Alliance destruction-without or within?

POSTED BY: reginaroadie
UPDATED: Sunday, August 19, 2007 04:28
VIEWED: 6547
PAGE 2 of 2

PREV PAGE 1 2

WYTCHCROFT

Thursday, August 16, 2007 3:26 AM

don't sue me if i just spoiled the arc for Buffy 8 and 9...!

make someone a browncoat today - don't drive no/one away.

keep a good thread active!

ZONER

Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:33 AM

Quote:
but the good and evil lines are blurred and it takes enoughtime that you can squeeze as many episodes of F.F. in there as you want!.

.

so it could still feel like FireFly then?

WYTCHCROFT

Thursday, August 16, 2007 7:46 AM

In theory! i can imagine a show like S7 Buffy (see Reginroadie's top post here) - trad episodes next to something else entirely...

if we keep this threads notion of movies well - i guess they would be epic one off - maybe not so firefly in vibe... hmmm - darn, not sure i'd like that so much... i like epic in bite sized chunks- i like to keeps things human...

"Most "skiffy" series, from Star Trek to Babylon 5, tend to be stately, grandiose affairs, dealing with galaxy-shaking matters and led by noble, heroic figures chock full of honor and high ideals—in the words of Mozart in Amadeus, "People so lofty, you'd think they shit marble!" Firefly, by design, flies in the face of that tradition, giving us characters who aren't so much heroes as survivors. They're not seeking out new worlds, or saving the galaxy from alien hordes. " dvd verdict.com
i gotta say i agree completely with this.
serenity is pretty PDEpic though and i LOVE Serenity as much as F.F. - ah, i dunno...

STAMPEDE

Thursday, August 16, 2007 8:44 AM

Didn't Whedon describe the Alliance as the United States immediately post-WW2? I'll see if I can dredge up the quote, but he says something like that the Alliance does a lot of good work too.

As has been said, they don't burn people as witches on Londinium, Sihnon doesn't take women in lieu of money... you'll notice Ariel has multiple paramedic units, for example. The thing is, we don't see that because that's not what the story is focused on. It is worth noting, however, that Whedon didn't make a totally one-dimensional Evil Empire, so the 1984 analogy is kind of off.

I think that, since the capital world was settled by Americans, and it was given a Roman name (for London) that the Alliance is to reflect one of the more "benign" Imperial powers. As such, I believe what will bring down the Alliance's universal control (though I don't believe the government itself with dissolve completely, but just retract) is going to be somewhat similar to the dissolution of the British Empire.

I could see it very well doing a retraction in to the Core and only worrying about Londinium, Sihnon, Osiris, Ariel, Bernadette and Carthage. You see that move a lot in sci-fi (the Terran Alliance in the BattleTech universe did likewise, for instance). It would likely be a response to a development of strong nationalism, a development of infrastructure, and the rise of leaders in the Border and Rim areas. Likely you would probably see the Rim rise up and after making some efforts to put it down, the Parliament would shoot them all the bird and pull everything out, letting them try and fix all their problems on their own.

I would imagine, much like several former British holdings, many of the Border worlds would belong to the equivalent of the Commonwealth, who would do things their own way but pay lip service to the King of Londinium.

There's two kinds of people in this world: those with loaded guns, and those who dig.
Now DIG.

ZONER

Friday, August 17, 2007 10:58 PM

vump!

DONCOAT

Saturday, August 18, 2007 2:53 PM

Have you ever heard the term "water empire" or "hydraulic civilization"? It refers to a theory about many of the early human empires (with the exception of western Europe) that maintained their rule by controlling the water supply (most critically for irrigation).

It's said that no such empire ever fell from within. Regimes change, but the new boss is basically the same as the old boss. True revolution is impossible because those in power can snuff out any insurrection by cutting off the water supply.

If we apply this principle to th'Alliance, we have to answer two questions.

1) Does the Aliance maintain control through manipulation of scarce resources? I'm thinking that in the Rim area, it does. Planets that are in the "frontier" stage would almost always need supplies from the outside to survive. That makes it hard to break out of the Alliance trap. If we accept this, and the "water empire" rule about no internal revolution is valid, then the Alliance must fall from without (or not at all). So...

2) Is there anything in the 'verse that can be considered "outside" the empire? It would seem not, at least since the Independence war was lost. But there is one exception which has been mentioned before: the Reavers. If they still exist after the battle of Mr. Universe's Planetoid, they remain outside Alliance control. Perhaps they are the Goths and Vandals who will sack Rome... er, Sihnon and Londinium.

One fly in the ointment: if somehow the population of a water empire finds another means to get their water (other than the government), all bets are off. In the 'verse, this means some way for the Rim planets to get vital supplies other than through the Alliance / Blue Sun. And just look at what our Big Damn Heroes do for a living...

Maybe Mal and Co., and others like them, are the true threat to Alliance domination.

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
I'm pointin' right at it!

WYTCHCROFT

Sunday, August 19, 2007 4:28 AM

interesting... some of what you say helps clarify some ideas... ta!

PREV PAGE 1 2