Nothing Can Make Me Hate Star Wars, Even If It Gets To A Point Where Everything New Disappoints Me I'll

Nothing can make me hate Star Wars, even if it gets to a point where everything new disappoints me I'll always have old favourites to return to.

Ok you know what, let's spread some positivity. Reblog this if you actually like Star Wars

And I am refering to all of star wars and not just select parts of it. Even if you have issues with parts of it, you still enjoy it.

YOOOO 👀

need these two on my screen again more than i need oxygen

It's quite interesting how TBB wrapped up the Project Necromancer plot in a way that works just as well with the sequels as it does without them. I think that's kinda neat tbh.

Yeah, I love both but prefer but Omega's story just resonated with me more.

The Bad Batch as overprotective brothers towards Omega this, the Bad Batch preventing Omega from having a boyfriend that, but no one's really a true visionary here...

The Bad Batch as Crosshair's overprotective siblings. The idea that everyone (including and emphasizing Omega) is ready to annihilate the shitty guy Crosshair likes for the moment is hilarious, especially since we know the Bad Batch is right and Crosshair's crush is indeed shit.

Some thoughts on "attachments" in Star Wars:

For as long as I can remember, there has seemed to be a lot of confusion around whether "attachments" are actually good or bad... And I think much of the confusion stems from the fact that "attachments" and "relationships" are almost always used interchangeably within the stories, even though they really shouldn't be.

Let's be clear: "attachments" as in selfish obsession/possession of self/others along with the inability to let go of people/objects/experiences IS A BAD THING because 1) that's not actually love and 2) acting on that fear of losing self/others is what makes one fall to the Dark Side. Anakin fell to the Dark Side because he acted on his selfish fear of losing his wife, rather than acting out of his love for her. He was redeemed later because he acted on his selfless love for his son. Anakin wasn't lost because he had a relationship; he fell because he insisted on acting selfishly - he had an attachment to Padme and wouldn't relinquish this possessive obsession with her.

However, the prequels establish that the Jedi Order mistakenly equated "attachments" with "love/relationships" - yeah, sure, compassion is fine, but according to the Jedi Order one apparently can't actually feel selfless love toward biological family members or spouses or children so they're just going to nip those relationships in the bud: if you join the Jedi, it must be when you are a child before you develop any clear memory of your biological family, and creating a nuclear family of your own is grounds for being dismissed from the Jedi Order.

I am very much pro-Jedi, but I have always - always, even as a kid - found the above application of avoiding attachments to be wrong. Just flat out wrong. It doesn't make the Jedi Order evil, of course, nor does it make the individual Jedi bad. Still, forbidding not only romantic but also familial relationships in the name of avoiding attachment is a mistaken, flawed, incorrect application of the principle.

And yet, Star Wars itself throws around the term "attachments" so loosely it still tends to be conflated with "relationships."

This view is even reiterated in Bad Batch, when Ventress tells the brothers that if Omega was Force sensitive and did want to train to wield the Force, she'd have to leave them behind. Of course, given that Ventress is partially a product of the prequel-era Jedi Order understanding of attachments, I guess it makes sense that she'd perpetuate this interpretation; however, it still muddies what is supposed to be the actual definition of "attachment."

Heck, even Din Djarin doesn't really understand what is meant by "attachment" - the Armorer tells him Jedi are to forego all attachment and Din replies that this is the opposite of the Mandalorian Creed which endorses loyalty and solidarity. They AREN'T opposites: loyalty and unity are not Dark Side traits nor do they define attachment (and I'm pretty sure the Jedi endorsed unity with each other) - in many ways, such traits are selfless. But the mistaken idea that attachment = relationships keeps being perpetuated.

Frankly, that's why I'm still a little disappointed by how Luke words the ultimatum to Grogu. Grogu needed the opportunity to make a choice, of course, and staying with Din might interrupt his Jedi training anyway should Din decide against staying on Ossus himself (which, let's be real, Din would do anything for Grogu so I doubt that would be an issue...); but framing it that Grogu choosing Din means "giving in to attachment" lowkey makes me want to pull my hair out. Grogu's love for Din is not and does not have to be selfish. He can still shun the Dark Side and act on the Light Side of the Force, act out of a place of calm and peace and selflessness in the defense and interest of those he cares for - and actually, he consistently does this in season 3, which is great to see. I just kinda wish Star Wars would more clearly and openly acknowledge this distinction between "attachment" and "relationships."

Because really, avoiding attachment to keep oneself open to the Light Side of the Force (and away from the Dark) can be boiled down to: **Don't be selfish and angry; do be selfless and calm.** Really, that's all there is to it. And Star Wars does a stellar job displaying this - with Jedi, too! - in the form of Kanan and Ezra in Rebels, so I hope they make this idea more common in the future.

Come to think of it, they do have an opportunity to pull off a similar feat in Rey's new movie and firmly establish what "attachment" really is, distinct from "relationships" - and if they do, well, I'll be ecstatic!