'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Each of the four (decent) films and the cartoons that comprise the 'Star Wars' story tell that story entirely from the perspective of the unified political/religious forces that is the Jedi/Rebel Alliance.


https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikiped...iance_logo.svg


This is the effective equivalent of studying the 'War on Terror' by ONLY examining source material from Islam and Al Qaeda. In short, we have not received a balanced assessment of this (fictional) conflict.


However, now that movies like 'Rogue 1' are examining individual events outside the Anakin/Luke storyline, perhaps they could produce a movie showing what motivates non-clones to support and join the Empire.


One obvious motivation could stem from the heavy-handed tyrannical actions of the Jedi-Council during the 'Clone Wars' which could/would make them the enemy of any group that valued their individual freedom and autonomy.


As a matter of fact, there is already an animated movie named 'Tie Fighter' that shows a battle from the perspective of the Empire and introduces characters from the Empire whose stories would be worth exploring on the big screen;


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=PN_CP4SuoTU


For example;


What motivated the three central pilots to join the Empire?


How did the female pilot receive that scare (was it at the hand of a Jedi/Republic Soldier occupying her homeworld)?


Did the Empire provide opportunities for female pilots that the Rebel Alliance did not? (remember; So far we've only seen one female pilot in a Rebel action, namely Rey, and she pilots the Millennium Falcon, which is not a Rebel ship, but belongs to a smuggler).


What values does the Empire hold that made it appealing to these non-clone pilots?


etc.

You seem to have this the wrong way round. The Empire is evil.
Making movies and stuff from the Empire's point of view, would be like following Al-Qackpants and the muppets who call themselves Muslims.


The reason the stories follow the Rebels and the Jedi, is because they're the good guys... and having the stories this way round is nothing like following an evil cult at all.




Also, did you just bring ISIS into a thread about Star Wars?
:facepalm:


Anyway, having something based from the Empire's side of things is touched on with Finn in Episode VII.
He was taken as a baby from his family, and raised to be a soldier, and he still saw that the Empire was wrong and evil.
That's the beginning, middle and end of that story, so there's no need to make a whole movie about it.

Rodent,


The Empire only appears to be 'evil' because, thus far, we have only been able to view the conflict from the perspective of their opponents.


Were someone to study WWII by solely reading/viewing information released by Joseph Goebbels, they would likely come away with the impression that;


1.) Sudeten Germans were horribly oppressed by the Czechs and required assistance from German 'peace keepers',


2.) Poland invaded Germany (Gleiwitz incident),


3.) The Jews were a violent/conniving '5th Column' inside Germany,


4.) The 'Allied Forces' were evil/greedy individuals motivated by their desire to extort money from Germany via the grossly unjust 'Treaty of Versailles (which the 'Allies' themselves weren't obeying),


5.) etc., etc., etc.


Were someone to study the American War for Independence/The War of 1812 by solely studying the writing of (Mad) Kind George III, they would likely come away with the impression that;


1.) King George III was a benevolent ruler who respected the rights of the English colonists living in the New World,


2.) All the taxes levied on England's New World Colonists were used to fund their defense and/or support and were therefore fully justified,


3.) The rebelling English Colonists are ungrateful, motivated by greed, and if not evil, severely misguided


4.) etc., etc., etc.


(In case any of you missed this, I am not asserting any of the 'alternative perspectives' I've stated above, but am merely using them to demonstrate that, from the other perspective, the "good guys" and "bad guys" can easily appear to occupy the opposite positions even in real-world conflicts, let alone fictional conflicts)


As I (hope) I've demonstrated above, 'good' and 'evil' are mostly a matter of perspective. As such, I would be interested to see the (fictional) war of 'Star Wars' from the opposing perspective since, unlike real wars, there are no victims to be offended/angered by presenting the opposing perspective and no final "truth" since it is, after all, fiction...

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Once one side in a conflict gains complete control over the information being released about that conflict, in other words, when one side gains control of the 'media'/'propaganda', it is very easy to make themselves appear "good" and their opponents "evil".


Who is to say this is not what happened in the 'Star Wars' conflict???

That's exactly my point. Sure, I agree that evil is dependent on perspective, but in Star Wars, the Empire is evil.


The work of fiction here, states directly in the opening crawl of the original movie that the Empire is "the evil Galactic Empire".
Arguing that evil is a point of view, and using real world incidents and occurrences as examples when the Empire is written as being evil, then saying yourself that Star Wars is "after all, fiction..." you've defeated your own argument of the perspective of whether or not the Empire is evil or not.


Star Wars is written as a simple Good Vs Evil conflict.


Good being the Rebel Alliance, so called as they rebel against the Empire's dictatorship and was built from the remnants of the Galactic Senate. Backed up by the Jedi.


Bad being the Empire, who exist only to rule everything that they come across, and destroy all who stand in their way, and were built by dissolving the original Galactic Senate. Backed up by the Sith.

But who wrote the opening crawl????


Were we provided with an "opening crawl" of WWII, written by Joseph Goebbels, it would likely speak of the horrible oppression suffered by the Sudeten Germans at the hands of the Czechs, the need for German 'Peace Keepers' to intervene on the behalf of the Sudeten Germans, the invasion of Germany by the Poles, etc. and refer to the Poles, British, Russians, and the 'Allies' in general as "evil".


Of course, Goebbels "opening crawl" would be nothing more then (false) propaganda. Yet, how do we know that 'Star Wars' opening-crawl was not written by the Jedi/Rebel Alliance's 'Minister of Propaganda'/Goebbels-stand-in and is equally false????

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Erm, it was written by Lucas.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

What could be more evil than destroying a planet or in the case of TFA, multiple planets. It's pretty black and white who's evil. Literally black and white with Vader being dressed in black. As for the storm troopers this doesn't apply...but I see them more as pawns and I think there's some ww2 symbolism. There's an argument for everything but creating a movie sympathetic to the empire would be a hard task to fit in the universe.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

WW 2 symbolism? Vader wears a helmet that is reminiscent of both a Japanese Samurai helmet and a German Stahlhelm (steel helmet) from WW 2 era. Combine his all black (SS?) uniform and he's pretty much the major Axis powers in one being.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Well there you go.

Das ist richig! Unsere Vaderland will never forgetten dich!

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Yeah, I think when one side blows up an inhabited planet for no reason other than to punish a political prisoner who they had already tortured for information (which turned out to be wrong anyway, speaking to the inefficiency of their tactics), then it's hard to make a case for moral or political nuance on their behalf. At the start of Episode IV Moff Tarkin even says that they've dissolved the senate and plan to use fear to keep the local systems in line even without the threat of a Death Star, so I'm not sure what case you can really make for the Empire being a secretly benevolent form of government. The boss is a manipulative and power-hungry sorcerer, after all.

Besides, why are you trying to cite a fan-made piece of work in support of your pro-Empire rhetoric? The Rebels may not have any explicitly female pilots (in the OT, at least) but neither do the Empire, and if we're going to talk about gender representation then the fact that the Rebels have Leia and Mon Dodonna in high-ranking positions while the Empire has a veritable sausage-fest on their hands doesn't help your point either.

In other words...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=llLKar19XhA

Thank you for reminding me to bring this up...

If 'Star Wars' is an allusion to WWII, the very fact that The Empire destroys an enemy planet from orbit suggests that The Empire may represent the Allied, rather then the Axis powers.


Evidence for this stems from the fact that, in Star Wars, the 'Death Star' destroys Alderaan from orbit. While none of the combatants in WWII employed 'orbital' weaponry, or possessed weapons with the power to destroy planets, the closest equivalent were the high altitude atomic bombings of Hiroshima, Nagasaki, and to lesser degrees the fire-bombing of Dresden and Tokyo, all of which were carried out by the Allies using high altitude bombers. Of course, Axis forces also destroyed several cities and urban areas, with the Japanese destroying Nanking, the Germans "liquefying" several ghettos, and destroying Oradour-sur-Glane, but these atrocities were carried out by ground-forces with limited air support. Only the Allies destroyed urban population centers entirely from the air/from above, just as the Empire destroyed Alderaan from above/from orbit.


Of course, Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki were all cities aiding the war effort of enemy nations, making them valid targets, but, for all we know, Alderaan could have been overtly or covertly aiding the Rebel Alliance, making it an equally valid target...

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Touche'!

...how does that make it okay, though?

For the moment, let's leave aside how nobody else aside from you is trying to make Star Wars into an allegory for WWII (the most anyone has done is note a couple of superficial visual influences), which may just suggest that, you know, it's not supposed to be such an allegory (if anything, it might be more comparable to the Vietnam War). The United States was an Allied power put citizens of Japanese ancestry into internment camps in response to Pearl Harbour, but is that really much more justifiable than the Nazis carrying out the actual Holocaust because the U.S. wasn't exterminating people en masse? Trying to draw parallels between the Empire and the Allies doesn't make the Empire look better, it makes the Allies look worse.

In any case, it's a stretch to compare an actual world war between major nations with relatively equal capabilities to the much more uneven conflict between a large empire and a small rebellion in Star Wars. Planets wouldn't publicly ally themselves with the Rebels for fear of incurring the Empire's wrath, which is understandable if the Empire was putting together a planet-destroying weapon. The 'for all we know" is irrelevant because Moff Tarkin only has two established reasons for destroying Alderaan - to intimidate Leia into giving information about the Rebels (what with it being her home planet) and also to test out the Death Star's power. Destroying an entire planet simply because one of its highest-ranked diplomats has secret ties to the rebel alliance is a truly villainous level of overkill - the whole point is that Tarkin is grossly unjustified in doing so, especially when Leia gives up the information and even if Alderaan was secretly aiding the Rebels (which, let's be clear, is never actually established and does not play into Tarkin's decision).

They destroyed inhabited planets. They destroyed p-l-a-n-e-t-s. You dont need Judge Judy to figure that one out. :laugh:

You want to watch Stormtroopers use blasters on helpless civilians?! (Ewoks dont count, Id like to see that actually, or the Jar Jar race.....actually yeah I would like to see an Empire movie where theyre killing Jar Jar & Ewoks, but other than that, youre completely wrong. :yup:)

Youd like Dune, they really get into the motivations of the bad guys.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

But TONGO, Alderaan may have been helping out the Rebels so it was totally okay for the Empire to blow it all up.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Feel free not to disclose it Danconia, but from which country are you from?

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

In my opinion those meddling Alderaanians needed to be taught a lesson.

I live within The Territory Occupied by the Totalitarian/Anti-Constitutional Washington (DC) Leviathan (formerly known as the United States). Currently, I'm in Occupied LeRoy, IL, but will be on the move as soon as I am assigned a load...


https://grrrgraphics.files.wordpress...of_tyranny.jpg

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

The point I've been making is that, currently, many currently conclude that The Empire is 'evil' solely because the 'Star Wars' story is exclusively told from the perspective of the religious/political force known as the 'Rebel Alliance' and make assumptions based on the presumption that the Rebel Alliance is 'good' after only hearing the story from the Rebel Alliance's perspective.


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=svkgOsr7pUc


However, if only a few of the 'facts' assumed by the viewer turn out to be false, the morality of this (fictional) war can easily become very muddled, as if often the case with real-world human conflicts.


For example, as I've already shown, while many assume that the targeting of Alderaan was unjust, there is no evidence that Alderaan wasn't aiding the Rebel Alliance and strong evidence that it was participating in the conflict, on the side of the Rebel Alliance, since members of its royal family and diplomatic corps were aiding the Rebels. If Alderaan were aiding the Rebel Alliance, as evidence suggests that it was, then it was a legitimate target, as legitimate as Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki.


A movie that fills in missing facts in the Star Wars Universe and provides The Empire in general or individual Imperial soldiers with understandable/relatable justifications for their actions would add a lot of interesting complexity to the Star Wars story, rather then just a bland 'good vs. evil' story...


Nearly every combatant believes that their side is the "good-guys". A story like 'Star Wars' provides the best opportunity to explore this notion since it is fictitious and their are no real victims (unlike WWII, for example)...

How do you post a picture like that in a thread where you're the one who's trying to defend a fictional government against dissenters?

How is that different from you assuming that the Empire has an unseen good side? It's also worth noting that there are multiple scenes throughout the OT that focus solely on interactions between Empire characters without a Rebel perspective - case in point:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Zzs-OvfG8tE

Not only does this scene provide plot-relevant information, it gives us an insight into the kind of people that work in the Empire - they are not good guys. You think that people build a planet-destroyer out of the goodness of their hearts?

"If". Your arguments so far are dependent on empty conjecture and circumstantial evidence.

Three words - burden of proof. If you're going to make this claim, you actually need to provide your own evidence for it - you can't just say "there's no evidence that it's not true" and expect that to suffice. Besides, I already went over this on the previous page - one high-ranking individual like Leia secretly working with the Rebels does not automatically mean that all of Alderaan is secretly working with the Rebels, and the fact that Alderaan's actual guilt or innocence never actually factors into Tarkin's decision to blow it up is only supposed to show just how callously evil he (and, by extension, the Empire) is.

I hate to break it to you, but despite its classic status Star Wars really is a bland good-versus-evil story. That doesn't totally preclude it from being nuanced - the main case in point being the backstory for Anakin/Vader and how that factors into the OT - but at its core it is a story of underdogs fighting the good fight against an oppressive regime. The details are a matter of opinion. I might as well ask you for which side you'd take in this discussion:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iQdDRrcAOjA

By that rationale, it being fictitious gives it more right to be about good and evil than any actual war movie. If you want something a little more nuanced, you might want to try checking out Star Trek.

NO! It really is because they destroyed P-L-A-N-E-T-S!! Once they destroyed a planet, they are evil, and they are the bad guys because theyve killed everything. There is no perspective because theyve killed everything.

:)

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

On an unrelated note, how do we know for sure that Sauron isn't the real good guy in Lord of the Rings?

This was my first time in this thread. You have the patience of a saint arguing this point. This might be the dumbest thread on a site that is the home of Sexy Celebrity. :D

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I think in the play / movie 1776, Ben Franklin summoned up the overall point of this thread:

"A rebellion is always legal in the first person, such as "our rebellion." It is only in the third person - "their rebellion" - that it becomes illegal."

What really gets me is that a person with this quote in their signature

is the same person who's trying to defend the Empire. It's astounding.

Well lets think about it! :laugh: Sauron makes a ring and its his only conduit to Middle Earth, then its stolen. Basically, the Lord Of The Rings trilogy is a fantasy version of the movie Snatch. :yup:

http://ichef.bbci.co.uk/news/660/med...3_72015747.jpg

I, for one, would rike to see fantastic science fiction movie from Empire's point of view!
My father was big Star Wars fan! He especially riked Empire Stlikes Back - rittle Yoda reminded him of gleat gleat glandfather! Father kept copy of original trilogy, autoglaphed by George Rucas, right next to huge adult film correction!

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Why I guess some think the Empire could be good guys after destroying planets...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bq03xebtbeU

:laugh:

Thank you Captain,


There have been many "rebellions" and "rebel groups" though out history that, upon securing victory, have sought to impose governments that are as-bad, if not (much) worse-then the government they sought to replace, respecting even fewer of the freedoms and inalienable rights of the country's citizens.


In the case of Star War's 'Rebel Alliance', in most regards, it will be just as tyrannical as the Empire, and, in one regard, it will be much, much worse...


Since both sides are equally "bad", there's no reason why "bad group #2" can't secure an occasional victory over "bad group #1" or why the story can't, occasionally be told from the perspective of "bad group #2" (which is what I've been suggesting since the beginning of this thread!!!).


'Real World' examples of rebellions/rebel groups that sought to impose tyrannical/Statist regimes which, in some cases were intended to replace governments that were much more democratic and recognized individual rights and liberty, include;


1.) The Bolshevik's (Bullshitists); Between around 1905 until June 16, 1923, the Bolshevik's were a "rebellion" of yet, when they came to power, they immediately became even more tyrannical then the hereditary monarch (Czar) they had replaced and began committing genocide ("purges") against their own citizens.


2.) The 'Not-Zees'; Between the Beer Hall Putsch on November 8, 1923 and September 1930 the 'Not-Zees' could also be classified as a "rebellion" of ...yet, like the Bolshevik's, were tyrannical and genocidal when they seized power. Worse yet, they seized power from a democratically elected government that did respect many of the basic human rights of the nation's citizens whereas the Not-Zees (former/successful "rebels" and "dissidents") did not.


3.) Showra-ye Enghelāb Eslāmi (Iranian Council of the Islamic Revolution); Between Khomeini's exile on November 4, 1964, and February 11, 1979 the Iranian Council of the Islamic Revolution would have qualified as a "rebellion" of yet again the government these former "rebels" created upon the success of their "rebellion" was far worse then the government it replaced in-so-far that it does not recognize the basic (unalienable) human rights of the nation's citizens.


As for 'The Rebel Alliance' in Star Wars;

A.) The 'Rebel Alliance' is seeking to install a hereditary monarchy in which the people would be ruled by the (unelected) Organa Dynasty.


While The Rebel Alliance seek to replace a monarchy ruled by an 'Emperor', they seek to replace it with a hereditary monarchy and ruling royal family.


As far as the rights of the people to democratically elect their leaders, this is a lateral move, in which one tyrant is exchanged for another, the mere fact that Carrie Fisher looks more "wholesome" (yes, I'll fully aware of what she was putting up her nose during filming) then Darth Vader does not/should not distract from the fact that she is also an undemocratic/anti-democratic iron fisted tyrant.


Other then a haircut, what actually separates the hereditary Organa Dynasty from the Kim Dynasty in the DPRK???


B.) The Rebel Alliance is seeking to impose a state-sponsored religion (Jedi), which will be presided over by a member of the 'royal family', on the citizens of the nation, complete with state-sponsored "temples". Again, since The Empire has a state-sponsored religion of it's own (Sith) this would be a lateral move for the citizens of territories controlled by The Rebel Alliance.


In many ways, this makes the Rebel Alliance similar to the Iranian Council of the Islamic Revolution with the only difference being that the Rebel Alliance is seeking to impose 'Jedi' on all citizens instead of Islam...


In short, the inalienable right of people to live without the Government "make(ing) law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof" will not be respected by the Rebel Alliance.


C.) Where the Rebel Alliance is far worse then the Empire lies in the fact that members of the state-sponsored religious order of The Rebel Alliance, namely the Jedi, are free to use psychological-manipulation unlike anything seen on Earth ('Jedi-mind-tricks') to forcibly alter the beliefs and ideas held by citizens. The closest equivalent seen on earth would be a Maoist "Re-education Camp", except the Jedi are able to accomplish this in mere moments.


Members of the state-sponsored Jedi Religious Order even use this psychological-manipulation of citizens for mundane tasks, such as receiving a discount on vehicle parts (though they were unsuccessful in that case).


In short, the government the Rebel Alliance seeks to establish is willing to go way beyond violating the unalienable right of it's citizens to 'free speech' and actually alter their minds to remove "unapproved thoughts/ideas"... If that's not Orwellian, I don't know what is....

BOTH the Empire and the Rebel Alliance (and the DC Leviathan) fail to respect that basic, unalienable, rights of the citizens living within the territory they control, making both groups tyrannical and therefore "bad".


Since we've already seen four movies from the perspective of one of the tyrannical groups, making them appear 'justified', why not make a movie from the perspective of the other, tyrannical group???

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

A government is only "good" (or, more accurately, a "necessary evil", as opposed to an "intolerable one") when it respects the unalienable rights of the citizens who choose to elect that government and grant it limited powers.


Since neither the 'Empire' nor the 'Rebel Alliance' (nor the Washington Leviathan) respect the unalienable rights of the citizens living in the territories they occupy, neither (none) of them could be classified as "good guys", or even "necessary evils"...


https://s-media-cache-ak0.pinimg.com...aa82814a58.jpg

I really shouldn't bother going into detail for a person who looks at a multi-paragraph point-by-point rebuttal and cherry-picks one word around which they structure a repetition of their original points, but what the hell.

This is a long way from your earlier saying that Star Wars has the freedom to tell a more complex story about war due to being set in a fictitious universe. Besides, are you saying that a rebel group overthrowing a government is 100% guaranteed to turn out badly?

Because Bad Group #2 has built two planet-killers (and successfully used one of them) while Bad Group #1 has built zero planet-killers. Hell, if we're going to go ahead and factor in Force Awakens (which does effectively undermine a lot of your speculations as to how a Rebel-led government would turn out) then thirty years later the First Order built a third planet-killer while the Resistance/New Republic still hasn't resorted to doing so. How do you expect audiences to feel sympathetic towards the side whose most consistent motivation is maintaining their power through the threat of violence? Even if you introduce sympathetic individuals within the Empire's system, that still won't make the system look any better since the amount of work to make Empire characters sympathetic would ultimately make the Empire itself look worse.

This is working under the presumption that there was anything genuinely benevolent about the Empire's government, which was definitely not democratic (as reflected by Palpatine changing the Republic to an Empire in Episode III and the senate-dissolving in Episode IV) and were shown to be pretty reliant on using fear to enslave the masses (not just through the Death Star but also by being able to force Lando into betraying Han). The Rebels have no greater established goal than to see an end to the Empire's regime, so to speculate that they would automatically use any newfound power for the worst based on real-life revolutions is a dubious proposition (and, again, disproved by Force Awakens).

Never mind how weird monarchy is in Star Wars (the Queen of Naboo is an elected official instead of hereditary, for example), what makes you so sure that this would be the case? Force Awakens establishes the existence of a New Republic instead of any kind of monarchy (hereditary or otherwise), so the idea that it would turn out anything like North Korea is not only hollow speculation but also factually incorrect.

The Empire never state-sponsored the Sith - in the OT there are only two known Sith in both Palpatine and Vader and even then their rarity is such that one Death Star official actually tries to mock the Sith to Vader's face and gets force-choked (as seen in the "I find your lack of faith disturbing" clip I posted earlier). The idea that the Rebels would try to turn Jedi into a state religion is also an absurd one because of how the Jedi order operates (only taking on the most Force-powered individuals as knights, so it's not like anyone can just join), and as Force Awakens establishes the only new temple that got started (by Luke Skywalker, no less) is soon destroyed from within by Kylo Ren anyway for reasons that have nothing to do with the Jedi being an inherently wrong concept.

You seriously overestimate Jedi mind tricks. Not only do they "only work on the weak-minded" (and certain alien species are shown to be immune to them anyway) but their use in the series tends to come from moments of desperation, such as trying to bypass suspicious Stormtroopers or acquire spaceship parts in order to escape from their murderous enemies. Sure, there's Obi-Wan telling a random dude selling "death sticks" in a seedy nightclub in Clones to "go home and rethink his life", but do you really want to put that on par with forcible and permanent re-education? This is part of why there's an Order in the first place - so the people with this power know how to control it and use it properly (if they use it at all). This is like comparing a police force to a death squad simply because they have access to weapons that can (and do) kill people. Plus, you're still dependent on the hypothesis that the Rebels would use the Jedi like this.

Only a Sith deals in absolutes.

Just to reiterate - the Empire blew up multiple planets, killed democracy, ordered genocides, ran armies made of clones and slaves, started wars for their own selfish and short-sighted ends, allowed crime lords like Jabba to thrive, and have been the leading cause of chaos in the galaxy for decades on end. In any case, you've spent a lot of time talking about how you think the Rebels would be bad for the galaxy (many of which are unfounded or contradicted within the text - the existence of The Force Awakens disproves a lot of your arguments, so I'm wondering if you have seen it) and arguing that the Rebels are just as bad as the Empire, but you still haven't laid out a good case for why we should care about an Empire movie. Assuming that your point about both sides being just as bad as one another is true, that just raises the question as to why we should care about who ultimately wins. As I said earlier, making Empire-sided individuals sympathetic would be difficult (if not impossible) because they are working towards helping a government that has been shown to be evil over the course of at least four or five movies, so the question shouldn't be "why not make an Empire movie" so much as "how can you make an Empire movie".

The Rebel Alliance isn't a government.

That movie is a masterpiece of animated short. Its very much like otaku manga in it's indulgence in the pleasure of the lines.

In Brazil nobody regards the Allied bombings of Dresden, Tokyo, Hiroshima, and Nagasaki as legitimate. Anyway, in Star Wars it's very clear that they shoot down Alderaan in order to torture Princess Leia into releasing information. That means that they were willing to kill billions of innocent people in order to get some information from one person. :eek:

That's extremely evil. Also, it's pretty clear that the Death Star is a weapon designed to kill massive number of civilians, in a galaxy that is controlled by the Galactic Empire, which means its a weapon designed to kill civilians in the territories it controls, in order to crush rebellions.

That means the territories under it's control are not satisfied with the Empire's government, since the Empire has decided to keep these territories under control through the thread of using weapons of mass destruction on them. This is a pretty horrible government if you ask me.

So I think that the rebels are obviously a reaction to the fact that this government is pretty horrible and hence they are probably trying to displace this government with something better (which is not hard).

*looks at thread*

This thread does not deserve TIE Fighter to support it's arguments.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I think the DARK SIDE vs the LIGHT SIDE makes it pretty clear.

*Drops mic*

But that's obviously Rebel propaganda according to the OP.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

If this is what the world really is, just this... then maybe I should fade back into darkness. If the world is made of light and darkness, we'll be the darkness.

I'd buy that if Vader and Palpatine didn't also use the same phrases.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I'll be interested to see how OP responds to that - if they respond.

I find your lack of faith disturbing.

Kingdom Hearts II :up:

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Wouldn't it just be kind of like space 9/11?

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Obligatory:

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

That's what I was borrowing (*cough, stealing) from.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

The thread author completely avoided my "because they destroyed planets" example twice. Then started talking about the Constitution, which Im sure was the agenda all along. :rolleyes: Whats really embarrassing though is how much serious response he got from such long winded nonsense. If someone seriously cant see how the Empire were the "bad guys" in the Star Wars franchise, they need to be living in a psychiatric facility.

To be fair, OP did acknowledge the "blowing up planets" thing on page one - my guess is that they thought their "maybe Alderaan secretly deserved it" line of reasoning was all that they felt needed to be said about the matter and so they don't see any point in repeating that particular point even when it gets challenged again and again. In any case, I'm not sure it's been worth the effort - I feel like this is going to end up being one of those things where one side thinks they're right because the other side gives up on trying to counter their arguments.

I missed his answer to my question then or I wouldnt have repeated it. Sifting thru that mess didnt look appealing to me.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Y'know... I think the aliens in Independence Day, even though it's thoroughly explained that they simply go from planet to planet consuming every natural resource... I think, they're the good guys.


I think, that their planet was blown up... and they simply have to go from place to place, doing what they do, to survive.


Yeah... the aliens in ID4 are the goodies... and us hoomuns are total bastards for stopping them from ensuring their survival.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Y'know... I think the demon in The Exorcist, even though it's thoroughly explained that it exists to corrupt the innocent... I think, its really the good guy.


I think, That to survive, it has to go from child to child, simply to survive.

Yeah... the demon in Exorcist is the good guy... and us hoomuns are total bastards for stopping it from ensuring its own survival.

I suppose that's fair - I thought you were just trying to emphasise it because it really is the major sticking point in any kind of pro-Empire argument. I wonder if that had the adverse effect of convincing the OP not to bother responding because they think that bringing up the planet-destroying again and again is a weak and illogical argument that they've obviously already addressed with their specious "Alderaan deserved to die" logic (which I argued against in a post that got roundly ignored anyway).

Hans Gruber was the real good guy in Die Hard because his terrorist plot (carried out by a multi-national team, no less) was targeted at a Japanese corporation that was obviously trying to destroy good old-fashioned American ideals through its hiring of drug-addled sellouts and forcing women to choose working fancy high-paying jobs over playing housewife to schlubby blue-collar husbands.

If countries can makes up excuses for dropping bombs on cities full of innocent people, a planet isn't all that far off.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Has anyone ever come in here, made a thread so outlandish as this, get a tidalwave of argument against it, but the OP actually acknowledge the argument and change their mind? Ever? :nope:

I might try it one day.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I haven't even read this thread? Who's winning:p

In a general sense, I don't think people change their minds from online discussions.

Although, I will admit that my views on some subjects have "evolved" after debates and reading the views of others.

This reminds me of a friend who told me, "You just want to argue with everything I say," and I responded that at least it meant I was listening, and since I was listening then I would be ruminating on what they said later. And I would. For everyone I'd debate, I'd later reflect on their views and what they had to say ... and in some way, their views would have an impact. They may not make me change my mind, but they would enlighten me to consider the thoughts, positions & perspectives of others.

For forums like this - I think the arguing is part of the fun. I think people come here to express themselves, argue with the expressions of others, get feedback and socialize (it's so much easier in a virtual realm rather than with "real" people face to face - there's so much preparation involved.... bathing, shaving, dressing, making sure you smell nice, etc.) ;)

I know it's neither the time nor the place, but I always love the argument clinic sketch...

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XNkjDuSVXiE

Ideally, that would be the case where one side doesn't necessarily have to "win" but people on both sides can at least grow a little from the experience. The idea that one side must "win" over the other (regardless of whether or not it is genuinely right) is inherently damaging to the idea of discourse because then the act of debating become less about being receptive to other viewpoints as it is about forcing others to see your viewpoint no matter what. OP's stance towards debating apparently leans towards the latter as they don't engage with those who straight-up disagree (or at least don't engage to any worthwhile degree - case in point, their post about the word "dissenters"). I don't necessarily agree with the idea of debating being "fun" - that may be the case if we're talking something trivial like who would win in a fight between Batman and Superman but I think if the topic gets a little more serious then I question anyone who gets into heated debates simply for fun because it implies that they have no interest in proper discussion beyond amusing and/or validating themselves.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

All good points, Iroquois. I enjoy debating at times, but I pretty much stick to subjects I'm either interested in or feel passionately about. I don't argue with people just to argue, however, I find agreeing usually makes for very short conversations. ;)

:up: Agreed, but I would say that I enjoy discussions of bigger topics too (though it requires someone equally competent to handle that sort of discussion calmly and rationally) because that sort of deeper, more serious discourse can be a challenge.

My religious debate with Yoda has been very revealing and has forced me to re-evaluate some of my stances and I'm glad for it.

I have seem this argument more than once on the internet. However, after thinking about it I concluded the Empire was evil based on their actions in the movies. More specifically, on their use of weapons of mass destruction to keep order in their own territories: that's like the US government using nukes on it's own cities in order to keep the states from trying to rebel. Of course, that is fundamentally different from an open rebellion where the rebel parts are technically enemies.

Stalin, by the way, is someone who did something like this back in the 1930's in Ukraine: he killed 4-5 million people there from hunger in order to keep the region under tight Soviet control.

Could this have something to do with the fact that a significant portion of Brazil's current ruling-class are the direct descendants of one or more clone of a former German leader, bred in Nazi controlled towns like Candido Godoi, Brazil and Bariloche, Argentina, or even produced more conventionally (through sex) by one of the many German leaders, such as Josef Mengele, who escaped to Brazil??? Even though these people are clones, descendants, or the descendants of clones, it makes sense that they would object to the destruction of the cities controlled by their 'original', or allies of the 'original' for selfish reasons since the destruction of these cities diminished the power of their 'original' and his allies...


http://3.bp.blogspot.com/_-nmpEaAYNW...ombrazil06.jpg

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

DUN DUN DUN.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Oh noo not again.........

Once you destroy a planet of peaceful defenseless inhabitants, you are the "bad guy". :rolleyes:

If you feel any code of ethics or laws override that reality, you-need-help.

Oh, for the love of...

Consider the possibility that the Brazilians are willing to recognise that the Allies were simply not justified in carrying out such devastating attacks against civilian targets, which is a perfectly reasonable perspective that has nothing to do with Nazi clone conspiracies (which means you've invoked Godwin's Law and are now somehow even harder to take seriously).

Also, try acknowledging the rest of the thread sometime.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Iroquois' Razor.

Actually, as the included graphic was meant to show, Poe's Law, and not Godwin's Law was to be applied to the 'Boys From Brazil' post, especially since it makes reference to a conspiracy theory popularized by a movie on a movie forum.


http://i0.kym-cdn.com/photos/images/...1/688/6obe.jpg


Any sane person should be able to figure out that 'WWII' never happened and what we see was filmed on sound stages by men like Steven Spielberg (staring Tom Hanks)....




(This is Poe's Law, again)...

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

You'll forgive me if I didn't immediately recognise signs of Poe's Law, but considering the other posts you've already made in this thread it is very hard to tell exactly what you may or may not take seriously.

NO FRIGGEN' KIDDING.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I saw one theoretical paper, likening the Jedi to a religious cult.

Luke, a good hardworking boy in a rural area, leaves his home in flames to follow a old man who believes that his religion (that no one has ever heard of) is the one true way. At the will of the old man, Luke fights against his government (the empire) and ends up killing his own father.

Thats that story of a hell of a lot of cults.

Im not saying the empire is good, just saying that right and wrong is relative to your viewpoint.

As if anyone would really bump this turd of a thread :rolleyes:

He's got a point, the story can be spun negatively (like lotsa stories).

My dig is the "right and wrong is relative to your viewpoint" part. The hell it is.

This is incredible, it's like the most bigoted thing I ever read in my life. It's more moronic than anything else I read on the internet and that's quite a feat. As I quote Einstein below:

http://izquotes.com/quotes-pictures/...tein-56412.jpg

Never doubt the immensity of human stupidity.

And then Americans complain why the world thinks they are ignorant. :rolleyes:

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

Jesus Christ, Guap. He's so obviously a troll, if you couldn't tell from this absurd thread and his posts in it then he also made multiple posts saying Bill Clinton got his daughter pregnant.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

I'm lost...

The OP was a trollish Alt-Right guy that loved conspiracy theories such as incest in the Clinton family. He left the forum presumedly so this thread is old news now.

Re: 'Star Wars' from the perspective of the Empire???
 

They should delete this thread and the other ones he made. Otherwise some "new member" will bump them again.

I think we should just close the comments. These are good relics to keep and laugh at every now and then.