Would that it were so simple.
Anything can be disproved as objective fact. I mean, sure, you could say "my shirt is red," but an insect would likely disagree. Objectivity and relevance are not the same thing.
Plus, I'm not calling for Star Wars to turn into A Song of Jedi and Sith, I'm just saying that the kindergarten-level moral thinking is just ripe for wallbangers.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:25:54 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
![[up]](https://static.tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pub/smiles/arrow_up.png "[up]"){kind=icon}
Then you admit I'm just as right as you?
^^ Er... not sure color is the best metaphor for socio-political theory.
Particularly as the former is something stable, constant and real - regardless of whether the fly sees it as something else, the fly and all other flies will see it as the same thing - while the latter is based heavily on outlook and ideology.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:27:17 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
Sure. I've never told you to be silent, or anything. 
I'll still argue my point, even if yours is just as valid.
Not everyone sees things the same way. I mean, sure, there's wavelength behind red, and we see it like we do, but some animals might perceive it as gray, or a mishmash of colors.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:28:36 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Again, all I'm getting from your argument is "Star Wars should be completely different, because then it would be completely different."
edited 18th Apr '12 7:28:26 PM by HamburgerTime
Would that it were so simple.
No:
Star Wars should adjust its morality to reflect how human beings actually behave, because to do so would allow for a more internally- and meta-logical story. When you try to impart moral lessons, the worse thing to do is to do so with caricatures. And it's not like Lucas-level Star Wars media doesn't try to impart morals. I mean, every single episode of The Clone Wars begins with one.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:31:37 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
^^^ Yeah, that's also kind of why I'm starting to think the seriousness of this debate is starting to get away from us. The main rift here seems to be our ideological differences moreso than anything else. My initial point was supposed to be that "X action was only unwise From a Certain Point of View" and, well, things got intense. Which is the best kind of debate, imo (intense but civil).
^ What of the point I made earlier that sticking to one's ideals when it's not wise to do so is a very realistically human response? And that an individual person tends not to consciously act realistically act as detached a nation does - I'm not sure what you're suggesting is any more realistic.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:34:49 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Well then, you're missing the point. Star Wars has Black-and-White Morality, and if that doesn't appeal to you, these films just may not be for you.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:32:44 PM by HamburgerTime
Would that it were so simple.
Eh, but the good guys do some grey things every now and then. Obi-Wan and Yoda spend most of their time lying to Luke through their teeth about Vader. Also, accepting that a story should be one way simply because it has always been that way is the reason why the Expanded Universe has been repeatedly telling the exact same story for the past twelve years. It leads to the stagnation of creativity.
Now, in the spirit of compromise, because neither of us will ever be swayed, let's just say a Morality Kitchen Sink is preferable. Have our heroes manage to redeem one villain, but then fail with other villains and have to Shoot the Dog. Then, have them reflect on why this is, with every character coming to a different conclusion and who's "right" being left up to the viewer, because ultimately, the heroes still achieved what they set out to do. The idealist might view it as a failure because he couldn't redeem everyone. His Blood Knight sidekick might view the earlier redemption as going too easy on a ruthless killer, and others might take other perspectives on it. Limiting any morality, even Black And White morality, to "give everyone a second chance or become a vicious mass murderer" reduces the intelligence of the narrative.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:43:06 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Just one last thing to say: Star Wars isn't that deep, nor was it ever intended to be. If you want something like that, as I said, you're better off with another work.
^^ Shtrrf. Or, for those of you who don't screw up their typing like I do: agreed.
I would totally love it if there were more idealistic heroes who had to make tough choices and actually have to justify their position, instead of the story just rewarding them for it.
I do agree with you that Star Wars does do that, but given that it's essentially a modern spin on classic folklore (which was black and white like that) I can understand it.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:45:17 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
It's not that deep because frankly, George Lucas isn't that deep. But it can be. Should it be? That depends. But Darker and Edgier need not be a bad thing, or limited to gratuitous violence. That's part of the reason I find Matt Stover's novelization of ROTS to be the superior work.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Is it a bad thing to not be deep, though? Sometimes it's a relief to simply have good guys, bad guys and explosions as far as the eye can see. You want Star Wars to be something it's not and never will be, so why not find another work that's more to your taste?
edited 18th Apr '12 7:49:06 PM by HamburgerTime
I think this is the point where we shake hands and, as much as it pains me to say it, agree to disagree.
^ In part because I'm not a fan of Don't Like? Don't Read!, I'd say that debating the morality of Star Wars is always valid. The story takes it's own morality very seriously, and as a result it does spring a lot of different opinions about it. Critique shouldn't really be a sign that one shouldn't bother at all.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:52:21 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Doing nothing but critique, though, begs the question of why one spends so much of one's time discussing something one dislikes. I'm actually trying to make Zephyr happier here.
Would that it were so simple.
Because then Darth Vader would have been a purely Lawful Evil dragon. The minute they made him a Fallen Hero, they put actual morality in the story, and thus validate any criticism of the story's morality. If this were, say, the Transformers films, I'd agree with you. Just some bigass robots smashing each other to bits. But Star Wars tried to infuse philosophy in with the space battles. That makes it open to that kind of criticism.
I'm most happy when I find something I don't agree with, as counter intuitive as that might sound.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:55:40 PM by CrimsonZephyr
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
I... don't really understand that line of thinking, actually. Your latter point, I mean.
I understand it. Hell, I'd be lying if I didn't say I felt the same way about some things.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:59:34 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Well, *cough* that was fun. I'm always up for a debate.
So...
...favorite battles?
For me, Endor, Yavin, and (even though it's in my least favorite movie) Geonosis.
^ Me too: 'tis why even typing "agree to disagree" makes me cringe - the concept of willfully ending a debate is downright alien to me. I think I may be a junkie.
Favorite Lightsaber Battle: Qui-Gon vs Maul on Tattooine.
Favorite Battle In General: The Battle Of Yavin (Space).
edited 18th Apr '12 8:13:36 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Would that it were so simple.
Favorite lightsaber battle: Luke. Vader. Cloud City.
Favorite battle: Endor.
"For all those whose cares have been our concern, the work goes on, the cause endures, the hope still lives, and the dream shall never die."
Wedge Antilles is by far the most badass character ever to be wholly secondary/minor that I've ever seen, or at least pretty close to the most.
edited 18th Apr '12 9:27:51 PM by KnownUnknown
"The difference between reality and fiction is that fiction has to make sense." - Tom Clancy, paraphrasing Mark Twain.
Holy crap I'm gone for half a day and have three pages to catch up with. I know most everyone has sort of gone on from that but I'd like to add in my two cents to the previous discussion.
Cent One: The Jedi, for all their faults, acted under the proper actions of a democracy. Bombing the senate chamber (which would likely have innocent or even political casualities just like the Death Star destruction) and claiming "Hey, it was for everyone's own good" would result in basically the exact same results of Jedi distrust and leave things in complete chaos, the Jedi were stretched thin as it were because of the war. The Empire was certainly not a good thing, but they still prevented complete anarchy (The Empire had more influence on Tatooine than the Republic ever did). Just arresting Palpatine, Sith or not, and taking control of the executive offices was acknowledged as a very dangerous move on their part because of that risk. In addition hindsight is always 20/20, coming up with solutions after shit happens is easy.
Cent Two: Luke's dilemma comes to questioning the foundation of what he believed in, it has nothing to do with "kill faceless enemies vs. single bad guy." He believed his father was a great man and that the Jedi was the only logical path he could take, both were challenged when he learned the truth. It's overlooked because Luke didn't become a straight Anti-Hero in ROTJ, but the entire movie was about questioning whether Luke would fall down the same path as his father (he was more arrogant, became a rather ruthless fighter and wore darker clothes). Even though Yoda and Obi-Wan encouraged him to kill Vader his hesitation was because he didn't know if Vader was truly his enemy. And refusing to make the final blow screwed up Palpatines plans, old apprentice defeated and no one to replace him.
And to add to the second point: It's one thing to kill people in combat. It's another thing to deliberately set out to assassinate someone. It's perfectly plausible that Luke could have accepted the former and still have issues with the latter, even if there hadn't been a family connection. And I think he could probably see the disconnect between Yoda saying "use the Force only for knowledge and defence, never for attack", and then Yoda telling him later that his "final exam" for becoming a Jedi was to deliberately seek out and kill someone.
edited 18th Apr '12 7:23:02 PM by HamburgerTime