|
Hes not a monarch hes a dictator
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
Phi230 posted:Hes not a monarch hes a dictator An emperor is by definition a monarch. A monarch can be a dictator and a dictator can be a monarch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 17:52
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:An emperor is by definition a monarch. A monarch can be a dictator and a dictator can be a monarch. Well yeah an Emperor is a monarch but not in Star Wars. Palpy is supposed to be space hitler. He got his power by being granted emergency powers from the senate. Just like Hitler. The Empire itself is a military fascist state akin to more a Roman/Imperial German/Nazi hybrid. It manages everything through viceroyalties ala Rome. Its military is very much a Prussian aristocratic elite officer system. It is corporatist ala Imperial Ger and Nazi Ger. It is a military state where the economy is mobilized to support the military Its internal politics are dominated by oligarchs ala Rome. It very much is a peak fascist state but to call the Emperor a monarch would imply a system that the Empire does not mirror
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:17
|
|
|
homullus posted:Shh! I am enjoying the tezzor who talks about the films rather than the people who love, hate, or make the films, don't spoil it. We can ride this wave of actual discussion all the way to Rogue One. A multitude of tezzors is not a good thing; let there be one tezzor, one king.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:29
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The visual design and imagery of the two major political factions of the OT alone makes it clear that it's a battle between autocratic totalitarianism and democratic self-determination. The Special Edition changes to the end of ROTJ drive this point home even further, so hard that it can't possibly be missed. Can you say more about this? Because I don't see it. The heroes dress like peasants and workers, which is absolutely not the same thing as a democracy. Celebrating the overthrow of tyranny does not automagically make the replacement a democracy, you know? Especially when one of the Rebellion's leaders is a princess.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:31
|
|
|
I do think the word "medievalism" is more accurate in context. The Republic as spoken of in the original trilogy, especially ANH, calls to mind the Roman Republic as much as anything else, which I wouldn't call democratic as we understand it. The term "Galactic Empire" is a quotation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, consciously modeled on Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Even the opening title, "A long time ago," calls to mind archaic rather than modern societies. It's a gross oversimplification to describe all premodern societies as being politically analogous, but in terms of their impact on contemporary nostalgics, medieval feudalism and pre-feudal antiquity can defensibly be treated interchangeably.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 18:45
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Well yeah an Emperor is a monarch but not in Star Wars. It doesn't matter if it's a fascist state. A fascist state can be monarchical if it is headed by a monarch. If it is an Empire headed by an Emperor, then it is by definition a monarchy. The Roman Empire was in fact a monarchy, even though its citizens and leaders would have been loath to admit it. So was the German Empire. The Third Reich could have been had Hitler ever declared himself a monarch. These are not controversial statements, these are historical facts based on the established definitions of words. Bongo Bill posted:The Republic as spoken of in the original trilogy, especially ANH, calls to mind the Roman Republic as much as anything else, which I wouldn't call democratic as we understand it. The term "Galactic Empire" is a quotation of Isaac Asimov's Foundation series, consciously modeled on Edward Gibbon's The Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire. Even the opening title, "A long time ago," calls to mind archaic rather than modern societies. The Roman Republic wasn't democratic as we understand it in a totally modern sense, sure, but I don't think that's really that relevant. It's a symbol of democracy in the abstract regardless of the historical realities of an institution which, of course, existed in ancient times--not the twenty-first century with its more advanced mores and norms. There's a reason why we use so much classical iconography in our own modern democratic institutions. homullus posted:Can you say more about this? Because I don't see it. The heroes dress like peasants and workers, which is absolutely not the same thing as a democracy. Celebrating the overthrow of tyranny does not automagically make the replacement a democracy, you know? Especially when one of the Rebellion's leaders is a princess. What kind of government would a free association of humble, individualistic peasants, workers, and outcasts, described textually as freedom fighters, rising up against an authoritarian dictator, allied with the order of legendary warriors who defended the Republic of old, possibly be seeking to implement? A democratic one, obviously. Respectfully, to suggest anything otherwise than that borders on the intentionally obtuse. There is simply no reasonable way to watch the films and come to the conclusion that Princess Leia, the senator, the self-sacrificing freedom fighter, the rebel, is seeking to overthrow the Emperor with the intention of replacing it with a monarchy with herself at the top. You could probably use that premise to get a wacky movie theory article published on Cracked.com, but that's about it. You're also still ignoring the fact that the prequels exist, for some reason. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 19:45 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:38
|
|
|
The Emperor is not a monarch. He is just a dictator. Was hitler a monarch because he was the emperor of the third reich? The term emperor is just a title to describe ultimate centralized power
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:48
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The Emperor is not a monarch. He is just a dictator. Dictators almost never begin that way, its not really a term that describes a particular system of government. So a monarch can transition over time into being more of a dictator, the same as a President or an Emperor could. Hitler wasn't just declared ruler of Germany one day, he was appointed Chancellor and then he systematically eliminated his competition until it was just understood that his word was the last word. Many monarchs have operated that way as well, the specific term used is often just semantics. Basebf555 fucked around with this message at 20:12 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 19:57
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:What kind of government would a free association of humble, individualistic peasants, workers, and outcasts, described textually as freedom fighters, rising up against an authoritarian dictator, allied with the order of legendary warriors who defended the Republic of old, possibly be seeking to implement? A democratic one, obviously. Respectfully, to suggest anything otherwise than that borders on the intentionally obtuse. At the risk of oversimplifying, look at the French Revolution. Look at the Iranian Revolution. And, taking into account the PT, given the weakness inherent in that system and the Jedi's blindness, why should we assume the Jedi want to restore what we saw in the PT? Even if they want to restore the Republic, why would we think they would want to go back to that, when the heroine herself acknowledges they were the bad guys?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:01
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:The Emperor is not a monarch. He is just a dictator. Is this supposed to be a troll? Hitler wasn't the emperor of the Third Reich. He never declared himself emperor, nor did the Third Reich last long enough for him to unambiguously display any of the qualities of a de facto emperor. The term emperor is actually a term used to describe a monarch in charge of an empire. That is what the word means. How are you even arguing this. Just look the word up. The term dictator is a word used to describe a ruler who wields absolute power. A monarch can be a dictator. Though in that case they would generally be referred to as an absolute monarch, the differences between the two are so minimal both in practice and theory so as to be inconsequential. In all reasonable senses of the terms, it makes equal sense to refer to the Emperor from Star Wars as either a dictator or a monarch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:12
|
|
|
I was analogizing in that The Emperor is a monarch in the same way Hitler was emperor of his self declared empire. Hes just a fascist authoritarian with magic powers and a desire for absolute central rule
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:18
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:Hes just a fascist authoritarian with magic powers and a desire for absolute central rule But he can be all of that, and also a monarch.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:23
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:I was analogizing in that The Emperor is a monarch in the same way Hitler was emperor of his self declared empire. I don't want to put too fine a point on it, but the Emperor of Rome had that title along with like a bazillion other titles https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Roman_emperor#Titles_and_positions They were Emperor and Consul and Imperator and Augustus and Pontifex Maximus Sheev is both an Emperor and Chancellor and a monarch and a dictator all in one
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:42
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:There is simply no reasonable way to watch the films and come to the conclusion that Princess Leia, the senator, the self-sacrificing freedom fighter, the rebel, is seeking to overthrow the Emperor with the intention of replacing it with a monarchy with herself at the top. You could probably use that premise to get a wacky movie theory article published on Cracked.com, but that's about it. There is the difference between what she herself wants (liberte, egalite, fraternite, etc.), the diverse beliefs of her followers (I hate the empire, she's royalty to me, etc.), and the values that are asserted to predominate in the society she would create (even elected officials with term limits and checks and balances are styled as monarchs). The motives of the rebellion, taken in aggregate, include revolutionary zeal, antiquarian nostalgia, naked avarice, and everything in between. It is this antiquarian nostalgia that is most prominent in Episode 7, and it is presented critically insofar as it follows three films depicting unflatteringly the object of that nostalgia. Rogue One will probably give us some fodder for this line of discussion.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 20:56
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:Rogue One will probably give us some fodder for this line of discussion. It should be an interesting perspective—we haven't really seen the Rebellion's military take center stage before. It's been present but not really central to the narrative.
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:04
|
|
|
homullus posted:At the risk of oversimplifying, look at the French Revolution. Look at the Iranian Revolution. And, taking into account the PT, given the weakness inherent in that system and the Jedi's blindness, why should we assume the Jedi want to restore what we saw in the PT? Even if they want to restore the Republic, why would we think they would want to go back to that, when ? The French revolution resulted in the establishment of a democratic republic. That's the story being told by the OT. The French Republic was soon replaced by an empire, but that's a different story, one not told by the OT, but by the PT. There's absolutely nothing in the films to indicate that Princess Leia is an incipient despot. It's simply not part of the story. It could be part of the story of a sequel, but not the story as told by the original six movies. The Iranian Revolution also resulted in the establishment of a republic of sorts, though an Islamic one because of the existence of an influential theocratic element within the ranks of the opposition movement. There's no such indication of any sort influential theocratic element within the ranks of the Star Wars rebels. Luke is a Jedi, and the Rebels by-and-large seem to believe in the Force, but there is no indication that he or anybody else wants to establish a theocratic government. Again, it could be part of the story of a sequel, but not the story as told by the original six movies. The whole point of the PT is that democracy is superior to dictatorship even in spite of its inherent weaknesses, and that democracy only truly dies when the citizenry ceases to believe in it. The reason the Rebels (not the Jedi, since the Jedi are only one element of the Rebels, not the entirety of the Rebels) would want to restore what we saw in the PT is because it is a superior system to the Empire, where people are given a voice and conflicts can be resolved through compromise and negotiation rather than through brute force. The heroes of the OT have also learned from the mistakes of their parents: collectively, they have learned the value of cooperation, communication, and friendship with those who are different than them; the power of love over hate; and of the need to reject the temptation to abandon their spiritual principles for the sake of worldly concerns. I'm not sure what you are referring to when you claim that "the heroine herself acknowledges they were the bad guys." Leia never says any such thing. Are you referring to Padme? She's saying that the Republic has become the bad guys by virtue of the fact that they have given up on the values that define a democracy--essentially, that they are becoming the Empire. If you'll recall, the Rebels are trying to restore the Republic, not the Empire. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 21:39 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:18
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:There is the difference between what she herself wants (liberte, egalite, fraternite, etc.), the diverse beliefs of her followers (I hate the empire, she's royalty to me, etc.), and the values that are asserted to predominate in the society she would create (even elected officials with term limits and checks and balances are styled as monarchs). The motives of the rebellion, taken in aggregate, include revolutionary zeal, antiquarian nostalgia, naked avarice, and everything in between. They involve revolutionary zeal and antiquarian nostalgia, but I see no evidence of naked avarice or anything else. And if you ask me, revolutionary zeal and antiquarian nostalgia makes for a pretty good, balanced mixture on which to found a government. That's how our government was founded after all, and for all its flaws, I like America. It could be better, but I think we have a relatively good framework that allows us to make necessary reforms within the system, eventually, without the need for a violent revolution. quote:It is this antiquarian nostalgia that is most prominent in Episode 7, and it is presented critically insofar as it follows three films depicting unflatteringly the object of that nostalgia. I don't think Episode VII even consciously criticizes that element of the originals, let alone does it competently. I personally don't believe there's anything wrong with romanticizing those aspects of the past to a certain degree, as long as it's tempered with a healthy dose of modernism. I don't believe little girls who idolize Elsa are being brainwashed into having monarchist sympathies. Episode VII is mostly just incoherent, because, as I've said, the dichotomy being presented is not between Leia as princess and Leia as senator, but between Leia as princess and Leia as general. That doesn't cogently communicate anything, and that's because it wasn't written as anything other than another nostalgia-based reference to the OT. Truthfully, the complete opposite of your analysis is true. Episode VII alone among the seven movies is pathologically antiquarian, in that it uncritically romanticizes the past of the franchise without making any meaningful strides forward. Cnut the Great fucked around with this message at 21:37 on Nov 1, 2016 |
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:33
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:The French revolution resulted in the establishment of a democratic republic. That's the story being told by the OT. The French Republic was soon replaced by an empire, but that's a different story, one not told by the OT, but by the PT. There's absolutely nothing in the films to indicate that Princess Leia is an incipient despot. It's simply not part of the story. It could be part of the story of a sequel, but not the story as told by the original six movies. What followed the French Revolution was not a democracy. A representative government, sure. Ditto Iran. Padme gives away the whole story of the PT late in the game, with her "failure to listen" dialogue; the Separatists were right to leave. Nearly everything that goes wrong was a failure to listen: to one's feelings, to one's people, to the Force, to the truth. Obi-Wan catches on to the dark undercurrents at the beginning of TPM and is told to ignore it, and that is the beginning of the end of the Republic in our narrative. "Alliance to Restore the Republic" is an EU thing, I think; there is only the Rebellion, a coalition. That coalition's victory is what you see at the end of RotJ, not a universal mandate for galactic suffrage. Would they put a representative government in place? Maybe! Perhaps the right to self determination extends to not forcing worlds into a Republic at all? Maybe! You don't need Leia to be a princess for the echoes of medievalism to resonate with the audience; a damsel in distress is sufficient, and swordmans probably overkill. Why is she is princess, if not to shade the pre-Empire galaxy as something other than pure democracy?
|
|
#
?
Nov 1, 2016 21:59
|
|
|
The funny thing is Palpy isn't Napoleon, but Napoleon III (aka Napoléon le petit according to VIctor Hugo).
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 05:51
|
|
|
Cnut the Great posted:Is this supposed to be a troll? Hitler wasn't the emperor of the Third Reich. He never declared himself emperor, nor did the Third Reich last long enough for him to unambiguously display any of the qualities of a de facto emperor. Actually emperor comes from the Latin imperator which literally meant "one who commands the armies", and was only one of many titles through which a Roman emperor derived his authority. Julius Caesar was called imperator not because he was the sole ruler of Rome (it was still nominally a republic during his time, and he was only one third of the triumvirate), but because he was the controller of most of the military might. Lots of other Roman generals were given the title after winning big battles, and it wasn't generally restricted to only being awarded solely to the autocrat of the Roman Empire until later, when Augustus officially made Rome an empire, though during his lifetime it was still occasionally given to some of his other family members. Technically, in Star Wars, you could say Vader has more of a claim to being called 'imperator', since he's the one actually commanding the imperial army  It's also worth noting that 'fascism' was not originally a negative term, as one of the most famous fascist rulers of history was Cincinnatus, who was a farmer who was twice in his life handed absolute power to help solve a crisis and win a war, and both times afterwards, relinquished his power when it was no longer needed - so there is precedent for someone gaining power due to an emergency, then handing it back once done, provided they're not a Sith Lord. A monarch, on the other hand, absolutely specifies a form of governance based on some form of hereditary inheritance, usually based upon some supposed specialness of the ruling family, such as a 'divine right' or blessing they purport to have. Palps did not inherit his powers, nor did he ever appear to nominate a successor or draft inheritance laws for a succession. A dictatorship, on the other hand, perfectly sums up Sheev's government, as traditionally a dictatorship is formed specifically when one person is given absolute power by a emergency action of the government (a fascist is specifically a dictator; in fact the title given to Cincinnatus at the time was dictator; the term fascism is a 20th century term derived from the fasces) - this differentiates it somewhat from the more generic 'autocracy', which also refers to a government with absolute power invested in a single person, but without specific connotations as to how such power was bestowed like 'dictatorship' does. 
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 07:21
|
|
|
One of the better Star Wars fan films I've seen in quite some time: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G7-n36MBs1A
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 10:14
|
|
|
Apparently, some Star Wars fans hate this quote by the cinematographer for the Han Solo movie (who also worked on Arrival and Selma) for some reason:quote:We're doing our own thing, that's why we're there. Phil and Chris are there to bring what they bring to their films, their very unique vision, their perspective on story and they asked me to come bring what I bring, and so just for that it won't feel like any of the other films. And nobody at Lucasfilm is asking us to betray that, they're saying 'We're in full support of what you do and we wanna make sure that we're able to help you do it in the best way.' It's gonna feel like a Star Wars film, but we're definitely gonna break some rules, and we're encouraged to do that. Visually, narratively that's a good mandate. They really are about, from what I've seen so far, supporting up and coming artists, artists who have a strong vision and voice and perspective, and they really wanna permeate the films with those kinds of voices. So it's interesting, very interesting. Not what I thought it would be, that's for sure. I'm pleasantly encouraged and pleasantly surprised.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 12:09
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Apparently, some Star Wars fans hate this quote by the cinematographer for the Han Solo movie (who also worked on Arrival and Selma) for some reason:
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:06
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:What on Earth could anybody find controversial in that quote? The MSJ posted:Apparently, some Star Wars fans hate this quote by the cinematographer for the Han Solo movie (who also worked on Arrival and Selma) for some reason: I wouldn't be surprised by certain fans if this is what caused the anger.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:15
|
|
|
Equeen posted:I wouldn't be surprised by certain fans if this is what caused the anger. It wouldn't be without precedent either- see all of those racist idiots from last year that wanted to protest John Boyega being in TFA.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:25
|
|
|
Raxivace posted:Ah, yeah, that could be it. "White genocide", I believe the catchphrase was. Because having a black man in a starring role in a movie means that all the whites are literally being murdered en masse
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:27
|
|
|
What does he even mean by break rules Whar rules are there to break Sounds like typical hype baiting
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:31
|
|
|
I'd imagine the "rules" he refers to are what people typically expect of a Star Wars movie, of origin story films etc. The full article has him mentioning that he and the directors are wanting to be subversive with the film, among other things. It sounds like they have ambition, which is exciting.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 13:40
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:What does he even mean by break rules If they give some alternate explanation for why his pants have a red stripe, there's gonna be some canonrage.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:04
|
|
|
i think it's more about they're going off-book on what sort of clockwipes they're using
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
jivjov posted:"White genocide", I believe the catchphrase was. Because having a black man in a starring role in a movie means that all the whites are literally being murdered en masse I'll be honest, I did notice it. Compare and contrast this scene: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2WBG2rJZGW8 with this one: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6UG2EdU1LgM In The Force Awakens, the number of white men taking part in the assault has been reduced to at least two, down from 100% in Star Wars. The assault on the Starkiller Base is led by a hispanic man, and the pilots include two aliens, an asian woman, a black man... But the idea that this is anything less than an unambiguously good thing is ludicrous. Everyone should have someone they can project onto on screen during cool escapist parts in films.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:18
|
|
|
Phi230 posted:What does he even mean by break rules Come on now, you of all people should understand that there are rules, that's like your whole shtick.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 14:30
|
|
|
Racists are also pissed because the female actors rumored for the Han Solo movie have all been non-white: Tessa Thompson, Zoe Kravitz and Naomi Scott (half-Indian actress playing Pink Power Ranger the PR movie next year). Which means they are casting for the role of Sana: They were only sort of married for a job together. There's another reason some Star Wars fans are upset though: Angry Star Wars Nerd in a comment section #1 posted:So change and ruin everything we love about Star Wars. Until overtime it loses it's familiar soul and no longer feels like, Star Wars. Angry Star Wars Nerd in a comment section #2 posted:I hate EVERY sentence of that quote!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:32
|
|
|
For Yoda's sake
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:34
|
|
|
The MSJ posted:Racists are also pissed because the female actors rumored for the Han Solo movie have all been non-white: Tessa Thompson, Zoe Kravitz and Naomi Scott (half-Indian actress playing Pink Power Ranger the PR movie next year). Which means they are casting for the role of Sana: "for Yodas sake" lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:36
|
|
|
For Yoda's Sake make that the new thread title
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 15:37
|
|
|
Equeen posted:"for Yodas sake" lmao
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
What is there even to get mad about in that quote? "So far its been an amazing creative environment to work in." WHAT THE gently caress NOT MY STAR WARS.
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 16:16
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 3, 2024 22:52 |
|
|
I swear if a PoC plays the otter that Han Solo punches I quit this franchise, that otter was written as white!
|
|
#
?
Nov 2, 2016 16:22
|
|