The Case for Remaking Star Wars
Nov. 3rd, 2015 03:03 pm![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
wingedbeastAlright, I've poked my fun, pointed out some problems. It's only right that I try to come up with something better.
The root problem I see in the Star Wars movies, both trilogies, is that they mistake the nature of the conflict between
Jedi and Sith.
Disclaimers: This going to take a lot of analysis and it's going to involve discussion of some Eastern Philosophy, mixing from different sides of a continent that makes other continents look small. Not only is this a lot of culture to smoosh into this conversation, I have a dramatically amateur understanding of the philosophies. I'm not going to go into depth, here. And, do not treat what I say as real knowledge but, if you are interested, a reason to research for yourself.
The Jedi aren't as Buddhist as we might think. There's a heavy influence of "knightly" honor in them. This kind of knightliness focuses on rightness of action, of emotion, and of self-denial. And, this kind of knight stems from cultures, both European and Asian, that had a view of morality rightness that involved ritual, place, position, and the responsibility to only feel the right emotions with regards to those rituals, places, and positions.
If I'm to make the Jedi a representation of a conflict within the sentient soul, I'm not going to make them "good". I fully expect them to believe they're on the side of good, and talk about Force-based matters in terms of "Light Side" and "Dark Side". But, their true side in a human soul is what some might call the Hun, or civilized self.
The Sith we see in, so far, all of the movies are more caricature than character. The things we do see about their philosophy is that they're more accepting of attachment and passion. It's just that the movies only focus on hate, rather than other potential emotions. This could be a result of the fact that we're only seeing up to four Sith, and all the students of one Sith. Or, it could be that we're just not getting a good report on them, because the movies are obviously pro-Jedi.
In what little I know of the EU, the Sith Creed starts "Peace is a lie, there is only passion". That's dangerous, yes, but it's worth noting that peace isn't always the preferable state. There can be such a thing as a bad peace, the peace of slavery, for instance, isn't actually a conflict... but neither is it acceptable.
So, the Sith can't be the "evil" side of the human soul. To put that in terms of what little I know of Eastern Philosophy, they are the side of the P'o, or bestial self.
Unlike the conflict between good and evil, it would be a disaster if either Hun or P'o wins. It's very easy to see the P'o as evil, because it is dangerous and selfish and prone to lashing out if it doesn't get what it wants. But, it should be noted that it is the part that wants, that loves. It's very easy to see the Hun as good, but... a quick story.
A chef is very devoted to his master. In that devotion, he has sought to make sure that his master has feasted on everything available. He's plied the obvious goose and duck and beef. He's sought and stretched to find guinea pig. He's plied his ability to make a good meal of cat. One day, he hears his master brag of him. "My chef has made sure I have eaten everything but human." The chef summons his son and readies his kitchen, to repair that oversight.
Yes, the chef might live in a world that has rules against such things, but in the absence of such social and official rules, the P'o would love his son enough to refuse, even if that was suggested.
So, the matter isn't "good must defeat evil" but rather "Hun and P'o naturally conflict, but must live in balance."
It's okay for the Jedi to mistake this conflict for good against evil. It's okay for the movies to deceive the audience to that effect. It's not okay for the movies to believe that is the conflict.
With that in mind, we can make minor modifications to the original trilogy, and major improvements to the prequel trilogy.
The original trilogy *can* operate as shown. We're only shown two Sith, one who was trained by the other. And, we're only shown two Jedi (aside from Luke), one who lies to Luke about his father and the other who's willing to let people die in the service of Jedi defeating Sith.
But, we can have some changes. Yes, we need to know what The Force is, but we also need at least a touch more explanation of the Jedi philosophy and way of life. The asceticism needs to be shown, as well as the power. So, the training should include meditation exercises. And, instead of merely saying "stretch out with your feelings", a touch more is required.
"Look past your emotions, your eagerness, your frustration. Those merely confuse you. Look past them and you can feel The Force."
We also need just a bit more of a glance to history in the original trilogy. "A more civilized time" shouldn't be our only idea, but also how the Jedi fit into that "more civilized time". They protected Kings and Queens and protected civilizations from being destroyed, protected traditions from being lost, governments from being toppled. This is still a very rosy view, because it's Obi-Wan's.
In the second movie, we need to know more about Darth Vader, and more temptation toward's Luke, than just this offer of a father. On top of "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father", there should be "Obi Wan could never understand the ways of the Sith, the power to be had in one's passions, the good we can do when we finally allow ourselves to be
emotional beings." This way we have a Sith that doesn't see itself as evil.
In the third movie, the speech given to Luke at the end, about letting the hate flow through one... why? Seriously, from
Emperor Palpatine's perspective, why give that speech? It's not a speech that would be likely to convince Luke to join him, but one that would reinforce the "Sith are evil and I shouldn't join them" image Luke already has. If this is meant to be a temptation, let's rework that a bit.
"Yes, I feel the anger, the hate in you. Feel those emotions, they *are* you. They are the very power of a Sith, let yourself feel that, Luke!"
These are minor changes, but the point is to keep up the action but also open up the notion that the Sith philosophy might, to some people, actually have some allure.
The big difference is the prequel trilogy. The prequel trilogy, I can honestly say, gets almost all of it wrong. Sure, we can have the advice, from Yoda, to "mourn them not" and his refusal to train Anikan because "I sense in you much fear". But, the rest of it... yeah.
The prequel trilogy shouldn't be a straightforward story of a single person falling into evil. Instead, it should be a more complex story of an idealistic young Jedi-in-training becoming disillusioned with the Jedi philosophy and way of life.
Sure, the exciting story to save the princess is nice, but it should be tempered with people from Naboo who, quite reasonably, challenge the wisdom of sticking to a Monarchy basis of government. The Republic should be rife with classicism. A Great Chain of Being mentality whereby people are in their place and it's for their own good. But, in the first movie of the prequel trilogy, this should be presented much like idealized fantasy movies do with their own fantastic kingdoms... at first.
In the first movie, there should be hints for those who want to look for them and the start of a relationship between a Jedi and a Princess.
In the second movie, yes, the relationship has to be hidden. No, frolicking shouldn't be the order of the day. But, schism in the relationship should be the order of the day. Anikan should see the effects, as should the Princess. It's their different reactions that should set the stage for the schism.
The Princess sees it as her duty to address these problems, now having seen the suffering caused by slavery and caste-enforcement with her very eyes. Anikan sees the argument that even a "good" monarchy will still have these problems, they'd just be softer problems.
She believes that the problem is that of wrong action and wrong emotion, something that a good leader may fix. He sees the problem as one of the bonds of classism and what she and the Jedi call "rightness" at the heart of it. He's starting to see the necessity of people being strong enough to break their chains.
In the final movie, we see the overtaking of the Republic as a good thing. The Jedi philosophical domination isn't any better, from the perspective of the average citizen, than Sith domination. Revolution was essential in both cases.
And, that would set the scene for the sequel trilogy, in which two factions, one of Sith philosophy and one of Jedi philosophy (though not all or even primarily Force Users) vie for leadership. Our protagonists would learn of each and become the third faction that steps in between the two. The choice is simple, both are involved in the politics and culture of the new interplanetary-nation, or neither. If one wins in the battle, they are killed. A society cannot survive out of balance.
It won't be entirely that easy, of course. Balance isn't the only consideration, it has to be a healthy balance. But, no imbalance will be allowed.
(Repeat note: I probably got a lot of stuff wrong in my meager understanding of philosophy. So, feel free to correct me on the matter, in addition to any other discussion.)
The root problem I see in the Star Wars movies, both trilogies, is that they mistake the nature of the conflict between
Jedi and Sith.
Disclaimers: This going to take a lot of analysis and it's going to involve discussion of some Eastern Philosophy, mixing from different sides of a continent that makes other continents look small. Not only is this a lot of culture to smoosh into this conversation, I have a dramatically amateur understanding of the philosophies. I'm not going to go into depth, here. And, do not treat what I say as real knowledge but, if you are interested, a reason to research for yourself.
The Jedi aren't as Buddhist as we might think. There's a heavy influence of "knightly" honor in them. This kind of knightliness focuses on rightness of action, of emotion, and of self-denial. And, this kind of knight stems from cultures, both European and Asian, that had a view of morality rightness that involved ritual, place, position, and the responsibility to only feel the right emotions with regards to those rituals, places, and positions.
If I'm to make the Jedi a representation of a conflict within the sentient soul, I'm not going to make them "good". I fully expect them to believe they're on the side of good, and talk about Force-based matters in terms of "Light Side" and "Dark Side". But, their true side in a human soul is what some might call the Hun, or civilized self.
The Sith we see in, so far, all of the movies are more caricature than character. The things we do see about their philosophy is that they're more accepting of attachment and passion. It's just that the movies only focus on hate, rather than other potential emotions. This could be a result of the fact that we're only seeing up to four Sith, and all the students of one Sith. Or, it could be that we're just not getting a good report on them, because the movies are obviously pro-Jedi.
In what little I know of the EU, the Sith Creed starts "Peace is a lie, there is only passion". That's dangerous, yes, but it's worth noting that peace isn't always the preferable state. There can be such a thing as a bad peace, the peace of slavery, for instance, isn't actually a conflict... but neither is it acceptable.
So, the Sith can't be the "evil" side of the human soul. To put that in terms of what little I know of Eastern Philosophy, they are the side of the P'o, or bestial self.
Unlike the conflict between good and evil, it would be a disaster if either Hun or P'o wins. It's very easy to see the P'o as evil, because it is dangerous and selfish and prone to lashing out if it doesn't get what it wants. But, it should be noted that it is the part that wants, that loves. It's very easy to see the Hun as good, but... a quick story.
A chef is very devoted to his master. In that devotion, he has sought to make sure that his master has feasted on everything available. He's plied the obvious goose and duck and beef. He's sought and stretched to find guinea pig. He's plied his ability to make a good meal of cat. One day, he hears his master brag of him. "My chef has made sure I have eaten everything but human." The chef summons his son and readies his kitchen, to repair that oversight.
Yes, the chef might live in a world that has rules against such things, but in the absence of such social and official rules, the P'o would love his son enough to refuse, even if that was suggested.
So, the matter isn't "good must defeat evil" but rather "Hun and P'o naturally conflict, but must live in balance."
It's okay for the Jedi to mistake this conflict for good against evil. It's okay for the movies to deceive the audience to that effect. It's not okay for the movies to believe that is the conflict.
With that in mind, we can make minor modifications to the original trilogy, and major improvements to the prequel trilogy.
The original trilogy *can* operate as shown. We're only shown two Sith, one who was trained by the other. And, we're only shown two Jedi (aside from Luke), one who lies to Luke about his father and the other who's willing to let people die in the service of Jedi defeating Sith.
But, we can have some changes. Yes, we need to know what The Force is, but we also need at least a touch more explanation of the Jedi philosophy and way of life. The asceticism needs to be shown, as well as the power. So, the training should include meditation exercises. And, instead of merely saying "stretch out with your feelings", a touch more is required.
"Look past your emotions, your eagerness, your frustration. Those merely confuse you. Look past them and you can feel The Force."
We also need just a bit more of a glance to history in the original trilogy. "A more civilized time" shouldn't be our only idea, but also how the Jedi fit into that "more civilized time". They protected Kings and Queens and protected civilizations from being destroyed, protected traditions from being lost, governments from being toppled. This is still a very rosy view, because it's Obi-Wan's.
In the second movie, we need to know more about Darth Vader, and more temptation toward's Luke, than just this offer of a father. On top of "Obi Wan never told you what happened to your father", there should be "Obi Wan could never understand the ways of the Sith, the power to be had in one's passions, the good we can do when we finally allow ourselves to be
emotional beings." This way we have a Sith that doesn't see itself as evil.
In the third movie, the speech given to Luke at the end, about letting the hate flow through one... why? Seriously, from
Emperor Palpatine's perspective, why give that speech? It's not a speech that would be likely to convince Luke to join him, but one that would reinforce the "Sith are evil and I shouldn't join them" image Luke already has. If this is meant to be a temptation, let's rework that a bit.
"Yes, I feel the anger, the hate in you. Feel those emotions, they *are* you. They are the very power of a Sith, let yourself feel that, Luke!"
These are minor changes, but the point is to keep up the action but also open up the notion that the Sith philosophy might, to some people, actually have some allure.
The big difference is the prequel trilogy. The prequel trilogy, I can honestly say, gets almost all of it wrong. Sure, we can have the advice, from Yoda, to "mourn them not" and his refusal to train Anikan because "I sense in you much fear". But, the rest of it... yeah.
The prequel trilogy shouldn't be a straightforward story of a single person falling into evil. Instead, it should be a more complex story of an idealistic young Jedi-in-training becoming disillusioned with the Jedi philosophy and way of life.
Sure, the exciting story to save the princess is nice, but it should be tempered with people from Naboo who, quite reasonably, challenge the wisdom of sticking to a Monarchy basis of government. The Republic should be rife with classicism. A Great Chain of Being mentality whereby people are in their place and it's for their own good. But, in the first movie of the prequel trilogy, this should be presented much like idealized fantasy movies do with their own fantastic kingdoms... at first.
In the first movie, there should be hints for those who want to look for them and the start of a relationship between a Jedi and a Princess.
In the second movie, yes, the relationship has to be hidden. No, frolicking shouldn't be the order of the day. But, schism in the relationship should be the order of the day. Anikan should see the effects, as should the Princess. It's their different reactions that should set the stage for the schism.
The Princess sees it as her duty to address these problems, now having seen the suffering caused by slavery and caste-enforcement with her very eyes. Anikan sees the argument that even a "good" monarchy will still have these problems, they'd just be softer problems.
She believes that the problem is that of wrong action and wrong emotion, something that a good leader may fix. He sees the problem as one of the bonds of classism and what she and the Jedi call "rightness" at the heart of it. He's starting to see the necessity of people being strong enough to break their chains.
In the final movie, we see the overtaking of the Republic as a good thing. The Jedi philosophical domination isn't any better, from the perspective of the average citizen, than Sith domination. Revolution was essential in both cases.
And, that would set the scene for the sequel trilogy, in which two factions, one of Sith philosophy and one of Jedi philosophy (though not all or even primarily Force Users) vie for leadership. Our protagonists would learn of each and become the third faction that steps in between the two. The choice is simple, both are involved in the politics and culture of the new interplanetary-nation, or neither. If one wins in the battle, they are killed. A society cannot survive out of balance.
It won't be entirely that easy, of course. Balance isn't the only consideration, it has to be a healthy balance. But, no imbalance will be allowed.
(Repeat note: I probably got a lot of stuff wrong in my meager understanding of philosophy. So, feel free to correct me on the matter, in addition to any other discussion.)
no subject
Date: 2015-11-05 06:07 pm (UTC)But this is quite brilliant, well-thought-out and well-written! Yes! :D :D :D
no subject
Date: 2015-11-07 12:38 am (UTC)I think Star Wars should be an epic (or myth, not sure what the right term is) about good and evil. (Making it also about "passion vs peace" was imho a bad idea of the EU.) In our world, every day, humans choose evil over good, despite not wanting to be evil in most cases. Admittedly, many moral conflicts in our world are about wrong vs wrong or right vs right, but Star Wars focuses on right vs wrong. It asks the question: "Why do people choose evil over good?" and "Why do people choose good over evil?".
For that we need the Jedi to be good and the Sith to be evil, as well as the Old Republic to be good and the Empire to be evil, without much ambiguity.
The prequel trilogy would explain how a good person (Anakin Skywalker) can become evil. And also how a good society (the Republic) can become evil.
The main trilogy would be about why and how someone (on an individual and societal level) would resist and choose good despite evil being in the position of power.
The sequel trilogy would explain how an evil society becomes a good society. And perhaps also how an evil person becomes a good person.
Now the challenge is to create a universe in which there is no argument about what good is and what evil is. But at the same time it shouldn't be too much of a caricature. Ideally someone who watches Star Wars would see good and evil in its distilled forms there and then be better equipped to choose good over evil in its muddled forms in real life.
(However, right now, I can't really say how the respective philosophies of Sith and Jedi, of Empire and Republic would look in detail.)
- Photon (I don't think I can sign in with my google/disqus account here)
no subject
Date: 2015-11-07 09:27 pm (UTC)In fact, whatever you wind up creating, and whatever story you wind up telling, will require having the "evil" side not so evil and having the "good" side not so good. And, then I'll just have more fodder for my Black Hat Brigade episodes.
Instead of good-v-evil, a question of philosophies, even wherein one philosophy is, by conventional morality, on the "wrong" side has more opportunity to be real to the moral choices we make and the moral reality in which we live.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-08 12:35 am (UTC)In case you are interested, I have thought a little about how I would remake some concepts of Star Wars. It's not much currently, but if I start from the premise Jedi=good and Sith/Darksiders=evil then I come to this:
The Force is created by all living things and connects all living things. Through the Force one can sense all life to varying degrees. (I'm uncertain if I should make the ability to feel the Force genetic or just a matter of a fair bit of training.) If there are life forms suffering, while others profit from that suffering, imbalances in the Force are created. The details still need some polishing, but the gist is that if there are too much conflict and injustice the one who listens to the Force notices it. And since that is a somewhat unpleasant experience, they will want to correct it. So basically the Force allows for supernatural empathy.
There are two paths to the dark side from there. The first is that if one's own emotions are strong/loud enough, they will drown out others. That's why Jedi learn to calm their own emotions, so they can hear. And that is why some Darksiders might try to cultivate their own emotions, so they can ignore and cause harm as they wish. Or instead of using their own emotions they might train themselves to disregard the emotions and suffering of others, while still perceiving it.
I guess this is more a conflict of perception and not philosophies. As I said, work in progress.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-08 05:27 am (UTC)In the TV show, Trigun, during flashbacks, there's a bit where one brother's trying to save a fly from a spider-web, very delicate work. The other brother just reaches in and kills the fly. The other brother, quite callously, identifies that the choice is between the fly's suffering and the spider's.
Well, reality can be a lot like that. In terms of the sentient, it's rarely as cut and dry as one must die so the the other can eat the one's flesh. It's still there.
The ever-strong call to be "polite" and let things happen "gradually", these seem nice because they seek to avoid conflict. In reality, they're often used to "nicely" block civil rights advancements on the basis of not rocking the boat or not causing pain.
So, either blocking the emotions of others or disregarding them, both would be essential to not doing more long-term harm to communities, cultures, entire ecologies.
In the end, going into the extreme, as you must in order to make the difference stark, you wind up with just the same as my issue with the Star Wars universe that we see, that Sith are evil and Jedi are not-as-obvious-but-still-evil.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-08 05:33 pm (UTC)This could get quite interesting in the time of the Empire. When the Galaxy is so f*cked up that listening to it through the Force becomes increasingly painful, Jedi might be hesitant to do it. Perhaps this is the reason why the Rebellion is primarily made up of non-Force-users. I could also see Jedi who join the Rebellion falling to the dark side because of it. They would still work against the Empire, but in a similar way to the Punisher.
The Jedi are made for a "more civilized age" where the overall situation is good and many bad things can be treated as exceptions.
(Sidenote: While I do want Star Wars to be a story of good and evil, that doesn't mean it should be a story of good v evil. It always has been, to a large degree, about character's movement on the good-evil-scale.)
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 05:29 pm (UTC)In the European Renaissance, and even in the beginnings of America, that "more civilized" age was ancient Greece. Some idealize the Antebellum South. Today, even though it's getting farther and farther away, that "more civilized" age is the 50s or just some other version of the Council of Plancus. Those "more civilized" ages are, in fact, ages where we had more privilege and weren't as scared and the people without privilege were not as recorded or remembered as they are right now.
A Jedi or other force-sensitive would not be living in a good world in that old Republic, not if it's shown anything close to realistically. They'd be living in a world where they have a contradiction between their supernatural (for lack of a better word) empathy and all of their other senses. Either they have to dull themselves to it, find some way to believe that it's actually for the best, or they have to be the ones looking to change things.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 08:00 pm (UTC)I don't know about that. The question is if it is possible to create a plausible scenario (or suspend disbelief) for two things:
1. That all technological and social progress that is possible with the limitations of the Star Wars galaxy has been made long ago.
2. That galactic society could loose what it has achieved and become an oppressive system like the Empire.
The first definitely doesn't seem unrealistic to me. On the contrary, I hope humanity will reach this point some time in the future. The second is a little harder to imagine for me, but still doesn't seem impossible.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 08:37 pm (UTC)But, also that said society would be nothing like what we have in Star Wars, which has its own roots, as an idea, in classical fantasy myth, which is all over absolute monarchies and people staying in their place, and the evils being when the leader is illegitimate, not horrible or incompetant, regardless of technical legitimacy.
And, let's say you manage to create a society where there is total social justice. Nobody's locked in either official or unofficial class. Nobody's denied education. Nobody's denied opportunity. Everybody has a legitimate chance to fulfill their ambitions. What reason would someone have to want to undo that?
There's very little in the way of identifiable reason. You'd be left with the exact opposite of what you're going for, people who think that morality demands their own more restrictive and absolutist notions (so, not knowingly evil) or the caricature (evil for the sake of evil).
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 10:27 pm (UTC)But, also that said society would be nothing like what we have in Star Wars, which has its own roots, as an idea, in classical fantasy myth, which is all over absolute monarchies and people staying in their place, and the evils being when the leader is illegitimate, not horrible or incompetant, regardless of technical legitimacy.
I disagree rather strongly on that. Star Wars combines elements of the classical fantasy myth with revolutionary narratives. At least the B-story of the originals is about a diverse group of people trying to bring down an absolute monarchy to re-establish a republic.
And, let's say you manage to create a society where there is total social justice. Nobody's locked in either official or unofficial class. Nobody's denied education. Nobody's denied opportunity. Everybody has a legitimate chance to fulfill their ambitions. What reason would someone have to want to undo that?
Well, that is the thing I'm thinking about the most. I'd say that even if you created a galactic society that is as good as it can be, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to fulfill all their ambitions. Resources are limited, the system has to be sustainable, and sometimes your ambitions clash with the rights of others. But the system isn't rigged in anyone's favor. In that situation some people might want to change the system to increase their own chances.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-09 11:44 pm (UTC)1. Tried to create a hyperlink, apparently failed.
2. I probably misunderstood what you meant with the second paragraph.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 12:08 am (UTC)Not really. Leia is a princess. If Naboo hadn't been destroyed, she'd be a queen at the end, and could very well be a monarch of those that remain afterwords. The republic wasn't of democratically elected representatives, but a republic of... whatever government was already there.
Arguably, it was a classic "retake from the illegitimate for the legitimate" story.
"I'd say that even if you created a galactic society that is as good as it can be, that doesn't necessarily mean everyone will be able to fulfill all their ambitions. Resources are limited, the system has to be sustainable, and sometimes your ambitions clash with the rights of others. But the system isn't rigged in anyone's favor. In that situation some people might want to change the system to increase their own chances."
At which point you're saying one of two things. Either the Republic does have legitimate injustice within or the people (in which case, this is less "good v evil" and more "differing philosophies and needs that aren't getting negotiated properly") or there isn't and some people just want injustice in their own favor (in which we're getting into caricature).
It's very hard to come up with a "good" society that doesn't oversimplify matters and very hard to come up with an "evil" in such a society that doesn't go to caricature length. Which is why I often find that the base conflits aren't as much "good v evil" in general.
Heck, that's a large part of why I have a Black Hat Brigade series in the first place.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:35 pm (UTC)There is very little we actually know about it if we are going by the Originals alone. We know that the Old Republic had a Senate... and that's about it. Leia is a Princess (which might be an Imperial title instead of a Republic one, like "Lord Vader" and "Emperor"), but while the earliest ideas Lucas had have her becoming queen in the end, later script drafts have Obi-Wan say "Leia became a princess by virtue of lineage... no one knew she'd been adopted, of course. But it was a title without real power, since Alderaan* had long been a democracy. Even so, the family continued to be politically powerful, and Leia, following in her foster father's path, became a senator as well." which does probably imply some classism on Alderaan, but not an absolute monarchy. The movies themselves don't have either. The title crawl of ANH and RotJ both say that the Rebellion wants to "restore freedom to the galaxy" and they are referred to as "freedom fighters" in ESB's title crawl, though the word "freedom" can admittedly be somewhat ambiguous. RotJ also apparently wanted to make a point with the rebel pilots being diverse, though later they cut out the female pilots and some of the aliens pilots as well. (They do still have POC pilots.)
Arguably, it was a classic "retake from the illegitimate for the legitimate" story.
All in all I would say that the politics of the originals aren't really thought out and instead mostly made up of buzzwords/simple tropes from several genres. Which leads to "princesses" and "knights" (classical fantasy) fighting in a "rebellion" to "restore freedom" (as far as I know not classical fantasy).
or there isn't and some people just want injustice in their own favor (in which we're getting into caricature).
Okay, I wouldn't call all instances of this a caricarture, but YMMW. I wouldn't call Tarkin a caricature, for example, and "wants unjustice in his favor" is pretty much how I interpret his character. (And I somewhat suspect people like this exist in real life too, but maybe they don't.)
I do agree that it is quite hard to think up a good society or an evil society, but I'm giving it a try for Star Wars and also one of my original story ideas. (Though there I find it even harder to come up with a society that doesn't use the concepts good and evil at all.)
So I'll look forward to seeing my characters in the Black Hat Brigade :D
*Naboo is an entirely different case from Alderaan. It only appears in the prequels and is an elective monarchy where the queens (and kings) have fixed terms. (And unlike with Alderaan it's actually specified in the movie.) They also sometimes elect fourteen year olds for whatever reason.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 09:47 pm (UTC)Padme: I wasn't the youngest queen ever elected... but now that I think back on it, I'm not sure I was old enough. I'm not sure I was ready.
Anakin: The people you served thought you did a good job. I heard they even tried to amend the constitution so you could stay in office.
Padme: I was relieved when my two terms were up. But when the queen asked me to serve as senator... I couldn't refuse her.
Anakin: I agree with her. I think the Republic needs you. I'm glad that you chose to serve.
no subject
Date: 2015-11-10 10:21 pm (UTC)In this much, we agree. And, I suppose that it's the writers' attempt to define goodness in terms of this nebulous "Force" concept that we find them eventually mistaking the nature of the conflict.
I think the problem comes in that the "good-v-evil" conflict is always... easier. Just as it's easier to say "person X did evil thing because person X is evil and that's what evil people do". But, it's never accurate or true to life.
Good Vs. Evil
Date: 2017-08-11 02:22 am (UTC)I mean, I like complex characters, and think complex villains should be the default rather than the exception, but I also find simple Good vs. Evil stories fun.
-- Chronos
Re: Good Vs. Evil
Date: 2017-08-11 02:50 am (UTC)But, I honestly believe that they do us harm when we rely too much upon them.
It's all well and good to have a bit of fun, but we do train ourselves, as a culture, to view our world in such terms. So, when it comes to these Cases, I'm generally going to push away from simple Good Vs. Evil narratives because pushing for a society that treats even its foes as complex human beings is important.
That and, yes, I do see the Star Wars series is uniquely improved by this complexity. If it was just a single trilogy, then otherwise left alone, I might not bother. But, at the time the prequel trilogy had already been done and we were looking forward to a sequel trilogy and that makes that complexity all the more of a necessity.