ZeStriderOfDunedain's profile

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 21hr ago · Edited 21hr ago

If you're constantly lying and hiding something, suddenly choosing to be truthful and open for once does not rid you of rightful and fair suspicion. Still, plenty of people will be satisfied enough and if you do a proper job from now on you can slowly start to convince them and flip the margins.

I think you're putting too much stock on the mob's purported composure. This is such a salacious narrative that none of the media bigshots and political pundits are about to let go of. This story has to end with arrests, anything else would be too anticlimatic. And the fact that there isn't any camp particularly keen on rehabilitating Epstein (unlike Russiagate) makes it unlikely that anyone not politically and socially suicidal will pursue it, so I have to commend guys like Tracey, Taibbi and Hanania for taking the lead.

Can't be reaping "there's a global elite pedo cabal" theories when it's politically advantageous and not expect people to actually want you to expose the global elite pedo cabal. Play with fire you get hurt.

Absolutely, my most generous 2 cents is that even Trump did not initially expect to see his own name in those files with such frequency. They may not be particularly incriminating, but still supremely humiliating and he deserves the generational aura loss for fanning the flames all these years. But irregardless of opportunistic snakes seeking to abuse moral hysteria, this feverish conspiracy mongering in the face of all facts to the contrary cannot be the antidote.

EDIT: When you see instances like this, which is far from unfamiliar in the recent history of our cultural landscape, when does conceding narrative control to the faceless mob become too dangerous? Who will be held accountable for this madness?

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 1d ago · Edited 1d ago

I have a story even more inane. When the Tate panic was all the buzz last year after Adolescence, you COULD NOT go without hearing about this fictional 13yo scrawny kid's "horrific" fictional crime against a fictional girl. My sister's colleagues came over for dinner, a couple and their adult daughter who was in law school. My sister and the daughter went on this big tirade about rising extremism, how Andrew Tate clips were allegedly being dissipated on 4chan... I had to struggle not to give them "the look". Setting aside this amusing implication that literally anybody (even Tate's so called fans) bothers enough to hop on 4chan just to listen to his ramblings, they obviously didn't have any experience with 4chan. On top of that, I know Tatebros irl. But they're not 13yo Jamie. They're douchy rizzlers who don't care for women's verbal validation, because they get in the way of sex! It was uncritically accepted that the garbage (no, I don't care about its technical merits or performances, I consider all woke propaganda hot garbage) was a "documentary", based on real events (but nothing specific, before you press them about it!), that there is this Tate driven effect resulting in a surge in knife crimes in the UK. Except there was one little problem: homicides, particularly against females, have been trending DOWN over the years. But don't let that inconvenient detail impugn the precious narrative!

6

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 1d ago

Well, I'll happily admit I'm prone to reading into things when they rub me the wrong way. Still, that's the impression I was left with.

Look at this way: no children were harmed here! Isn't that a relief?

You're assuming this is transactional, rather than a honeypot meant to accumulate influence and/or enable intelligence gathering. There wouldn't be any hush money demands, if the demand is for getting your people to "penetrate ze cabinets" as it were. I don't know how you expect to tie them to specific encounters either, if they take place face to face.

...which raises the evidentiary bar, as this is essentially "god of the gaps" reasoning.

An influence operation allegedly spanning continents requires structure and, more importantly, downstream effects. If the goal was leverage rather than cash, then what are the list of observable outputs and how do you convincingly tie them to these honeypot events supposedly involving minors? Or we could apply occam's razor, question the "survivors" narrative where it actually falls apart, concede that the global pedo cabal story was probably always hot air.

Sidenote: Even if a skeevy email exchange between ol' Jeff and Steve did exist, that cannot corroborate anything on its own. It doesn't even prove lil Suzy is a real person. Are there more than two witness accounts that can put a 12yo girl and Epstein together in his island? Can they corroborate inappropriate touching or "private sessions" with the guy? How did she meet him? Was she really 12 at the time? Where did she live? Who were her parents? What school did she go to? Did no one notice her long absences? How come there are no missing persons report tied to Epstein? Did anyone see a confused little girl outside Steve's residence? How did she commute between her place, pedo island and pedo clients' place? Where is Suzy now? What does she do? What is her full legal name, and is she still using it?

Key facts, even Epstein was probably not so omnipotent that nobody raised these questions.

1

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 1d ago

See even if we live to see 100% of all the Epstein files unredacted, including those concealed by the Massie/Khanna bill, the mega narrative is never gonna unravel now.

If those files put "Trump" and "sex" together 600,000 times in Epstein's island, the obvious takeaway is Old Don is a pedo rapist. Even if his supposed "victims" were adult women who retrofitted their episodes with Epstein as "grooming" for multimillion dollar settlements. Because popular imagination is convinced that any kind of sexual activity that took place in that island involved some kind of child sexual abuse. If they did release the files and it was a whole lot of nothing, then obviously all the "real files" were scrubbed long ago Parallax Corp style. If they sit on their hands and do nothing, what the hell are they covering up? The facts don't matter anymore. Not even the most exhaustive documentary review or adjudicated exoneration vindicating the named individuals is convincing anyone. I checked reddit, well, not to say everyone outright buys the cannibalism and 9yo victim stories, but it's certainly in the ballpark. Maybe the global elite is shitting bricks, except it is less about the contents of these files and more about the volatility of an international public primed for outrage.

7

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 1d ago

The settlements which were also forked over to Annie Farmer and Anouska De Georgiou? Read the trial transcripts, they're very eye opening:

Annie

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you'll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I'll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

Q. After you filed that lawsuit, did you participate in a victim compensation fund for victims of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. I did.

Q. Do you remember what year that fund started accepting applications?

A. I believe that was in early 2020.

Q. What did you do as part of that fund?

A. I, with my attorneys, there was an application process. They interviewed me and they put together some materials about, you know, my story.

Q. How much money did the fund award you?

A. $1.5 million.

Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. It came, yeah, from the victims' compensation fund.

Anouska, pseudonym Kate (odd considering she'd gone public with her real identity at least once before but I digress):

Members of the jury, before we begin the direct, I have a limiting instruction. You will hear testimony from the next witness about interactions that she says she had with the defendant and Mr. Epstein. I instruct you that because the witness was over the relevant age of consent at the relevant time period, any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. For that reason, I have directed the government not to ask this witness about the details of any sexual conduct she says occurred with Mr. Epstein.

I instruct you that this witness is not a victim of the crimes charged in the indictment. To the extent you conclude her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it. However, you may not convict the defendant on the basis of the testimony regarding the sexual conduct between this witness and Mr. Epstein, nor may you consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein's nor Ms. Maxwell's character or propensity to commit any crimes charged in the indictment.

Have you participated in a compensation fund called the Epstein's Victims' Compensation Program?

A. Yes.

Q. What did you do as part of that fund?

A. I had an interview with a forensic psychologist and I submitted a claim form.

Q. How much money did the fund pay you?

A. $3.25 million.

Q. Did that money come from the Estate of Jeffrey Epstein?

A. Yes.

Emphasis mine. And check out 31 year old Anouska offering to send nudes to Epstein when he was incarcerated in 2008. And yet, they're paraded as "survivors" by media and public alike. It's been a field day for sure, with the defendant dead and all. That's not to mention the other survivors making shoddy allegations but whose accounts remain immune to a grain of scrutiny cuz who wants to start their day with pedo allegations. We know that cases like this collapse the public’s tolerance for procedural nuance. Who cares that it's been legally established that at least two of these "survivors" weren't survivors after all? This is an all-you-want buffet and ol' Jeff is the mega canvas of all moral depravities you can think of: global pedo cabal, satanism, cannibalism, blackmail, Jews. No one wants to be caught dead defending that guy!

4

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 1d ago

An FBI memo had the names of 1000 victims and the Epstein victim fund + BoA settled with many victims. As far as I know we don’t have a large sample size of victim testimonies publicly available, but Virginia Giuffre is one person who claimed to have been trafficked while underage to multiple men. I don’t think many women want to be publicly known as a trafficking victim.

Giuffre is actually not a credible source. In fact, there are accusations, levelled by another victim, of Giuffre (adult at the time) herself being an Epstein recruiter. She also retracted 8 years of very detailed claims of sexual activity with Dershowitz.

I don't have much to say on the shady dealings between Epstein and Wexner, could it plausibly theoretically be the case that a creepy pervy bigshot was trafficking underage girls to another creepy pervy bigshot? Perhaps, or maybe Epstein "simply" knew where the bodies were.

4

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago

This argument is rather weak when there are still significant amounts of the epstein files left completely unreleased, and what has been released is rife with plenty of illegal and unmerited redactions. If there's nothing substantial to be gleaned, why is there still so much being actively hidden? Does the Trump admin just engage in coverups for the fun of it?

Okay I should probably clarify first that my intention is not to defend Trump or Clinton or anyone else specifically, that is why I refrained name dropping any R or D in my OP. All of those are perfectly valid questions, and indeed the optics of staggered releases, redactions, and rhetorical overpromising warrant distrust (and maybe even disgrace) after years of grandiose “client list” language. What I'm getting at is epistemic proportionality. When key accusers have recanted major allegations, contradicted earlier statements, or demonstrated patterns of embellishment, well, not saying you should automatically invalidate all claims. But it does materially weaken the scaffolding required to sustain the theory of a coordinated, global pedo enterprise. If the most explosive extensions of the story (global ring, systematic third party trafficking, blackmail architecture) rest disproportionately on accounts that later wobble under scrutiny, isn't it fair to expect a greater evidentiary threshold?

9

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago

See, that's a Hollywood tier cinematic standard. Of course there was never going to be an email that read like a cartoon villain memo. Sophisticated people operating in legally and socially catastrophic territory don’t usually incriminate themselves in plaintext. That’s not how white collar crime, corruption, or even ordinary conspiracies tend to surface.

If there was a genuine multi client trafficking and blackmail apparatus, particularly one implicating heads of state, billionaires, and intelligence services, we would expect to see more than ambiguous proximity and social overlap. We’d expect repeated third party victim accounts converging on the same powerful clients. We’d expect financial structures that clearly map to services rendered beyond “social hosting.” We’d expect leverage events, like documented attempts at coercion, extortion demands, hush money escalations that can be tied to specific encounters. We’d expect at least one cooperating witness able to describe the system mechanics in detail.

But what we do seem to have publicly is a wealthy predator who cultivated proximity to power, exploited minors in earlier periods, and later surrounded himself with morally dubious but not obviously coerced adult environments involving other high profile individuals.

Well,we're getting somewhere. Last we had this conversation here, I almost had the impression he's just a poor boy that dindu nothing.

Somehow I doubt there was a "last time" anyone implied that, but can we at least agree that we should first try sifting the ore from the slag before declaring we've struck gold?

7

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago · Edited 1d ago

The FBI says Epstein wasn't trafficking women for powerful men.

It's tempting to say "cover up", and this saga has united all camps on the lurid "pedo cabal" narrative. We were told back in November that journalists weren't allowed to ask questions to the alleged survivors, and it seems at least one of the survivors' testimony at Maxwell's trial was questionable:

Members of the jury, I have a limiting instruction. I anticipate that you’ll hear testimony from the next witness about physical contact that she says she had with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico. I instruct you that the alleged physical contact she says occurred with Mr. Epstein and Ms. Maxwell in New Mexico was not, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, as the government has charged in the indictment. I’ll give you more instructions on the legal term, quote, illegal sexual activity, end quote, at the end of the case. However, to the extent you conclude that her testimony is relevant to the issues before you, you may consider it, but you may not consider this testimony as any kind of reflection on Mr. Epstein’s nor Ms. Maxwell’s character or propensity to commit any of the crimes charged in the document.

She (Annie Farmer) acknowledged that when she applied to receive millions of dollars from the Epstein Victims’ Compensation Program — drawn from the Epstein estate — she wrote on the application that she experienced “sexual abuse” in the form of “hand-holding.” For this, she ended up receiving $1.5 million, not counting whatever she might have received from the subsequent settlement funds, such as JP Morgan.

https://x.com/mattforney/status/2021297917424734429#m

I don't like to quote Forney, but this is another "survivor" there's reason to be skeptical about.

The “other victim” Brown references is Sarah Ransome. Who is Sarah Ransome? She’s a person who says she came to New York City from London, by way of South Africa, when she was 22 years old. So already, right off the bat, nothing Ransome says — even if we were to take it all at face value — would corroborate anything remotely related to any pedophilic sex-trafficking enterprise. Nonetheless, here are some noteworthy facts about Ransome. She said that when she first arrived in NYC, in 2006, she generated income by working with an “agency,” through which she would be “paid to spend dinner with a gentleman.” For such dinners, she said, she would receive $1,500. On certain occasions, she engaged in sexual relations with these “gentlemen” on her “own accord” — because, she said, sometimes they “happened to be really good looking.” So that’s what this adult, Sarah Ransome, was doing at the time she later claimed she was brutally enslaved in a heinous sex-trafficking ring.

When she became acquainted with Epstein, Ransome said, he began to pay for all her living expenses, including accommodations (an elegant apartment on the Upper East Side), transportation, food, and medical visits. She started traveling with Epstein on his private jet to his private island, with the understanding that she was to be available to provide him with massages upon request. During one of these massage sessions, she said, Epstein asked her to undress and lie down on the massage table, which she did. Epstein then started to perform a massage on Ransome, she said, and it turned sexual. Ransome was asked if she told Epstein to stop. “No, I didn’t,” she said. She confirmed that she had an orgasm during the encounter.

I grant that “Convicted sex offender did not, in fact, abuse this specific accuser” isn't a headline that's likely to win any awards for tact, but I'm still vexed that we are expected to grant “survivor testimony” near unqeustioned social immunity even when the factual record (sometimes to a legal standard) has already established that no such abuse occurred in the instance alleged.

Interestingly, the latest files revealed that Epstein had recommended his own lawyer to Robert Kraft to beat charges (against Kraft) of trafficking women from China. Instead, all charges against Kraft and 24 other men were dropped, and it was four of those women (aged 41 to 60) whom he allegedly trafficked who were arrested, charged and convicted.

Irregardless of any new developments in this case, the public and all political camps have latched on to this "pedo cabal" narrative to let it unravel. Epstein appears to have been a sexual predator who, in at least one period of his life, did engage in conduct meeting trafficking definitions involving minors (to himself). But there's nothing to substantiate a baroque, centrally managed blackmail syndicate spanning half the planet. Wealthy and powerful people likely did participate in morally compromising environments, but there is little evidence that a structured, coordinated conspiracy of the sort popular imagination has constructed ever existed.

EDIT: I'm heading to work, will read the replies later, but I gotta drop this piece by Michael Tracey, as it's pretty damning regarding Virginia Roberts Giuffre's credibility. Here are the article highlights:

Federal prosecutors in the Southern District of New York found the marquee Epstein “survivor,” Virginia Roberts Giuffre, also known as VRG, to be so lacking in credibility that they were impelled to compose a lengthy December 19, 2019 memo detailing the many preposterous flaws with her many fantastical tales.

— They said they were “unable to corroborate” the central claim of VRG’s purported victimization, which had also given rise to the very essence of Epstein mythology as we now know it: that she was “lent out” for sexual services to prominent men, such as Prince Andrew and Alan Dershowitz.

— They noted that VRG’s accounts of her own sexual abuse were “internally inconsistent,” and not just over long periods of time, but within a single interview they conducted with her on September 9, 2019.

— They noted that VRG admitted to repeatedly lying about basic facts, destroying evidence, and telling falsehoods to the media.

— They noted that VRG schemed with a tabloid trash journalist, Sharon Churcher of the Daily Mail, to generate “big headlines” by accusing lots of prominent people of heinous child-sex crimes, in hopes that this would entice prospective publishers to buy their forthcoming “memoir” for big bucks.

— They noted that VRG claimed the FBI told her they were aware of “40 other Epstein victims,” but the FBI never told her any such thing.

— They noted that VRG had falsely claimed the FBI told her “Epstein had cameras watching her at all times,” and repeated this tantalizing claim to the media, but the FBI never told her any such thing. And indeed, they were “not aware of any such cameras.”

— They noted that VRG became “particularly combative” when asked for specific details of her claims, at one point cursing at the Assistant US Attorneys when they requested more information about the specific instances in which Ghislaine Maxwell had purportedly “directed her to have sex with another person.” An infuriated VRG eventually proclaimed: “She’s the one who brought me to be trafficked by Jeffrey Epstein in the fucking first place!” Which, conspicuously, did not answer the prosecutors’ question. Oh what I wouldn’t give for the video footage of VRG frothing at a stone-faced Maurene Comey.

— They noted that VRG “began using drugs so heavily that Epstein said he did not want her around anymore.” VRG has long acknowledged consuming large quantities of memory-impairing drugs during her tenure as a supposed sex slave, but I’m not aware of the drug-taking habit ever being cited as the proximate cause of her departure from Epstein. (But I could be misremembering; I’ve consumed such a lunatic amount of this material, I might as well be on some mind-melting substance.) Either way, VRG’s excess drug consumption is not supposed to be mentioned in polite company, because we’re not to “shame” her, even though VRG’s self-told memories of sexual misfortune many years after the fact are what unfortunately form the basis of the currently-existing Epstein mythology.

— They noted that VRG made a “continuous stream” of “sensationalized” claims in her public media appearances.

— They noted that VRG falsely claimed the FBI had told her there was a “credible” death threat against her, and repeated this in public several times, including in front of the Manhattan federal courthouse after the infamous August 27, 2019 struggle-session hearing I’ve previously written about. The memo says the FBI actually told her the exact opposite: that there were no credible threats against her! WTF!

Tracey has been kind enough to attach a copy of the memo, for those interested.

10

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago

I peeped at the big canadian subs and predictably, any discussion regarding the killer's identity is being actively moderated. And the removed threads did acknowledge the bit of nuance you reference. Of course, now that it's confirmed they belong to an inconvenient demographic, I doubt we'd see much institutional bipartisan appetite for any exhaustive scrutiny. Because now the victims aren't just dead kids, but we gotta protect the kids transitioning. This individual reportedly surpassed Elliot Rodger in terms of casualties, yet it seems unlikely that we will witness a comparable level of sustained analysis of their background, motivations, or formative influences.

14

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago

Indeed I'd admit quite shamelessly I don't much care about "ethics in journalism" as much as I do about gatekeeping male hobbies ("core" gaming is still male dominated). There’s a basic principle of cultural reciprocity that seems to go only one way. If it would be unreasonable for me to enter kdrama forums and demand that it pivot toward Bayformers style hyper CGI excess and calibrate to the male gaze, then it’s equally unreasonable to expect male dominated hobby spaces to continually reorient themselves around themes that were never their core appeal.

Different subcultures form around different aesthetic and narrative preferences. Why should I pretend to be fascinated by female empowerment arcs, resistance narratives, or the deconstruction of heteronormativity, as if these tropes haven't been endlessly recycled and widely represented across mainstream media for decades? Personally, the "appeal" around "strong independent women heroes" always felt like artificially imposed social pressure rather than organic interest. Star Wars was also a fundamentally boys' IP, and feminists/woke activists seek to rewrite that. Boys loved Star Wars because it centred on what boys disproportionately enjoy: spacefaring civilisation, starcrafts, galactic battles, trench runs, lightsaber combats, training hierarchies, rivalry, sacrifice, and a classical male hero growing into responsibility and status. The latter part is being treated as a cardinal sin now.

Call it contrarian instinct, but I deliberately steer clear of works that centre on what have become fashionable ideological tropes, regardless of how critically acclaimed or “well executed” they may be. I would rather watch a badly choreographed, mid budget action film unapologetically featuring charismatic leads and glamorous, attractive women for 12 hours than engage with prestige projects framed as culturally virtuous “queer literature”. Like, I do not care how technically refined Brokeback Mountain may be or what stellar performances the leads put on or how many awards it won, it simply does not align with the thematic and narrative sensibilities I personally value.

14

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 2d ago

Media overage is usually propelled by some combination of proximity, audience relevance, and narrative traction. Geography definitely matters, but also US newsrooms are abuzz right now with domestic political drama and Epstein. They prioritise what their core audience clicks on. If a story is distant, developing, and not generating engagement, it gets less oxygen. There’s also caution around the first 24 hours, especially when details about the shooter's identity or motive are unclear, because misreporting early permanently damages your credibility.

2

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 13d ago

I checked reddit, and the dominant line is basically "Epstein was an extremely popular socialite, taking photos with him or crossing paths socially doesn’t mean someone fucked underage girls". Certainly. But I can't overlook how carefully that nuance is defended when the figure in question is a progressive. Anti zionists used to flex that no one on "their side" was connected to Epstein. It's the same crowd that insists on interrogating power, thinks they’re anti establishment because they dislike the old elites, whilst being perfectly obedient to the new ones. Skepticism becomes “conspiracy,” inquiry becomes “smearing,” but only when the subject sits on the correct ideological shelf.

10

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 27d ago

Are you making a general observation or are you saying you got that vibe from my post? I agree that Star Wars hype was peak when it used to be "events". But hype can only exist when you're waiting for something, that is why neither Star Wars nor Marvel are as bulletproof anymore.

But also yes, I do draw the line there. Why wouldn't I object to something that I was the target audience for being turned into someone's ideological mouthpiece ragging me about all the things wrong with me, all the reasons why my supposed privileges hurt women and minorities, and that I should step back for my betters?

It's rather ironic catering to the demographic most invested in an IP is treated as a moral failing, while displacing that audience is framed as progress. Male heroism can no longer be celebrated without extensive ideological throat clearing to reassure female empowerment, even as young men continue to shoulder the bulk of society’s dangerous, sacrificial labor in the real world.

8

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 27d ago

No bulverism, an entire racket of elites being run out of business by the very thing they hope to replace us with is certainly the most poetic revenge ever (and quite cyberpunk IMO). End of Hollywood and celebrity culture, I genuinely think society will be better off for it.

4

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 27d ago

Honestly? I've never really had a soft spot for female action heroes. I say this being a comic book nerd who did actually enjoy Storm, Wanda and Barbara Gordon's arcs in Lifedeath, House of M and Oracle: Year One respectively. But female power was not something I found "fascinating", it certainly hasn't been a novelty for as long as I've lived. It always felt like artificially imposed social pressure rather than organic interest. Also never liked the idea - long before it became an industry mandate - of established male led action franchises handing over the symbolic and narrative center to a female successor either, well before that became an industry mandate. I noped out of TFA once that bait and switch happened, way before TLJ (in)famously dialled it up to 11. Now we can certainly argue which trilogy probably handled narrative execution, pacing, directorial vision, dialogue beats, subplots and cinematography better than the other.

But none of these "safe critiques" address the foundational rewrite at the heart of the Sequels, that Star Wars was a boys' IP. Boys loved it because it centred on what boys disproportionately enjoy: spacefaring civilisation, starcrafts, galactic battles, trench runs, lightsaber combats, training hierarchies, rivalry, sacrifice, and a classical male hero growing into responsibility and status. The Original Trilogy understood what young boys (their prime audience) aspired to be, that is why it is so timeless. Over a decade into the culture shift that's thoroughly penalised every instance of male heroism and ambition as "moral crimes" to be corrected, I think it's totally fair to just sit back, crack a beer and say, "I'm tired, boss".

26

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 27d ago

Well that is some cope, and I'm guilty of huffing it myself. Yup, that's also the most assured way to get faithful adaptations to your favourite novels! As a bonus, you also get to kneecap a multibillion dollar empire in the process, and AI, the apparent bane of all human workers, will be the sole culprit. A very delicious thought for sure.

8

Context

ZeStriderOfDunedain Ze Strider 27d ago

So it is official. After nearly 14 years as President of Lucasfilm, Kathleen Kennedy has stepped down. Nope, not bait this time. Dave Filoni is taking over.

In the Deadline interview, KK reiterates that she wouldn't change anything:

The lows are that you’ve got a very, very small percentage of the fan base that has enormous expectations and basically they want to continue to see pretty much the same thing. And if you’re not going to do that, then you know going in that you’re going to disappoint them. I’m not sure there’s anything you can do about that, because you can’t please everybody. All you can do is try to tell good stories and try to stick to the essence of what George created,” she said. “He embedded incredible values into Star Wars… the whole idea of hope and fun and entertainment."

But does anybody care anymore? This isn't even a twinkle in culture war discourse, KiA's response was total indifference. Despite Iger's comments a few years ago saying that "creators at Disney should entertain first, message second", I haven't seen them walk the walk. Within Star Wars itself, what immediately followed those statements was the wokest Star Wars to date, which got cancelled just one month after the finale aired due to low viewership.

While everyone was memeing about where the bodies were buried, how does anybody even expect to fix the IP at this point? Every year since Rise of Skywalker, they've been dropping a new season of a new live action show like candies. Star Wars ceased to be an "event" anymore. Sequel merchandise don't sell as well as the classics. But does it mean Star Wars is dead in the water? Probably not, Andor season 2 debuted with record viewership numbers. I guess, Star Wars fans are still more forgiving than most people think! Even if the IP may not be as bulletproof as it was during the Clone Wars era. I don't see the "Force is Female" direction being reversed for sure.

22

Context