Vladius said:
And it does come across as a disguised lecture. The two major POV characters we have (Mon and her cousin) both disapprove of it, with the only caveat being that Mon is a little bit too heavy handed with trying to talk her daughter out of it. The rich person dialogue is very one note, ooh, look how rich and comfortable these people are. The ritual is supposed to be creepy and ominous, and the part where the groom cuts Leida’s braid is given a hard cut like she got killed by a horror movie slasher.How is any of that substantive as commentary, but the surrounding story elements are overindulgent? There isn’t even really “rich person dialogue” ala Succession in the way you describe - most of the scenes are between the main players and Mon’s family. The juice of those interactions is secretly navigating around the surrounding context, and the fraught interpersonal relationships in that double-context. Hell, I don’t even think the notable Perrin speech is even an outright indictment of him - if anything it humanizes him and rounds out his character. He’s not happy with the arrangement either!¹
It’s not even a real culture to critique, if it’s meant to be lecture (which, again, is still beyond what most media is actually doing sans after school specials). What’s supposed to be hard about this for Mon and Perrin is the “selling their child” part of it, not the idea of tradition itself. Certainly not in a show where those are threatened by a pointedly secular Empire weaponizing customs against its various communities.
¹ I could even keep going with Sculdun as a fun character because he’s not from the world of wealth blue-blooded Mon is. but i digress
If I’m remembering correctly there are actually scenes in season 1 and 2 where Mon is uncomfortable with her daughter being into the traditions, and not just because the boy is involved. (I think there’s a part where she’s singing or chanting or something with a bunch of other girls.) It’s part of the clash between her cosmopolitanism as a senator and her native environment, but you can tell that it’s implicit that the audience is expected to lean more on the cosmopolitan side. Which is a fair bet, for the target audience.
The other implicit criticism is that this is all wasteful and decadent because a war is going on. We have revolutionaries dying in the trenches for a galactic war, while these snooty people think they get to have a nice wedding on their home planet and put their heads in the sand. Again, somewhat fair, but we got the point the first time.
Of course that’s all in there, but it’s not The Point™ is all. I don’t see it as overly belabored because there is so much else going on through it. It’s the means of the story, not the end. It’s not moralizing when the whole thing is so nuanced.
“We will make it clear that no one steals from the Empire. The use of any local custom, festival, or tradition as cover for rebel activity will trigger permanent revocation of Imperial tolerance.”
-Yularen (1.07), antagonist
Which is what the marriage is! A cover for Mon’s financing Luthen, and it is portrayed as, yes, something Mon would rather not do. That Perrin would rather not do. But does that then indict Ferrix and Aldhani for their tradition and customs? Is the show moralizing against those non-cosmopolitan, indigenous cultures? Which again, still aren’t real or even 1:1 with anything. The marriage is a net good for the rebellion, these episodes are primarily about Mon’s interiority, about that family. Those characters have feelings about it, Gilroy definitely feels arranged child marriage is bad. In the main theme of sacrifice, that equation, something needs to be. But it’s just that… an integer.
Yes, the epicureanism is most self evident as a contrast to what’s going on on Mina Rau or Yavin. Of course. But again, it also functions to dimensionalize the characters like Perrin. Joy and comfort, escapism in a hard world, is only human. It’s how he copes with his loveless marriage, which paints a picture of what he would have wanted for his daughter instead. It’s pointedly not a portrayal of snootiness or flippancy. As a lecture, that’s a mixed message. Especially when surrendering to the excess is ultimately how Mon herself can cope with the events of the episodes. There is empathy all throughout the show for why one’s commitment to the cause can waver, why you would choose comforts. The furthest the show ever gets in that lens to moralizing is a call to Try where you can.
This is all just part of what is meant when these themes are explored. Maybe they could have done something else, maybe more to catch up on the gaps like you said, but at the same time - the show already manages to communicate everything in those gaps alongside what it did.
It’s simple coding. Chandrila is decadent rich person/creepy coded, Aldhani is simple rustic indigenous coded, and Ferrix is blue collar working class coded. The other two are sympathetic already because they’re just trying to get by. All the non-Imperial main point of view characters of the show are in the Rebellion. Perrin is specifically criticized for not caring about anything. There’s some nuance there but I think you’re exaggerating it.