Devisinhils🐦‍🔥

Finally I got my first Funko pop figurine)

The Phantom Menace established the absolute narrative and character status quo for the entire saga. What did TCW do? It spat on Episode I at every single turn, cheapening and devaluing everything it beautifully set up.

Yeah, the people chose Hitler in 1933 too(And I absolutely have the right to make this comparison, deal with it.)🙄

A majority mandate never justifies subsequent repression. While Satine posed as a “democratic servant” in sterile Sundari, her pacifism turned into cultural ethnocide: a total ban on beskar and the exile of traditionalists to a ghetto on Concordia. This is a classic comprador dictatorship and a police state that surrendered sovereignty to Coruscant, enforced segregation, and covered up oligarchic plunder with beautiful speeches about pacifism...

In the movies, he is always, always ashamed of his evil deeds. Even when he executed the unarmed Dooku, he felt instant shame and regret.

In TCW, there are only two variants: either he does bad things and feels absolutely no shame about them, or the writing frames his completely right actions as something inherently "bad" (like that moment where he killed the terrorist).

It’s an outdated and honestly incredibly stupid argument, but I’m going to break it down anyway. There is an explanation for this, both a logical one and, in a way, even a poetic one.

The logical explanation comes down to a simple question: why would he even bring him up??? Qui-Gon died ages ago (and yes, I know he became a Force ghost), while Yoda is alive and is exactly who Luke needed at that moment. Besides, Yoda is literally the master of all Jedi; he instructs every single youngling in the Temple, so there is technically no retcon here- Obi-Wan genuinely was his apprentice. And what kind of "achievement" is he supposedly claiming anyway? That apprentice threw the entire galaxy into darkness, so Obi-Wan taking full responsibility for it is a burden of immense guilt, not something he's bragging about.

The poetic explanation is... Did you people even watch Episode I? Throughout the movie, Obi-Wan doesn't really separate himself from Qui-Gon in a sense. Just look at his line: "Why do I sense we've picked up another pathetic life form?"

Ask yourself, who exactly is "we"? Qui-Gon was the one dragging Jar Jar and then Anakin along against Obi-Wan's wishes. That "we" is definitely not just some formal, professional pronoun.

And after Qui-Gon’s death, his dying wish completely became Obi-Wan’s own will when he firmly decided to take Anakin as his apprentice. So, based on that, you can comfortably say that Qui-Gon isn't mentioned in the Original Trilogy precisely because he and Obi-Wan are inseparable. His legacy completely merged with who Obi-Wan became

I’m sorry(not sorry), but that is a wild take.

Anakin is naive in TPM, but he is far from stupid. Understanding how your oppressive system works and using its own messed-up rules to protect someone weaker doesn't mean you're fine with it. It means you're surviving.

Dynamic adaptation to trauma ≠ lack of trauma

By this logic, we can comfortably claim that Vader never suffered either. I mean, why would he? He’s essentially Palpatine's slave, yet he constantly and calmly uses his position, power, and fear factor to get what he wants. Does that look like a man without trauma to you?

The idea that relationships in Star Wars must be "healthy" and age-appropriate completely misses the point of the franchise. Relationships in SW have never been perfect - and they were never meant to be.

Lately, there is a desperate push within certain fandom circles to rewrite the history of romance into a sanitized, uniform template: the overused trope of "two teenagers meeting in a difficult time and falling in love." This is a blatant attempt to force modern conformist standards onto a universe that was originally built on operatic drama. People are rewriting the lore just to validate their own vanilla shipping fantasies, pretending that romance in SW has always been safe, clean, and ideal in terms of age. But Star Wars is a modern myth, and myth does not tolerate moral purity.

Let's look at the actual foundation of romance in SW. Let's look at two couples, one being the foundation of the original trilogy, the other - of the prequels:

Han and Leia: A 13-year age gap between a hardened smuggler and a young princess.

Anakin and Padme: A 5-year age gap, and they met when Anakin was a child and she was a teenager, which created a highly complex, tragic psychological bond.

Is this normal for modern moral crusaders? Of course not. Today, Anidala is heavily branded as "toxic," with people using a ruler to measure who looked at whom at what age in Episode I. And if the Original Trilogy were released nowadays, Twitter would simply burn to the ground, and Han Solo would be "canceled" for harassment as early as Hoth. His iconic, arrogant move along the lines of "You just don't want to admit that you like me" would be immediately showered with accusations of abuse and violation of personal boundaries by the modern fandom morality police. Given the 13-year age gap, Han would be instantly written off as one of the galaxy's main predators.

But... Why?

It was the Republic that helped them establish pacifism and get rid of Death Watch in the first place. So why on earth would the people side with Death Watch when the Republic is doing, essentially, the exact same thing it did 20 years ago? It would seem, what is the difference to them if the goal is the same?

The difference is that over these 20 years, Satine failed to build an independent state. Deploying troops again would simply open the people's eyes to the obvious: their planet remained a dependent satellite of Coruscant, and a foreign boot on their soil means open occupation. At that moment, the Republic instantly turns into an outside invader, while the radicals from Death Watch suddenly become "their own" Mandalorians fighting for independence. Besides, this whole positioning of Satine as the "beloved leader of the nation" is complete nonsense. If Satine, who was put on the throne by the Republic through the Jedi, is so loved by her people, why would they turn against her and support terrorists at the first sign of trouble? The people did not love her that much; her entire legitimacy was completely fabricated.

Her entire rule is just a smoldering terrorist knot swept under a pretty liberal rug, while citizens were banned from owning weapons for self-defense. All her tantrums and stubbornness in the second season are a frantic attempt to pretend she is not a collaborator who gave up the planet a long time ago. To recognize the threat officially and call the Jedi again would mean openly admitting that for all those 20 years she was, in essence, just a regular puppet on Coruscant subsidies, whose "independence" existed only on paper. Deploying troops would destroy her perfect facade and show that her power relies solely on foreign bayonets. Long story short, Satine was not protecting Mandalore from war; she was just frantically afraid for her own power and bruised ego.