The “Star Wars has always been political” fallacy

[@peterlee3467]

Jeremy Jahns covered this shortly after The Last Jedi. He said old SW movies had politics woven into the plot whereas Disney SW smacks you in the face with it.

[@Milothemighty10]

This…

[@minutemansmonitor]

With all the subtlety of a baseball bat to the head.

[@emberfist8347]

And the Disney politics don’t match the lore. Like how can war be the only lucrative business if there hasn’t been for over 30 years and why did the ship they stole have the schematics of 3 completely different vehicles from 3 companies competing in the same field?

[@akas1255]

@@emberfist8347 Not to mention how DJ revealed there was a cabal of oligarchical industrialists behind both sides in the war....which is never brought up or commented on ever again....

[@Deuteromis]

​@@akas1255 Disney has an answer for that, it's "Stop asking questions, shut the fuck up and give us your money."

[@TheStarBazaar]

The difference is using politics as the setting for the movie and using the movie as a vessel for a political meta-narrative

[@DavidSmith-mt7tb]

Well and succinctly put

[@GabiBrooks]

Excellent summary!

[@fruitylerlups530]

politics is used as a meta narrative in star wars tho

[@thialfii3509]

😂Previous trilogies both had strong political meta narratives. The ST doesn’t have any aside from a passing jab at capitalism and the central theme that fascism is bad. The ST is just very poorly written and organized. There is no practice, trope, character template or anything like that to blame. SW has always had strong female characters, in verse politics, meta political messages, diverse cast (for its respective times), prodigal protagonists, super weapons,and so on… the Issue was that the ST executed everything poorly it’s not just that those things were in the trilogy.

[@bendu8282]

Exactly 😂😂😂

[@neoluna1172]

Yes, starwars has always had political messages and should have them, but said messages also do have to internally make sense in universe. Look at Andor, thats a VERY, VERY political piece of starwars media, but it works because the message is suited for the starwars universe and well integrated, and as a result we got one of the best starwars things ever.

[@neoluna1172]

Too add on, im sorry to say thor but many of the loudest voices online and in the starwars fandom who are saying they dont want politics in starwars are not arguing in good faith, and are sadly also often at least adjacent to very bigoted and authoritarian groups online. Its a massive problem not just in the starwars fandom, but also startrek and many other long lived legendary franchise fandoms, you are honestly the only starwars reviewer and commentator ive found who doesnt blindly praise but also isnt one of these wackjobs.

[@nichtvorhanden5928]

Plus people rising up against a evil government is a universal thing and not only as some people on the internet claimed against fascism. We saw similar things in the Warsaw Pact states and later even the Soviet Union i.e. comunist governments. And I am shure we can insert pretty much any ideology or belief here for fascism or comunism.

[@emberfist8347]

Andor’s message doesn’t make sense. Like why is there no aliens in the Imperial Prison given their established anti-alien bias? I don’t the Empire would care enough to have separate prisons for aliens that can survive in conditions human find livable.

[@TyroneLT]

@@emberfist8347I was wondering the same thing. It would have been a perfect angle in Andor to highlight the anti-human bias. I honestly think it came down to budget. It would have cost a ton more to put more aliens front and centre on a television budget.

[@emberfist8347]

@@TyroneLT Disney made Andor on the same budget as Rogue One. Star Trek Deep Space 9 had aliens in significant roles and on what I assume is a smaller budget.

[@jackbmh2320]

The politics present in George Lucas’ Star Wars managed to tie real world issues into the overarching narrative of the story by actuality incorporating these things into the in-universe politics. Disney Star Wars just shoehorns in real world issues with zero regard as to how that fits into the overall story.

[@teleportedbreadfor3days]

It’s more than that, too, but I agree

[@Dethflash]

Disney was like: "wahmen good men bad" and then made that into a trilogy, and thus we have the sequels.

[@liljenborg2517]

And, when your trilogy doesn't HAVE an "overall story" (and the Disney sequels definitely did NOT have anything like an overall story), then all you're political subtext is left hanging out in ways that break audience immersion. That is, they seem preachy, or forced. If you want your political messaging to be "story driven," then you have to actually, you know, have a STORY to drive it.

[@strategicperson95]

​@@liljenborg2517 TFA never really had a story as the ink was still being applied to the script while they were filming.

[@liljenborg2517]

@@strategicperson95 Exactly. If you're going to start what you already KNOW is going to be a trilogy of movies designed to tell an overarching story, if you don't have all three scripts WRITTEN before you start filming, you at least have the story plotted out.

[@captaindc3889]

In-universe political turmoil has always interested me in Star Wars (as an Adult, however)

[@jackbmh2320]

I agree, the politics are honestly one of the best parts about the prequels and the clone wars imo. Great worldbuilding

[@dgenerate707]

Swear I was dying to know how the government flipped into a dictatorship

[@Kevin_Street]

I think Lucas's original conception of the Empire was inspired at least in part by Isaac Asimov's Foundation stories and Frank Herbert's Dune. Both of those writers had star-spanning galactic empires in their books, with Asimov's stories in particular being inspired by the fall of the Roman Empire. For the prequels Lucas went to the original source: that is, he was inspired at least in part by the way the Roman Republic went through a series of civil wars and transformed itself into an empire. (I mean his villain is named Palpatine, it's not hidden.) This gave the prequels a classic feel, and made them relatable to many different times and places. That's why it's so easy to say the Emperor is Nixon or Cheney, or that Darth Vader is Bush. Future generations will probably see the politics of their own time reflected in Star Wars as well. It's timeless.

[@theonlysaj61]

Thank you man. I find this as such a copout response. Yes there are political themes, but the difference between George Star Wars and Disney Star Wars is that George's themes are timeless and can be applied throughout all of human history, while Disney is much more focused on Identity politics and pushing belief systems onto their audience. There's not anything wrong with either, but when it is nonstop hit over an audiences head, and the stories themselves begin being compromised for the sake of ideals or inclusion, and gets to the point of insulting the audience for not agreeing, that's when people will not stand for it anymore.

[@Dethflash]

I largely agree with you, but i disagree that there is not anything wrong with either. Disney Star Wars politics are bad, narrowly focused on (what i call) 'petty politics of today'. Disney smacks you in the face with its petty politics and making women look good and men are all stupid. I fail to see ANY redeeming qualities that Disney Politics brings to Star Wars, and i only see it degrading the quality of the stories they try to tell. George Star Wars politics are vague enough you can apply it to many different parts of history (while Disney is more focused on the here and now politics). George's star wars politics took a backseat and help set the scene and environment.

[@justjoking5841]

The funny thing is they could make it much more subtle and still get their point across but choose not to.

[@bendu8282]

Exactly 😂😂😂

[@bendu8282]

@@Dethflash you could

[@CulturalMarxist4985]

What are you talking about? If you just ignore the anti-imperialist message George Lucas put into the original trilogy, then why can't you ignore whatever political messages you think are in the new films and shows? How is that different? George was completely open about Star Wars being a political critique of US imperialism in Vietnam. He didn't try to hide it.

[@lordlubu3029]

I think there is a major difference between "having political themes" and "being political". Almost everything in media has political themes if you wanna dig deep enough, but just because something has political messaging in the background, it doesn't mean it's PUSHING that message. It's a story first, and the themes come second. You can watch Star Wars the original trilogy and NEVER even THINK about the Vietnam War, and still enjoy the hell out of it. Same with games like Metal Gear, even though it is heavily political, it focuses on being a game and telling a story first and then the secondary political themes after. Movies and games that are "Being political" are usually more like allegories, where you NEED to understand the political messaging in order for the thing to make sense. For example, Animal Farm, if you don't read it expressly knowing it's a political satire of the communist revolution then it won't make sense and isn't enjoyable. With that said, a lot of movies/games today including Star Wars focus on sending a political message first, and a story second. the story is compromised for the sake of virtue signaling some political point. And whether you agree with that point being made or not, it significantly hampers the quality of the story telling.

[@Captain_Insano_nomercy]

JRR Tolkien famously said that his work was applicable, not allegorical, and I think that is the exact same difference here. His themes, settings, and characters were universally relatable to the point that people assumed there was a direct analog for X or Y, but from his own mouth he says: there never was any intended allegory. The subtlety is lost on so many point

[@ORLY911]

It could be said it's the difference between political themes and political propaganda.

[@Captain_Insano_nomercy]

@ORLY911 mhhmm, art tells you to think, propaganda tells you what to think

[@AshanBhatoa]

I just do not agree, where's this overt poltical agenda folks always rattle on about? Where is it?

[@ThespianPrince13]

They still push their anti-fascist agenda though….

[@roberthesser6402]

I believe the full context of George's comments on the Bush and Cheney connection is that, while he wrote the lore around the Empire as a commentary on Nixon and the rise of authoritarianism within democratic systems, Bush and Cheney represented a repeat of history that echoed Nixon's own story. The specific quote you bring up in the video is, iirc, a response to a New York Times opinion column comparing Cheney to Vader. Lucas responded that the author's analogy doesn't work because Vader was manipulated into being evil by the true face of villainy, which in his mind is Cheney. He's not saying that the prequels were a commentary on Bush specifically, but that they can be read that way in current events, which if nothing else speaks to the timelessness of true art. Now it's important I think to differentiate the difference between political theming in film, and political activism in film. Star Wars has always been political in that it approaches it's themes from a very notably liberal point of view. The rebel characters involved are multiethnic, multi-racial, multi-gendered, and multi-species, fighting an underground war for freedom against an all powerful fascist dictatorship that is exclusively characterized by white men. Note that there is not a single non-white, non-male, and non-human Imperial character in Lucas' movies. The Empire is defined by uniformity, coercion, industry, and machinery. Their accents are all British, harkening memories of the British Empire, and their uniforms are clearly inspired by the Nazis, while the tactics, uniforms, and even setting of certain battles fought by the Rebellion brings to mind the American Revolutionaries, or the Viet Cong. Real historical events and current events are used as a frame work from which Star Wars characterized its world and conflict. It is necessarily political. What Star Wars never did, however, was engage in activism. It had a story it wanted to tell, and it was a politically framed story, but it never dated itself by trying to preach a contentious "current year" political point; it's story, however political it may have been, was always allowed to stand on its own, and the viewer could take out of it what they wanted to take out of it. The Last Jedi, and much of modern media, however, engages in that form of activism, where you simply can't separate the activism from the plot. The Rebel Alliance under Lucas was an all inclusive band of freedom fighters where everyone worked together with their varying strengths to overcome the Empire. But under Disney, the Rebel Alliance (or Resistance) creates clear dividing lines between male members and female members, wherein all of the leaders of the Resistance are female, where the narrative grants vastly more narrative agency to the female characters, and where every male character is paired with a female character that must impart upon them (an often confusing and poorly written) political message. Leia may have been viewed as a feminist icon, but Star Wars was never *specifically* a feminist film; The Last Jedi flips this, by trying to turn Star Wars into a specifically feminist film, using feminist arguments to guide its narrative. Poe Dameron's literally only flaw in The Last Jedi is that he didn't believe a woman, that's it. There is not a single tangible reason why he should have trusted Holdo after she acted so suspiciously uncooperative for so long, but because she's a woman, Poe ends up being chastised for not believing in her--which is a narrative message that feels disgustingly authoritarian for a franchise that has so often explored the dangers of such beliefs. Where Star Wars was once about the politics of authoritarianism rising within corrupt democratic systems, Disney has pigeonholed Star Wars into a much more politically naive and divisive 4th wave feminist framing that preaches rather than teaches. Instead of intelligent and subtle commentary on geopolitics, we get Twitter #hashtag theming, like #believewomen, #eattherich and #savethehorses. No matter how well intentioned, the simplicity and naivety of this kind of Tumblr-politics often leads to more harm than good; I will again reiterate that Poe's literal only flaw is that he didn't sit down, shut up and follow orders like a good little drone. Thinking for oneself is, within Disney's sequel trilogy, a sin IF, and only if, you are a man. This is why Andor is such a breath of fresh air, and a sigh of relief. It is perhaps the most blatantly political Star Wars installment to date, but it gets back to the roots of what made Star Wars' political theming work: by examining the dangers of fascism, this time from the ground levels, and the sacrifices that must be made to overcome it. It's a story that naturally fits within the world of Star Wars, and it pulls it off perfectly.

[@brucewayne1662]

Personally I love how he doesnt seem to think this infects Democrats as well.

[@roberthesser6402]

@@brucewayne1662 Well when a Democratic leader attempts to perform a coup of democracy by illegally seizing executive power by artificially inflating their own support through a manufactured and illegitimate armed conflict, you can certainly apply the analogy of Palpatine to them. But so far, since Nixon, only the Republican party has engaged in such behavior.

[@JerryHazard]

Also. Funniest thing. When Lucas makes his statement about the films being for 12 year olds... The crowd erupts in cheers. Except almost nobody in the crowd was 12. 😅

[@AshanBhatoa]

Yes, they understand what a coming of age narrative is. Pretty simple. They agree and acknowledge the initial target demographic of the franchise.

[@tubby1833]

Politics and messages have always been a part of story telling. But what we see with Star Wars and other properties nowadays is the entertainment and logic of stories are being sacrificed in favor of a message (a very binary and simplistic one). These politics are so forcefully and slopilly shoved in that they actively begin to harm the story itself.

[@benclark4823]

Star Wars SHOULD be as “political” as game of thrones 🤓

[@oscarstainton]

There's a big difference between politics in Star Wars being used to tell its story, enhance its worldbuilding, and inform its characters... versus pushing modern political allegory onto a story that is designed to be timeless and applicable to anyone's observations and beliefs, while also dismantling the resonance of its story, characters and setting.

[@Underworlder5]

and then blaming and gaslighting the fans when they inevitably get criticism

[@justinparker7712]

If Hollywood were ideologically diverse it'd be one thing, audiences may seek out political messaging to see how one film creator feels about a topic or angle they take in a film, but the issue now and in the last few decades, has been that everyone in mainstream hollywood has the same opinion that is 100% predictable from the outset and all goes in one direction. So what's the point in presenting it or seeking it out, they're already known.

[@colonelblastpack169]

The worst part about discarding Legends stories is that Leia became a Jedi Master, in her own right, with a yellow lightsaber. She became a Master on the Council. She held together the New Jedi Order when Luke went absent. Still can't believe the political preachers at Disney never seized on that.

[@lukewilliams8548]

You've articulated it well. It's nice to hear someone say it rather than it being a concept in the subconscious. Also, the way your words and chosen picture at 6:20 matched gave me a good laugh.

[@blacksabre5343]

THe OT had a great way of establishing stakes with lines like "Holding her is dangerous. If word of this gets out, it could generate sympathy for the Rebellion in the Senate" . It spoke that not all of the Empire would approve of this action. Then Tarkin's announcement of the Emperor dissolving the senate... ah beautiful.

[@thepaladinauthoryoutube]

I pose the difference in meme format. "I incorporate political worldbuilding for the sake of the story. You tell a story for the sake of your politics. We are not the same."

[@Dethflash]

I would much rather watch 2 hours of arguing in the galactic senate about trade route taxes than another movie with Rey in it.

[@jimmyboydonald6578]

In a nut shell, George Lucas good politics and Disney Bad politics.

[@stryletz]

Didn't the director already bail on that new Rey movie? Kennedy really needs to stop announcing stuff...

[@macwelch8599]

Yes, Star Wars has always been political, but the political plotline was specifically designed for that galaxy, not for us to force our own political beliefs into the story

[@chasehedges6775]

EXACTLY! The politics are/were how the government in that world and galaxy functioned and operated

[@kadencethompson5728]

The root of the political plot line has ALWAYS been abt a fascist dictator who took over the galaxy and destroyed the worlds and people around him without them being able to “fight back”. There are literal real life examples of this exact plot. Don’t let the alien makeup and spaceships blind you.

[@CFlfc98]

Star Wars is so overtly sourced from real world politics. Star Wars was created out of Lucas’ opposition to the Vietnam War. Its always amazed me how so many SW fans fail to see the politics. Not least because Lucas has spoken about it very often.

[@chasehedges6775]

@@CFlfc98 👍👍💯

[@CarlosCosta-lm4ye]

That's the dumbest shit I've read online in the past few months. Star Wars, according to George Lucas, is mainly a critique American imperialism and the Vietnam War.

[@hawkingjim]

Also, let's keep in mind that discussions around politics have become much more charged since the times of the original trilogy and the prequels. Hence, it's almost impossible to compare how things are discussed now to back then.

[@Neckrollios18]

A great saying I got from this channel, is that there are writers, directors, actors, producers etc. Involved, and they either want to do something *for* Star Wars, versus doing something *with* Star Wars. And that isn't just something that applies to Star Wars, it's prevalent everywhere, and arguably has been for some time.

[@JW-cm2er]

George Lucas' work is timeless in the sense that it could be seen as a commentary on virtual any period of history. Sure, he may have had his own personal figures in mind for how he interpreted the story, but it was done in a way that almost anyone anywhere could have their own particular interpretation relative to their own time. That is why it is and was such a masterpiece!

[@ninjaishproductions2.053]

I think George was able to say the Bush and Cheney thing because those two are just examples of the same person archetype that vader and sideous are also examples of. You could take anybody who ever has or ever will act like how they did and insert them into the quote and it would be no less true.

[@drakethesnek6429]

There's a difference between something telling a political story with universal themes . . . and outright activism through film.

[@AshanBhatoa]

The Sequel Trilogy literally is the most politically neutral out of all the films. That's apart of the reason why it's no particularly great.

[@drakethesnek6429]

@AshanBhatoa seriously? More n@zi imagery, possible references to trump, Mary Sue protagonist, turning male characters into washed up deadbeats, etc. The problem with you is that you don't understand what people mean by political, and your are incapable of spotting propaganda in fiction.

[@stevenschnepp576]

@@AshanBhatoa Other than all of the political activism shoved in there, yeah. And, of course, aside from everything else that went on around it with the cast, crew, and corporate spin. But if you ignore all of that, they're definitely politically neutral!

[@emberfist8347]

There is a difference between in-universe politics in a story and shoving modern politics where they don’t fit. An example of the latter is Andor where the actors claimed it is hard for a woman to reach a high rank in the Empire because of sexism ignoring the past female characters in authority positions and the established of the Empire was against non-humans.

[@satchm05]

Hey Thor, Thanks for always staying authentic and interesting. You being balance to the force. A fun little tie-in in our favorite movie is how relatively early in the film, Palpatine calls Vader his “friend”. Later, when Luke says “your overconfidence is your weakness”, Palpatine instinctively snaps back “your faith in your friends is yours.” Of course it isn’t long before his own “friend” betrays him. So, it was Palpatine’s overconfidence as well as his faith in his “friend” that led to his (yes, permanent) demise. Only loosely related, but I also only fairly recently fully realized that Luke had no delusions that he could defeat both Vader and Palpatine nor did he have a contingency plan (aside from keeping them occupied while the rebels hopefully blew them all up). He had all his eggs in that basket of reaching Anakin, which then becomes an interesting twist on or completion of the rule of two (Luke and Anakin overthrowing the master). Would love your Naboo guided ramblings on any of that.

[@TheJohan167]

Imagine a political Hego Damask series, it does not even focus on his role as Darth Plagueis, but his dealings with the Banking Clan and setting up the Crisis on Naboo, 10/10 would watch

[@delrunplays2903]

Fundamentally, there is a difference between having politics as a set piece, having political themes, and being political. The first is a result of the story taking place in a world with more than ten people; the second makes one think; and the third tells one what to think (propaganda). What people want is either something to entertain them or something to make them think not something to tell them what to think. Edit: Their they're there strikes again.

[@DavidSmith-mt7tb]

Good point. I think we often argue this pointing out what the third of those is but not differentiating between the other two as much. A great example is Battlestar Galactica. They intentionally addressed hot button political issues of the time and discussed them, YET they ultimately had that discussion within the bounds of that world. In one episode, The President, who had always been very pro-choice, actually said they should outlaw abortions in most cases because humanity had become an endangered species and needed to repopulate if they wanted to survive. It didn't tell us what WE should do about the issue in our world, but it raised some interesting points about how our circumstances can affect our policy making. It really delved into the political themes while not actually becoming political in the purest sense.

[@morenicginiusthegreat4227]

Your last last label, "being political" is too broad a term. It is so broad that it encompasses the idea of having political themes. I suggest changing it to "being propaganda" in future discussions, since the definition of propaganda is something that has a message, and thus literally tells you what to think, fitting the definition you outlined. edited for grammar.

[@delrunplays2903]

@@morenicginiusthegreat4227 Fair enough

[@morenicginiusthegreat4227]

@@delrunplays2903 Thanks.

[@cobra312004]

Honestly, timeless stories of "how do republics become dictatorships" and "how do dictatorships fall to upstart rebel groups" are not politics, they're history disguised as mythology

[@AshanBhatoa]

Much of history is inherently political in nature, and those premises are inherently poltical. ????

[@mckayhatch6723]

Politics have been there from the start. In fact, they really helped ground the OG and prequel trilogies in a world that felt more real and lived in I feel. But they served the story, they weren't used to lecture us. The sequels did lecture us, on modern woke identity politics. Which in the grand scheme of things aren't timeless. I would also argue that most people think they are ridiculous, to begin with. The story and character development were left out in favor of a political agenda being pushed and a formula they thought would make them (Disney) a bunch of money. The irony is, I think if they had stuck with expanding the story by focusing on telling a good one with character development; interlaced with timeless themes it would have made them a lot more money. Because the MCU phases 1-3 definitely did that for Disney. And what did they have? Plenty of character development and timeless themes. We as an audience learned to love the characters because of that, with the sequel trilogy that didn't happen. In the end, it's just sad to me because the Rise of Palpatine could have been what Endgame ended up being; a timeless milestone in cinematic history. A movie that was more than a movie, a cinematic event.

[@stoltobot]

Seeing the original trilogies as political allegory of the day requires either a vivid imagination or a distorted memory

[@DavidSmith-mt7tb]

TLJ also raised some interesting questions about in universe politics that it never followed up on. The comment about both sides getting weapons from the same place was something that would have been really interesting to explore, but they didn't. So ultimately the comment was, like Rey being a female jedi, only included to take shots at real politics rather than develop story.

[@AshanBhatoa]

I'd argue that it was pretty sufficient as it concerns Canto Bight. The poltical commentary of ultra-wealthy industrialists and business magistrates attaining great wealth through war profiteering is not an original concept. Lucas had explored that within TPM, AOTC and TCW beforehand. However, this poltical worldbuilding (amidst the only overt example within the entire Sequel Trilogy) serves Finn's character arc. DJ, of course, appeasing Finn's desire to flee the conflict. What he desired to do in the beginning.

[@DavidSmith-mt7tb]

@@AshanBhatoa yeah but the entirety of canto bight could be cut from the movie and it basically would have made no difference. It was overall a shit scene that looked pretty stupid. That stuff was already established with Finn and it was the absolute wrong direction to take that character anyway. Johnson didn't add that line for character growth. He added it to take shots at real world political issues because he's that kind of person. He did it several times in that movie.

[@zerolost04]

An argument could be made that a good writer, with a good understanding of human nature, doesn’t necessarily make a story political but it becomes so applicable that there appears to be a political message in there because, while history doesn’t necessarily repeat itself, patterns often do. It’s why Tolkien personally hated allegory but loved applicability. A truly good story can make relevant points long after the culture that spawned it has changed and even sometimes seem to have comparisons and contrasts to current political events while inferior stories can potentially make a good point but often comes out preachy and later a product of its time rather than timeless.

[@otakubullfrog1665]

When people say they don't want politics in entertainment, they often mean they don't want politics surrounding it and I tend to agree with that. It's very annoying to have a bunch of people involved in a show or a movie tell us how to feel about it, explain exactly why they're making it and deride anyone who isn't excited about whatever their pet cause is as terrible before we've even had a chance to see it and come up with our own impression and interpretation first.

[@McBeard1987]

This is probably one of your most balanced takes. I am of the opinion that politics is in everything, and that includes projected politics from both the creators and the audience. The loudest of the "I don't like politics in my movies" are the people who inject their opinions on a piece of media that may not be there, and are based on superficial things (John Boyega and and Moses Ingram's casting being a couple of the most prominent), or reactionaries that just don't like the message because it doesn't fit their politics. Same thing with poor messaging from some creators who absolutely cram their personal ideology down the throats of the audience, or demonize poor reception with assumed political grievances.

[@stevenschnepp576]

The percentages of people who objected to Boyega and Ingram are a rounding error. Pretending they had any impact on anything is just intellectually dishonest and lends artificial credence to the narrative Disney likes to push about they're not making bad films, it's the audiences who are bad.

[@hakimzane]

The first six SW movies never beat me over the head with whatever politics they were about. Nor did they preach at me, or talk down to me unlike todays media. Great video, yet again, Thor 👍🏾

[@Deuteromis]

A friend of mine told me how a senator in early 00s used the scene in Ep2 where Palpatine was given emergency powers, as an example how it could happen to the presidency to become a dictatorship.

[@Rhys-Lightning]

This makes me think of Watchmen, or anything by Alan Moore for that matter, Fullmetal Alchemist, Attack on Titan, Godzilla (the Japanese movies), and hell, even Seinfeld. Yes, they most certainly have a lot of political elements, but that's not necessarily THE story. They take real-world political/social commentary and work them into a fictional setting, where even if you don't pick up on the message it's still a solid piece of entertainment, which is what George also did. With current-era writing, you're bashed over the head with a rolled up newspaper like a naughty dog with the messaging, and if you take it away the movie falls apart. That's objectively bad writing. It's supposed to be subtle and the Japanese are now the ones who are the masters at it. Well, they always have been, like Ghost in the Shell which came out in '95. That movie asked "What is an identity?" loooooong before American media went ballistic with it. But American media has lost its way in terms of storytelling with subtle messaging. "You must think like this or you're a bad person" has overshadowed "Here's an alternate point of view". Good sci-fi is supposed to get philosophical, not authoritative

[@TheoTungsten]

The politics in the sequels also create Mary Sues, who don’t belong anywhere near Star Wars or any serious franchise.

[@tinybee7780]

The sequel trilogy, along with a lot of movies that released around this time will definitely not age well, and we are already seeing that even the casual audience is beginning to realize that. When people go to the movies they just want to have fun and enjoy their time watching what's in front of them. Now all we seem to get are heavily politicized movies telling us about diversity, equity, gender, etc. It does seem to be slowing down, which makes me wonder what would people think of this era in say 25 years or more. Will this current era be remembered fondly or people will just say "what were they thinking?" The sense of timelessness the current the movies that Hollywood used to make seems to be all but gone now.

[@AshanBhatoa]

Why is diversity a poltical issue inherently? If you see a individual different than that of yourself, is that forced diversity and poltical? This is ridiculous.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

@@AshanBhatoa Just because you excuse bad writing as long as it's diverse doesn't mean disliking the writing is ridiculous

[@stevenschnepp576]

@@AshanBhatoa Because your side has made it a political issue and thinks you're scoring points by producing shitty shows and calling us names for not liking them - when in reality, all you're doing is revealing yourselves to be hacks and frauds.

[@silviotavares771]

Right on point. It's not that it is a fallacy, it isn't. Star Wars is fundamentally about imperialism/dictatorship and revolution/rebellion. The prequels are about the fall of a republic by a coup d'eta giving place to a brutal empire while the OT is about taking it down. After all, war is politics done by means other than diplomacy. SW pictures a fundamental theme that can be related to a number of real events in human history. However, SW before Disney has much more than that.. it is a well written romance built over this scenario.. it has characters that go to a number of struggles that connects the spectator with them and while they develop through the story it makes you care for them... it has world build that is intriguing and fascinating. Whatever intent Lucas might had in terms of delivering a message, it is embedded in the captivating story he was able to tell and is up to the spectator to take its own conclusions and interpretations.. It is suggested to you.. it shows many different perspectives from multiple sides of the conflict, it is ambiguous at many times. It tries to expose not only a number of flaws from the heroes but also a number of possible fair points of the 'bad guys' so to speak. The events are not always crystal clear, there are plenty of individual and social contradictions that are up to the spectator to process. So many things are open to interpretation and to discussion. Disney SW is anything like that. It's just a hollow political propaganda bombarded at you at the expense of anything else making sense whatsoever, the story is all over the place, the characters are stupid and no one could care less about them.. worse, our beloved characters are mercilessly abused and murdered in the name of that hollow propaganda. And do not dare to critique it, or you're a bigot. Sad days.

[@stopreadingmyusernamebroth9090]

There is a big difference between media that has any politics in it and putting politics where it doesn’t belong. Simply because Star Wars was supposedly Lucas’ way of critiquing America does not mean that is solely what Str Wars should be: just a movie where people can use it push their agenda. Star Wars is amazing because of characters, story, and timeless themes that all ages can relate to. Nobody seriously loves Star Wars because “America bad”.

[@lordlubu3029]

This, the original trilogy may have had bits of Lucas' political bias inserted, but it wasn't in your face and pushing an agenda. It focused on being a STORY first, with characters and development and adherence to the basic principles of writing. Nowadays a lot of media tries to be a political message first and a story second

[@funnelvortex7722]

I find it incredibly fascinating how George's movie "for 12 year olds" spawned a massive universe full of intrigue and deep lore and rich stories (some pretty R rated) that we all love and are passionate about, it's why it angers me that Disney decided to wipe it all away and replace it with something that feels so shallow and hollow 95% of the time. The politics in the PT were excellent, they worked well with the lore and added a ton of depth, I didn't like Episode II much as a kid but as an adult I view it as one of the best pieces of intrigue science fiction to exist, and all of it sets the frame of the OT super well. The ST just feels like the politics are slapped in there to have a cheap topical commentary that is likely already outdated, meanwhile the worldbuilding and internal politics of the universe just feel jarringly nonexistent. Politics can work well but they need to be timeless, the rise of authoritarianism is something that echos throughout history, so is the collapses of empires and oppressions of peoples, but "It's 2017 so we will throw in some tidbit about the current political topic and allow the writers to throw in their personal opinions" just does not work at all. If random topical commentary storytelling is what I want I will watch South Park, not Star Wars.

[@emberfist8347]

At least South Park can get clever about it. Such as their episode about illegal immigration ending on a joke that nobody wants to fix the problems causing people to cross the border.

[@simpletown323]

I got into star wars around 1999-2001. I was too young to see episode 1 and 2 in theaters but grew up on the 4, 5, and 6 special edition DVDs. Politics in entertainment and in life is fascinating when you are able to see behind the scenes. The maneuvering, the waves that are created because of certain choices politicians make. At the end of the day, politics is and has always been about people trying to find ways of sharing power, increasing their own or taking it from others. Political ideology is also fascinating. Like why do people have certain beliefs and how does their life experience influence their ideas and actions. How do these ideas spread and how do people respond in kind, with their own beliefs? What Lucas did and what Disney is not doing (except in andor) is letting the in universe characters have these opinions and allegiances to one another. Additionally, Lucas set up his universe to have problems that paralleled the real world but he buried those beliefs underneath all the other stuff like the empire, rebellion, sith, jedi, good vs evil etc. He asked the question, "if an emperor was to take over the universe, how would he do it? How would people react based on their own beliefs and how would that ripple out across the galaxy." It's like he set up the dominoes and let them fall as organically as possible. He treated his characters like real people which is why we relate so much to them. Disney on the other hand seems to lack clarity in what they are trying to say. They likely have so many fingers in the pie that by the time star wars rwaches the big screen, ideas that would have worked for the narrative wind up dilluted and simplified. The in universe politics fails to represent the people they claim to be trying to represent because they disney themselves doesn't understand stuff like identity politics. Example. Setting the animals free on Canto Bite. Setting the animals free seemed to just come out of left field and felt like they either needed more time to develop and show the problems of animal cruelty. Instead, they decided to just have Rose deliver a PSA of "animal cruelty = bad." Holdo is another problem. They took a great actor, dressed her up like the picture perfect image of an LGBTQ karren with her pink hair and bad attitude. So instead of showing a strong and respected female military, the leader, people saw a reflextion of the stereotypical karren. In no way does that accurately reflect or demonstrate the politics that they were going for. At the end of the day, Disney thinks it can "borrow" and "represent" the people and the problems of the day. However, disney is a corporation that is partly to blame for letting things in the world get to the state we find ourselves. Why? Cause disney has turned into a corporate machine that thrives on taking your problems and trying to repackage and throw those problems into their movies without actually understanding what your problems are. How could they? Massive multi billion dollar corporation understanding the average working human? They literally live in a universe far far away from us average joes

[@AshanBhatoa]

Setting the animals free also served a practical purpose, though? Don't you remember how they escaped Canto Bight? Regardless, if folks have problems with benign run-of-the-mill subtext concerning the appreciation of animals. God help them. Animals are apart of the Living Force within the mythos. It wasn't poltical commentary, it's basic morality. Where's the agenda?

[@Gundamguy-py3ir]

(3:55) thank you... So fucking much for playing the whole clip with context. TLJ defenders with play that shit religiously without context and i drives me insane.

[@newrecru1t]

_"I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history - true or feigned- with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author."_ *~ J.R.R. Tolkien* I think this is the crux of most people's grievances with _"politics in StarWars"_ currently. There's a sense that Disney StarWars leans heavily on *allegory* which leaves little for the watcher to interpret. George's StarWars had *applicability,* and I think this precedent has been proven considering the still ongoing discussions of the Prequel Trilogy that occur to this day-especially considering Andor's success? I think many can agree that the Prequels & Originals have established their applicability, unlike the Sequels. *Addendum:* It's worth pointing out that there's still plenty to interpret & enjoy about the Sequels, but they're severely hampered by the lack of planning said politics; this being the case with the conflicting visions of the directors & writers. Case in point? Not going all the way with Kylo/Ben being the penultimate antagonist in the third film, war profiteering & wealth inequality being barely touched on in the second film, the presentation (or lack thereof) on the New Republic's ineptitude allowing for political rivals to come back to power in the first film, etc... There's a lot thrown in without giving it the time & effort to make it grounded in a sort of authenticity? So we get a lot of shallow allegory, without much of the applicability to interpret it meaningfully.

[@authorjoannawhite]

The thing is that the policies involved with the prequels and originals is soooo subtle you don't know whereas today they wanna throw it in your face and shove it down your throat which is two very different things

[@Sinvare]

1:50 - George Lucas doesn't need the force in 1992, just a TV. George Herbert Walker Bush was president from 1989-1992. He was VP in 1980-1989 Under Regan. Dick Cheney was Secretary of Defense For the Bush Presidency. Before being VP Bush had been CIA director for a time. Timeline lines up if he started writing in 1992.

[@OseronPhaer]

It's all about "theming" versus "messaging". Themes are concepts and, as such, are timeless because they can be applied beyond their current zeitgeist.

[@guesswho8556]

Tyranny is bad, freedom is good, power corrupts. These are universal concepts everyone can understand and agree on no matter their ideology. That was as far as star wars tackled politics. They shouldn't use their huge platform and audience to attack one side of the political spectrum

[@funkydiscogod]

But...was the Emperor really a tyrant? We know he was evil, but we know nothing of his social and economic policies. He might be the kind of person half the country would vote for.

[@thorthewolf8801]

​@@funkydiscogodYes, he is the bad guy, I thought that was obvious..

[@guesswho8556]

@@funkydiscogod that's why the Jedi wanted to remove palatine from power in episode III. He had all the power and didn't consult the Senate for anything. He WAS the Senate.

[@sterling7]

There are a lot of things one could say about Star Wars and its themes, even bringing up many of the same points, without saying it was "political". You could talk about its mythological or spiritual themes, its moral ideology, its philosophy. More often than not, when people say something is "political", they're saying that it's *against* something; that a group of people should innately like or dislike it, there's only one "appropriate" way to interpret its themes. Insisting on politicization robs something of its universality, or its ability to be a point of broad concensus.

[@dukemanu9580]

"These are not the political messages we are looking for."

[@347Jimmy]

Star Wars, the messages therein, and any politics involved, should be _timeless_ Disney forgot this

[@donbrunodelamancha1927]

Master Thor, I think, aside from one caveat, you are, as usual, completely on point with your arguments in this episode. 1. From the beginning, even though George Lucas has always talked about the cereals David entertained him so much is a child in Buck Rogers, send westerns and samurai movies. He also mentioned the fascism that occurred in Nazi Germany. So in that, since there were politics, always intrinsically part of it, and part of that evil empire allegory is present in everything Lucas has written. 2. He absolutely bases his writings on psychological archetypes and mythological arcs that is the driving force in Lucas’s stories. That has been clear as has his work with Professor Joseph Campbell. 3. The one caveat I would say, is when you say that it is troublesome to you that some directors producers those make movies speak of what this means to our society. We have to understand that psychologically. We are affected by what goes on around us in a very intrinsic way. It’s very much a super ego affecting us always in at all times unless we’re off the grid. And how we addressed that is how we express ourselves in our lives day-to-day. And to ask, someone who is expressing their creativity to not address large part of their psyche something that is shaping who they are in that moment would be to deny part of who they are a critical part of who they are so what you may not agree with it. It’s something that we must embrace for their mental health for us to understand each other. 3. I don’t think the issue is about politics. This is about agendas. The main catastrophic issue is that the ultimate Empress of evil, Supreme Seth, Kathleen Kennedy has clearly declared her agenda. I believe no where did she declare it more clearly, and succinctly than when early on in her dictator ship of Lucasfilm, when asked if she found it daunting to have to entertain millions of little boys, her interviewer happen to be a woman incidentally, kk responded, “ I am not interested in entertaining little boys. I am interested in entertaining little girls.” EXSQUUEZE ME⁉️ In nothing, I have ever read nor watched, created in any way, shape or form by George Lucas has there ever been anything misogynistic about a female character because they were always the most badass characters in whatever narrative they were in‼️ This agenda is 1,000,000% self-serving. Yet it is allowed to rampage across the whole of Lucasfilm unchecked. It corals those who fall into line into the directive of the agenda. It empowers those who are part of the cult to do whatever they want without question. It is the sycophants dream‼️ How that harpy has remained in any position of authority, power, influence, is unbelievable ‼️‼️‼️ she hast to have the worst kind of shade on multiple people with in Disney…. There is no other answer‼️‼️‼️ Much L🫶🏻VE to Y🫵🏻U & the Lady Naboo‼️‼️✊🏼✊🏼✊🏼🫶🏻🫶🏻🫶🏻⚡️⚡️⚡️🦸🏼‍♀️🦸🏼‍♀️🦸🏼‍♀️

[@terrified057t4]

I mean, I often say that star wars has and had politics in it, but I do find myself giggling about that. Star Wars has always been a beautiful... Hero's Journey story. Yeah, had stuff about Vietnam, then had Bush, no clue what the Sequels had tbh. But, It was as he put it, a High Adventure story. A young adult allies with a wizard, who meets a rogue and non-human, who then goes to rescue a princess from the bad guys and stops them alongside the good guys. He starts out as a normal farm hand, longs for adventure and goes through everything eventually ending at a new normal.

[@SpaceCowboyfromNJ]

George Lucus may have said the original trilogy was an allegory for the Vietnam War and some of his notes for the original script may even support that idea to an extent, however you can't say with a straight face that the final product actually is one. That may have been Lucus's original intent but either through the process of numerous times rewriting the script and creating the movie or simply he wasn't skilled enough to ever really work it in in the first place (possibly the combination of both), anything that could make it truly an allegory for the Vietnam war was stripped out. What's left is so broad that it takes some real squinting to even slightly see a minor comparison to the Vietnam War.

[@finnyourhuman2288]

I hate when people say star wars is for kids when most kids wont even understand the story

[@reznik232]

Hey Thor, Something that's always bugged me a little is why Han Solo didn't immediately have a "Wait a minute here!" moment when he first met Luke and Obi-Wan. Given Anakin and Obi-Wan's fame, Han's age and his Imperial past he should've recognised the names Skywalker and Kenobi instantly and realised something unusual was going on. What are your thoughts?

[@AshanBhatoa]

Actually, he doesn't. He doesn't have to at all. Han easily could exist within a massive galaxy and retain his ignorance. The galaxy is massive.

[@stevenschnepp576]

Does the name Casey mean anything to you? He commanded the Iraq theater on the tail end of the insurgency. Something of a big deal at the time. You probably don't, though, because your average civilian knows practically nothing about a war unless it directly impacts them.

[@icoss88]

I think each trilogy has a political lesson that's pretty consistent about the rise and fall of democracies. Prequels show how a democracy can fall to dictatorship. OT shows how dictatorships can be overthrown. Sequels show that its actually really hard to properly set up a democracy and there's a lot of ways it can go wrong.

[@John-fk2ky]

While your point about democracies is correct, the ST requires a LOT of stupidity in-universe (and bad worldbuilding out of universe) to get the results we see in the movie. It doesn't even show the issues democracies would have post-establishment. The Legends canon does a great job of this over a long series of books with characters making decisions reasonable to themselves and their experiences (if not always the right decisions). The ST literally just blows up the achievements of the good guys in the OT.

[@permeus2nd]

So there has always been elements of in universe politics like in the first film when they have that small scene were Vader force chokes the moth (this is probably what most people remember about this bit completely forgetting the rest of the conversation) and is told to release him, they are talking about in universe politics as this meeting is a progress report and one of the things discussed is the dissolving of the senate the last vestiges of the old republic (a political act). There is also the rebellion which while we see it in a action lens is also a political act, literally days before a new hope there wasn’t a rebellion there was lots of small groups some of the political others that are basically terrorists, some that don’t care who they harm because in their minds it’s all for the greater good (the Greater Good some of the scariest words you can ever hear, the only thing that makes the scarier is if the person really believes them) yet other groups that don’t want to oppose the empire but no longer want to be part of it. The original films are full of in universe politics but it’s mostly in the background and not really seen as politics like in empire when they take cloud city (I’m sure it has a proper name but I’ve never heard it) that’s a political act that is missed because we are focused on the hero’s, it’s not till we get to the prequels that we see politics as a foreground topic as Palatine can’t really take over the republic without doing some political wrangling but it’s all based on in universe politics and this is the big difference between old Star Wars versus new the new one is trying to use real world politics which dosnt make sense as Star Wars isn’t set on earth in the 2023, it’s a galaxy far far away what we are sorting though in our current year really shouldn’t be applicable to a distant galaxy but Hollywood is forcing it in anyway and what people actually want to see be dammed.

[@DarthDevorin]

Political messaging is like salt. It should enhance the food, not render it undesirable.

[@ChrisPTenders]

Star Wars is for 12 year olds in that it's centered around a protagonist who is stepping into the adult world for the first time. It's the politics that actually keep things interesting for the rest of us as we age and begin to see more of ourselves in the supporting characters than in the protagonist. I think Star Wars has always been a safe-for-all lens to examine political issues in a fantasy setting, away from real world stakes and party divides, allowing for a more authentic examination of the humanity behind any given issue. The Clone Wars, Rebels, and even The Mandalorian and Andor have been carrying that torch brilliantly. Those stories have examined nuances that would have summoned angry extremists had they been attributed their real world context, but you'd never know because the story takes the time to carefully portray the characters behind the issue as fallible and dynamic in their humanity. These stories never stoop to dropping real world rhetoric on your head or carelessly vilifying and mocking characters for being on the wrong side of an issue. I think people understandably hate when political messages are crammed in where they don't belong because someone at Lucasfilm thinks Star Wars is a good platform for a PSA and about as much effort goes into writing it as that. I think people don't hate politics in Star Wars, I think people hate when unintelligent, low-effort real world political rhetoric worms its way into Star Wars... or into anything else for that matter.

[@MrNisse-ef9by]

The problem with this explanation is the fact that politics and morality are basically interchangeableconcepts nowadays. What Lucas is describing on that stage, is a tale of morality, to help guide young people on their journey into adulthood. It's set against a backdrop that's very black and white. The "evil Empire" on one side trying to control everything by force and fear, and the "Good freedom fighters" on the other struggling to free the galaxy from that tyranny. The "politics" are a just prop used to illustrate that dynamic. The problem is, as US society slides closer and closer into outright fascism...those who find themselves aligning with that political worldview, are getting increasingly upset, that their political views are being portrayed as "evil", by the entertainment industry. Even though, nothing has fundamentally changed in their portrayal of "good and evil". These movies haven't changed in that respect. The people watching them, have.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

If you think people who dislike that movie are fascists you're insane

[@MrNisse-ef9by]

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster I think there are people in the US right now that fit that description far more than they are comfortable admitting to. And when they see their "values" portrayed in a negative light, they get upset about it.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

@@MrNisse-ef9by So you admit that you think people who dislike these movies are fascist.

[@MrNisse-ef9by]

@@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster I'm not sure what kind of "gotcha" you're fishing for. I'm not saying that "everyone who doesn't like these movies is a fascist". That would be a ridiculously juvenile generalization. But there are a growing number of people in the US, who have become aligned with that form of political ideology...and they definitely don't like it, when that authoritarian worldview is portrayed as "evil". And they are very vocal about their dissatisfaction at being compared to Nazis, just because they happen to share a ton of the same values and ideas.

[@PizzaMan879]

Personally, I’m some who believes that, if done right, politics can be used to benefit a story and it’s world building. I think the Prequels nailed this kind of storytelling, and the Sequels completely failed to take advantage of that, cause they were to busy pandering to OT fanatics and completely ignore the PT due to them being hated on the internet at the time of the Disney Trilogy’s release.

[@Luks2820]

They did the same thing with comics. "Oh, comics were always political. Now shut up and buy this new Superman comic, featuring his bisexual son and his pink haired boyfriend protesting against climate change."

[@thomp9054]

Hope everyone's having a great day!

[@dony2852]

The big difference is that Star Wars didn't use politics to attack the fans during Lucas's time. He may have looked down on political figures but never intentionally spoke ill of the audience. Disney wasted no time to call critics misogynists and racists. They actively antagonized the fan base thinking any outrage would serve as free publicity while ignoring the fact that they were damaging the support base and leading viewers down a road to apathy.

[@joyoustye2326]

This!!!

[@AshanBhatoa]

When did Disney specifically label the fans racist?

[@dony2852]

@@AshanBhatoa Well, one recent example was ABC's review of Disney's Little Mermaid remake that implored audiences to "Ignore the racist internet trolls who use #NotMyAriel to spread ignorance about a Black actress playing this Disney princess."

[@darthecclipse1073]

Great video, a good reminder of why the OT and prequels are so amazing!

[@inspectorwhoreacts]

To quote a phrase said after the force awakens release "Man did I need a George Lucas explanation of the politics of this movie"

[@syrusterrigan9366]

art in all its forms, whether crudely executed or subtly interwoven, reflects LIFE. it only makes sense that political intrigue and ideology would form part of the fabric of this great story, and that we, the audience, would be able to make parallels between that story and our own experiences . . . "from a certain point of view". we wouldn't care about Luke if he weren't conflicted about responsibility to family versus the desire for adventure and great causes. we wouldn't care about Darth Vader if he weren't conflicted about following his mentor as opposed to saving the life of his son. we wouldn't care about Leia if she weren't faced with the question of the strength of her convictions balanced against the value of the lives of her fellow Alderaanians. we wouldn't care about Han if he didn't have to internally debate the worth of profit versus his sense of justice. and on and on it goes. in each of these characters, we can see the ties that bind them to their larger world; by extension, we can feel the similarities between ourselves and each of these characters. but the reason these instances are so EXCELLENT is because we are given in-narrative explanations of *why*. WHY are these conflicts so important? why are these ideas so intensely personal? why does the future of not just the individual, but sometimes entire civilizations/cultures, hang in the balance? *if* you are willing to give The Force Aweakens, The Trashed Jedi, and The Whines of Palpatine a claim of being "about" some thing . . . . something deeper than watered-down rehashes of old material, subverted expectations, slapdash damage control operations, "obey wham-en", "let the past die", etc., etc., etc., . . . you'll quickly see that the biggest problem with it all is a lack of motivation, clearly explained. why would any of the new "characters" give a rip about the New Republic being obliterated? it stands to reason that none of them had any real connection to those worlds (perhaps excepting Poe) -- there was no tension for the protagonists to experience. what reason was presented to justify Luke's "hard about" on how to address the potential darkness in his nephew as opposed to its vital personification in his own father? even if we were to concede his character's self-recriminations as valid (which i don't, for the record), self-doubt of such caliber as to make the man refuse to believe in his own father's self-attested restoration to 'the good' and thereby to arrive at the conclusion that he couldn't save or guide his nephew would be more likely to induce self-termination than . . . . well, whatever you want to call that portion of the New Travesty. attempted murder from the same man who refused to kill a defeated, evil enemy many years before simply due to the strength of his convictions and character??!! ridiculous. WHY people do things, believe things, fight for things, defend things, love things, . . . . WHY is the question that matters most. the trilogy that was released after Disney's 2012 acquisition does almost nothing to tie its characters individually to the broader world. they exist within it, and the audience is told "this is how they fit into this world", but there's no emotional grounding that links them together. Rey is an orphan, and though we see her abandoned in a desert, we never see how things were better before that change in her life. Finn and Rose are involved in a war between two opposing factions, and they arrive at the conclusion that war (profiteering) is bad, though it denies the fact that their lives are inherently linked to military activity [and then, of course, they proceed to participate in such activities *after* their Great Revelation . . . .]. George Lucas' political elements of the Star Wars story were consistent, justified in-narrative, produced logical consequences, and provided a resonant backdrop upon which his viewers' emotional responses could be built because of the personified links to those political elements. Disney's political elements of their movie trilogy are disassociated from either their character presentations *or* the wider world, and the whole narrative suffers because of it. to bring it home in another way, ask yourself this question: can you see a parallel between Anakin Skywalker's loyalty to Senator/Chancellor Palpatine and some conservatives' loyalty to Trump? what about Palpatine's reorganization of the Galactic Republic into the Galactic Empire and the increasing push for sweeping gun control legislation? there is always a political derivative that can be extracted from individual behaviors; it is impossible to remove social commentary of one sort or another from our actions, or the stories we tell. tl;dr -- Lucas' work emulates real life and actual history; Disney's simply shouts contemporary catchphrases at both the audience *and* the fairy-tale world it's supposed to be presenting.

[@culmo80]

You bring up a good point: the sequels never explain the political situation in-universe. The First Order is just there. The New Republic is weak for no reason. The Resistance exist ... why? Yeah, yeah, some professional writer for Disney had the fun job of filling in all this through novels, but that doesn't count. The movies failed in that aspect. Instead, we get current year politics and social activism. Oddly enough, while Kathleen Kennedy absolutely used Rey as her own wish fulfillment fantasy for feminism, she also absolutely bowed down to China. This is why Finn's role was substantially changed during production. This is why Finn goes from prominently displayed on the movie posters in the US to barely being there for posters in China. For all their talk about social justice and BLM, Disney isn't about to risk turning off the actually racist Chinese market. This is why Finn was reduced to a slapstick side character rather than a rising Jedi. But, the politics, yeah ... we go to Star Wars to escape politics. The thing is, Lucas very well may have used 1970s politics as a basis for his in-universe politics. That's fine. All writers use real world events for inspiration. But you can watch A New Hope and not feel like you're being told to vote a certain way in the next election. You can watch Return of the Jedi and not feel like you're being alienated because you support one political party over another. Lucas was subtle in his politics--as were most directors back then. If you went looking for the political allusions, you could find them, but if you just wanted to enjoy a movie, you could do that too. Not so much today.

[@CulturalMarxist4985]

George Lucas had a very specific vision when he made Star Wars. It was specifically intended as a critique of US imperialism/fascism, right after it had been invading and bombing Vietnam to kingdom come. He straight up said that the Rebel Alliance is based on the Viet Cong/National Liberation Front of Vietnam, and that the Galactic Empire is based on the US Empire. He also said that Palpatine is based on Richard Nixon. I don't think Kathleen Kennedy or anyone at Disney would be anywhere near as brave when it comes to critiquing their country's foreign policy.

[@HeavyMetalJesus02]

SFO had a good video on this, that there are politics in the films, but its always been from a classically liberal POV. Freedom, independence from tyranny being two things consistent through the two Lucas Trilogies.

[@zacharyfett2491]

When you make films for “modern audiences”, you ensure those films aren’t for previous audiences or future ones.

[@ariesdemiurge]

On the case of Lucas, I think a more accurate way to put it is that the current events at the time had simply influenced the production at the time each were happening. Kinda like how Falling Down, while having its own semi-related social commentary on the current times, *started* filming at the same time as the 1992 LA Riots.

[@herekblood]

I just had this argument with my wife concerning Star Wars and Star Trek. I cannot abide people who want to politicize every piece of content from Disney to Jeopardy. Sometimes, it's just a story to be told by competent actors at play. That my 2¢.

[@mcash232]

The difference between the Lucas trilogies and the Disney era in terms of politics is that any political messages Lucas may have inserted were more general and applicable to any number of political movements. Disney is inserting a very specific agenda into all of its media.

[@jimmyboydonald6578]

In a nut shell, George Lucas good politics. Disney bad politics.

[@StickNik]

More in-universe politics, less meta-politics

[@JacobHolt106]

I actually agree that the Sequels have less politics than George Lucas’s Star Wars (especially compared the Prequels). I actually find it weird when people complain about the “politics “ of the Sequels because to their detriment they avoid politics (other than poorly arguing war profiteering and slavery are bad, which most people already would agree with that. In comparison, I think Lucas did intend to teach young people political lessons in his movies (namely be careful about politicians who ask you to trade your freedom for security because they are going to take both from you). The nice thing about his political lesson is 1. while it applied at the time, it unfortunately is something we see many times in history and will undoubtedly see in the future 2. It fits into a larger life point (do not let fear drive your decisions in life) that is important for all of us to learn (and often we need to be reminded of this). That is the genius George Lucas brought to Star Wars.

[@bannedwagoner69]

I think u laid out perfectly one of the major issues with the sequel trilogy vs the first two. The political backdrop of the og served subtle reminders that there was a living world outside the immediate story, in addition to grounding that story into a conflict involving government and rebel factions, something simultaneously (WAY TOO) familiar to us but also universal across all human history and cultures. Therefore the politics of the og do not feel dated or limited to covering only contemporary events, which the prequel trilogy slips at by going into detail on how the story's gov exists. even then, while visually similar to american congress and using terminology familiar to american politics, the overall story and characters are still centered around warfare and issues that are universal to all countries and time periods, though I am biased not having paid attention to politics at the time of their release. Sequel trilogy abandons the pros of that political backdrop, making the story and setting feel VERY limited to what you are seeing on screen, making the story's universe feel small and undeveloped. Okay whatever at least that means NO politics right? Well the ST only abandoned "backdrop" but kept "political," and by being lazy and unrestrained in their inclusion of CONTEMPORARY politics they took back the cons of politics in the first two trilogies without the pros that came with their use of subtlety. In other words, politics were USED in the first two trilogies, but merely INCLUDED (maybe a generous word) in the sequel trilogy

[@JoRoq1]

The Republic Senate and the position of Chancellor are a much closer match to a parliamentary system like the UK than to the US government structure.

[@bryanblackburn6928]

Politics alone aren't a bad thing....heck even overt partisan politics might not be so bad if the movie is good enough that you can overlook it. The problem comes when those making the movie (or show or whatever) put those things ahead of the story, ahead of the characters, ahead of the world building, ahead of the plot. There is a big difference between having a political message in a movie and having a movie in a political message. I fear the acolyte will be the latter and unfortunately, we've seen how that always turns out.

[@ECKohns]

The politics of the prequels were more along the lines of the Roman Republic. Palpatine was Ceasar, Not Trump.

[@mikechris6208]

Just a reminder, AOTC filmed in the summer of 2000. Bush administration didn’t begin until January of 2001.

[@mrsuccorso]

The Little Platoon summed up the difference between original Star Trek versus current day Star Trek (Discovery) succinctly as the original certainly was political but it wasn't partisan. Star Wars, and much of current Hollywood content, could be described as the same.

[@ChiefDJS]

The problem with quoting Lucas on ANYTHING is that he's constantly re-writing history. He finds parallels in whatever is happening at the time and weaves them into the Star Wars story. The idea that he set out to make a movie "for 12 year olds" is total B.S. I guarantee 30 year old George Lucas with only 1 successful movie to his name didn't stake his entire career self-funding a children's movie. Yes I believe he was trying to recapture the excitement and those nostalgic feelings of Flash Gordon and Arol Flynn, etc - but thats a big difference between including those motifs and actually making a Jar Jar Binks level child's movie.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

They can't distinguish between political themes and the lack of nuance unsubtle propaganda seen in things these days

[@thevarietychannelofyoutube4769]

So, making entire movies about political events isnt shoving it in your face but simply having a woman is.

[@water1374]

That is what pisses me off about these arguments. Having a female, gay or black protagonist isn't "Slapping you in the face" with politics anymore than having Fin and Rose be in a relationship slaps the Chinese viewers in the face with politics.

[@thevarietychannelofyoutube4769]

@@water1374 Its all very disingenuous.

[@AmazingMrMe123]

I think whenever you have good vs evil there is going to be some kind of political philosophy that's going to seep through. I agree that Disney star wars is much less politically intelligent. They had kind of a diversity theme, but the theme was self undermined by having a human dominated cast, which in world context is the opposite of diversity. Female force users at the forefront could've been so great. Like, Jedi Master Leia could've been awesome, you couldve built the whole trilogy around Leia having visions through the force and directing a team of young Jedi of different races and types to save the galaxy. In universe Leia with training should have equal or greater force potential than Luke, so why not show her redirecting lightning and seeing into the future and a bunch of cool stuff like that? Show her lead a New Jedi Order? In terms of a space opera type cast Guardians of the Galaxy has a much more diverse and interesting cast than Disney Star wars which mostly boiled down to different shades of humans. In a galaxy far far away, that's just not what diversity looks like.

[@Kilthan2050]

The key difference is that Lucas set out to make a good movie with timeless themes, thus you can see parallels with real life. Disney set out to push an agenda wearing Star Wars as a skin suit.

[@donaldsmith8648]

Thor.. are you ever going to drop that episode 3 for your Obi Wan Kenobi Series?? It's been over due long overdue

[@renatoe9648]

developing the politics and specifics of the various players of this new era was too much of a mental effort for the writters of the sequels, we just got overt real world political propaganda cosplaying as a star wars movie

[@abeautifuldayful]

I like this video analysis, and I agree with most of it. And I can see the entire logic of it and most of the comments on KZbin for this analysis I've read so far. People love to hate whatever they don't want to see in Star Wars, and I get that. We all love Star Wars if we keep watching more than one or two episodes and want to be thoroughly entertained to the very hilt and flashy tip of a lightsaber as much as mentally or even physically possible by every last bit of its content in the fantastically wild and so marvelously mythical context of "a long time ago in a galaxy, far, far away" containing some degree of verisimilitude because, after all, space is too vastly cosmic to fact check all its distant possibilities, don't we? But politics, economic systems, and the process of growing up have always been equally intertwined in Star Wars, whether or not it was shown to us in subtle or simple ways like on the Skywalker farm on Tatooine or the calmness of an older but wiser Obi-Wan, things like that usually seen more in the OT at first, which we may naturally like better so long as it doesn't take too long to get into the action. That's my thesis here that the franchise does best when it shows us the process of growing up into fighters for the politically and the naturally more social democracy, which the OT is too subtle to say outright but is much clearer in many of the later series when it shows us the poor outcomes of galaxy-wide, clearly undemocratic capitalism run by a dictatorship of the Emperor and enforced by the politically charged system he operates to the point of fascism gone so extreme not even the Jedi could contain it, and worse. We see that fascist plan so effective that it, through the dark side and Palpatine's implementation of Order 66, disposes of all but a few remaining Jedi arguably too ineffective long afterward even if Luke had stayed strong in The Force and not gone into exile, where we all hated and didn't like in the slightest to see him, especially and most sickeningly for many of us when he threw away his lightsaber, myself included! No, besides Luke in The Last Jedi, we don't have a lot in Star Wars to remind us of the pacifists we see in the real world today. There was one culture shown to us in The Clone Wars as an exception, but we saw its destruction and felt its dire destiny quite soon. We would much rather see people strong and effective, even ruthless and authoritarian at times like the most celebrated characters on the dark side in Star Wars. It's no accident that Darth Vader, then, was first introduced in the OT fully grown and using the Force immediately in the strongest possible fashion. No, we didn't see how he grew almost timidly as a boy tolerating his enslavement and characters like silly-looking and strangely acting Jar Jar Binks at first into that Vader character until over twenty years later, did we? Of course not. And it's that system of unrelenting fascism that gets shown much more in later episodes and series all the way to today, which we are supposed to dislike but while being entertained the best it can. And that's the point, not to like it the way we like or love to see and be completely entertained by the evil and dark side of Darth Vader, first introduced in the OT fully grown into his character and diabolically long before we are shown how he could kill younglings but couldn't even save his wife, things that would have given us a completely different feeling about him, things that we weren't shown originally, I'd argue for good reason. The light side of The Force, on the other hand, is clearly the more democratic side, the side of the hero and the hero's journey, who is never supposed to waver in our eyes, we wish and then thoroughly abhor when he does, and with some of us crying endlessly about it and anything and everything else we might blame on ironically capitalist-minded Disney to anyone who'll listen to our unsurpassed disappointment, anger, and yes, quite possible if not fully acted upon hatred of such cinematic heresy. But democracy has never been accused of being delightfully entertaining, has it? Yet, against someone who was already grown up into Darth Vader, fighting for the dark side and unchecked capitalism where the poor cannot afford to buy votes in a Senate synonymous with an authoritarian such as Palpatine, it can quickly turn almost delightfully or at least interestingly dark and escalate into an entertaining combination, an intertwining of politics and economics behind the scenes at first, hidden like the threat of fascism within those who don't see it coming and dislike it or hate its outcomes and character developments intensely in sequels and later streaming series. But also with the prequels, the focus shifts dramatically to tell the tale and budding saga of how Darth Vader turns to the dark side, the politically charged and strong force you may not see at first or at all for what it is, fueled and funded all through politics all the time with no exceptions, not in the OT, the prequels, the sequels, all the series, or in real life. But not seeing it is no excuse, reemphasized and told forcefully and searingly with a greatly calculated effect in the dramatically spoken line as if revealing at once and forever all the secrets behind modern advertising rooted deeply in galactic sums of dark money unheard of before the rightwing SCOTUS court handed down its horrible decision in 2010 for Citizens United and powerfully deep inside megacorporate capitalism owned by the increasingly uber-wealthy ruling elites, today's more powerful than ever plutocrats controlling both major political parties always in their favor for the most money, power, and glory, "You don't know the power of the dark side." So my main point of disagreement here is that both the light and dark sides of the Force, respectively, are subtly shown to us politically all the time if we see the whole tale and saga as a struggle pitted between corporate capitalism supporting political fascism against democracy only possible, it would seem, only in and by the light side of the force. The fight, in other words, is either for totalitarianism under a ruthless totalitarian, aka Emperor Palpatine, to support corporate capitalism and a semblance of promised but unfulfilled peace without freedom, or for a more democratic economic and political system that allows the Senate and the entire political system to enact or maintain powerful, not weak or ineffectual, laws of fairness and freedom that will include everyone equally and not just the powerful in the dark side who malign, weaken, or abolish prior just laws and institutions established already for the common good. The choice is ours and for what we may or may not like or want to see. Personally, I like seeing both, but sometimes only on reflection, the deeper the better, or else I, too, might fall into despair if I watch Luke throw away his lightsaber ever again. Sorry that this is so long. But so is Star Wars content. Lol.

[@soutarm]

Writers these days have lost the art of allegory

[@jorndebello7317]

Rey has all the qualities of a sith. They want to put the message that women can be Jedis and made her act like a sith😂😂😂

[@TheVinicius200]

What Lucas tried to do was to show how easily corruptible governments can become. And as a people we must always be vigilant. As corruption will always lead to tyranny. I think in the movies he was being more broad with it. Which both sides could agree with. Disney on the other is way more openly biased leaning more towards one side over the other. Lucas was just able to hide it better.

[@jimmyboydonald6578]

In a nut shell, George Lucas good politics (subtle). Disney bad politics (obvious).

[@saberiandream316]

If you read the novel for Revenge of the Sith, it's quite clearly cloaked in the politics of the Bush era, like Mace Windu gloomfully lamenting that despite all of the freedoms they've given up, they're hardly any safer for it. At his address to the Senate during the first Empire Day, Palpatine even drops a quote from Reagan, that "it is morning in [the Republic]!" Star Wars has always been political and from a liberal direction. Though one could argue that George kinda undermined that with the prequels, given how regressively feminized Padme was compared to Leia. Hell, there is even flavors of this from Return of the Jedi, with Leia herself. So it does make you wonder that if George felt to make a popular movie instead of making art, that he had to take it into a right-wing direction. Doesn't matter anyway, because I've always stood for the idea that because art is inspiration, artists should be allowed to make it about whatever they want unless it breaks the core framework of the universe they're writing in, and that's where the importance of allegory comes in.

[@thedarkmasterthedarkmaster]

How could he have based the prequel trilogy off Bush era politics when a large portion of it was made before bush was in charge

[@fransliszt]

Making characters feminized is a take into a right-wing direction? What

[@diamonddank7864]

@@fransliszt yes it is pls understand poltics better the "poltics" of the sequles is far more right wing then that of the ot annd pt witch were in many ways far-left

[@fransliszt]

​@@diamonddank7864 more like anti-authoritarian than far-left

[@zendoargos4988]

Star Wars has always been political, but in the past it was written by George Lucas who might not be much for writing dialogue, but he crafts a story really well. The recent Star Wars put out under Disney seems to have been written by a group of chimps with typewriters that were chain smoking banana leaf cigars and drinking coffee made with Redbull instead of water. George made the political messages part of the story...Disney has made the story around the politics; that is a very big difference.

[@kingofthesharks]

Andor is practically the most politically-left Star Wars content but it works SOOOO well because of the lore and circumstances fitting well. There were almost certainly identity-politics checkboxes that Tony Gilroy had to mark off for KK's requirements, but he pulled off the inclusion while still characterizing everyone fantastically in the context of rebellion. That's priorities. The real politics come from the anti-fascist themes and sacrifices from all types of freedom fighters. It blew my mind how Season 1 ran at the same time as big revolts/protests were happening in China & Iran late 2022.

[@peterpidrak9501]

What are the important things to remember when it comes to? “Star Wars always haven’t been political is that the response to the line about you’re either with me, or my enemy, is one of the most memed lines in Star Wars. Only Sith deals in absolutes? The whole thing is about absolutes. Is northern trying to make his political point he tore everybody out of the movie at one of the moments of high drama, and said something that is ridiculously out of place.

[@istari0]

Lucas may have thought he was making a movie for 12 year olds when he made Star Wars but what he actually did was make something for people of almost all ages and that was a much greater accomplishment. I was a boy when the Vietnam War was going on and I heard a great deal about it. Not once in all the times I have watched the OT have I ever been reminded of that war. To me, The Empire has always reminded me of Nazi Germany or the Soviet Union.