The Secret History of Star Wars 569
lennier writes "How exactly did George Lucas develop the script for the first Star Wars? Why were the prequels so uneven when the originals were so good? Did he really have a masterplan for six, nine, or even twelve episodes, and why did the official Lucasfilm position keep changing? And just how big an influence were the films of Akira Kurosawa on the whole saga? Michael Kaminski's The Secret History of Star Wars, Third Edition is a free, thoroughly unauthorized, e-book that brings together a huge amount of literary detective work to sort fact from legend and reveal how the story really evolved. Download it or have your nerd credentials revoked."
533 pages? (Score:4, Informative)
I'm sure there's some interesting stuff buried in there, but damn... 533 pages?
I couldn't stand episodes 1, 2 and 3, and I sure as shit don't want to read about how / why George Lucas decided to make them suck so bad. Viewing them once apiece was painful enough.
"Impressive, most impressive..." (Score:4, Informative)
s/Jar Jar/C3PO (Score:4, Informative)
I guess the problem is they didn't pair him up with a mute midget... or was that Anakin? No, I suppose he talked too much.
Re:Does anybody really care? (Score:5, Informative)
The prequels didn't shoot for instant gratification. The Good guys vs. Bad guys formula was thrown out. The "Villains" in TPM were weak and cowardly. They weren't bent on conquering the galaxy, but securing trade rights. Trade rights?! It was a bold move that alienated many fans. But the real story was what was happening behind the scenes: Palpatine manipulating the Neimoidians, the Naboo, and the Senate to prepare for his War. The blockade of Naboo was just the first pawns being moved. Many themes of moral ambiguity were pervasive in the prequels. The Jedi were the "good guys", but they were flawed and arrogant. The CIS were the "Bad guys", but their grievances with the Senate were quite valid. The Republic was a bastion of freedom and democracy, but it was mired in corruption. Anakin was the personification of this dichotomy. He wasn't the superhero that Luke (and the OT audience) imagined him to be, but a very flawed, very "human" character. In the noble effort to save his wife and child he, like Lady Jocasta, inadvertently *cause* the very events that they dedicated themselves to prevent.
It's easy to drill no deeper than the awkward dialog or Jar-Jar fart jokes in the prequels. But by doing so, you're missing the point entirely. The best storytelling in the prequels is what lies between the lines.
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:5, Informative)
NERD. n. slang.
(1) A foolish, inept, or unattractive person.
(2) A person who is single-minded or accomplished in scientific or technical pursuits but is felt to be socially inept.
I would argue that (1) is the more traditional usage, but that today definition (2) is the one generally associated with the word. The earliest known usage of the word, apparently, is from Dr. Suess's "if I ran the Zoo."
DORK. n. slang.
A stupid, inept, or foolish person.
GEEK. n. slang.
(1) a peculiar or otherwise dislikable person, esp. one who is perceived to be overly intellectual.
(2) a computer expert or enthusiast (a term of pride as self-reference, but often considered offensive when used by outsiders.)
(3) a carnival performer who performs sensationally morbid or disgusting acts, as biting off the head of a live chicken.
Definition (3) is the original, (1) is pretty common, and in this forum, (2) is the most common definition.
In summary: nerds have limited social skills, but intellectual or technical skills which partially make up for this. Maybe we can't get a date, but we can do your homework. Geeks have intellectual and technical skills, and may or may not have social skills. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates are both geeks, even though Jobs has charisma and some social skills, and Gates has little of either. Dorks have neither social skills, nor any other sort of skills or talents that make up for this. The word "geek" has undergone something of a transformation in the past 15 years to be an a somewhat positive term. I'd say that the change started around 1994-1995, when web browsers started to become widely available and Windows 1995 was released. The reason is not that Americans suddenly came to appreciate technical savvy and intellectual pursuits, it's that Americans started to realize that there was serious money to be made in computers. They started to realize that the guy who helped you out with your homework might also be the guy to start a billion-dollar company; suddenly, being a geek wasn't quite so lame.
We'll never know (Score:5, Informative)
We'll probably never know that. It's influence wasn't just in its moral precepts (which may or may not have actually have had any influence on the people that mattered), or stuff like the Crusades.
But without the Franks converting to Christianity, for example, we wouldn't have had the Holy Roman Empire. (Which wasn't holy, roman, nor had more than a forgery as a claim to call itself an empire, but there we go.) Nor stuff like the investiture controversy later, which did decentralize that big of a chunk of Europe. We wouldn't have had the Byzantine conflicts with Armenia or with the Syriac churches, which conflict ultimately put it border to border with the Seljuk Turks and thus the disastrous war at Manzikert against Alp Arslan. (The resulting internal conflict is widely recognized as the beginning of the end for the Byzantines.) The Armenians knew how to deal with the turkish troops, Byzantium had no clue. Etc, etc, etc.
It might have also had more subtle implications for the Roman empire, and its eventual demise, as it was an anti-Empire religion of the oppressed. The crucifix as a symbol wasn't just about Christ. It was a symbol of roman oppression, recognizable by everyone. It was an execution reserved only for non-citizens in occupied territories. Eventually the Empire _had_ to adopt this new religion, or be weakened from within by it. There also was at least an internal war in the Roman Empire, east against west, based on it.
The changes and influences are too many and too far reaching, to make that kind of pronouncement.
Would history have been better without the HRE and everything? We don't really know. That one religion pretty much sent the whole history of a continent, down an entirely different trouser leg of history. So different, that we can't even guess what was ahead down the other trouser leg.
Would we have still had slavery, for example, if the Roman empire continued as it was? The transition to feudalism was largely caused by the collapse of trade, order, and the centralized state, as Rome was no longer able to control its provinces. Even in Italy itself, Justinian's disastrous war of reconquest and the plague it brought, ensured the almost total collapse and made it easy prey for a tribe as primitive as the Lombards.
Was Christianity the worst religion possible, in the long run?
Well, Confucianism in China, for example, may not have had an Inquisition, but ensured almost total stagnation past a point. The imperial examination ensured that everyone who even hoped to have any official or teaching job at any level, had to learn by heart the same norms and precepts. There wasn't much room for trying anything new, and even conquerors like the Yuan dynasty (Mongolians) or Qing dynasty (Manchu), found it easier to just continue the system than try to change it. Sometimes with disastrous results, like the actual technology and military regression during the Qing dynasty.
I'll stick to China as an example for now, just because I can't be arsed to write a tome about every single zone and religion on Earth. Some would maybe make even better examples, but, eh, bear with me.
By contrast, Christianity never had that tight a grip on everything, and had to find some way to accomodate different scientific approaches. E.g., before it could pick on Galileo in the name of the Aristotelian system, it had to accept the Aristotelian system and let universities teach it in the first place, mostly because it couldn't do much about it.
Or we look at the Crusades and other internal wars, and think "OMG, look at all the carnage that Christianity caused." Well, China had for example the Three Kingdoms period, where internal warfare, where they lost something like 70% of the population in war. Not estimate, but actual difference between census numbers. And again, 70% of the total population, _not_ of the army. Mind you, some as a result of famines and other effec
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:5, Informative)
(This feature was described in Scott Adam's blog.)
Re:Oh please (Score:5, Informative)
Actually, the White House official who comes closest to Palpatine is Dick Cheney. He's scheming, he's manipulative, he's secretive and rules from the shadows... and you can totally imagine him sneering with maniacal glee as blue lightning shoots from his fingertips to torture puppies, baby seals, Cub Scouts, whatever. Bush is more like Anakin Skywalker: well meaning, but naive and easily manipulated such that his good intentions end up doing great harm.
Hrm. Scratch that. Bush is more like Jar Jar: easily manipulated, dumb, problems with the English language, huge ears nobody can stand him for long.
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Does anybody really care? (Score:3, Informative)
You still didn't recognize my points about the vast technical advancements made by companies that have their start in Star Wars (ILM, etc.).
And I think other people cover well your (in my opinion) idiotic idea that Christianity has been a net negative on society. Same as how Islam has not been a net negative, nor has Buddhism, Judaism, etc.
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh please (Score:4, Informative)
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:nerd credentials? (Score:3, Informative)
Re:Oh please (Score:2, Informative)