Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

Big Mac · 09:15 AM

Some conservatives such as Michael Medved are now railing against ROTS because they perceive the film to be anti-Bush - I just saw the story on Fox News (yes, I am a conservative). Although I have not seen the film yet, it appears to me that these pundits may be angered over a non-issue. Two quotations in particular were highlighted as purported evidence of Bush bashing: Padme saying, "So this is how liberty dies?" and Obi-Wan saying, "Only Sith Lords deal in absolutes." I truly do not view this as compelling proof of anti-Bush bias. Lucas apparently made Star Wars as a partial reaction to Watergate, but many naturally draw parallels between the Empire and Nazi Germany. Here's a relevant portion of a new Q and A with Lucas:

Q. In "Revenge of the Sith," democracy in the Republic is crumbling while rights and freedoms are being taken away. Is this your nod to George Bush's America in 2005?

A. When I wrote this 30 years ago, George Bush didn't exist. The original film came out of the period of Nixon and Vietnam. It came from Nixon wanting to run for a third term. That sent me to a more historical point of view, and "Star Wars" is more about Hitler, Caesar and Napoleon than anything happening now. But I have asked in "Sith," "How do democracies end?" It's usually because there is some kind of threat.

Q. Have the events over the last four years changed the political message of "Revenge of the Sith"?

A. No. I've been doing these prequels for 10 years. The only weird part now is that it's so relevant. I didn't expect the last "Star Wars" to be this relevant.

I suppose that last sentence lends some credence to the accusation, but in and of itself that comment does not prove that Lucas inserted anti-Bush rhetoric or symbolism. Is this a non-issue or is it not?

Edit: One of Anakin's lines is "If you're not with me, you're against me."

Big Mac · May 15, 2005, 09:07 AM

Off-topic, here's a humorous exchange from the same article:

Q. The critics haven't been kind to the prequels -- especially the writing. Does this hurt your feelings?

A. Believe me, I tried to get out of the writing over and over again. It's one thing I don't want to do. I don't think I'm very good at it. But I can do it better than most people when I have an idea. I know how to do it.

Not very good at it indeed. Interestingly, Lucas implicitly suggests he won't be taking an active role in the upcoming Star Wars TV projects.

von Wrangell · May 15, 2005, 09:09 AM

My first thought is so what? Art(what films like SW etc are supposed to be) should criticise our society. IMO there isn't enough of that(Criticism on both sides).

OldManMac · May 15, 2005, 09:41 AM

Conservatives are railing against a lot of perceived threats these days, even though most of these perceived threats aren't real. That's what people do when they're insecure in their beliefs - they attack, hoping to scare the boogeyman away.

Millennium · May 15, 2005, 09:46 AM

Having read the novelization, it is quite easy to draw anti-Bush parallels. Whether or not Lucas intended for this to be the case is debatable, but it's there and it's very strong. It's entirely possible that this speaks more ill of Bush than of Lucas, because the events of Episode III do fit well into the Star Wars universe, to the point where the parallels could in fact have been unintentional.

As for Lucas suggesting that he's a better writer than most people when he has an idea: I'd put him in the top 10% of fanfic writers, but most professional screenwriters could write rings around him. Among other things, he hasn't grasped the idea that written English and spoken English are two different (though obviously closely related) languages, and that there are appropriate times to use one or the other. One of the biggest problems with the first two movies was that the dialogue was almost entirely done in written English, when it should have been done in spoken English.

Incidentally, I suspect that the movie will be a lot better if you read the novelization first. There's a lot of introspection in the novelization which I don't think the movie is going to be able to express well.

Big Mac · May 15, 2005, 10:07 AM

Interesting perspective, Millennium.

Zimphire · May 15, 2005, 11:36 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

Conservatives are railing against a lot of perceived threats these days, even though most of these perceived threats aren't real. That's what people do when they're insecure in their beliefs - they attack, hoping to scare the boogeyman away.

You mean a handful of them. And they don't have a monopoly on it,

We see leftists rail against tons of perceived paranoia threats every day.

The fact is, no matter WHO was president now, there would be connections being made.

It's been happening with Hollywood/Washington for decades.

And even if Lucas DID do it intentionally, it is of his right to do so.

OldManMac · May 15, 2005, 11:42 AM

That doesn't answer the question as to why they would need to rally; theirs is the party in power.

If you would take notice, the right is doing much more screaming these days, about issues like marriage, and homosexuality, and the supposed left leaning slant in education, and the supposed liberal media, etc., etc. Again, if they're so securely in power, what are they afraid of?

Zimphire · 12:29 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

If you would take notice, the right is doing much more screaming these days,

No, there are equal amount of screaming going on both sides. The very fact you think this, says a lot.

about issues like marriage, and homosexuality,

Which BOTH sides are screaming about. How many leftists have you heard label people homophobes, hate mongers, etc incorrectly because of this issue? I wont even go into the absurd Hitler references.

and the supposed left leaning slant in education,

And the screaming when anything even remotely religious get mentioned.

and the supposed liberal media, etc., etc. Again, if they're so securely in power, what are they afraid of?

And then there are times when the left project fear where there is none.

Just because you bring something up, doesn't mean there is fear involved.

No one claimed anyone was "securely in power" either. Another projection.

OldManMac · May 15, 2005, 11:52 AM

Ah yes, that old projection that you love so much.

Zimphire · May 15, 2005, 11:56 AM

Originally Posted by KarlG

Ah yes, that old projection that you love so much.

Karl by all means, debunk anything I just posted if you think I am incorrect.

If the shoe fits...

demograph68 · May 15, 2005, 12:26 PM

The movie will suck, I believe.

finboy · May 16, 2005, 12:26 PM

Originally Posted by Millennium

Incidentally, I suspect that the movie will be a lot better if you read the novelization first. There's a lot of introspection in the novelization which I don't think the movie is going to be able to express well.

I agree. I especially liked the vignettes in the book where the author described "This is what it's like to be Anakin Skywalker, right now" etc.

I think the novel explains how the dark side took over better than we'll be able to see on screen (the corruption of Mace Windu, for instance). In any case, it's worth a read for fans.

olePigeon · May 16, 2005, 05:24 PM

You think Luke's hand will turn up in a bowl of chili some day?

budster101 · May 16, 2005, 05:33 PM

They lost me after Episode IV. Everything else sucked... and as Lucas got his hands on more technology he made the good movies even worse with his edits. I won't give him another penny of my money. He's turned into a freak. I wonder if there'll be any cute creatures he can make into toys and capitalize on the after-movie market...

As far as parallels go with the movie and Bush. I don't care, it's just another minor reason not to go see his droll actors walk through their lines and depend on special effects. I'm reminded of Jaws, and the following sequels that were more and more nauseating, in another attempt to capitalize on a fluke first movie. Read the book sometime, it's really very good. (Jaws - Peter Benchly)

Person Man · May 19, 2005, 12:07 PM

Originally Posted by olePigeon

You think Luke's hand will turn up in a bowl of chili some day?

Yes, it will show up in a bowl of chili at Dexxter Jetster's diner.

typoon · May 19, 2005, 12:21 PM

I saw this movie lastnight and I thought it was pretty good. It was on par if not better than the original 3. As for parallels to what is going on in Iraq or the current administration I think is just coincedental.

Millennium · May 19, 2005, 12:39 PM

Originally Posted by typoon

I saw this movie lastnight and I thought it was pretty good. It was on par if not better than the original 3. As for parallels to what is going on in Iraq or the current administration I think is just coincedental.

I'm inclined to agree. The parallels are pretty easy to spot, but they're too subtle for Lucas. If they mentioned neoconservatism or "ancient Terran politicians", or if the Clone Wars were being fought over whatever it is they use to power their stuff, then I'd say it was deliberate, but Lucas just isn't good enough to do the kind of subtlety that these parallels run.

That leaves coincidence as the only explanation, really.

AB^2=BCxAC · May 19, 2005, 01:15 PM

My opinion is that Lucas has already indicated he's liberal in politics (he's taken the Reagan Gov't to court over the use of the appropriation of the term "Star Wars" and he lost). He's also a bit of a renegade who's had much to say in his movies (not just the trilogies) about the ugliness of trade monopolies, un-unionized labor, corporate greed, xenophobia, racism, sexism,etc.

Conservatives have a lot to dislike about Lucas. Neo-cons, especially those of the constructionist ilk would never get along with him.

If they feel conflicted about an attraction to Star Wars movies, or nostalgia for Star Wars movies, or they've come to hate Star Wars movies... They can. It's still a free country.

budster101 · May 19, 2005, 01:36 PM

I just don't like what he has done to them. The story is replaced by puppet actors who give droll performances and he relies on the special effects department and children to buy up his stupid dolls, and extra-movie items. It's pathetic. Jar-Jar-Binks anyone? Nothing about politics here, but if there were, it only makes his movies less apealing to me.

Secret__Police · May 20, 2005, 08:09 AM

Those guys are nuts.
It's just a movie.

thunderous_funker · May 20, 2005, 07:10 PM

Originally Posted by KarlG

That doesn't answer the question as to why they would need to rally; theirs is the party in power.

If you would take notice, the right is doing much more screaming these days, about issues like marriage, and homosexuality, and the supposed left leaning slant in education, and the supposed liberal media, etc., etc. Again, if they're so securely in power, what are they afraid of?

Because the current conservative coalition is based entirely on victimization politics to counter-act the identity politics of 60s liberals.

The quickest way to energize the base is to make them believe they're under attack. That is why millionaire evangelists and incumbent senators continue to play the victim card whenever necessary.