Saw this discussed at Big Blue and it gave me a chuckle. Basically it's this analysis that some guy wrote up "reexamining" the events of A New Hope in light of what we learned in Episodes I through III. Take a look. Some of it actually makes a lot of sense to me. http://www.morningstar.nildram.co.uk/A_New_Sith.html
That a very good re-assessment. Probably written with Kevin J. Anderson or that guy who wrote Wicked.
That's...surprisingly well put together. I don't buy it for a second, mind you--Occam's Razor, and all that--but it is interesting. Someone needs to write a "What if?" novel with these themes.
Interesting and well-done. I don't necessarily buy all the subterfuge, but it passes at least a minimal "suspension of disbelief" test.
Love it. but something tells me this will come as just as much a revelation to George Lucas as to the rest of us.
I may be reading my perceptions into it, but I took it more as an indictment of how ridiculous the prequels were.
Um, what the heck are Episodes I, II and III ?!? As far as I know, Star Wars consists of the following: Star Wars (1977) The Empire Strikes Back (1980) Return of the Jedi (1983)
^^^ And you keep tellin' yerself that J.J. Abrams didn't make one of the best damn Trek movies in decades.
Interesting essay. I still think the abstract never existed Prequel Trilogy folks had in their minds from 1983 to 1999 was, is, better than the actual real Prequel Trilogy that is now STAR WARS canonuity.
I like the idea we had last year of re-inventing Star Wars better: "What's the cargo old man?" "Myself, the boy, 400 cases of Coors beer, and no questions asked!" "Where are you taking this, thing?" "Prisoner transfer from cellblock 1138." "The Force is strong with this sumbitch!"
R2 and Chewy as covert Rebel operatives? Interesting theory, and most of it fits, but it's hardly substantiated by in-film plot points.