As the subject has already come up in several other threads and has miraculously not caused those threads to veer of course too much, I thought a single thread dedicated to the topic of the possible Bush reference in ROTS might be in order.

I had heard nothing about the Bush reference before I saw the film yesterday morning and when Padme says the line about "liberty ending with the roar of applause" (rough paraphrase from memory) I immediately interpreted that to be a deliberate statement about the current state of affairs in the U.S. Additional things said by Palpatine in his speech before the Senate also seemed like likely Bush references.

That was my take and the take of the co-worker I saw it with. We both thought it was obvious.

Discuss.

I think it is all just interpretation...the whole idea of Palpatine taking over the Senate and turning it into the Empire has been around since 76. People are reading way too much into this...and I am no fan of Bush...er...the president.

Hmmm...maybe life is imitating art...not the other way around.

I read Lucas' comments about this in the paper a few days ago and he essentially said that he was not targeting Bush, but that this was really inspired by the despots of the past such as Hitler.

After all, the gaining of emergency powers by playing extremist forces against the masses is exactly what Hitler did.

It is kinda frightening when you think about it...the rise of the Empire...inspired by Hitler...yet reminding people...both liberal and conservative of Bush.

Yes. Booga booga. Bush is evil and stuff.

Ahhh, I remember the old days, when Ronnie Reagan was the anti-christ. This stuff never gets old... oh wait, yes it does.

Nothing in the movie made me think of Pres Bush at all.

"You're with me or you are my enemy." sounded a lot like Bush.

Doesn't leave much room for friendly disagreements does it?

Actually, it didn't, and that is the primary statement being interpreted by critics to be a jab at Bush. But it's no surprise, since "You are with us, or you are with the terrorists" has been the most greatly decried soundbite of his, but is almost never used in context.

Actually, it sounds like an age old cliche, which it is. I'm not saying old man Lucas didn't have Bush in mind at all when he wrote that (I've read where he's a fan of M. Moore, and not of Bush), but still, it's so altered from Bush's actual line, and it's such an old expresssion, it can be taken with a grain of salt. I mean, come on, to try and elevate this movie to some level of social commentary is sad. I liked it, but it is in no way any example of intellectual socio-political commentary.

Sure, there are a few things Lucas threw in here, but it's more like he's capitalizing on current social hype than making any real statements. If this is in fact his big contribution to the anti-war effort, or whatever, it's pretty sadly played.

But then again, looking at the quality of this trilogy, maybe that's the only level he can attain.

This is definitely food for thought.

What kind of food is it? Cheap McDonalds with no nutritional value?

Come on people, Bush has an out date, and he's not going to take over and end the Senate in the next three years. If you think that's an actual plausibility, I've got oceanfront property in Montana I'd like to sell you.

I have to say that anyone who looks at this movie and thinks that it was written with Bush in mind has a very short attention span -- or has never ready any history or literature in their lives.

None of these (semi-cliche) lines or themes are unique to the Bush administration.

The Bush analogy falls apart when you expand it out a bit. Whenever I hear someone make the comparison, I ask them if they think Bush staged the 9/11 attacks so he could start a war with Iraq to gain greater power. They tell me, "That's insane." I tell them, "Exactly."

Sadly, they don't all say that's insane. My brother in fact, my older brother, God save him, actually says this is a possibility and we shouldn't dismiss it out of hand.

Sometimes, after conversations like these, my head hurts.

Nothing good can come of this thread.

I think it's funny how saying some lines remind you of Dubya gets extrapolated to "Bush caused 9/11"

The similarities crept into my mind while reading the novel, I haven't seen the film yet. I hear there was more talk of the republic crumbling in the novel than made it to the film.

Now..by saying that, I don't feel that he caused 9/11. Or knows force lightening, or hates America, or has a red ightsaber.

Actually, I thought Palpatine reminded me quite a bit of Michael Moore. He pretends to be a good guy, but is an evil, manipulative motherf'er who is able to get people to believe his schtick. He tells a ton of half truths in order to sucker you in to be on his side.

I don't think the movie had any agenda against Bush. The only way you could really believe that, is if you really believe the kooky internet theories that Bush is going to do anything to keep his power and is "rising to power just like Hitler did" (which is basically what Palpatine did).

And if you believe that, I'll be here in 2008 to laugh in your face when Bush leaves office.

Don't over analyze here.

That was the part I thoght was interesting. Not that I thought it was about him but that BOTH sides have people (crackpots though they may be) who think it is about him. THAT is interesting.

Some folks...no matter how much power they get...manage to find an "enemy" to blame everything on...and no matter how impotent that "enemy" is (Michael Moore )...these folks set them up as a strawman for the singular purpose of keeping and growing their power.

Nope, nothing scary about that.

The truth is that if liberals and conservatives are making the Bush connection, some are making it upon their opinions of Bush, which I would argue are greatly flawed (if not offensive in the case of Hitler) when connecting him to the likes of historical despots or fictional ones, while others are basing the connection upon the common criticisms of Bush (be they fair, unfair, or straight-up paranoid). Those are two very distinct things. I would certainly make a connection based upon the latter had I not known that Lucas has dismissed either as being the case. What is truly disturbing about that is another arguement.

Everyone thinks they're the Jedi...

No one thinks they're the Sith...

Whatever.

Wait, Dubya doesn't have the ability to wield Force Lightning?!??!

I am a life long Star Wars fan and this latest wrinkle of “conservative conspiracy” illustrates the lunacy that once again this nation is willing to be spoon fed by paranoid political types.

Ever the “underdogs”, despite controlling the main avenues of the U.S. government they seem to cringe at any sliver of limelight not being shown on them and now want to drag Star Wars into the fray, saying, “Look, even the beloved Star Wars attacks us as we strive to fight for America!”

Wake up! Despite what opinions may have been of the “quality “ of Episodes 1 & 2, has anyone had any doubt where the series was going to go regarding the depiction of the rise of the Empire?

Why when the conservative right chooses manufacture a “threat” from a Star Wars movie, that no one asks the question of why they should feel threatened if what they do is just?

No, but he has the power to drive libs insane.

I didn't see it as a jab at the Bush admin at all as Bush wasn't elected by the senate. Though I did see that Anakin thinking that the rules being for others as a jab against hippies.

The media really picked up on this when ROTS premiered at the Cannes Film Festival (France, no surprise there). At Cannes is also where Lucas, Hayden Christianson, and Ian McDiarmid really expressed their feelings about how they felt about the Bush Administration and how ROTS is a direct comment on it. The movie supposedly supports what conspiracy theorists have been saying about Bush.

The movie got a standing ovation from the snobby Cannes crowd before and after the movie was screened. Would it have had such a warm reception if it didn't have what they thought was a blatant Aniti-Bush agenda? Probably not.


http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/7873314/


"Maybe the film will waken people to the situation," Lucas joked.

That comment echoes Moore's rhetoric at Cannes last year, when his anti-Bush documentary "Fahrenheit 9/11" won the festival's top honor.

"The parallels between what we did in Vietnam and what we're doing in Iraq now are unbelievable."



http://www.cnn.com/2005/SHOWBIZ/Movi...ars/index.html

I'd really like to know when this went from movie critics cheering and jeering Lucas's "decision" to inject current politics into his film to being a right wing conspiracy. A friend of mine called this morning to feed me this line of garbage. Was there one big cave that people were living in when this began to hit the news two weeks ago, or several smaller ones?