Discussion in 'Star Wars Saga In-Depth' started by darklordoftech, Jun 19, 2013.
There may be gray area, but that does not dismiss good and evil.
Just as the existence of gray paint in real life does not preclude the existence of black and white paint.
.......or a grab for MORE power by the Federal Gov.
Given that the Confederate states mad the first aggressive move in the war it is a moot point. They effectively declared war on the United States, and the state took action to defend itself against attack.
Personally I would say that it is what the idea of the Republic represents that is good - ie democracy, freedom, peace. That there were individuals who through their power (as Senators) subverted that does not make thoe values it represents any less good. I would suggest that is the political point that Lucas was attempting to make. That the values must be protected before the power of the state. (ie the State should not be seen as necessarily representing the values that it purports to, that ensuring that the State does so is what retains freedom, justice and peace)
No, because he doesn't seem interested in saving Padme when he chokes her.
He used saving Padme as an excuse to seek power. Which makes him pure evil but just delusional about his motives.
I don't think the saga is about good vs evil at all.
It's about redemption.
i.e the triumph of good over evil
Not the same thing.
If Vader had tried to save Luke, but failed to kill Palpatine in the end, would he not have redeemed himself in the same way, even though evil was not defeated?
I dont buy into the whole good vs evil thing. They made a big deal about the prophecy and what not, bringing balance to the force and all that jazz.
Evil was not destroyed when Palpatine died, in fact, I think Dark Jedi / Sithlike people re-appeared only a few years after Palpatines death.
It kind of gives the whole prophecy thing alot less force, if you will. No pun intendend.
Also, ever since the PT, and much of the EU since then, the theme have shifted alot to choice, giving in to your vices, and that kind of stuff.
Ben's "certain point of view" thing had always emphasized that, to me. That, plus Vader trying to woo Luke on the gantry by talking about order and "ending this destructive conflict." I think trying to boil it down to "good versus evil" is far too simple. The other oppositions and themes - in this case, order vs. permissiveness (the Empire vs. everyone else), or the theme of "truths depending on one's point of view," or (as Maizel is talking about) redemption and forgiveness - are far more interesting and inspirational and important.
There are plenty of simple stories where the good guy beats the bad guy and existence itself applauds. Star Wars is way more interesting in the places where it adds greebly detail and perhaps even subversion to that surface dynamic.
People and groups in the saga are characterised by shades of grey, as all people and groups are. But the story is essentially one of good v evil.
I agree. I think the PT is what has altered the perception; the whole prophecy story-arc is back-projected onto ROTJ. The Empire (an aspect of the evil) was defeated by the rebel alliance. Vader's act was one of personal redemption; it's conflation with being the destruction of evil a realisation of the PT story arc projected upon it.
I don't think it's ever (even since the PT) been about the totality of good v the totality of evil. Even when the Sith were destroyed, all evil wasn't. It's a case of essentially good guys (if somewhat flawed and deluded at times) v some bad guys. It's pretty clear who's who throughout the saga.