For fans, the question of whether Oscar Isaac would ever return to the cockpit of his X-wing as Resistance fighter Poe Dameron has been a lingering uncertainty since the sequel trilogy concluded. Yet, the answer, as revealed in a stark November 2025 interview with GQ magazine, now hinges not on scheduling or salary, but on the corporate conscience of the entertainment giant that owns the galaxy far, far away. In a stunningly candid moment, Isaac declared he was “not so open to working with Disney” unless the company could figure out how to “not succumb to fascism.” This wasn’t merely a throwaway protest; it was a direct, pointed response to Disney’s recent, controversial suspension of late-night host Jimmy Kimmel over political commentary, elevating the simple question of a franchise return into a profound debate over corporate courage, creative freedom, and the moral cost of silence in a hyper-politicized Hollywood.
The Catalyst: Kimmel’s Suspension and Corporate Backlash
The specific incident that catalyzed Isaac’s fiery condemnation was the swift, widely criticized decision by the Disney-owned ABC network to temporarily suspend Jimmy Kimmel Live! in September 2025. The suspension followed Kimmel’s on-air comments regarding the political response to the murder of conservative activist Charlie Kirk, with the comedian being accused of making light of a sensitive event. The move was immediately interpreted by many Hollywood figures, including Isaac, as a corporate capitulation to political pressure from right-wing media and activist groups.
For the creative community, Disney’s action was seen as an infringement on freedom of speech and a betrayal of the talent they employ, suggesting the studio prioritizes avoiding controversy over protecting its artists. Isaac’s decision to use the term “fascism”—a hyperbolic, yet potent, metaphor—was a direct way of signaling the severity of his disappointment. It was his way of describing a scenario where a massive corporation, through fear of economic or political backlash, allows external forces to dictate what can and cannot be said by its employees, creating a culture of oppressive conformity.
From Paycheck to Principle: The Evolution of Isaac’s Stance
Isaac’s current conditional stance represents a significant evolution from his previous, famously dismissive comments about the Star Wars franchise. Following the completion of the sequel trilogy in 2019, the actor had often joked about his involvement, once flippantly suggesting he would only return as Poe Dameron “if I need another house or something.” This quote, which he recently described with self-awareness as a “slightly d—–h thing,” reflected the artistic tension many respected actors feel when moving from indie cinema to the monolithic machinery of a blockbuster franchise.
However, his position had been softening. Just months before the GQ interview, Isaac had told Variety he was “open to it” if there was a compelling narrative reason to revisit the character. His new condition, therefore, shifts the focus entirely from personal profit or narrative quality to corporate morality. He is demanding that the studio he works for demonstrates a fundamental ethical alignment, arguing that the protection of art and intellectual freedom is non-negotiable. He now frames his potential return as an act of solidarity, contingent on the studio proving it is willing to “figure it out” and defend its creative integrity.
The Crossroads of Art and Empire
Isaac’s critique resonates with a broader anxiety currently running through Hollywood: the fear that mega-studios, through aggressive consolidation and sensitivity to political risk, are becoming the very establishment that anti-establishment art is supposed to fight. As the voice of a morally conscious Resistance leader in Star Wars, Isaac is effectively turning the lens of his fictional role inward, challenging the real-world empire that owns his character.
His point aligns with the classic dilemma of artists working for massive corporations: how do you maintain a sense of creative edge, curiosity, and even “danger in art”—qualities Isaac values highly—when the corporate machinery demands safety, predictability, and maximal profit protection? His comment suggests that once a studio begins making decisions out of political fear rather than artistic conviction, it risks suppressing the very voices and challenging content that lead to innovation and relevance. For a studio whose most successful output often features heroes fighting overwhelming, authoritarian forces, Isaac’s metaphorical warning struck a deeply hypocritical chord.
The Ripples Through the Disney Galaxy
The impact of Isaac’s public ultimatum extends far beyond the Star Wars sequel trilogy. The actor has a continuing relationship with Disney through the Marvel Cinematic Universe, having starred as the titular character in the 2022 Disney+ original series, Moon Knight. While his commitments to Marvel projects were not explicitly mentioned in the GQ interview, the broad statement about being “not so open to working with Disney” casts a shadow over any future involvement in the MCU as well.
Furthermore, his comments emboldened other creative figures. Several prominent actors and colleagues, including Mark Hamill (Luke Skywalker), Pedro Pascal (The Mandalorian), and Mark Ruffalo (Hulk), had already publicly expressed support for Kimmel and criticized Disney’s initial handling of the suspension. Isaac’s bold language provided a rallying cry, forcing Disney to contend with the fact that their corporate governance decisions are now being measured against the personal and political principles of their most valuable on-screen talent. For Lucasfilm, whose plans include a return for Rey (Daisy Ridley) in the New Jedi Order film, the question of whether to bring back Poe Dameron now carries complex political baggage.
The Final Condition: A Test of Corporate Courage
The ultimate significance of Oscar Isaac’s statement lies in its conditionality. He is not slamming the door permanently, but rather handing the keys to his future involvement back to the studio, essentially saying: prove you deserve the talent you employ. His willingness to return to a massive, lucrative franchise like Star Wars—a possibility he explicitly acknowledged—is now bound by an ethical contract.
Isaac has set a high bar, using language that forces the public and the studio to confront the core values of the company. It serves as a stark reminder that in an age of corporate giants, the struggle for artistic independence often relies on individual artists refusing to compromise their principles. For Disney, a company notoriously protective of its wholesome image, Isaac’s “not succumb to fascism” is a profound public challenge that requires more than a simple apology; it demands a fundamental demonstration of corporate courage in the face of the next inevitable political storm.
