Rise of Skywalker Official Discussion thread -spoilers allowed-

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

From the sounds of it, the Centrists/Centralists were right. If the New Republic had a military the New Republic wouldn't have had to rely on a fledgling "Resistance" and the First Order may not have consolidated so much power. "Populism" disappoints me once again, even if it is a fictional type this time.

Before anyone accuses me of being a war-hawk, if my recent posts on Iran are any indication, I am very much not. This is a fictional universe we're talking about!

[Blue3]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

From the sounds of it, the Centrists/Centralists were right. If the New Republic had a military the New Republic wouldn't have had to rely on a fledgling "Resistance" and the First Order may not have consolidated so much power. "Populism" disappoints me once again, even if it is a fictional type this time.

I think the novel implies that some of the Centrists are in cahoots with the First Order.

Only some. I've read it.

[Orser67]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

From the sounds of it, the Centrists/Centralists were right. If the New Republic had a military the New Republic wouldn't have had to rely on a fledgling "Resistance" and the First Order may not have consolidated so much power. "Populism" disappoints me once again, even if it is a fictional type this time.

Yeah, the novel generally doesn't portray the Centrists in a positive light, with the major exception of one character, but I think part of the issue is that the main POV character is a Populist (or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the complexity of New Republic politics). And it does become clear to Leia towards the end that the Populists are a major part of the problem.

The writer is from New Orleans, and the New Republic's Senate certainly has parallels to the current U.S. Congress in terms of polarization and gridlock.

[Progressive Pessimist]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

From the sounds of it, the Centrists/Centralists were right. If the New Republic had a military the New Republic wouldn't have had to rely on a fledgling "Resistance" and the First Order may not have consolidated so much power. "Populism" disappoints me once again, even if it is a fictional type this time.

Yeah, the novel generally doesn't portray the Centrists in a positive light, with the major exception of one character, but I think part of the issue is that the main POV character is a Populist (or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the complexity of New Republic politics). And it does become clear to Leia towards the end that the Populists are a major part of the problem.

The writer is from New Orleans, and the New Republic's Senate certainly has parallels to the current U.S. Congress in terms of polarization and gridlock.

That's actually kind of intriguing. I wish we got even an inkling of that in 'The Force Awakens.'

From the sounds of it, this story seems to be indicating that dissatisfaction with the New Republic led to the First Order increasingly consolidating more power.

 That sounds a lot like what's been going in the real world for the last few years with the First Order resembling a more violent and militaristic European far-right reactionary nationalist party...or, you know, the modern Republican Party in the United States. Focusing on that would have been a great conflict for the sequel trilogy, but Episode I probably ruined space politics too much for Lucasfilm to want to do something like that with new movies. It's a shame though because, to me, the sequel trilogy really needed at least a little of that to help it.

[Orser67]

I've been reading Star Wars: Bloodline, which is set a few years before TFA. It focuses on Leia and the political dysfunction of the New Republic. It's not bad, but the author made the unfortunate choice of naming the two factions "Centrists" and "Populists".

What's wrong with that?

My issue is that I'm sick of hearing the term "populist" in real life, and I wish it wasn't used in Star Wars. I also think that a better term for the party would emphasize their key position, which is their opposition to a centralized government.

The two major parties are actually kinda similar to the Federalists and the Democratic-Republicans of the 1790s. The Centralists favor a strong centralized government with a powerful executive and a powerful military, are ambivalent towards the empire (sort of like what the Federalists felt towards Britain), and generally seem to represent the richer worlds that are more connected to the galactic economy. The Populists loathe the empire, are suspicious of a large military, favor planetary independence over a strong central government, and generally seem to represent more isolated and rural worlds.

From the sounds of it, the Centrists/Centralists were right. If the New Republic had a military the New Republic wouldn't have had to rely on a fledgling "Resistance" and the First Order may not have consolidated so much power. "Populism" disappoints me once again, even if it is a fictional type this time.

Yeah, the novel generally doesn't portray the Centrists in a positive light, with the major exception of one character, but I think part of the issue is that the main POV character is a Populist (or maybe I'm giving too much credit to the complexity of New Republic politics). And it does become clear to Leia towards the end that the Populists are a major part of the problem.

The writer is from New Orleans, and the New Republic's Senate certainly has parallels to the current U.S. Congress in terms of polarization and gridlock.

That's actually kind of intriguing. I wish we got even an inkling of that in 'The Force Awakens.'

From the sounds of it, this story seems to be indicating that dissatisfaction with the New Republic led to the First Order increasingly consolidating more power.

Yeah, though they may not have been quite up my to my standards as a political nerd, I think that the author did a reasonably good job with the politics given that she was writing a fairly short Star Wars novel. I'm hoping to see more politics in future books.

The politics (or lack thereof) in the sequel trilogy vs. the prequel trilogy is to me, really indicative of the differences between the two trilogies. The sequel trilogy had better acting and dialogue, and it looked beautiful, but it just felt bereft of ideas. The prequel trilogy was far from perfect, but I felt like it had lots of interesting ideas and expanded the universe in interesting ways.

[OSR stands with Israel]

The fans reaction to the Rise of Skywalker was way way more positive then the fan reaction to the Lat Jedi in which most hardcore Star Wars fans like my self hated it . It might have technically been a good movie but it was terrible Star Wars wise and that makes it much worse than the first two sequels which may have been bad movies but weren’t bad for the overall plot .


The EU Version of Luke is how Luke should have been portrayed not the way Rian Johnson portrayed him .

[Tokugawa Sexgod Ieyasu]

The politics (or lack thereof) in the sequel trilogy vs. the prequel trilogy is to me, really indicative of the differences between the two trilogies. The sequel trilogy had better acting and dialogue, and it looked beautiful, but it just felt bereft of ideas. The prequel trilogy was far from perfect, but I felt like it had lots of interesting ideas and expanded the universe in interesting ways.

Yes, and this shows up in the character relationships as well imo. Like, say what you will about classic Anidala lines like "I don't like sand" and "Anakin, you're breaking my heart!", at least that relationship had a manifest and genuinely necessary reason to exist, both narratively (as my best friend puts it, Lucasworld asked "so we need to develop the twins' mom; who boned Darth Vader?", and the answer to that question was Space Fashionista Pitt the Younger) and thematically. That's more than can be said for Some ships. Same with the prequels introducing the concept of the Sith and featuring previous Sith apprentices before Anakin (perhaps not strictly necessary, but answered real questions and did strengthen the story) versus the sequels shoehorning in at least half a dozen Sith-related concepts jacked from the old EU after two movies of the Sith going almost without mention.