Are the Politics in the Star Wars Prequels Really That Bad?

[Winter]

Now I know that many of you who read this title may be going, "Yeah, they really are as bad as everyone makes them out to be." I mean even Chuck has poked fun at the Politics in the Prequels on at least two occasions. But personally I don't think they're as bad as everyone says. In fact I think they're well handled.

Hear me out. The two most common criticisms of the Politics in the Prequels is as follows. 1: Why does Everyone, from the people of the Republic, the Senate and the Jedi give Palpatine so much power when he's clearly the bad guy? 2: Who thought that Trade Routes would be a interesting idea to start the Galactic War?

To the first point my answer is, because Palpatine ISN'T clearly the villain from a in-universe point of view. Look at every scene Palpatine is solely from the point of view of the heroes. The Dark Side is clouding their vision to the point that they can't see into the future or sense the Force in Palpatine when he's sitting right next to two of the most powerful Jedi of all time.

Also the Jedi were, at the very least, suspicious of Palpatine as they kept choosing to withhold information from him and senate even before Obi-Wan revealed what Dooku told him in Attack of the Clones. And while Palpatine was largely benefiting from every major crisis he kept up the facade of acting like he didn't want things to come to this. Making seemingly sincere attempts to negotiate a peace with the Separatist all while Dooku manipulated said Separatist into creating an arm, during which Palpatine manipulated the Jedi to find the clone army and the Separatist army so both sides would look like the ones who escalated the war over Palpatine's attempts to make peace.

Also in the real world, (geese is it time for $#!t to get real already), history has shown us time and again that people who are corrupt or incompetent have gained power through similar means. Hitler gained power by taking advantage of Germany's weaken state after the second world war and Stalin acquired power by becoming the book keeper of Russia, more or less.

And as for the whole trade routes idea please note in Babylon 5 we had a number of episodes dedicated to the Politics of docking and workers pay. Star Trek has Several episodes about the inner workings of the Federations Prime Directive, (with not all of them being bad or preachy). And Game of Thrones having a whole subplot of season 3 be about Kings Landing preparing a Wedding for a Spoiled Brat who likes to torture animals. And finally The Thrawn Trilogy also included an subplot of Han and Lando trying to get the loyalty of Smugglers in order to secure, among other things, (wait for it), trade routes.

And speaking from my own personal experience, I was 14 years old when I saw The Phantom Menace and I thought the Politics were interesting. And keep in mind that a lot of the criticisms of the Prequels were similar, if not out right identical, to ones thrown at Babylon 5 which while it was well received was still called boring for focusing so heavily on Politics.

These are just my opinions and if you still find the Politics of the Prequels boring go right ahead, more power to you. But I honestly don't think they deserve the hate that they so often get and those are my reasons why.

[Jonathan101]

No, they aren't that bad and they do make sense.

The problem is, so many people thought they were out of place in a Star Wars film, especially the first one with a little kid in one of the leads, plus the politics seemed a little tedious and complicated ("trade disputes" don't scream excitement, even if they ARE part of an insidious plot to establish an inter-galactic dictatorship).

Mostly I'd say they would have been better received if the rest of the stuff in the movies were more up-to-scratch, such as the acting and the dialogue and the excessive CGI etc, plus the awkwardness of Episode II kicking off a big war only for Episode III to skip over it. But since people beat up on everything else about the prequel trilogy the politics are not spared.

I'll also say that every example you gave of TV shows like GoT, Babylon 5 and Star Trek doing politics and being praised for it overlooks that they ARE TV shows and that is WHY they can get away with it; people are more forgiving and accepting of politics in their sci-fi, fantasy and action media if it is spread out over a long period of time so they can understand it and it evolves naturally as part of the plot, whereas the movies are each too short to devote proper time to them not to mention that it is in contrast to what people were used to (I'd argue that the smuggling politics from The Thrawn Trilogy is one of the more forgettable and boring parts of an otherwise great trilogy).

For the same reason, The Clone Wars animation actually does handle politics better than the movies (and, in some ways, better than the Clone Wars-era EU books) as the politics seem more natural and organic, not to mention that Padme is far more tolerable and better developed in the show than in the films and she's generally the focal point of such episodes.

[clearspira]

Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Babylon 5 are terrible comparisons because they are part of TV series. We are talking ten-twenty plus hours of playtime to discuss and build on things such as senate and and trade meetings. But a film has 1-3 hours maximum to fit in the ENTIRE story - that's beginning, middle and end. Its the same as books. A book depending on your reading speed is about the length of a TV series in terms of content.
I would have loved to have had the Scouring of the Shire at the end of Lord of the Rings 3, but its a trilogy that was already putting many asses to sleep (of course, I would argue there was plenty they could have cut out from that film to put it in but that is another discussion).

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Idunno, Clear and Present Danger was alright.

[Mecha82]

To me politics are some of better and actually interesting things in prequels and one of those rare things that I also like about TPM that to me is still worst movie in franchise. Of course it all comes down to Palpatine pulling strings and seeing his plan unfold up to him becoming Emperor and him giving Order 66 to kill all Jedi. It has that same draw as seeing Light and N have they battle of minds in Death Note (Netflix movie version not included).

[ChiggyvonRichthofen]

The politics in the prequels were never what I had much of a problem with. One thing the prequels do far, far better than the sequel trilogy is worldbuilding and actually contributing to the Star Wars mythology and universe in meaningful and non-contradictory ways. The political stuff was definitely a part of that.

Sometimes the political stuff isn't perfectly integrated into the plot. The prequels don't necessarily have great story rhythm in general. But overall, there really isn't even that much political stuff. In hindsight, it might have been nice if they hid Palpatine's role a bit more, even if knowledgeable fans knew what was up.

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Right. There's nothing really bad specifically about the politics itself in the prequels. It baffles me how people keep questioning the issue of the prequels being somewhat dull and the role that diplomacy and bureaucracy have in shaping the stories, particularly the first one. When you compare the original trilogy with the prequels it should be obvious that the simple dynamic of the rebels vs the empire is reformatted to a simmering conspiracy of political deception.

That's not at all to say that there's no action involving appreciable characters and conflict. I mean it doesn't help when you have kid Anakin single handedly blowing up a space station like a bad quicktime event in a video game etc. But you have this essential storyline that builds up to the fall of Anakin Skywalker and it's carried out through a bunch of expendable villains being spun by Palpatine in the background.

[Winter]

Star Trek, Game of Thrones and Babylon 5 are terrible comparisons because they are part of TV series. We are talking ten-twenty plus hours of playtime to discuss and build on things such as senate and and trade meetings. But a film has 1-3 hours maximum to fit in the ENTIRE story - that's beginning, middle and end. Its the same as books. A book depending on your reading speed is about the length of a TV series in terms of content.
I would have loved to have had the Scouring of the Shire at the end of Lord of the Rings 3, but its a trilogy that was already putting many asses to sleep (of course, I would argue there was plenty they could have cut out from that film to put it in but that is another discussion).

I was using them more as an example of how the subject of Trade Routes isn't as out of place in a sci-fi piece as many claim. I will admit that I think Babylon 5, Star Trek, Game of Thrones and The Thrawn Trilogy handled the overall use of Politics better in their stories but whenever I see anyone talking about The Prequels use of Politics it seems that everyone is more hung up on not liking the idea more then anything else.

And in regards to that point, one criticism that is often thrown against the Politics of the Prequels is that there is to much of it in the trilogy. However, in TPM there is only about 15 minutes of Politics and less then 10 in both Attack of the Clones and Revenge of the Sith. They show up, advance the plot as needed and then the movie gets on with the action.

I will admit that I do agree with the criticism that things like the Pod Race going on to longer, (though personally I do enjoy it) and that there is a lot of setting around talking which is a issue as Lucas' biggest problem as a writer is that he's not really good at dialogue.

But back to your point. While I agree that TV shows and novels have a LOT more time to flesh out their ideas I think the Prequels did a overall good job with the use of Politics and the effects it has on the story. Arguably one of the best moments of the entire Star Wars series is when the Emperor announces the end of the Republic and the start of the Galactic Empire.

[Wargriffin]

The problem isn't that their bad... its their boring, The General concept works the execution is poor, then again Political Drama is one of those Genres that is hard to nail down, but most successful political dramas only use politics as a setting, and most of the drama comes from well The people in those positions and the forces out to get them

Lucas seemed to want you to care more about the Politics at work... the result though

Its like watching Cspan, The political scenes cause everything to come to a screeching halt while characters info dump why this action is important and makes said characters motivation make perfect sense

It kinda bleeds over into Tell over Show

[BridgeConsoleMasher]

Well something to say about genre expectations, Star Wars is pretty much a fantasy just with futuristic technology and machines instead of a forest with wizards and portals. The pacing of fantasies doesn't really have time for plot directives that take a considerable amount of attention. Political nuances are more poetic and effectively simple. In keeping up with Palpatine's plot, which we are fully cognizant of with knowledge from the OT, it's very distracting. It's not all about the politics imo, just as you said, Winter, but also the direction Lucas went with (not necessarily bad for everyone) and his twist on fantasy convention.

I mean I think that's one way to describe the latent reaction to Episode 1 in the ~2010's given it's mostly a problem with people comparing it to the Original Trilogy.