Star Wars

[Turgon]

I just read another theory claiming that Jar Jar was a Sith Master manipulator running the entire Empire, and the author makes a very convincing case for it.

Proving, I think, that it's possible to "bust wide open" anything anybody wants with enough obsessively applied force.

POTENTIAL SPOILER

George Lucas did at some point intend on having Luke turn to the dark side and don Vader's mask at the end of the third movie but the idea was shot down In favor of a different ending. Apparently Lucas' focus became more about selling toys than quality story when it came to Return.

JJ Abrams also worked with Lawrence Kasdan who co-wrote the script for Empire and Return. So, if there were any plans for Luke to turn, we might see it. Here's what Gary Kurtz, producer of Star Wars and Empire had to say.

_https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gary_Kurtz

Kurtz has claimed that he and George Lucas clashed over how to progress the Star Wars series. Kurtz recalled that after Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, Lucas became convinced that audiences no longer cared about the story and were simply there for thrills and entertainment, and began to deviate from the originally planned plotlines for Return of the Jedi, at which point Kurtz quit the series. Kurtz has also claimed that Lucas changed the emphasis from storytelling to prioritizing toy merchandising.[18] In a 2010 interview for the L.A. Times, Kurtz revealed that he had become disillusioned with the commercially-driven direction the franchise was taking, as well as the related changes that Lucas made to the plot of the third movie, which was originally much darker, and included the death of Han Solo:

""I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films."[19]
Kurtz has expressed his dissatisfaction with Return of the Jedi and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.[20] Kurtz was particularly displeased with Lucas' decisions in Return of the Jedi to resurrect the Death Star and to change the plot outline from one that ended on a "bittersweet and poignant" note to one having a "euphoric ending where everyone was happy".

 

[mkrnhr]

I've come across the Jar Jar theory here (with illustrations) : _http://www.tickld.com/x/jaw/this-guy-just-changed-the-way-we-see-star-wars-jar-jar? Probably not directly related to this year's episode but it gives a different perspective on the symbolic role of the different characters. After all, the Emperor is a public figure like our presidents.

The reddit discussion, where Jar Jar is a sort of a dark side version of Yoda, is interesting as well, like this remark:

Little side theory, here: Jar Jar creates moments of feigned vulnerability or victimhood to lure in his most important thralls. It's when his target let's their mental guard down, trying to help someone else- this is the essence of evil: exploiting the good nature of people.

He initially enthralls Qui-Gon when the Jedi "saves" him from being run over by the big droid transport. Note that after this moment, Qui-Gon will do anything Jar Jar suggests.

He enthralls Obi-Wan when they have to "save" him from the water after their bongo falls over the waterfall (this is a deleted scene). Funny how an aquatic creature who's already shown us that he's a professional acrobat has to be pulled from the water like a drowning victim, huh?

He enthralls Anakin at the moment he "saves" him from Sebulba. Funny how Jar Jar just happened to spit a dead fish at the one market patron who just happens to be Anakin's rival, huh? That'll get the boy's attention- which was precisely the goal, of course.

The idea that someone who appears all along to be a helpless idiot is in fact a master manipulator. It is also suggested that maybe Jar Jar killed Padme and instructed Palpatine to suggest Anakin that it's his fault, to complete his transformation to be the perfect toy (man-machine).

 

[Mark]

Kurtz has claimed that he and George Lucas clashed over how to progress the Star Wars series. Kurtz recalled that after Raiders of the Lost Ark in 1981, Lucas became convinced that audiences no longer cared about the story and were simply there for thrills and entertainment, and began to deviate from the originally planned plotlines for Return of the Jedi, at which point Kurtz quit the series. Kurtz has also claimed that Lucas changed the emphasis from storytelling to prioritizing toy merchandising.[18] In a 2010 interview for the L.A. Times, Kurtz revealed that he had become disillusioned with the commercially-driven direction the franchise was taking, as well as the related changes that Lucas made to the plot of the third movie, which was originally much darker, and included the death of Han Solo:

""I could see where things were headed. The toy business began to drive the empire. It's a shame. They make three times as much on toys as they do on films. It's natural to make decisions that protect the toy business but that's not the best thing for making quality films."[19]
Kurtz has expressed his dissatisfaction with Return of the Jedi and Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace.[20] Kurtz was particularly displeased with Lucas' decisions in Return of the Jedi to resurrect the Death Star and to change the plot outline from one that ended on a "bittersweet and poignant" note to one having a "euphoric ending where everyone was happy".

For Kurtz to imply that the story has less quality, because of a toy franchise, is sort of ridiculous - in my perspective.

 

[gdpetti]

This isn't surprising given Lucas and his 'daddy' nature after obtaining children.... he wasn't the same person and it showed in his craft.

 

[Persej]

You gonna love this theory: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2dvv-Yib1Xg

Luke's Change: an Inside Job

An examination of some questionable events and circumstances leading up to the destruction of the Death Star, through the eyes of an amateur investigative journalist within the Star Wars galaxy. The focus is mainly on the connections between the people who created and operated the Death Star and those responsible for destroying it.

And there she is again in the new episode: http://www.imdb.com/media/rm2283662592/tt2488496?ref_=tt_ov_i

 

[Buddy]

For Kurtz to imply that the story has less quality, because of a toy franchise, is sort of ridiculous - in my perspective.

I agree. The way this is all being reported, makes it appear that Kurtz's point of view is that Luke turns to the dark side and there is a quality story or else it's all about selling toys.

If you pay close attention to the plot of good and evil on star wars you can see that it is very similar to the cassiopaean saying of good and
evil.

I've watched the movies from the perspective of "forces of oppression and forces of liberation and emancipation."

Symbolism (such as white outfits vs black to denote good and evil) notwithstanding, I find it challenging at some points to figure out exactly who is supposed to be the 'good' guy and who is the 'evil' one.

 

[Cyre2067]

I always thought Luke was kinda dark in Return... I mean, he's wearing black the whole time and he force-chokes the guards at Jabba's palace. There's also the bit where he lashes out at Vader once he finds out Leia is his sister and that he tried to strike down the emperor...

I'm pretty sure Luke goes dark in the written stories as well.

 

[Turgon]

For Kurtz to imply that the story has less quality, because of a toy franchise, is sort of ridiculous - in my perspective.

I agree. The way this is all being reported, makes it appear that Kurtz's point of view is that Luke turns to the dark side and there is a quality story or else it's all about selling toys.

I don't think it's totally far-fetched to think Lucas may have changed aspects of the story or made things more kid friendly in order to drive a toy marketing campaign to go along with the movie. He's a billionaire, and I assume he got that way by making decisions or listening to people who were looking to make more money. That's not to say Kurtz might have had an axe to grind with him (quitting after the second move is a pretty big decision considering how big the first two movies were), but to take the main protagonist, the guy who can move objects with his mind and carries around a kick ass lightsaber for the first two movies and have him turn to the dark side, which seemed to have been the original idea, would have made really good story since it was already being foreshadowed. But that wouldn't be a Hollywood ending and millions of kids would then remember Luke for doing that and not being the guy who saved the day. How would they react to buying his action figure or dressing up like him on Halloween, or buying the Star Wars lunch box, etc.

Considering all Lucas has done afterwards (two really bad Ewoks movies, a number of cartoon shows, endless amounts of videogames, comic books, novels - basically building an empire) indicates to me Kurtz wasn't far off.

 

[Mark]

For Kurtz to imply that the story has less quality, because of a toy franchise, is sort of ridiculous - in my perspective.

I agree. The way this is all being reported, makes it appear that Kurtz's point of view is that Luke turns to the dark side and there is a quality story or else it's all about selling toys.

I don't think it's totally far-fetched to think Lucas may have changed aspects of the story or made things more kid friendly in order to drive a toy marketing campaign to go along with the movie. He's a billionaire, and I assume he got that way by making decisions or listening to people who were looking to make more money. That's not to say Kurtz might have had an axe to grind with him (quitting after the second move is a pretty big decision considering how big the first two movies were), but to take the main protagonist, the guy who can move objects with his mind and carries around a kick ass lightsaber for the first two movies and have him turn to the dark side, which seemed to have been the original idea, would have made really good story since it was already being foreshadowed. But that wouldn't be a Hollywood ending and millions of kids would then remember Luke for doing that and not being the guy who saved the day. How would they react to buying his action figure or dressing up like him on Halloween, or buying the Star Wars lunch box, etc.

Considering all Lucas has done afterwards (two really bad Ewoks movies, a number of cartoon shows, endless amounts of videogames, comic books, novels - basically building an empire) indicates to me Kurtz wasn't far off.

My point was that it's still a good story. Kurtz sees it differently, which is fine. But it's not his story to shape. As far as monetizing Star Wars, I find it impressive that Lucas funded several of the movies on his own, and kept the ownership of licensing and merchandising rights. In a way maybe overall the story has some sort of reflection of Lucas himself if we look at the movie industry as a dark side of sorts where he didn't give in totally but simply used it to his advantage. Given what the industry cranks out, could be that he sees it that way - as a dark side of the arts. Anyway just a thought.

 

[Buddy]

I don't think it's totally far-fetched to think Lucas may have changed aspects of the story or made things more kid friendly in order to drive a toy marketing campaign to go along with the movie. He's a billionaire, and I assume he got that way by making decisions or listening to people who were looking to make more money. That's not to say Kurtz might have had an axe to grind with him (quitting after the second move is a pretty big decision considering how big the first two movies were), but to take the main protagonist, the guy who can move objects with his mind and carries around a kick ass lightsaber for the first two movies and have him turn to the dark side, which seemed to have been the original idea, would have made really good story since it was already being foreshadowed. But that wouldn't be a Hollywood ending and millions of kids would then remember Luke for doing that and not being the guy who saved the day. How would they react to buying his action figure or dressing up like him on Halloween, or buying the Star Wars lunch box, etc.

Considering all Lucas has done afterwards (two really bad Ewoks movies, a number of cartoon shows, endless amounts of videogames, comic books, novels - basically building an empire) indicates to me Kurtz wasn't far off.

I don't have a problem with 'what' Kurtz is saying, just trying to figure out why it's so significant to him. Kurtz, like Lucas, knows very well there's political ideology underpinning their Star Wars universe, because Kurtz produced at least the first two movies if I'm not mistaken. Also, Lucas seems quite able to do a Marxian ideological deconstruction of his own franchise from the customer's point of view since he seems to be taking into consideration the significance of the cultural and economic connections.

So, in my view, Lucas can make whatever changes he wants to without necessarily even being identified with it all. Kurtz, on the other hand, is overly invested in something he doesn't own and has limited influence over. He also seems victimized by personal weakness: he doesn't like and avoids conflict; he complains that because toys are driving the movie, the creative department is constantly looking over their shoulders. He has difficulty coping, so when he's had enough, he walks out.

It also happens that, having made the split and now criticizing Lucas the way he does, "Kurtz has become a figure of integrity to the fans who believe that Lucas has followed the wrong path." (reference link below)

So, Kurtz and Lucas start out together on things. At a point, Kurtz's personal passion wants things to go one way, Lucas's other-focus makes it go differently, there's a split, people begin taking sides.

Now, the Sith didn't all of a sudden pop up out of nowhere one day and shout "hey look at us, we're Sith!" In the beginning, they were all Jedi and then, well, I think everyone probably knows the story.

Anyway, you see where I'm going? There seems to be a real-life recreation of the Star Wars story going on here and Kurtz is leading THAT and in control of THAT. I'm thinking Kurtz's characterization of things is a bit too superficial, hinting at his own future plans. Plans which, at this point, are a mystery, but considering that he and his followers are on the "passionate" side, I'm sure it will involve the Sith.


_http://articles.latimes.com/2010/aug/12/entertainment/la-et-gary-kurtz-20100812

 

[Turgon]

For Kurtz to imply that the story has less quality, because of a toy franchise, is sort of ridiculous - in my perspective.

I agree. The way this is all being reported, makes it appear that Kurtz's point of view is that Luke turns to the dark side and there is a quality story or else it's all about selling toys.

I don't think it's totally far-fetched to think Lucas may have changed aspects of the story or made things more kid friendly in order to drive a toy marketing campaign to go along with the movie. He's a billionaire, and I assume he got that way by making decisions or listening to people who were looking to make more money. That's not to say Kurtz might have had an axe to grind with him (quitting after the second move is a pretty big decision considering how big the first two movies were), but to take the main protagonist, the guy who can move objects with his mind and carries around a kick ass lightsaber for the first two movies and have him turn to the dark side, which seemed to have been the original idea, would have made really good story since it was already being foreshadowed. But that wouldn't be a Hollywood ending and millions of kids would then remember Luke for doing that and not being the guy who saved the day. How would they react to buying his action figure or dressing up like him on Halloween, or buying the Star Wars lunch box, etc.

Considering all Lucas has done afterwards (two really bad Ewoks movies, a number of cartoon shows, endless amounts of videogames, comic books, novels - basically building an empire) indicates to me Kurtz wasn't far off.

My point was that it's still a good story. Kurtz sees it differently, which is fine. But it's not his story to shape. As far as monetizing Star Wars, I find it impressive that Lucas funded several of the movies on his own, and kept the ownership of licensing and merchandising rights. In a way maybe overall the story has some sort of reflection of Lucas himself if we look at the movie industry as a dark side of sorts where he didn't give in totally but simply used it to his advantage. Given what the industry cranks out, could be that he sees it that way - as a dark side of the arts. Anyway just a thought.

Totally. And I didn't mean to take away from that with my comments. Regardless of why Lucas did what he did and what issues were going on between him and Kurtz, they were his movies to make.

 

[Neil]

Luke does fall to the dark side briefly about 10 years after the Battle of Endor in the expanded universe stories. Basically, Palpatine applies the clone army concept to Jedi to create an army of synthetic Sith called Reborn. He also had clones of himself as a backup plan in case he ever got killed, he could take over the bodies via a form of demonic possession and attain a degree of immortality. During his time as a disembodied spirit, Palpatine becomes something of a demigod and manages to turn Luke with his overwhelming knowledge of the Force. Luke originally thinks he can use the dark side against itself to sort of destroy the Imperial Remnant from within, but Palpatine is wise to this plan and basically manipulates him into being another Vader. I think Han and Leia end up saving him before he goes completely over the edge, and it takes like another 30 years or so to do Palpatine in for good.

I was disappointed when they said they weren't going to use the books as the basis of the new movies, because even though there was still quite a bit of comic book fluff, the story was going in a more metaphysical direction which I found more fascinating than the original trilogy and the prequel trilogy by far. A good synopsis of what happens afterward is here. _http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Luke_Skywalker Scroll down to the part entitled "In search of a legacy." There is enough material there for one more trilogy at least. I'm hoping they just said they're not using expanded universe as a ploy to keep the fans in suspense and perhaps give themselves some leeway to change a few details from the books to make it more adaptable to a trilogy.

 

[Woodsman]

One thing I find interesting is the sheer number of Star Wars fans who choose to dress up like Imperial Storm Troopers when they visit fan conventions.

I think I might understand the concept of dressing up like monsters on Halloween; it's a way perhaps of grappling with fear..? Dragging the monster into the light so that we can all see them..?

But I get the feeling that this fascination with shows of Imperial fascist power is different. They have internationally organized chapters and around 8000 members.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/501st_Legion

I remember waaay back in grade school, talking with some other kids about getting a movie camera and making a short animated film using Star Wars figures. I dropped out of that group because the overwhelming drive was to tell a story where the "Empire Wins!" -Why? "Because they have cooler stuff!"

I guess some souls came here specifically to experience the unique "thrills" of authoritarian followership.

 

[H-KQGE]

"Take your weapon. Strike me down with all of your hatred and your journey towards the dark side will be complete." Damn! The article (from the previous page) does make a good case though!

 

[Skipling]

Okay, it's time to tackle a Goliath of hype then. There is no two ways about it. Take away Revenge of the Sith and Empire Strikes Back, and you do not have much in this series of stories to linger long in the annals of cinematic memory. Don't get me wrong; those two films are very good. It's just that there's so much flab and lame dialogue in so many other places.

Unquestionably, as George Lucas ushered in this late 70's era of the bums on seats blockbuster which all could enjoy (and the absence of subtleties that that can sometimes cause), it's now quite easy to see what decent critics said way back when. Look at the genre en masse; it's always polished, has mostly a veneer of techno-savoire faire, and they are largely empty affairs, full of spectacle and excitement but lacking depth of heart and genuine human drama. The actors are completely on leashes, there isn't a bloody hope for any human drama, so it's anti-dramatic, all servile to the grand vision of the vizier Lucas. Sorry guys, he's butt naked, and a very overrated film maker by his devotees. If he was devoted to making films as entrees to politics and mysticism for kids and adults, he could have done so much more by (ahem) not applying the same template to every goddamn film, it's like a frickin' Nintendo Mario/Zelda production line.

He's a great practicioner, he crafts great products, but he's not a great film maker. And now Disnaea (deliberate typo) have the franchise, yes? God help us.

If I sound a little scathing here it's because with the characters, with the storyline potential, the actors, the technicians, producers, money, absolutely amazing work could have been done here.

But it wasn't, because it was less challenging, less damanding of one's craft and intellect to produce a commodified product, a la Zelda/Mario.

Just imagine what could have been done with the material on offer in this series, and wonder.