Speculation Government or Religious Influence on ST storyline?

Would be a great book for an interested middle school who might like Star Wars but was struggling with History, could go anywhere from Advanced middle school to 100 level college course...

 

I think the Sequel Trilogy will go more towards rebuilding democracy. The Prequels dealt with the destruction of democracy through corruption and war. The Original Trilogy showed the Rebellion overthrowing the Empire through willpower and heart. Thus, it makes sense for the Sequels to focus on whether a new democratic government can remain stable.

Along those lines, there are a lot of real world influences upon which Lucas and Abrams could draw. During the 1990s, with the collapse of the Berlin Wall, a lot more countries became democratic. I wouldn't be surprised if they looked at places like Russia or Indonesia when thinking about the challenges that young democracies face. In fact, I think Lucas was partly inspired by the 1965 coup in Indonesia for the Empire in the Original Trilogy.

 

While this is true, I honestly would love to see some Triumvirate action in the films, either in politics or changing the SIth Rule of 2 to a Rule of 3, basically as long as everyone plays by the rules, they all win, the minute one power grabs the other two turn on him. Then those two war for the master spot, then they in turn become the master and take 3 apprentices to start the cycle all over again...
If an apprentice is looking to gain power, they have to eliminate the other apprentices before killing their master, or if they triple team their master, then adventually it will be back to 1, where they train their 3 apprentices...

 

Not to derail, but its discussions like this that make me worry about Abrams. I've yet to see anything in his work that suggests an understanding of the political and historical undercurrent of Star Wars (even as it was used in the OT). Obviously Lucas and Arndt are factors in this equation. But I'm going to be nervous for a long time that the ST is going to be the opposite of the PT: success at emotion and accessible storytelling, but lacking the historical, spiritual, and cultural depth of Lucas.

 

It will be there but it might not be political, it will be something... not just action. Trust me. I know JJ, not like I could call him. But I have seen all of his stuff. I know people hate Damon Lindeloff because of the ending of Lost or Prometheus, but the guy know Star Wars and is good at developing mythology. Lindelof was obsessed with Alias's Rambaldi mythos, which is how he got the Lost job, and they bonded over Star Wars. I think we are good.

 

Again, not to belabor the point, but I totally agree with you. That's what I was worried about in my blog post about JJ Abrams' storytelling. He didn't engage with any deeper mythological or political concepts in Star Trek or Super 8. Both of those movies focused on special effects and character relationships. Lucas, by contrast, begins almost any interview about Star Wars talking about history or sociology. My hope is that, with Lucas writing the story treatments, we'll get enough of Lucas' depth to balance out Abrams' Hollywoodisms.

 

But that's the thing! Anything in JJ's past work that has suggested next level thinking has involved collaborators like Lindelof! Alias, again, collaborators. I watch Trek, and I get nothing but action, fun, characters, and an enjoyable adventure. Which is fin, but I don't see that movie being analyzed for anything but story and filmmaking technique in 20 years. I watch MI:3, about the same. I watch Super 8 and I see a guy who's fascinated with infusing genre movies with emotional storytelling. Great, I get it. But where's the content? Where's the protein?

 

You will, I am not worried.

 

Well while he has to explain when and who characters are, there is alot we don't have to establish, Jedi, Sith, Alliance, ect... The war will be framed in some form or another in historical context. I for one am still hoping for either a Cold War or a Counter Insurgency Operation.

As both of those to me seem like the most logical situation. Granted they could still be establishing a new democracy, however we need a War for it to be Star Wars, EP 1 was basically a Trade Dispute, much like the East India Trading Company controlling politics in England and using that power to do as they please.

But I don't think you can do 3 episodes of "we are busy remaking republic"

 

In fac

EW has already claimed that Abrams as director of the Sequels means "There will be less politics than in the prequels." (I have a link to the article and response on the Poli-Sci Jedi Facebook page). I'm worried that the media is already running with the idea that less politics = better, rather than that the political scenes need to be better performed/written/etc. One user in the forums made a good point and said Abrams should use HBO's Rome as an example of how to include scenes with political tension.

 

I don't think we are going to get more PT politics. I think you will get OT politics, nothing so BLATANT, for the fan like you or I we will see it. But it won't be this blatant....

You might have a politician character, much like Leia, and get references to "The Senate being disbanded, with Moffs having full control over systems." Without physically showing it

 

The amount of time showing politicians isn't the issue. It's a matter of whether he is aware and capable of continuing and advancing the overarching themes of Saga.

 

I think it will be fine. I hope the opening "Diplomatic Mission" in 7 should be perhaps an Alliance envoy to hurting world wishing to know if they wish to join/rejoin the Republic. Or Jedi deployed to get to the bottom of a planetary government problem

 

Or possibly a diplomatic mission to a new alien species. If LawJedi is right, the new movies might have an invasion storyline. I could easily see the opening scene being like a "first contact" moment.

 

Yup. Introduction of a new threat, drenched in Abrams-esque mystery. Replete with the unavoidable War on Terror analogies.

 

Regardless of my view on real-world politics, I sure hope that last part doesn't turn out to be true! Frankly, by 2015, I don't think Abrams is going to reach back to the War on Terror for movie material. There's plenty of rich historical material he could mine. Again, this goes back to your question - does Abrams have the depth of historical understanding to take advantage of it, or is his historical memory basically the past 15 years?

 

Indeed it was stale by 2005, but I almost wonder if it's avoidable. What else could possibly be the equivalent of Lucas using Vietnam and Watergate in the OT? Or Lewinsky and the Bush Doctrine in the PT?

Luke giving speeches about hope, entitlements and debt ceilings while Leia is before a Senate subcommittee being grilled by squabbling delegates about her involvement in the Benghazi scandal?

(edit: don't get me started on ST Leia as an allegory for Hillary Clinton)

 

LOL, there's a lot more they could use for the ST. How about the reconciliation with Mandela in South Africa or Suu Kyi in Burma? Or there could be a WWII Churchill moment in the face of an alien invasion. Or a Coventry moment when the government has to make a decision about letting a planet get bombed so the invaders don't know that their code has been broken.

I have a suspicion though that we'll see an analogy to Obama's career - the hope and optimism in 2008 followed by stalemate and frustration in 2012. The disappointment of lofty expectations. I have a feeling that's a theme Abrams and Lucas won't pass up, no matter how small a role it plays in the movies.

 

I think no matter what you draw from history, what you want is applicability to the turmoils of the current generation. And I just don't know what that is. American culture war? American soldiers returning from Iraq and Afghanistan? Economic class warfare? These all sound as tedious as the Lewinsky allusions in TPM, but something's got to capture the public's mindset the way that ANH did. Or maybe we're just too boring of a culture right now to achieve that.

 

Lewinski allusions?

 

I don't know if it has to be a literal event. It could just be capturing the mood or the times. I think a lot of people feel insecure about the future now, both due to the economy and relative decline of America. If the ST could somehow capture that sense and show characters overcoming both societal and individual insecurity, that could really resonate. Maybe just characters who feel that, rather than being larger than life, they can't control events.

I think part of the problem with the PT was that it explored moral ambiguity, but the message a lot of people saw was that you ("you, Americans") are crossing the line to the Dark Side. The ST I think would be better off by showing characters facing insecurity, but then also overcoming it.

 

Chancellor Valorum, the well meaning leader mired in baseless accusations. I know Terrance Stamp went on record as mentioning the Clinton comparisons.

 

Yeah but it wasn't like Padme was like "I was his intern once..." before the vote of no confidence.

 

That would be too on the nose, even for the PT!

 

We had the storm troopers marching like well storm troopers passed political officials. You can't get more on the nose than that