#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)

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

[wp-blaze]

Shop REI’s Anniversary Sale and get their biggest discounts of the year!

Member coupons and discounts galore on everything from rain coats to backpacks to camp gear!

[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).

[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."

[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.

[antianakin]

Anakin would never have made a good Jedi.

Like that's the thing, isn't it? This is literally what defines Anakin within canon.

He was never going to make a good Jedi.

Not unless you change enough things about his backstory to effectively turn him into an entirely new character to some degree.

Lucas has said it himself, if Anakin had been found earlier, adopted into the Jedi at a much younger age, he might have made a good Jedi. If you remove him from the slave environment on Tatooine, remove him from the environment where his mother has to be laser focused on him and his well-being and her entire world revolves around him, let him grow up with the Jedi and their philosophies and lifestyle, then yeah, sure, he could've made a good Jedi.

But he wasn't found earlier, he does have this relationship with Shmi where everything she does revolves around Anakin and his wellbeing, and so this is how he defines love. This is what he WANTS in life.

Even if you remove Palpatine from the equation, even if he doesn't manage to manipulate Anakin against the Jedi, we're told in the text that the Jedi way of life just isn't the right path for Anakin.

The Council tells us that when they test him in TPM.

Anakin himself says he's not acting the way Jedi should and just keeps doing it anyway in both AOTC and ROTS, keeps justifying it to himself.

Lucas says it in his interviews.

And then you have Ahsoka. Ahsoka who is basically an Anakin mini-me, who practically exists to show us what Anakin could've/would've been if he'd been found by the Jedi earlier and brought up in that family dynamic. Because Ahsoka shares a LOT of Anakin's flaws and struggles, that's part of the point. They're incredibly similar. She's reckless, she's arrogant, she's advanced for her age, she seems to occasionally struggle with attachments and what that means. The difference is that Ahsoka has a foundation of Jedi teachings to fall back on. When Anakin tells her "purpose before feelings," he isn't really teaching her something she doesn't already know. He's REMINDING her of something she's been taught since she was a toddler and therefore Ahsoka can just lean into things she'd been taught by other people when she experiences it in the field. Anakin doesn't have that, obviously, he's got a lot of different foundational knowledge that sends him spinning off in an entirely different direction and leads to him being a teacher who can talk the talk and not walk the walk. Anakin almost never puts purpose before feelings, and that's a large part of who and what Anakin is.

Anakin's not a good Jedi. He was never going to BE a good Jedi. That's literally just who Anakin was always intended to be. He didn't have potential, because the background he had combined with his age meant that he was just never going to be able to rise to those kinds of heights.

[ecoamerica]

Watch the 2024 American Climate Leadership Awards for High School Students now: https://youtu.be/5C-bb9PoRLc

The recording is now available on ecoAmerica's YouTube channel for viewers to be inspired by student climate leaders! Join Aishah-Nyeta Brown & Jerome Foster II and be inspired by student climate leaders as we recognize the High School Student finalists. Watch now to find out which student received the $25,000 grand prize and top recognition!

[catholicat]

The only way Star Wars works for me is if i "kill the author" George Lucas. Especially true for the prequels.

[infinitepunches]

Possibly controversial take:

As beautiful as the animation was in this short, the first episode of Star Wars: Visions season two, “Sith,”  shows a fundamental misunderstanding of Star Wars and its core concepts, and it’s a microcosm of the Disney Star Wars problem as a whole.

Lola is well-acted, charming, and likable. She’s aesthetically quintessential modern Star Wars in all the best ways. But her character and story fly in direct contrast to the whole point of Star Wars.

She’s a former Sith, probably my favorite archetype of Star Wars character. There aren’t many former Sith characters in the franchise, especially outside of Legends. We have Ventress, and Quinlan Vos (sort of). Vader and Kylo are both killed off so to avoid the “you murdered my whole family” awkwardness at the respective New Republic celebration ceremonies.

And with as rare as the trope is, this is the second time Visions has done a story line with a reformed Sith, the first being in “Ronin.” The Ronin character adheres to the Star Wars philosophy of moral obligation to good. (This is made especially clear in the sequel Ronin novel.) The Ronin began the Jedi Schism and many died because of his actions. Because of this, he believes he has a duty to hunt down and eradicate the evil he created. He is still driven by emotion, like a Sith, but the core Lucasian moral of power demanding responsibility is still there.

“Both Light and Darkness are part of the painting... part of me...” Lola says as she ignites a saber that bears a bled crystal, a sentient stone that has been tortured by her hate and pain. And she proceeds to do precisely what her old Sith master tells her to do: she murders him. Not because she wants to right her wrongs, or because she wishes to stop the spread of evil, but because she wants to be alone and get to make every choice for herself.

Somewhere along the way, we forgot that Star Wars is Christianity through a space-fantasy lens. The Jedi serve the Will of the Force. The Will is the Force is supreme above all. Jedi abandon selfish desire in exchange for service to a higher omniscient Consciousness. The Jedi are freed from the Dark Side’s corruption by their submission to the Will of the Force.

In contrast, this episode adheres to the Sith Code: “Through victory, my chains are broken.” Just like the snake in the garden, the Sith spout the lie that you can be your own god and chart your own destiny. Jedi follow prophesy. Sith defy nature. Lola’s happy ending teaches the audience that by the sheer willpower we possess, we can escape our enemies and find peace in isolation doing whatever the hell we want.

This is precisely opposite to the core philosophy taught in the Original Trilogy. Seemingly, according to this short, Luke should have stayed on the farm and “not gotten involved.”

Ironically, Lucas himself was an artist who used his artistic power for good, unlike Lola who merely wishes to retreat from conflict and make art for her own enjoyment. And where Lucas wanted to adapt ancient myths into modern mediums for the sake of future generations and their moral landscape, Disney has been motivated by a lust for greater money and power for far longer than it has owned Lucasfilm.

[radiosummons]

Not to compare apples to oranges or whatever in regards to fictional characters' trauma, but Anakin wouldn't have been able to handle even 1/4 of what Obi-Wan went through.

Look, I’m an Anakin stan myself. He’s not my number one blorbo, but I do adore him and purely for the fact that he’s a goddamn fucking mess. But I can’t help but feel like some of the more extreme Anakin stans keep missing the point of the prequels/Clone Wars as a whole. That being: Darth Vader could not exist without Anakin.

I only bring up Obi-Wan because a lot of the takes I’ve seen from people trying to defend Anakin from any speck of criticism tends to almost always revolve around his trauma/shitty life experience. And, like ... he’s not unique in that aspect. If anything, Obi-Wan shares a very sad, almost mirror-like amount of experiences with him.

For example:

-Obi-Wan was a slave. A lot of characters in the Star Wars universe were slaves.

Anakin was a slave!

((Update to the above: someone asked for clarification on this point, and I made a lengthy response in my reply/reblog. If my reply is too difficult to find down the road, I can add that bit here. Otherwise, the short version of the above isn't that Obi-wan's trauma is more valid than Anakin's. Just that 1) Anakin being a slave is not unique in the world of Star Wars and 2) Obi-wan and Anakin do share similar traumas but react very differently to said traumas)).

-Obi-Wan’s father figure (Qui-Gon) died in his arms.

Anakin’s mother died in his arms!

-Obi-Wan lost the love of his life. Who also died in his arms. Who also, strangely enough, did not die because of anything he did.

Anakin lost the love of his life!

Anakin was criticized by the Jedi Order for his inability to let go of others!

-Obi-Wan was criticized by the Jedi Council and his peers for his attachments to Qui-Gon, Anakin, Ashoka, Quinlan, Satine, etc, etc. The Jedi did not condemn him (or Anakin) for forming these attachments. He learned to let go of those he loved when their time came, no matter what form that took, i.e. death or simply them choosing to take their own paths without him in their lives.

Anakin had anger issues that made it difficult for him to form proper relationships!

-Obi-Wan had horrendous anger issues. Qui-Gon initially refused to taken him on as a padawan specifically because he had a horrifc temper. He learned to control his anger so that it would no longer control him. 

Anakin was being targeted and tempted by a Sith!

-Obi-Wan was directly targeted by multiple Sith at multiple instances throughout his life. They all at one point or another tried to force him into using the Dark Side (Maul, in particular), or tried to convince him to leave the Jedi Order and become a Sith (Count Dooku, mostly, but also Asajj). He didn’t. 

Palpatine manipulated Anakin!

-Obi-Wan was also manipulated by Palpatine. Everyone in the fucking galaxy was manipulated by Palpatine. Anakin is not special. 

I could go on and on and on. This is just a small list of one to one comparisons, but like ... this doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface of the absolute amount of horrendous shit that Obi-Wan has gone through, even prior to Order 66. I’m not saying that Anakin’s trauma isn’t valid, nor am I trying to say that Obi-Wan is a better character than Anakin because of how much more he has gone through in comparison.

My point is this: At no point, did Obi-Wan give into the Dark Side or become a Sith. Despite the actual living hell that his life was, he never ever ever turned to the Dark Side. A lot of people like to say he came close when he faced off against Maul during the episode “Revival,” and I can definitely see where people are coming from. But he didn’t.

In the grand scheme of things, Anakin does not have a fucking excuse for becoming a Sith Lord. Not that he (or any other Sith for that matter) ever had a valid excuse to begin with. But holy fuck, my guy. If someone like Obi-Wan, who literally has not known a single day of peace, can still somehow manage to keep themselves from giving into the temptation of becoming the emobiement of all things evil, especially in response to great emotional pain ... like, my guy, there really is no fucking excuse. 

[theemmtropy]

People who think the Jedi Order is good clearly weren't raised Christian.

-Indoctrinating children from a young age.

-Performing actions according to the desires of the government.

-"I know [religious text] says one thing, but actually if you squint your eyes and tilt your head and interpret it in a very specific manner, it's not that bad."

-Instructing followers to deny the emotions that only the religious order has deemed "bad".

-Claiming to love people but not wanting to help them if the people don't fit into their own personal agenda.

"But the Sith are so much worse!!1!" Doesn't negate the damage the Jedi Order does. I've been around Christianity long enough to recognize toxic religion patterns.

[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

[cubikzoa]

Hey guys, just wanted to say this bc I feel like it’s important, especially as a huge Star Wars fan myself. I’ve been noticing a disturbing trend recently on Star Wars YouTube channels, but I do know that it’s been going on for a while on various parts of the internet and in the Star Wars fandom. A portion of Star Wars fans like to say that “The Empire was right!”, and to me, that’s worrisome, annoying, and the very antithesis of the message that ALL Star Wars movies have been conveying since the original trilogy.

I think it’s important to mention that George Lucas himself has said that he largely based the Empire on Nazi Germany. Star Wars has always been a commentary on morality, equality, and how people have fought to protect themselves, their loved ones and friends, and the galaxy. It’s an incredibly overt message that even a middle schooler with a decent education on WWII could see if you just look at the plot:

How the Empire committed genocide against many species and cultures, how Imperial officers and recruiters were stated to be prejudiced against “aliens”, how Luke was given his first lightsaber by Obi-Wan, a metaphorical torch and legacy to carry to aid others, given to him by a survivor of “the dark times”. How Palpatine was influencing Anakin with talk of Sith ideology and how power was important from the time he was young, and how Palpatine was elected as chancellor, only to turn the republic into a Galactic Empire. How Luke had to face the fact that his father was Darth Vader, and how he didn’t have to be that way, how he could break the cycle. How Leia and Padme were struggling to fight for true democracy and the rights of all in a republic, and later Empire, where the majority of the powerful in both eras were horribly corrupt and tried to block their efforts. How Cassian was thrown into imperial prison for overtly exaggerated and falsified crimes, an imperial prison meant to work its prisoners until their death. How the stormtroopers and so many others blindly followed orders again and again. How the first order held rallies and hung banners as red as blood. How Moff Gideon bombed Mandalore, slaughtered the Mandalorians, and turned their sacred, cultural armor into his weapon to use against them. How he crushed the darksaber in his fist. How the Mandalorians were forced from their home to wander the galaxy trying to survive. How the remaining Jedi were hunted after most of them were dead, how they were betrayed by friends and neighbors and mentors to the Empire. How Anakin stormed the Jedi Temple with a battalion of clone troopers and killed everyone, even the younglings and those trying to protect them.

So, in short, if you’re a Star Wars fan and say that “The Empire was right!”, even as a joke, I’ll assume that you’re incredibly socially awkward at best or a horrendous bigot of some vile sort or another at worst. It kinda reminds me of the saying, “give a man a mask and he’ll show you his true self”, except this time, it’s people’s reaction to the mask that really reveals their opinions. All in all, to me, saying that is a huge red flag, especially in terms of morals. Stay safe out there Star Wars fans, and May The Force Be With You! Oh, and don’t forget to support your Jewish friends and online friends, as they may be going through a tough time right now, so offer them some support & kindness. 💕

[marveltaughtmetoread]

Okay, I didn't think I would have state this but I have now been accused of it multiple times by Pro-Jedi stans so here it is

Just because I think the downfall of the Jedi was inevitable doesn't mean I think it was right or good

The Jedi did not deserve to be slaughtered, let alone the younglings, the younglings were innocent and the Jedi still deserved to live

I may see the Jedi as bad and flawed but they didn't deserve to die for it, nobody deserves to die for their sins

However, I still view the Jedi's downfall as inevitable, why, because the tragedy part of the Prequels is honestly compelling

The Prequels is about a young boy full of "negative" emotions, found "too late" for the Jedi to save him, manipulated by one of the few people he is closed to, and failed by an institution that doesn't know how to help him (because whether you liked the Jedi or not, it was clear they couldn't help him, why is where we disagree), and unchallenged by the woman who loves him (Padme tried her best but quite frankly they were too distant from each other, and that's part of the tragedy)

He was thrust into violence and tragedy so he wrought violence and tragedy

This is compelling, it's execution might not be the best, but how can you look at this and not think Anakin's downfall was inevitable, how can you look at this and not wish there was a way to save them but know, because the tragedy is well thought out, that there was no way to stop it without fundamentally changing the story

That's a good tragedy, that's how they work

We don't have to think it's good to see it as inevitable, in fact the entire point of a tragedy is that we don't see it as good, we are saddened by it, but we also understand that there was nothing that could be done to stop it

It's like with Romeo and Juliet, Macbeth, or Oedipus Rex getting the crown was never going to override Macbeth's guilt, Romeo and Juliet were never going to be allowed to be happy because of their families' strife, and Oedipus was always going to kill his father and marry his mother, these stories are tragic because we wished we could change the ending but know we can't, the story is already set in stone before there is a chance to change it and that's what makes them compelling

The fact that I say the downfall of the Jedi is inevitable is a testament to George Lucas'ability to craft a good story, for all I dunk on him for his many, many mistakes and bad choices with the Prequels, I genuinely think the bare bones of his story, like the characters and the plot where good

The downfall of the Jedi is tragic, it is supposed to sadden you and leave you wishing you could change it, and a good story leaves you feeling upset whilst also feeling that the ending is a natural progression of the story, me saying it is inevitable shows that I think it was a natural progression, it shows I think George Lucas actually did something well, it reveals nothing about my personal beliefs on the morality of the in canon events

I also don't see Anakin as a good person, contrary to what some might believe, I don't think killing people, even if they are those I dislike, makes you a good person, personally I think it makes you an awful person, who should be held to account for committing genocide against an entire group of people

But Anakin's morality is not why I find his character compelling the character, I find his character compelling because he is a good example of how repressed emotions only leads to more suffering, but that doesn't make him forgivable, his reasons behind committing genocide doesn't negate the fact that it is still genocide, having motivations and complexities just makes him interesting

I can find the character compelling without agreeing with them morally, in fact I enjoy his character because I don't agree with him but I can see how he ended up the way he did and it makes him compelling to watch

And I really, really don't think he was redeemed by killing Palpatine and saving Luke at the end of the Original Trilogy, this man directly and on-screen killed children, probably directly murdered millions, if not billions, and was indirectly responsible for hell knows how many deaths, turning against his master should have been the start of his very long and never ending road to redemption not the end but Lucas clearly has a different worldview than me so here we are

[antianakin]

George Lucas: Anakin's totally fine in ROTS, he's Obi-Wan's lil buddy pal, there's nothing wrong there until he snaps.

Me: He murdered an entire village and mass murdered a bunch of children and has lied about that for three years now to everybody except for the wife he married in secret because it's against his religion's rules and he is also lying to everybody about THAT, so no, he's not fine, he's a piece of shit who is basically already a Darksider because nobody who is just totally chill with murdering an entire village down to the last child with no remorse can POSSIBLY be anything but a Darksider, he's just not officially a Sith yet. He's not taking one big step down from light and heroism into Sithdom, he's taking one itty bitty baby step from Darksider to Sith.

[v-v-x-x]

Star Wars is about to turn into the MCU and I'm not fucking with it.