George Lucas

Star Wars: Episode IV — A New Hope

Star Wars: The Clone Wars

Trying to improve, pls give me feedback

Hi Everyone it's been awhile since I posted but I thought these were pretty cool. Remember to "Use the force and the force will be with you always" and have you all heard that that there will be a OBI WAN SEASON 2😆😆😆😆😆 IM SOOOK EXCITED!!!! Alright guys in the words of great master Yoda "Do or do not there is no try"!!!!!!

These last couple of weeks or so I gave the ol' First Six a rewatch and wanted to coherentize a bit of my realizations on their strengths and thematic centralities. Not all of it was left unnoticed until now, but I found the films particularly compelling this time around and was defeated by the urge to write about it. Not only am I more sure in my love for these movies now (especially the OT, and double-especially ESB) - which is always nice - but it's always really interesting to gather and understand more of their thematic richness.

Beginning with A New Hope, back when everything else was limited to randomly assorted ideas in George’s whimsical mind, I think it mostly excels because of its simplicity. Something of which Lucas always seemed very proud was his inspirations in devising Star Wars. Flash Gordon, samurai films, and religion were always big ones, but I learned of a more “academic” influence several months ago when assigned an essay in a college English class. I was supposed to write an analysis using the “Hero’s Journey”. Also called the “monomyth” sometimes, it’s that story circle with the guy on it you often see. It’s got the Call to Action, the Crossing of the Threshold, the Road Back, the Reward, the whole narrative enchilada. Anyway, contrary to the belief of a lot of English teachers, the theory, devised by comparative mythologist Joseph Campbell, is 1) descriptive, not prescriptive, meaning it’s meant to describe a historical tendency of mythology, not act as a template for the Platonic perfection of a story, and 2) kinda… not entirely accurate and reductive. That’s fine! The effort was valiant anyway, and according to himself, this “monomyth” was the foundation of Lucas’ effort to create the modern myth. So he ordained the beautiful marriage between space operatic science fiction and fairy tale fantasy, complete with wizards, princesses, and space imperialists. I’ve been more into film criticism lately, so something I definitely noticed when watching the film this time is the flawless pacing and complete lack of subplots. The story is extremely smooth, linear, and seamless throughout each story beat. Anything else just serves to drive the characters forward. Luke follows the “Hero’s Journey” perfectly, but not perfectly in a way that it feels like someone rigidly wrote the story according to a Campbellian template; perfectly in a way that makes it feel truly authentic. A true modern myth.

Of course, every myth has its hero. I suppose that, since the Prequel Trilogy, the central “hero” to the Lucas canon is Anakin Skywalker, but at least within ANH and the OT as a whole, the hero for which you seek is Luke. Luke Skywalker is one of the most iconic and beloved heroes out there, and I think one of the root causes for that is his relatability. In A New Hope, Luke is defined by his wonder, passion, love, and courage. What’s most important, though, is his imperfections. He’s prone to whining. He has a tendency to be impatient and rush into things recklessly. As the hero of a modern myth, he’s meant to inspire. All of these attributes and aspects coalesce into a fundamentally relatable character. He’s just an ordinary, well-meaning, naïve kid from nowhere who’s dragged into a war and left with nothing to lose.

I’ve always maintained The Empire Strikes Back as my favorite, so my expectations were high, but were yet again succeeded. Virtually every aspect of the film is perfect, from the narrative to the novelty, to the visuals and to the score. In my opinion, it may very well be the greatest sequel of all time (though this doesn’t necessarily mean the greatest movie that is a sequel), but I’m not here for film criticism. In the realm of thematics, it’s interesting that the film works so well as a sequel. Where ANH had hope, ESB had hopelessness. Where ANH had success, ESB had failure. The qualities that defined Luke Skywalker in the first movie are fundamentally challenged in this one. He’s crushed by the revelation of his father’s true identity. His impatience and recklessness leaves him crippled with hypothermia the first time, and, against the advice of his two masters, he faces near death at the coveted two hands of his father. Luke becomes lost, but if you’re stuck in a dark maze with no exit in sight, the only hope of getting out is to advance your steps and learn from your failures.

That’s precisely what he does. One of the central themes of the Skywalker Saga as a whole is about the learning of failure - even The Last Jedi employs this. The hopelessness echoed between the story beats of The Empire Strikes Back is there not to beat the heroes, but to challenge them and stimulate growth. The film’s ending highlights this; John Williams’ closing score is uplifting, despite the heroes’ defeat.

Something I can’t take credit for but nonetheless found interesting was the application of the Hegelian dialectic to the Original Trilogy, and especially Luke Skywalker. This can be formulated as consisting of the thesis, the antithesis, and the synthesis.

A New Hope can be said to be the thesis. Luke’s character is introduced, his attributes are exemplified, and the heroes are met with success.

The Empire Strikes Back is the antithesis. Luke, and all the heroes, experience suffering. Their attributes and history are challenged and turned upside-down. They’re met with failure, but remain steadfast in hope.

Enter Return of the Jedi, the synthesis. The “solution” - the resolution. The heroes (sans the frozen one) have grown and matured since their past failures. Luke has turned his challenges into strengths, especially concerning his father. He has accepted that his father is Darth Vader, but rather than submit to his Darkness or aim to strike Vader dead, he’s steadfast in his determination and compassion. Equally important in the synthesis to Luke’s Light is the Dark of Vader and, of course, the Emperor.

Although I fancy it the weakest in the trilogy, the scenes in the throne room are all spectacular. It’s around such scenes (and the third act as a whole) where the editing and pacing really start approaching perfection. My favorite details happen to be on the side of Darth Vader. Before he and his son stand before the Emperor - the personification of darkness and corruption himself who practically shrouds any room he’s in - Vader actively acknowledges that his power in the Dark Side is weak in comparison to the Emperor’s and that, even if he wanted to free himself from its shackles, “it’s too late for me, son.”

When Emperor Palpatine psychologically torments Luke in his trials of temptation, he knows just what to target. He uses Luke’s attributes against him, such as his care for Leia and his friends, or his values of rebellion. At first, the Emperor’s efforts are successful; Luke gives in, lashing out in anger before amputating Vader’s hand. This prompts him to avert attention to his own mechanical hand. I actually never saw much significance in that scene, but I do now. Darth Vader is “more machine now than man”. The more Luke cedes to the Dark Side, the more he treads the same path as his father. In realization, he grasps ahold of his senses once more, and crafts the best possible retort to the Emperor. “I am a Jedi, like my father before me.”

What could possibly ruffle his folds more than Luke not only rejecting the path he desires for him, but also spitting in the face of the one he groomed into his father? Acting through his own Darkness, he elects to simply destroy Luke. Proving to be no match against the Emperor’s immense power, he appears to be succeeding - until Darth Vader, acting in the Light Side once more, overpowers the Emperor and saves his son. Something I read somewhere, I believe it was referencing a George Lucas interview but can't find it now, has really stuck with me: it posits that the reason Vader was able to overpower Sidious in that moment was precisely because he was acting through the Light Side. The Dark Side, despite according to him much power, blinded Palpatine against anything else. His overconfidence was indeed his weakness. If Vader had acted through the Dark Side - that is, in emotions such as anger, greed, egotism, fear, or the like - he wouldn’t have met success. He acted through the Light Side, for the ends of love, justice, peace, and the like. He acted to save Luke, not destroy the Emperor. Intent and reason is of utmost importance when it comes to action in the Force. Still, Anakin Skywalker wasn’t redeemed absolutely. In my opinion, this is made clear in the lack of depicting Leia or anyone else acknowledging his actions. His redemption was in sacrificing himself for his son and parting from the world absorbing the Light Side of the Force, not killing Palpatine and somehow atoning for his crimes.

For a while, that’s what we were left with. A trilogy of adventure, failure, and redemption. A story of rebellion against a tyrannical empire. A tale of Light and Dark. It was perfectly fine that way. A wholly complete set of movies with the Expanded Universe teeming with more stories for those thirsting for more. But George Lucas wasn’t entirely satisfied, his whimsical mind wasn’t done yet. So in 1999, a new trilogy was born: the Prequel Trilogy.

From a certain point of view (film criticism), the movies aren’t the most well received, sure. I won’t talk about the cinematic side too much, as this isn't a harangue on film criticism. The focus here is narratives and thematics, and I happen to think the PT does a pretty good job in that department.

What’s the first thing you think of when you read “Prequel Trilogy”? The Clone Wars? Anakin? No, I know just what you’re thinking: politics! The prequels, especially The Phantom Menace, are often criticized for its perceived overemphasis on politics. It was a weird choice to have a movie about the taxation of trade routes to interlying star systems also include a silly guy who talks funny and steps in poo, but I actually kind of like the politics. It allows us to peer into a different aspect of this fantasy universe, tedious as it may be at times.

In the Original Trilogy, Lucas was barely subtle in its political themes. Although it’s not as central to the narrative as the characters are, it’s still irreplaceably important. The heroes fight for a decentralized, guerrilla band of rebels fighting against a centralized, humanocentric, tyrannical empire. Lucas was very critical of imperialism and war, even citing the Vietnam War as inspiration for the Battle of Endor. As important as that was, the Prequel Trilogy only made it more explicit. It portrays the intricately planned and highly concealed plot that Palpatine himself used to orchestrate a war alongside the ruling classes of both the Republic and Trade Federation. He commands both factions, exploiting not only the rest of the government but his constituents as well into bestowing “emergency” powers upon him, centralizing the state further and ceasing the process of republican government, all to the approbation of the Senate. Nine times out of eleven I’d agree the prequels’ dialogue is subpar, but “so this is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause” is a powerful quote. The trilogy doesn’t get into the average person very much, partially to my dismay (and I understand why), but material outside of the movies do to some degree, (though the Separatists less so).

Enough of that boring stuff. Political themes aren’t even my main focus here. What about the Jedi? The Force? How does it complement, or perhaps worsen, the themes of the Original Trilogy? The Prequel Trilogy fleshes out the Jedi Order before its destruction. We can gather their philosophy and doctrine, analyze the narrative themes therefrom, and compare and contrast this with the OT.

The first thing on which people often like to focus, and often gripe about, is the Jedi concept of attachments. As I always like to point out, resident essayist WriterBuddha has written several dissertations on the subject, but to briefly touch on it: "attachment" in Jedi philosophy refers to exclusivity and possessiveness as opposed to a mere emotional attachment. Impartiality is central to the Jedi Code and mission: justice is blind and emotion should never cloud one’s feelings on the matter. To lend exclusive, possessive attachment toward someone (or something) and allow it to cloud their decisions, it leads to the perception of an entitlement to a relationship and the inability to let go, cultivating a toxic possessiveness and psychological torment if/when the attachment is lost. This is one of the core themes of the Prequel Trilogy, and Anakin’s fall to the Dark Side isn’t intended to be a criticism of the Jedi position on attachment. It’s to demonstrate why it’s important.

All of this was developed after the Original Trilogy was already finished. Yet, interestingly, the themes are not only still present, but developed upon! Yoda, initially skeptical of Anakin’s older age, hesitantly allows his training and ends up witnessing his downfall as a result of his possessive attachments (Padmé). With Luke, he’s faced with an even older Skywalker. Coupled with the fact that his father is the secondhand-man to the Emperor Darth Sidious, Yoda isn’t particularly keen on it, but he once again gives in. Beautifully, Luke doesn’t make the same mistakes as Anakin did. Where Anakin failed, Luke succeeded. Where he doesn’t form possessive attachments, he manages to turn his love into his strength (which, alongside the age thing, is something that also happens to be continued in other media, like the New Jedi Order novels). This, of course, leads to Anakin returning to save his son and bring balance to the Force via another Prequel-introduced concept: the Chosen One prophecy. If there’s a place where the OT’s themes are actively made worse in my opinion by the PT, it’d be in the prophecy, since it makes Vader’s choice in Return of the Jedi more about destiny and killing Darth Sidious rather than a psychological redemption to save his son, but there’s a lot about destiny in Star Wars so there’s a lot to talk about on that. Alas, not here. Maybe in the comments though, as a treat.

That’s about all I could scrape from my fresh mind. I watched the Sequel Trilogy too, so I might scrape a bit from that in a future post, but I didn’t want to write a book here. I hope it serves beneficial to anyone, and it’s fairly surface level so if anyone has any comments, additions, or criticisms they’d like to add, absolutely do, please! Goodbye, and may the Force be with you.

Do you think George Lucas would still have sold Star Wars to Disney had the prequels actually had good reception and were popular films when they came out?

I see a lot of people claim the main reason George sold Star Wars was because of these fans constantly hating him and the actors and saying he ruined Star wars (which funny enough these same fans now want him back).

Or was there a bigger reason as to why he sold the franchise?

George Lucas original plan for the sequel was to have Maul return with his new apprentice Darth Talon. Maul would return to rule all the major crime familys/Syndicates from the shadows. Talon would be his assassin eliminating any threats for him. This was all supposed to happen after Return of The Jedi.

So how would you guys feel if we got to see adaptation of George Lucas original plan for the sequel come to canon? Much like The Heir to the Empire movie we are getting now after Ashoka.

Would you still want this?

How would you like to see it be adapted into canon?

Do you still believe it could fit?

I suspect people that only watch the movies (still a decent majority of most SW fans, particularly older ones) would have hated having to watch a tv show to understand why Darth Maul would still be alive for this hypothetical trilogy. That and his ideas about the Whills may have been received about as well as the midi-chlorians were.