Full Series Sabine

But you also have to look at who's saying these things in the videos: the people farther down the production line who are reacting to the character in much the same way the audience is, not so much the creators. I doubt these words were tossed around the table; from a writing standpoint, they're boring as hell, and like you said, they don't really mean anything. That means their value in the writers' room is zero.

 

No, I totally get that it isn't the writers sitting around going "Okay, this is going to be our trope-tastic spunky young girl character, let's build her up from that." It's the same stupid PR scheme that markets characters like this in this way. And when they try to get soundbytes from team, they're so used to hearing these same words used over and over and over again that it's what they default to as their 1-2 word answer. But it's just totally meaningless now, which is what I was saying about having to mentally translate. What do they think "spunky" actually means? A fighter. What do they think "feisty" means? Outspoken. But they can't just come out and actually say she's an outspoken young woman who knows how to handle herself, *knows* that she knows how to handle herself, is a badass, and doesn't take any **** because in PR speak, that doesn't equal assertive awesome character, it equals unlikable teen bitch. So we get the same meaningless, numbing description that we've gotten for almost every character in the last ten years and learn next to nothing of any consequence about her.

And I mean, I don't hold this against Sabine or Filoni or Weisman or whoever. It's PR trash. It's a whole other thing. They would try to pull the same thing about Artemis when Young Justice was out and I'm just like "No, stop it, you're underselling the **** out of your character. Stop calling her spunky. You're not doing this incredibly multilayered, well-written character justice by throwing out spunky as her word of choice." They print huge books with all sorts of interesting words in them for describing things, and I wish the PR guys who pick one up and try a few of those other words out.

 

I'm also not quite sure that being "feisty" and "spunky" is really edgy anymore in 2014. Frankly, I'm not even sure it would have been all that edgy in 1814 - Jane Austen was writing "feisty" and "spunky" women back then, too, although not with any blaster pistols.

Frankly, I think the most interesting female protagonist on TV right now is Felicity Smoak in Arrow. The thing that makes her interesting is that she shows that there are other ways to be brave, strong, and valuable to a team than by punching people in the face, which is something that most women (and most men, actually) don't spend a lot of time doing. Maybe that makes for a bit more of a realistic character; and thus a more valuable one.

Anyhow, as for Sabine, I'm willing to give her a shot. The worst case scenario is that she turns out to be a cookie-cutter Whedon-style female butt-kicker, in which case she'll be boring. But Filoni has earned my trust - like a lot of people, I didn't like Ahsoka very much at first, but she grew on me a lot over the course of TCW. Maybe things will be the same this time around, too. I have no reason to believe otherwise.

 

You do realise that this essentially works out to "you all look the same to me", right?

This does remind me of one post in particular by Contessa, though, which I find interesting for the fact that she bewails "you should just like Star Wars how it is" arguments, which is actually quite a curious complaint to make. After all, it's obvious that "Star Wars how it is" had enough of a hold on her to draw her to this forum in the first place.

So, to your mind, racial hostility is simply not racial hostility, no matter how virulent or violent, unless the local ruling classes are onboard? That seems remarkably counter-intuitive, as well as easily-abused and, well, just flat-out illogical.

I think you might have misunderstood. Off the top of my head, the US population is currently about 72% White. Breaking that down by the remainder is still going to leave far more White males (roughly 36%) than any other individual demographic except for White females, which I think was more or less CommanderDrenn's point.

Equal representation would be an inequality though, unless you actually mean proportional representation, which seems rather doubtful.

Really, your logic here seems to be that it is incumbent upon a given demographic to voluntarily surrender institutions (or at least majority representation in them) that they created and served as the driving force behind because members of other demographics find the output of these institutions attractive... In other words, that it's only moral to enable one's own marginalisation because other people want your stuff, essentially, is that correct?

If so, well, one can only be thankful that George Lucas never acted upon such advice, because he'd then have expended his energies fruitlessly attempting to browbeat Akira Kurosawa into including Westerners in his samurai films rather than using them as inspiration to create his own epic, and we'd never have gotten to see Star Wars in the first place, let alone waste our time arguing about it.

I'll certainly grant you Sabine, but Kanan and Ezra look more ruddy, in that picture, than anything. I suspect they're probably intentionally meant to look ethnically-ambiguous, though still broadly "Caucasian". Looking at the CGI art, for example, he appears rather paler, as well as somewhat resembling a cross between Kevin Kline's Tulio from The Road to El Dorado and Lupin III:

Yes, if you're going to give him armour on only one side, why the sword-arm? Is he especially concerned about dismemberment?

How so?

"For me, it was Tuesday."

 

Quiet_Mandalorian

Regarding Kanan, I am certain he and Ezra are described as multiracial by none other than Pablo Hidalgo himself. Just look at the comments section of Mia's Eleven-ThirtyEight article on racial diversity in the cast:

Regarding your argument on equal representation, the problem you seem to be having is that you believe the show should only reflect the demographics of the United States of America, as opposed to the entire world. Given that Star Wars is a world-wide phenomenon with a diverse fanbase from all over the world, having the majority of the human characters be white may no longer even be appropriate tot he times if you stick with that idea. Now, I'm certainly not arguing for proportional representation either, but it would be nice to represent as many races and people of different ethnicity as possible as a means of allowing young children of color to better relate to these characters. This, I believe, is the main crux of Mia Mesharad 's argument, and I am sure she and others here can deconstruct the rest of your arguments much more completely, as I haven't the time to go over every one of your points.

 

Seeing as the sword arm is the same you put into direction of the opponents blade, it makes sense, doesn't it?

 

To me, "feisty" means someone who is not just outspoken, but harsh. Someone who's remarks are much more cutting than they need to be. This word is almost universally reserved for women, especially smaller women. Other than being grossly overused and misused, both as a character trope and description, I don't have a problem with the word itself.

"Spunky" (this definition, not that other one) means absolutely nothing to me. It never meant anything to me. To me it's nonsense, it literally draws a blank in my mind. I know what it's supposed to mean, it's basically supposed to be the same as "feisty". Ditto "sassy" and "attitude". But I have no idea how this word came about.

If Kanan is only going to have one side protected, why wouldn't it be his sword arm? His lightsaber is his life. It's not just dismemberment that he has to worry about, any damage to that arm can severely diminish his ability to wield his lightsaber and leave him vulnerable. Even a bruise (caused by any simple impact that would otherwise be absorbed by the armor) can spell the end of him. Have you ever had a nasty bruise on your arm? Makes it hard to do anything with that arm, doesn't it? You still have to maintain flexibility in your sword arm, but that can be maintained by designing the armor properly. I haven't examined his character model at all really, but from the most superficial glance it looks flexible enough, I think the shoulder has a flap.

Just a suggestion, you don't have to respond to every comment about diversity.

 

Nice try, but it means the opposite: there are so many white people of all shapes and sizes and personalities that we have the pick of the litter.

Times change, and with that, progress must be made. Think life's better without progress? Then you're in favor of institutional racism, which is proven to exist beyond a shadow of a doubt with readily-available facts and figures, and requires progress to be rooted out.

Racial hostility is not synonymous with racism. By definition, racism is the belief that a race's superiority is made self-evident by its position in society, meaning that racism only flows downward from positions of power. Racial hostility has no bearing on the conversation; as far as I've seen, the only people who have accused racism have been pro-white. This is advocacy of diversity, placing a diverse cast in front of developing minds in order to encourage acceptance, not strictly to combat a perceived racism which may or may not be there.[/quote]

If this is how you feel, then you fail to see the populace in question as individuals. To continue offering minorities the lesser portion of western life is to uphold the long-standing divisions which are the products of national exceptionalism and racism. There is no portion of these phenomena which is morally acceptable or in any way remotely salvageable. To pick and choose which attitudes therein might be acceptable can only terminate at one logical place: the belief that whites should occupy a superior position.

Are you American? If so, I'm sorry... Is your name on the Declaration of Independence? Because it seems to me that if you wish to claim ownership of American institutions ("institutions (or at least majority representation in them) that they created"), you must also claim ownership of the forceable removal of native tribal populations from their lands and/or massacres of those tribal peoples, the American slave trade, and the legislation-backed oppression of every minority for the past couple centuries.

You might not realize it, but everything you're saying is simply a version---whittled down to the narrowest acceptable modern remainder---of the defenses which have been used throughout the years to uphold racist institutions.

It's time to give back. The only healthy life is a generous one. When the national lifestyle becomes a game of King of the Hill, no one will ever be happy. To say that you agree with the principle but proceed to criticize people of color for standing up for themselves instead of simply letting us give it to them is in favor of White saviorism, creating an opportunity for us to "be the good guy," but the fact is: We are not the good guy. We, as white Americans, have a lot of cleaning up to do.

 

I like Jedi with armor. I hope we see more of that kind of thing in the ST as well.

 

Look, I know we live in a highly politicized age, but it seems to me everybody needs to get a grip here. This is a TV show, and a kids' TV show at that. Its purpose is not to spread a political message - yours, mine, or anyone's. And if your complaint about it is that it doesn't seem like it will spread the political message you like, well then I think the problem really is you - that you had some expectations of this show that were fundamentally off-base and unrealistic.

If you want TV that spreads a political message, there's no lack of that - go turn on Colbert, or Maddow, or O'Reilly, or Hannity, or whoever floats your boat. And hey, I'm not saying that being politically engaged is a bad thing. But if you're really this obsessed with the idea that everything you watch should be spreading this or that political message, well, then you kinda need to get a life. I mean, Star Wars, like all escapist fiction, is designed to be a respite from the problems of this world, and if we just end up dragging our own political neuroses into it, then it isn't escapism anymore. And, frankly, it won't be any fun anymore either - do we not spend enough time haranguing each other about politics in the real world? Is there such a lack of that that we need to cram some more of it into our sci-fi action/adventure TV shows?

For goodness sake, give it a rest - grab yourself a bowl of cereal, pour yourself a soda, and enjoy the TV show about spaceships and laser swords. The problems of the world will still be there for you to fuss over after the credits have rolled.

 

Would anyone prefer a non-feisty Mandalorian? The Big Lebowski of Mandalorians? "This Imperial aggression, like, will not stand, man".

Heh... you called her "Satine". Yeah, I think we all see a "big reveal" coming a mile away.

 

No. Absolutely not. This is not a matter of politics, and its indicative of your own privilege that you can sit there and write off the institutionalized marginalization of non-white peoples and their need for media representation as nothing more than a political agenda. To the people who are denied this, to the children of color who suffer self-esteem issues and internalize Euro-centric norms of heroism and beauty from seeing nothing of themselves, this isn't politics, it's the problematic reality they're forced to deal with every single day.

Yes, Star Wars is escapist fiction. But why is it that the escapism should be conditional? If you're not white, if you're not straight, if you're not male, then nine times out of ten, you're out of luck. Why are we catering the idea of escapism to the people who have the least need to escape? And when you're insisting that Star Wars should be escapist, while balking at the idea that this universe should also be inclusive, what the hell are you trying to escape, then? Not the politics, but the people. This is fundamentally the wrong approach. Star Wars can be escapist, but it should be accessible to everyone, and not just by forcing everyone to relate to the same straight white male characters.

Yes, it is. But no, I don't think I'll be spending any more time on this argument from Quiet Mandalorian. I've had my fill of pleasantly worded bigotry and smiley face-laced ignorance, and have no intention of wasting any further time with someone who would twist the actual grievances of the wronged to support their incredibly narrow and warped world view that they're the persecuted because their privilege suddenly isn't as all-powerful as it once was.

 

I'm really hoping these characters have engaging stories apart from each other. For instance, in ESB, Luke had his own story, and Han and Leia their own. Then it all converged again in Jabba's Palace, before diverging again at Endor. ANH I don't really count so much, because most of that was just introducing the characters. And so, I'm hoping that there are interesting stories in which Sabine might have to leave the group for instance and go do her own thing apart from the rest of the Ghost's crew, like if the Empire is doing something on Mandalore and she has to go help out, etc.

I might be the most anxious about Sabine (and Ezra) as to all the ways I could see them being handled in a way that would turn me off from the show. But Sabine in particular seems like she could have personal stories that could be some of the most interesting.

 

I've met a lot of "marginalized non-white people" - live in a neighborhood full of such people actually - and for the most part, their concerns are way more about things like whether they can make their mortgage payments and get their kids a decent education than whether someone with their skin tone is on some Saturday morning cartoon show.

If your version of helping the marginalized and downtrodden is to spend time on an internet message board deconstructing a Saturday morning cartoon through the lens of Critical Race Theory, then maybe you should go spend that time and energy volunteering at a homeless shelter or something instead. Just a suggestion.

 

Anyhow, I'm done with the political end of this. So - what's the over/under on Sabine being Bo-Katan's daughter?

 

There's the name (Bo honoring her sister), and the fact that Star Wars loves hidden family connections (kind of a tradition, really). I'd give it at least 50/50.

 

I was inclined to think that she would be based on obvious similarities in name, until I realized that all the characters are named for things pertaining to ancient history, with the Sabine people being an Italian people that went to war with the Romans and were conquered (which could possibly hint at the Mandalore/Imperial dynamic). But while it can simply be one hell of a coincidence, I remain skeptical - or let's just say I wouldn't be surprised if she turns out to be Bo's daughter. Some were breathing a sigh of relief when her last name was revealed as "Wren." But as Luke Skywalker and Leia Organa show us, it is the father that passes on the last name, not the mother, as is common in the real world.

 

Here's another freaky possibility. Note that I don't actually think this is true, but... well, it's worth thinking about: It's heavily hinted at in TCW that Satine and Obi-wan had a relationship that verged into the romantic, and that Obi-wan, in the end, chose to stay with the Order. What if that romance involved a night of, uhm, indiscretion? And what if Satine ended up with a little... souvenir of his visit? What if she decided that for the good of Obi-wan, and for the good of the Jedi Order, nobody could ever know, and sent the little bundle of joy off to a distant relative to be raised quietly?

And what if the girl, proud of her Mando heritage and very mildly Force-sensitive, became a really good fighter...

Hey, if you combine the names "Satine" and "Obi-wan"... "Sabine Wren"?