I love how George was asked about Palpatine and STRAIGHT UP SAID "He's Richard Nixon". You just know that if nowadays a Star Wars director made an obvious comparison like that (like to Trump), a bunch of people would want them dead. Star Wars' message has always been clear, but it always gets lost in the flashy stuff, or directly ignored in favor of an interpretation that satisfies the agenda of those the movies criticize. Guess the moral here is that people will always see and hear what they want to see and hear.
@@RossTalksAbout Johnson was visciously insulted for holding that "Your Snoke theory sucks" sticker and saying there exist some manbabies in the fandom. I can only imagine how something more bold and political would have gone down.
And to that I add, it was at a 1981 July Return of the Jedi storyboard meeting (recorded audio) that Lucas said that, unless he mentioned it afterwards. He was blunt about it to (I assume Kasdan, but could have been Richard Marquand). As far as I know, the conversation was fairly private unless someone dove into the Lucasfilm archives (where I assume this tape rests). Information from it has circulated online at least in the 2000s, but it wasn't formally revealed until The Making of Return of the Jedi was released. Even then, a regular Star Wars fan will NOT attempt to comb through the book or read it, page by page, with hundreds of pages, images, and finely written details. I've cited from the book, but I still think that a lot of people are unaware of what occurs in the book itself, as I'm pretty sure that there's been one (issue?) of a print of the book in 2013. Lucas's other political statements should be more obvious- but interviews from the past are about buried. There's been too much of a focus on the recent SW films- the prequels from this generation and in defense or against Lucas, and now against the ST, with a lot of PT fans now thrashing the ST. I know Confused Matthew or other critics (RLM) who jumpstarted some of this negativity against Star Wars early on, plus hype (which was a marketing tactic, so I largely ignored it) for TFA and its trailers gave people false promises that the trauma of the prequels was over. But simply, Lucasfilm was trying to be loyal to the idea of Star Wars's legacy and was (as many films before it), trying to find its ground. With only guidelines from Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan (who seems to be mixed when it comes to making good plot decisions in SW), culled art of Ralph McQuarrie, and a VERY limited input from the former ILM crew, and the lack of not being in the 70s/80s sci-fi era and time, the new Star Wars could not live up to the old Star Wars (the OT, even the PT's worth and value to an extent) or continue it, through it tried, which I will give it credit for.
@@RossTalksAbout Yes, but the conversation about that political statement was a private discussion with Lawrence Kasdan, Richard Marquand, and Howard Kanzajian and perhaps one other person in July 1981 over the course of a few days, when they were discussing the origins and backstories of characters. They were trying to get the script moving along, as the most it was at was the First Draft Revised (June? 1981). There were troubles with financially supporting some aspects of the script, and some of it, Lucas did not feel fit in (lava-pyramid city), so they were cut. Anyway, the group was trying to generate ideas and figure out what would work, and Lucas was discussing elements of plot and backstory, while Kasdan (co-writer/script writer) and Marquand (director) (sometimes Howard) tried to add to the conversation/figure out ideas and ways of crafting the story.
@@matti.8465 OK that whole thing was taken out of context. Your snoke theory suck was from a podcast with Pablo Hildago who actually wrote the sticker and give it to Rian Johnson and take a picture.
What a fantastic essay. Personally, I think that Disney should have leaned heavier into that political side of things. As you say in this video, the politics is a thread that has been present throughout the other films and it didn't feel like it was there in the disney sequels.
I think so too, though I'm kind of afraid of what could have come from that. Like, the most political thing the sequels said is that....rich people are bad. If that was enough to cause so much outrage, I can hardly imagine what would have happened had these movies worn their politics on their sleeve (like George Lucas' prequels)
Truly, the lack of a political angle (or even ideology for the mist part) left the conflict feeling WAY more hollow than it could have been. Imagine if they leaned into the FO being neofascies or the troubles of fighting that in a young Republic of pacifists. Stuff the early books set up, yknow?
It was lighter on "war" and heavier on generational politics. It seemed pretty clear that Abrams evoked the struggle of Millennials to find their own footing and relevance under the imbalanced power and economics of the Baby Boomers and even the Silent Generation (Palpatine).
This video needs more views! It's maddening and baffling how many people complain about the new Star Wars being too political. THEY ARE LITERALLY CALLED STORMTROOPERS
It’s not really because they don’t like it because it’s political, it’s just people don’t like the direction of where it’s going , and then when people criticize it they pretty much say if you don’t like it you’re part of the alt right or try to say or paint you as some term that people would say or think is Bad or don’t wanna associate.
@@RossTalksAbout Wasn’t as subtle as a sledge hammer George Lucas used political elements on a subtle level, they weren’t in the face of the viewers and they didn’t come before the story and characters. “still others picked up on Lucas's Vietnam allegory, though Lucas, wary of politics, publicly disavowed any and all sociopolitical theories and quashed speculation on the deeper meaning of his film. any For Lucas, it was enough that Star Wars could be merely entertaining-and entirely the point.” "Star Wars deals with the essential problem: Is the machine going to control humanity, or is the machine going to serve humanity? Darth Vader is a man taken over by a machine, he becomes a machine, and the state itself is a machine. There is no humanity in the state. What runs the world is economics and politics, and they have nothing to do with the spiritual life." - Joseph Campbel From "PW Interviews Joseph Campbell, by Chris Goodrich" Publisher's Weekly (August 23, 1985, p.74-75) George Lucas’s Star Wars was deeper then politics it focused on mythology, spirituality, philosophy, psychology, George has some sociological references but it overall he told his own story and politics was an undertone element that wasn’t at the center stage of his films like the modern identity politics Disney incorporated in their sequel trilogy heavily within the plots and characters while getting the lore of Star Wars wrong and taking many liberties from how Star Wars worked to support many modern trends. ROSE: Could I show you a list of the 100 best films (LAUGH) and how many of 'em are made by George Lucas? LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to -- they -- yes, they have a political undertone. I mean, especially "Star Wars" has got a very, very elaborate social, emotional, political context that it rests in. But of course, nobody was aware of that. Nobody says, "Oh my gosh." But if you actually watch the movies, it's there. And you subliminally get the fact of what happens to you if you've got a dysfunctional government that's corrupt and doesn't work. Undertone - a subdued or muted tone of sound or color. Great storytelling is what’s important. The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent.
I tell people this all the time I can't believe they didn't get the original trilogy was political which I got even as a child. I mean Lucus said the Emperors name is Richard M. Nixon.
That was a statement/explanation from a storyboard discussion with a few key people on Return of the Jedi (co-writer, director, producer, etc.), unless Lucas disclosed information afterwards, which I don't think that he did.
Lucas stated several times the star wars rebels were based on the vietcong, and the empire is the USA. a ragtag group of rebels taking on a formidable IMPERIAL army. It doesn't get any clearer than that. The USA had turned into a dominating force like nazi Germany.
I stumbled across your "Superman and Lois" video and am in the midst of binging everything on your channel. Your commentary and video production quality are equally on point. You absolutely deserve more subscribers, so I subscribed.
Got this video recommended to me off my own video on a related subject, and I couldn't agree more. I even have the exact line in my video, "Star Wars has always been political."
@@RossTalksAbout No yeah i noticed 😂. But interesting and well made video nonetheless, i call tell you put a lot of work into it.😊👍 Though i don't think that Daisy or Kelly left sosial media because of hate comments, that was just the assumption when they left. They at least never explicitly said so themselves, as far as I am aware.
There is a big difference between building your story on politics of your invented world and just blatantly putting popular political message from our world into your movie whether or not it makes sence there.
I think Disney could’ve leaned a little harder into it but what was there is good. When I saw the First Order the first thing I thought was the rise of Neo Nazis and the alt right. It further solidified as the years went on with Trumps win and the riot at Charlottesville in 2017. Kylo Ren is the lost angry white kid looking for a place to belong and unfortunately the one who got to him was the leader of a Neo Nazi group. TLJ was the most political and honestly that’s why it’s the best of the sequels and honestly I think it’s the best of the films. TROS played too safe much like ROTJ did. But it’s cool.
What a fantastic essay, I couldn't agree more. As you say the proliferation of social media platforms has led to a rise in vocal "toxic" sections of the fandom, and for the life of me I can't fathom why these people feel so victimised by the new Disney films. I would even make a case that the sequel trilogy is perhaps the least overtly political of the three trilogies - they're, on the surface at least, relatively harmless, fun movies. Criticising a casting decision in Star Wars of all things based purely on sex or race is just sexist or racist, there's nothing political about that.
Thanks for the kind words. I get what you mean, it often just seems like such a weird reaction to such harmless films. They could be so much more direct if they wanted to be and yet there are still so many people who seem so betrayed by them.
They feel victimized because they ignore the more risky part of the OT- in ANH and TESB. There's this dreamy idea that ROTJ Luke is the ultimate hero or overcame the dark side completely by saying "I'll never turn to the dark side", even though there are (apparently) several contradictions with Luke's dialogue in the script. These overblown, overt moments in the script, with the memorable score, give them sticking power, even if other moments are more significant to the plot. They've been engraved in the minds of the fans, even though "Luke's sacrifice" actually seems to be a repeat of TESB's version, where Luke soundlessly makes a jump off of a platform on Bespin. I'd argue, however, even in the radio dramatization where Luke declares that he'll never give in, he is showing it by making the jump. In ROTJ, he seemingly contradicts himself and his (implied) sacrifice by asking Vader to help save him and makes himself look foolish by forcefully disarming himself beforehand (to show that he didn't want to do violence to Vader and the Emperor??), whereas in TESB, Luke held on to his lightsaber until he was forcefully disarmed by Vader. There are other moments, more subtle, such as, Luke rolling his eyes at the Emperor have caught the attention of fans as well. The act of rolling the eyes, however, is seen as "cool", since Luke is perceived as a "cool and wise Jedi", but I think it makes Luke look stupid, as he has been told beforehand that the Emperor is behind it all (including the corruption of his father). It underestimates the threat, which yes, does lead to more effective plot twists and surprises, but at the expense of making Luke appear more stupid and arrogant than he needs to be. Also, demeaning the Emperor makes him appear comical as well and a threat to take less seriously. He does make a snarky remark against Vader in TESB, but only against a question and in the heat of a fight. He takes Vader pretty seriously for most of the fight, solidifying Vader as a threating villain and force. As much as the Emperor would represent Nixon in ROTJ, he is stereotypical, aside from the Shakespearian edge and concise control over words that Kasdan gave him in the dialogue. The modern-day Star Wars fans tend to focus on- "this isn't where we left off" in ROTJ. But the thing is, ROTJ seems corrupt in terms of consistency from TESB and even internally. Luke is more unlikable in ROTJ than in TESB, as he seems to lack humility most of the time. The more I've looked at ROTJ's script, the more I find it questionable, unless I'm missing dialogue and or visual meanings from the film. In terms of a solid script, I don't think that trying to 100% honor ROTJ is going to go well, as it contradicts the previous films a lot. TESB does contradict ANH, too, (understates, delays, or ignores the promise of bringing freedom to the galaxy with the destruction of the Death Star, plus the Emperor's role seems to at least been envisioned differently as a dark Obi-Wan counterpart, instead of a manipulated Chancellor in Alan Dean Foster's novelization of Star Wars), but in more minor ways- I think "Strikes Back" is a great selling point- as it says (from the villains' standpoint) "we're not done yet". It solidifies the Empire as a formidable force. So, I think a soft retcon/reboot is a fine way to go if it improves the plot and makes compelling drama. Fans are also upset at Vader making a sacrifice in ROTJ, to have be rendered into nothing, but the thing is Vader's sacrifice has little to do with a change of heart (He wants to save Luke, and the Emperor encouraging Luke to kill him is another reason. Also, Kasdan had an idea of Vader thinking after he threw the Emperor into the pit, "should have done that years ago". Vader's motivation appears to be re-framed as "I was in the wrong for so long; I have been deceived.".), unless it is seen symbolically or superficially. From Vader's motivation in TESB ("end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy"), this is almost or not even addressed by Luke on the bridge scene. Instead, it's "it is the name of your true self, that you've only forgotten.". The line seems to avoid dealing with Vader's consequences of choosing evil here as well, as Vader "forgot his true, good Jedi self", instead of a choice ("before he turned to evil") prompted by seduction of the dark side. At most, it's "come with me". Luke's telling Vader to give up his evil ways, but he's not really addressing Vader's idea of "ending a destructive conflict" and "bringing order". If we are to take both the TESB and ROTJ scripts at face value, I do honestly not believe that they line up as well as they could have; there seems to be small differences or intents with motivation to create plot moments, imo.
Highly recommend the novel Star Wars Bloodline by Claudia Gray. It's a Leia political thriller that sets up the factions of the sequel era right before The Force Awakens. It's some of the most interesting political writing in all of Star Wars.
Excellent, excellent essay! Nice work Ross. I did not know that Lucas had made such explicit links with the Empire and the GOP. That quote about the ewoks being representative of the Vietcong could have ended his career! They're pretty bold statements. Regarding the Disney trilogy, I think you could make a case for 7 and 9 being virtually devoid of politics. (I fail to see how casting a black man is political to anyone but a racist.) However 8 has an amazing moment in which Benicio Del Toro starts talking about the military industrial complex and how the war is kept alive because of money. It was yet another juicy thread that 9 could have picked up on and didn't. The sequels that Lucas was planning about Leia trying to assemble a new republic from the ashes of fascism sound like they would have been a lot more interesting on the political front than what we got.
Cheers man! It's weird just how bold Lucas is and yet somehow he just never draws any drama from it. If nothing else, he clearly mastered saying what was on his mind without pissing people off. You're definitely right about that moment in 8, I think it fits right in with the kind of thing Lucas would say. I'd love to just read a full breakdown one day of exactly what Lucas would have done in his own sequels, he's admittedly said a lot of different things about them over the many, many years but at least they always sounded like they'd be interesting!
I agree TLJ felt the most bold and new whilst feeling the most authentic to George's vision. The others felt unoriginal and unambitious imo simply there to avoid getting hated and because of that were hated.
The irony in Star Wars is this…while it is written by liberal-to-progressive people from the perspective of a liberal-progressive, the story itself is one that is very conservative (in the American definition).
Lucas said he was fascinated by anthropology, sociology, history and such. It's like these movies are a compilation of his knowledge of the world. He even went for mysticism. Yin Yang, Taoism, Chi, the Trinity and such. That's why it looks both liberal-progressive and conservative. Because he's in the middle. Like people see the world in black and white and he sees it and explain it in grey. That's a bit the idea of the Yin Yang. Finding and understanding the middle.
I always though The Last Jedi was the best in the sequel. It captures the essence of the originals but also made these characters more human and relatable. Seeing characters with flaws creates better discussions.
Also I automatically get discredited as being a Star Wars fan because I supported the redemption of Ben Solo. Star Wars has always been a narrative of hope and TROS was just very disappointing to me
Agreed, the fact that each main character had to deal with their own failures as their main plot obstacle was really interesting. And I get what you mean with Ben Solo. Star Wars has always been about redemption so it would have been weirder if Ben wasn't redeemed. It just felt a bit easy in RoS, to me at least.
@@HotEatTheFood for me, redeeming Ben Solo was never the problem for me, as you said, Star Wars arguably has always been about stories of redemption and hope, but my issue ultimately laid in how that redemption was done, and how it felt rushed and not given the weight it should have gotten, and most especially how it doesn’t take into account Ben’s choice in TLJ.
You might be right. But the original films had better practical effects which made it feel more immersive. The original stories also had a core story that was if not better written more enjoyable and felt at least for me less heavy handed. I just tune out star wars these days because the characters had played out and the new ones felt like there were no progression or plot arcs they were these flat facsimiles used to advance a rather boring message. oh also edit the editing and acting was also probably superior
To be fair, the second movie was a mission to a casino planet where they were showing how the rich play while the poor work. Something like that. That's out of place for Star Wars, even if it's not wrong. Or is that not one of the things people said was political.
You were right about all of the prequel/original series stuff, but I feel like your analysis on the sequel was a bit flawed. While representation is ok, that shouldn't negatively impact the story. Characters shouldn't be completely overpowered and unrealistic just for the purpose of political representation.
So true. I hate it when people say "Disney Star Wars is so political" because 1) having a female-led trilogy is not political at all and 2) Star Wars is probably one of the most political franchises out there. And in fact, the sequels did not have enough politics! I wish we could have seen aspects of the novel Bloodline brought into the sequels more.
It is when you're intentionally making all of your male leads look weak or cowardly and your female lead is automatically perfect at everything she does.. I was truly excited for a female Jedi as the main character. It gave me Jaina Solo vibes and I was hyped for it... Then I saw how Rey was portrayed and how people were treated just down right mean simply because they didn't like her..
@@rcdune7132 except they don’t really do that. and rey has her struggles and flaws. she literally becomes so obsessed with her dead parents that she lets the dark side take her in so she can find out who they were. and she actually believed that she could save kylo ren and turn him to ben solo in tlj.
@@jules7729 more like she knew about them but that separation made her suppress the memories of them as in shadow of sith novel they were constantly on the run and it was stressing
damn, how has this amazing video under 1k likes? i've watched a lot of star wars and political videos and this is one the best. thankfully i found your channel through your taskmaster video. keep making great videos. and i hope the algorythm blesses you sometime so more people are able to watch you videos. i never understood how some people could think that movie about space wizards defeating space fascists wasn't political. its so obvious they are literaly called storm troopers.
I came here from the Superman & Lois one and I simply can't overstate how surprised I was to see how overlooked this video and channel are, certainly one of the best on the topic, instant sub!
Something about a political economic structure or struggle does not necessarily make the story a political one. And be honest, could anyone actually stay awake in those prequel senate meeting scenes? The political part of Star Wars was never the part of it people actually wanted. Also, the political system of the republic is set up so poorly, it’s almost like it was meant to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.
Keep politics away from star wars. (Yeah right keep politics away from one of the biggest icons in what is LITERALLY THE MOST POLITICAL FICTIONAL GENRE EVER!)
There is a big difference between building your story on politics of your invented world and just blatantly putting popular political message from our world into your movie whether or not it makes sence there.
I do not identify as left or right in politics but I do feel that you are focusing on one side of politics being wrong. The prequels and even sequels (which I didn’t care for) touched on the fact that it’s not clear cut and that government and politicians in general are corrupt and dangerous. It’s not as simple as left or right or Nixon, Bush, Trump. Btw you forgot about Carter, Reagan, and Obama. All equally incompetent and warmongering. The republic was flawed and so were the separatists but at no point were either side pictured as the primary evil. Both had good points and both sides were being manipulated by forces of evil. In The Last Jedi DJ says “Good guys, bad guys, made-up words. Let's see who formerly owned this gorgeous hunk-uh. Ah, this guy was an arms dealer. Made his bank selling weapons to the bad guys. Oh… And the good.” A supremely interesting and true point that was never capitalized on. The sequels were not good films. They obviously didn’t resonate. And yes some of that can be attributed to bigotry, racism, and political divide but as you said there have been overt political films and those were still well received. A bad movie is just a bad movie regardless of the talk surrounding it.
Interesting essay. It was really interesting to know what is going on USA politic and what influence it have on Star Wars. But in reality Disney Sequel trilogy doesn't have any potilics. Or any real worldbuilding. This movies have themes and ideas, but nobody know what is First Order, how New Republic operate or what is "free worlds"(from ROS). As a fan of Star Wars and EU I don't know anything about the state of the galaxy, military, government and people in Sequels. Lucasfilm tried to explain details in books, but this trilogy have no plan and everything become convoluted mess. New Disney canon went of the rails. And it's really sad. Sequels became fairy tale with magic in space, instead of science fiction. They became really bad copy of Originals and MCU. I hope they will fix this lack of decent worldbuilding. So you talk about political influence from real world on secondary world (Star Wars universe). This this a very different thing. You compare apples with oranges. And sorry, Rey is Mary Sue and this is not sexist term. In fact it was created by a woman. She was the fan of Star Trek and created this therm to describe badly written characters in fan fiction.
It’s not about who created the term Mary Sue, but rather how it is used, and just because a term is created by a woman doesn’t mean internalized misogyny didn’t play a part in how women might judge other women. Lots of male characters across decades of cinema are Mary Sues by definition, but they aren’t ever labeled that way.
Were living star wars today even more so since 2020 than 1977 lol💁 gotta admit some people hate politics,they are separatist right...ha im Republican,and see all the trilogy just like dems / republicans of today...hence my remark at 2020 ya just can't escape it,so welp just hope you chose the right side or stay independent..one way or another you'll still have to choose a side...a fact of life no one escapes..great vid cheers🥂
I think it's not specifically that people hate politics in Star Wars, it's when it's so blatantly giving a message, and in no way trying to be subtle about it. George Lucas may have been blunt in the interviews he had with some people about the message, but if you were to ONLY watch the movies, you wouldn't know that there was an agenda behind it besides "Bad things are bad"
Star Wars sadly went the way of Starship Troopers. It was criticizing the very same people that suddenly felt like they "owned" it, were "entitled" to it, and those same people treated anyone who wasn't white or male as an outsider.
I didn't like the sequel series because of diversity, I hated them because they were fucking terrible, all those new characters and 0 time invested in them so they could prop up a true Mary Sue. Finn could have had a great storyline of his own redemption about being a storm trooper to, hold ....., possibly becoming a Jedi in his own right? Or a true leader and hope for the future, instead he was a Rey cheerleader and that was it.
I still can't understand this... Yes, we all know that Star Wars has always been political.. it's one of the main reasons why I've always loved it.. but the politics of George and the politics of Disney are two very different things.. George gave us timeless messages with his films.. Disney gave us forced identity politics
the difference being that the "forced idpol" that you're talking about is performative, and lucas' vision is his own and is authentic. also, more diverse casting doesn't equal identity politics
I love how George was asked about Palpatine and STRAIGHT UP SAID "He's Richard Nixon".
You just know that if nowadays a Star Wars director made an obvious comparison like that (like to Trump), a bunch of people would want them dead.
Star Wars' message has always been clear, but it always gets lost in the flashy stuff, or directly ignored in favor of an interpretation that satisfies the agenda of those the movies criticize. Guess the moral here is that people will always see and hear what they want to see and hear.
Truly George was living in a different time. Imagine if Abrams or Johnson had said something as blunt as that?
@@RossTalksAbout Johnson was visciously insulted for holding that "Your Snoke theory sucks" sticker and saying there exist some manbabies in the fandom. I can only imagine how something more bold and political would have gone down.
And to that I add, it was at a 1981 July Return of the Jedi storyboard meeting (recorded audio) that Lucas said that, unless he mentioned it afterwards. He was blunt about it to (I assume Kasdan, but could have been Richard Marquand). As far as I know, the conversation was fairly private unless someone dove into the Lucasfilm archives (where I assume this tape rests). Information from it has circulated online at least in the 2000s, but it wasn't formally revealed until The Making of Return of the Jedi was released. Even then, a regular Star Wars fan will NOT attempt to comb through the book or read it, page by page, with hundreds of pages, images, and finely written details.
I've cited from the book, but I still think that a lot of people are unaware of what occurs in the book itself, as I'm pretty sure that there's been one (issue?) of a print of the book in 2013.
Lucas's other political statements should be more obvious- but interviews from the past are about buried. There's been too much of a focus on the recent SW films- the prequels from this generation and in defense or against Lucas, and now against the ST, with a lot of PT fans now thrashing the ST. I know Confused Matthew or other critics (RLM) who jumpstarted some of this negativity against Star Wars early on, plus hype (which was a marketing tactic, so I largely ignored it) for TFA and its trailers gave people false promises that the trauma of the prequels was over. But simply, Lucasfilm was trying to be loyal to the idea of Star Wars's legacy and was (as many films before it), trying to find its ground. With only guidelines from Lucas, Lawrence Kasdan (who seems to be mixed when it comes to making good plot decisions in SW), culled art of Ralph McQuarrie, and a VERY limited input from the former ILM crew, and the lack of not being in the 70s/80s sci-fi era and time, the new Star Wars could not live up to the old Star Wars (the OT, even the PT's worth and value to an extent) or continue it, through it tried, which I will give it credit for.
@@RossTalksAbout Yes, but the conversation about that political statement was a private discussion with Lawrence Kasdan, Richard Marquand, and Howard Kanzajian and perhaps one other person in July 1981 over the course of a few days, when they were discussing the origins and backstories of characters. They were trying to get the script moving along, as the most it was at was the First Draft Revised (June? 1981). There were troubles with financially supporting some aspects of the script, and some of it, Lucas did not feel fit in (lava-pyramid city), so they were cut. Anyway, the group was trying to generate ideas and figure out what would work, and Lucas was discussing elements of plot and backstory, while Kasdan (co-writer/script writer) and Marquand (director) (sometimes Howard) tried to add to the conversation/figure out ideas and ways of crafting the story.
@@matti.8465 OK that whole thing was taken out of context.
Your snoke theory suck was from a podcast with Pablo Hildago who actually wrote the sticker and give it to Rian Johnson and take a picture.
How does this only have 800 views? This is a fantastic video essay!
What a fantastic essay. Personally, I think that Disney should have leaned heavier into that political side of things. As you say in this video, the politics is a thread that has been present throughout the other films and it didn't feel like it was there in the disney sequels.
I think so too, though I'm kind of afraid of what could have come from that.
Like, the most political thing the sequels said is that....rich people are bad. If that was enough to cause so much outrage, I can hardly imagine what would have happened had these movies worn their politics on their sleeve (like George Lucas' prequels)
Truly, the lack of a political angle (or even ideology for the mist part) left the conflict feeling WAY more hollow than it could have been.
Imagine if they leaned into the FO being neofascies or the troubles of fighting that in a young Republic of pacifists. Stuff the early books set up, yknow?
It was lighter on "war" and heavier on generational politics. It seemed pretty clear that Abrams evoked the struggle of Millennials to find their own footing and relevance under the imbalanced power and economics of the Baby Boomers and even the Silent Generation (Palpatine).
@@user-ut5ki2fi6b REALLY??! That is an interesting read that I did not at all see. I genuinely would love to hear more about this take.
That and the elements that did involve politics should have been better written.
This video needs more views! It's maddening and baffling how many people complain about the new Star Wars being too political.
THEY ARE LITERALLY CALLED STORMTROOPERS
It really was about as subtle as a sledgehammer, wasn' it?
It’s not really because they don’t like it because it’s political, it’s just people don’t like the direction of where it’s going , and then when people criticize it they pretty much say if you don’t like it you’re part of the alt right or try to say or paint you as some term that people would say or think is Bad or don’t wanna associate.
Different kind of politics
@@rcdune7132 care to elaborate?
@@RossTalksAbout Wasn’t as subtle as a sledge hammer George Lucas used political elements on a subtle level, they weren’t in the face of the viewers and they didn’t come before the story and characters.
“still others picked up on Lucas's
Vietnam allegory, though Lucas, wary of politics, publicly disavowed any and all sociopolitical theories and quashed speculation on the deeper meaning of his film. any For Lucas, it was enough that Star Wars could be merely entertaining-and entirely the point.”
"Star Wars deals with the essential
problem: Is the machine going to
control humanity, or is the machine
going to serve humanity? Darth Vader
is a man taken over by a machine, he
becomes a machine, and the state
itself is a machine. There is no
humanity in the state. What runs the
world is economics and politics, and
they have nothing to do with
the spiritual life."
- Joseph Campbel
From "PW Interviews Joseph Campbell, by Chris Goodrich"
Publisher's Weekly (August 23, 1985, p.74-75)
George Lucas’s Star Wars was deeper then politics it focused on mythology, spirituality, philosophy, psychology, George has some sociological references but it overall he told his own story and politics was an undertone element that wasn’t at the center stage of his films like the modern identity politics Disney incorporated in their sequel trilogy heavily within the plots and characters while getting the lore of Star Wars wrong and taking many liberties from how Star Wars worked to support many modern trends.
ROSE: Could I show you a list of the 100
best films (LAUGH) and how many of 'em
are made by George Lucas?
LUCAS: Yeah, but they're not made to --
they -- yes, they have a political
undertone. I mean, especially "Star
Wars" has got a very, very elaborate
social, emotional, political context that it
rests in. But of course, nobody was
aware of that. Nobody says, "Oh my
gosh." But if you actually watch the
movies, it's there. And you subliminally
get the fact of what happens to you if
you've got a dysfunctional government
that's corrupt and doesn't work.
Undertone - a subdued or muted tone of sound or color.
Great storytelling is what’s important.
The Stories that aren’t political at all and are based on good writing, good characters , deeper lessons, morals and entertainment
as well as the stories that do have political elements but are more focused on an engaging story,a well thought out lesson or idea behind it and interesting characters are the stories that make great entertainment. As my film teacher taught me Art before politics, always. The story & characters comes first whether the politics are subtle, secondary or completely non existent.
I tell people this all the time I can't believe they didn't get the original trilogy was political which I got even as a child. I mean Lucus said the Emperors name is Richard M. Nixon.
That was a statement/explanation from a storyboard discussion with a few key people on Return of the Jedi (co-writer, director, producer, etc.), unless Lucas disclosed information afterwards, which I don't think that he did.
@@theblindfoldedbirdwatcher570 Nixon was still an inspiration for Palpatine
@@rickyhunt4075 I agree, but I wanted to clarify that it wasn't in a interview when it was stated.
@@theblindfoldedbirdwatcher570 Oh Ok I misrepresented that thank you I am sorry
Lucas stated several times the star wars rebels were based on the vietcong, and the empire is the USA. a ragtag group of rebels taking on a formidable IMPERIAL army. It doesn't get any clearer than that. The USA had turned into a dominating force like nazi Germany.
I stumbled across your "Superman and Lois" video and am in the midst of binging everything on your channel. Your commentary and video production quality are equally on point. You absolutely deserve more subscribers, so I subscribed.
This is now one of my favourite Star Wars videos. This deserves way more views!
Got this video recommended to me off my own video on a related subject, and I couldn't agree more. I even have the exact line in my video, "Star Wars has always been political."
Commenting so the algorithm helps you. Great video :)
Legend!
I thought this video was why you shouldn't hate on the Prequals for having politics in them, and that it was a good thing😂😅
I mean... It's not NOT that really I guess 😅
@@RossTalksAbout No yeah i noticed 😂. But interesting and well made video nonetheless, i call tell you put a lot of work into it.😊👍 Though i don't think that Daisy or Kelly left sosial media because of hate comments, that was just the assumption when they left. They at least never explicitly said so themselves, as far as I am aware.
There is a big difference between building your story on politics of your invented world and just blatantly putting popular political message from our world into your movie whether or not it makes sence there.
@@Сайтамен I agree.
@@Сайтамен like the Iraq war, or WW2 Nazi's for example?
yeah but the sequels still needed better writing
I think Disney could’ve leaned a little harder into it but what was there is good. When I saw the First Order the first thing I thought was the rise of Neo Nazis and the alt right. It further solidified as the years went on with Trumps win and the riot at Charlottesville in 2017. Kylo Ren is the lost angry white kid looking for a place to belong and unfortunately the one who got to him was the leader of a Neo Nazi group. TLJ was the most political and honestly that’s why it’s the best of the sequels and honestly I think it’s the best of the films. TROS played too safe much like ROTJ did. But it’s cool.
You singlehandedly have kind of changed my mind on a lot of things just now.
What a fantastic essay, I couldn't agree more. As you say the proliferation of social media platforms has led to a rise in vocal "toxic" sections of the fandom, and for the life of me I can't fathom why these people feel so victimised by the new Disney films. I would even make a case that the sequel trilogy is perhaps the least overtly political of the three trilogies - they're, on the surface at least, relatively harmless, fun movies. Criticising a casting decision in Star Wars of all things based purely on sex or race is just sexist or racist, there's nothing political about that.
Thanks for the kind words. I get what you mean, it often just seems like such a weird reaction to such harmless films. They could be so much more direct if they wanted to be and yet there are still so many people who seem so betrayed by them.
They feel victimized because they ignore the more risky part of the OT- in ANH and TESB. There's this dreamy idea that ROTJ Luke is the ultimate hero or overcame the dark side completely by saying "I'll never turn to the dark side", even though there are (apparently) several contradictions with Luke's dialogue in the script.
These overblown, overt moments in the script, with the memorable score, give them sticking power, even if other moments are more significant to the plot. They've been engraved in the minds of the fans, even though "Luke's sacrifice" actually seems to be a repeat of TESB's version, where Luke soundlessly makes a jump off of a platform on Bespin. I'd argue, however, even in the radio dramatization where Luke declares that he'll never give in, he is showing it by making the jump. In ROTJ, he seemingly contradicts himself and his (implied) sacrifice by asking Vader to help save him and makes himself look foolish by forcefully disarming himself beforehand (to show that he didn't want to do violence to Vader and the Emperor??), whereas in TESB, Luke held on to his lightsaber until he was forcefully disarmed by Vader. There are other moments, more subtle, such as, Luke rolling his eyes at the Emperor have caught the attention of fans as well. The act of rolling the eyes, however, is seen as "cool", since Luke is perceived as a "cool and wise Jedi", but I think it makes Luke look stupid, as he has been told beforehand that the Emperor is behind it all (including the corruption of his father). It underestimates the threat, which yes, does lead to more effective plot twists and surprises, but at the expense of making Luke appear more stupid and arrogant than he needs to be. Also, demeaning the Emperor makes him appear comical as well and a threat to take less seriously. He does make a snarky remark against Vader in TESB, but only against a question and in the heat of a fight. He takes Vader pretty seriously for most of the fight, solidifying Vader as a threating villain and force.
As much as the Emperor would represent Nixon in ROTJ, he is stereotypical, aside from the Shakespearian edge and concise control over words that Kasdan gave him in the dialogue.
The modern-day Star Wars fans tend to focus on- "this isn't where we left off" in ROTJ. But the thing is, ROTJ seems corrupt in terms of consistency from TESB and even internally. Luke is more unlikable in ROTJ than in TESB, as he seems to lack humility most of the time. The more I've looked at ROTJ's script, the more I find it questionable, unless I'm missing dialogue and or visual meanings from the film. In terms of a solid script, I don't think that trying to 100% honor ROTJ is going to go well, as it contradicts the previous films a lot. TESB does contradict ANH, too, (understates, delays, or ignores the promise of bringing freedom to the galaxy with the destruction of the Death Star, plus the Emperor's role seems to at least been envisioned differently as a dark Obi-Wan counterpart, instead of a manipulated Chancellor in Alan Dean Foster's novelization of Star Wars), but in more minor ways- I think "Strikes Back" is a great selling point- as it says (from the villains' standpoint) "we're not done yet". It solidifies the Empire as a formidable force. So, I think a soft retcon/reboot is a fine way to go if it improves the plot and makes compelling drama.
Fans are also upset at Vader making a sacrifice in ROTJ, to have be rendered into nothing, but the thing is Vader's sacrifice has little to do with a change of heart (He wants to save Luke, and the Emperor encouraging Luke to kill him is another reason. Also, Kasdan had an idea of Vader thinking after he threw the Emperor into the pit, "should have done that years ago". Vader's motivation appears to be re-framed as "I was in the wrong for so long; I have been deceived.".), unless it is seen symbolically or superficially. From Vader's motivation in TESB ("end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy"), this is almost or not even addressed by Luke on the bridge scene. Instead, it's "it is the name of your true self, that you've only forgotten.". The line seems to avoid dealing with Vader's consequences of choosing evil here as well, as Vader "forgot his true, good Jedi self", instead of a choice ("before he turned to evil") prompted by seduction of the dark side. At most, it's "come with me". Luke's telling Vader to give up his evil ways, but he's not really addressing Vader's idea of "ending a destructive conflict" and "bringing order". If we are to take both the TESB and ROTJ scripts at face value, I do honestly not believe that they line up as well as they could have; there seems to be small differences or intents with motivation to create plot moments, imo.
Highly recommend the novel Star Wars Bloodline by Claudia Gray.
It's a Leia political thriller that sets up the factions of the sequel era right before The Force Awakens. It's some of the most interesting political writing in all of Star Wars.
This was so well done!!!
Thank you!
This is great. Should have way more views. Given how it just popped up on my recommended I'm sure it will
Excellent, excellent essay! Nice work Ross. I did not know that Lucas had made such explicit links with the Empire and the GOP. That quote about the ewoks being representative of the Vietcong could have ended his career! They're pretty bold statements.
Regarding the Disney trilogy, I think you could make a case for 7 and 9 being virtually devoid of politics.
(I fail to see how casting a black man is political to anyone but a racist.)
However 8 has an amazing moment in which Benicio Del Toro starts talking about the military industrial complex and how the war is kept alive because of money. It was yet another juicy thread that 9 could have picked up on and didn't.
The sequels that Lucas was planning about Leia trying to assemble a new republic from the ashes of fascism sound like they would have been a lot more interesting on the political front than what we got.
Cheers man! It's weird just how bold Lucas is and yet somehow he just never draws any drama from it. If nothing else, he clearly mastered saying what was on his mind without pissing people off.
You're definitely right about that moment in 8, I think it fits right in with the kind of thing Lucas would say.
I'd love to just read a full breakdown one day of exactly what Lucas would have done in his own sequels, he's admittedly said a lot of different things about them over the many, many years but at least they always sounded like they'd be interesting!
I agree TLJ felt the most bold and new whilst feeling the most authentic to George's vision. The others felt unoriginal and unambitious imo simply there to avoid getting hated and because of that were hated.
This is an incredible video this mad underrated.
Brilliant, well thought out and excellently delivered.
The irony in Star Wars is this…while it is written by liberal-to-progressive people from the perspective of a liberal-progressive, the story itself is one that is very conservative (in the American definition).
Lucas said he was fascinated by anthropology, sociology, history and such. It's like these movies are a compilation of his knowledge of the world. He even went for mysticism. Yin Yang, Taoism, Chi, the Trinity and such. That's why it looks both liberal-progressive and conservative. Because he's in the middle. Like people see the world in black and white and he sees it and explain it in grey. That's a bit the idea of the Yin Yang. Finding and understanding the middle.
I always though The Last Jedi was the best in the sequel. It captures the essence of the originals but also made these characters more human and relatable. Seeing characters with flaws creates better discussions.
Also I automatically get discredited as being a Star Wars fan because I supported the redemption of Ben Solo. Star Wars has always been a narrative of hope and TROS was just very disappointing to me
Agreed, the fact that each main character had to deal with their own failures as their main plot obstacle was really interesting.
And I get what you mean with Ben Solo. Star Wars has always been about redemption so it would have been weirder if Ben wasn't redeemed. It just felt a bit easy in RoS, to me at least.
@@HotEatTheFood for me, redeeming Ben Solo was never the problem for me, as you said, Star Wars arguably has always been about stories of redemption and hope, but my issue ultimately laid in how that redemption was done, and how it felt rushed and not given the weight it should have gotten, and most especially how it doesn’t take into account Ben’s choice in TLJ.
Don’t mind me, just helping the algorithm.
Always appreciated.
Many films can be devoid of politics just depends on the script it has been done but I never got the Star Wars politics critics those were dumb
insanely good video
Terrified to see what this budget could bring.
You might be right. But the original films had better practical effects which made it feel more immersive. The original stories also had a core story that was if not better written more enjoyable and felt at least for me less heavy handed. I just tune out star wars these days because the characters had played out and the new ones felt like there were no progression or plot arcs they were these flat facsimiles used to advance a rather boring message. oh also edit the editing and acting was also probably superior
To be fair, the second movie was a mission to a casino planet where they were showing how the rich play while the poor work. Something like that.
That's out of place for Star Wars, even if it's not wrong.
Or is that not one of the things people said was political.
You were right about all of the prequel/original series stuff, but I feel like your analysis on the sequel was a bit flawed. While representation is ok, that shouldn't negatively impact the story. Characters shouldn't be completely overpowered and unrealistic just for the purpose of political representation.
Great video. And a comment for the algorithm.
Amazing vids like these never get the attention but fandom menace bullshit and crazy videos get a million because its reactionary and clickbait. Ugh
So true. I hate it when people say "Disney Star Wars is so political" because 1) having a female-led trilogy is not political at all and 2) Star Wars is probably one of the most political franchises out there. And in fact, the sequels did not have enough politics! I wish we could have seen aspects of the novel Bloodline brought into the sequels more.
It is when you're intentionally making all of your male leads look weak or cowardly and your female lead is automatically perfect at everything she does.. I was truly excited for a female Jedi as the main character. It gave me Jaina Solo vibes and I was hyped for it... Then I saw how Rey was portrayed and how people were treated just down right mean simply because they didn't like her..
@@rcdune7132 except they don’t really do that. and rey has her struggles and flaws. she literally becomes so obsessed with her dead parents that she lets the dark side take her in so she can find out who they were. and she actually believed that she could save kylo ren and turn him to ben solo in tlj.
@@rcdune7132 that’s your opinion obviously not everyone has to like rey.
@@rcdune7132 that is load of crap and you know it
@@jules7729 more like she knew about them but that separation made her suppress the memories of them as in shadow of sith novel they were constantly on the run and it was stressing
5:29 like a pigmask
damn, how has this amazing video under 1k likes?
i've watched a lot of star wars and political videos and this is one the best.
thankfully i found your channel through your taskmaster video.
keep making great videos.
and i hope the algorythm blesses you sometime so more people are able to watch you videos.
i never understood how some people could think that movie about space wizards defeating space fascists wasn't political. its so obvious they are literaly called storm troopers.
Thanks for the support, definitely means a lot!
I came here from the Superman & Lois one and I simply can't overstate how surprised I was to see how overlooked this video and channel are, certainly one of the best on the topic, instant sub!
One word- war
Something about a political economic structure or struggle does not necessarily make the story a political one. And be honest, could anyone actually stay awake in those prequel senate meeting scenes? The political part of Star Wars was never the part of it people actually wanted.
Also, the political system of the republic is set up so poorly, it’s almost like it was meant to collapse under the weight of its own stupidity.
Brilliant
I didn't hate rey because she was a woman, I hated her for being better than the literal chosen one... but I got over that in the last movie.
Nobody ever said she was the Chosen One.
Star Wars had been, is and will be always political
As you can see when George Lucas step down from Star Wars, the political agenda switched.
Keep politics away from star wars.
(Yeah right keep politics away from one of the biggest icons in what is LITERALLY THE MOST POLITICAL FICTIONAL GENRE EVER!)
There is a big difference between building your story on politics of your invented world and just blatantly putting popular political message from our world into your movie whether or not it makes sence there.
I do not identify as left or right in politics but I do feel that you are focusing on one side of politics being wrong. The prequels and even sequels (which I didn’t care for) touched on the fact that it’s not clear cut and that government and politicians in general are corrupt and dangerous. It’s not as simple as left or right or Nixon, Bush, Trump. Btw you forgot about Carter, Reagan, and Obama. All equally incompetent and warmongering.
The republic was flawed and so were the separatists but at no point were either side pictured as the primary evil. Both had good points and both sides were being manipulated by forces of evil.
In The Last Jedi DJ says “Good guys, bad guys, made-up words. Let's see who formerly owned this gorgeous hunk-uh. Ah, this guy was an arms dealer. Made his bank selling weapons to the bad guys. Oh… And the good.” A supremely interesting and true point that was never capitalized on.
The sequels were not good films. They obviously didn’t resonate. And yes some of that can be attributed to bigotry, racism, and political divide but as you said there have been overt political films and those were still well received. A bad movie is just a bad movie regardless of the talk surrounding it.
Interesting essay. It was really interesting to know what is going on USA politic and what influence it have on Star Wars. But in reality Disney Sequel trilogy doesn't have any potilics. Or any real worldbuilding. This movies have themes and ideas, but nobody know what is First Order, how New Republic operate or what is "free worlds"(from ROS). As a fan of Star Wars and EU I don't know anything about the state of the galaxy, military, government and people in Sequels. Lucasfilm tried to explain details in books, but this trilogy have no plan and everything become convoluted mess. New Disney canon went of the rails. And it's really sad. Sequels became fairy tale with magic in space, instead of science fiction. They became really bad copy of Originals and MCU. I hope they will fix this lack of decent worldbuilding. So you talk about political influence from real world on secondary world (Star Wars universe). This this a very different thing. You compare apples with oranges. And sorry, Rey is Mary Sue and this is not sexist term. In fact it was created by a woman. She was the fan of Star Trek and created this therm to describe badly written characters in fan fiction.
It’s not about who created the term Mary Sue, but rather how it is used, and just because a term is created by a woman doesn’t mean internalized misogyny didn’t play a part in how women might judge other women. Lots of male characters across decades of cinema are Mary Sues by definition, but they aren’t ever labeled that way.
Were living star wars today even more so since 2020 than 1977 lol💁 gotta admit some people hate politics,they are separatist right...ha im Republican,and see all the trilogy just like dems / republicans of today...hence my remark at 2020 ya just can't escape it,so welp just hope you chose the right side or stay independent..one way or another you'll still have to choose a side...a fact of life no one escapes..great vid cheers🥂
I think it's not specifically that people hate politics in Star Wars, it's when it's so blatantly giving a message, and in no way trying to be subtle about it. George Lucas may have been blunt in the interviews he had with some people about the message, but if you were to ONLY watch the movies, you wouldn't know that there was an agenda behind it besides "Bad things are bad"
Apolitical gang
Last I checked Star wars was an entertainment brand, not a political group or statement 🤔
Star Wars sadly went the way of Starship Troopers. It was criticizing the very same people that suddenly felt like they "owned" it, were "entitled" to it, and those same people treated anyone who wasn't white or male as an outsider.
Actually I'd argue the opposite, the sequels dont have enough politics in it, and that's why they are bad
Who still says "Alt right"?
And Ben Shapiro is jewish, not alt right.
I didn't like the sequel series because of diversity, I hated them because they were fucking terrible, all those new characters and 0 time invested in them so they could prop up a true Mary Sue. Finn could have had a great storyline of his own redemption about being a storm trooper to, hold ....., possibly becoming a Jedi in his own right? Or a true leader and hope for the future, instead he was a Rey cheerleader and that was it.
Diversity? Really?
I still can't understand this... Yes, we all know that Star Wars has always been political.. it's one of the main reasons why I've always loved it.. but the politics of George and the politics of Disney are two very different things.. George gave us timeless messages with his films.. Disney gave us forced identity politics
the difference being that the "forced idpol" that you're talking about is performative, and lucas' vision is his own and is authentic. also, more diverse casting doesn't equal identity politics