Wilhuff Tarkin was a commander in the Republic. He also once worked in a trial against someone suspected of treason.

What does what Tarkin did have to do with what Sturn asked? You do realize that Wulff Yularen and Wilhuff Tarkin are completely different characters, and that Sturn was asking about Yularen right?

Agent Kallus is officially an ISB agent. ISB is now canon. He's wearing the standard olive-grey dress uniform of the Empire, not the cream-colored dress uniform of the ISB in what is now "Legends" canon.

Thoughts? The personnel on the Death Star in Episode IV wearing cream-colored uniforms are no longer ISB? If so, what will they become? Or is the standard dress olive-grey of Agent Kallus later going to be swapped out for updated creams sometime between Rebels and Episode IV?

Edit: I'm not a Clone Wars series fan. I've read Wulff Yularen (the original cream colored uniform wearer) was in this series. Was he considered ISB in the Clone Wars and did he wear a cream colored dress uniform like in Episode IV? If so, since the Clone Wars series is also canon, why does Wookieepedia only list Agent Kallus as a member of the ISB (not Yularen) under the "canon" tab?

No Yularen was a naval admiral when we saw him in The Clone Wars. He was in command of the naval forces attached to Anakin Skywalker's command last we saw him. He transferred to ISB when it was founded after the Republic was reformed into the Empire though I don't know how much of that is canon now.

Ah. My mistake. I thought it was a typo (Wullf looks like Wilhuff missing the "ilh").

Okay, now I've seen Droids in Distress, and I'll admit I'm enjoying these shows so far overall, specifically the overall story itself, but...

- I really miss TCW's detailed backgrounds: there is so much to draw on from TCW for games and just sheer immersion, and so far there is very little of that in Rebels. If they wanted to capture that E4 feeling, they are really falling down here. From the first scenes in E4 to the last, you knew you were seeing only a small slice of a much bigger picture, and TCW managed to capture that regularly. Rebels does not, so far. There are very few "long shots", which is a poor decision imho, and contributes to my next complaint...

- I really miss TCW's detailed continuity: Rebels seems to play fast and loose with time and space, and I'm finding it annoying. Compare, say, the chase between Ahsoka and that jumper chick in Lightsaber Lost...you could follow the characters' progress through all the scenes and they made sense. Rebels doesn't manage that half as well, the characters basically just teleport from one place to another.

- I really miss TCW's detailed emotional depth: maybe it's just a new and relatively inexperienced animation team, but they aren't remotely conveying the amount of depth they had available especially towards the end of TCW. (And neither does the voice acting.) For the animation part, the fact that it's a new team shouldn't really matter, these are animation routines that should be translatable. IOW, there should be progress, but this feels like a couple steps backward.

...end complaint...

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

It's been my experience that some words affect people more than others. Violence is subjective and sexual violence is sometimes more offensive to some (for good reasons).

Are the reasons good though? I deplore all of the mentioned acts of violence completely but singeling out one that happens to women in 99% of cases and making it unmentionable is in fact sexist. I am not in anyway saying posters here are doing this (on purpose) but the reason this is made unmentionable in a lot of cases is because men tend to want to steer women away from hurt. Protecting the 'weaker sex' so to say.

But back to the topic on hand... Rebels is a good show.

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

There's only been a "TV movie" and one episode so far, but I'd say it's much better than the beginning of TCW. Especially if you compare Spark of Rebellion with the Clone Wars movie that premiered in theaters *shudder*.

Rebels needs more Ziro the Hutt though.

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

Ok... still early, but the show is doing fine. Fighter Flight is definitely a step in the right direction, but I think people forget the quality of many of the episodes from Season 1 of Clone Wars:

The series premiere, starring Master Yoda was an outstanding, fun adventure. Rookies was an absolutely brillaint episode feature just the clones. Cloak of Darkness, written by the legendary writer Paul Dini was one of the best episodes of the entire series. The follow up, Lair of Grievous was a great "haunted house" adventure. Season 1 also feature the fantastic Ryloth trilogy and introduced us to one of Star Wars best villains, Cad Bane.

I think people tend to forget how many memorable episodes Season1 of the Clone Wars had, but then again the series was so consistenly outsatnding from Seasons 3 onward that it's easy to take it for granted.

Rebels needs more Ziro the Hutt though.

Yeah....no. No zombies please.

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

Per the points I was making...not well. Continuity is critical for suspension of disbelief. Long shots, establishing shots, are notably missing, and the backgrounds have little movement or detail. The SW universe is a "happening" place, where the background is alive with all kinds of stuff. TCW was alive. Rebels is comparatively dead.

Storywise, character-wise, etc, I think it's fine.

Droid episode: nice seeing REX and the McQuarrie 3PO.

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

Per the points I was making...not well. Continuity is critical for suspension of disbelief. Long shots, establishing shots, are notably missing, and the backgrounds have little movement or detail. The SW universe is a "happening" place, where the background is alive with all kinds of stuff. TCW was alive. Rebels is comparatively dead.

Storywise, character-wise, etc, I think it's fine.

How does Rebels compare to season one of Clone Wars?

Ok... still early, but the show is doing fine. Fighter Flight is definitely a step in the right direction, but I think people forget the quality of many of the episodes from Season 1 of Clone Wars:

The series premiere, starring Master Yoda was an outstanding, fun adventure. Rookies was an absolutely brillaint episode feature just the clones. Cloak of Darkness, written by the legendary writer Paul Dini was one of the best episodes of the entire series. The follow up, Lair of Grievous was a great "haunted house" adventure. Season 1 also feature the fantastic Ryloth trilogy and introduced us to one of Star Wars best villains, Cad Bane.

I think people tend to forget how many memorable episodes Season1 of the Clone Wars had, but then again the series was so consistenly outsatnding from Seasons 3 onward that it's easy to take it for granted.

While I feel seasons 3 4 and 5 had their great episodes and stories I think seasons 1 and 2 were better because they had more stories focused on the conflict, both on the battlefront and the political front, and fewer episodes that felt to me like they had nothing to do with the war beyond the fact that they took place between .Episode II and Episode III.

I like what I've seen of Rebels so far a lot I just hope it doesn't go Force focused plotlines crazy like TCW did.

It's been my experience that some words affect people more than others. Violence is subjective and sexual violence is sometimes more offensive to some (for good reasons).

Are the reasons good though? I deplore all of the mentioned acts of violence completely but singeling out one that happens to women in 99% of cases and making it unmentionable is in fact sexist. I am not in anyway saying posters here are doing this (on purpose) but the reason this is made unmentionable in a lot of cases is because men tend to want to steer women away from hurt. Protecting the 'weaker sex' so to say.

Using that word is sexist, because the vast majority of incidents of that kind of violence does happen against women.

However, it does also happen to men.

I think we also need to look at the distribution of probabilities of crimes, and how you would feel if they had been done to you.

If you had been murdered, then you would be unlikely to be on this forum, and therefore unlikely to take exception to the use of that word. If you had a family member or a close friend who was murdered, you might take great exception to the use of that word in the kind of context you chose. However, murder is a pretty infrequent occurrence.

In contrast, the crime you so flippantly referred to is one of the most common on the planet, and is commonly used as a weapon of war against an entire racial or ethnic group, among all the other myriad ways that it is found in this world. That puts a much, much larger emotional charge into that topic, across a much larger number of people. And this is a crime that leaves some of the strongest emotionally crippling fingerprints on our lives, more than almost any other.

IMO, if you had personally experienced that act in your life (as a victim, not as a perpetrator), and you felt so strongly about that show that you could honestly say that you felt it had "raped your childhood", then I would believe that you were within your rights to express that opinion. However, in that case, I would hope that you would do us the courtesy of giving us that backstory, so that we could understand the depths of your conviction on this topic and the place you’re coming from.

The world murder rate in 2010 was 9.63 per 100.000 people, the world **** frequency was 26.3 in that same year. Though the number is indeed higher it does not make one "infrequent" and the other "one of the most common on the planet". Making up frequencies to further your point is pretty much unnecessary since both acts are extremely deplorable anyway.

I take objection to your statement that I flippantly use the word ****, I didn't. I would like for the discussion to remain civil and not be demonized for something I did not do.

Having lost people to murder and closely knowing victims of sexual assault and the fact that I already went out of my way to condemn all acts of violence but you still think it is fair to make it personal tells me enough about your unwillingnes to discuss this in a mature fashion. I will bow out.

Hey at least it was censored so I guess that everybody's gain!

I am not condoning the use of the word but would anyone here react this offended if he had said shot, stabbed, lynched, killed, enslaved, tortured or something along those lines? And why not? All are vile acts...

The reason why not is because something like lynching is unfamiliar to nearly all of us. If a member of this forum was known to have had someone close to them lynched we would probably consciously avoid using this imagery around them. **** however, is something that affects many people either through direct experience or because we have seen the effects of it on someone close to us. In effect, "lynching" is using something remote and unreal to most of us. **** is referring to something very close to home for many of us. It goes further than this as well. Lynching someone (traditionally putting a rope around their neck and hanging them from a tree) is a very extreme thing. There's is little to no chance of its use in conversation contributing to normalization of the concept. In strong contrast, **** is something that a number of people relate to and would like to reduce in shock value, it is something that actually occurs in a wide variety of scenarios from the stereotypes masked stranger in an alley to the far more common date **** where a guy simply refuses to stop when a woman doesn't want to go further. Or the very common scenario of in-relationship **** where a woman is forced to have sex with someone she is currently seeing even if she doesn't want to. Both of these are at serious risk of normalization in some parts of society with the former often inviting misogynistic reactions of "she was asking for it" or "she shouldn't have been drunk then". And the in-relationship scenario is especially at risk of normalization with people saying its a male's right to have sex with someone they call their wife/girlfriend. That's why it can't be taken as a casual reference or trivialized - because unlike hanging someone with a rope, there are actually people who want and try to trivialize ****.

But at the end of the day, it's offensive because it's a real and very traumatic experience that has deeply scarred many of us or those we love. Lynching isn't and if there were someone here who we knew had lost someone to a lynching, we'd probably all politely avoid the term out of respect.

Okay, now I've seen Droids in Distress, and I'll admit I'm enjoying these shows so far overall, specifically the overall story itself, but...

- I really miss TCW's detailed backgrounds: there is so much to draw on from TCW for games and just sheer immersion, and so far there is very little of that in Rebels. If they wanted to capture that E4 feeling, they are really falling down here. From the first scenes in E4 to the last, you knew you were seeing only a small slice of a much bigger picture, and TCW managed to capture that regularly. Rebels does not, so far. There are very few "long shots", which is a poor decision imho, and contributes to my next complaint...

- I really miss TCW's detailed continuity: Rebels seems to play fast and loose with time and space, and I'm finding it annoying. Compare, say, the chase between Ahsoka and that jumper chick in Lightsaber Lost...you could follow the characters' progress through all the scenes and they made sense. Rebels doesn't manage that half as well, the characters basically just teleport from one place to another.

- I really miss TCW's detailed emotional depth: maybe it's just a new and relatively inexperienced animation team, but they aren't remotely conveying the amount of depth they had available especially towards the end of TCW. (And neither does the voice acting.) For the animation part, the fact that it's a new team shouldn't really matter, these are animation routines that should be translatable. IOW, there should be progress, but this feels like a couple steps backward.

...end complaint...

I think with two stories done, it's too soon to complain about lack of tie-ins to the continuity or character depth. You can't fairly compare Rebels to the entirety of TCW. You have to compare it to two episodes of TCW (and from the first season of that, too!). But it's an interesting insight about the lack of detailed backgrounds. I hadn't noticed that consciously but it did contribute to a feeling of emptiness and lack of context. Now that you've put your finger on it for me, I'm going to be noticing that a lot more!

Rebels needs more Ziro the Hutt though.

What doesn't?

(Sadly, in continuity, Ziro will be dead by now, shot by that beautiful and heartless seductress who betrayed him)

I am just baffled by the fact that I tell you about the sexist nature of the arguments used for the facts people are trying to ban the word's use and here you come with exactly that.

Again, no one here is condoning the act, no one here is taking the act lightly but the whole fact that people are trying to make it unmentionable only adds to the obscurity of it and won't further the end of it.

Also, do not forget that this is a board for a game about wars. The most traumatic of traumatic experiences.

Edit:

Also, I am done with this conversation to be honest. I am not even the one to bring it up in the first place...

I am just baffled by the fact that I tell you about the sexist nature of the arguments used for the facts people are trying to ban the word's use and here you come with exactly that.

I don't see anything in my post that depends on double-standards / sexism. I was explaining why the term is offensive to many in a way that "lynched" or "enslaved" is not. Feel free to PM me a response to this. I think what I wrote is very valid and accurate. There's no need to clutter up this thread with this. But I will reply on the topic when it is raised here as one of the people who found the term offensive and the post was my explanation of why when asked.

Again, no one here is condoning the act, no one here is taking the act lightly but the whole fact that people are trying to make it unmentionable only adds to the obscurity of it and won't further the end of it.

Actually, I think casual use of it as a general term for trivial offenses IS taking the subject lightly. That's the problem many of us have with it. Nor was the argument made that not using the term make an end to it, the argument was made that treating it as such is offensive to many people who have been affected by it and that it also normalizes and desensitizes people to hearing about it. No-one argued for the term to be banned, they argued against it being misused. A very different thing. I don't see how you got the idea that either of what you object to was what I was saying from my post.

Also, do not forget that this is a board for a game about wars. The most traumatic of traumatic experiences.

There are a variety of reasons why people are content to play a role-playing game that contains fantasy unrealistic violence and shooting, but be unhappy to see '****' be used as a casual term for anything that bothers you about Star Wars movies. I think that's reasonable enough and not hard to see. Anyway, it's perfectly clear from the reactions here that many people find it offensive and I've answered why which was the question asked.

New thread for offensive words perhaps? Or possibly even personal messages since this is a Star Wars board. This thread is about the Rebels show.

Yeah too much of this and we'll have all too many words banned. We won't be able to talk about many things which are a part of Fringe, Rebellion or Force game, like killing your enemies and such, whether dark side or not.

How about the new show Star Wars: Rebels eh? I like the fact that it is kiddified. I can always "adult" up my game, but I like that young fans can enjoy it along with me. With new movies coming out that take place after the OT, I am seeing much more interest in the OT again, thus this new series. FFG was very smart to place the timeframe of their game around the OT. i am looking forward to what is coming both here and at the movies.

Yes, let's please stop this conversation. I come here to talk about Star Wars, not listen to others talk about a disgusting subject. Let's leave it at "Many people feel insulted by the use of that word, so just don't use it in conversation."

How about the new show Star Wars: Rebels eh? I like the fact that it is kiddified. I can always "adult" up my game, but I like that young fans can enjoy it along with me. With new movies coming out that take place after the OT, I am seeing much more interest in the OT again, thus this new series. FFG was very smart to place the timeframe of their game around the OT. i am looking forward to what is coming both here and at the movies.

I like that it was kiddified too. I have a brother that I'm determined to make love Star Wars, and he never sits through TCW since it always drags on with the politics (he's a little kid who doesn't care, skip to the fighting!). With Rebels, though, he's glued to the seat. Overall, a wonderful show.

Also, it was approved by George Lucas himself (Rebel Recon, starwars.com), so you know it's good. Which is interesting. Kessel may have (and considering the original drafts, probably was) designated to be an actual planet, but authors turned it into an asteroid to make it cooler. Just like Stormtroopers...

Too...... many...... jedi....

I am so tired of jedi/force users in every single Star Wars title, Be it shows, books, comics, etc... Reminds me of some on hit wonder always having to show everyone the only thing they think is successful....

There is so much more to Star Wars then just glowie sticks.