On 5/9/2020 at 11:58 PM, immortalfrieza said:

- A noir style private eye type show set in the Star Wars universe. It would be a prime opportunity to show what actually living in the Star Wars universe is like and in particular really gets into the underworld. I don't think there's really much that examines that sort of thing in depth, glimpses sure, but not a real focus of things.

At the end of TLJ the Resistance is reduced down to a tiny handful in an old smuggler's freighter. The Resistance building themselves back up to pre-TLJ levels should take years of work and is ripe for material. Unfortunately Rise of Skywalker fails to even put in so much a throwaway line and just puts the Resistance back to pre-TLJ, a consequence of the really REALLY bad and unnecessary attempt to pretend The Last Jedi never happened. Maybe a series could help fix that by actually providing that explanation, among other things.

Yeah I'm going to have to disagree with you there. I have a lot of problems with Rise of Skywalker, but it does not put the Resistance back to pre-TLJ levels of strength. They have got back a small fleet of fighters and a few hundred more recruits and that is about it. Nothing on the scale they had in FA or the beginning of TLJ.

A noir style cartoon set in the Star Wars universe would be amazing!

14 minutes ago, unicornpuncher said:

A noir style cartoon set in the Star Wars universe would be amazing!

Well when you put it like that...

"Noir cartoon" sounds a bit goofy, but noir story, definitely. Cartoon, depends on how they do it.

On 5/5/2020 at 4:01 AM, Ebak said:

That...that's not how objectivity works my man...you are 100% free to have your own opinion but that's subjectivity.

Here's an example:

Objective: Harlock999 said ' I really, really disliked Rebels and will a lways believe it to be objectively bad .' That's objective because, it's a fact, you said that.

Subjective: 'I think Harlock999' is a great guy. That is subjective because I am putting an opinion on something that is not fact, it might be 'fact' to me or another person, but to another person they might perceive you differently. Subjectivity is a certain point of view.

I also am aware you know this but doing this to point out how contemptible I find you calling the show objectively bad and that whenever I see you post I roll my eyes. This post has been edited down so I don't get banned otherwise it is an opinion I would be throwing out language that is a lot stronger.

Translation: I can be as mean as I want about it and not care that it might have introduced an entire generation to Star Wars.

Double standard much?

You can dislike Rebels all you want, I even agree with you in pertaining to certain episodes. However its cultural impact on the Star Wars zeitgeist shouldn't be ignored, nor the fact that it is held in high regard by a lot of Star Wars fans. I know people who did get into Star Wars because of Rebels...the Prequels...**** even the Sequel trilogy.

To go on a mini rant. It's okay to dislike something in Star Wars, it is impossible to like everything and you should challenge things. However, at the same time, to some people; that is Star Wars, and belittling it for existing is essentially indirectly playing a 'I'm a bigger fan than you' card to those that were introduced to it.

As someone who grew up on the prequels, that is something I've experienced from plenty of people constantly ****ing on that trilogy. They may not be saying it, but what I am hearing is "Your not a Star Wars fan because I don't acknowledge the thing that made you a Star Wars fan."

To repeat. It's okay to not like something, just at least try not to **** all over it at every conceivable moment or say "IT DOESN'T EXIST SWJ BULLL RABA RABA RABA". (That last quote is certainly not directed at you specifically, just the Star Wars community in general).

Star Wars has become 100% less fun for me thanks to all the moaning I see everywhere about "Sequel Trilogy Trash" "SJW"-This "Woman in Star Wars"-That and quite frankly has made me almost toss the Star Wars community in the bin for me.

---

Anyway, back on topic. I honestly do not know what I'd like the next show to be about. I think we have a good live action show with the Mandalorian. Its hard to think of something that is 'worth' exploring if that makes sense. Part of me would like to see more exploration of the Jedi before the prequels, maybe a young Obi Wan and Qui Gon? Could serve as a nice companion series to Kenobi. I would like to see Feloni move away from Ahsoka though, particularly because we are getting her in Mando. Let's move the spotlight somewhere else.

There's an awful lot to unpack here... So, instead, I'll just try to address a few points.

1) I do indeed believe I could take hours out of my day to outline all of the reasons why Rebels is objectively a bad Star Wars series. (However, I also believe I could quite quickly outline how Rebels is a perfectly fine children's show.) The fact that I do not have hours in my day to do such a thing means I have to condense everything down to "bullet points" and make sure that, for now, I state "my opinion," "personally," "IMHO," etc. But, again, at the end of the day? Yeah, art itself is pretty much subjective anyway.

Interestingly enough, my credentials and identity would probably give me a lot more leeway with you (and others) in regard to film/TV criticism ... as well as my attitudes toward the marketing of all these creative efforts. But we're not here to map out our CVs and resumes, and all of us doing that would really just create weird, possibly uncomfortable divides between a lot of people here.

2) I'm not your enemy nor do I believe myself to be superior in any way to anyone else on these boards. (But my natural "True Neutral" alignment does make me find everyone's responses to my Rebels rant pretty hilarious. Sorry.) Recall that I made sure to point out that I'm a big believer in diff'rent strokes for diff'rent folks. That said, this is a community forum, and we're all here to post messages and relevant opinions. Unlike a lot of folks, I guess I'm not too upset about ruffling a few feathers or standing alone. I can also be pretty passionate, sarcastic, and obnoxious at times. And I'm absolutely OK with that.

3) I'm 100-percent confident that nearly everyone who's a regular poster on these boards would find me pretty dang cool and likable - and, yeah, a great guy - if they met me in real life. Yep, 100-percent. (I state this knowing full well there will be many of you that think to themselves, "Now, I hate him MORE!" Ha. Yet I still stand by my assertion ... 100-percent.)

4) That bit about not making that post to elicit furor from those who possess blind brand loyalty to the Star Wars logo? C'mon, you know who you are. If you feel the need to defend yourself on the matter, I'm probably not speaking to you. So, yes, it is perfectly reasonable to LOVE Rebels and HATE another aspect of Star Wars. I mean, again, c'mon.

Personally, I find the folks who feel it their duty to viciously attack those who disagree with or criticize anything with a Star Wars logo on it really need to chill and realize nothing in this world is solid gold; I was simply trying to stave off those who just love to go nuclear on these boards for no other reason than the fact they get (massively!) offended by difference of opinion.

4) Yes, I only sat through the entirety of Season One of Rebels. However, like I said, I have checked in enough (meaning I've sat through several episodes of each of the subsequent seasons) to find the quality did not change. I still found myself cringing way, way too much. However, I'm certain there were storylines and events I missed that are huge favorites for some of you. Good. For you.

That's not to say some series don't get exponentially better. Star Trek: DS9 is a fantastic example. Yet, it actually started out pretty OK. I mean, it perhaps wasn't mindblowing. However, it was pretty decent - sometimes, like with "Duet" and "Blood Oath," it was quite good - and, yeah, it then got better and better and BETTER AND BETTER to the point that DS9 is now considered to be one of the crown jewels of Trek. But it was never, ever "bad."

5) If your fun diminishes in any way due to those who find certain management issues, screenplays, casting choices, longterm planning, political/social agenda-pushing, and overt canon violations to be offensive? Then you'll find very little to like in pop culture these days. And I'm genuinely sorry for that. I really am. But I do believe popular IPs such as Marvel, DC, Star Trek, Doctor Who, and, yes, Star Wars are truly suffering right now from some boneheaded issues. My only advice would be to ignore the criticism and like what you like.

Simply saying (or typing), "hey, I get there may be some issues with [thing], but I still really like [thing]" will absolutely earn you respect. And then, in a few years, maybe you'll find you actually agree with the ravings of folks like me. Or not.

And for the record, I actually loved Disney's Rogue One, Solo, and first season of The Mandalorian. I also loved the final act of The Clone Wars. I just really don't like Disney's sequel trilogy ... or Rebels.

Oh, and did anyone catch the latest episode of "Gallery: The Mandalorian" or whatever it's called on Disney+? Dave Filoni delivers a PHENOMENAL monologue on the heart of Star Wars, its need for familial connections, and how this all ties into Qui-Gon, Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Maul in The Phantom Menace. Good, good stuff. His delivery had the directors nearly in tears.

Again, I don't think Filoni's "The Guy." But I really like him.

Maybe Favreau's "The Guy?" Hmmm...

(BTW, the verbal exchanges and body language between Favreau and Kennedy were certainly interesting. Heh.)

5 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

Interestingly enough, my credentials and identity would probably give me a lot more leeway with you (and others) in regard to film/TV criticism ... as well as my attitudes toward the marketing of all these creative efforts. But we're not here to map out our CVs and resumes, and all of us doing that would really just create weird, possibly uncomfortable divides between a lot of people here.

I couldn't care less about your credentials. Even if you are some big shot critic or movie director, I've disagreed plenty with people in the past based on my opinion.

3 minutes ago, Ebak said:

I couldn't care less about your credentials. Even if you are some big shot critic or movie director, I've disagreed plenty with people in the past based on my opinion.

And that is gr-r-r-r-eat!

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

Interestingly enough, my credentials and identity would probably give me a lot more leeway with you (and others) in regard to film/TV criticism

*yawn*. Critics are a dime a dozen, anybody can claim to be a critic to lend their opinions more weight. Besides, you *liked the Thrawn books*, those raging pieces of mary-sue trash, that pretty much disqualifies you from having any sense of critical superiority.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

I'm 100-percent confident that nearly everyone who's a regular poster on these boards would find me pretty dang cool and likable

double yawn. Translation: "Everybody I know thinks I'm awesome!"

Nobody who's remotely self-aware says these things.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

Oh, and did anyone catch the latest episode of "Gallery: The Mandalorian" or whatever it's called on Disney+? Dave Filoni delivers a PHENOMENAL monologue on the heart of Star Wars, its need for familial connections, and how this all ties into Qui-Gon, Anakin, Obi-Wan, and Maul in The Phantom Menace. Good, good stuff. His delivery had the directors nearly in tears.

Agreed, that was ...impressive, most impressive.

1 hour ago, whafrog said:

*yawn*. Critics are a dime a dozen, anybody can claim to be a critic to lend their opinions more weight. Besides, you *liked the Thrawn books*, those raging pieces of mary-sue trash, that pretty much disqualifies you from having any sense of critical superiority.

That's a bit of a harsh reaction to the Thrawn novels. And if you're calling Thrawn a Mary Sue, well, he starts out as a Grand Admiral, soo... Definitely a prior history there. He didn't come out of the blue (pardon the pun). Plus he fails. Reading through a list of criteria for Mary/Gary Sue/Stu, he doesn't really match any of them.
Plus, who said he's a critic? He said he feels that he is more qualified to criticize than you think, that doesn't mean he's a critic. That said, I agree. I find critics pretty pointless.

Side note, I don't see how Thrawn changes all that much between the Thrawn novels and Rebels. I thought he was great in both, if a bit more dumbed-down in Rebels.

I can see both sides (even if I disagree with the notion of Rebels being “objectively bad”).

But then, I’m on the flip side of this discussion regarding the current state of a comic I’ve been a fan of since the early 80s. It was recently relaunched under a writer who’s been popular in the industry for 2 decades, but whose work I would say is “objectively” lacking, and can enumerate the reasons why I say this. Others disagree. For a variety of reasons, they find his work entertaining, and so are blind (willingly or unknowingly) to his flaws.

Is Rebels flawless? No. I don’t think there even is such a thing as a flawless show. But, is it “objectively bad?” I don’t think so. Our subjective reactions to a work color our evaluations of their objective elements. (For example, I’ve never found a Kevin Smith work that appeals to me in the slightest. This even impacts my enjoyment of things like Talking Dead when he’s a panelist, or episodes of shows I enjoy like Flash or Supergirl when he’s occasionally just a directing “hired gun.”)

Unfortunately, we’re at a place right now where the intentionally toxic grognards out there have helped foster an environment of heightened responses and reactions to others sharing their responses because that drives their monetization of a division that isn’t as deep or insurmountable as they’d have us think. Some fans may find themselves being harsher in criticisms, while others may find themselves being more forcefully defensive in return.

44 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

I can see both sides (even if I disagree with the notion of Rebels being “objectively bad”).

But then, I’m on the flip side of this discussion regarding the current state of a comic I’ve been a fan of since the early 80s. It was recently relaunched under a writer who’s been popular in the industry for 2 decades, but whose work I would say is “objectively” lacking, and can enumerate the reasons why I say this. Others disagree. For a variety of reasons, they find his work entertaining, and so are blind (willingly or unknowingly) to his flaws.

Is Rebels flawless? No. I don’t think there even is such a thing as a flawless show. But, is it “objectively bad?” I don’t think so. Our subjective reactions to a work color our evaluations of their objective elements. (For example, I’ve never found a Kevin Smith work that appeals to me in the slightest. This even impacts my enjoyment of things like Talking Dead when he’s a panelist, or episodes of shows I enjoy like Flash or Supergirl when he’s occasionally just a directing “hired gun.”)

Unfortunately, we’re at a place right now where the intentionally toxic grognards out there have helped foster an environment of heightened responses and reactions to others sharing their responses because that drives their monetization of a division that isn’t as deep or insurmountable as they’d have us think. Some fans may find themselves being harsher in criticisms, while others may find themselves being more forcefully defensive in return.

I dont think anyone is intentionally toxic. I think that we have gotten to this place because the response to people not liking something is to call them an ist of some sort instead of actually addressing their complaints. For example people will call them misogynist despite them being able to point to many strong female characters they do like. For example many people do not like Rey while liking Leia and Ahsoka. Is their dislike because of the gender? no it is not because they like other female characters. It is just easier to call them Misogynist because then they don't have to address the problems with the characters. It is easier to do that. But it does cause a lot of resentment.

19 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

I dont think anyone is intentionally toxic. I think that we have gotten to this place because the response to people not liking something is to call them an ist of some sort instead of actually addressing their complaints. For example people will call them misogynist despite them being able to point to many strong female characters they do like. For example many people do not like Rey while liking Leia and Ahsoka. Is their dislike because of the gender? no it is not because they like other female characters. It is just easier to call them Misogynist because then they don't have to address the problems with the characters. It is easier to do that. But it does cause a lot of resentment.

There absolutely some who are intentionally toxic. Not necessarily anyone here, not in the “average” fan base. But there are absolutely some who intentionally go out of their way to foster the sense of greater division that I spoke of. Most of them are doing it because they’ve discovered they can make money by fanning the flames of people not caring for a movie, and (literally) selling them the notion that their reaction to a movie wasn’t simply a matter of personal taste, but the result of a sinister campaign designed to specifically undermine everything those who didn’t enjoy it had previously enjoyed in the overall franchise. (They don’t just do it for Star Wars, they do it for Star Trek, Harry Potter, various DC-based tv shows and movies, video games, Marvel movies...and comics. You name the fandom, these guys are out there making money off of people glad to find that not enjoying something they’d hoped to like wasn’t their “fault,” but the result of someone setting out to wrong them.) These intentionally toxic clickbait artists may or may not even believe what they’re saying, but the narratives they sell are couched in the ideas and language of demonizing the “other,” whether that “other” is a gender, race, whatever.

And, as I said, some on the other side of the argument (for want of a better term) can get their backs up, too. Some assume - rightly or wrongly, because the people they’re talking to are all individuals - off the bat that the person expressing that counter opinion must agree wholeheartedly with the grognards who have put themselves in the spotlight.

Again, both sides have people who can and do overreact. That does not preclude the existence of people who do, indeed, trade in toxicity as part of their grift.

Looks like I need to clarify I'm answering the OP and not one of the rants:

• Continuation of the story begun in Solo, if we are never to see the follow-on movie. That story line was left hanging. This could be moot if the Kenobi series is going to cover it (I really, really hope so). But, if it isn't done in live action, at least make a cartoon version.
• More stuff between Ep. VI and VII. Lots to cover here including Rey's parents, background of Ep VII characters, etc. Perhaps even tie it into the Mandalorian since its in the same time period. Again, I would prefer live action (Mando could run into some of these characters), but if not a cartoon.
• Series in ancient times regarding discovery of the Force and founding of the Jedi Order and the first Sith. No I don't mean what Legends has, something different and new. Perhaps make it so far back that star travel is in its infancy. Those ruins on Jedha seemed significantly ancient and possibly not something a space age civilization has made. Heck I may even be partial to a cartoon series set on Jedha before space travel was discovered (or re-discovered but a more ancient civilization fell apart). A middle-ages technology Jedha with Guardians of the Whills running around with staves while discovering the Force could be cool.

10 minutes ago, Sturn said:

• More stuff between Ep. VI and VII. Lots to cover here including Rey's parents, background of Ep VII characters, etc. Perhaps even tie it into the Mandalorian since its in the same time period. Again, I would prefer live action (Mando could run into some of these characters), but if not a cartoon.

I really hope Mando doesn't run into any characters like how you mention. This isn't just because of my distaste for the Sequel Trilogy either, I hope that Ahsoka and Boba Fett (haven't actually heard the rumors about Boba, just seen that they exist), both characters I like, don't show up. And yes, my opinion has changed somewhat since we first heard the Ahsoka rumors. I want The Mandalorian to truly be a standalone show, separate from the other media. I think that is something we could use more of in Star Wars.

I am not talking about a radically new timeframe though, I don't think I'd like that. For as long as I've been a Star Wars fan, my interest has been solidly in the 50 BBY - 20 ABY range. There's a bit more to it than that, but that's a pretty good summary. I have a fairly complicated headcanon, there aren't really any blanket statements I can make about what is included in it.
To elaborate on why I believe new standalone shows should be in the same timeframe, that's what people know. That's what people have a deep history for and love of. Adam-12 in the depths of Coruscant circa 20 BBY is going to be much easier for people to understand than circa 200 BBY. (Here's an interesting idea on that subject: season one is during the Clone Wars, season two is same guys, but during the Empire [not necessarily GCW])

I acknowledge, sadly, that a broad audience probably does not share this opinion. Most laymen would probably rather see something like the Obi-Wan show (don't get me wrong, I want that too) than something disconnected from the wider story because they do not have as intense an interest as many of us do.* I love getting into the nitty-gritty of the universe and thinking in-depth about the ordinary people who live in the galaxy, and I have for as long as I can remember.

*As an illustration of this, I was talking to a very casual Star Wars fan recently, and she was talking about how although Baby Yoda is adorable, The Mandalorian doesn't really interest her because it doesn't have anything to do the wider story. And how she "doesn't want all new characters, she wants to see more of the characters she already likes." I countered by saying that you've got to start somewhere, but her point is still valid. To someone who isn't as invested, they want more of what they already like, not necessarily to try new flavors that they may like even better. This doesn't apply to everyone, of course, but this is a sentiment I have heard expressed elsewhere as well.

On 5/12/2020 at 12:33 PM, Harlock999 said:

I do indeed believe I could take hours out of my day to outline all of the reasons why Rebels is objectively a bad Star Wars series.

Of course you already couldn’t take the hours out of your day to actually watch the series but don’t let that get in the way of your opinion.

Now, what I would like as a new series is to see something we have not seen before. Perhaps a show about exploring unknown regions and establishing contacts with planets new to the galaxy. So perhaps a bit of a Star Trek approach to the Star Wars universe where a small group of characters set out to colonize far off worlds, hunt them for resources or artifacts perhaps outracing other less scrupulous peers.

On 5/12/2020 at 9:30 AM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Plus, who said he's a critic? He said he feels that he is more qualified to criticize than you think, that doesn't mean he's a critic.

Exactly. Please don't imagine I'm some kind of "big shot critic or movie director." Ha. I am, however, fortunate to have had a lot of varying career experiences and now (spoiler alert!) teach college courses on a wealth of communication topics and industries. These subjects include writing, marketing, advertising, journalism, and the mass media. So while I've won multiple teaching awards and have published research under my belt here in my late-40s, I'm afraid my Hollywood influence is currently slim to none.

But, as WhaFrog points out, I am still awesome. 😉

Oh, and WhaFrog, why would you claim Zahn's Thrawn books are "Mary Sue trash?" I'm not sure I follow... Sure, the Disney sequel trilogy was driven by a full-blown Mary Sue and consistently receives (well-justified, IMHO) criticism for its lack of characterization and narrative struggle in place of Rey AWESOMENESS. But, yeah, I can't pinpoint any one character in the Thrawn novels that would qualify as someone taking the place of the author (or a member of some sort of "identity politics tribe") who is always AMAZING and receives constant praise and validation from everyone around them... Rather, I found the books to be pretty great reads that showcased character growth and real struggle.

I mean, are the Thrawn novels works of great literature? Probably not. However, I absolutely believe them to be shining examples of movie tie-in goodness.

On 5/13/2020 at 9:40 AM, DanteRotterdam said:

Of course you already couldn’t take the hours out of your day to actually watch the series but don’t let that get in the way of your opinion.

You didn't read my 4th bullet point?

14 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

(or a member of some sort of "identity politics tribe")

That isn't a criteria for Mary Sue. However, I agree with your broader point regarding no Mary Sues in the Thrawn Trilogy. I thought it wrote the characters very well, and the series actually made me like Mara Jade, a big step since I've disliked her on principle since I learned she married Luke. I can't think of a single character in the trilogy that I disliked (not as in "love to hate" but just despise).

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That isn't a criteria for Mary Sue.

These days? I'd argue it is.

Too often, "marginalized groups" are now being represented in various media by a single character who is not allowed to show any flaws or receive anything less than utter praise for their accomplishments. Struggle is often equated with failure, and failure is absolutely unacceptable to many who believe that representation means "perfect in every way."

But... Traditionally, yes, a Mary Sue is an author placing him/herself (or those like him/her) into the setting and showing that individual to be WONDROUS, eliciting "oohs" and "ahhhs" from all of the established characters.

3 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

These days? I'd argue it is.

Too often, "marginalized groups" are now being represented in various media by a single character who is not allowed to show any flaws or receive anything less than utter praise for their accomplishments. Struggle is often equated with failure, and failure is absolutely unacceptable to many who believe that representation means "perfect in every way."

But... Traditionally, yes, a Mary Sue is an author placing him/herself (or those like him/her) into the setting and showing that individual to be WONDROUS, eliciting "oohs" and "ahhhs" from all of the established characters.

It may often be the case that they intersect, but it isn't a criteria . Two character written identically, one white, the other black, would both be Mary/Gary Sues/Stus. Just because one is a more often the case doesn't mean it is a requirement for the label.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

It may often be the case that they intersect, but it isn't a criteria . Two character written identically, one white, the other black, would both be Mary/Gary Sues/Stus. Just because one is a more often the case doesn't mean it is a requirement for the label.

Oh, OK. "Requirement?" No.

But a fairly common staple of Mary Sue works these days? Absolutely, yes.

Quote

What would you like the next SW cartoon to be about?

Anything but Ezra Bridger.

More specifically, though, I think they should make some animated series integrating some of the good Legends stories into the new canon. I think the Thrawn trilogy's story could be fit into the story between ROTJ and Mandalorian, and it's one of the best non-film Star Wars stories ever told.

Oh yeah, another idea (the one I think they're absolutely crazy for not having made already):

Make a well done kid-focused show set in a Jedi academy. Something like Star Wars meets Harry Potter plus Avatar The Last Airbender. Maybe it could be set in the High Republic! Or else at Luke's Jedi academy before Ben joins.

2 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

Oh yeah, another idea (the one I think they're absolutely crazy for not having made already):

Make a well done kid-focused show set in a Jedi academy. Something like Star Wars meets Harry Potter plus Avatar The Last Airbender. Maybe it could be set in the High Republic! Or else at Luke's Jedi academy before Ben joins.

You lost me at "Harry Potter."

5 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

You lost me at "Harry Potter."

This was pretty much my experience:

2 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

Oh yeah, another idea (the one I think they're absolutely crazy for not having made already):

Make a well done kid-focused show set in a Jedi academy. Something like Star Wars meets

2 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

Harry Potter plus Avatar The Last Airbender. Maybe it could be set in the High Republic! Or else at Luke's Jedi academy before Ben joins.

🤮 *

On a side note, the Jedi Academy book series is very much not Canon (or even Legends), but it's absolutely hilarious. It's aimed at kids, but it's fantastically humorous for any Star Wars fan.

*I do like Avatar, but not in this context