deepanddark20

This has been touched on a couple times in some other threads, so I figured we could give it it's own separate discussion here.

1. Darth Vader is Luke Skywalker's father

But in Star Wars (1977), Obi Wan Kenobi and Uncle Owen both explicitly tell Luke that his father is dead, and Obi Wan explicitly tells Luke that his father was betrayed and murdered by Obi Wan's former pupil Darth Vader. When those lines were written by George Lucas in the mid-70's, was he already committed to the idea that Obi Wan is lying, with the rationalization that Obi Wan has a "certain point of view"?

In fact further research shows even more reason to doubt that Vader was Luke's father before Empire Strikes Back was released. Not only does Star Wars make Vader and Luke's father seem like two distinct characters, but the first draft of Empire Strikes Back's screenplay, which Leigh Brackett wrote based on George Lucas's story treatment, has the ghost of Luke's father appearing to Luke to instruct Luke. Then Lucas wrote the second draft and it was in this second draft that Vader is first said to be Luke's father. Michael Kaminski argues in his book that the twist didn't exist before then; if someone wants to say that it did, they bear the burden of proof.

2. Leia is Luke's sister

But in Star Wars (1977) Luke very clearly has an attraction for her, which causes tension between him and Han in a scene on the Millennium Falcon. Then in Empire Strikes Back, Leia kisses Luke pretty hard in front of Han, and Luke's reaction clearly shows he was digging it in a non-brotherly way. And the Blu-Ray shows deleted footage from that scene where Luke and Leia share an intensely romantic exchange (this time not to spite Han but actually from the heart). All of this makes sense if you believe Gary Kurtz, the producer who left the series after Empire Strikes Back, when he admitted in an interview that Luke's sister, the "other skywalker" was originally not going to be Leia but was going to be a new character to be introduced in the sequel trilogy (episodes vii-ix). Kurtz opposed Lucas's last minute decision to resolve the love triangle in Return of the Jedi by switching the sister to Leia. Supposedly Lucas wasn't sure at that point if episodes vii-ix would ever get made so he decided to rush the resolution of the "other skywalker" subplot. You have to admit, Return of the Jedi's "reveal" of Luke and Leia's relationship feels a bit shoehorned in....

3. Darth is Vader's first name?

In Star Wars (1977) Obi Wan refers to Vader before he turned to the dark side as "a young Jedi 'NAMED' Darth Vader...." Then when he fights Vader on the Death Star, he says "Only a master of evil, Darth...." and "You can't win Darth..." For those who try to argue that this evidence is weak and inconclusive, how do you explain the following:

This way of speaking is never repeated in a subsequent Star Wars movie. Never again is someone said to be "named" Darth so-and-so. And never again is someone referred to merely as "Darth".

In fact, in the first draft of The Star Wars, Darth Vader is General Darth Vader, so "general" is his title, yet he still had the name "Darth."

4. Did Anakin's wife die in childbirth?

Even though Luke says he has no memory of his mother because he never knew her, Leia contrasts with this by saying she has a little bit of memory of her mother because she died when Leia was very young. This conversation clearly contrasts Luke and Leia where there mother is concerned; they did not know their mother for the same length of time.

Further research also corroborates this. In the story conferences between Lucas, Kasdan, Marquand, etc. for Return of the Jedi, Lucas elaborates on the backstory as it was in his mind at that time, and explicitly states that Anakin did not know his wife was pregnant, she kept it a secret from him because of the changes that have been taking place in him as he's drawn more and more to the dark side and becomes less and less the Anakin she's familiar with. She confides about the pregnancy to Obi Wan and gives birth in secret, and survives the birth. She takes Leia to Alderaan, where she dies while Leia is two or three years old.

Based on that story conference, dialogue was written for the scene on Dagobah in Jedi after Yoda's death when Obi Wan appears and discusses backstory with Luke. The scene as scripted goes longer than in the movie; Obi Wan explains some of the details outlined above, and even says that Luke's Uncle Owen was Obi Wan's brother. This full conversation between Luke and Obi Wan appears in the novelization of Jedi, even though it was cut from the movie.

When Luke decides to reveal to Leia that he is her brother on Endor, there are multiple ways he could choose to start the conversation. On the basis of the information that Obi Wan revealed to him earlier (that Luke was taken from his mother at birth while Leia went with their mother to Alderaan), he decides to ask about her memories of their common mother, memories that he wouldn't have, but that she would have because she wasn't separated at birth the way he was.

Explanations by fans on the internet, that Leia "uses the force" to have image memories of her mother, are just feeble attempts to reconcile something that in reality is just George Lucas changing his mind when it came time to write Revenge of the Sith.

"named" Darth Vader. "named" Darth Vader. "named". "named". That word isn't an exact synonym for the word "called". You don't say our current president is "named" President Obama. You could say he's "called" President Obama.

I think it's simply self evident that it was a name when that script was first written and then it became a title during the later expanding and revising of the series as it developed. After that first movie, there is never again a single time when a Sith is referred to merely as "Darth". Not even once. Referred to merely as "Vader", yes. But as "Darth," no.

It's not a detail that can't be rationalized and made to fit with the later movies, just like you have done canofhumdingers. Your approach is perfectly valid. But it's just like Luke's clear attraction to Leiah in A New Hope (and the intense romantic moment between them that was deleted from ESB) is evidence that the whole sister angle was an innovation of RotJ and not something that was already planned from the beginning.

Earlier in A New Hope Obi-Wan says Darth Vader was his name even before he turned to the dark side. And don't counter by pointing out that he was lying to Luke; remember ESB and RotJ didn't exist yet (and if you're going to try arguing that Lucas had all the twists planned out from the very beginning instead of making it up as he went, don't bother; besides the few examples given in this post, a list of others could also be given to further discredit the "saga was all written from the very beginning" fallacy)

Time to get back to the subject of being blase about the new trilogy though (the true topic of this thread)

Even though he's no longer the same Lucas who wrote and directed the original Star Wars in 1977 (he's very far from it now actually) it's still way more interesting to hear him talk about Star Wars in interviews like this than it is to actually watch his post-1989 movie work.

By the way Hal, thanks so much for those parodies, they were fantastic.

The prequels made "Darth" as a title more integral to Star Wars than it had been before. "Darth" is clearly a name, not a title, in A New Hope (e.g. "only a master of evil Darth", "you can't win Darth", etc.). But whatever. The inclusion (or lack thereof) of "Darth" in the new trilogy wouldn't have an effect one way or the other on how blase I feel about it.

I'm a strong advocate of not including the prequels in any viewing of the Star Wars movies, so my previous post in this thread didn't take it very seriously, and I apologize. My real serious response to the question of how best to experience all 6 movies as one saga would be this (two part answer):

1. Use the viewing order that places the prequels as a flashback in between episodes 5 and 6. That's definitely the best order that includes the prequels. You can make up your own mind about whether or not to include episode 1, I'm not going to nitpick about that detail, but at the very least watch 4 and 5 first and watch 6 last.

2. Part 2 of my answer involves the specific versions you should use. Since I don't watch the prequels, my favorite versions of choice are Harmy's despecialized, but if you are watching the whole saga including the prequels then those versions are not the versions you should watch. You need to watch versions that have been altered to fit better with the prequels. HOWEVER, and I must be emphatic about this, you should NOT watch the currently canonical release being sold in stores right now (with the possible exception of episode 5). For Return of the Jedi, there's really only one option for you and that's the 1997 special edition version. Anything after that includes the ghost change at the end and Vader saying "noooo" and those are changes that you and everyone else needs to avoid like the plague. For A new hope, there is again just one choice: adywan's revisited (in fact revisited would be your choice for everything if the others existed right now). For Empire Strikes back, you've got more flexibility since compared to the other two movies the changes aren't as much of an issue (even though the changes involving Vader's shuttle at the end are pretty friggin bad).

Enjoy the saga, whichever way you choose to watch it.

As much as I love Obi-Wan Kenobi, and as much as I love Ewan Macgregor, I wouldn't be able to accept Kenobi's inclusion in any further Star Wars movies played by Macgregor. The idea of Kenobi showing up as Ewan Macgregor ever again after being played by Guiness in the previous 3 movies just can't work. It would be a clunkiness that is far better to avoid by simply not including the character anymore, as much as he will be sorely missed.

The Hobbit prequel trilogy most certainly does not suffer the same problems as the Star Wars prequel trilogy!

Peter Jackson's Hobbit movies are VERY good movies (not merely good).

This thread is comparing two trilogies that are so far apart from each other in quality that they can't even be reasonably compared.

George Lucas's directing of his cast was so poor that even the actors with great talent in the Star Wars prequels came across as bad actors. This issue is 100% absent from The Hobbit movies, where Peter Jackson is proving more than capable of directing quality performances from his cast.

No matter what aspect of the trilogies you compare or what criteria you use, it is still true that even at their worst, Jackson's movies are an entirely different category of quality from even the best of the Star Wars prequels.

And even if someone doesn't put the Hobbit movies on the same pedestal that I do, I'd still say the superiority of the Hobbit movies over the Star Wars prequels remains beyond dispute. The Star Wars prequels are some truly awful movies, practically unique among modern movies in their poorness, so bad that they are beyond comparison with any other trilogy, not just Jackson's.

Even if Episode VII were complete and utter crap, they could still make the teaser kick ass. The trailers for Phantom Menace and Attack of the Clones were positively inspiring compared to the actual movies. I don't mean to be argumentative when I say this.

It would be pretty freaky if Frink was actually correct about me using a hat, even though he can't see what I used.

But what would be even freakier is if I actually used a hat and pulled out three movies in a row that all come from the same franchise (Indiana Jones). What would the odds be?

Actually, my thinking was that the person who started this thread seems intent on watching 2 trilogies, not just the original trilogy. And George Lucas has actually been involved with 2 great trilogies in his career. So I replaced the trilogy that George pulled out of his bum with the trilogy that's closer in quality to Star Wars. It would at least be a much better use of 6 hours than the prequels would be.

To Frink, I quote Indy's words to the Maharaja in ToD: "If I offended you, then I am sorry."

For you must watch 6 movies, you should watch in the following order:

1. Star Wars

2. The Empire Strikes Back

3. Return of the Jedi

4. Raiders of the Lost Ark

5. Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom

6. Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade

I totally share your blase feeling towards new Star Wars material, lordsidi.

DominicCobb, my post was at least related to J. J. Abrams directing Star Wars, which is (supposedly) the topic of this thread. You might notice that that's not true about your post or any post since. If you were really so concerned, you could have said something more "on topic."

Post #2308 by Frink summed up the problem with this thread. It clearly doesn't matter much what people say in this thread anymore if they insist on continuing to post in it.

Reegar, I say the forum should pool our resources to buy that time machine. We can easily make the money back by betting on past World Series winners (my original idea).

Davenes007 and Tack were wondering why Star Trek was being discussed in this thread. You may have read the title of this thread without following the actual posts closely.

The subject of this thread is "Star Wars Episode VII to be directed by J. J. Abrams." It's as much about Abrams as it is about Star Wars. Naturally, when discussing how good Abrams might be as a Star Wars director, his work on Star Trek would be used as evidence by some people. People have been discussing the pre-Abrams Star Trek movies because the subject of how they compare to his version of Star Trek has a bearing on how his version of Star Wars might compare to previous Star Wars.

As Frink pointed out, until we actually have episode VII we can only speak hypothetically.

Admittedly, there was a string of posts about Star Trek which didn't mention Star Wars, so you would only know the connection if you read back far enough. It was rabbit-trail-ish, but it's not as random or wildly off topic as Davenes007 and Tack made it sound. This thread's title already says everything we know about the movie, so we're struggling for things to discuss, which explains how we've ended up with meta-conversation.

Also, there isn't nearly enough respect for "Star Trek VI The Undiscovered Country" in this thread

Darth Lucas said: "JJ has proven himself an exciting, fast paced director who knows how to get a great performance out of his actors. Is there really anything more we want out of SW than that after the boring, lackluster, terribly acted prequels?"

Actually, yes, there's a lot more that I want. The prequels haven't reduced what I want out of a Star Wars movie. Just because the prequels sucked so badly doesn't mean that now I'll take anything that doesn't suck like the prequels and that's entertaining and has good acting. Perhaps that wasn't what you meant, Darth Lucas, but I do get the impression that a lot of people feel that way. Also, "fast paced" isn't synonymous with "good." If Abrams' movies are better than the prequels, that fact alone will be enough for many members of this forum, but not for me.

I might be one of the only people on here who no longer cares enough about new Star Wars material to have fears about it. My only fear is of Disney or Lucas ramping up efforts to stop fan preservations of the original unaltered trilogy, in the name of copyright law.

statto, about your request for an Episode II recommendation:

There are a ton of Episode II fan edits that I haven't seen, but so far I have watched four:

Army of the Republic by Seciors

Attack of the Ridiculousness by Frink

Fall of the Jedi Episode II by Q2

The Republic Divided by L8wrtr

Personally, I think the romance is one of the prequel trilogy's biggest problems, so I use it as a litmus test to judge a fan editor's work. Out of the four I listed above, the one I would give the highest recommendation is Army of the Republic by Seciors. I found his handling of Anakin and Padme's relationship to be very impressive, more or less. L8wrtr also did a good job with his edits, but I think I give Seciors the edge. Still, you should check it out to see if you agree.

When it comes to Q2's edits, I thought I would like them a lot because I like the goals he was trying to accomplish with them, but when I watched them I was very disappointed, especially considering how popular they are.

Other than my recommendation for Seciors' edit, I also recommend Frink's Ridiculous version. It's not going to be your replacement version of Episode II, but it's entertaining as a comedic alternative.

PM me if you have trouble acquiring these edits.

I can't say that I have, Reegar

I just wanted to add my own little piece to something that RicOlie_2 already gave an admirable response to:

Verboten, about your objection to Palpatine's question to Anakin....

Palpatine's question to Anakin is just part of his manipulation of Anakin to turn him against the Jedi Order. Repeatedly in "Revenge of the Sith," Palpatine does this through two methods (which occasionally overlap):

1) destroy Anakin's trust in the Jedi by making him think that they are purposely lying to him and that they purposely aren't telling him certain things they know

2) make Anakin think that Palpatine knows things which the Jedi don't (both knowledge of a factual nature and also knowledge about how to do certain important things with the Force).

His question to Anakin about Darth Plagueis is just part of this manipulation and seduction. It could be like #2 above, in which case he's not implying the Jedi know about Plagueis, he's just showing off his superior knowledge to Anakin. But either way, I think you're reading a little too much into dialogue that is intended to be manipulative and deceptive.

I actually don't think that the possibility of the Jedi knowing about Plagueis necessarily has to be seen as so far fetched anyway, but even if it is far fetched, Palpatine's question doesn't have to mean that they do know.

I hate "Revenge of the Sith," so I'm not defending it. I just think it should be hated for the right reasons.

We learn by doing, SilverWook.

You're neither Star Wars or random. So there :p

Nice try but I'm pretty sure this nausea is from hating myself ;)

I honestly don't know where that defense of the Hayden ghost came from... it just hit me as I was typing and I'm still in disbelief that I would actually have typed something in defense of such an awful desecration of the original film. But I can't say the logic isn't compelling....

Still, whether Hayden's ghost is logical or not, George Lucas will burn in hell for replacing Sebastian Shaw with Hayden Christensen.

And come to think of it, I only defended Luke's ability to know the ghost is Anakin.... there is still the issue of inconsistency created by Obi Wan and Yoda's ghosts looking they way they looked when they died, vs. Anakin reverting to a much younger version of himself (and no, Lucas, I don't buy your explanation that he returned to how he looked before he turned to the dark side, because he turned BACK to the light side before he died and that's why his ghost appears at the end in the first place).

Force ghosts are only shown appearing to Luke and Yoda. The fact that Leia doesn't seem to acknowledge the ghosts at the end of RoTJ and Han rides through Obi Wan's ghost on his Tauntaun seems to imply that they couldn't/didn't see the ghosts.

However, the fact that Han and Leia haven't been trained to use the Force doesn't have to be the only explanation for this. It could also be that the ghosts can choose to manifest themselves to specific people. But since they are "Force" ghosts, it makes sense that a person's sensitivity to the Force would also be a factor.

On a side note, regarding Luke recognizing Hayden Christensen: going all the way back to ANH, the movies repeatedly establish that a Jedi is able to "feel" someone's presence without needing to see their face. Vader knows that Obi Wan is on board the Death Star without needing to see his face, because he can "feel" his presence. Vader knows that Luke is with the small group of rebels who sneaked onto the Forest Moon, because he can "feel" him (while the Emperor, intriguingly, can't). In both TESB and RoTJ, Leia can "feel" Luke's presence without needing to see him.

So based on all of that, it's actually very well established that when Luke sees Hayden, he would be able to "feel" the presence of Anakin even though his physical eyes don't recognize the face. After all, one of the very first lessons Obi Wan gave Luke was blocking his vision with a helmet that had the blast shield down and telling him "Your eyes can deceive you, don't trust them."

Okay, I'm going to go violently throw up all my Thanksgiving dinner now. The insertion of Hayden into the ending of RoTJ is so hated by me that I can't even bear to watch it, and I'm beyond disgusted with myself for defending the logic of it in this post. I've also contradicted my previous posts, because elsewhere I have said that the insertion of Hayden makes no sense because Luke wouldn't recognize him, and I'm super reluctant to take that back, regardless of what I've said here. I feel like I just helped Palpatine kill Mace Windu and now I'm dropping to my knees crying, "What have I done?"