#and it's all george lucas' fault

[jewishcissiekj]

so funny how I've done my best to focus on Asajj's legends character and not think about tcw that I completely forgot about the Nightsisters' part in her story for a while. it's simply not important enough

[bethanydelleman]

It's funny, when I say that Austen didn't advise marrying a rake or a Gothic hero, someone replies, "They've mistaken Austen for the Brontë sisters." (usually meaning Emily and Charlotte).

Except... Emily and Charlotte didn't advocate reforming a rake either. Jane Eyre famously GTFO when she learned that Rochester was trying to commit bigamy and she didn't return without divine intervention to a man who had been half-smitted by God for his sins. Isabella may have originally thought she could reform Heathcliff, but pretty quickly she fled from her marriage, never returned, and did everything she could to keep her son from him.

Maybe we could just stop blaming these literary women for things they didn't even do, not that we really need to blame anyone since I'm fairly certain that writing a love story where a heroine reforms a rake isn't the root cause of all evil.

[nothing-but-flowers88]

Semi modern Star Wars au where it’s the 70s and the main group reluctantly plays a DnD esque sci fi board game called ‘Star Wars’ then become obsessed and cue Han whining cause he keeps rolling one and Leia keeps rolling to shoot him

[skrunksthatwunk]

world's thinnest walls versus parents' stupidest argument

[margindoodles2407]

We have fun here (sobbing)

Fr

[david-talks-sw]

We're the jedi conscripted, or did they join the war by choice

Short answer:

They were conscripted, but they didn't resist the conscription by choice.

You can read more on the subject here (with quotes by George Lucas supporting this), here re: the Jedi's relationship with the clones and here (explaining that while the Jedi were flawed, they weren't at fault).

Longer answer:

The droid armies were attacking all planets in the Republic's territory, be they neutral or otherwise.

The clones were facing weapons that targeted biological matter, as well as Force-users and cyborgs.

The people of the Republic - for the most part - were too weak or fearful or defenseless to fight back.

The Jedi are super-powered beings who've been drafted into a war, against their express desires.

If they so wished, they could start a putch, take control of the Senate rotunda, make everyone back off the Order.

Or just go on strike, say "nope, we don't stand for this, we're not warriors, see ya, good luck" and leave Coruscant.

Or they could sabotage droid factories here and there.

Will any of these options stop the war? We - the audience - know the answer to that is "no."

Because the truth is, this war is designed to be fought by the Jedi, so as to thin their numbers and ultimately destroy them completely.

Hence why,

the enemy is so blatantly evil (corporations mustering an army of lifeless killing machines) and

the victims are so clearly denfeseless (see the Lurmen pacifists or the Twi'lek or the Shili) and

the Republic's army is so hapless (the clones are well-trained, but they're just human, they are out of their depth and considered to be nothing more than expendable cannon fodder by both their creators and their owners).

If you're a Jedi, and your duty is to preserve life and end conflict... there really is only one answer that does the least damage.

And that's joining the conflict to help the people of the Republic, and to lead the clones so as to end the war.

Thus, the Jedi were both legally and morally compromised... and misled. Because there never was any "ending" to this war.

The war was a sham.

It was engineered by two Sith Lords to cause chaos from which the Empire could rise from after the destruction of the Jedi Order. That chaos can take ANY form, as long as both those boxes are ticked.

Like, suppose the Jedi hadn't joined... Palpatine, master politician that he is, could just as easily spin this as "the callous dispassionate Jedi would rather let people die than forego their dogmatic values of peace above all," still turn the public on them, and then have both the clones and the Separatists kill them on sight.

Because again: there was no war. BOTH those armies belonged to the Sith, they were shooting at each other so that the Jedi would step in-between them and get shot.

The only way to win this game was to either

fight it on the appropriate battlefield (the political arena, which the Jedi have no experience with),

acknowledge what's happening is beyond their understanding and try to play catch-up until they can do more,

and/or, when the time comes, have the Chosen One fulfill the prophecy and destroy the Sith.

They undertook the middle option, even grazed victory with it...

... and then Anakin - in a masterclass of fucking up - renders that middle option viable by reversing the third one - tailor-made for him and only him - and siding with the Sith, thus leaving the Force in darkness and the galaxy in chaos.

[gffa]

You know why the Jedi are right in this scene? Because it's literally how the Force works, this moment is undivorceable from the very basic worldbuilding fact that: The Force works based on their emotions. That is part of everything to do with the Force in the movies, that is the very first layer of the foundation of how it works! If they use the Force while they're afraid, that is straight up a path to the dark side, that's not just what the Jedi say, it's how Star Wars' worldbuilding functions. “Once you become afraid that somebody’s going to take it away from you or you’re gonna lose it, then you start to become angry, especially if you’re losing it, and that anger leads to hate, and hate leads to suffering. Mostly on the part of the person who’s selfish, because you spend all your time being afraid of losing everything you’ve got instead of actually living. [....] So that is ultimately the core of the whole dark side/light side of the Force.” –George Lucas Fear is the path to the dark side. It doesn't matter if the fear is justified or not, it's not necessarily a moral or value judgement, but it just is how the Force works. So, the scene in The Phantom Menace goes like this: Yoda:  "Afraid are you?" Anakin:  "No, sir." Yoda:  "See through you we can." Mace:  "Be mindful of your feelings." Ki-Adi:  "Your thoughts dwell on your mother." Anakin:  "I miss her." Yoda:  "Afraid to lose her, I think, mmm?" Anakin:  "What has that got to do with anything?" Yoda:  "Everything. Fear is the path to the dark side. Fear leads to anger. Anger leads to hate. Hate leads to suffering. I sense much fear in you." The Jedi are repeating Lucas' explanation almost word for word in this scene, fear leads to anger, anger leads to hate, hate leads to suffering, this isn't what the Jedi decided was how things work, it's how the Force works as decided by the guy who created the Force, they're absolutely, 100% correct about it. And that's why it's important that Anakin isn't acknowledging his fear here, that it's not that he's afraid that's the problem or what the Jedi are saying is the problem--the Jedi express emotion all across the movies! that whole "there is no emotion" thing is NOWHERE in the movies or TCW! that is something Lucas himself never put in ANY of his canon!--but that he won't even be mindful of his feelings. Being mindful isn't immediately purging them, it's acknowledging that they're there, working through them, eventually letting them go. "But it's normal for a nine year old to miss his mother! How can they say he's bad just for--" They're not saying Anakin is bad. Nobody is saying Anakin is a horrible person for missing his mother! Nobody is even saying that Anakin is a horrible person for not being mindful of his feelings! Nobody is saying that it's Anakin's fault that he doesn't have the tools for better emotional regulation! But they are saying that he's not a good fit for the Jedi. And they're right! He's not a good fit for the Jedi! Not one single Council member even so much as implies that this is any kind of judgement of Anakin as a person or that he's bad for it! They're saying he doesn't have the rock solid foundation that a Jedi needs because that's how the Force works--and they're right. Every commentary Lucas ever makes about Anakin's fall is that he didn't want to regulate his feelings, he didn't want to let go of things.

The Jedi never once say or imply that that would make Anakin a bad person or that he's a failure because he didn't magically have things he wasn't taught, but they're saying that it would make him a bad fit for being a Jedi and they can already feel--given that they're psychic space wizards who can sense others' feelings--that he doesn't really want to change. ("He's nine! You can't judge a character at that--" Girl, it's a fairy tale meant to illustrate Lucas' personal philosophies about emotional regulation via fairy tale logic, not hyperrealistic examinations of characters, come on now.)

Which doesn't make Anakin a bad person or that he's in the wrong for being scared and not having the tools to deal with it. The Jedi can say "He's not a good fit for what we need to be because of the way the Force works." and not have it be any kind of condemnation of him as a person. His later actions, once he has the training and support to know better, sure. But nobody's saying the nine year old is at fault. They're saying the nine year old doesn't have the foundation he would need, which it doesn't matter that it's not his fault, it's still quite literally how the Force works, that you need that foundation.

[brrmian]

something that so many star wars fans somehow fail to realize is that george lucas always intended for the fall of the republic to be a completely unavoidable tragedy. that’s what makes it such brilliant storytelling.

placing the blame on just one party in the galaxy-wide farce that was the clone wars just isn’t interpreting the story the way its writer intended. neither is saying that all players should be held equally accountable. i don’t think the jedi were at fault for the state of the republic, and (despite the fact that he did horrible things) neither was anakin, on a galactic or governmental scale.

the real villain is palpatine, who shaped the government into a corrupt system by his own hand. the blame for turning a democratic republic into an authoritarian dictatorship (which it was long before it became the empire) under the noses of thousands of incredibly corrupt politicians must be placed entirely on him, and him alone.

by the end of the war, the jedi council recognized that they had already lost the ability to hold onto what it truly means to be a jedi. in their prime during the days of the old republic, the jedi knights were “the guardians of peace and justice.” they’re meant to as diplomats, peacekeepers, mediators, and public servants. when the clone wars began, they were essentially forced into being soldiers, generals, and quasi-politicians by palpatine and the senate. all of those things are antithetical to the jedi’s beliefs, but they had no other choice.

placing even the smallest bit of blame on the jedi for anything leading to the republic’s downfall—and their own—is not only unfair, it’s factually incorrect. the jedi order is a monastic organization. they have no say in the senate and no voting power. saying they’re corrupt, when in fact they were just as conned by palpatine as the rest of the galaxy, is victim-blaming and scapegoating.

palpatine shoved the jedi face first into fighting the war, and pretty much threw the clone army into their laps on top of that. the jedi had no say in the matter, and they certainly had no say in the war itself being started, either. because he controlled both sides, palpatine was able to make the CIS and the republic declare war on each other even though its citizens wanted the same outcome: political independence and survival. if not for palpatine’s schemes, the separatists would have been allowed to secede peacefully, the republic would have continued existing, and the war would have been completely avoided. but that was unfortunately not the case.

so in a galaxy thrown into an unavoidable war by its own secret dictator, with an army of sentient slaves suddenly at their command, and the risk of billions of deaths at the hands of the droid army imminently approaching, what do the galaxy’s official peacekeepers have no other choice but to do? be peacekeepers. why wouldn’t the sworn defenders of the galaxy be out on the battlefields trying to end the war? if they sat in the temple and did nothing, they simply wouldn’t be jedi.

the jedi were forced into a lose/lose situation. every religion and organization has faults, but that doesn’t place any blame on them for the catch-22 they were trapped into falling for. when the clone wars started—and the key point here is that it never should have in the first place—the jedi still needed to be jedi. unfortunately for them, that meant having positions of power not meant for them being thrust upon their shoulders. they couldn’t drop the burden, because that meant actively choosing not to save lives—but the other option, becoming soldiers despite the tenet of their beliefs that dictates they shouldn’t, was no better.

see what a cruel trap palpatine set? it’s like a fish being caught in a fisherman’s net. the net is spread out across the ocean floor, and the fish swim above it, not knowing that the trap is waiting to be drawn in around them from below. in the end, when the net starts to tighten, dragging them closer to the surface, they can’t swim fast enough to escape from the middle to the edge—and to safety—before the net is completely tied. it’s the cruelest kind of trap: the kind that gives you just the right amount of time to think you can escape while being sprung just quick enough to make actually escaping impossible.

in the end, the order actively chose to fight the war because they needed to. there was no other way to continue on as who they were. militarizing the order was not the right choice in a vacuum, but this was not that; this was a situation in which every galaxy-changing choice was the wrong one. the jedi knew they were making a decision that drew them farther away from their beliefs, but it was the lesser of an infinite list of evils, and they didn’t see the walls closing in on them until it was too late.

lucas himself has even said that the order was not corrupt or decaying from the inside, nor did they make a series of bad choices that ultimately led to their own destruction. they were always just trying to do the right thing—but unlike literally everything else in fiction, the jedi order’s death was completely unaffected by any of the choices they made. no matter what they did, they were always going to lose. the fall of the republic wasn’t caused by its defenders choosing what they saw as the least bad choice. it didn’t come down to any decisions, political or not, that the jedi council made with the limited tools that they had. it certainly didn’t come down to one emotionally unstable twenty-three-year-old’s slow descent into insanity, either. the republic and the jedi would still have been destroyed with or without anakin’s unhinged nervous breakdown.

anakin, just like the order, the republic, and the separatists, was taken advantage of by palpatine. even if a person’s choices are their own, they don’t exist in a vacuum.

anakin would have made better choices if not for palpatine, but he didn’t. the jedi order would have kept the peace if not for palpatine, but no matter how hard they tried, they couldn’t. the republic, and democracy with it, would not have crumbled if not for palpatine. not the order, not anakin, not the separatists, and not the republic.

in the end, they were all just pawns in a decades-spanning plan, one that none of them saw coming until it was too late—and by then, it was already irreversible.

[writerbuddha]

As a Buddhist I wanted to know what your opinion is on people criticising George Lucas for ‘stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with’.

Uh-oh. This is a very complex issue. I might stir up the hornet's nest.

To be entirely honest, throughout the years, I've met these four types of the people who would claim, George Lucas is "stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with."

There are many people who have no accurate recollection and/or understanding of what they saw in the movies and the tv show. For example, they would insist, mindfulness of emotions in the movies is presented as repression of emotions, or that non-attachment is presented as not having families, which are obviously not in line with Buddhist and other Eastern teachings, so they conclude, George Lucas is "stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with." These people are, in my experience, genuinely well-meaning, they simply misunderstood some of the core messages and lessons. A good example is that some people would accuse George Lucas with twisting the Taoist "Yin" to mean evil, because the "dark side is an essence of evilness", which is not what the movies, the tv show and Lucas are saying at all.

There are some people who simply don't like and feel threatened by Buddhist and other Eastern teachings George Lucas depicted in Star Wars - mostly non-attachment and mindfulness of emotions - but they identify as progressive, and for them, that is irreconcilable with not liking, feeling threatened by and therefore attacking those Buddhist and other Eastern teachings. So, they entertain the idea that if George Lucas would "understand and respectfully engage with" those teachings, they would not have any issue with them at all, because they imagine, they would affirm their beliefs and attitudes instead of challenging them. This is a quite problematic attitude: in fact, these are the people who don't understand or respectfully engage with these philosophies.

There's an extremely marginal but very loud group who actually recognized, they misunderstood the core messages and lessons George Lucas was telling, so their takes on Star Wars are simply inaccurate - but, for various reasons (including, but not limited to using Star Wars as a means to cope with traumas, mental health issues etc.) they won't accept this, so claiming, George Lucas is "stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with" is their way of sticking their heads into the sand. I.e., "the Jedi are not teaching Buddhist non-attachment, George Lucas is just appropriating Buddhist philosophy" etc.

And finally, there are those who don't like the fact that George Lucas depicted Buddhism and other Eastern philosophies in his movies and would try to use this statement, George Lucas is "stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with" to present their outrage over the fact that George Lucas dared to introduce these non-Western philosophies to Western audiences and that it became extremely popular, as a progressive and woke position to take. The biggest problem with this group is that it's somehow convinced that erasing Buddhist and other Eastern teachings from Star Wars is a Good Thing.

Honestly, this fourth group is the one I'm the most concerned about. Here are people who would also signal ethnic nationalist ideas and prejudices i.e., basically claiming, Buddhism is copyrighted and non-Eastern people have no right to practice or teach it, which is, to be frank, an attack on Buddhism itself. Or those who actually have no understanding of or interest in these philosophies, but are desperate to find someone to "expose" for wrongdoing - these are those who didn't care until it was cool to care, and feel that it's George Lucas' fault that they didn't care before, even though he was always very clear on the fact that he depicted these philosophies in his movies and that he was inspired by Eastern cultures.

And here, I would point out that in my personal experience, those people who, for example, would say that George Lucas should have made Yoda (his Jedi Master who is "like a little Dalai Lama" and "Buddha-like" as he said) an elderly Asian man, are by and large would not say, George Lucas is "stealing from philosophies he didn't understand or respectfully engage with," but would make more nuanced statements and they would make them in good faith, without running around asserting things like George Lucas can't be a sincere Buddhist practitioner because he can't etc. and - again, in my personal experience - they would be able to recognize and would be more than happy to see these philosophies depicted in Star Wars. In other words, they're more about the how, not the what.

[jewishcissiekj]

Satine would have been a good character if she was like. good. and if George Lucas didn't want the Mandalorians to be an all-white-mostly blonde homogeneous society that largely ignored all Mandalorian content from before and conflicted with the first ever established Mandalorian and his father who Lucas himself cast but that's not about Satine anymore. just like, TCW Mandalorians. the most boring fucking thing in Star Wars.

[tarabyte3]

I've been thinking a lot about the recent episode of The Acolyte and I have some ✨thoughts✨

(The Acolyte Episode 5 spoilers!!!)

I think the narrative is intentionally making us, the audience, doubt the Jedi and paint them as possibly being the bad guys specifically because now Mae is the one that's going to hear Sol's story. We were encouraged to doubt him and believe he's going to confess something awful about that night to Osha, but instead, I think what he reveals is going to make Mae (and us!) have a change of heart in some way and realize we were wrong. I doubly believe that will be the case because the one casting the most doubt on the Jedi is Qimir, the villain that's also been manipulating and using Mae's anger.***

Because how do you kill a Jedi without a weapon? Easy, you manipulate them, too. You make them paranoid and afraid. You make them doubt themselves and each other. You hurt them in every way that matters. Then you step away and let them destroy themselves. That's a basic Sith tactic, and I think that's exactly what Qimir is trying to do with Sol. Either Sol eventually gives in to the anger and hatred he felt and falls (I highly doubt it) or Qimir wants to get Mae or Osha to turn on/kill him (maybe now he wants to try and make Osha his acolyte instead. Emphasis on try). We've already seen Sol is unwilling to activate his lightsaber when facing Mae because he doesn't want to hurt her (that entire confrontation in the streets), and Sol would probably choose death rather than ever use it on Osha. The girl he connected with and saved and keeps a hologram of and smiles at and loves.

Something terrible obviously happened that night, but I don't believe for a second it was the Jedi's fault. However, it was terrible enough to scar Torbin and make him take the Barash Vow, to make Sol cry, and to make Kelnacca retreat to the woods and hide. Perhaps they all feel guilt for what they couldn't do. Perhaps they blame themselves, which looks like actual guilt from the outside.

But hey, I'm prepared to be wrong and say so, I just don't think it would be very good *Star Wars* storytelling if I am. For 2 reasons:

1) It wouldn't make sense in the existing story. We've seen that Indara, Torbin, and Sol are compassionate, kind people. We saw how soft Kelnacca was with little Osha. Sol radiates warmth, he believed Osha, and he wants to save Mae even after everything she's done. Indara died to protect someone else. For as impersonal and professional as she was when talking to the Coven, I don't think someone that would make themselves vulnerable in a life or death situation to save even one person would be willing to kill an entire community of people unless it was absolutely, completely necessary. I don't think self-defense would even necessarily qualify, I think the Jedi would do everything they could to retreat first. The one caveat I can think of is if someone attacked Torbin. Then I could possibly see Indara as a Master protecting her Padawan, something Masters would give their own lives to do (as we see repeatedly during Order 66), and the situation escalated. (Could be why Torbin is injured and blames himself?)

2) The point of the story in Star Wars has always been that the Jedi are the good guys. They hold up the ideals of goodness and peace, and even though, individually, they sometimes stumble and fall short of it because they're still flawed, mortal beings, they always try to reach for the light. ("Jedi cannot help what they are. Their compassion leaves a trail. The Jedi code is like an itch.") If a group of them has done something unspeakable, unforgivable, and then covered it up (or worse, the Order covered it up), how do we ever trust the Jedi as the good guys again? It goes against everything they believe in. It goes against the story George Lucas created (or has ever said about how Jedi and the Force work). If this is the story being told, it will be a very bad Star Wars story, and I have to hope that's not the case.

***((Side note: The guy that just killed 6 Jedi and a Padawan did not make a good point with "You brought her here." Sol brought Jecki there, with many other Jedi, as her Master to teach her more about how to resolve conflict thinking they were only confronting Mae. And even then, Sol didn't make Qimir confront the Jedi and kill Jecki. Jecki's death is entirely Qimir's fault since he's the one that killed her. Also for a Sith to have "freedom" to be themselves is to allow them to do evil things through the Dark Side, which is ALWAYS evil. Full stop. The Dark Side twists and corrupts. That's how the Dark Side works. Qimir isn't some guy being oppressed because the Jedi are power hungry and unwilling to share the Force. Fascists shouldn't be allowed the freedom to be fascists.))

[pinkeoni]

The Great Jonathan Byers Conspiracy

(Or, Jonathan was framed and I'm going to prove it)

So I started a rewatch of the show and I'm on episode two of s1. I get to the part towards the end where Jonathan is taking photos of Nancy. So I think "Okay. This is the part where we see Jonathan take a photo of Nancy topless, right? We see him notice Nancy take her top off and then raise the camera to take another photo, right?"

But that's not what happened

The scene happens as follows. We see Jonathan snap a photo of Nancy— with her shirt on— before the scene cuts inside of Steve's room.

Nancy then removes her top. Nancy and Steve start making out and we cut back to Jonathan who lowers his camera.

This is the part where I expected Jonathan to lift his camera up and start taking more pictures. That's how I remember it happening. But no, we instead see Jonathan focus his attention back to the pool and snap a picture of Barb instead.

So what the hell? Am I being gaslit?

I remember so distinctly a moment where we see Jonathan consciously raise the camera to take another picture of her topless, and yet it's not there. I do still want to clarify however, that the topless photo of Nancy does still exist. We see it clearly in the following episode. So yes, Jonathan did still take a photo of Nancy topless, we just don't see him take it.

But according to a lot of people online, we did see it, the Duffer Brothers just removed it.

I remember hearing about this when it first cropped up, which was partially prompted by the Duffers joking to "George Lucas" Will's birthday in season 2, which they never ended up doing anyway. They also stated on Twitter that no scene had ever been digitally edited, and didn't plan to in the future.

So the Duffers must be lying, right? Otherwise why how would so many people remember seeing that scene? I guess there’s no way to be sure without a DVD or Blu-Ray of the show.

But wait, I have a DVD of season one. I got it for Christmas! But I’m staying at my parents house and I don’t feel like driving three hours just to prove a point. I guess all is lost for the moment.

Unless…

It was at this part of my spiraling that I sent a crazed two minute voice memo at 11:00 at night to my roommate and good friend @lemonsoured filling him in on my conspiracy, and then leaving instructions to go downstairs, locate my season one DVD on the living room shelf, put the DVD into my PS4, go to the end of episode two and take a phone recording of the scene in question.

And lo and behold, the scene of Jonathan taking pictures of Nancy, exactly as it appears on Netflix.

So I am aware that in the video there isn’t much to indicate that this is in fact a recording of the DVD and not a recording of the Netflix version, so you’ll just have to take my word for it. But still, ask any DVD or Blu-Ray owner for what is on their disk, and I can garuntee that they’ll all give the same answer.

Because the shot of Jonathan taking the photo of Nancy never existed. The Duffers aren’t lying. The masses collectively lied to themeselves.

But how did this happen? How did a massive audience full of people, including myself, come to believe that there was a moment of Jonathan consciously taking that photo?

I’ll tell you why. It was a psyop to defame character!

Usually when a new season of Stranger Things rolls around, there comes the flow of comments on twitter saying “Hey, remember when Jonathan took a photo of Nancy changing and now she’s in a relationship with him?” which is usually done in the name of trying to bring down Jonathan and build up Steve.

And I’m not doing this to try to claim that Jonathan is a completely innocent baby who actually did nothing wrong. After all, the topless photo does still exist and as @notmybabies pointed out in the replies of one of posts, Jonathan chose to go through the process of developing it anyway. So he’s not completely off the hook. If the Duffers did want to eradicate Jonathan’s faults, then they would have digitally edited the topless Nancy photo to a different one, something that would have been possible.

But you ever notice how it’s always “Jonathan is a creep” and never “Steve called Nancy a slut and Jonathan a queer?”

I adore Steve, but what I’m trying to see is people seem to try and diminish the depth and complications of both of these characters, and it usually results in fans making Jonathan out to be a sex depraved pervert who has always had it out for Nancy, while Steve is their angel who could do no wrong. Steve couldn’t have had a good redemption arc if there wasn’t a place for him to grow from!

They never want to acknowledge that Jonathan was a lonely kid who made a bad mistake which he apologized for while looking for his brother and that Steve was a different person before he decided to change. Eliminating these character’s depths is eliminating what makes them interesting characters! Neither are completely pure and neither are completely evil!!

So in conclusion:

[grumfield]

Since you’ve read like…all the books why do you think that Anakin is such a polarizing character? Beyond the oblivious. I feel like there’s strongly opposing viewpoints which feels wild. But you’re pretty impartial when necessary and also well read in this world so I’m curious what you think!

wow I love it when y'all give me asks that let me flex a bit more of my top-down muscles like this. super fun, thank you!

I think it, first of all, this is a very "fandom" conversation. Popular cultural conversation is generally no more than "Vader was sympathetic but bad, Jedi cool." so these more intense debates kind of predicate on the idea of peoples' personal investment in the charactesr beyond the movies. Even though the movies do provide context--and have a very overt George Lucas messaging of "Jedi wrong, love is what saves"--the average person doesn't really think more on it or try to reconcile beyond what the movie itself shows. So TLDR this is sort of presuming the people having this discussion have delved into other works.

I think it comes down to how much and what media beyond the movies people engage and prefer with because there are so many prequels projects, all of them written by different people with different perspectives (at least in legends...i'll get to the disney POV soon), which is the beauty of multimedia works.

Legends projects in general tend to be more critical of the Jedi, majorly, I think, because George Lucas had control. Lucas was, obviously, critical of the Jedi, and his projects reflect that. Most of them are takedowns, and don't really show the Jedi in a particularly favorable light.

Disney, on the other hand, definitely skews more in favor of the Jedi. I don't think this is actually a Disney perspective, I think that this is a popular perspective that was ingratiated into their framework. IMO many people think of the Disney era as against the Jedi, but to me it's definitely "pro" in the sense that they are effortlessly cool + flashy, there's very little bureaucracy, and the characters at fault are not at fault for systemic reasons, but rather personal failure (which I feel like is seen in the Acolyte).

In Disney narratives, Jedi structures are not the issue, flawed people are. Whereas in Lucas narratives, flawed people are not the issue, Jedi structures are.

For example, I've noticed a lot of Legends books portray Anakin's relationship with Padmé as the thing that saved him, which is a very Lucas perspective to hold, since his entire thesis of Star Wars is that love is what redeems. In opposition, though, a lot of Disney books pose their relationship as what caused his downfall, because if he'd never been in a relationship with her he wouldn't have fallen because she wasn't there. Similarly I think that Jedi Quest is a very unsympathetic look at Obi-Wan that holds him responsible for Anakin's downfall, whereas Deborah Chow's Obi-Wan show is more sympathetic and frames him as generally without fault to what happened. Different strokes for different folks.

Given that Anakin is space JesusJudasSatan, makes him the ideological battleground for these perspectives, which creates a character whose various story plots and circumstances, depending on the writer/creator, is at least always a little bit in contradiction even if his actions are the same. Because he simultaneously is so many different types of things at once, and I think it just comes down to which works they're exposed to/are most drawn to.

But, building off of that: I think the main culprit, in broad strokes, comes down to which piece of media a person views as their canon: Lucas's movies, or Filoni's Clone Wars. Which, IMO, ultimately follow two completely different characters both named Anakin Skywalker, but this post is getting too long so I'll get salty about that some other time.

[youeverjustmarryabountyhunter]

Okay so this is controversial but I'm going rant about it anyway because it really does bother me.

I don't like Satine Kryze. Now, hold on. I'm not some misogynistic woman hater, I actually think she's a really interesting character. But, I don't like her. The two things can both be true, alright? Character wise I understand what's she's after. Ultimately she was a little girl who watched her family be torn apart by civil war and took on a more pacifistic root because of it. Trauma does that. She wanted to stop corruption and I cannot fault her for that but to ignore the damage she has done as a whole alongside the blatant racism of her actions is just infuriating.

I want to talk about the racism first. Now, am I saying Satine herself is racist? I think it could be argued that, yes. Does she say anything to portray that she is? No. But she doesn't have to. I also think it could be argued that she simply wanted Mandalore to be peaceful, but when you look at what she's done to the culture as a whole, it's a bit jarring.

I'd also like to point out that I think a great deal of my complaints largely fall onto the writers, because at the end of the day, their beliefs are reflected onto the characters. And while Satine is not without faults, she is a fictional character at the end of the day. However, that being said, her beliefs? Are reflective of people's real beliefs and there in lies the issue.

And when I say that characters reflects writers beliefs I want to be clear that having a bad character (morality wise) does not mean a writer supports their morals and or actions! But when said actions are portrayed to the audience as the 'correct' stance, that's when things get messy. Let's get into it.

To understand Mandalorians first we're going to have to get into Temuera Morrison and the blatantly obvious fact that he is NOT a white man. He is Māori, and that is reflected heavily in Jango Fett's characterization. A great deal of Mandalorian culture stems from Morrison's own culture and to deny this is frankly racist in and of itself.

So when were discussing Mandalorian's and their culture, it's important to keep that in mind. You are not only critiquing a fictional culture, but one that is tied heavily into a real person's very real culture.

Mandalorians, from the start are established as a warrior culture. Start is used very loosely here because we only have Mandalorians because George Lucas thought Boba was cool. So bare that in mind. But when I say start, I mean that when we actually get to learn about them and their culture.

They have a creed/code that they live and die by. This is their way of life. And in that creed there is one very specific rule I want to focus on and that is children are sacred. Foundlings are the future. Mandalorians do not care about blood ties. They don't care about who your father was, only the father you'll be. (A common Mandalorian saying btw)

So, where does that leave us?

With a culture that is not only heavily tied to Morrison's very own culture, but one that also harbors a belief of adopting without care for heritage or one's differences.

What does that have to do with Satine?

Look at Mandalore when we first see it under her rule. And I mean really, honestly, and truly, look.

Why are they all white? Why are they all human?

Okay yes, you can probably find some instance where they aren't, but the vast majority of what we see on screen is white humans and if you don't see a problem as to why what should be a very diverse cultural group would all be white humans then I think maybe you need to think about that for a second. And this is why I think it's important to remember that tidbit I said early about the writers affecting characters beliefs. Because this was a decision decided on by a real person. You could chalk them all being humans up to being sake of convenience in animating if you wanted. I think it's lazy, but it is easy. But it's not difficult to portray different races. At the very least they could have added different skin tones. But they didn't. That was a conscious decision.

And as I said, this reflects on Satine and her own beliefs.

Because in an effort to 'cleanse' Mandalore of any corruption and war she has erased any and all diversity. I don't think I need to explain to you why a white woman ridding a planet known for it's diversity of any cultures and beliefs differing from her own, is wrong. And yes, while I can sympathize with a young girl traumatized by war so much that she wants to rid it completely, but in doing so she fundamentally managed to erase any and all individuality.

I'd also like to touch on that I don't necessarily think that we the audience are supposed to agree with Satine in her entirety, but the amount of people that I have seen defend her so vehemently is what drove me to write this is the first place. And while, like I said, I don't think the intended purpose was for us to agree with her, there is never once an instance where anyone bothers to acknowledge the blantant racism. Satine's changes are just regarded by everyone, even in cannon, as just a way to stop war. The only critique she's given is about her pacisfism and while, yes, stripping a warrior culture down to her pacisfistic beliefs is also racist and a big deal! It's as though they do not grasp that aspect of it, or how much deeper it goes.

The lack of armor, weapons, diversity, is all there as plain as the eye can see. I didn't have to dig to find it. I didn't read some obscure comic from legends, it's right there in the clone wars.

And while we're at it, let's also discuss Satine being a white woman and why that makes her actions that much more of an issue. Because as I stated earlier she is a Mandalorian, a culture which is based on the Māori culture. You know, people that aren't typically white?

(I will say in fannon, I have seen some truly wonderful artist depict her as a Māori woman and I think that's incredible! But that's not what I am discussing)

Because in cannon, she is portrayed and painted as a white woman. Now I'm not here to argue on if you can have white people as Mandalorians or not, because frankly Mandalorians don't care about your skin color. You could even go as far as to say that I'm the racist for assuming she's white when for all we know she could just have a lighter skin tone. You're welcome to believe that. Regardless of the case, I think it says something about the writers when they chose to depict a white passing woman as someone who needed to 'cleanse' Mandalore of its roots, don't you?

Making Satine white or white passing, along side pushing the agenda that she wants to change Mandalore for the better, when previously one of the only other Mandalorian's that we know about so intensively is Jango Fett, a person of color, is frankly, a little weird, don't you think?

I won't get into the details of how they've tried so hard to strip Jango (and Boba!) of his culture, because I fear I may never shut up, but I think there's an underlying issue of trying to paint Jango(a person of color who was upholding his cultures traditions) in a negative light while placing Satine (a white person attempting to erase a culture of its traditions) on a pedestal. And when I say painting Jango in a negative light, I am not referring to his hand in creation of the clone army. I am talking purely about his stance as a Mandalorian, and how Satine even goes as far to dismiss him as one, despite Morrison's portrayal of him being the reason for the culture in the first place.

Am I arguing that making her a person of color would fix things? No,not by any means.

My goal here is not to 'fix' things or to paint Satine Kryze in a better light. I do not think Satine Kryze needs to be painted in a better light. My goal here, if I have any at all, is to showcase the racism in her actions, and to illustrate my frustrations with the lack of critique towards it. The amount of people I've seen defend her actions greatly outweighs the number of people I've seen critique her.

I don't have ill intent towards people who do like her. You are allowed to enjoy characters who do bad things! God knows I'm guilty of it myself. I just want to vent my frustrations, alongside shed some potential light on an issue.

[marvelstars]

Anakin & Trauma

So there´s this talk around saying that being part of the Jedi Order was akin to taking therapy and that it was Anakin the one who didn´t respond well to therapy and I honestly don´t know where to begin because this is honestly false and is victim blaming.

The Jedi Order´s Philosophy on it´s own isn´t a therapy, not even real world buddhism from which George Lucas took some narrative clues is a therapy, it is a way of life, yes, a philosophy under which it´s members WILLINGLY become a part of it but this isn´t a therapy.

They don´t address trauma, they don´t address anxiety, they don´t address suicidal ideation, etc.

In fact, while Lucas took some narrative clues from real world buddhism, we can´t truly say in good faith the Jedi Order works like real world buddhism, beggining with the fact that they take away choice from their members, they are brought too young into the fold to make a real decision over if they want to become part of their order or not, they take away their parents and cut all connections forever, that doesn´t happen in buddhism, they are openly an armed part of the state even if their functions are diplomacy, buddhism isn´t part of any state , I could go on but I guess the idea is clear.

So blaming Anakin for not "responding well to therapy" isn´t just false, it´s victim blaming, it´s willingly ignoring the context of the story.

In the story the roots of Anakin´s trauma came from slavery and the forced separation from his mother, both situations that never were addressed by the Jedi Order or by Obi-Wan in Anakin´s training, they were openly suppresed while sending Anakin the message that he was the problem for caring and fearing for his mother´s life, his mother who was left alone with a bomb inside her body in a planet ran by the mafia, this isn´t therapy, this is gaslighting.

Wether the Jedi Council or Obi-Wan were aware of it, they willingly made Anakin doubt his own reality and made him take the blame for not taking well his separation from his mother and I don´t know you but if someone, anyone, told me I had to leave my mother behind as a slave with a bomb inside her body because their physophy said so and I was their chosen one so I have to obey them I would have punched them in the face and left to free my mom, chosen one prophecy and Jedi be damned but Anakin was a child, he didn´t have the emotional and verbal skills to even express how wrong all of this was and how much harm they were doing to him.

The signals were clear from the beggining, Obi-Wan noticed that Anakin didn´t have any friends in the Order, that he mostly expend his time with droids and it was the same even when he became an adult and a respected general, can you imagine the level of isolation Anakin had to felt living inside the Jedi Order, that he no longer could relate to the people around him because they saw him as a stranger and he saw them as strangers as well?, that he had to expend his time with droids? when he used to have many friends and acquitances and people who cared about him in his planet of origin despite the horrible reality that he was a slave?, do you believe it talks well about the Order the fact Anakin had better emotional balance and support network living as a slave on Tatooine but with friends and family than living as a member of the Jedi Order?

The Jedi Order were not a supporting network for Anakin, they could not be because their way of life and philosophy openly harmed Anakin, keep him from addressing his trauma, keep him from having comunication with his mother, keep him from learning to manage his emotions without suppresing them and openly shunned him for his past as a slave in current disney canon so don´t tell me this is how a supporting network works or that Anakin was at fault for all of this.

The only person close and interested enough in Anakin to notice the dissaster happening to Anakin´s mental state was freaking Sheev Palpatine, he inmediately noticed Anakin was going to grow up bitter and resentful of the Jedi Order given how they keep him separated from his mother, he noticed he needed a friend who didn´t talk about the Jedi code every five minutes, he noticed he needed a father figure because he never had a father and Obi-Wan actively refused to be one given his beliefs and phylosophy, too bad for Anakin that Palpatine was also a sith lord who planned on destroying his very sense of self and person so he could use his power, he saw all of this happening and let it happen because it helped his cause and he could be the cool parent who lets Anakin talk about his issues without jedi philosophy as he used to do on Tatooine with his Mom and his friends while also adding some psycological issues of self worth to Anakin´s trauma under the image of him caring for Anakin´s well being. Don´t get me started on the Jedi Order allowing this for the sake of keeping a good political relationship with the Chancellor, what´s a kid well being in comparision to a good relationship with the Senate after all but this is a rant for another day.

While Obi-Wan´s love and company could and did help to weather the worst of this, the fact Obi-Wan seemed to care first because of his promise to Qui-Gon, the fact that he didn´t care for Anakin for himself when all people need to be cared for themselves at least in their early years to grow up emotionally stable, need to be loved for themselves, not just for who they are to an institution or as a symbol like the chosen one, which the Jedi Council shunned and put in doubt from the beggining anyway, even if Obi-Wan himself tried to believe in that because his master cared for that stuff, by doing this Obi-Wan subconciously send Anakin the message he was only worth to the Order and to him because he was the chosen one, if he wasn´t then he would have been left a slave on Tatooine just like his mother was, which isn´t that far from reality, Qui-Gon only got interested in Anakin for his force sensitivity, not his kindness and generosity helping strangers when he didn´t have much himself and was a slave.

This truly makes me mad because doing this to a kid isn´t just cruel, it´s abuse be it blind on the Jedi Order´s part or willing abuse on Palpatine´s part, an injustice, a never addressed injustice and even the narrative tries not to tackle this in all i´ts intensity but this is why Lucas said that Anakin was a victim and sure the Jedi were also victims of Palpatine and Anakin by proxy during Order 66 but I think fandom needs to address more in good faith that Anakin himself was their victim first if not the entire Jedi Order (and Palpatine of course) of the adults who were in charge and supposely cared for him and truly didn´t, not in the way that truly matters.

So it is any surprise Anakin wanted to leave the Order to raise his child with Padmé? because honestly I believe that in his situation that was the healthiest decision he could make without completely cutting his ties to what he loved and respected of being a Jedi, so it´s tragic he didn´t get that opportunity because the other adult in his life decided he wanted him as his weapon and manipulated him by isolating him from all his loved ones into becoming exactly that.

[david-talks-sw]

"I blame Red Riding Hood's Mom!"

"Obi-Wan was a parent surrogate for Anakin, but was terrible at it. He tried to instruct Anakin in the austere, objective Jedi way, but didn’t notice that Anakin did not have a foundation of humanity on which a conscience and good decision-making are based. Obi-Wan looked on Anakin as a brother... but Anakin needed a father. And there was no father. [The Prequel Jedi] unprepared to deal with, to guide, someone who was deeply mired in that world." - Aaron Allston, Star Wars Insider #145, 2013

"Obi-Wan trains Anakin, at first, out of a promise he makes to Qui-Gon, not because he cares about him. [...] He's a brother to Anakin, eventually, but he's not a father figure. That's a failing for Anakin. He doesn't have the family that he needs." - Dave Filoni, Disney Gallery: Mandalorian, “Legacy” 2020

"Anakin— yeah he ultimately makes the choice to turn to the Dark Side… but he has not, like… all of the systemic support that someone should have - when they experience trauma at the ages that he has experienced trauma - like, he has none of that, there." - Mike Chen, Star Wars Explained, 2022

The above statements are provably inaccurate, but hey it's a take that can be had. Sure. There's always more that could've been done.

Thing is, Anakin's story is one about personal responsibility. Per George Lucas, the core message of Star Wars, as a whole, is about you - dear viewer aged 6 to 12 who are starting to think for themselves - learning to be more selfless than selfish, more compassionate than greedy.

Anakin's story shows what happens when you don't do that.

Blaming the Jedi Order/Obi-Wan for what happened to Anakin is the same as arguing:

"Red Riding Hood getting eaten by the Wolf is her Mom's fault! What was she thinking, sending a child out to wander alone?! Of course she got eaten by a Wolf, she a kid, she don't know better!"

You can argue that. You can argue that Red Riding Hood's Mom should've gone with her to see Grandma. But that's not the point of the story, the point is "kids, don't try to take the quick/easy path because it's usually dangerous, and don't talk to strangers."

And I've yet to meet someone who would unironically blame Red Riding Hood's Mom. Because it's obvious that doing so would miss the point entirely.

Yet we do have a big chunk of the fandom whose takeaway from the Prequels is that Anakin's fall is on the Jedi's shoulders, even though that also misses the point.

That only indicates, to me, that what it's really about is...

For one generation, coping with a dislike of the Prequels. Trying to make them make sense and coming up with a headcanon that makes them "good," and nuanced.

For the younger audiences (first the one the Prequels were meant for but now also the Disney-era one), it's just them reciting what they've seen in the movies... which have been recontextualized and retconned through media written by people coming from that previous generation listed in point 1.