Sign In

The Mandalorian - Season One - * SPOILER THREAD * — Page 4

Author
Time

Dirge said:

Honestly, as I was watching this first episode, I kept thinking, “This really isn’t very good.” So, hopefully it improves over the next few episodes. It had a couple of decent moments, but I feel those were outnumbered by other scenes that were, let’s just say…lacking.

I think the best part was the introduction of IG-11 (even though they started milking the whole self-destruct joke way too often). Unfortunately, most scenes were merely mediocre, and the episode doesn’t start well with the rather clichéd and poorly done bar fight. Which is then followed by the frankly stupid monster-under-the-ice scene (it’s as if J.J. Abrams was writing this). Also, the numerous references/callbacks to things from the OT started to be a bit ridiculous (Kowakian monkey-lizards on a spit, the gatekeeper droid, handy-dandy carbon-freezing slabs, etc.).

But, since it’s Star Wars, I’ll keep watching and hoping it gets better.

See, the OT references you didn’t like, I loved. I got a good chuckle out of the Kowakian on a spit with another looking on. I questioned the carbon-freezing until I realized that after it worked so well for Fett with Han, that such a process might just catch on in the bounty hunter world. Especially where you can risk dead or alive. I did think the episode was a bit slow, but it fit the story and the characters. And the shootout at the end was great. I thought the story paid off pretty well. As first episodes go, it was very above average. And I loved the beast riding alien that kept saying “I have spoken”.

Author
Time

Broom Kid said:

This show looks better than most Marvel movies.

Grieg Fraser shot the thing. Trying to say it looks cheap doesn’t even make any sense to me.

This reminds me of a quote attributed to Slawomir Idziak (he worked with Kieslowski, Ridley Scott etc):

‘Our country was for so many years in seclusion, so somehow we had to use a different system… it was first of all grounded in the film schools, in which we had only two departments: the director department and the cinematographer department, so these two people were at the head of the productions. In Poland the cinematographer is number two, and starts work on the project very early. The director is expecting a collaborator in terms of translating the story he has in mind to a kind of visual work. So it was something very unusual when I all of a sudden realized that here in the West it was the director who was telling the cinematographer ‘put the camera here’. I mean it’s two different professions and I really don’t believe, with some exceptions of course as usual, that it’s possible to have total control of the actors and the flow of the story and deciding about a single particular take and the lens and the visual part of it. In being a director you shouldn’t be too close because very quickly you are losing the sense of the wholeness, the most important element of the profession [and I am someone who has directed as well]. As cinematographer I should be one who observes what happens on the location from the seat of the average spectator. So I really believe in creative group work, and somehow our example in the Polish cinema, where we are really creative partners of the director, is a very good example. It works.’

http://www.cinematographers.nl/PaginasDoPh/idziak.htm

I wouldn’t say The Mandalorian looks cheap, though - not quite. It’s just really conservative, basic and fairly unimaginative. It seems to make a lot of sense considering this is Filoni’s live action directing debut.

Author
Time

One has to remember that the episode cost $15 million. A lot for a show, but nothing compared to the budgets we’re used to on the live action films (which are all well over $200 million). I thought it looked very good, considering.

Author
Time

Dirge said:
And I loved the beast riding alien that kept saying “I have spoken”.

That was an Ugnaught like the ones from Empire, so it’s another callback to the original trilogy. And the beasts were Blurrgs which first appeared in the live action Ewok movies.

I wish I had a Kryptonite cross, because then you could keep both Dracula AND Superman away.
Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

One has to remember that the episode cost $15 million. A lot for a show, but nothing compared to the budgets we’re used to on the live action films (which are all well over $200 million). I thought it looked very good, considering.

I’m not buying this argument. Budget has little to nothing to do with the quality of the craft - maybe it would’ve been a factor for budgets not allowing to shoot on anything better than your pocket phone, but these days even that isn’t much of an obstacle, and The Mandalorian is one of the more expensive shows out there as you pointed out… So while they did have enough pocket change for decent equipment, this still isn’t about image fidelity, or productions values (which are alright here, even if the filmmaking doesn’t do them much credit): it’s about the skill of visual storytelling. Or, which is the theory I like for this case, the experience (lack thereof) in live action visual storytelling in the case a first-timer.

We’ll see how he fared with his second directing gig down the line. I’m almost more interested in this comparison than in the show itself…

Author
Time
 (Edited)

m_s0 said:

DominicCobb said:

One has to remember that the episode cost $15 million. A lot for a show, but nothing compared to the budgets we’re used to on the live action films (which are all well over $200 million). I thought it looked very good, considering.

I’m not buying this argument. Budget has little to nothing to do with the quality of the craft - maybe it would’ve been a factor for budgets not allowing to shoot on anything better than your pocket phone, but these days even that isn’t much of an obstacle, and The Mandalorian is one of the more expensive shows out there as you pointed out… So while they did have enough pocket change for decent equipment, this still isn’t about image fidelity, or productions values (which are alright here, even if the filmmaking doesn’t do them much credit): it’s about the skill of visual storytelling. Or, which is the theory I like for this case, the experience (lack thereof) in live action visual storytelling in the case a first-timer.

We’ll see how he fared with his second directing gig down the line. I’m almost more interested in this comparison than in the show itself…

We’re talking about two different things here. My post wasn’t in response to yours. Just a general statement.

Author
Time

Could be, but to be sure I’d need you to elaborate.

That said, I’m not complaining about The Mandalorian’s cinematography relative to the Star Wars films. It seems lacking to me when compared to other shows, and not the top tier bunch, either.

Then again, when I look at how, say, Mr. Robot was shot, I’m not sure whether there’s any point in putting up an arbitrary wall between film and TV at this point in terms of the craft that’s possible to achieve in either medium. If you can pull it off on a TV show schedule (seems to me like the big challenge), there really is nothing else standing in the way. I suppose this leads us to the discussion on the nature and pitfalls of TV storytelling vs feature film storytelling.

Mostly, I’m just thinking aloud about stuff here.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

m_s0 said:

Could be, but to be sure I’d need you to elaborate.

You’re talking specifics about the approach of the cinematography and directing. That’s well and good and all, but in the larger discussion of people talking about whether or not it looks ‘cheap’ in comparison to the films, I think the budgetary information is a necessary disclaimer (whether it’s pertinent to your particular argument or not).

Then again, when I look at how, say, Mr. Robot was shot, I’m not sure whether there’s any point in putting up an arbitrary wall between film and TV at this point in terms of the craft that’s possible to achieve in either medium. If you can pull it off on a TV show schedule (seems to me like the big challenge), there really is nothing else standing in the way. I suppose this leads us to the discussion on the nature and pitfalls of TV storytelling vs feature film storytelling.

To be sure, there are some great looking shows (whether your talking about the mere production values or quality of the execution). But again, something like Mr. Robot would be apples and oranges to a show set in the Star Wars universe when it comes to my point, the budgetary limitations.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

You’re talking specifics about the approach of the cinematography and directing. That’s well and good and all, but in the larger discussion of people talking about whether or not it looks ‘cheap’ in comparison to the films, I think the budgetary information is a necessary disclaimer (whether it’s pertinent to your particular argument or not).

Yeah, I still don’t agree with this argument. I’ve seen garbage craft in horrendously expensive films, just as I’ve seen breathtaking cinematography in films made on the cheap - way cheaper than The Mandalorian’s budget per episode. And I do think the approach (division of work, if you will) does matter.

To be sure, there are some great looking shows (whether your talking about the mere production values or quality of the execution). But again, something like Mr. Robot would be apples and oranges to a show set in the Star Wars universe when it comes to my point, the budgetary limitations.

Yeah, if they made this show on a sitcom budget the CGI wouldn’t be there, but I’d still argue that it doesn’t matter in the context of knowing where to put the camera, or how to frame a shot to tell your story.

When you break it all down, it’s really just shooting drama we’re talking about. I’m a romantic this way, I guess 😃

Not that The Mandalorian is the worst thing ever or anything, mind you. Agree to disagree, either way.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

m_s0 said:

You’re talking specifics about the approach of the cinematography and directing. That’s well and good and all, but in the larger discussion of people talking about whether or not it looks ‘cheap’ in comparison to the films, I think the budgetary information is a necessary disclaimer (whether it’s pertinent to your particular argument or not).

Yeah, I still don’t agree with this argument. I’ve seen garbage craft in horrendously expensive films, just as I’ve seen breathtaking cinematography in films made on the cheap - way cheaper than The Mandalorian’s budget per episode. And I do think the approach (division of work, if you will) does matter.

To be sure, there are some great looking shows (whether your talking about the mere production values or quality of the execution). But again, something like Mr. Robot would be apples and oranges to a show set in the Star Wars universe when it comes to my point, the budgetary limitations.

Yeah, if they made this show on a sitcom budget the CGI wouldn’t be there, but I’d still argue that it doesn’t matter in the context of knowing where to put the camera, or how to frame a shot to tell your story.

When you break it all down, it’s really just shooting drama we’re talking about. I’m a romantic this way, I guess 😃

Not that The Mandalorian is the worst thing ever or anything, mind you. Agree to disagree, either way.

You continue to argue your own argument separate from what I’m saying. There’s a lot of factors that go into how a film or TV show ‘looks.’ Cinematography is but one of those elements.

Obviously the approach is tied in with the budget. There are ways to manage on a shoestring budget. But the approach here is trying to follow the films, and that has an expensive appetite. We’re talking about an episode that visits multiple planets featuring exotic locales with sweeping landscape shots, dozens of sets, hundreds of extras and costumes, ship and speeder effects, CGI and puppeted creatures, and a prominent performance by a CG character.

I don’t know how many times I have to say that we’re talking about two different things. I am not merely discussing the directing/cinematography, I’m talking about the whole picture.

Author
Time
 (Edited)

Well, since I seem to disagree with you even on what’s being discussed here perhaps best to leave it at that 😃 (I still disagree with the expanded edit of your post)

Author
Time
 (Edited)

m_s0 said:

Well, since I seem to disagree with you even on what’s being discussed here perhaps best to leave it at that 😃

Sounds like a deal.

I will say to your point, regardless I think Fraser is a great DP and even if Filoni’s direction wasn’t mind blowing, I definitely wouldn’t call it 'cheap.’

Of course it’ll still be interesting to see not just his next episode but the episodes from the other directors as well.

Author
Time

This isn’t really a pilot like in the old days, but I’m guessing that first episode does conform to whatever look they decided on for the entire series. However, there’s still room to play within those first episode constraints - assuming it’s indicative of any - to make the show pop a bit more.

At the end of the day that’s my biggest gripe with The Mandalorian thus far - it didn’t get me excited for more, and Star Wars is something I’m on board with to quite an extent by default.

Author
Time

Episode 2 was a bit better, I thought. Really enjoyed the first chunk without any dialogue, and getting a closer look at Jawa life was interesting.

a trolling bantha

Author
Time

Yeah now that I’m starting to understand the vibe of the show I’m pretty into it. There’s not much in the way of story but that’s not a bad thing. This was a very fun, half hour western adventure. And it still looks/sounds great.

Author
Time

OK, I think I’m sold on this show. While it is far from perfect, the look and feel is mostly spot-on, the storyline is passable, the characters seem promissing and the action is just great. I’m not too sold on the baby Yodalike and I find the notion of it being 50 years old quite dumb. Also, the persistent reusing of OT designs, plot-points and even sampling of its sound effects can be pretty distracting at times. Small moments like these make the show seem just like a high-budget fan film, but that’s still way more than could be said for the two latest SW feature films, which is why I’m tentatively on board.

I also suspect this show will soon turn into an exciting fanediting exercise, which is something I’m very much looking forward to.

Author
Time

Yeah the 50 years old thing doesn’t really make sense. I get the ‘some species age differently’ thing, but if that baby is 50 then 900 would be a pretty young age for Yoda to die at.

Author
Time

The years it is not, honey. The mileage, it is.

Author
Time

I love this show ! I had an ear to ear grin watching the first 2 episodes . Just finished episode 2 and the first thing that came to mind was the old Marvel Star Wars comic…issue 32 had an adventure with Jawas very similar to this and some of the hatches on the sandcrawler and the tactics used by the Jawas to repel boarders were very similar as well . I am thinking Filoni and Favreau must have read these issues. Issue 81 of the series also had a sandcrawler chase and featured Boba Fett being found by the Jawas after being regurgitated by the Sarlacc , only to be put back in by issues end .This series feels to me like those classic comics come to life , as did many episodes of the clone wars . I remember an interview series with Filoni from a while back where they had all of the classic marvel star wars comics on a display behind him , so I am thinking he is a fan of them . Also , I did not think that I would like the Yadpole at first , but man , I love the little guy ! This show is badass ! I have spoken .

https://screamsinthevoid.deviantart.com/

Author
Time

DominicCobb said:

Yeah the 50 years old thing doesn’t really make sense. I get the ‘some species age differently’ thing, but if that baby is 50 then 900 would be a pretty young age for Yoda to die at.

My wife had the same complaint. But I pointed out to her that perhaps not all species age in the same proportions. For example, a mouse* might spend a smaller percentage of its existence as a juvenile than a human does. This is largely because humans have larger, more complex brains that take much more development and thus we spend a larger percentage of our lifespan as children. Perhaps Yodas have even more complex brains and take even longer to mature?

*according to Wikipedia the upper limit of a common mouse lifespan is about 3 years. They mature into adults in about 6 weeks, thus spending about 4% of their life as a juvenile. Using Wikipedia data of a current normal maximum of 104 year for human lifespan and a maturity of 21 (the Internet gives a range of 18-25) humans spend about 20% of their lives as juveniles).

See also:https://news.vanderbilt.edu/2018/10/30/why-does-it-take-humans-so-long-to-mature-compared-to-other-animals-look-to-your-neurons/

Author
Time

I am also signing here that I found this episode way more engaging to watch than first episode!
First off, I cannot help but feel the Disney magic with the yadpole. Definitely nailed that adorable plushy element which will hit shelves I bet 😂
Secondly, this episode further cemented in that this character doesn’t have it easy. I was worried it be too much “I’m badass and everything I do will be badass and will barely be an inconvenience” kind of story. So it was welcoming to see the Mandalorian not have a walk in the park.
Thirdly, I was secretly wanting him bring along that guy as a crew member but found that guy’s reasoning for not joining to be heartfelt and understanding. Like wow, you made me care for a character that didn’t have much screen time (Rogue One had in comparison way more time to work with, with their characters and failed to establish any meaningful connections).
Now I’m very much invested to see more. Good so far 👍

The Hope Awakens

Author
Time

Yeah, I also want to reiterate that this is a fictional alien species that we have little in-universe information on, so for all we know baby Yodas could go into a cocoon for a year and come out an adult. It seems weird to our understanding of human aging, but this is a different universe with potentially bizarre alien biology, so I would try to have have an open mind about it!

Author
Time

screams in the void said:

I love this show ! I had an ear to ear grin watching the first 2 episodes . Just finished episode 2 and the first thing that came to mind was the old Marvel Star Wars comic…issue 32 had an adventure with Jawas very similar to this and some of the hatches on the sandcrawler and the tactics used by the Jawas to repel boarders were very similar as well . I am thinking Filoni and Favreau must have read these issues. Issue 81 of the series also had a sandcrawler chase and featured Boba Fett being found by the Jawas after being regurgitated by the Sarlacc , only to be put back in by issues end .This series feels to me like those classic comics come to life , as did many episodes of the clone wars . I remember an interview series with Filoni from a while back where they had all of the classic marvel star wars comics on a display behind him , so I am thinking he is a fan of them . Also , I did not think that I would like the Yadpole at first , but man , I love the little guy ! This show is badass ! I have spoken .

Oh, good. You just saved me a bunch of writing. 😉

Digging it for those same reasons. You’re right on the money about it having an old comic book - first comic strip feel. It’s right out of the Goodwin/Williamson strips. It’s back to the singular character story and pacing for me. Like I mentioned earlier, stories where all known good in the universe hangs in the balance can be exhausting.

I love that we’re spending time getting to know him, day to day. And I second the thought on liking how he isn’t some super badass. He’s more than capable, but still fallible. Much more fun and interesting to watch. Great stuff so far. This only furthers my lack of interest in the coming film. This is much more my style.

originaltrilogy.com Moderator

"Why are you here, Rey from nowhere?”

Author
Time
 (Edited)

What’s the deal with the red-eyed Jawas? I know that their action figures refer to them as “Offworld Jawas”, but I thought we were on Tatooine? It’s a minor quibble, but I was a little bothered by the apparent arbitrariness of it.

EDIT: Never mind, the desert planet on the show is Arvala-7. If anyone said its name I must have missed it, and then assumed it was Tatooine because of how it looked from space.

Herzog agrees that the baby Yoda puppet is remarkable: in an interview he described it as “heartbreakingly beautiful,” and at some point during filming when Filoni and Favreau tried to shoot an extra take of a scene with baby Yoda without the puppet so that they’d have the option to use CGI, Herzog called them “cowards” and accused them of having no faith in their own creation (I saw this in a screenshot from a magazine article on Reddit, I’m having trouble tracking it down again).