ST Do the films portray the New Republic negatively?

Except it appears you want to handwave it away with ' the Republic should have known'. You have provided no evidence they should have and therefore it is only shortsighted, not illogical, that they didn't prepare.

 

It is not logical to judge the Resistance by our audience exclusive information.

If the New Republic knew this... If the New Republic knew that... If... If...

They did not know about the extent of the danger the First Order represented. The warnings from Leia were not taken seriously.

Are we going to blame the New Republic for being zapped out of the sky by a hyperspace blast? Even if they learnt the lesson from both Death Stars, they had to get close to their targets. What SKB did was impossible as far as they were concerned.

All the talk about designated survivor is failed in two fronts.

First, a single designated survivor has no political traction to overcome a decapitation attack. The fear would be much higher than any political effort.

Second, a designated survivor is only needed when there is a perceived threat or a high risk situation. And the New Republic perceived no threat from the reports they had about the First Order.

 

It appears that you want to defend the New Republic no matter what. It IS illogical to reduce one’s military so much that it would barely be able to fight against even a conventional invasion. It is illogical to not have a contingency plan for a worst case scenario, especially when it is very possible even if their enemies didn’t create a weapon capable of firing halfway across the galaxy. No evidence? They did NOT investigate or engage with the First Order for “reasons”. I am sorry, but it seems like you want to argue to disagree or to just play devil’s advocate. At the end of the day the portrayal of the New Republic as depicted so far has been negative.

 

Again, I've stated many times that I think the Republic was wrong, so don't create strawmen. I think the Republic acted slowly and niavely, and because that's how governments often act, I don't find it illogical. I just find it a represention of how a government might act. Just because a government doesn't do what you would have done, it doesn't make it a logical flaw in the film.

In this way they are represented pretty neutrally in my opinion.

 

Just because it happens in the real world doesn’t mean it is not illogical. It lacks logic in real life as well when authorities actively ignore warnings or are slow to react and then act surprised when a horrible event that was predicted happens. The New Republic’s stance of inaction may not be “illogical” in believability, but its actions itself were.

 

So basically we've gone from logical in terms of what a government might do realistically to an entirely subjective of logic of what you would do.

If it's believable I don't find it a problem with the film.

 

That’s not what this thread is about, it asked whether or not the New Republic is depicted negatively. You’re basically saying because it is “realistic/believable” it somehow mitigates the choices the New Republic made. Please explain how willful ignorance and slow reactions in our world are logical and also a logical response in their world. Believable does not necessarily mean logical.

 

Being logical means being capable of reasoning or of using reason in an orderly cogent fashion.

There is no restriction, in the dictionary, regarding the quality of the reasoning.

A reasoning is given by the life experiences, circunstances and information one has available.

The New Republic had experiences with the previous DS, which worked in a different way, up close to their targets. The circunstances are different after years of peace. And the information the New Republic has is that the FO is a small threat, something not capable of being a problem for them.

Their reasons were all wrong. Which is the realistic part, as history shows governments making wrong decisions all the time.

The fact that the New Republic is no better nor worse than their real-life friends is their redemption. The movie depicted a realistic scenario, and the in-universe parties reacted to the events in a logical way. Not in the perfect way, as this is information only we as audience had.

 

I'm well aware of the question at the start of this thread, and I have answered it many times: I don't believe the Republic is portrayed negatively or positively. They are portrayed as an idealistic state that gambled geopolitically and lost.

I mean to pretend that geopolitics is filled with anything but non-perfect solutions is silly. The Republic, like all states, is confronted with a set of data and they acted in a way that is a logical option to them. I mean if things happened differently with the First Order, and the policy decision they had made meant they had lost similarly, they would be blamed for that, even if it was just a perfectly logical. They are acting in the mist of it - they don't have complete knowledge of everything. Their policy wasn't the only option, and it might not have been the way you would have done it, but it is a logical option.

They are confronted with a peaceful galaxy and a small secessionist state on its border. They have many options (the geopolitical gamble). They could remilitarise - but what if that causes an arms race. They will be accused of plunging the galaxy into conflict and causing a Second Clone War. They could preemptively invade, but people would say that they are being aggressors. They could move their fleet away from the capital and scatter it - but what if the First Order rushes in takes the capital hostage - people would say they left the capital unguarded. They could build a massive fleet - but what if it's commandeered by a military coup, or by another dictator (or by First Order infiltrators). They could build another Death Star to scare the First Order - but then are they better than the Empire?

They hedged their bets and gambled the First Order didn't have the ability to destroy an entire system from across the galaxy without warning. This was based upon the fact even the Resistance didn't know it was a possibility. They gambled. They lost. But they too logical decisions based upon weighing options.

This is why I don't like history that paints Neville Chamberlain as an absolute idiot and Churchill as a genius. Yes Churchill was right, but in the mist of it Chamberlain made logical decisions.

 

Ditto.

 

A few posters have mentioned the NR was like a Galactic United Nations.

The comparison is apt. However, the UN has no standing army. Its constituent members contribute their military resources under UN madated "missions".

This is all well and good. But if none of the 1000 worlds in the NR have miliitary assets to contribute AND THEN tbe NR disarms this means the NR is nothing more than an effete bureaucracy, and all thode world are wide open to attack.

Reminds me of that Simpsons episode when Earth disarms and Aliens conquer humanity with pointy sticks.

In the depiction of Hosnian's destruction the 'fleet' orbiting the system looked tiny.

I don't what is stupider, the idea thst the NR would disarm, or that an entire Galaxy of worlds who lived through countless wars would all disarm themselves.

The NR just seems like a plot device to give the script in TFA some momentum.

 

^That's exactly what it was. Here's the thing, some people are defending the portrayal of the NR using in-universe reasoning "well it makes sense because this this and this." My complaints are that 1. None of this is actually in the movies (the audience shouldn't be required to go pay more money to buy a book, or comics, just to understand basic set-up like this, it should be in the films).

And 2. CONECPTULLY I find it lame, dull, and uninteresting. "We have a republic, but we don't do anything with them on-film and blow them up as quickly as possible so that we can rehash The Empire vs. The Rebellion 2.0, only not as well, and what we do find out basically says that no one learned anything from the past and made the exact same mistakes again."

You can try and justify that all you want, even the conceptual IDEA of it is flawed imo. It feels like they were scared to actually progress anything.

 

Leia: why New Republic is so terrible, everything is worse than I thought.

Mon Mothma: There's a new sequel coming, Leia, we need to do a terrible job to make Rebels vs Empire again. And you need to be an absent parent because they want other Evil Skywalker to work to Empire 2.0 and he will have a Palpatine 2.0 as mentor. And he will betray Palpatine 2.0, s-

Leia: ok, I get it

 

Leia: .... MoMo, I have one more question: What if all of that turns out to be an epic fail?
Mon Mothma: The answer is "Time travel!"

 

Take that same dialogue, but swap out Leia and Mon Mothma for Luke and Obi Wan/Yoda and you also have the Jedi plot line in the ST as well unfortunately.

 

I just had to read the top of the page to be sure I was not in the wrong thread. Strange.

 

It say "Do the films portray the New Republic negatively?" and we are talking about it (and mentioning Jedi plot had a similar treatment.

 

I'm not sure how the story group let the plot point get the go ahead that the New Republic signed some pacifistic armistice and just expected the Imperial Remnants and then First Order to play ball. Sorry to the Utopia dreamers out there but stuff just does not fly in any sort of situation. Evil exists, and is very easily identifiable in the Star Wars universe especially with factions such as the Sith. I don't know how the NR expected to survive without viable defense.

This alone assures me that intentional or not the New Republic's portrayal is negative. Much like the First Order and the Resistance, the NR suffers from a lethal dose of naivety, stupidity and complete incompetence.

If you want to just rely solely on the movies. The shifting capital world idea is pie in the sky nonsense. A set location as the place where your society does political business conveys strength. A roaming nomadic capital conveys volatility.

This just dawned on me as well...we're literally seeing The Clone Wars Mandalorians storyline in relation to the New Republic all over again aren't we? Society demands a renunciation of violent past and keeps a token security force around only to be utterly decimated when evil forces materialize.

 

"Simples."

 

Your point?

 

That it isn't simple.

 

For myself, I agree partly, but disagree as well. The disarmament of the New Republic is probably close to the analogy of Japan, where there is still a strong inclination among the people for the military to be used only for self-defense or peace-keeping purposes, even there has been a stronger push by the current prime minister, Shinzo Abe, for a more robust and forward-leaning military. Disarmament was also a key part of the short-lived League of Nations as well.

Where I do agree, however, is that the New Republic was probably closest to the United Nations or the European Union or the League of Nations just mentioned. The sense I get is that the New Republic probably wasn't that strong anyway, and was probably a fairly weak central power. Like others, I do wish that there was some greater background on the intergalactic state of affairs in "The Force Awakens" (there was supposedly a deleted scene with some details).

I think it is likely that in the last film, there are two possible paths: either the Resistance is able to rebuild their armada beyond than just the Millennium Falcon possibly with the help of some worlds who have no disarmed or, the Resistance becomes more of a guerrilla insurgency. The Last Jedi leaves it open for either path, though it is clear from the final scene with the boy with the broom that the spirit of the Resistance still exists and is quite strong.

 

The Resistance is portrayed a weak and the fact that they ignored Leias distress signal for help is horrible. I'm willing to bet anything they are setting it up so that Super Rey can leD the new "Rebels" It's a travesty.

 

The films hardly portray the New Republic or the galactic status quo at all frankly. Unlike in the OT, or PT, where we are aware of the galactic set up.

But as for whatever little we saw, it appears not many are aware or care about the planet that was destroyed in TFA. And that the New Republic seems as ineffectual, corrupt, apathetic as the old one.

Yes I also fear that random Rey, who is unbeatable, has become the leader of a new Rebellion. In a galaxy that shouldn't really have Rebels. Where is the Empire, the return of the Jedi Order? What was the New Republic? The First Order??

 

The problem with making the NR militarily analagous with a nation state like post war Japan or Germany is that those countries were defeated, their militaries reduced via surrender terms and their future protection left in the hands of the conquering allies.

They didn't disarm with no way left to defend themselves. This seems to be the case with the NR.

Japan has a defensive military enshrined in their constitution based upon the forward projection of Western military might - namely the United States' pacific fleet and military bases and nuclear umbrella.

What's interesting now is these treaties are under pressure as there is a question mark over the ability of defending agsinst a rogue actor like North Korea.

For the NR to make sense it similarly would need to project force tbroughout the Galaxy, not disarm.

Although this isn't just a problem with the ST. The PT alao had a peciliar idea of how the Jedi protected the republic as well.