StarDestroyer.Net BBS

“Star Wars” creator George Lucas wasn’t a fan of “Star Wars: The Force Awakens” when he first saw it, Disney CEO Bob Iger claims in his new book, “The Ride of a Lifetime: Lessons Learned From 15 Years as CEO of The Walt Disney Company.” The recently published biography includes plenty of juicy tidbits about Iger’s past and current run at Disney, including a number of compelling anecdotes about the many big names and creative types in his orbit. After the purchase of Lucasfilm by Disney in 2012, that list came to include Lucas, whose original space opera has become a driving force for the House of Mouse.

And yet Lucas wasn’t too jazzed about the first film to come from the Disney acquisition, the J.J. Abrams helmed hit “Star Wars: The Force Awakens.” In his tell-all (via Screen Rant), Iger writes of Lucas’ first viewing of the film: “Just prior to the global release, Kathy [Kennedy] screened ‘The Force Awakens’ for George. He didn’t hide his disappointment. ‘There’s nothing new,’ he said. In each of the films in the original trilogy, it was important to him to present new worlds, new stories, new characters, and new technologies. In this one, he said, ‘There weren’t enough visual or technical leaps forward.'”

According to ComicBook.com, the new film didn’t really stand a chance with Lucas from the outset. Elsewhere in the book, the outlet finds a mention of Lucas’ initial reaction to Disney’s planned plots after the 2012 purchase of Lucasfilm, which also didn’t go over so well with the creator. As ComicBook.com notes, when Disney bought Lucasfilm, the purchased included three “Star Wars” outlines for new films, though Disney was not contractually obligated to use them going forward.

When Disney met with Lucas to tell him what they were planning for their new films, Iger writes, “George immediately got upset as they began to describe the plot and it dawned on him that we weren’t using one of the stories he submitted during the negotiations. … Now, in the first meeting with him about the future of ‘Star Wars,’ George felt betrayed. And while this whole process would never have been easy for him, we’d gotten off to an unnecessarily rocky start.”

And yet, there’s some hope for a final Skywalker Saga film that suits Lucas’ sensibilities. Earlier this year, Abrams told IGN that Lucas assisted with the script for his upcoming series-ender “The Rise of Skywalker,” also directed by Abrams.

In April, Abrams told the outlet, “This movie had a very, very specific challenge, which was to take eight films and give an ending to three trilogies, and so we had to look at, what is the bigger story? We had conversations amongst ourselves, we met with George Lucas before we started writing the script. … These were things that were in real, not debate, but looking at the sort of vastness of the story and trying to figure out, what is the way to conclude this?”

After writing and directing the original “Star Wars,” Lucas received story credits on both “The Empire Strikes Back” and “Return of the Jedi” while handing the reins to other directors. He then wrote and directed the entire prequel trilogy, which was highly successful financially but not as well reviewed as the first three films.

Iger’s book, “The Ride of a Lifetime: Lessons Learned From 15 Years as CEO of The Walt Disney Company,” is available now. Disney will release “Star Wars: The Rise of Skywalker” in theaters on December 20.

https://www.indiewire.com/2019/09/georg ... 202176208/


So there we have it, confirmation that Lucas disliked Ep 7 and what the sequel trilogy is about, and the story didn't really "evolve" from the original drafts. Sure, SOME aspect of Lucas' concepts and ideas might have ended up in the movie, but it seems that Bob Iger himself is saying they actually disregarded most of what Lucas wrote.

So people who keep defending Disney and LFL in saying how the producers and directors followed the ideas set up by Lucas is basically wrong and falling for corporate speak far too easily.

And I strongly agree with the statement made by Lucas in saying there is nothing new about the sequel movies. I think the "spirit" of SW has never been about sand-dunes, rusty spaceships and "realistic saber duels". I think that's just what some of the OT fans wanted, and those OT fans sabotaged the potential of the SW franchise moving forward because they want to recreate the 1970s and 80s.

The "spirit" of Star Wars has been about offering the viewers an escape into a larger universe with fascinating stuff to see visually. Without the visuals and groundbreaking SFX, SW would just be a fairly run-of-the-mill story we've heard a thousand times. It's Lucas' ability to set the story within an interesting universe that made SW what it was for many people.

For me, GL's opinion stopped mattering when he sold it all to Disney. A bit like Gene Roddenberry, the work grew beyond him as others had influence over it.

Reminder that George wanted to do Fantastic Voyage, in Star Wars. It's an original idea, but not one that I think would have been a good idea. The idea of a bunch of Star Wars characters shrinking down to the cellular level to meet the Whills, alien life which controls the universe through midichlorians, doesn't sound very Star Wars to me.

Its not dealing with political themes of corruption, or rebellion, or spiritual themes of one's place in the universe or your reaction to it, it's...."Honey, I shrunk the Millennium Falcon. "

Lucas also though the prequels were a good idea

The underlying idea was fine. The execution was what was lacking

Those who hate the sequels will use this to buttress their position (just watch YT videos LOL), and those that like the sequels will disregard Lucas's opinion. Meh.

Since I guess the sequels are ok, not devastatingly bad despite the flaws and not particularly good, I guess this revelation doesn't affect me.

Batman wrote: ↑2019-09-24 09:58pm Lucas also though the prequels were a good idea

Correctly.

And frankly the biggest problem of the Sequel Trilogy is that it has been overly conservative. They are too fixated on attempting to recreate the original trilogy without being a direct remake instead of making something new in a setting which has evolved.

Zor

Gandalf wrote: ↑2019-09-24 09:07pm For me, GL's opinion stopped mattering when he sold it all to Disney. A bit like Gene Roddenberry, the work grew beyond him as others had influence over it.

I think I value GL's opinion more so because I actually agree with what he is doing with the franchsie. I will argue that GL is far more creative with what's been done to the franchise than most other writers when they were given a chance to develop the SW universe.

Say what you want about the prequels, but I think the prequels offered a very different take from most typical writers can imagine in terms of what the old Republic and the Jedi Order was like in the heyday. A lot of EU writers was giving us an impression of the old Jedi Order being a semi-nomadic order, simply roaming the galaxy to save the day as opposed to a full fledged order with a big temple right in the heart of the galaxy. Even the planets that Lucas created in the prequels are more creative than what most writers and directors have came up with.

I hated and got bored of the old post-ROTJ movies because the writers are just giving us endless X-Wings Mk 2/3/4 vs new imperial warlords with Tie fighters and Star destroyers. I view that as being extremely uncreative and the new writers and directors of the sequel movies are doing the exact same thing.

I think GL's opinion matters a lot more in this context, because I think he would have given us something different from what we had before. I was interested in Lucas' ideas for Ep 7-9 because it would have been rather different from what we are expecting. I hate conservatism in story-telling, and Lucas is a writer/director who won't like things to be the same.

I'm in SW because most of the time, every new movie offered something different. Allowing Disney and the OT fans to play in the sandbox means we tend to end up with the most boring and unoriginal movies and stories most of the time.

Zor wrote: ↑2019-09-25 12:07am

Batman wrote: ↑2019-09-24 09:58pm Lucas also though the prequels were a good idea

Correctly.

And frankly the biggest problem of the Sequel Trilogy is that it has been overly conservative. They are too fixated on attempting to recreate the original trilogy without being a direct remake instead of making something new in a setting which has evolved.

Zor

And I'm utterly disgusted with that and feel they basically wasted Carrie Fisher's last performance away. I think they have created a sequel era that no one will care about in 10ish years time.

It's people like Jeremy Jahns that basically helped to enable the current mess imo, because those are the SW fans that craved short term enjoyment so much even if it affects their long-term enjoyment of the franchise.

I think SW fans are their worse enemy, and I've repeatedly argued back in TFA that many of the SW fans will regret what they asked for in EP 7. Hopefully now, those fans will learn to think a lot more about what they want, and don't be far too idiotic about Star Wars.

If Ep 9 underperforms, Disney and LFL kinda had it coming. I've stated again and again that Kennedy is the terrible manager of a franchise like Star Wars, because she is unwilling to be a Feige.

This isn't exactly a revelation? Pretty sure this isn't the first time we've heard Lucas' opinion on TFA and its certainly not the first time we've heard that they didn't use George Lucas' treatments. We know what his idea was - that whole macrobiotic whills .... thing.

What's actually new information is Bob Iger admittng that they sprung the fact that they weren't going to use his treatments on him in the meeting with the creatives, which was a shitty thing to do, and which Iger admitted could've been 'handled better'. Remarkable amount of introspection from the kind of people who are sociopaths by definition.

Anyway, I'm sure George's multi-billion dollar payout and multi-billion stake in Disney is sufficient consolation for Disney not doing the thing they made sure they would not be obligated to do.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-24 08:14pm So there we have it, confirmation that Lucas disliked Ep 7 and what the sequel trilogy is about, and the story didn't really "evolve" from the original drafts. Sure, SOME aspect of Lucas' concepts and ideas might have ended up in the movie, but it seems that Bob Iger himself is saying they actually disregarded most of what Lucas wrote.

So people who keep defending Disney and LFL in saying how the producers and directors followed the ideas set up by Lucas is basically wrong and falling for corporate speak far too easily.

I've not seen anyone ever say this. What came up often was the angry whiners who even two years later still won't ever shut up about Luke being in exile and there being no Jedi Order to speak of in the sequels. They would've hated Lucas' story too, because that premise most certainly was in his treatments. And they would've hated everything else he did as well. Because that's just how they are. The hating is the point.

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-27 07:30am This isn't exactly a revelation? Pretty sure this isn't the first time we've heard Lucas' opinion on TFA and its certainly not the first time we've heard that they didn't use George Lucas' treatments. We know what his idea was - that whole macrobiotic whills .... thing.

What's actually new information is Bob Iger admittng that they sprung the fact that they weren't going to use his treatments on him in the meeting with the creatives, which was a shitty thing to do, and which Iger admitted could've been 'handled better'. Remarkable amount of introspection from the kind of people who are sociopaths by definition.

Anyway, I'm sure George's multi-billion dollar payout and multi-billion stake in Disney is sufficient consolation for Disney not doing the thing they made sure they would not be obligated to do.

And people have denied or disputed the idea that Lucas' draft was abandoned. You have people like Pablo Hidalgo that mention on twitter on how what we saw in TFA and TLJ was a natural evolution of Lucas' drafts. Now we know that people like Hidalgo are basically following the corporate line.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-24 08:14pm I've not seen anyone ever say this.

I've seen people bringing up Pablo Hidalgo's tweets.

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2018/01 ... ilogy.html

Hidalgo kept pushing the subtext that much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft, which contradicts Lucas' own viewpoints on the matter. Now Bob Iger has confirmed that there were sufficient grounds for Lucas to believe the drafts was pretty much disregarded.

What came up often was the angry whiners who even two years later still won't ever shut up about Luke being in exile and there being no Jedi Order to speak of in the sequels. They would've hated Lucas' story too, because that premise most certainly was in his treatments. And they would've hated everything else he did as well. Because that's just how they are. The hating is the point.

Whether those haters would have hated Lucas' ideas is inconsequential. I think many of those fans are like Jeremy Jahns, who have no idea what they actually like and enjoy in the long run. What's important now is those that defended the Disney films can no longer make valid arguments that TFA and TLJ was what Lucas' draft would "naturally" end up as.

And Pablo himself have stated at Ep 8 will be the point which Ben fell to the dark side, which means the destruction of Luke's temple would most likely happened in Ep 8, and there is a possibility that the New Jedi Order is still somewhat intact at the start of Ep 7. We also do not know the full story of Lucas' draft, and how many Jedi are alive after the Jedi Killer started hunting Jedi.

Until we have more details about Lucas draft, I am not inclined to believe much of what Pablo Hidalgo is pushing, as he could be someone who have to follow the corporate line as an employee of LFL and Disney.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-27 07:57am And people have denied or disputed the idea that Lucas' draft was abandoned. You have people like Pablo Hidalgo that mention on twitter on how what we saw in TFA and TLJ was a natural evolution of Lucas' drafts. Now we know that people like Hidalgo are basically following the corporate line.

I've seen people bringing up Pablo Hidalgo's tweets.

https://www.starwarsnewsnet.com/2018/01 ... ilogy.html

Hidalgo kept pushing the subtext that much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft, which contradicts Lucas' own viewpoints on the matter. Now Bob Iger has confirmed that there were sufficient grounds for Lucas to believe the drafts was pretty much disregarded.

Uhhhh - no we don't? First of all, the idea that Hidalgo follows a 'corporate' line on his twitter account is simply false. He refuses to be verified and mostly posts and shitposts about his personal life and hobbies. He also makes political retweets and likes that a corporate account would never, ever, tolerate. He's repeately said it's not a PR account and it's certainly not run as one. More relevantly, absolutely nothing Pablo Hidalgo says in the link you've posted contradicts anything at all of what we know. His tweets are quite clear on what he's saying:

"In a very general sense, the original idea of 7 started midway through what we now know as 8."

"The son falling to the dark side was always in the mix. The movies just ended up having it already an established fact."

None of those things are saying - in any way substantive way at all - that "much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft". You are reading things into very anodyne, general comments that are simply ... not there.

Whether those haters would have hated Lucas' ideas is inconsequential. I think many of those fans are like Jeremy Jahns, who have no idea what they actually like and enjoy in the long run. What's important now is those that defended the Disney films can no longer make valid arguments that TFA and TLJ was what Lucas' draft would "naturally" end up as.

Literally never an argument I've ever seen made by anyone ever, but ok I guess.

And Pablo himself have stated at Ep 8 will be the point which Ben fell to the dark side, which means the destruction of Luke's temple would most likely happened in Ep 8, and there is a possibility that the New Jedi Order is still somewhat intact at the start of Ep 7. We also do not know the full story of Lucas' draft, and how many Jedi are alive after the Jedi Killer started hunting Jedi.

I don't know what this is referring to specifically. There's no evidence of any intact New Jedi Order in any of what we know about TFA at any stag ein development (refer to the art of TFA book for example).

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-27 08:17am Uhhhh - no we don't? First of all, the idea that Hidalgo follows a 'corporate' line on his twitter account is simply false. He refuses to be verified and mostly posts and shitposts about his personal life and hobbies. He also makes political retweets and likes that a corporate account would never, ever, tolerate. He's repeately said it's not a PR account and it's certainly not run as one. More relevantly, absolutely nothing Pablo Hidalgo says in the link you've posted contradicts anything at all of what we know.

You do know that people can and want to toe the corporate line even if their social media account is made in a private capacity? If I am an employee about LFL, I would shut up about my issues with the sequel films, even in private capacity online.

His tweets are quite clear on what he's saying:

"In a very general sense, the original idea of 7 started midway through what we now know as 8."

"The son falling to the dark side was always in the mix. The movies just ended up having it already an established fact."

None of those things are saying - in any way substantive way at all - that "much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft". You are reading things into very anodyne, general comments that are simply ... not there.

That's why I was mentioning sub-text. You have always been quite dismissive of reading any sub-text and preferred to adopt a more literalist approach and take people's words as face value. I look at the consequences of what their words could be interpreted by others. To many SW fans, it has been seen as an implicit argument that much of Lucas' original draft survived.

Literally never an argument I've ever seen made by anyone ever, but ok I guess.

I've seen some articles and blog post saying TFA was a natural evolution of Lucas' draft, because of what members of LFL has been saying.

I don't know what this is referring to specifically. There's no evidence of any intact New Jedi Order in any of what we know about TFA at any stag ein development (refer to the art of TFA book for example).

The Jedi Killer won't have a purpose if there is no Jedi for him to kill. We have concept art mentioning the Jedi Killer was actively hunting Jedi, which implies there was more than one Jedi at the start of EP 7. We know that Ben has not fallen to the dark side at the start of Ep 7. You can use some deductive reasoning to figure it out? There's plenty of clues that suggest the NJO has not been completely wiped out at the start of Ep 7.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-27 09:58am You do know that people can and want to toe the corporate line even if their social media account is made in a private capacity? If I am an employee about LFL, I would shut up about my issues with the sequel films, even in private capacity online.

That's why I was mentioning sub-text. You have always been quite dismissive of reading any sub-text and preferred to adopt a more literalist approach and take people's words as face value. I look at the consequences of what their words could be interpreted by others. To many SW fans, it has been seen as an implicit argument that much of Lucas' original draft survived.

Oh for - so let me get this straight. Pablo Hidalgo says something that in no way actually says anything that actually means that "much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft". But because some (totally unidentified, and for all I know, totally fictional) random people interpreted it to mean that, this was actually what Pablo Hidalgo meant his extremely anodyne tweets to mean. And in doing so, he was actually toeing the "corporate line". But only through subtext. That unidentified people supposedly detected as they were intended to.

Does that sound rational to you? At all?

Did it occur to you at any stage that he's just a normal human relaying his understanding of development in a short-form medium in an entirely straightforward manner, and if some random dumbass takes his comments to mean something they don't, that is not something he either intended or is responsible for? Can people be allowed to communicate information on their own social media without someone in a tinfoil hat drawings strings on a cork board and accusing them of spreading propaganda? It's ridiculous. We're not talking about interpreting art, we're talking about tweets.

I've seen some articles and blog post saying TFA was a natural evolution of Lucas' draft, because of what members of LFL has been saying.

I'd be very surprised if you could find a single one.

The Jedi Killer won't have a purpose if there is no Jedi for him to kill. We have concept art mentioning the Jedi Killer was actively hunting Jedi, which implies there was more than one Jedi at the start of EP 7. We know that Ben has not fallen to the dark side at the start of Ep 7. You can use some deductive reasoning to figure it out? There's plenty of clues that suggest the NJO has not been completely wiped out at the start of Ep 7.

The existence of concept art doesn't actually mean its tied to anything in a treatment or a script. The Art of Force Awakens tells us that concept art for the 'Jedi Killer' was being done for him/her/it while they were completely 'origin-less'. In one drawing 'he' is recogniseably not even human. And obviously someone can still be called 'Jedi Killer' even if they've already killed the Jedi before the movie has started.

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-27 10:16am Oh for - so let me get this straight. Pablo Hidalgo says something that in no way actually says anything that actually means that "much of the story stayed the same as it was in Lucas' original draft". But because some (totally unidentified, and for all I know, totally fictional) random people interpreted it to mean that, this was actually what Pablo Hidalgo meant his extremely anodyne tweets to mean. And in doing so, he was actually toeing the "corporate line". But only through subtext. That unidentified people supposedly detected as they were intended to.

Does that sound rational to you? At all?

Are you not aware of the possibility that people's comments can be carefully framed in a manner that suggest certain things they did not say explicitly? That's what PR is all about, even if you are not running a PR social media account or a PR manager.

Did it occur to you at any stage that he's just a normal human relaying his understanding of development in a short-form medium in an entirely straightforward manner, and if some random dumbass takes his comments to mean something they don't, that is not something he either intended or is responsible for? Can people be allowed to communicate information on their own social media without someone in a tinfoil hat drawings strings on a cork board and accusing them of spreading propaganda? It's ridiculous. We're not talking about interpreting art, we're talking about tweets.

Or he's just being a sensible employee that knows any comment he makes ( even in private capacity) can be turned into a headline? People can be very careful in what they say and don't say, especially when they are a known representative of the company.

I'd be very surprised if you could find a single one.

I may have a look if I have the time to do so, but there's 3-4 years worth of discussions, comments and articles to dig through. I am mostly recalling things by memory.

The existence of concept art doesn't actually mean its tied to anything in a treatment or a script. The Art of Force Awakens tells us that concept art for the 'Jedi Killer' was being done for him/her/it while they were completely 'origin-less'. In one drawing 'he' is recogniseably not even human. And obviously someone can still be called 'Jedi Killer' even if they've already killed the Jedi before the movie has started.

So? That argument does not successfully dispute the idea that there might be a Jedi killer in the original draft. Creating a villain called Jedi killer after the Jedi are all dead is kinda a pointless and stupid idea. Which is probably why they dropped it in the final script, because Kylo Ren has already killed all the Jedi. Moreover, the fact that Ben has not fallen to the dark side at the start of Ep 7 initial draft suggest the Jedi Order is still somewhat intact, because Ben would have been a Jedi in training at the start.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-27 10:41am Are you not aware of the possibility that people's comments can be carefully framed in a manner that suggest certain things they did not say explicitly? That's what PR is all about, even if you are not running a PR social media account or a PR manager.

'Aware' of the 'possibility'? Here's a better question: why are you fixated on this 'possibility' over the much more straightforward explanation? That being that he said exactly what he meant to say in exactly the manner he said it (edit: and no more than that)? What is the reason to believe otherwise? The notion that Pablo Hidalgo is engaged in 'PR' on his twitter account on behalf of Lucasfilm is laughable:







Clearly, this is definitely the medium Lucasfilm wants to communicate through. Multi-billion dollar corporations are famously cool with left-wing shitposting about billionaires and shitty former Presidents.

Even if he was, the idea that some short tweets speaking in explicitly general terms is actually 'carefully framing in a manner that 'suggests' certain things' to the kind of idiots who can't properly interpret English sentences is still baseless.

Or he's just being a sensible employee that knows any comment he makes ( even in private capacity) can be turned into a headline? People can be very careful in what they say and don't say, especially when they are a known representative of the company.

How does that lend any support to your 'subtext' theory? That you can construct some convoluted rationale for why your conspiracy theorizing might be right doesn't mean it has any basis. That he's aware that a comment he makes could be turned into a headline doesn't have any logical connection to "well when he's actually making a totally general comment about the film's development I think he was saying this even though he doesn't atually say this". Why, is he scared of them? Is someone going to call the police if it turns out what he was saying was inaccurate? Will there be an impeachment?

I may have a look if I have the time to do so, but there's 3-4 years worth of discussions, comments and articles to dig through. I am mostly recalling things by memory.

So? That argument does not successfully dispute the idea that there might be a Jedi killer in the original draft. Creating a villain called Jedi killer after the Jedi are all dead is kinda a pointless and stupid idea. Which is probably why they dropped it in the final script, because Kylo Ren has already killed all the Jedi. Moreover, the fact that Ben has not fallen to the dark side at the start of Ep 7 initial draft suggest the Jedi Order is still somewhat intact, because Ben would have been a Jedi in training at the start.

You do realise that 'Jedi Killer' is just a turn of phrase, right? It's not like an official name. As to Ben, we don't even know at what point in development his 'fall' taking place during the film was actually intended, either.

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-27 11:15am 'Aware' of the 'possibility'? Here's a better question: why are you fixated on this 'possibility' over the much more straightforward explanation? That being that he said exactly what he meant to say in exactly the manner he said it? What is the reason to believe otherwise? The notion that Pablo Hidalgo is engaged in 'PR' on his twitter account on behalf of Lucasfilm is laughable:

Clearly, this is definitely the medium Lucasfilm wants to communicate through. Multi-billion dollar corporations are famously cool with left-wing shitposting about billionaires and shitty former Presidents.

Because a personal social media account slagging off presidents is one thing, using it to undermine your bosses is a whole different matter? I find it extremely curious you can't seem to comprehend this.

Even if he was, the idea that some short tweets speaking in explicitly general terms is actually 'carefully framing in a manner that 'suggests' certain things' to the kind of idiots who can't properly interpret English sentences is still baseless.

Are you not aware how easy it is to create suggestive implications for people? Marketing relies heavily on this in advertisements. It is insane to think that a senior employee like Pablo Hidalogo is somehow unaware that what he tweets doesn't have an impact on how people think about the behind-the-scenes of LFL.

How does that lend any support to your 'subtext' theory? That you can construct some convoluted rationale for why your conspiracy theorizing might be right doesn't mean it has any basis. That he's aware that a comment he makes could be turned into a headline doesn't have any logical connection to "well when he's actually making a totally general comment about the film's development I think he was saying this even though he doesn't atually say this". Why, is he scared of them? Is someone going to call the police if it turns out what he was saying was inaccurate? Will there be an impeachment?

If someone is well aware that what he say or doesn't say can't have an influence on how people respond, it is reasonable to assume they can be extremely careful in framing their tweets in matters dealing with their own company? Because their own bosses might read those tweets? It's basic human interaction in a work environment? Don't say something negative online about your company and bosses?

You were the one that kept denying there was production issues with R1, until the replacement directors actually came out in an interview and outright stated the production was a mess after the movie is released. You're not someone who is good at reading any sub-text in people's words.

You do realise that 'Jedi Killer' is just a turn of phrase, right? It's not like an official name. As to Ben, we don't even know at what point in development his 'fall' taking place during the film was actually intended, either.

Yes, because you will call someone a Jedi Killer when there's no Jedi for the character to kill.

If it is not an official name, you know that actually undermines your argument? Because why would you use a placeholder name for something that the character cannot even do in the script?

As to Ben, Pablo outright said the fall was pushed back to an event before Ep 7.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-27 11:44am Clearly, this is definitely the medium Lucasfilm wants to communicate through. Multi-billion dollar corporations are famously cool with left-wing shitposting about billionaires and shitty former Presidents.

You didn't answer the question. Why are you so fixated on this being the case? Leave aside that it is a matter of objective fact that he didn't say anything that could reasonably be intepreted to mean what you think they were intended to mean for a moment, which is why you're insisting its 'subtext'. Leave aside that you don't have any reason for why this is something he would even want or need to do. Why are you so insistent that this convoluted "I think he was actually trying to say this even though there's no reason anyone should interpret it that way" is the case?

Because it seems you're intent to act like you've uncovered some sort of deceit even if you have to make up a convoluted and unnecessary motivation and subtext out of whole cloth to get there.

Because a personal social media account slagging off presidents is one thing, using it to undermine your bosses is a whole different matter? I find it extremely curious you can't seem to comprehend this.

What do you mean? How does 'undermining bosses' at all relate to you insisting that he had some hidden sub-textual lie in what he we saying?

Are you not aware how easy it is to create suggestive implications for people? Marketing relies heavily on this in advertisements. It is insane to think that a senior employee like Pablo Hidalogo is somehow unaware that what he tweets doesn't have an impact on how people think about the behind-the-scenes of LFL.

Again, you're not answering the point - which is that your belief is baseless. What's insane is believing that something that you admit is demonstrably not there in the words that came out of his proverbial mouth actually are there through some 'subtext' even though you've not given a single reason for why he would feel it necessary to do so.

If someone is well aware that what he say or doesn't say can't have an influence on how people respond, it is reasonable to assume they can be extremely careful in framing their tweets in matters dealing with their own company? Because their own bosses might read those tweets? It's basic human interaction in a work environment? Don't say something negative online about your company and bosses?

You keep thinking you've justified your position if you just wave your hand with vague nonsense about "what people say influences people". At no point do you even attempt to identify a logical connection between this anodyne statement and "therefore I think when he made this general statement, he actually was trying to influence people that XYZ was true, even though he never said it". What are you asserting his "bosses" are afraid of him saying? You're suggesting that his extremely general comments are actually lies in the service of his "bosses" in some manner that is still as yet totally unspecified. Again, why does he need to hide what you say he's trying to communicate behind subtext? Why would his "bosses" (that you actually think read his tweets, which is amazingly naive) give a fuck if he just lied outright as opposed to through subtext?

You were the one that kept denying there was production issues with R1, until the replacement directors actually came out in an interview and outright stated the production was a mess after the movie is released. You're not someone who is good at reading any sub-text in people's words.

? I have no idea what you're even talking about. But this is an obvious red herring. Divining production problems from news reports is nowhere approaching the same as arguing there's some "subtext" in a tweet or two of a few words each. To bring things back on topic, I'm still waiting for you to find where there are people interpreted Pablo's general statements in the very specific manner you say they were actually intended to be interpreted. It's particularly amusing because in the article where the tweets are actually contained, the article itself makes no such claims. Instead, it interprets the tweets in an entirely straightforward manner, as a person ordinarily would:

Not that long ago, some concept art from George Lucas’s pitch for Star Wars Episode VII finally surfaced, revealing that some of the key concepts that The Force Awakens and The Last Jedi were built around were inspired by his treatment after all.

"Some of the key concepts" ... "were inspired".

Literally the only person claiming this is some sort of insidious deception meant to exaggerate Lucas' role through sub-text so far is you.

Yes, because you will call someone a Jedi Killer when there's no Jedi for the character to kill.

If it is not an official name, you know that actually undermines your argument? Because why would you use a placeholder name for something that the character cannot even do in the script?

As to Ben, Pablo outright said the fall was pushed back to an event before Ep 7.

Look ray, it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't even read the art book, have you? The 'Jedi Killer' name is concept art shorthand. That this unnamed character was entirely without an origin was true in the Michael Arndt script in March 2013 (when they thought up the name). Your belief that this phrase is married to some character in the Lucas treatment is entirely made-up, and even if it was true, again - the idea that "Jedi Killer" must mean "will kill Jedi in the film" and definitely not "has killed all the Jedi" is a complete invention of your own mind.

Rolling your eyes a bunch like you so obviously must be right on this distinction is pretty damn silly, but then, this whole "the secret deception that was so secret no one but me even noticed it, meaning it actually failed" argument is damn silly, too.

As for the son's fall being pushed back - again - at what point in development was this?

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-27 10:39pm You didn't answer the question. Why are you so fixated on this being the case? Leave aside that it is a matter of objective fact that he didn't say anything that could reasonably be intepreted to mean what you think they were intended to mean for a moment, which is why you're insisting its 'subtext'. Leave aside that you don't have any reason for why this is something he would even want or need to do. Why are you so insistent that this convoluted "I think he was actually trying to say this even though there's no reason anyone should interpret it that way" is the case?

Because you look at the consequences of what's been said, rather than simply what was said?

Because it seems you're intent to act like you've uncovered some sort of deceit even if you have to make up a convoluted and unnecessary motivation and subtext out of whole cloth to get there.

There's nothing deceitful or conspiracy about someone carefully framing something that might imply something to the readers or viewers. It's called marketing.

What do you mean? How does 'undermining bosses' at all relate to you insisting that he had some hidden sub-textual lie in what he we saying?

You will say something about your company that most likely benefit them or put them in a better light? That's rather obvious?

Again, you're not answering the point - which is that your belief is baseless. What's insane is believing that something that you admit is demonstrably not there in the words that came out of his proverbial mouth actually are there through some 'subtext' even though you've not given a single reason for why he would feel it necessary to do so.

So you're entirely unaware of the possibility that people can deliberately choose their words because attention is on them?

You keep thinking you've justified your position if you just wave your hand with vague nonsense about "what people say influences people". At no point do you even attempt to identify a logical connection between this anodyne statement and "therefore I think when he made this general statement, he actually was trying to influence people that XYZ was true, even though he never said it". What are you asserting his "bosses" are afraid of him saying? You're suggesting that his extremely general comments are actually lies in the service of his "bosses" in some manner that is still as yet totally unspecified. Again, why does he need to hide what you say he's trying to communicate behind subtext? Why would his "bosses" (that you actually think read his tweets, which is amazingly naive) give a fuck if he just lied outright as opposed to through subtext?

You think that an rather public figure of LFL is somehow not aware that attention is on him? I think you're living in a fairytale world if you think what we write on our social media won't be noticed by our bosses, espeically in a media-company? Disney has fired directors and actors because of some racist tweets they made years ago, and somehow you think Disney/LFL's senior employee tweets won't be noticed by the higher ups, especially when they say something that might undermine the company?

Can I prove that he is definitely influencing people? Obviously not. But is there a reason he might want to do so? I think so. I would do the same if I was in his shoes.

? I have no idea what you're even talking about. But this is an obvious red herring. Divining production problems from news reports is nowhere approaching the same as arguing there's some "subtext" in a tweet or two of a few words each. To bring things back on topic, I'm still waiting for you to find where there are people interpreted Pablo's general statements in the very specific manner you say they were actually intended to be interpreted. It's particularly amusing because in the article where the tweets are actually contained, the article itself makes no such claims. Instead, it interprets the tweets in an entirely straightforward manner, as a person ordinarily would:

You have a habit of denying any narrative that isn't official, simply on the basis that they aren't official news. My point is you have a tendency to keep missing out or rejecting possibilities just because they are not the official news. You want explicit confirmation that event X has definitely happened, or explicit confirmation on people's agenda when they are saying something. But relying on explicit confirmation will make you rule out possibilities that cannot be confirmed by us.

"Some of the key concepts" ... "were inspired".

Literally the only person claiming this is some sort of insidious deception meant to exaggerate Lucas' role through sub-text so far is you.

Kira, the Jedi Killer and the son character falling to the dark side were all concepts that was stated to be part of Lucas' original treatment.

Look ray, it's pretty clear you don't know what you're talking about. You haven't even read the art book, have you? The 'Jedi Killer' name is concept art shorthand. That this unnamed character was entirely without an origin was true in the Michael Arndt script in March 2013 (when they thought up the name). Your belief that this phrase is married to some character in the Lucas treatment is entirely made-up, and even if it was true, again - the idea that "Jedi Killer" must mean "will kill Jedi in the film" and definitely not "has killed all the Jedi" is a complete invention of your own mind.

I don't own a copy of the art book, but I have read it via a library copy years ago. So I am entirely relying on my memory and I could be wrong on some points. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that an "Jedi Killer" shorthand might imply there was a character actively hunting Jedi. You have nothing that can confirm your view that "Jedi Killer" has "definitely killed all the Jedi in the prior to Ep 7" either in the art book.

Is there any information in the art book that supports your view that all Jedi were killed by the Jedi killer prior to Ep 7?

Rolling your eyes a bunch like you so obviously must be right on this distinction is pretty damn silly, but then, this whole "the secret deception that was so secret no one but me even noticed it, meaning it actually failed" argument is damn silly, too.

You're the one that thinks this is some sort of deception, rather than people just conventionally mentioning the stuff that benefits them and the company.

As for the son's fall being pushed back - again - at what point in development was this?

Why does this matter? My initial point was to say the early drafts might have a semi-intact Jedi Order? A Ben/son figure that was a Jedi in training implies that some members of the New Jedi Order are still alive, because Ben is one of them.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-28 05:49am Because you look at the consequences of what's been said, rather than simply what was said?

What consequences? This idea that there are substantial numbers of people who took his very straightforward statements and interpreted them to go far further than stated is not something which has any support as yet. Where are these supposed deceived-by-subtextual-marketing fans?

There's nothing deceitful or conspiracy about someone carefully framing something that might imply something to the readers or viewers. It's called marketing.

Can you give a concrete example of this type of 'marketing' apart from the one you are asserting he is engaged in i.e. a single verifiable case?

You will say something about your company that most likely benefit them or put them in a better light? That's rather obvious?

Nothing about what you're saying is obvious - within the terms of this argument, there are two competing ways a person one could interpret Pablo's comments.

1. Their plain, straightforward meaning, which as noted - is how they've actually been interpreted: that the sequel trilogy incorporates elements of George's treatments in a general sense.
2. Their 'sub-textual' meaning that you allege, which is that despite the comments not making any such claims, would actually have the reader believe that Pablo was (your words) "pushing" a belief that "what we saw in TFA and TLJ was a natural evolution of Lucas' drafts."

Why would Pablo would need to hide 2 behind 1? How does just saying 2 outright put the company in a 'worse' light? The same information he allegedly wants to relay is still relayed - and obviously more effectively.

In reality, pushing this line would make no sense. By 2018 everyone already knew they hadn't used Lucas' treatments. Lucas had said so back in 2015! In multiple interviews! This was widely reported. That's why I said most of this stuff wasn't a revelation:

https://www.cinemablend.com/new/How-Geo ... 69271.html

The ones that I sold to Disney, they came up to the decision that they didn't really want to do those. So they made up their own. So it's not the ones that I originally wrote [on screen in Star Wars: The Force Awakens]

https://ew.com/article/2015/11/20/georg ... s-breakup/

“They decided they didn’t want to use those stories, they decided they were gonna go do their own thing,” Lucas says in a new interview with CBS This Morning. “They weren’t that keen to have me involved anyway. But at the same time, I said if I get in there I’m just going to cause trouble. Because they’re not going to do what I want them to do. And I don’t have the control to do that anymore. All I would do is muck everything up. So I said, ‘Okay, I will go my way, and I’ll let them go their way.’”

So you're entirely unaware of the possibility that people can deliberately choose their words because attention is on them?

Refer above.

You think that an rather public figure of LFL is somehow not aware that attention is on him? I think you're living in a fairytale world if you think what we write on our social media won't be noticed by our bosses, espeically in a media-company? Disney has fired directors and actors because of some racist tweets they made years ago, and somehow you think Disney/LFL's senior employee tweets won't be noticed by the higher ups, especially when they say something that might undermine the company?

How would this 'undermine the company'? And do you think the exact phrasing of some wonkish inside-baseball fandom minutae about George Lucas' treatments is at all even in the same conceptual universe to sacking a director for racism and pedophilia jokes?

Can I prove that he is definitely influencing people? Obviously not. But is there a reason he might want to do so? I think so. I would do the same if I was in his shoes.

Do you know what Pablo Hidalgo's job is? Because it is not in marketing.

You have a habit of denying any narrative that isn't official, simply on the basis that they aren't official news. My point is you have a tendency to keep missing out or rejecting possibilities just because they are not the official news. You want explicit confirmation that event X has definitely happened, or explicit confirmation on people's agenda when they are saying something. But relying on explicit confirmation will make you rule out possibilities that cannot be confirmed by us.

I do have a habit of not believing the utterances of grifters on the internet who have a track record of being liars. That would be most of the inhabitants of the youtube grift machine. That has little to do with this belief that Pablo Hidalgo is actually playing 4d chess with words when he answers a query on twitter.

Kira, the Jedi Killer and the son character falling to the dark side were all concepts that was stated to be part of Lucas' original treatment.

Might be right, but I'm actually not sure about that. Pablo Hidalgo had / has a practice of deleting all his tweets every two weeks which means the context of the question he was asked is gone. In any event, Luke being in exile was much more solid, and definitely part of Lucas' original treatment, we know because the concept art for this was shown to him and approved.

https://www.instagram.com/p/Bqcj_AVFnTQ/

https://twitter.com/PhilSzostak/status/ ... 04194?s=20

I don't own a copy of the art book, but I have read it via a library copy years ago. So I am entirely relying on my memory and I could be wrong on some points. However, I think it is reasonable to assume that an "Jedi Killer" shorthand might imply there was a character actively hunting Jedi. You have nothing that can confirm your view that "Jedi Killer" has "definitely killed all the Jedi in the prior to Ep 7" either in the art book.

Is there any information in the art book that supports your view that all Jedi were killed by the Jedi killer prior to Ep 7?

No, the Art book is silent on that. It's instructive however that absolutely no concept art for Episode VII, however, showed any hint of an intact Jedi order, at any stage. No multiple Jedi, no concept art of intended light side Jedi who are not eventually going to become Rey, no Jedi Killer purging them - nothing.

You're the one that thinks this is some sort of deception, rather than people just conventionally mentioning the stuff that benefits them and the company.

Dude, your entire post to which I responded is implying it was a deception. When you assert someone is 'pushing' a line and then declare that said line has been disproven, you're pretty clearly saying there was deceit.

Why does this matter? My initial point was to say the early drafts might have a semi-intact Jedi Order? A Ben/son figure that was a Jedi in training implies that some members of the New Jedi Order are still alive, because Ben is one of them.

The point is which drafts and when. There were multiple outlines and drafts after they decided not to use Lucas' treatments. For example, the Art of TLJ book tells us that in one of the versions of 2013, the 'Jedi Killer' was envisaged as having turned against Luke whilst training with him, lost a fight, and been set aside. This obviously isn't the Lucas treatment, because by this point it had already been discarded and they were going through iterations of the new story.

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-27 11:44am Yes, because you will call someone a Jedi Killer when there's no Jedi for the character to kill.

You know, it's entirely possible that "Jedi Killer" could also be anyone who is (or believed to be) capable of killing Jedi and/or someone who has killed Jedi in the past.

Kinda like General Grievous (who never killed a Jedi in the films, BTW).

Vympel wrote: ↑2019-09-28 10:55am

What consequences? This idea that there are substantial numbers of people who took his very straightforward statements and interpreted them to go far further than stated is not something which has any support as yet. Where are these supposed deceived-by-subtextual-marketing fans?

Take a look at Reddit?

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWars/comme ... ling_luke/

https://www.reddit.com/r/StarWarsLeaks/ ... _luke_was/

Does reddit represent a majority of the SW fanbase? Obviously not, but I think comments and discussions that can generate hundreds on replies can be considered as pretty substantial to me. You might disagree but that's what I think of as being substantial in online fan-communities ( which are still small and not fully representative of SW fanbase as a whole, but it's still substantial)

Can you give a concrete example of this type of 'marketing' apart from the one you are asserting he is engaged in i.e. a single verifiable case?

Associative Learning is a technique often used in marketing? Whether he is actually doing so can't be proven, but I won't rule out the possibility that he is aware that he can frame his points in a careful manner that advances certain arguments.

Nothing about what you're saying is obvious - within the terms of this argument, there are two competing ways a person one could interpret Pablo's comments.

Let's sort something out first. Do you think it is obvious an employee would most likely say something positive or things that benefits the company they work for in social media? Everything else is irrelevant to me right now until I get what you are actually thinking.

Do you know what Pablo Hidalgo's job is? Because it is not in marketing.

You don't need to be in marketing to say stuff that benefits your company.

Galvatron wrote: ↑2019-09-28 11:11am You know, it's entirely possible that "Jedi Killer" could also be anyone who is (or believed to be) capable of killing Jedi and/or someone who has killed Jedi in the past.

Kinda like General Grievous (who never killed a Jedi in the films, BTW).

You do realise that Grevious was a character that was created for a period where the Jedi Order and Jedi are plentiful? That's not an argument in your favour? Even if Grevious did not kill a Jedi on-screen, he was a Jedi-killer character that kills plenty of Jedi in an era where they are jedi for him to kill?

And there is deleted scenes of him actually killing a Jedi Master?

Way to miss the point. You said...

ray245 wrote: ↑2019-09-28 05:49amI think it is reasonable to assume that an "Jedi Killer" shorthand might imply there was a character actively hunting Jedi.

It seems that you have a very specific interpretation of what "Jedi Killer" means so I pointed out the alternatives. I only used Grievous as an example because he was a noted Jedi killer too, yet he didn't actually kill any Jedi within the only film in which he appeared. He killed them prior to the movie, which is the whole damn point.

And Shaak Ti was canonically killed by Vader in the temple, not by Grievous. Since when do deleted scenes matter anyway?

Galvatron wrote: ↑2019-09-28 02:04pm It seems that you have a very specific interpretation of what "Jedi Killer" means so I pointed out the alternatives. I only used Grievous as an example because he was a noted Jedi killer too, yet he didn't actually kill any Jedi within the only film in which he appeared. He killed them prior to the movie, which is the whole damn point.

The point was never about what's the Jedi Killer is called, but whether using the placeholder might imply Jedi are still around for him to kill. Whether we can confirm about it is never the point.

And Shaak Ti was canonically killed by Vader in the temple, not by Grievous. Since when do deleted scenes matter anyway?

Way to miss my point. Whether Shaak Ti was canonically killed by Vader isn't the point. It's that Grevious was a character designed to be a Jedi-killer in an era where there are Jedi for him to kill. He is an antagonist that is meant to form some sort of threat to our Jedi protagonists.

They might have cut the scene, but they intended for Grevious to kill a Jedi on screen.