Thread:Argali1/@comment-26210095-20161218235442/@comment-26347028-20161222222225

Patrick.vtap wrote: Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Patrick.vtap wrote:

Maltalidenta Kwuitidherali wrote:

Edacnik wrote: Yes, they should really not try to get the plans that could help defeat a weapon that kills millions of innocent lives... The most likely scenario was the whole fleet would be destroyed, and the mission fails.

Innocent is very much subjective.

The Rebellion is causing an unnecessary war in what amounts to a time of peace for the Empire. Was the rebellion not there, they would need no weapon. This isn't about who dies; war is the problem, and war is not the thing being directly caused by either side alone. The rebellion had the chance to end it, it didn't. The rebellion didn't need to exist, the Empire didn't need to expand. But the rebellion isn't necessarily great because the Empire uses oppression. Oppression is a method for peace; often one that works. I have to say I almost agree there. But 'Eh, let the Empire survive' doesn't make for a good movie tbh. No, but films should make sense within the realms of reality they place themselves in. I'd find it much more interesting at a point where it wasn't basically one factor just owning everything - a period of real tumult would be interesting. Well, they did show the Rebels as somewhat violent extremests with Saw Gererra, they could have driven the point much more to home. I have to say, if SW were a completely logical world, I'd agree. But it's not, it's a movie, and you have to have a bit of willing suspension of disbelief. I hate how everyone says that. We don't just throw logic out of the window since it's a film. It needs logic to work, which, to some extent, it did - and for that I applaud it. Yet, suspension of disbelief applies to technology, to science, to lots of things - but not to logic itself.