Is there too much politics?

[Revan]

In the latest films? I mean if you read the books that are based on the films.. You'll know there is a lot of politics involved... Is there too much?

[dANdeLION]

Well, I think it's a sign of maturity on GL's part to show how politics can be used to start wars. When we are children (I assume this mostly has to do with boys), we just know that it's cool to shoot guns and fly in planes. When we get older, we realize that our childhood fancies have nothing to do with the reality of war. GL has wisely put potlitics in this series so we can see why the "Star Wars" started in the first place.

[Revan]

I agree... I think it is an excellent move... And if you read the books... you will see that there much more politics. i agree completely agree with you dAN.

[aTOMiC]

I have to agree with dAN. Investigating the motivations and mechanics of how the state of the galaxy had evolved is central to understanding the evolution of Anakin Skywalker. I understand that the entire Star Wars saga can be boiled down to simple core of “The corruption and redemption of Darth Vader.” The use of politics is a tool for good and for evil and understanding its role in the development of a tyrant is an integral component to the story as a whole. I can’t always agree in the way GL has chosen to tell his story but I do agree with his overall intent.

[Revan]

This is more like the discussion I want Keep going.

[dANdeLION]

Look at how the politics of Naboo and Tatooine shaped the course of events. Two little planets; one little more than a desert, the other so far out that it should have been insignificant; yet they both had everything to do with the empire Palpatine built. Funny how I get the impression that the Force led Palpateen to Naboo and Tatooine, but didn't lead the Jedi there until things were already well under way....

[matrixman]

I think the idea of bringing political intrigue closer to the surface in a Star Wars movie is well-intentioned, but the way it's handled in the prequels seem awkward to me (among all the other awkward things). The whole Naboo trade situation in Episode I seemed like much ado about nothing; I did not sense the urgency of the matter. Whether that's the fault of the script or the direction, I'm not sure. Besides, I want Star Wars, not Star Talk.

Maybe the story of the fall of the Old Republic is a political story. But if so, then George Lucas should try to make a dedicated, thoroughly adult political Star Wars movie that isn't pretending to be a children's movie. If Lucas wants to impress me with the political realism and sophistication of the Star Wars universe, fine. But then, why throw Jar Jar at me?

Episode II was possibly better at giving me a sense of urgency about its politics than Episode I, but I can't be sure, as I saw it only a couple of times (never thought I'd say that about a Star Wars movie). Whatever. It's an issue for Lucas to worry about: how do you make a political Star Wars movie without boring the heck out of an audience? I don't think folks will be lining up for Episode III because they're eager to watch somber political speeches by Palpatine or whomever. The excitement of Star Wars comes from experiencing the romantic heroism of a long distant age, not from its convoluted politics.

Just my opinion.

[Revan]

And an excellent opinion it is

But then, why throw Jar Jar at me?

A thing we would all like to know.

Matrixman had some good points there

I think it's good to show the political history. So we know how the future star wars came to be.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Honestly I don't see how they could have done a worse job portraying real-life politics in the new films. Giving a grandiose speech with no debate is not politics - it's melodrama (or the Bush administration). It struck me as politics as viewed by an eight year old.

Disclaimer: I thought the new films were horrible. I loved the originals. But these seem to suffer the same basic problem as Van Helsuck - that special effects can make up for a bad story, bad writing, and bad acting.

Flame away, I only stopped in here to see if there was any Stargate stuff ;)

[matrixman]

Maybe it's a sad reflection of how much credibility Star Wars has lost (and maybe even Star Trek?), that people would turn to Stargate for interesting sci-fi. Whatever turns you on, TH.

[Tranquil Hegemony]

Maybe it's a sad reflection of how much credibility Star Wars has lost (and maybe even Star Trek?), that people would turn to Stargate for interesting sci-fi. Whatever turns you on, TH. :)

Hehe :) Well one of the things I like about the show is that it doesn't take itself too seriously. Lucas definitely takes himself too seriously. And he's become WAY too politically correct, from the "enhanced" episode IV where Han doesn't fire first, to his almost childlike portrayal of good and evil in the new movies.

Star Trek is good. When I was a kid my dad and I would try to be the first to name the episode from the first few seconds (that was the original series). I was a big TNG fan. DS9 was good but I didn't catch much of it (got distracted by Babylon 5, which despite its frequent overacting/overwriting I thought was more interesting) and Voyager, well, sucked. I've only caught a few episodes of Enterprise, but it looks like a good show.

Another thing I like about Stargate is that it's set in the here-and-now, not 300 years in the future (or a long time ago in a galaxy far, far away) with a huge disconnect between that setting and us. Plus, when they want to go somewhere, they walk. (Granted most alien worlds look suspiciously like the Vancouver area.) It's just refreshing to have a show where almost every episode isn't set on a starship or a space station. It's not the best show ever, but it's consistently entertaining and lighthearted.