Current Events > Why is the empire so evil in Star Wars?

(+) Yeah! (+)

I caught an episode of the Mandalorian while my friends were watching it. These dudes literally got something called the Shadow Council and Moff Gideon comically betrayed Mandalore before. Not to mention calling something the Death Star and blowing up a planet. How do they get so many people to work for them

Rule by fear.

Pretty sure in that world evil is just considered half of everything or some shit idk

Nothing like that could happen in real life without the party realizing how comically over the top evil they have become while still thinking they are the good guys. Nope, couldn't happen.

Could Picard talk Gus Fring I mean Moff Gideon down

The star wars universe is actually pretty chaotic back then before The Empire brings order to the galaxies.

Space republicans

Doe posted...

Could Picard talk Gus Fring I mean Moff Gideon down

Ethan is too preoccupied with product deattroopers

Because it's a morality story about good and evil. Not every piece of fiction needs to represent the complex moral ambiguity of social organizations populated by individuals with their own unique values, motivations, and vehaviors.

Sometimes fiction can just have a Council of Evil that does evil stuff.

Sith Lord

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Sometimes fiction can just have a Council of Evil that foes evil stuff.

that exists IRL too

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Because it's a morality story about good and evil. Not every piece of fiction needs to represent the complex moral ambiguity of social organizations populated by individuals with their own unique values, motivations, and vehaviors.

Sometimes fiction can just have a Council of Evil that foes evil stuff.

Star Wars really isn't a morality tale though. The good guys don't do a ton of independent good deeds, they're just constantly trying to defend their lives from the crazy evil empire.

Doe posted...

Star Wars really isn't a morality tale though. The good guys don't do a ton of independent good deeds, they're just constantly trying to defend their lives from the crazy evil empire.

Yeah sure okay.

Pogo_Marimo posted...

Yeah sure okay.

Yep

It's a children's franchise.

Verdekal posted...

It's a children's franchise.

It's for everyone

The takeover was slow. You had a friendly and well-liked senator from a popular core-world win the election for Supreme Chancellor. He is very competent in that role.

A civil war has begun. The Republic really has no standing military or even a cohesive military infrastructure. The government is granted emergency powers in this time of great unrest and uncertainty.

The beloved Chancellor was attacked by the traitorous Jedi. Luckily he has supreme control over the entire military. Also it seems like the only way we can get through this war is by forming a empire with a strong leader at the head. But don't worry, his power will still be checked by the Senate.

Over the next 19 years things get ever more slowly controlled. The military more abusive. Rights less prominent. Finally the Senate has been dissolved. Don't like it, take up your complaint with the newly revealed Death Star. And just to prove they're serious, they blew up one of the most significant Core worlds.

By this point all notable leadership and bureaucracy has been taken over by Imperial loyalist. There is no avenue to work within the system and change things. Dissent is squashed immediately.

The Empire is a governing system where it's head of state is controlled by a man whose literally the galactic embodiment of evil, so anybody in any sort of position of power within the Empire is going to jockey for power while wielding evil as a weapon and the primary means of exerting their authority. After the official fall of the Empire any Imperial remnant is still going to alude to that prior evil head of state in order to solidify their authority amongst themselves and project their power and authority across the galaxy. The over the top naming is just something that's on brand for people trying to control an empire founded on evil.

Poorly posted...

It's for everyone

E for everyone.

Because they were governed by the two most evil people in the galaxy lol

Doe posted...

Star Wars really isn't a morality tale though. The good guys don't do a ton of independent good deeds, they're just constantly trying to defend their lives from the crazy evil empire.

Star Wars is literally about good guys vs bad guys and the redemption of Anakin Skywalker via his son.

https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=_Dm7vAFdzcc

This is tongue in cheek, not some nazi trying to argue it for real.

At least the trains ran on time, when the alliance took over you were lucky if a train was even ran, never mind on time.

One of the many reasons why it was a smart move by Disney to make the EU non-canon is because according to the expanded universe the empire was so controlling an evil specifically because there was an even bigger threat coming that only they knew about and only a large highly destructive military would be capable of fighting them. So they had no choice but to go full authoritarian and build these giant super weapons to protect the entire galaxy.

s0nicfan posted...

One of the many reasons why it was a smart move by Disney to make the EU non-canon is because according to the expanded universe the empire was so controlling an evil specifically because there was an even bigger threat coming that only they knew about and only a large highly destructive military would be capable of fighting them. So they had no choice but to go full authoritarian and build these giant super weapons to protect the entire galaxy.

Yeah this isn't true as you're presenting it.

The Empire did have some idea about the incoming Vong invasion but it's never implied that's the reasoning Palpatine built the Empire, or that they were only so controlling and evil due to that threat. They were controlling and evil before they got any wind of the invasion, and built superweapons entirely outside of that context.

The bit about only a large destructive military force being capable of fighting the Vong is also the perspective of a very biased Imperial Remnant officer who is talking shit to Han about how the New Republic is handling the invasion and how Palps would have done better.

Evil is just a point of view. From my point of view, the Rebellion are evil.

wackyteen posted...

Star Wars is literally about good guys vs bad guys and the redemption of Anakin Skywalker via his son.

Neither of those statements describe a morality tale.

Doe posted...

Neither of those statements describe a morality tale.

https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/abs/10.1002/9781119841463.ch3#:~:text=Summary,lessons%20about%20the%20moral%20life.

Summary
According to George Lucas, Star Wars is a morality play, a mythological tale of good and evil that's meant to teach timeless lessons about the moral life. This chapter shows how the moral framework of natural law ethics provides a philosophical foundation for the morality of the Force and helps illuminate Star Wars ' moral themes. The natural law consists of basic moral truths that are objectively and universally true independent of personal opinion, cultural convention, time, and place. Moral goodness is natural and beneficial because respecting moral principles and cultivating virtues fulfills human nature and contributes to human flourishing by perfecting our human capacities and enabling us to attain human goods. Natural law theory can also explain one of the central moral themes in Star Wars : redemption . Natural law theory also explains the moral perspectives of the Jedi and the Sith. Their rival moral codes display conflicting views of human nature and human flourishing.

Lucas himself is on the record stating that Star Wars is a morality tale.

It's funny how the Empire tried to keep everything organized.

But yet the Rebels promoted chaos and civil war.

Doe posted...

Neither of those statements describe a morality tale.

I think there's an argument for episodes 1 through 6 being a morality tale if you take Anakin as the main protagonist: episodes 1 through 3 are about his moral decline; episodes 4 through 6, his redemption

PrettyBoyFloyd posted...

It's funny how the Empire tried to keep everything organized.

But yet the Rebels promoted chaos and civil war.

The only way to effect change is to disrupt the status quo.

The Rebels wanted a return to where planets had the ability to self-determine, while having an overarching government that maintained harmony via diplamcy.

The Empire wanted control via force, and it didn't care who suffered as a result. Hence why Palpatine was so big on the Death Star. He wanted to rule via fear. As soon as the Death Star was fully operational, he disbanded the Senate becuase he no longer had use for or interest in it's slow moving mechanisms. Why negotiate with people and try to get them on board when you can hold the entirety of their planet at laser point?

averagejoel posted...

I think there's an argument for episodes 1 through 6 being a morality tale if you take Anakin as the main protagonist: episodes 1 through 3 are about his moral decline; episodes 4 through 6, his redemption

The entirety of 1-6 is about the story of Darth Vader. His beginnings, his first temptation, his fall, the discovery of his son, his attempt to corrupt his son, and then his redemption.

Lucas is not shy about stating that his 6 films are about The Tragedy of Darth Vader.

wackyteen posted...

Lucas himself is on the record stating that Star Wars is a morality tale.

Well to start with, we don't ask the author what their work was supposed to mean, we conclude the resultant meaning of the work from the textual evidence. George Lucas is kinda infamous for his extravagant claims about meaning.

I think you can better argue the prequels are a morality tale because Anakin, particularly in episode 3, questions the moral compass he gained from Jedi instruction and changes his values based on his perception of hypocrisy. But Star Wars being a story about the redemption of Anakin or the Skywalker name is something that's been added later and over time. It's just not present in the original movie, or per the topic title, in the Empire vs Rebels plot.

Doe posted...

Well to start with, we don't ask the author what their work was supposed to mean, we conclude the resultant meaning of the work from the textual evidence. George Lucas is kinda infamous for his extravagant claims about meaning.

Death of the author isn't an axiom. Some people may choose to ignore the author flat out saying what the meaning of their work is, but that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect interpretation. It means that you're just choosing to explicitly ignore the stated meaning from the creator because you want to have a different interpretation of your own.

Doe posted...

I caught an episode of the Mandalorian while my friends were watching it. These dudes literally got something called the Shadow Council and Moff Gideon comically betrayed Mandalore before. Not to mention calling something the Death Star and blowing up a planet. How do they get so many people to work for them

You'd think there would be a group of rebels or something that would oppose them...

s0nicfan posted...

Some people may choose to ignore the author flat out saying what the meaning of their work is, but that doesn't mean that it's an incorrect interpretation

It's not that you should ignore what the author says for the sake of excluding the author from conversations. It's that you should not use the author's intent as evidence, and you should not use the author as an appeal to authority. If the author compellingly lays out textual evidence to argue how a scene works or what message is being delivered, then that's as valid as any great argument. Use of textual evidence and reason is what makes someone authoritative.

You could probably get quite the explanation of the themes and messages of The Room from director Tommy Wiseau, but neither his perception of the finished product, nor what he alleges were his goals during production, has any effect on what The Room actually tells audiences.

wackyteen posted...

Lucas himself is on the record stating that Star Wars is a morality tale.

This is an appeal to authority based on Lucas creating the IP. I could also throw out the Lucas quote that "Jar Jar's the key to all this, if we get Jar Jar working. 'Cause he's a funnier character than we've ever had in the movies...". But without actually examining the text, if I just use this to argue that Jar Jar holds the prequel trilogy together, I would be appealing to authority.

A New Hope was a space-lift of The Hidden Fortress, and the rest just extrapolated from there.
Lucas even wanted Toshiro Mifune for Obi-wan.

The Empire is literally basee off the Nazis

Doe posted...

I caught an episode of the Mandalorian while my friends were watching it. These dudes literally got something called the Shadow Council and Moff Gideon comically betrayed Mandalore before. Not to mention calling something the Death Star and blowing up a planet. How do they get so many people to work for them

Because Alderaan shot first. Anything else is rebel propaganda

Christopher Lloyd's guy is way more evil than Gideon anyway.

Euripides posted...

The Empire is literally basee off the Nazis

I feel that the Empire is like SPECTRE from the James Bond series.

Apolitical and that stuff.

Server the cause and your in.

Compsognathus posted...

The takeover was slow. You had a friendly and well-liked senator from a popular core-world win the election for Supreme Chancellor. He is very competent in that role.

A civil war has begun. The Republic really has no standing military or even a cohesive military infrastructure. The government is granted emergency powers in this time of great unrest and uncertainty.

The beloved Chancellor was attacked by the traitorous Jedi. Luckily he has supreme control over the entire military. Also it seems like the only way we can get through this war is by forming a empire with a strong leader at the head. But don't worry, his power will still be checked by the Senate.

Over the next 19 years things get ever more slowly controlled. The military more abusive. Rights less prominent. Finally the Senate has been dissolved. Don't like it, take up your complaint with the newly revealed Death Star. And just to prove they're serious, they blew up one of the most significant Core worlds.

By this point all notable leadership and bureaucracy has been taken over by Imperial loyalist. There is no avenue to work within the system and change things. Dissent is squashed immediately.

I wonder if the idea behind the Empire was based on the Roman Empire.

"He will join us or die" is basically printed on the money.

dameon_reaper posted...

I wonder if the idea behind the Empire was based on the Roman Empire.

I remember reading that it was based on the US, and that the Original Trilogy, like so much in American media from that era, was a sort of allegory for the war in Vietnam. in this analogy, Palpatine is Nixon and Darth Vader is Kissinger

averagejoel posted...

Palpatine is Nixon and Darth Vader is Kissinger

that makes no sense

averagejoel posted...

I remember reading that it was based on the US, and that the Original Trilogy, like so much in American media from that era, was a sort of allegory for the war in Vietnam. in this analogy, Palpatine is Nixon and Darth Vader is Kissinger

I mean, that's interesting sounding, but I remember Julius Caesar creating the Empire using the same reasons as Palpatine. I"m not referring to the original trilogy in this instance since I don't think they understood how the Empire came to be exactly in those days.

Caesar took emergency control and turned the Republic into an Empire and I think that's how Palpatine did it as well.

By the time Caesar marched on Rome and triggered civil war, changes in how the military was funded had already led effective power to be collected in the hands of very few wealthy people who owned the legions. 'Dictator' was historically an emergency position during wartime, but after Caesar won he got the senate to name him 'dictator in perpetuity' because he was powerful enough to own everyone, and he was assassinated for it like two weeks later. When Augustus consolidated Caesar's power after the second civil war, the Senate never went away. It was just packed with so many loyalists, and Augustus granted so many positions of authority in the government, that he was effectively the absolute ruler.

So, the formation of the roman empire was less about using fearmongering to be given power, and more about how capital corrupts republican institutions, particularly when instruments of real power are privatized.

Doe posted...

It's not that you should ignore what the author says for the sake of excluding the author from conversations. It's that you should not use the author's intent as evidence, and you should not use the author as an appeal to authority. If the author compellingly lays out textual evidence to argue how a scene works or what message is being delivered, then that's as valid as any great argument. Use of textual evidence and reason is what makes someone authoritative.

You could probably get quite the explanation of the themes and messages of The Room from director Tommy Wiseau, but neither his perception of the finished product, nor what he alleges were his goals during production, has any effect on what The Room actually tells audiences.

If you ask the author what he meant by a scene, and he tells you, there's no "conversation" to have. Calling it appeal to authority is like calling a proof for 1+1=2 an appeal to authority. He's not some expert of Star Wars... he literally wrote it. There's no situation where you can tell an author to his face that his explicit clarification of what a scene meant is wrong because you interpreted it a different way.

That doesn't mean a scene can't be poorly written or poorly executed. People can absolutely read different things out of a scene when they don't have direct access to the source, but "interpretation" ends the moment you're given the actual ground truth. He doesn't need to build a case for why a scene means what he says it means. He literally wrote it. Your interpretation becomes incorrect the moment the author tells you its wrong.

s0nicfan posted...

If you ask the author what he meant by a scene

That's not what's being asked. What's being asked is what do we, as a viewer, learn from a scene. When an audience sits down in a theater, what the author intended means nothing, all that matters is what the audience actually learns from what the scenes actually show.

"What are the themes conveyed by A New Hope" and "What themes did George Lucas intend to convey in A New Hope" are wholly different questions, and the first one is what actually matters to what the film told audiences.