Star Wars Star Wars Discussion Thread - LET THE PAST D-! Oh, wait, nevermind

[KilroywasNOTHere]

Andor getting more praise from the adult geek crowd, who want more than stories for kids.

I'm going to go against the grain just a little and say I roll my eyes anytime someone on the Internet essentially goes "I can never go back to that kid stuff again after watching REAL cinema." Very often it comes across as being incredibly pretentious.

Saw this more than a fair share with GOT fans when comparing LOTR to it and I cringed when they did it too. I'll give Tyler credit he does at least try to explain why he feels that way 2nd post but it still makes me cringe. Like I said it's a personal problem and I'm aware it's an unpopular opinion.

 

[The Whispering Monk]

I'm going to go against the grain just a little and say I roll my eyes anytime someone on the Internet essentially goes "I can never go back to that kid stuff again after watching REAL cinema." Very often it comes across as being incredibly pretentious.

Saw this more than a fair share with GOT fans when comparing LOTR to it. I'll give Tyler credit he does at least try to explain why he feels that way 2nd post but it still makes me cringe.

It's pretty simple really. Some of us have lived in the grit, and we actually want to escape from reality. Things like old Star Wars did that really well. It's one reason I never watched GOT past some of season 1.

 

[KilroywasNOTHere]

It's pretty simple really. Some of us have lived in the grit, and we actually want to escape from reality. Things like old Star Wars did that really well. It's one reason I never watched GOT past some of season 1.

I can't say I've really lived in the grit but apparently I have more than many of my peers and I've been surrounded by others who did live in it. And yeah I get you. I think it's part of the reason why I like movies with happy endings and have an aversion to most horror movies. XD

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Meme idea shamelessly stolen from this guy:

 

[Husky_Khan]

Andor is a good series (I've only seen Season One) but as soon as someone strikes Gold its like everyone falls over and says this person should do everything. Look at how rapidly The Mandalorian fell in quality. And that's in spite of Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau honestly having more experience with the lore and the tone of Star Wars and actual success with the franchise FWIW.

Andor and Rogue One and all of that is just a side story in the Star Wars universe. It's good but it's not the tone of what the main Star Wars stories should be.

You literally can make Star Wars stories for kids and adults. That's what almost all of Star Wars is (good or bad)... with the exception of Andor. Just having mainstream Star Wars films and series with the tone of Andor would be overwhelmingly pretentious IMHO. Like it was with Episode Three, Season Three of The Mandalorian. It was trying to do the more "dramatic thriller" tone of Andor and it was a wet fart in quality.

This is like the opposite of when the Tartakovsky Clone Wars minisodes came out and every retard was like "OMG All of Star Wars should be like this because the Prequels Suck! Just make them all Samurai Jack style animation."

 

[Bacle]

It's pretty simple really. Some of us have lived in the grit, and we actually want to escape from reality. Things like old Star Wars did that really well. It's one reason I never watched GOT past some of season 1.

Escapism is part of the problem with Star Wars; it isn't useful for escapism, even if Lucas tries to pretend 'Star Wars is for kids.'

You don't make a Veitcong analogue the good guys, you don't make the Death Star an analogue for nukes, you don't make a villain like Palpatine in the the Prequels, or a 'lived in' world if you just want to help people 'escape'.

The two goals of Star Wars are to make political statements about the times, and design shit that can be sold later as a toy/game.

Andor just does away with the toy design/sales angle, and full embraces the political techno-thriller aspect Star Wars has matured into.

Andor is a good series (I've only seen Season One) but as soon as someone strieks Gold its like everyone falls over and says this person should do everything. Look at how rapidly The Mandalorian fell in quality. And that's in spite of Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau honestly having more experience with the lore and the tone of Star Wars and actual success with the franchise FWIW.

Andor and Rogue One and all of that is just a side story in the Star Wars universe. It's good but it's not the tone of what the main Star Wars stories should be.

You literally can make Star Wars stories for kids and adults. That's what almost all of Star Wars is (good or bad)... with the exception of Andor. Just having mainstream Star Wars films and series with the tone of Andor would be overwhelmingly pretentious IMHO. Like it was with Episode Three, Season Three of The Mandalorian. It was trying to do the more "dramatic thriller" tone of Andor and it was a wet fart in quality.

Two very different directing styles and goals. You need to see season 2, it makes so much of the old lore better, and shows the gulf of difference that comes from the two different story styles coming out of Star Wars right now.

Filoni wants to make the stories on screen that he wanted to make as a kid, and is more for the visual spectacle and his own take on the classic 'hero's journey/Lone Wolf and Cub' stories.

Gilroy is a long time professional film director, who wanted to show the ground level drama and political scheming and moves of the non-Force power/non-'Main Character' denizens of Star Wars and the Rebellion.

Filoni wanted the same energy and kind of stories he'd seen before, and made before in his work with Avatar the Last Airbender.

Gilroy wanted to treat the Empire and Death Star with the same seriousness as Nazi's and Soviets, as well treating the Death Star with the same seriousness that the team he is working with did for Chernobyl and the same sort of seriousness to the political side.

And funny you mention GOT, many Andor actors also had roles in GOT or in Chernobyl.

Personally I think Andor is pretty much the best Star Wars media to come out since Mando Season 2, and maybe even since the Prequels themselves.

Star Wars is a brutal reality to live in, and pretending only the Force wielders and big names matter is part of the problem with the newer media. Gilroy is just doing justice to the side of Star Wars that Legends fan always knew was there, and that treats things with due seriousness, instead of trying to make things 'kid friendly' as the baseline.

 

[Skallagrim]

I firmly believe that SW is fundamentally mythical in nature. Its true sources are mythology and fairy-tales. (The latter being folk stories, which is ultimately just the less "literary" counterpart to the more formalised canon of mythology.)

Once you lose that element, it can still be good, but it's no longer the thing that was fundamentally Star Wars.

Andor is very good television, but anyone who thinks that this is "grown up" SW -- and that SW as a whole should be more like this -- is completely missing the point of what SW was intended to be in the first place. It was, explicitly, Lucas's answer to (and vehement rejection of) bleak and "gritty" sci-fi of the early '70s. SW was meant to be uplifting, idealistic and aspirational.

Making too much of certain political parallels is a canard, too. Lucas pointed out that his main idea was that the same struggles play out again and again. So the Rebels are "plucky underdogs beat much bigger enemy with near-limitles state power". That can be the Vietcong... but it's just as much the Founding Fathers leading the charge against the British. Lucas is pretty lefty, so to him, Palpatine's corruption resembled Nixon and Watergate... but far more frequently, Lucas referenced Hitler... and Caesar.

"Making poltical statements about the times" is absolutely not the point of SW. Rather, the idea was to make statements that hold true in all times.

Andor is great as a side story in SW, and as a story on its own terms, but even then: given the above, I do have some serious issues with placing it in the same era as the main saga. This kind of "gritty realism" sort of tarnishes the pure idealism that is and must remain the core of that saga. It would have been better if something like Andor had been set a few thousand years in the past. It's fine to explore a more "gritty" take, but I'd want it far more removed from the main saga. And as I said: it can only even be a side story. If you were to turn all of SW into this, you'd kill it more thoroughly than the sequels did. Not by making it bad, but by making it something else than what it is.

The people who would eagerly turn SW "gritty and realistic" are no better than Kathleen Kennedy. They want to take SW, and warp it into something else entirely. Something that they happen to like. Something, by the way, that may even be good. May even be great. But something that's no longer really SW.

People who want that should just make an original setting. Just like the purple-haired SJWs should. Stop trying to hijack existing stuff in order to change it. Either love and respect what it is, or keep your hands off it. That should be the maxim of anyone approaching a pre-existing work.

 

[Bacle]

I firmly believe that SW is fundamentally mythical in nature. Its true sources are mythology and fairy-tales. (The latter being folk stories, which is ultimately just the less "literary" counterpart to the more formalised canon of mythology.)

Once you lose that element, it can still be good, but it's no longer the thing that was fundamentally Star Wars.

Andor is very good television, but anyone who thinks that this is "grown up" SW -- and that SW as a whole should be more like this -- is completely missing the point of what SW was intended to be in the first place. It was, explicitly, Lucas's answer to (and vehement rejection of) bleak and "gritty" sci-fi of the early '70s. SW was meant to be uplifting, idealistic and aspirational.

Making too much of certain political parallels is a canard, too. Lucas pointed out that his main idea was that the same struggles play out again and again. So the Rebels are "plucky underdogs beat much bigger enemy with near-limitles state power". That can be the Vietcong... but it's just as much the Founding Fathers leading the charge against the British. Lucas is pretty lefty, so to him, Palpatine's corruption resembled Nixon and Watergate... but far more frequently, Lucas referenced Hitler... and Caesar.

"Making poltical statements about the times" is absolutely not the point of SW. Rather, the idea was to make statements that hold true in all times.

Andor is great as a side story in SW, and as a story on its own terms, but even then: given the above, I do have some serious issues with placing it in the same era as the main saga. This kind of "gritty realism" sort of tarnishes the pure idealism that is and must remain the core of that saga. It would have been better if something like Andor had been set a few thousand years in the past. It's fine to explore a more "gritty" take, but I'd want it far more removed from the main saga. And as I said: it can only even be a side story. If you were to turn all of SW into this, you'd kill it more thoroughly than the sequels did. Not by making it bad, but by making it something else than what it is.

The people who would eagerly turn SW "gritty and realistic" are no better than Kathleen Kennedy. They want to take SW, and warp it into something else entirely. Something that they happen to like. Something, by the way, that may even be good. May even be great. But something that's no longer really SW.

People who want that should just make an original setting. Just like the purple-haired SJWs should. Stop trying to hijack existing stuff in order to change it. Either love and respect what it is, or keep your hands off it. That should be the maxim of anyone approaching a pre-existing work.

Why should fans of more realistic story telling and plots, instead of fanciful stories for children who don't understand the world as well as adults do, be pushed out of Star Wars story telling?

If the Blue Hairs are allowed to have their say in Star Wars, and they aren't going to be removed from it no matter how much some may want it, would not the best counter-balance to the blue-hairs be going gritty and realistic and telling grown up, hardboiled stories.

Star Wars is too big a franchise, and too big a universe, for it to only have one type of story vibe it can work with and be 'faithful'.

Star Wars is a sandbox to play in now, not a universe with just one proper type of story telling, and complaining anything but fairy tale vibes is 'not Star Wars' is just falling for the opposite end of the rhetorical extremism as the blue hairs pushing the 'Force is female' shit.

And it's like you forgot the video games and Legends stories that were very much not in the 'vibe' you think is proper for Star Wars. Tie Fighter games were great because they were fun in the Star Wars universe, without any fairy tale vibes. Empire at War is one of the best RTS's out there and still going strong, and not because of 'fairy tale' vibes.

This doesn't even touch things like the Black Fleet Crisis and the Yevetha, which is much closer to the sort of story that Gilroy told, instead of Filoni, or the monster that is the Vong.

The idea Star Wars stories have to have a 'fairy tale vibe' to be 'proper Star Wars' is just as dumb as what the Blue Hairs want to turn it into.

Edit: It is more important to give kids the truth of the world, of the brutal realities of the world, than to fill their heads with optimistic and fanciful fairy tales and unrealistic expectations, and watch them struggle when the real world doesn't live up to their optimistic views built on fairy tale stories.

Unrealistic expectations and optimism based on fairy tales is part of why blue hairs are so angry and have grown so powerful.

 

[Simonbob]

Unrealistic expectations and optimism based on fairy tales is part of why blue hairs are so angry and have grown so powerful.

"Stories don't have monsters to convince kids they exist. Kids already know they exist. Stories have monsters so kids know they can be killed."
G.K. Chesterton

 

[Bacle]

"Stories don't have monsters to convince kids they exist. Kids already know they exist. Stories have monsters so kids know they can be killed."
G.K. Chesterton

Except, sometimes they cannot be killed, or even controlled; sometimes, they have to be tolerated and lived with, because they are too powerful to 'kill', or because attempting to 'kill' them may unleash even worse monsters on the world.

Sometimes we need to teach children the lessons we wish we'd been taught as kids, and give them better preparation for their lives and futures, rather than just teach them the same fairy tales that didn't do shit to help our generation prepare for the world we live in now.

Preparing children for the realities of the world is more important than giving them falsely optimistic impressions of the world.

This is a sin of both Star Wars and Star Trek, that they give children false impressions of the adult world and what it should be.

This is why it is better for kids to be watching things like Stargate, and see that even our most heroic organizations still have corruption, limitations, and imperfections, and franchises like Fallout, so they can seeing the realities that may be awaiting them in their future.

Optimism doesn't prevent harm and prepare children for the world, brutal reality and gritty stories do.

 

[Skallagrim]

It is more important to give kids the truth of the world, of the brutal realities of the world, than to fill their heads with optimistic and fanciful fairy tales and unrealistic expectations

That's the exact view Lucas was trying to denounce, when making SW. He's on record as despising the worldview you espouse, and creating SW to counter that exact line of thinking. It's one of the few things he never retconned his views on, even. This has been one of the constants. SW is meant to reject "gritty realism". To offer an alternative to that.

(Also: what @Simonbob wrote. That's also my view on such matters. Do you imagine all those "unrealistic" myths and tales had such lasting power because they were bullshitting us? No. Those stories tell us something that matters.)

Your more cynical view is of course perfectly valid, if that works for you. You should make your own setting and base it on your view of things. Write the grittiest, dreariest, most depressing sci-fi epic you can imagine. Given the media landscape, I'm sure it'll have fans.

But trying to steer SW into that direction is very much the equivalent of SJW-infiltrating, however much one might try to wriggle away from that obvious equivalency. You want to take a thing and change it into something else, because you think "something else" is better.

You're entitled to think that, but then you should make something else. Not hijack an existing thing and change it.

 

[Bacle]

That's the exact view Lucas was trying to denounce, when making SW. He's on record as despising the worldview you espouse, and creating SW to counter that exact line of thinking. It's one of the few things he never retconned his views on, even. This has been one of the constants. SW is meant to reject "gritty realism". To offer an alternative to that.

(Also: what @Simonbob wrote. That's also my view on such matters. Do you imagine all those "unrealistic" myths and tales had such lasting power because they were bullshitting us? No. Those stories tell us something that matters.)

Your more cynical view is of course perfectly valid, if that works for you. You should make your own setting and base it on your view of things. Write the grittiest, dreariest, most depressing sci-fi epic you can imagine. Given the media landscape, I'm sure it'll have fans.

But trying to steer SW into that direction is very much the equivalent of SJW-infiltrating, however much one might try to wriggle away from that obvious equivalency. You want to take a thing and change it into something else, because you think "something else" is better.

You're entitled to think that, but then you should make something else. Not hijack an existing thing and change it.

Was DS9 'hijacking' Star Trek because it rejected a lot of the optimistic and overly 'perfect' views of the world Roddenberry created?

And you still haven't answered the question.

If Blue Hairs will continue to be a part of Star Wars going forward, and want to push their own brand of woke shit onto Star Wars, why should those who want to counter the Blue Hairs via gritty realism, and messaging that doesn't embrace wokeness, not be part of Star Wars story telling as well?

We aren't going to be able to eject the Blue Hairs from being part of the story writers for Star Wars going forward, the best we can do is counter them with people like Gilroy and stories like Andor.

I'm dealing with the reality of the Star Wars fandom and creative staffing, not waxing on about what 'ideal' Star Wars should look like, and pretending we will ever get that again.

If you aren't willing to help 'hijack' the Star Wars fandom/stories in ways that counter the Blue Hairs, then they will get to control the franchise, and you will be left with far worse and less 'proper Star Wars' content in the future.

 

[Lord Sovereign]

Think about it like this.

The myths of the Northmen and Ancient Greeks were utterly brutal, yet nobility shines through all the same. In the very first Star Wars Film, millions of people are senselessly murdered by a tyrannical regime, and the kindly old mentor figure is cut down before the hero’s very eyes.

This same hero who’d just the day before came home to find his dear uncle and aunt’s charred corpses.

Star Wars has always been brutal. Andor is part of a grander story of heroism, of many little sacrifices that would one day build up into Luke Skywalker getting his chance to slay the Dragon of the Empire.

 

[Skallagrim]

Think about it like this.

The myths of the Northmen and Ancient Greeks were utterly brutal, yet nobility shines through all the same. In the very first Star Wars Film, millions of people are senselessly murdered by a tyrannical regime, and the kindly old mentor figure is cut down before the hero’s very eyes.

This same hero who’d just the day before came home to find his dear uncle and aunt’s charred corpses.

Star Wars has always been brutal. Andor is part of a grander story of heroism, of many little sacrifices that would one day build up into Luke Skywalker getting his chance to slay the Dragon of the Empire.

That's not the objection. The problem isn't that brutal things happen. I didn't even mention that. The problem is moral relativism. You get OT figures re-imagined as morally grey; the Rebel Alliance as less than wholly clean and upright. And I object to that.

If I wrote it, the Rebel Alliance would refuse to work, in any way, with morally compromised creatures like Luthen or Saw. They'd never be let in, or kicked out the instant they started crossing lines. The heroes need to be heroes, and anyone wgo sacrifuces virtue to achieve a 'win' MUST find out that such victories are hollow.

Basically, by the underlying metaphysics of SW (as set up originally), the Rebel Alliance seen in Andor should end up becoming just a new bunch of despots after they 'win'. Because in SW, immoral means can only ever yield immoral outcomes.

Once you drop that, you're no longer making SW. Denning did that same thing. What the proponents of "gritty realism" are (unknowingly) advocating for is: the bleak and pointless Denningverse all over again.... forever...

 

[TyrantTriumphant]

I think Andor works fine where it is. It shouldn't be a main story, but as a side story it does it's job. I like the grit but I recognize that the main movies shouldn't be full of it. But again that's why you have side stories. And it's not like we didn't get stuff like this in the Legends continuity so saying it's never been a part of Star Wars is not accurate.

 

[Husky_Khan]

I think Andor works fine where it is. It shouldn't be a main story, but as a side story it does it's job. I like the grit but I recognize that the main movies shouldn't be full of it. But again that's why you have side stories. And it's not like we didn't get stuff like this in the Legends continuity so saying it's never been a part of Star Wars is not accurate.

This is mostly my feelings on the matter as well. Stories with the tone and atmosphere of Andor have their place in Star Wars but ancillary. It shouldn't be a main focus of the franchise. That's not the main point of Star Wars.

People don't watch Star Wars wanting Game of Thrones in space anymore then the want to see House of the Dragon as a kids friendly puppet show. Doesn't mean you can't have light-hearted novellas or short stories in ASOIAF but that's not the atmosphere of the franchise.

 

[Bacle]

That's not the objection. The problem isn't that brutal things happen. I didn't even mention that. The problem is moral relativism. You get OT figures re-imagined as morally grey; the Rebel Alliance as less than wholly clean and upright. And I object to that.

If I wrote it, the Rebel Alliance would refuse to work, in any way, with morally compromised creatures like Luthen or Saw. They'd never be let in, or kicked out the instant they started crossing lines. The heroes need to be heroes, and anyone wgo sacrifuces virtue to achieve a 'win' MUST find out that such victories are hollow.

Basically, by the underlying metaphysics of SW (as set up originally), the Rebel Alliance seen in Andor should end up becoming just a new bunch of despots after they 'win'. Because in SW, immoral means can only ever yield immoral outcomes.

Once you drop that, you're no longer making SW. Denning did that same thing. What the proponents of "gritty realism" are (unknowingly) advocating for is: the bleak and pointless Denningverse all over again.... forever...

Borsk Fey'lya ring a bell?

The Rebels/New Republic have had utter cunts and self-interested dipshits as part of their organization for a long, long time.

 

[Skallagrim]

Borsk Fey'lya ring a bell?

The Rebels/New Republic have had utter cunts and self-interested dipshits as part of their organization for a long, long time.

Borsk was, if you didn't notice, an antagonist. The heroes -- the POV characters we're rooting for -- all hated him, without exception.

These distinctions matter. If they started writing stories where Borsk is right, and political opportunism and betrayal are lauded and rewarded, because "that's how things really work"... then they're going wrong. All wrong.

But as long as Borsk Fey'lya exists as an examplar of everything that's wrong; an obnoxious ass who's wrong 99 times out of a 100, and our heroes never compromise by catering to his whims-- that's not a problem.



Circling back to this for a moment, to again illustrate that distinctions matter:

Was DS9 'hijacking' Star Trek because it rejected a lot of the optimistic and overly 'perfect' views of the world Roddenberry created?

DS9 is set a century after TOS. I stress that if Andor had been removed from the OT by that length, I'd have no issues with it. Note that Sisko is born almost exactly a hundred years after Kirk. What happens in this separate story has no bearing on TOS; it doesn't re-cast or re-imagine what happened during TOS.

If they'd instead made a Section 31 type series set during TOS, re-casting the Federation of that age as a morally compromised and shadowy organisation, and subsequently re-contextualising all Kirk's heroism as tarnished by the moral decay that is thereby implied... that would have been vile.

DS9 is also, by design, a story of extremes. So is Andor. You act as if I've said that such things shouldn't exist. I've never said that. I've said that such stories can be very good. But in an existing setting that is idealistic, such stories should only be added as "exceptions to the rule", and they should be firmly separate from the "main"/"original" story. (Indeed, my only real objection to Andor is that it isn't set at least a hundred years before TPM or a hundred years after RotJ.)

Observe also where DS9 led. DS9 was very good. But gritty, dark stuff isn't somehow good by default. Even if you look at the DS9 retrospective documentary: they talk about ideas for a "revival", and those ideas are horrible. Their idea was to have Nog brutally killed in the opening scene, for "shock value". That, my friend, is where the fetishisation of "dark and gritty" leads.

And then it goes further. Because the utter dreck that is Discovery is also the product of that mindset. You imagine that if a setting goes "dark and gritty", you get DS9 ten times over. But no. You mostly just get STD ten times over.

In SW, it's no different. Andor might be good, but most of the "dark and gritty" output won't be. And when "dark and gritty" works are bad, they're unusually bad. Because they're never bad in a funny way. They're dreary and lame and pathetic. So in reality, you get the Denningverse. And you get TLJ, too. "Look, look! What a brilliant subversion! Luke is depressed now! That's realistic! It's so mature and serious."

Understand that, please. TLJ is a key example of the kind of story you think you want. "Grown up Star Wars"? It mostly looks like that.

I'll pass.

 

[Bacle]

Borsk was, if you didn't notice, an antagonist. The heroes -- the POV characters we're rooting for -- all hated him, without exception.

These distinctions matter. If they started writing stories where Borsk is right, and political opportunism and betrayal are lauded and rewarded, because "that's how things really work"... then they're going wrong. All wrong.

But as long as Borsk Fey'lya exists as an examplar of everything that's wrong; an obnoxious ass who's wrong 99 times out of a 100, and our heroes never compromise by catering to his whims-- that's not a problem.

Borsk wasn't an antagonist, that would be the Imperials and Vong.

Borsk was an asshole and self-interested cunt, who also happened to represent the faction of the Rebels/New Republic concerned about human's dominating the government, after what had happened during Palp's reign and even the anti-alien bias left over from the Clone Wars; most of the Sep leadership was non-human.

Circling back to this for a moment, to again illustrate that distinctions matter:



DS9 is set a century after TOS. I stress that if Andor had been removed from the OT by that length, I'd have no issues with it. Note that Sisko is born almost exactly a hundred years after Kirk. What happens in this separate story has no bearing on TOS; it doesn't re-cast or re-imagine what happened during TOS.

If they'd instead made a Section 31 type series set during TOS, re-casting the Federation of that age as a morally compromised and shadowy organisation, and subsequently re-contextualising all Kirk's heroism as tarnished by the moral decay that is thereby implied... that would have been vile.

DS9 is also, by design, a story of extremes. So is Andor. You act as if I've said that such things shouldn't exist. I've never said that. I've said that such stories can be very good. But in an existing setting that is idealistic, such stories should only be added as "exceptions to the rule", and they should be firmly separate from the "main"/"original" story. (Indeed, my only real objection to Andor is that it isn't set at least a hundred years before TPM or a hundred years after RotJ.)

Observe also where DS9 led. DS9 was very good. But gritty, dark stuff isn't somehow good by default. Even if you look at the DS9 retrospective documentary: they talk about ideas for a "revival", and those ideas are horrible. Their idea was to have Nog brutally killed in the opening scene, for "shock value". That, my friend, is where the fetishisation of "dark and gritty" leads.

And then it goes further. Because the utter dreck that is Discovery is also the product of that mindset. You imagine that if a setting goes "dark and gritty", you get DS9 ten times over. But no. You mostly just get STD ten times over.

In SW, it's no different. Andor might be good, but most of the "dark and gritty" output won't be. And when "dark and gritty" works are bad, they're unusually bad. Because they're never bad in a funny way. They're dreary and lame and pathetic. So in reality, you get the Denningverse. And you get TLJ, too. "Look, look! What a brilliant subversion! Luke is depressed now! That's realistic! It's so mature and serious."

Understand that, please. TLJ is a key example of the kind of story you think you want. "Grown up Star Wars"? It mostly looks like that.

I'll pass.

I've seen the documentary about DS9 that floated the revival idea, and the idea to kill Nog and blow the Defiant in the opening episode was not nice, but Nog's actor has also passed away from cancer, thus killing Nog off made sense from a perspective of 'the actor is dead anyway'.

TLJ isn't an example of what I wanted, it's an example of what the Blue Haired, 'The Force is Female' crowd wanted.

I would never have sidelined Finn in favor of Rey, like the movies did. Finn's defection was a great plot thread that was left nearly unused, and very much would have made a great point to show the humanity in the First Order's rank and file.

Would also have never done the stupid Battle at Gait or the hyperspace ramming dumbassery.

 

[Husky_Khan]

Understand that, please. TLJ is a key example of the kind of story you think you want. "Grown up Star Wars"? It mostly looks like that.

I'll pass.

Since Tony Gilroy has repeatedly stated he wants nothing to do with the greater Star Wars universe we'll get Shawn Ryan and David Simon to take up the next Star Wars trilogy. The minds behind amazing shows like The Wire, Sons of Anarchy, The Shield and Generation Kill can introduce the dark, gritty... monstrous and subversive side of Star Wars missing from the childlike fairy tale bullshit George Lucas brought us. The Galaxy Far Far Away has finally grown up.

Drugs. Vice. Exploitation. Intrigue. Sectarianism. Strife. Trafficking. Brutality. Corruption...

And before any of you whiners talk about how this isn't Star Wars... remember Han Solo smuggled spice and Leia wore a metal bikini. Nothing that happened in our reality is worse then blowing up Alderaan. Mature, adult themes like these were always an integral part of Star Wars.



But seriously... just leave Andor where it is. I've seen Disney's attempts at trying to emulate succeeding Marvel Netflix shows and even the tone of Andor a few times now in various properties and its always lackluster.