Lucas says Star Wars is a wakeup call - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

samcol · 05-17-2005, 05:25 AM

I found this article to be quite amusing. Its good that more and more people realize what's really going on. Maybe Star Wars can help with that, who knows.

Quote:

Star Wars is a wakeup call to Americans about the erosion of democratic freedoms under George W. Bush, George Lucas said yesterday.

Lucas, at a Cannes film festival press conference yesterday, said he first wrote the framework of Star Wars in 1971 when reacting to then-U.S. president Richard Nixon and the events of the Vietnam War. But the story still has relevance today, he said, and is part of a pattern he has noticed in history.

"I didn't think it was going to get quite this close," he said of the parallels between the Nixon era and the Bush presidency, which has been sacrificing freedoms in the interests of national security.

"It is just one of those re-occuring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is . . . The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable."

In the latest film, the Palpatine character takes over as ruler of the universe with the co-operation of the other politicians.

"Because this is the back story (of the Star Wars saga), one of the main features of the back story was to tell how the Republic became the Empire," Lucas said.

"At the time I did that, it was during the Vietnam War and the Nixon era. The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over, but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?"

Lucas cited the Roman empire in the wake of Caesar's death, France after the revolution and Hitler's rise in Germany as historical examples of countries giving themselves over to dictators.

"They all seem to happen in the same way with the same issues: Threats from the outside; they need more control; and a democratic body not being able to function properly because everybody's squabbling."

Lucas earned applause for his comments before joining actors Hayden Christensen, Natalie Portman (who has shaved her head for a new role), Samuel L. Jackson, Ian McDiarmid and Anthony Daniels in a free-wheeling discussion of Star Wars: Episode III -- Revenge Of The Sith, which made its world premiere last night out-of- competition.

This was before the Cannes brass presented Lucas with an honour called "the trophy of the festival."

Some highlights of the press conference:

- On making Episodes VII through IX, Lucas said he never planned to do it, regardless of rumours to the contrary: "The original intention was to make one movie and it turned into three. That was really the end of it. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that it occured to me to do the back story (and now it is over)."

- On his big death scene in Revenge Of The Sith, Jackson said: "I was pleased with my death. I asked him (Lucas) not to do anything messy and he didn't. Now I've had the Errol Flynn moment that I've always wished for since I was a kid watching movies."

Copyright © The London Free Press

Star Wars a cautionary tale about politics

Daniel_ · 05-17-2005, 06:17 AM

Interesting.

I'd always assumed that it was more heavilly based on ancient Roman history - a senate being overpowered by an emperor.

I cna see the Nixon parallels, and the Bush issues as being "hot" for the liberal artistic establishment of California, but I think that it would be hard to find any society that couldn't point to a period in history where traditional freedoms of citizens were eroded in the interest of "national security" in a way that undermined personal liberties and enhanced despotism.

That said, I'd pay to see Newt Gingritch vs. Hillary Clinton with Lightsabers...

Charlatan · 05-17-2005, 06:35 AM

It's funny, I always saw the emperor as a Hitler type figure... The aesthetics of the empire are very sexy.

When the backstory was revealed I was even more convinced...

Pacifier · 05-17-2005, 06:52 AM

Umh, there are parallels to Hitler and Bush. The used scheme (Threats from the outside[...]) is not new. But it seems to function all the time, thats and when you see how quickly it sometimes happens is what makes it so scary.

"[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country."
(Herman Göring)

aberkok · 05-17-2005, 07:09 AM

It seems to me that Lucas, while not wrong, has an overly simplistic view of how these things happen. I won't elaborate too much, as I anticipate this'll be a really long thread with that information given, but I will cite one point: economic factors.

Star Wars and Lucas don't ever focus on the issues of class separation and the poor. One of the reason people back these tyrants is because they feel the food on their table is in jeopardy. Put simply, these things don't happen by accident. If my kids are about to starve because I've lost my job to someone from another country, you'll be sure I'll back whoever will keep my child fed by limiting immigration.

Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that, and there are other options anyway. All I'm saying is that Lucas would like to think that these things happen without people noticing when in fact, people bring it about. They just don't notice how.

Seaver · 05-17-2005, 07:21 AM

Yeah I knew this was coming.

Saw it last night on the news about how all the reporters over-reacted declaring this was his preaching against Bush. Well I hate to break it to yall but he had written/planned this movie back over 25 years ago.

Pacifier · 05-17-2005, 07:25 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Seaver

Well I hate to break it to yall but he had written/planned this movie back over 25 years ago.

You should really read the article because that is exactly what Lucas said.
However, the point is, that what happened back than seems to happen again. Thats why the movie, which was palnned long ago, seem to fit to todays events :

Quote:

"It is just one of those re-occuring things. I hope this doesn't come true in our country. Maybe the film will awaken people to the situation of how dangerous it is . . . The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we are doing now in Iraq are unbelievable."

WillyPete · 05-17-2005, 07:25 AM

Are you sure: (re 25 yrs)

Quote:

That was really the end of it. It wasn't until about 10 years ago that it occured to me to do the back story (and now it is over)."

Pacifier · 05-17-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by WillyPete

Are you sure: (re 25 yrs)

10 years ago, Lucas started to work seriously on the Script.
But parts of it are based on notices and stories he had written back then.

Manx · 05-17-2005, 07:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

It seems to me that Lucas, while not wrong, has an overly simplistic view of how these things happen.

If my kids are about to starve because I've lost my job to someone from another country, you'll be sure I'll back whoever will keep my child fed by limiting immigration.

That seems like an overly simplistic view of why your kids are about to starve.

Quote:

All I'm saying is that Lucas would like to think that these things happen without people noticing when in fact, people bring it about. They just don't notice how.

I think he's saying exactly that.

MSD · 05-17-2005, 07:45 AM

Look at meeeeeee! I'm on tee-veeeeeeeeee!

(This is my standard response when politicians, celebrities, or pretty much anyone else makes a controversial statement for the sake of publicity)

squirrelyburt · 05-17-2005, 07:58 AM

He does draw a correct parallel with history, and as simplistic as it is, compare Roman history and the corruption in government leading to its downfall and what the U.S. is going through right now.

That said, I'm looking forward to being a kid again and seeing all 6 movies in one sitting. This is still entertainment, quit reading crap into it!!!

Ilow · 05-17-2005, 08:11 AM

While Lucas was most assuredly preaching to the converted abroad, many of his points are still valid. I definitely see more of the Bush-US/Roman Empire in the story than Hitler. I feel as though Hitler used more of the peoples dissatisfaction with the Treaty Versailles and their current downtrodden condition as a unifying force, while Bush is creating an atmosphere of panic about national security. In other words Hitler was seeking a rallying point over what had happened, and Bush is seeking one over what could happen.

Lebell · 05-17-2005, 08:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MrSelfDestruct

Look at meeeeeee! I'm on tee-veeeeeeeeee!

(This is my standard response when politicians, celebrities, or pretty much anyone else makes a controversial statement for the sake of publicity)

I agree.

I am rather disappointed in him.

I thought he was above this sort of publicity stunt.

trickyy · 05-17-2005, 08:54 AM

yes, it's funny how these ideas surface right when he is in france at a press junket.
i think that lucas promoting a movie like this is a wakeup call...if you want to make money, start preaching to the choir! it helps if you seem a little fed up with something or other. just make sure the choir has some disposable income.
hey, it worked for mel gibson and michael moore.

(idea for press in salt lake: empasize the biblical nature of film's battle b/w good and evil.)

raeanna74 · 05-17-2005, 09:09 AM

Any good story speaks to it's audience in a way that appeals to them. People in the US are obsessed with their freedom and their pursuit of the American dream. Anything that APPEARS to threaten that is equivalent to Hitler, the Nazis, persecution, the inquisition, any powerful threat to the 'underdog'.

The Star Wars series has always had religious and political undertones that are somewhat subtle. That subtlety lends itself to personal interpretation.

Manx · 05-17-2005, 09:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I agree.

I am rather disappointed in him.

I thought he was above this sort of publicity stunt.

The guy licensed Star Wars ring tones to Cingular. I'd hardly call this a significant means of seeking publicity in comparison. There are rather obvious political connotations to the entire Star Wars storyline - to presume they shouldn't be spoken of (or the speech and the man should be criticized) because from some perspectives those political connotations match up with actual political landscapes seems awfully like a desire for censorship.

I'm tired of people criticizing celebrities for vocalizing their politics. Particularly as it almost always breaks down to the critique of those celebrities who vocalize political viewpoints which differ from those making the critique.

I don't find Reagan to have been anything close a good President - but I don't begrudge him his roots which enabled him to achieve the presidency.

aberkok · 05-17-2005, 09:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

That seems like an overly simplistic view of why your kids are about to starve.
I think he's saying exactly that.

I guess, Manx, what I was trying to say, albeit unsuccessfully, is that Lucas was taking an oppurtunity to do the usual Bush/G.O.P. bashing when the reality is that the people vote them in. Real people around us who are sometimes our friends. Focusing the blame on the government takes the onus off of us, the population.

Lucas wouldn't dare disrespect his public... oh wait

Manx · 05-17-2005, 09:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by aberkok

I guess, Manx, what I was trying to say, albeit unsuccessfully, is that Lucas was taking an oppurtunity to do the usual Bush/G.O.P. bashing when the reality is that the people vote them in. Real people around us who are sometimes our friends. Focusing the blame on the government takes the onus off of us, the population.

I understood you. What I'm saying is that he is blaming the people -

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lucas

The issue was: How does a democracy turn itself over to a dictator? Not how does a dictator take over, but how does a democracy and Senate give it away?

Lebell · 05-17-2005, 09:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

The guy licensed Star Wars ring tones to Cingular. I'd hardly call this a significant means of seeking publicity in comparison. There are rather obvious political connotations to the entire Star Wars storyline - to presume they shouldn't be spoken of (or the speech and the man should be criticized) because from some perspectives those political connotations match up with actual political landscapes seems awfully like a desire for censorship.

I'm tired of people criticizing celebrities for vocalizing their politics. Particularly as it almost always breaks down to the critique of those celebrities who vocalize political viewpoints which differ from those making the critique.

I don't find Reagan to have been anything close a good President - but I don't begrudge him his roots which enabled him to achieve the presidency.

??

I don't see anyone asking for censorship and I myself am tired of this charge.

You are entitled to you opinion and I am entitled to mine, and mine happens to be that this is a publicity stunt.

And what Reagan has to do with this post is beyond me.

Manx · 05-17-2005, 10:02 AM

You may not see anyone asking for censorship, but that doesn't mean you aren't asking for censorship.

FYI - Reagan was a celebrity before he was Governor before he was President.

Lebell · 05-17-2005, 10:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

You may not see anyone asking for censorship, but that doesn't mean you aren't asking for censorship.

FYI - Reagan was a celebrity before he was Governor before he was President.

I also don't see that anyone could reasonably construe what I wrote as a call for censorship.

Charlatan · 05-17-2005, 10:15 AM

Lebell it is implied in your desire to see all celebrities, who appear to hold an opposing point of view, silenced...

It may not be your intetent but it's there (probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov).

RangerDick · 05-17-2005, 10:24 AM

"probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov"

Why are you trying to censor those peoples' opinions? Seriously, just as a celebrity has the "right" to express his/her pov, other's have the right to disagree? Or don't they?

Manx · 05-17-2005, 10:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RangerDick

"probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov"

Why are you trying to censor those peoples' opinions? Seriously, just as a celebrity has the "right" to express his/her pov, other's have the right to disagree? Or don't they?

Of course they do - but that's not the extent of what they are doing. They're actually criticizing the RIGHT of a celebrity of making a political statement - in Lebell's case by expressing his expectation that Lucas was "above" making political statements in the context of his films.

You can disagree with Lucas' political viewpoints all you want. You can even criticize Lucas for making political statements. But when you do the latter, you are seeking censorship - there are no two ways about it.

Charlatan · 05-17-2005, 10:33 AM

And I don't think for a second that I am suggesting Lebell stop what he is doing... I was simply pointing out how his opinion was coming across...

I just find it interesting that noone seems to get as upset when Republican Hollywood opens their mouths...

As for George... I'd like to find out the context in which he gave his answer. Like he gave an off the cuff answer to a question from the press... I highly doubt he was looking for publicity by being controversial... I mean think about it. Really. If anything, in today's climate, mouthing these sentiments is likely to hurt his box office rather than boost it...

As for what he said, it is no more scathing or deep or anything than what a high school student would put in his english essay: The Democractic Path to Dictatorship: Symbolism in Star Wars.

Lebell · 05-17-2005, 11:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Charlatan

Lebell it is implied in your desire to see all celebrities, who appear to hold an opposing point of view, silenced...

It may not be your intetent but it's there (probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov).

Nonsense.

I question his timing and I question why his opinion should be held in any higher esteem than anyone elses.

I don't question his right to speak it.

And yes, I thought he was above doing so.

Manx · 05-17-2005, 12:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Nonsense.

Not even close.

Quote:

I question his timing

To question his timing implies you know when and how often he expresses political opinions, that they are rare, and that this instance is somehow extraordinary for George Lucas. Personally, I have none of that information - nor do I expect you have it.

Quote:

and I question why his opinion should be held in any higher esteem than anyone elses.

I haven't seen anyone hold his opinion higher than anyone else's. He is a celebrity however - so now you are stating that because the words of celebrities are reported, those words should not contain political speech.

Quote:

I don't question his right to speak it.

You criticize him for doing it. You may not be in a position to prevent the man from speaking - but you are most certainly proclaiming his inferiority to yourself for speaking. You are attacking someone for making political statements. As such:

Quote:

And yes, I thought he was above doing so.

djtestudo · 05-17-2005, 04:12 PM

http://www.weeklystandard.com/Conten...1/248ipzbt.asp

Quote:

The Case for the Empire
From the May 16, 2002 Daily Standard: Everything you think you know about Star Wars is wrong.

by Jonathan V. Last
12/26/2002 12:00:00 AM

Jonathan V. Last, online editor

STAR WARS RETURNS today with its fifth installment, "Attack of the Clones." There will be talk of the Force and the Dark Side and the epic morality of George Lucas's series. But the truth is that from the beginning, Lucas confused the good guys with the bad. The deep lesson of Star Wars is that the Empire is good.

It's a difficult leap to make--embracing Darth Vader and the Emperor over the plucky and attractive Luke Skywalker and Princess Leia--but a careful examination of the facts, sorted apart from Lucas's off-the-shelf moral cues, makes a quite convincing case.

First, an aside: For the sake of this discussion, I've considered only the history gleaned from the actual Star Wars films, not the Expanded Universe. If you know what the Expanded Universe is and want to argue that no discussion of Star Wars can be complete without considering material outside the canon, that's fine. However, it's always been my view that the comic books and novels largely serve to clean up Lucas's narrative and philosophical messes. Therefore, discussions of intrinsic intent must necessarily revolve around the movies alone. You may disagree, but please don't e-mail me about it.

If you don't know what the Expanded Universe is, well, uh, neither do I.

I. The Problems with the Galactic Republic

At the beginning of the Star Wars saga, the known universe is governed by the Galactic Republic. The Republic is controlled by a Senate, which is, in turn, run by an elected chancellor who's in charge of procedure, but

has little real power.

Scores of thousands of planets are represented in the Galactic Senate, and as we first encounter it, it is sclerotic and ineffectual. The Republic has grown over many millennia to the point where there are so many factions and disparate interests, that it is simply too big to be governable. Even the Republic's staunchest supporters recognize this failing: In "The Phantom Menace," Queen Amidala admits, "It is clear to me now that the Republic no longer functions." In "Attack of the Clones," young Anakin Skywalker observes that it simply "doesn't work."

The Senate moves so slowly that it is powerless to stop aggression between member states. In "The Phantom Menace" a supra-planetary alliance, the Trade Federation (think of it as OPEC to the Galactic Republic's United Nations), invades a planet and all the Senate can agree to do is call for an investigation.

Like the United Nations, the Republic has no armed forces of its own, but instead relies on a group of warriors, the Jedi knights, to "keep the peace." The Jedi, while autonomous, often work in tandem with the Senate, trying to smooth over quarrels and avoid conflicts. But the Jedi number only in the thousands--they cannot protect everyone.

What's more, it's not clear that they should be "protecting" anyone. The Jedi are Lucas's great heroes, full of Zen wisdom and righteous power. They encourage people to "use the Force"--the mystical energy which is the source of their power--but the truth, revealed in "The Phantom Menace," is that the Force isn't available to the rabble. The Force comes from midi-chlorians, tiny symbiotic organisms in people's blood, like mitochondria. The Force, it turns out, is an inherited, genetic trait. If you don't have the blood, you don't get the Force. Which makes the Jedi not a democratic militia, but a royalist Swiss guard.

And an arrogant royalist Swiss guard, at that. With one or two notable exceptions, the Jedi we meet in Star Wars are full of themselves. They ignore the counsel of others (often with terrible consequences), and seem honestly to believe that they are at the center of the universe. When the chief Jedi record-keeper is asked in "Attack of the Clones" about a planet she has never heard of, she replies that if it's not in the Jedi archives, it doesn't exist. (The planet in question does exist, again, with terrible consequences.)

In "Attack of the Clones," a mysterious figure, Count Dooku, leads a separatist movement of planets that want to secede from the Republic. Dooku promises these confederates smaller government, unlimited free trade, and an "absolute commitment to capitalism." Dooku's motives are suspect--it's not clear whether or not he believes in these causes. However, there's no reason to doubt the motives of the other separatists--they seem genuinely to want to make a fresh start with a government that isn't bloated and dysfunctional.

The Republic, of course, is eager to quash these separatists, but they never make a compelling case--or any case, for that matter--as to why, if they are such a freedom-loving regime, these planets should not be allowed to check out of the Republic and take control of their own destinies.

II. The Empire

We do not yet know the exact how's and why's, but we do know this: At some point between the end of Episode II and the beginning of
Episode IV, the Republic is replaced by an Empire. The first hint comes in "Attack of the Clones," when the Senate's Chancellor Palpatine is granted emergency powers to deal with the separatists. It spoils very little to tell you that Palpatine eventually becomes the Emperor. For a time, he keeps the Senate in place, functioning as a rubber-stamp, much like the Roman imperial senate, but a few minutes into Episode IV, we are informed that the he has dissolved the Senate, and that "the last remnants of the Old Republic have been swept away."

Lucas wants the Empire to stand for evil, so he tells us that the Emperor and Darth Vader have gone over to the Dark Side and dresses them in black.

But look closer. When Palpatine is still a senator, he says, "The Republic is not what it once was. The Senate is full of greedy, squabbling delegates. There is no interest in the common good." At one point he laments that "the bureaucrats are in charge now."

Palpatine believes that the political order must be manipulated to produce peace and stability. When he mutters, "There is no civility, there is only politics," we see that at heart, he's an esoteric Straussian.

Make no mistake, as emperor, Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet. It's a dictatorship people can do business with. They collect taxes and patrol the skies. They try to stop organized crime (in the form of the smuggling rings run by the Hutts). The Empire has virtually no effect on the daily life of the average, law-abiding citizen.

Also, unlike the divine-right Jedi, the Empire is a meritocracy. The Empire runs academies throughout the galaxy (Han Solo begins his career at an Imperial academy), and those who show promise are promoted, often rapidly. In "The Empire Strikes Back" Captain Piett is quickly promoted to admiral when his predecessor "falls down on the job."

And while it's a small point, the Empire's manners and decorum speak well of it. When Darth Vader is forced to employ bounty hunters to track down Han Solo, he refuses to address them by name. Even Boba Fett, the greatest of all trackers, is referred to icily as "bounty hunter." And yet Fett understands the protocol. When he captures Solo, he calls him "Captain Solo." (Whether this is in deference to Han's former rank in the Imperial starfleet, or simply because Han owns and pilots his own ship, we don't know. I suspect it's the former.)

But the most compelling evidence that the Empire isn't evil comes in "The Empire Strikes Back" when Darth Vader is battling Luke Skywalker. After an exhausting fight, Vader is poised to finish Luke off, but he stays his hand. He tries to convert Luke to the Dark Side with this simple plea: "There is no escape. Don't make me destroy you. . . . Join me, and I will complete your training. With our combined strength, we can end this destructive conflict and bring order to the galaxy." It is here we find the real controlling impulse for the Dark Side and the Empire. The Empire doesn't want slaves or destruction or "evil." It wants order.

None of which is to say that the Empire isn't sometimes brutal. In Episode IV, Imperial stormtroopers kill Luke's aunt and uncle and Grand Moff Tarkin orders the destruction of an entire planet, Alderaan. But viewed in context, these acts are less brutal than they initially appear. Poor Aunt Beru and Uncle Owen reach a grisly end, but only after they aid the rebellion by hiding Luke and harboring two fugitive droids. They aren't given due process, but they are traitors.

The destruction of Alderaan is often cited as ipso facto proof of the Empire's "evilness" because it seems like mass murder--planeticide, even. As Tarkin prepares to fire the Death Star, Princess Leia implores him to spare the planet, saying, "Alderaan is peaceful. We have no weapons." Her plea is important, if true.

But the audience has no reason to believe that Leia is telling the truth. In Episode IV, every bit of information she gives the Empire is willfully untrue. In the opening, she tells Darth Vader that she is on a diplomatic mission of mercy, when in fact she is on a spy mission, trying to deliver schematics of the Death Star to the Rebel Alliance. When asked where the Alliance is headquartered, she lies again.

Leia's lies are perfectly defensible--she thinks she's serving the greater good--but they make her wholly unreliable on the question of whether or not Alderaan really is peaceful and defenseless. If anything, since Leia is a high-ranking member of the rebellion and the princess of Alderaan, it would be reasonable to suspect that Alderaan is a front for Rebel activity or at least home to many more spies and insurgents like Leia.

Whatever the case, the important thing to recognize is that the Empire is not committing random acts of terror. It is engaged in a fight for the survival of its regime against a violent group of rebels who are committed to its destruction.

III. After the Rebellion

As we all know from the final Star Wars installment, "Return of the Jedi," the rebellion is eventually successful. The Emperor is assassinated, Darth Vader abdicates his post and dies, the central governing apparatus of the Empire is destroyed in a spectacular space battle, and the rebels rejoice with their small, annoying Ewok friends. But what happens next?

(There is a raft of literature on this point, but, as I said at the beginning, I'm going to ignore it because it doesn't speak to Lucas's original intent.)

In Episode IV, after Grand Moff Tarkin announces that the Imperial Senate has been abolished, he's asked how the Emperor can possibly hope to keep control of the galaxy. "The regional governors now have direct control over territories," he says. "Fear will keep the local systems in line."

So under Imperial rule, a large group of regional potentates, each with access to a sizable army and star destroyers, runs local affairs. These governors owe their fealty to the Emperor. And once the Emperor is dead, the galaxy will be plunged into chaos.

In all of the time we spend observing the Rebel Alliance, we never hear of their governing strategy or their plans for a post-Imperial universe. All we see are plots and fighting. Their victory over the Empire doesn't liberate the galaxy--it turns the galaxy into Somalia writ large: dominated by local warlords who are answerable to no one.

Which makes the rebels--Lucas's heroes--an unimpressive crew of anarchic royals who wreck the galaxy so that Princess Leia can have her tiara back.

I'll take the Empire.

Jonathan V. Last is online editor of The Weekly Standard.

You see, even if there are parallels and Bush IS moving us in the suggested direction, it may be better for everyone in the long run...

Just a little humor for the thread.

Lebell · 05-17-2005, 04:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Manx

Not even close.
To question his timing implies you know when and how often he expresses political opinions, that they are rare, and that this instance is somehow extraordinary for George Lucas. Personally, I have none of that information - nor do I expect you have it.
I haven't seen anyone hold his opinion higher than anyone else's. He is a celebrity however - so now you are stating that because the words of celebrities are reported, those words should not contain political speech.
You criticize him for doing it. You may not be in a position to prevent the man from speaking - but you are most certainly proclaiming his inferiority to yourself for speaking. You are attacking someone for making political statements. As such:

I sincerely do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth and ascribing things to me that I have not said.

I have said what I meant to say and I reject all that you wish to place on my shoulders.

It seems that you have some issues you wish to transfer to me, but I don't want to play, so good day.

Coppertop · 05-17-2005, 04:35 PM

Excellent post, djtestudo.

fibber · 05-17-2005, 05:48 PM

"I found this article to be quite amusing. Its good that more and more people realize what's really going on. Maybe Star Wars can help with that, who knows."

Lucas hasn't made a good move since he fell ass-backwards into the greatest Hollywood contract fuckup ever.

(yes yes ILM is tha shit and a bank, but that would have ruined my one-liner)

I can't speak for Labell, but I fear my desire for stars to shut the fuck up, may be misconstrued as saying they should BE shut up. This isn't just when they make oppositional statements, but generally whenever their foodholes are open.

I work in the film industry, and it is the most souless, heartwrenching pile of shit on the planet. The star/title/series is the MOST marketable product of any film. That said, ANY press is good press; now, flame-seeking press is BETTER press. I have literally worked for stars who had to call me to get help figuring out how to board a goddamn plane by themselves. While their opinions aren't worth less than mine, they're certainly not worth more.

Even though I agree with the part about partisan bickering being the most useless shit of all time, I don't give a rat's about his opinion about it. I want George to give me empty, stupid stories, with lots of BADASS pretty pictures.

Lucas is a brilliant salesman, who happens to have an army of creative people who have garnered him millions. I too see it as a press grab.

On that note, We've all read "The Once and Future King" and all the other Jungian arch-myth stories out there. We could collectivly write our own SW by taking turns in a thread writing 10 lines at a time.

-tha fibba

Manx · 05-17-2005, 06:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

I sincerely do not appreciate you putting words in my mouth and ascribing things to me that I have not said.

I have said what I meant to say and I reject all that you wish to place on my shoulders.

It seems that you have some issues you wish to transfer to me, but I don't want to play, so good day.

I reject your denials that what you said is not precisely equivalent to the way I described it.

Hardknock · 05-17-2005, 08:46 PM

Loks like my analogy hit the nail on the head after all.

link

aberkok · 05-17-2005, 08:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fibber

I can't speak for Lebell (sic), but I fear my desire for stars to shut the fuck up, may be misconstrued as saying they should BE shut up.

This is well put, and in my opinion, what the "discussion" between Manx and Lebell is really all about. It's semantics, really.

For a second, let's grant Manx that Lebell would have George Lucas censored. Does it have any bearing on reality if Lebell doesn't actually have any power to do so? Lebell isn't on the F.C.C. or anything like that, so does it really matter what he thinks? Is it worth discussing?

The following definition from the American Heritage Dictionary/dictionary.com seems to imply someone in an official position. Those are the people we should worry about censoring our public discourse.

cen·sor
n.

1. A person authorized to examine books, films, or other material and to remove or suppress what is considered morally, politically, or otherwise objectionable.
2. An official, as in the armed forces, who examines personal mail and official dispatches to remove information considered secret or a risk to security.
3. One that condemns or censures.
4. One of two officials in ancient Rome responsible for taking the public census and supervising public behavior and morals.
5. Psychology. The agent in the unconscious that is responsible for censorship.

Manx · 05-17-2005, 09:15 PM

Aberkok -

I'm not stating that Lebell is censoring anyone - he doesn't have the power to censor George Lucas. Lebell's comments, however, are comments that encourage censorship. Lebell has 4 choices, as does anyone:

1- Ignore George Lucas
2- Agree with George Lucas
3- Disagree with George Lucas
4- Criticize George Lucas for speaking

The 4th choice is the only one that encourages censorship. Attacking someone for the very act of speaking. And although Lebell has been rather adamant in his denial, the reality is simply unequivocal.

Note that the third definition for censor is one that condemns.

As for fibber's comments that celebrities should all shut up - well, I can't really respond to that as it's simply unbelievable.

maximusveritas · 05-18-2005, 12:28 AM

Do you guys seriously believe this is a publicity stunt?
Do you think some guy out there is going to stumble across this article and say "Hey, that 'Star Wars' movie sounds kinda cool. Thank God George Lucas decided to declare his hatred for Bush or I never would have heard about it."
Maybe I would buy that if it was Mark Hamil or Carrie Fisher saying these things, but not George Lucas. He doesn't need the attention.

Lebell · 05-18-2005, 07:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by maximusveritas

Do you guys seriously believe this is a publicity stunt?

Since you ask, yes I do. Because what Lucas is suggesting otherwise borders on the ridiculous.

Manx · 05-18-2005, 07:16 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Since you ask, yes I do. Because what Lucas is suggesting otherwise borders on the ridiculous.

And finally you have spoken against the content of his words as opposed to his act of speaking them. It's too bad you choose to spend a number of posts attacking him for speaking before you choose to remind us that you disagree with what he said.

It's probably not your intention to encourage censorship (then again, I don't know you), so it's a shame that you do.

As to the content of his words bordering on ridiculous - well, I can hardly agree. The political nature of Star Wars has been obvious since day 1 - a large and powerful ruling organization facing insurgency from a small band of righteous freedom fighters (aka terrorists). Ultimately, it's pulp fiction, but that fact doesn't mean the political message is non-existent or ridiculous.

Locobot · 05-18-2005, 04:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lebell

Since you ask, yes I do. Because what Lucas is suggesting otherwise borders on the ridiculous.

I dont know, life tends to imitate art more than we think. Would we be having this discussion if the movie came out with Clinton in office?

05-17-2005, 06:35 AM	#3 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	It's funny, I always saw the emperor as a Hitler type figure... The aesthetics of the empire are very sexy. When the backstory was revealed I was even more convinced... __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-17-2005, 06:52 AM	#4 (permalink)
Pacifier undead Location: Duisburg, Germany	Umh, there are parallels to Hitler and Bush. The used scheme (Threats from the outside[...]) is not new. But it seems to function all the time, thats and when you see how quickly it sometimes happens is what makes it so scary. "[...] voice or no voice, the people can always be brought to the bidding of the leaders. That is easy. All you have to do is tell them they are being attacked and denounce the pacifists for lack of patriotism and exposing the country to danger. It works the same way in any country." (Herman Göring) __________________ "It seems to me that the idea of a personal God is an anthropological concept which I cannot take seriously. I also cannot imagine some will or goal outside the human sphere. Science has been charged with undermining morality, but the charge is unjust. A man's ethical behavior should be based effectually on sympathy, education, and social ties and needs; no religious basis is necessary. Man would indeed be in a poor way if he had to be restrained by fear of punishment and hope of reward after death — Albert Einstein

05-17-2005, 07:09 AM	#5 (permalink)
aberkok “Wrong is right.” Location: toronto	It seems to me that Lucas, while not wrong, has an overly simplistic view of how these things happen. I won't elaborate too much, as I anticipate this'll be a really long thread with that information given, but I will cite one point: economic factors. Star Wars and Lucas don't ever focus on the issues of class separation and the poor. One of the reason people back these tyrants is because they feel the food on their table is in jeopardy. Put simply, these things don't happen by accident. If my kids are about to starve because I've lost my job to someone from another country, you'll be sure I'll back whoever will keep my child fed by limiting immigration. Fortunately, I don't have to worry about that, and there are other options anyway. All I'm saying is that Lucas would like to think that these things happen without people noticing when in fact, people bring it about. They just don't notice how. __________________ !check out my new blog! http://arkanamusic.wordpress.com Warden Gentiles: "It? Perfectly innocent. But I can see how, if our roles were reversed, I might have you beaten with a pillowcase full of batteries."

05-17-2005, 07:58 AM	#12 (permalink)
squirrelyburt Crazy Location: Central Wisconsin	He does draw a correct parallel with history, and as simplistic as it is, compare Roman history and the corruption in government leading to its downfall and what the U.S. is going through right now. That said, I'm looking forward to being a kid again and seeing all 6 movies in one sitting. This is still entertainment, quit reading crap into it!!! __________________ If you've ever felt there was a reason to be afraid of the dark, you were right.

05-17-2005, 08:11 AM	#13 (permalink)
Ilow Junkie Location: Pats country	While Lucas was most assuredly preaching to the converted abroad, many of his points are still valid. I definitely see more of the Bush-US/Roman Empire in the story than Hitler. I feel as though Hitler used more of the peoples dissatisfaction with the Treaty Versailles and their current downtrodden condition as a unifying force, while Bush is creating an atmosphere of panic about national security. In other words Hitler was seeking a rallying point over what had happened, and Bush is seeking one over what could happen. __________________ "Religion is the one area of our discourse in which it is considered noble to pretend to be certain about things no human being could possibly be certain about" --Sam Harris

05-17-2005, 06:17 AM	#2 (permalink)
Daniel_ Evil Priest: The Devil Made Me Do It! Location: Southern England	Interesting. I'd always assumed that it was more heavilly based on ancient Roman history - a senate being overpowered by an emperor. I cna see the Nixon parallels, and the Bush issues as being "hot" for the liberal artistic establishment of California, but I think that it would be hard to find any society that couldn't point to a period in history where traditional freedoms of citizens were eroded in the interest of "national security" in a way that undermined personal liberties and enhanced despotism. That said, I'd pay to see Newt Gingritch vs. Hillary Clinton with Lightsabers...

05-17-2005, 07:21 AM	#6 (permalink)
Seaver Junkie Location: Fort Worth, TX	Yeah I knew this was coming. Saw it last night on the news about how all the reporters over-reacted declaring this was his preaching against Bush. Well I hate to break it to yall but he had written/planned this movie back over 25 years ago.

05-17-2005, 07:45 AM	#11 (permalink)
MSD The sky calls to us ... Super Moderator Location: CT	Look at meeeeeee! I'm on tee-veeeeeeeeee! (This is my standard response when politicians, celebrities, or pretty much anyone else makes a controversial statement for the sake of publicity)

05-17-2005, 08:54 AM	#15 (permalink)
trickyy ►	yes, it's funny how these ideas surface right when he is in france at a press junket. i think that lucas promoting a movie like this is a wakeup call...if you want to make money, start preaching to the choir! it helps if you seem a little fed up with something or other. just make sure the choir has some disposable income. hey, it worked for mel gibson and michael moore. (idea for press in salt lake: empasize the biblical nature of film's battle b/w good and evil.)

05-17-2005, 09:09 AM	#16 (permalink)
raeanna74 I'm not a blonde! I'm knot! I'm knot! I'm knot! Location: Upper Michigan	Any good story speaks to it's audience in a way that appeals to them. People in the US are obsessed with their freedom and their pursuit of the American dream. Anything that APPEARS to threaten that is equivalent to Hitler, the Nazis, persecution, the inquisition, any powerful threat to the 'underdog'. The Star Wars series has always had religious and political undertones that are somewhat subtle. That subtlety lends itself to personal interpretation. __________________ "Always learn the rules so that you can break them properly." Dalai Lama My Karma just ran over your Dogma.

05-17-2005, 10:02 AM	#21 (permalink)
Manx Loser	You may not see anyone asking for censorship, but that doesn't mean you aren't asking for censorship. FYI - Reagan was a celebrity before he was Governor before he was President.

05-17-2005, 10:15 AM	#23 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	Lebell it is implied in your desire to see all celebrities, who appear to hold an opposing point of view, silenced... It may not be your intetent but it's there (probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov). __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-17-2005, 10:24 AM	#24 (permalink)
RangerDick Loser Location: manhattan	"probably less from you than the cacophony of people who decry a celebrities pov" Why are you trying to censor those peoples' opinions? Seriously, just as a celebrity has the "right" to express his/her pov, other's have the right to disagree? Or don't they?

05-17-2005, 10:33 AM	#26 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	And I don't think for a second that I am suggesting Lebell stop what he is doing... I was simply pointing out how his opinion was coming across... I just find it interesting that noone seems to get as upset when Republican Hollywood opens their mouths... As for George... I'd like to find out the context in which he gave his answer. Like he gave an off the cuff answer to a question from the press... I highly doubt he was looking for publicity by being controversial... I mean think about it. Really. If anything, in today's climate, mouthing these sentiments is likely to hurt his box office rather than boost it... As for what he said, it is no more scathing or deep or anything than what a high school student would put in his english essay: The Democractic Path to Dictatorship: Symbolism in Star Wars. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

05-17-2005, 04:35 PM	#31 (permalink)
Coppertop Getting Medieval on your ass Location: 13th century Europe	Excellent post, djtestudo.

05-17-2005, 05:48 PM	#32 (permalink)
fibber Tilted	"I found this article to be quite amusing. Its good that more and more people realize what's really going on. Maybe Star Wars can help with that, who knows." Lucas hasn't made a good move since he fell ass-backwards into the greatest Hollywood contract fuckup ever. (yes yes ILM is tha shit and a bank, but that would have ruined my one-liner) I can't speak for Labell, but I fear my desire for stars to shut the fuck up, may be misconstrued as saying they should BE shut up. This isn't just when they make oppositional statements, but generally whenever their foodholes are open. I work in the film industry, and it is the most souless, heartwrenching pile of shit on the planet. The star/title/series is the MOST marketable product of any film. That said, ANY press is good press; now, flame-seeking press is BETTER press. I have literally worked for stars who had to call me to get help figuring out how to board a goddamn plane by themselves. While their opinions aren't worth less than mine, they're certainly not worth more. Even though I agree with the part about partisan bickering being the most useless shit of all time, I don't give a rat's about his opinion about it. I want George to give me empty, stupid stories, with lots of BADASS pretty pictures. Lucas is a brilliant salesman, who happens to have an army of creative people who have garnered him millions. I too see it as a press grab. On that note, We've all read "The Once and Future King" and all the other Jungian arch-myth stories out there. We could collectivly write our own SW by taking turns in a thread writing 10 lines at a time. -tha fibba Last edited by fibber; 05-17-2005 at 05:53 PM..

05-17-2005, 08:46 PM	#34 (permalink)
Hardknock Republican slayer Location: WA	Loks like my analogy hit the nail on the head after all. link

05-17-2005, 09:15 PM	#36 (permalink)
Manx Loser	Aberkok - I'm not stating that Lebell is censoring anyone - he doesn't have the power to censor George Lucas. Lebell's comments, however, are comments that encourage censorship. Lebell has 4 choices, as does anyone: 1- Ignore George Lucas 2- Agree with George Lucas 3- Disagree with George Lucas 4- Criticize George Lucas for speaking The 4th choice is the only one that encourages censorship. Attacking someone for the very act of speaking. And although Lebell has been rather adamant in his denial, the reality is simply unequivocal. Note that the third definition for censor is one that condemns. As for fibber's comments that celebrities should all shut up - well, I can't really respond to that as it's simply unbelievable.

05-18-2005, 12:28 AM	#37 (permalink)
maximusveritas Winner	Do you guys seriously believe this is a publicity stunt? Do you think some guy out there is going to stumble across this article and say "Hey, that 'Star Wars' movie sounds kinda cool. Thank God George Lucas decided to declare his hatred for Bush or I never would have heard about it." Maybe I would buy that if it was Mark Hamil or Carrie Fisher saying these things, but not George Lucas. He doesn't need the attention.