I don’t think we need to have a climate change debate in this thread. If you’re so inclined start your own thread but expect it to get closed down.
Mike Zeroh does have his faults, but he reads the trades daily and reports on what’s happening. This hater doesn’t seem to understand that the trade publications are the primary source for entertainment news. Yeah, Zeroh has made some errors in his claims, but he’s right a lot more often than the competition, and puts serious time and effort into his research. He gets kudos for that. So far as the childish “he makes haters” claim, ahhhhh. . .yeah. Let’s go kill that freedom of speech idea before it catches on. Let the women of The View guide you.
As to episode 5, I want to be happy they put in a lengthy fight. I’m disappointed it was so badly choreographed. There are dozens of pathetic flaws in it where Qimir should have just died. Very disappointing but at least they tried to entertain here.
For those unaware, it is long time lore that Cortosis armor is proof against light sabers and will both block them and short them out. My Shistavanan ffg character has Cortosis claws, and they do exactly what you see Qimir’s helm and bracers do. So no lore breaking here. Timothy Zahn invented Cortosis back before the invention of Beskar, IIRC.
The stand out big issue is that obviously they broke the lore. We now know this guy is a Sith, claims to be a Sith, and the Jedi know he is killing Jedi while claiming to be a Sith. So the claims 100 years in the future that there have been no Sith in 1,000 years are contradicted.
I hate this. Why is it so hard to just color between the lines we already have? Why does invention need to deconstruct the past and how is this anything other than disrespect run amuck? How is Headlund so entitled she gets to retcon official lore? Instead of satisfying her need to destroy, why not just write a story in accord with official lore? That’s not difficult. So why this bullshit? Is there someone at UCLA film school who is teaching that subverting expectations trumps internal consistency? News flash: it does NOT. The fact writers feel free to do this clearly demonstrates they do not respect the source material and should be FIRED.