|
ThePlague-Daemon posted:Could explain why your analysis doesn't also apply to A New Hope? Maybe that would help. To answer your question, the Rebellion (AKA The Alliance To Restore The Republic) was obviously concerned with restoring the Republic. The Resistance is not. The Resistance is in fact very much at odds with the Republic, to the point that we have the imagery of the entire Republic turning into the First Order. And this makes perfect thematic sense because, as many have noted, TFA is a sequel to Episode 3. The characters in TFA all essentially aware of - and agree with - the prequels films' criticism of the Rebels and their Republic. TFA is premised on the Republic being somewhere between worthless and evil. In this sense, the film is about "Old Star Wars versus New Star Wars" - but only in the sense that the protagonists are trying to regress back to a time before the Star Wars franchise even existed, while the villains represent a horrifying progress. The imagery is pretty clear: Han and Leia have regressed to where their characters were at before they even met Luke, which is why they're trying to get him back. But - as they are all aware - Luke himself has regressed to a time before even the prequels. He's studying the original Jedi temple. The map-macguffin is literally a map leading everyone into the past. So that is the protagonists' goal: they reject the Republic and seek to return to an earlier time. Kylo Ren, as a contrast to all this, is a would-be revolutionary. It's natural that he is their enemy. SuperMechagodzilla fucked around with this message at 09:24 on Mar 11, 2016 |
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 09:18
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
BrianWilly posted:But this is also Star Wars, where even titles that are equivocal to real life titles have arbitrary rules that wouldn't be applicable in a proper sociopolitical analysis. Lucas himself created a queen that seemed to be exactly like an actual queen, only to reveal later on that she was democratically-elected and served limited terms. This is actually made clear in TPM itself: The Phantom Menace posted:PALPATINE : To state our allegations, I present Queen Amidala, the recently And it follows on from how Leia's role as a princess is contextualized in dialogue found in the published ROTJ screenplay: Return of the Jedi posted:BEN (attempting to give solace with his words) Queen Amidala and Princess Leia are only really "royalty" in a symbolic sense.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:23
|
|
|
Toilet Mouth posted:My suspicion is that the Republic is going to turn out to be the actual big bad, and that while Ren and New Order's methods are inexcusable, they do have a legitimate grievance. That's the best explanation I can think of for why we have a distinction between the Resistance and the Republic, and why we learn so little about the Republic in TFA. "The New Republic didn't give the First Order a fair shake to return the Empire of power and in response the First Order blew up several planets killing several billion beings. Who is right? Who is wrong? The truth is in the middle, folks!"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 15:57
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:To answer your question, the Rebellion (AKA The Alliance To Restore The Republic) was obviously concerned with restoring the Republic. The Resistance is not. One thing that I think should be indisputable is that TFA, as a film, shows very little respect for the Republic's role in the mythology. No one in the film really seems to care about it that much. It's treated like an annoyance--a pesky holdover from the prequels that's getting in the way of the all the OT-style Rebels vs. Empire fun everyone would rather be having. Never mind that the Republic represents everything our heroes fought and suffered for throughout the course of the original movies. It gets blown up with such little preamble,and with such a muted reaction from the heroes. I mean, hell. Even aside from the catastrophic death toll, that's their life's work right there, wiped out in an instant. The filmmakers don't do any justice to the full dramatic implications of pushing the reset button on the saga in this way. They don't even seem to realize that what they did even has such implications. It all comes across as so blithe and cynical. I understand that not everything can be peaches and roses like at the end of ROTJ, but at least have enough respect for the original characters to take some time and effort actually acknowledging the emotional reality of the situation: that everything they built with their sweat and tears ended up pathetically failing and crumbling to the ground in ruins. It's not just business as usual. Han shouldn't be rolling his eyes at the Death Laser Moon that just obliterated his legacy. This is not a fun, breezy, lighthearted action-adventure romp. This is some heavy poo poo. But the movie doesn't act like it is.  "Haha, thank gently caress we don't know what's coming, or else this would just be a real downer, wouldn't it?"
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 16:35
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:One thing that I think should be indisputable is that TFA, as a film, shows very little respect for the Republic's role in the mythology. No one in the film really seems to care about it that much. It's treated like an annoyance--a pesky holdover from the prequels that's getting in the way of the all the OT-style Rebels vs. Empire fun everyone would rather be having. I dunno if anyone is even really aware of the republic from the original series. they're mentioned what like twice in A new hope? i think they got entirely dissolved then and I only remember that because im a huge nerd. I might be misremembering and maybe they're all fighting for the republic in the original series but im pretty sure they just want to stop the evil empire and have no end goals or real idea of achieving anything beyond blowing up the bad guys.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 16:46
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:I dunno if anyone is even really aware of the republic from the original series. they're mentioned what like twice in A new hope? i think they got entirely dissolved then and I only remember that because im a huge nerd. I might be misremembering and maybe they're all fighting for the republic in the original series but im pretty sure they just want to stop the evil empire and have no end goals or real idea of achieving anything beyond blowing up the bad guys. The official title is the "Alliance to Restore the Republic", but you're right that that's not really mentioned on screen. It's not really that hard to infer though. We know that Leia was a senator (it was the Senate that was dissolved), we know the Senate was an aspect of the Old Republic, and we know she didn't really like it being dissolved. We also know that rebellions don't just fight in order to fight, they must have some sort of purpose. Since we can't see any other sort of ideological reasoning (i.e., they're not Space ISIS wanting to convert everyone to Space Islam or anything like that), it's fairly reasonable to conclude that they want to overthrow the Empire and go back to the old system. This especially makes sense from a Western perspective, because we in the West (at least rhetorically) are all about overthrowing tyranny and letting democracy bloom.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 16:52
|
|
|
hemale in pain posted:I dunno if anyone is even really aware of the republic from the original series. they're mentioned what like twice in A new hope? i think they got entirely dissolved then and I only remember that because im a huge nerd. I might be misremembering and maybe they're all fighting for the republic in the original series but im pretty sure they just want to stop the evil empire and have no end goals or real idea of achieving anything beyond blowing up the bad guys. You're misremembering. The Rebel Alliance in the original movies is clearly fighting to restore the Republic. That's what the story has always been about. Surely you're not suggesting that, just because no one ever comes out and literally says "We are fighting to restore the Republic" in the films, it is not patently obvious that that is their goal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 16:54
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:You're misremembering. The Rebel Alliance in the original movies is clearly fighting to restore the Republic. That's what the story has always been about. Surely you're not suggesting that, just because no one ever comes out and literally says "We are fighting to restore the Republic" in the films, it is not patently obvious that that is their goal. You're good at citing your sources generally, so I'd like you to demonstrate even a fraction of how patently obvious it is (because you are misremembering: it is isn't patently obvious). There is a senate, which we find out was just dissolved, in one line of dialogue. There is a Princess who claims to be a diplomat. They don't talk about what they're gonna do when the Empire is gone; in fact, the only people who talk about a future regime are Vader and Palpatine.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:01
|
|
|
At any rate, the New Republic isn't destroyed, just terrorized and decapitated.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:33
|
|
|
Oh and also in TFA we see the Republic existing so obviously that was a goal for at least some of the Rebellion. And Leia's a diplomat Senator, so her even moreso.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:37
|
|
|
Obiwan: For over a thousand generations, the Jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the old Republic... before the dark times... before the empire. Obiwan is unambiguously hyping Luke up with stories of how the Republic was a golden age, before the 'darkness'. Maz, on the contrary, talks about how the Sith and the Empire are one and the same - about how the Republic was always 'impure'. The major flaw in TFA - perhaps the major flaw - is that the protagonists' criticism of the Republic is conveyed almost-entirely through expository dialogue. That's why audiences often have no idea of what the Resistance, Republic and First Order are actually fighting over. Also, as a random observation, check this amazing pun from Attack Of The Clones: Obi-Wan: Anakin, how many times have I told you to stay away from the power couplings! George Lucas is a very good writer.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:53
|
|
|
LOL, I never saw that meaning before but you're right.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 17:59
|
|
|
Alderaan might not exist anymore, but there are probably a lot of surviving alderaanians in the resistance to whom she is still very much royalty. Also, wasn't her mom royalty on naboo? Does that give her any claim there? *fake edit* I know the expanded universe stuff is right out, but there was a New Alderaan founded.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:09
|
|
|
eh, nevermind
Yaws fucked around with this message at 18:42 on Mar 11, 2016 |
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:19
|
|
|
spacetoaster posted:Alderaan might not exist anymore, but there are probably a lot of surviving alderaanians in the resistance to whom she is still very much royalty. Her mom was some weird kind of elected royalty, she doesn't have any sort of actual claim of succession and someone replaced her when she became a senator.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 18:53
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:At any rate, the New Republic isn't destroyed, just terrorized and decapitated. It's going to be a major disappointment if Ep 8 isn't a reverse Empire Strikes back where the First Order spends the entire movie getting its rear end kicked by a vengeful Republic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 19:24
|
|
|
homullus posted:They don't talk about what they're gonna do when the Empire is gone; in fact, the only people who talk about a future regime are Vader and Palpatine. Isn't that by itself evidence that the Alliance is fighting to restore the Republic? They don't discuss the future regime because they're fighting to reestablish a regime that has already existed.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 22:19
|
|
|
Schwarzwald posted:Isn't that by itself evidence that the Alliance is fighting to restore the Republic? They don't discuss the future regime because they're fighting to reestablish a regime that has already existed. whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat No, it's not evidence of that. A rebellion against a ruling regime absolutely does not default to restoring the prior one, in film or in real life. Every action is taken as a result of how bad the Empire is, even Vader's attempt to get Luke to join him. Han Solo doesn't help because he wants to restore the Republic, he helps because he's seen that the Empire blew up a planet. Luke helps because of "what they're up against" not because of what they hope to accomplish. Leia is silent on the issue of restoring the Republic -- her message to Obi-Wan is about the struggle against the Empire and the survival of the Rebellion, not any plan for the future.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:23
|
|
|
Permanent revolution?
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:27
|
|
|
wyoming posted:So there's this movie, about a princess that loses her land, but she still commands some warriors, like a general? I guess people who love the queen of england secretly want to be serfs.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:28
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:Obiwan: For over a thousand generations, the Jedi knights were the guardians of peace and justice in the old Republic... before the dark times... before the empire. The republic, it should be noted for those who do not know what a republic is, was not feudalistic.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:30
|
|
|
Judakel posted:The republic, it should be noted for those who do not know what a republic is, was not feudalistic. It certainly had queens and knights, however.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:32
|
|
|
homullus posted:whaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaaat So you're saying that, in the Original Star Wars Trilogy, there is no indication of any sort of ideals that the protagonists stand for? Everything they do is purely a pragmatic stimulus/response sort of deal? I'm beginning to think that Star Wars fans do not actually like Star Wars.
|
|
#
?
Mar 11, 2016 23:34
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So you're saying that, in the Original Star Wars Trilogy, there is no indication of any sort of ideals that the protagonists stand for? Everything they do is purely a pragmatic stimulus/response sort of deal? What he's saying is that the proactive aim of the Rebel Alliance is not explicated. They can for this reason be interpreted as reactionary.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:02
|
|
|
Judakel posted:I guess people who love the queen of england secretly want to be serfs. Well, yeah.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:50
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:What he's saying is that the proactive aim of the Rebel Alliance is not explicated. They can for this reason be interpreted as reactionary. Leia speaks with disdain of Tarkin "tightening his grip", the Moffs say that fear will keep "them" in line. We know there is at least one princess and that there used to be knights and a senate. Vader claims he wants to bring order to the galaxy, and Palpatine wants to continue to be Emperor. But what do the Rebels actually do or want in the OT? The opening crawl of IV speaks only of bringing "freedom" to the galaxy. Like the SNL commercial parody of "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter", the only definitive answer we ever get to "what does the Rebellion stand for?" is "not the Empire."
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:55
|
|
|
You could say they're rebels without a cause.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 00:59
|
|
|
homullus posted:Leia speaks with disdain of Tarkin "tightening his grip", the Moffs say that fear will keep "them" in line. We know there is at least one princess and that there used to be knights and a senate. Vader claims he wants to bring order to the galaxy, and Palpatine wants to continue to be Emperor. But what do the Rebels actually do or want in the OT? The opening crawl of IV speaks only of bringing "freedom" to the galaxy. Like the SNL commercial parody of "I Can't Believe It's Not Butter", the only definitive answer we ever get to "what does the Rebellion stand for?" is "not the Empire." That's nonsense. Under this same logic, the Empire represents nothing except "not the Rebels". So it's purely red team versus blue team, and it is as (in)valid to say the Empire represents anarchism as it is to say they represent state power.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:02
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Well, yeah. Remember that time you said Crowe wanted to turn Earth into... Well, you know how dumb that was. Well, this is sillier.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:09
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:That's nonsense. Er . . . no. Everyone who speaks of the Empire (Rebel or otherwise) says they stand for greater restriction, for order, for control. There is a hint of classism or speciesism or whatever in looking down on bounty hunters. The Emperor says he intends to replace Vader with Luke and retain his Empire; Vader offers Luke subordinate position in a dictatorship to bring order to the galaxy. Everyone in the OT agrees that the Empire is the status quo and that they stand for greater order than the galaxy currently has. Where is the evidence for what the Rebellion wants after the war is over other than "not the Empire"? Where in the movies is any goal of the Rebellion stated or even implied, other than destruction of the Empire? Your best hope for "Rebels talking about the future", Luke, states that he wants to be a Jedi (a "guardian of peace and justice") like his father, but he doesn't wish for any particular kind of government or experience -- he just wants to be a policeman in whatever non-Empire that world is.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:28
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Remember that time you said Crowe wanted to turn Earth into... Well, you know how dumb that was. Well, this is sillier. Looks like it's time to go to bat for monarchism!
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:46
|
|
|
In the name of "justice" and "peace". https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C7OSeEMxDKE I wish I could just take those few seconds instead of the whole video, as I just wish I could channel the venom in his voice when he says justice and peace.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 02:59
|
|
|
homullus posted:Er . . . no. Everyone who speaks of the Empire (Rebel or otherwise) says they stand for greater restriction, for order, for control. There is a hint of classism or speciesism or whatever in looking down on bounty hunters. The Emperor says he intends to replace Vader with Luke and retain his Empire; Vader offers Luke subordinate position in a dictatorship to bring order to the galaxy. Everyone in the OT agrees that the Empire is the status quo and that they stand for greater order than the galaxy currently has. Where is the evidence for what the Rebellion wants after the war is over other than "not the Empire"? Where in the movies is any goal of the Rebellion stated or even implied, other than destruction of the Empire? Your best hope for "Rebels talking about the future", Luke, states that he wants to be a Jedi (a "guardian of peace and justice") like his father, but he doesn't wish for any particular kind of government or experience -- he just wants to be a policeman in whatever non-Empire that world is. If Luke wants to be a 'policeman', then he is not an anarchist. And so your theory is disproven. If he is an 'idealistic crusader', as his uncle says, then he is not a pragmatic atheist. And so-on. I understand what you are getting at, but the 'openness' of the Rebel cause, the ability for anyone to join, does not represent meaninglessness but, rather, a multicultural tolerance for the plurality of innocuous opinions. Obiwan puts it quite plainly: if you put one point of view ahead of another, then you are truly lost - and must be struck down.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:32
|
|
|
Ferrinus posted:Looks like it's time to go to bat for monarchism! Inbreeding would explain so much about you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:38
|
|
|
homullus posted:Han Solo doesn't help because he wants to restore the Republic, he helps because he's seen that the Empire blew up a planet. I'm pretty sure Han fights because he wants to get laid.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:45
|
|
|
Judakel posted:Inbreeding would explain so much about you. Dude.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 03:59
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:If Luke wants to be a 'policeman', then he is not an anarchist. And so your theory is disproven. The Rebel cause is not open or closed in the OT: it is unknown and unknowable in the OT, beyond "down with the Empire." They may want monarchy or oligarchy or democracy; they may well want order, of a kind less than or different from the Empire. Even without every character in the entire OT speaking of the Empire as state power, it would be that -- stormtroopers are the military at checkpoints, the officers with uniforms and ranks other than "general," non-military titles ("Moff", "Darth") and, uhh, you know, a galactic empire with an emperor at its head. The Rebel cause is not meaningless; they oppose the kind of restriction and concentration of power that the Empire wants and is working toward. Beyond that, though, the Rebel cause is simply blank, an empty vessel. Luke wants to go on state-sanctioned adventures in whatever government the Rebels would introduce. The complete absence of "what do the Rebels want to do when they win?" in the OT is, I think, a big reason why "what happens when these guys are in charge?" was explored so thoroughly in the PT.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 04:32
|
|
|
homullus posted:The complete absence of "what do the Rebels want to do when they win?" in the OT is, I think, a big reason why "what happens when these guys are in charge?" was explored so thoroughly in the PT. The prequel films are based on the ideology of the Rebellion. They are a satire of that ideology. You can note really rudimentary things like how the characters treat the gungans the same way they treat(ed) the ewoks. The treatment of the ewoks illustrates how the characters approach to topics of race and class. The Jedi Order characters are based on ]the words and actions of the three Jedi characters in the OT. Quigon specifically serves as a continuation of the Luke Skywalker character, after Episode 6. We have always known the OT characters' stances on religion and philosophy. Padme the president-queen is an obvious continuation of Leia the senator-princess, and so-on. Come on.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 09:32
|
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:The prequel films are based on the ideology of the Rebellion. They are a satire of that ideology. I just don't see the OT Rebellion as clearly as you seem to. I recognize that it's rudimentary to point to things as basic as "what the characters actually say," but there is a tremendous imbalance in the information presented about each side. We know what Vader wants, and the order he wants parallels what the Empire wants, which is control of the galaxy. We know what Luke wants; the adventure he wants parallels what the Rebellion wants, which is... to fight the Empire. We know that the Rebels don't immediately murder Ewoks (and continue to not murder them, even after the Ewoks try to eat them) and allow a tiny number of non-humans to take part in the Rebellion. That's nice of them, I guess. Their religion -- the Force -- has believers on both sides of the conflict, and moreover those on both sides who do believe, believe the same things about this religion. There is no schism in the fight and there are actually only two Force-doubters in the whole OT, and both get convinced within the first film. The Rebels are not fighting "for" their religion or their "let's not murder every non-human" philosophy though -- at no point do they take action specifically to protect other races and classes. We simply know that the Empire's shadow falls across many galactic demographics. The problem with using the films to say that the Rebellion wants to restore monarchy or a republic or feudalism or whatever is that Leia is not in charge of the Rebellion or its protagonists. She's evidently an important piece, but she herself is also just a member. She goes on dangerous missions, rather than telling others to do so; in any conflict or contest, you protect the things that are more valuable to you by risking and expending the things less valuable to you. All evidence in the films says that leader of the Rebellion is Mon Mothma, who 1) bears no title whatsoever, 2) never speaks of their goals, beyond Empire-stuff-destroying, and 3) by accent and diction, is a member of the same class/planet/whatever as the Empire itself.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:03
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 14, 2024 17:25 |
|
|
SuperMechagodzilla posted:So you're saying that, in the Original Star Wars Trilogy, there is no indication of any sort of ideals that the protagonists stand for? Everything they do is purely a pragmatic stimulus/response sort of deal? Not wanting planets blown up is an ideal.
|
|
#
?
Mar 12, 2016 16:30
|
|
