I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
Maybe George Orwell isn't really for you. 1984 and Animal Farm are political works - the latter being a satirical tale about the Russian Revolution and Stalinism.
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
"I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. "
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
Maybe George Orwell isn't really for you. 1984 and Animal Farm are political works
"Maybe George Orwell isn't really for you. 1984 and Animal Farm are political works"
I think that's what I'm saying, yup. I need a release from the real world worries and woes. Some people and watch or read something have an opinion on it, and that's that. I can't, it'll continually play on my mind.
Like for example the movie 'The Beach'. I can't watch it, it'll play on my mind for weeks.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
‘Mouse are you genuinely saying you think 1984 would have been a better book without all the pesky politics? That’s a fairly bold statement. I’d be interested in how you take that argument to a conclusion.
Hmmmmm the problem I have is that Orwell's view is biased and that he had an agenda; using his books as a political tool.
1984 I could manage again maybe. On further thinking I wonder how much work that I love is influenced by George.....
I'm not a hater, just 'I have a problem with..........'
Animal Farm, no I couldn't read that again.
Or Especially watch the cartoon! I'd be depressed for weeks!
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
‘Mouse are you genuinely saying you think 1984 would have been a better book without all the pesky politics? That’s a fairly bold statement. I’d be interested in how you take that argument to a conclusion.
Hmmmmm the problem I have is that Orwell's view is biased and that he had an agenda; using his books as a political tool.
1984 I could manage again maybe. On further thinking I wonder how much work that I love is influenced by George.....
I'm not a hater, just 'I have a problem with..........'
Animal Farm, no I couldn't read that again.
Or Especially watch the cartoon! I'd be depressed for weeks!
Well 1984, as well as being satire is a criticism and a warning of totalitarianism, authoritative government, survriilance society and the gap between the truth and what politicians actually mean. (Looking at you Trump and Boris Johnson).
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
"I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. "
Well I think you’re wrong, but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone, if only your mind can tell you. I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” but you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out.
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
"I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. "
Well I think you’re wrong, but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone, if only your mind can tell you. I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” but you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out.
"Well I think you’re wrong" - You're entitled to your opinion. I don't even think I have a popular opinion. However, it is my opinion. I great respect that you used 'I think'.
"but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone" - Where did I even insinuate that? I 'liked' Wed Santa's and AlexanderG's posts as I thought they were insightful and valid.
" if only your mind can tell you. " - Only your mind can tell you? If so, I agree.
"you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out." - I don't think I'm back tracking. My issue with a lot of responses on this site is 'putting words in my/others mouths'. That's happened several times here. So I'm clarifying my stance.
If 'that' is what I wrote in my original post, I stand by it. It is what it is. Just don't manipulate it to mean what you want it to mean. If I say I'm not keen on oranges. Don't ask me 'Why do you hate citrus fruit?'
I've watched episodes 1-2 so far. I heard amazing things about the series and I have to say I'm a bit underwhelmed, but love anything Star Wars.
McGregor is great of course.
I found the first episode a bit boring. Look at A new hope's portrayal of Tatooine. All those interesting characters wandering around. Snaggletooth, Hammerhead, Squid face, Ponda Baba, Greedo! There's none of that here.......
And also sending mixed messages.
Kenobi: I am not a jedi anymore!
Kenobi: I need to train the boy!
Kenobi: I'm not the man I was....
Make up your mind man!
Episode 2 was much more exciting and introduced us to a fantastic new world!
However......... The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me. Black, female actually more kick *** than the GI. Who we know is still the GI later. I don't think this does anybody any favours.
Oh and I was super looking forward to the 4-LOM cameo. Yet it wasn't 4-LOM. Just some other droid that moved like he'd been in a retirement home for the elderly metallic for a long time..........and died as such.
Cool green eyes though!!!
Oh no, women and black people are in the universe... What will we do?!
Misquote much?
You literally said a black female killed the fantasy for you in the same paragraph….
No, I didn't! I literally said "The 4th sister stinks of 'woke agenda' which....... kills the fantasy for me." The agenda kills the fantasy for me, not the person. The Reva actress is pretty cool, I love her moody looks.
I don't have a problem with black or female people having a strong/lead role.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
I have a problem with Reva character. She's meaner than the GI, and (from what I've seen so far) appears to kill the GI. As the GI appears later, it's bizarre and feels artificially created to avoid real life issues backlash.
When I saw Rebels, and you thought about the GI. My thoughts are that the GI is the meanest of the inquisitors. And is at the top because of that, now we find out that's not the case. It messes with my perceived order of things for not reason other than .... A real life agenda (In my opinion, not fact).
And that's become the norm; typically Star Wars messes with what you imagined the past to be. I'm having a problem with the Leia/Kenobi relationship too. As in A New Hope, Leia appears to have had no personal relationship with Kenobi.
Almost all sci-fi/fantasy stories are influenced by real life issues.
For example Ewoks vs. Empire was inspired by the USA vs. The Viet Cong.
It's my major beef with George Orwell's work. I want fantasy to escape real life issues.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
"I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. "
Well I think you’re wrong, but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone, if only your mind can tell you. I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” but you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out.
"Well I think you’re wrong" - You're entitled to your opinion. I don't even think I have a popular opinion. However, it is my opinion. I great respect that you used 'I think'.
"but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone" - Where did I even insinuate that? I 'liked' Wed Santa's and AlexanderG's posts as I thought they were insightful and valid.
" if only your mind can tell you. " - Only your mind can tell you? If so, I agree.
"you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out." - I don't think I'm back tracking. My issue with a lot of responses on this site is 'putting words in my/others mouths'. That's happened several times here. So I'm clarifying my stance.
If 'that' is what I wrote in my original post, I stand by it. It is what it is. Just don't manipulate it to mean what you want it to mean. If I say I'm not keen on oranges. Don't ask me 'Why do you hate citrus fruit?'
“Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there’s an agenda or not.”
This is my opinion: This discussion has been so deconstructed and redefined that we’re far away from your original statement. I think that was on purpose. Notice that the only thing you didn’t address in my post was the thing that directly related to your original claim. That’s not putting words in your mouth, that’s just looking at what you said.
Since we’re way off from what you said and the actual topic, whatever. You have your opinion, and that’s great. I just hope that at the end of the day you think it’s okay to have diversity in Star Wars.
"that we’re far away from your original statement. I think that was on purpose." - I can categorically say, this isn't the case. 'On purpose' is a conscious decision. Subconsciously.......well I cannot answer that. I promise you though, I haven't done that on purpose. Though, going into more detail does worry me, yes.
"Notice that the only thing you didn’t address in my post was the thing that directly related to your original claim." - I addressed what I felt needed addressing. I'm also not sure I understood everything you wanted to get across. However, do you mean this line? " I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” " I didn't answer it, as that does read like a summary of what I originally wrote.
I'm also conscious that I've derailed this thread enough, and I don't wish to add to that. However, I feel I need to defend myself when statements are thrown at me, that are not what I wrote or believe. I've also ignored a few comments that I consider are just trying to get a rise out of me.
I will sum up: harvestmouse said that they cared about the race and gender of 3rd Sis because past actors were NOT Black women. But no one said "White men are bad, I'm going to cast 3rd Sis to further my Black supremacist political agenda." The "agenda" was, as harvest mouse admitted, solely something that their own mind told them was there.
But the only evidence is that
1. 3rdSis is a black woman
2. Previous heroes were not Black women.
But that's a catch 22. If you can't cast a Black woman unless previous heroes were Black women, then that means that Star Wars must always forbid the casting of Black women heroes since it didn't start out with Black women heroes. but then, of course, you still have a political agenda driving the casting of your actors: it's just a racist political agenda.
The second thing that Harvestmouse said that I want to react to was a quote about how 3rdSis was "meaner" than other characters and that it felt "forced" when the Grand Inquisitor turned out not to be dead after being stabbed with a lightsaber.
But this is a galaxy where Maul survived his spine, spleen, kidneys and intestines being chopped in half. A thrust from a lightsaber creates a through-and-through hole like a bullet wound, but cauterized, so you don't bleed out as fast (or at all). If doctors can save the life of a gunshot wound victim where the hole is through the gut (and they can), the idea that SW-tech level doctors can't save a victim of a cauterized through-and-through is pretty laughable.
As for 3rdSis being mean: that's her character. SHe's supposed to be that way because she's overwhelmed with hatred, enough hatred and anger to drive her on a decade-long quest to kill the 2nd most powerful person in the galaxy, and her plan is to sacrifice a hero to her own villain, knowing that hero will die, because she's mad he didn't do enough to protect her.
I don't think harvestmouse really understands the SW galaxy and its technology, or the character of 3rd Sis. There were not great things in Kenobi, but finding GI alive was obviously plausible given the fictional universe, and 3rd Sis was allowed to turn such driving anger and hatred into grief only after she saw it was completely impossible for her to overcome Vader. Once she gave up that quest as hopeless, she could finally give up the anger and hatred.
3rd Sis (including her race and her gender) isn't remotely problematic, unless you really think that SW should be whites only because the first movie was whites only.
Note: I've muddled up 3rd and 4th sisters in past posts.
"3. When Maul was cut in half and appeared later with cybernetic legs, THAT felt forced." - Agreed. They are trying to ring the most out of characters. Kenobi's had enough excitement for 10 lives. Star Wars guys don't seem to learn from their mistakes.
"I know you're being honest about having problems with Reva's character, but I don't think you're being honest with yourself about the galaxy she's living in or the character's own story." - Hmmmm, well I've only watched episode 1 & 2 and have based my opinion on that.
From what we know of the Inquisitors, the 'Grand' Inquisitor is the top inquisitor. We have the 4th sister and 5th brother playing the roles you expect of inquisitors alongside the GI. However, you have another inquisitor 'Reva' that's playing a role that supersedes the GI. Why was this necessary? Why was it relevant to the Kenobi story? Is it good for the general order of things as we know it? I mean would it fit if we found out that actually there was this other Sith Lord during this period that bullied Vader? It just doesn't fit, so why did they do it? Thus my original statement. It smells of woke agenda.
"2. She's angry for a reason: she's driven to kill......" - Sorry, this is a spoiler for me.
"yeah, but there's no way to fix this. No one said, "I hate white men and now I'm casting this role with a Black woman actor just to advance my political agenda." - I don't think that. I do think we're living in a culture where you can get cancelled very easily. Disney play that game very well, positive PR is the name of the game.
"They cast the role and then YOU DECIDED that this was wrong and bad and political. There is literally no way to prevent racist people from thinking that a Black actor was cast because of her race EXCEPT to never ever ever cast a Black actor in a leading role." - Hmmm, no this is not what I meant. Enfys Nest, Greef Karga, Lando I adore. So, all the major roles for the Kenobi episode are fairly set. Kenobi, Skywalkers, Darth, GI, Palp, Organas. However, you have one new role, that being Reva. Was Reva A. a role that was cast for, and then the actor who got the role got it out of merit (I can believe out of merit as she is truly great) or was it B. a role pushed into the storyline because of a real world agenda? That's the crux of my point. I guess if it was 'A.', then my view is extremely disappointing and sad. I can see that.
"You admit it when you say that you're judging the casting of the current 3rd Sister's actor against the casting of past white actors." - Maybe no? I'm saying that I think that 'They're aware they haven't cast a black female as a lead before and therefore felt they had to address it for PR reasons.' I never said anything about white actors. Critical feedback about diverse casting being an agenda, is not a new thing in Star Wars, right?
"Why is that? Why do you care that past actors were white?" - For me you've added your sums and come to an incorrect conclusion. I don't have a problem with Reva being in the storyline. I really don't have a problem with the person they cast for Reva, she's extremely good. I do find Reva's role in the story odd and (so far) unnecessarily high profile. Which drew me to the conclusion of an agenda. To paraphrase myself I said something like 'smells of woke agenda, which kills the fantasy for me; a black female lead' right?
Star Wars guys don't seem to learn from their mistakes.
LOL. Completely agreed. Marvel characters as well, for that matter. Dr. Strange is all, "Oh, better not tamper with forbidden knowledge! That's worked out poorly the last 25 times I tried it. Aww, but maybe this one will be different: let's tamper!"
well I've only watched episode 1 & 2 and have based my opinion on that.
My apologies, but you did enter into a thread for the final episode that was clearly marked "spoilers" so... I guess this one isn't entirely my fault?
"yeah, but there's no way to fix this. No one said, "I hate white men and now I'm casting this role with a Black woman actor just to advance my political agenda."
- I don't think that. I do think we're living in a culture where you can get cancelled very easily. Disney play that game very well, positive PR is the name of the game.
Okay, so you don't think that they are rubbing their hands together saying, "I hate white men," but either
1. You still believe the 2nd part (that they cast the role with a political agenda in mind)
OR
2. They aren't playing a political game at all. They're just trying to make money in a world where people are voting with their dollars to see a diverse cast.
Are they playing PR and giving people what they like to see? Or are they being woke?
Because corporations trying to make money isn't news. It seems like you're trying to take back your earlier statement that they have a woke political agenda and are replacing it with a different statement: that they are just trying to give the people what they want. If everyone wanted a white hero, if that's what people really cared about enough to make Disney more money, then they'd give everyone a white hero. If it made them more money to have stupid writing but great special effects, guess what you'll get?
That's not political. That's not woke. That's just real life.
"You admit it when you say that you're judging the casting of the current 3rd Sister's actor against the casting of past white actors."
- Maybe no? I'm saying that I think that 'They're aware they haven't cast a black female as a lead before and therefore felt they had to address it for PR reasons.' I never said anything about white actors. Critical feedback about diverse casting being an agenda, is not a new thing in Star Wars, right?
Okay, this gets a little complicated, but it has the same problem. You're saying that you don't have a problem because they haven't previously cast Black women as heroes, but Disney has a problem with Black women not being cast as heroes, so Disney is trying to correct that problem and you're just mad that they're trying to correct that problem that they have because it shouldn't even be a problem.
Okay, but see my response to the last quote. You shouldn't be upset with the casting of 3rdSis. Even if this was all true (and we don't know that it is, she could have just been cast b/c the director loved her), your problem would be that Black communities spend more money on entertainment that stars Black actors and liberal communities spend more money on just having diversity in general, and together those two communities have enough dollars that Disney starts drooling.
Again, there's nothing that Disney's doing wrong there. Even our plots are chosen with an eye to making money. Think about the movies that almost didn't get made because "no one wants to see a story about X, it's too depressing". There have to be even more that ACTUALLY didn't get made because the plot didn't appeal to popular prejudices about what movies are for, how you should feel when walking out of the theater, and what kind of movie makes you feel that way.
It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes (or enough of them, depending on how you classify Nest as a hero or not, given how little time she had on screen), then doesn't that say that they're good at not giving into the pressure? Doesn't it say that they're sticking to choosing the best actor and letting the races portrayed in roles fall wherever they may?
Your criticism only makes sense if critical feedback about casting is a new thing, and that Disney has never shown an ability to resist outside pressure regarding casting before.
Okay, that's enough for me. Thanks for listening and thanks for thinking.
But this is a galaxy where Maul survived his spine, spleen, kidneys and intestines being chopped in half. A thrust from a lightsaber creates a through-and-through hole like a bullet wound, but cauterized, so you don't bleed out as fast (or at all). If doctors can save the life of a gunshot wound victim where the hole is through the gut (and they can), the idea that SW-tech level doctors can't save a victim of a cauterized through-and-through is pretty laughable
Thats should be the absolute exception, not the norm. Just because TCW chose to bring Maul back (which was already a huge stretch, but at the very least you could give the excuse that he had a different anatomy) shouldnt mean that "no one is ever truly gone" from now on (Next up: Dooku returns as a cyborg in Mando season 3). It also doesnt help that its implied she was stabbed as a smal child and left in the gutter and still survived because something something dark side something something. If she can survive that then why the hell does anybody die short of disintegration.
"1. You still believe the 2nd part (that they cast the role with a political agenda in mind)
OR
2. They aren't playing a political game at all. They're just trying to make money in a world where people are voting with their dollars to see a diverse cast.
Are they playing PR and giving people what they like to see? Or are they being woke?"
Well, this probably a lot more thought than I gave it. So I'm having to think about it.
Woke Agenda = to be awake to sensitive social issues, such as racism.
I think that still fits to my interpretation of this 'possible' situation. They're sensitive to the fact they 'haven't' cast a black female lead, and to avoid 'bad PR' they created a character to force in a black female lead into the story.
1.5 A PR woke sensitive agenda?
This sums up my feelings.
"so Disney is trying to correct that problem and you're just mad that they're trying to correct that problem that they have because it shouldn't even be a problem."
I'm not mad, it certainly doesn't bother me as much as my feelings are bothering others. I'm more disappointed 4-LOM wasn't 4-LOM and not awesome.
I dislike a real life agenda in fantasy/sci fi. That's my problem, not the specifics. That she's black and female are the specifics, it could be a totally different set of specifics and I'd equally have a problem.
"your problem would be that Black communities spend more money on entertainment that stars Black actors and liberal communities spend more money on just having diversity in general, and together those two communities have enough dollars that Disney starts drooling." - Well, I have a problem with an agenda influencing what I am watching, when it shouldn't be relative to what I'm watching.
"Okay, but see my response to the last quote. You shouldn't be upset with the casting of 3rdSis." - Well this is where it's complex. I quite like the casting of the 3rd sister... She's very good. However, it's the role the 3rd sister has and the reasoning why she has that role. I guess it's all connected and breaks down if you try to dissect it.
"It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes (or enough of them, depending on how you classify Nest as a hero or not, given how little time she had on screen), then doesn't that say that they're good at not giving into the pressure?"
The book of Enfys Nest? Oooohhhh yes please!
Well my point is that 'A black female' lead seems to be a major social issue they have failed to cover. Add to this the odd positioning of the 3rd sister leaves me sceptical of their intentions. Is it to cover all bases, and prevent negative feedback on their empathy (or lack of) to sensitive social issues? I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
"It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes..." - I meant that Star Wars has been accused of pushing woke agenda.
I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. At least in my mind, and that's where the fantasy exists. Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there's an agenda or not.
‘Mouse are you genuinely saying you think 1984 would have been a better book without all the pesky politics? That’s a fairly bold statement. I’d be interested in how you take that argument to a conclusion.
Hmmmmm the problem I have is that Orwell's view is biased and that he had an agenda; using his books as a political tool.
1984 I could manage again maybe. On further thinking I wonder how much work that I love is influenced by George.....
I'm not a hater, just 'I have a problem with..........'
Animal Farm, no I couldn't read that again.
Or Especially watch the cartoon! I'd be depressed for weeks!
Well 1984, as well as being satire is a criticism and a warning of totalitarianism, authoritative government, survriilance society and the gap between the truth and what politicians actually mean. (Looking at you Trump and Boris Johnson).
It's never been more relevant.
Yet the Dems are the ones that want a Dept of Truth, lol.
Why wasn't Cobb Vanth shards a reward for the Krayt Dragon raid? Why wasn't Endor Gear Luke shards a reward for the Speeder Bike raid?
The Dems aren't perfect, but you really, really don't want to go there, @LordDirt .
Not least because AlexanderG was already off topic and taking this further could get you bounced. Why not discuss only the politics that are relevant to understanding and/or appreciating the final Kenobi episode?
I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
Well then you really are in Sci/Fi land.
Name one single company that has gone bankrupt because of "the slightest slip up". I'll be generous. It can even be one with 1% of Disney's market capitalization or higher; it doesn't have to be anything like a company that's a peer to Disney.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Got nothing? That's right. Because there is no torch and pitchfork mob waiting for "the slightest slip up". The left has abortion access to worry about, global warming, police violence...
Not only do activists just not have time to try to bankrupt an entire company for "the slightest slip up", but they can't bankrupt the oil companies that are their biggest enemies, and have been for many years.
But go ahead. One more try to show me that Disney's afraid of going bankrupt due to a slight slip up. Just one little company that has gone bankrupt for not hiring a Black woman or for hiring a white man.
This should be easy. If giant corporations are terrified of this, the threat must be huge. Examples should be easy to come by. Go ahead. List a few.
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
So a black female being a murderous backstabbing vilain who torture children is a woke agenda ?
The Dems aren't perfect, but you really, really don't want to go there, @LordDirt .
Not least because AlexanderG was already off topic and taking this further could get you bounced. Why not discuss only the politics that are relevant to understanding and/or appreciating the final Kenobi episode?
You tell me not to go there but the next post you go there. Please dont be a hypocrite.
Why wasn't Cobb Vanth shards a reward for the Krayt Dragon raid? Why wasn't Endor Gear Luke shards a reward for the Speeder Bike raid?
I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
Well then you really are in Sci/Fi land.
Name one single company that has gone bankrupt because of "the slightest slip up". I'll be generous. It can even be one with 1% of Disney's market capitalization or higher; it doesn't have to be anything like a company that's a peer to Disney.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Got nothing? That's right. Because there is no torch and pitchfork mob waiting for "the slightest slip up". The left has abortion access to worry about, global warming, police violence...
Not only do activists just not have time to try to bankrupt an entire company for "the slightest slip up", but they can't bankrupt the oil companies that are their biggest enemies, and have been for many years.
But go ahead. One more try to show me that Disney's afraid of going bankrupt due to a slight slip up. Just one little company that has gone bankrupt for not hiring a Black woman or for hiring a white man.
This should be easy. If giant corporations are terrified of this, the threat must be huge. Examples should be easy to come by. Go ahead. List a few.
Ok, 'The slightest slip up, and they're done.' was an overstatement. I concede that point.
However, cancel culture exists. Are companies bowing to such social pressures?
Didn't I just read something about a Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow thing being re-introduced at Disney? Isn't Amber Heard now being written out of 'My little Mermaid' or whatever it is? The witch hunting mob, ran in one direction, but seem to have turned and running in the other direction now. Fickleness?
Not going into the issues behind any particular cancel culture case. I think big companies are very aware of not falling foul of a potential cancel culture campaign.
Smart enough to be one step ahead of the game? Cover all the bases to prevent future potential problems?
But now we're back to this: Disney **hasn't** been canceled by the left, they've only been canceled by the right (and that's for its amusement park, not it's Disney+ channel, its shows, or its movies).
And because Disney hasn't been canceled by the left... something something... can't cast Black women without ruining my fun.
The underpants gnomes would be proud!
You like the actor, you like the show, and yet your enjoyment is diminished by your worry that somehow the motives of Disney ain't pure.
This really sounds like a "you" problem, not a "Disney" problem.
So again, let me clear it up for you: Disney NEVER had pure motives. They were ALWAYS a for-profit corporation, and they ALWAYS do what they think will make them the most money. ALWAYS. Individuals might want to make a great show, or might want to write in-jokes into the script to make fun of their friend who didn't get a job working on the Star Wars show or they might just be motivated to do anything that they have to do to keep their boss happy because they love the on-set buffet. I have no idea what the individuals are motivated by, but rest assured: if Disney the corporation thought they could make more money by firing those individuals and bringing in new ones, they would.
So that's it: your SciFi is made by capitalists who want your money. If you don't like SciFi made by capitalists because you're always worried that they might try to make their shows & movies popular, then you'll never like SciFi.
You tell me not to go there but the next post you go there. Please dont be a hypocrite.
I am not a hypocrite. Did you even read the message you quoted?
HarvestMouse brought up politics as limiting their enjoyment of the Kenobi show. This discussion is about politics only to the extent that it's necessary to understand the critique raised by Harvestmouse and determine whether others should be persuaded by that critique and/or endorse it.
Your swipe at "Dems" had literally nothing to do with StarWars or the Kenobi show. Not even tangentially. Please, keep things remotely on topic. Gratuitous political swipes are not that.
Disney can’t be cancelled because they have enough money to shut down any widespread attempts or just because they are a corporation, and we give them money for so many things already, some that we might not even know about. You can’t really cancel an actor as an average citizen. You can start a movement that claims it dislikes people and will refuse to give that person money, whatever that may entail. Then studios will not hire that actor because of it.
Just my two cents, but considering this is way off topic I assume it will be removed. Cheers!
I do have a problem with real life issues/a real life agenda in my science fiction. It affects my belief of the fantasy. The fact that Star Wars hasn't had a lead/strong black female up to now; this strikes me of a 'woke agenda' created character to cover bases.
So a black female being a murderous backstabbing vilain who torture children is a woke agenda ?
They seemed to forgiving her pretty quickly for all that though.
Then again so did Anakin, but at least he had to die first.
I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
Because there is no torch and pitchfork mob waiting for "the slightest slip up".
Well there was that HM and "coolest monkey in the jungle" business lol. Didnt go bankrupt though.
While Id love to discuss the American political landscape this is kinda getting out of hand. Can we all just go back to discussing why Kenobi sucks?
I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
Well then you really are in Sci/Fi land.
Name one single company that has gone bankrupt because of "the slightest slip up". I'll be generous. It can even be one with 1% of Disney's market capitalization or higher; it doesn't have to be anything like a company that's a peer to Disney.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
.
That's a disingenuous request because corporations the size you're talking about dont close overnight and never will. A more fair question would be name a company of this size that's been finically impacted by agenda driven politics.
Victoria's Secret (unrealistic body images)
GoDaddy (animal rights)
Papa Johns (racism)
General Mills (AA representation)
If you want bankrupt companies I'm 100000% positive that a quick Google search in your area will yield bakeries, day cares, restaurants, etc. in every state that have been canceled and are now closed.
Replies
Fantasy has never been about escaping real life issues and never will be. If a story ever was completely detached from reality, it would likely have nothing for readers to relate to.
"I think influenced and an agenda are 2 different things though. "
Hmmmmm the problem I have is that Orwell's view is biased and that he had an agenda; using his books as a political tool.
1984 I could manage again maybe. On further thinking I wonder how much work that I love is influenced by George.....
I'm not a hater, just 'I have a problem with..........'
Animal Farm, no I couldn't read that again.
Or Especially watch the cartoon! I'd be depressed for weeks!
Well 1984, as well as being satire is a criticism and a warning of totalitarianism, authoritative government, survriilance society and the gap between the truth and what politicians actually mean. (Looking at you Trump and Boris Johnson).
It's never been more relevant.
Well I think you’re wrong, but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone, if only your mind can tell you. I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” but you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out.
"Well I think you’re wrong" - You're entitled to your opinion. I don't even think I have a popular opinion. However, it is my opinion. I great respect that you used 'I think'.
"but you’ve already told people that you won’t listen to anyone" - Where did I even insinuate that? I 'liked' Wed Santa's and AlexanderG's posts as I thought they were insightful and valid.
" if only your mind can tell you. " - Only your mind can tell you? If so, I agree.
"you’re backtracking because someone pointed that out." - I don't think I'm back tracking. My issue with a lot of responses on this site is 'putting words in my/others mouths'. That's happened several times here. So I'm clarifying my stance.
If 'that' is what I wrote in my original post, I stand by it. It is what it is. Just don't manipulate it to mean what you want it to mean. If I say I'm not keen on oranges. Don't ask me 'Why do you hate citrus fruit?'
Hello there!
Vader should have won imo
“Only my mind can tell me if it thinks there’s an agenda or not.”
This is my opinion: This discussion has been so deconstructed and redefined that we’re far away from your original statement. I think that was on purpose. Notice that the only thing you didn’t address in my post was the thing that directly related to your original claim. That’s not putting words in your mouth, that’s just looking at what you said.
Since we’re way off from what you said and the actual topic, whatever. You have your opinion, and that’s great. I just hope that at the end of the day you think it’s okay to have diversity in Star Wars.
"Notice that the only thing you didn’t address in my post was the thing that directly related to your original claim." - I addressed what I felt needed addressing. I'm also not sure I understood everything you wanted to get across. However, do you mean this line? " I think we all know why you mentioned it, and that’s because you don’t like that “agenda,” " I didn't answer it, as that does read like a summary of what I originally wrote.
I'm also conscious that I've derailed this thread enough, and I don't wish to add to that. However, I feel I need to defend myself when statements are thrown at me, that are not what I wrote or believe. I've also ignored a few comments that I consider are just trying to get a rise out of me.
I will sum up: harvestmouse said that they cared about the race and gender of 3rd Sis because past actors were NOT Black women. But no one said "White men are bad, I'm going to cast 3rd Sis to further my Black supremacist political agenda." The "agenda" was, as harvest mouse admitted, solely something that their own mind told them was there.
But the only evidence is that
1. 3rdSis is a black woman
2. Previous heroes were not Black women.
But that's a catch 22. If you can't cast a Black woman unless previous heroes were Black women, then that means that Star Wars must always forbid the casting of Black women heroes since it didn't start out with Black women heroes. but then, of course, you still have a political agenda driving the casting of your actors: it's just a racist political agenda.
The second thing that Harvestmouse said that I want to react to was a quote about how 3rdSis was "meaner" than other characters and that it felt "forced" when the Grand Inquisitor turned out not to be dead after being stabbed with a lightsaber.
But this is a galaxy where Maul survived his spine, spleen, kidneys and intestines being chopped in half. A thrust from a lightsaber creates a through-and-through hole like a bullet wound, but cauterized, so you don't bleed out as fast (or at all). If doctors can save the life of a gunshot wound victim where the hole is through the gut (and they can), the idea that SW-tech level doctors can't save a victim of a cauterized through-and-through is pretty laughable.
As for 3rdSis being mean: that's her character. SHe's supposed to be that way because she's overwhelmed with hatred, enough hatred and anger to drive her on a decade-long quest to kill the 2nd most powerful person in the galaxy, and her plan is to sacrifice a hero to her own villain, knowing that hero will die, because she's mad he didn't do enough to protect her.
I don't think harvestmouse really understands the SW galaxy and its technology, or the character of 3rd Sis. There were not great things in Kenobi, but finding GI alive was obviously plausible given the fictional universe, and 3rd Sis was allowed to turn such driving anger and hatred into grief only after she saw it was completely impossible for her to overcome Vader. Once she gave up that quest as hopeless, she could finally give up the anger and hatred.
3rd Sis (including her race and her gender) isn't remotely problematic, unless you really think that SW should be whites only because the first movie was whites only.
"3. When Maul was cut in half and appeared later with cybernetic legs, THAT felt forced." - Agreed. They are trying to ring the most out of characters. Kenobi's had enough excitement for 10 lives. Star Wars guys don't seem to learn from their mistakes.
"I know you're being honest about having problems with Reva's character, but I don't think you're being honest with yourself about the galaxy she's living in or the character's own story." - Hmmmm, well I've only watched episode 1 & 2 and have based my opinion on that.
From what we know of the Inquisitors, the 'Grand' Inquisitor is the top inquisitor. We have the 4th sister and 5th brother playing the roles you expect of inquisitors alongside the GI. However, you have another inquisitor 'Reva' that's playing a role that supersedes the GI. Why was this necessary? Why was it relevant to the Kenobi story? Is it good for the general order of things as we know it? I mean would it fit if we found out that actually there was this other Sith Lord during this period that bullied Vader? It just doesn't fit, so why did they do it? Thus my original statement. It smells of woke agenda.
"2. She's angry for a reason: she's driven to kill......" - Sorry, this is a spoiler for me.
"yeah, but there's no way to fix this. No one said, "I hate white men and now I'm casting this role with a Black woman actor just to advance my political agenda." - I don't think that. I do think we're living in a culture where you can get cancelled very easily. Disney play that game very well, positive PR is the name of the game.
"They cast the role and then YOU DECIDED that this was wrong and bad and political. There is literally no way to prevent racist people from thinking that a Black actor was cast because of her race EXCEPT to never ever ever cast a Black actor in a leading role." - Hmmm, no this is not what I meant. Enfys Nest, Greef Karga, Lando I adore. So, all the major roles for the Kenobi episode are fairly set. Kenobi, Skywalkers, Darth, GI, Palp, Organas. However, you have one new role, that being Reva. Was Reva A. a role that was cast for, and then the actor who got the role got it out of merit (I can believe out of merit as she is truly great) or was it B. a role pushed into the storyline because of a real world agenda? That's the crux of my point. I guess if it was 'A.', then my view is extremely disappointing and sad. I can see that.
"You admit it when you say that you're judging the casting of the current 3rd Sister's actor against the casting of past white actors." - Maybe no? I'm saying that I think that 'They're aware they haven't cast a black female as a lead before and therefore felt they had to address it for PR reasons.' I never said anything about white actors. Critical feedback about diverse casting being an agenda, is not a new thing in Star Wars, right?
"Why is that? Why do you care that past actors were white?" - For me you've added your sums and come to an incorrect conclusion. I don't have a problem with Reva being in the storyline. I really don't have a problem with the person they cast for Reva, she's extremely good. I do find Reva's role in the story odd and (so far) unnecessarily high profile. Which drew me to the conclusion of an agenda. To paraphrase myself I said something like 'smells of woke agenda, which kills the fantasy for me; a black female lead' right?
LOL. Completely agreed. Marvel characters as well, for that matter. Dr. Strange is all, "Oh, better not tamper with forbidden knowledge! That's worked out poorly the last 25 times I tried it. Aww, but maybe this one will be different: let's tamper!"
My apologies, but you did enter into a thread for the final episode that was clearly marked "spoilers" so... I guess this one isn't entirely my fault?
Okay, so you don't think that they are rubbing their hands together saying, "I hate white men," but either
1. You still believe the 2nd part (that they cast the role with a political agenda in mind)
OR
2. They aren't playing a political game at all. They're just trying to make money in a world where people are voting with their dollars to see a diverse cast.
Are they playing PR and giving people what they like to see? Or are they being woke?
Because corporations trying to make money isn't news. It seems like you're trying to take back your earlier statement that they have a woke political agenda and are replacing it with a different statement: that they are just trying to give the people what they want. If everyone wanted a white hero, if that's what people really cared about enough to make Disney more money, then they'd give everyone a white hero. If it made them more money to have stupid writing but great special effects, guess what you'll get?
That's not political. That's not woke. That's just real life.
Okay, this gets a little complicated, but it has the same problem. You're saying that you don't have a problem because they haven't previously cast Black women as heroes, but Disney has a problem with Black women not being cast as heroes, so Disney is trying to correct that problem and you're just mad that they're trying to correct that problem that they have because it shouldn't even be a problem.
Okay, but see my response to the last quote. You shouldn't be upset with the casting of 3rdSis. Even if this was all true (and we don't know that it is, she could have just been cast b/c the director loved her), your problem would be that Black communities spend more money on entertainment that stars Black actors and liberal communities spend more money on just having diversity in general, and together those two communities have enough dollars that Disney starts drooling.
Again, there's nothing that Disney's doing wrong there. Even our plots are chosen with an eye to making money. Think about the movies that almost didn't get made because "no one wants to see a story about X, it's too depressing". There have to be even more that ACTUALLY didn't get made because the plot didn't appeal to popular prejudices about what movies are for, how you should feel when walking out of the theater, and what kind of movie makes you feel that way.
It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes (or enough of them, depending on how you classify Nest as a hero or not, given how little time she had on screen), then doesn't that say that they're good at not giving into the pressure? Doesn't it say that they're sticking to choosing the best actor and letting the races portrayed in roles fall wherever they may?
Your criticism only makes sense if critical feedback about casting is a new thing, and that Disney has never shown an ability to resist outside pressure regarding casting before.
Okay, that's enough for me. Thanks for listening and thanks for thinking.
Thats should be the absolute exception, not the norm. Just because TCW chose to bring Maul back (which was already a huge stretch, but at the very least you could give the excuse that he had a different anatomy) shouldnt mean that "no one is ever truly gone" from now on (Next up: Dooku returns as a cyborg in Mando season 3). It also doesnt help that its implied she was stabbed as a smal child and left in the gutter and still survived because something something dark side something something. If she can survive that then why the hell does anybody die short of disintegration.
OR
2. They aren't playing a political game at all. They're just trying to make money in a world where people are voting with their dollars to see a diverse cast.
Are they playing PR and giving people what they like to see? Or are they being woke?"
Well, this probably a lot more thought than I gave it. So I'm having to think about it.
Woke Agenda = to be awake to sensitive social issues, such as racism.
I think that still fits to my interpretation of this 'possible' situation. They're sensitive to the fact they 'haven't' cast a black female lead, and to avoid 'bad PR' they created a character to force in a black female lead into the story.
1.5 A PR woke sensitive agenda?
This sums up my feelings.
"so Disney is trying to correct that problem and you're just mad that they're trying to correct that problem that they have because it shouldn't even be a problem."
I'm not mad, it certainly doesn't bother me as much as my feelings are bothering others. I'm more disappointed 4-LOM wasn't 4-LOM and not awesome.
I dislike a real life agenda in fantasy/sci fi. That's my problem, not the specifics. That she's black and female are the specifics, it could be a totally different set of specifics and I'd equally have a problem.
"your problem would be that Black communities spend more money on entertainment that stars Black actors and liberal communities spend more money on just having diversity in general, and together those two communities have enough dollars that Disney starts drooling." - Well, I have a problem with an agenda influencing what I am watching, when it shouldn't be relative to what I'm watching.
"Okay, but see my response to the last quote. You shouldn't be upset with the casting of 3rdSis." - Well this is where it's complex. I quite like the casting of the 3rd sister... She's very good. However, it's the role the 3rd sister has and the reasoning why she has that role. I guess it's all connected and breaks down if you try to dissect it.
"It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes (or enough of them, depending on how you classify Nest as a hero or not, given how little time she had on screen), then doesn't that say that they're good at not giving into the pressure?"
The book of Enfys Nest? Oooohhhh yes please!
Well my point is that 'A black female' lead seems to be a major social issue they have failed to cover. Add to this the odd positioning of the 3rd sister leaves me sceptical of their intentions. Is it to cover all bases, and prevent negative feedback on their empathy (or lack of) to sensitive social issues? I think that. Society has their pitch forks and are eager to go a witch hunting. I think companies like Disney are terrified of this. The slightest slip up, and they're done.
"It's also a bit odd, because if critical feedback about diverse casting isn't new, and if Disney still hasn't had Black women heroes..." - I meant that Star Wars has been accused of pushing woke agenda.
A case in point would be Rose Tico, and her diminished role in the 3rd movie.
Quick answer yes its fine.
3rd sister is meant to annoy the viewer until thr last 2 episodes, thats when her story gets deeper.
Did it work for you or not is your own opinion. Move on.
Actress did fine at her role, lets see where it goes from here.
Back to discussion of the episode
Yet the Dems are the ones that want a Dept of Truth, lol.
Not least because AlexanderG was already off topic and taking this further could get you bounced. Why not discuss only the politics that are relevant to understanding and/or appreciating the final Kenobi episode?
Well then you really are in Sci/Fi land.
Name one single company that has gone bankrupt because of "the slightest slip up". I'll be generous. It can even be one with 1% of Disney's market capitalization or higher; it doesn't have to be anything like a company that's a peer to Disney.
Go ahead, I'll wait.
Got nothing? That's right. Because there is no torch and pitchfork mob waiting for "the slightest slip up". The left has abortion access to worry about, global warming, police violence...
Not only do activists just not have time to try to bankrupt an entire company for "the slightest slip up", but they can't bankrupt the oil companies that are their biggest enemies, and have been for many years.
But go ahead. One more try to show me that Disney's afraid of going bankrupt due to a slight slip up. Just one little company that has gone bankrupt for not hiring a Black woman or for hiring a white man.
This should be easy. If giant corporations are terrified of this, the threat must be huge. Examples should be easy to come by. Go ahead. List a few.
You tell me not to go there but the next post you go there. Please dont be a hypocrite.
Ok, 'The slightest slip up, and they're done.' was an overstatement. I concede that point.
However, cancel culture exists. Are companies bowing to such social pressures?
Didn't I just read something about a Johnny Depp/Jack Sparrow thing being re-introduced at Disney? Isn't Amber Heard now being written out of 'My little Mermaid' or whatever it is? The witch hunting mob, ran in one direction, but seem to have turned and running in the other direction now. Fickleness?
Not going into the issues behind any particular cancel culture case. I think big companies are very aware of not falling foul of a potential cancel culture campaign.
Smart enough to be one step ahead of the game? Cover all the bases to prevent future potential problems?
And because Disney hasn't been canceled by the left... something something... can't cast Black women without ruining my fun.
The underpants gnomes would be proud!
You like the actor, you like the show, and yet your enjoyment is diminished by your worry that somehow the motives of Disney ain't pure.
This really sounds like a "you" problem, not a "Disney" problem.
So again, let me clear it up for you: Disney NEVER had pure motives. They were ALWAYS a for-profit corporation, and they ALWAYS do what they think will make them the most money. ALWAYS. Individuals might want to make a great show, or might want to write in-jokes into the script to make fun of their friend who didn't get a job working on the Star Wars show or they might just be motivated to do anything that they have to do to keep their boss happy because they love the on-set buffet. I have no idea what the individuals are motivated by, but rest assured: if Disney the corporation thought they could make more money by firing those individuals and bringing in new ones, they would.
So that's it: your SciFi is made by capitalists who want your money. If you don't like SciFi made by capitalists because you're always worried that they might try to make their shows & movies popular, then you'll never like SciFi.
I am not a hypocrite. Did you even read the message you quoted?
HarvestMouse brought up politics as limiting their enjoyment of the Kenobi show. This discussion is about politics only to the extent that it's necessary to understand the critique raised by Harvestmouse and determine whether others should be persuaded by that critique and/or endorse it.
Your swipe at "Dems" had literally nothing to do with StarWars or the Kenobi show. Not even tangentially. Please, keep things remotely on topic. Gratuitous political swipes are not that.
Just my two cents, but considering this is way off topic I assume it will be removed. Cheers!
They seemed to forgiving her pretty quickly for all that though.
Then again so did Anakin, but at least he had to die first.
Well there was that HM and "coolest monkey in the jungle" business lol. Didnt go bankrupt though.
While Id love to discuss the American political landscape this is kinda getting out of hand. Can we all just go back to discussing why Kenobi sucks?
Victoria's Secret (unrealistic body images)
GoDaddy (animal rights)
Papa Johns (racism)
General Mills (AA representation)
If you want bankrupt companies I'm 100000% positive that a quick Google search in your area will yield bakeries, day cares, restaurants, etc. in every state that have been canceled and are now closed.