Politics In Star Wars


For uneducated SJWs, politics is a binary on/off switch.  They’re blissfully unaware that there are multiple political perspectives other than their own.  No doubt you’ve read some variation of the argument that Star Wars has always had politics, all art is political,  yadda, yadda, yadda.  Well the argument about politics in Star Wars is rearing its silly head again, so it’s time to address it once more. Here’s some recent variations on that commonly parroted theme:

Really Paul?  The latch-hook toilet seat cozy with mushrooms and daisies on it that my great grandmother made is political?  If  you insist.

But SJWs can’t seem to grasp the notion that it’s not politics in general that normal people want out of Star Wars, but rather, it’s very specifically the modern SJW brand of politics that they want removed from Star Wars.

It’s the difference between watching this:

And this:

The He-Man episode The Problem With Power, without a doubt presents a political quandary.  In addition, there are two opposing forces, each with their own internal power structures.  But the political undertones in this basic story are easily applicable to nearly any similar situation in any time frame by anyone of nearly any ideology.

Compare and contrast that with the Animated Soviet Propaganda piece, which very specifically tells you who to hate. and why to hate them, by couching the antagonist in a contrived situation carefully orchestrated to communicate a specific on-the-nose political message.

This is a basic distinction that any high school level student ought to be able to make.  A distinction that’s far too nuanced for the SJW pea-brain to grasp.  It’s the distinction between political propaganda and genuine art.

So you can imagine my amusement when I stumbled across an authoritative article written by a non-authority, which boldly lectured people decades older and wiser than him on the nature of politics in art.

Britton Peele wrote an article at guidelive.com entitled, You can’t keep the politics out of ‘Star Wars,’ or any other pop culture story.  Oy vey.

In it he writes:

It’s a day ending in “y” in the year 2018, so angry fanboys across social media are yelling at Disney, Lucasfilm and anybody tangentially related to them with the demand to “keep politics out of Star Wars.”

Anyone who is paid by Lucasfilm to produce content for the company is related.

Recently, a significant amount of that hate has been directed toward author Chuck Wendig, who wrote the trilogy of Star Wars: Aftermath novels as well as an upcoming comic about Darth Vader. That comic is being boycotted by fans who dislike Wendig’s previous Star Wars work and dislike the blunt, often uncensored ways in which he interacts with readers on social media. There has been no shortage of fans asking (or, sometimes, demanding) that he “keep politics out of Star Wars books.”

I do appreciate the linked citation, but some clarifications need to be made here.  Mr. Wendig may like to think that the boycott is all about him and his clueless meltdowns.  But in reality Mr. Wendig is merely being used as a tool to make a much larger statement about Lucasfilm as a whole.  That message in essence, is that we don’t appreciate the misbehavior of Lucasfilm representatives in response to legitimate fan criticism as I detailed here, nor the imposition of deeply moronic social justice propaganda in the screenplays, novels, comics, games, etc.  To that end we intend to withhold our purchasing power from Lucasfilm media until such a time as they correct course.  The boycott against Mr. Wendig’s Marvel Darth Vader Annual is merely incidental as a small part of a much larger effort, and his silly public antics are only being used for that larger purpose.

This isn’t new, nor is it exclusive to Star Wars. Every pocket of popular culture has encountered pushback from fans asking creators (some politely, many not) to keep their medium free from commentary and agenda. “Keep politics out of music,” “keep politics out of comics,” “keep politics out of video games,” and so on.

It’s a confusing and even frustrating argument coming from Star Wars fans, though, because of how contradictory it is to the series itself. You want to keep politics out of Star Wars? You know that the Emperor, the series’ biggest bad guy, was a senator, right? You remember that the opening crawl of The Phantom Menace is all about taxation and trade disputes? And surely you’ve realized that the entirety of the original trilogy was about a group of people trying to overthrow a government? Without politics, you don’t have Star Wars.

Many have made that argument in admittedly flippant responses, but I suspect what they really mean is what I previously explained; the removal of a very specific brand of political propaganda rather than politics in general.

Star Wars under George Lucas dealt with large scale politics.  Things that have affected all civilizations throughout mankind’s 6,000 years of recorded human history.  The fall of republics to decadence, the rise of despotic empires, rebellions and revolution, etc.  These things are cyclical, and timeless, and affect all generations and cultures.

Star Wars under Disney, focuses on the small minded political fashion trends of the moment.  Rose Tico’s deeply moronic social justice lectures for instance, demonstrates that fact perfectly.

Don’t just take it from me. Take it from Star Wars creator George Lucas. “It was really about the Vietnam War,” he said of the original Star Wars trilogy, “and that was the period where Nixon was trying to run for a [second] term, which got me to thinking historically about how do democracies get turned into dictatorships? Because the democracies aren’t overthrown; they’re given away.”

Yes, I’ve discredited that talking point before.  George Lucas is a contradictory man.  He has been oscillating between 12 Episodes, and no episodes after VI, for decades.  So while George Lucas is certainly an inspired man, his words aren’t gospel by any means.  Let’s first examine actual history here.

Unlike Palpatine, Richard M. Nixon didn’t take over.  Rather, Nixon resigned instead.  Emperors tend not to resign.  So the allegory that George is trying to connect here, doesn’t make any sense.  In fact, the criticism that President Obama received for circumnavigating Congress with Executive Orders much more closely resembles the Emperor subverting the Senate allegorically.

The Viet Nam War was about defending South Viet Nam against the communist North Viet Namese.

In North Vietnam during the 1950s, political opposition groups were suppressed; those publicly opposing the government were imprisoned in hard labor camps. Prisoners were abused and beaten atop of labor-intensive work forced upon them. Many died of exhaustion, starvation, illness (who often died without any medical attention), or assault by prison guards. Many middle-class, intellectual Northerners had been lured into speaking out against Ho’s communist regime, and most of them were later imprisoned in gulags, or executed, known as the Nhân Văn–Giai Phẩm affair. The government launched a land reform program, which, according to Steven Rosefielde, was “aimed at exterminating class enemies.”

The communist Viet Cong that George Lucas and James Cameron speak so highly of, engaged in horrific atrocities:

Under the cover of night on Dec. 5, 1967, a coalition of Viet Cong guerrillas and North Vietnamese troops set the village of Dak Son on fire as its inhabitants slept. The assailants used flamethrowers and grenades, and they had their rifles ready for anyone who tried to escape. Villagers who awoke to find the roofs of their thatched huts aflame tried to run, and many of those who managed to scurry into earthen tunnels and caves before bullets mowed them down were washed in the fire blasts of the flamethrowers or asphyxiated in their bunkers. When morning arrived, the survivors stumbled out to survey the damage, and they found more than 200 dead bodies, most of which were corpses of women and children. Other villagers were missing, presumed kidnapped by the attackers.

And the atrocities purportedly attributed to American forces, oftentimes never actually took place, such as the infamous image of the “Napalm Girl”.  American SJW journalists falsely attributed the horror in that famous photograph to American forces, and many came to erroneously believe it.  It was actually South Vietnamese forces who had made the horrible mistake instead.

Later in 2016, communist Viet Cong leader Madam Nguyen Thi Binh would thank SJW activists like Hanoi Jane for their tireless efforts.

PragerU corrects Lucas’ and Cameron’s hippie/SJW revisionism over Viet Nam:

So let’s get back to George Lucas.

Here’s a passage from from George Lucas: A Life by Brian Jay Jones:

“Lucas, wary of politics, publicly disavowed any and all sociopolitical theories and quashed speculation on the deeper meaning of his film. For Lucas, it was enough that Star Wars could be merely entertaining—and entirely the point”

So George’s earlier comments conflict with his later comments.  Why?

Well remember, in the 1970s, George Lucas wasn’t the powerful media mogul that he is today.  He was a young punk fresh out of film school with only American Graffiti and THX-1138 under his belt.  In fact, the dippie hippie movement as a whole wasn’t in charge yet at that time.  Rather, the Greatest Generation was still largely in control of government and corporate America.  Hippie Boomers like George, still had to answer to their elders in positions of power.  So George wasn’t an artist doing whatever he wanted, but rather, was under supervision.  As was his script for Star Wars.  It’s one of the many reasons he worked so hard to get out from under the studio system, so he could produce the Prequels in any manner that he desired.

So what likely happened back in the 1970s, was that George Lucas may have wanted to make his original Star Wars films about Viet Nam.  He may have wanted to make his films about Nixon.  But as I said, back in the 1970s, George Lucas wasn’t the powerful media mogul that he is today.  Lucas simply didn’t have the power to do what he really wanted to do at the time.

So those who were overseeing his project likely guided him to make it more about Nazi Germany and WWII instead, since that actually represents a genuine fight against fascism, just as they guided him in other ways. Or at the very least they wisely guided him to make it less specific, since the Ewok/Empire conflict could just as easily apply to the conflict between American Colonials and England during the American Revolution.  Unfortunately, Lucas doesn’t seem to have learned the lesson that the studio heads attempted to teach him.  Few from his generation have.

But once Lucas got out from under the studio system and produced his Prequel Trilogy, he had more freedom to insert the kind of on-the-nose political propaganda that I’ve discussed earlier.  That’s why Revenge of the Sith in particular received similar criticisms to that of The Last Jediwhich can be found with a basic Google search.

Lucas can say almost anything he likes now, because those who would have overseen his projects from 1975 to 1983 are all likely dead.  And aging hippies from the 1960s have a really bad habit of lionizing themselves.

Star Wars isn’t alone in this confusing disparity between the source material and the things fans sometimes demand from it. Certain Star Trek fans also ask for that series to stay away from political issues, ignoring the fact that the first interracial kiss in television history happened on Star Trek. If you don’t think that was a political move back in 1968, you’re ignoring the context of its time.

X-Men is political. Captain America is political. Lord of the Rings is political. Whether you like it or not, all entertainment has something to say.

I’ve already discussed the distinction between political propaganda and genuine art, so there’s really no need for me to go tit for tat with each of these IPs.  My primary focus in this blog is Star Wars.  But you may find the following quote from J.R.R. Tolkien enlightening, as it plays into the distinction of which I speak:

“I cordially dislike allegory in all its manifestations, and always have done so since I grew old and wary enough to detect its presence. I much prefer history – true or feigned– with its varied applicability to the thought and experience of readers. I think that many confuse applicability with allegory, but the one resides in the freedom of the reader, and the other in the purposed domination of the author.”

In fact, J.R.R. Tolkien is making a criticism strikingly close to those who are critical of The Last Jedi.

Mr. Peele continued:

Even children’s television is political, and always has been. Ignoring the fact that a message as simple as “love your neighbor” is, itself, a political statement, an episode of Mister Rogers’ Neighborhood has a seemingly low-key moment in which Mr. Rogers has his bare feet in a small pool alongside his friend Officer Clemmons — who is black. This action, at the time, was making a huge statement.

And it goes back further. On Twitter, user “Dagoth Valentine” presented Wendig with a challenge: “Explain to me how the Three Little Pigs is political without pulling something out of your [expletive].” Wendig responded with ease, noting political themes and motivations of multiple versions of the classic fairy tale.

Yet he struggles with the basic distinction between political propaganda and genuine art.

Here, I think, is the issue: If you don’t want politics in your pop culture, how is it that you define “politics?” While movies, shows, etc. will occasionally beat their audience over the head with a message directed at current political figures (we see you, The First Purge), in most cases the message isn’t specifically about politicians or policies — but that doesn’t mean it isn’t political.

I believe I’ve addressed that issue above.

Wendig’s Aftermath books have received criticism from certain Star Wars fans because of its “gay agenda,” because they feature characters that don’t identify as straight. But is acknowledging the fact that gay people exist really a “political” statement? Sinjir doesn’t stand up at a podium in Empire’s End and say, “Here is my speech on why gay marriage should be legal in the United States,” he’s just a dude that’s attracted to dudes. That detail helps establish who he is, how he acts and what his motivations are, but it isn’t the entirety of his existence. The “message,” such as it is, is that the universe is vast and it has all kinds of people in it, and people who are different than you can still be good.

It may be a vast universe with all kinds of people in it.  But the title of the franchise is Star Wars.  Not Star Vast Universe, or Star All Kinds Of People.   It’s not a census survey, but rather, is a story about wars being fought in the stars, hence Star Wars.  So it shouldn’t be reflective of everything and everyone.  Rather, it should be reflective of the kinds of people who fight in wars.

Are there gay soldiers?  Of course.  But the kinds of characters these writers are inserting into their stories aren’t reflective of the portion of the gay community that  serves in fighting forces, any more than Rey is reflective of the kind of women that serve in fighting forces.  And therein lies the problem.  It’s not about gender or sexual orientation, but rather, it’s about lack of wartime ruggedness.

But frankly, many of the gay characters in Disney-era Star Wars material strike me as pandering to the SJW groupies of the gay community, rather than appealing to the gay community itself.  This may be symptomatic of a larger problem, given the viral popularity of the recent #WalkAway campaign.

There are some other points to be made here on this topic.

The first is whether or not gay characters are appropriate for what some call a kid’s movie about “space wizards and laser swords.”  A large portion of the audience who failed to show up for Solo, may not necessarily have a problem with gay characters or the gay community in general, as much as they don’t care to explain gay characters to their 9 year old children upon walking out of the theater.  Is it appropriate or not?  I think that’s up for debate, and I’m not sure I have a clear answer myself.  I’m open to considering arguments from all sides.  But many others will simply avoid the situation altogether.

The next point is that traditionally Star Wars has really only tangentially hinted at sexual relationships, at least in the films. Even the heterosexual relationships weren’t dived into very deeply, with the exception of Attack of the Clones, and even then it was only lightly touched upon.  The problem with over sexualizing characters in fantasy fare, is that you risk your film unintentionally coming across as Galaxina or Flesh Gordon.  There’s a breaking point at which it becomes unintentionally comical and perhaps even exploitative.  Where that breaking point is exactly, is open to debate and individual interpretation.

The last point is that, I just don’t know that I have any interest in gay characters within a war time setting.  I’m mostly Libertarian, so I don’t care at all what mature adults do in their bedroom.  That’s their business and none of mine.  But it’s like that bawdy rowdy couple that you go out to dinner with, that has to loudly tell everyone at the table everything that they do to one another sexually.  He does this to her, and she does that to him, and they want to make sure that everyone in the restaurant knows about it.  It’s not that it offends me, it’s that I really just don’t care.  It’s not an interesting conversation to me.  So on some level it’s about simple disinterest rather than bigotry, because this kind of material starts to transform the IP into a silly day-time soap opera about who’s boinking who, rather than a war story.  See Reylo, Hando, and SkySolo.

You are free to hate that message. Even if you have been a Star Wars fan for decades, the new movies and books don’t have to be for you (which is a whole separate column).

Does this mean that you’re going to lecture us about moving on and focusing on the things we love instead of on the things we hate?  I’m genuinely curious, and that’s a good thing.

The thing you can’t do, however, is ask that Star Wars be free from those messages entirely.

Of course we can.  After all, you have no authority whatsoever to tell anyone that they can’t.  They will anyway.  It’s inappropriate for you to tell people what they can or can’t think, feel, and express, given your complete and total lack of all authority.  It’s simply not your place.

After all, explicitly writing a universe in which there are no gay characters would be exactly as political a narrative choice as writing a universe in which they do exist.

Perhaps.  Or perhaps some writers just are’t concerned with gay issues and it never even occurs to them to write such a character.

The thing is, you are far less likely to notice the politics of the entertainment you consume when those politics align with your own. Some of the people complaining fail to realize that they are explicitly pro-politics in their media — when the politics reflect their own worldview. How many pro-America songs dominated radio waves after 9/11? Those songs were political, even if they were espousing politics that most Americans were able to agree with at the time.

The problem you’re having here is that there’s nothing wrong with being pro-American.  There is however, something deeply wrong with promoting socialism and/or communism.

And how many conservative Christian groups were asking Tim Tebow to just stick to football when he was giving thanks to God after every touchdown?

I would have preferred it if he did.

I want to be clear on one point, though: I do not think that everybody asking for their favorite pieces of entertainment to be politics-free does so with malicious intent. I believe there are those who genuinely want to “turn off their brain” and enjoy a piece of fantasy without being forced to think about “real world issues.” Many will say outright that they want pure escapism — something to enjoy that doesn’t remind them of the heated debates they’re seeing elsewhere in their lives.

To those people I say: I’m sorry. But what you’re asking for is impossible.

Indeed.  SJWs are incapable of thought without a political lense.  It’s why they erroneously believe all art to be political.  They’re political activists and propagandists rather than genuine artists.

Are you writing a children’s book about a society of circular creatures? Well, why aren’t they triangles? Are you referring to the circles as “he?” If so, why not “she?” Do the circles want to escape into a world of spheres? Well, what does that say about our own three-dimensional existence? Every choice, no matter how tiny, matters. It’s all political, whether or not there is a politician in sight.

Perhaps.  But do we need to assign Trump supporters to squares and SJWs to circles?  Or can we tell the story about circles and squares in a manner that transcends time, and applies to all ideologies so that the reader can gather their own interpretations, rather than being lectured on what they ought to think by the author?

Sure, you can find media that already aligns with your own views and thus doesn’t make you uncomfortable. Yes, you can seek out entertainment that plays things “safe,” and that’s not inherently bad — though you may find it boring (conflict, after all, drives stories). But when/if you’re asking for Star Wars to stay out of politics, then you’re asking for something that has never and will never exist.

Well, then it’s a good thing that I’m not asking for that at all.

Interestingly however, some feel that the politics in Disney-era Star Wars fails in and of itself, without regard to the argument over the very presence of politics.   Dan Gvozden of The Hollywood Reporter published a piece entitled, New ‘Star Wars’ Trilogy Is Failing Galactic Politics 101.

In it he writes:

Audiences spent the original films caring about the political future of the galaxy, only for it to become undone almost entirely offscreen.

After decades of theorizing, fan fiction and “Legacy” stories, The Force Awakens had the exciting task of updating fans of the series about what happened in the decades since we last saw our favorite characters and rooted for the Rebellion. Would we see a New Republic and what would it be like? Who would be the enemy of that Republic and what would our character’s places be in it? The opportunities were endless, with the possibility of giving audiences a brand-new vision for the series, but would also require a deft touch. Yes, the series would have to build on viewers’ knowledge of Star Wars history, but it could also do what A New Hope did: thrust us into a new scenario and slowly give us more information about what transpired to get us here.

As a huge fan of the series, looking back on the new films after the opening weekend of The Last Jedi, I have to admit an incredible frustration and disappointment in the result. While walking through my local Target, I could not help but feel like The Force Awakens had failed what I’m now dubbing the “toy test”: I couldn’t pick up a Star Wars toy and tell you who each character was and their political standings in the newest round of wars, as depicted in the films.

That’s not to say that all choices of political allegiances in these films should be binary: good versus evil; even the prequel trilogies, with their often overwrought delving into galactic politics, introduced the idea that perhaps this galaxy wasn’t as black and white as we formerly thought. What they should do is make sense, be consistent with what came before and presented in a way that audiences can follow. In both The Force Awakens and now The Last Jedi, I can’t help but feel that none of these are true, to the point that it undermines not only the stakes of these new movies, but also many of the wonderful thematics at play.

The opening crawl of The Force Awakens gave us our first cinematic look into what the galaxy had become in the years after Return of the Jedi. We are introduced, in full capital letters, to the FIRST ORDER, the REPUBLIC and the RESISTANCE, all of which apparently sprung forth from the ashes of the Galactic Empire. It’s a lot to take in, in Star Wars tradition, but the film does no work to fill in the gap and audiences’ expectations.

As viewers we never experience what it means that a New Republic exists and therefore can never really get a solid grasp of what they are fighting for; the only planets we see (Jakku, Takodana) are seemingly outside of the Republic’s jurisdiction. If not for a brief glimpse of Hosnian Prime, right before its destruction at the hands of Starkiller Base (more on that later), we’d never even have proof of the Republic’s existence. (Side note: Why are we able to see the destruction of the Hosnian system from Takodana’s surface? Are all these planets right next to each other?)

Then there’s the added complication of the Resistance, which The Force Awakens says was created “with the support of the Republic” and led by General Leia Organa (Carrie Fisher). The film does nothing to specify the difference between the Resistance and the Republic, so we must assume they are virtually one and the same and that the Resistance must be some sort of active army set against the First Order. It’s an unnecessary wrinkle in an already over-complicated setup, but easy enough to ferret out.

The First Order is something else entirely. The end of Return of the Jedi had everyone believing that if the Empire wasn’t ended altogether, it was reduced to a fraction of its former self: leaderless and crippled in every sense of the word. Now we are told that it’s become something else, the First Order, with an army of some size (comprising kidnapped children brainwashed into becoming soldiers), a fleet of ships, a Starkiller Base (much larger and more powerful than any Death Star) and led by a new Sith Lord named Supreme Leader Snoke (Andy Serkis).

It’s a lot to take in and even more to accept at face value, especially since it seems to undo nearly all of the achievements by the heroes of the original trilogy. The questions about this new status quo for the Star Wars universe seem endless, starting with “How was this First Order allowed to rise and what are their goals?” Not everything needs to be preserved in stone, but for a change this sizable an explanation would go a long way toward making an audience’s investments seem meaningful.

With the New Republic controlling the galaxy and the First Order rising to fight them, it seems the tables have been turned. Are the First Order the new version of the Rebellion, a small band of fighters out to destroy a galactic order they disagree with? We never really find out, except that they seem to be the Empire redux, a sort of cartoonish and exaggerated, hard-right version of their former selves but without a clear sense of purpose, just the fascist iconography and penchant for wholesale slaughter.

Fans should know that trusting that iconography could be misleading, even the clone troopers were good guy remixes of Stormtroopers, so it’s not safe to trust the armor as any sort of sign of political ethos. Are they just out to destroy things or to restore “order” to the galaxy? What exactly about the Republic’s rule do they find so objectionable? Even Finn’s (John Boyega) departure from the First Order isn’t about ideology or factional allegiance, but about the specific orders he’s asked to follow through on.

Instead of answers, The Last Jedi doubles down on the confusion and outright ignores that most of these questions exist. The film’s crawl opens with “The FIRST ORDER reigns. Having decimated the peaceful Republic, Supreme Leader Snoke now deploys the merciless legions to seize military control of the galaxy.” Apparently, the Hosnian system, which we barely saw, was the entirety of the Republic and the First Order was large enough to be ready, minutes later, to once again take control over the galaxy. How does this affect the rest of the galaxy? We’ll never know due to The Last Jedi’s decidedly limited scope.

Instead of the rest of the galaxy springing forth to get revenge on the First Order, under the Republic’s injured but far-reaching rule, no one seems to care (a point that becomes critical during the film’s climax). So why should we care? We spent the entire original trilogy caring about the political future of the galaxy only for it to become undone almost entirely offscreen. Not to mention that we’ve never been given time or reason to understand either the ethos of the Republic or the First Order. When Kylo Ren and the codebreaker DJ (Benicio Del Toro) suggest that both sides are evil and corrupt, how are we to know that’s not the case? The rest of the galaxy, based on its inaction toward these two small bands of people, seems to agree.

I had hoped that The Last Jedi would provide clarity and rationale that would allow me to reinvest in the politics of the Star Wars universe, but instead the suggestion seems to be that no one quite understands or cares about either the First Order or the Republic/Resistance/Rebellion. Am I the only one who feels like we are watching an increasingly irrelevant squabble between two factions that have long since forgotten their goals and are only left to faintly echo the past?

Dan isn’t angry over the mere presence of politics in Disney-era Star Wars.  But rather, he’s arguing that the politics in Disney-era Star Wars is stupid.  So am I, as are many others.

44 thoughts on “Politics In Star Wars

  1. Quote that begins article…

    “It’s fascinating to watch people — ostensibly men — try to so vehemently demand that art be apolitical as they froth near endlessly ABOUT politics. Doubly weird when it’s creators who are also clearly creating stories with overtly political POVs.

    Unhinged, right wing political rant follows including links to Nixon speechwriter’s attempt to revise history of Vietnam War followed by angry white male claims he stopped being liberal because reasons…. Followed by insults about pea brained SJWs, etc…

    Tears about the death of irony and questions if author really lacks self-awareness.


  2. Come on, saying “George Lucas is a contradictory man” is giving them the argument. He’s not a contradictory man. He’s actually pretty consistent. That Lucas quote, like any other, needs to be taken into its respective context. The Vietname war did inspire the original trilogy. But that’s all. It was one of many inspirations. His saga is full of historical inspirations, from ancient Rome to the american ’70s. Lucas never used said inspirations to preach or lecture the audience with certain political views through his story. That’s propaganda (and the difference between Lucas and Disney). And fortunately Lucas was never a fan of that. Neither was another famous storyteller: Tolkien. They told the stories they envisioned and wanted to tell while never patronizing their audience. And their universal appeal and success are proof of that.


      • Circumstances change within a decade (let alone more). Saying that there were 12 episodes once is not a lie. Those were eventually partially adapted to the six-part saga. Saying that there was nothing after VI was not a lie either. He only began developing the story for the sequel trilogy around 2010.


        • Well that’s just it. He wasn’t lying, His outlook had changed. Over time, Lucas’ vision changed due to new ideas, letting go of old ideas, time, his own mortality, family life, budget, shifting of ideologies, etc. It’s the same thing many people go through with many different avenues, so being contradictory isn’t a bad thing, it’s just a fact of life. But it’s there. That’s why it’s folly to point to his words to prove a definitive point, because you can always find a contradictory statement from him that proves the opposite.


          • My point is that there’s no contradiction to begin with. All his claims are (or have been) true within their specific context. A bit of research corroborates that. And we should use his words precisely to show the difference between what he did and what they are doing. To dismiss them for any perceived contradiction is only giving them the argument. They are cherrypicking and strawmanning, that’s a dishonest and fallacious argument and they should be exposed for that.


              • Not really. Like I said, all his claims you cited were true within their respective contexts.

                It’s just like saying that Luke Skywalker was Luke Starkiller and was also a girl, is a contradiction. Sure, they may seem like contradicting concepts. But it’s all true within their respective context. It’s only a contradiction if one ignores the context.


                • Just as an FYI, there’s at least one instance where Lucas’ claims were a contradiction even WITH context, in other words, that he flat out lied. I’m talking about the whole Han Shot First debacle. In 2012, in an interview with the Hollywood Reporter, he claimed that, contrary to popular belief, Greedo always shot first even in the original. Here’s the full quote:

                  “The controversy over who shot first, Greedo or Han Solo, in Episode IV, what I did was try to clean up the confusion, but obviously it upset people because they wanted Solo [who seemed to be the one who shot first in the original] to be a cold-blooded killer, but he actually isn’t. It had been done in all close-ups and it was confusing about who did what to whom. I put a little wider shot in there that made it clear that Greedo is the one who shot first, but everyone wanted to think that Han shot first, because they wanted to think that he actually just gunned him down.”

                  Might work as an explanation, if it weren’t for the fact that a screenplay written by George Lucas himself on January 15, 1976 specifically indicates that Han did indeed shoot first (heck, not even shot first, just shot, since Greedo was killed before he could even get a chance to shoot Han Solo). There’s also the issue about how Lucas claimed that Vader was always intended to be Lukes father, even though there’s a lot of evidence from the various production materials that such wasn’t the case, and that Lucas just decided to turn him into Luke’s father on a mere whim during TESB’s development.

                  Funny how the one thing I didn’t want to be true, the Rebels being based on the Vietcong since the start, was the only one that actually turned out to be true.


        • “Saying that there was nothing after VI was not a lie either” Well, in the Mar. 06, 1978 issue of Time he claims 12 films total. I remember reading an article in Starlog (I believe, I wish I could remember because I’d love to reread it now) where Lucas lays out his plan: 3 prequels to Star Wars for the first trilogy, the OT which was the middle trilogy, a sequel trilogy, and a 4th trilogy that he said was 2001-like, with a rather apocryphal ending. He claimed to have the outlines for them (except perhaps for the fourth trilogy), so he had as much material then for the sequels as for the prequels. So he was either wrong then, or later when he claimed there was nothing after Return of the Jedi (after having taking a vicious public beating for the prequels). I don’t want to say he lied because I’d like to give him the benefit of the doubt and think he forgot or was exaggerating back in 1978. In either case though, he is definitely contradictory.


          • You are ignoring the fact that things change and evolve. Yes, there were 12 films once. That’s not a lie. That concept evolved and was later changed to 9 and then 6. Things that were set for the later movies (like the Emperor) were push back to the fifth and sixth movies. What we got with the original trilogy was already an amalgamation of a lot of story points from the initial 12 movie concept. When Lucas started developing the actual sequel trilogy in the 2010s, he was creating a new story. It was not what was set for the 12 movies in ’78. He might pick up some ideas and concepts that he abandoned and never got to explore, but the story is inherently different due to how things changed and ended up being adapted for the original trilogy decades ago.

            So like I said, what he said was all true. It’s not a contradiction.


  3. Wendig is projecting. Regardless of the quality of the writing, if the politics of TLJ had been slanted to the right, he’d be having a fit about the horrors of such fascist jingoistic propaganda and probably demanding those who did it be fired and never work in the industry again.

    Liked by 2 people

  4. White Christian males, or basically any white who is tired of the onslaught of animosity in media, academia and politics have a solid case that the current SJW Star Wars is far more than just an ‘alternative perspective.’ We’ve seen and heard about the knockout games, polar bear hunting, the jihadi atrocities, Obama’s race division, BLM, Antifa etc etc. These are not ‘freedom-fighters’, or the oppressed. These are villainous cabals that perfectly fit the role of villain. The villains in modern SW are tired and outdated cliches. Pale northern white males. While the heroes are blatantly semitic, or black.

    The question is, after seeing primarily the atrocities of Islam over the past decade, why would Disney continue to avoid placing it as the primary villain? To me, it’s because white males have been 1. guilt-tripped by holocaustianity, 2. the public has been conditioned to think any white anger deserves severe response, thus resulting in self-censorship. 3. greed of globalist producers. This can be also tied into the SJW homosexuality agenda – feminism/LGBT has to replenish their numbers via propaganda.

    Final point is that the voraciousness of the SJW mindset means we really couldn’t break free if we wanted to. The SJW would infiltrate and if that didn’t work, engage in usual smearing or deplatforming.

    It’s all a giant mess and won’t be fixed until another Great Reset occurs.


    • I can’t agree with your post. But when you point to a Great Reset? Are you indicating the solution to be a Nuclear Holocaust.

      Personally, I think the modern Star Wars films do-not have any villains. Not really wicked ones.


  5. Disney’s been programming our children for a very long time. They’ve moved on from “It’s smart to keep looking smart!” (The Story Of Menstruation [1946]), to SJW propaganda.

    A think there is a very serious threat from behavior programming in the near future, with the indoctrination of SJW political ideals. Cohering (with force – through social alienation) to comply and conform to a preset of fascist tenets. e.g. Forceful suppression of liberty; and ideas – Control by consensus, through the elimination of opposition – Thought control.

    Im just glad many are pushing back.


    • The sort of thing tends to work in a situation like a concentration camp where you’re forced to watch it. But in a free society where you’re still able to simply walk away…not so much.


      • Is twitter a concentration camp? Are SJW comic gatekeepers the Aufseherinnen?

        Is it acceptable to suspend indefinitely a twitter account; denying someone the possibility to reach out and communicate on a global scale. The same right given to everyone else. Is it acceptable to diminish the human rights of vulgar people.

        Are there not block chains on twitter; are they not used to alienate people; indiscriminately, by simply following Diversity & Comics (@DiversityAndCmx).

        GamerGate; ComicsGate …>>… StarWarsGate – You think you live in a free society?

        You are toxic; you are vulgar, you are inhuman – Je suis, a Star Wars fan.


    • Funny thing about ‘The Story Of Menstruation’, I found it on youtube not too long ago, and one of the points they make is that some girls are slender and some have a fuller shape, it all depends on genetics. To bad that wasn’t said louder and more often. Maybe we could have avoided the episode of teen anorexia deaths in the ’70’s, which gave ammunition to the ‘anti-body shaming’ backlash that is now morphing into a ‘be fat and unhealthy’ movement.


  6. Pingback: SJW Goes On Bizarre Hyperbolic Tirade For Esquire | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  7. Pingback: The Lucas/Van Sciver Controversy | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  8. Pingback: Article Declaring End To A Debate Sparks A Debate | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  9. Pingback: Art By Comittee | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  10. Pingback: SJWs Set Their Sites On 40K and D&D | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  11. Pingback: Bryan Young Attempts To Connect Non-Existent Dots | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  12. Pingback: Rogue One Writer Reminisces About His Race Baiting Tweets | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  13. Pingback: All Of This Happened 15 Years Ago | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  14. Pingback: UCLA Weaponizes Pseudo-Science | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  15. Pingback: Brian Larsen Encourages Targeted Harassment Of RFR | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  16. Pingback: Another Dumb Book | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  17. Pingback: Ethan Van Sciver’s Instincts Serve Him Well | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  18. Pingback: Lippincott Has Lippinfit Over “Ugly Fan Behavior” | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  19. Pingback: SJWs Have A Collective Hissy Fit Over Minutiae And Nothingness | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  20. Pingback: John Boyega Disagrees With SJWs | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  21. Pingback: Old White Male Paul S. Kemp Bellyaches Over Old White Males | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  22. Pingback: Matt Martin Confirms Political Agenda | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  23. Pingback: Jason Ward Endorsed Communist Star Wars Book | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  24. Pingback: Anthony Daniels Delcares OT Non-Political | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  25. Pingback: Professor Uses Star Wars To Push Political Propaganda | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

  26. Pingback: Jennifer Heddle Was Against Shoehorning Diversity Before She Was For It | Disney Star Wars is Dumb

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s