You must log in or register to comment.
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.
I’m waiting for someone to say that Babylon 5 never got “political”
Star Wars is about the battle against fascism.
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.)
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.
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.
That second one doesn’t make sense unless Leia owned a ton of slaves
lolwut?
Inserted a comma in case it was confusing.
i think they said the second one doesn’t make sense unless princess Leia owned a ton of slaves.
War is politics
“Noooo, war in entertainment media should be good guys fighting bad guys!”
“Americans fighting middle easterners for example.
Non-political stuff like that.”
By other means
Yep. Politics by other means is still politics.
he followed up to simultaneously say he was joking while also doubling down 🤦
Lol, he’s literally doing the “I was just pretending” comic.
i like this version
Sure Aaron… You were being “Ironic”…
Wow what a fuckin ass.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
Did you know there is a vegan heavy metal artist that named one of his songs your username?
🤘
Region locked :/
To be fair, the Rebels weren’t Asian stereotypes, how were the dummies supposed to recognize that?
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.
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.
Americans use the word “political” to mean ethical nowadays.
This is wonderfully succinct and I will be stealing it, please and thank you.
Wars are political in nature, it doesn’t even need to get to this shallow of a depth
“War is a mere continuation of politics by other means” -Carl von Clausewitz
A phrase I hate mostly because I have trouble finding a reason it’s wrong.
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.
deleted by creator
If you read Triplanetary by E. E. “Doc” Smith, the first half is basically “A New Hope”.
Heh, I watched this and thought it reminded me of something but didn’t make the connection.
The 2 peasants are even very similar to the 2 droids, a tall skinny one and a short stout one
Stewie and Brian Griffin also could fit that description. It’s a bit generalized for looks
It’s astounding any living thing which is that deeply stupid can survive to adulthood.
We’ve made it so easy.
I prefer the 18th century Carl Von Clausewitz’s definition of war:
War Is politics by other means
