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.
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...
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?
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!!!).
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.
'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.
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).
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???
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.
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.
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.
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....
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.
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".
Only a Sith deals in absolutes.
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???
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".
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"...
The Rebel Alliance isn't a government.