[TV] Disney+ Star Wars: Ahsoka Tano

[Triceron]

I am arguing for a REFERENCE PERIOD. Indirect, Direct, period. I said referenced, not "direct." No one is arguing that the Mandalorian directly references the sequels. Merely that the Mandalorian references the sequels. It is an indirect reference, but still a flipping reference.

Even then, I can still argue that it is a direct reference to how Palpatine is restored in the sequels, even if this sect doesn't directly tie to that.

I am done. You cannot demand I prove direct reference when that isn't my argument.

Your argument involves there being 'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon'

'The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels.'

Which has now shifted to

'Even then, I can still argue that it is a direct reference to how Palpatine is restored in the sequels, even if this sect doesn't directly tie to that.'


I openly admit that I don't understand the full context of what you're trying to say.

Are you implying the evidence that they have no plans to retcon is literally 'reference to how Palpatine is restored in the sequels'. Cuz, you know, that doesn't determine whether retcons are planned or not. It doesn't even imply that the Mandalorian's story will be connected to Palpatine's story.


Again to my main point. No one knows what they plan for the Mandalorian, or their tie ins with the sequels. Whether there will be connections. Whether the story is self contained. Whether the Sequel material gets retconned. There is no clear tie in to the sequels at this moment, because a reference does not imply anything beyond being a reference.


And if we're talking about Mandalorian having mere references to Palpatine being restored, even if this sect doesn't directly tie into it, then the Mandalorian story would be very much self-contained.

[Darththeo]

Your argument involves there being 'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon'

'The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels.'

Which has now shifted to

'Even then, I can still argue that it is a direct reference to how Palpatine is restored in the sequels, even if this sect doesn't directly tie to that.'


I openly admit that I don't understand the full context of what you're trying to say.

Are you implying the evidence that they have no plans to retcon is literally 'reference to how Palpatine is restored in the sequels'. Cuz, you know, that doesn't determine whether retcons are planned or not. It doesn't even imply that the Mandalorian's story will be connected to Palpatine's story.


Again to my main point. No one knows what they plan for the Mandalorian, or their tie ins with the sequels. Whether there will be connections. Whether the story is self contained. Whether the Sequel material gets retconned. There is no clear tie in to the sequels at this moment, because a reference does not imply anything beyond being a reference.


And if we're talking about Mandalorian having mere references to Palpatine being restored, even if this sect doesn't directly tie into it, then the Mandalorian story would be very much self-contained.

Because I have to argue around your bs definition you are choosing to use. I am tired. I can't argue with someone who is chooses to use different definition than most other people do when talking about a subject. Your definitions of tie, reference, clear, etc ... all just focus on one subset of what applies to that definition. You confuse concrete evidence with indisputable evidence. I am done arguing with the wall.

I am tired of you constantly shifting and adding words to my argument. I am done. So, no you don't want to understand, if you wanted to understand you wouldn't add a word to my argument and claim that's my argument.

There literally already ARE connections with the Mandalorian and the rest of Star Wars and you are literally pretending because they are "just part of the shared universe" they don't count. You basically saying my argument is wrong ... because it is correct. You make no sense at all.

[Triceron]

Because I have to argue around your bs definition you are choosing to use. I am tired. I can't argue with someone who is chooses to use different definition than most other people do when talking about a subject. Your definitions of tie, reference, clear, etc ... all just focus on one subset of what applies to that definition. You confuse concrete evidence with indisputable evidence. I am done arguing with the wall.

I am tired of you constantly shifting and adding words to my argument. I am done. So, no you don't want to understand, if you wanted to understand you wouldn't add a word to my argument and claim that's my argument.

There literally already ARE connections with the Mandalorian and the rest of Star Wars and you are literally pretending because they are "just part of the shared universe" they don't count. You basically saying my argument is wrong ... because it is correct. You make no sense at all.

Then what the heck are you trying to say?

Because

'It has references to the sequels'

Is not the same as

'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon' and 'The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels.'


Any time I ask for more clarification, you just circle around to some other explanation that completely avoids your original points about 'evidence they have no plans to retcon'.

The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels. While that tie is not required to enjoy either story, knowing that tie makes the story more enjoyable. "Look at the latest Spider-man movie, you don't need to have seen Raimi's trilogy or ASM2 to enjoy those movies, but they clearly reference and tie back to them. If you know those stories, those ties stand out. If you don't, the movie is still enjoyable." <- Yes, and this movie RETCONS Raimi's trilogy and ASM2 in the process of having references to them.

So it contradicts the idea that there are no plans to retcon just because there are references. Because you even point out an example where both happens.

Again, I don't know what you're actually trying to say, because so many things you're either falling back onto 'that's just semantics' or else bringing up examples that don't clarify anything about your previous statements about there being no retcons. Because to actually say they aren't planning retcons doesn't actually mean anything if there is no way to prove whether they would or would not; the evidence doesn't actually exist.

[Darththeo]

Then what the heck are you trying to say?

Because

'It has references to the sequels'

Is not the same as

'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon' and 'The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels.'


Any time I ask for more clarification, you just circle around to some other explanation that completely avoids your original points about 'evidence they have no plans to retcon'.

The Mandalorian story is clearly tying into the story of the sequels. While that tie is not required to enjoy either story, knowing that tie makes the story more enjoyable. "Look at the latest Spider-man movie, you don't need to have seen Raimi's trilogy or ASM2 to enjoy those movies, but they clearly reference and tie back to them. If you know those stories, those ties stand out. If you don't, the movie is still enjoyable." <- Yes, and this movie RETCONS Raimi's trilogy and ASM2 in the process of having references to them.

So it contradicts the idea that there are no plans to retcon just because there are references. Because you even point out an example where both happens.

Again, I don't know what you're actually trying to say, because so many things you're either falling back onto 'that's just semantics' or else bringing up examples that don't clarify anything about your previous statements about there being no retcons. Because to actually say they aren't planning retcons doesn't actually mean anything if there is no way to prove whether they would or would not; the evidence doesn't actually exist.

I am done. There is literally nothing that I can say that is going to make your understand when you clearly don't want to.

[Triceron]

I am done. There is literally nothing that I can say that is going to make your understand when you clearly don't want to.

I don't see what you can say that would justify claiming there is 'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon'. Cuz I'm not convinced the evidence supports the conclusions you're drawing.

I mean all we've been doing is circling around needlessly to reach this point.

I'm absolutely willing to listen here, I'm just not understanding your explanation because it seems to keep shifting.

[Darththeo]

I don't see what you can say that would justify claiming there is 'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon'. Cuz I'm not convinced the evidence supports the conclusions you're drawing.

I mean all we've been doing is circling around needlessly to reach this point.

I'm absolutely willing to listen here, I'm just not understanding your explanation because it seems to keep shifting.

All evidence to the contrary.

I am shifting because I trying to deal with your odd limits to what constitutes a reference. Based on what I see, you can't even say Dooku's speech in Episode II is a reference to Episode I because they are "self contained stories."

[Triceron]

All evidence to the contrary.

I am shifting because I trying to deal with your odd limits to what constitutes a reference. Based on what I see, you can't even say Dooku's speech in Episode II is a reference to Episode I because they are "self contained stories."

Well it's gonna be difficult for me to explain that Dooku's speech is a direct reference to episode 1 if you're gonna freak out every time I say 'direct'.

I mean, Dooku isn't just making a passing or indirect reference. Episode 2 literally follows the events that happen in Episode 1, intentionally and unambiguously so.

It'd be different if we were say talking about Boba Fett mentioning he rode a beast '10 times its size' of a Rancor, which references back to the old 70's cartoon series. In my opinion, I do not consider this to be evidence that the old cartoon is now canonized. It's a passing reference that neither confirms or denies any retcons, or direct canonization.

If we're going to evaluate any references being used as evidence towards something, then by all means I think it should be unambiguous. Absolutely clarified, not just reasonably assumed.

Let's contextualize this - I believe Mandalorian's references should not be regarded as evidence of retcons, unless we are talking about something that is absolutely unambiguous.

Example:
Boba Fett surviving after ROTJ - Unambiguous, confirmed.
Boba Fett being Mandalorian - Unambiguous, confirmed.
Boba Fett riding the Mythosaurs - Ambiguous, unconfirmed. Could be true, could be not.

Evidence of the first two references being true is not evidence that all are true.

[Syegfryed]

I don't see what you can say that would justify claiming there is 'tons of evidence that they have no plans to retcon'. Cuz I'm not convinced the evidence supports the conclusions you're drawing.

I mean all we've been doing is circling around needlessly to reach this point.

I'm absolutely willing to listen here, I'm just not understanding your explanation because it seems to keep shifting.

ah, he does a lot of that, he claim you don't know definition of words and pull out the pigeon chess.

I for once, would be completely happy if they retcon the sequels lol, but im fine if not to, i think mando and even boba fett series blow then away anyway. So i have high hopes for Ahsoka too.

[Darththeo]

Well it's gonna be difficult for me to explain that Dooku's speech is a direct reference to episode 1 if you're gonna freak out every time I say 'direct'.

I mean, Dooku isn't just making a passing or indirect reference. Episode 2 literally follows the events that happen in Episode 1, intentionally and unambiguously so.

It'd be different if we were say talking about Boba Fett mentioning he rode a beast '10 times its size' of a Rancor, which references back to the old 70's cartoon series. In my opinion, I do not consider this to be evidence that the old cartoon is now canonized. It's a passing reference that neither confirms or denies any retcons, or direct canonization.

If we're going to evaluate any references being used as evidence towards something, then by all means I think it should be unambiguous. Absolutely clarified, not just reasonably assumed.

Let's contextualize this - I believe Mandalorian's references should not be regarded as evidence of retcons, unless we are talking about something that is absolutely unambiguous.

Example:
Boba Fett surviving after ROTJ - Unambiguous, confirmed.
Boba Fett being Mandalorian - Unambiguous, confirmed.
Boba Fett riding the Mythosaurs - Ambiguous, unconfirmed. Could be true, could be not.

Evidence of the first two references being true is not evidence that all are true.

The difference is we know the sequels happen in the same timeline as the advertise Mandalorian taking place during the Skywalker Saga (the 9 episodic films).
The Holiday Special is not confirmed to have happened, therefore arguing that Boba's line "makes the holiday special canon" isn't the same argument I made which is the sequels are currently not getting retconned.

The fact references to the sequels exist in other shows. Rebels, Mandalorian, and Bad Batch (I don't count Resistance because without the sequels, it doesn't exist.) Filoni own stance on the sequels is positive, therefore the references to the sequels is likely intentionally. Rebels had Hera jump to hyperspace going through a docking area showing the damage and impact that a ship jumping to hyperspace can have. This episode aired prior to the Last Jedi being released. Grogu is specifically shown to have healing powers through the Force prior to that being used in Rise of Skywalker. This isn't even getting into Ezra hearing both Kylo and Rey in Rebels. The fact that there are constant references both indirect and direct to the sequels with Filoni speaking positively on the sequels is evidence that there is no current plans to retcon.

No current plans to retcon =/= retcon being off the table and never happening.

Now, that is just the evidence for Filoni. They lego special they had were both tied to the sequel era, now yes, that's meant to sell toys, but why push toys for a movie you are going to decanonize? Galaxy's Edge and their other Star Wars experiences are all set sequel era, and there been no significant move to set them elsewhere. The Stormtroopers are still First Order Troopers and not OT era Stormtroopers. So, why bother if you are going to delete it? You spent all this money, and continue to spend money on attraction set during that time. It doesn't make sense if they are planning to retcon.

And all this evidence is moot anyway, because there is no evidence that points to retconning at all. The Skywalker Saga finished and most of the story with those characters for that time has been told. They are going back and filling in areas where there are now gaps in the story. Pre-ANH and Post-RotJ.

- - - Updated - - -

ah, he does a lot of that, he claim you don't know definition of words and pull out the pigeon chess.

I for once, would be completely happy if they retcon the sequels lol, but im fine if not to, i think mando and even boba fett series blow then away anyway. So i have high hopes for Ahsoka too.

Yeah, and you are the king of Pigeon Chess.

[Triceron]

The difference is we know the sequels happen in the same timeline as the advertise Mandalorian taking place during the Skywalker Saga (the 9 episodic films).
The Holiday Special is not confirmed to have happened, therefore arguing that Boba's line "makes the holiday special canon" isn't the same argument I made which is the sequels are currently not getting retconned.

Good point, and I agree about the timelines and the Holiday Special.

However I want to point out, that Mandalorian (and other shows) has been a used as a way to canonize things that have existed outside of canon. That is what makes this a much more debatable situation.

Holiday special was not confirmed to have happened. Well neither has Boba Fett surviving, or being a Mandalorian for that matter. None of these were officially canonized in the Skywalker Saga. Mandalorian has unambiguously canonized two of the three examples I gave, which is why I am illustrating how simply implying 'references in the Mandalorian are canon' would be a debatable thing to base anything on. It's all a case-by-case scenario.

The fact references to the sequels exist in other shows. Rebels, Mandalorian, and Bad Batch (I don't count Resistance because without the sequels, it doesn't exist.) Filoni own stance on the sequels is positive, therefore the references to the sequels is likely intentionally. Rebels had Hera jump to hyperspace going through a docking area showing the damage and impact that a ship jumping to hyperspace can have. This episode aired prior to the Last Jedi being released. Grogu is specifically shown to have healing powers through the Force prior to that being used in Rise of Skywalker. This isn't even getting into Ezra hearing both Kylo and Rey in Rebels. The fact that there are constant references both indirect and direct to the sequels with Filoni speaking positively on the sequels is evidence that there is no current plans to retcon.

Very good points.

I admit, I did not see the connections with Force Healing (since I always assumed it to be a thing from having played various Star Wars games), but I have a better understanding by what you mean by references.

I want to be clear that I am not disregarding or dismissing any of these references, but I want to be clear that I still do not see these references as tie in to the sequels not being retconned.

These are things that can continue to exist in the greater Star Wars universe regardless of whether the Sequels exist or not. They don't depend on the Sequels staying exactly as they are in order to exist. Whether Sequel retcons happen or not, these events would still be canonical, and universal. Force Healing is still a thing, regardless of whether Rey or Kylo exist. Hyperspace damage exists, regardless of whether Holdo does or not. Ezra could literally be explained to be hearing someone else's voices. Hell, even all of these can be retconned themselves, since that's all a part of what it means to retcon.

No current plans to retcon =/= retcon being off the table and never happening.

Okay, that makes more sense to me now.

Now, that is just the evidence for Filoni. They lego special they had were both tied to the sequel era, now yes, that's meant to sell toys, but why push toys for a movie you are going to decanonize? Galaxy's Edge and their other Star Wars experiences are all set sequel era, and there been no significant move to set them elsewhere. The Stormtroopers are still First Order Troopers and not OT era Stormtroopers. So, why bother if you are going to delete it? You spent all this money, and continue to spend money on attraction set during that time. It doesn't make sense if they are planning to retcon.

I disagree with this assertion on the basis that marketting is marketting, and both the Lego Special and Galaxy's Edge are both generally going to exist outside of the canon. I watched that Lego holiday special, and I'm pretty sure Spider Darth Maul never fought Grievous, even though that's a fucking cool premise that should totally be a canonized thing.

So whether or not the Sequels get decanonized, it really doesn't matter, because they still exist as movies and merchandise. Just because Shadows of the Empire was de-canonized didn't stop them from adding the Outrider on the Galaxy's Edge logo and having 'Xizor's name for a menu item.

They can still profit off Rey, Kylo and BB8 regardless of whether it remains canonical or not. As I said earlier, retcon doesn't mean erasure.

Hell, Darth Talon isn't even canonized, and there's a shit ton of merchandise and fanbase for her.

And all this evidence is moot anyway, because there is no evidence that points to retconning at all. The Skywalker Saga finished and most of the story with those characters for that time has been told. They are going back and filling in areas where there are now gaps in the story. Pre-ANH and Post-RotJ.

It's moot because there is no such thing as evidence of a retcon. You know this, I know this, and I'm simply insulted that you still dance around this as if this is ever going to be a provable thing.

Retcons simply happen or they don't. There is no such thing as 'evidence that points to' retcons happening.

Can you legitimately provide an example where a retcon had evidence pointing to it happening before it actually happened? And that this evidence was clearly able to predict the retcon would happen? Cuz if not, I'm not sure what you're actually talking about.

Yeah, and you are the king of Pigeon Chess.

No need to fight. You're both kings of Pigeon Chess.

[Darththeo]

I disagree with this assertion on the basis that marketting is marketting, and both the Lego Special and Galazy's Edge are both generally going to exist outside of the canon. I watched that Lego holiday special, and I'm pretty sure Spider Darth Maul never fought Grievous, even though that's a fucking cool premise that should totally be a canonized thing.

So whether or not the Sequels get decanonized, it really doesn't matter, because they still exist as movies and merchandise. Just because Shadows of the Empire was de-canonized didn't stop them from adding the Outrider on the Galaxy's Edge logo and having it easter egged in the Mandalorian, or invoking 'Xizor's name for a menu item.

They can still profit off Rey, Kylo and BB8 regardless of whether it remains canonical or not. As I said earlier, retcon doesn't mean erasure.

Xizor is canon, he was referenced in a comic recently. And at least the ship model the Outrider is, is canon. It appears in A New Hope (and other sources like the Alphabet Squadron novels).

Also, Dash Rendar? He is canon too.

It's moot because there is no such thing as evidence of a retcon. You know this, I know this, and I'm simply insulted that you still dance around this as if this is ever going to be a provable thing.

Retcons simply happen or they don't. There is no such thing as 'evidence that points to' retcons happening.

Can you legitimately provide an example where a retcon had evidence pointing to it happening before it actually happened? And that this evidence was clearly able to predict the retcon would happen? Cuz if not, I'm not sure what you're actually talking about.

If we are talking smaller retcons, like Poe's backstory, no there aren't really things that would point to that. But, we aren't talking about a minor retcon, we are talking about striking something from canon all together. And the closest thing I personally know is Filoni's retcons to Barriss Offee. He made her younger (or at least appear so) than she was originally, Barriss is one year younger than Anakin in the old canon. In the original books, she had become a Jedi Healer and Filoni never showed her in that light in the Clone Wars. While this doesn't prove a retcon was coming, it would suggest that the Clone War novel with Barriss could be retconned.

Now obviously, it is a moot point, as the books are no longer canon at all.

So essentially, if something is introduce that doesn't directly retcons, but would question the continuity, we can assume a retcon could come. For example, as of right now, Grogu is not considered Luke's student, so Ben still could be Luke's first official student at his new academy. But, Grogu could accept Luke as his Master and thus be Luke's first student and it could be Ben is the first student of Luke's first class of new Jedi.

[Triceron]

So essentially, if something is introduce that doesn't directly retcons, but would question the continuity, we can assume a retcon could come. For example, as of right now, Grogu is not considered Luke's student, so Ben still could be Luke's first official student at his new academy. But, Grogu could accept Luke as his Master and thus be Luke's first student and it could be Ben is the first student of Luke's first class of new Jedi.

Here's the thing.

Imagine if I made a claim that Grogu accepting Luke (whether it happens or not) is evidence of a planned retcon of the sequels, Would you consider this as evidence that they are clearly planning to retcon the sequels?

The argument can not be supported by this evidence alone, no matter how we look at it. The show already has something introduced that doesn't directly retcons, but would question the continuity and no one in their right mind would consider that as 'clearly tying to a retcon'. The only way a retcon can be proved is when it's already happened. Otherwise even an official statement from the creators expressing their intent to do not be valid enough until it actually happens. Even if Grogu does join Luke, there are numerous ways that the story can be written without actually retconning the story of the Sequels. It isn't concrete evidence that the sequels are planned to be retconned.

Just like Solo has a scene where Han shoots first, and even the Directors/writers explictly say they believe Han shot first and stand by that perspective of the events, it won't actually be 'evidence of a plan to retcon' unless the retcon actually happens.


If I'm being very honest here, I'm really trying hard to point out that don't think this type of argument can actually be supported with evidence or proof. And I'm reading your examples, but I don't think you even regard them as being valid. The whole book explanation you gave you ended outright dismissing that it's not proof that a retcon was going to happen. All that can be done is assert that it's possible to happen, possible not to happen.

[Kithelle]

snip

I don't see why they should change her armor because of the Mos Vespa gang, with her it fit...bright colored scooters in a desert scene didn't fit

[Darththeo]

Here's the thing.

Imagine if I made a claim that Grogu accepting Luke (whether it happens or not) is evidence of a planned retcon of the sequels, Would you consider this as evidence that they are clearly planning to retcon the sequels?

No, because all the is in the Sequels is that Ben Solo was a student of Luke. Ben being Luke's First student is not directly mentioned in the story. Grogu being Luke's first student does not retcon the sequels at all. Ben is not referenced as Luke's First student, but rather Ben and twelve others were Luke's students before Ben's fall. It would be evidence that a retcon could happen in the supplementary materials of the sequels, but not the sequels themselves.

The argument can not be supported by this evidence alone, no matter how we look at it. The show already has something introduced that doesn't directly retcons, but would question the continuity and no one in their right mind would consider that as 'clearly tying to a retcon'. The only way a retcon can be proved is when it's already happened. Otherwise even an official statement from the creators expressing their intent to do not be valid enough until it actually happens. Even if Grogu does join Luke, there are numerous ways that the story can be written without actually retconning the story of the Sequels. It isn't concrete evidence that the sequels are planned to be retconned.

Except you know what you just argued while not evidence that the sequels are being retconned is evidence that some material in other stories may be retconned. So, your example disproves this argument.

Just like Solo has a scene where Han shoots first, and even the Directors/writers explictly say they believe Han shot first and stand by that perspective of the events, it won't actually be 'evidence of a plan to retcon' unless the retcon actually happens.

A minor retcon isn't likely going to be seen before it happens. We are talking retconning major events, it is still possible. The Han shot First change is minor to the story, and isn't really a retcon because the scene was directly altered.

If I'm being very honest here, I'm really trying hard to point out that don't think this type of argument can actually be supported with evidence or proof. And I'm reading your examples, but I don't think you even regard them as being valid. The whole book explanation you gave you ended outright dismissing that it's not proof that a retcon was going to happen. All that can be done is assert that it's possible to happen, possible not to happen.

Except you literally give an example where they could be retconning Ben as Luke's first Academy student. Just because you can't prove a retcon will happen is irrelevant to whether or not there can be evidence of a retcon happening. You even give an example of a potential retcon. The issue is you are arguing that that retcon could retcon the sequels, which it wouldn't.

[DingDongKing]

I absolutely love how invested people get in arguing with strangers online.

'See, Ma! I taught that dude about Star Wars! Meatloaf, ma!'

[MCMLXXXII]

So, any news about Ahsoka the last few pages or just two people doing the typical MMOC stuff? Bitching to each other page after page?

[SavoirFaire]

So, any news about Ahsoka the last few pages or just two people doing the typical MMOC stuff? Bitching to each other page after page?

You have missed nothing of value.

[Ihavewaffles]

So, any news about Ahsoka the last few pages or just two people doing the typical MMOC stuff? Bitching to each other page after page?

Last news is on...........page 3...and there are 7 pages after that just arguing..

[Ihavewaffles]

‘Ahsoka’: Ray Stevenson Joins Rosario Dawson in Latest ‘Star Wars’ Series (Exclusive)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...es-1235091736/
BY BORYS KIT - FEBRUARY 11, 2022 1:21PM

Ray Stevenson is going from sailing the oceans to sailing the spaceways.

The actor, who last appeared on History Channel’s Vikings, has joined Ahsoka, the next Star Wars live-action series gearing up to go into production at Lucasfilm and Disney+.

The series centers on fan-favorite character Ahsoka Tano, a Jedi Knight survivor popular on the animation side of Star Wars who made her live-action debut in the second season of The Mandalorian and appeared in an episode of The Book of Boba Fett.

Plot details are being kept secret, but the setup has consisted of Tano journeying from one end of the galaxy to another in search of Grand Admiral Thrawn, a former commander in the Empire.

Rosario Dawson is starring as the titular character and the cast also includes Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ukrainian actress Ivanna Sakhno and Australian thespian Natasha Liu Bordizzo. Hayden Christensen is reprising his role as Anakin Skywalker.

It is unclear who Stevenson will play, but sources say he is a villain in the series and will play an admiral … although, not Thrawn.

Ahsoka is due to begin shooting in Los Angeles at the end of April.

The move marks a return to the galaxy far, far away for Stevenson, as he voiced a character named Gar Saxon in Star Wars Rebels and The Clone Wars. The actor is known for playing Volstagg in Marvel’s Thor movies and played Blackbeard in Starz’ Black Sails pirate series.

He is repped by Gersh and Independent Talent Group.

[Polyxo]

‘Ahsoka’: Ray Stevenson Joins Rosario Dawson in Latest ‘Star Wars’ Series (Exclusive)

https://www.hollywoodreporter.com/tv...es-1235091736/
BY BORYS KIT - FEBRUARY 11, 2022 1:21PM

Ray Stevenson is going from sailing the oceans to sailing the spaceways.

The actor, who last appeared on History Channel’s Vikings, has joined Ahsoka, the next Star Wars live-action series gearing up to go into production at Lucasfilm and Disney+.

The series centers on fan-favorite character Ahsoka Tano, a Jedi Knight survivor popular on the animation side of Star Wars who made her live-action debut in the second season of The Mandalorian and appeared in an episode of The Book of Boba Fett.

Plot details are being kept secret, but the setup has consisted of Tano journeying from one end of the galaxy to another in search of Grand Admiral Thrawn, a former commander in the Empire.

Rosario Dawson is starring as the titular character and the cast also includes Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Ukrainian actress Ivanna Sakhno and Australian thespian Natasha Liu Bordizzo. Hayden Christensen is reprising his role as Anakin Skywalker.

It is unclear who Stevenson will play, but sources say he is a villain in the series and will play an admiral … although, not Thrawn.

Ahsoka is due to begin shooting in Los Angeles at the end of April.

The move marks a return to the galaxy far, far away for Stevenson, as he voiced a character named Gar Saxon in Star Wars Rebels and The Clone Wars. The actor is known for playing Volstagg in Marvel’s Thor movies and played Blackbeard in Starz’ Black Sails pirate series.

He is repped by Gersh and Independent Talent Group.

That Bordizzo actress has gotta be Doctor Aphra