It's a cause and effect relationship. While the stated reasons were different, that doesn't mean that the source of the conflict couldn't have come from somewhere else. It's entirely different in the case of the Second World War, because we couldn't give a rat's ass what Hitler was doing to the Jews both before and after the Final Solution. Anti-Semitism wasn't an issue, because everybody was an anti-Semite.

Isn't the Alliance meddling in people's affairs enough? People declared their independance because they didn't want to be ruled by the Alliance, and they did so for a myriad of reasons unique to each of the Independant worlds. Perhaps the people of one world wanted to have a Free Market economy, or the people of another wanted to be ruled by the leader of a religious cult. The show doesn't need to be specific, because the Independance itself was so disjointed. You do bring up a very good point, though, in that we aren't aware of Mal's personal reasons for volunteering.

I'm not saying it wouldn't be more interesting. Mal being wrong would make for great stuff, but the way you said it seemed to credit Whedon with some creativity concerning the possibility of interesting character development, which I doubt he possessed.

I didn't like the Alliance because they're presented as an archetypal opposite to free thinking. Since I dig all of that freedom shit and am a card-carrying Libertarian, I'm naturally disposed to side with the Independance, but I'm sure that the Alliance wouldn't be any worse off a place to live, or be governed by.

I guess it's because they're brutal that people aren't supposed to like them, but then again that's the only defining aspect for why the Empire is evil in Star Wars. =P

Yet, if they were such a significant threat, then why were they hiding on Hoth, and when confronted directly were unable to defeat a single detachment of the Imperial Army? Simply because Lucas's narrative insists that the Alliance is a threat doesn't mean that what we see happen in the movie supports it.

Well, the only fleets we know of are the personal vanguards of Vader and Palpatine. Other fleets could simply be detachments, but you're right, we don't know enough to be specific.

I would still refer back to Tarkin's mention of the governors, however, since the Empire has absolute sovereignty over the Galaxy. Because it has absolute sovereignty, then every single inhabited world would be under the control of a Moff. Whether Moffs have administration over a sector of space or individual planets isn't specified, but even assuming it's the latter, that doesn't mean that individual Moffs can't band together to form self-serving alliances, again like the Chinese.


It just occurred to me, though. What ultimately made the Union right wasn't the opposition of slavery on behalf of the abolitionists. Lincoln himself admitted that it was impossible to determine whether or not God's favor would be for the North or the South, despite the fact that both invoked his name assuming they were right.

What made the Union right was in that the States were more powerful as a Federation than a Confederation, and it's along those same lines that the Independance could've been in the wrong during the war.

Your observation is quite correct. I was trying to make a point between logic, not a point between facts or evidence. I should've tried harder at coming up with a more topical combination than meerly putting Goodwin's Law into effect.

Well, without knowing what they were "meddling" with - who's to say? I'm sure a lot of Johnny Rebs thought the Yanks were "meddling".

Is there a statement in the show? I don't remember that point being given but it's been some time since I watched it. Is there someone who says theres various reasons to the war?

Maybe they were arguing over Great Taste and Less Filling! (My point being that we don't have *any* evidence to make the claim of why fighting broke out except for one side's bias. For all we know, Mal and Zoe are war criminals of some type - however implausable that may be)

I don't follow. First off, how can you mount a reasonable resistance if you're "disjointed"? And what made you believe they were "disjointed" in the first place? Because they lost?

I think Whedon and much of his staff are very talented people. I think they write good dialouge with interesting plot twists. However, I do think that Firefly is lesser than Buffy (but above Angel) in terms of interesting storytelling. Do I blame Whedon for things I disagree with? Of course - I already cited my complete and utter loathing for Buffy Seasons 6 and 7. I also don't care for Angel after the first season and Serenity is a big ol writing mess.

However, I place just as much blame on the fans. I'm tired of the internet telling me that Firefly is "important" and "revolutionary" when it's neither. I'm sure we'd be getting the same bullshit story if Buffy came out 5 years later, since 1996 was still a little early for the general public to be using the internet en masse.

Where do you get that from? Oh because all we ever see is war ships and special agents and stuff, is that it? Well, of course, I don't think any government worth it's salt is going to send tax collectors and file clerks to the front lines and capture smugglers.

Again, we're brought back to the idea that Mal is just plain biased. We're never given the Alliance's point of view - and while, yes, they're painted as being an oppresive ubergovernment, not all the systems resisted Alliance rule during the war.

By that line of logic, I can assume you have a major weapons cache in your house and you help run a large militia?

Well, Star Wars is even less subtle. All the fleet officers are british actors in vaugely facist uniforms. They might as well be wearing SS lapels.

However, Star Wars is also a Hero's Journey thing like Beowulf, while Firefly is more like Gettysburg.

Any number of reasons

1.) Any tactician will tell you that for something like the Rebellion to exist, there has to be other operating cells. That is to say - Hoth may be the largest base for the Alliance but it's not the only one, either. So, the Rebellion isn't in full force, so to speak.

2.) The Alliance hadn't been in Hoth very long. They're still having problems with closing the doors, Han and Luke are still placing markers, they're "having trouble adapting (the speeders) to the cold" and they run into previously unknown indigenous life when Luke is attacked by the Wampa.

3.) Star Destroyers aren't bitch ships. I won't go into detail because theres something like 10 "canon" sources for ship stats and they all contradict each other - but needless to say that a single Star Destroyer can easily blockade a planet and maybe even an entire system provided they have a good commanding officer.

I've never heard that spoken in the films or radio drama. If anything, thats an unreasonable assumption - wheres the Executor when Vader is chasing the Tantive IV?

I think Moffs actually get systems or even sectors. Remember that Tarkin says "Regional Governors" - well, whats a region exactly? Safe to assume it's less than a territory (Mid Rim, Outer Rim, etc) but almost surely more than a single planet.

Actually, this is a EU subplot that I kind of liked but once the Death Star is destroyed over Yavin, the Emperor was so angry he refused to put another Moff in charge of such a project - which is why you see Vader personally pursuing the Rebellion in ESB.

I'm sure that the Death Star was also inteded to keep Moffs from "self-serving alliances".

Ah, then you see my point. I'm sorry I'm round about - often enough, I find myself rereading previous posts and unable to follow the more minute parts of my logic. But I'm glad we had this discussion, none the less.

As am I, and while you've made several points which are possible for me to argue, I would like to point out a few things:

I'm not sure if you're just being off-topic, but with no Emperor and no Death Star how does that stop the Moffs in his absence?

Clearly, but then neither is the Empire. I'm not saying at all that Star Destroyers are bitch ships, in fact I believe it was mentioned somewhere (though not in the films) that it takes several systems to provide the logistics that support a single Star Destroyer.

Nonetheless, if Hoth is the Rebel's biggest base, and they are as much a significant threat to the Empire as independant Moffs would be to each other, why can't they meet the Imperials toe to toe? They have no heavy assault weapons, no large capital ships (at the time that we know of), and no sizeable army. Yes, they haven't had much time to prepare on Hoth, but then they should at least have something on-world that can rival the AT-STs, if they're that significant of a threat. The absence of any indication of a major military power indicates that the Rebels are still using hit and run guerilla tactics.

Then again, I suppose this is a case of the absence of evidence not being the evidence of absence. Because we can't see them doesn't necessarily mean that the Rebels aren't capable of meeting the Imperials in the ways that I have described, though I'm fairly confident that the Rebels don't present the kind of threat you're implying because I recall there being at least a slight mention that the Rebels were throwing in everything they could spare at Endor, and that they were showing up in full force.

Then again, I suppose we don't know whether or not the Empire was there in full force, I can just highly doubt it. I also think that if Lucas wanted the Rebels to have all of those cool toys, then he would feature them. The Rebels aren't as alluring, after all, if they're no longer underdogs.

It's ironic, then, that in the end of the Hero's journey, he accomplishes nothing but personal growth. If it was truly a Beowulf tale, then Luke would have slayed the dragon, instead of Lando.

It's been a while since I've seen Firefly as well, so I guess the only concrete thing I have to base my view of the Alliance is Whedon's commentary on the Serenity DVD I bought around Christmas. I think in the show, the only indication of that we get was that the Alliance worlds were clean and cosmopolitan, while the Rim worlds were rugged and all that good jazz. It's a simple Black Cape plot device, but I guess it could all just be a bunch of hooey.

It doesn't, per se. But I somehow doubt that the Alliance would need to do all the work - hell, the Special Edition shows people celebrating on Coruscant for fuck's sake. (That still doesn't make any sense)

But what I'm saying is that I'm sure that "civilians" are rebelling against the Empire after the Battle Of Endor.

They don't have the man power to attack a major military industrial war machine? I mean, you have these ships that are about a mile and a half long (and are supposedly as dangerous to fight as they are to serve on - someone decided to make a stupid euphimism for the old WWII Liberty-class ships in EU tech books) and alone can bombard entire cities to rubble. Then you have a wing of starfighters which is, what, 80 in count?

This isn't to say that the Rebellion doesn't have warships but look at the majority of what they do have: Nebulon-Bs, some Mon Cal cruisers and some blockade runners. Thats small beans and they don't have the resources to restock readily - you cannot have an open rebellion against something as oppressive as a major industrial war machine without it being quashed completely. Another unoffical-but-cute story in EU involves the early years of Tarkin, who sullied a protest by ordering his shuttle land on the people in the picket line.

You contradict yourself with that last sentence. See, for them to exist like they have, they have to use guerilla tactics because they can't fight large anti-infantry weaponry like an AT-ST. Look at the ease in which the Empire takes Hoth - the Rebellion doesn't have the ability to retaliate against such a massive invasion force.

You're correct, basicly. The Rebellion probably would've lived on - but if they were defeated at Endor, it would've been a setback from which they likely would have never recovered from. Not just in terms of ships or manpower but pure talent. Between Ackbar, Solo, Calrissian and Leia being there - you have a huge peice of the Rebellion's figurehead. (I don't see Luke as being very important to the Rebellion - he's there more as a matter of chance. He's there more because it'll bring him to Vader, not so much him defeating the Empire)

Something thats completely failed in all of EU is that the Rebellion was suppose to have old, warry equiptment that was more or less discarded or stolen. Look at the lived in design of any of the ships - the Y-Wings are basicly old short-range bombers no one would want anymore. Writers seem to forget this stuff when they start involving things like Force Crystals or Superweapons.

The dragon was heritage - not the literal Death Star. You go to the castle to kill the king, not burn his tapestry. (I'm sure there would be something more to be said if they actually let Lando die in the Death Star as originally intended but who's to say?)

I haven't bothered with commentary to this point because I wanted to get into a discussion like this so I could make my points without a third party knowledge in my mind. Needless to say, if you have to explain something in the commentary, you probably failed somewhere in the narrative.

Very true. We're likely not to find out, either since the show was cut short.

My guess (I haven't watched any Lucas interviews or anything, as I'm not that interested in the Star Wars universe) is he decided he didn't want the only token black guy in the movie to bite it. That might have been a bit of a mockery or have a bit of cheesiness aspect to it. If Lando had been white, then sure, biting it probably wouldn't have been as big of a deal.

I don't see how race has a single goddamned thing to do with anything stated in this thread - or anything involving Star Wars ever.

That probably came out far more rude than I had intended. Race doesn't have anything directly to do with Star Wars, no, but it does have to to do with the casting and such outside of the universe itself.

The idea of The Allience isn't evil, the surface of The Allience isn't evil, but the inner-workings of it are. When any one group thinks that there way is the right way and the only way, and they'll do anything to make the world as they envision it... that's evil.

Like it said in the movie, people don't like to be meddled with, and that's exactly what The Allience is doing. They are also discriminating against anyone who isn't under Allience rule by calling them savages.

You have no facts to make that statement even remotely legit.

I think you totally missed the last page and a half discussion about the American Civil War where the Union did exactly that and inadvertantly ended slavery.

Or are you supporting slavery? Defend yourself - or are you a sadist?

I think you're taking this way too seriously, LeHah. It's a TV show, calm down.

The Alliance and the Union are two entirely different things, with only some similarities.

I conclude my argument by saying this "Teh Aliance is EVAL!!!111one" :p

I was having a very intelligent conversation with Brady until you came in here and threw shit all over my fucking walls. How about you get the fuck out instead?

Considering that Whedon said the show was written after he had read The Killer Angels and the various other unsubtle commonalities between the Reconstruction Era and Firefly - they're not two seperate things. One is a thinly veiled metaphor for the other.

Ooh, excuse me. Sorry, but you don't own this message board so stop being so arrogant.

The fuck you say. This is my fucking internet. Get the fuck out.

Yeah, you're the intelligent one. You're so scary hiding behing the ananomity of the Internet. Ooh, I can use curse words and act like I own the place. Everyone is going to think I'm so cool....

Please, get a life.

Ooooh, because taking quotes out of context on the "anonymous internet" makes you *such* a better person. For someone who tells me to not be such a tough guy - you sure are the fucking nigger pot in this conversation.

You hijacked this thread with your crap - I was having an excellent discussion with a better person than yourself. So how about you let the adults go back to talking? I already reported one of your shitty little posts anyway.

I'm reporting your post too, you're using foul language and making general insults. This is a message board, and if you want to talk to just one other person, go get yourself an IM client. Just because you can't handle differing opinions and a change of pace...

You *are* new here, aren't you? While you're at it - you should report me for making valid points against your shitty postings in this thread.

I know this one!! It wasn't built yet. The Executor was built between ANH and ESB at (I believe) Kuat Drive Yards. A sister ship, the Lusankya, was being built at the same time at Fondor and was later buried on Coruscant.

Actually I've been here for a while, but I re-registered. You have no ettiqute what so ever. Just because you don't like what someone has to say you feel a need to insult them. I don't care if you were having an "intelligent conversation" with someone else. As I recall this message board has 3,050 members, not two.

The first part is somewhat sensible - I know that Kuat was involved in the war effort. I don't remember if they were the ones who made the Star Destroyer but I'll check when I get home.

That second part is awful and stupid though.

Notice I didn't insult Brady or Majin. You know why? They don't post stupid. They don't act stupid - well, okay, Majin does sometimes but not since the board got rebooted.

Do not expect me to give you my respect for no reason. That has to be earned. If I don't like what you have to say - so the fuck what? Is your skin so thin? Why do you care? This is the internet and if you have such a gripe with people telling you to fuck off and die - you need to log off and get a life.

So you admit to threadjacking. Not only that - but acting like a fucking dumbass. In a court of law, most people would be smart enough to plead the fifth before saying something that stupid.

As I recall - I don't fucking care. I was having a conversation that ranged from American History to semantics in several entertainment mediums. Then you come in and say fucking nonsense about how you think this and this and how *I am wrong* without reading the rest of the thread. Get the fuck out.

INTERNET. SERIOUS BUSINESS.

*ahem* Spoilers Ahead

I'm mainly basing this off of Serenity, since I only caught like 2-3 episodes of Firefly when it was on Fox, but I'd say the Alliance is... well to make an analogy they are sort of like the Dark Jedi. While the Sith are probably evil to a degree, with thier total dedication to the 'dark side' of the force. The 'dark jedi' employ BOTH sides of the force in thier uses. The Alliance seems to use the good of thier technology and influence as a lawmaking body to improve human life in thier perspective, and they will go to decidedly morally questionable methods to do so.

The Military experiments on River (As seen in the opening of Serenity) seem to show that thier darker side is towards domination of the entire system, presumably under Good intentions, of 'Civillizing' the outer world 'cowboys'.

The situation with the Reavers probably showed best thier methods: They wanted to create peace, even using artificial forced means, but the unexpected death of almost all the population of Miranda, and insanity of the survivors (Reavers) stopped thier more forceful methods, and so they turned more towards a slow, steady pace, (much like how Palpatine slowly rose though the ranks of the Senate and Poltical Arenas to gain control of the empire, through legal means) of getting everyone in the stystem under thier control.

There's also the question of what the motives of those in charge actually are. They could be evil, under a guise of 'peace'. (Echoing the Emperor's stated intentions to Anakin in Ep. III) for control of the entire start system... or they could be good, using evil methods to get to thier goals.

That's how I see it anyway, but I need to go back and watch Firefly, because I probably funked up some stuff in what I said.

Well, there you go. The Military experiments on River. Does some skunk ops represent the entire Alliance? Probably not - much like how a fireteam of soldiers does not represent most people in the United States.

See, the problem is that we don't know *anything* about the Alliance. Fandom assumes far too much when we know all too little. It's easy to demonize them as some oppressive government - but how far does that go exactly? All we know is this - Mal and Zoe were on the losing side of a major war and the people they confront from the Alliance are military or of some type of defense service.

What if the show was shown from the perspective of the Alliance? Mal and Zoe would be terrorists or fugatives. Smugglers, to be sure. But obviously there is more to them than that - as we see in the series.

You lost a somewhat valid point in there somewhere.

Yes, the Alliance created Reavers. They did so by accident, mind you. It wasn't a grand evil experiment - the evil was that they tried to cover it up at all.

Your attempt to use Palpatine in your speech makes little or no sense. Can you be a bit more specific?

Again - assumption. You can't say they're evil OR good because we don't know shit about the Alliance. They have a big military force and they don't like Mal or Zoe and they want River back and... thats about it. Theres no political commentary, no mention of who's in charge of the Alliance, no mention of territories or regions. Is the Alliance communist? A Republic? We don't know.

No, you mostly made sense. Its just that everything in it has been covered already in this thread.

Well, it was Lira Wessex who designed it, but it was built by KDY. And yes, Lusakya being burried under Coruscant was a rather stupid plot device. Cool ship though.

Well, lets keep this in mind. Though I like the explaination that the Executor is still being constructed - it doesn't make sense.

On one hand, we don't know about the Executor until ESB. So it *could* exist during ANH because theres no statement in the film or radio drama that the ship is still under construction.

On the other hand, if you want to add Expanded Universe to the arguement, the Al Williamson comic strip features the Executor immedeately after the Battle Of Yavin.

So which is it? The fact that the movie's "lack of evidence" takes precident over any EU, so we should err on the side of caution.

The Executor's situation in A New Hope could theoretically be both, actually. While Executor could have been for all intents and purposes complete at the time of the Battle of Yavin, there could have also still been minor work still to be done, undergoing builders' trials and such, and the ship would still be in KDY's hands. However, when the Rebels destroyed the Death Star, the Empire could have then brought that to an end and pressed into service immediately to help make up for the lost firepower the Death Star represented. (A historical example would be the Royal Navy pressing HMS Prince of Wales into service to face Bismarck.)

This suffers from the same lack of evidence that other possibilities suffer, but it's as plausible as they are.

Also, Cyantre, I read your reports, and read the thread and the path it took after you posted in it. You say LeHah was "harassing" you. Judging by your posts, you disrupted an intelligent conversation with stupidity (after not reading the thread, apparently) and got LeHah mad at you for it.

What the fuck is this supposed to be? You expect people who have been having an intelligent conversation to appreciate your input, or even want you around, after you interject with something like that? You provoked LeHah with your own stupidity. Don't come crying to us to get us to clean up messes you made yourself.