Andor Andor Season 1 Discussion (Spoilers Allowed)

Same principle applies to white males. All characters should be well-written of course too. But to be honest white male character is hardly ever added just for representation. If that is ever the case then it's a problem. Maybe if movie would be about Medieval Mali during rule of Mansa Musa and there would be some random European man there without explanation I would call him out as "quota character". But no one makes movies like that unfortunately (would be great). Or movie about nunnery with random male living in there among nuns. That would be just weird and make no sense. But when making a movie about like WWII era soldiers white male cast just makes the most sense historically (unless it's from unit that has other people for real) there quota character seems weird. Sure females can be nurses, civilians, spies and also interesting main characters, but for example female soldier in US. army in WWII makes no sense. It is historically absurd (not in USSR army though).

In Star Wars there is similar sort of problem due to ANH and ESB portraying practically all imperials and rebels as white males due to WWII-inspiration. Otherwise all color, gender and species makes sense in that setting. Yet all important characters still need to be real characters with personality, motivations and such.

There is of course distinction between background characters, supporting characters and main characters. Problem of quota characters is that they usually fall short of main character status. They are not written to be part of the story in any meaningful way. They just are there with nothing to do really. Or something obviously secondary are invented for them. Finn and Rose became such quota characters in TROS really. Another good example of quota characters are IMO characters of Franklin Webb and Zia Rodriguez in Jurassic Park Fallen Kingdom(horrible film). They even established Zia is lesbian to fill yet another representation quota. Yet poor characters have no plot written for them since they are just there to represent minorities.

I think minorities deserve better representation than mere place-holders. Real characters for example. Scripts are to blame for this, not actors.

It just makes everything so obviously modern and political it bothers me. It either destroys the escapism by moving modern political problems of racism and such of the real world into medieval fantasy world. Or worse glosses them over making it look like racism and such doesn't exist for some reason in-universe and so that makes the story rather unbelievable. Since handling such issues would be politically too hard they usually avoid actually engaging the issue while IMO they should. Portraying racism in fantasy is necessary if they want to make it believable and have different ethicities in story. I personally liked Witcher since it makes discrimination integral part of the story. But for tv-version they just casually changed ethnicity of some characters.... weird decision. I would've rather seen new characters added or something.

Besides in LOTR there should IMO be medieval setting. Where people live with their own kind and travel very little unless something especially exciting happens. Journey to weird lands is the thing. Multicultural interaction makes sense only during and after the journey, not before it.

I cannot explain it better. I just feels like multicultural melting pot population is also too american for medieval fantasy world. America became melting pot of different cultures so there could be such a place in fantasy world as well for sure. Cosmopolitan city or something. But The Shire should not be multicultural. It defeats it's purpose in the story as peaceful, secluded place. It feels too revisionistic and ahistorical as well.

It all depends on internal rules of the universe and LOTR has well-established populations so sudden multi-ethnicity seems revisionistic modernization.

 

You should spend a few minutes researching the ethnic makeup of something like the Roman empire if you think that pre-modern implies the existence of a mono-culture. Not to mention that this is fantasy. We're allowed to have whatever actors we like playing our space rebels or dwarves.

I like your implication that peaceful, secluded place can't have people of different races living in harmony. And by like I mean hate. You're assuming that these characters are simply filling a quota. For one, so what? What's really the problem with trying to include more people in your show? And for another, maybe those actors were simply the best suited for the role the writers had in mind? Did you assume they were hired on diversity mandates alone?

Also, this: "It just makes everything so obviously modern and political it bothers me. It either destroys the escapism by moving modern political problems of racism and such of the real world into medieval fantasy world." is flat out nonsense. Star Wars has always been political, and for that matter all media, no matter what, reflects the politics of the present. To believe otherwise is simply incorrect.

The reason white male characters aren't added for 'representation' reasons is because for many many years they were cast as default in the majority of roles (you might say filling a quota). There are just as many weak, stock roles for dudes like that than there are for minority actors, the latter are just brought up and scrutinised more.

 

Well I am actually professional history teacher so this feels absurd but... Sure Roman Empire is different, since back then trade routes existed that made it possible for populations to mix much better, Roman Empire just ceased to exist and it's trade routes collapsed making medieval world very locally centered and travel to faraway lands much rarer. If story is set in roman times or in fantasy world with similar empire (like Elder Scrolls) I have no problem with multi-ethnicity. It makes perfect sense. But if there are no established explanation there is a problem with internal consistency that bothers me.

That is fair point, but internal consistency should apply.

Well it depends really about how realistic story is about to be. I just find it unbelievable to have any place with perfect harmony totally unbelievable. In fantasy such place surely can exist, especially if supernatural utopia. But that was not my point really. Looking at real world I think best we could have is rather peaceful and relatively harmonious multi-ethnic society with only minor problems with prejudices. But having society without any issues we start with what feels like utopia to me. I think you took my words wrong though. I'm not saying that society needs to be filled with racism or there couldn't be tolerant multi-ethnic society. But I see that there is no way to avoid some problems in real society, so any completely peaceful secluded place is actually utopia. I think utopias are not interesting to follow. There are no problems. They only serve as simplified backstory. LOTR would be pointless if they stayed on Shire.

I fear they do use a lot of diversity mandates nowadays. Instead of actually thinking how to write diverse characters in the story they just hire some people from different backgrounds and most of the time don't want to do anything with them or don't know what to do with them since most stories are rehashed versions of old stories that didn't have those quota characters.

That is true to certain extent, but it makes everything so controversial and so damn American. I live in Europe. From my point of view Americans have two right-wing parties in their senate.I don't want to be part of American political debate. I just am not really left-wing or right-wing person myself. More to left I guess. But I end up constantly fighting with both sides. It is frustrating since I feel I am constantly misunderstood. I am not defending racism IMO, I want real new stories with diverse real characters. Not rehashed old stories with some added characters. I actually think "quota characters phenomenon" as I call it is institutionalized racism and sexism more than anything. Instead of giving real voice to oppressed they just add them as some sort of footnote to gain easy points on representation. "see we have woman in main role, you cannot criticize out creation without being sexist". "See this character is black, you are racist if you criticize this character."

It seems that way to me at least. I think my main point doesn't go across to you at all. You have all right to disagree of course. But this is how I see it. The real problem is that western storytelling has been for so long just white men telling stories of predominantly white men to audience of predominantly white men. It's no surprise that point of view of women or other ethnicities is still lacking. There is not much tradition.

Representation of minorities should be done naturally so that they make sense in-universe with characters written just as well as "majority" characters. I don't think this is the case in modern media. Stereotypes are still strong and characters that are added for representation end up being neglected by writers far too often. Their motivations are not well-established, their point of view is seriously lacking and main story often focuses on other characters.

 

Trade routes continued to exist after the fall of the Roman Empire too. What about the 12th century, in which it was trivially easy for English and French to travel via Venice to Byzantium and then the Holy Land, interacting with dozens of different nations and types of peoples on their way? These are just a few example, but there countless others where the spread of people of varying ethnicities was commmon.

There doesn't need to be an established explanation for the presence of various races in a single location, because that's something true of every location in the real world.

That is fair point, but internal consistency should apply.
[/quote]
What criteria are you judging it on though? What specific roles can't be filled by minority groups in a space universe?

I fear they do use a lot of diversity mandates nowadays. Instead of actually thinking how to write diverse characters in the story they just hire some people from different backgrounds and most of the time don't want to do anything with them or don't know what to do with them since most stories are rehashed versions of old stories that didn't have those quota characters.
[/quote]
But why is that a problem specifically? Why should it matter if, say, a woman plays a Rebel trooper or an Imperial? Why would it be forced for a character to be Lesbian rather than straight? Sure, the characters themselves might be poorly written, but that'd be true regardless of their background.

That is true to certain extent, but it makes everything so controversial and so damn American. I live in Europe. From my point of view Americans have two right-wing parties in their senate.I don't want to be part of American political debate. I just am not really left-wing or right-wing person myself. More to left I guess. But I end up constantly fighting with both sides. It is frustrating since I feel I am constantly misunderstood. I am not defending racism IMO, I want real new stories with diverse real characters. Not rehashed old stories with some added characters. I actually think "quota characters phenomenon" as I call it is institutionalized racism and sexism more than anything. Instead of giving real voice to oppressed they just add them as some sort of footnote to gain easy points on representation. "see we have woman in main role, you cannot criticize out creation without being sexist". "See this character is black, you are racist if you criticize this character."

It seems that way to me at least. I think my main point doesn't go across to you at all. You have all right to disagree of course. But this is how I see it. The real problem is that western storytelling has been for so long just white men telling stories of predominantly white men to audience of predominantly white men. It's no surprise that point of view of women or other ethnicities is still lacking.[/QUOTE]
I'm not American, but all stories are inherently political. Especially one about fighting fascism. I don't see that as particularly controversial to acknowledge.

And no ones says you can't criticise something. I myself was not very fond of the first three episodes of Andor. But my critiques don't stem from diversity. If you want to criticise a character, go ahead, but just saying it's forced to have an important female or black side character is vacuous. The new characters introduced in Andor aren't copies of old ones (although even if they were, a la, the recent Little Mermaid debacle, I wouldn't care). Wanting non-white perspectives in film/tv should go hand in hand with increased diversity in front of the screen as well. Complaining about these 'quota' characters doesn't address any kind of rational negative in the show. How is it different to the way Star Wars has worked in the past?

I get it, I do, rainbow capitalism is often hollow and manufactured. But nitpicking actors of a certain type simply being in a show is weak criticism of any piece of media. Embracing diversity comes at all levels, even if it comes from a mindset of 'appealing to wider demographics'. It's still superior to not including people of different backgrounds at all.

 

Stories of such travels are just what great stories are made of IMO. Meeting between different people or cultures is just what is interesting. Every person has a story and Saracen man in medieval England is just more interesting than English man in medieval England. Since there is obviously story behind why he is here since he is in such an unexpected place. More interesting story than "I was born here". I think we need to have explanation when we find people from unexpected places, so I disagree on that one.

I was not even talking about Star Wars anymore really. I think in Star Wars there is problem in old movies that cause internal inconsistency. They establish that for some reason most rebels and imperials are white humans. It doesn't make sense in-universe, where there are millions of sentient species and plenty of different human races. So Star Wars suffers from internal inconsistency that cannot be fully fixed anymore. We just need to accept that most characters are humans and they are the most numerous species in galaxy. I have no issue with mixed races in Star Wars though. I was talking about LOTR there before. That universe has different rules and backstory.

I didn't say there is any special problem for me. And there isn't any with Vel Sartha or Dedra Meero for example. Good characters. I agree that lack of characterization is problem no matter the gender, race or orientation. The real problem is that by criticizing female character I am being attacked for being sexist or criticizing non-white I am attacked for being racist. I know this happens.

I criticized Bix Caleen before. But I also criticized Timm. They were IMO only poorly written characters in Andor so far. I suspected Bix is possibly quota character. She didn't have much established character (don't know why she is doing anything she does)and she was still followed around like a main character and then dropped. I probably misidentified her role though and they establish her importance later on. If she is Kenari kids she has shared backstory with Cassian.

I am sorry for making this mistake, she is probably not part of phenomenon I call quota characters. I apologize again for that. Her motivations just were not established well enough IMO. I don't know who she is and what she is doing. Timm was a throw-away character after all and not main character.

About lesbian thing I agree that sexual orientation is not any more forced if gay than straight, but if it plays no part in the story it doesn't really mean actual representation of sexual minority. By establishing that minor character is gay but choosing not to show it, it seems like an easy way to represent without actually representing at all. It is pointless really to establish such a fact for character that has no relations in the story. I refer to said character from Jurassic World.

Yes, but shared values are easier to represent than very controversial ones. Post WWII world sees fascism generally as evil to avoid, but issues like gay marriage, abortion, atheism or even eating meat are controversial and people disagree about what is right and what is wrong and don't share same values. When political issues like these are brought very close to viewers it is like a call to arms against people who don't share our values and it ruins all entertainment and turns it into fighting against people we cannot accept. "We" versus "them". It is propaganda as it's finest and some people are included and some excluded immediately when not widely shared political values are brought into play.

This discussion was not so much about Andor in the first place. I said things about Bix Caleen I shouldn't have said and that brought larger debate of representation in media and modernization of LOTR universe etc. Then you joined in and I lost the direction what we are even discussing about. Sorry my bad I guess.

I agree on this... at least mostly. I guess my criticism was weak and I messed up.

I am sorry if I hurt someone's feelings or something. I am getting very tired now. I need to stop before I say something stupid again.

 

With this there's definitely a spectrum of ways you can portray relationships. Sometimes casual queer identities, ones where those characteristics are portrayed as just as common and expected at hetero relationships, helps normalise those relationships. Sometimes it doesn't need to matter whether, for instance, Cassian Andor likes guys or girls.

But like you say, establishing a character as gay and then never doing anything with it can also be a negative representation, since it doesn't allow the character to fully embrace an important aspect of their life in the same way a straight relationship would. If we simply don't make orientations explicit, it reinforces a mindset of straight dominance, like it's a default, and that anything else is simply 'political' grandstanding.

This though I have to disagree with. All art reflects the political views of the people who make it. All art, whether pro or anti any argument. Better to take a principled stand in your stories than shy away from it and reinforce our unsatisfactory status quo. I much prefer stories that tackle issues head on, because they're simply being more honest than the rest of media, which do the same thing anyway (it's impossible to have a truly apolitical escapist fantasy).

 

But things are rarely simple. I prefer stories that let the reader or viewer to form their own opinions in the end. Otherwise it is pretty lecturing and unappealing story. Mere propaganda. Star Wars for example shouldn't have anything to say about abortion since that has never been a theme in it. It would be just weird and forced on many levels.

But it is really impossible to have a truly apolitical story that is true. Many values we share are actually political too. Values we don't share are controversial and IMO entertainment shouldn't delve into them too deeply or it is no longer entertaining to anyone.

 

Tony Gilroy might not be particularly invested in the overall Star Wars mythology, but he clearly did his homework on his specific era of storytelling.

 

Season 2 episode 6,Mon Mothma's exit from Corucant.

 

Stormtroopers weren't inept in any way that could not be explained by plot armor (main characters don't die) until the Disney era, when writers decided to hang a hat on the meme of supposed stormtrooper inaccuracy. Which then gave us Sabine mocking stormtroopers to their faces about their inability to hit her, and an over-the-top ridiculous scene in The Mandalorian with two stormtroopers on parked speeder bikes plinking at a rock.

People forget about things like the Tantive IV boarding action where stormtroopers assault through a single-file hole in a door into the teeth of a prepared killzone, and still manage to carry the fight within a minute or so.

I would be perfectly happy to see Andor roll back the "worthless stormtroopers" elevated meme that has gone too far and gotten out of hand.

 

Clearly, this new canon is doing more with Mon Mothma and a few things different with her and Thrawn. I look forward to seeing them.

I'm excited about Wednesday's episode. It feels like two weeks have already gone by for some reason.

 

Yes I think it went too far to establish in-universe that stormtroopers are bad shots. It goes against the ANH in which Obi-Wan says they are good shots compared to tusken raider at least...

 

Once again, happy Andor Eve everybody

 

Happy Andor DAY for me

 

IT all started with ROTJ and teddy bears. Taking down stormtroopers.

 

IIf you've ssen rouge one it's obhious that they hit they're shots. They kill tons of rebels in the battle of Scarif alone.

 

Episode 4 Episode guide. Liking these 'easter eggs'.
https://www.starwars.com/series/andor/andor-season-1-episode-4-episode-guide

Don't forget the Tantive IV in A New Hope.

When the plot requires it, stormtroopers can be deadly.

 

I think all characters should make sense in the story though. There are main characters, supporting characters and background characters in stories since one story cannot focus on everything at once. Problem in modern stories is that they are often not new stories at all but rehashed old stories with added quota of diversity which feels often quite forced and fake. Instead of these rehashes I want new stories where all characters make sense. I don't think there is need for any quota characters. If they are not going to focus in them as main characters, they should be left as supporting characters with clearly less focus. White males included in that list, if they are not main characters they don't need independent story-lines that go nowhere. That is my point, to treat all characters according to their role in the story, not according to their gender or race or even species. That is irrelevant in the end. Irrelevant to their role in the story.

But due to demand for diversity (which is justified) and existence of still very white male focused culture of telling stories as you pointed out, they are still "default", there is clear difference in how female and POC characters are treated. They are still often left out of the main events and sidelined and written in weird stereotypical manner more often than white males. This is what I have problem with.

And this is the main point I'm trying to get across here. I see this happening in modern media all the time. See how Finn was treated in sequels. I liked him a lot as main character in TFA, but in TLJ his Canto Bight misadventure had little to no effect in story that focused on Rey and Kylo. In TROS Finn had next to nothing to do until that poorly written end battle. His force-sensitivity was also left hanging and now the actor Boyega don't want to return to Star Wars. I can understand why, he sees how he was only a quota character, sidelined due to his race. This is the phenomenon I am against.

I liked Finn a lot and was disappointed how he was treated. I liked him because he was ex-stormtrooper. Something we haven't really seen in movies before. Him being black instead of white was honestly irrelevant to me. I wanted to see how stormtrooper develops as a good guy character. He didn't. Due to his status as a good guy he gained free character shield though. Classic poor writing...

In the end Kylo was the best character in sequels, because he was well-written compared to Rey and Finn. Possibly due to existing bias towards white male characters as default, he was probably easier to write as white male character. He was also heavily based on Anakin as character or how Anakin perhaps should've been in prequels. And as son of Solo and Leia he had more connection to Star Wars than Rey whose background they changed in a weird way I didn't like. It was obviously afterthought and revealed the lack of plans for the trilogy.

I hope this example explains what I meant. My point is not to bring debate about sequels here though. But it is excellent example of what I think is happening in Hollywood. "Diversity" is used as mask to hide racist attitudes instead of actually getting rid of them. We need to get rid of them eventually for real. All characters should be well-written, but at the moment they are not since mere diversity is used as excuse to include actors of diverse backgrounds but characters they are given are not well thought out, being there to fill only quota. That is wasting talent of these good actors, frustrates audiences to no end and enforces racist attitudes on many levels.

This has nothing to do with Andor though. At least if we return to Bix Caleen and explain who she is and why she was included so heavily in story of first episodes. I am sorry for comparing her to quota character. And causing this hell of a discussion about sensitive topic to break out here....

I suspected then however she might be part of this phenomenon, since she appeared to me as half-baked character compared to the rest of the cast. One way I identify quota character. They are supposedly main character at times. But I didn't know why she was doing what she was doing. So I thought that she might be added just to include active female character in the story that should be mainly about one character, Cassian Andor. That felt forced to me. I hated how BOBF lost it's focus and I thought this would happen again.

But it seems now Cassian's story has plenty of diverse characters followed very closely and they will eventually play a large role in life of Cassian Andor when story plays out. So Bix is probably very important in his story later on. I just think she needs more characterization compared to the rest.
Compared to Syril Karn, Dedra Meero, Linus Mosk, Luthen Rael, Mon Mothma and Vel Sartha I kinda immediately recognized them as characters with motivations I can understand. But Bix was a bit of a mystery. She did some stuff, but I don't know what she is up to. But maybe we will eventually learn that and then it all makes sense to me. Same problems did apply to Timm more or less, even though his motivation seemed to be only Bix. And since he was killed off it is obvious he was only supporting cast. But calling Bix quota character was mistake on my behalf and once again I apologize that.

 

Another great episode. I happy.

 

The writing in this show so far is perhaps the best we've ever gotten in Disney era. I don't think this is an exaggerated statement to make.

 

Which member of the Aldhani Rebel Cell will betray the rest?

 

Well it seems probable there is betrayal, but would actually be interesting if there isn't. It is not necessary for the plot. If there is I think it's Cinta. But maybe Karis Nemik is the one that betrays them by being coward or something and messes up the mission on his behalf. (we saw in trailer he was being treated so he at least gets hurt at some point) He is the idealist, but he felt asleep when in guard duty before and is therefore the probable weakest link of the team. I don't think he would actually betray them, but may ruin the mission.

Or maybe it's Taramyn. He was not established much, but Vel Sartha gave him the lead so she trusts him a lot. We know that Arvel Skeen probably isn't the traitor why he caused trouble this time and Andor himself is not or it would be weird. Vel Sartha herself seems unlikely too that leaves those options. Gorn as imperial would be perhaps too obvious. Sure he may be luring them to a trap, but why bother since they could crush them rather easily.

That leaves Cinta and Taramyn. Cinta seems to have relationship with Vel so it is possible that she is the imperial spy or is now just so angry when Vel didn't tell truth to her about Andor and their employer that she ruins the mission.

I think it would be more interesting if there is no traitor at all. It's very expectable turn actually. They may even succeed in this mission, but it is also possible they won't. I like it when it's not obvious what happens next. Traitor in team may not be as interesting twist after all. We have seen it so many times.