I think the biggest difference is there was some reason as to why Anakin was afraid. It made a logical sense...one of the biggest things he was afraid of was himself and what he could (and did) become. The Anakin/Padme relationship never stops being clunky mind you. He’s also a young man having his hopes and fears preyed upon by an older man seeking power for his own ends. That seems to occasionally slip by..Anakin is a victim, many time over. He’s a tragic character though, so par for the course.
Yes, he is. That never slipped by me. I just didn't find him sympathetic or believable in the role he was set in.
All true, though I'm not sure he really grasped what he might become until it was too late. He feared his ability to misuse his power, but not the thought of using it to control per se. On the contrary he embraced control of others (before he mastered control of himself) way to mitigate the worst excesses of the damage which could be done by the conflict in the galaxy. He was still very much a parody of obsessive fandom though
I find the idea that "SJWs" are ruining anything to be hilarious. Star Trek and Star Wars were always political and extremely progressive. But the kids who grew up watching it were too young to pick up on it and just never questioned it. Now they're able to recognize similar themes in the current versions and somehow thing they're a sudden change when it is a major element of both. But honestly, simply by even using "SJW" unironically I have to question your intelligence and basic human decency. A "SJW" fights for social justice, making sure that those without any power in society are treated equally and get the justice they deserve. If you're against that, what does it really say about you?
The whole SJW thing reminds me of angry right-wingers over here who rail endlessly about how society was ruined by 'left-wing hobbies', despite the fact that there's literally never been a govt. here without at least one right wing party and most of the problems they complain about were actually created by conservative govts (which have existed significantly more often than left-wing ones).
Original Star Wars doesn't seem particularly progressive, with a princess being the leader of the Rebellion and Luke and the Jedi being an armed & formerly government-backed religious order. The original Star Trek series was liberal/progressive but I don't know about extremely so, probably a pretty non-radical form of liberalism. From first hearing the term I always thought/hoped it was more humor than really disdain, with the emphasis on inappropriately thinking of themselves as Warriors just because they support certain positions online and in voting, very much like the mocking phrase Keyboard Commando for people who vocally and online support their country being at war but don't enlist to fight in it themselves. I think pretty much everyone wants people to be treated equally even if they disagree about what policies should be in place.
The Rebellion was a multi-ethnic and multi-species group of freedom fighters lead by a woman. The Empire was a bunch of white human men who killed entire planets as a show of force and spread fear and oppression throughout the galaxy. How is that not progressive unless you think the Empire are the good guys. It all comes from the delusional people who use it as an insult, an insult that implies someone is a decent and moral person. I guess that's supposed to be bad somehow. What if some of those policies actually make things unequal? It's something that is increasingly common in the US with our current leadership.
I rather like being called an SJW, it's certainly preferable to the alternative.... Yeah it's very hard to see the Empire as being a positive progressive influence, much less the victims of the Rebellion's "terrorism". This idea's been knocking around for decades admittedly but typically as a tongue in cheek observation, a playful wrongfooting of the assumptions inherent in the film's protagonist/antagonist relationship. I've never really thought anyone took it seriously?
Anything can be framed the way you want it to by distilling it down to a slogan like you did. But it doesn't make it so. Star Wars is a throwback to 1930s style swashbucklers and draws upon the hero's journey all the way back to Gilgamesh. That is not progressive at its core. It's reactionary in being steeped in nostalgia for an earlier, more "civilized" time. The moral landscape of the 70s was just as cynical if not moreso than today, thanks to Vietnam and Watergate. Star Wars presented an appealing escape from the seemingly intractable malaise of the 70s. Good was good. Evil as evil. And nobody sat around pontificating about identity politics. Leia was a princess and the Jedi were knights in order to evoke fantasy tropes. There's nothing progressive about royalty or feudalism. Leia was STILL a damsel in distress through most of Star Wars' runtime. It was only after she was freed did she grab a blaster and start mouthing off like a screwball comedy and then reassert herself as a military leader at Yavin. So Star Wars tried to have its cake and eat it too. It was that delicate balancing act of presenting a world that felt old fashioned without feeling politically incorrect (at the time). This is also why there is no true organized religion in Star Wars. The Force is more of a philosophy than a religion. So it has the warm fuzzies of a Normal Rockwell painting without beating you on the head with outdated cultural dogma. This is also why, for instance, E.T. was such a hit, as E.T.'s message was nothing more than "beee goood". It's only when post-modernists start deconstructing media to an anal-retentive degree and drawing little hash-marks, white men here, women there, blacks there, that everything just turns into a massive pain in the ass rather than the uplifting feel-good entertainment Star Wars was always supposed to be. /rant
The character of Leia turned the princess in distress trope upside down entirely. Or did you miss the part where she grabs the blaster for the first time and effectively becomes the leader of the triumvirate?
However in this case it's entirely true, that's exactly what happens onscreen, with the Empire being deliberately styled after Nazi uniforms and the Teutonic imagery they were so fond of. Not many epics don't draw on the archetypes Campbell described, whether intentionally or otherwise. We've already discussed at length the ways SW conforms to and diverges from the hero's journey, not to mention the areas where it actively seems to subvert them, let's not do it again, none of it has any real bearing on the question of progressiveness in the allegory. Or a culturally tolerant democratic republic which serves to progress the interests of the societies it represents or seek out common ground without conflict? Where was she a damsel in distress? I don't think being rescued really counts as sufficient to the descriptor, unless we apply the same to pretty much every major character in the trilogy given the frequency with which they all seem to rescue each other. "Supposed to be"? Pain in your ass possibly, I still rather enjoy it anyway, moreso in fact given much of this was entirely deliberate from the get go. Do we really need to start posting videos of George Lucas interviews where he explores the religious, philosophical, political and historical allegories that were inherent to the creative process? There are plenty of them out there.....