Check out this very interesting opinion piece from the Weekly Standard [weeklystandard.com], wherein the author argues - somewhat compellingly, too - that the "off-the-shelf" moral cues George Lucas provides in the "Star Wars" movies are flat-out wrong. The rebels, he argues, are the bad guys, while the empire are just a bunch of misunderstood capitalists.

Okay, that's a bit of an oversimplification, but go read it for yourself. I found it very intriguing, and although he glosses over a lot on the path to his conclusion and makes a fair number of only semi-reasonable assumptions, it's an interesting examination and an entertaining read.

Beeeej

I can't believe that guy forgot about the most compelling reasons to join the empire: snazzy costumes and snappy one-liners.

Meh... He's kind of on shaky ground with that. Just the line from Tarkin shows the Empire is bad. "Fear will keep the systems in line." Also, things like torture, murder and genocide made me think that the Empire = not good. Although, the Rebels aren't much better, considering the millions, perhaps billions, that dies when the Death Stars were destroyed.

In Response to Lonely Goatherd (#951):

I think actually debating this issue qualifies as taking it too seriously. I'd be surprised if the article were meant seriously; I'd be less surprised if the article were a humorous jab meant to annoy people who take Star Wars too seriously.

That said, I'm never one to pass up a chance to Take Something Too Seriously[tm], so here are my observations:

In a movie like Star Wars, where the entire setting -- and the characters, the political scene, and everything else -- are made up, it's a little tough to assign moral identities other than those imposed by the author. The author, after all, is free to do things like have the Bad Guys[tm] destroy a non-military planet as a show of force.

It seems to me that Star Wars tries to set up a morally black-and-white story. The empire is Evil, the rebellion is therefore Good, and we have a Struggle of Good Vs. Evil. In fact, it's notable to me that Lucas originally had one of the heroes (Han) on the borderline morally, but in the special edition elected to make him "less evil" by not letting him fire the first shot at Greedo.

Trying to write anything more than a children's story around a "pure Good vs. Evil" theme is bound to lead to some odd results. Sure the first Death Star was blown up in self defense, and the net effect was probably good. You might even argue that those on the Death Star were members of the Empire's military -- if you ignore the prisoners. Either way, that's a lot of killing... (Not, however, billions. The Death Star is a battle station the size of a small moon; that's not big enough for billions.)

I think the back-story trilogy (so far at least) has been afflicted with less of this pure-good-and-evil nastiness. Sure the Sith are still the Bad Guys and the Jedi are still the Good Guys, but this time around individual characters have more mixed moral traits, and there's no attempt to label entire political bodies the size of the galactic empire as Entirely Good or Entirely Evil.

Oddly enough, while this creates in some ways a more plausible setting for the story, the result has still been inferior to the original trilogy IMO.

Blasphemy! Apostate! (Always wanted to use that word) Heresy!

fnord.

Here's a question though: Say a thousand Original Star Trek redshirts were to beam aboard the Death Star and a pitched battle ensued against the dreaded Imperial Stormtroopers. Who wins? The Redshirts who Must Die or the Stormtroopers That Can't Shoot for Beans?

Here is where I have major problems with his arguement:
"Palpatine is a dictator--but a relatively benign one, like Pinochet"
Benign is not a word I'd use to describe Pinochet, even in a relative sense. Perhaps if capitalism is your highest ideal, being someone you can do business with makes up for total disregard of human rights (or I guess it should be sentient being rights, in the case of Star Wars).
The writer also says that order is the most important thing, and compares the post-empire galaxy to Somalia. If you ask me, it could also be compared to Afganistan. The Taliban, much like the empire, kept order at a high price. Does he believe they were justified? Does that make the new regime, and the U.S. which helped them, evil anarchists?
Politics aside, though, Star Wars is a story. With the possible exeption of episode IV, it isn't even a story for its own sake. It is a story designed to sell movie tickets and action figures and fast food endorsements. There is no absolute truth. There is a vague plotline squeezed in around entertaining special effects. So any analysis of moral rightness in the story's reality has to take into consideration that it is a reality based on snappy one-liners and impressive explosions. And that it is intended for entertainment and/or the enhancing of George Lucas' bank account, and not really for moral analysis.

In Response to annabanana (#1273):

In fairness to Lucas, the plot for the original trilogy (and the backstory notes on which the current movies are being based) had already been laid out when the first movie was made. So yeah, the success of the first one (and realization that there was a major toy market to be created) probably played into the decision to make the next two movies, but that can't really be said to have motivated the writing of the story.

But that aside, I agree that trying to apply real-world moral analysis to a fictional story like Star Wars -- especially Ep IV, V, and VI, in which the "sides" are mostly one-dimensional and contrived -- is misguided.

That's not to say that moral philosophy and fiction can't mix. Took a course in my senior year at Rolla that was all about applying philosophy to films (and vice versa), and while it was a relatively light-weight course, it did come together better than you'd think.

In Response to jwomack94 (#1225):

Oh come on. The redshirts would throw themselves into the path of the stormtrooper's shots.

In Response to jwomack94 (#1225):

I once read a fanfic that addressed this issue. Darth Vader dropped a piano on the redshirts.

In Response to mea37 (#952):

I mostly agree, but the Death Star could have housed billions. It's the size of a small moon true, but you have to remember that is is a HOLLOW moon. I'm sure you could cram in a whole load of people in a massive empty sphere.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#1996):

Especially if they're clowns.

In Response to mea37 (#2002):

THAT'S the true purpose of the deathstar!!! It's so obvious, how did we all miss that. They were going to be an intergalactic circus show. You'd get a bunch of guys in white (I assume they would eventually add little noses and bigger shoes) just start unloading from this sphere. Billions of them would stream out. Quite entertaining.

They did briefly touch on that in Episode 1 when all the droid things were taken out of the transports, but that wasn't quite funny enough and actually caused a fairly harmful reaction from the local populace. Thus the need for tightly crammed men with white suits to come out of a massive sphere was born.

In Response to AsphaltBuffet (#2021):

Ah, and "Attack of the Clones" was a typo. It's all starting to come together.

In Response to mea37 (#2025):

I think I'll trademark Bozo Fett first thing tomorrow.

In Response to zamphir (#2027):

Oh yeah, and his father/clone "Jingles".

Yes, for those of you paying attention, the third generation BoJangles is not far behind....

In Response to mea37 (#2025):

Now I know why the glowsticks are so popular at the circus. Friggin lightsaber wannabe's.