True, perhaps. In either case, it counsels against trying to answer questions based on details that weren’t thought through by the author.
And he was entirely aware of it. When Star Wars premiered, he was off on some island with some other guy cooking up a lame-ass story about religious artifacts and nazis. He had no expectation of “episode iv” giving him a shot in the arm.
Another story based entirely on nostalgic tropes and not susceptible to close scrutiny. It doesn’t pay to ask questions about what you see on screen. Like “How old was Marion when Indiana initially seduced her?” and “Did Indiana just prove the existence of the Biblical god? Shouldn’t he tell someone?”
Perhaps it was the lack of deception which surprised Yoda. One of the most interesting parts of the Vader - Luke relationship is that Vader never, ever lies to Luke.
He really does want to rule the universe as father & son and really did intend to kill the emperor with Luke’s help. He’d be the master/new emperor of course, but he was completely above board. His plan went sideways when Luke chose to die rather than turn evil.
And how did Indy get from being towed by the whip to getting into the back of the truck? No way he could do that. Or where that ginormous canyon came from at just the right time for the Nazi truck to fly right off the edge!
And yes, Raiders and Last Crusade proved the existence and the validity of the old and New Testament Gods. But Temple of Doom proved the existence and validity of Hindu mysticism. It balances out. 
George Lucas didn’t write “The Empire Strikes Back.” It was written by Leigh Brackett and Lawrence Kasdan.
He did write Star Wars, and the dialogue in Star Wars is quite good. It’s not modern or cool, but that’s not the point of it. Dialogue can serve one of four purposes and will preferably do more than one:
- Exposition
- Characterization
- Advancement of plot
- Contributing to theme
The dialogue in Star Wars does those things quite well.
Mostly Kasdan, I think. How much Brackett stuff stayed in the script?
I think it’s fair to say that Lucas was a poor planner. But if his intent was to evoke nostalgia with his writing, and he did a very good job of it, then I think it’s fair to say that he’s a good writer.
George! You can type this shit, but you sure can’t say it!
What it does not do is add up to coherent systems, such as the nature of the Force, the philosophy and practices of the Jedi, etc. My point is that it’s a waste of time to analyze the words that are spoken in order to construct a coherent system of working facts and conditions.
For example, it is pointless for the OP to ask why Yoda finds a certain event “unexpected,” and to analyze his expectations with respect to the events in the screenplay, because it has not been written to support that kind of analysis. That’s not what the dialogue is designed to do.
But Tarantino doesn’t make sequels or prequels, so he doesn’t have to consider future story lines. (Kill Bill essentially being a single movie released in two parts.
Out of curiosity: At what point did Lucas decide that he would be making sequels? prequels?
when the money started rolling in!
Sequels almost immediately. They prepared a low budget sequel very quickly in case they didn’t make a lot of money on the first one. They created Empire very quickly, actually. Three year turnaround is pretty good on such big projects.
Prequels? He began writing Phantom Menace in 1994, I think. When did they announce the prequel trilogy to the public?
I thought all his movies are set in the same world.
I believe I had read that he conceived Star Wars as a nine part series originally. Obviously he hadn’t worked out all the details yet…
Maybe, but most of the details of Tarantino’s world are just the details of our world. He only needs to keep track of the relatively few things that are different. And most of his movies, even if in the same world, involve entirely different characters in entirely different contexts, so even his novel details mostly don’t interact with each other.
What Chronos said. That doesn’t make them sequels or prequels. The interactions are trivial. The movies don’t share major characters or generally refer to common events. What impact does the major change in world history in Inglourious Basterds have on Once Upon a Time in Hollywood?
Working in Italian pictures would have been a step up; not down. Italian filmmakers were apparently responsible for winning WWII!
With respect to Tarantino’s universe, there’s this: https://youtu.be/EdMhqq0RenI