main
side
curve
  1. In Memory of LAJ_FETT: Please share your remembrances and condolences HERE

Saga Star Wars- an anti-power fantasy saga

Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by Mr. B, Jan 19, 2015.

  1. Slicer87

    Slicer87 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2013
    The thing is Vader isn't a badass like fans want to view him, he is supposed to be a pathetic man. In ANH he crushed a captured rebel prisoner's, attempted to strangle a officer over a difference of opinion. Killed a couple of officers like a bratty kid breaking his toys in anger for not getting his way, it is pathetic, not badass.
     
    Andy Wylde, Iron_lord and Mr. B like this.
  2. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    I'm sorry but you don't know what democracy means.
     
    MOC Yak Face and only one kenobi like this.
  3. only one kenobi

    only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Errrmm. No. Just no. A Republic operates a form of democracy. Democracy is simply government by the people. The Senate aren't 'the mob' (and the history of the idea of 'the mob' is interesting in itself - it being a characterisation of the lower classes through the eyes and interests of the elites), they are representatives. They are one aspect of the elite. As I say, someone's doing a fine job of exaggerating their own necessity....
     
  4. Slicer87

    Slicer87 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2013

    ERrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrmmmmmmmmmmmmmm. yes, yes, yes, and yes it is. The senate in the Republic devoled into a mob mentality, just look at TPM with Padme's vote of no confidence and how it spread like wild fire. It is often the elite that try to control and convince the mob to surrender rights for greater security like Palpitine, this is how dictatorships are born. A Republic would protect your rights not only from the mob, but from the elite as well, a democracy would not. It would allow the elites to influence the mob to chip away freedom and ignore or do away with 0right in the name of the greater good. A democracy alllows the elites to give the mop enough rope to hang themselves. A Republic protects rights from this as there is no security without freedom. But I see you like to drink deep from the kool-aid, well it does taste better than the bitter pill of reality. There is a reason Amercians are about the most free people in the 1st world. Many modern 1st world counties that call themselves a democracy do not have protection for the most basic of rights that we Amercians enjoy, such as freedom of speech, fair trial, right to bear arms, etc.
     
  5. Slicer87

    Slicer87 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2013
    You don't really know what it means,

    DEMOCRACY:
    • A government of the masses.
    • Authority derived through mass meeting or any other form of "direct" expression.
    • Results in mobocracy.
    • Attitude toward property is communistic--negating property rights.
    • Attitude toward law is that the will of the majority shall regulate, whether is be based upon deliberation or governed by passion, prejudice, and impulse, without restraint or regard to consequences.
    • Results in demogogism, license, agitation, discontent, anarchy.
    • Democracy is a form of democracy in which people vote on policy initiatives directly, as opposed to a representative democracy in which people vote for representatives who then vote on policy initiatives. Democracy was very much opposed by the framers of the United States Consitution and some signatories of the Declaration of Independence. They saw a danger in majorities forcing their will on minorities. They thought democracy could take the form of mob rule that could be shaped on the spot by a demagogue. As a result, they advocated a constitutional republic over a democracy.
    REPUBLIC:
    • Authority is derived through the election by the people of public officials best fitted to represent them.
    • Attitude toward law is the administration of justice in accord with fixed principles and established evidence, with a strict regard to consequences.
    • A greater number of citizens and extent of territory may be brought within its compass.
    • Avoids the dangerous extreme of either tyranny or mobocracy.
    • Results in statesmanship, liberty, reason, justice, contentment, and progress.
    • Is the "standard form" of government throughout the world, often mislabeled as a democracy.
    • Republicanism is the political values system that has been a major part of American civic thought since the American Revolution. It stresses liberty and inalienable rights as central values, makes the people as a whole sovereign, rejects inherited political power, expects citizens to be independent in their performance of civic duties, and vilifies corruption.
    Many people confuse the two as the same so I don't blame you for being so confused. You see Palpitine is a demagogue, or rabble-rouser is a political leader in ademocracy who appeals to the emotions, fears, prejudices, and ignorance of the lower classes in order to gain power and promote political motives. Demagogues usually oppose deliberation and advocate immediate, violent action to address a national crisis; they accuse moderate and thoughtful opponents of weakness. Demagogues have appeared in democracies since ancient Athens. They exploit a fundamental weakness in democracy: because ultimate power is held by the people, nothing stops the people from giving that power to someone who appeals to the lowest common denominator of a large segment of the population, "the mob rule".

    Lucas has said he is a history buff and is fascinated how democracies always devolve into dictatorships, just what our founding fathers feared, and they probably would agree with Lucas. However this probably goes way above most of your heads.
     
  6. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015
    I'm gonna return to the central basis of this thread. Star Wars is not an "anti-power" story.

    If the goal of Star Wars was to suggest that seeking power leads to destruction, at best its sending mixed messages. Routinely, through the OT, PT and even in TCW, the people who willingly choose to be defenseless (i.e. powerless) are prey for the powerful. Alderaan, is described by Leia has having "no weapons" is obliterated by the Death Star. Naboo is a world lacking any significant "official" defenses and is invaded, not even by another nation, but by a mere corporate conglomerate. In the TCW, Mandalore effectively demilitarizes and is at the mercy of a couple of Sith and a loose alliance of criminal organizations. The Lurmen on Maridun (see TCW Jedi Crash and Defenders of Peace) are pacifists and would have been vaporized in a Separatist weapons test if not for a few Jedi and clones to defend them. And then there's the defenseless villagers on Carlac, brutalized by Death Watch (TCW A Friend in Need). The list goes on.

    Above all else, Star Wars is a story about good and evil , and about making choices. It's not saying that merely having power leads to your destruction. It's saying that, among other things, the misuse of power leads to your destruction.
     
  7. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011


    I'm sorry but this is just plain wrong. A democracy is any system where the government is derived from the peoples collective will and can take many forms. The one you describe as being a 'democracy' is actually a 'ochlocracy'. A 'republic' isn't really how you describe it either since what you describe is 'constitutionalism'. For instance my country is a 'constituational monarchy' and the United States is a 'constitutional republic'. Nowdays a Republic is really just a constitutional system which elects its head of state. Likewise many republics are not democracy's like the Soviet Union, Iran, etc, etc.

    Are you sure it doesn't go over your head? The German Republic (1919 - 33) - a Republic. The Roman Republic - a Republic. Yes democracies sometimes devolve into dictatorships but these are often Republics (in fact some would argue Republics are more susceptible than Constitutional Monarchy's). The same goes for the United States - don't you get that's the message?

    No that's called a constitution... which the Republic we are talking about has. Not to mention the constitution can be amended, which is how Republics fall. Oh and you are also wrong about the whole American-centric stuff...
     
    only one kenobi and MOC Yak Face like this.
  8. MOC Vober Dand

    MOC Vober Dand Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2004
    I think we've gone far enough down the road of political and governmental systems and we're certainly not going to get into a 'Best Country in the World' discussion. Let's take Octavian Dibar's suggestion and get back to the topic. Slicer87 you might like to cool it a bit on the Kool aid, bitter pill of reality metaphors and condescending remarks about things going over people's heads.
     
    CT-867-5309 likes this.
  9. Slicer87

    Slicer87 Jedi Master star 4

    Registered:
    Mar 18, 2013
    I only responded that way torwards Only one kenobi's and other posters condescending attitude torwards me and generally putdowns torwards American ideology. I still stand by the Republic devolved into a democracy/mob rule before devolving futther into the Empire. In my country, the US, many people don't understand the difference and why it has slipped more torwards a democracy. By popular misusage, the word "democracy" comes to mean any form of government in which the government derives its power from the people and is accountable to them for the use of that power. In this sense or certain point of view the United States might be called a "democracy".
     
  10. MOC Vober Dand

    MOC Vober Dand Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2004
    You are entitled to your opinion. I hope your country can stay off the slippery slope towards democracy. In any event, let's leave such discussions for a more appropriate forum.
     
  11. DarthPhilosopher

    DarthPhilosopher Chosen One star 6

    Registered:
    Jan 23, 2011
    MOC Yak Face likes this.
  12. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011

    The fact that people who refuse to fight often fall prey to the powerful doesn't contradict the status of the saga as an "anti-power" fantasy. The whole point of the saga is that death is not something to be feared. As long as you stand up for your principles, you will survive as a memory long after your death, and you will be immortal. The moral of the story is that you should never violate your ideals, even if it means you will be destroyed. I know that's a hard moral for a lot of people to accept, but that's why Star Wars is a such a revolutionary movie series.

    That's the choice Luke made. He was basically only saved through an act of God: Anakin Skywalker, a being conceived by the Force, fulfilling a divine prophecy. The human part of Anakin was motivated by compassion for his son, and he made a genuine choice to destroy the Emperor for the greater good. But his act of violence ended up breaking the cycle of violence--rather than perpetuating it--only because there were larger forces at play. The Force alone is allowed to use the tools of destruction in order to create a better world. That's why the PT made Anakin a demigod.
     
  13. CT-867-5309

    CT-867-5309 Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jan 5, 2011
    I can definitely see both sides. I can definitely, 100% appreciate what The_Phantom_Calamari and others are saying, I can definitely see it in the movies.

    And I can definitely see why others would say "not really".

    So....it is, and it isn't. Imo.
     
    MOC Yak Face likes this.
  14. MOC Vober Dand

    MOC Vober Dand Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2004
    I certainly agree with this. I don't like it, but it's the way it is.
     
  15. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011

    I notice you didn't bold the part of my post where I noted that the human part of Anakin did made a genuine choice. He wasn't forced into doing what he did by the Force. All the Force did was make it possible for his act of violence to bring peace. Cosmically, that's not how things are supposed to happen, which is why the Force had to intercede.

    Consider the example of the Daughter when she tried to get Obi-Wan to use the Dagger of Mortis to stop the Son. The Dagger (representing violence) was instead used to destroy her, perpetuating the cycle of destruction and making the imbalance in the Force even worse. The Son was only stopped when the Dagger was used in an act of compassionate sacrifice by the Father, robbing the Son of his power and allowing Anakin to kill him with his lightsaber. Anakin made the choice to destroy the Son, but it was only because of the Father (representing the Cosmic Force) that he was able to do so successfully and without negative repercussions.

    On Mortis, Anakin and the Father acted separately. The Father used the light side to defeat the Son by sacrificing himself, and Anakin used the dark side to defeat the Son by killing him. In Return of the Jedi, Anakin embodies both roles by balancing dark and light, sacrificing himself in the name of compassion while at the same time committing an act of homicide. The reason this act took on cosmic significance and balanced the entire Force of the universe was because Anakin was of divine lineage and acting as an agent of prophecy. But the choice itself was personal, and Anakin was motivated by his love for his son.
     
  16. MOC Vober Dand

    MOC Vober Dand Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2004
    anakinfansince1983 likes this.
  17. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011

    The role of the Force in the power dynamics of the Star Wars galaxy seems to me to be directly relevant to the thread topic.
     
  18. MOC Vober Dand

    MOC Vober Dand Manager Emeritus star 5 VIP - Former Mod/RSA

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2004
    Duly noted.
     
  19. only one kenobi

    only one kenobi Jedi Grand Master star 4

    Registered:
    Nov 18, 2012
    Hmmm. Were the Ewoks demi-gods? Because the victory over the Empire required that they physically defeat the stormtroopers (with the rebels) and take control of the base on planet or...there is still a fully operational Death Star protected by the shield. Are the rebels demigods? Because they have to infiltrate said Death Star and destroy it, otherwise there is still a fully operational Death Star, and how much of the Imperial fleet was destroyed by it's destruction?

    I'll offer an alternative framework. Through the saga we are shown that; the seemingly solid foundations of the Republic are wracked by corruption. Corporate interest and greed dictate the discussion, stifle meaningful action for those who are being wronged by those corporate interests, and actually use those wrongs for their own ends - to garner popular support. In fact the actions which need addressing are actively encouraged or developed by a hidden aspect of those garnering support (here, for instance, the 'ghostly' holographic projection of Sidious can be seen as a metaphor for the 'ghostly' (buried) trails between those who garner power in the Republic and those who are funding and manipulating the 'external' threat).

    All smoke and mirrors. 'Emergencies' are created by which an external threat is created so that the interests and aims of the few can be more solidly implemented within a legal framework, and the citizens rallied to the cause. Military spending is massively increased, but it's 'ok' because the military is protecting you against an external enemy.... But, within the legal framework that same, massively funded and technologically advanced military can soon become your oppressors.

    Any action to overcome this through the 'democratic' channels of the Republic are meaningless...and will be used against you. "you're beginning to sound like a separatist ". Yes, yes, give the enemy a simple name that is ultimately meaningless, can only mean 'against the power'.

    In this reading the Jedi become a proxy 'everyman'. They have power but they have no legal framework within which they feel they can utilise it, they try to do the right thing but no matter what they do it seems the wrong thing...because thay are manipulated by the lies of those who actually hold that legal power. They are the thinking, conscientious mind of the military, those who question what is going on, who know something is wrong but can't quite grasp the reasons...they have their suspicions but.....

    The nascent rebellion, likewise, are those that lobby back home...trying to do so within the legal framework that is set up to stifle them.

    So, ultimately, the only way of fighting the greed and the corruption, the oppression which was always as much within the Republic as without is to become a separatist....but you claim another name for yourself, because the other is so tarnished. You try to keep to your principles, no matter how difficult that is when the enemy seemingly has none. The rebels all have faces, they are individulas whose loss is felt by those around them. The clones are faceless, disposable canon fodder for the power - not even responsible for their actions (which one was it? It was the guy in the white armour with white helmet). Star Wars can be read as a call to arms, as much as anything.
     
  20. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    Technically speaking, his act of killing Palpatine balanced the Force because Palpatine, the Sith, was acting as the agent of imbalance.
     
  21. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011

    Palpatine didn't unbalance the Force all on his little lonesome. Sure, he was the physical incarnation of the imbalance, but he was merely the avatar of a larger societal problem. Palpatine's death had cosmic significance because of what it represented, not simply because of what it directly accomplished. Nothing in Star Wars is ever only literal.

    It's the same reason Jesus' death has cosmic significance in Christianity, even though in literal terms the only thing that occurred was a mortal man being unjustly put to death--which, while unfortunate, isn't exactly the sort of event that you would normally expect to fundamentally alter the arrangement of the universe.
     
  22. Arawn_Fenn

    Arawn_Fenn Chosen One star 7

    Registered:
    Jul 2, 2004
    The ( latter-day ) Banite Sith were the source of the imbalance. Though the process had already begun beforehand due to the efforts of Tenebrous' master, by working in concert Plagueis and Sidious were able to shift the balance directly. We may presume that Palpatine as the inheritor of Banite Sith knowledge would be able to continue or intensify this process, or at least maintain the imbalance. We've seen several instances of Palpatine engaging in bizarre and esoteric Sith rituals ( Sithisis, TCW ) and it's not unreasonable to assume that such a thing may have allowed for the unbalancing of the Force. Of course, we have also been presented with the idea that war and conflict deepen the imbalance. Given that the Force is in some sense generated by the galaxy, what is wrong with the galaxy can be said to be reflected in the Force. And Palpatine and his forebears were ultimately the source of everything major that went wrong during the film era. Palpatine, as instrument of the dark side, promotes the dark side's ascendancy and control over the galaxy; killing him removes such an instrument.

    What it accomplished is the only thing that is in any way important. That is its significance: it affected ( directly or indirectly ) a cosmic energy field, or allowed for that energy field to be affected in the future. What it "represented" ( to whom? ) is of dubious relevance.

    Says who?

    This plays like a misreading of Christianity to some extent, in favor of... I don't know the proper terminology. I assure you that Christians believe Jesus was much more than mortal man, and that literally more occurred than a mortal man being put to death. In your words, the arrangement of the universe was fundamentally altered according to Christian belief. That we would not expect such a thing to happen in reality does not preclude its appearance in fiction, where the metaphysical rules of the fictional universe can work any way the writer wants them to.
     
    MOC Yak Face and Octavian Dibar like this.
  23. Octavian Dibar

    Octavian Dibar Jedi Knight star 3

    Registered:
    Jan 6, 2015

    Can you expand on what you mean by "larger societal problem?"
     
  24. Mr. B

    Mr. B Jedi Youngling

    Registered:
    Jan 15, 2015

    i appreciate your input. however, the central basis of this thread is not that star wars is anti-power. it's central basis is that star wars is anti power fantasy. specifically, those power fantasies considered viable in the current anxious climate of western society. using power, as star wars would have it, is fine. it is the how and why of power that separates the viable power fantasy from the non-viable ones. power used in anger or other petty emotions for the purposes of revenge or other petty motivations. it was my intent to draw a line from this concept to the fates of certain power fantasy characters in the saga. that certain fans are disappointed in how these characters were handled i believe ties directly in to lucas' intent for the series.

    the group conflicts get a little more murky, but there's a different discussion to be had there. when it comes to group conflicts in films, especially like star wars, people will engage in "righteous underdog" fantasies. my country is like the rebellion. the enemy country is like the empire. liberals in america think that conservatives are the empire. conservatives believe themselves to be like the rebellion. basically, we take myths and use them to further our own tribalistic, "us vs. them" tendency to demonize our opponents.

    Though if you ask me, people are projecting the myth the wrong way. for me, the GFFA is inside each of us. though there are undeniable parallels between the events of star wars and human history, the rebellion and the empire along with their various permutations are a macrocosm of the struggle occurring within each of us. rebellion and empire, jedi and sith, good and evil. all are within us. the daily struggle. so, in that sense we're in agreement. star wars is about good and evil, along with how and why power is used.
     
  25. The_Phantom_Calamari

    The_Phantom_Calamari Force Ghost star 5

    Registered:
    Nov 10, 2011

    No, I don't believe I'm misreading Christianity in any way. Christians believe Jesus Christ was both fully human and fully God. If he wasn't fully human, his suffering would have meant nothing, because how can an omnipotent and omniscient God truly know suffering? He is also fully God, because otherwise his death wouldn't have larger ramifications for the souls of human beings. God wasn't literally being killed, because that's impossible. On the other hand, Jesus Christ the man was literally being killed. The ramifications for the universe at large weren't really literal because they were occurring on a spiritual plane, not a physical one. Perhaps some people would quibble about whether or not spiritual events can be said to have literally occurred or not, but I'm not really interested in semantic distinctions like that because I'm not religious.

    I won't address the other parts of your post because I think we have a fundamental disagreement about the nature of Star Wars and of fictional narratives in general, and so I doubt we'll get anywhere through argument.