[Bond]

Pretty much what KurganX said... and a little bit more.
During the Dark Times (the Dark Times when Bond, I and KurganX were the only people left on this board :-) we discussed the "Son of Sons". This is an old idea thrown around in an early draft that all people that can use the force are the descendants of one man, that these became Jedi and the Sith were a splinter group, and there was a prophecy that a man would come along to bring them all together again: "The Son of Sons". Lo and behold, in the "Special" Edition of ROTJ at the end in the celebration someone calls out "He is the Son of Sons". I didn't see it, but someone here did check it after I posted and confirmed it. No explanation in the film was given.

That'd be me, Toru. Thanks for remembering.

[civilian_number_two]

I think the biggest indicator that Lucas had never intended, when writing STAR WARS, to make a long story about the tragedy of Dath Vader is this: Vader has practically no lines in STAR WARS. It's so clearly the story of Luke, not Vader. He's not even a character at all, just some ominous bad guy who killed Luke's father and then later his mentor, whom Luke will likely have to kill in one of the sequels.

Everything else came later. Read the original scripts if you need proof, but it shouldn't be necessary. The proof of the pudding ...

If the Vader tragedy was not part of any plan before the first film was completed and released, then it is 100% safe to say that Lucas made up the bulk of the story later. So there was no large crime organisation "the Hutts" ruling Tatooine, no Clone stormtroopers, no twin children, no Jedi council, etc, and certainly no mythological underpinnings =)

[Bond]

I think the biggest indicator that Lucas had never intended, when writing STAR WARS, to make a long story about the tragedy of Dath Vader is this: Vader has practically no lines in STAR WARS. It's so clearly the story of Luke, not Vader. He's not even a character at all, just some ominous bad guy who killed Luke's father and then later his mentor, whom Luke will likely have to kill in one of the sequels.

Actually, in Lucas' very first draft of Star Wars, "Darth Vader" is an insignificant lackey to the real villain of the piece, Prince Valorum. Basically, he's the Motti to Valorum's Tarkin; all the more reason to suspect Lucas is lying...

This post has been edited by Bond: 25 August 2007 - 01:04 PM

[Toru-chan]

That'd be me, Toru. Thanks for remembering.

Sorry Bond. Knew it was either you or KurganX, but I couldn't remember which and got lazy. Oh to have the razor-sharp brain of a 16 year old again, as mine was before aging and alcohol took their tool. Hey... Bond. Whatchya doing next weekend? (reaches for calipers and surgical instruments)

[Bond]

Hey, now... are you licenced to use those?

[Chefelf]

I think the biggest indicator that Lucas had never intended, when writing STAR WARS, to make a long story about the tragedy of Dath Vader is this: Vader has practically no lines in STAR WARS. It's so clearly the story of Luke, not Vader. He's not even a character at all, just some ominous bad guy who killed Luke's father and then later his mentor, whom Luke will likely have to kill in one of the sequels.

Everything else came later. Read the original scripts if you need proof, but it shouldn't be necessary. The proof of the pudding ...

Certainly. Much the same way J.K. Rowling did with the last 3 or 4 Harry Potter books. There's no shame in doing that, it's been done that way for ages. The embarrassing thing is when writers try to say they had this plan all along. I bed J.K. had a plan from book 1 but that plan changed. That's only natural in a 7 book series spanning a decade.

Same with the Back to the Future trilogy. Much like Star Wars there was a first movie that was wildly successful and then the next two movies fit together very nicely to conclude the trilogy but I'venever read of Robert Zemeckis claiming that he envisioned the Wild West segments in 1983. It's clear that the original movie was written as a standalone movie and that the following two films were written at the same time and fit together more than with the original.

There's no shame in that!

[Bond]

Not at all, my liege...

However, it is true that Rowling had a plan ever since she finished the first book. Heck, she even left open loose plot points in Philosopher's Stone so she could answer them properly in the succeeding books! It's patently clear that, from the writing style of it, the Epilogue was written shortly after Book 1, and she only minorly revised it in the months before publication.

[civilian_number_two]

However, it is true that Rowling had a plan ever since she finished the first book.

Garbage. Start a new thread on this subject and PROVE it to me. I'm prepared to make the effort of arguing with you only if your points come from the books, and not from interviews with the author. I can make a pretty good case for how most of the plot points of the last three books had no setup in the preceding ones. And how many of the events of the last book were obviously new ideas.

And again, there's no shame in it.

[Chefelf]

However, it is true that Rowling had a plan ever since she finished the first book. Heck, she even left open loose plot points in Philosopher's Stone so she could answer them properly in the succeeding books! It's patently clear that, from the writing style of it, the Epilogue was written shortly after Book 1, and she only minorly revised it in the months before publication.

Yeah, I'm going to have to demand some proof as well. What in book 1 indicates to you that it was all planned out? Is it that there's a wizard boy named Harry Potter as the star? That's definitely a consistent theme throughout the series. She was certainly laying the groundwork in book 1 that in book 7 there would still be a boy named Harry Potter.

[Toru-chan]

Hey, now... are you licenced to use those?

They took away my license to practice after the board caught me doing these sorts of operations. Muhahahah. Please take care of yourself, Bond. Other Chefelves have dibs on your liver, your cornea, etc.

[Bond]

Yeah, I'm going to have to demand some proof as well. What in book 1 indicates to you that it was all planned out? Is it that there's a wizard boy named Harry Potter as the star? That's definitely a consistent theme throughout the series. She was certainly laying the groundwork in book 1 that in book 7 there would still be a boy named Harry Potter.

Well, in PS, Hagrid talks about how his wand was broken and such, but refuses to say why; this question is answered in CoS, when it is revealed that Hagrid's wand was broken after he was framed for opening the Chamber of Secrets and kicked out of Hogwarts. Also, the bit Dumbledore says about how Harry's father saved Snape's life was elaborated upon in the later books.

[Just your average movie goer]

Hey, are we talking about Star Wars or Harry Potter here? Go and make a thread in the book club. I'm sure Civ would be more than happy to continue the discussion with you there.

I feel like I'm behind the eight ball with this thread. The discussion is going in all directions and in the middle of it, we have Kurgan and Rosenrot's traditional point/counterpoint argument. Keep up the good work, guys. And though I don't intend to get into one of those discussions again, I did notice, Rosenrot, that you tried to defend the inconsistency of Luke and Leia's mother dying half a second after she gave birth. I've gotta hand it to you - that's pretty valiant because as far as I can remember, no-one's tried to put up a well-thought argument for that (just the standard 'the force explains everything' response).

However, Kurgan's right. If somebody asks someone else about their mother, their real mother, they are clearly fetching for biological mother. Also, remember the whole point of that exchange was that Luke was trying to find out about his mother (since Lucas had decided that he and Leia would be twins at that point in time). So if Leia had for some strange reason completely misunderstood the question, when Luke told her that she was his sister, she would then have had to say something like - "Oh! You were trying to find out about our biological mother just before, weren't you? Oh, I'm sorry. I was talking about my favourite nanny."

Anyway, carry on. Enjoy yourselves.

Honestly however, as an aside, it would have made so much more sense if Luke and Leia's mother had been someone on Alderaan, who after losing Anakin, married Bail Organa. That would also do more justice to the line "She was very beautiful, kind... but sad." Sad that the man she thought would stay with her forever became someone the galaxy hated and feared... sad because she had been forced to separate her kids to give them a better shot at staying anonymous. Anyway, Lucas had his chance and screwed it up. More good reason to ignore the prequels.

Also, excellent point by Civilian about Vader's role in the original Star Wars. I still don't know why Lucas and his rabid fanboys are so insistent that the whole thing was planned from the get-go when it wasn't. I mean, I write stuff myself and I completely understand making up stuff as you go. It's called the creative flow. You get to writing out your story or your series (or whatever it may be) and every now and then, you get to a point where you think "I know I didn't plan this but that would be pretty nifty." Everyone does it. But it seems that only one person feels he has to deny doing it.

Furthermore, writers talking about how their original ideas changed in the writing process actually makes for a more interesting interview too.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 26 August 2007 - 07:51 PM

[Bond]

I agree; it seems that Lucas feels very insecure about his work.

Also, MG: could you come over to the Bottom 007 Bond Films thread for a moment? There's something I'd like to show you...

[Just your average movie goer]

Hey, that thread was fizzling out anyway. Besides, you asked me about my 'Return of the Jedi' edit. But okay, I'll take your point.

Perhaps I'm just less in favour of drifting off topic when 'Harry Potter' is the destination of said drifting.

This post has been edited by Just your average movie goer: 26 August 2007 - 11:17 PM

[rosenrot]

Kurgan's quite convinced of his opinions so I see no reason to continue our "point, counterpoint". It only works if both parties are detached enough to admit they might not be 100% right in all things. His responses are getting too repetitive and predictable, it's like arguing with a broken record.

In any event, I've said my piece; I and a few others pointed out most of Kurgan's "plot holes" are just personal beefs of his. Sure, there are about 6 or so indefensible holes, but no film is perfect, and I'm content to let them be as they fail to affect my enjoyment of the 6 films.

Have fun doing whatever it is you are trying to do here. I now remember why I don't bother with Star Wars themed forums.