It is currently October 19th 2019 9:28 am




  Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next
Post Posted: May 19th 2005 2:55 pm
 

Join: May 18th 2005 12:44 pm
Posts: 32
http://cdn.moveonpac.org/content/pdfs/s ... public.pdf

Over the top much?


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 3:03 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 14th 2005 1:38 pm
Posts: 65
Location: Virginia
In one of the interviews/articles I read recently Lucas said he based this on several historical periods where a democracy handed over power to a dictator - Nazi Germany, Rome and one other were mentioned specifically with others hinted at. I probably read that here somewhere ...

Anyway, I think people that see this movie as an attack on Bush either see Bush as being a power-hungry dictator-wanna be anyway and are apt to blame everything that's wrong with America on him personally, or else just want to jump on the anti-Star Wars bandwagon. This is the new, hip way to bash the movies. Since this one is appearing to be very popular compared to the last two, rather than bash it directly like they can try to rip into Lucas for making it political.

I'm no fan of Bush or his policies (putting it mildly), but I don't see anything in this movie that's a direct attack on him. Are there parallels with what's happening now to historical events in the past? <Bugs Bunny Voice>MMMmmm... Could be</Bugs Bunny Voice>. If so, then it's just coincidental timing IMO.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 3:21 pm
 
User avatar

Join: November 20th 2004 1:28 pm
Posts: 29
Location: Hamburg
Qui-Gon Kim wrote:
Quote:
And Ian McDiarmid recently highlighted the parallel between the character he portrays and George W Bush. Maybe he's 'fucking retarded' too, but he is one retard whose take on the story influences the movie.


Actually, McDiarmid downplayed the Bush comparison, and said that Sideous resembled Slobodan Milosevic.


Really? Milosevic?

From the Times: ''Certainly for McDiarmid, the templates are classical — “biblical, Shakespearean, Wagnerian, even”. But, while the optimistic Star Wars found success by jarring with the despondent, post-Watergate mood of the late 1970s, Episode III is, he believes, in tune with the state of Bush’s America. “George (Lucas, that is) would never push this, and he’d be mad to, but at this point in the saga, the republic becomes an empire. I don ’t need to say any more than that.”'' (emphasis mine)

Anyway, to repeat, the movie isn't an allegory, Palpatine sure as fuck doesn't '= Bush', but some of the themes, names, and dialogue are there for a reason, like it or not. I like it. ;) :heavymetal:


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 3:52 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 16th 2005 4:53 pm
Posts: 33
I think this proves Lucas has met his goal of writing a new myth/fable.

One of the characteristics of such a piece is that it is universal among all cultures and also that it is timeless.

The fact that we can see the story applying to the US today, Nazi Germany, 1800s France, Roman times, perhaps early Communist China means George has written an effective story.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 3:53 pm
 

Join: July 27th 2004 6:00 pm
Posts: 39
http://u.dailynews.com/Stories/0,1413,2 ... 53,00.html

Quote:
In wit, he points to the line, "If you are not with us, then you're my enemy," which Anakin (Hayden Christensen) says to Obi-Wan (Ewan McGregor). "Once again, an artist has taken a line we know very well and slightly given it a new emphasis," says McDiarmid, noting that similar phrases have been said by tyrants such as former Yugoslav President Slobodan Milosevic.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 5:09 pm
 

Join: February 23rd 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 34
Christ didn't really write anything. The New Testament was written by some of the apostles after the fact (There's some discussion about which apostles - the actual twelve, or students thereof - and of how long after the fact - anywhere between three decades and ten). But Jesus never put pen to paper where the Bible was concerned.

I've seen the film now, of course, and I'll tell you the truth: This political metaphor everyone seems to be afraid of? I can't see it, not in the movie. I realize that the novels are different animals than the film medium, but there was simply nothing there that set off my "politically-offensive meter," so to speak.

I have said before that I don't believe the Lucas folks were trying to offend me, and that I'n not offended. I stand by that now, with even more firmness, now that I've seen the film.

I realize that my perception may have been dominated by thoughts of "Oh my God, this movie is so fucking cool," and I accept that. But I still feel, both for the sake of being truthful and for the peace of this website, that this whole issue has been proven to be a tempest in a teapot. Let's let it go, all of us, including myself.

I only know one thing. That first breath Vader takes though the mask? Better than sex.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 5:46 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 6th 2005 5:55 pm
Posts: 12
The only thing I find stupid and frightening about those lines is that society is in such a state that we're even HAVING a debate about the similarities of what happened in the movies to what's happening in the real world at the moment.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 6:34 pm
 
User avatar

Join: March 31st 2005 12:36 am
Posts: 25
Went with another $$$ donating, grass roots working, conservative (not Neo Cons or Bushies thank you) & saw EIII twice today. Really didn't find much that rubbed the wrong way, unless you do some serious reading in. Maybe some of Padme's lines, but I just wanted to see her get smacked around by Ani anyway.

Now...if they had left in the line that is in the book and CD set about "It's morning in the republic" (or was it Empire, will have to check) we might have been closer to irate. Don't fuck with Ron.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 6:57 pm
 

Join: April 28th 2005 8:11 pm
Posts: 9
EVIL IS EVERYWHERE.

The most important three words if you are politically interpretting anything from the prequels.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 8:51 pm
 

Join: February 14th 2005 5:39 pm
Posts: 32
Ok! Me first! bye!


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 9:25 pm
 
User avatar

Join: May 18th 2005 7:29 pm
Posts: 2
Location: Boston Mass baby
... It's a movie, it's not real life.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 9:34 pm
 

Join: October 29th 2004 2:17 pm
Posts: 16
Location: Texas
While I was watching ROTS last night I realized that you could very easily turn the movie into a diatribe against Liberals! Anakin only wants to have a traditional family, composed of a man, a woman, and children. The Jedi stand in the way of that. You could make the argument that the ultra-liberal Jedi are partly responsible for his fall. (I don't really believe this, I'm just saying. You could make this argument equally.)

None of the whiny conservative reviewers have talked about this because they're just not trying hard enough. Instead they're too touchy and oversensitive.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 9:42 pm
 

Join: March 6th 2005 8:05 pm
Posts: 31
Long before Georges Lucas and Bush, Ben Franklin said that "Anyone who would give up a little freedom for a little security deserves neither." That's all ROTS is saying.

Isn't saying "You're either with me, or my enemy" a completely ridiculous, myopic, childish thing to say? Yes, even if Bush, or John Kerry, or any other douchefuck said it?

Isn't it true that democracy after democracy has been handed away by the people in times of crisis, only to be taken by bad, bad men? Why do Republicans think this applies to them? I don't get it.

When I see a pansy ass granola crunching hippie in a movie, I don't say, "Hey, you're making fun of Democrats!" Because I would like to think I am not a granola crunching hippie. So if the Republicans aren't doing anything like in the movie, and the movie is just showing the truth (which is that if these things WERE happening, it would be bad, which we can all agree with), then what is the stink about?


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 9:45 pm
 

Join: September 6th 2004 7:03 pm
Posts: 41
I also thought concervatives were against cloning. :D


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 10:04 pm
 

Join: April 27th 2005 2:55 pm
Posts: 45
Probably been said already, but it's sad when "hardcore" members of a political party have nothing better to do with their time than nitpick and nay-say.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:06 pm
 

Join: February 23rd 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 34
Dear Mr. InsertPun,

As the somebody you're referring to, perhaps I might offer a sincere but good-natured answer. I'm not going to touch anymore on the immediate issue of ROTS' politics, since I've said my piece on that. I'd like to get more general, and at the same time more personal, if you'll permit me...

First, I don't believe that Lucas, assuming your proposal is the case, is the only one with the balls to say what you feel he's saying. There have actually been a good-sized line-up of people, some with a great talent for doing what they do and using it to help them say "it." For instance, Michael Moore gets over-mentioned, but he's a talented man and he did a good job with his work, whatever my feelings on what he had to say. There's really no shortage of people who say that current events are not to their liking. At least half of the people on this thread say that, and I don't feel any of them needs to screw up their courage to do so; they type with the assurance that no one's going knock on their door late in the night to ask about it.

Second, I am sure that most of us understand very well that a major plot arc of the saga is about the decline and fall of freedom due to fear, neglect and apathy, the rise of a tyranny under the guise of national security and the higher expediency, and the struggle to restore that freedom waged by determined and resolute beings. Trust me, I.P., I get it. I made in-depth studies of Hitler and Stalin, to cite just two examples, partly because I saw Star Wars at the right age to learn some lessons and get caught up in the subject. My interest in history owes a great deal to what Lucas has said and is still saying. Hell, the character I've been most interested in all this is Palpatine!

Also, I feel that what defines a classic is whether or not it lasts beyond the interests of the audience it is contemporary with. A creation that fails to outlast that specific audience is called "dated," and more often than not dies, resurrected only for the purposes of nostalgia. But, in the event that I missed the point you wwere trying to make, let me take a different tack now:

What you may be referring to is what Tolkien referred to as the difference between applicability and allegory. He hated allegory, but liked applicability because, he said, "the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author." If anyone reads Bush, 9/11, the Iraq War or any other current into anything, let alone Star Wars, that may simply be because they find it applicable to the film. But it is not because anyone is outright suggesting we do so within the film itself. Lucas may say this is what he meant in interviews, but the film itself does not; if it did, if it was too far on the nose, it would not survive the current generation, as I have said above. It would not be a classic. It would become boring, and unapplicable, not long after the current events I listed above become no longer current.

At some point these events will end, to be replaced by others. One way or another, Iraq will cease to be a current event, and so will Bush, the war on terror, and anything else whe are familiar with today. They will be superceded by events and names we can scarcely guess at now. When that happens, Star Wars will still be a classic, not because of what it says to us alone, but because of what all generations can find in it for themselves.

That, by the way, was what I believe Lucas was doing before anything else: dusting off the old classic myths and find a way that they applied to him, and moreso, to us: the generation that was raised on Star Wars. And it will impart those lessons to the next, and the next, or else something else will do the same when the time is right (some say the Matrix series tried the same thing). In the end, that matters more to me than any ever-so-brief political issue.

Hope I helped entertain you, at least, I.P.

Best regards! :)


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:27 pm
 

Join: January 25th 2005 2:21 am
Posts: 28
Connecting Revenge of the Sith to current political events is asinine considering the backstory was planned almost thirty years ago. A few words may have been taken from today, but how the Emperor got power and how the Jedi lost it was determined by Lucas long ago.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:28 pm
 

Join: February 23rd 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 34
Really? The gayest thread you've ever seen here? :roll:

I'd like to see the raw data on that.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:37 pm
 

Join: January 25th 2005 2:21 am
Posts: 28
If anything, reality is coincidentally resembling Lucas' back story.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:40 pm
 

Join: April 29th 2005 4:12 am
Posts: 2
some desert guy nuking the empire of evil? lucas must a been way ahead of his time and maybe frank herbert too---


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:43 pm
 

Join: April 29th 2005 4:12 am
Posts: 2
"You're with me or you're against me"

mel brooks anyone?

PRO!
CONTRA!

damn, maybe i got it all wrong from the non-english version


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:44 pm
 

Join: April 24th 1981 6:59 pm
Posts: 539
Location: San Diego
Both my g/f and I agreed that there was nothing alluding to or comparing Palpatine to Bush in this film. I don't even think there was a jab at Bush...I don't know...even if a couple of those so called jabs were in there they certainly didn't bother me. The way some reviewers were talking about it, it seemed like the film was a damnation of Bush but that was certainly not the case.


Post Posted: May 19th 2005 11:53 pm
 

Join: January 25th 2005 2:21 am
Posts: 28
People will find a way to compare a banana to politics if it serves their purpose.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 12:40 am
 

Join: January 13th 2005 10:30 pm
Posts: 6
Sen-Set wrote:
People will find a way to compare a banana to politics if it serves their purpose.


...and only in america.

No one outside of there could have made this ridiculous connection..


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 12:44 am
 
User avatar

Join: April 5th 2005 1:43 am
Posts: 24
Location: Tavares, Florida
The thing that annoys me more than anything when people like us discuss politics in a messageboard is the fucking labeling. Like "right-wing religious fanatic" or "tree-hugging liberal". Its just so fucking not right. Nobody wants a label slapped on their forehead. Just because my voter i.d. card says Republican doesn't make me a religious fanatic, or a goose-stepping Bush follower. Just like my ex-wife isn't a baby-killer for being a Democrat. And its all the media's fault.

So Lucas made a movie that rattles Conservatives because maybe it hits a little close to home. Doesn't bother me a bit. And thats because I make up my own mind instead of letting someone else make it for me. I made a comment on my blog some months ago about how I totally disagree with the Patriot Act. Does that make me unpatriotic? Thought-provoking to say the least. So lets not put a label on anyone, please. Just the fact that we're all here in this discussion places us above the labels.

With that, I'm crawling out of my skin as I wait to see ROTS, for I have to wait till Friday night at a charity screening. Already bought my ticket.

:chewbacca:


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 3:07 am
 

Join: April 27th 2005 2:55 pm
Posts: 45
swjkie100 wrote:
......With that, I'm crawling out of my skin as I wait to see ROTS, for I have to wait till Friday night at a charity screening. Already bought my ticket. :chewbacca:


The wait will be worth it.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 5:24 pm
 
User avatar

Join: February 8th 2005 7:42 am
Posts: 82
Location: The British Empire
I saw the film for a second time today and the political implications had more of an effect on me. I consider myself to be a Neo-Con and support most the toughening of civil liberties to help create a safer society and I also support the 'aggressive' foreign policy of promoting freedom throughout the world. But what the film said to me personally is that everyone who does support this stuff should stand back once and a while and consider what they are doing. If we continue further down this path we will live in a much darker and tyrannical society than we do now. Also whose to say our brand of 'freedom' is totally superior to anything else? The film seemed to me to be a warning:

To Liberals - Watch out because if the right wing go over bored then terrible things can happen. And these things can spring from the best of intentions.

To Conservatives - Watch yourselves, never forget what you are trying to defend. And the end never ever justifies the means.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 6:14 pm
 
User avatar

Join: October 12th 2004 9:34 pm
Posts: 2549
Location: Toronto, Canada
I learned that I should chase my dreams.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 7:13 pm
 

Join: April 27th 2005 2:55 pm
Posts: 45
CoGro wrote:
I learned that I should chase my dreams.


Second.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 7:32 pm
 

Join: August 24th 2004 8:30 pm
Posts: 290
Location: The Empire State
Pax Britannia wrote:
But what the film said to me personally is that everyone who does support this stuff should stand back once and a while and consider what they are doing. If we continue further down this path we will live in a much darker and tyrannical society than we do now. Also whose to say our brand of 'freedom' is totally superior to anything else? The film seemed to me to be a warning:

To Liberals - Watch out because if the right wing go over bored then terrible things can happen. And these things can spring from the best of intentions.

To Conservatives - Watch yourselves, never forget what you are trying to defend. And the end never ever justifies the means.


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 7:42 pm
 

Join: April 27th 2005 2:55 pm
Posts: 45
JimDangle wrote:
I had a dream I was chasing my dream but I could never catch up to the me that was chasing the dream.

Anyone know what that means?


"Chase your dreams" means that you can do anything you want. For some reason, seeing space battles and drama between laser-sword touting warroirs reminds me of it.

On the other hand, if you put that first sentence to a guitar stanza, you could probably pull off an open mic night at a local coffee house.......


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 8:13 pm
 

Join: February 23rd 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 34
Quote:
that was sweet. you 2 should fuck now.


Well, I would, Jim, but you wouldn't want me to break off from you, would you?


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 8:44 pm
 

Join: August 6th 2004 6:29 am
Posts: 857
I didn't bother listening to this. Maybe it's a comedy piece.

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/stor ... Id=4658382


Post Posted: May 20th 2005 9:44 pm
 

Join: February 23rd 2005 8:26 pm
Posts: 34
I had a bit more dominant position in mind, but... touche'. :lol:


Post Posted: May 21st 2005 11:51 am
 

Join: November 6th 2004 11:17 pm
Posts: 34
Location: Louisiana
Pax Britannia wrote:
I saw the film for a second time today and the political implications had more of an effect on me. I consider myself to be a Neo-Con and support most the toughening of civil liberties to help create a safer society and I also support the 'aggressive' foreign policy of promoting freedom throughout the world. But what the film said to me personally is that everyone who does support this stuff should stand back once and a while and consider what they are doing. If we continue further down this path we will live in a much darker and tyrannical society than we do now. Also whose to say our brand of 'freedom' is totally superior to anything else? The film seemed to me to be a warning:

To Liberals - Watch out because if the right wing go over bored then terrible things can happen. And these things can spring from the best of intentions.

To Conservatives - Watch yourselves, never forget what you are trying to defend. And the end never ever justifies the means.


I commend you for opening your heart, Pax. It's conservatives like you I have MUCH respect for.

Anyway, I hope this IS a political commentary on the current administration. None of you know me but my friends and family know that I am a BITCH when it comes to things like this. I consider myself a liberal. And no, I don't believe everyone should be like me. If you use common sense, you will see that this current administration is manipulative and hypocritical. I DO NOT like George Bush. I DO NOT like Dick Cheney. I DO NOT like anyone in his administration (except for Colin Powell. GO COLIN!) If you are a Bush-supporter, that's fine. The issue is how you present that.

Anyway, like someone said, the only reason these right-wingers are mad is because they had the ugly truth about them reflected at them.


Post Posted: May 21st 2005 10:21 pm
 

Join: April 5th 2005 12:58 pm
Posts: 22
Amusing this all is because the reaction of these Republicans to the movie tells me more about them as individuals than it does about the movie.
They're probably feeling so sore about this movie because they know they're doing wrong -- they're extra sensitive about the undertones. If they really don't like the movies undertones, then perhaps they should look inward, and seek out why they feel that way. Those lines really are a small, small part of the movie. This is really the story of one Anakin Skywalker and his fall into hell. As Freewalker so accurately expressed, basically, if the movie expressed blatant Republican stances and such, there would be no argument from them. I think quite often, things bother us because they're true. I think this here is a case of that. These Republicans sound very defensive and sensitive. The themes that have come up in the SW movies are not new. They're as old as corruption.

Another thing that bothers me about this is the mentality among many conservatives that entertainers shouldn't express their political viewpoints.

Well, where do we stop then? Should singers express them? Teachers? Doctors? Lawyers? and on and on? And who's going to determine who should or shouldn't express their viewpoints? I thought in a democracy we have the right and freedom to express our views without political groups and others with power trying to stifle that freedom.

And another point, patriotism is not about blind obedience. Patriotism is not about being a sheep to those in power. True patriotism in America is believing in democracy, believing in America's constitution, the Bill of Rights, etc, etc. It's not stifling the voices of those who disagree with you. Sure, people have the right to boycott, to protest, but it's the mentality behind this recent example that's problematic. They don't want people expressing views in conflict with their own.

And again, I love how they hide behind the word patriotism. That word has been distorted, manipulated, twisted. Someone who truly loves America wants it to be better, to live up to its creed. The so-called Patriot Act (fancy name huh?) took AWAY some of our freedoms and rights. That's not very PATRIOTIC is it? But the politicians who voted for it didn't care. It was called the PATRIOT ACT. Must be patriotic! a very manipulative and deceitful name it was given, and very much intentional. Good for soundbites. you know the type, SO AND SO VOTED AGAINST THE PATRIOT ACT!! and the idiots out there would hear that and think, oh he's not a patriot, he voted against the PATRIOT ACT!!!


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 1:50 am
 
User avatar

Join: March 24th 2005 12:17 am
Posts: 216
[On Everything]

Meh.

Let's just all be fans of Star Wars, 'n not political pundits, mmmkay?

Politics can be so polarizing.


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 3:09 am
 
Site Admin • Ternian@hotmail.com
User avatar

Join: October 31st 2003 7:00 am
Posts: 1456
Hahahahah....I love Americans.

They create Hollywood but can't tell the difference between it and reality! :lol:


But, honestly, I gotta say...this isn't as good as the Jango/Latino debacle of EpII. ;)


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 8:17 am
 
User avatar

Join: February 8th 2005 7:42 am
Posts: 82
Location: The British Empire
cod doc wrote:
hey guys it is definitely cool to kill civilians and babies in some foreign iraqiafgantngatlaisanstjkls;ajlksdfajsdkl w/e some land w/ oil becos WE R DEFINATLY SPREADING LIBERTY EVERYWHERE!!!!!!

here's a ultra cool link that supports my totally right and patriotic opinion:

EVIL UGLY IRAQIS FUCKED UP LIKE THEY SHOULD BE HELL YEAH

dont bitch back at me u anti-government anti-peace anti-liberty anti-god liberals seriously. we r a democracy here that's why we gotta support bush and hey maybe even make another patriot act, totally. LOL they r freedoms we do not need anyway, we are AMERICA! fuck yeah whup their evil terrorists asses!! you all underestimate the power of our freedoms spreading


Is this guy joking?


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 9:14 am
 
User avatar

Join: November 20th 2004 1:28 pm
Posts: 29
Location: Hamburg
Ternian wrote:
Hahahahah....I love Americans.

They create Hollywood but can't tell the difference between it and reality! :lol:


But, honestly, I gotta say...this isn't as good as the Jango/Latino debacle of EpII. ;)


I know, those idiots George Lucas and Ian McDiarmid...someone needs to sit them down and explain to them that the new film has nothing in it with a political subtext relating to current events. Then maybe they'll stop suggesting the opposite in interviews.

Seriously, is Lucas supposed to have walked ass-backwards into naming villians and their home planets after Newt Gingrich and the Cato Institute? Or presenting the forces of commerce as a league of evil cowards? Was a discussion on 'security v. liberty' really etched in stone in his 30-year-old outline? Or having a confused and deceived Anakin equating dissent with treason? Is Vader's line about being 'with me or my enemy' really so necessary that Lucas risked the completely natural comparison to the most presently well-known use of the phrase? Jesus.


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 12:58 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 24th 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Hell
im just waiting for Bush to declare the first galactic empire sids style after he sees the movie.


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 7:37 pm
 

Join: May 17th 2005 10:23 pm
Posts: 2
The left wing is not totally absolved from any sort of crticism. Remember, the left wing wants control of our lives just as much as the right wing... This is why I love star wars... If you look closely enough, you can see parallels drawn to both sides of the political spectrum in the united states.

ULTra Con ideals:

Erosion of civil liberties in the name of security.
manufactured wars to boost military spending support.
support of monopolistic business practices.
Hypocracy
favoritism in government contracts.

LiberaL MAchine Ideals:

Big government
Unlawful Taxation
disregard for life...(clones anyone?)
Overspending( i know the conservative congress and administration have been guilty of this too, but this is a classically liberal trait...)


Post Posted: May 22nd 2005 9:06 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 9:15 am
Posts: 29
The taxation issue is a jab at the Right Wing, not the Left. The Trade Federation and Banking Guild are government-granted monopolies that represent "evil" big businesses that don’t pay their "fair share" of taxes. This occured/occurs under Republican leadership.

As for disregard for human life, Lucas created battle droids and made the clones turn evil so that very little decent human/humanoid life is actually expended in the films besides the Jedi.


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 12:27 am
 

Join: October 19th 2004 11:50 am
Posts: 21
GunsBlazing wrote:
If anything, the Sith sound like bloody muslims. Seriously, twice this week have I heard muslims say they will bring 'peace' to the galaxy...pardon, world if only those pesky non-muslims would lay down and play dead or at least submit to their muslim overlords. They weren't ashamed to say some people would have to be killed and oppressed first. And they were not even terrorists, one was a 'spiritual' leader and the other a professor. What I find kind of funny is that Lucas makes Obi-Wan tell Anakin that only the Sith deal in absolutes when all this time the major relativist has been Palpatine and the Jedi were the ones spouting dogmatic drivel. Obi-Wan's shouting how he's on the side of democracy just like Bush has been doing. I think we see what we want to see. You'd have to be a flaming commie to think the US resembles anything like a totalitarian state. You want to see people controlled by their governments check out socialist Europe. Check out the Middle-East. People putting swastika's on top of the American flag have simply no idea what they're talking about, it's the most disgusting display of ignorance I've ever seen. If you live in America, God bless you. Everybody wants to live in America. If it wasn't for the freedom people enjoy in the States you would never have been able to see Star Wars or any of those cool movies. How many cool movies come out of Europ
e every year? German bukkake doesn't count.


you ignorant, fuckin shit!

learn to think before you apout shit...i just thought you should know....


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 4:58 pm
 

Join: May 22nd 2005 7:34 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Chicago
I'm a Republican (not a very religious one, but oh well) and I don't agree with the Palpatine is Bush assessment. I'm not gonna get too much into this (I'm burned out on politics) but I think that its disgusting that a guy that asked for a crusade of freedom in his inauguration address is called Palpatine...Just my .02 cents.


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 5:48 pm
 

Join: January 23rd 2005 9:15 am
Posts: 29
Comparisons to Bush could certainly be made, but Lucas had Reagan in mind when fleshing out the character of Palpatine. I'll quote some obeservations from American Pop Culture Magazine when The Phantom Menace was relaeased:

"Many mistakenly labeled Reagan as a bad actor, when in fact the opposite was true. Though he cut programs for the poor, for students, for the environment, he always projected a kindly grandfather facade, appearing as a nice man who seemed to care for our collective welfare. Senator Palpatine also has these two sides to him, especially in his relation to Queen Amidala. On the one hand, he acts like a concerned father, smiling, warm, caring, but at the same time he is the hidden cause behind her concern, for it is he who secretly pulls the Trade Federation's strings, giving the order for them to take over her planet.

The relationship between Palpatine and the Trade Federation closely resembles Reagan's relationship with Iran. While Palpatine outwardly condemns the Federation, especially in how they take the Naboo hostage, he secretly collaborates with his supposed enemy, using them to advance his own power by accusing the current chancellor of being too weak, too tied up in bureaucratic procedures to take action. In the same way, President Reagan gained substantial support by criticizing how his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, handled the crisis with Iran, calling his political rival to task for being too weak, especially in the way he responded to the hostage issue. At the same time, Reagan, like Palpatine, would soon secretly collaborate with his outward enemy, by selling weapons to the Iranians in order to use the profits to advance his own political agenda without the knowledge or approval of the Senate.

In fact, the whole conservative agenda that Reagan set in place is reflected in Palpatine's political stance. First, he gets the Trade Federation riled up over having to pay high taxes, an issue that has been the cornerstone of almost every Republican campaign. To make this connection even more blatant, the head of the Trade Federation is named Nute Gunray, which sounds very similar to Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker who rose to power on anti-tax campaigns. The related conservative concern is their belief that the government is too big, resulting in an unnecessary bureaucracy where nothing gets done. When Palpatine makes statements like "our best choice would be to push for the election of a new supreme chancellor-one who can take control of the bureaucrats, enforce the laws, and give us justice," he clearly sounds like Reagan in his 1980 campaign. Of course, despite all of Reagan's complaints about taxes and about government spending, he ended up being guilty of both, increasing taxes and spending more than all his predecessors combined, mostly on a massive military build up. With the memory of the millions of storm troopers, battleships and planet-wrecking stations of the original Star Wars in the back of our mind, we know that Palpatine will soon do the same."

By the way... if you happen to be a conservative who has a problem with this comparison, please do not forget... it was the conservatives that foolhardily connected their Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) to Lucas' films in the first place. Lucas is simply fighting back.


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 5:51 pm
 
User avatar

Join: April 24th 2005 8:06 pm
Posts: 185
Location: Hell
a Sith Lord with alzheimer's would be a funny thing...


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 6:08 pm
 

Join: May 22nd 2005 7:34 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Chicago
Lord Vader...fetch me my pills...


Post Posted: May 23rd 2005 6:50 pm
 

Join: May 22nd 2005 7:34 pm
Posts: 25
Location: Chicago
True. I hate it when politics and Star Wars mix.


Post Posted: May 24th 2005 6:14 am
 
User avatar

Join: November 20th 2004 1:28 pm
Posts: 29
Location: Hamburg
jojoba wrote:
Comparisons to Bush could certainly be made, but Lucas had Reagan in mind when fleshing out the character of Palpatine. I'll quote some obeservations from American Pop Culture Magazine when The Phantom Menace was relaeased:

"Many mistakenly labeled Reagan as a bad actor, when in fact the opposite was true. Though he cut programs for the poor, for students, for the environment, he always projected a kindly grandfather facade, appearing as a nice man who seemed to care for our collective welfare. Senator Palpatine also has these two sides to him, especially in his relation to Queen Amidala. On the one hand, he acts like a concerned father, smiling, warm, caring, but at the same time he is the hidden cause behind her concern, for it is he who secretly pulls the Trade Federation's strings, giving the order for them to take over her planet.

The relationship between Palpatine and the Trade Federation closely resembles Reagan's relationship with Iran. While Palpatine outwardly condemns the Federation, especially in how they take the Naboo hostage, he secretly collaborates with his supposed enemy, using them to advance his own power by accusing the current chancellor of being too weak, too tied up in bureaucratic procedures to take action. In the same way, President Reagan gained substantial support by criticizing how his predecessor, Jimmy Carter, handled the crisis with Iran, calling his political rival to task for being too weak, especially in the way he responded to the hostage issue. At the same time, Reagan, like Palpatine, would soon secretly collaborate with his outward enemy, by selling weapons to the Iranians in order to use the profits to advance his own political agenda without the knowledge or approval of the Senate.

In fact, the whole conservative agenda that Reagan set in place is reflected in Palpatine's political stance. First, he gets the Trade Federation riled up over having to pay high taxes, an issue that has been the cornerstone of almost every Republican campaign. To make this connection even more blatant, the head of the Trade Federation is named Nute Gunray, which sounds very similar to Newt Gingrich, the House Speaker who rose to power on anti-tax campaigns. The related conservative concern is their belief that the government is too big, resulting in an unnecessary bureaucracy where nothing gets done. When Palpatine makes statements like "our best choice would be to push for the election of a new supreme chancellor-one who can take control of the bureaucrats, enforce the laws, and give us justice," he clearly sounds like Reagan in his 1980 campaign. Of course, despite all of Reagan's complaints about taxes and about government spending, he ended up being guilty of both, increasing taxes and spending more than all his predecessors combined, mostly on a massive military build up. With the memory of the millions of storm troopers, battleships and planet-wrecking stations of the original Star Wars in the back of our mind, we know that Palpatine will soon do the same."

By the way... if you happen to be a conservative who has a problem with this comparison, please do not forget... it was the conservatives that foolhardily connected their Strategic Defense Initiative (aka Star Wars) to Lucas' films in the first place. Lucas is simply fighting back.


That article has nothing to do with what Lucas had in mind when he created Palpatine. You could come up with completely subjective comparisons between Palpatine and any politician you don't like. Lucas has never said anything to this effect.


Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
  Page Previous  1, 2, 3  Next



Jump to:  




millenniumfalcon.com©
phpBB©