That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

Well, that's the price we pay for the series being set before the Original Trilogy. Considering there is no mention of other Jedi in those movies, and Obi Wan and Yoda certainly seem to be saying that Luke is the last one, that means there aren't many possible outcomes that are available for the Jedi in Rebels. (Now of course someone will bring up the ever popular "But Yoda and Obi Wan were wrong and/or lying!" theory, but I really have trouble believing that.)

So, before the series ends, Ahsoka, Ezra, and Kanan will either:

1) Die.

2) Turn to the Dark Side (and potentially be doing "secret" work for the Empire during the OT.)

3) Go into deep hiding, so deep the Rebels who they worked closely with have no idea where they are.

4) Are alive and working for the Rebels, but are doing other missions during the OT (and aren't considered valuable or powerful enough to be considered during key moments of the fight against the Empire).

Number 4 seems like a cop out to me. Number 3 isn't quite as bad, but it's tough to swallow the idea that Leia, Bail Organa, Obi Wan, and Yoda totally ignore them in such desperate times.

Which leaves die or turn to the Dark Side. And I'm okay with this. I'd much rather have a dramatic final scene with Ahsoka and know her fate than leave it a totally unanswered open question forever, even if that ending is somewhat predictable.

This whole "there can't be other Jedi anywhere in the Galaxy by the time of the OT" thing is a giant canard at this point.

1) Yoda and Obi Wan both repeatedly prove themselves to be absolutely willing to obfuscate and misrepresent the facts to serve their agenda

2) I recall that they refer to Luke as their last hope, not as the last Jedi (which would be nonsense, since there's no Jedi order... and Yoda is standing right there anyway)

3) Technically, Kanan, Ezra, and Ahsoka aren't Jedi... Kanan was never inducted, Ahsoka left, etc.

4) The PT already muddied the waters with moments like Padme's death -- despite Leia's statement in the OT that she remembered her "real mother".

It's a BIG galaxy, with potentially hundreds of millions of inhabited worlds. To think that this one little group of rebels cannot be anywhere but in the thick of the events in the OT movies is to perpetuate the failure of scale and scope that plagues this sort of setting... the setting is vast, but the story always seems to come back to this tiny corner. We look at the battle in RotJ, and in a galaxy this size, we see at most a couple dozen ships and some fighters on each side, described as "the Imperial fleet" and "the Rebel fleet".

Yes yes, like I said, I knew that would be the response about Yoda and Obi Wan. It just changes the meaning of the entire OT if they're still out there as good guys. I find it hard to believe that they'll let a TV show do that.

So tell me then, what ending do you want to see for the Rebels Jedi? What would be a satisfying way to end the series?

2) I recall that they refer to Luke as their last hope, not as the last Jedi (which would be nonsense, since there's no Jedi order... and Yoda is standing right there anyway)

Luke was their last hope because only he could reach Vader on the emotional level required. Any other Jedi would be just another enemy to Vader. The "there is another" comment was Leia, because she had the potential to have the same emotional impact.

So tell me then, what ending do you want to see for the Rebels Jedi? What would be a satisfying way to end the series?

I'd like them involved in some other action parallel to the movie arc. The galaxy is plenty big enough.

Yes yes, like I said, I knew that would be the response about Yoda and Obi Wan. It just changes the meaning of the entire OT if they're still out there as good guys. I find it hard to believe that they'll let a TV show do that.

So tell me then, what ending do you want to see for the Rebels Jedi? What would be a satisfying way to end the series?

I don't think it changes the meaning at all -- it just seems to because the movies seem unable to avoid obfuscating the difference in scope between the "family drama" of the Skywalker line and the surrounding personalities, and the scope of the entire Galactic conflict.

I'd like to see Rebels end (not soon, mind you) with a victory on the scale of the show so far -- one of the things I liked, that I think they're risking in season 2, was the relatively small and personal scale of the show. I thought tying them in so closely and quickly to the Organas, etc, was a mistake.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia.

Fiction doesn't have to end with The Final Fate of All Characters Made Clear . The Preacher rides off into the sunset at the end of Pale Rider , as one example; we don't get an epilogue telling us whether Hull struck it rich, or whether Megan ever fell in love with again...

2) I recall that they refer to Luke as their last hope, not as the last Jedi (which would be nonsense, since there's no Jedi order... and Yoda is standing right there anyway)

Luke was their last hope because only he could reach Vader on the emotional level required. Any other Jedi would be just another enemy to Vader. The "there is another" comment was Leia, because she had the potential to have the same emotional impact.

^ This -- the Jedi / Sith conflict loomed overlarge in the minds of Yoda and Obi Wan. Whether Luke and Leia were viewed as the only two who could reach Vader, or the only two who could defeat Vader (they don't seem convinced that Anakin can be reached during the conversation in ESB), that was what they were focused on.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

I doubt that it will happen, but I would like to see at least cameos of some of the Lothal Rebels in that movie.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

So... um... when did Rogue One come out? I seem to have missed it.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

So... um... when did Rogue One come out? I seem to have missed it.

It comes out December 16, 2016.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

So... um... when did Rogue One come out? I seem to have missed it.

It comes out December 16, 2016.

I guess there are some mighty hefty spoilers out there, then, if we "know" that the plans for DS1 are part of the plot.

Or since there's never been a canon depiction of how the plans for the first Death Star were obtained... that could be the final arc of the show, ending with the handoff to Leia

*Cough*Rogue One*Cough*

So... um... when did Rogue One come out? I seem to have missed it.

It comes out December 16, 2016.

I guess there are some mighty hefty spoilers out there, then, if we "know" that the plans for DS1 are part of the plot.

That's one of the few things that has been concretely confirmed about the movie (at Celebration last year).

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-rogue-one-plot/

That's one of the few things that has been concretely confirmed about the movie (at Celebration last year).

http://www.slashfilm.com/star-wars-rogue-one-plot/

I guess that's what I get for not obsessively following the film industry, and not gobbling up every little bit of potential news about films coming out a year or more in the future. Silly me for not including the details of future films in my knowledge of the setting.

That scene was breathtaking, AND heartbreaking. I can't believe how good and beautiful that show was in the end.

Glad I'm not the only one. I actually get a lump in my throat watching it.

The mid-season 2 Rebels trailer actually had me tear up for that one shot of Ahsoka and Vader. I'm so invested in her story, I care so much for this character, and a huge part of my love for Ahsoka is how perfect her character development was. She feels like a daughter to me, I actually feel pride for that fictional character, because I not only saw her grow from a young girl to a mature adult, but also from an eager but confrontational padawan to a skilled and wise jedi. Usually, and especially in those shows, character development happens almost instantly, if it happens at all, while here they took the time to let it happen naturally (and Ahsoka's story is not an exception in that show, Anakin's slow descent into the Dark Side comes to mind).

TL;DR - I'm a huge Ahsoka fanboy and I don't care because she's amazing and TCW and Rebels are great.

I'm really hoping they don't kill her off "for the drama".

Oh she's most assuredly going down. The master turned Sith Lord murdering his old padawan in a dramatic duel (with a last "Farewell, Snips") is too much of a great drama opportunity to pass up. Especially now in Rebels that she's only a secondary character (in contrast with TCW in which she was part of the main cast), she's expendable and yet well loved by the viewers: she's the perfect choice to convey tones of despair and threat (especially after her duel with the Inquisitors), without loosing one of the main cast.

Not that I want her to die, mind you. I want her to live happily ever after, and I'm most definitely gonna cry like a huge baby if she does die, but she's just ripe for a tragic death and Filoni knows it.

That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

I would be far more annoyed if they contrived a reason for her to survive simply because people like the character, to be frank.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

I would be far more annoyed if they contrived a reason for her to survive simply because people like the character, to be frank.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

As far as I'm concerned, just tell the **** story without contrivance, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try to make me feel something for this character, just show me the character and let me react as I react.

The hollow attempt to evoke calculated response is so much of what's wrong with Hollywood and its ilk. See also, spectacle over substance. They need to stop worrying about what they think I should be feeling during a scene, and start worrying more about what the characters as "people" would be doing at that moment and making sure the plot actually makes sense.

Let me make it clear -- if they kill off any of the main cast "for the feels", I'm done with the show.

That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

I would be far more annoyed if they contrived a reason for her to survive simply because people like the character, to be frank.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

As far as I'm concerned, just tell the **** story without contrivance, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try to make me feel something for this character, just show me the character and let me react as I react.

The hollow attempt to evoke calculated response is so much of what's wrong with Hollywood and its ilk. See also, spectacle over substance. They need to stop worrying about what they think I should be feeling during a scene, and start worrying more about what the characters as "people" would be doing at that moment and making sure the plot actually makes sense.

Let me make it clear -- if they kill off any of the main cast "for the feels", I'm done with the show.

What a bunch of hot air and noise.

What exactly does "tell the **** story" or "let the chips fall where they may" mean? Are you unaware of the fact that these are made up tales about imaginary people who exist solely for the purpose of occupying and driving the story they inhabit? Do you have any idea how the process of creating a story actually works, or are you operating under the fairytale delusion that they spring forth from the writers' minds like virgin doves, pure and untainted by the EVILS of Hollywood?

That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

I would be far more annoyed if they contrived a reason for her to survive simply because people like the character, to be frank.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

As far as I'm concerned, just tell the **** story without contrivance, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try to make me feel something for this character, just show me the character and let me react as I react.

The hollow attempt to evoke calculated response is so much of what's wrong with Hollywood and its ilk. See also, spectacle over substance. They need to stop worrying about what they think I should be feeling during a scene, and start worrying more about what the characters as "people" would be doing at that moment and making sure the plot actually makes sense.

Let me make it clear -- if they kill off any of the main cast "for the feels", I'm done with the show.

What a bunch of hot air and noise.

What exactly does "tell the **** story" or "let the chips fall where they may" mean? Are you unaware of the fact that these are made up tales about imaginary people who exist solely for the purpose of occupying and driving the story they inhabit?

And that sense of them being mannequins of contrivance is why so many pop-fiction characters drift in the breeze of authorial convenience and end up looking like hollow placeholders. Consistent characterization is ignored, in favor of spectacle and kewl, or "what story do I feel like telling?"

"Who cares if Detective Rogers has always been shown to be skeptical and distrusting, the story we want to tell this week needs him to be easily fooled by someone that no one else believes, so that's what's going to happen."

"Who cares if we've always shown this character to be the best fighter on the planet, this week she needs to lose a fight so that's what's going to happen, without any explanation."

"Who cares if this character has always been able to hack through any cyberlock, this week they're going to fail because otherwise I can't have this dramatic scene where they're locked outside a room where their guest-star-friend is dying..."

That's exactly the sort of "drama" that makes me stop watching something. Nothing but a predictable, contrived attempt at manipulatimg the viewer / reader.

I would be far more annoyed if they contrived a reason for her to survive simply because people like the character, to be frank.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

As far as I'm concerned, just tell the **** story without contrivance, and let the chips fall where they may. Don't try to make me feel something for this character, just show me the character and let me react as I react.

The hollow attempt to evoke calculated response is so much of what's wrong with Hollywood and its ilk. See also, spectacle over substance. They need to stop worrying about what they think I should be feeling during a scene, and start worrying more about what the characters as "people" would be doing at that moment and making sure the plot actually makes sense.

Let me make it clear -- if they kill off any of the main cast "for the feels", I'm done with the show.

What a bunch of hot air and noise.

What exactly does "tell the **** story" or "let the chips fall where they may" mean? Are you unaware of the fact that these are made up tales about imaginary people who exist solely for the purpose of occupying and driving the story they inhabit?

And that sense of them being mannequins of contrivance is why so many pop-fiction characters drift in the breeze of authorial convenience and end up looking like hollow placeholders. Consistent characterization is ignored, in favor of spectacle and kewl, or "what story do I feel like telling?"

What on earth does that have to do with why Vader killing Ahsoka is somehow "contrived"? You're not explaining anything, you're just throwing out critical buzzwords and tangentacles. Give me some kind of concrete argument with examples instead of this vaporous abstract whining.

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

I'm not doing your work for you. Give me a quote or a link.

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

I'm not doing your work for you. Give me a quote or a link.

Start here.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

I'm not doing your work for you. Give me a quote or a link.

Start here.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

...So the posts that I've been responding to this entire time , which have nothing of substance beyond general farting about "Hollywood" for some reason.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: when I say "concrete", I mean that I want you to demonstrate with examples from the show that we are actually talking about instead of whinging so far removed by what we're discussing via several levels of abstract nonsense. Why would Vader killing Ahsoka be "contrived"? When has characterization in Rebels been ignored? What do you consider "hollow calculation"?

The longer you keep gish-galluping, the more it's becoming increasingly clear to everyone else that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

I'm not doing your work for you. Give me a quote or a link.

Start here.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

...So the posts that I've been responding to this entire time , which have nothing of substance beyond general farting about "Hollywood" for some reason.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: when I say "concrete", I mean that I want you to demonstrate with examples from the show that we are actually talking about instead of whinging so far removed by what we're discussing via several levels of abstract nonsense. Why would Vader killing Ahsoka be "contrived"? When has characterization in Rebels been ignored? What do you consider "hollow calculation"?

The longer you keep gish-galluping, the more it's becoming increasingly clear to everyone else that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

So you're going to though crap like a monkey AND claim the rhetorical high-ground in the same post?

Since you obviously can't engage in this discussion without falling back on crass ad hominem...

*plonk*

For anyone else who actually wants to engage in grown-up discussion, here's where the topic at hand started:

Oh she's most assuredly going down. The master turned Sith Lord murdering his old padawan in a dramatic duel (with a last "Farewell, Snips") is too much of a great drama opportunity to pass up. Especially now in Rebels that she's only a secondary character (in contrast with TCW in which she was part of the main cast), she's expendable and yet well loved by the viewers: she's the perfect choice to convey tones of despair and threat (especially after her duel with the Inquisitors), without loosing one of the main cast.

Not that I want her to die, mind you. I want her to live happily ever after, and I'm most definitely gonna cry like a huge baby if she does die, but she's just ripe for a tragic death and Filoni knows it.

Please note that my response is not an attack on the messenger, it's directed at the concepts.

In the above analysis of the how these things are written, which sadly is spot-on and has a good chance of coming true... Ahsoka isn't going to die because it's in her character to face down Vader even though she's unlikely to win, or because Vader is more powerful than she is.

No, Ahsoka is going to die "because drama"... "for the feels". She's going to die to "convey a tone" without killing off a main cast member. Because it's "ripe for a tragic death and the author knows it".

I've lost so much patience for that sort of crap that it bothers me even when it would actually make sense in terms of plot and character for things to play out the same way.

If you say so.

The discussion moved way past just that one specific specific example several posts ago.

I'm not doing your work for you. Give me a quote or a link.

Start here.

Also, "manipulating the viewer/reader" is such a meaningless criticism because that is all art. All of it. You are manipulating your audience to feel or think a certain way to deliver or reinforce themes and messages. If you don't like feeling "manipulated" then I guess the Original Trilogy really must have pissed you off with all those emotional scenes they were pushing!

...So the posts that I've been responding to this entire time , which have nothing of substance beyond general farting about "Hollywood" for some reason.

Perhaps I wasn't clear: when I say "concrete", I mean that I want you to demonstrate with examples from the show that we are actually talking about instead of whinging so far removed by what we're discussing via several levels of abstract nonsense. Why would Vader killing Ahsoka be "contrived"? When has characterization in Rebels been ignored? What do you consider "hollow calculation"?

The longer you keep gish-galluping, the more it's becoming increasingly clear to everyone else that you actually have no idea what you're talking about.

So you're going to though crap like a monkey AND claim the rhetorical high-ground in the same post?

Since you obviously can't engage in this discussion without falling back on crass ad hominem...

*plonk*

For anyone else who actually wants to engage in grown-up discussion,

Oh, you poor baby.

Back to discussing the actual episode, is anyone else kind of disappointed with Sabine's twist-plan and how things ended up?

I mean it seemed as though Kanan was actually getting somewhere with Fenn before she was captured, and then she calls him out for single combat (Which ends up just being an old west duel), then she doesn't kill him in favor of...blowing up all his fighters, pissing off the Protectors, and taking him prisoner? And then by the end everyone's proud of her for learning some sort of lesson about diplomacy vs killing???

I really thought Sabine was going to beat Fenn, then refuse to kill him in order to prove she wasn't like her mother and Death Watch. Which she kind of did, but then any good will earned from that was undone a thousandfold by blowing up their starfighters and taking their leader hostage. Which I guess is how diplomacy works! :V

Can we not turn this into another "Force Awakens Spoilerrific thread" please? If you want to throw insults a forum thread is hardly the place for it: there's PMs for that (or 4chan).

On the subject of Rebels, I must say that I kinda lament TCW's storytelling structure. Story arcs spanning over multiple episodes helped establish a more complex and detailed plot, which in turn helped establish more believable character development. Almost every episode would become a chapter in a mini story line inside the grand anthology that was TCW. In Rebels there's a general plot (establish a stronger rebel presence in Lothal), yes, but every episode is pretty self contained. This is not bad per se, of course, but I must say I feel breathless at times, kinda like when I watched Age of Ultron (or Weekend at Ultron's, as I like to call it). I know it's probably for budget and time allowance issues, but I feel like Rebels deserves (perhaps even needs) more episodes.

Let's take yesterday's episode as an example. Hera tries diplomacy, gets shot down, then Kanan and Sabine go on the moon, Kanan speaks to the leader while Sabine plants some explosives, then a duel, then explosions, then a firefight, then some Force stunt on a starfighter, then the leader gets captured and accepts that the rebels use their hyperspace lane, and then Sabine learns a valuable lesson about violence. This could've been 2 or 3 episodes in TCW, going in details about why they need that lane, who are those Mandalorians, what's Sabine's relationship with them, what's their relationship with the Empire, maybe also a longer fight (Mandalorians were established as great warriors, but those paled in comparison with the Deathwatch we saw in TCW), and maybe show Sabine's character development more gradually than instantly.

Don't get me wrong, I love Rebels, but I sometimes feel like I'm watching an "adventure of the week" show, and this format, in my opinion, hinders Rebels' potential.