Lucas Sequel Trilogy Treatments: Evidence, Facts, Discussion

It seems that this trilogy, if George had gotten around to making it, would have featured Organized Crime as the evil faction this time around- possibly being guided by "Uber" whom I can't help but think was meant to be a Force wielder like the Mortis gods. What is clear from GL's comments though is that the Whills would have probably appeared in Episode 9, tying together the saga around the concepts of the Force first introduced in TPM by Qui-Gon when he spoke about "the Will of the Force".

How grand and majestic it would have been

I agree. Developing the galactic underworld is something George had been doing for years (not only with The Clone Wars but also with the Underworld live-action series) and coincidentally that was right around the time he developed the story treatments.



His director's cut of Watchmen is an underrated gem and one of my favourite movies. Man of Steel is also great, but that exhausting third act broke the pacing completely.

I've spoken to Rinzler on Facebook. He did mention a veteran (nay: genius) of the franchise getting treated roughly at Lucasfilm, but it wasn't Lucas he named. Someone else mentioned the same person in the same vein to me in private on TFN before I spoke with Rinzler. And then an interview came out with that person, and yep -- accurate. But with regard to Lucas, I think he's been very careful not to say too much. The man had his blog shut down and evidently grew weary about saying anything revealing after that.

He's never even explained why his blog was shut down, despite lots of prodding on Facebook by other people on his wall, and plenty of people suggesting it was Darth Disney. You're not going to get too much out of him at this point on Star Wars. He's moved on with other projects and employers.

That said, in addition to his now-deleted blog entries (which have been archived in one or two places), he dropped vague hints about acrimony happening behind the scenes in the following interview:

www.slashfilm.com/j-w-rinzler-the-making-of-star-wars-the-force-awakens/

There’s a lot of new information. They really didn’t release a lot of information. I don’t know what form the book is going to come out, and frankly, I don’t know if it’s coming out in October. Nobody has said that to me, and someone else has said it might be, and I checked with the publisher, and they said it’s news to them. So it might just be Amazon… Again, I don’t work there anymore, so I’m not privy to information, but I think they would have let me know. … It’s a compelling book, and you’d have to ask them why it’s been delayed.

You will get a few hints in this book, but you don’t get the whole thing. I think that something that big will come out eventually. I don’t know when or where but I just don’t see how it could not.

He did, but given how he’s said they didn’t really follow his ideas, it’s for him to say. Because the book has been delayed, I really don’t think I can talk about it–except to say that when the book does come out, if it’s as originally written, fans will learn a lot more.

Let's parse out those burns:

- "A compelling book"....... "Ask them why it's been delayed" 
- "They really didn't release a lot of information"........ "I think they would have let me know" 
- "Something big will come out eventually"........... "I just don't see how it could not" 
- "If it's as originally written"........... 


There's also this super-interesting interview with Rinzler from last year, all about his time under Lucas. Nothing Disney-related, but a terrific listen nonetheless:

(EDIT: I gave the interview a re-listen. There's a tiny bit of Disney-related stuff in the interview, but I mean tiny. Rinzler basically refuses to answer any questions on the transition, or why his TFA book hasn't come out. He does, however, stress that his book has nothing salacious in it, and that he doesn't tell Lucas' side of the story in it -- so why would it be suppressed? He speculates Disney didn't want to go over old ground and bring renewed attention to several matters that dogged the production, from the ditching of Lucas' treatments to Harrison Ford's on-set injury that could have been deadly. I can't tell if he's being diplomatic there or not. In another moment, he's asked for any insight he has into the way Lucas and Abrams differ as filmmakers, and all he offers is an evasion: "They're their own people, they do things in different ways." Make of all this what you will.)  

I'd love something like that. The next best thing are Rinzler's books, and a worthy companion piece, of sorts, called "George Lucas: Interviews":

www.amazon.co.uk/George-Lucas-Interviews-Conversations-Filmmakers/dp/1578061253


Well, that's just the thing: did Lucas really "have" to retire? He seems strangely reluctant to get going on new projects, despite boasting that he has thousands of ideas and stories in his head, and maybe hundreds in the vaults. He's a formidable creative intellect, but he's only directed six films. Obviously, his legacy extends well beyond directorial duties, but it's a somewhat disquieting and dislocating thought that he technically only has six director credits to his name. You would think it'd be at least a dozen or more, like many of the other greats such as Bergman, Chaplin, Fellini, Hitchcock, Kubrick, Kurosawa, Godard, Welles, Scorsese, Malick, Aronofsky, and Lucas' own buddy, Steven Spielberg all have under their belts. Look them up. The lowest, I think, of that cohort is uber-perfectionist Stanley Kubrick, with eighteen. Lucas truly is an enigma in so many ways. 


It might be better for Disney that Crazy George is off the scene. Off on the golf course of his imagination, or in the vineyard of his pet interests, where he is no great threat. On the other hand, I don't think they're all ungrateful hacks. I don't think this term quite applies to Gareth Edwards or Rian Johnson. There's an attempt with both of their films (whether you think the attempt works or not is another matter) to push the boat out a little, explore new territory, and try something different.

Also, in fairness to Kathleen Kennedy, she's a heck of a producer when it comes to making things happen. In just four years, an astonishing *five* Star Wars films have hit the gravel, and now there's a live-action television series (the first of its kind for the franchise) making waves, with "Baby Yoda" being referenced all over the place.

I might be cynical about Disney, but they must be doing something right, despite recent blowback. Maybe Lucas, as its originator and putative patriarch, cared for the series a particular way, and created special cravings and longings with big gaps and careful release schedules, but there's clearly a method in his madness in selling to Disney and putting Kennedy in charge.

I go back and forth on the "dumbing down" aspect. There's always been a good deal of Star Wars material I've never greatly cared for. I just hope a certain creative culture persists at Lucasfilm. You can never go back to the days of George, but isn't that what Shmi says? "Don't look back." Of course, you can look back -- but don't live there and make that a prison-house that stops you enjoying the present moment and living for today. In the end, intellectually, while the property can only have come from Lucas, many hands have made it what it is. So it may be different now it no longer has its original lodestar, but even the Earth precesses.

Perhaps people who always enjoyed the EU are a little ahead of the pack here. I'm not among them; so please don't mistake that as a self-inflating statement. But maybe they have always been easier with the idea that Star Wars isn't so starkly defined by fealty to Lucas and his ideas. Anyway, I'm really straying off-topic here, but it's interesting to speculate -- or remind ourselves -- of how diverse the fanbase actually is. A lot of Internet noise tends to obscure wider and more subtle realities.  


Hey, let's keep this conversation clean... 

But seriously:

It's a worrying trend. Corporations are amassing unprecedented levels of power and influence in the world. 

I would actually like to learn about the circumstances that surround Rinzler no longer working for Lucasfilm anymore. People tend to overlook the fact that he wasn't just employed there as a skilled, diligent author.  He was the company's executive editor, and he had that role for fifteen years. His role carried enormous responsibility and prestige. He liased and collaborated with many people, including George himself, and he helped facilitate and realise several significant literary/publishing projects. Of course, people eventually step down and move onto other things, but it's fair to smell a rat here.

Rinzler worked relentlessly on perhaps the biggest book project for the company in those final three years of his employment there, then his book, in a near-complete form (all the text complete, but some of the style/presentation still being worked out) is suddenly scrapped/withdrawn from publishing, and Rinzler is suddenly out of a job. So they basically canned their flagship printed product, at an incredibly late stage in its development, after Amazon and other retailers already listed it for pre-order, and at the same time, the author -- and again: executive editor at Lucasfilm -- is given his pink slip. Why?

One suspects a purge (of sorts). Rinzler had basically become Lucas' literary lieutenant, his tacit biographer and ally, and was therefore *in* with his boss in a big way. This was clearly unacceptable to Disney/Lucasfilm under new management. I mean, what: Did he go pulling hairs out of a Chewbacca costume? Rubbish Maz's cantina? Stick a CCD sensor in one of the film cameras? What was so heinous and so difficult to countenance that he was removed or no longer felt like continuing his association with the company? If not, that is, for his strong association with Lucas and the old regime, the earlier Lucasfilm ethos, the previous epoch? Something just doesn't add up. And Rinzler clearly isn't telling; or able to. 

Quality over quantity.
I feel they rushed into everything too fast and clumsily, (a la Admiral Ozzel). But that's the reality of shareholder dominant structure.

(Btw, why does the public hate Ewoks, but love purgs and baby Yoda?)

Do you happen to have that book? If so, do you think it's worth it? How in-depth does it go?



This all goes back to one of George's main problems with Hollywood. Studio heads/suits meddling in and making creative decisions:

"They tell people what to do without reason. The studios know that directors get emotionally involved, and then all hell breaks loose. It happened to me, to Elaine May, to anyone who makes movies now. Sooner or later, they decide they know more about making movies than directors. You can't fight them because they've got the money."

This is exactly what happened when he sold Lucasfilm to Disney. Suddenly, they (Kennedy and Iger) decided they knew Star Wars better than the guy who created it. Kennedy is a producer, not a creative. She got picked by Lucas to run the company, not to make creative decisions. Had Lucas not sold the company, she wouldn't have pulled any of this. But with George out of the way, she had power she didn't have before. And with the company being owned by Disney, Iger invariably stepped in, and both of them decided to commit the same mistake (even if they disagreed with each other on how to make that mistake). They don't have a story to tell, they don't have imagination. They take what someone built and arrogantly pretend to know better.

"Twice the pride, double the fall."

The first thing they did was to discard Lucas' story treatments. How people are willing to give a chance to this corporate mess knowing what it lacks and how it was made to begin with is beyond me.

They are reaping what they sowed. A soulless, convoluted mess of a product disguised as movies with the Star Wars name plastered on it.

I do happen to have that book, yes! I wouldn't say it's anything mind-blowing (although maybe we've just been spoiled by the Internet), but it's a solid reference source -- a good vade mecum when you're looking for something Lucas had to say about filmmaking and the way he sees the world in the 20th Century (it goes up to 1999).

Bear in mind, however, as the title suggests, it's not a compilation of quotes, but a collection of interviews that various scribes and journalists conducted with Lucas over the years. It gives you the essence of his thinking in so many ways. However, some people have criticised it for being a touch repetitive, which it is. Yet the content remains compelling and reliable.

The bulk of the interviews span the late-70s and early-to-mid-80s. So you're getting a fairly raw and somewhat reflective film artist breaking down his interests and pontificating on the state of the world as it then was, and where he thinks it is likely heading. What you're basically getting is Lucas the director, Lucas the producer, and Lucas the anthropologist. A man who is simultaneously young and middle-aged, certain of his talents, and willing to hold the world to rights. It works very well as a prelude to the thoughtful mogul and would-be philosopher about to unleash the prequels -- his deepest filmic vision -- onto the world.

As is written on the first page of the introduction:

"The book title "George Lucas: Interviews" is almost an oxymoron. To archive the verbal output of a notoriously nonverbal impressario offers a rare opportunity and a unique challenge. Consequently, it generates an unprecedented, especially useful final product."

My only real complaints about the book:

i) I wish it were longer.
ii) I wish it had been updated to cover the subsequent twenty years.

However, I can live with both of those things. Because I got it secondhand from Amazon Marketplace, it's also got a special charm, because it comes from a library in Texas, is laminated, and still contains the original library barcodes and an address stamp inside, including a handwritten filing code, which I think is pretty neat.

If you're unsure or just want to learn a little more, you should be able to read some of the book via Google. Certain pages will be omitted, but it'll allow you to determine if the content and presentation stand up.




This isn't exactly wrong, but it lacks nuance. Kennedy may be more of a producer than a creative type, but that's what makes Lucas special: he's great at both. Very hard to find that in the same person. Moreover, as you acknowledge, Lucas sold his company to Disney (and put Kathleen Kennedy in charge before doing so). He's the one that put his creation in this predicament. Of course, they could have been less arrogant and more reasonable, but alas, they chose to distance themselves from his ideas, and that only gave Lucas added incentive to keep out of it.

However, an important distinction here is that Kennedy is answerable to people in a way that Lucas wasn't. He called all (or most) of the shots, and if he didn't like something being done a certain way, he had the power to change it and have it his way. Further, while Kennedy may not be a creative type, per se, she is responsible for attracting, procuring, and encouraging talent to the brand -- a great deal of the course that Star Wars should take, or the specific focus and flavour it should have, rests primarily with her, based on her specific decisions, especially who she approves as the main creatives on each new project. 

That means that Kennedy is very much shaping the direction of Star Wars at the present moment, and having a direct effect on how the orchestra plays, for want of a better metaphor. And she's an impressive conductor. It isn't her fault she isn't a creative person. But she surely knows talent when she sees it. In addition, she clearly has some ideas of her own, regarding what values should be expressed, and which should be discouraged or avoided, so that works as another way in which she is leaving her mark on the series. If Lucas didn't want her to impose her will on his creation, he needed to pick a more pliant personality -- and he should have resisted selling.

I'm not sure what mistake they've committed. There's no guarantee that Lucas' ideas would have gone over any better than their own, especially given the backlash Lucas faced over the prequels. Additionally, they would have been filtering his ideas, anyway, further complicating the picture. Of course, I'd rather they'd have taken more of a honest stab at preserving and honouring what he handed over to them. On the other hand, they obviously didn't do away with all his ideas. But it depends how you look at it. Perception is nine-tenths of the law. Yes, yes. Possession. But perception works, too. Or: Your focus determines your reality.

You could argue that the central plot conceit of the Sequel Trilogy is what is stated in the opening sentence of Episode VII: "Luke Skywalker has vanished." Because Luke was in exile in Lucas' treatments. That was the big hook. His choice to disappear shapes the whole narrative. They worked out their own meanings around that, but not purely out of arrogance or spite. If you delve into the relevant sources, and if Michael Arndt is telling the truth, then they had difficulty trying to organically bring Luke back into the story without him disrupting the arcs of the other characters. He basically just Gary Stu-ed the whole thing. So in a rather elegant solution, and one that could have come straight out of the Lucas playbook, they chose to sideline him, turning him into the MacGuffin that everyone is trying to reach.   

And then Rian Johnson, a witty, offbeat filmmaker, decided to run with that opportunity, essentially crafting an entire movie to explore why Luke had taken himself out of the good fight, and how that impacted the fates of Rey and Kylo. In essence, Johnson delivered an authentic character study, and a movie rich in theme and subtext. Kennedy had very good instincts to bring someone of Rian's intelligence and calibre to the Star Wars franchise. People who act like Kennedy just commercialised the crap out of Star Wars need to consider "The Last Jedi" and Rian's methods more carefully. It's not a shallow film, bereft of insight into the human condition. It's a deeply-woven and deeply-felt psychodrama.

Then there's TROS. A different beast again. And the spin-offs. The first of which a lot of people seemed to like. I mean, many hard-to-please prequel fans. I was not necessarily among them, but I appreciate the film more in retrospect. But as far as the saga films go, Lucas gave them some ideas, and then they translated them into action. In relative terms, the saga may have moved from poetry to prose, but there are great works of prosaic literature in the world. So their offering is just an interpretation. No, wait. It's also an offering. "Here. Enjoy this. We made it for you."

If Star Wars wasn't commercially strong, it would never have gotten this far. You can't just make a bunch of animated Picasso paintings. You actually have to emojify things and make a commercially-viable product. But one that hopefully has artistic leanings. I think that's what they did. We can split the difference on TFA, but TLJ and TROS are remarkably better films, in my opinion. They played it safe, then they branched out. Maybe not as much as they could have or should have, and maybe they'd even be making more money, now -- who knows? But they did a thing, then another thing, and it's worked out okay for them, and we are all the beneficiaries of three more saga films (plus two spin-off installments, a live-action television series, two new animated series, already many new books and comics, and any number of other projects with reasonable child-and-adult appeal).



I think it depends on how you choose to look at the glass: half-empty or half-full. The half-empty view is perhaps as you just described things. They made a soulless cash grab in their eternal arrogance and ruined Star Wars forever. And they're now paying for their arrogance. Karma's a bitch. Yaddle, Yoda. The glass half-full view, on the other hand, is that Star Wars continuing to exist and expand and enthrall is an eternal tribute to the man who brought it through a painful childbirth and into a sort of late adolescence/early adulthood in the first place: our beloved George Lucas.

This cannot be stressed enough. Everything that shines out from the cinema scene under the name "Star Wars" is thanks to the existence of one man and his awesome instincts and formidable intellect. There is no substitute. It's like Lucas is the real "Skywalker" of the physical world, and we are all his students, and they are the new priests and architects, continuing to flesh out, deepen, widen out, and unfurl that message. In all the ways we would want or expect? No. But you rarely get what you want in life. But so that Star Wars, in Lucas' own words at the TFA premiere, might go on for another 100 years? Yes. They are laying the foundations of that right now. We're living in it, aren't we? Long live the beautiful bearded madness of King George.




"Lord Iger" is still an epithet The Fandom Menace might approve of, not least because it implies that the Sith have their hands on Star Wars and that the series has fallen to the Dark Side -- a vivid metaphor, I'm sure you'll agree. Years prior, it was Darth Lucas, Luca$, Lucash, and other such sobriquets. And countless were the torrential "yes-man" insults toward Rick McCallum. New bottle, same fragrance.

Yes, you're punching higher than Rian Johnson, and I take your point. Iger is fair game, because he's the Disney CEO. However, what often happens there is critical fans can then pretend they're not attacking filmmakers, and that they're following a more lofty agenda. It may, however, not always be the case in reality. By seeking to imply the financing and oversight of Lucasfilm under Disney is illegitimate, a strong top-down bash is being made against the films -- at least, in theory. Again, the Sith Lord epithet implies that Iger has totally corrupted the franchise, like Palpatine undoing the Republic. It's not very nuanced (even playfully) to pretend that the highest person in the organisation is a Sith Lord. Not when it comes to shifting blame. It's just moving the loudspeaker to a different part of the room.

What meddling has Iger performed? That's not to denial meddling, but where possible, with such sweeping accusations, it may pay to be more concrete. I also think there's some unresolved pain involved here -- for all of us. Lucas is no longer in charge of Star Wars and that kind of sucks. Any new regime was bound to receive a measure of heat eventually, as a cover for our confusion and sorrow. Righteous indignation feels good for a time. Maybe a long time. However, when anger is embraced, other bounties are missed along the road. That's all.  


Thanks -- I think? 



True enough. But how does that relate to Star Wars? Why can't we just occasionally have nice things? It's just, from my POV, straight away, people are jumping on TROS. They aren't even giving the movie or the Sequel Trilogy a chance. They've decided it sucks and is broken and was never made correctly from the start. Criticism of Disney is a relative thing to how much their products move you. Of course, they are products. It should be possible to separate the two, but I suspect, in practice, it's incredibly difficult. I've simply taken my finger off the trigger a bit because I'm trying to enjoy something they've put out right now. Doesn't mean I disagree with all criticisms of their corporate practices. Arguably, they should be talked about much more. I guess Star Wars was actually simpler in some ways when Lucas had hold of it. Now we have to think about meddling and firings and focus groups and dark intentions. It's all gone a bit crazy.


Well, I do agree that some of their practices are appalling. But it's not just Disney. It's basically every mega-corporation in existence. Unfortunately, people tolerate their nonsense by continuing to vote for centrist and right-wing leaders who collectively protect the corrupt system -- like voting in more dragons to protect the hordes of gold. Capitalism, as it currently exists, should be overthrown. It has caused untold misery to billions of people, ruined the planet's delicate ecology, and basically begun imprisoning many citizens of even the wealthier countries of the world in a blatantly pyramidal structure of plunging inequality; which is presently the driver for a recrudescence of far-right populism, among other things. And it could all be overcome if more people began demanding better and voting for more progressive policies and candidates. Not voting for Palpatines (few, in reality, become Skywalkers) would be a great start. And it's pretty late in the day to wake up and realise we need to do better. But we do. Urgently.


Yes, I'm aware of its protected status. Many places suffer from the effects of overtourism. I wouldn't completely blame Disney here. It's a difficult issue. Should they not have used those islands? They have an awesome power. Interest in the location will probably ebb and be more controlled in the coming years. But it would be nice if more could be done to highlight those issues, and if mega-corporations with power and influence like Disney, and all those billions, could do a bit more to give back, as a sign of gratitude and to balance out the ill consequences of making great gains at a protected site's expense. Corporations definitely have a lot to answer for. But if nothing else, the Star Wars saga is an intricately-crafted nature poem, commanding us to take better care of the Earth, and to invest wisely in our children's futures. More good may accumulate in the longer run. 


Well, on some level, it is the product of the Sequel Trilogy starting off freakishly strong (in box-office terms), but that's because Disney played it terribly safe to begin with and TFA was ridiculously overhyped. Once the fervour about Star Wars coming back died down, a more realistic picture started to emerge. They're money-makers, but they have a lot of competition, and some people prefer the competition. Lucas had a free run with the Original Trilogy. The prequels, on the other hand, came up against a lot of competition, but they did okay -- largely, I think, because Lucas had the lure of Darth Vader. With the ST, well, if they'd followed his treatments and been bolder, they might have made more, but who can really say? Perhaps there are respectable reasons Lucas chose not to make the sequels himself. Also, when something's doing well, people don't question it. If, on the other hand, a thing starts to struggle, people cast about for answers, trying to uncover reasons/excuses. Human nature. They probably should have spent longer on it, but it makes Star Wars 42 years old and seven months, before ascending through the stargate. Just like Elvis. Twin suns. Stillborn twin. Sun to sundial. Colonel Parker, Chancellor Palpatine. Vergences and dyads. It all makes cosmic sense. This was saga was made for me. I know it.

 Just because he was creatively working on the movie up to the 16th of January, does not mean it was his treatments they were working on. I'm assuming you are getting the info from this article:

medium.com/@oozer3993/george-lucas-episode-vii-c272563cc3ba

But again, it does not say it was Lucas's treatments they were still working on. There are in fact many sources that say this vision of Luke was a "late 2012".

There's the Phil Szostak instagram post about Luke as well from December 21 2017:



So between the medium article, Szostak's instagram, and Calzmann's instagram, there is one consistent omission. That George Lucas had anything to do with this version of Luke Skywalker. Not one source or indivdual comes out and says that Lucas was behing this version of Luke. In fact, I point to Calzmann;s instgram post:



A very important note there. Calzmann separates Lucas from whomever told him that Luke is a Kurtz type character. This is very interesting to me. If this art was based on what Lucas was telling everyone, than Calzmann would have included Lucas as being the one that told him Luke was a Kurtz like character and gave him the Fabuloso. However, Calzmann separates the two. He makes sure not to include Lucas with whomever was telling him that Luke is Kurtz.

Furthermore, what makes Col. Kurtz, Col Kurtz, is not just because Kurtz was hiding out. What makes Kurtz, Kurtz, is because he is waging a brutal side war in which he and his men commit horrible atrocities. So I don't get how Lucas would make this connection. It doesn't feel right.

It seems to me Szostak is playing damage control. He muddies the waters by saying the idea behind Luke was a "late 2012" idea, that it predates Johnson and even Abrams, however, he never says it was a Lucas idea. Unless there is more info I am missing, it seems to me people are filling in the blank spots themselves, without realizing that if this Luke was a Lucas idea, there;s no reason for Szostak to not say so. It seems he is protecting TLJ, but, he is being very vague in where the idea came from, when there's no reason to be vague is it was a continuation of Lucas.