The Case for Star Wars Rebels

How about that Star Wars Rebels?

In case you haven’t noticed from my past blog entries, I’m a big fan of Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I really only discovered it this past year, but not only does it do justice in fleshing out a Star Wars era most fans were miffed over because of the associated movies, but, taken on its own merits, it’s actually pretty good. Not fantastic, but pretty good. Plus, it introduced one of the greatest characters of Star Wars lore in its, admittedly, crappy pilot film, even if we didn’t know at the time. Overall, it gets my stamp of approval.

It’ll, therefore, come as a surprise when I say that Star Wars Rebels, that follow-up show people are mixed on, is pretty good too; in fact, judging by the Season 2 finale, I’d say it already has the potential to rival, or even surpass, its sister series in the near future. Despite this, people won’t give the show a break, especially not when compared to Star Wars: The Clone Wars. I get that there’s a lot to live up to, but the intense amount of backlash has gotten to a point where I can no longer keep my mouth shut. And so, like Frozen, I’m gonna deconstruct some of the most-ludicrous complaints I’ve heard.

By the way, there’ll be spoilers. You’ve been warned:

“The story sucks!”

The is the most widely espoused complaint. Ignoring that Star Wars Rebels is only two seasons in, meaning it has a lot it hasn’t shown yet, I don’t agree at all. It’s a tale about the beginnings of the Rebellion that also tells the story of a doomed Jedi master-apprentice relationship. (At least, from what I’ve gathered so far. The show, like I said, is only two seasons in.) Ignoring that that premise writes itself, there’s a lot of potential with all the questions it raises. Questions like:

Who were these Jedi?

What brought them together?

Why aren’t they in the films?

What’s their connection to the Rebellion?

How did the Rebellion begin?

Why aren’t the original founders of this rebellion in the films either?

How did the Rebellion grow from a group of rag-tag guerrillas to what it became in the films?

And this isn’t even including how it fits into prior canon!

I seriously think people aren’t giving it enough of a chance, especially now that Star Wars is owned by Disney. They see the acquisition as a destruction of something beloved, when it’s not. Star Wars Rebels has proven itself to be introspective and tightly-written for what it is, far more than its predecessor could dream of! That’s right: this is a tighter-written show than Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Its opening movie was solid, and while it occasionally has filler, it’s still more succinct than the “out-of-order” approach of its direct predecessor. An approach that, need I remind you, was never fully-realized because the show got cancelled after its 5th season.

In case you think I’m ragging on Star Wars: The Clone Wars, don’t: I love that show; heck, I wrote two pieces praising it! But it’s not perfect. Ignoring its cheap animation, and we’ll cover that later, the pilot film was atrocious! And even as the show was improving in quality, it still had missteps (like those Jar Jar Binks episodes) and pointless filler (see the Mortis episodes) along the way. Not even the sixth season, which was a Netflix-exclusive, was immune to blunders.

In contrast, Star Wars Rebels has been chugging along smoothly since its above-average pilot film. And I get it: it’s not a war show, so there’s not as much to mine in terms of commentary and subtext. But it doesn’t need it, as the premise of “before the Rebellion” is enough for a good story. I wish people would see that, instead of immediately jumping on it for replacing an already-beloved show that ran for almost six years.

“The characters suck!”

Like the previous complaint, this one’s easily rebutted. Star Wars Rebels has six main characters, each with a compelling back-story and motivation for wanting to take down the Empire. Kanan is a Jedi who survived Order 66 while still a Padawan, and he wants to practice being a Jedi without constantly being hunted. Hera is a fighter, the daughter of a Twi’lek war hero during The Clone Wars, and she’s desperate to stop the Empire so it doesn’t oppress other races like they did her own. Sabine is an ex-military cadet who fled her imperial training on Mandalore, Zeb is from a race nearly brought to extinction by the Empire and Ezra’s parents were murdered by the Empire for speaking out. And then there’s Chopper, who’s…well, Chopper. But he’s amusing enough that you appreciate him anyway.

Anyway, these are well-realized characters with motivations that make sense. They also act like a team, which is important because they’re a micro representation of the Rebellion. We also delve into their back-stories, like when Hera confronts her father and explains why he’s no different than the Empire. They’re not stock stereotypes plucked from a book of tropes, they feel real and relatable. And that’s where the show’s real strengths are, as even the filler episodes are dedicated to fleshing-out character.

Why is this difficult to understand? Yes, Kanan being the pupil of Jedi Master Depa Billaba was a retcon, no denying that. But so was Ahsoka being the Padawan of Anakin Skywalker in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, and she ended up being the best part of that show. The Star Wars universe is so rich that it’s possible to introduce new characters in-between movies, flesh them out, kill them off and still make it work. It’s happened with Ahsoka, so why can’t it happen with the cast of Star Wars Rebels?

I’ve heard additional complaints that the show has too many cameos, like Lando and Leia. Yes, because Star Wars: The Clone Wars didn’t have cameos, right? It’s not like we didn’t see Chewbacca and Greedo for one or two episodes, even if it didn’t move the story along, right? Why does that show get a pass, when this one doesn’t? Am I sensing double-standards?

I’m not gonna act like every character in Star Wars Rebels serves the grander story. The whole episode dedicated to the Lasats, aka Zeb’s people, was cheesy and provided hokey closure to their tragic back-story. But not every character in Star Wars: The Clone Wars did either, most-notably The Father, The Daughter and The Son from those weird episodes on Mortis. It’s a give-and-take, and neither show is flawless. But they both juggle their casts as a whole quite well, which is more than they needed to.

“The show doesn’t take any risks!”

Oh really?! *Cough cough* Sorry, dry throat.

I don’t understand this one on a deeper level: Star Wars Rebels is a kid’s show, therefore it can’t take risks? A Star Wars cartoon can’t-do these people not realize that kid’s shows can be ambitious? Sometimes more ambitious than adult shows because they encourage creativity? Do these people not realize that this is Disney we’re talking about, the same company that gave us “Hellfire” and the death of Mufasa? What, they think that because it’s Disney they’re gonna treat Star Wars worse because “family-friendly”? Are they THAT dense?!

Good storytelling is good storytelling, irrespective of audience. Good stories take risks to deliver ideas, and Star Wars is no different; after all, this is the same franchise that made blowing up a planet a big deal and incorporated it into the main story. This is the same franchise that, 38 years later, upped the ante by blowing up 5 planets simultaneously and showed the civilians screaming helplessly as they were about to die. And the latter was under Disney’s supervision, no-less!

Okay, not a great example, especially since I know the real complaint here: Disney won’t show on-screen deaths in a TV show because “death = sad”. Well whoopity-freaking-doo! Star Wars Rebels doesn’t show a person dying on-screen! Cry me a river, build me a bridge and get over it. It’s a bad reason to claim that a show sucks, especially since we hear the deaths happen and see the aftermath.

Is this really what we’re so concerned about? Does seeing death really turn us on? Whatever happened to using your imagination and filling in the gaps with your mind? Yeah, yeah, film is a visual medium…but sometimes what you don’t see is as important, if not more important, as what you do see. That’s what Avatar: The Last Airbender did too, and no one complains there!

I understand that Star Wars: The Clone Wars showed on-screen deaths constantly, and I respect it for doing so when it was appropriate. But guess what? That was also a show meant for teenagers, meaning it could get away with that sort of stuff. Star Wars Rebels is for a younger audience, so they can’t. It’d be nice if the censors could be a little more relaxed, but you make due with what you have, and the creative talents have done exactly that. Remember, “rating” is a six-letter word when you’re skilled and clever, after all.

Besides, the show is plenty ambitious! For one, the main characters being a rag-tag group of rebel nobodies was a big risk, especially given the clout Darth Vader and The Rebel Alliance. They could’ve written this about Leia or Lando Calrissian, but they didn’t. Instead, they chose a Jedi no one’s heard of, a kid no one’s heard of and a group of C-squad Star Wars characters. If that’s not enough, they’ve dug deep and shown the effects the Empire has had on its citizens. It’s a great way to comment on dictatorial regimes, much like how Star Wars: The Clone Wars used its premise to comment on the harsh realities of war. How this isn’t interesting and risk-heavy, especially considering the target audience, is beyond me!

Besides, there’s death in this show, so shush!

“The show’s art-style is awful!”

This one’s trickier to deconstruct because it involves looking deeper into the show’s design history. To sum it up, Ralph McQuarrie was commissioned by George Lucas in 1975 to work on rough designs for the first Star Wars film. Many of his ideas were ultimately modified, much to his disappointment. So when Disney acquired Lucasfilm in 2012 and began production on Star Wars Rebels, they decided to use the original design styles of McQuarrie.

Truthfully, not every choice sits well with me. I don’t mind most of them, or even the pointy lightsabers, but Yoda reeks of The Uncanny Valley and Darth Maul is too clean for my tastes. The former had an awesome design for the Prequels and Prequel cartoons, so to see something that looks too human, yet isn’t human enough, is creepy. And Darth Maul? Given that he’s a war-torn Sith reject, his design doesn’t fit.

On the flip-side, Ashoka Tano’s redesign is a vast improvement over her original look in Star Wars: The Clone Wars. Considering I could never look at her sport's bra shirt or vixen shirt without feeling uncomfortable, it’s nice to see a design that isn’t male-gaze heavy. Not to mention, she looks wiser and more distinguished in her battle armour attire, so her redesign gets my seal of approval. As does Darth Vader’s slight redesign, which accentuates his demeanour and makes him even scarier.

To play Devil’s Advocate for a minute, what about the designs in Star Wars: The Clone Wars? To quote myself from an earlier blog:

“The animation improves over time, especially in later seasons, but it never reaches true filmic quality; in fact, the pilot movie is so un-cinematic that you’d think a C-list studio rendered it. And it did: Lucasfilm’s then-new Singapore animation division. I like that the show was ambitious in-spite of its limitations, especially in its action, but it’s impossible not to see its restrictions: characters are blocky, hands and feet are generic and it’s almost impossible to tell clones apart when they have their helmets on. It’s dirt-poor for a CGI show.”

My thoughts haven’t changed. If anything, the animation in that show looks worse when juxtaposed with Star Wars Rebels. Especially since the latter is more consistent in its designs and fluidity. That doesn’t mean it’s without its own limitations, the characters never change clothes, but it’s an improvement…even with its missteps. And besides, there’s more to this show than designs: filmmaking techniques and acting are big components too. If it’s getting both right, then who cares if the designs are different?

“The show’s repetitive!”

Really?! To paraphrase Chris Stuckmann’s excellent analysis video, Star Wars has always been formulaic. This has been true since 1977, and it continues to be true today. And give it credit: the formula works, and it’ll continue to work as long as fresh ideas are added to the core aesthetics. So calling this show “repetitive” is hypocritical when you don’t apply that to other Star Wars properties.

But I get what detractors are referring to: they’re talking about the Inquisitors. We went from one Inquisitor in the first season, to two for most of Season 2, to three by the season’s finale and ended with a line that implied there were more out there. I guess it’s no surprise when your two antagonists in Season 2 are called “The Fifth Brother” and “The Seventh Sister”, but it’s pretty clear that these are gonna be the new “Separatists” of Star Wars Rebels. It’s irksome to many people because it feels “formulaic” and “lacks originality”, except that Star Wars has always been formulaic.

And, honestly, I like the Inquisitors. They’re not the most-threatening opponents, although The High Inquisitor from Season 1 was definitely a worthy adversary, but they’re cunning, intelligent and keep our heroes on their toes. Plus, that they have Sith-like powers, yet aren’t technically Sith, means we get to see plenty of Jedi-on-Dark Jedi battles. Y’know, like the kind in the now-defunct EU?

But really, if you’re gonna complain that the Inquisitors are “repetitive”, then you might as well call the reuse of "The Death Star" in three different films “repetitive”. Or the reveals of every single villain in the films “repetitive”. Or every multi-part battle in Star Wars: The Clone Wars, especially in the later seasons, “repetitive”. Especially that last point, because it’s absolutely true. And this is coming from a fan.

I’m not sure what people expect: is the reuse of the Inquisitors as a plot-point redundant? Maybe, but they move the story along. They also add to the tension, help flesh-out the heroes and show how powerful the Empire’s influence is. Not to mention, their lightsabers are awesome! What’s not to like about a double-bladed sword that doubles as propellors?

I know this rebuttal was weak, but the complaint was too, so…

*Ahem*

I’d go on to list more complaints, but I felt these five were the easiest to deconstruct. Because they exemplify the real reason detractors of Star Wars Rebels drive me crazy: nitpicking. The show has real flaws, especially in its pacing, I’m won't pretend otherwise. But when all I’m hearing is nitpicks, particularly ones that also apply to Star Wars pre-Disney acquisition, then I start wondering if people will never be satisfied. (You try proving me wrong, I dare you!)

I, therefore, have a proposition for said detractors: give it time. I don’t mean that in a “persist through something you don’t like” kind of way, that’s not fair to anyone, but rather in a “give it time to really show its true colours” kind of way. The show is young, being only 1/3 of the way through its life-span, and it’s already showing real promise with its Season 2 finale. It took Star Wars: The Clone Wars three seasons to become something special, and even then it still had occasional hiccups. Star Wars Rebels deserves that same chance.

Or…you can continue slighting it for no reason, the choice is yours. So long as you realize that you’re being unfair, then I guess I can’t really complain.