8 minutes ago, Mandalore of the Rings said:

Yeah it's easier to say the team is objectively bad because of their win/loss record. Not so much with a cartoon. But by liking said football team (even though they are objectively bad) you become (objectively) a super fan! No bandwagoning for you! IF they ever get objectively good in the future you should remind people that you actually liked them when they sucked! 🙂 That's what I do!

That part was really a joke (hence the asterisk), but the principle is still sound.

I tend to like teams that suck, often because I became a fan because I knew fans of their rival, and they were jerks who would constantly talk about how their team was sooo much better than the other team.
But yes, I can never be accused of bandwagoning.

38 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

That part was really a joke (hence the asterisk), but the principle is still sound.

I tend to like teams that suck, often because I became a fan because I knew fans of their rival, and they were jerks who would constantly talk about how their team was sooo much better than the other team.
But yes, I can never be accused of bandwagoning.

You are bandwagonning!

There fixed that for you. 😉

On 5/28/2020 at 4:28 AM, DanteRotterdam said:

I called you a fragile male altright snowflake and the other people felt I was not being fair in that assessment. Since I was not interested in roaming through your inane posts to prove my point and seeing how it was indeed a personal attack I decided to delete it. Your smuck reply after I deleted the posts should be enough for others to somewhat understand why I believe you are despicable.

Dante, you are hilarious. You really make me laugh! 😂

On 5/28/2020 at 7:09 PM, Mandalore of the Rings said:

I'm totally fine with you have whatever smart or dumb ideas you have, but as I said above you can't say something is objectively bad when a) it's pretty subjective and b) you haven't even watched it. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Tell us your opinions on something else, or come back and join in when you've watched it.

It actually makes Rebels seem pretty good. Lots of people here like it except this one guy thinks it's crap, but then again he hasn't even watched it.

Anyway, it's a Star Wars cartoon which is what we were talking about (I think?). All the other stuff... whatever.

From previous posts in this very thread:

"The Clone Wars was great (for about 75-80% of its run). However, Rebels was a boring childish pursuit that, IMHO, ignored the core premise of the OT and seemed to exist solely to appeal to young children and, by extension, sell a lot of spinning lightsabers and other ridiculous toys. Even the show’s artistic qualities (minus the really cool focus on secondary colors) were nowhere near the level of CW; I personally found the McQuarrie homages to be complete and utter fails. The show looked lifeless, its pacing was nearly always glacial, and we were forced to try and care about about a young kid (with burgeoning Force powers natch) and his crew of clowns who - for most of the series - sequestered themselves to one pretty non-unique planet. Slapstick was abundant, and the writing was several steps below that of CW.

If you haven’t figured it out already? Ha. I really, really disliked Rebels and will always believe it to be objectively bad. (Oh, and Thrawn’s usage almost felt like it was meant to be intentionally offensive to those of us who’d read Zahn’s original trilogy... Sigh.)

The less said about Resistance, the better."

"PS - I realize a lot of you enjoyed these series. And, hey, more power to ya! Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks and all that. But as someone who continued to “check in” on these series on occasion? Please understand my mind is unlikely to change. (And also understand these are my opinions only and not some deliberate attempt to elicit furor from those of you with blind brand loyalty to the Star Wars logo.)"

"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."

"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.""

I still stand by my assertion that Rebels was objectively bad. From a critical standpoint.

However, I've also admitted that art is still pretty much subjective. So I should really just call my stance an opinion.

And I personally believe I gave the series enough of a shot.

But... While I am neck-deep in work these days, I will try to find the time to use my Disney+ subscription to work my way through Rebels before the summer is up. And then, I'll come back and try to outline my thoughts. Cool? 😎

On 5/28/2020 at 9:34 AM, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The difference is that he is complaining about a part of Star Wars, not Star Wars as a whole. If he disliked Star Wars, he almost certainly wouldn't be here.

If this was a Sequel Trilogy fan site, I doubt he would be here.

Thanks, P-47.

I don't know why it is that every time I return to this site I feel like I'm forced to give a rundown of why it is that I am here!

So here are my (quick) feelings on Star Wars:

- I ADORE the original trilogy. Before it was "kewl" to say it, I was proudly proclaiming ESB to be my favorite film. Of all time. I LOVE the character of Han Solo.

- I read most of the Marvel Comics run as a kid along with Brian Daley's Han Solo trilogy. Loved that stuff.

- I watched the Droids cartoon on Saturday mornings when it originally aired. Really enjoyed it. (Read my first post in this thread.)

- I had (a bunch of) toys, T-shirts, Underoos, sneakers, Dixie cups, lunch boxes, and pillow cases with Star Wars **** all over it as a kid. Again, I couldn't get enough of the OT.

- I read through and enjoyed a lot of the EU. Favorites include the original Thrawn trilogy, the Dark Empire trilogy, the Tales of the Jedi comics, and John Ostrander's Quinlan Vos/Clone Wars comics.

- I've played and LOVED many of the Star Wars video games. Favorites include KOTOR, Republic Commando, Bounty Hunter, Force Commander, X-Wing, TIE Fighter, X-Wing Alliance, and the two Force Unleashed games.

- I actually liked the prequels. I think RotS is fantastic.

- I LOVE both Clone Wars animated series.

- I really, really liked the first season of The Mandalorian.

- I dug both Rogue One and Solo.

- I played the WEG Star Wars RPG (1st edition) when it was first released. (GREAT Sourcebook!)

- As I mentioned, I teach college students these days... And I'm known for wearing graphic tees underneath blazers. Probably a quarter of those T-shirts have either Han Solo or the Millennium Falcon on them.

- I clearly like FFG's EotE. I also really like FFG's X-Wing 1.0. (I play casually so I'm not ever planning to move to 2.0.)

So, yeah, I'm a Star Wars fan. And while I was happy to list all this stuff? No one on these boards should ever feel compelled to "prove" their fandom.

Peace out.

P.S. - [EDIT: See below]

On 5/28/2020 at 9:30 AM, micheldebruyn said:

Also, I do not seek out Godfather fan sites to inflict my feelings about their object of affection on fans.

From a previous post in this thread:

"I'm not your enemy nor do I believe myself to be superior in any way to anyone else on these boards. 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."

57 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

From a previous post in this thread:

"I'm not your enemy nor do I believe myself to be superior in any way to anyone else on these boards. 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."

That was not actually about you but about that type of anti-fan in general. But if you think the shoe fits, that's your deal. Your hatred of past cartoons is not strictly relevant to a thread about what you want future cartoons to be like. Now if someone were to make a thread about what they don't want future cartoons to be like...

4 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

From previous posts in this very thread:

"The Clone Wars was great (for about 75-80% of its run). However, Rebels was a boring childish pursuit that, IMHO, ignored the core premise of the OT and seemed to exist solely to appeal to young children and, by extension, sell a lot of spinning lightsabers and other ridiculous toys. Even the show’s artistic qualities (minus the really cool focus on secondary colors) were nowhere near the level of CW; I personally found the McQuarrie homages to be complete and utter fails. The show looked lifeless, its pacing was nearly always glacial, and we were forced to try and care about about a young kid (with burgeoning Force powers natch) and his crew of clowns who - for most of the series - sequestered themselves to one pretty non-unique planet. Slapstick was abundant, and the writing was several steps below that of CW.

If you haven’t figured it out already? Ha. I really, really disliked Rebels and will always believe it to be objectively bad. (Oh, and Thrawn’s usage almost felt like it was meant to be intentionally offensive to those of us who’d read Zahn’s original trilogy... Sigh.)

The less said about Resistance, the better."

"PS - I realize a lot of you enjoyed these series. And, hey, more power to ya! Diff’rent strokes for diff’rent folks and all that. But as someone who continued to “check in” on these series on occasion? Please understand my mind is unlikely to change. (And also understand these are my opinions only and not some deliberate attempt to elicit furor from those of you with blind brand loyalty to the Star Wars logo.)"

"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."

"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.""

I still stand by my assertion that Rebels was objectively bad. From a critical standpoint.

However, I've also admitted that art is still pretty much subjective. So I should really just call my stance an opinion.

And I personally believe I gave the series enough of a shot.

But... While I am neck-deep in work these days, I will try to find the time to use my Disney+ subscription to work my way through Rebels before the summer is up. And then, I'll come back and try to outline my thoughts. Cool? 😎

What premise wasnignored?

2 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

That was not actually about you but about that type of anti-fan in general. But if you think the shoe fits, that's your deal. Your hatred of past cartoons is not strictly relevant to a thread about what you want future cartoons to be like. Now if someone were to make a thread about what they don't want future cartoons to be like...

You were absolutely referring to me. P-47 called you on it. That's why I typed that post about my love of SW.

And it's also absolutely relevant to discuss how you agree with another poster who believes there shouldn't be any more animated series (at least for a while) because most of them have been pretty bad. Yep, that's how this whole thing started. I agreed with Yaccarus and stated why I also found some of the animated series - specifically the two most recent, Rebels and Resistance - to be painful to watch. (I also shared my fond memories of Droids.)

53 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

What premise was ignored?

From Mandalore of the Rings:

"As I said above you can't say something is objectively bad when a) it's pretty subjective and b) you haven't even watched it. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Tell us your opinions on something else, or come back and join in when you've watched it."

...and...

"It actually makes Rebels seem pretty good. Lots of people here like it except this one guy thinks it's crap, but then again he hasn't even watched it."

There are multiple claims that I'm making blanket statements about objectivity. However, as I pointed out through the use of prior posts, I did state that art was still pretty much subjective. (I do believe, however, that from a critical standpoint I could make the case Rebels is indeed objectively bad ... using instances of narrative structure, characterization, tropes, cliches, animation quality, artistic decisions, internal consistency, and continuity within its shared universe.)

Also, again, I did watch a full quarter of the show and then went on to watch handfuls of episodes from the remaining three seasons in order to give the series a chance. Yet people keep remarking that I didn't watch the show.

Honestly, you know what might actually work against my seemingly "bold" assertion(s)? If someone were to actually lay out WHY and HOW Rebels got considerably better and better in subsequent seasons. I mean, it's telling that I have yet to see that kind of bulleted list come to fruition despite all of the complaining about my (alleged) offensive behavior... 🤔

Note: To be fair, many of you (maybe most of you?) have been very Cool Daddy-O regarding our disagreements. Please know it's appreciated.

Oh, one more thing to consider... Think about Rebels. Now remove Ahsoka and Rex. What do you think of the series now?

If your love of Rebels is based on either of these two characters from The Clone Wars, then maybe you're really just in love with The Clone Wars. *shrug*

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

From Mandalore of the Rings:

"As I said above you can't say something is objectively bad when a) it's pretty subjective and b) you haven't even watched it. No one is forcing you to watch anything. Tell us your opinions on something else, or come back and join in when you've watched it."

...and...

"It actually makes Rebels seem pretty good. Lots of people here like it except this one guy thinks it's crap, but then again he hasn't even watched it."

There are multiple claims that I'm making blanket statements about objectivity. However, as I pointed out through the use of prior posts, I did state that art was still pretty much subjective. (I do believe, however, that from a critical standpoint I could make the case Rebels is indeed objectively bad ... using instances of narrative structure, characterization, tropes, cliches, animation quality, artistic decisions, internal consistency, and continuity within its shared universe.)

Also, again, I did watch a full quarter of the show and then went on to watch handfuls of episodes from the remaining three seasons in order to give the series a chance. Yet people keep remarking that I didn't watch the show.

Honestly, you know what might actually work against my seemingly "bold" assertion(s)? If someone were to actually lay out WHY and HOW Rebels got considerably better and better in subsequent seasons. I mean, it's telling that I have yet to see that kind of bulleted list come to fruition despite all of the complaining about my (alleged) offensive behavior... 🤔

Note: To be fair, many of you (maybe most of you?) have been very Cool Daddy-O regarding our disagreements. Please know it's appreciated.

Oh, one more thing to consider... Think about Rebels. Now remove Ahsoka and Rex. What do you think of the series now?

If your love of Rebels is based on either of these two characters from The Clone Wars, then maybe you're really just in love with The Clone Wars. *shrug*

You quoted me then talkwd about anything but my question.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

Honestly, you know what might actually work against my seemingly "bold" assertion(s)? If someone were to actually lay out WHY and HOW Rebels got considerably better and better in subsequent seasons. I mean, it's telling that I have yet to see that kind of bulleted list come to fruition despite all of the complaining about my (alleged) offensive behavior... 🤔

Oh, one more thing to consider... Think about Rebels. Now remove Ahsoka and Rex. What do you think of the series now?

I can't really, wasn't thinking of it from a quality perspective when I watched it a few years ago (just an enjoyment level), but the character quality increased dramatically and the animation and dialogue also improved.

Removing Rex and Ahsoka? I still like it, but not as much. You aren't too far off base with the whole "in love with the Clone Wars" bit.

I really like Sabine Wren and the other Mandalorians and thought they were very well done. Those are the episodes that I've actually gone back to rewatch recently, and they were as good as I remember. Did you watch those arcs?

Thinking about it more, the main reason I can't make a case for why it's "good" is because I don't generally think like that. I tend to pick stuff apart, so for me, good is an absence of bad.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

Honestly, you know what might actually work against my seemingly "bold" assertion(s)? If someone were to actually lay out WHY and HOW Rebels got considerably better and better in subsequent seasons. I mean, it's telling that I have yet to see that kind of bulleted list come to fruition despite all of the complaining about my (alleged) offensive behavior... 🤔

Not that we've seen any such bulleted list, either. 😉

But seriously, like almost any series, as it progressed, the writers and actors were able to find a groove, to find new avenues of character and story to employ. As more stories were told, new possibilities revealed themselves. By way of comparison, if someone were to watch the first season of Star Trek: The Next Generation, then check in occasionally over the following six seasons, every season - even the third, arguably regarded as the strongest, has a clunker or two in it (lookin' at you, "Evolution" and "Tin Man") - might not see the draw. And, might not even see the progression, particularly if their impression is dominated by just the first season. (Yeah..."Code of Honor" can't even be justified by its writer, and the cast was very vocal about their opinion of that season 1 TNG episode that many consider to be the worst Star Trek episode ever. Or there's the Prime Directive struggle of saving Wesley from execution for walking on the grass in "justice." Or the latent misogyny of "Angel One." Or the bad aging makeup effects in "Too Short a Season." The anti-climactic way a regular was written out in "Skin of Evil." Yeah...season one...not great.)

I also keep in mind that, frankly, it was a kids' show. The point-of-entry character was the youngest member of the team. That's not meant to hand-wave any sort of "shortcomings" to the show, but rather to explore its focus and structure. At the outset, like Ezra, the show was more (for want of a better word) immature, and that would appear to be by design. As he began to accept his responsibility to the group and as a would-be Jedi, the show began to "grow up" while not losing sight of the primary target audience. As is often said of the Harry Potter series, that primary audience that could identify with Ezra to a degree, would grow, and the stories grew with them.

1 hour ago, Harlock999 said:

Oh, one more thing to consider... Think about Rebels. Now remove Ahsoka and Rex. What do you think of the series now?

If your love of Rebels is based on either of these two characters from The Clone Wars, then maybe you're really just in love with The Clone Wars. *shrug*

I was enjoying Rebels before the Ahsoka reveal in the first season finale. The reveal made me say, "Oh, that's kinda cool." Bringing Rex in added some flavor. But, being totally honest, on my first watch-through of Clone Wars, I ran hot and cold on the series. I watched it all, but I didn't get especially excited for new episodes. It wasn't until subsequent rewatching that I really noticed what all was going on.

So, no...my enjoyment of Rebels isn't based on either of them. They added to it, but weren't the reason for it. (Then there's my wife, who didn't watch Clone Wars, wasn't interested in Clone Wars, but enjoyed Rebels, which introduced her to those characters and she liked them there, which led her to read the Ahoska novel...but still has no interest in Clone Wars.)

10 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Dante, you are hilarious. You really make me laugh! 😂

I guess you really need the attention...

On 5/31/2020 at 9:56 AM, Daeglan said:

You quoted me then talkwd about anything but my question.

Sorry. Guess I misunderstood your question.

If you'd like to rephrase it? Or just add a bit of clarification? I'll do my best to respond.

4 hours ago, Harlock999 said:

Sorry. Guess I misunderstood your question.

If you'd like to rephrase it? Or just add a bit of clarification? I'll do my best to respond.

You said rebels ignored a premise. What premise?

48 minutes ago, Daeglan said:

You said rebels ignored a premise. What premise?

Ohhhhhh,,,! OK, yeah, so Rebels straight-up ignored the premise of the OT that there was only one hope for the fall of the Empire - Luke Skywalker, the last of the Jedi. Obi-Wan and Yoda remained in hiding, knowing full well there would come a day when they would be called upon to train and mentor Luke (or, if that didn't work out, Leia). Prophecy and all that.

Also, Tarkin remarks to Vader, "you are the last of that ancient religion; their fire has gone out of the galaxy." (I'm paraphrasing here.) So we're made aware the Jedi are extinct.

But, again, there is Luke who is indeed trained and readied ... well, until he runs off half-cocked and gets a major wake-up call. But our future galactic savior escapes, trains some more, builds his own lightsaber, visits his mentors, and ultimately sets off to face his destiny of bringing down Vader and Palpatine. This marks the return of the Jedi to this galaxy.

Luke is special. He is the last hope (other than his "another" brother sister).

But...

According to this new kids show? There are at least(!) three Jedi or Jedi padawans already hanging around the Rebellion, including this kid spitfire! And the lightsaber he builds also doubles as a stun blaster! And it turns out he's pretty amazing with the Force! Oh, and he's always going up against other Force wielders called The Spanish Inquisition who fly around on helicopter-lightsabers! And this boy and his circus troupe get to meet Force dogs/wolves/furry animals! And other Force animals! And all of this is taking place just a few years (to maybe one decade) before Luke's entrance...

...and, um, no.

Rebels seems like a roleplaying group - three Jedi, a couple of badass soldiers, an even spunkier astromech than R2-D2, and a Mandalorian (natch!). But it does not feel like something that actually occurred between Episodes III and IV.

Now, there might be moments of greatness such as Ahsoka facing Vader and Maul facing Obi-Wan. But Ahsoka really shouldn't be around during the OT. (Maul, of course, finally met his maker.)

I'm sure there are a bunch of other things that irritate longtime fans like me that really shouldn't matter like B-Wings and TIE Defenders showing up that early or Thrawn being watered down for a children's series... But those items, while certainly bringing down the quality of Rebels, do not infringe on the core premise of the OT.

2 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

Ohhhhhh,,,! OK, yeah, so Rebels straight-up ignored the premise of the OT that there was only one hope for the fall of the Empire - Luke Skywalker, the last of the Jedi. Obi-Wan and Yoda remained in hiding, knowing full well there would come a day when they would be called upon to train and mentor Luke (or, if that didn't work out, Leia). Prophecy and all that.

Also, Tarkin remarks to Vader, "you are the last of that ancient religion; their fire has gone out of the galaxy." (I'm paraphrasing here.) So we're made aware the Jedi are extinct.

But, again, there is Luke who is indeed trained and readied ... well, until he runs off half-cocked and gets a major wake-up call. But our future galactic savior escapes, trains some more, builds his own lightsaber, visits his mentors, and ultimately sets off to face his destiny of bringing down Vader and Palpatine. This marks the return of the Jedi to this galaxy.

Luke is special. He is the last hope (other than his "another" brother sister).

But...

According to this new kids show? There are at least(!) three Jedi or Jedi padawans already hanging around the Rebellion, including this kid spitfire! And the lightsaber he builds also doubles as a stun blaster! And it turns out he's pretty amazing with the Force! Oh, and he's always going up against other Force wielders called The Spanish Inquisition who fly around on helicopter-lightsabers! And this boy and his circus troupe get to meet Force dogs/wolves/furry animals! And other Force animals! And all of this is taking place just a few years (to maybe one decade) before Luke's entrance...

...and, um, no.

Rebels seems like a roleplaying group - three Jedi, a couple of badass soldiers, an even spunkier astromech than R2-D2, and a Mandalorian (natch!). But it does not feel like something that actually occurred between Episodes III and IV.

Now, there might be moments of greatness such as Ahsoka facing Vader and Maul facing Obi-Wan. But Ahsoka really shouldn't be around during the OT. (Maul, of course, finally met his maker.)

I'm sure there are a bunch of other things that irritate longtime fans like me that really shouldn't matter like B-Wings and TIE Defenders showing up that early or Thrawn being watered down for a children's series... But those items, while certainly bringing down the quality of Rebels, do not infringe on the core premise of the OT.

But it didn’t ignore that “core premise.”

In fact, without going into specific spoilers for the person making absolute declaratives about what the series “did” but also admits to limited knowledge of what the series did...it went out of its way to remove them from the board by the series finale (itself set a good year before the original movie).

You’re not the only one who asked about that during the series’ run, and certainly not the first. But it’s also something that the writing staff and showrunner were conscious of and planned for.

As a long time Star Was Fan who saw the OT in the movie Theatres and loves it, I have to say that the premise that there is only one force sensitive/Padawan/Jedi left in the whole galaxy always seemed to be rather ridiculus to me. Therefore the Force Users in Rebels did not bother me that much. And to nor mess the Skywalker thing up the showrunners found a suitable solution, so no worries with me. What I hated though, were the Inquisitor Lightsabers.

2 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

But it didn’t ignore that “core premise.”

In fact, without going into specific spoilers for the person making absolute declaratives about what the series “did” but also admits to limited knowledge of what the series did...it went out of its way to remove them from the board by the series finale (itself set a good year before the original movie).

You’re not the only one who asked about that during the series’ run, and certainly not the first. But it’s also something that the writing staff and showrunner were conscious of and planned for.

I'll be honest and say I'm not too sure what happened with Ahsoka, but from what I understand? Ezra gets "lost in time" or something like that.

Nevertheless, the kid is still supposed to be some kind of amazing Jedi-in-the-making and looked upon as some sort of future savior... Which, again, ruins the premise of the OT.

I mean, of course Filoni had to clear the board for Episode IV. However, that does not mean he (and his team and possibly higher-up "suits" who might have mandated this stuff) made some boneheaded decisions along the way. The mere presence of so many Force users hanging around major players just one year(!) before the events of the first Star Wars film GREATLY lessens the uniqueness of the Skywalker prophecy and the ultimate return of the Jedi.

25 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

OK, yeah, so Rebels straight***

<snip>

***years (to maybe one decade) before Luke's entrance...

...and, um, no.

Yeah, those are interesting points I hadn't fully considered before. However, given how many dark Jedi, and hidden Jedi, and other Force-users all survived Order 66 or came around after the fact, didn't bother me all that much. 'specially considering @Nytwyng's point.

I was pretty skeptical about the Inquisitors and continuity, but I extended grace in this case because 1. Vader wouldn't have wanted the Inquisitors pursuing Luke, 2. The showrunners want to introduce something cool. Even if the helicopter lightsabers give me a headache (actually one of the biggest reasons I was disapproving of the show for its first season, and something I never really got over), I can accept the Inquisitors' addition.

25 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

Rebels seems like a roleplaying group - three Jedi, a couple of badass soldiers, an even spunkier astromech than R2-D2, and a Mandalorian (natch!). But it does not feel like something that actually occurred between Episodes III and IV.

I actually love that it's like a roleplaying group. Not something I actually realized until I started playing this game, but as I was first starting to familiarize myself with the concept (literally on day one, when my friend was introducing it to me in the first place) I went, "Wait a second, Rebels is just an AoR game, isn't it?"
(Mandos are awesome )
As for not feeling like it took place between III and IV, I'm not sure what you mean. If you mean it wasn't super dark, then yeah. Wasn't super dark. But this is towards the tail end of the Dark times, so things would have settled down a bit. It's also a kids' show, so they have to exercise at least some restraint in how dark they get.

9 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

I'll be honest and say I'm not too sure what happened with Ahsoka, but from what I understand? Ezra gets "lost in time" or something like that.

Nevertheless, the kid is still supposed to be some kind of amazing Jedi-in-the-making and looked upon as some sort of future savior... Which, again, ruins the premise of the OT.

I mean, of course Filoni had to clear the board for Episode IV. However, that does not mean he (and his team and possibly higher-up "suits" who might have mandated this stuff) made some boneheaded decisions along the way. The mere presence of so many Force users hanging around major players just one year(!) before the events of the first Star Wars film GREATLY lessens the uniqueness of the Skywalker prophecy and the ultimate return of the Jedi.

I disagree, I think the universe is big enough for both of them. Especially since Luke is the one who actually did the things, and you could argue that only he was actually capable of doing the things 'cuz Skywalker/Vader's son. And by the time he is "ready" he is the only one really left (aside from Ahsoka, and I'm not entirely sure what was going on there).

Ezra got disappeared, Kanan is no longer a player, and Ahsoka... yeah, not sure. Honestly, I think she should have died fighting Vader. I'm of two minds about that one, and am struggling to make up my mind. Right now, I'm swinging towards "Ezra pulls her out of the portal, she tells him he's an idiot and goes back." Buuut... That may just be my anti-time travel feelings showing through. (I hate, I hate, I HATE time travel!!)

(Rebels is actually the best I have ever seen time travel done. For that alone I have some respect for the show)

7 minutes ago, dreenan said:

As a long time Star Was Fan who saw the OT in the movie Theatres and loves it, I have to say that the premise that there is only one force sensitive/Padawan/Jedi left in the whole galaxy always seemed to be rather ridiculus to me.

After Order 66, Quinlan Vos put aside the Jedi to raise a family and disappeared. We know Yoda and Obi-Wan went into hiding, waiting for the day the Skywalker twins would be ready. (Obi-Wan, of course, hung around Tatooine keeping watch on Luke.)

Maul became a seldom-seen crime lord who used "lieutenants" to run his "businesses."

And Vader and Palpatine ran the Empire.

As someone else who watched all of the OT in theaters, I sincerely believe this is it. Yep, no other Jedi (or Sith) in existence. In my view, Vader and his troops did indeed hunt down and destroy all remaining Jedi, Jedi padawans, and known Force users throughout the known galaxy.

...leaving Luke (and possibly Leia) as the galaxy's only hope.

16 minutes ago, Harlock999 said:

Nevertheless, the kid is still supposed to be some kind of amazing Jedi-in-the-making and looked upon as some sort of future savior... Which, again, ruins the premise of the OT.

That’s not what I saw. Kanan and Ezra both were indeed seen as valuable assets as being any degree of Jedi. But Ezra was hardly treated any more “amazing” than any other main character of any tv series. That is, all of the big events happen around them because...they’re the main characters of the tv series. Why does every apocalypse on Supernatural involve the Winchesters? Because it’s their show. Despite establishing that multiple Hellmouths exist, why did every major player and event center around the one in Sunnydale? Because the show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Why is The Rookie often assigned to duties better suited to experienced officers? The same reason every murder in NYC on Castle happened in the 12th Precinct and was assigned to Beckett and civilian Rick Castle (with two other experienced detectives being her gofers): three words - “Starring Nathan Fillion.”

Other media outside the movie establish the existence of other Jedi (of varying degrees) around that same time period...why is it this one show is the sole offender accused of “breaking the premise?” I mean, by that yardstick, Empire already did that with one word: Yoda.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

That’s not what I saw. Kanan and Ezra both were indeed seen as valuable assets as being any degree of Jedi. But Ezra was hardly treated any more “amazing” than any other main character of any tv series. That is, all of the big events happen around them because...they’re the main characters of the tv series. Why does every apocalypse on Supernatural involve the Winchesters? Because it’s their show. Despite establishing that multiple Hellmouths exist, why did every major player and event center around the one in Sunnydale? Because the show was Buffy the Vampire Slayer. Why is The Rookie often assigned to duties better suited to experienced officers? The same reason every murder in NYC on Castle happened in the 12th Precinct and was assigned to Beckett and civilian Rick Castle (with two other experienced detectives being her gofers): they’re both Nathan Fillion’s show.

Other media outside the movie establish the existence of other Jedi (of varying degrees) around that same time period...why is it this one show is the sole offender accused of “breaking the premise?” I mean, by that yardstick, Empire already did that with one word: Yoda.

For episodic (and sometimes serialized) TV, yeah, I get it. For a serialized show that's part of a much larger universe that includes known "rules" and prophecies? No, your excuse/line-of-reasoning doesn't quite cut it.

And how does Yoda break the premise?!? He's there to train and mentor the last hope for the galaxy. Yoda is integral to the premise, as is Obi-Wan.

12 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

Other media outside the movie establish the existence of other Jedi (of varying degrees) around that same time period.

Other than Quinlan Vos? And maybe Rahm Kota (if you count Force Unleashed as canonical)? Who's out there?

And even if there are other Jedi in hiding? They're clearly not involved with the Rebellion, Vader, or have anything to do with a prophecy. They've become "nobodies" after Order 66, and, as far as the Star Wars audience is concerned, they're going to remain nobodies ... at least until after Return of the Jedi.

Kanan, Ezra, and Ahsoka, on the other hand, were out there "making a difference!" And interacting with, as I already pointed out, major players just one year before the events of Episode IV. Ugh.

[EDITED to replace Shaak Ti - who was killed - with Rahm Kota. He survived the events of Force Unleashed, didn't he?]