It looks like a key Star Wars event mentioned in Rebels will be shown in Andor season 2
When you buy through links on our articles, Future and its syndication partners may earn a commission.
A new look at Andor season 2 has been released on Disney Plus, and it seems to show a seismic moment on the Star Wars timeline.
In the featurette, which is available on the streamer now and is titled Andor Season 2: A Special Look, we see protestors identified by the subtitles as Ghorman. We then see the Imperial Dedra, who coldly orders "proceed." It certainly looks as if this is the infamous Ghorman Massacre, which is a massive turning point for Mon Mothma and the Rebellion.
The Ghorman Massacre, as the name suggests, saw protestors slaughtered by stormtroopers. In the aftermath, Mon Mothma made a strident speech against the Emperor, condemning him as a "lying executioner" – this moment is seen in Star Wars Rebels season 3, episode 18, and, later in the episode, Mon Mothma resigns from the Senate and helps to unite the Rebellion.
The Mon Mothma of Andor season 1 was far more cautious, but by Rogue One, she's spearheading the Rebellion. That means it's likely we'll see her transformation from Senator to rebel leader in Andor season 2, culminating with the Ghorman Massacre.
This might not be the only moment of crossover with Star Wars Rebels, either. The first trailer for Andor season 2 appears to show Lothal, which is Ezra Bridger's home planet.
We don't have long to wait for Andor – the new season lands on Disney Plus this April 23, with three new episodes arriving a week.
While you wait, check out our guide to all the upcoming Star Wars movies and shows for everything else the galaxy far, far away has in store.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Entrepreneur
35 minutes ago
- Entrepreneur
Disney, Universal Sue AI Startup Midjourney: 'Plagiarism'
The complaint alleges that Midjourney copied characters from the movie studios, including Darth Vader and Homer Simpson. Disney and Universal have brought the first major AI copyright lawsuit in Hollywood against AI image-generating startup Midjourney. In a 110-page complaint filed in U.S. District Court in Los Angeles on Wednesday, Disney and Universal accuse Midjourney of copying famous characters from their copyrighted works. The movie studios state that they have sent "cease and desist" letters to Midjourney's counsel to ask the startup to stop generating material featuring characters developed by the studios. Midjourney has allegedly disregarded their requests. "Midjourney, which has attracted millions of subscribers and made $300 million last year alone, is focused on its own bottom line," Disney and Universal allege. Related: A 74-Year-Old Needed a Lawyer, So He Used an AI Avatar in Court. It Didn't Go Well. Some of Disney's copyrighted characters include Darth Vader from "Star Wars," Elsa from "Frozen," and Homer Simpson from "The Simpsons," while characters from Universal include minions from "Despicable Me," Po from "Kung Fu Panda," and Hiccup from "How to Train Your Dragon." According to the lawsuit, only Disney and Universal are allowed to commercialize these characters and build a business around them. However, Midjourney has allegedly allowed its subscribers to generate images of characters like Darth Vader in violation of copyright laws. Disney and Universal included multiple examples in the complaint of AI-generated images from Midjourney featuring characters from "Cars," "Shrek," and other movies. Disney and Universal are asking for a jury trial, calling Midjourney's actions "textbook copyright infringement" and stating that the AI startup "threatens to upend the bedrock incentives of U.S. copyright law." "Midjourney is the quintessential copyright-free-rider and a bottomless pit of plagiarism," Disney and Universal allege. Related: New York Lawyer Uses ChatGPT to Create Legal Brief, Cites 6 'Bogus' Cases: 'The Court Is Presented With an Unprecedented Circumstance' Midjourney is a text-to-image AI generator that churns out images in seconds based on user prompts. It sells monthly subscriptions ranging from $10 per month for a basic plan to $120 per month for a mega subscription. The startup was founded in 2021 and has since generated $50 million in revenue in 2022 and $300 million in revenue in 2024. Midjourney notes on its website that it is "a small self-funded team" with "11 full-time staff." While Disney and Universal's lawsuit against Midjourney represents the first major Hollywood lawsuit against an AI startup, another groundbreaking AI case was filed last week. Reddit became the first major tech company to sue an AI startup, alleging in the complaint that the $61.5 billion startup Anthropic used the site for training data without permission. AI copyright cases can get expensive, too. Getty Images CEO Craig Peters said last month that Getty has spent millions of dollars in a years-long legal fight with AI image generator Stability AI. Getty alleged that Stability AI illegally scraped more than 12 million copyright-protected media from its site to train its AI image generator. Getty launched the suit in January 2023; the case is set for an initial trial on June 9.
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hollywood enters AI scraping wars with new lawsuit from Disney and NBCUniversal
Disney (DIS) and NBCUniversal sued an artificial intelligence developer for allegedly infringing on their protected works, the first Hollywood corporate titans to join a mushrooming legal war pitting copyright holders against AI upstarts training their models with data scraped from the internet. In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in a Los Angeles Federal District Court, Disney and NBCUniversal said that AI image-creating platform Midjourney pirated images without authorization. Midjourney obtained copies of Disney's Star Wars, Minions, and other characters through unauthorized libraries containing works from two Hollywood studios, according to the complaint. Its software allows people to create images from the companies' popular fictional characters, the suit said. The companies included AI-generated images of characters ranging from Darth Vader and Buzz Lightyear to the Minions and Spider-Man. 'Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing,' Disney said in its complaint. Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company is defending itself in another federal case in California brought by artists who allege Midjourney illegally trained its AI image generation models on their copyrighted works. The latest confrontation expands the number of high-profile cases from copyright holders seeking to guard their works from the reach of technology firms. A question at the heart of all these lawsuits: Can artificial intelligence companies use copyrighted material to train generative AI models without asking the owner of that data for permission? Another such clash came earlier this week when social media site Reddit (RDDT) sued AI startup Anthropic ( a company backed by tech giants Amazon (AMZN) and Google (GOOG, GOOGL) that created the AI language model Claude. Reddit is claiming in the new lawsuit that Anthropic intentionally scraped Reddit users' personal data without their consent and then put their data to work training Claude. Reddit said in its complaint that Anthropic "bills itself as the white knight of the AI industry" and argues that "it is anything but." Anthropic said last year that it had blocked its bots from Reddit's website, according to the complaint. But Reddit said Anthropic 'continued to hit Reddit's servers over one hundred thousand times.' An Anthropic spokesperson said, "We disagree with Reddit's claims and will defend ourselves vigorously." Anthropic is also defending itself against a separate suit from music publishers, including Universal Music Group (0VD.F), ABKCO, and Concord, alleging that Anthropic infringed on copyrights for Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, and other artists as it trained Claude on lyrics to more than 500 songs. Courts haven't settled on a definitive answer to the question of whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted material to train generative AI models without permission. However, last February, the US District Court for Delaware handed copyright holder Thomson Reuters a win in a case that could impact what data training models can legally collect. The court granted Thomson Reuters' request for summary judgment, saying that its competitor, Ross, infringed on its copyrights by using lawsuit summaries to train its AI model. The court rejected Ross's argument that it could use the summaries under the concept of fair use, which allows copyrights to be used for news reporting, teaching, research, criticism, and commentary. One big name featuring prominently in some of these clashes is OpenAI ( the creator of chatbot ChatGPT that is run by Sam Altman and backed by Microsoft (MSFT). Comedian Sarah Silverman has accused the companies in a lawsuit of copying material from her book and 7 million pirated works in order to train its AI systems. Parenting website Mumsnet has also accused OpenAI of scraping its six-billion-word database without consent. But perhaps the most prominent case targeting OpenAI is from the New York Times (NYT), which in 2023 filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of illegally using millions of the news outlet's published stories to train OpenAI's language models. The newspaper has said that ChatGPT at times generates query answers that closely mirror its original publications. Last week, OpenAI called the lawsuit "baseless" and appealed a judge's recent order in that case requiring the AI developer to preserve 'output data' generated by ChatGPT. OpenAI and Microsoft are using a defense similar to those raised in other AI training copyright disputes: that the Times' publicly available content falls under the fair use doctrine and, therefore, can be used to train its models. Getty Images is trying to chip away at that same argument in lawsuits in the US and United Kingdom filed in 2023 against AI image generation startup Stability. The UK case went to trial on Monday. Stability argues that fair use (or "fair dealing" as it's known in the UK) justified training its technology, Stable Diffusion, on copyrighted Getty material. That same defense has hallmarks of justification that Google has been asserting for the past two decades to fight lawsuits claiming it violated copyright laws when pulling information into results for users' search queries. In 2005, the Authors Guild sued Google over millions of books that the tech giant scanned and made available in 'snippets' to online searchers. Google didn't pay for the copyrighted information but did provide word-for-word pieces of the copyrighted works in search results. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reasoned in a decision that Google's scanning project tested the limits of fair use but was 'transformative' and therefore protected under fair use law. In 2016, Getty Images sued Google over similar claims, alleging that Google violated its copyrights and antitrust law by displaying Getty's high-resolution images in Google search results. Error while retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data Error while retrieving data
Yahoo
an hour ago
- Yahoo
Hollywood enters AI scraping wars with new lawsuit from Disney and NBCUniversal
Disney (DIS) and NBCUniversal sued an artificial intelligence developer for allegedly infringing on their protected works, the first Hollywood corporate titans to join a mushrooming legal war pitting copyright holders against AI upstarts training their models with data scraped from the internet. In a lawsuit filed on Wednesday in a Los Angeles Federal District Court, Disney and NBCUniversal said that AI image-creating platform Midjourney pirated images without authorization. Midjourney obtained copies of Disney's Star Wars, Minions, and other characters through unauthorized libraries containing works from two Hollywood studios, according to the complaint. Its software allows people to create images from the companies' popular fictional characters, the suit said. The companies included AI-generated images of characters ranging from Darth Vader and Buzz Lightyear to the Minions and Spider-Man. 'Piracy is piracy, and whether an infringing image or video is made with AI or another technology does not make it any less infringing,' Disney said in its complaint. Midjourney did not immediately respond to a request for comment. The company is defending itself in another federal case in California brought by artists who allege Midjourney illegally trained its AI image generation models on their copyrighted works. The latest confrontation expands the number of high-profile cases from copyright holders seeking to guard their works from the reach of technology firms. A question at the heart of all these lawsuits: Can artificial intelligence companies use copyrighted material to train generative AI models without asking the owner of that data for permission? Another such clash came earlier this week when social media site Reddit (RDDT) sued AI startup Anthropic ( a company backed by tech giants Amazon (AMZN) and Google (GOOG, GOOGL) that created the AI language model Claude. Reddit is claiming in the new lawsuit that Anthropic intentionally scraped Reddit users' personal data without their consent and then put their data to work training Claude. Reddit said in its complaint that Anthropic "bills itself as the white knight of the AI industry" and argues that "it is anything but." Anthropic said last year that it had blocked its bots from Reddit's website, according to the complaint. But Reddit said Anthropic 'continued to hit Reddit's servers over one hundred thousand times.' An Anthropic spokesperson said, "We disagree with Reddit's claims and will defend ourselves vigorously." Anthropic is also defending itself against a separate suit from music publishers, including Universal Music Group (0VD.F), ABKCO, and Concord, alleging that Anthropic infringed on copyrights for Beyoncé, the Rolling Stones, and other artists as it trained Claude on lyrics to more than 500 songs. Courts haven't settled on a definitive answer to the question of whether artificial intelligence companies can use copyrighted material to train generative AI models without permission. However, last February, the US District Court for Delaware handed copyright holder Thomson Reuters a win in a case that could impact what data training models can legally collect. The court granted Thomson Reuters' request for summary judgment, saying that its competitor, Ross, infringed on its copyrights by using lawsuit summaries to train its AI model. The court rejected Ross's argument that it could use the summaries under the concept of fair use, which allows copyrights to be used for news reporting, teaching, research, criticism, and commentary. One big name featuring prominently in some of these clashes is OpenAI ( the creator of chatbot ChatGPT that is run by Sam Altman and backed by Microsoft (MSFT). Comedian Sarah Silverman has accused the companies in a lawsuit of copying material from her book and 7 million pirated works in order to train its AI systems. Parenting website Mumsnet has also accused OpenAI of scraping its six-billion-word database without consent. But perhaps the most prominent case targeting OpenAI is from the New York Times (NYT), which in 2023 filed a lawsuit accusing OpenAI and Microsoft of illegally using millions of the news outlet's published stories to train OpenAI's language models. The newspaper has said that ChatGPT at times generates query answers that closely mirror its original publications. Last week, OpenAI called the lawsuit "baseless" and appealed a judge's recent order in that case requiring the AI developer to preserve 'output data' generated by ChatGPT. OpenAI and Microsoft are using a defense similar to those raised in other AI training copyright disputes: that the Times' publicly available content falls under the fair use doctrine and, therefore, can be used to train its models. Getty Images is trying to chip away at that same argument in lawsuits in the US and United Kingdom filed in 2023 against AI image generation startup Stability. The UK case went to trial on Monday. Stability argues that fair use (or "fair dealing" as it's known in the UK) justified training its technology, Stable Diffusion, on copyrighted Getty material. That same defense has hallmarks of justification that Google has been asserting for the past two decades to fight lawsuits claiming it violated copyright laws when pulling information into results for users' search queries. In 2005, the Authors Guild sued Google over millions of books that the tech giant scanned and made available in 'snippets' to online searchers. Google didn't pay for the copyrighted information but did provide word-for-word pieces of the copyrighted works in search results. The US Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit reasoned in a decision that Google's scanning project tested the limits of fair use but was 'transformative' and therefore protected under fair use law. In 2016, Getty Images sued Google over similar claims, alleging that Google violated its copyrights and antitrust law by displaying Getty's high-resolution images in Google search results. Error in retrieving data Sign in to access your portfolio Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data Error in retrieving data
