Star Wars will lose it's relevancy in our lifetime

I wonder if George Lucas used the German Reich as a metaphor for the Empire. On a more positive perspective, one could see how the Empire could be viewed as the "Nazis of the Galaxy" (Axis) and the Rebels (Alliies) were struggling to topple said power.

Still, I believe that such disregard for so many innocents aboard the two Death Stars warrants that the Rebels be more associated with terrorism, noble intentions be damned.

Originally posted by Impediment
I wonder if George Lucas used the German Reich as a metaphor for the Empire. On a more positive perspective, one could see how the Empire could be viewed as the "Nazis of the Galaxy" (Axis) and the Rebels (Alliies) were struggling to topple said power.

Still, I believe that such disregard for so many innocents aboard the two Death Stars warrants that the Rebels be more associated with terrorism, noble intentions be damned.

Originally posted by Zabrak
people will lose interest if there's nothing worth being interested in

i can't believe he dropped the ball on the prequels man. another 3 classic star wars films?
wow that would have boosted it's relevancy for another three generations EASILY

think of all the characters, weapons, planets, scenes, lines...all the classic top tier **** that was in the classic films. That's the stuff that's been constantly referenced in pop culture and in conversation since the franchise debuted in '77

there's basically none of that in the prequels. So, less pop culture will spawn off the newer ****, and that means less people will be familiar with star wars. people can't just live off the original three films forever. It's not something that's easy to enjoy like the Beatles catalog or something. Film is entirely different.

God, it's insane. I hope he tries again with three other films, this time with competent top tier directors.

Lmao that this is a thread!

Would you care to explain why?

Originally posted by Impediment
I disagree, Korto. I truly believe that the "righteousness" of the Rebel Alliance was all based upon perspective.

Grand Moff Tarkin destroyed Alderaan and killed millions, yes, but how many innocents died on the two Death Stars?

All because of a rogue military faction that deemed the Empire "evil".

Everyone has a certain moral/ethical duty & personal calling in any situation, that is dependent on an individual's socioeconomic status, age, gender, and race.

Oppression, cruelty and violence, and pride were the vibes emanated by the Galactic Empire. These are unrighteous characteristics that have to be opposed to reestablish righteousness and natural law.

The Rebel Alliance's ethical duty was to dismantle the Galactic Empire. The ethical duty of all warriors in battle is to fight. Therefore, even if thousands died on the Death Star, it was ultimately the 'right' action. It is why one cannot describe events as merely "good" and "evil," because that is too 'black and white.' Killing anybody is considered "evil," but in an arena such as war, the duty of a soldier, especially one fighting for a righteous cause, is to defeat the opposition, even if that might mandate the loss of lives. Nobody is 'innocent' in war.

Originally posted by quanchi112
original prequels

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Everyone has a certain moral/ethical duty & personal calling in any situation that is dependent on an individual's socioeconomic status, age, gender, occupation, and race.

Oppression, cruelty and violence, and pride were the vibes emanated by the Galactic Empire. These are unrighteous characteristics that have to be opposed to reestablish righteousness and natural law.

The Rebel Alliance's ethical duty was to dismantle the Galactic Empire. The ethical duty of all warriors in battle is to fight. Therefore, even if thousands died on the Death Star, it was ultimately the 'right' action. It is why one cannot describe events as merely "good" and "evil," because that is too 'black and white.' Killing anybody is considered "evil," but in an arena such as war, the duty of a soldier, especially one fighting for a righteous cause, is to defeat the opposition, even if that might mandate the loss of lives. Nobody is 'innocent' in war.

You make a very valid point, Korto. However, I must again resort to the "point of perspective" argument. The "righteous cause" was from one entirely opposit perspective. Were the 5,000+ innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks "just a liability of war"? Just like the WTC innocents who died from the plans of "insane" foreign terrorists, would you lump the innocents in with the Death Star victims?

Originally posted by Impediment
You make a very valid point, Korto. However, I must again resort to the "point of perspective" argument. The "righteous cause" was from one entirely opposit perspective. Were the 5,000+ innocent people who died in the 9/11 attacks "just a liability of war"? Just like the WTC innocents who died from the plans of "insane" foreign terrorists, would you lump the innocents in with the Death Star victims?

A massacre of civilians to promote an ideology is not righteous nor in tune with natural law. The actions of those behind the 9/11 tragedy were clearly unrighteousness and cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever. One can argue "perspective" if an individual performs his ethical duty, and that action is in contrast with that of another. However, in this instance, the ethical duties of the perpetrators of September 11th were clearly violated. If they wished to promote their ideology, they could have accomplished that by peaceful methods. Sadly, they resorted to violence, and hopefully have faced justice.

And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat.

Besides. Any sane, moral, rational man who witnessed Alderaan being destroyed and didn't revolt, defect, protest, etc., was an immoral sonuvabitch who got what was coming to him. Frankly it would have been downright immoral to stand by and allow such a weapon to continue operating. The deaths of the few who did protest was a cheap price to ensure the deaths of so many evil creatures.

Greater good>Lesser evil and all that.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
A massacre of civilians to promote an ideology is not righteous nor in tune with natural law. The actions of those behind the 9/11 tragedy were clearly unrighteousness and cannot be justified in any manner whatsoever. One can argue "perspective" if an individual performs his ethical duty, and that action is in contrast with that of another. However, in this instance, the ethical duties of the perpetrators of September 11th were clearly violated. If they wished to promote their ideology, they could have accomplished that by peaceful methods. Sadly, they resorted to violence, and hopefully have faced justice.

And the vast majority of people on the Death Star were Imperial Military staff, trained and prepared for battle. Or at the very least, mindful of the risk of death in combat.

So what you're saying is that the Rebels should have peacefully presented their ideals for peace to the Galactic Empire? Knowing fully well that the Empire, Darth Siduous especially, would have scoffed at such a notion? In my opinion, it would be like a band of hippies playing guitars outside of the White House protesting for Obama to cease all war in the Middle East, and then resorted to radical acts when their "requests" werent met.

Ethical duty, while I wholly endorse this idea, was not an option for the Rebels. The Empire, totalitarian as it was, was, in fact, an established government body that was violently overthrown by, for lack of a better word, "radicals". The Rebels were not once documented showing an attempt for peaceful negotiations or diplomacy. No, the Rebal Alliance was portrayed as a military force that vied for the downfall of a "corrupt" government body that did not suit their ideals.

BTW, you'll have to pardon my less than admirable debate skills since I'm buzzed. 🙂

Originally posted by Impediment
So what you're saying is that the Rebels should have peacefully presented their ideals for peace to the Galactic Empire? Knowing fully well that the Empire, Darth Siduous especially, would have scoffed at such a notion? In my opinion, it would be like a band of hippies playing guitars outside of the White House protesting for Obama to cease all war in the Middle East, and then resorted to radical acts when their "requests" werent met.

Ethical duty, while I wholly endorse this idea, was not an option for the Rebels. The Empire, totalitarian as it was, was, in fact, an established government body that was violently overthrown by, for lack of a better word, "radicals". The Rebels were not once documented showing an attempt for peaceful negotiations or diplomacy. No, the Rebal Alliance was portrayed as a military force that vied for the downfall of a "corrupt" government body that did not suit their ideals.

BTW, you'll have to pardon my less than admirable debate skills since I'm buzzed. 🙂

Wait, perhaps I misunderstood your previous post, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

When all possible attempts to reestablish some democracy failed, and the tyranny of the Galactic Empire was exposed, the Rebel Alliance was formed. When negotiations could not transpire, the only means left was by decisive action, aka war.

What I responded earlier was to differentiate between the actions of the Rebel Alliance and those of the 9/11 terrorists, in which both killed individuals who were "innocent" (except the Death Star mostly contained Stormtroopers and Imperial Military --> soldiers).

Originally posted by Lord Lucien
Are there additional prequels?

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Wait, perhaps I misunderstood your previous post, but that's exactly what I'm saying.

When all possible attempts to reestablish some democracy failed, and the tyranny of the Galactic Empire was exposed, the Rebel Alliance was formed. When negotiations could not transpire, the only means left was by decisive action, aka war.

What I responded earlier was to differentiate between the actions of the Rebel Alliance and those of the 9/11 terrorists, in which both killed individuals who were "innocent" (except the Death Star mostly contained Stormtroopers and Imperial Military --> soldiers).

And by that logic, you're not calling that................radical?

Both Death Stars, while mainly populated by Imperials, was, in fact, populated by innocents. As a former U.S. Army Infantryman who has seen combat, much to my chagrin, I do agree that the death of the innocent is, sadly, a constant. I mean, that's what happens in war. Innocent life will be taken. There is no getting around this.

However, my "perspective argument" goes back to the fact that Mon Mothma, the Rebellion leader, knew fully well that when the "many Bothans who died" to bring the Rebellion the stolen Death Star plans, innocents would die. Now, my point is that while calculating such an epic event as The Battle of Yavin and the assualt on Death Star I, how important is supposed "liberation from a force to be disagreed with" so important that X amount of completely innocent lives need be ended? It all goes back to the ends of each spectrum argument.

Before I respond to your previous post, let me make it clear that I pray I haven't offended you in any way. This is a very touchy subject, and such matters have the potential to be quite offensive to others.

Secondly, one of the most righteous duties is the respect of life. I believe in a universal consciousness, and that each and every one of us has a transcendental soul within that ultimately unites us. Therefore, even though I talk about ethical duty with regard to possible justification of the deaths of millions, I do not take it lightly.

Originally posted by Korto Vos
Before I respond to your previous post, let me make it clear that I pray I haven't offended you in any way. This is a very touchy subject, and such matters have the potential to be quite offensive to others.

Secondly, one of the most righteous duties is the respect of life. I believe in a universal consciousness, and that each and every one of us has a transcendental soul within. Therefore, even though I talk about ethical duty as justifying the deaths of millions, I do not take it lightly.

You havent offended me in the slightest. You are being very courteous in your arguments.

Originally posted by Impediment
And by that logic, you're not calling that................radical?

Both Death Stars, while mainly populated by Imperials, was, in fact, populated by innocents. As a former U.S. Army Infantryman who has seen combat, much to my chagrin, I do agree that the death of the innocent is, sadly, a constant. I mean, that's what happens in war. Innocent life will be taken. There is no getting around this.

However, my "perspective argument" goes back to the fact that Mon Mothma, the Rebellion leader, knew fully well that when the "many Bothans who died" to bring the Rebellion the stolen Death Star plans, innocents would die. Now, my point is that while calculating such an epic event as The Battle of Yavin and the assualt on Death Star I, how important is supposed "liberation from a force to be disagreed with" so important that X amount of completely innocent lives need be ended? It all goes back to the ends of each spectrum argument.

Yes, even if the entire Death Star, was, as Lucien stated, "filled to the brim with millions of trained and professional military men," and these men, as I stated earlier, were "mindful of the risk of death in combat," the vast majority of these individuals were people trying to carve a career for themselves and loved ones elsewhere. Perhaps those that witnessed the Death Star's destruction of Alderaan couldn't exactly leave, even if in their hearts they wholeheartedly were against the Empire's attack.

But it is for that reason why the Death Star had to be destroyed. Except for Tarkin and a few other sick bastards, the large majority of those men would have gladly given their lives to see this monstrous creation destroyed and the Empire vanquished.

If all else fails, what else can you do? The Empire represented everything unrighteousness, and the Old Republic, while corrupt and far from perfect, at least tried to represent liberty and stability. When peace and negotiations failed, the Rebel Alliance had to fight to remove the Empire. And the Death Star was the primary target. In war, if the primary target is cleared, it's easier to complete the mission, am I correct?

This is when the notion of ethical duty becomes fudged. The men aboard the Death Star were military staff, and as a former member of the Armed Forces, you understand the meaning of trusting your senior officer and his orders. They did their duty, and they did it honorably.

Likewise, the Rebel Alliance did its ethical duty. The only body that failed to act righteously was the Galactic Empire as whole. Sadly, to destroy this body requires the destruction of its primary weapon, and therefore the loss of lives of the men that control this weapon.

Originally posted by Impediment
Would you care to explain why?

I seem to recall doing a lot of posting in a KMC Star Wars forum way back when, so all due respect, I'm not sure why this thread is here....

Moved, and has gone rather off-topic.

You must be trolling.