Why can't we just have evil villains?

[The Squire of Gothos]

You're the one who said you knew what the One Right Interpretation of the show was. So it's quite silly for you to pretend that it was me. It looks like you're arguing with yourself, but for some reason you keep quoting my posts.

Um, no.

I simply stated what I thought, y'know, trying to add to the thread.

Also, if I were you, I'd watch the entire series before making such big pronouncements as that everyone has to recognize that Vic was the greatest guy eva who made everything so great and happy and wonderful.

Again, no.

All I did was say what I thought the writers were aiming at in the show.

Is what I'm saying really bothering you so much that you have to leap on it so? Are you really completely disinterested in suggesting an alternative?

 

[DevilEyes]

You're the one who said you knew what the One Right Interpretation of the show was. So it's quite silly for you to pretend that it was me. It looks like you're arguing with yourself, but for some reason you keep quoting my posts.

Um, no.

I simply stated what I thought, y'know, trying to add to the thread.

Also, if I were you, I'd watch the entire series before making such big pronouncements as that everyone has to recognize that Vic was the greatest guy eva who made everything so great and happy and wonderful.

Again, no.

All I did was say what I thought the writers were aiming at in the show.

Is what I'm saying really bothering you so much that you have to leap on it so? Are you really completely disinterested in suggesting an alternative?

Um, no.

I'm just stating my opinion, and that I don't don't believe the writers would aiming for that... if they had, they had failed big time with this viewer. And ultimately the writer's intent means less that the finished product. Besides, it is theoretically possible that you guessed the writer's intention right - but, after seeing season 7, I find it very difficult to believe. Unless they changed their minds or something.

But when the show has layered characterization and moral ambiguity and doesn't telegraph what the viewers are "supposed" to feel, it is rather presumptuous, IMO, to claim that the writers were aiming for this or that, unless you have actually heard/read it in their interviews or press material.

 

[JonathonWally]

How interesting is a protagonist with no grey areas? You want the answer to that, ask yourself who you thought was cooler - pure as the driven snow farm boy Luke, or shoot first, smuggler Han?

I'd have to say Luke. Han was a jerk, an absolutely unlikable jackass who didn't give a crap about anyone other than himself. Han's no hero; Luke is.

Did you even watch Star Wars?

Han was the everyman, out to make his way in the universe, getting by and having a good time, then when a dire situation was thrust upon him, he rose to the occasion, went after it all, head on. Saving whiny bitch Luke how many times? All without the deus ex machina that was "the force"

Han made it possible for Luke to fire those torpedoes at the original Death Star, without him, Luke would be space debris.

Han saved Luke when Luke would have frozen to death on the surface of Hoth.

Han volunteered to lead, what everyone else considered a suicide mission to Endor to destroy the shield protecting the Death Star. Without him, the Rebels would have completely failed.

Han was the character with everything to lose.

Han was the fucking man.

 

[Trent Roman]

Maybe, but I've yet to see anyone attempt to articulate one that didn't just sound like mushmouthed PC nonsense.

I've already mentioned things like pain, happiness, suffering, benefit, loss... these are, to me, fairly tangible concepts; I rather think it is good/evil that comes across as so much mumbo-jumbo.

Not deterministic at all. Because most of the belief systems that these come from heavily emphasize personal choice and responsibility.

Not the ones they tried indoctrinating me with, certainly. If being good and evil is a choice, however, I've got to wonder who actually chooses to be evil. Presumably, somebody already predisposed to it... but then, where does that predisposition come from, and to what degrees does it curtail the actual choice?

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[The Squire of Gothos]

I'm just stating my opinion, and that I don't don't believe the writers would aiming for that... if they had, they had failed big time with this viewer. And ultimately the writer's intent means less that the finished product. Besides, it is theoretically possible that you guessed the writer's intention right - but, after seeing season 7, I find it very difficult to believe. Unless they changed their minds or something.

Thank you, that's all I was looking for, a little bit of analysis by way of return, a little insight

"Besides, it is theoretically possible that you guessed the writer's intention right"

Especially that bit

But when the show has layered characterization and moral ambiguity and doesn't telegraph what the viewers are "supposed" to feel, it is rather presumptuous, IMO, to claim that the writers were aiming for this or that, unless you have actually heard/read it in their interviews or press material.

Ok, you got me, I was presumptive on the internet

Can we finish it at that?

 

[Greg Cox]

Han is basically Rick Blaine from "Casablanca." Cynical on the outside, a softie on the inside. He claims that he doesn't stick out his nose for anybody, but always comes through when it matters . . . despite his better judgment.

STAR WARS wouldn't be the same without him. (And, boy, could the prequels have used a cynical wiseguy like him to cut through all earnest ruminations on Destiny and the Force . . . .)

 

[Sci]

I remember something he said once about Firefly, regarding the Alliance. Now the DVD case - and quite a lot of reviews and stuff - flat out labels the Alliance as a "totalitarian regime" like SW's Empire. But I think we know it's not that simple. The Alliance may be overextended, too big, but not evil. Whedon said that sometimes, the Alliance is the USA in World War II (good) and sometimes it's the USA in Vietnam (not so good).

Yes, it's clear the Alliance is NOT an evil despotic regime. It's just a big government that is well meaning but occasionally clumsy and overreaching.

While I think it's clear that the Union of Allied Planets (the Alliance's full name) is not a dictatorship or a totalitarian regime, I don't think it's accurate to say that it's not despotic, either. I mean, yeah, clearly the Alliance has a Parliament -- and presumably a democratically-elected one -- but Serenity also establishes that that same Parliament has a permanent group of Operatives who are authorized to do whatever they want when sent on a mission by the Parliament -- meaning that the Alliance, on some very fundamental issues, lacks the rule of law.

Meanwhile, the Alliance also does things like experiment without consent on mass numbers of people -- entire communities -- in order to engage in behavior modification experiments, and they also abduct and torture their own citizens such as River. And of course, episodes like "Ariel" establish that the Alliance keeps its citizenry under almost constant surveillance, to the point where it's questionable whether or not the Alliance government recognizes a right to privacy.

And on top of all that, the Better Days comic establishes that the Blue Hands were private contractors legally empowered by the Alliance to engage in acts of murder against innocent Alliance citizens in the course of pursuing fugitives. This, combined with comments Joss made about the ubiquitous Blue Sun Corporation -- comments to the effect that Blue Sun basically owns the government -- strongly imply that the Union of Allied Planets may be a heavily corporatist state in which democratic accountability is minimal and which is designed to exploit the masses for the enrichment of a corporate elite; this would be consistent with the apparent continued impoverishment of the Rim worlds even as the Core worlds remain flush with wealth, just as many Third World governments today intentionally deprive their peripheries of wealth while redistributing everything to the capital and its surrounding regions.

And on top of that, there's the not-at-all small fact that the Alliance expanded its borders by conquering the Independent worlds -- meaning that the Alliance engaged in the war crime known as aggressive war. The same war crime for which the leaders of the Greater German Empire were tried at Nuremburg. This is a very fundamental facet of Alliance political culture that cannot be disregarded; amongst other things, it means that the Alliance, which purports to be a democracy, rules over a vast citizenry that has not given its consent to the Alliance's reign.

In short, the Alliance may be a democracy, and its citizenry may have some rights, but if that is is, it is a democracy that is fundamentally corrupt, lacks the rule of law, lacks real democratic accountability, redistributes wealth to a minority, and routinely disregards the rights of its citizens. If the Union of Allied Planets is a democracy, it is an illiberal democracy.

 

[Kegg]

A brief thought on Firefly: Whedon does add a lot of nuances to the cliche of the rugged individualist versus the big evil empire, but in the end... and in Serenity in particular, but this is also true in the series - he does fall back on the expected moral scale of that system. The crew of the Firefly are thieves, but honest Robin Hood ones who aren't going to pilfer needed medical supplies, and the Alliance has some good points and ideals and just plenty of regular working joes; but is sufficiently rotten and unethical to be ultimately a worthy adversary.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

the Union of Allied Planets may be a heavily corporatist state in which democratic accountability is minimal and which is designed to exploit the masses for the enrichment of a corporate elite; this would be consistent with the apparent continued impoverishment of the Rim worlds even as the Core worlds remain flush with wealth

These would be the same Core worlds which supposedly did not want to be part of the Alliance in the first place? I mean, clearly the Alliance intended to be a civilizing influence to those worlds. In some ways, they may have been justified in this. No one wants there to be poor people, but you can't blame all of that on the Alliance in the first place. They may have control of too much territory, trying to extend themselves too far, and have insufficient resources to provide equally for all of them, but I'm not ready to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may be trying.

the Alliance, which purports to be a democracy, rules over a vast citizenry that has not given its consent to the Alliance's reign.

Some didn't, some did. The Alliance had to form somehow. The inner planets banded together to form it. They have that right, don't they?

In short, the Alliance may be a democracy, and its citizenry may have some rights, but if that is is, it is a democracy that is fundamentally corrupt

Perhaps. There's no doubt that they have their nasty side (although, Sci, comparing them to Nazi Germany is rather extreme, wouldn't you say? ) and we have seen those examples, but we never got the chance to see if they could do good. I think we would have, had the show lasted. Of course I'd be inclined to take their side, for reasons that should be obvious.

And if I might be permitted the chance to learn from a thread like this: Dismissing the Alliance as flat out evil, while in the same thread claiming that there IS no evil and that the antagonist shouldn't be a cardboard cut-out mustache twirling villain... I'm sensing a disconnect here.

And one more thing I'd like to say about FF: I. HATE. SNAPPY. DIALOGUE.

That's one thing that really frosts my shorts about Whedonverse shows. All of his characters are smartasses. That kind of writing does not appeal to me one bit. I do like shows in which maybe one character is like that (i.e. Wanda from Corner Gas, Lennie Briscoe from L&O) but not the whole damn show.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

The Alliance is a great example of why non-simplistic villains are far more interesting. I wanted to understand more about the Alliance if Firefly had continued. But Star Wars' Evil Galactic Empire was completely boring to me. I'm not interested in it at all; I'd watch a Star Wars TV show that has the plucky rebels and surviving Jedi scampering to avoid the Empire, but the Empire will simply serve as bogeyman and backdrop to the real interest.

 

[Mr. Laser Beam]

Reminds me of a line from one of the never-filmed scripts to FF. Mal goes up against one of his old Browncoat comrades who has gone nuts and started killing innocent Alliance civilians (yes, there is such a thing ). Mal says to him, something like "It isn't war when they're not shooting at you. Then it's just plain murder."

 

[Trent Roman]

I'm a bit surprised at this sympathy for the Alliance. Yes, realistically, any society is going to have all kinds of people in it, but what we saw onscreen wasn't particularly nuanced. When dealing with Alliance officials--not only when 'our' characters were onscreen, but even when it was just them--they seemed to be pretty broadly callous, officious, petty, venal, egotistical and hypocritical. The show was pretty clear on whose side it expected the audience to be.

Perhaps there was something in the premiere... the Alliance left to rescue a passenger-liner in distress, which turned out to be a signal our guys had faked (a pretty skeezy tactic, I thought), and occasionally an underling would show surprise at a distasteful order, but otherwise it seemed to be a thoroughly corrupt organization.

Fictitiously yours, Trent Roman

 

[Greg Cox]

And one more thing I'd like to say about FF: I. HATE. SNAPPY. DIALOGUE.

.

You prefer bland, prosaic dialogue?

I mean, to each their own. But I admit I don't get it. To me, that sounds like preferring vanilla ice cream to rocky road or chocolate chip mint. Or a plain cheese pizza to Canadian bacon and pineapple.

Give me a clam and garlic pizza anyday!

 

[Anwar]

I remember something he said once about Firefly, regarding the Alliance. Now the DVD case - and quite a lot of reviews and stuff - flat out labels the Alliance as a "totalitarian regime" like SW's Empire. But I think we know it's not that simple. The Alliance may be overextended, too big, but not evil. Whedon said that sometimes, the Alliance is the USA in World War II (good) and sometimes it's the USA in Vietnam (not so good).

Yes, it's clear the Alliance is NOT an evil despotic regime. It's just a big government that is well meaning but occasionally clumsy and overreaching.

Except for the Academy, and what happened on Miranda. But then again, the Academy is a mere part of the Alliance and not the controlling force (hell, even paradise has its' serpent).

The Alliance is pretty much the kind of government humanity would set up in reaction to a wild frontier, to establish true order to safeguard these new worlds. Where it goes from that initial order...well, makes for a interesting story.

 

[Temis the Vorta]

I'm a bit surprised at this sympathy for the Alliance. Yes, realistically, any society is going to have all kinds of people in it, but what we saw onscreen wasn't particularly nuanced. When dealing with Alliance officials--not only when 'our' characters were onscreen, but even when it was just them--they seemed to be pretty broadly callous, officious, petty, venal, egotistical and hypocritical. The show was pretty clear on whose side it expected the audience to be.

I'm not sure what it was, but there was some element that made me hang back and think Whedon was presenting something more nuanced about the Alliance. As though he expected us to side with the plucky rebels and realize this was expected and therefore we should be skeptical of the ease by which we could be seduced into such thinking. Or maybe it was such the skanky aspects of all Mal's buddies - if both sides were pretty vile, then who's to say who we should side with?

The Alliance is pretty much the kind of government humanity would set up in reaction to a wild frontier, to establish true order to safeguard these new worlds.

That is definitely the impression I got - the Alliance was a perfectly natural expression of human nature under those particular circumstances.

To me, that sounds like preferring vanilla ice cream to rocky road or chocolate chip mint. Or a plain cheese pizza to Canadian bacon and pineapple.

Really good vanilla beats any other flavor you can imagine. And Canadian bacon & pineapple pizza makes me queasy. I'd opt for plain mozzerella over such slop.

 

[JonathonWally]

Reminds me of a line from one of the never-filmed scripts to FF. Mal goes up against one of his old Browncoat comrades who has gone nuts and started killing innocent Alliance civilians (yes, there is such a thing ). Mal says to him, something like "It isn't war when they're not shooting at you. Then it's just plain murder."

Still waiting on you to apologize for slandering Han Solo like you did.

 

[Sci]

the Union of Allied Planets may be a heavily corporatist state in which democratic accountability is minimal and which is designed to exploit the masses for the enrichment of a corporate elite; this would be consistent with the apparent continued impoverishment of the Rim worlds even as the Core worlds remain flush with wealth

These would be the same Core worlds which supposedly did not want to be part of the Alliance in the first place?

No, it was the Core worlds that created the Alliance and the Rim worlds that wanted to stay independent.

I mean, clearly the Alliance intended to be a civilizing influence to those worlds. In some ways, they may have been justified in this. No one wants there to be poor people, but you can't blame all of that on the Alliance in the first place. They may have control of too much territory, trying to extend themselves too far, and have insufficient resources to provide equally for all of them, but I'm not ready to stop giving them the benefit of the doubt that they may be trying.

You're not going to stop giving them the benefit of a doubt after they went and engaged in a war of aggression against worlds that just wanted to stay independent? The Alliance does not have a democratic mandate to govern the Rim worlds. You might as well say that you're not going to stop giving Nazi Germany the benefit of a doubt after they've gone and conquered Poland in the name of greater Lebenstraum.

the Alliance, which purports to be a democracy, rules over a vast citizenry that has not given its consent to the Alliance's reign.

Some didn't, some did.

I was referring to the Rim citizenry, who very decidedly did not give their consent to the Alliance's reign over their worlds. No one is contesting the Alliance's right to exist in the Core, where the founding worlds wanted it. The issue is that the Alliance had no right to conquer the Rim worlds.

In short, the Alliance may be a democracy, and its citizenry may have some rights, but if that is is, it is a democracy that is fundamentally corrupt

Perhaps. There's no doubt that they have their nasty side (although, Sci, comparing them to Nazi Germany is rather extreme, wouldn't you say? )

Comparing a government that engaged in aggressive war against worlds who did not threaten them and merely wanted to stay independent, to a government that engaged in aggressive war against states that did not threaten them and merely wanted to stay independent, is extreme?

The behavior is the same. The crime of aggressive war is the crime of aggressive war.

To be fair, outside of the issue of aggressive war, I would tend to argue that the Alliance is something more akin to, say, the Russian Federation under the rule of Vladimir Putin in its status as an illiberal democracy: The veneer of democracy hiding a largely autocratic and corrupt system in which the distinction between the government and the wealthy elite is largely theoretical.

And if I might be permitted the chance to learn from a thread like this: Dismissing the Alliance as flat out evil, while in the same thread claiming that there IS no evil and that the antagonist shouldn't be a cardboard cut-out mustache twirling villain... I'm sensing a disconnect here.

I've certainly never argued that there is no evil. I have argued that most characters are more complex than just being evil, and would argue that most evil characters have reasons for what they do and do not think of themselves as being evil, but I'm not arguing that evil does not exist.

 

[Arpy]

On Vader, the reason he's so interesting in the original SW is because he has power. Kids want to grow up to be dad or because dads have power. In the original SW, Vader, not Luke, is the guy you're really watching because he's the one stirring everything up. Luke's just sitting around in sand in his white pajamas whining about his evil stepparents keeping him from going to Toshi station. Luke is the kid kids identify with, the one who may grow up to get power, power over his own life at least, but he's "good" so it's hard for him...he has to adhere to his uncle's rules. Later, to get Vader-level power, he has to go to the Kenobi School of Magic and Wizardry.

Vader is just the big kid on the playground. If he ever had to learn anything, you don't see it so much as the cool black leather suit he's pimping in. Kids imagine if they only had his power they'd wield if better than the dumb-ass bad-guy exhausting himself being such a jerk. Life's much easier with power. It's why people want to be rich, and little girls princesses.

One-dimensional characters may be simple, but there can be a lot of weight to them. Much like how multidimensional "gray" characters, like Nero or Soran, can be really dull.

Thing is though, real life is not one-dimensional. Anyone like Vader in the real world is insane. Either from heredity or environment. That's part of why the original SW is Fantasy. And the fact that it was awesome part of why we should not undervalue Fantasy, even though the real life Vader on the playground may give us hell for liking it.

 

[FluffyUnbound]

Vader in Episode IV was compelling in part for reasons that have nothing to do with him as a character per se.

James Earl Jones does some of the best voice work ever. The art and set design of the entire film makes the Vader costume look freaking awesome - picture your first glimpse of the black Vader suit and mask in the overlit white hallways of the rebel ship, for example. His character's appearances on screen are always accompanied by one of the best score snippet leitmotifs ever used in film. You get your first real information about him from talented British actors whose declamations make him sound incredibly cool. He is absolutely a cardboard character, but all the film work around that cardboard character is really very finely done.

 

[DevilEyes]

And one more thing I'd like to say about FF: I. HATE. SNAPPY. DIALOGUE.

.

You prefer bland, prosaic dialogue?

I mean, to each their own. But I admit I don't get it. To me, that sounds like preferring vanilla ice cream to rocky road or chocolate chip mint. Or a plain cheese pizza to Canadian bacon and pineapple.

Give me a clam and garlic pizza anyday!

Bacon and pineapple? Sounds almost as bad as chicken in chocolate sauce and similar weird combinations I've heard about. I think I'd throw up if I ever tried to eat that. (Which is not an option, fortunately, since I don't eat meat.)

Well, it seems that there is something I agree with Laser Beam on, after all. No, I don't like bland, prosaic dialogue, but I don't like dialogue in which everyone is constantly wisecracking and delivering "cool" one-liners. It's the reason why I am not the biggest Whedon fan. It was one of the reasons I hated Alien Resurrection, but I wasn't crazy about it in Buffy either - and I liked Buffy.

Fortunately, it's a false dichotomy, since these two are certainly not the only alternatives.