Skip to main content

star wars - When did George Lucas compare midi-chlorians to mitochondria?


It is widely reported online that the following quote is attributed to George Lucas:




Midi-chlorians are a loose depiction of mitochondria, which are necessary components for cells to divide. They probably had something--which will come out someday--to do with the beginnings of life and how one cell decided to become two cells with a little help from this other little creature who came in, without whom life couldn't exist. And it's really a way of saying we have hundreds of little creatures who live on us, and without them, we all would die. There wouldn't be any life. They are necessary for us; we are necessary for them. Using them in the metaphor, saying society is the same way, says we all must get along with each other.



Yet I am unable to trace it back to where he said it.


I have also found several references to a 2005 Rolling Stone article that apparently has the exact quote, but the only article that I can find does not contain that quote.


The earliest I can find this quote is 2001 which many future pages link back to. It appears that it comes from an interview after the release of The Phantom Menace.


note: it will probably take someone 30 seconds to find it even though I spent 45 min looking but I am at the limit of the time (and perhaps skill?) that I can spend on this. Thank you



Answer



Found it.


The article was published in E! Online on May 11, 1999 following a press conference with George Lucas and contains a more extensive quote (reproduced in its entirety below). Note that the author has transcribed midi-chlorians incorrectly, referring to them as midichondrians.




Will you ever see the movie with an audience?


I probably will at some point, but it'll be later in the summer. It's inevitable that one wants to do that, see what real people think about it.


Is there something about you that exposure in the media has changed, 60 Minutes and so forth?


Again, I've been through these hoops a lot. Whenever a movie comes out, whether it's Star Wars or Howard the Duck, I end up on a lot of covers, and I end up with a lot of media presence for a period of time--with Howard the Duck, it was about 10 minutes, with Star Wars I expect it to be about three or four months. I'm assuming by fall things will have calmed down again, and I can go back to not having this much media attention. The great thing about living in San Francisco is it's a great cosmopolitan city, but you don't have a lot of people chasing you around all the time to get autographs and things. Every once in a while somebody comes up, but it's usually a little kid. It's a sophisticated environment. It's easier to live in.


I know you're saying Saturday-morning serial for kids, but I saw in this movie you're going from classic, heroic stuff into much more specifically Judeo-Christian ideas. Can you talk a little about where you see the meaning of the Star Wars movies going?


Well, I'm confused. I've been very conscious about not making the movies religion specific. When I brought the first Star Wars movie out, it seemed most religions used it to demonstrate their own beliefs--not only Judeo-Christian but also Eastern. And in many cases, people have said they're much more Eastern than Western in nature. I'm a little curious as to why you decided this one was a little more like that.


The ideas of virgin birth, the freeing of slaves...


Did you see Spartacus?


That's Western, too.


Yes, that's Western, too. Actually the same thing has happened in China and in India, especially. The issue of Immaculate Conception is a motif that runs through all religions. It's a motif that runs through all stories about the local deity or the local hero. It's the same thing with Hercules. Most heroes are conceived in an unusual way. And in this particular case, it's actually not Immaculate Conception, it's conception by metaphor, I would say, more than anything else. I'm taking the idea of symbiotic relationships and trying to demonstrate it in a more concrete way. Midichondrians are a loose depiction of mitochondria, which are necessary components for cells to divide. They probably had something--which will come out someday--to do with the beginnings of life and how one cell decided to become two cells with a little help from this other little creature who came in, without whom life couldn't exist. And it's really a way of saying we have hundreds of little creatures who live on us, and without them, we all would die. There wouldn't be any life.They are necessary for us; we are necessary for them. Using them in the metaphor, saying society is the same way, says we all must get along with each other. The planet is the same way. We must treat the other creatures on the planet with respect, otherwise the planet will die.



E! Online - From the Star Wars Flu to His Beloved Pit Droids, George Lucas Talks Phantom Phenom





The interview was also carried in the August edition of Starlog #265. Note that the quote stops with a period in the Starlog article (downloadable here) but continues with a comma and then the stuff about midi-chlorians in the article above. This wasn't a one-on-one interview but a press-conference (in which Starlog were in attendance) which would explain the difference in transcription.


enter image description here


enter image description here


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize Missy right away?

So after it was established that Missy is actually both the Master, and the "woman in the shop" who gave Clara the TARDIS number... ...why didn't The Doctor or Clara recognize her right away? I remember the Tenth Doctor in The Sound of Drums stating that Timelords had a way of recognizing other Timelords no matter if they had regenerated. And Clara should have recognized her as well... I'm hoping for a better explanation than "Moffat screwed up", and that I actually missed something after two watchthroughs of the episode. Answer There seems to be a lot of in-canon uncertainty as to the extent to which Time Lords can recognise one another which far pre-dates Moffat's tenure. From the Time Lords page on Wikipedia : Whether or not Time Lords can recognise each other across regenerations is not made entirely clear: In The War Games, the War Chief recognises the Second Doctor despite his regeneration and it is implied that the Doctor knows him when they fir

the lord of the rings - Why is Gimli allowed to travel to Valinor?

Gimli was allowed to go to Valinor despite not being a ring bearer. Is this explained in detail or just with the one line "for his love for Galadriel"? Answer There's not much detail about this aside from what's said in Appendix A to Return of the King: We have heard tell that Legolas took Gimli Glóin's son with him because of their great friendship, greater than any that has been between Elf and Dwarf. If this is true, then it is strange indeed: that a Dwarf should be willing to leave Middle-earth for any love, or that the Eldar should receive him, or that the Lords of the West should permit it. But it is said that Gimli went also out of desire to see again the beauty of Galadriel; and it may be that she, being mighty among the Eldar, obtained this grace for him. More cannot be said of this matter. And Appendix B: Then Legolas built a grey ship in Ithilien, and sailed down Anduin and so over Sea; and with him, it is said, went Gimli the Dwarf . And when that sh

Did the gatekeeper and the keymaster get intimate in Ghostbusters?

According to TVTropes ( usual warning, don't follow the link or you'll waste half your life in a twisty maze of content ): In Ghostbusters, it's strongly implied that Dana Barret, while possessed by Zuul the Gatekeeper, had sex with Louis Tully, who was possessed by Vinz Clortho the Keymaster (key, gate, get it?), in order to free Big Bad Gozer. In fact, a deleted scene from the movie has Venkman explicitly asking Dana if she and Louis "did it". I turned the quote into a spoiler since it contains really poor-taste joke, but the gist of it is that it's implied that as part of freeing Gozer , the two characters possessed by the Keymaster and the Gatekeeper had sex. Is there any canon confirmation or denial of this theory (canon meaning something from creators' interviews, DVD commentary, script, delete scenes etc...)? Answer The Richard Mueller novelisation and both versions of the script strongly suggest that they didn't have sex (or at the very l

What is the etymology of Doctor Who?

I recently decided to watch Doctor Who, and started viewing the 2005 version. I have the first two episodes from the first season, and I can't help but wonder what is the etymology of the name "Doctor Who"? And why does the protagonist call himself "the Doctor" (or is it "the doctor")? Answer In the very first episode of Doctor Who (way back in 1963), the Doctor has a granddaughter going by the name "Susan Foreman", and the junkyard where the TARDIS is has the sign "I.M. Foreman". Barbara, who becomes one of the Doctor's companions, calls him "Doctor Foreman" (probably assuming that is his name given his relationship to Susan), and Ian (another early companion) does the same in the second episode, to which the Doctor says: Eh? Doctor who? What's he talking about? "Foreman" is most likely selected as a convenient surname for Susan to use because it happened to be on display near where the TARDIS landed.