Is the Alliance Evil? (Firefly)

I watched Serenity recently and while it was entertaining it certainly wasn't worthy of multiple viewings at $10 a pop as some fans have done but that's neither here nor there. My question is whether the Alliance as portrayed in the series and movie can be considered evil?

By evil let us define the standard. The Empire in Star Wars is evil. The Federation in Star Trek (communist tendencies aside) is not evil. Consider those your happy extremes.

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.

This leads to the thought - The Alliance is not evil merely what they're trying to do, control and manipulate people's behavior can be considered evil - and even then a case can be made for it being misguided and it wouldn't be the first government to think it knew what was better for its people than its own people.

But then you have things like the experiments on River and the Pax experiment that went and created the Reavers. Those can definitely be considered evil.

But hasn't every government in history carried out covert operations and experiments to try and make things better? Does that make every government in history evil?

Wouldn't the end result of the Pax been good - ie. happy people everywhere? or is it an abomination of thought control?

What are your thoughts? Examples from the series and movie are welcome.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

The Alliance is evil, perhaps in the worst way...

It's the perfect example of what happens when a government gains too much power and tries to create a utopian society. The Alliance didn't develop PAX to make people happy, it was to make everyone docile. It back-fired, but if it had worked the people would have no aggressive tendencies. Therefore, no one could ever rise up and overthrow the corrupt government.

The Alliance is the worst kind of evil, by masking itself as "something better".

How ya doing, buddy?

If you're not aggressive, does that mean you cannot reason if your government is/isn't bad? If you could, could you not overthrow them without violent means? Perhaps you could use their treatment against them?

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

Not when the government is corrupt and has the physical power to put down any form of resistance.

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

Originally Posted by Cyantre

The Alliance is evil, perhaps in the worst way...

It's the perfect example of what happens when a government gains too much power and tries to create a utopian society. The Alliance didn't develop PAX to make people happy, it was to make everyone docile. It back-fired, but if it had worked the people would have no aggressive tendencies. Therefore, no one could ever rise up and overthrow the corrupt government.

The Alliance is the worst kind of evil, by masking itself as "something better".

I don't think this was the purpose of their tests there. Look at how the populations of all the other planets we see in the series live, how the people on these planets treat each other. I think the reason that they were trying to make people chill out was so that they'd treat each other better, behave with more civility. If people aren't acting like complete no-class jackasses towards each other, then the Alliance can reduce head count in the military and law enforcement agencies, which would significantly cut costs. They could then funnel the cost savings into other programs that would be beneficial to its citizens {and also increased salaries for high ranking government officials, but that is neither here nor there}.

I was speaking idiomatically.

My thought is that intellectual power could defeat them. Surely history has shown that such great tasks have to be done with brute force, but similarly a great deal of thought goes into using such force. The atomic bomb had to be devised and built before it was deployed, even if it destroyed a massive radius of people and buildings.


Think to Star Wars episodes I-III and Palpatine's rise to power. Surely people fought and died, but the creation of the Empire was actually just Palpatine's carefully planned manipulation of what was already in place. Could he have really accomplished the same ends with physical power alone?

That said, my belief is that with the right planning and reasoning, they could devise a way to overthrow the government without actually engaging in battle.

How ya doing, buddy?

If you watch the series the Alliance has obviously been doing far more experiments than just Pax and River. The men with blue hands (who I really wish had been explained in the movie) had that device which could kill everyone in a room without so much as a sound. They hadn't been in power for all that long (6 years since the end of the war according to the Unification Day episode) and they were simply going through the steps of preventing any future uprisings. I would say that a government who erases people that question them and any of their "mistakes" is pretty evil, and the subtlety hiding that can only last so long.

FELIPE NO

Going along with RJ's original questions, I first of all do not agree with the director's statement that a government should not tell people what to do, especially when it is in their (the people's) best interest. This is a bunch of bull crap. Seatbelt laws, drinking laws, smoking laws, public conduct laws, etc. Of course there are (and should be) limits to which these types of laws should be allowed to extend to.

Nonetheless, it is the means in which a government attempts to implement and enforce these laws which can lead to a government becoming evil.
Basically, the ends do not justify the means.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

Originally Posted by t(-_-t)

Going along with RJ's original questions, I first of all do not agree with the director's statement that a government should not tell people what to do, especially when it is in their (the people's) best interest. This is a bunch of bull crap. Seatbelt laws, drinking laws, smoking laws, public conduct laws, etc. Of course there are (and should be) limits to which these types of laws should be allowed to extend to.

Nonetheless, it is the means in which a government attempts to implement and enforce these laws which can lead to a government becoming evil.
Basically, the ends do not justify the means.

I think the society the Alliance was trying to create was more on the Orwellian side of things though. Not as extreme since the system was still young, but they were trying to do a lot more than public safety laws. A lot of things can be done in someone's best interest on paper, but in practice it has a lot of drawbacks that aren't so nice.

Jam it back in, in the dark.

Originally Posted by Tritoch

I think the society the Alliance was trying to create was more on the Orwellian side of things though. Not as extreme since the system was still young, but they were trying to do a lot more than public safety laws. A lot of things can be done in someone's best interest on paper, but in practice it has a lot of drawbacks that aren't so nice.

Ok. I just saw the movie, and I had not seen the series.
However, this again harkens back to what I was saying about the ends do not justify the means.

There's nowhere I can't reach.

I think the alliance was evil in the mere fact that they had a vision of what perfection was... and wouldn't let their vision be compremised. They were close minded communist that sure had the right idea of everyone getting along and no one fighting but did it the wrong way.

ANd in that sense they were evil. They're closed minded bigotry was what made them into evil....there.

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

Why'd you have to throw "communist" into your argument.

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

I don't think The Allience was communist at all. They had this idea that they were civilized and everyone else were just savages. You had to be who they wanted you to be, which left no room for true free will. It wasn't overtly restrictive, but they gave you just enough room to provide the illusion of freedom.

I was speaking idiomatically.

The Alliance wasn't evil, so much as it represented an orderly, socialist ideal. Life in the Alliance was a paradise, supplemented by a system-wide tax base. Yet this selfless, socialistic paradise could not perpetuate itself due to the self interests of individuals, which always strive for personal attainment.

To that end, the Alliance developed the PAX, so that people would lose that sense of self and become cogs in a perfect, orderly society. Yet when people exposed to the PAX lost their sense of self, for the purposes of my argument, they lost their chaotic tendencies. Ultimately our sense of self is tied to survival instincts. It's our base need for emotions, materials, and nourishment that drive people to put themselves before others, as well as to create. When people lost that, they lost their will to live. Why should one need nourishment when one has no impulse for it?

Alternatively, the people who reacted negatively to the PAX lost all sense of order, or ego. The Reavers had become the ultimate primal parts of humans, where their survival instinct became paramount, and nothing but their self remained. It is because Reavers had selfish tendencies, I suspect, that they were able to survive as collectives out in space, as the Reavers recognized that they would tear each other apart, and needed to cooperate on some base level to guarantee their survival.

I may be giving too much credit to the creator, but I think my assessment of the Reavers makes sense.

Ultimately, the purpose behind the Alliance's development of the PAX was good, in that they wanted to create "A World Without Sin," yet it's because of their idealism that they lost their understanding of human nature, and as a result unleashed the Reavers onto the rim worlds.

The Alliance is more an example of an entity that doesn't want to be realistic than a legitimately malevolent government.

As for Eleo's theory. Assuming that people lost their violent tendencies, the only way for them to overcome violent force would be to do so by proxy, like say, robots.

How ya doing, buddy?

Wow, some nice (even deep!) sociological discussions going on here! I plan to write a paper on the movie/TV series this semester, so the more the merrier

It seems to me that calling the Alliance "communist" or "fascist" is simply splitting hairs; the central tenet seems to be highly organized and centralized government at the expense of local autonomy. The emphasis was on order above all else; other arrangements would be tolerated as long as they didn't disturb the peace. This can be seen in the widespread corruption among Alliance officials, as well as the numerous petty theives and crooks, even in the central planets. As long as there's no major disruption, this sort of behavior is tolerated.

At the same time, it's clear that the Alliance government, though nominally democratic, heavily favors the more developed central planets like Ariel. I imagine this being a sort of bureaucratic bias; the inner planets are more populous, with more representation, and more power in the parliament. As a result, they get the lion's share of the taxes. One can easily see how such an arrangement might have led to civil war.

The "evil" is more of a bureaucratic than a totalitarian evil; bad things are done because they're approved by faceless bureaucrats who never have to deal with the consequences of their actions. The civil war, for example, was clearly a war of conquest, taking back territories held by the Independants. This would have left the parliamentary leaders far behind the lines, free to order heavy bombardments and chemical weapon attacks in the interest of the greater good.

The PAX, in my view, was a way to prevent further factionalism and civil war, to retain the preferential treatment of the core worlds. If people are always happy, what do they care if money and resources are siphoned off? Similarly, when the Reavers emerge, their numbers (about 30,000) are too small to be a serious threat to the Alliance as a whole; the bureaucrats therfore find it convenient to do nothing.

The evil, then, is a faceless evil, the sort that anyone might be succeptible to if granted sufficient power and distanced from the people the power effects.

FELIPE NO

But how do we classify evil? Is it truly evil what the Alliance leaders did? If it was, then what the Alliance did during the war of independance was no better than the American Civil War.

Think about it. What does a faceless, nameless, uknown Alliance leader honestly need? He's already one of the most powerful man or woman in the Alliance. Anything he or she wants is readily at his disposal. What recourse is there, then? The preservation of the status quo, or as it was during the war, the preservation of the state. If the Alliance dissolved, then so does the possibility that they can keep their positions.

Even assuming that these faceless beurocrats were accountable to a constituency, the actions they ordered would have caused them no consequence, as their constituents would've recognized the need to maintain Alliance sovereignty. If the Rim Worlds could declare their independance, what's to stop the core worlds from doing so? That was essentially the crux behind Northern reasoning for the Civil War. If states were allowed to secede, then the Union could not stand, because when the states collectivised their power, they could become a powerful nation.

The same can be said for the Alliance. Why should the Alliance allow these insolent rabble autonomous government? They've lived under the Alliance umbrella for years, and now they don't want a part of it? Well nuts to that.

Is it truly evil when Alliance heads ordered brutal measures to preserve the state? Did preserving the Alliance not ultimately benefit the greater good? The Alliance heads to me, are much like Darth Vader. Not really evil, so much as they are esoteric Straussians.

What, you don't want my bikini-clad body?

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?

Quote:

However, Whedon has this lovely habit of having a good idea and not taking it nearly far enough.

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.

Most amazing jew boots

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.

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

Well, what I'm saying is that Mal simply being biased may have not actually been Whedon's intent. Much like how Lucas didn't intend for the Rebel Alliance to spread Galactic Anarchy after the death of the Emperor.

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.

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

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

I was speaking idiomatically.

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.

Quote:

An unfair statement for several reasons.

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.

To that end, the Rebels don't have any plans for the future, or any idea what they're going to do after the Emperor is dead. They eventually become nothing more than a catalyst for Anarchy in the Galaxy, and despite their attractive ideals, create more death and suffering than the Sith or the Moffs ever did under Imperial rule. The Alliance was wrong, and I can guarantee you that it wasn't Lucas's intent for them to be so, just like it wasn't his intent for Vader to come off as a Straussian instead of somebody legitimately evil.

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.

Quote:

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.

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

Quote:

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

What can I say? I like picking nits.

What kind of toxic man-thing is happening now?

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.

FELIPE NO

Quote:

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.

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. Even though the North never fought with the intent of abolishing it, it still ended up being the ultimate issue. None of the states that seceded were free states, and that's because the secessionists did so in order to protect the State's right to allow slavery.

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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.

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.

Quote:

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.

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. If the Sith were right, then how can they truly be a force of evil, when their actions create more welfare than harm?

How ya doing, buddy?

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.

Jam it back in, in the dark.