They didn’t have to erase the sequels.
-
mkeithddc — 3 years ago(July 25, 2022 03:06 PM)
More of your proof. Like I said, not everything came to be exact, some things changed from the original ideas, but the general story for all the 9 movies were there from the beginning:
https://www.indiewire.com/2013/05/yes-george-lucas-was-already-talking-about-star-wars-prequels-in-1981-97626/
The excerpt is from a “Revenge of the Jedi Story 1981 Conference” that was attended by George Lucas, writer Lawrence Kasdan, director Richard Marquand, and producer Howard Kazanjian. In discussion story details regarding the third film of the original trilogy, Lucas unearths the backstory of Darth Vader as well as Luke and Leia Skywalker and it’s pretty fascinating to see how much of the story winds up in the prequels. Even more fascinating, perhaps, is what didn’t wind up in the prequel:
"
Well, anyway, Luke’s father gets subverted by the Emperor. He gets a little weird at home and his wife begins to figure out that things are going wrong and she confides in Ben, who is his mentor. On his missions through the galaxies, Anakin has been going off doing his Jedi thing and a lot of Jedi have been getting killed—and it’s because they turn their back on him and he cuts them down. The president is turning into an Emperor and Luke’s mother suspects that something has happened to her husband. She is pregnant. Anakin gets worse and worse, and finally Ben has to fight him and he throws him down into a volcano and Vader is all beat up.
Now, when he falls into the pit, his other arm goes and his leg and there is hardly anything left of him by the time the Emperor’s troops fish him out of the drink. Then when Ben finds out that Vader has been fished out and is in the hands of the Empire, he is worried about it. He goes back to Vader’s wife and explains that Anakin is the bad guy, the one killing all the Jedi.
When he goes back his wife, Mrs. Skywalker has had the kids, the twins, so she has these two little babies who are six months old or so. So everybody has to go into hiding. The Skywalker line is very strong with the Force, so Ben says, “I think we should protect the kids, because they may be able to help us right the wrong that your husband has created in the universe.” And so Ben takes one and gives him to a couple out there on Tatooine and he gets his little hideout in the hills and he watches him grow. Ben can’t raise Luke himself, because he’s a wanted man. Leia and Luke’s mother go to Alderaan and are taken in by the king there, who is a friend of Ben’s. She dies shortly thereafter and Leia is brought up by her foster parents. She knows that her real mother died"
Also, in the 1983 ROTJ novelization:
"When I saw what had become of him, I tried to dissuade him, to draw him back from the dark side. We fought…your father fell into a molten pit. When your father clawed his way out of that fiery pool, the change had been burned into him forever—he was Darth Vader, without a trace of Anakin Skywalker. Irredeemably dark. Scarred. Kept alive only by machinery and his own black will." -
mkeithddc — 11 months ago(April 23, 2025 05:36 PM)
Not every single plot point was laid out, but the idea of 3 sets of trilogies were always the plan. This is an absolute fact. There is plenty of evidence of this in interviews with him and other people that worked on the planning of the original movie. The movies were based on(like Indiana Jones) on serials like Flash Gordon, so there were to be multiple movies, and it was started further in the story since they weren't sure if they would ever make another one. There are making of books, many of them over the years, plus documentaries that talk all about the history of the original plans. You're getting bogged down into the details of the story elements, and I am saying that yes obviously he didn't have a hard plan set up of every little detail, not to mention once Disney bought it they made major changes to anything he might have done on his own.
-
WarrenPeace — 3 years ago(July 24, 2022 12:18 AM)
What are you babbling on about?
Is there a point to all that nonsense or just trolling with bullshit?
I think you are trying to somehow be creative and perhaps a bit funny but all of that gets lost when it just looks like bullshit diarrea full of hot air coming from your crackpot pie hole.
"Please vote to preserve the unique character of Warren…" - Robert Duvall -
Blue Wave — 3 years ago(July 23, 2022 10:37 PM)
I agree it is the latest business decision. However I can see how they could have been connected. 1981 H2 could have happened. That Laurie marriage could have broken up to another one that led to H18s' family. H4 could be the result of her first broken marriage. The time in the asylum could be why Jamie never saw Laurie after 1988.
-
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(July 25, 2022 11:49 AM)
The most convoluted and confusing popular horror franchise.
Any excuse to re-invent it for a quick buck. I despised this
Halloween
follow-up. It lied to us and it didn't deliver what it promised. They didn't even give it a subtitle, just
Halloween
. Pathetic!
Halloween Kills
was brutal and nasty, but it was a darn sight better than this crud.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
kuatorises — 3 years ago(July 25, 2022 03:34 PM)
Of course they had to, half of those movies don't even work with each other; and not to mention are awful. Missed opportunity? Why would you want Halloween 5, 6, or Busta Rhymes - which she does in - to exist?
-
jriddle73 — 3 years ago(September 18, 2022 05:23 AM)
Yes, they really, REALLY did have to do that. Even if one set aside the fact that the sequels and nearly uniformly awful, the "franchise" has already been rebooted twice, and no one was pining for another sequel to that unfortunate chain of drek that ended nearly a quarter-century earlier. The original is still a classic, still acknowledged as such, still watched, still beloved, and is the firmest foundation on which to build anything further. The rest would just be an excess of badly-damaged baggage about which absolutely no one would care.
"The Dig"
http://cinemarchaeologist.blogspot.com/ -
ToastedCheese — 3 years ago(November 02, 2022 11:29 AM)
Yes, they really, REALLY did have to do that.
I was a bit annoyed that they did this at first, because I thought enough already of this confounded series. Michael Myers died at the end of II in 1981 and Laurie was his sister.
I resigned myself to the fact that it might be worth a shot, yet the presentation of the film really didn't erase memory of all the Halloween films that came before it, even Rob Zombie's reboot. It played homage to some of them and this was a deceit to what was claimed. It was false promises.
I will need to see this again, because I really didn't like it. I wanted a spooky, creepy and atmospheric
Halloween
like the original, but this wasn't to be found. I liked Kills and Ends better.
Norman! What did you put in my tea? -
kuatorises — 11 months ago(April 23, 2025 06:14 PM)
She dies in Resurrection. And why would anyone want to count that awful movie?
The weird faction who wants every movie to are strange. The Laurie movies ignore the Jamie movies too. Everyone knows that. -
kuatorises — 11 months ago(April 28, 2025 04:47 PM)
For starters, Laurie died. Twice. Once off screen to introduce the Jamie storyline and again in Halloween Busta Rhymes.
The Thorn nonsense also doesn't fit with either Laurie timeline:
H1, 2, H20, Busta Rhymes
H1, DGG Trilogy
Michael is evil personified, not a victim of some cult magic. -
AnthonySocksss — 4 months ago(December 01, 2025 03:01 AM)
Laurie said she faked her death in H20, so she was in hiding during the events of the Thorn trilogy.
Melton1 Wanted for Pedophilia:
https://i.ibb.co/6cnPmJVr/IMG-0830.jpg
https://m.youtube.com/shorts/Zjxk307CND0
