***** THE ACOLYTE Show Discussion (see note inside) Thread *****

166,724 Views | 1974 Replies | Last: 1 mo ago by Sea Speed
PatAg
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

That's what SHE says to HIM. That's what I was referring to above. Which takes on a whole new meaning if he's the big bad, because now he knows she's not completely loyal to/truthful with him.
Also, if he turns out to actually be the bad guy, that's the exact sort of thing a clever bad guy would do.

"dont tell him about the poison" while being the him he is talking about.
The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
PatAg said:

TCTTS said:

That's what SHE says to HIM. That's what I was referring to above. Which takes on a whole new meaning if he's the big bad, because now he knows she's not completely loyal to/truthful with him.
Also, if he turns out to actually be the bad guy, that's the exact sort of thing a clever bad guy would do.

"dont tell him about the poison" while being the him he is talking about.
That's a Sith Lord

redline248
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Brian Earl Spilner said:


Sol: I saw her die

Qui-Gon: Not good enough. Until she's blue and see through, all bets are off


also Qui-Gon: No one dies in Star Wars.....except me
jokershady
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
FL_Ag1998 said:

jokershady said:

Well if he ends up being the baddie that'll be disappointing for me….i can't remember the exact words but when we see Mae and Qimir speak for the first time none of their conversation makes sense if he ends up being the big baddie….

I'll have to go back and watch again but at one point he definitely says something about not telling "Him" about the poison or something and keeping that a secret…..wouldn't make sense to me…..


Like TCTTS said, Mae says that to him, not vice versa. And if Qimir is the main bad guy in disguise (and the main bad guy clearly is hiding his identity as evidenced by the mask and voice masking technology when he and Mae meet on the beach at the end of episode 1), then clearly Qimir is not going to correct Mae when she makes that statement.

I'm really liking this theory by TPE.
yup i missremembered that....saw in the youtube video it was Mae and Qimir doesn't refer to the big baddie directly at all....only Mae.....

so i see it was one of two things because after reading comments here and watching that scene again, he's not some lacky side kick....he's either:

1. the guy pulling the strings and training Mae and she doesn't realize it...

or....

2. he is another sith that has already passed these trials that Mae is also doing as it sounds like he's giving her advice as if he's done these things before....and yes i know about the rule of 2 so not sure how this would fit but it's just an idea because i do agree at this point it's either 1 or 2....
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Boy is this thread gonna be active tonight...
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I have no idea of the specifics, I only know that, yeah, it apparently has a high likelihood of pissing off the usual suspects here.

Hope the mods are ready.

That said, I've also seen a number of people say it's a genuinely great episode too, and that it's a "game changer."

Either way…

The Porkchop Express
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

I have no idea of the specifics, I only know that, yeah, it apparently has a high likelihood of pissing off the usual suspects here.

Hope the mods are ready.

That said, I've also seen a number of people say it's a genuinely great episode too, and that it's a "game changer."
Yoda gets Osha pregnant.
Madmarttigan
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Woke Disney promoting interracial relationships


(Joking to cover myself from any bombs from either side)
Formerly tv1113
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"Your Baby Daddy, I am."
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So in advance of the whole conversation, reminder of the steps:

1) announce intent to produce divisive content
2) produce divisive content
3) viewers notice divisive content and would prefer it not be included
4) creators and apologists simultaneously say "it's not there, you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist," "it's only barely there," and "isn't it amazing that it's there?"

Hope that saves everyone some heartburn later.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You missed a few crucial steps there, but whatever.
YNWA_AG
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I enjoyed the first episode, but the second episode reminded me of the book of boba fett cheesiness. The sets were extreme step down from episode 1 to episode 2



Also it's hilarious how South Park perfectly roasts modern day Star Wars
In reply to
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

I have no idea of the specifics, I only know that, yeah, it apparently has a high likelihood of pissing off the usual suspects here.

Hope the mods are ready.

That said, I've also seen a number of people say it's a genuinely great episode too, and that it's a "game changer."

Either way…



Mae and Osha somehow hook-up?
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Ha, incest is apparently okay, based on the fact that none of the anti-woke crowd flipped out over Game of Thrones.

Instead, I'm seeing hints/rumors of lesbian witches and possibly even pronouns tonight?

The horror!
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQRyno said:

So in advance of the whole conversation, reminder of the steps:

1) announce intent to produce divisive content
2) produce divisive content
3) viewers notice divisive content and would prefer it not be included
4) creators and apologists simultaneously say "it's not there, you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist," "it's only barely there," and "isn't it amazing that it's there?"

Hope that saves everyone some heartburn later.

1) creator talks about how a film about sisters was very meaningful for her
2) creator makes a show about sisters
3) viewers note...divisive content?
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
fig96 said:

BQRyno said:

So in advance of the whole conversation, reminder of the steps:

1) announce intent to produce divisive content
2) produce divisive content
3) viewers notice divisive content and would prefer it not be included
4) creators and apologists simultaneously say "it's not there, you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist," "it's only barely there," and "isn't it amazing that it's there?"

Hope that saves everyone some heartburn later.

1) creator talks about how a film about sisters was very meaningful for her
2) creator makes a show about sisters
3) viewers note...divisive content?


She said Frozen was a story for the LGBT community in disguise. I'm only barely paraphrasing. But if you want to pretend you 1-3 are all she said, that's your prerogative.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQRyno said:

fig96 said:

BQRyno said:

So in advance of the whole conversation, reminder of the steps:

1) announce intent to produce divisive content
2) produce divisive content
3) viewers notice divisive content and would prefer it not be included
4) creators and apologists simultaneously say "it's not there, you're inventing a problem that doesn't exist," "it's only barely there," and "isn't it amazing that it's there?"

Hope that saves everyone some heartburn later.

1) creator talks about how a film about sisters was very meaningful for her
2) creator makes a show about sisters
3) viewers note...divisive content?

She said Frozen was a story for the LGBT community in disguise. I'm only barely paraphrasing. But if you want to pretend you 1-3 are all she said, that's your prerogative.
You're projecting, not paraphrasing.

She said she couldn't relate to romantic stories as a kid but found their sisterly relationship very meaningful. And then a bunch of people created things she didn't say to be mad about.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I seriously cannot believe people are STILL misquoting her, and that we're STILL somehow having this conversation.

Good lord.

This has been litigated this to death, and you're exactly right.

It just goes to show that some people hear only what they want to hear in order to hate exactly who they want to hate.
BassCowboy33
How long do you want to ignore this user?
I was thinking about starting this, then I sifted through some of this thread and saw it sitting at a 4.3 on IMDB.

Yeesh.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
So far it's not a great show, but it's not a bad one either.

It's… fine.

Regardless, relying on IMDb scores, especially for shows like this that are review-bombed to death, is pointless.
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BassCowboy33 said:

I was thinking about starting this, then I sifted through some of this thread and saw it sitting at a 4.3 on IMDB.

Yeesh.
Peeked out of curiosity because that seems surprising.

Over 13,000 people out of 28k have rated it 1 star. That seems very unbiased.
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

I seriously cannot believe people are STILL misquoting her, and that we're STILL somehow having this conversation.

Good lord.

This has been litigated this to death, and you're exactly right.

It just goes to show that some people hear only what they want to hear in order to hate exactly who they want to hate.


Okay, how about this, referring to Frozen: "to make something like this that is, you know, for lack of a better term, Disney, meaning something that like my parents would have allowed me to see when I was younger as a queer person, that I would have been able to understand a queer person.""

But sure, tell me I'm paraphrasing incorrectly about how she was able to understand Frozen as a queer person.

Look, this show is what it is. She has stated her intent. Viewers shouldn't be surprised when she does what she says. How is that controversial?
fig96
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Sooo...something that she could relate to because it was't about a romantic relationship?
rynning
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Catching up before the third episode. IMDB shows Manny Jacinto (Qimir) is credited with just one episode. Is that meant to be a deception? We'll find out soon enough…
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
BQRyno said:

TCTTS said:

I seriously cannot believe people are STILL misquoting her, and that we're STILL somehow having this conversation.

Good lord.

This has been litigated this to death, and you're exactly right.

It just goes to show that some people hear only what they want to hear in order to hate exactly who they want to hate.


Okay, how about this, referring to Frozen: "to make something like this that is, you know, for lack of a better term, Disney, meaning something that like my parents would have allowed me to see when I was younger as a queer person, that I would have been able to understand a queer person.""

But sure, tell me I'm paraphrasing incorrectly about how she was able to understand Frozen as a queer person.

Look, this show is what it is. She has stated her intent. Viewers shouldn't be surprised when she does what she says. How is that controversial?

Dude, come on.

You know the rest of us have access to the same internet, right? And can show that you conveniently left out the most pertinent part of the quote? Because here's the entire thing...

Quote:

"When I saw Frozen as a grown ass woman, I cried through the entire movie. There was just something about the relationship between the sisters, the like de-villainization of the classic kind of fairy tale 'bad guy,' you know, the concept of true love being between two sisters and not a heterosexual relationship. It just destroyed me, completely."

She continued, "And I thought, 'Gosh, I would love to make something like this, for lack of a better term, Disney.' Meaning something that like my parents would have allowed me to see when I was younger as a queer person, but I would have been able to understand as a queer person. And I think I would have had a completely different life. And so I really was inspired by it and was like, 'God, I would love to make a story like this.'"

In other words, with The Acolyte, Headland aimed to make a PLATONIC "love story" between TWO SISTERS. And that, essentially, as a kid, she assumed all love stories in movies/TV had to be between a man and a woman. But if she could have seen, at an early age, that not all love stories had to be between a man and a woman, and could instead, be between two sisters (as depicted in Frozen), she would have seen the world differently growing up, as a queer person.

Like, this isn't complicated.

It's super basic, in fact.

And again, just shows that you either blatantly ignored the most important part of her quote, or purposely left it out to try and score outrage points on the internet. Either way, it's in service of your own biases, and your desperate need to paint people like her in the worst light possible.
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
I forgot your opinion is the only correct one because you're in the industry. Consider your get kept. Carry on.
TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It's not an opinion!

That's LITERALLY what she said!

Holy crap, talk about denial.
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
You say I'm ignoring part of what she said, I say you're ignoring the other. Plus plenty of other interviews. We disagree.
Thunderstruck xx
How long do you want to ignore this user?
TCTTS said:

So far it's not a great show, but it's not a bad one either.

It's… fine.

Regardless, relying on IMDb scores, especially for shows like this that are review-bombed to death, is pointless.


TCTTS
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
It really is something to watch denial at work, in real time, in the face of clear, objective facts. Because it's all the same quote, with the first part clearly informing the other. There's no other way to read/interpret any of that. She's saying exactly what she's saying. But because it conflicts with your world view, or your need to dunk on her, or your inability to admit you were duped, you can't acknowledge what is literally there in black and white.

It's quite amazing.
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
TCTTS said:

It really is something to watch denial at work, in real time, in the face of clear, objective facts. Because it's all the same quote, with the first part clearly informing the other. There's no other way to read/interpret any of that. She's saying exactly what she's saying. But because it conflicts with your world view, or your need to dunk on her, or your inability to admit you were duped, you can't acknowledge what is literally there in black and white.

It's quite amazing.


Like I said, we disagree. I think we disagree. You are implying I'm idiot, so thanks for that. There's context both in that extended quote and in other interviews. I draw a different conclusion than you. Think whatever you want about me.

On an actual show note, I'm glad we finally get the backstory. I'm really interested in the fact that they're identical later and not as kids. If they're clever, it's because of some weird schizophrenic force projection stuff and only one sister is still alive. I doubt they're that clever, but it would be cool. Definitely some "chosen one" and TPM vibes with the no father bit.
BQRyno
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Was there more to that fire than they showed? How did it get out of control so quickly and kill everyone?
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Pleasantly surprised the Jedi did nothing wrong.

Unless they purposely mislead us in that episode somehow.
Brian Earl Spilner
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
Episode currently at a 2.9 on IMDb, no surprise there.

Will it go below 1.0?
rynning
How long do you want to ignore this user?
AG
"For the many-eeeeeee!" My entire family busted out laughing at the Broadway-esque moment.
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.