#andor show references

[chromanebula]

I have Thoughts about Lando blowing up the second Death Star.

This is a man who, from what we see, is new to the Rebellion. He has a background as a scoundrel (just like Han), but ever since he took over on Bespin he's been keeping his head down to avoid the wrath of the Empire. He likely passively supports the Rebellion, but he can't afford to involve himself or the people he is responsible for. When the Empire comes, they hold Cloud City hostage to force him to betray his friends, his friends' friends, and his own heart. Yet the moment Vader alters the deal - the moment he realizes the Empire had no intention of sparing the friends they promised to spare, and almost certainly never had any intention of sparing his people either, making the whole deal for nothing - it's hero time. This is a man who knows now that there is One Way Out. Playing by the rules won't save anyone, because that's how fascist systems operate. They don't care if you comply. What do you want to bet that Chewie was really enraged with Lando for foolishly believing Vader's promises (and, ultimately, with the Empire itself)? What do you want to bet that Leia told him, in mutual reflection, how Tarkin dealt with her and her people?

For Lando, that second Death Star absolutely represents the Empire. But it also represents his second chance to stand up and fight back after checking out of the struggle for so long, just as the mission to rescue Han from Jabba's palace represented his second chance to reject cooperation with crime lords while staying loyal to the friends he made along the way, even at risk to himself. He may not have been there when Luke blew up the first one, but he'll sure as hell be there now. He will deliver a blow right to the heart of that horrible explosive transmitter for the whole galaxy, ready to fire despite any deals struck, despite any military targets given, despite any friends and allies betrayed. He's not sitting around in his own territory - he's taking the fight right to Palpatine's throne room. And when that Death Star is shown to be already operational, when he notices the defenses and realizes immediately that the Empire was prepared for them, he doesn't miss a beat. Fool me once, shame on you; fool me twice, shame on me. There is no shame on him anymore, if there ever was. Like his friend Han, he has grown into the hero he was always meant to be.

[stairset]

I realize this could get me crucified in certain circles but as good as Andor was I really do think its fans can be truly insufferable.

[grakkul]

I’ve been listening to like 7 different video essays at work each day and I feel insane, wowow cinema

I’m also too close to reading Star Wars fanfic for someone who has only seen like 2 movies on middle school field trips. This can’t be it, I can’t betray my bestest friend and Ben obi wan like that for an andor and a rouge one video essay to do me in.

I have not gotten sick of them at all and I fear I require new ones each coming day

I am becoming more powerful

[modwyr]

my biggest fear on planet earth is that star wars shows start thinking they’re good enough to openly reference kotor

[mellxncollie]

Part 1 of looking into some of the technical cinematography aspects of the show

(or, why does Dead Boy Detectives look Like That?)

(update 6/30/24: there's now a part 2! check it out here)

Dead Boy Detectives has some interesting things going on with the cameras. You probably noticed it at some point while watching the show. Whether it was the weird blurs or the sort-of-fisheye, there’s something about many of the shots that doesn’t look the way many people expect TV shows to look.  

The main reason why is because it uses an anamorphic lens instead of a spherical lens. These lenses are pretty different from spherical lenses, and the recent rise of anamorphic lenses in TV has not been without some pushback, as viewers unaccustomed to them may find the look weird, distorted, or that it pulls their focus away from the content. Whether you enjoy how Dead Boy Detectives looks or find the cinematography distracting, this post is designed to explain the different effects that the lens has on the show.

This post is very long and very graphics heavy (I made lots of gifs to illustrate my points) so the rest is under a read more.

What is an anamorphic lens and what is it used for?

To begin with, a bit of history and technical info. Say you’re making a movie at most any point before the mid-'90s and you want it to be widescreen. However, the 35mm film you’re shooting on has a smaller aspect ratio (closer to a square than widescreen). You could use letterboxing (black bars on top and bottom) but then you waste the top and bottom parts of the film, and it ends up being slightly lower in ‘resolution.’ The solution: use a lens that records the full height onto the film, but squishes the picture horizontally so that it fills up the whole film frame without any letterboxing. Then, a projector (or a computer) can stretch it out again to display the whole thing in widescreen. The kind of lens that can do that is an anamorphic lens. They've technically been around since before the 1920s but were mostly used between the 1950s and the 1990s.

Up until sort of recently, television networks broadcasted using a smaller aspect ratio that they required shows to be in, and TV shows were not given the kind of cinematography budgets that movies were afforded. Anamorphic lenses are expensive and for widescreen, so they really just weren’t used for TV shows. Instead, a spherical lens was used, which is just the standard lens you think of when you picture a camera lens. 

In the 90s, new flat/spherical film formats came out that allowed for widescreen (one of the popular ones being Super 35) caused anamorphic lenses to drastically drop in popularity. However, there has been a recent resurgence, one that you’ve probably subconsciously noticed in both film and television.

In the last 10-15 years, TV has been given larger and larger budgets. Additionally, the rise of streaming services and the use of phones and computers to watch shows rather than actual televisions has meant that networks have started allowing wider aspect ratios, paving the way for anamorphic lenses to begin to be used for series. 

The history of these lens’ usage means they’re associated with a ‘cinematic’ look. They have a lot of characteristic effects that are not really ‘natural’ and depending on the viewer, this either enhances the experience or detracts from it.

Lots of recent series have been embracing these lenses (to varying degrees of success), including The Witcher, Sandman, Shōgun, Narcos: Mexico, The Mandalorian, Andor and Chilling Adventures of Sabrina. Doctor Who also started using anamorphic lenses at the switch to the 13th Doctor, so that may be a good reference point. For some of these, it’s a very subtle look, for others, the lens choice is glaringly obvious and overdone (I’m looking at you Sabrina), and sometimes, as is the case with Dead Boy Detectives, it’s really obvious but it remains an effective and compelling choice. 

Why use an anamorphic lens in the 21st century when you could just use a spherical lens?

Anamorphic lenses create a look that some filmmakers desire, whether for their associations with a more cinematic look or their sometimes unusual quirks. In a film and tv world filled with spherical lenses that are nice, clean, and precise, anamorphic lenses introduce some irregularity and character. Making an informed decision on what kind of lens to use can enhance different themes of the work. 

I want to briefly bring up Moonlight to illustrate this point. Go watch the trailer if you haven’t seen it, and you’ll probably see some parallels with the cinematography of Dead Boy Detectives. There’s less of the ‘radial’ look, but otherwise, there’s a lot of the same kinds of things. Moonlight uses an anamorphic lens and it makes the whole thing look dream-like, nostalgic, and a bit like we’re getting into the character’s heads. To me, it indicates that the story is being filtered through people. We’re not detached from the characters, observing them. The story we are watching is personal, emotional, and necessitates intimacy. 

Dead Boy Detectives really benefits from the same visual effects. This is not because it enhances a dream-like or nostalgic quality, but because in the context of the show, it makes it look a bit otherworldly, magical, or otherwise supernatural. Additionally, the constraints of the lens means we get lots of focusing in on individual characters, with nice long looks at their faces allowing for more reflection on their dialogue and reactions.

So, here’s 5 different effects of anamorphic lenses to point out to you all. Starting with the one that allows us to easily identify that anamorphic lenses are being used in the first place.

You’ve probably heard of bokeh before. It's the way the lens renders the direct sources of light that are in the background but out-of-focus. You can see in this shot of Jenny how all the string lights are not circular, but elongated. On a spherical lens, these would be round.

In this next shot of the Cat King, the candles around the floor are all those elliptical shapes. Additionally, lots of other details in the background that aren’t from direct light sources also have an elongated shape. This is sometimes called waterfall bokeh.

Finally, check out this shot of one of the cats. Not only are the lights in the background irregular and elongated, but if you look to the left where the ‘horizon’ line is, there's a series of elliptical shapes where the light hits the edge of the docks.

The bokeh effect is one of those things that just happens because of the lens, and makes it pretty easy to identify that an anamorphic lens is being used. Unlike some of the other effects I’ll mention, I don’t have much to say about how this does or doesn’t add to the visuals.

Breathing is how the field of view changes when you refocus to a subject closer or farther from the lens. While spherical lenses also breathe, there’s a much more distorted look to the breathing that occurs with an anamorphic lens.

Lets start with this shot:

You can see how much the frame widens when the focus shifts from the jar of coins to Jenny. It affects the edges much more than the middle of the frame. Here’s the same shot, but with some of the features outlined (forgive my messy outlining, I used my laptop trackpad) so you can see the movement.

The frame widens when the focus goes from the foreground to the background. It appears like the whole shot is being stretched apart horizontally and compressed vertically.

However, it also does the reverse, narrowing as the focus moves from the background to the foreground.

(also in that last shot of hell, notice how the two points of light in the background elongate into those oval bokeh once they are no longer in focus)

Breathing is a very dramatic way of refocusing, and it forces us to pay attention to different things. In the shot of the Night Nurse, we have a light but the important thing after it turns on is not the light but the reaction that the people have to the cause of the light. In that shot of Niko and Edwin, it’s telling us: listen to Niko. In the shot of hell, it’s not letting us forget what the characters are running from. 

The next effect is the lens flare. You can get a lens flare from a spherical lens too, but anamorphic lenses typically generate strong, horizontal flares. A spherical lens would typically create a more radial flare, with multiple lines shooting out in different directions from the light source like rays from the sun.

We see these all over the show, sometimes they’re very prominent, such as in these shots with obvious light sources:

And sometimes they're a bit more subtle. Take this shot of Edwin, Charles, and Crystal on the dock:

While the lens flare at the top of the frame has a clear source, there’s a bunch of other horizontal lines cutting across near the middle and bottom half of the frame. These likely come from light sources outside of the frame.

Some directors, cinematographers, and other creators really like anamorphic flares. Others don’t. For a show with so many dark scenes that have colorful and dramatic lighting, the lens flares seem to enhance this. They are also a constant reminder of the interaction between the lights and the camera, kind of a fingerprint of the production. Sure, they make it seem more ‘cinematic,’ but I think they also ground us in the physicality of the production. (Kind of ironic given the lack of physicality of the main characters, and also you could consider the flares themselves to be the ghosts of the lights and the camera!)

Barrel distortion is where we start getting into why exactly the show looks the way it does. This is basically a subtle fisheye effect. Because of the squishing and stretching of the footage, anamorphic lenses have more distortion than spherical lenses, and it is strongest around the edges. 

You can see it most clearly in shots that have lots of vertical lines. They are relatively straight in the middle of the frame, but the closer to the edges, the more they are warped.

Looking at that shame shot of Niko in the bathroom, I have set it to stop at 3 different spots. Pay attention to the shape of the edge of the door.

At the start, it’s curved outward, like an open parentheses: (

Then, in the middle, it’s a vertical line: |

Finally, as the door passes all the way across the frame to the opposite side, it curves inward, like a closed parentheses: )

Again, notice how the lines in this shot of the Lost & Found Department change as they move from the outside towards the center. The door has an outward bulge at the beginning but becomes more 'normal’ shaped as it gets further away.

Anamorphic lenses can also have a pretty shallow depth of field and it’s used a lot in this show which is why we get a lot of those centered close-ups, and why we get that ‘radial blur.’ 

The center of the frame is where the actors are least likely to be distorted, meaning its easiest to have just one character in the dead center (pun intended). With a shallow depth of field, the background is out of focus, and since the actor is in the center, the background gets the most affected by the barrel distortion, leading to the sense that the background has been radially blurred. 

This blurred background with a strong, centered foreground really makes objects in the foreground pop. We are then able to really focus in on different objects and characters. It brings immediacy and intimacy. Here, we have nothing to do but consider Charles. He isn’t speaking so we must consider his reaction to what’s being said. 

Also, the further a character is from the center of a shot, the more they are distorted, such as Edwin and Charles in this still:

This kind of distortion definitely lends a more unnatural look to the shots, which definitely supports a show about ghosts and the supernatural. If the subjects are able to see things in our world in a way the viewers cannot, then why display the physical world the way we see it?

Finally, we have focus falloff. This is (like some of the other effects) a distortion that occurs around the edges. Here, the focus decreases the further from the center of the frame even if they’re all about the same distance from the camera.

In this shot of the Tongue & Tail, the sign 'Butcher Shop’ is clear and legible. But imagine if that sign was up in the top left or right corners, where things start to get blurry. We probably wouldn’t be able to read it.

It's also visible in this shot of Edwin. Not only does the floor get blurrier the further you get from the center, but you can see how the rope is less in focus in very top and very bottom of the frame.

The falloff (combined with the barrel distortion) is how we get the really unique dream-like look of the Edwin and Niko scene on the roof in Episode 8. (If you’re having a hard time spotting the falloff here, look at their legs)

When you start looking for falloff in this show, you start to see it everywhere. It’s easiest to spot in the corners of shots, but you can usually see all the way around the edges.

Look at the corners of this still of Edwin, or the way the top and bottom of Niko’s rent envelope aren’t as clear as the middle of it.

Or in this still, look at Charles’ jacket. The arm closest to the center has a much more defined line between it and the background compared to the arm closest to the edge. 

This blur definitely is one of the more noticeable effects in the show, and it’s good at focusing our attention on the center of the frame. It guides the viewer exactly to what we should be looking at. We get tons of centered shots in this show because of this and the barrel distortion. 

The falloff makes the show look softer and artistic, sometimes painterly or impressionistic. More than any other effect, the falloff is what makes me feel like I’m watching a dream or a vision. It puts us into the sensation of being fully immersed in a story.

I would argue that all of these effects (but especially the last two) not only enhace the supernatural aspect of the show, but they help us fall in love with the characters. They focus us on their faces, and encourage us to reflect on their motivations, reactions, and thoughts. The lens is telling us that we are not to take things at face value. It’s not letting us forget that there are multiple people and multiple stories involved, that things are blurry around the edges, and that things are not perfect and clean-cut. 

-----------

Sometime in the next week or so I’ll be working on part 2, where we’ll take a closer look at the cinematography of Edwin’s flashback to 1916 in Episode 1. It's posted! Read it here.

I really wanted to highlight the work of the cinematographers, Marc Laliberté, Craig Powell, and Pierre Gill because it’s clear that there was so much care and intention put into every aspect of this show. 

I’m so glad fans of this show are really embracing the work of different crew members, like the work of costume designer Kelli Dunsmore (and if you somehow haven’t seen @captainfantasticalright's posts about the costumes and other aspects of the show, please go check them out right now. My roommates and I have a kind of 'stop everything, new costume analysis dropped' attitude towards their posts, and their approach to show analysis was definiteily an inspiration for this)

If you want to read more about anamorphic lenses, the article Why ‘Shogun’ (and the Rest of TV) Is Slightly Out of Focus in The Ringer is about Shōgun and the rise of anamorphic lenses in TV (Marc Laliberté also worked on a few episodes of Shōgun) and it's a great place to start.

Finally, I want to first thank @skyvoice for these tags on one of my gifsets for semi-inspiring this post (I was already considering making this but these made it into a reality).

[gffa]

The Acolyte's first two episodes were a mixed bag imo. The scenery and costumes and fight sequences are absolutely gorgeous, the show is visually stunning and feels a lot like Andor did, but there's something missing in the heart of this show. The entire first episode, with every reference and familiar point, I just felt like this was a show where someone had read a Wookiepedia article, rather than that they were actually that familiar with Star Wars. I'm not sure I could put my finger on everything why, it wasn't just one thing, but the worst thing for me was the way Vernestra was written. Nothing of her scenes felt like herself from the books, despite that, yes, she's reserved and a little uptight in the books, there was a warmth to her that barely came through here, she was very focused on how the Jedi would look politically or how they needed to discuss things instead of acting on the information they had--neither of those are bad things! She's not wrong! She just doesn't feel like Vernestra. The second episode was a lot better, when Sol and Mae had their conversation about her grief and he urged her to let it go, because what she wanted was revenge, and look what revenge had done to Mae, that felt like, yes, this scene nailed it! This scene understood the assignment. Sol is a great character so far, Osha is a great character so far, I'm vaguely intrigued by the mystery they're setting up about what happened 16 years ago, and while I wouldn't say it's a must-see series, you're fine to skip it so far, but I liked it well enough. It was fun to see Jedi in live action looking like they came straight out of the Clone Wars, just with fancier clothes, and I love that the Jedi are allowed different personalities and I like all of them. Sol is fantastic. Osha loves the Jedi, even after she left them. Indara was hot as all get out and went down like a Jedi badass, by saving someone. Jecki is pure delight. Yord is an uptight disaster whom I love, he's wound pretty tight but when push came to shove, he stood up for defending what was right, when he could plainly see Osha was innocent. The makeup is a mixed bag--Vernestra looks like she spent an hour in the makeup chair, meanwhile Jecki's Theelin makeup looked gorgeous. Some of the Jedi robes look a little stiff, a hint of high end cosplay to them, but Indara's looked great. So, watch it if that's you're interested in! I thought it was fun, visually stunning but lacking some heart in the opening episode, it leans a little fanon more than canon, but not intolerably so (some off-kilter but not horrible use of The Attachment Discourse), and I don't think it'll set Star Wars on fire or anything, but it's a fine addition to the collection.

[david-talks-sw]

I got a good feeling about "The Acolyte"

Not even kidding. Like, I've spoken before about why I'm wary of it.

George Lucas' Star Wars is something that intentionally has black and white morality, rather than shades of gray. Those movies are meant for kids and projecting a "gray" morality onto them then proclaiming it was George's vision all along is doing so in bad faith.

The narrative of the Prequels doesn't frame the Prequel Jedi in as negative a light as Leslye Headland, Dave Filoni, etc etc do.

See here for more details, but bottom line: yeah, a show that has a darksider as the underdog is bound to demonize the Jedi (who are the actual underdogs in the Prequels), and obviously that rubs me the wrong way.

BUT.

The trailer looks fucking cool. It really really does.

And more importantly? I've done some research... and Leslye Headland is ticking a lot of good boxes, in my book.

1. The Acolyte won't be a 10-hour movie.

I've criticized Disney Plus shows before, explaining that a big source for most of their issues is that these series are being structured as "long movies" rather than, y'know, actual shows.

But in this interview with Collider, Headland addresses that: it'll be a series. Not a long movie that you need to watch across four weeks.

Thank God. You have no idea how much that comforts me. Finally a showrunner who's, y'know, actually running a show.

And this goes hand in hand with what she told IGN, here, about how she's going about building suspense.

Yes! Exactly! That's how it's supposed to be!

Like, compare this to Baylan Skoll's storyline in Ahsoka.

In no possible way was that emotionally-fulfilling. For 8 episodes we had no idea what he was after, and the season ended where we still don't know. What does he want? What is he after? Your guess is as good as mine, it's something Mortis-related.

So yeah. Maybe getting the Emmy-nominated trained screenwriter on board to run this was a good idea.

2. Maybe the Jedi will not be as demonized as I originally thought.

Don't get me wrong. 80% of what she says about the Jedi makes me cringe. It's the typical fan's interpretation and y'all know I disagree with that interpretation.

It's painful to see her refer to the Jedi as an institution (not how the Prequels' narrative frames them) and to see her frame "Balance" in the "oh there's so many of them and just two Sith, that means the Force is out of balance" meaning... but at least she acknowledges the Jedi are a benevolent institution.

They're not an "elitist force hiding in their ivory tower" as others have described the Jedi.

Moreover, there'll be a variety of Jedi POVs, many personalities.

Yord Fandar, is described as a strictly by-the-book Jedi Knight and guardian from the Jedi Temple, is an overachiever and a rule follower.

The question now becomes: will the narrative frame him as "your typical Jedi" or is it just this one guy? I'm hoping it's the latter.

I also like how her reasoning goes re: Jedi drawing their lightsabers.

Which explains the hand-to-hand combat seen in the trailer.

This teenager is coming at Carrie-Ann Moss with a dagger, of course the Jedi won't draw her saber.

3. She's a fan of Star Wars... but a screenwriter first.

You can tell in the interviews she's a fan. She's using words like "BBY" and "EU" casually. In the above-linked interviews she's bringing up the Nightsisters, Timothy Zahn, The Clone Wars, she mentions she has a tattoo of Ralph McQuarrie's concept art of Leia, the High Republic books, etc.

She's done her homework. She's a fan.

But the vibe I'm getting from these interviews is that she's weaving in these various lore-elements in a more organic way, rather than in the "fan-servicey" way Dave Filoni has been doing in his shows.

The references and Easter Eggs will be there, but the narrative won't bend over itself just so you can get it. Crafting a good story comes first, and Andor is a beautiful illustration of why this is true.

Which is why I was never bothered about one of the writers never having watched Star Wars before getting the job. You need those fresh eyes when you're tackling something of this scale.

That makes sense to me. Maybe it's because of my own screenwriting experience, but yeah. That out-of-the box perspective is precious.

And like, obviously, that writer watched the films eventually, but for some reason everyone who bitched about Headland omitted that detail and opted for a more bad faith interpretation.

Hm. Wonder why.

Maybe it's the same reason that months ago this clipped audio circulated socials without context, in which she debates whether Star Wars only came from George Lucas and only Lucas is the key.

The FULL context of that interview reveals that she's actually:

debating the "autheur director" myth and positing that it was achieved by a collective of excellent filmmakers and craftspeople that George was skilled and smart enough to recruit...

the studios now think it's a simple as hiring one guy and throwing money at him, because they have no idea what the fuck they're talking about. See Napoleon (2023) for example.

Yes, she also does a jab to the Prequels, which speaks to the generation of fans she's a part of... but overall she's giving Lucas props whilst also stating an ideological difference, that's it!

George is a proponent of the "autheur" theory, Leslye isn't.

However, guess what, in like half the talks George gave post-selling Star Wars? He's giving shoutouts to everyone who helped make the first film, even remembering their names.

So I'm not even sure he'd vehemently disagree with Leslye, in fact they'd prolly have a conversation about it and immediately bitch about how stupid studio executives are :D

But that's not as incendiary, is it? Again, the more I do the research, the more it feels like the reason most of these influencers are hating on her is purely sexist.

I mean, on IGN she's even acknowledging that she does plan on taking stock of fan reactions for Season 2.

It's not a guarantee that she'll incorporate the feedback, but at least that's more consideration than, say, JJ Abrams or Rian Johnson gave the fandom.

She's even bringing the moral ambiguity that the Gray Jedi-loving edge-lords love so much.

"No, she's a woke feminist! Anything she does is evil! Eww, girls!"

🙄

Needless to say... I'm gonna give it a shot.

I think it's gonna be a good show, I think it's gonna be a solid story.

I'm crossing my fingers that they won't as biased against the Jedi as it seems they'll be. Even if they are... if it's still an enjoyable experience, I'll gloss over it.

As @gffa states in this post:

Worst case? It's not a story from George. I can dismiss it from my headcanon without a moment's hesitation :D

[vincentpriceofficial]

watching andor eps 1-3 the first time: they’re establishing the protagonist of this show fucks and is straight or whatever, I’m barely registering this info

watching andor eps 1-3 for the third time: actually the references to Cassian’s promiscuity are one part of a larger picture these episodes are painting of his life as full of instability and reckless behavior in spite of the loving and stable upbringing he seems to have had w maarva and clem for the most part. there’s no material reason cassian doesn’t have a 9-5 and a steady girlfriend bc he has family and community support to achieve that kind of life if he wanted it but he hasn’t done that for himself and instead he’s got all these debts and exes whose names his mom can’t keep straight and bad blood with ppl in the community and these self destructive tendencies obviously stem from the multiple profound TRAUMAS that have shaped his life and THAT serves the larger themes of the story bc one way or another those traumas all trace back to imperial violence and exploitation!!!! also I think he’s a “prefers girls but will make do with a man in a pinch” bisexual

[kanansdume]

I've recently been watching these very interesting Star Wars video essays on YouTube (yeah I know, a rare breed) and it brings up these comments Lucas has made about how he views Star Wars as almost like a silent film in terms of how important the visuals are to him in comparison to the dialogue. But this essay also points out how important Lucas finds all of the "rhyming" moments in his trilogies and the way he utilizes them to remind you of something else for emotional or thematic reasons. And there's so many of them, both in visuals and in dialogue, and it's interesting to consider how important this is to him, the repetition for a purpose as well as the storytelling through visuals above everything else and then to look at Star Wars since the Prequels came out and realize how little has really been able to match up to those ideals since then.

The ONLY thing that's come out since the Prequels that I think really hits these two things the same way is, in fact, Andor. One of the things I noticed about the way people discussed Andor as it was airing in a way I haven't really seen for any of the other shows or films was the visual SYMBOLOGY. So many times I saw people noticing the Imperial cog everywhere, from the aerial shot of Narkina 5 as the prisoners escape to the architecture of Mon Mothma's house. There were people picking up on the use of items in Luthen's shop that are familiar from other things to give this idea that Luthen is from another time, he's attempting to preserve this world he lost, that if you're not looking closely enough you won't notice what he's really saying or doing with this shop. The color choices for the different locations and people got analyzed because the people involved spoke about how they intentionally utilized color to SEND A MESSAGE about the characters and the world. We know that the people who made the costumes and sets really worked hard to treat Star Wars almost like a period drama and study the history of the franchise as if it were a real place so that the things they came up with felt like they belonged in this world everyone knows so well even if it's completely new. And of course there were all of the myriad references to things from Rogue One, the constant repetition of "climb", the sunset on the beach, etc.

Nearly EVERY SHOT in this show was created with so much intention behind it in order to say something meaningful about the characters, the world, this specific story they're in, and the overall saga of Star Wars itself. It's insane how much greater impact this show was able to achieve through the incredibly careful usage of visual symbols and thematic repetitions, much like Lucas did before them. It feels like they didn't just study the history of the galaxy far far away, but they studied the history of STAR WARS and what Lucas was trying to do and say with this story. They peeled back his onion a bit more and were able to create something that really has that same visual feel even when it's not created for a child audience. It also is experimenting with its narrative style through its structure and through Cassian's character being allowed to be somewhat more reactive than proactive, and while that didn't work for everyone, it does feel like it's following in Lucas's footsteps of experimentation through Star Wars. Push the boundaries of what Star Wars is and can be and what you can say with it.

But this only works because they peeled the onion back enough to TRULY understand all of the messages Lucas was sending with it. They got the heart of Star Wars and despite its lack of space wizards, despite the lack of most major characters in the Saga, this was a show that honestly got the message more than just about anything else Star Wars has put out since the Prequels. The choices between selflessness and selfishness, the themes about how you always HAVE to make a choice even when it feels like you don't have any (sometimes ESPECIALLY when it feels like you don't have any), and how important it is to make sure to choose the path of compassion above everything else. The themes of connection to others, the symbiotic circle and the impact even the smallest person can have on world around them, it's RIGHT THERE and it's CENTRAL to Andor's storyline.

So yes, it experiments a little with narrative structure, but it's possibly the most Star Wars thing to exist Revenge of the Sith because it honestly truly GETS what Star Wars was about, both in its themes and in its filmmaking. A lot of people said that Andor didn't feel like Star Wars to them, usually because of the lack of space wizards and the fact that it's not a story aimed at children. But to me, Andor is EXACTLY what Star Wars is and has always been. They're stretching the boundaries of what Star Wars can be, but it's saying the exact same things Star Wars has always said, it's just saying it slightly differently. This doesn't feel like fanfiction to me, not really. Unlike things like the Mandoverse or the books, Andor isn't just taking some of the toys out of the sandbox and going to play with them somewhere else. Andor is IN that sandbox. It's building a slightly different sandcastle, but it's still within the sandbox, using the same sand that Lucas did.

[starpeace]

here for the mandalorian rant ☕️

um well the first episode of the brand new season of disney+’s flagship star wars show was entirely... filler. the dialogue was incredibly bad, not even written badly but as if no-one had written it at all. entirely flat and devoid of life, in a show with a faceless protagonist whose dialogue literally has to carry all the weight. din continues to have no opinions, no emotion and nothing to say

as for the plot, what even happened in this episode? we open with the mandalorian covert ritually giving a child their helmet, but this is not explored at all, it’s only there to be interrupted with a giant monster fight for absolutely no reason, as if this show has been written by six-year-old me livening up clicking my barbies together by grabbing my toy dinosaurs. din has conversations with the armourer and bo-katan purely to rehash the information we’ve already been given, partly because half of it was in a bad show the casual audience won’t have watched. neither of these characters is doing anything.

din visits greef karga, who is now discount lando “gone respectable” but instead of having personality he’s just really into gentrification and this is presented completely uncritically. din, a character most charming for being the beaten up mercenary underdog of the galaxy, suddenly hates pirates and disorder (well, hates would imply he shows emotion—dislikes pirates and disorder? is mildly perturbed by pirates and disorder?), and pals around with high magistrates who offer him a position as a cop/landed gentry (they actually use the words “landed gentry”). there’s a couple of meaningless unfunny comic relief scenes because this is all that grogu is here for now, complete with a reference to, of all things, the rise of skywalker. in what is apparently the main plot of the episode, which is, i repeat, the first episode of the brand new season, din takes up a fetch quest to get a random droid part for an absolutely laughable reason that does nothing but completely negate a character arc from season 1 and everything we have been shown since, just reminding you that not even death will be allowed to have emotion or narrative weight, or prevent disney from dragging back onto your screen anything that will sell. he doesn’t actually do this fetch quest, btw, he just gets given it, because apparently we have to do multiple episodes of this

did i get everything? was that the whole episode? oh wait there was the fight with the pirates in space. i forgot it because there was zero tension. those pirates also earlier wanted to... have a drink in a school with greef, i guess, in a completely baffling scene? i can’t imagine there was any point to this pirate bit except to put fight scenes into this filler episode and force the visual effects people to carry the entire lumbering weight of this show. one has to assume that otherwise the pirates would have had personalities or motivations. oh, also purrgils appeared in this episode, because this is the Star Wars Cinematic Universe, and you’d better watch all the interconnected shows so all your beloved characters can eventually come together to swap lifeless quips on screen, just like you always wanted.

a droid drops a statue’s head on top of a murder droid to stop it, purely so din can say, “now that’s using your head.” if you were wondering what i meant about the dialogue.

i don’t even need to get into the politics of the story they’re telling. i don’t need to humiliate it further by comparing it to andor. it’s just bad to watch on a basic technical fundamental level, and it’s not headed anywhere better, because they will be churning out this story for cash forever with no goal or meaning, under circumstances where i cannot seriously even imagine caring about star wars anymore. hope this helps!

[intermundia]

i think right now modern star wars is best when it's filling out the empire years with shows like the bad batch, kenobi, and andor. i haven't seen tales of the empire yet but rebels did this well too. they keep finding excellent points inside the existing star wars timeline to expand and add depth and complexity. there IS a twenty year gap with abundant room for exploration, and those stories all have the added benefit of potent references to both the past and the future events, looking to the prequels and the OT, and therefore can be deeply satisfying by activating known story threads, embroidering inside the known moral and political framework of the evil empire and budding rebellion, within the rich arc of anakin's lifespan, and they don't have to reinvent the wheel to earn stakes for themselves. the bad batch and andor both ending with a pointed reference to the death star is not accidental, it's great story design. they're creating a cohesive lore universe that all supports each other, a larger mythic tapestry, and imho the cumulative narrative successfully transcends and enhances any individual participant story

[someinstant]

So I turned my ankle taking out my trash this evening and it's swelling up beautifully-- I did a number on that ankle back in college and it regularly betrays me because of the Dumb Things I did without seeking medical attention when I was twenty-- so I've decided to prop it up on the couch and ice the hell out of it and watch the special features on my ANDOR Blu-Ray.

Here's a short list of Cool Things I've learned:

Diego says that it was important to show Cassian being nice to B2EMO in the first bit of episode one, because you needed to see Cassian show care and kindness for someone-- because he's not a particularly awesome guy at the beginning.

The set designer for the Andor house on Ferix made macrame door curtains out of metal scrap and bolts because they wanted a 1970s feel with an industrial twist. Also, the set designer pronounces "macrame" with the accent on the second syllable, and I've never heard it that way before? British folks, is that standard on your fair isle? Because hereabouts it's MAC-rah-may, or maybe mac-rah-MAY if you're fancy. But it sure as hell isn't mah-CRAHM-eh.

Just so many gorgeous shots of Ferix, man. And all the costumes and details-- it looks SO GOOD, even when it's clearly just a set and not the finished version. The actors all clearly adored working in the physical space.

During the Aldhani arc, the Aldhani rebel cell actors worked extensively together with the director to train, rehearse, and develop chemistry-- and they deliberately didn't bring Diego Luna in until they were ready to shoot for real. So the Aldhani squad had this rapport and inside jokes and relationships, and THEN they dropped Luna in so he would feel properly like an outsider.

And they did the SAME THING on the Narkina 5 arc. All the prisoners rehearsed together well before they brought in Luna, so he wouldn't have the same understanding of the space or tools or way the actors related to each other. Love it. Really smart decision, and it paid off.

The visual reference for what the Eye would look like when you were flying through it was a close-up of a human iris, and actually-- yeah. They did that really, really well.

They made the prison on Narkina 5 the same shape as the planetary shield generator on Scarif, and I have no idea how I didn't notice that before.

Stellan Skarsgard was clearly DELIGHTED by Luthen's big speech in "Nobody's Listening." He talks about how when he read it, he was like, "Absolutely, this is the dilemma, isn't it? How far can you go in the name of change?," followed immediately by, "Now, how in the world do I SAY that?!"

The musicians in "Rix Road" are really playing on set-- they did ADR over top for sound quality but in order to give the actors the right feel, the musicians are really playing and the instruments all are fully functional. The musicians are a mix of studio musicians who are on the final recording and some talented amateurs who also work as background actors, so you get the imperfect, community-band style tuning, which is what they wanted.

And there's a bunch of other cool stuff, but my ankle is throbbing, so I'm going to go take a painkiller and go to bed I think.

[todayontumblr]

Wednesday March 1.

Punch it, Chewie: The Mandalorian is back.

Yes, we realize that reference does not quite land, because Chewie does not appear in #the mandalorian (or does not appear in The Mandalorian *yet*.) However, we don't care that much. Because we've waited more than two years for this, and *a lot* has happened in that time on and off-screen. Pedro Pascal is now doing everything everywhere all at once. This show's narrative has been picked up in The Book Of Boba Fett, and Andor has sent viewers and critics alike into a frenzy. There are one or two controversies and a whole lot of questions to answer. But amidst all the hullabaloo, sometimes an iconic Morricone-style theme song and the internet's favorite double act is really all the soul needs. Din Djarin and the most powerful infant in the cosmos, Grogu, (or Baby Yoda, if you must) are back in town. And we simply could not be happier. Rrrruuuurrr!

It is at this point we seamlessly refer you to #the mandalorian, where the fandom has reacted with all the fervor you could hope for. Not to mention gifs, memes, and some special fanart too. 

[ylojgtr]

why did star wars stories stop having cool names? all the skywalker saga titles are sick, they tie into the plot of the movie and have a really epic feel to them. rogue one is a fine title, sounds star wars-y enough without sounding like a mainline story. but solo? obi-wan kenobi? andor? those are just the names of the characters! nothing wrong with it, comics have been doing it for decades with no detriment to the actual stories being told but...it's just kinda lame yk? ultimate brand recognition is just what comes to mind. clone wars is fine, rebels is ok, they both sound like tv show titles and do a decent job expressing the grandeur (especially cw) of the stories in each show. but book of boba fett? it doesn't even attempt to be like a book?? i honestly couldn't think of what to call them otherwise though. solo wouldn't really work with a title like birth of the smuggler or something, that just sounds stupid. but the books get away with it, the solo sequel book is called last shot, which is cool! obviously a reference to han's contentious firing in anh as well as a direct tie in to the books plot. (speaking of, can we bring back kassha please? can we make her being kadara's mother canon?? i like her)

maybe we were spoiled with the awesome titles of the mainline movies. maybe it's better to give side stories more generic, industry standard names. but i still like trying to think of how the title fits into the story, figuring out who the phantom menace is, if the last jedi is singular or plural, who the attack from the clones was truly upon. i just think it's neat

ps: i realized after tagging this that having the names of the characters just be the names of the show/movie makes it hard to differentiate between tagging the media and tagging the character so...another point to unique naming

[thehothcast]

cassian andor general romance hcs

word count: 994

warnings: none, just a miniscule reference to sex

message from the authors: first post on the account! love that for us. we both (okay just me, fine - grace) went a little feral writing these, enjoy the show! (i was moral support for grace and additional idea giver, hope u love! - rosa)

ok so! i think cass is very easily scared off when it comes to this kind of thing: love. he’s skittish when he’s unsure, and although romantic dalliances aren’t new to him, approaching a situation where he’s not privy to if you reciprocate or even if you ever could, is new to him. he’s always been the one in control of the dynamic, or at the very least an equal, with both participants on the same page (or thereabouts, see him and bix i suppose.)

the man seems a lil avoidant, like he’s just wary of people in general so i'm not so sure how well he’d respond to hearing from a third party that you had a crush on him, whether that be a close friend of yours or an unfamiliar group of fellow rebels. he’d immediately feel like expectations were being pushed onto him and people were anticipating him to react in a certain way. he doesn’t like that, it feels like someone's yanked open the curtains that were obscuring him from the bright light of perception? so even though he returns your feelings for sure, he’s not going to react well to that kind of direct address/situation and would most likely pull away from you in an attempt to take back the control he feels he’s lost.

in the end i think if one of you were to make a move to further the relationship, it would have to be him because he doesn’t like feeling caught off guard or put on the spot. even then, he’s definitely not confessing the true extent of his fondness for you (even though it totally consumes him, this is a man that feels deeply, just look at those eyes babe). 

cassian is someone who expresses their love through actions and deeds, not so much words, at least not immediately, that’s a little too vulnerable for him at the moment.

let's be honest, his version of getting the message across to you is patting you on the shoulder and telling you “that’s really good” as he oversees your group’s blaster training. like the affection is there and you totally get free passes where others don’t, but overall there’s really nothing concrete to suggest he thinks of you as anything other than a friendly comrade, which is probably how he likes it for now.

again, addressing it head on either by yourself or having another person plant the notion into his mind is not the way to go about this. he’s like a stray animal, you see him from across the street and desperately want to pull him close and love up on him, but even the most careful approach will have him skirting away from you in a flash after one wrong move.

honestly the only way to go about this i think is to just let him do his own thing, find a quiet and subtle way let him know you’re open and will be waiting with open arms, and he’ll come to you eventually. i’d say he’d come to you in his own time, and I wouldn't be lying but let's be honest, that first really meaningful look (see elevator scene in rogue one 😩) and pleading of your name is going to come in a moment of high-stakes and danger. what can I say, there's nothing like a life threatening situation in which either one or both of your lives are in jeopardy and desperation and stress infect every decision made, to provoke a momentary lapse in resolve and allow some painfully concealed concern and devotion to seep out of one's every orifice <3.

then there’s the subject of his name. obviously he introduces himself as cassian (unless he’s undercover but that’s a whole other can of worms, you’d get there in the end), so you’ve not really any reason to suspect otherwise until you pose an innocent question about the origins of his name, which leads him to hesitantly surrender his birth name to you. this is only something he’d ever consider doing if he truly, deeply trusted you and felt ready to open up even just a little bit. again, it’s all in his own time, there’s no pushing cassian. psst, don’t be afraid of using his real name, he’ll answer to it…just pick the right moments iykyk

when on missions, clashes tend to happen. cassian believes he knows best (and maybe he does. he probably does lets be fr we’re dumbos), so you’ll every now and again notice him speaking for you or making decisions on your behalf. obviously as an independent entity, this will most likely get on your nerves so it’s an issue that’ll have to be addressed in a sit down session with him. he honestly doesn’t mean it in a controlling way, he probably sees it as him relieving you of any unnecessary burdens, so you’ll have to make it clear to him you’d appreciate it if he lets you stand on your own 2 feet and would, well… for a lack of a better phrase, ‘just butt out’. at the end of the day, you’d rather be equals, partners in crime, not so much some micromanaged talent. come on, it’s understandable cass.

just for funsies... he’s probably unbuttoned his shirt a little more than necessary at least once. just to see if you’d respond to it. he’d seen the style begin to take off amongst the more cocksure pilots (that’s what he tried to tell himself. it was really just fueled by a shy desire to have you look at him like that, like the rebel full of swagger that he knows he isn't). it lasted a grand total of 12 hours before he caught a glimpse of his reflection and cringed a little bit, vanity be damned. the next time you saw him, his shirt was buttoned back up all the way again and he will never acknowledge the fact ever again. 

[tangents-within-tangents]

I can't believe people still say The Clone Wars and The Bad Batch are "just kids shows" when whatever this show is literally exists:

analysis of target audiences below (there's a TL;DR don't worry)

Okay so the whole "it's just for kids" fallacy/excuse/conversation stopper is such an issue as it is. Here's a good video about it, I'll probably do a whole rant at some point, but in short: the level of storytelling merit, emotional depth, and thematic exploration a work can and should achieve has never been limited by it's target audience/age group, nor it's storytelling medium. (And if you don't think that's true, try to tell me Pixar has never made you cry, go on)

So it doesn't matter if it was made for kids or not. There's nothing wrong with that and anyone can enjoy it anyway. But what I actually wanna talk about here is not the merits of "kids shows" but the misconception on what "kid show" even means.

For one thing, I think when some people say "it's a kids show" they are lumping anything from like Winnie the Pooh to Avatar: the Last Airbender into the same category, and that's just not how it works. The above example demonstrates that not all kids shows/stories are the same anyway (partially bc level of development/education changes drastically between the ages of like 3 and 12, and these are things that are really taken into account in the publishing industry).

I found Disney's ratings guide and I think this should clear some things up:

For reference:

Young Jedi Adventures is listed as TV-Y

Clone Wars (2003), Rebels, and Resistance are TV-Y7-FV

Clone Wars, Bad Batch, and the Tales of the Jedi/Empire are TV-PG

Mandalorian, Ahsoka, Kenobi, Book of Boba Fett, Andor, and Acolyte are all TV-14

And if we put that in context with the films:

The Clone Wars (2008) film and the Original and Prequel trilogy are PG except for Revenge of the Sith which is PG-13 along with the Sequel trilogy, Rogue One and Solo.

So basically TCW and TBB are considered by Disney's own system to be about the same level as most of the films. They are 4 degrees away from 'Young Jedi Adventures' and only 1 degree lower than the live-action shows. Which frankly feels like we got some animation bias going on since all the live-action shows are automatically in one category (which is silly as is and undue here anyway (here have another video) esp since the Clone Wars animation style is clearly meant to be older/more realistic). But regardless, it's literally right there:

And again there is nothing wrong with TCW/TBB being kids shows, but some internet-ers dismiss it as "made for 7 year olds" and that's just objectively not true. Strictly from this system (which idk how it compares to whatever system Cartoon Network used when it aired) you could say the TV-PG might mean 8-13 years old (which is a wide range tbh, there's a big difference between being 8 and being 13), but since TV-G says "suitable for ALL ages" it's also not limited to that.

Also if TCW was aimed for ~8-13 year old's back in 2008 then those same people, who TBB was clearly meant for based on the marketing, were ~21-26 when it premiered in 2021 (and I think that is definitely reflected in writing).

Age of the protagonist is another a good indicator, though it's not a strict rule (i.e. Ender's Game and To Kill a Mockingbird have younger pov characters but are clearly meant for older audiences) and we have a wide range in these shows (Ahsoka 14, Anakin 20, Obi-wan 35, Clones early 20s, Omega ??? 10ish?? idk it's unclear) and time passes. (And while a lot of TBB is filtered through Omega's perspective, there's also plenty of scenes/subplots/episodes where she isn't even there. Also I doubt anyone would call TLOU a kids show just bc Ellie is 14)

But also target audience is a lot more than just content ratings. Note how the first few ratings above say "this program is designed for" the age group, while after TV-G it's about if it contains anything that could be unsuitable for age groups. And ratings can be pretty vague and arbitrary, especially since they change over time (like I get RotS but I could not tell you what makes the Sequels PG-13 compared to the PG films. And why is 13 the age we draw the line at? And why is it 14 for TV instead?)

I think TCW confuses a lot of people because it jumps around a lot; some episodes are about Jar Jar or the droids, and then some are, you know, Umbara. But on a rewatch, even some of the more serious episodes like the Citadel or Kadavo arc still tend to have a more juvenile or simplistic tone/writing style, like repeating information a lot or joking in the middle of the mission (like right after Echo died, hello?!). This actually feels like a writing issue to me, like maybe the writers weren't very clear on what they were going for. (Reminds me also of the only episode I watched of the live-action Atla, where compared to the original it increased the violence/death, but also dumbed down the exposition and didn't seem to trust the audience) Though there is also a clear difference between the seasons, again because the audience and characters are growing up as time goes on. I don't think TBB really had that issue though. It never talked down and it was much more tonally consistent, even in the lower stakes episodes.

Personally TBB feels generally grittier than TCW, though it doesn't really have any of the dark/gruesome deaths and "this is a kids show?!?!" moments like TCW (i.e. clones getting airlocked, decapitated, cut in half by doors, squished by Grievous, and whatever the ever living eff Colt's death was). Though actually come to think of it, there are a few things (like Crosshair killing civilians, the electro suicide pills, and the clone on Tantiss who got skewered (rip)) but I don't think they stand out as much, maybe because they're given the proper weight so they fit the tone rather than feeling out of place. Well, most of the time at least...

Like the friendly fire incident is probably one of the heaviest moments in TCW but I don't see it in those compilations, maybe because the characters respond appropriately and it fits within the Umbara arc. Verses when stuff happens in the middle of lighter more childish plot lines that feel more shocking because they are somewhat brushed off.

But also here's the thing. I think people get really fixated on the darkness/violence/death thing, but it isn't actually as big a deal as we tend to think. Like you'll find "this is a kid's show?!?" compilations for so many shows like these (with a similar age range, like Gravity Falls) that are just anything remotely creepy or intense or related to death, as if kids can't handle anything at all. Like I'll admit it's surprising sometimes (Infinity Train traumatized me bro lol) but most of the time I think we're underestimating kids. Like do you remember being 12? It's not that young.

There just seems to be this misconceived barrier, like the argument goes: "Clone Wars is just a kid show" "No it's not, look at this death scene!" But like there's death scenes in Disney movies all the time, you know? I think that's also why we get so many of these MA animated shows (i.e. Invincible and Vox Machina) that feel the need to overdo the blood and gore to like prove themselves as adult shows (bc again, animation bias).

As a writer that's just not really where the distinction is. This came up in my 'Writing for Children and Adolescents' class and we were all a little surprised when our professor said that death/violence is actually fine for middle-grade (8-12, the 'golden age of reading' and probably the equivalent to TV-PG). Like think of stories with ~12 year old protagonists like Percy Jackson, Harry Potter, Gregor the Overlander (tho Suzanne could stand to tone that one down imo lol). Basically, violence is okay actually. And most the TCW and TBB characters are way older than middle-grade.

(Also I think the difference is usually more in the delivery. Like death and violence being more implied (no blood, or cutting away/seen with shadows), and themes/emotions generally being more clear, simple and stated upfront rather than more nuance, subtle and subtextual. (And tbh writing for kids is actually usually a lot harder btw))

The distinction we did learn about that has been most insightful for me has a lot more to with the story itself: what topics and themes does the story deal with? And what age group/phase of life does that speak to?

For example, Love You Forever is a picture book (generally considered 3-6 yr old range) but it deals with topics that are clearly aimed for an adult. It follows the parental character until they are on their death bed being taken care by their kid, that's not something a 6 year old would care about or relate to. That's why age of protagonist typically aligns too, bc they will be dealing with/worried about things that the reader is dealing with in their life too (like high school struggles vs career and family struggles etc).

Aaaand this post has (once again) gotten away from me lol so I don't feel the need to analyze all of the topics and themes in TCW and TBB, but basically look at what is being explored and how it is being talked about (since a lot of things, esp with war, aren't necessarily age exclusionary) and that can give you a good idea. I think it's clear TBB generally deals with things in a more nuanced and complex way than TCW (most of it at least, honestly the difference between seasons is stark). And there is a main emphasis on family and parenthood, especially with the very end speaking to both young adults growing up and moving out, and the parents letting them go.

TL;DR:

-Animation doesn't automatically equal for kids

-For kids doesn't equal lesser

-Not all kids media is the same bc not all age groups are the same

-Violence doesn't necessarily equal NOT for kids

-Age of protagonist and themes/topics are a better indicator

-The Clone Wars is def middle grade, and The Bad Batch is probably more YA to adult

-But nothing is exclusionary regardless