I have read that book many times. Care to share a link about it being the sequel, as I've never heard that

I was kidding about it being a good book. It wasn't.

But it does provide evidence that luke and leia were not orginally brother and sister.

here is something about the book/tv movie. it was pretty smart of lucas to have a contingency plan.

quote:

---

http://starwars.wikia.com/wiki/Splinter_of_the_Mind's_Eye

---

I was hoping you were kidding because that and the original Han Solo Trilogy are the only EU books I've read and all 4 are pretty bad.

I thought Splinter of the Mind's Eye was terrible.

Regarding Splinter, I recall that it was written by Alan Dean Foster (known for his many movie novelizations). I don't recall that the story he told was sourced from something George Lucas wrote. If that's in fact the case, then I would not take as factual evidence that the existence of this book proves that Luke and Leia were not always intended to be siblings.

It's been something on the order of 30 years since I last read that book, and I barely remember what happened other than Vader and Luke dueling and Vader falling into a pit or something.

it was authorized by lucas. which means he agreed to the material. which means that he didn't think luke and leia were related.

quote:

---

According to Foster, Lucas's only request upon inspecting the manuscript was the removal of a space dogfight undertaken by Luke and Leia before crash-landing on Mimban, which would have been effects-heavy and expensive to film.

---

I would think that if your two leading protagonist were related you would object to the writer including an incestual subtext. But i guess the kiss in empire shows that lucas likes things a little on the arkansas side of the univers.

and then there is the question of how does liea have memories (even if they are mostly feelings) of the mother that died when she gave birth.

quote:

---

and then there is the question of how does liea have memories (even if they are mostly feelings) of the mother that died when she gave birth.

---

That would be a Jedi thing.

quote:

---

Walt Disney Co. CEO Bob Iger said Tuesday that screenwriters Larry Kasdan and Simon Kinberg are working on stand-alone "Star Wars" movies that are separate from the new trilogy that is also in the works, but now we may have a better idea on who they will focus on.

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that the first spin-offs will feature a young Han Solo and the other will be about Boba Fett. Lucasfilm and Disney declined to comment on the information to EW.

Iger said the movies would be based on "great 'Star Wars' characters that are not part of the overall saga." The films would be released during the six-year period of the new trilogy, which starts in 2015 with "Star Wars: Episode VII."

---

quote:

---

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that the first spin-offs will feature a young Han Solo

---

Shia Lebouf

Hell no

quote:

---

This might have been the case if the first 3 had been Episodes 1 - 3 rather than 4 - 6. Having started at 4, he then went back and did the missing episodes. What's so hard to understand about that?

---

They originally numbered Star Wars as Episode 4, not because there was a plan for 1-3, but because they wanted to make a sci-fi serial (they originally wanted to make a Flash Gordon movie) and by calling it "Episode 4" they made you feel like you were jumping into the middle of something.

quote:

---

"Star Wars" opened with a title sequence that announced it as "Episode IV" as a winking nod to the old serials, not to announce a film franchise underway, Kurtz said.

"Our plan was to do 'Star Wars' and then make 'Apocalypse Now' and do a black comedy in the vein of 'MASH,' " Kurtz said. "Fox insisted on a sequel or maybe two to 'Star Wars'.

---

Luke and Leia were not originally siblings, which is extremely clear if you watch it objectively. That never came up until Jedi, as a way to resolve the love triangle.

I've posted this many times, but I'll do it again. You CANNOT trust Lucas. His story has changed over and over again, and if you follow the flip-flops, it's always changed to justify his new project. Gary Kurtz is the guy with the authority and consistency to speak about the actual creative process behind Star Wars. He was there. His story has always been the same.

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

Lucas can do what he wants with the property. It's his. I'm not a guy that is out to get Lucas over the prequels. However, it does irk me that apologists allow him to just make stuff up to fit his latest version of history.

quote:

---

quote:

---

Entertainment Weekly is reporting that the first spin-offs will feature a young Han Solo

---

Shia Lebouf

---

Hes so terrible. He must have lot of dirt on someone.

[This message has been edited by Txagfan (edited 2/11/2013 1:36a).]

Shia is a guilty pleasure of mine.

I love his timing.

Of course it's all made up - it's fiction.

WTF?! Shia Leboof? That guy is a no talent ass clown.

quote:

---

The original character was supposed to be named Anakin Starkiller, not Luke Skywalker. So the idea of an Anakin did come before a Luke. The full story arc didn't really happen until 1978, so you could argue that the original Star Wars was not about Darth Vader, but as soon as the second draft of ESB was written, the entire series was about Vader/Anakin.

---

Interesting. I’d always read that Lucas realized that to do the whole story the movie would be to long so he cut it to what we saw in the original 1977 Star Wars b/c he could contain enough story in that one episode to do a complete movie. The huge success of Star Wars allowed him to finish the story. It was always about Anakin though; don’t know why anyone would suggest otherwise.

quote:

---

They originally numbered Star Wars as Episode 4

---

No it wasn’t. It was originally release as just “Star Wars”. The original opening crawl never said “Episode IV: A New Hope”. That was added at the rerelease on 1981.


[This message has been edited by agracer (edited 2/11/2013 10:23a).]

quote:

---

WTF?! Shia Leboof? That guy is a no talent ass clown.

---

Not to hijack the thread but he is far more talented at acting than most of the actors of his generation.

I understand the inclination to be annoyed by him if you are a dude, but I appreciate his comedic timing and cadence in his lines.

Maybe, but his performance in T3 was about the worst acting job I've ever seen.

I'd like to think that any main characters would go back to the tradition of being lower tier/unknown types rather than Hollywood A listers. I'm interested to see the casting approach.

I had lots of issues with T3, mainly the plot. I cannot say that Shia's acting, in particular, was one of them though.

I thought he was absolutely awful in that movie.

Well the script called for an adolescent coming into adulthood yet feeling as though he's owed something because of his past. Mixed in with a little brattiness and feeling of inadequacy.

He seemed to play it perfect to me. I don't see where one would find his acting lacking.

I could not stand his trying to bring out his inner Tom Cruise and scream and overact every line. I'll give him credit that he was working with a script that that could have been written by a 4th grader, but even when he was trying to be funny, his delivery was way over the top.

That's what makes it funny to me. He has the perfect personality to be funny in intense scenes. Especially with sarcasm.



[This message has been edited by Texaggie7nine (edited 2/11/2013 11:58a).]

quote:

---

Q: "Disney is going to continue the 'Star Wars' saga, producing movies set to hit theaters starting in 2015. Can you confirm whether you'll reprise the role of Princess Leia?"

A: "Yes."

---

http://gma.yahoo.com/blogs/abc-blogs/carrie-fisher-reprise-role-princess-leia-star-wars-032404127--abc-news-movies.html

A movie about smuggling and being a general badass? Yes please.

I dident think Shia was in T3??

quote:

---

Hes so terrible. He must have lot of dirt on someone.

---

No dirt. He was a child star with Disney. Oh course they would use one of their own. He was on Even Stevens for several years.

quote:

---

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
and then there is the question of how does liea have memories (even if they are mostly feelings) of the mother that died when she gave birth.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

That would be a Jedi thing.

---

I always thought that she was remembering her adopted mother, the Senator played by Jimmy Smits' wife. I thought that she remembered her as she knew that her "daughter", albeit adopted, was the offspring off the 2nd in command of the evil empire, who killed thousands, and that she (her mother) always feared for her safety as his daugher. Just my .02.

I've seen a couple of articles that make it highly likely that Harrison Ford, Carrie Fisher and Mark Hamill are going to be in Episode VII.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2013/03/07/george-lucas-star-wars_n_2828336.html

Thoughts?

Not sure how I feel about it.

From the most recent interviews I've seen of Mark, he needs to at least attempt to get in some sort of shape before he's on a big movie again.

quote:

---

From the most recent interviews I've seen of Mark, he needs to at least attempt to get in some sort of shape before he's on a big movie again

---

These are not the fat rolls you are looking for

It's not like Alex Guinness was in the same physical shape as Ewan McGregor. He'll be wearing a Jedi robe.

Also CGI.

I'll be more than happy if Ewan McGregor signs, but I'll also excited at the thought of Harrison Ford playing an older (and perhaps more refined) Han Solo.

And though many people may hate Shia Labeouf, he wasn't half bad in Lawless. He made me hate his character and I was extremely frustrated... but I'm pretty sure that was the whole point. It's probably the best "acting" I've seen him do.

quote:

---

I dident think Shia was in T3??

---

Yeah, caught me for a second as well. Transformers 3.