NFBisms

Channel72 said:

This episode fully leans in to what was implied about the Jedi in the Prequels: they go around imposing their will on the Galaxy like the Spanish Inquisition, snatching away Force-sensitive children essentially at gunpoint. The Coven acted like they had no choice in the matter, and instead tried to trick the Jedi into leaving. Nice “Guardians of Peace and Justice”. They’re more like the Galactic Gestapo.

I never liked how the Prequels portrayed the Jedi and this show really leans into that portrayal. Ahh well, it is what it is.

I’m someone who actually loves how the prequel Jedi were portrayed, but it worked far better for me as emergent background. Here, in making a point, the whole concept becomes less enticing. Particularly because it feels like the witches were intentionally designed and written to generate friction, already starting from an oppositional perspective, rather than letting the Jedi flaws come out in organic praxis.

It’s fun to see the pursuit of selfless detachment trip into selfish moral vanity, how faith in the metaphysical can lead to inaction and neglect, how pragmatism = paternalism, how responsibility becomes authority, how peace can lack justice. These are all cool themes - that “The Jedi kidnaps children” can absolutely be a symptom of - but feels forced as a character’s primary vendetta. It leans too far into the Jedi as stickler for nonsense rules, and not Jedi as an insitution worth dissecting. And especially when the alternative, opposing way of life is so vaguely defined - what are we supposed to be getting out of this?

I think if anything - if we really are doing the Rashomon thing - this should have just leaned into portraying the Jedi as Osha’s liberators, and then show her family as loving in the recontextualization. Not this odd middle ground.

Also, I don’t think this episode was that redundant. I mean, all we knew before was that Osha’s family died in some fire and Mae seemed to blame the Jedi. I didn’t necessarily expect that Mae herself started the fire. But I do agree that the first two episodes shouldn’t have revealed so much information, especially since so much of it was revealed in rather clunky expository dialogue. Like at one point one of the Jedi actually tells Osha something like “your entire family was killed, etc.”. Pretty clunky, and completely redundant since we see these events play out in Episode 3 anyway.

Mae was actually said to have started the fire first thing when Sol explained what happened to Osha’s family. It’s later the point of Osha staying behind when Sol confronts Mae at the end of episode 2, Sol can sense that Osha still feels angry at Mae for killing their family.

I feel the opposite about how they should have handled it though. I wouldn’t have minded leaving this all to the exposition until a more complete revelation later. It was already pretty efficient. Maybe have some short cutaways like when Maarva was talking about Clem in Andor, but a whole episode? idk. Perhaps this could have even been intercut with the present day plot if they were so dead set on it. I think my biggest issue is how much of the pace it slowed down for very little returns.

I think what made it especially frustrating was that this was all more or less what the exposition detailed in the premiere episodes. Nothing particularly interesting about the coven or the twins or the Jedi was revealed, they could have snuck some of these details into the first two.

Just kinda feels like a waste of an episode - even though I’m 100% sure we’re going to get a Rashomon-esque revisit of these events down the line.

BedeHistory731 said:

NFBisms said:

sad that anyone agrees with Anjohan, it’s just empty rhetoric

Yeah, but I find it pointless to try and change minds here (outside of purely technically discussions).

Fair, just wanted to stake a claim that the post at the top of this page doesn’t represent the community. I like it here a lot because it’s full of smart, thoughtful people, not the kind of stuff being peddled above. It’s like you said, this niche corner of the fanbase has always been a bright spot, we don’t need the outside culture war to plant a flag here.

Anyway, back to The Acolyte. Even if it’s pretty mediocre at the moment, I am interested to see if it will have more interesting things to do as it goes on.

Kogonada is directing the next episode, which is a very compelling choice to me; Columbus is one of my favorite films. I’m interested to see if any of his sensuous photographical style will translate on production design this overtly “loud”, if he was even able to imbue this with any of his own sensibilities. It seems to be primarily a flashback episode based on stills released on the official site.

Which also made me realize that Torbin looked so weird to me because he wasn’t actually an old man! That was Tommen from Game of Thrones lol. He’s probably going to play a big part in the flashbacks if he was cast, which also means it wasn’t a complete waste of Carrie-Ann Moss. The flashback timeline is probably pretty expansive.

sad that anyone agrees with Anjohan, it’s just empty rhetoric

+1 for Jenny Nicholson’s video, it’s genuinely really really good.

We have writer-arc pairs for S2 on the updated WGA directory.

Tom Bissell is a really interesting choice for the last arc, he’s mostly known for his video game stuff, but his career has largely been in nonfiction as a political journalist and critic, much of his work based around the Soviet Union and the legacy of communism.

The first season was already freighted with historical allegory and sociopolitical themes, but now there’s real researched weight behind season 2, which is so cool. I imagine as we go further into the revolution, this subject matter becomes more pertinent.

Gilroy has also said Bissell was brought in as the Star Wars fan of the staff; that synthesis should actually be kind of perfect for the finale arc overlapping with Star Wars™ proper.

Outside of the obvious stuff his background would bring (political history, Star Wars nerddom), he wrote a book, Apostle: Travels Among the Tombs of the Twelve - a spiritual/academic investigation on the early schisms of Christianity and the historical context of the Bible’s authors. For a show like Andor, it sounds like the perfect framework for developing the Force’s role in the Rebellion, similarly to how I speculated it would eventually factor in a few pages back. I’ve already picked up a copy and am excited to read it lol. hopefully some of this helps inform s2

Tangentially, in the first season, Gilroy mentioned Simon Seabag Montefiore’s Young Stalin as inspiration particularly for the heist and Cassian himself, and I did end up reading that as well. Really interesting book too! There’s a lot of insight in these sources and the writers’ previous work towards what exactly the show is doing, if anyone else was interested in that sort of thing. It only makes the show more satisfying.

^^goes to show anyone successfully baited into being mad is just a loser

RogueLeader said:
It’s possible this whole assassination plot is going against the wishes of the Master Sith, who I’m assuming we actually haven’t seen yet. But, I wonder if the Sith are manipulating Mae to kill these Jedi in order to begin chipping away at the facade of the Jedi Order. I think the ‘dream’ speaks to the way the galaxy views the Jedi, and how the Jedi view themselves. I think it will be revealed that the Jedi hold some responsibility for what happened on the twins’ home planet, and if the public finds out about it it would be a scandal. I think the Sith may be trying to slowly sour public sentiment of the Jedi. And on the other side of things, perhaps they know this scandal will lead the Jedi to become more dogmatic like we see them in prequels, and even more tied with Coruscant and the Senate.

I also get a sense that this philosophy has involved into an actual tradition that Sith have for their acolytes. We’ve seen Mae/evil twin reach for her target’s lightsaber during their fights, and her targets have commented on her fighting them without a weapon. It seems like Mae having to resort to her blades or poison is something she’s reluctant to do. She told Qimir she is going to kill a Jedi without a weapon to please the Master, but I wonder if in order for an acolyte to earn their lightsaber (and/or officially become a Sith apprentice), they have to kill a Jedi with their own weapon. And that weapon becomes their red lightsaber.

It is a little confusing where Mae’s orders and her own vendetta begin and end, but I think this is right-on - if not close - to what’s going on. Qimir and Mae’s conversations alluding to her killing at least one of the four masters without a weapon (and the poison counts), could just be them misunderstanding the aphorism. But clarity on it is probably going to come in hand with the revelations of what happened on Brendok - if it’s bad enough Torbin literally kills himself over the guilt.

Does feel a little like the broad strokes of the payoffs are already telegraphed, especially when the inevitable endpoint is that this all gets buried (or just doesn’t ever resolve in a meaningful way) - which makes me hopeful there is more to it than just scandal. These episodes are scattered with 5 minute mysteries (the twin, the poison, etc) that ultimately don’t matter, it’s hard to tell if that’s just weird writing or by design. I think we’ll get a better feel for what it is as we go along, but because it’s so early in the show there’s room for it to be the latter. Actually interested to see how these checks pay off.

I theorize they’re doing an earnest try at a Darth Jar Jar thing with Qimir, but that’s neither here nor there to the core mystery

It’s not amazing or anything, but it’s very watchable IMO! I like the characters so far and am on its wavelength re: the Jedi. There are decent hooks here. The production is perhaps not as up to snuff as what we’ve seen before - we’re firmly in television ass television - but that’s no bad thing tbh, that’s literally what this is. It’s still colorful and charming all things considered.

I like it. I’m not as compelled to watch week to week, but I’ll definitely wrap around when the season is over.

Yeah but it was the wealthy corporate alliance who had the droid armies. That meant something inside the prequels themselves, but importantly and especially feel like it means something in a show like Andor. Droids are purpose-built and have personhood in Star Wars to the point that it’s plausible to me that flexible human labor ends up cheaper.

Either way, it’s probably a Why Not? thing more than it is a real calculation. It’s not like we don’t have prison labor in our own world. the empire is evil, they’re trying to get as much out of everyone as possible

Well, the show pointedly says that they (humans) are “cheaper than droids and easier to replace.” It sets that state of play up very specifically. Even in real life multiple tasks one human guy could turn around, need multiple machines for the different tasks.

Slavery eliminates the cost of building droids in the first place, and in Star Wars those droids would basically be humans that need more maintenance than the nutri-sludge (oil changes, repairs, etc) anyway.

RE: the transfer scam, I think it was just feeding into the idea that the Empire is too arrogant. It’s not a scam they’ve been running, it came with the P.O.R.D. and no one thought it through to its inevitabilities.

Honestly such a waste - bare bones Cliffnotes scripts really let down the concepts, there’s nothing here the trailer didn’t already substantiate in a minute of montage editing.

And sure, it’s often felt like intentional withholding of interesting stuff in these animated shows, but this one uniquely bulldozes through the concepts it puts on the table. This was supposed to be answers and payoffs. Bariss’ speculative future was so exciting and compelling in imagination, that’s gone now.

One of the first scenes in this show is B2 being peed on, I don’t think levity is that off limits.

To be fair, that book isn’t good and most people wouldn’t have read it anyway.

Andor excluded of course, it’s so 70s right down to formally being the grimy thrillers Star Wars '77 would be analyzed as cultural antidote to. The writing is timeless, the mullets and moustaches, even the Niamos beachwear feel so in line with ANH’s time period. And don’t forget the junky analog tech! Machines are big and unwieldy; Dedra has to do what’s basically an archive search by asking an attendant to collect those files from giant tube computers. There are illegible glass interfaces of lines ala Yavin and Hoth, tons of tactile knobs and switches and buttons, etc. Modified AK-47s as the symbolic weapon of revolution circa the 70s is loaded imagery, just like the modified StGs and Mausers in the OT evoke WWII. I was hyped as hell when Cassian was sentenced to prison by a 70s credit card machine.

And it makes it thematic. Nemik has a whole right-to-repair bit about technology being lost or forgotten; one of the many ways Empire imposes its will is through centralized uniform technology, moving populace away from the different lines of communication and information they maybe once had access to. Seperatist projects like tactical droids with databases in their head, Techno Union touch screens, or Umbaran bubble fighters fall by the wayside in distinctly important ways. It’s great!

Stuff like that really puts us right back into the space A New Hope is in. Whereas, yeah, it feels like a lot of other Star Wars stuff recently just conceptualizes “Star Wars” as anything that’s been in the movies before. Fair game for inclusion at any point, regardless of its faux-historical context. Aside from looking like a very modern Disney+ show in lighting and costuming, I wouldn’t be surprised if there isn’t any real technological difference between High Republic and Mandalorian eras in Acolyte. I would have loved design that feels more historical than just “cool” for the characters.

hey guys is Star Wars bad

I don’t have a UHD source for Rogue One, sorry. If HDR is important to you, know this [currently] does not have it.

Definitely in the plans, yes! Especially if specific locations or characters get their own motifs.

EDIT: Also thank you for the praise to everyone who has left it! I don’t love bumping my own threads unless a specific question is asked (am also not great at receiving compliments), but I do appreciate it!

Channel72 said:
Anakin’s downfall should probably contain elements of both systemic failure and personal failure. But I think it should be more heavily weighted towards personal failure. Perhaps something like 40% systemic failure (failures of the Jedi as an institution, experiencing the horrors and injustices of war, etc.), and 60% personal failure (Anakin just being turned on by the allure of power, and his need for control in a chaotic Universe). The greater emphasis on personal failure is really required for Vader’s redemption in ROTJ to have real dramatic weight. It really needs to be Vader’s choice to embrace the Dark Side, and also his choice to save his son in ROTJ.

I agree with this! In my heart of hearts, this is how I see Vader, and I wish the prequels were much better films that communicated that.

Vladius said:

NFBisms said:

NOTE: Everything I’m about to say doesn’t mean I think the prequels are good

I don’t actually mind a lot of the PT’s lore on stuff like this; I find it infinitely more interesting that the story we knew secondhand via Old Ben wasn’t just exactly what those movies are, particularly within a narrative primed to disentangle and even criticize “from a certain point of view”. Even if most official material hasn’t taken full advantage of it (until Andor), I’ve always had a fondness for at least this era’s state of play.

Anakin / Darth Vader is purposefully re-contextualized as a kid, and I think there is some value in foregoing the fabled ‘Jedi Hunts’ (that were sure to have happened between canonical III and IV anyway) to examine what made the monster at earlier psychological and political points. He’s a failure of institution, radicalized by war, exploited by an abuser, abandoned by pedagogy. It’s a different flavor of tragedy than personal failure.

On some level, Vader’s evil is romanticized when depicted in a badass light; which would be far beyond a meaningful reason to do prequel films in the first place. I still enjoy stuff like Vader in Rebels, Rogue One, or the Respawn Jedi games, but I can respect that those weren’t new ground to break into the saga. They’re literally just depictions of what we know from the OT. The wholly imperfect execution didn’t make the prequel direction not worth doing IMO, and I can appreciate that it now lives in the objective text.

With regard to the surviving Jedi and Yoda calling Luke the last, an interesting question emerges in this context - What is a Jedi?

If our understanding of the Jedi has shifted from ANH’s idealized Knights Errant fable, to something closer to a monastic FBI and military branch - is ‘Jedi’ perhaps a political label, and not just a description of one’s relationship to the Force? After all, there are other Force users in-universe that are not Jedi. Whose to say that characters like Kanan, Cal, or Ahsoka are even Jedi [to Yoda] at all? Ahsoka was expelled before she could finish her training, Kanan and Cal gave up many aspects of the path to survive and fight back; none of them were in contact with or under the direction of the Rump Jedi Council of Kenobi and Yoda. Meanwhile Luke is trained by that council, the only project undertaken by them during the Galactic Civil War, and specifically has an uncomplicated view of who they were. It’s ultimately pedantic and matters mostly to justify Yoda’s line, but participation in The Order as institution is an important theme for Anakin’s downfall. It may very well be an important part of what makes “a Jedi” in the non-colloquial sense, to an official of its ranks such as Yoda.

Somewhere along the way this became an unpopular idea, but to me Luke not killing his father as counter to Obi-Wan and Yoda’s direction was always an early suggestion of what the PT would eventually, if dispassionately, present about the Jedi Order. So “The Jedi” may have been purged, but the light wasn’t and couldn’t be. I can square the survivor count with Yoda’s line when I think about how Yoda kind of sucked

Counterpoint - you’re wrong and all of this is worse, even if it was intentional on Lucas’s part, which it wasn’t.

Oh, I absolutely don’t think his intentions are all of this lol

I don’t really know what there even is to be wrong about though, I’m not asserting any real argument - honestly proposing a question more than anything. It doesn’t really matter to me what was intended or how it would/should fit into the OT. The setting just has so many implications and contexts that are interesting to think about as presented. Symptomatic of unclear / muddled writing, perhaps, but at a certain point embracing the emergent themes is way more fun than lamenting what could have been. The Jedi Order isn’t real, but the mechanics through which they interacted with hypothetical people and systems are. What we can extrapolate is much broader than the constraints of narrative tidiness.

Not that any of us are writing Star Wars, but burrowing into that philosophy is the kind of thing the franchise could use more of, as opposed to towing an imaginary line and chasing what George Lucas would do.

NOTE: Everything I’m about to say doesn’t mean I think the prequels are good

I don’t actually mind a lot of the PT’s lore on stuff like this; I find it infinitely more interesting that the story we knew secondhand via Old Ben wasn’t just exactly what those movies are, particularly within a narrative primed to disentangle and even criticize “from a certain point of view”. Even if most official material hasn’t taken full advantage of it (until Andor), I’ve always had a fondness for at least this era’s state of play.

Anakin / Darth Vader is purposefully re-contextualized as a kid, and I think there is some value in foregoing the fabled ‘Jedi Hunts’ (that were sure to have happened between canonical III and IV anyway) to examine what made the monster at earlier psychological and political points. He’s a failure of institution, radicalized by war, exploited by an abuser, abandoned by pedagogy. It’s a different flavor of tragedy than personal failure.

On some level, Vader’s evil is romanticized when depicted in a badass light; which would be far beyond a meaningful reason to do prequel films in the first place. I still enjoy stuff like Vader in Rebels, Rogue One, or the Respawn Jedi games, but I can respect that those weren’t new ground to break into the saga. They’re literally just depictions of what we know from the OT. The wholly imperfect execution didn’t make the prequel direction not worth doing IMO, and I can appreciate that it now lives in the objective text.

With regard to the surviving Jedi and Yoda calling Luke the last, an interesting question emerges in this context - What is a Jedi?

If our understanding of the Jedi has shifted from ANH’s idealized Knights Errant fable, to something closer to a monastic FBI and military branch - is ‘Jedi’ perhaps a political label, and not just a description of one’s relationship to the Force? After all, there are other Force users in-universe that are not Jedi. Whose to say that characters like Kanan, Cal, or Ahsoka are even Jedi [to Yoda] at all? Ahsoka was expelled before she could finish her training, Kanan and Cal gave up many aspects of the path to survive and fight back; none of them were in contact with or under the direction of the Rump Jedi Council of Kenobi and Yoda. Meanwhile Luke is trained by that council, the only project undertaken by them during the Galactic Civil War, and specifically has an uncomplicated view of who they were. It’s ultimately pedantic and matters mostly to justify Yoda’s line, but participation in The Order as institution is an important theme for Anakin’s downfall. It may very well be an important part of what makes “a Jedi” in the non-colloquial sense, to an official of its ranks such as Yoda.

Somewhere along the way this became an unpopular idea, but to me Luke not killing his father as counter to Obi-Wan and Yoda’s direction was always an early suggestion of what the PT would eventually, if dispassionately, present about the Jedi Order. So “The Jedi” may have been purged, but the light wasn’t and couldn’t be. I can square the survivor count with Yoda’s line when I think about how Yoda kind of sucked

Channel72 said:

NFBisms said:
My theory is that this will be a big source of the sectarian rebel tensions in the lead-up to the Alliance. Like I alluded to above, Luthen is basically a bolshevik accelerationist. Revolution on his terms is dirty, brutal, and spearheaded by a professional vanguard of gangsters and spies. Mon’s canonical call for Open Rebellion is the inevitable clash with that clandestine exclusivity, but I think what’s added to it with the development of a culture and religion rally, is that for once there might be a tangible, coherent ideology to the so-called “Alliance to Restore The Republic”, one that addresses what exactly makes The Empire more evil than the Old Republic.

Yeah - I mean, historical parallels are always tricky and inexact, but I think what you say about Luthen here is essentially correct. But I interpreted Mon Mothma as basically aligned ideologically with Luthen, rather than viewing the two as representing opposing sides of something like an eventual Bolshevik/Menshevik split. Mon Mothma finances Luthen’s revolutionary activities. She comes off as less “Machiavellian” than Luthen mostly because she operates as a public figure in the middle of a technological police state. (Mon’s cousin Vel also is presumably aligned ideologically with Luthen.) The fact that Mon does some Menshevik type things - like working with the Imperial Senate and Galactic elite to fight oppressive legislation - doesn’t really put her in opposition to Luthen’s attempts to pull off an “October revolution”. Mon’s public activities in the Senate (and her ineffective opposition to Palpatine) are something of a cover story. She’s a Bolshevik in Menshevik clothing, if anything.

Where I’m coming from with the parallel is more about where Mon ends up as opposed to where she is in Andor S1, and where the bolsheviks and mensheviks clashed in regards to membership. (And either way, early revolutionary days had both factions often working together on a temporary basis, participating in the same activities - extralegal or otherwise.)

I think Mon’s aligned with Luthen right now, but eventually she’s going to open the rebellion up in a pretty public move (Star Wars: Rebels). From then on, the Alliance becomes a known political entity to the Empire, with her as a public face of it. It’s a whole apparatus with a fleet and a council, there’s moralism in at the very least what is a public stance disavowing Saw Gerrera as an extremist. In A New Hope, its legitimacy as something that can gain favor in the Senate is why the Death Star exists. Bail / the Organas are not in exile like Mon is.

It’s still an inexact parallel - I didn’t intend to be otherwise and Star Wars never is - but I see the friction between being exclusive and being broad as one coming conflict in season 2.

To tangent off of this though, the Bolshevik in Menshevik clothing is interesting to say because we actually also get stuff in season 1 hinting at Luthen not wanting to be so clandestine anymore and Mon learning to be less scrupulous. Gilroy and Luna have said we will see Rogue One differently after S2; Draven and Cass’ ruthless activity in that film might be fully sanctioned by Mon herself. And how warranted was Saw’s disavowment really? How does Luthen get out of the picture? I’m interested to see where else any analogy will be imperfect. The mix and match is the fun part.

Yeah. I mean, the movies don’t explore this beyond a very superficial level. But clearly, we’re supposed to understand that the Empire is worse than the Old Republic because the Empire isn’t a democracy, at least after Alderaan. (Oh yeah, also that little matter of blowing up Alderaan.)

…

It’s unclear what sort of economy/ideology the various Rebel factions depicted in the OT or Andor are actually fighting to achieve in some hypothetical New Republic, but presumably the Rebel Alliance that we know and love wants to setup something similar to the Old Republic, rather than something more like a socialist economy with publicly owned industries as suggested (arguably) by the underlying thematic vibes of Andor.

Right, I just meant before the Death Star, there’s already a well established Rebel Alliance. So I was extrapolating based on Andor’s depiction of cultural displacement, what makes that a reality without a planet killer moving people to action. I don’t think the economic mechanisms as you laid out could mobilize the common populace we see in Rogue One/OT (at least per Andor), so I was mostly speaking to what would. If the seperatists alluded to throughout Andor are the same corporatists from the prequels then I’m sure that’d all be in there somewhere as political promise in alliance, but I think there’d actually be some intentional, built-into-the-story eschewing of actually working out a post-Empire government/economy. The Alliance has canonically been a temporary coalition since Rogue One.

Like, I don’t think Andor is rewriting canon to make it more clear. I think it’ll just choose a focus that allows it to sidestep those concerns, while co-opting the historical motifs of revolution broadly.

Also, anyone notice how that deleted scene in ANH with Luke and Biggs is kind of an early “spiritual predecessor” to Rogue One/Andor? It’s a scene that would be right at home in an episode of Andor, minus the corny 70s dialogue.

Yes! Thinking about Biggs in this scene is specifically where I was coming from when thinking about the Rebel Alliance circa Rogue One / A New Hope.

Well, my point about “Alliance to Restore the Republic” was specifically about it moreso as a mission of peoples, not governance. The aspirational “Republic” would be defined loosely by a diversity of sovereign states, not necessarily their representative role or would-be political mechanics; the rallying call being an embrace of mysticism and culture are just important elements of that broader movement. It’s not an understanding of the rebellion that’s particularly novel in simpler terms, but would be, if in friction with the ideological / theoretical rebellion season 1 ends at.

I think that potential reframe as tenuous populist coalition lends itself to an aftermath with a struggling New Republic if anything.

That said, yeah, I wouldn’t want there to be overt reference to the Mandoverse. That exists separately in my mind; that version of SW is more an expression of genre than it is drama / faux-history like Andor. There’s space left internally at LFL to compartmentalize anyway. Different creative teams and mediums necessitate it. The OT is a clear divider between the eras.

Again though, was only speculating for fun! I don’t expect it play out like I theorized at all. When I posted I thought it could moreso be a decent place to start a discussion about season 1’s themes. I disagree about saving discussion for later; between seasons is the best time for stuff like this! Hell, I’d do “complex examination” of Ahsoka too, why not?

But yeah, I was starved for discussion about Andor beyond “It’s better than everything else!” Outside of the extrapolation, the post was just what season 1 was textually about. Ferrix and Aldhani’s oppression was occupation, displacement, and erasure of culture under technocratic hegemon. It’s not a stretch reading of the material. So the line from those ideas to eventually shining a political light on the original sin of the Jedi’s genocide (even as only propagandist symbol), would be pretty straightforward. Feels especially plausible when you consider the pre-determined endpoint (May the Force Be With You) + the other threads that are poised to interweave and synthesize. (eg: Chandrilan tradition as [teen] rebellion, insurgent sectarian tensions, etc.)

Nah, just regular blu

Ian McDiarmid actually already voiced this scene, it was re-released some time around his season 4 appearance.

SparkySywer said:
In the year of our lord 2024 it comes off to me as willful ignorance not to notice that media corporations, and most large corporations in general for that matter, are overtly aligning themselves with social movements that certainly can not be called right-wing. Especially when the director of this show is overtly saying that their works include activism.

and this is an argument from the year of our lord 2018

Ultimately this whole thing is just proxy culture war for which ideas are deemed profitable, no one’s really going to bat for or against the Rey movie but trying to assert how mainstream their politics are to a corporation. Should women direct movies, should activism be in movies? - aren’t even big questions to a leftist, they just are their understanding of Art. So when someone frames milquetoast as radical or even something to have an agenda about at all, it’s a frustrating signal that even the most inoffensive perspective they have is a matter of discourse

It is just idpol, it doesn’t actually matter or do anything to anyone. Corporatism then comes up because that actually means something, and is between the two a more urgent political conversation happening in that sphere. At least in this context, way more meaningful and relevant about Disney’s role, if those are the terms people want to talk about this.

But Obaid-Chinoy’s identity is her own. If someone has a problem with what she says on that, then mask off about it. I don’t think someone gets to hide behind nonpartisan, vague anti-corporation. At that point, you’re advocating for corporation to run as you see fit, not really being against it.

Leftists will personally choose to define leftism to include anti-corporatism despite knowing that it’s not the common parlance, and then act like the average person is just an idiot for using the meaning of the word that’s naturally evolved through real-life political contexts and dismiss what they’re saying out of hand.

How is the common parlance supposed to evolve if no one speaks up for it? In the past years the question of labor and monopoly, where money goes and comes from, have been very prevalent - leftists don’t want to have to justify the most basic respect for diversity when there are bigger concerns, and like I alluded to, some that people on “either side” could probably get behind.

Maybe it’s browbeating, but it’s much easier to dismiss something so petty and purposefully divisive. Women directing Star Wars should be “neat” and technically true. The mechanism that makes that a headline is ineffectual brownie farming, it’s something that ‘common parlance’ needs to move on from.

I don’t think people get passes on this sort of thing because it’s “common” or “average”. This is the incuriosity I talk about; why shouldn’t someone clinging to a broad, reactionary narrative be challenged on their terms?

Remember, what you’re claiming Anjohan did which was dangerous is claiming that the show directed by a woman who said “Every single piece of work that I have ever created has a piece of activism in it,” is going to have a political agenda.

This is not all Anjohan said

Threw together a quick little teaser trailer for this project.

Maybe something that would come out in the week before this hypothetical arc would premiere, if this were actually the finale of Andor. Wanted to use mostly shots that didn’t “spoil” too much, and also felt in line with the new vibe.