#anti-George Lucas

[otnesse]

George Lucas has always been a radical leftist, and there's hints at him having deliberately yet subtly forcing in his radical leftist messaging into Star Wars even with the Original Trilogy. He's also shilled for Obama quite a few times such as calling him a hero, and when asked he without any hesitation said Obama would "obviously" be a Jedi. Made the Jedi's rather dank depiction in the Prequel Trilogy look even worse that he felt a malignant narcissist like Obama who did a huge amount to wreck America was Jedi material. But oh, it gets even worse. Apparently back in 2009, when Obama was in the early stages of Obama's presidency, George Lucas saw it fit to actually trash-talk Luke Skywalker just to prop Obama up. I'm not kidding, read this:

Lucas: Obama more powerful than Skywalker - POLITICO

And in case you think it's a clickbait title, here's the meat of the article:

We all know that Barack Obama has achieved superstar status. But is he an actual hero? Like in the action movie sense? You betcha! says “Star Wars” creator George Lucas, who was in Washington Wednesday night for the Ford’s Theatre reopening celebration where both he and screen legend Sidney Poitier were being honored with the Ford Theatre Society’s Lincoln medal in a ceremony attended by President Barack Obama, a Lincoln aficionado. Lucas says that, in a contest between Luke Skywalker and Obama, our 44th president wins hands down—even without the lightsaber. In addition, Poitier told Politico that Obama’s rockstar status is still going strong.

Seriously, he treated a well-respected hero like Luke Skywalker, one who redeemed his father and helped save a galaxy from tyranny through that bit, and in fact was one of the few unambiguous heroes in the overall saga even WITH Lucas' shameful revelation that he modeled the heroes after the Viet-friggin-cong and the villains after us Americans DESPITE news making clear the VC were the actual bad guys after the Vietnam War ended, like complete and total trash just to praise a pathologically lying, unscrupulous, malignantly narcissistic manchild who hates even the slightest criticism and actively tries to destroy America's standing by literally bowing in apology to Arabs, was VERY open about wanting to have more babies killed via abortion to such an extent that he outright BLOCKED any attempts at getting red letters through [and I'd know that bit personally as I was involved in the red envelope campaign to try and talk Obama into stopping abortion. Never even voted for him either, precisely BECAUSE he supported abortion, baby killing in other words] and probably being a huge factor in why we've gone so suicidally woke recently especially with his buying out Netflix, claim someone like THAT was a better Jedi than Luke?! And I thought DISNEY disrespected Luke in the sequel trilogy (well, they did, don't get me wrong, but this somehow comes off as even WORSE)... Guess that's another sign why George Lucas ultimately should NOT have had the reins to Star Wars, with or without Disney (not that Disney's any better mind you. Basically the whole situation with Lucas and Disney running Star Wars would be best summed up as "pick your poison").

It's already bad enough that Lucas threw shade at his father Anakin by effectively calling his compassion for Padme and Shmi "greedy" when explaining why Anakin turned to the Dark Side DESPITE his intention of him being a tragic hero (not the TV Tropes definition, the actual Greek concept) who ultimately got redeemed (not to mention implying that a truly compassionate Jedi would throw them under the bus). Didn't think he'd actually go as far as to outright disrespect Luke in that manner by inferring Luke was inferior to someone like Barack Obama regarding the Jedi way.

[short-wooloo]

Now that the trailer is out, it's probably best that I get this out of the way before acolyte releases

The Jedi are right about the Force and the dark side

The Jedi did not lose their way

The Jedi were not corrupted

The genocide of the Jedi was not their fault

The Jedi are not wrong for being part of the Republic, it is in fact a good thing

The Jedi are not arrogant for thinking the sith are gone

and while we're at it the sith are evil, always, end of discussion

The Jedi do not steal children

If someone wants to leave the Jedi, that's allowed, no one will stop them

The Jedi are right about attachment

Attachment is not love (SW uses the Buddhist definition because Lucas is a Buddhist and the Jedi are based off Buddhist monks, Buddhism defines attachment as being possessive or unwilling to let go of people or things)

The Jedi do not forbid emotions, they forbid being controlled by your emotions, you must control them

The Jedi are not forbidden from loving people, nor are they celibate, they just can't get married (big whup) because their duties must come first

Being peacekeepers doesn't preclude the Jedi from fighting in war, sometimes to keep the peace you have to fight back, especially when its against tyranny, see WWII (or Ukraine today)

Gray jedi are not a thing

The Jedi are not slavers or complicit in slavery

Oh and of course, the Jedi are not elitists for not training non Force sensitives, (Han voice) that's not how the Force works, dave filoni broke the rules so he could shoehorn sabine into a Jedi (to give the benefit of the doubt, I do believe sabine's role as ahsoka's apprentice was meant for an original character but things got condensed by executives, so maybe filoni isn't entirely to blame here)

(Edit)

The Jedi are not cops

The Jedi are not the government/the rulers of the Republic/galaxy

The Jedi do not persecute other Force groups

Padawans are not child soldiers

Feel free to add anything I forgot

Do not, DO NOT!! add anything Jedi critical, I'm done with it and won't hear it, don't have something nice to say? Then go away, I will block on sight, either reblog without comment (either in the reblog or the notes) or don't interact at all

[antianakin]

What irks me about Filoni is that despite - as far as I'm aware - him working directly with Lucas during the production of TCW seasons 1-6, he somehow completely failed to grasp the intended interpretation of the Jedi (benevolent, honorable peacekeeper space wizards who just wanted to protect the people of the Republic/Galaxy, and whose only real flaw was being willing to drop some of the benevolence, honor and peacekeeping when necessary) as well as the intended message of "attachment is selfish possessiveness in this universe, and thus is a Bad Thing, especially when you don't think things through in regards to protecting the subjects of your attachments". Say what you will about Headland, but at least she has the excuse of not getting such an opportunity to consult the franchise's creator.

I don't remember which blogger said this now, but someone's answer to a similar question about Filoni pointed out that Filoni absolutely GETS what attachment is, generally, and he even understands what the Jedi were intended to represent, he just personally seems to interpret the Jedi in the Prequels as failing to live up to what the Jedi SHOULD be. Back in TCW, most of the time at least, it's usually represented as not the Jedi's FAULT that they aren't living up to what they should be but the fault of the circumstances they've been forced into. But as Filoni's moved forward on his own, this has sort-of evolved further and further away from that more sympathetic and tragic view of the Jedi and into something a lot more vitriolic and unsympathetic in the extreme.

So, yeah, I think he GETS IT, he just doesn't LIKE IT much and now that Lucas isn't around to point things in a particular direction, we're seeing more of Filoni's personal feelings change the way the characters get represented in his stories, and less of Lucas's original themes.

[maeaniseyas]

How can you praise Andor for its nuance in its portrayal of Imperials and the Rebellion, but can’t accept any nuance when it comes to the Jedi, the Sith, and the Force. George Lucas, the literal creator of Star Wars, was the one to introduce the idea that the Jedi weren’t perfect and made many mistakes, and he helped his apprentice Dave Filoni showcase this even more in The Clone Wars, and then Dave continued to expand on George’s own ideas about the force in Rebels and his later projects.

So don’t be mad at Dave Filoni or Leslye Headland that the Jedi aren’t perfect, be mad at the literal creator of this franchise. Also, no project has ever made the case “The Jedi are just as bad as the Sith”. The Sith are very noticeably worse than the Jedi, always.

[enbyzutara]

Aang x Luke Skywalker Parallels: How Aang’s Hero’s Journey Wasn't Properly Finished

I read this post by @lovegrowsart and I couldn't get it out of my mind how Aang and Luke Skywalker's journeys have so much in common, yet only one of these arcs feels like it has come to a properly finished conclusion. Meanwhile, the other one feels like the character didn't learn what he was supposed to in order to fulfill his Hero's Journey arc. So, in this post, I want to expand more on why “Aang was supposed to be the Luke Skywalker of Avatar: The Last Airbender”, but the creators of A:TLA failed to properly finish his story.

Firstly, it’s important to point out that the Star Wars saga and universe are widely famous in pop and nerd culture, including Luke Skywalker, the Jedi protagonist, who himself is one of the most famous and beloved characters from the saga. So, it’s not really a reach to assume that the creators and writers of Avatar: The Last Airbender were - at some level - inspired by this famous universe and character. By doing a quick research, we can confirm this assumption, because Bryan Konietzko, one of the co-creators of A:TLA, said in a podcast that Dave Filoni helped to shape A:TLA and its story. Also, both creators said that Joseph Campbell’s writing about mythology helped them to create the Hero’s Journey and the other storylines for their show, and George Lucas was also heavily inspired by Campbell when he was writing Star Wars.

(I will refer to the Star Wars episodes of the original trilogy as one, two and three - even though, nowadays, they are the numbers four, five and six).

Bryke (Bryan Konietzko and Michael Dante DiMartino, the co-creators of Avatar: The Last Airbender) and George Lucas share a lot of tropes and narratives in the stories that each one of them created. Both protagonists of the sagas are the '"chosen one" of their universe: both are the last of their kind (even though in the Star Wars universe, initially there were two more older Jedi) who have the weight of the world’s future on their shoulders. Aang needs to fight against the Fire Lord and Luke, initially, against Darth Vader. By doing this, they would bring balance to the world/galaxy.

It’s also important to emphasize how Luke Skywalker and Aang are not only the saviors of the story, they are also the last of their kind. In A:TLA and in Star Wars, we have populations that suffered genocide: the Airbenders were brutally exterminated by the Fire Nation during Sozin’s Comet, and initially, it was revealed in the original Star Wars trilogy that the Jedi were wiped out of the galaxy when Order 66 happened. So, Luke and Aang not only have the destiny of the world/galaxy on their shoulders, they also are the only ones who can continue the legacy, the culture, and the survival of their own kind.

Another parallel between Luke Skywalker and Aang is that both have a Mentor From Beyond. Luke Skywalker was able to seek knowledge from the Jedis who had passed away in the original trilogy. Firstly, it was Obi-Wan Kenobi, who was his first mentor; Luke was able to communicate with him, and Obi-Wan would give him advice and directions to follow. Later, Yoda also appeared to him. For Aang, due to the fact that he’s the Avatar (and to be the Avatar means that you are the reincarnation of someone who already died), he was able to contact the Avatars from his past incarnations. In the show, Roku is the past Avatar with whom Aang most often connects, but he also seeks knowledge from Kyoshi, Kuruk, and Yangchen.

In Book One: Water and A New Hope, both characters are presented as more naive, and the narrative is not as tense as in the later seasons/episodes. However, the sequel presents a "darker" version of its universe as both characters grow and face emotional dilemmas and more hardships. The Empire Strikes Back and Book Two: Earth explore, even more, the ongoing war in their respective universes, and by the end of these sequels, things go wrong for the heroes. And what I really want to discuss is the similarity between the second episode of Star Wars and the second season of Avatar: The Last Airbender.

At some point in the second episode/season, Luke and Aang had to separate from their group of friends in order to learn more and to train. They had to seek knowledge of what they are and what they represent, because by doing this, they would be a step closer to fulfilling their duties and saving the galaxy/world. At this moment in the narrative, Luke and Aang have an older and wiser mentor who will try to help them achieve this: Yoda and Guru Pathik.

But neither Luke nor Aang finish these training sessions that they started, because during their training, they have a vision of people who are special to them currently in danger. So, even though Yoda and Guru Pathik advise them not to leave and to finish what they started, they leave. Luke goes to Cloud City to save his friends (Leia, Han Solo, Chewbacca, and C3PO) and Aang goes to Ba Sing Se to save Katara. And as stated before, in this episode/season finale, things go wrong for the heroes, including to the protagonists who are supposed to be the saviors of both universes. Luke and Aang left their training even though they were advised otherwise, they went to fight without properly learning what they needed to learn. So when they faced the enemy, they lost. Both at the end were defeated: Aang quite literally dies and Luke has a metaphorical death when he learns about his parentage and loses one of his arms. He also "commits suicide" when he decides to jump instead of aligning himself with the Dark Side.

Now, something really important here is to talk about how Luke and Aang's attachments to people who are dear to them made them run away from what they should have been doing, instead of bringing them closer to their duties and destiny. It was understandable the reasons why they left their training, but it still was wrong in the sense that things went wrong and it ended tragically for both characters. And, it’s never portrayed in both sagas that loving someone is wrong, but being attached to someone is. Both of their Hero’s Journeys required them to learn the difference between what is love and what is attachment, because both concepts are different and one of them (attachment) is portrayed in both sagas as wrong, especially for the protagonists.

Although I’m not Buddhist, nor was I raised as one, it’s clear that Star Wars (1) (2) and Avatar: The Last Airbender (1) (2) both were inspired, to some extent, by this religion and its philosophy. (I tried searching for articles and videos made by Buddhist people, but, unfortunately, I couldn't really find many, so if anyone wants to link more content, please, feel free). And one thing that appears to be inspired by this religion and philosophy in both sagas was the concept of attachment in contrast to love (1) (2). Before delving into the topic of attachment in the show and movie, it’s ideal to understand what attachment means from a Buddhist perspective:

In Buddhism, attachment is called upādāna, which means grasping or clinging. It refers to the human tendency to cling to people, things, or ideas in the mistaken belief that they will bring us lasting happiness and fulfillment. Attachment arises from our desire to feel secure, comfortable, and control of our lives. (...) Attachment to people: Attachment to people can become a source of suffering, as we can become overly dependent on them for our happiness, identity, and sense of security. This attachment can take many forms, from romantic relationships to friendships and family bonds.

While searching for what would be the difference between love vs attachment in Buddhism, this quote also brought my attention (I'll definitely come back to this later): 

Any kind of relationship which imagines that we can fulfill ourselves through another is bound to be very tricky. Ideally people would come together already feeling fulfilled within themselves and just therefore appreciating that in the other, rather than expecting the other to supply that sense of well-being.

George Lucas seemed to understand this concept better than Bryke. In Return of the Jedi, Luke Skywalker a) trusts his group of friends way more than he did in The Empire Strikes Back, b) he was also able to let go of his anger for Darth Vader because he genuinely loved Anakin, his father. George Lucas was very vocal about how he wanted to portray attachment as a bad thing, and when it comes to this topic, he never intended to make the Jedi philosophy something wrong. Strict? Maybe, but not wrong. And in the end, as the episode’s title suggests, Luke "returns", as he also returns to Dagobah to contact his master, Yoda, one last time. (The title of this episode can also refer to Anakin returning to the Light Side, but art can be interpreted in different and many ways).

In contrast, Avatar: The Last Airbender presented Aang’s attachment to Katara in a bad light. The Guru episode shows that Aang's attachment to Katara, not his feelings, is what is making him fail to open his chakra and not being able to enter into the Avatar State. 

Pathik: The Thought Chakra is located at the crown of the head. It deals with pure cosmic energy, and is blocked by earthly attachment. Meditate on what attaches you to this world. [Images of Katara appear before Aang.] Now, let all of those attachments go. Let them flow down the river, forgotten.

It’s even more important to understand that what Aang feels for Katara is not genuine love, at least in this episode, it’s pretty much stated that he is attached to her in a way that he needs to learn to let go. To expand a little bit on this, it’s necessary to analyze two Avatar: The Last Airbender episodes and how they portray what Aang feels for Katara:

Firstly, 'The Fortuneteller' episode portrays Aang’s feelings for Katara as just a childish crush. There's nothing wrong with a childish crush in general, especially because Aang is, in fact, a child, so he's bound to be childish. But in this episode, what he feels for Katara is paralleled with what Meng feels for him: something that was one-sided and lacked "emotional maturity and self-awareness". Both Aang and Meng viewed their crushes in an overestimated and hyper-idealized way, which again was portrayed as silly and in a bad light.

Secondly, in 'The Guru' episode, it shows that yes, Aang does love Katara, but is it in the right way? The Air Nomads' genocide deeply affects Aang, and he still loves the people that he lost, obviously. But in the show, Guru Pathik states that the love that Aang felt for the Air Nomads was 'reborn' in a new love - his love for Katara. So, Aang is projecting his feelings of love for the people who were brutally exterminated onto the girl who, at this moment in the narrative, was only his dear friend who shows him support and fights alongside him. Aang needed to get closure and heal from this traumatic event; it’s a huge trauma that he should work through. But instead, he was coping by projecting his feelings onto something, or better, someone.

I personally think that Aang loves Katara to some extent, but he needed to work through his trauma first. This goes along with something already shown before, quoting: "people would come together [in a relationship] already feeling fulfilled within themselves and just therefore appreciating that in the other".

The chakra/Guru plotline in Avatar: The Last Airbender is not about Aang needing to stop loving Katara; that's a huge misunderstanding. It was about how Aang was attached to something (or someone, in his case) that he needed to learn to let go of, so he could progress, grow, and heal. After he fulfilled this arc about what's love vs attachment, two things could happen: a) maybe Aang would realize that his love for Katara was more platonic and that he was projecting a lot onto her because he sees her in an idealized way, or b) that he indeed loves her but he needs to realize that he's too much attached to the comfort that she gives and brings to him, so his feelings for her need to have more emotional maturity.

And in the end of season two, Aang actually let go of his attachment to Katara, and he was able to achieve the Avatar State. But unfortunately, after this, he was brutally attacked by Azula and had his chakra blocked.

But in Book Three: Fire, not only does he not return to see or contact Guru again, as Luke did (returned to see his older and wiser mentor, Yoda, in the third and final episode), but Aang also appears to still be attached to Katara in the same way that he already was, if not worse. In the Ember Island Players episode, he: 1) gets so mad and frustrated with the Players portraying his relationship with Katara in a non-romantic light that he says that he could go into the Avatar State over this, and 2) rushes things with Katara and kisses her without her consent, disrespecting her boundaries, after she just avoided his romantic questions and advances.

Point 1:

Aang: [Angered.] No, I'm not! I hate this play! [Yanks his hat off and throws it on the ground.]  Katara: I know it's upsetting, but it sounds like you're overreacting.  Aang: Overreacting? If I hadn't blocked my chakra, I'd probably be in the Avatar State right now!

Point 2: 

Aang: But it's true, isn't it? We kissed at the Invasion, and I thought we were gonna be together. But we're not. 

Katara: Aang, I don't know. 

Aang: Why don't you know?  Katara: Because, we're in the middle of a war, and, we have other things to worry about. This isn't the right time.

Aang: Well, when is the right time? 

Katara: Aang, I'm sorry, but right now I'm just a little confused.  [Aang tries to kiss Katara.]

Katara: I just said I was confused! I'm going inside. [Exits the balcony.]

All of this shows how he still lacked emotional maturity, and how he still was attached to Katara, in a way not much different from what was shown in Book Two: Earth. Overall, this shows how his feelings for her weren't properly developed and didn't grow from where they previously were – because it was still bound by an attachment that he needed to let go of in order to grow, heal, and learn.

Unfortunately, the Guru/Chakra plotline was completely brushed aside in Book Three: Fire; Aang doesn't even seek to see Guru again or continue his unfinished training. And in the end, when he was fighting the Fire Lord, what he was always meant to do, he managed to go into the Avatar State. Not because he trained or learned how to achieve this goal; actually, it was because a rock saved him by triggering the Avatar State. So, in the end, an entire plotline was ignored and forgotten. Aang didn't learn what he needed to learn with Guru, nor did he finish the training that he was meant to do, and he still was rewarded by the narrative with achieving the Avatar State and saving the world (and also, "getting the girl").

[(...) and Aang protects himself with an airbending shield but is pushed back by the force of the attack, crashing into a rock pillar. The scar on his back is hit with a point of the rock, causing him to flashback to when he was shot by lightning. (...) Aang jumps out, now in the Avatar State, and grabs Ozai by his goatee.]

And that's why Aang is the Luke Skywalker that we could’ve had. Luke finished his Hero's Journey; he learned what he needed to learn and because of it, he saved the galaxy and his father. Meanwhile, Aang didn't learn about love vs attachment, yet he still achieved what he needed to achieve from the beginning: the Avatar State and winning against the Fire Lord. And he only achieved that because the narrative chose to give him a final new solution to resolve all his problems instead of him directly dealing with and facing the problems, difficulties, and dilemmas that the narrative initially proposed to him.

(I don’t actually mean quite literally that Aang needs or should have been the Luke Skywalker from Avatar: The Last Airbender, because Aang is his own character who has his own story. What I mean is that: Luke Skywalker is a character who is similar in some ways to Aang, and he had his Hero’s Journey properly fulfilled. I believe that Aang also deserved the same treatment by the creators of ATLA).

[autistic-ben-tennyson]

A rant about Jedi Stans from an ex-Jedi fangirl

After some time I've had to reflect on my own behavior as well as my time in the pro Jedi fandom, I decided it's time to call this shit out. Some people take it really personal if someone criticized your favorite characters or their beliefs. Ironically, you all act more like the Sith than the Jedi with how obsessive you can be and insisting any criticism is equal to wanting genocide.

I'm going to start by saying I was in the pro jedi fandom for a few months. Truth be told, I was using it as an outlet for some of my anger issues with my hate towards Anakin, seeing him as similar to a lot of people I've had to deal with. Some of it was wanting more followers and fear of being disliked by the majority. I would pick fights with Anakin fans and was a bit of an asshole and I apologize for that. I still don't like him but no longer HATE him. Seeing how fandoms treat abuse victims who aren't perfect angels like Shinji Ikari or Lapis Lazuli has caused me to loosen up a bit. Many Jedi stans would probably hate those characters for not being “perfect” victims. In retrospect, this wasn't a good community for me. It was very puritanical and I often felt like I was wrong for enjoying media that went against the beliefs Jedi Stans put on a pedestal. Three of my favorite ships (Madohomu, Reishin and Hodaka x Hina) involve "burning the world for one person" and I felt like I couldn't talk about them without being a hypocrite. That and me agreeing less and less with Luca's beliefs pushed me to leave.

It's fine to enjoy a fictional character and defend them if you feel that they're being unfairly criticized. I've done it myself and have written essays defending my faves. The problem is that Jedi stans don't know when to stop. So many are quick to compare the Jedi to minority religions or marginalized groups as a shield against criticism, not recognizing how insulting that can be. Jewish, asian and aroace people are the ones normally used due to the Jedi beliefs being based off Eastern religions as well as Judaism as well as some aroace people identifying with the Jedi.

One thing I noticed about Jedi stans is their similarities to Jumblr which is full of religious chauvinism reworded to sound progressive. Many of them talk about how the Jedi shouldn't have to change their traditions with the times or to accommodate a few individuals like Anakin or Ahsoka. This can be similar to how a lot of people are quick to defend minority religions from outside criticism based on how they were treated by Christian colonists or missionaries. The problem is that this can veer right into ableist or queerphobic territory. You know who else believe that their religion shouldn't have to change with the times to accommodate people? Conservative Christians who hate being told to be affirming of LGBTQ people. Also, schools and parents/guardians do have a responsibility to accommodate kids with disabilities, mental health issues or trauma, even if it may be inconvenient or force you to bend the rules. Claiming they need to just suck it up is honestly disgusting.

This was all a big reason for why I left this garbage pit of a fandom. While there are some who hate the Jedi because they stan the empire or think people need 50s nuclear families to live fulfilling lives, not everyone does that. Believe it or not, some people have faced abuse and bigotry under Judaism and Buddhism. People can also criticize how Lucas presented their beliefs as some Buddhists think he didn't do a good job. Libsoftiktok is a vile transphobe, an Orthodox Jew and her beliefs are said to be fairly common in her community. Many people of color identify with the clones and dislike how even the nicer Jedi treated them. When Obi Wan told Anakin, "It's okay to have romantic feelings, but you must let them pass," that hits different for queer people who have been told similar things from "polite" homophobes. Some queer people do choose celibacy like Side B christians which is fine as long as they don't treat it as a moral failure to want a relationship. There are many neurodivergent people who don't like the Jedi beliefs as they hit close to home. Lucas may have not intended to come off as ableist but the Jedi did with their beliefs about negative emotions. To some people, platitudes like "just let go" aren't helpful and treating it as bad for not living up to those principles is gross.

I deleted the post, but a while back I made a post asking a popular pro jedi blogger their views on adoption since they claimed Anakin not viewing the Jedi as his "found family" was a moral failure. I found their response to be tone deaf and insulting. I responded in a decent way of course, but felt a bit judged and unhappy for wanting to know my birth mother. Adoptees are another set of people this fandom is insensitive and gross to. The Kenobi series I find insulting for that reason too, having Leia be a foil for Anakin and Obi Wan romanticize his recruitment as a child.

Jedi fans are also shitty to those with religious trauma and who faced abuse. Accusing anyone who criticizes the Jedi of projecting their issues with Christianity while simultaneously talking like conservatives as shown above. Tumblr in general has a weird habit of treating religion as if it’s either conservative evangelicalism, liberal reform Judaism and some vague pagan or eastern spirituality with little nuance. Some Jedi stans really come from a place of privilege. Claiming "they can just leave" is insulting to real religious abuse survivors who were raised with harmful beliefs like creationism or homophobia. I'm no antitheist but treating non christian religion as inherently progressive dismisses a lot of people's experiences.

Let's be real, the writing in this franchise was always a bit sloppy. Lucas's issue was wanting to simultaneously create both a black-and-white morality tale for kids based on the fairy tales and serials he grew up and a deep socio-political commentary about the Vietnam and Iraq wars which required some morally grey themes. Thus, along with his terrible dialogue that made the characters seem unlikable, is why the fandom is so divided over whether he intended people to agree with the prequel Jedi.

To wrap this up, I found the pro jedi fandom to be a terrible experience. It was a mix of faux progressivism mixed with fear of judgement for disagreeing. I ended up editing a post I made, and eventually deleted, comparing Yoda with Garnet from SU because I included a tiny bit of criticism and didn't want to get backlash. As long as it’s not gross or bigoted criticism of your favorite characters isn't the end of the world. People don't have to like George Lucas or his beliefs and put them on a pedestal. I feel like the fandom's worship of George comes in response to OT purists who claimed he "raped their childhoods" but there's fair criticism to be made. Just like how not everyone who criticizes Disney SW or any Disney media in general is an "anti woke" grifter. To the pro jedi fans reading this, here's a suggestion. Just block and ignore people, write an essay if you feel it's important, but don't act like an entitled bully if a blog or even a SW writer disagrees with the Jedi, interprets the story differently or criticizes your favorite characters.

[shadowqueenjude]

Something something George Lucas making Leia as a sex slave sit demurely beside Jabba the Hut basically naked to “soften her up” because he thought she was a bitch in The Empire Strikes Back. Something something SJM turning Nesta from a modest woman into a sexually repressed one in ACOFAS. Something something SJM writing like a misogynistic man. Something something the prevalent sexist idea that cold reserved women have to be hypersexualized in order to be appealing.

[so-what-then]

They deserved better 💔

[underwaterspiderbird]

[tilbageidanmark]

[the-far-bright-center]

The Prequels completed the saga

"The original idea for Star Wars was one movie about the tragedy of Darth Vader. But as the story grew, it ended up being three movies and the backstory was never explained. I decided it would be important to finish it off and do the backstory because things that I thought would be self-evident about the story, the audience didn't get. Over the 10 years after Return of the Jedi, I realized people misunderstood a lot—such as where Anakin came from. So it was a way of finishing the whole thing off." —George Lucas

Lucas repeatedly says here that the Prequels were his way of 'finishing off' the story that he began telling in the Original Trilogy. This is pretty crucial information, but it is yet another element of Lucas' saga that is continually misunderstood. Even after the Prequels were released, not only did many fans STILL completely miss the point of Anakin/Vader as a character (and the fact that his rise, fall, and redemption was the main plotline of the story), but they also failed to appreciate the various ways in which the Prequels mirrored, complemented, and, most importantly, FINISHED the saga. Nowhere is this completion made more explicit than in the RotS novelization (which was written in consultation with Lucas), which states: "it is already over. Nothing can be done to change it". The novelization was released alongside the film in 2005, and it was specifically intended to refer to the events of the Original Trilogy and the Prequels. Far too many fans these days like to apply that famous line to whatever part of 'Star Wars' they want, and in doing so, treat the Disney-canon and Lucas-canon as though they were interchangeable. They are absolutely not. Lucas' saga—aka, the Skywalker saga—is a complete story constructed as two trilogies that perfectly balance one another, both visually and thematically. Disney's canon, by contrast, is inconsistent, incoherent, and open-ended, not to mention inherently destructive to the integrity of the (original) Skywalker saga. It's disingenuous to try to apply that quote to the current Disney canon, which didn't even exist in 2005 and was not factored into that statement at all. The whole point of the Prequels, and particularly the tragic climax of Revenge of the Sith, was to retroactively conclude the story of the Skywalker saga that began with the Original Trilogy. And what story is that? In Lucas' own words, "it’s a certain story about Anakin Skywalker and once Anakin Skywalker dies, that’s...the end of the story."

[otnesse]

Some people say that Biggs Darklighter's deleted speech about the Galactic Empire nationalizing farms made Star Wars an anti-communist film, and that meant George Lucas was anti-Communist. I half-agree. It definitely would have made it anti-communist, but I suspect it implicitly condemning communism and nationalization is if anything the reason WHY it ended up cut (and I suspect George Lucas himself demanded the cut), especially when Lucas's own talk, especially in a certain Charlie Rose interview post-sale to Disney and even some comments made by him beforehand like "pure democracy, not capitalistic democracy" indicated that he himself was a huge fan of nationalization (heck, preferred the Soviet filmmaking style over Hollywood, and the Soviet filmmaking style is the EPITOME of nationalization). Oh yeah, and also his explicitly quoting Marx's dictum of workers having the means of production after he freed himself from the hollywood system around the time The Empire Strikes Back was released. More likely, he initially wrote it as a reference to the leftist canard about how America "invaded" Vietnam for tin deposits (basically the 1960s-1970s equivalent of the anti-war slogan War for Oil during Iraq), but then after giving it some thought and realizing he unintentionally supplied ammo to the capitalists he hated and demonized the communists he loved, he decided to cut the line instead. And get this, when it came time to expand more on the Empire's philosophy from its own words with the Imperial Handbook, they conveniently don't even ALLUDE to any plans, short or long term, of nationalizing farms at all. The most they really mentioned regarding nationalization, or Imperialization as they call it, was weapons manufacturers, which lets face it, even in a small government setting, nationalization of firearms is somewhat required. Without nationalization of firearms or weapons of some sort, weapons manufacturers actually CAN commit treason and sell weapons to both sides just for a quick buck. Yes, Capitalism definitely is the best in this world for many reasons, but it also needs to be held in check by morals as well, which even Conservatives agree with, heck, the Founding Fathers of America agreed with. Ironically, absolutely no restraints to weapons manufacturers actually works more with Communists than Capitalists since Communists absolutely INSIST on destroying moral codes as well as law and order of ANY sort.

[short-wooloo]

George Lucas makes an entire trilogy about how a flawed democracy is better than dictatorship, only for countless people to stan the separatists

[antianakin]

Pretending that Leslye Headland ISN'T a Jedi critical writer and that she hasn't explicitly stated that her show is a Jedi critical show in interviews more than once is no different than Leslye Headland pretending that George Lucas IS a Jedi critical writer and that he hasn't explicitly stated in interviews that the Jedi are the good guys and that the Prequels are about Anakin and the Republic being selfish and greedy.

You can disagree with either of them if you want, you can choose to disregard what they've said and come to your own conclusion about their work if it's how you want to engage with it, but you do also have to acknowledge that the creators had an intended message with their stories even if you don't like it.

[identityflawed]

whether you're pro- or anti-jedi, i'm sure we can all agree that had george lucas been a slightly better filmmaker, there would be less discussion as to what is really valid and what is just a misinterpretation of evidence.

[good-call-my-young-padawan]

I had a bad feeling about this

Once again, my guts are getting my suspicions right over and over.... I think we could say with all honesty, the PT fandom is devided, why? There's George Lucas, the original creator of Star Wars and there's the wannabe Derk Firloni & team fanfic version.

Lucas was a producer and current advisor in the series, not in charge of each episode check up! Plus I bet HE DIDN'T EVEN WATCHED THE CLONE WARS FULLY!!! He said his fav episode was one with a droids adventures, I mean 🫢🤭 he prefered to watch droids instead of the main character he said he loves as if these were his own children.

No wonder the trio was SO OUT OF CHARACTER!!! Not just the design, clothes but personslities!! Firloni purposely put Padmé Amidala down for sexist reasons. She was the one in charge, the mature and reasonable one, he couldn't stand a woman leading instead of a man. So he turned Padmé in a damsel in distress, workholic, bad taste in ex bfs instead of Palo, the lack of high fashion, lack of fighting skills (dude played denial from her leading taking the Naboo palace back at 14! And she fighting along jedi and troopers at 23!!) To make Anakin look like the mature one ("don't think you can read my mind", "duty comes first especially in war time *kiss*). Padmé would be the one clarifying Anakin of her duty, not him 🤣

Oh, but not just Ani and Pads were victims of his terrible takes. Obi-Wan too!!! He planned to make him have a child with Satine and somehow (he abandoned his son, son died, who the f knows??? and instead Obi went to watch someone elses children 🤣 that was the idea?? And wtf the commenter wanted to OC Obi too lol). According to a podcast mentioned on an inta comment; George had to tell him, "look you seem to know shit about my characters... Obi-Wan wouldn't do that is OC." Lol same when they wanted "Sith force ghosts", George again went on to tell them "you effing donkeys, Sith can't be force ghosts that's why they want to be inmortal!!!" 🥴🤣

What they only got right prob was that George wanted a puppet like design for the characters hah

Why they want to push Obi-Wan so bad to have relationships/flirting??? He's settled on his jedi ways and been so since TPM. They push him Siri Tachi, Ventress (wtf she's a Sith!?? 🤣 self betrayal ideals), Satine, the woman from the disney kenobi series.... but had to put that idea down, since well, out of character! A Jedi like Obi-Wan wouldn't be a fboy or into modern men dating views... He's a Jedi! Not just some jedi, but the ultimate one... yoda-windu like.

This type of characterization would fit better to characters like Ayla Secura, Quinlan Voss or Kit Fisto. Not stablished ones.

Well, there's a reason we got time travel in SW but not to prevent Anakin from falling to dark side or Padmé or Qui-Gon to die 🫠 let's use it to save filler characters that have nothing to add to the plot instead lmao

Not to forget they made Ani's head square/old 23 year old and hair brown??? like wtf 🤭

Rant end.