Lucas has always said that he started with "Episode 4" for the series because the technology (special effects, etc) didn't exist in the late 70s/early 80s for what he had planned for the first 3 parts....TBH, I'm not so sure the tech exists today looking at JarJar and whiny Anakin and Pod Races?? Seriously? WTF GEORGE?!

:P

EDIT : Frikking forum formatting again. WTF GOG?!!

I always find it sad and at the same time funny when fans gobble up bullshit like those. I think it's incredible that peeps believe that Lucas had a masterplan from the late 70's and everything went according to that few decades later. Especially now he has proven (with the movies he had absolute control over, no publisher or studio interference) how mediocre he is.

I have a strong feeling that initially he didn't even plan for a trilogy, what with the implied spark between princess Leia and Luke and a scene with them kissing. Of course someone could claim that he did that on purpose to incite an internal conflict and other deep stuff like that, but if you bite that let me introduce you to a Nigerian Prince In Dire Need (tm) for you to help.

edit: when they gonna fucking fix the edit function damn it???

Don't scare me like that; they have enough money (and hubris) to actually do it.

Well, it's something I've heard in the past rather often, so even if you specifically don't claim that plenty of others do.

As for proof, keep in mind that if someone wants to believe something, they will believe it no matter the evidence to the contrary.
Imagine now how bad can it get trying to argue for a subject as the Star Wars universe.

So I'm quite reluctant to start a debate over this, but I'll throw a few examples to make my point.
-Leia+Luke kissing [this might seem insignificant but can't for the life of me imagine Lucas and studio execs throwing an incest joke in a PG movie]
-Obi saying to Luke that Vader betrayed and killed his father
-the Force disregarded as ancient religion and superstition while just 20 years ago the Jedi were a very well known and respected order
and a multitude of other details, important or obscure that make any suspension of disbelief impossible. Let alone the fact no one (not even Lucas) expected the crazy success the first film had, so it goes without saying that initially he designed a stand alone movie.

The only thing I believe holds some water is that Lucas had the general outline of the story lined out while fleshing out the first movie. This is akin to the guideline every creative writing course or book highlight: Create the main characters' and the world they live in, in as many details as you can. This is a fair amount of preparatory work and it's not at all trivial, but between that and actually writing 3 movies worth of narrative there's a BIG gap.

I'd just like to point out that the kiss happened in The Empire Strikes Back, which was the second film. Now, that film could not be standalone by definition as it was the second one, and it couldn't be the last because of how it ended and so it had to be followed by a third, therefore the kiss was part of the trilogy.

I'm reminded of a part of RedLetterMedia's awesome review of the Phantom Menace:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZG1AWVLnl48&feature=relmfu
1:10-1:50

"From the very start of this movie I could tell something was really wrong. . . . Compare this fecal matter to the opening of the original Star Wars. . . . Without saying one word of awkward, boring political dialog that goes on for ten minutes, we know everything we need to know just by the visuals. We get a sense of just how ill-equipped the rebels are and how large and powerful the Empire is. The low angle implies dominance, and the length of the Star Destroyer implies the long reach of the Empire. This shot says everything we need to know without saying one word. In fact, this is so genius I have a feeling that George Lucas had nothing to do with it, and probably fought against putting it in the movie."

If there is indeed proof (and not mere indications), then belief becomes irrelevant.
That true, Luke and Leia's family relationship hadn't been defined before. But that only shows that he hadn't thought of all details, not that he hadn't the outlines of the overall story, which is what he claims. Does that count Ben's uneasy feeling while thinking about what he was about to say? Or Ben's quick glance and smile at Luke when he (Luke) sees Vader for the first time? Coincidence? Either way, that doesn't prove anything. It could be interpreted both ways. Is that a contradiction? The Jedi were always portrayed as a monastic/religious order. Not my suspension of disbelief, and certainly not of many others aswell. Which ends up justifying a lot of possible inconsistencies, doesn't it? A couple of years ago, while reading Star Wars related behind the scenes books and interviews from the '80s, I caught some tidbits that help support Lucas' claims. Things like Anakin being a slave as a child, for example. Important plot points were also already defined, like Alderaan, the planet of Luke and Leia's mother being blocked and invaded. Lucas later changed Alderaan to Naboo in order to give a more wider scope to both the story and the galaxy. It was an interesting read.

Awesome is hardly the word I would use to define that "review". Most of the time he ignores what is being shown on purpose in order to criticize just for the sake of it. It's interesting when I try to have a discussion with people who use those videos as "evidence" of anything, and they always ends up with comments like "hey, this is all a joke, it's not to be taken seriously". And for those interested, [url=https://rapidshare.com/#!download|610p4|1735047526|Red_Letter_Media_s_Episode_I_Review_-_A_Study_in_Fanboy_Stupidity.pdf|1749|0|0]someone made a rebuttal[/url] that shows the fallacious reasoning of that "review".

And what makes you think that he didn't make things up as he went along? I was reading a thread in imdb (hey, I know but we talkin' about Star Wars here... whadayawant? Encyclopedia Britannica?), that in the rough draft the "there is another" would refer to a lost twin brother of Luke that would be the main character in the next trilogy. But personal issues and a change in focus made Lucas wrap things up much faster and the bro became a sis. Have no clue if it has any merit, but here ya go.

I remember seeing that clip a while back and having a blast. Thanks for reminding me.
Of course it is over the top and not exactly a review, it's more a parody than anything else. But like any good satire, truth is at its core.

No, actually blind faith (a very literal figure of speech) is enough for people to make them disregard, twist or invent facts in order to fit in their conceived idea of truth. This applies in everything (religion, politics or even science when you dealing with really shitty "scientists"). Dealing with a matter much less defined and solid, as a movie, is making the manipulation of "facts" even easier.
That's why I was reluctant to get in this kind of topic. Whatever example someone brings, another will find a new interpretation to make it fit with the lore. It doesn't matter if the new explanation is much less probable or whatever. If it satisfies a minimum of "fitness", it's ok.
And my question is Why? What fans gain by making those people infallible gods?

I just read the first 20 pages or so... don't really agree with him. I see flaws in his commentary and have a sense that his rebuttal is merely less emotional than RLM's review, but not bias free. I'm guessing about the rest, since I don't care to read his whole piece, but I think he misses the big picture. Forest for the trees.

With that said, I've never encountered any of these debates you and s/he mention. Never read them, never heard of them. As such, I don't know how big an issue it is, nor how many people are running around using the videos as proof of anything. I will agree that they shouldn't be, and it shouldn't take a lengthy rebuttal to point that out.

I enjoyed the videos as entertainment, not as a scathingly insightful critique of the films. Though the author disparages those who claim the vids are only comedy, as I do here, that's really all they are. It is unpleasant when people use something as evidence for an argument and then, when it's shot down, hide behind a fallback defense of "I didn't mean it". Again, you don't need 100 pages to point that out.

In any case, to each his own. Thanks for the link !

I hope Ridley Scott doesn't put Jar Jar Binks in a future version of Blade Runner.

Nah, probably just some CGI dewbacks in the background.

What's with the hate on Jar Jar? I've seen it a lot on the internet, never heard anyone actually say it out loud. He was suppose to be a clumsy and comedian character and I thought the roll was fine.

"You want to leave this room."
-Zoe, Serenity

Facts and proof don't leave room for interpretation. They are what they are. The examples you gave don't disprove what Lucas claims. Well, one could say it's proof that he didn't have all the details thought out (but he never claimed that either), so that's irrelevant since that's well documented by behind the scenes books, including prequel trilogy related ones.

That works the other way around, you know?

Just visit some Star Wars forums (or don't, if you don't want to waste time on an almost endless debate).

I agree with you, and if you take those videos as mere comedic entertainment (as it should be), then that rebuttal is not for you. It was done for the type of people I previously pointed out.

Eg:

- "I like The Phantom Menace, it was a good movie."

- "How can you? *links to RLM's review* See, this shows how much crap that movie is."

And so the debate begins.