Sign In

The Mandalorian Discussion Thread - * SPOILERS * — Page 20

Author
Time
 (Edited)

The way I see it, the Mandalorian is a mature story. Not insanely original, but neither is Empire. The characters in the Mandalorian all have reasonable motivations… Cara is good but still cares about surviving, the Guild Leader (blanking on name) is only interested in the money. The bandits in Chapter Six act that way because yes, there are people who act like that and they exist in the Star Wars universe. We see them in the Cantina in ANH. If you were expecting them to be sympathetic, that falls down on one’s personal expectations.

But moving forward, I’d say the Mandalorian is more morally complicated than Empire. Because Empire isn’t as nuanced as you claim. The heroes start good and end good. The villains are bad and end bad, with Vader the sole exception. But you can’t pull off a twist like that multiple times, and still for the purposes of the movie Vader was bad from start to finish. It’s not like he suddenly reveals he an undercover agent which makes us question the conflict.

The Mandalorian actually starts bad and has a redemption story right there. Is it wildly new? No. But it’s far more mature a story than Empire’s “good guys run from bad guys, and learn that fighting isn’t always a good idea”.

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

OutboundFlight said:

The way I see it, the Mandalorian is a mature story. Not insanely original, but neither is Empire. The characters in the Mandalorian all have reasonable motivations… Cara is good but still cares about surviving, the Guild Leader (blanking on name) is only interested in the money. The bandits in Chapter Six act that way because yes, there are people who act like that and they exist in the Star Wars universe. We see them in the Cantina in ANH. If you were expecting them to be sympathetic, that falls down on one’s personal expectations.

But moving forward, I’d say the Mandalorian is more morally complicated than Empire. Because Empire isn’t as nuanced as you claim. The heroes start good and end good. The villains are bad and end bad, with Vader the sole exception. But you can’t pull off a twist like that multiple times, and still for the purposes of the movie Vader was bad from start to finish. It’s not like he suddenly reveals he an undercover agent which makes us question the conflict.

The Mandalorian actually starts bad and has a redemption story right there. Is it wildly new? No. But it’s far more mature a story than Empire’s “good guys run from bad guys, and learn that fighting isn’t always a good idea”.

I get the feeling that you don’t really like Empire. I don’t think Empire is as dumb and simplistic as you claim, but I agree that Mando is a very nuanced show.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think it’s as morally complicated as Empire, but that’s almost besides the point.

And I wasn’t who compared it to Empire first. xP

This is all just my opinion. A very nitpicky one at that. I like the show, and I’m sure it’ll get better, but I don’t really think it earns its hype right now. Believe it or not, I actually agree with everything you’re saying about Din, Cara, Greef, Herzog. But what I’m saying exactly is that the show leaves all of that as subtext 90% of the time. Stuff like that should be what the show is about. It’s why I actually like episodes 2 and 4 a lot, which seemed unpopular with people for being “filler.” They’re actually about the characters in it, have anything to portray about the world beyond the surface.

I think it’s morally confused more than anything. It’s only mature in concept, not execution. It’s a shallow kids version of the story you’ve outlined. That’s what I’m saying. He becomes good because Baby and he was once Baby. That’s the extent of the exploration this season. They didn’t explore anything more when they had ample opportunity to synthesize it with parallels to the young Calican, revisiting his old comrades, or in the action itself, etc.

Like not to get hypothetical, but maybe he could’ve seen all the different places his chosen path would have brought him, tragically put in the ground for his ambitions, or surrounded by terrible people he can’t identify with anymore (eps 5/6). This life of violence he basically worships leading him away from human connection he might have wanted (ep 4). None of that is actually in the show outside of me just pulling that analysis out of my ass just now. But imagine if that was what the episodes were rather than just homaging crime tropes. As it stands, Calican was dispatched coldly with no remorse from the storytelling, but the mercenaries all get to live for some reason. The Mando expresses nothing about any of this.

Cara is a fun interesting character, but her being a rebel is an easy way to make her sympathetic. Kuill/IG are the most interesting characters but even that has the element of “good because programming.”

It’s not a mature handling of what is an inherently mature premise is what I’m saying. It wants to stay as morally black/white as possible while still being an anti-hero narrative. You can’t have your cake and eat it too is where I’m at with it.

StarkillerAG said:

I don’t see how the show “talks down” to anyone. It doesn’t include violence for the sake of violence, all the adult stuff in the show has been portrayed very tastefully.

I don’t think the magnitude of violence itself has anything to do with what I’m saying, really. I don’t mind it, and whether or not it’s done tastefully is besides the point. (it’s not violent imo) But think of it like this. It’s like if you made a crime movie for kids. What would that entail? The premise is inherently tied to, well, crime. You can sanitize the violence all you want but thematically it can’t be the same as a normal crime film. The Godfather but the family goes straight? The Mandalorian is at its best when it commits, which it doesn’t so that it can be “enjoyed by everyone.”

But I’m gonna stop now tho. Just remember, I’m not attacking the show! I like it! I wish it were better! It’s good! Not great!

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I understand your point of view, but I personally don’t agree with it. It seems like you had unreasonably high expectations for the show, and when it wasn’t as great as you thought it would be you were disappointed. I was pleasantly surprised by the show, because I was expecting it to just be a dumb action show about a Boba Fett ripoff. So I was really pleased with what we ended up getting.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time

I totally get what you’re saying, NFB. The way the show treats the young bounty hunter vs the old crew is a really good example of that. The show goes out of their way to show that Mando didn’t kill any of these people who are clearly bad people, but Mando shoots Calican dead with little reaction, despite Calican being more sympathetic than any of the old crew. Calican wasn’t anymore deserving of death for betraying Mando because the old crew betrayed Mando too. Obviously this isn’t stuff that breaks the show, but I think from a writing perspective the show is still finding its footing. Being critical of the show isn’t saying it’s a bad show, though.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

StarkillerAG said:

OutboundFlight said:

The way I see it, the Mandalorian is a mature story. Not insanely original, but neither is Empire. The characters in the Mandalorian all have reasonable motivations… Cara is good but still cares about surviving, the Guild Leader (blanking on name) is only interested in the money. The bandits in Chapter Six act that way because yes, there are people who act like that and they exist in the Star Wars universe. We see them in the Cantina in ANH. If you were expecting them to be sympathetic, that falls down on one’s personal expectations.

But moving forward, I’d say the Mandalorian is more morally complicated than Empire. Because Empire isn’t as nuanced as you claim. The heroes start good and end good. The villains are bad and end bad, with Vader the sole exception. But you can’t pull off a twist like that multiple times, and still for the purposes of the movie Vader was bad from start to finish. It’s not like he suddenly reveals he an undercover agent which makes us question the conflict.

The Mandalorian actually starts bad and has a redemption story right there. Is it wildly new? No. But it’s far more mature a story than Empire’s “good guys run from bad guys, and learn that fighting isn’t always a good idea”.

I get the feeling that you don’t really like Empire. I don’t think Empire is as dumb and simplistic as you claim, but I agree that Mando is a very nuanced show.

It’s not that I think Empire is bad. It’s that I feel a lot of people put it on this pedestal but when we break it down it’s really not that amazing. It is trying to be a blockbuster and it succeeds flawlessly. For its time, a blockbuster with the heroes losing was unheard of. For that plus great effects, dialogue, and fun yet smart storytelling, it gets a 10/10.

But I see 10/10’s more like what is it trying to do and how well it succeeds in that. So I would consider 1917, my favorite movie of the past year, “better” than Empire… but it’s wrong to compare them because they are trying such different things. Empire is trying to get you to have fun, plain and simple, and that’s fine. It succeeds wonderfully. It is just something I would not call “nuanced” like so many are nowadays. It isn’t the greatest movie of all time.

That all being said… is it still a blast? Yes! For its franchise and time period is it subversive? Yes! Would I watch this movie if it were playing on a random channel? Yes!

Maul- A Star Wars Story

Author
Time

Neither here nor there, but Empire is a much better and more nuanced film than 1917 (a movie I think is great, by the way).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I’d personally be fine with all future SW shows, both live action and animated, being Filoni-esque.

I wouldn’t. This show’s lowest points are the ones Filoni directed and wrote. The highest points are the ones he has the least involvement with.

“Filoni-esque” doesn’t really mean much, either, since the only real identifiable hallmarks of Filoni’s storytelling are, as stated by his biggest fans:

George Lucas talked to him a lot.
He likes Princess Mononoke.

Filoni’s status seems to be less earned than it is an easy substitution exercise: All the ways fans used to unfairly deify Lucas as a storyteller supreme are just being mapped onto Filoni now because George Lucas handpicked him.

The thing Filoni has most in common with Lucas is that his storytelling instincts are sound but his execution is lacking and he’s probably better off being “The Story Group” than he is actually involving himself in directing or writing.

Author
Time

I personally don’t think Filoni is being “deified”. Clone Wars and Rebels brought in some of the most interesting aspects of current Star Wars canon, like Mortis and the World Between Worlds. And it’s not like he’s a bad writer, either. His depiction of the Clone Wars was really morally interesting, with rebellious clones and unsympathetic Jedi. You’re free to not like him, but I personally love his vision for the Star Wars universe.

My preferred saga experience:
TPM/AOTC/ROTS (Hal 9000 edits), ANH/ESB/ROTJ (Despecialized), The Mandalorian.
May the midichlorians be with you.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

I’d personally be fine with all future SW shows, both live action and animated, being Filoni-esque.

I wouldn’t. This show’s lowest points are the ones Filoni directed and wrote. The highest points are the ones he has the least involvement with.

I’d agree that the least good episodes are the ones Filoni directed, though I’d say that’s simply due to his inexperience doing live-action. As far as first-time directors go I’d say he did a pretty good job.

Broom Kid said:

“Filoni-esque” doesn’t really mean much, either, since the only real identifiable hallmarks of Filoni’s storytelling are, as stated by his biggest fans:

George Lucas talked to him a lot.
He likes Princess Mononoke.

Filoni’s status seems to be less earned than it is an easy substitution exercise: All the ways fans used to unfairly deify Lucas as a storyteller supreme are just being mapped onto Filoni now because George Lucas handpicked him.

The thing Filoni has most in common with Lucas is that his storytelling instincts are sound but his execution is lacking and he’s probably better off being “The Story Group” than he is actually involving himself in directing or writing.

I don’t see how that’s necessarily a critcism. He’s known as a showrunner, not as a director. And showrunners can have a “style” the same way as directors and writers do. Being able to control and guide a creative team, including directors and writers, is an important and difficult job. And unlike the story group he doesn’t just maintain continuity, he makes sure it all feels consistent and sticks to th established style of each individual show. Although Mando is very much Favreau’s creation, I think Filoni has added far more to it than he gets official credit for.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I think people are more or less substituting all the same things they used to say about George Lucas (before he inevitably disappointed them in one way or another because they were too busy buying into every last myth about his creative process) onto Filoni now. He’s not really a visionary - a huge percentage of his Clone Wars successes are essentially “which really old movie these kids haven’t seen shall we loosely adapt this month.” It’s not so much “clever homage” as it is strip-mining classic film. Which - again, you can argue “that’s what Lucas did” because we all know the story about The Hidden Fortress, etc… but that plays into my larger point that Filoni gets a lot of rope simply because he “does things” the way Lucas “did things” as if the mere fact that Lucas did them makes them good.

The fact he gets credited for all of “The Clone Wars” despite the fact he had a ton of help in the form of other directors, writers, contributors, animators, voice actors, etc… it’s the same mistakes everyone made with Lucas, just mapped onto a different “visionary.”

It’s not that I dislike him. Like I said, he’s probably better just being “The Story Group” than he is being a hands-on creative. But I don’t think he’s as necessary as people tend to make him out to be, and I think he’s got big problems as a storyteller that get papered over because of that Lucas connection, and the familiarity and habitual nature of just repurposing old forum arguments ABOUT Lucas, and just copy/replacing with Filoni’s name.

The lowest parts of the Mandalorian are all his. And to be fair - many of the lowest parts of The Clone Wars are ALSO all his. I don’t think the “leap” to live-action has very much to do with it at all, because those low points have a lot in common across both mediums. And the things he’s been good at are things other people are also good at, and some people (Favreau, Waititi, Chow, Famuyiwa) are already better at. He’s not as necessary to Lucasfilm’s success as people like to frame it. He’s been part of very good things. I don’t think he’s the answer. He’s PART of AN answer. But I think Star Wars’ future is best served not by consistently asking “What would George Do” and looking to Filoni for not much more reason than “he’s the next best thing to George.”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

I think people are more or less substituting all the same things they used to say about George Lucas (before he inevitably disappointed them in one way or another because they were too busy buying into every last myth about his creative process) onto Filoni now. He’s not really a visionary - a huge percentage of his Clone Wars successes are essentially “which really old movie these kids haven’t seen shall we loosely adapt this month.” It’s not so much “clever homage” as it is strip-mining classic film. Which - again, you can argue “that’s what Lucas did” because we all know the story about The Hidden Fortress, etc… but that plays into my larger point that Filoni gets a lot of rope simply because he “does things” the way Lucas “did things” as if the mere fact that Lucas did them makes them good.

I get what you’re saying, but this applies to pretty much all directors, showrunners, writers, etc. There are very few people who are truly original, and I wouldn’t even put 70’s Lucas in that category. Even great and “original” directors borrow and alter old ideas.

Broom Kid said:

The fact he gets credited for all of “The Clone Wars” despite the fact he had a ton of help in the form of other directors, writers, contributors, animators, voice actors, etc… it’s the same mistakes everyone made with Lucas, just mapped onto a different “visionary.”

This applies to literally all directors and showrunners. Just the fact that they find the right people to make their movies/series the way they want it be is part of what makes it their movies/shows.

Broom Kid said:

It’s not that I dislike him. Like I said, he’s probably better just being “The Story Group” than he is being a hands-on creative. But I don’t think he’s as necessary as people tend to make him out to be, and I think he’s got big problems as a storyteller that get papered over because of that Lucas connection, and the familiarity and habitual nature of just repurposing old forum arguments ABOUT Lucas, and just copy/replacing with Filoni’s name.

The lowest parts of the Mandalorian are all his. And to be fair - many of the lowest parts of The Clone Wars are ALSO all his. I don’t think the “leap” to live-action has very much to do with it at all, because those low points have a lot in common across both mediums. And the things he’s been good at are things other people are also good at, and some people (Favreau, Waititi, Chow, Famuyiwa) are already better at. He’s not as necessary to Lucasfilm’s success as people like to frame it. He’s been part of very good things. I don’t think he’s the answer. He’s PART of AN answer. But I think Star Wars’ future is best served not by consistently asking “What would George Do” and looking to Filoni for not much more reason than “he’s the next best thing to George.”

I completely agree with the last couple of statements here, and although many overplay him, I do feel like you’re downplaying his contributions here. I’m not saying Lucasfilm should hand everything over to Filoni, but he’s clearly a guy they should keep around and consult as a “story group” as you compare it to (though I personally don’t think that’s a particularly accurate comparison as the actual story group doesn’t really do that much at all).

Author
Time
 (Edited)

I get what you’re saying, but this applies to pretty much all directors, showrunners, writers, etc.

i don’t think that’s necessarily true, But even if I agreed with that - why would the fact it applies to all directors/showrunners/writers (those three things are three very different things, btw) be any sort of rebuttal to the points I’m making? If it applies to them, it applies to him. So what’s wrong with the criticisms I’m making - which are aimed more at people who are willing to carry his water for the sake of minimizing his shortcomings than they are at him and his actual shortcomings as a storyteller?

A big part of what I’m criticizing here is the inclination for people to essentially transform collaborative art into singular authorship for the sake of championing a “visionary” for negligible reasons. It was wrong when they did it for Lucas’ benefit, and it’s still wrong now. I’m not so much trying to downplay his contributions as I am fighting against the idea his contributions are as essential to Star Wars’ continued success as they are often claimed to be.

I also think, while I’m at it, that he benefits not JUST from the proximity to Lucas (pay attention to how often his praise is essentially backhanded, as if he’s a vessel for Lucas’ genius instead of a creative in his own right - even Freddie Prinze essentially framed him as such when he went viral on twitter sticking up for him) but also from the fact he’s got a bit of a handicap because he works in children’s animation. Because so many people honestly believe that’s a “lesser” medium, and that stories “don’t count” as much in that medium as they do in live action, his successes end up being appreciated to a somewhat unfair extent - they read it as his being so good he transcends the medium, when what’s happened is they’ve opened themselves up to what that medium can do in a way they don’t normally do for other practitioners of that medium. If they did, they’d likely discover there are a lot of people who are just as good, if not better in many ways, at what Filoni does as a showrunner.

Favreau is the showrunner on Mandalorian, anyway. Filoni is a supporting player to that end. I don’t think he’s an equal there. He’s a key element, but it’s Favreau’s show.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Broom Kid said:

I get what you’re saying, but this applies to pretty much all directors, showrunners, writers, etc.

i don’t think that’s necessarily true, But even if I agreed with that - why would the fact it applies to all directors/showrunners/writers (those three things are three very different things, btw) be any sort of rebuttal to the points I’m making? If it applies to them, it applies to him. So what’s wrong with the criticisms I’m making - which are aimed more at people who are willing to carry his water for the sake of minimizing his shortcomings than they are at him and his actual shortcomings as a storyteller?

I’m probably generalizing a bit here, I just personally think that auteur theory has inflated a lot if filmmakers who wouldn’t have been much or even anything without their crews. But, then again, the individual crew members wouldn’t have been able to make the specific movies and shows that we enjoy without the directors and showrunners organising it all either.

Broom Kid said:

A big part of what I’m criticizing here is the inclination for people to essentially transform collaborative art into singular authorship for the sake of championing a “visionary” for negligible reasons. It was wrong when they did it for Lucas’ benefit, and it’s still wrong now. I’m not so much trying to downplay his contributions as I am fighting against the idea his contributions are as essential to Star Wars’ continued success as they are often claimed to be.

Generally speaking, I competely agree and I’m not calling Filoni a “visionary” but he’s clearly added something special (or at the very least “solid”) to all the SW shows that he’s worked on.

Broom Kid said:

I also think, while I’m at it, that he benefits not JUST from the proximity to Lucas (pay attention to how often his praise is essentially backhanded, as if he’s a vessel for Lucas’ genius instead of a creative in his own right - even Freddie Prinze essentially framed him as such when he went viral on twitter sticking up for him) but also from the fact he’s got a bit of a handicap because he works in children’s animation. Because so many people honestly believe that’s a “lesser” medium, and that stories “don’t count” as much in that medium as they do in live action, his successes end up being appreciated to a somewhat unfair extent - they read it as his being so good he transcends the medium, when what’s happened is they’ve opened themselves up to what that medium can do in a way they don’t normally do for other practitioners of that medium. If they did, they’d likely discover there are a lot of people who are just as good, if not better in many ways, at what Filoni does as a showrunner.

Favreau is the showrunner on Mandalorian, anyway. Filoni supports that. I don’t think he’s an equal there. He’s a key element, but it’s Favreau’s show.

We clearly agree on pretty much all minus a few nuances here, so I’m not sure why we’re “arguing” about this.

When I said “Filoni-esque” I didn’t mean he should be handed the reins to all of SW, I didn’t even necessarily mean he had to be involved with everything, just that what he’s done for SW animated shows and contributed to Mando should be kept in mind by future showrunners. Though, as mentioned, I do think they should keep him around as a creative consultant like Favreau did. And I do think Filoni does have a “style”, albeit a flexible one.

Author
Time

I don’t think we’re really arguing at all though! Just a thorough discussion. I apologize if it seemed otherwise!

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

I don’t think we’re really arguing at all though! Just a thorough discussion. I apologize if it seemed otherwise!

Oh, I didn’t really think so either, which is why I wrote it in quotation marks (I wasn’t quite sure what word to use). Though now that I think about it the word has more negative connotations in English than I’m used to, so my bad.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Didn’t they recently confirm season 3 as well recently?

Also, are we going to have different Mando threads for each new season, or will we continue using this one?

Author
Time

I could just edit this to be the Mandalorian Discussion thread.

Author
Time

Aww, I kinda liked the idea of having a spoiler thread for each season, so in the future it’d be easier to find what we’re looking for to yap on about? (And for any new Mandalorian watchers not to get spoilt, or put off visiting a general spoiler thread)

I’m happy to go with the flow though 😃

50 Cent is just an imposter

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Me too, V.I.N.Cent. Oh well.

 
 

Some new on the availability of Mandalorian merch (or Kenner figures, to be precise)…

Thought it may interest some of the collectors / Mando fans on here:-

https://yakfaceforums.com/main & https://twitter.com/yak_face

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

I find that answer vague and unconvincing. Why don’t you knock it off with them negative waves?
Why don’t you dig how beautiful it is out here? And say something righteous and hopeful for a change?

Author
Time

I really dig the Remnant Stormtrooper. I would love to see the post-ROTJ flesh out some different Remnant factions more that all have a different look to them.