• dual_sport_dork 🐧🗡️@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      9
      ·
      2 days ago

      Which is indeed why the Imperial officers all wore Hugo Boss nazi uniforms.

      George Lucas did also say at one point that he based the red and green laser fire of the Imperial and Rebel forces on the tracers being fired by the US and Viet Cong, which was an iconic bit of imagery that was widely televised. Also:

      However, when Lucas sat down with director James Cameron in 2018, he revealed how the Empire was also meant to resemble America — particularly the way it prosecuted the Vietnam War. Cameron pointed out how the Rebels are a small group using asymmetric warfare against a highly organized Empire. Today, Cameron added, the Rebels would be called terrorists. “When I did it,” Lucas replied, “they were Viet Cong.”

      In other words, Lucas viewed the Vietnamese as the rebels and America as the invading villains. He further explained that Star Wars was a “vessel” in which to place his worldview that the United States had become an empire during the Vietnam War, doomed to fail like every empire before it. Cameron noted how those views carried over into the Star Wars prequel trilogy, especially in Padmé’s line, “This is how liberty dies, with thunderous applause.” Lucas replied, “We’re in the middle of it right now,” referring to the country’s political state.

      (Via.)

  • MisterFrog@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    7
    ·
    2 days ago

    People who consume sci-fi and fantasy thinking there should be no politics, don’t understand the genre at all.

    Can we really point to a single instance of a good sci-fi/fantasy that doesn’t touch on politics/societal commentary at all?

    I doubt it.

  • ZILtoid1991@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    13
    ·
    3 days ago

    Besides of the “Wars”, it also has a lot of explicit politics, it’s just the Intergalactic Empire isn’t being controlled by the National Socialist Sith Party.

    • Bio bronk@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      2
      ·
      2 days ago

      Yeah who tf is still scrolling that shit unless they’re thumbs can’t unclick the dumbass X icon on their phone

    • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      arrow-down
      94
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      (Edit: Clearly I fucked up my phrasing lol. Bolded sections below are what I’ve added to try to more coherently explain.)

      “Political” is one of those words you want to be careful of, because it’s been very carefully designed and redefined to serve a very particular purpose.

      According to a certain segment of people who have redefined “political” and who I do not agree with, booing Taylor Swift because of her politics is not “political.” Kid Rock opening his concert having a livestream with Trump isn’t “political.” Nascar taking a few minutes to honor a little group of police officers standing on a little stage and having everyone stand up and clap isn’t “political.”

      But according to that segment of people who I do not agree with, some other things are “political.” You know the ones.

      What I would say about it is: Be careful with redefined words. It’s worth the extra effort to refuse to go along with the redefinition. Star Wars is not political. It’s just an epic story of fighting against injustice. It is “political,” by the wrong new definition that word has been given, though, and always has been. There’s a huge difference and the difference is worth examining.

      (Edit: I have not much belief that editing to clarify will make much of a difference. But, it was legit confusing the way I wrote it at first, so at least I can attempt to fix it going forward.)

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          13
          arrow-down
          30
          ·
          4 days ago

          I think I was too abstract about it to properly make sense.

          So: People have started using “political” to mean for example some movie star saying that Israel shouldn’t be killing all those people, or NFL players kneeling, or movies having queer people in them sometimes. Those are the “other things” that I was saying that are being defined as “political.” When “political” is used to criticize this stuff, it basically means that they are demanding that no other people in the world have opinions about it or speak out about them, unless they’re agreeing with the baseline that is defined as “not political.” The genders for video game character are “male” and “political,” the races for a sitcom character are “white” and “political,” the politics for a football player are “Republican” and “political.” And so on.

          It is true that those same people never define it as “political” when someone is having opinions (usually much more explicitly and tribally political) that agree with their own. It’s only “political” when it’s against their opinions, and even if the “political” content is in some totally apolitical way, which is why they’re all of a sudden freaking out about Star Wars and Sesame Street. That was sort of what I was alluding to, I guess a little unclearly, in the first part.

          But I’m not even talking about that too much. I’m saying that in addition to being aware of that discrepancy, we shouldn’t even be buying into that redefinition of the word. If Star Wars had someone come out and say that you should make sure to vote for the Democrats because they have more sensible fiscal policy, that would be political. If Tim Tebow put a big Obama sticker on his helmet, that would be political. Both of those would actually be fine (and happen all the time in the other direction, and pretty rarely in the anti-Republican direction), but in any case, the expansion of “political” to mean that any type of worldview which happens to make some politicians look bad or disagree with them is automatically “political” is what I was objecting to, in this case applied to Star Wars. It’s just a story about good guys and bad guys. You don’t have to be political to dislike Nixon or use him as a template internally for an evil character or something. It’s just good sense, Nixon was a piece of shit. He was a bad guy. If you dislike him because he’s a Republican, that’s political.

        • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          3 days ago

          The prequels? The prequels had some political content, yes. Probably not any “political” content, that is limited to the more recent movies only.

  • Lovable Sidekick@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    41
    ·
    edit-2
    3 days ago

    Close to kind of getting it - Lucas has compared the empire in Star Wars to both the American empire during the Vietnam War, and the British empire during the American Revolution.

  • guywithoutaname@lemm.ee
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    52
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Really there’s nothing that’s not political in some way. Politics is the expression of human wills and desires and people tend to say something is political when they disagree.

    • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      29
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      “Keep politics out of ____” is just “I don’t want to ever assess my ethics with a critical lens.”

      • grrgyle@slrpnk.net
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        11
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        4 days ago

        Yuppp. It’s basically like admitting you like the present ideology, and just don’t want to think about how life could be better.

      • PhilipTheBucket@ponder.cat
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        2
        arrow-down
        1
        ·
        3 days ago

        This is the perfect way to say it.

        “Ethics” is the word I was looking for, for what people are now calling “politics.” It’s why people don’t like Star Wars, Sesame Street, or Mr. Rogers: Because they are ethical.

        • LandedGentry@lemmy.zip
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          1
          ·
          edit-2
          3 days ago

          Exactly. How could we possibly divorce our values from our politics? As far as society goes, it is the ultimate expression of our values.

    • Belgdore@lemm.ee
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      25
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Literally. Politics is all about the power dynamics between people. If there are two or more people there will always be a power dynamic even if the two are on good terms and do not exert power over each other.

      It’s like how you can always describe the color in any given painting, even when the painting is monochromatic.

    • modeler@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      15
      ·
      4 days ago

      Woah there, that’s leftist woke propaganda, talking about human wills and desires. I was brought up apolitical so I’m sensitive to these things - I can only vote for the Republicans because every other party is just too political.

      /s

  • andros_rex@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    31
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    edit-2
    4 days ago

    I wonder why BioWare was pressured to cut out so much of Juhani’s content in KOTOR. I don’t think that was a BioWare decision - Jade Empire and Mass Effect both had lesbians. I’m not really willing to give George Lucas rainbow a lot of rainbow points.

    If Finn and Poe’s chemistry had been allowed to blossom naturally, I think the sequels would have been much better. The attempted “theme” of “it doesn’t matter where you come from, you can shape your own destiny” just would be so much better if the story had been about Finn’s growth and reconciliation with his past work for the First Order. Then you don’t have Rose (and the subsequent ridiculous internet harassment that poor actress received) and the aborted character/subplot.

    You can even do Palpatine returning, just have it be more like the Thrawn clone shit. Less Jedi stuff, more people stuff. You’re even copying the structure of the original trilogy that way - Rey is off doing her Jedi training stuff, while Poe and Finn are on related adventures that lead them to growing closer and closer.

    Like I’m 99% sure the actors for both characters have even said that they agreed with the fact that those characters were needing each other.

    • chaogomu@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      8
      ·
      3 days ago

      I’m not denying that Finn and Poe had an interesting chemistry, I just think that Poe should have stayed dead.

      The lingering question of what could have been would have been a way to deepen Finn’s character.

      And if you want to keep the actor, well. When Poe comes in to land after rescuing Finn and the group, his first words to Poe are “why are you wearing my brother’s coat?”

      And now you have another interesting character dynamic to explore.

      • DragonTypeWyvern@midwest.social
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        9
        ·
        edit-2
        3 days ago

        The author of the novelization confirmed it was originally supposed to be Rey and Finn, but I think everyone can agree that FinnxPoe and ReyxKickingKyloInTheBalls is what should have happened.

        Personally I think ReyxFinnxPoe was a pretty natural evolution but Disney would never have had the balls for it.

  • Blackmist@feddit.uk
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    64
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Political: the act of making people feel bad about their dumb choices and opinions

  • ArgumentativeMonotheist@lemmy.world
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    60
    arrow-down
    1
    ·
    4 days ago

    Every so often I wonder how people could be so stupid and/or heartless to bring the world to where it is today and then I see an American tweet something outstandingly silly/inmoral and I remember, lol.

    Also, Americans use the word “political” to mean ethical nowadays. And whenever they recoil because you said something like “hey, wars for profit are wrong” or “gay people shouldn’t be killed just because they’re gay” and ask you to stop being ‘political’, they’re just admitting they don’t stand for anything, no self-restraining rules nor lofty ideals. This is why the Nazis could also go as far as they went: “just follow the leader and I too will succeed, I don’t believe or stand for anything except what has been told to me and I’m a good boy for following”. They want/got the bag, and fuck you, basically.

    • theparadox@lemmy.world
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      23
      ·
      edit-2
      4 days ago

      Also, Americans use the word “political” to mean ethical nowadays.

      A certain segment of our population has been told to equate words like “political” and “woke” with “That person is saying or doing something that might influence someone about something I’ve been told to disagree with”.

      It’s incredibly horrifying how quickly this same segment of the population has been conditioned to view the rest as “weak, sensitive, entitled weirdos who can’t handle even the slightest criticism without seeing it as a existential threat” while simultaneously being conditioned to throw a tantrum when anyone takes an action to support something they’ve been told they should disagree with.

    • GooberEar@lemmy.wtf
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      11
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 days ago

      Every so often I wonder how people could be so stupid

      Most of the world’s large predators are extinct or on the verge of extinction. Interpret that how you want.

        • barsoap@lemm.ee
          link
          fedilink
          English
          arrow-up
          3
          ·
          3 days ago

          That might be because it’s right: War is an instrument of politics just as taxation, law enforcement, welfare, or diplomacy. They are each employed to achieve political goals.

          To a politician that should sound darn obvious because political goals is all they think about, it’s the generals and soldiers that need to be reminded of it because it influences the way war is fought, can be fought. As an example, in that rough section of the book (it’s been a while) Clausewitz goes on to explain how total war is impossible: For a people to have the will to fight they have to fight for something, and if there’s nothing to fight for, no civil life, no tradition, no nothing, only war, there is no will, any more. If fascists would read and understand him they’d realise why their politics, “war for war’s sake”, are inherently self-destructive. Difference between Stauffenberg and say Goering.