The Mandalorian - a general discussion thread - * SPOILERS * — Page 68

Vladius said:

Why? Why do we have to accept it?

You don’t have to, but I’m sure Disney would like other people to.

Why would it divide the fandom further?

Because there are people out there who actually like the sequels (believe it or not), and Disney suddenly saying “that never happened lol” would majorly piss them off. That’s exactly what happened with TFA going out of its way to shit on the prequels, and I doubt Disney wants to repeat that mistake.

What is wrong with dividing the fandom?

Disney wants money. Fans give Disney money. If Disney pisses fans off, they stop giving Disney money. I could not make this more simple.

Why is it better to salvage something?

Because then the people who still like at least a bit of the sequels will become much more pleased with the franchise as a whole, and the people who unconditionally love the sequels will just be pleased to have that story expanded on. Again, when this strategy was applied to the prequels via the Clone Wars show, it was received much more positively than “just pretend it didn’t happen” was for TFA.

Why is it possible to salvage anything?

Again, it may not be possible for you, but there are plenty of people out there who see at least a few redeeming qualities in the sequels’ story. If Disney can expound on those mostly-liked elements, while rationalizing the bits that pissed fans off, I think the sequels can be redeemed in the fandom’s eyes.

Why are they “the main saga?”

Because Disney branded them as such, and contradicting your own branding is almost never a good idea.

In a nutshell, it feels like you’re seeing this from a subjective, opinion-based point of view, while a corporation like Disney will go with what’s most economically sound. And from what I see, attempting to redeem the sequel trilogy is the most economically sound direction to take the franchise. No matter how you feel about the sequels, they will always be part of Disney’s canon.

The prequels had story, but lacked characters. The sequels had neither. That is why they are objectively the worst trilogy.

Anjohan said:

The prequels had story, but lacked characters. The sequels had neither. That is why they are objectively the worst trilogy.

Huh? Literally no part of that makes any sense. Both trilogies had story and characters, whether good or bad, and “objectivity” can only rarely be applied to art (and certainly not here).

And again, this is not about your personal feelings regarding the sequel trilogy, it’s about what makes the most economic sense for Disney to do. I have plenty of issues with the sequels, don’t get me wrong, but box office numbers don’t care about your feelings.

godfrey reggio’s star wars

NFBisms said:

godfrey reggio’s star wars

I would kill for that, to be honest. Just a bunch of candid documentary footage of people walking around Galaxy’s Edge at Disneyland, with trippy atmospheric music in the background. It’s the only thing that can save this franchise.

StarkillerAG said:

Anjohan said:

The prequels had story, but lacked characters. The sequels had neither. That is why they are objectively the worst trilogy.

Huh? Literally no part of that makes any sense. Both trilogies had story and characters, whether good or bad, and “objectivity” can only rarely be applied to art (and certainly not here).

And again, this is not about your personal feelings regarding the sequel trilogy, it’s about what makes the most economic sense for Disney to do. I have plenty of issues with the sequels, don’t get me wrong, but box office numbers don’t care about your feelings.

The prequels prevailed in it’s story but lacked in it’s depth of the characters. But the films built and complimented on one another, and had a clear vision for the audience to see. Therefore, they succeeded as a trilogy. The Sequels lacked in all structural departments, and crumbled in on itself with director’s fighting eachother’s vision and disregarding eachother’s structural development of the story. Even the character’s changed and/or lost character traits from one film to another, some even so much that they went from a defined, serious character to a comedy character or even main character to sidekick.

If I build a bike that doesn’t work, but it’s funny to ride it because it looks funny and entertains people, then it’s still a bad bike whether people find it entertaining or not. But it will always objectively be a bad bike that failed in its execution.

As a trilogy, The Sequels are objectively bad. But they might be subjectively good individual pieces of cinema. In other words, you can like the films both as a trilogy as well as individual film(s), but they’re failed installments in a trilogy structure with a beginning, middle and end that builds and compliments on one another. Objectively badly structured, subjectively good and/or bad as individual films (in an objectively badly executed TRILOGY).

The word “objectively” in film criticism is baffling. People do realize story and character tropes that we call “good writing” are designed strictly to evoke emotional reactions out of people? “Good” depends on whether it evoked the intended emotion (or should I say, what the audience feels like is the intended emotion). And emotional reactions are subjective. The very nature of judging film is subjective.

Also, different filmmaking aspects are weighed differently by different people. It’s up to the individual person the ratio for which cinematography, character development, music, pacing, plotting, etc. hold value in their critique. One person could value character development as 50% of their entire critique, or 20%. And so on.

The only way you can use “objectively” in film criticism is if you’re describing what straight up does and doesn’t happen. Like, someone would be objectively wrong to say Darth Vader never sits down in the OT.

BedeHistory731 said:

Saying “Objectively bad” immediately discredits any criticisms, IMHO. Especially since “objectively bad” is such a thoroughly reactionary thing to say.

Perhaps. Perhaps not. Perhaps objectivity is just as subjective as everything else now. It’s 2023 after all, and opinions are far more important than facts. I suppose a broken radio would still be considered subjectivly a good radio these days, if enough people put their minds to it.

Either way, if you analyze what I wrote one more time I think you will understand my arguement better. I might be wrong, but I think it’s a great arguement for why I think I’m right. So there’s that.

G&G-Fan said:

The word “objectively” in film criticism is baffling. People do realize story and character tropes that we call “good writing” are designed strictly to evoke emotional reactions out of people? “Good” dependents on whether it evoked the right emotional reaction out of people. And emotional reactions are subjective. The very nature of judging film is subjective.

The only way you can use “objectively” in film criticism is if you’re describing what straight up does and doesn’t happen. Like, someone would be objectively wrong to say Darth Vader never sits down in the OT.

No, I agree as much as I disagree here. I still go back to my metaphor: If a bike is not built properly and therefore not working as a bike, but it gives some people amusement, is it subjectivly a good bike or objectively a bad bike? In essence, it’s not OBJECTIVELY working as a bike, but it works subjectively for some as entertainment or fun.

I’m not disregarding opinion, I’m questioning if the trilogy is structurally flawed in it’s connective tissue in a subjective versus factual manner.

Definition of a trilogy:

A trilogy is a set of three distinct works that are connected

Objectively the three films are connected AND disconnected, as they also work AGAINST eachother’s established characters, plot developments and future goals; making one to the other redundant or outright breaking the connection with the previous in many aspects of the “connective” tissue. A case could be made for both I suppose, because you could argue that they are “connected because they have the same characters in them and they share similar ideas”. But if the film trilogy also break with its own connected material and fights itself in its overall execution, does that not also go against the connection established and built? Rendering most of it, if not all, completely useless as a trilogy built on connection - CONNECTING WITH EACHOTHER, when they are in fact, in many regards, fighting eachother (just like it’s director’s differing views and execution)? But as of now, tired as fuck as I am (4 am here), I will stand by this. Perhaps I’m overthinking. Perhaps I’m underthinking it. Perhaps I just wanted some action before I went to bed. Who knows? I might be a Sith Lord after all. Or the Jedi to save Grogu.

Either way, may the force be with Disney because they need it more than us.

Good night ❤️

Channel72 said:

Surprisingly, I think Darth Vader never sits down in Return of the Jedi. Objectively.

WRONG! If you watch the deleted scenes, he CLEARLY sits down right after arriving on the Death Star in order to contact Luke and persuade him to join the dark side. You utter imbecile. You should be ashamed of yourself. 😉

StarkillerAG said:

Channel72 said:

Surprisingly, I think Darth Vader never sits down in Return of the Jedi. Objectively.

WRONG! If you watch the deleted scenes, he CLEARLY sits down right after arriving on the Death Star in order to contact Luke and persuade him to join the dark side. You utter imbecile. You should be ashamed of yourself. 😉

You’re right.

I guess the only time he sits in ANH is in the TIE Fighter? I’m pretty sure he always stands in the conference room

Ugh… that was a very dull season finale.

DZ-330 said:

Ugh… that was a very dull season finale.

I agree. It was underwhelming, a bit of let down given the build up of last week and potential from it.

The whole season has been that too and, as it stands, I don’t think I’ll be tuning in to season 4 of this. Which is something I never thought I’d say before season 3 started.

Oh dear.

I completely agree with you, WitchDR. Perfectly illustrated points.

Just for my own personal analysis of what Star Wars Disney has given me these last years and what they’ve made me feel besides anger was Luke’s return in the Season 2 finale of The Mandalorian and Han’s death in The Force Awakens. The other instances were Leia’s death in a fanedit by, I think, Spencer. And Hal9000’s Force Ghosts at the end of his edit. The reason I’m saying this is that I find it totally and utterly crazy that the only time Disney Star Wars has hit me in the feels is two times in eight years. The other times has been through f*kin’ fanedits due to Disney’s bad execution of their own story points and the emotional weight of them.

They surely lack the bridge between their own vision of what Star Wars is and should be and the fans’s, when they can’t stick a landing for the life of them. It’s a complete and utter mess.

They had ONE good live-action property that the masses care(d) about - ONE! And it was The Mandalorian. They messed up everything else! Everything! Now their viewerships numbers are in the bin compared to the last two seasons, and The Mandalorian is a redundant sidekick of a mess in his own series.