Before the dark times. Before the Disney Wars...

For starters, that youtuber is the one with the burden of proof. When did Lucas lie? When did he change his motivations, inspirations and messages? How and why would it not be a good idea to quote the author on his own work? That's a ridiculous claim.


That's his belief, not an universal truth.


I find those comments completely arrogant and lacking self-awareness. The fans don't get to have a say on how things work in someone else's fictional world. The author does, he imagined it and created it. He set up the rules. When that doesn't happen and you switch the roles and ignore the author, the work loses importance and becomes meaningless. Fan fiction. Those who don't respect don't deserve respect. Their take deserves to be ignored the same way they ignore the author.

Lucas is the one and only Star Wars expert. He knows better than anyone else the universe he created. As the author, he's the authority. The EU and the other works aren't part of his universe. They are the works of other people pretending that they are playing in his universe. They don't dictate the rules. They play in someone else's sandbox.

And this isn't just the case with Star Wars, but with any work of fiction. The author is the authority.

I don't get what the argument is. The first one is true, except he didn't ever say that the origins of the Force would be explained. A sequel trilogy was planned, then those plans were abandoned.

The second is false. I mean, that doesn't even need some behind the scenes content to be provided. The original trilogy itself has plenty of evidence. Did that guy not watch the movies?

Interesting trifecta. Reads almost like some internal monologue of Kylo's or Vader's:

"You killed Han/Padme and won a great victory for the Dark Side."
"You had to kill them. They were holding you back and interfering with your strength."
"They stopped supporting you and were an impediment. You never needed them anyway."

I love their wording at the start: "Taking it". As in: mooching, filching, snatching, swiping, stealing it from the original artist. Says quite a lot about their position and overall mentality. Or perhaps there is a slight language-barrier thing occurring.

Their own concession to Star Wars being currently "bad" is hilarious in light of what they're trying to argue through this crappy syllogism. It's also untrue that Star Wars stopped being Lucas' when he allowed other authors to create the Expanded Universe.

On the EU thing and ownership of SW generally:

He might want to look into copyright laws and take that one up with Lucas' lawyers. Star Wars was a collaborative enterprise from the start. The EU didn't come along and change that. Lucas could never realise such an enormous undertaking on his own. That doesn't negate the fact that Star Wars was Lucas' brainchild and he was the lodestar of the franchise. He was the Emperor of the universe. He called the shots. He poured his convictions into the series. He decided the overall look and direction. Authority and responsibility flowed down from Lucas, and the boons of his creativity and leadership spread outward.

That's probably why this guy is confused. Star Wars made Lucas personally rich, but we all became culturally, psychologically, and spiritually enriched from what he did. Some people seem to have deluded themselves into thinking this gives them part-ownership of the franchise. Maybe it does in some very small way. But put your ownership next to Lucas' and there's an incredible difference in scope and scale. Of course, Disney own it now, but everything they do is an extension of that original broadcast in the Force that Lucas initiated. Everything they currently do is also under the name Lucasfilm -- Lucas' company. It all goes back to him. It's all a credit to his tenacity of mind, his generosity of spirit, and his powers of imagination.


Well...

Star Wars is bigger than its creator. In some ways, that has always been a given. And it grows truer by the day. However, that's no reason not to give George Lucas tremendous credit and respect for the million-and-one steps he took to ensure his creation came out the way he wanted it to. He built Star Wars into a worldwide phenomenon. Not Disney. They're actually quite late to the party. Maybe there would be more to argue about here if Lucas sold after the Original Trilogy. But Star Wars was greatly expanded during the PT era and continued to expand before he sold. It had already proven its worth as a cultural acropolis and renowned mythic sandbox/virtual reality system before he handed it over. That alone makes talking about Lucas like he's chopped liver completely ridiculous. Lucas proved the OT wasn't a fluke. Despite the online backlash to the prequels, they grossed a lot of money and impacted a lot of childhoods for the better, and Star Wars became something much bigger under his almost-40-year leadership.

On contradiction:

Yes. Lucas contradicts himself sometimes. I guess that makes him human. Show me a person who doesn't contradict themselves and I'll check they're not a Battle Droid. On the other hand, the idea that Lucas constantly says things that are false or at variance with earlier statements is a fabrication. He changes his mind and has gone back and forth on some matters, like the existence of a Sequel Trilogy, but read enough of his statements, or just sit down and watch his movies closely enough, and you'll see he has core principles that he sticks to, and key philosophies and system features -- of his films and the world -- he's clearly fascinated with. Knowing where and when to change your mind is actually a strength, not a weakness. It's what made Lucas such a capable and competent leader and a person of vision. This guy also overlooks the intense focus and grit needed to pull something with the complexity of Star Wars off. For instance, even on a film like "Return Of The Jedi", which Lucas wasn't (technically speaking) directing, he was still being consulted constantly and asked a thousand questions every day, which only he could answer:

www.nytimes.com/1982/07/11/movies/moviesspecial/secrecy-shrouds-a-star-wars-sequel.html


Lastly, to echo Alex: If the creator of the franchise doesn't know much about Star Wars, who does? No-one can possibly know it all. Once again, this guy sets up an impossible standard, just so he can strawman Lucas' vast contributions and dismiss him. Also, to echo Dex: There is a difference between knowledge and wisdom. Lucas didn't just answer questions or pose new ones and come up with answers. He relied on his wisdom and his wits to make sure those questions and answers made sense, and that the decisions he took were the right ones. A myriad of questions, answers, and decisions made over the span of several decades. With us -- the hoi polloi -- as the beneficiaries. If respect is earned instead of given, then George Lucas has surely earned his share. Anyone that fails to acknowledge that the very existence of Star Wars is deeply indebted to Lucas should hang their head in shame, and maybe even reconsider if they're even really a fan. You don't want to bash George Lucas. You want to go home and rethink your life. 

Perhaps he has a time machine and a telepathic device.

"S-Sequel Trilogy?"

"Mmhmm."

"You said you've got a Sequel Trilogy?"

"Uh-huh."

"Say again?"

"Huh! We have a Sequel Trilogy."

"Oh..."

"Put-Put your head between your knees."

"Ha ha ha ha!"

But without a story developed and not the sequel trilogy as it was originally. That was something that was yet to be developed properly, as opposed to the PT which had a more solid footing from the start.


That's correct.


I don't think those are dangling threads per se. I mean, they would be if seen in isolation, but the PT informs us of a lot (in a cyclical sort of way). Luke becomes a Jedi Knight at the end of ROTJ. But the beginning of the PT reveals what a Jedi Knight is, how they work, what their job is in the galaxy. It informs us of what Luke is meant to do. Leia might or might not learn from Luke, but we do know what she's capable of, and if she learns from him, we know (by watching Luke's journey) what she will discover and be able to do as well. Or maybe she will follow the footsteps of her mother and dedicate herself to politics, a life she knows well.


Well, that's not something left dangling in the slightest. His defeat and death confirmed Anakin's prophetic destiny. And Sith can't live on after death. I don't see him risking that much to snare Anakin either, but he's infatuated by Anakin's potential. Sith seek power, and a powerful pawn is part of that constant quest. If something better comes along, he won't hesitate to replace Anakin.

I don't mean any disrespect towards you (or those who like the ST), but I don't understand how one can take the events of Disney's sequel trilogy, knowing how they were made and why they did what they did, and try to work it backwards by trying to tie it with Lucas' works as if it's all part of the same puzzle. And to be clear, I would say the same thing had someone else done it (like the authors who worked in the EU). It's simply not the real story, and worse, it contradicts the established story.


That would be true had they fulfilled what they promised from the start. Had they adapted Lucas' stories and had Lucas remained as a consultant to guide and advise the next generation left in charge. But they discarded him (and his story) before the development of their first episode, so I can hardly consider the ST as Lucas dealing himself out. It's Lucas completely absent.


They are legally entitled to it, I don't argue that. But justified? I don't think their decisions were justified. What's the justification for ditching Lucas' story? I mean, I know why they did it. They wanted to make something for the fans, for maximum profit and support. The fans who care more about the fan fiction they have in their heads than about the actual story. Ironically, and broadly speaking, I see the fans they tried to cater to realizing the mistake they've made by demanding their fantasies realized and trashing the integrity of the previous works. Like a kid who eats too much candy and starts to get sick while realizing his mistake. In turn, the ST atracted a new type of fandom that wasn't entirely familiar or connected to the series as it was (and like the creators in charge, may fall in the error of not respecting what came before).

I'm generalizing, of course. But it's a conclusion I've reached from my observations.


If I recall correctly, it was the name "midi-chlorians" that was added, right? The rest did date from the 1970s. I'm pretty sure Rinzler clarified it on some podcast interview.


Remember, after ROTS was released, he started to focus on television and the development of both TCW and the Underworld series. I think he's hinting more at the timeframe of the TV series that he was going to start to develop. That there was more of a chance of us getting a movie about a secondary character in a more secondary setting that a proper sequel trilogy with the old gang. And at the time, that was true.


Indeed.

Ethereal. Ephemeral. Elusive.
The Sith. The Empire. The First Order.

THE PHANTOM EMPEROR
A SPECTRAL MENACE

True. There probably wasn't much of a story developed. But this was the assertion I was responding to:


A crude concept on paper? Yes. Abandoned and changed when TESB was about to be made? No.

If there were changes made to those early plans/ideas, it probably occurred when Lucas sat down and began drafting up ROTJ. Arguably, he did move away from the ST, a little bit, at that time. However, based on interviews at the time, he seemingly wasn't keen to ditch the sequels and drop them from his conception of the saga just yet. By the time he set about making the prequels, it looks like his thinking rapidly shifted, however. Suddenly, he was keener to disavow them and keep everyone focused (including himself) on his six-film paradigm. 

Of the two other trilogies, I can certainly agree that the PT had more grounding to begin with. It's the "before" state of the OT, and you can tell from early interviews that Lucas was already looking forward to going backwards, and to depicting Obi-Wan and Anakin (even if he didn't yet have that name) in their earlier years. In many ways, the OT is like the New Testament, and the PT is like the Old Testament. The "earlier" part being much more dense and weighty than the latter. But both having tremendous importance. Perhaps, in this analogy, the ST is more like the Book Of Mormon (three acts for each movie = nine chapters) or something. 


See? We can agree on some things. There's hope for the future. 

But disagreements are fun, too.


You have a nice argument here. I agree that the PT lends a cyclical quality to the entire Star Wars saga. One could argue, in fact, that that is its primary function.

Here are some thoughts I will share for the first time from a document I am developing on the Lucas Saga:

Anakin’s entire trajectory bears testament to how blinding fear and hatred can be (arguably the most overt manifestations of the Dark Side in Star Wars), while love and compassion are binding forces that can overcome the shrouding and enslaving effects of the Dark Side. The mutual resonance between the leading lights of Qui-Gon and Luke in their respective “bookend” movies, Episodes I and VI, gives the outermost episodes a ringing effect; even a kind of religious tincture.

Qui-Gon and Luke are on a mission that no-one else can see or understand. They are beacons whose light dazzles or confuses even those closest to them. In Episode I, Obi-Wan is exasperated to the point of snapping at Qui-Gon over his obstinacy concerning Anakin: “The boy is dangerous. [The Jedi Council] all sense it. Why can’t you?” Similarly, Leia, while surprisingly calm when learning she is the daughter of Darth Vader, protests that Luke should “run away” instead of confronting him. Qui-Gon and Luke are following a higher path and even close ones cannot sway them from it.

The untrammelled faith that Qui-Gon and Luke possess toward Anakin induces in their charge a libidinous desire to go beyond and transform his present circumstances. With the stakes raised in the Luke-Vader-Palpatine confrontation in Episode VI, Anakin’s transcension frees the world, Christ-like, from the enormous burden of the Galactic Empire, which he helped his death master, Palpatine, to birth in Episode III – fulfilling a dream he spoke of to Qui-Gon in Episode I (significantly: in front of his mother and Padme) of one day returning and freeing the slaves.

With Palpatine playing the role of a twisted, “Hyde”-like version of Qui-Gon, the calculus of the story sees to it that Luke inhabits the benevolent “Jekyll” side of the mirror; and the fact that he is the son of Anakin and Padme is hardly unimportant. By being both father to his own father (“The son becomes the father and the father the son” as Marlon Brando memorably intones as Jor-El near the beginning of “Superman: The Movie”), and also offering the maternal, encouraging, forgiving warmth that Anakin once knew, Luke is able to effect a change in Anakin’s condition for the good.

Illustrating his upgraded, worldly nature, Luke attempts to strike a bargain with Jabba the Hutt in the opening act of “Return Of The Jedi”, much as Qui-Gon placed bets with Watto, in order to secure the freedom of a Skywalker or Skywalker surrogate in “The Phantom Menace”. Luke even echoes some wording of Qui-Gon’s when he says to Jabba via holographic recording: “With your wisdom, I’m sure that we can work out an arrangement which will be mutually beneficial, and enable us to avoid any unpleasant confrontation.” Qui-Gon explains to Anakin, moments before heading back to Naboo, that they and the midi-chlorians are symbionts, and when Anakin quibbles the concept, he expounds: “Lifeforms living together for mutual advantage.” Luke, in some sense, is Qui-Gon’s earlier wisdom in motion.

----------------------

Yet there is still something that feels a bit hollow about the story just stopping at ROTJ. Forget rhyming; the circle is meant to be broken (so that it can undergo a deeper repair/transformation/completion). Because Luke isn't actually Qui-Gon anymore than he's Anakin or Leia is Padme. The twins are specifically the offspring/descendants (genetically and/or in a caste-sense) of those other characters, and, in many ways, a law unto themselves. Indeed, they are the unfolding of the law, as the last surviving heirs of Anakin and Padme and the entire Jedi Order. Their story cannot be encapsulated by the PT and OT in isolation. Their story is meant as the final piece that requires a trilogy of its own to bring to fulfillment.

Now, to save time, and to console yourself, you can certainly take some guesses and imagine how their destinies might unfold, based on the prime data matrix of the GL6. But it's unsatisfying and leads to false conclusions. Just as some fans couldn't buy into midi-chlorians, or Yoda using a lightsaber, or Anakin as a callow teenager with anger/entitlement issues, so there are fans who find Luke's Fisher King-like fall from grace to be blasphemous, and the rest of it. And it's not my place to tell them they're wrong. But there does seem to be an element of history repeating itself. 

The fact is, or as I see it, I guess:

Star Wars, expressed as three trilogies, is an even greater and more epic family saga and Greek tragedy in space. Myths aren't happy places. They have a lot of waste, ruin, and darkness within them. Pride, vanity, ego, and greed often bring the greatest of characters down. Their ability to endure is often heavily tested. I find the extant Sequel Trilogy surprisingly poignant on this front. Some of the tonality and esoterica of the PT is enfolded into the ST -- baked into its clone DNA. And it makes the saga richer as a result. Is it skewed? Kinked? Distorted? Possibly. But it has stuff going for it. Consider some of the outcomes. Among other things, it is the feminine force that finally defeats Palpatine. The father-son duo took a critical step, but wasn't quite enough to see the Sith off for good. I like this, along with a myriad of other concepts the ST has added to the lore.   


"If something better comes along"? That's what Palpatine was working toward in the PT. Anakin was his destination. Maul, Dooku, Grievous. They were merely waypoints. However, after he has snagged the Chosen One, who or what is realistically left over? There are only really two answers: Luke and Leia. Here we need to give the devil his due. There were no easy replacements for Anakin outside of the Skywalker bloodline. Palpatine goes nuts after Anakin chops off Mace's hand: "Power! Unlimited power!" He's truly orgasmic at the prospect of now having Anakin as his apprentice. He believes in Anakin. Again, he boasts even to Yoda, as a promise he'll somehow live on victorious, even if Yoda puts an end to him: "You will not stop me. Darth Vader will become more powerful than either of us." Even Yoda has to sound a cautionary note about how much faith he's putting in his apprentice. 

The flaw here seems to be in making the trilogies too alike; or mapping what happens in one directly onto the other. They're different. Palpatine achieves his main objectives at the end of the PT. Now, granted, he's left with a flawed apprentice. As Lucas has said, after Mustafar, Anakin isn't all he could have been. But Palpatine hangs onto him regardless. Something better than Anakin, even in his damaged state, isn't easy to find. That's where Luke comes in. But notice: Palpatine is now preying directly on a single family. He isn't looking elsewhere for a replacement. At the least, we're never shown anything along such lines. But what is his fascination with ruling the universe? Is he still trying to cheat death? The ST is very consistent on this front. It says that this is exactly what he was up to. And it lends reasonable explication to what he says in the opera scene in ROTS. One of his first lines in the movie is a repeat of a key line in the opera scene. 

I have no direct proof, but there may even have gone to Lucas for help with the Palpatine/Sith aspects in the ST. They did consult with him for Episode IX. People tend to overlook that. Some of Lucas' ideas are certainly in play in the ST. The trilogy is born from the matrix he set up and handed to them! The other trilogies. And the ancillary material, which they were free to go over and take inspiration from. I can't convince you of the legitimacy of the ST (every fan needs to decide that for themselves), but I see certain things set up in the other trilogies taken to completion. And that is satisfying to me.


They didn't discard all bits. Fundamentally, even if they went a different way with it, the ST takes that generational aspect of Star Wars to its conclusion. We get to see Skywalker offspring (and Palpatine offspring) dealing with the legacy of Vader and grappling with the failings of the past. Unfortunately, we don't get much of a New Jedi Order, or a New Republic, and whatever Lucas cooked up regarding midi-chlorians plays no real explicit part in the narrative.

However, there are some pretty heavy concepts at work in the ST, and more than a drop of genius in the construction of each film; as ricochets/reverberations of what has come before. An elaborate play on the past, with some steps taken to move beyond it. Rey, for example, embodies renewal. She often clings to forests. She has darkness, and also a kind of Jar Jar-like innocence. She is like an elf, a nymph, a fairy, a woodland sprite. Finn. New for Star Wars. Defector, Force-sensitive, loyal friend. Similar to Sam in LOTR. Kylo. A complex new take on the Dark Side and emotional entrapment. Rey and Kylo together. Fascinating. Luke's dark night of the soul. Moving and inspiring. Palpatine's wicked scheme to dominate like never before. Very crazy, very Sith. The ST adds a lot, despite retrofitting and repeat elements. That's my opinion, anyway.

Look at it in terms of the OT movies: The OT itself is ANH. A bit clunky and janky, but still beautifully made and very engaging. The PT is TESB: Opulent, polished, layered, and profound. The ST is ROTJ: Not quite on the level of TESB, or even ANH in every sense, but still takes the story to a compelling conclusion. Deserts and forests and Skywalkers returning. All that good stuff. 


Generalising is not allowed! J/K...

Yes. Some of the fan backlash is very ironic. But isn't irony a big part of the Star Wars saga?

"It's ironic."
"Irony, sir."

However, some of these fans never really cared about the PT. Even if they might appreciate it a little better in retrospect. But it's like they're always one trilogy behind. Can I buy into all their complaining? Should anyone? They didn't placate fans very much with TLJ. That wasn't Rian's concern and it shows. They did fall into fan pandering, to some extent, with TFA and TROS. But that's JJ's bag. He still delivers the goods even then. In fact, both times, he leveraged "better" films to his advantage: the PT with TFA and TLJ with TROS. What a sneaky operator. Always two there are. I'm saying I think he made something interesting/half-decent, even with detectable fan service, even because of it. It's like an art museum or a library with different aesthetics. The PT is one thing. The OT is another. The ST is something else again. Almost two things.

Here's another transcendent metaphor: Lead Skywalker characters define the look and momentum and the facture of each. Anakin as a child. Yipeee! Anakin as a teenager. It's not fair. Anakin as a young adult. What have I done? Anakin as business-as-usual cyborg. We'll have to destroy them ship to ship. Anakin as cyborg and obsessive father figure. Luke, you do not yet realise your importance. Anakin as reminiscing and pathetic old man longing for release from cyborg prison. It is too late for me, son. Kylo as fresh-faced Dark Side bad boy. You know I can take whatever I want. Kylo as dorky, confused helmet-smasher. You'll bring Luke Skywalker to me. Kylo as reformed military commander hiding behind a repaired mask. You don't know the whole story.   

It's beautiful and poetic, seen a certain way.

Your focus determines your reality.


I'm too lazy to pull up the relevant details right now. But essentially, Lucas "Special Edition"-ised the notes section of a significant publication that was meant to be providing a contemporaneous account of how the film got made, and what Lucas' original thought processes were. It was a small amendment, but like everything Lucas says and does, loaded with significance. 


In an exterior, PR-driven sense, that's where Lucas was trying to place the focus. It doesn't explain his very specific facial expression at the end of the video, however. Micro-tells. 


Our lives are richer and stranger for his existing, and they always will be.

If you mean whitewash or a cover-up, okay. But it's definitely not hogwash. He actually said it:

www.hollywoodreporter.com/heat-vision/george-lucas-star-wars-red-tails-282905

The original link, but article is now behind a paywall:

www.nytimes.com/2012/01/22/magazine/george-lucas-red-tails.html


Sure. He had many good reasons to sell his companies and to divest himself of Star Wars. As he says in the Charlie Rose interview, he had a good Chapter One (the OT), an even better Chapter Two (the PT), and he was looking forward to Chapter Three (the rest of his life post-SW) being the best ever.


He may not care greatly for Internet trolls and naysayers in general, but there is no way the intense backlash, over a period of many years, constantly egged on by a corrupt, clickbait-driven online media, didn't affect him. From another article, now also behind a paywall:

www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2013-03-07/how-disney-bought-lucasfilm-and-its-plans-for-star-wars

The criticism got to Lucas. He found it difficult to be creative when people were calling him a jerk. “It was fine before the Internet,” he says. “But now with the Internet, it’s gotten very vicious and very personal. You just say, ‘Why do I need to do this?’

Straight from the horse's mouth, as we say in the UK. Although that same paragraph does note another equally valid reason:

At the same time, Lucas was reluctant to entrust his universe to anyone else. “I think he felt like he was a prisoner of Star Wars, and that only intensified over the years,” says Dale Pollock, author of Skywalking: The Life and Films of George Lucas.

So, ultimately, you could say there was a confluence of factors pushing him to sell. 

TPM 3D didn't do too badly, all things considered. That said, it may have performed below expectations, giving Lucas another extra push to be done with Star Wars and to move on, handing the burden to someone else.

Lucas may be very strong-willed, but he's not invulnerable. I think the staunch reaction to the prequels, especially Episodes I and II, probably hurt him more than he lets on. He is known to be pretty stoic/unrevealing when it comes to showing his true feelings.

But that's not to say victory should be handed to negative voices. And at best, it would be a Pyrrhic victory, especially as many of those voices are now singing a different tune, eight years later. Lucas may well have taken this path anyway. And it was still on his own terms, like everything else he has done in his creative life.