Andor series (Spoilers)

General Discussion
#61

I see the reasons, but again, I think he handled that situation very poorly. He had multiple options that didn’t require immediately blasting him, such as talking more to Skeen, perhaps trying to convince him, talking to Vel, etc.
(One way they could have handled it similarly, but put a different moral weight on it is if he holds Skeen at gunpoint and tries to talk to Vel, but then Skeen jumps him and is killed in the struggle. Just an example, not saying that’s what they should have done.)

There are two massive differences I see between Rogue One and these two killings: In Rogue One, the guy was doomed anyway. Killing him hastened the process while keeping him from being forced to hurt other people—it could even be seen as a mercy. Two, Cassian expressed regret afterward. It was “I must do things I don’t want to do in the service of a good cause,” rather than “Phew, that’s one problem taken care of.” That’s why I found him such a compelling character in Rogue One.

A subset of the second is that in Rogue One, it’s about a cause. Here, it’s just about himself. At this point, to my eyes, he’s just a criminal looking out for his own hide, and I don’t find that sympathetic (“why should I care about you if you don’t care about anyone else?”).
Character growth is something I can definitely get behind. But I don’t see any reason to root for the character at this point.

#62

It…wasn’t supposed to be?

This is a character who, as a presumably more enlightened person five years down the line, was introduced to us by killing an ally whose infirmity would have jeopardized his escape from the Empire. Cassian is not a good person…he says so himself in Rogue One. He’s our protagonist, but not our hero.

And, if that kind of setup doesn’t work for someone…totally fair. But the show’s called “Andor,” and we know the kind of character he is. We’re getting exactly what’s advertised on the tin.

1 Like
#63

I’ve explained multiple times the difference between the two scenes and why I like the scene in Rogue One, so I won’t reiterate that here, but there are two things here:

I don’t like the way they are characterizing Cassian in this show because I don’t have any reason to root for him aside from knowing who he becomes later on. Personal preference.

And, I think they made a tactical error in how they are portraying him. I’m not saying they were trying and failing to make him sympathetic, I’m saying I think the way they portrayed him was a mistake (right down to the lack of ideology, which seems to directly contradict his statement in Rogue One). Critical assessment.

Simply to look at it divorced from the future context of Rogue One, i.e., judging the character and show on its merits, I have no reason to root for Cassian. I have no reason to wish for his reformation beyond sheer altruism. In fact, getting thrown into jail on a bunk charge is essentially the perfect way to end his character. Guy only looks out for himself, is a generally bad person, gets away with a bunch of crimes and then gets thrown in jail for something he didn’t do. Good riddance. The most sensible thing Luthen (hey, I remembered his name!) and company could do would be to liquidate him, as Luthen’s assistant discussed.

#64

I hope Edge Studios are taking notes from Andor series. I think an ISB and early rebellion source book. Would be nice to have.

2 Likes
#65

Perhaps they are developing the character you will later like. He doesn’t yet have an ideology, but getting thrown into jail on a bunk charge may essentially be the perfect way to develop his character.

2 Likes
#66

Yes, I see what you’re saying, but still disagree. It comes down to tactics, in that if that is indeed what they are trying to do, I don’t think it’s most effective because it relies on the context of the later show rather than having a character who can stand on the two legs he started with, not the ones he got later on.

It goes back to what I mentioned before about “post-shadowing.”
Ideally, in a prequel, you’re backfilling foreshadowing. That doesn’t seem to me to be what they are doing here.

#67

Story built on established character relies on character being established.

Truly shocking.

1 Like
#68

At this point, the character is not established. It is their job to establish him. They have an ending, they have to build the story.

The problem I see is that they are relying on the future character to make it worth rooting for the current character.

You can watch Star Wars from episode one through to episode six, and miss nothing while going through the prequels. The story works linearly, it doesn’t take anything in later parts to go “oh, so I should’ve been feeling that all along.”

Andor follows the opposite tack.

In a story, the normal order of things is to get the reader/watcher/etc. interested in the story, then carry that interest through. Not to get the reader interested at the end.

Something I mentioned earlier is the concept of “post-shadowing,” and that’s what I’m seeing here. Information after the fact that gives relevance to something that happened earlier that on its own had little to no significance.
Contrast foreshadowing, where something that is relevant on its own lends greater relevance to something that happened later and perhaps is granted more relevance in the process, but never lacked it to begin with.

#69

I believe Mon Mothma and Luthen Rael will soon separate and their conflict build. We know Mon Mothma will ultimately win. But the question is how big will it become and how Cassian will play a part in it. My prediction is Cassian bring down Luthen.

1 Like
#70

Yes, he is. He’s appeared - been established - elsewhere. That this series is filling in backstory doesn’t change that he’s an established character.

Congratulations. You’ve just described a prequel.

I believe we’re watching different Andor series. Either that, or one of us is actively looking for something to find fault with, so the complaint of “prequel story does not have the central character - who wasn’t a good person when we first saw him - at the place he was when introduced at a later point in the franchise timeline” is what’s been selected.

I’m not typically one for a “bad guys are protagonists” series - Breaking Bad, Sons of Anarchy, the Punisher, Black Adam, and so forth are all lost on me. In a vacuum, Andor might fit that bill, too. But it doesn’t exist in a vacuum. As you keep pointing out, we do know where Cassian ends up, so watching him go from selfish, hair trigger, desperate to escape and survive criminal to where he is as…well…still pretty much that, but recognizing that he could (should?) be better in Rogue One is the point of the series. This is not a bug, but a feature.

If it doesn’t work for you, that’s totally fair. There’s other stuff to watch and do without devoting time to a show you don’t enjoy. Being a fan of an overall franchise does not require you to consume every piece of media from that franchise.

#71

Regardless of the technical quality of the prequels, Anakin is a compelling character even if you have no idea that he will become Vader. They do not rely on his existence as Vader to make him an interesting character.
The journey to becoming Vader does not rely on the end result to make the character worth following.

I didn’t describe a prequel, I described a bad prequel.

Way to torch a strawman. When you want to actually have a discussion or conversation rather than being snarky and casting aspersions, come back and try again. Or don’t, that’s fine too.

#72

That’s interesting! It’s a pretty good theory.

Maybe Cassian will indirectly bring down Luthen if Luthen and company actually try to come after him.

But then, if Luthen actually “rerecruits” Cassian, as it has been suggested they might, then what does Cassian do after Luthen is ousted? Obviously he stays in, but in what way?

At this point, I think Luthen would make a far better leader for the Alliance than Mon Mothma, but we don’t yet know how any of it played out or if Luthen really was ousted, vs. just not playing an overt leader role in later times.

1 Like
#73

Perhaps this is when Saw Gerrera shows up. From Rogue One he was once part of the Rebellion until they had a falling out. Luthen may be the person who recruits or finds Gerrera like he found Cassian? We may even see Cassian reflecting what he is becoming in comparison to Gerrera, and thus eventually siding with Mon Mothma is this early inter-rebellion conflict.

1 Like
#74

Am I way off course, or was it revealed that Saw Gerrera would show up in Andor?
I may be completely misremembering, though, so if you haven’t heard it elsewhere don’t take it from me.

#75

I thought I read somewhere that Saw will appear in the first season of Andor.

1 Like
#76

I think, Like Tank said, he will be in season 1, but when I dunno either. I DO know that K2 is supposed to show up in season 1 at some point though

1 Like
#77

Well, you might see it this way but it´s not “complete” it´s patronizing and lecturing and I can´t stand this kind of arguing in an otherwise kind atmosphere of a discussion.
It´s what made me leave all the threads in the old forum where the arguments were fought in a similar way among EliasWindrider, Tramp and others.

2 Likes
#78

Pretty sure he was in at least one of the trailers.

#79

Anakin’s prequel story wouldn’t exist without his “journey to becoming Vader.” So, in the same way that that Andor relies on Cassian’s endpoint in Rogue One to backtrack to a starting point, so too did the prequels backtrack from Vader’s endpoint to Anakin’s starting point. (An argument can also be made for Anakin being a “compelling character” thanks to Clone Wars, not the prequels, but perhaps that’s splitting hairs. Although that, too, relies on two different “endpoints” for him…not only his end in RotJ, but filling in many, many blanks about Anakin preceding RotS.)

So…it doesn’t work for you. You don’t find Cassian a compelling character. And, I’ll even meet you halfway and say that, of all of the stories being told, his is the one I’m least invested in…but that doesn’t mean I don’t find it compelling enough to see what happens next.

I can only draw conclusions based upon a pattern of your self-described “critiques” of each series boiling down to, “Here’s everything professionals who do this every day did wrong…and this one thing here wasn’t too bad.” So, consciously or unconsciously, there appears to be a self-fulfilling prophecy at work. And, for what it’s worth, I can relate. I’m a lifelong fan of DC’s comics characters, but their film output over the past 10ish years has created a similar self-fulfilling prophecy with me…I expect every new entry in their shared “DCEU” to be a disappointment at best…when I bother spending time on them, I go in with the mindset of, “Well, maybe it won’t be as bad as the last one,” and still either turn it off partway through, or end up thinking it was awful. It can happen to anyone, and the viewer may not even be aware. (The last DC movie I made it through in its entirety was James Gunn’s The Suicide Squad…I went in already disliking some of the cast, the DCEU take on Harley Quinn, and expecting the R rating to be gratuitous, and got exactly what I expected.)

Confirmation bias is a helluva drug.

#80

This is how you started the “kind atmosphere of a discussion” when I asked you your opinion on a criticism I had heard, essentially calling me a contrarian.
Even if your misinterpretation was accurate and I really had been criticizing, that isn’t a “kind atmosphere.”

And this demeanor was not confined to that one interaction.

I have to simply say here that you are wrong. What exactly are you taking issue with? I understand it be the line where I said “…every detail is important and should not be treated flippantly.”
That was to support my next statement in which I assessed that “tossing in… so randomly… the wisdom of which I must question.”

I’m presenting a complete thought, explaining my position and the reason why I held it. If I had said “You need to understand that details are important in movies and writing,” yeah, that’d be condescending. But I didn’t. It’s like the difference between saying “you know that 2+2=4, right?” and saying “since 2+2=4, we should grab another pair.” The latter is explaining the reasoning for an action, rather than presuming that you understand my reasoning.
(Both examples could sound condescending because of their simplicity, but it should hopefully get my point across.)

I presented a complete, internal thought to further your understanding of my position.
Considering your misinterpretation of the question with which I opened my involvement and your apparent ignorance of my qualifying statement that I was being facetious, I suggest you consider that perhaps you misinterpreted this as well.

One of the reasons I will usually convey my reasoning and my reasons for arriving at certain conclusions in detail is that we often come from very different perspectives and have different knowledge bases. I may have some underlying assumptions or philosophies that you do not share, and vice versa. Specifying what they are allows greater understanding in the exchange of ideas because we can look at it from the other person’s perspective, not just our own.
(Once again, I am detailing my reasoning. I could cut the last two sentences and just assume that you understand it, but I would have failed to explain why I hold the position that I do.)

We aren’t discussing the mechanics of how something functions in a game, where it matters for one to “win” over the other, we are offering opinions on a piece of media. How this usually happens (going all the way back to Mando season two), is I give an opinion and am told it’s wrong.

Therefore, I give further detail on my opinion (or perhaps revise my opinion in certain ways) to try and make it more clear, defend it, and/or arrive closer to what I believe to be “true.” Notice, I didn’t jump on someone who said they liked it. I stated my own opinion, and defended it against people who disagreed with me. At any time, you could end the argument by simply saying “we can agree to disagree,” but instead you continue to argue against my opinions and insinuate (if even that subtly) that I am not arriving at my positions in good faith.

If you want to maintain a “kind atmosphere,” abandon an attack rather than demanding a surrender. Because for me to avoid these arguments, I would have to abstain from giving my opinion. And who wants an echo chamber?