How to fix Episode III

[TC Pilot]

Personally, I believe Ep. III's troubles began with Ep. 1. It seemed a total rehash of IV's self-contained "in-case-it-bombs" plot. So instead of having three movies to tell the story of Anakin's life as a Jedi, the Clone Wars, the rise of the Empire, and the fall of Anakin Skywalker, we get two. I don't think that's enough time (unless we're talking LOTR run-times), and I think it really showed.

But if we're only talking about Ep. III changes, I would redo the Battle of Coruscant, taking out all the worthless buzz-droid and R2-elevator jacking out to focus on more important things, like establishing Anakin and Obi-Wan's brotherly relationship, then expand on Anakin's dreams, the reasons for being so angry over being refused a mastership, and change Palpatine so he's not some cackling maniac. Personally, I thought it would have been better if: 1. Palpatine had done no fighting and Anakin had instead, and 2. Have Padme shoot Vader on Mustafar, saving Obi-Wan and mutilating Vader, just to give her a purpose in the movie besides baby-carrier.

[Darth Raptor]

Agreed. The most one could do to fix Episode III is to first fix Episodes I and II. Considering what it was saddled with, the relative success of RotS is a minor miracle. Story-wise, TPM was a complete and utter waste of time focusing on largely superfluous events. Would *anyone* miss the pod race? The Life Aquatic with Qwi-Gon Jinn? The Battle of Endor revisited? TPM isn't horrible, but it should be Star Wars 0, not Star Wars I.

I was *relieved* with how good Episode III was, all things considered. Its biggest flaws began years before the opening crawl.

[Elfdart]

Not that pile of horseshit again.

Well, I definitely called that one. You never even bothered to read it, did you?

I read it a long time ago and as a case study in paranoid delusions on the part of the author, it ranks right up there with Lee Harvey Oswald's diary. The whole book can be summed up as follows:

Lucas didn't do what I wanted with his movies, so he's a liar and an asshole.

[Darth Hoth]

EDIT: I had a post here, but removed it, as I am going away for a couple of weeks and did not want to start a discussion I could not finish before that. My apologies.

[Darth Wong]

To be honest, I think that any criticism of Star Wars movies which spends time attacking George Lucas' personality absolutely reeks of a poisoned well, and does not really indicate fairness.

[Galvatron]

I'd be happy to leave his personality out of this. His own words are damning enough without having to delve into his psyche.

[Darth Wong]

I'd be happy to leave his personality out of this. His own words are damning enough without having to delve into his psyche.

That doesn't sound any less like an attack on GL to me.

[Galvatron]

I'm not sure why that matters. Do we not attack Gene Roddenberry? Berman and Braga? The Wachowskis?

[Darth Wong]

I'm not sure why that matters. Do we not attack Gene Roddenberry? Berman and Braga? The Wachowskis?

We attack them primarily by examining the flaws in their work, not by looking at their personal histories. If their personal histories are brought up, it should be as a side-note. When someone studies a person's life and career history and brings that up as a form of film criticism, it's a red-herring and suggests a loss of objectivity. I know I've always hated the style of film review which spends a lot of time discussing the critic's personal opinion of the creator. That type of film review is utterly useless (something I mentioned when discussing Adam Sandler's new film).

[Galvatron]

Okay, I can agree with that. However, if one wants to know WHY their work is flawed and the information is available to find out, what's the harm in discussing it?

For example, a lot of TNG's kookiest foibles can be traced directly back to Gene Roddenberry and his utopian worldview. Is that an attack?

[Darth Wong]

Okay, I can agree with that. However, if one wants to know WHY their work is flawed and the information is available to find out, what's the harm in discussing it?

None, as long as it's not done as a way of establishing that the work is flawed.

For example, a lot of TNG's kookiest foibles can be traced directly back to Gene Roddenberry and his utopian worldview. Is that an attack?

Of course it's an attack. The question is whether it's taking the place of a legitimate criticism of the content of TNG itself. One can tear apart TNG's idiotic utopian worldview without ever knowing who Gene Roddenberry was, and a critique along those lines should reflect that fact. Going after Gene Roddenberry should only be done AFTER one has independently established the foibles in question.

[Galvatron]

In that sense, I think I've been staying on course and attacking Lucas insofar as I believe his personal issues directly affect the product he's selling.

Take, for example, the crumbling of his marriage and how it directly affected his stated plans to make nine films. I can't fault the man for wrapping things up in ROTJ because knowing WHY he did so actually makes me sympathize with him.

I guess I'm just left wondering why biographical information about George Lucas is suddenly taboo, especially where it relates to Star Wars. Or am I misunderstanding?

[Elfdart]

Take, for example, the crumbling of his marriage and how it directly affected his stated plans to make nine films. I can't fault the man for wrapping things up in ROTJ because knowing WHY he did so actually makes me sympathize with him.

We've already been over this bullshit: Both George Lucas and Gary Kurtz agree that their statements about 9 or 12 movies were meant to show how much material they thought they had, not a plan -and certainly not a promise- to do 9 or 12 movies.

Your amateur psychoanalysis is shit for the birds, too. Lucas began ROTJ in 1981 -2 years before his wife ran off with another man.

[Galvatron]

Take, for example, the crumbling of his marriage and how it directly affected his stated plans to make nine films. I can't fault the man for wrapping things up in ROTJ because knowing WHY he did so actually makes me sympathize with him.

We've already been over this bullshit: Both George Lucas and Gary Kurtz agree that their statements about 9 or 12 movies were meant to show how much material they thought they had, not a plan -and certainly not a promise- to do 9 or 12 movies.

Yes, we have been over this. And you neglected to answer me the last time I quoted Lucas himself about it, as you requested.

Your amateur psychoanalysis is shit for the birds, too. Lucas began ROTJ in 1981 -2 years before his wife ran off with another man.

The strain of making TESB had already taken its toll on their marriage by 1980, motivating Lucas to wrap up the saga with ROTJ. Now it's obvious you haven't read that book.

[Elfdart]

Oh blow it out your ass. Just because I don't clutch a pdf file like a fundie clutches his bible doesn't mean I haven't read it.

I asked where and when did George Lucas plan or promise nine or more Star Wars films (as opposed to considering them), and you shifted the goalposts to "Lucas thought about making more films, so he's a liar, WAAAAAAAH!"

If these phantom sequels were anything more than running something up the flagpole to see if it flies, why weren't there any outlines, treatments, rough drafts or production sketches for them?

[nightmare]

[*]Make the Battle of Coruscant less of a chaotic point blank battle -- there's no reason for everyone to be trading shots at 100 meters distance; the only reason Endor ended up like that was because of the Death Star's poor targeting capability.
[*]Delete the stupid broadsides. Show Republic Navy personnel in Republic Navy uniforms which resemble Imperial uniforms directing fire from main battery command points.
[*]Make the Battle of Kashykk less of a wankfest; have the Wookiies and Trade Feds actually use real tactics; instead of charging at each other.

No problem here. George Walton Lucas Junior would cut your ideas very quickly however. He always wanted to portrait the swashbuckling styles of old pirate movies. That means point-blank broadsides, swinging in ropes, charging the enemy with melee weapons and short-range pistols, looking him in the eye and so forth. It works only so far, of course.

[Galvatron]

Oh blow it out your ass. Just because I don't clutch a pdf file like a fundie clutches his bible doesn't mean I haven't read it.

True, it's your blatant ignorance of its content that means you haven't read it.

I asked where and when did George Lucas plan or promise nine or more Star Wars films (as opposed to considering them), and you shifted the goalposts to "Lucas thought about making more films, so he's a liar, WAAAAAAAH!"

Horseshit. You asked for my best five quotes w/dates AFTER I disputed your unrealistic condition that they MUST be stated as "promises." And anyone who read that thread knows it.

If these phantom sequels were anything more than running something up the flagpole to see if it flies, why weren't there any outlines, treatments, rough drafts or production sketches for them?

Because he was making the whole thing up as he went along and never got that far?

[Elfdart]

True, it's your blatant ignorance of its content that means you haven't read it.

Sorry, but I have better things to do than memorize the paranoid ravings of a complete fucktard when reading them once a year ago was more than enough.

Horseshit. You asked for my best five quotes w/dates AFTER I disputed your unrealistic condition that they MUST be stated as "promises." And anyone who read that thread knows it.

Leave out the word "promise". Where does he say in any of your quotes that he is in fact going to make nine Star Wars movies. He speculated that it would take more movies to finish the story, but he also thought that what ended up being THREE movies (ANH, TESB and ROTJ) could all be done in one. It's just an idea that maybe he would do more. Kurtz himself admitted that there were no concrete plans. The only people who believe there were are those who are dumb enough to believe fanboy gossip and those who think George Lucas is a liar because he considered and rejected an idea almost 30 years ago. And obsessive-compulsives who write 500-page pdf exercises in paranoia. Oh, and the people who read 500-page pdf exercises in paranoia and take them seriously.

Because he was making the whole thing up as he went along and never got that far?

Great, so you admit that the phantom sequels weren't really planned by George Lucas.

[Galvatron]

Leave out the word "promise". Where does he say in any of your quotes that he is in fact going to make nine Star Wars movies.

"Star Wars is a story, divided in three trilogies. It's a long movie of 18 hours, divided in nine parts."
-George Lucas, Premiere, September 1990

Is that not clear enough for you, or are you using Clintonese to argue the definition of what "is" is? Also, notice the date of the above quote.

He speculated that it would take more movies to finish the story, but he also thought that what ended up being THREE movies (ANH, TESB and ROTJ) could all be done in one. It's just an idea that maybe he would do more. Kurtz himself admitted that there were no concrete plans. The only people who believe there were are those who are dumb enough to believe fanboy gossip and those who think George Lucas is a liar because he considered and rejected an idea almost 30 years ago.

Then why was he STILL saying it was nine movies as recently as 1994?

"It wasn't long after I began writing Star Wars that I realized the story was more than a single film could hold. As the saga of the Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that would take at least nine films to tell -- three trilogies -- and I realized, in making my way through the back story and after story, that I was really setting out to write the middle story."
-George Lucas, Splinter of the Mind's Eye second edition introduction, 1994

And obsessive-compulsives who write 500-page pdf exercises in paranoia. Oh, and the people who read 500-page pdf exercises in paranoia and take them seriously.

Can't have none o' that readin' and writin' shit, now can we?

Great, so you admit that the phantom sequels weren't really planned by George Lucas.

OF COURSE I DO! That doesn't change what he actually said!

Seriously, are you just fucking with me? You have the most impenetrable wall of ignorance I've encountered in years. You can't be for real.

[Elfdart]

Leave out the word "promise". Where does he say in any of your quotes that he is in fact going to make nine Star Wars movies.

"Star Wars is a story, divided in three trilogies. It's a long movie of 18 hours, divided in nine parts."
-George Lucas, Premiere, September 1990

He didn't say he was going to make nine movies now did he. Concession accepted.

Then why was he STILL saying it was nine movies as recently as 1994?

"It wasn't long after I began writing Star Wars that I realized the story was more than a single film could hold. As the saga of the Skywalkers and Jedi Knights unfolded, I began to see it as a tale that would take at least nine films to tell -- three trilogies -- and I realized, in making my way through the back story and after story, that I was really setting out to write the middle story."
-George Lucas, Splinter of the Mind's Eye second edition introduction, 1994

He was writing in the past tense. He didn't say he believed as of 1994 that he would need nine movies. It would be kind of stupid if he did since he already stopped with ROTJ.

Can't have none o' that readin' and writin' shit, now can we?

Not when it's delusional fanboy masturbation. For some reason, you and this OCD retard think you can read George Lucas' mind based on second hand quotes, and that YOU know what he was or wasn't thinking -and all because he didn't write it down for you. Well guess what, Numbnuts -most filmmakers change their minds about what they will or will not do in their movies and no, they don't always write it down when or how they made their decisions, nor talk about it in interviews. You have no idea whatsoever when Lucas decided to make the villain the hero's father in Star Wars, or how many movies he really intended to make. For all you know, Lucas could have decided to add those plot points to a space adventure story bouncing around in his head back in the 1950s when he watched The Searchers.

[Elfdart]

The only time anyone was in a position to "stand up" to Lucas was during the filming of ANH.

Kurtz did. Kershner did.

Scroll to page 219 and start reading...

I thought you said he silenced all dissenting opinions.

You expect logical consistency from the "Lucas Raped My Childhood" set?

[Galvatron]

He didn't say he was going to make nine movies now did he. Concession accepted.

I guess the math involved eludes you.

He was writing in the past tense. He didn't say he believed as of 1994 that he would need nine movies. It would be kind of stupid if he did since he already stopped with ROTJ.

He wasn't speaking in the past tense in 1990. Scroll up and read that quote again. So yeah, he was full of shit. Concession accepted.

Not when it's delusional fanboy masturbation. For some reason, you and this OCD retard think you can read George Lucas' mind based on second hand quotes, and that YOU know what he was or wasn't thinking -and all because he didn't write it down for you.

Fuck mind-reading. I can compare what he actually said then and what he said later and see the contradictions plain as day.

Well guess what, Numbnuts -most filmmakers change their minds about what they will or will not do in their movies and no, they don't always write it down when or how they made their decisions, nor talk about it in interviews.

Well guess what, Douchebag, Lucas did. There's a huge paper trail here that he can't deny. Nor can you.

You have no idea whatsoever when Lucas decided to make the villain the hero's father in Star Wars, or how many movies he really intended to make.

Yeah, I'd have no idea only if I've managed to ignore what he's actually said over the past 30 years. And Luke's father was still a separate person as recently as the first draft of TESB when his ghost appeared on Dagobah.

[Elfdart]

I guess the math involved eludes you.

Did he say he was actually going to make those movies? No, he didn't.

He wasn't speaking in the past tense in 1990. Scroll up and read that quote again. So yeah, he was full of shit.

Oh no! A middle-aged man slept between 1990 and 1994 and didn't commit to memory how many movies he thought could be made from Star Wars! The bastard!

Fuck mind-reading. I can compare what he actually said then and what he said later and see the contradictions plain as day.

Yeah, because honest people say the exact same thing and remember exactly what they said years before. If there's ever a discrepancy between what a person says in separate interviews, it means (a) he's a liar and (b) you can tell what he was thinking thirty years ago.

Well guess what, Numbnuts -most filmmakers change their minds about what they will or will not do in their movies and no, they don't always write it down when or how they made their decisions, nor talk about it in interviews.

Well guess what, Douchebag, Lucas did. There's a huge paper trail here that he can't deny. Nor can you.

So you've seen where George Lucas wrote down all his decisions about Star Wars? Even the paranoid fuckwit you linked to doesn't go that far.

Yeah, I'd have no idea only if I've managed to ignore what he's actually said over the past 30 years. And Luke's father was still a separate person as recently as the first draft of TESB when his ghost appeared on Dagobah.

You have no idea because you have know way of knowing what was going through Lucas' head before, during and after he made the movies. The quotes might offer clues, but just because he didn't write something down and keep notes on everything doesn't mean he wasn't thinking of it.

Whether something does or does not appear in a first draft means less than Jack Shit. Many of his ideas were only discussed with one or two cast and crewmembers and weren't used (like the idea described by Mark Hamill that Lucas was going to have a mother wookiee reading a Star Wars children's book to a baby wookiee), so why is it so far fetched that he came up with an idea, but didn't run it by anyone before deciding to use it? Now I remember: If Lucas has a faulty memory and maybe he didn't record every thought for posterity, there goes the paranoid conspiracy theory about George Lucas trying to suppress hidden knowledge that only the scholarship of a fucktard like Michael Kaminski can reveal.

[Havok]

Elfdart, saying whether or not Star Wars is going to be 3, 6 or 9 movies isn't something GL is just going to forget. They are his baby and his bread and butter, basically his entire reason for being who he is.

[gtg947h]

It's funny watching people use Spielberg, Kurtz, Kershner, even Lucas' ex-wife as ciphers for the idea that Lucas should have taken advice from them.

So the fact that Empire Strikes Back is considered to be the best SW movie flies by your head?

The more control that Lucas has over a project, the shittier it is; it's only when he has someone who can stand up to him and control his more stupid ideas that he does good work.

I interpreted that as the fanboys saying "well, GL listened to Spielberg (who, incidentally, actually knows how to make a movie), so he should listen to me, too!"

There's a difference between taking advice from somebody with demonstrated ability, and listening to some random fanboy living with his parents.