Really? From what I’ve heard, Sir Alec didn’t really want to come back for ESB, and considered using an eye condition he had as an excuse not to resume his role. In the event, some of Obi-Wan’s lines were shifted to Yoda (as both Dale Pollock and JW Rinzler attest), and Guinness ended up filming on ESB for all of one day.
Peter Cushing is clearly having fun on SW in a way that Alec Guinness isn’t. Guinness a lot the time IMO is phoning it in, probably feeling like “why did I take this film, this is so cheesy, it’s so beneath me.” Whereas Hammer horror veteran Cushing is quite obviously having a blast and it shows in his performance.
Incredibly sad. Rest in peace, Mr. Lippincott.
Perhaps so. That’s the sort of distracting visual artifact that leads to messing with the image in other ways - such as the “Emperor’s slugs” in ROTJ that were created to hide a distracting edge on Ian McDiarmid’s lumpy face makeup.
If only we could figure out how to get to the non-mirror universe…
And maybe the original “Darth Vader” was Obi-Wan’s other pupil, and he disappeared or was killed, but Anakin assumed his name for some reason? Interesting concept.
Back in 1975, SW costume designer John Mollo designed an early version of the Imperial logo, based on the Starfleet/Enterprise arrowhead in Star Trek.
It was meant to suggest a Federation that had become corrupt and turned into an Empire.
Those shots of Carrie riding the Jerba are fascinating. One of the Mos Eisley streets was filmed as a set in England, right around the time Carrie arrived on set for the first time. So those pictures were likely taken just as she was joining the production.
That’s not a compositing error. That TIE is flying from the foreground into the background, in an opposite directon to the Falcon.
Shouldn’t they still be behind the Falcon though, based on their size? They’re clearly too small to be in front of the Falcon.
If you watch the shot in motion, they start out much larger in the foreground and head backwards into the distance as the Falcon approaches from the opposite direction. I agree that the scale is a bit wonky, but the composition in terms of relative planes seems fine.
That’s not a compositing error. That TIE is flying from the foreground into the background, in an opposite directon to the Falcon.
THIS (a few frames later) is a compositing error.
There is a 1975 John Mollo sketch of Jabba in Rinzler’s Making of SW - he’s basically humanoid but has a third eye in his forehead.
Looks to me like in the second image she’s covering her breasts with her right arm (which is bent at the elbow accordingly) and holding a blaster in her left hand. Though I guess it could also be the top of her dress, with her right arm held behind Luke’s back.
But the first sketch does look like Leia is topless: her skin tone is drawn slightly darker than the loincloth she’s wearing. And in the third image her left breast has popped out of her shirt while she’s being tortured (you can see the line where the fabric has slipped under her bust).
Also: this sort of thing is probably the real reason why Lucas thought Leia wouldn’t wear a bra under that dress.
The trappers speak in a strange language, and although they appear slightly human, they are slimy, deformed, hideous looking creatures. Two of the trappers yell at one another in a friendly argument. One shirtless creature goes into a “crawler,” and the remaining eight laugh hysterically. Starkiller moves further out on the limb to get a better view. A couple of pieces of bark break loose, and float a hundred feet to the ground. The trappers fail to notice. Moments later, the shirtless trapper emerges from the crawler with Princess Leia held unconscious and half naked over his head.
Starkiller’s rage knows no bounds. With a terrifying Jedi war cry, the young captain jumps from the tree, sails over a hundred feet, and with great agility, lands in the middle of the startled trappers. In one continuous rapid motion, he ignites his lazersword and cuts down three of the vile creatures.
– Star Wars 1974 rough draft
Also, John Mollo’s notes show that one concept for Leia’s prison attire in the 1975 third draft was a “smock” of some sort, which was skimpy enough that she would wear some of Han’s clothes after reaching the Falcon.
By the time of those George Lucas quotes, he’d already filmed the movie and decided against having any nudity. But the concept art was done at a time when the script was still in flux. Going “the Disney route” wasn’t necessarily a decided thing in 1974-5.
Besides which, costume designer John Mollo wrote in his notes from 1975 that Leia’s outfit was to be “mock-medieval” but also “Tarzan-type” (apparently for the prison escape). Which fits with the loincloth in the McQuarrie sketches.
And as I said above, there was basically a rape scene in the 1974 rough draft with a “half-naked” Leia and the “Urellian trappers”, which was indecent enough that JW Rinzler shied away from describing it on the official SW site.
I really think it’s your own assumption that, since SW is “family-friendly” now, it must have always been that way from the very beginning. The evidence suggests otherwise.
screams in the void said:
^ my response from that same thread…^ I highly disagree in all cases . Artists who have studied life drawing typically draw the "nude "figure and build it up from there , adding drapery and then erasing the construction lines… Mcquarrie has studied life drawing . The "nipple chain " you see is a set of lines to establish form and indicate where shadows will fall . What you claim is akin to saying the artist in this example intended these figures to be nude…https://seattleartistleague.com/art-classes/teen-figure-drawing-clothed-afternoon-july-6-10-ages-13-18/
At any rate , Star Wars was never conceived as a film containing nudity . Do you have any articles or behind the scenes interviews to show as proof of what you claim ?..now you cite some examples here, but your conclusions are pure conjecture and not solid proof .
Leaving aside that one sketch that you keep mentioning, the other drawings do appear to show a bare-breasted Leia wearing only a loincloth, or at the very least having enough of a wardrobe malfunction to alarm the MPAA. Or else why is Leia covering her breasts with her arm in the second sketch?
And how do you know that “Star Wars was never conceived as a film containing nudity”?
Continuing a discussion ZkinAndBonez and I were having in another thread: apparently Ralph McQuarrie did some concept art of NSFW Leia outfits for the prison escape in the original Star Wars. See here, here, here, and also here.
In the first image, Leia’s clothing is just a loincloth, and she’s naked from the waist up. The same thing is true in the second image: the loincloth is pencilled in more lightly this time, but Leia is covering her exposed breasts with her right arm. And in the third picture (a detail from the frontispiece in The Making of ESB, though it was actually done for SW 1977), her top has partially slid off during the Imperial torture droid’s interrogation, exposing her left breast.
The fourth image is more debatable, but I think it shows Leia wearing a nipple chain under her tunic, likely inspired by a line Katharine Hepburn has about wanting to wear one in The Lion in Winter.
Contrast this image, where Leia is wearing a much more demure outfit, apparently consisting of a pair of pants and a midriff-baring tank top. So McQuarrie did indeed draw costume concepts in some of these storyboards.
Is there textual support for this sort of nudity in SW? I think so.
The 1974 SW rough draft includes a scene where Annikin Starkiller and Princess Leia are separated when they land on the jungle moon of Yavin. When Annikin catches up to her, Leia is the prisoner of nine “Ureallian trappers”, and is “half-naked” and unconscious. It’s implied they’ve sexually assaulted her.
JW Rinzler apparently thought so, but preferred not to spell it out explicitly: in one blog post on the official SW site he wrote “In the original 1974 rough draft… the “trackers” are nasty aliens who live on an Ewok-free planet known as Yavin. I don’t want to say what havoc they cause, but it isn’t pretty.”
The 1975 third draft similarly has Leia suffer a hands-on interrogation from Vader and two Imperial officers, which may be based on a scene in the THX 1138 novelization where LUH 1417 is assaulted by three guards during her imprisonment. If something similar happened to Leia, it would give Lucas a good reason to tell Ralph McQuarrie to draw her bare-breasted.
I’ll concede you might be right about the fourth image (though I personally doubt it).
But in the first image, Leia’s clothing is already drawn in - it’s just a loincloth, and she’s naked from the waist up. The same thing is true in the second image, where she’s covering her exposed breasts with her right arm. And in the third picture, her top has partially slid off during the Imperial torture droid’s interrogation, exposing her left breast.
What we have here are definitely some sketches for NSFW Leia costumes by Ralph McQuarrie.
It is definitely a thing (see here , here, and here - the third is a detail from a drawing used as the frontispiece in The Making of ESB, though it was actually done for SW). At one point McQuarrie even sketched a nipple chain under Leia’s tunic, likely inspired by a line Katharine Hepburn has about wanting to wear one in The Lion in Winter.
They’d probably have understood it better if Lucas had gone with the idea in some Ralph McQuarrie sketches of Leia running around topless during the prison escape.
I wonder how the same sort of people that said Star Wars was overly simplistic in its good/evil duality (a charge particularly relevant in the murky moral climate of 1970s cinema) could also say the film had “no moral, no message”. Is it a film with too simple and didactic a worldview, or is it not simple & didactic enough?
But Luke wasn’t planning to appear before the Emperor - Vader took Luke to Palpatine when he initially refused to turn back to the light side as Luke asked him to. Luke wanted to surrender to the Imperials to avoid having Vader sense what the Rebels were doing through him, and to have a face-to-face talk with his father. If he failed at turning his father, he might be killed, but his friends would no longer be in danger from his Force link to Vader.
And besides, why would Luke think it was his job to kill the Emperor anyway? The Rebel fleet destroying the Death Star was supposed to be responsible for that.
Or maybe we would’ve seen Obi-Wan training Luke during the middle of ESB, and he would’ve accompanied Luke to Cloud City and sacrificed himself there.
Broom Kid said:
“Fan Forums” are one of the worst possible ways to “know” anyone, or build any sort of accurate picture of a person. Conversations about Star Wars aren’t a great basis for determining what a person’s character is like, and there’s not a lot of upside to looking at those conversations in that light, anyway. It doesn’t really make the conversation any better, usually doesn’t increase any understanding of the movies, and mostly just leads you to put way too much weight on something (disposable conversations with strangers about space movies) that just isn’t built to carry that much weight.
I don’t know that I agree that ‘toxic’ needs to stop being used as a descriptor, if only because it CAN apply very well… the problem is that a huge part of WHY it applies is because people DO approach disposable conversations with strangers about space movies with such misplaced energy and importance that it ends up warping perspective, to the point where real toxicity can occur. But usually it’s a pretty long walk between “jeez, that guy is annoying” to “jeez, that guy is TOXIC.”
But even then, that doesn’t mean anyone here can paint a really accurate picture of anyone else’s personality based solely on the very small, focused, and mostly inconsequential (and anonymous) glimpses being given through “Star Wars” talks. Most everyone here has a whole LIFE outside of liking Star Wars that is bigger, and way more important than this, and we’ll never really know about it beyond the surface. Toxicity can be a temporary condition, too, and if you find yourself getting upset at other people’s opinions on Star Wars, in my experience, that just means its time to stop and reflect on what you’re putting into this, and what you’re getting out of it, and whether there’s an imbalance that needs to be tended to on YOUR end.
Apologies for being off topic. Just wanted to speak a little from my perspective, having seen (and been in) so many of these sorts of scuffles and fights over the years.
To sum up: Ewoks are awesome, Yub Nub is the best, “Return of the Jedi” is referencing Luke, celebrate the love, keep balance in the Force.
Well said. 😃
It’s also worth asking exactly how much chance Luke has of killing the Emperor in a straight-up fight. Vader’s betrayal clearly took Palpatine by surprise. But if Luke just raised his lightsaber and tried to cut him down, I’m sure he had some Force lightning up his sleeve even if Vader was out of the picture.
As Vader never says Leia’s name out loud, does he only sense Luke has a sister, but not her actual identity?
Apparently so. Which is interesting.