So aout Michael Kaminksi.....

For some time I had a personal correspondence with Michael Kaminski (providing him with Lucas interview segments ahead of the Special Edition etc. for his now defunct website SaveStarWars.com) who stroke me as anything but an angry fanboy.

And no, I don't think he has a hardon for Marcia Lucas, I rather acknowledge that apparently he is among the few who cares what happened to her. Even other biographies (e.g. Skywalking by Dale Pollock) suggest she provided massive support to George Lucas in those days of him making ANH but has somewhat become a persona non grata to which Lucas seems to have applied the Roman practise of Damnatio memoriae. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Damnatio_memoriae

Rinzler's Making of books are "very objective"?

In the hardcover edition of the ANH book, the 1977 Lucas Notes had been retroactively manipulated to suggest that Lucas already then thought of midichlorians. This rather suggests that George Lucas himself had the opportunity to adjust some or several sections in these books.

 

Since I didn't read Kaminski's book I couldn't comment. I was merely reporting my impressions (you asked for) when I communicated with him on behalf of the preservation of the original, theatrical versions of the OT (and I read his article / excerpt on Marcia Lucas).

I don't understand the context, but I fail to see that Gary Kurtz ever "admitted" something. Back in 2002 I was the interview host in a panel featuring Gary Kurtz (and held him there for over 90 minutes, I'll just hope he'll forgive me for that) and what I read in the link you provided - thanx for that! - mirrors everything Gary Kurtz has been saying for years, there are no contradictions whatsoever, but that interview re-emphasized what I learned about Gary Kurtz: He's an extremely nice and honest guy, and whenever he has something to say it's worth listening to - and it's apparently the objective truth.

I'll wholeheartedly agree.

 

Actually, when I first learned about the "bittersweet" original ending of ROJ I liked the idea of it. Leia, formerly Princess of Alderaan, is finally receiving the queen's crown but her subjects are limited to those that were elsewhere when Alderaan got destroyed.

I also sympathize with Kurtz, that he expressed concern about recycling the Death Star (as a matter of fact the draft from June 1981 now featured two of these, evident from the painting Ralph McQuarrie made)



That was rather derivative (as a result we ultimately ended up with three out of four films that happen during the OT era featuring Death Stars...) and I can understand that Gary Kurtz didn't like the direction Lucas was taking with ROJ (too many monsters and creatures).

When I first saw ROJ I wasn't excited, I had hoped for a continuation / conclusion of the trilogy with a mature Star Wars film like ESB. Obviously, Gary Kurtz was somewhat disappointed that Lucas took a different direction, but I really don't see any bitterness in him in those recent interviews of the past years. He just says what the original concept had been during those early stages, nothing less and nothing more.

Nevertheless one thing remains: In the unbiased Skywalking biography I read, it becomes clear that Lucas felt that Kersh and/or Kurtz were aiming for too much quality in ESB. Lucas had this attitude if it's good enough, leave it there. Kersh and Kurtz however went for optimal results (better than just "good"), but in the process - admittedly - were spending Lucas' money, which eventually forced him to do the one thing he desperately wanted to avoid: To ask Fox for additional funding.

So here we have sufficient reason for both of them to decide not to continue working together anymore, but I think it would have benefitted the ongoing SW films (especially the prequels) had Gary Kurtz remained with Lucasfilm, because I believe he was the kind of person that had the courage to tell George Lucas what he needed to hear, and not only what he wanted to hear.

 

Rinzler's work is very useful, but it's clear at least some things have been editorially suppressed. For instance, in The Making of ESB he mentions that Lucas discussed the question of Luke's father's identity with Leigh Brackett... but then fails to give us any excerpts from that conversation. Which you'd think he'd want to, because Brackett's draft featurse Luke's dad as a Force ghost and separate character from Vader.

 

Why should we care about Michael Kaminski?

 

Because he has some very useful and insightful things to say. Like him or not, he brought to light many truths about the origins of SW in a way that deflated popular acceptance of George Lucas' spin that he "always had all of SW planned out from the beginning".

SW is great, but in numerous cases it's clear Lucas was making it up as he went along. Kaminski did us all a public service by reminding us of obvious truths.

 

WHO CARES? Who cares whether Lucas was making it up as he went along or whether he had it all planned? For all we know (and I include Kaminski), it was a combination of both. This happens a lot with writing. Even if a writer does create an outline, chances are that writer will make changes as he or she is writing the story. Surely many people are aware of this.

 

"Who cares"? People who care about history, and who want to know what are the facts of events that happened.

As it happens, until Michael Kaminski's book, many people were not aware of the simple fact that in the first SW film, Darth Vader and Anakin Skywalker were still meant to be two separate people. This is obvious if you think about it for two seconds, but lots of fans had bought into Lucas' claim that he "had always had everything planned from the beginning."

Kaminski restored an element of critical thought and logic to a fandom that had been far too inclined to take Lucas at his word, even though he was lying about the origins of SW's greatest plot twist. Getting people to use their own judgment rather than simply taking others' words at face value is a great boon in itself.

 

I've known for years that Vader and Anakin were supposed to be two separate people in the beginning. The news is not really that recent.

 

Having read The Secret History of Star Wars(as well as Rinzler's awesome books), I don't get the impression at all that Kaminski is on a hate wagon for George Lucas. I thought the book was very fair, painting George as a human being. I also don't see how pointing out that people like Marcia Lucas and others were important to the making of those movies is any kind of slight to George. The history of filmmaking is full of examples of people behind the scenes who played important roles in films turning out the way they did.

Sure, the book mentions a few cases where maybe George wasn't perfectly nice all the time, but the only thing I took away from that stuff is that George is human being like everybody else. I suppose I didn't enter into reading the book with any preconceived notions about how it would handle things, so I might not have read into things in the same way.

Obviously, as the author makes clear, he didn't personally care for the prequels, but he still made sure to get opinions that ran the gamut of fans feelings on the prequels and Star Wars in general. Both prequel lovers and haters were given a voice in the book. Even when covering what he perceived to be reasons behind the faults of the the PT, I still never got the impression that he held a personal dislike for Lucas himself.

I have quite a few issues with the PT myself and I personally think that it could have turned out quite a bit better. That doesn't mean I dislike George Lucas as a person because he made something that disappointed me though. I still think that he seems like a stand-up guy who cares about his family and employees while giving massive amounts to charity. Additionally, he's the one who created Star Wars and brought so much to me and fans all over the world. Reading about him being an imperfect human being like everyone else does nothing to take away from that.

 

I have spoken with Michael Kaminski on several occasions (albeit via email and not directly) and while the exchanges were perfectly civil, I didn't find his Secret History of Star Wars to be a particularly worthwhile read. His writing style stinks of the lamp and when I finished reading I had the sense that I was expected to give it a grade or make comments in red ink. Perhaps it started work as a school project and he felt it was good enough to expand into a bigger piece of work.

Something Michael seemed to be especially surprised about - enough to mention it time without number - is how many revisions George Lucas made to his story before committing it to film (as though the very notion of a rewrite is an instant admission of failure). And his deification of Gary Kurtz and Marcia Lucas is something I find totally bewildering.

By comparison, the books by J.W. Rinzler are an absolute feast of information and presented in an engaging style. Refreshingly candid and exhaustive in their research, his books are authoritative and official. Available wherever good books are sold!

 

Spread enough muck and some of it is bound to stick. Never has this been truer than in the case of George Lucas and TESB. Unauthorised claims abound as to how little George was involved with the film and how its success came about despite him and not because of him. Unfortunately. a lot of people will believe negative stories (no matter how baseless) if they have chosen to view the subject in a perpetually bad light. And it seems that no amount of contrary evidence will sway them from this view.

 

Has Kaminski ever signed up on this site as he has just vanished from the SW internet world. I used to talk to him through PM's around 2005-06 when he was writing the book.

He actually was a PT defender when I first encountered him at TFN right after ROTS. But he wasn't a blind defender who would criticize the movies objectively.

Unfortunately TFN back then forced you to pick a side as it was so toxic there so Kaminski ended up conversing more with the PT Bashers and that is why his book may come off in certain chapters that way.

I always wanted to know his opinion of TFA and R1 because he was very insightful regarding the movies.

 

You can contact him via email.