Is the Alliance Evil? (Firefly)

Originally Posted by Robo Jesus

In the commentary for Serenity the director made a very interesting observation. He says that the only real bad thing about the Alliance is that it is trying to tell people what to do even though what they are telling them to do is obstensively good for them no government or institution should tell people what to do.

You've answered your question right there. If you have to listen to a commentary track to get that kind of plot point - theres some weak-ass writing involved.

Anyone who can give you a definitive answer as to if the Alliance is "evil" or "good" is full of shit, flat out. There isn't enough in the series or Serenity to prove either side - just a lot of vauge points and some personal vendettas.

If you want to take it so far, don't forget that the series/movie was made after Whedon had read The Killer Angels, which is about the end of the American Civil War. Now, Whedon took that, stuck it in space, put it smack in the middle of what would've been the Reformation/Reconstruction Era.

Do you think Johnny Rebs liked Yanks 5, 10, 50, 100 years after the war ended? Fuck no - some of them still don't like us. And Mal doesn't like the Alliance for the same reasoning. That doesn't make him right, that makes him biased and people are all too willing to take shit for face value on the internet.

However, Whedon has this lovely habit of having a good idea and not taking it nearly far enough. The show should be about Mal being biased, not him being right - just like how The X-Files got awful in Season 4 because Mulder was right instead of paranoid. (Then again, Firefly gave us River Tam - a walking McGuffin. Way to be subtle or intelligent, Joss)

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Shouldn't that be inadvertently presenting the room for a good idea while not actually focusing on it? The show and movie, are, after all, biased towards Mal.

The show needs a characterization center, sure. But the idea that Mal is right is not good characterization. If you're going to watch a show because you know the hero is right all the time, I bet you you're going to have a short-lived, boring program.

Heres an example: In that episode "The Train Job" Mal and Zoe steal some vaccines that are needed by civies, right? Now, they give them back and thats all well and good but the interest is that they're in a morally screwy position. Risk their lives to give them the vaccine back - or go on and get paid for it?

Whedon took the easy route - Mal and Zoe gave it back. Wouldn't it have been harder and more rewarding for the viewer if you saw that Mal was this jerk who didn't give a shit? In the original pilot episode, you hear that Mal is this big jerk who makes demands and talks down to his crew and is this really staunch asshole when it comes to running his boat. But by the end of the last disc, Mal is cut down into this "lowly" stern father-figure.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well, what I'm saying is that Mal simply being biased may have not actually been Whedon's intent.

Given the fact that the setting of Firefly is as subtle as being bashed over the head with a cinderblock with the words "THE RESTORATION AFTER THE AMERICAN CIVIL WAR IN SPACE" - it certainly *was* intended. (Notice the twang in his voice that Mal has? HELLO.)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Much like how Lucas didn't intend for the Rebel Alliance to spread Galactic Anarchy after the death of the Emperor.

An unfair statement for several reasons.

1.) Nothing is canon in Star Wars outside of the films, their screenplays and the radio dramas. Everything and anything is Expanded Universe and is thus left up to questioning and stupid fucking fanboys.

2.) Because EU isn't actually canon - it's a "lower tier" (UGH) of canonization - you can't prove that such a thing happened

3.) If such a thing did - which I admit was probably the case - that could just be chalked up to one of those "Hey look at this! Star Wars is mimicking real life too!" things. Like how the Republic became the Empire after an internal political struggle.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's entirely possible that Whedon could've intended Mal to give off the appearance of a hardass while on the inside he's just a boyscout, and as he goes along in the show he lowers that shell.

Quite possible - and ultimately a bad idea. I'd want Mal to be a nice guy just as much as I want Greedo to shoot first.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It seems more likely to me that it's an example of cliche character development.

And hence - through circular logic - you came to agree with me.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Simply because Whedon ripped his idea from the restoration doesn't necessarily mean he had any intention for Mal being wrong. It's not as if the Independance was fought over slavery, and there was a clear moral pitfall for Independant ideals.

Whoa, whoa, whoa - lets back up here a minute.

Firstly, you're confusing "wrong" with "underdog". Mal was the underdog, given that he was on the losing side of a war. However, that has nothing to do with my earlier attempts to say that Mal being "wrong" would have made him a more interesting character. You're trying to compare apples and Tipler's Rotating Cylinder.

Secondly, the American Civil War was *not* faught over slavery. This happened to be something that was found in hindsight - that the war proved to be beneficial in freeing black slaves from their Southern masters.

We don't know how "racist" Lincoln was because you simply couldn't be a succesful politician and an abolitionist: you would not be elected by a northern public that believed ending slavery would mean northern cities would be flooded by free blacks willing to work for slave wages (no pun intended).

In debating Kansas-Nebraska Lincoln says he opposes it because he wants the west free for whites. There's nothing else he could say, though: if he truly opposed slavery (and who knows?) and said so in public, he would never have been president. And there the proof is in the pudding -- once he has the option to constitutionally free the slaves, he does so... regardless, even, of an impending mid-term election. It's hard to argue that Lincoln was a racist under those circumstances.

Colonization (the idea to send all black slaves back to Africa) was something northern leaders in favor of abolition could claim to support without fearing public backlash... it seems, though, that everyone generally accepted that it was never a realistic possibility -- it was something they could tell the public.

What you probably know about Lincoln's support for colonization doesn't even relate to this, though -- it's one of several things he polays up *after* he makes up his mind to issue the proclamation... it's part of a very clear campaign to establish to the voting public that he is freeing the slaves out of necessity rather than out of opportunity.

Looking at the events in order, it's clear there's something else going on. He comes back from Harrison's Landing, tells Seward he's going to emancipate the slaves because it's 'right'... and then he publically asks Congress for impossibly small amounts of money for colonization and to literally buy slavery away from the border states (both of which are simply impossible)... he invites free black leaders from Washington DC and insults them in front of reporters.

What he is doing is simply trying to keep his coalition together -- he fears that if the conflict becomes a war for slaverly the army will lay down its rifles... or, even that the McClellan (a Democrat) will march into Washington and stage a coup. This seems crazy to think about today... but there's lots of evidence that it was one of Lincoln's biggest fears. In freeing the slaves but assuring the voters that he is still a racist, Lincoln engages in that seeming compromise that he's famous for... and still gets exactly what he wants.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

First, I'm not drawing anything from the Extended Universe. The Grand Moff Tarkin said himself that once the Senate was dissolved, each region of space would be controlled by the Governors. Each Governor has his own army and navy assigned to him for the purposes of protecting his Fief. When the Emperor dies, there's no line of succession, and the Governors would war against themselves and splinter, like what happened to the Chinese after the end of the last Dynasty.

You could also argue that the Empire turning on it's self is no better or worse than the Rebel Alliance turning on the Empire.

Though not to defuse your well-made point, we should make note that these musings are exactly the problem with Star Wars now. Somewhere between 1983 and 1993, someone thought that political upheaval and treaties and shit had to do with the Hero's Journey thats at the heart of the Star Wars saga. The fact of the matter is - Star Wars is pretty clear that the Empire is evil, so when the Imperial Fleet is obliterated over Endor, it's a good thing. Otherwise, you're going to have dopshits running around telling you that the Force is unbalanced again once Darth Vader dies, leaving Luke as the soul Jedi power in the galaxy (according to canon).

Originally Posted by Bradylama

You know, and I know, that any claim to the contrary is just a bunch of bullshit designed to clean up Lucas's philosophical mess.

It's a mess, yes. But theres a lot of fucking subtexts in the prequels. No one bothers to bother looking at the mess because everyone doesn't want to bother thinking about anything anymore. This doesn't excuse the fact that Lucas has the narrative flow of a rock wall in the middle of a stream but there are some things that *are* there.

The Jedi Are A Bunch Of Assholes

One needs only to mention that they live in an ivory tower to make this near-literal. But then think about it this way - the Jedi allow slavery to exist unless it suits the needs of one malcontent Jedi? And how the heck are the Jedi these great negotiators if they're working "under"/with the Supreme Chancellor?

Yoda Is A Narcissistic Jerk

A lot of people blame Obi-Wan for the creation of Darth Vader, but it goes deeper than that. For all Obi-Wan's mistakes, he also trains Luke well and tells him things like "stretch out with your feelings" or "your feelings do you credit", "you must do what you feel is right" and above all "trust your feelings!". But Yoda tells us that "Fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate" and all that. Is Yoda lying? Manipulative?

Not to mention Yoda refuses to allow either Anakin or Luke into Jedi Knighthood because of their age. Thats usually a subtext found in cults - get them while their young, warp their minds to your ends. Is Yoda so afraid of individuality amongst his students?

(Theres a third subtext but it's only backwards compatible. Yoda warns Luke not to underestimate the power of Emperor Palpatine "or suffer your father's fate". He fails to mention - again, this is whats called 'retcon' - that Yoda himself got his ass-kicked by Palpatine in the Senate chamber. On top of that, the whole statement is pretty damned mean; he's basically telling Luke that he's going to end up a guy getting beaten down and burnt to cinder)

Anakin Has An Oedipus Complex

Anakin had a pretty stable relationship with his mother until he was taken from her by Qui-Gon. After a number of years, he starts having dreams about her (I'm not even going near that joke) and he realizes he has to save her. When he does find her, she dies in his arms before he can hear that she still loves him.

This more or less enforces Anakin's abandonment issues with women, between his mother and his relationship with his wife. Think about it - he loves Padme but only in secret? The reason this is an Oedipus complex instead of a fear of rejection/abandonment/replacement is because of Obi-Wan as the father/brother figure. Obi-Wan certainly wants whats right for Anakin (even if it's not what the Council may want, per se - because Obi-Wan wants Anakin to come to his senses about not only the Dark Side, but inadvertently Padme as well) but thats at odds with how Anakin wants to come to the same ends. (Anakin wants to save Padme through the Dark Side, Obi-Wan wants to save them both through Anakin's turning back)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

True. But Whedon isn't above being a whore.

He's not even a whore. He's a cocktease. The promdate that says she'll let you fuck her in the ass when you get home - but then she decides it's too late and goes to bed.

Whedon comes up with such good things and then they get run into the ground - sometimes by him, usually by others. I may never forgive him for Buffy Seasons 6 and 7 which have the narritive of someone on an acid trip and reading Slaughterhouse Five.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I didn't really need the History lesson, but no amount of historical revisioning can get around the fact that the driving issue that caused State's Rights to come to the forefront of American politics was the question of slavery.

Thats like saying we faught World War II to stop the Holocaust. While being aware that the Nazi regime was starting POW camps, no one had any clue of the utter horror of the situation put upon european Jews. In hind sight, yes, it's a good thing we won and kicked Hitler's ass - but we didn't go there to save Jews, we went there to stop the Nazis.

It's good we stopped slavery. And yes, it was an issue that divided the country - but we didn't go to war because of slavery, we went to war because of the fear of secession. "A divided house cannot stand" and the like.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Had Lincoln not been elected to the Presidency, who know's what would have happened, but it's not as if the Country wasn't on the verge of splintering several times before over the issue of slavery.

Or other issues. Yes, slavery was a hot topic at the time - but it wasn't the only issue that brought the country to fight it's self.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

To that end, despite being underdogs, the South was still fighting to protect an institution that people consider to be morally wrong. Mal is never saddled with that stigma, because all the Independance ever was were underdogs.

Well, to be correct in this, we need to know what the fight was about in the first place. Perhaps I got ahead of myself - but do we ever know what the war with the Alliance was about? Theres a couple of insinuations - Mal says that the Alliance meddles in people's affairs when it has no right to - but nothing concrete. Theres never a forward statement of issues, just Mal being elusive on it.

(I want to go as far as saying that Mal is elusive because he's just a "stupid grunt" in the war - but theres also no insinuation on that either. Being elusive on a subject does not make you ignorant of it.)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

What I've ultimately had a problem with is your verbage, since for Whedon to take the idea of Mal being wrong not far enough, he would've had to take it somewhere, i.e. Mal would have had to be wrong at some point.

That's what I'm getting at. Mal was never wrong.

I come back to the earlier point of saying - thats not interesting. Mal playing as the righteous underdog is not interesting writing. Theres no character conflict within or without.

Heres a major problem with Firefly fans: none of them can tell me why they, the viewer, hates the Alliance. They're just told to and take it at face value. I'd say "Perhaps that was something they'd expand on with season 2" but instead we get a movie that has 10 zillion plot points in it that weight down to a cartoony conspiracy. "The government kills civilians!" is about as important, timely and interesting a topic as the stupid religious stuff in Neon Super Plasma Battlestar Galactica 2003.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

That depends on how you classify the threat significance of the Alliance as a whole, which the movies don't do a lot to establish. The way they channel their headquarters from hidden base to hidden base, however, implies that they're more like the French Resistance in Space. Before the Battle of Endor, the Rebels were more of a nuisance than a legitimate threat to the sovereignty of the Empire.

French Resistance In Space is pretty apt. But you're wrong about one thing - the Rebels were a threat following the destruction of the first Death Star. Hell, the opening crawl of ESB tells us this immedeately.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

If the Empire splinters, then Alliance worlds can openly announce their sovereignty, but the warring that would occur between the Moffs would be far more significant than the innumerable skirmishes between the Alliance and the Empire.

Well, heres a question for you - where does Endor lie? Whos the regional control? Wheres the Moff in charge of it? What fleets were there?

Theres too much we don't know to be any ounce of specific. Making assumptions in these situations has as much weight as fanfic writings.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Here's the problem, though. The assumtion that the Jedi were wrong invalidates the moral dichotomy presented by the movies, in that followers of Light and Dark sides are good and evil, respectively.

You had me take pause with this one. But only for a moment.

See - the Jedi were wrong. Repeatedly. They thought Anakin would bring balance to the Force - well, he did but he had to slaughter everyone to do it.

Anakin says he'll protect Padme - and then he kills her.

Qui-Gon was right - Anakin is the Chosen One. But the Council resists him, especially Yoda.

See - the prequels are about how to make bad decisions. Don't Do What Johnny Don't Does. Don't get me wrong - I'm not trying to validate or protect the prequels any more than they need to be (I loathe Episode II) but at the same time, too many people write stuff off too quickly.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Isn't the Alliance meddling in people's affairs enough?

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".

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

The show doesn't need to be specific, because the Independance itself was so disjointed.

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?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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 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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

I didn't like the Alliance because they're presented as an archetypal opposite to free thinking.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Since I dig all of that freedom shit and am a card-carrying Libertarian, I'm naturally disposed to side with the Independance

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

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Well, the only fleets we know of are the personal vanguards of Vader and Palpatine.

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?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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".

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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 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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Because we can't see them doesn't necessarily ean 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.

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)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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.

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?)

Originally Posted by Bradylama

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 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.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

It's a simple Black Cape plot device, but I guess it could all just be a bunch of hooey.

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

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Lord Jaroh

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.

Most amazing jew boots

Originally Posted by Cyantre

The idea of The Allience isn't evil, the surface of The Allience isn't evil, but the inner-workings of it are.

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

Originally Posted by Cyantre

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.

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?

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

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

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?

Originally Posted by Cyantre

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

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.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

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.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

Yeah, you're the intelligent one. You're so scary hiding behing the ananomity of the Internet.

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 am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Cyantre

I'm reporting your post too, you're using foul language and making general insults.

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 was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

I don't care if you were having an "intelligent conversation" with someone else.

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.

Originally Posted by Cyantre

As I recall this message board has 3,050 members, not two.

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.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

The Military experiments on River (As seen in the opening of Serenity)

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.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

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.

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?

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

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.

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.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

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.

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

FELIPE NO

Originally Posted by Majin yami

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.

How ya doing, buddy?

Originally Posted by Majin yami

It was used as a high security prison and an emergency escape vehicle for the Emperor.

Whenever I need to escape, I go to a prison too!

"This battle is going awful! How are we going to escape?"
"I know! Lets get into our 12 mile long ship thats been converted into a prison and fly off into space!"

WHAT. WHAT. WHAT.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Bradylama

Nevermind, either, that a vessel of that size requires an immense support structure. When your last hope of escape could possibly be scrapped within a week, what's the point of drawing so much attention to oneself?

Aside from the fact that the gravity of the planet probably wouldn't allow the ship to take off.

And that how the FUCK would you manuever a 12 mile ship through an entire planet that makes the set of Blade Runner look like the suburbs?

There's nowhere I can't reach.

Originally Posted by Majin yami

Since when did anyone know Palpatine to be concerned with collateral damage?

Palpatine forced the Rendar Shipping Company to close and sell all it's assets after one of it's pilots smashed into Imperial Center.

This thing is sticky, and I don't like it. I don't appreciate it.

Looks like Styphon gave me my birthday present a couple days early. Thanks.

I am a dolphin, do you want me on your body?

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

No, but when the military force of a country/empire grows large enough, it starts to enforce other doctrines and acts as a symbol of that nation/empire's power and dominance.

When the military grows large enough to control the government, there is no more government to speak of. That is not the case with the Alliance as theres obviously a beaureaucratic part to it.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Compare the United States' Military Force in Iraq.

Congrats on making the worst generalization possible. The US Military Force has *nothing* to do with Iraq's situation. The Bush Administration are the ones that had the military deployed; otherwise you'd have another scenario like when Douglas MacArthur was removed from his position following his crossing the 38th parallel.

The President is in charge of the military, despite what the pressing droves of college students would lead one to believe.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Every government in the world is guility of evil then.

Making snide remarks to undermine my point only make you look like an ass. If Bill Clinton came out to say he nailed some mildly attractive secretary or Nixon came out to say that he was a paranoid jerk - these moments would be much smaller, less known incidents in their otherwise respectable political careers. The fact that you can make sweeping, overt gestures about people everywhere and the history of not just our government but *every* government is about as stupid as it is vauge.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Palpatine came to power legally and enacted all sorts of restrictions and new laws in the name of ensuring peace in the galaxy, mostly from the 'betrayal' of the Jedi, and to take back the breakaway 'Confederate Star Systems'.

Well, keep in mind we're seeing this from beyond the fourth wall. *We* know that Palpatine is behind the CIS movement but no one else really does even by Episode III where most people are just really suspicious or very much dead.

What powers did Palpatine enact? We cannot say if his declairing the formation of the Galactic Empire anything more than grandstanding because we don't know what laws were effected when the Clone Wars started. We know *nothing* about the political situation in Star Wars aside from the fact that it's VERY thinly veiled analogy of the Bush Administration come Episode III. (Obi-Wan's bitching about how he serves democracy is just horribly silly given how long the galaxy has been at war by Episode III and how Kenobi has been directly serving the orders of the Supreme Chancellor for a number of years by now)

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

On the flip side, The Alliance created the reavers and as a side-effect boosted thier military force for 'protection' from them, and to hopefully bring back the outsiders into 'civilization'.

Thats speculation - and completely illogical at that. The lengths that you are reaching would be humorous in another situation. No military would create an enemy which they could not control - The Reavers are shown as insane people wearing skins of their victims. Add to this the fact that

1.) Reavers herald from a planet in which it was a colony, not a military station. The hologram we see on the station pretty much tells us outright that its an accident. In fact, 1 in 10 people were turned into Reavers - thats a minority of the people affected. It was obviously an accident and not an orchestrated event.

2.) The Alliance had just won a war a number of years back. I doubt they'd need another fight breaking out given that they were fighting for the stability of their borders.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

However in both situations a larger military force was the outcome.

You don't know anything about the Alliance's military force aside from *them having one*. There is no statement about a buildup of any military measure before, during or after the war with the Seperatists in Firefly. Stop saying things that have not happened.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Political Commentary... actually I think there is, but its not outright given to the viewer... its somewhat implied.

You cannot have political commentary in Firefly for two reasons

1.) It's "The American Civil War In Space". Joss Whedon all but says it repeatedly in the documentaries in the Firefly set. All these "political commentaries" were solved back when your great-great-great-grandfather was in diapers.

2.) You cannot have apt political commantary without the politics. It's never stated what form of government it is outside of an Anglo-Asian alliance. Anything beyond that is sterile conjecture at best.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

This shows that in at least some way, the Alliance has uses for domination and using psychic agents to win against thier enemies, either Browncoats or Reavers.

Yeah, I pay my soldiers to die, not to win!

River is a tricky topic. We're told she's an experiement - but not much else. She's psychic somehow, an amazing fighter, insane and has this secret locked in her head. In terms of logic, that really doesn't add up at all - in terms of story, it's cheap crapola.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Obviously they want her back to continue whatever operations they were doing before.

Well, if someone were to break into your house and steal some of your shit, wouldn't you want it back? The Alliance invested time and money and people into the project that River was a part of. Why shouldn't they go get her back? Because she's with the good guys? Thats illogical bullshit.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

I just thought of something, it might have been brought up... but uh... the "Hands of Blue" who are chasing River might be agents of a controlling force that might be in top positions of authority in the Alliance.

They also might have blue hands because they enjoy sitting on them a lot. Whats your point? You have nothing to support that idea aside from the idea it's self. It's rubbish.

I was speaking idiomatically.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

I was just saying that the Military seemed to embody a sort of 'image' for part of the Alliance.

Because any normal government isn't going to send clowns, tax collectors and kewpie dolls to patrol their borders.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Oh? Seems to be that the US Military's Forces, along with other colalition armies went into Iraq and removed a leader from power and set up a new government.

...Under orders from their respective government officals. The military didn't act on it's own accord, they were given orders.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

The protection of the people as well as the elimination of the old regime's forces has been shown to be at least in part the Military's job, as a protection 'service' (For lack of a better word).

I don't see how acknowledging occupation does anything for this discussion.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Well of course. Any President and thier administration are the ones who deploy the military.

Then stop saying the military. There is *nothing* to support the idea that the Alliance is a purely militant body - *you're* just assuming it because thats all you see.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

I said that because every government has covered up stuff at one time or another, so since you said that it was evil of them to cover it up, I was saying that every government in the world could also be considered evil in that line of reasoning.

I'm not the one arguging if it was "Evil" - you were. I was stating that it's the government's perogative to cover things up. Now, there are many things that the government needs to keep secret as a matter of military and worldwide stability. However, blowjobs and lists of potential enemies is not one of them.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Obviously I can't provide proof that every government has covered up things

Then you should not have spoken.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

but it seemed better to say that, versus "most governments", where someone would then say "Oh I see, so there are perfect governments out there huh? NOT!" or something like that. I was trying to avoid that argument.

I would've hoped that by reading the rest of this thread - you'd have known no one here that isn't banned would've replied in that manner.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

This is a stretch, but Order 66 could be considered a war power

Thats a vauge but potentially good point. It was an order, more than a "war power", I'd say - because the order enacted a military movement of assassination. A "war power" would be something more like a proposal in a declared act like the Patriot Act, which allows us to detain "parties of interest" for indefinite amounts of time.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

On a more serious note, as you said we can only conjecture from dialouge (Specifically when Pademe mentioned more 'sweeping changes' or 'sweeping war-time powers' something to that effect) what he did exactly, so I have no answer for you right now.

And I hope you never do. The point of Star Wars is Joesph Campbell, not Alan Greenspan.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

True. However we may learn more in the upcoming TV Series, which is set between Episode III and IV.

Until then though - we don't know.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

Well I was talking about how the Experiments on River reflect a 'darker' policy

Well, thats nothing new. Theres horrible experiments done by every government, I'm sure - look at "Gulf War Syndrome".

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

I think the reason why it doesn't add up logically is that we're missing a vital piece of the story that might have been planned to be revealed later on.

Ehhhhhhhhh. Right and wrong.

Yes, we're pissing parts - but then Joss Whedon shouldn't made it a point to shove 5 seasons worth of plot points into 2 hours time.

Originally Posted by Dark Nation

She seems to be central to the Alliance's more dubious endevours and may prove to play a large role should they ever continue on with the story.

I'm just going out on a limb here - but why does everyone say that River Tam is so important to the Alliance's endeavors? While I understand they'd want their investment back, a lot of people think that the Alliance would fall apart without one waif-thin girl.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?