its own thing and the other two I find I only enjoy certain scenes. Otherwise they feel too distant from the world George created. I’m very much in full agreement with everything Marcia Lucas said. I don’t hate them by any stretch but they’re very far removed from what Star Wars is to George Lucas and in turn me.

As well as yes, Duel of the Fates and The Rise of Skywalker are very different but The Rise of Skywalker takes storybeats from it and puts them in new contexts. It’s a very J.J. Abrams thing to do. He puts things into his films without thinking of context as to why they worked in the original work but puts them in his own because it “delights” him. That was his whole process with The Force Awakens.

I’ll take Midi-Chlorians and the Whills over X-Wings and TIE Fighters again any day.

"Pleasure’s fun. It’s great, but you can’t keep it going forever; just accept the fact that it’s here and it’s gone, and maybe then again, it will come back, and you’ll get to do it again. Joy lasts forever. Pleasure is purely self-centered. It’s all about your pleasure: it’s about you. It’s a selfish, self-centered emotion, that is created by a self-centered motive of greed. Joy is compassion. Joy is giving yourself to somebody else, or something else. And it’s a kind of thing that is, in its subtlety and lowness, much more powerful than pleasure. You get hung up on pleasure; you’re doomed. If you pursue joy; you will find everlasting happiness.” - George Lucas