Topic: The scope of "Original Star Wars" (Read 977 times)
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,673 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 178
The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Thread Started on Aug 4, 2011, 7:58am »
Here is a list of the earliest Star Wars fiction, in order of publication. It does not include comic books. --------------------------------------------------------------------- By George Lucas and Alan Dean Foster: Nov, 1976 -- Star Wars: From the Adventures of Luke Skywalker March, 1978 -- Splinter of the Mind's Eye
By Brian Daley: April, 1979 -- Han Solo at Stars' End Oct, 1979 -- Han Solo's Revenge
April, 1980 -- The Empire Strikes Back
Also by Brian Daley: Aug, 1980 -- Han Solo and the Lost Legacy
May, 1983 -- Return of the Jedi --------------------------------------------------------------------- By L. Neil Smith: June, 1983 -- Lando Calrissian and the Mindharp of Sharu Sept, 1983 -- Lando Calrissian and the Flamewind of Oseon Nov, 1983 -- Lando Calrissian and the Starcave of ThonBoka --------------------------------------------------------------------- From here we don't have any Star Wars fiction until the Timothy Zahn "Thrawn" books pick up in May, 1991. --------------------------------------------------------------------- For further reference, The Phantom Menace came out in May, 1999. ---------------------------------------------------------------------
I'm interested in getting a handle on "original Star Wars" and what it means to folks here. I think that I'm inclined to think of it as "anything before The Empire Strikes Back" but I don't know if that's too limiting.
My thinking is that "original Star Wars" has several traits: (1) Anakin Skywalker and Darth Vader are two different people. (2) Luke and Leia are not siblings. (3) Han shot first.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Falconer Level 9 Sorcerer Cleric of OD&D member is offline
OD&D, Middle-earth, Star Trek TOS
Joined: Sept 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,337 Location: Chicago, IL Karma: 51
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #1 on Aug 4, 2011, 9:21am »
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Finarvyn Administrator Dungeon Master member is offline
Joined: Jun 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 4,673 Location: Near Chicago Karma: 178
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #2 on Aug 4, 2011, 9:43am »
But I don't have access to the holiday special.
Not even "Splinter", eh? The sequel that was supposed to be filmed, then was left orphaned when George changed his mind?
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Joined: Oct 2007 Gender: Male Posts: 1,556 Karma: 87
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #3 on Aug 4, 2011, 10:24am »
For me, the 1977 Star Wars movie alone is canonical.
The closest thing to being included in that is the Han Solo trilogy written by Brian Daley. I imagine Han hearing those stories and saying, "Well, that's all fiction. But they are the general sorts of adventures that Chewie and I have had."
A cardinal problem with the rest of the items on the list (except for the Lando stories, which I haven't read) is that they all assume the continued existence of the Empire. Remember that the original crawl said that the Rebels' possession of the Death Star plans could "restore freedom to the galaxy". Not merely "strike a blow for freedom".
Further remember that the Senate had been disbanded just a few days before Luke destroyed the Death Star. Remember that the Senate was disbanded at least in part for its sympathy for the Rebellion.
Further remember that for 1,000 generations (20,000ish years), the Old Republic had existed. The 20-year existence of the Empire was a blip, an aberration set against a 20,000-year-old civilization.
Further remember that the Death Star was the Empire's weapon of terror to keep its power. And the Empire used the Death Star to blow-up an entire planet.
Now just how popular would the Empire be? It was a new-fangled thing to begin with. It had disbanded the 20,000-year-old Senate the day before yesterday. It had blown-up a planet out of spite yesterday. And today its super-weapon just got destroyed.
Are the peoples of the galaxy going to continue to put-up with the Empire? Its teeth had been pulled (no more Death Star). Its legitimacy had been blown to smithereens with Alderaan. The Senators are mad as hell. The ineffectual Emperor (remember, this is before Lucas decided to make him a Force genius) had no more cards left to play. Luke's shot truly did "restore freedom to the galaxy". The Imperial system would have collapsed as suddenly and as completely as the Soviet Union did back in 1991. End of war. The Rebels won. The Republic is restored. And the 20-year history of the Empire would, in the long-term scope of things, be relegated to a footnote for the curious.
I can understand keeping Darth Vader as a returning villian, though. In the original film, he's not part of the Empire's chain of command. Look at how the officers talk back to him. Sure, he could issue orders, but that's because he was acting as Tarkin's enforcer. In the film, Vader was basically a bounty hunter in Tarkin's employ. When this changed in ESB, Lucas apparently understood that a void had thereby been created, and he filled it with a new, cool, armored bounty hunter: Boba Fett.
So I can imagine Vader in the post-Imperial galaxy having a chip on his shoulder against Luke Skywalker, since Luke destroyed Vader's cushy job. And who can doubt that it would end with a lightsabre duel, with our hero winning?
Anyway, the above encapsulates why I think sequel stories should have involved villians other than the Empire.
Not even "Splinter", eh? The sequel that was supposed to be filmed, then was left orphaned when George changed his mind?
I guess I would prefer a multi-tiered approach.
TIER 1: The gospel truth, that is, the original Star Wars movie. This is the barest baseline and framework from which we can take off in a hundred different directions of science fantasy adventure.
TIER 2: Prime inspiration, including the original novelization, the early scripts, cut scenes, the radio drama, and the original Kenner action figures line from ’77-’78.
TIER 3: Secondary inspiration, including basically anything pre-1999. As a rule of thumb, earlier stuff is given more weight than later stuff, but really, the idea is to use what you like from here as long as it doesn’t go against the letter and spirit of Tiers 1-2. Actually, ignore anything and everything for any reason whatsoever. For example, you could include stuff from the “Droids” TV series, but ignore ESB’s take on Darth Vader. You can include stuff from Jabba’s palace but ignore Endor.
TIER 4: Anti-inspiration, that is, Phantom Menace forward. The idea is wherever possible to deliberately take a different road than they took in the prequels.
* * *
Splinter falls into Tier 3 for me, so the question is, simply: is it any good? Does it bring anything new or imaginative to the table? Frankly, from what I have read about it, I really doubt it.
The Holiday Special is obviously a really boring piece of television. I would take its depiction of the planet Kazyyyk, as well as pretty much all of the cartoon bit as a template for what “further adventures” might be like (though overall it doesn’t differ much from ESP in that respect—Darth Vader is hunting the rebels on behalf of the empire, and Boba Fett is his agent).
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Not even "Splinter", eh? The sequel that was supposed to be filmed, then was left orphaned when George changed his mind?
You can view the Holiday special, in its entirety, on YouTube. No, don't thank me ... and have the eye-bleach handy.
As for "Splinter of the Mind's Eye"? AIUI, George didn't change his mind, he had anticipated the film not doing well and Splinter was a low-budget sequel that he would have made if he could talk the studio into it.
I largely agree with geoffrey's analysis, but might draw a weird conclusion. It's precisely because of those points that he brings up that I like the Thrawn Trilogy more than ESB, RTJ, and most of the rest of the 'extended universe'. I think it would have been great if something more like the Thrawn Trilogy had followed the original film: a series about a fragmented Empire fighting a restoring Republic with a great deal of intrigue, tactical thinking beyond "big space station make boom!", and a race to capitalize on secret resources and supplies. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the Empire continuing on basically unchanged for two films and then making ANOTHER Death Star.
Joined: Nov 2012 Gender: Male Posts: 1,552 Location: Austin TX USA Karma: 151
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #7 on Aug 4, 2011, 12:15pm »
Amusing, Darkling.
People always think I'm teasing when I tell them how remarkably awful the SW: Christmas Special is ... the guy with glasses sums it up perfectly with the guy who gave us "Jar-Jar Binks" and "Howard the Duck" is ashamed of this special! And that should tell you something.
I like the Thrawn Trilogy more than ESB, RTJ, and most of the rest of the 'extended universe'. I think it would have been great if something more like the Thrawn Trilogy had followed the original film: a series about a fragmented Empire fighting a restoring Republic with a great deal of intrigue, tactical thinking beyond "big space station make boom!", and a race to capitalize on secret resources and supplies. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the Empire continuing on basically unchanged for two films and then making ANOTHER Death Star.
Agreed. I'm a huge Zahn fan (at least as far as Star Wars goes; I haven't read any of his other stuff) and like the characters and situations that he put together.
If I could blend Zahn with the first SW movie (and maybe other pre-ESB fiction) I would have a universe I enjoy a lot.
Marv / Finarvyn DCC playtester (2011) C&C playtester (2003) I'm partly responsible for the S&W WhiteBox Builder of the TrollBridge Master of Mutants; MA since 1976 OD&D Player since 1975
"Don't ask me what you need to hit. Just roll the die and I will let you know!" - Dave Arneson
Joined: May 2009 Gender: Male Posts: 40 Location: Devonshire Karma: 0
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #9 on Aug 4, 2011, 12:45pm »
I agree that "I'm your father" and "Leia, you're my sister" are troubling. I could almost accept ESB and RotJ if only Lucas had left those things out. Keep Vader and Luke's dad as different people!
I like the Thrawn Trilogy more than ESB, RTJ, and most of the rest of the 'extended universe'. I think it would have been great if something more like the Thrawn Trilogy had followed the original film: a series about a fragmented Empire fighting a restoring Republic with a great deal of intrigue, tactical thinking beyond "big space station make boom!", and a race to capitalize on secret resources and supplies. It certainly makes a lot more sense than the Empire continuing on basically unchanged for two films and then making ANOTHER Death Star.
Agreed. I'm a huge Zahn fan (at least as far as Star Wars goes; I haven't read any of his other stuff) and like the characters and situations that he put together.
If I could blend Zahn with the first SW movie (and maybe other pre-ESB fiction) I would have a universe I enjoy a lot.
+1 from me.
I voted for the pre-ESB books (although I haven't read the Han Solo ones) and the Thrawn books. The only reason I voted for books I haven't read is because they were written before ESB and would follow the ideas set up in Star Wars alot better than anything written after ESB.
ESB totally changes the mood, in my opinion.
I think that having the Empire just poof vanish after the Death Star blew up is kind of --- weird. I prefer the idea that a small group of Imperials would be clinging to the remains of an Empire. That could be a fun gaming setting, and a lot better than what Lucas did with ESB.
Joined: Apr 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 537 Karma: 30
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #10 on Aug 4, 2011, 1:21pm »
It's a complicated question, and obviously different people will respond in different ways. I personally feel that understanding WHY Lucas put the things he did in Star Wars (the movie) is as important to understanding the overall original vision as the various finished stories themselves. Short of being immersed in this stuff back in the day and remembering it, the closest you can come is to research it heavily, and really get into Lucas' mind and learn why he did what he did, and why the later changes to that vision make it a different beast.
Interesting point from geoffrey about the Death Star's destruction restoring freedom to the galaxy. I would not disagree with his comments, only add that several things wound up in the film that are references to earlier script drafts and/or ideas Lucas had that don't necessarily mesh with the final film, but are easy to overlook if you only know the movie(s). It's a tricky thing to get a handle on, since that film's story was in flux pretty much constantly before it was released.
Joined: Jul 2008 Gender: Male Posts: 1,307 Karma: 43
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #11 on Nov 12, 2011, 11:36am »
Real Star Wars is anything that carries the official brand. I know a lot of people will hate that idea--I personally can't stand 99.99999999999% of the expanded universe, and I actually LIKE the prequels--but it's all "real" Star Wars.
I should point out that Star Wars "as originally conceived" doesn't even include A New Hope...
A man may do both. For not we but those who come after will make the legends of our time. The green earth, say you? That is a mighty matter of legend, though you tread it under the light of day! —J.R.R. Tolkien
Joined: Apr 2010 Gender: Male Posts: 119 Karma: 18
Re: The scope of "Original Star Wars" « Reply #13 on Jan 10, 2012, 9:15pm »
I just want to say that this thread inspired me. I haven't read the original trilogy novelizations since Return of the Jedi was in theaters for the first time. I had never even heard of Splinter of the Mind's Eye, and I have never read the original Han and Lando novels.
So, I hit the used bookstore and picked up the original trilogy & SotME, and then ordered the omnibus editions of the Han and Lando books from Amazon.
My plan is to read the novels in their original publication order. I'm not much of a blogger, but I'm thinking about doing a write-up of my thoughts as I read--a reading journal more than a review.
I know nothing about the Star Wars Expanded Universe beyond the original Marvel Comics run back in the 1970s and '80s and what I've seen in the three travesties that Lucas calls prequels. I've never watched any of the new TV series, played any SW computer games or emersed myself in any way in the Star Wars universe.
In a way, I'm hoping to encounter Star Wars for the first time, again, trying to see if the magic that enchanted me as a youngster is still there.
I agree that "I'm your father" and "Leia, you're my sister" are troubling. I could almost accept ESB and RotJ if only Lucas had left those things out. Keep Vader and Luke's dad as different people!
Even those this post is almost a year old I just want to say...
THANK YOU!!!
The canonical Skywalker family tree has stuck I my craw for some time. What possesed Lucas to do this? I just doesn't make any sense and reveals that Lucas is not the great myth-maker/storyteller of our age but an egotistical hack writer who made these movies up as he went along without a care for continuity or basic logic.
![[Home]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/home.gif "[Home]")
![[New Topics]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/topics.png "[New Topics]")
![[Help]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/help.gif "[Help]")
![[Search]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/search.gif "[Search]")
![[Login]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/login.gif "[Login]")
![[Register]](http://images.proboards.com/menu/register.gif "[Register]")
![[Search This Thread]](http://images.proboards.com/search2.gif "[Search This Thread]")
![[Share Topic]](http://images.proboards.com/new/buttons/share.png "[Share Topic]")
![[Print]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/print.gif "[Print]")
![[poll]](http://images.proboards.com/poll_icon.gif "[poll]"){kind=icon}
Poll
Author
![[avatar]](http://images.community.wizards.com/community.wizards.com/user/finarvyn/avatar.jpg "[avatar]"){kind=avatar}
Logged
![[avatar]](http://mux.net/~ulmo/ThorinII.jpg "[avatar]")
![[icq]](http://images.proboards.com/icq.gif "[icq]")
![[homepage]](http://images.proboards.com/buttons/www_sm.gif "[homepage]")
![[avatar]](http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_lpL870wV2A4/SSi3dCn1SZI/AAAAAAAACl4/XuB-bD4_W4Q/s400/carcosa.png "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://i193.photobucket.com/albums/z17/tmpiper/90x90.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://img109.imageshack.us/img109/96/nightmarek.png "[avatar]")
![[yim]](http://images.proboards.com/yim.gif "[yim]")
![[aim]](http://images.proboards.com/aim.gif "[aim]")
![[avatar]](http://images.comicbookresources.com/previews/darkhorse/covers/SolomonKane_sm.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://www.elflair.com/images/mainlogo.jpg "[avatar]")
![[avatar]](http://rdushay.home.mindspring.com/Museum/Images/Tekwarrior2.jpg "[avatar]")
![[msn]](http://images.proboards.com/msn.gif "[msn]")