[TV] The Mandalorian (*Spoilers*)

[eschatological]

I do agree that movies are going by the wayside in terms of being longform storytelling ideas. Building universes in them is tough, unless you have like 30 movies like the MCU.

It's short, compact, discreet story ideas you can hold in the palm of your hands....like Rian Johnson's Knives Out (yes, I used RJ because of how maligned he is by Star Wars fans), which is a murder mystery that takes places over a short amount of time.....that really brings to life the movie genre.

[Fabinas]

I still want to understand what about The Last Jedi is bad.

All people ever do is screech about how scientifically inaccurate it is. The biggest flaw it has is a pointless b-plot that goes nowhere, everything else seems decent.

Not "a". Two. Space chase, really?

[Ihavewaffles]

You are making less sense than usual. Are you feeling alright? Seriously, what is this stupid narrative of treasonous TIE fighter pilots, and what exactly does it have to do with this show? Are you still trying to 'correct' Star Wars? Please don't. You have no talent in regards to storytelling.

Dude, are u offended someone mentioned old movies? Then you go into personal attacks, as if some blanket statement from unknown like you can decide about other people they have never met? Get lost pal, lol that u think mentioning og trilogy had some agenda. But its clear many here are incapable of talking normally..holy shit..

You do know he was found out and wasn't involved in anything close to what the Death Star 1 was right?

I'm sorry what has that got to do with our discussion? I replied to "imp tie pilots can't switch sides!" Like its some law of nature, or they are clone army...I replied that even a highly ranked officer could n did so.

It's also in the 'Ultimate Star Wars' book, which is canon. The Death Start did have a large compliment of TIE Fighters of various types (4.200 to be precise), but why someone entertains the idea that a TIE pilot would get anywhere near the tunnels or even know of them, I have no clue.

That the rebels found out about them but the imps who ARE THERE would be oblivious...god almighty..

I think u guys are arguing for the sake of arguing...

I can't stand this pointless arguing.


Back to the Mandalorian, I haven't found out who directs tomorrow's episode..it's short so maybe shouldn't matter.

[Darththeo]

I still want to understand what about The Last Jedi is bad.

All people ever do is screech about how scientifically inaccurate it is. The biggest flaw it has is a pointless b-plot that goes nowhere, everything else seems decent.

Timing. Outside of the ending of ANH, Time is never mentioned elsewhere in Star Wars besides TLJ and RoS.

How long was Luke on Dagobah? Couple days? Weeks? Months? We don't know for sure. Allowing it believable that he was trained by Yoda.

Rey was with Luke at most for a couple of days.

TLJ happens immediately after TFA and the First Order goes from working on the fringes of space to ruling the Galaxy.

TLJ could work if it was a bubble, a stand alone film. But, when look at the entire saga it is weird.

People bring up the Holdo Maneuver as reasons it doesn't make sense, but they ignore half the scenes concerning it. It fits Star Wars lore, it is just something we had not scene before.

[Skulltaker]

That the rebels found out about them but the imps who ARE THERE would be oblivious...god almighty..

I think u guys are arguing for the sake of arguing...

I can't stand this pointless arguing.

Then maybe don't start pointless arguments with anything but hot air? Who do you think has a better chance to know about weaknesses in the US's new Supercarrier design, the Pilots living on it and flying the sorties from it, or, let's say, China?

Always the same template with you. You start a nonsensical argument that you cannot win and then tuck your tail in and run.

[Ihavewaffles]

Then maybe don't start pointless arguments with anything but hot air? Who do you think has a better chance to know about weaknesses in the US's new Supercarrier design, the Pilots living on it and flying the sorties from it, or, let's say, China?

Always the same template with you. You start a nonsensical argument that you cannot win and then tuck your tail in and run.

Only one here making nonsensical arguments is you, ok a few more guys who got nothing better to do than pointless arguing against common sense. To the ignore list you go.

[Skulltaker]

Only one here making nonsensical arguments is you, ok a few more guys who got nothing better to do than pointless arguing against common sense. To the ignore list you go.

"No you." Great argument there.

[DingDongKing]

We have both. The main series is usually told through bigger epics and continuations, thus the trilogy. Then we have side stories like Rogue One, Solo and the upcoming Obi-wan movie as stand alone movies.

'Bigger epics and continuations' does not always equal good content. And that's my only point. Want to do a series of films to tell a story? Fine, but be damn well sure that it's actually required. Does it NEED a series? Or is it just to milk the cash cow? That's the key factor.

Good content first, sequel planning way way down the list. I would be as happy having numerous standalone films dovetailed with miniseries on Disney+ or series on Disney+, but even all that...just needs to be god damn good. Focus on quality, not quantity.

[Darththeo]

I'm sorry what has that got to do with our discussion? I replied to "imp tie pilots can't switch sides!" Like its some law of nature, or they are clone army...I replied that even a highly ranked officer could n did so.

Which wasn't my argument. My argument is that Death Star TIE Fighters would only come from the most loyal of pilots ... meaning they are less likely to switch sides, not that TIE pilots can't switch sides. And if you argument was against "TIE pilots can't switch sides!" rather than Kallus, you should have used Wedge Antilles ... you know, a TIE pilot who switched sides.

So, my point is you pick someone who wasn't trusted enough to something of the extent of the Death Star 1 meaning he wasn't among the most loyal to the Empire.

[Ihavewaffles]

Lol loyalty, you mean loyalty pre one-shotting planets? Once u start blowing up planets with history, peoples friends n family, you can never trust everyone in ur army not to snap. Or out of general principle not to be part of such an evil machine, remember most imps were republic people that joined to stop trade federation's destructive droid armies. War ended before they could do much, clones did most, but rep troops didn't sign up for galactic scale mass genocide. People snap from pressure of their situation.

Ok, this conversation is too boring..

[Triceron]

'Bigger epics and continuations' does not always equal good content. And that's my only point. Want to do a series of films to tell a story? Fine, but be damn well sure that it's actually required. Does it NEED a series? Or is it just to milk the cash cow? That's the key factor.

Good content first, sequel planning way way down the list. I would be as happy having numerous standalone films dovetailed with miniseries on Disney+ or series on Disney+, but even all that...just needs to be god damn good. Focus on quality, not quantity.

Yeah but we don't define the content, we simply consume.

You are right, bigger doesn't mean better. That being said, we don't have to like everything that comes out.

The only reason big was bad was because they planned poorly. If there was a planned trilogy, say backed by people who know Star Wars, then maybe it could be good again. Or maybe not. It all depends the story they tell and how it turns out.

I mean even Avatar the last Airbender had a great story but a terrible movie. No trilogy is guaranteed to succeed just on the premise of having a big story to tell. But qhen it comes to Star Wars, the trilogy format works in its favour considering there are certain expectations for big stories that grow beyond standalone films that do have a bigger arc to follow, and that takes different type of planning and different approach to the episodic style of simply making sequels and unofficially bridging 3 separate films as a trilogy. Ironman movies are cool and all, but they're also not a single story told over 3 movies. With Star Wars, there is an expectation behind at least *some* stories set beyond the length of just one movie. The problem of the sequel trilogy wasn't that it was too long, it was because it was poorly planned and executed. As a Star Wars fan, I WANT to see a story arc that sees characters go through a proper beginning, middle and end.

We could argue that without a trilogy, the movies could be milking it since they don't have to end the story in any planned or meaningful way, they could just pull a Fast and the Furious. Is that necessarily better?

Trilogy stories need strong planning at the start. If not, then just making standalones with the same characters is pretty much what we got out of the latest trilogy - its exactly how you explained it where they focused in making a good movie and planned later and it became 3 movies that had a mess of a plot to follow and no where to properly character build afterwards. That isn't ideal either.

Lets be honest here, the latest trilogy didn't fail because they were bad -movies-. They failed because it was a bad -trilogy-. If Last Jedi was not a Star Wars sequel, it would have been a fine movie on its own. It was well produced, had entertaining moments, and offered a fresh take on Star Wars values. But it wasn't what we expected or wanted out of a sequel. It was the wrong -type- of movie for an expected trilogy story, that is how it failed. Otherwise production values and all it is very well made and well produced and is a good movie if you don't consider it part of a larger storyline. The biggest fail was in the lack of planning, so to say 'plan later' is asking to repeat the same mistakes.

[DingDongKing]

You're missing my point, and my point is quite simple. Good content > everything else. Whether that means a single film, a duology, trilogy, quadrilogy. Whatever. They just need to plan their content slate really well, make sure it's good and generally things go alright.

This isn't exclusive to just a trilogy of films. All stories need to be well planned.

As far as the sequel trilogy was concerned, it was devoid of anything new or exciting. The Last Jedi was probably the most 'new' of the lot, but the story was still jank and the character motivations didn't make any sense. Otherwise the entire set of films were just bereft of anything remotely creative and innovative. Sand planet. Forest planet. Ice planet. Salt planet that's Hoth without Snow. X-Wing. Star Destroyer that's narrower than the old one. Star Destroyer that's wider than the old one. Planet killer that's a planet sized Death Star. Just a lot of rehashing throughout.

RE: The Iron Man trilogy vs the Star Wars trilogy, I can see what you're saying. That said, it still circles back to the same thing: Marvel Studios had a strong plan, focused on content over cash-grabbing, and so far they've had more hits than they've had misses. That said, I think Lucasfilm are okay now. It's like they've gotten the Skywalker saga out of their system and they're just doing what they want now as opposed to what they ought to do.

Also, for me Rise of Skywalker and the Force Awakens are actually worse films than the Last Jedi. Because they're the equivalent of Black Sabbath releasing their 10th Greatest Hits album in 20 years but with new packaging and going, 'we know you'll buy it because you're a fan'.

[Triceron]

You're missing my point, and my point is quite simple. Good content > everything else. Whether that means a single film, a duology, trilogy, quadrilogy. Whatever. They just need to plan their content slate really well, make sure it's good and generally things go alright.

That's a very different statement from 'sequel plans way down the list'

If they plan a large story to tell, then it has to be planned from the start. And you are right, all stories need to be well planned, but this is even MORE important for a story that is intended to span multiple movies over multiple years, especially if it is supposed to be somewhat self contained as a trilogy rather than a collection of Movie + 2 Sequels.

As far as the sequel trilogy was concerned, it was devoid of anything new or exciting. The Last Jedi was probably the most 'new' of the lot, but the story was still jank and the character motivations didn't make any sense. Otherwise the entire set of films were just bereft of anything remotely creative and innovative. Sand planet. Forest planet. Ice planet. Salt planet that's Hoth without Snow. X-Wing. Star Destroyer that's narrower than the old one. Star Destroyer that's wider than the old one. Planet killer that's a planet sized Death Star. Just a lot of rehashing throughout.

I totally agree with this. But I don't see that being a fault of the movies themselves, rather a fault in planning what kind of post-SW story to tell. And I can see the problems they had since there was a whole mix of EU lore, Lucas' own plans for a trilogy, and the shift and change in public interest for Sci Fi making it relatively risky to pump out another Star Wars movie after such a long time. They had to go somewhat experimental and play it by ear, but I think lacking a cohesive vision is what really hurt it the most. Of course, the bad writing didn't help.

RE: The Iron Man trilogy vs the Star Wars trilogy, I can see what you're saying. That said, it still circles back to the same thing: Marvel Studios had a strong plan, focused on content over cash-grabbing, and so far they've had more hits than they've had misses. That said, I think Lucasfilm are okay now. It's like they've gotten the Skywalker saga out of their system and they're just doing what they want now as opposed to what they ought to do.

Also, for me Rise of Skywalker and the Force Awakens are actually worse films than the Last Jedi. Because they're the equivalent of Black Sabbath releasing their 10th Greatest Hits album in 20 years but with new packaging and going, 'we know you'll buy it because you're a fan'.

I think all they really need are strong vision-keepers like Filoni and Favreau heading the future content. It doesn't just have to be them, but it's better to leave the series in the hands of people who know (and respect) the content.

Otherwise whether they choose to make more trilogies or not is really up to them. I don't think the format has any inherent problems, it's just that they were mired by poor planning and bad scripts. I wouldn't mind more spinoff series or more standalone movies either, but I don't think they need to scrap the trilogy format just because; if they have something strong to go with then by all means I they should go for it. If they don't, then they shouldn't. But I think not sticking to a trilogy format would have its own pros and cons; as much as I love the Mandalorian right now, there's always a sense of 'how many seasons are the planning and how long till it just becomes filler', kinda like how the Pirates of the Caribbean movies ended up being.

[Darththeo]

Lol loyalty, you mean loyalty pre one-shotting planets? Once u start blowing up planets with history, peoples friends n family, you can never trust everyone in ur army not to snap. Or out of general principle not to be part of such an evil machine, remember most imps were republic people that joined to stop trade federation's destructive droid armies. War ended before they could do much, clones did most, but rep troops didn't sign up for galactic scale mass genocide. People snap from pressure of their situation.

Ok, this conversation is too boring..

Yeah, because there was obviously no one loyal to the Empire after Alderaan /rolleyes.

[DingDongKing]

That's a very different statement from 'sequel plans way down the list'

Imagine this in the tone of a Dad. ‘Don’t get excited’ type situation. First get a good idea, scope it out, see where it goes, plan well. Don’t even make the movie yet, just figure it out. Don’t go backwards with, ‘well there has to be three’ and then try to wing it along the way.

I totally agree with this. But I don't see that being a fault of the movies themselves, rather a fault in planning what kind of post-SW story to tell. And I can see the problems they had since there was a whole mix of EU lore, Lucas' own plans for a trilogy, and the shift and change in public interest for Sci Fi making it relatively risky to pump out another Star Wars movie after such a long time. They had to go somewhat experimental and play it by ear, but I think lacking a cohesive vision is what really hurt it the most. Of course, the bad writing didn't help.

They made one big big mistake with two parts to it. They depended purely on nostalgia, and then expected the fans to just remain in the ‘awe’ phase. The smaller mistakes were personnel, writing etc etc.

I think all they really need are strong vision-keepers like Filoni and Favreau heading the future content. It doesn't just have to be them, but it's better to leave the series in the hands of people who know (and respect) the content.

Otherwise whether they choose to make more trilogies or not is really up to them. I don't think the format has any inherent problems, it's just that they were mired by poor planning and bad scripts. I wouldn't mind more spinoff series or more standalone movies either, but I don't think they need to scrap the trilogy format just because; if they have something strong to go with then by all means I they should go for it. If they don't, then they shouldn't. But I think not sticking to a trilogy format would have its own pros and cons; as much as I love the Mandalorian right now, there's always a sense of 'how many seasons are the planning and how long till it just becomes filler', kinda like how the Pirates of the Caribbean movies ended up being.

Sure, it comes back to the same point for both of us. Quality should be first and foremost. Don’t milk, don’t do filler, don’t run before you can walk and don’t take anything for granted. I think they’ll be fine now. The sequel trilogy must have been one massive reality check for everyone involved.

[Triceron]

Sure, it comes back to the same point for both of us. Quality should be first and foremost. Don’t milk, don’t do filler, don’t run before you can walk and don’t take anything for granted. I think they’ll be fine now. The sequel trilogy must have been one massive reality check for everyone involved.

I do agree with the sentiment, but I don't agree with the particular verbiage you use.

Don't milk and don't do filler are very broad terms. We could apply all these back to the Mandalorian or Rogue One, and it can be argued that these only exist to milk the franchise (fan service that piggy backs off the original trilogy) and that it's filler (basically anything that doesn't relate to the main characters?). What they do right is respect the source material and expand what fans want to see, and that's what I think should be focused on.

It's a matter of perspective more than anything. I'd say most of the stuff in Star Wars comes from filler and franchise milking. The videogames, the cartoons, the comics, there's so much material of varying degrees of quality that it isn't so clear cut to just say 'don't do bad stuff'. I hated the prequels, I wasn't much interested in the CG Clone wars, but I really enjoyed the Clone Wars cartoon by Genndy Tartakovsky. I'm happy that there are projects like that and that Star Wars isn't completely clear cut in one particular niche. It's broad enough to cover a wide variety of tastes.

[eschatological]

The Iron-Man trilogy literally had the same plot told 3 times.

Second-fiddle/ignored-by-Stark dude gets mad at Tony/his dead dad, build a suit/some powers to fight him for some inexplicable reason, Tony has better suits and wins.

In fact, almost all the MCU origin stories follows the same pattern of hero opposed by anti-hero with similar powers who they have to beat for Reasons (tm).

Then, the team ups have all the same plot: We gotta band together to defeat this meaningless, CGI-generated army that no one gives a shit about.

[DingDongKing]

I do agree with the sentiment, but I don't agree with the particular verbiage you use.

Don't milk and don't do filler are very broad terms. We could apply all these back to the Mandalorian or Rogue One, and it can be argued that these only exist to milk the franchise (fan service that piggy backs off the original trilogy) and that it's filler (basically anything that doesn't relate to the main characters?). What they do right is respect the source material and expand what fans want to see, and that's what I think should be focused on.

It's a matter of perspective more than anything. I'd say most of the stuff in Star Wars comes from filler and franchise milking. The videogames, the cartoons, the comics, there's so much material of varying degrees of quality that it isn't so clear cut to just say 'don't do bad stuff'. I hated the prequels, I wasn't much interested in the CG Clone wars, but I really enjoyed the Clone Wars cartoon by Genndy Tartakovsky. I'm happy that there are projects like that and that Star Wars isn't completely clear cut in one particular niche. It's broad enough to cover a wide variety of tastes.

For me the 'filler' comment is more in line with the films and the live-action shows. The cartoons, games, comics, books aren't too important to me. I still haven't watched all the Clone Wars stuff, because it just wasn't that interesting to me. I loved Rebels. Also, protip - sentiment > verbiage.

The Iron-Man trilogy literally had the same plot told 3 times.

Second-fiddle/ignored-by-Stark dude gets mad at Tony/his dead dad, build a suit/some powers to fight him for some inexplicable reason, Tony has better suits and wins.

In fact, almost all the MCU origin stories follows the same pattern of hero opposed by anti-hero with similar powers who they have to beat for Reasons (tm).

Then, the team ups have all the same plot: We gotta band together to defeat this meaningless, CGI-generated army that no one gives a shit about.

Pretty much agree re: solo films. With Marvel Studios, they've very much taken an approach of 'these films are building blocks to build towards the big Avengers movies and keep the cash rolling. It's all somewhere between serviceable and enjoyable. Which is a decent spectrum. The only films I can think of that I really didn't care for were Thor 1 & 2, Iron Man 2, AntMan 1 & 2 and Captain Marvel. Because they were thoroughly filler.

Yet somehow they still made money, and built towards the bigger universe. I don't necessarily agree with the creative approach of those films either. They could and should've been better. The comparison between Marvel Studios & Star Wars in that regards is that at least Marvel had a plan.

The event films, I don't quite agree. Sure, each of the films had essentially the same ba-boom climax - which is literally the way most event comic series tend to end anyway - but Infinity War & Endgame are a high watermark in the super hero genre as far as quality is concerned.

They knew what they wanted. That said, even they probably wanted a better set of films but backed themselves into a corner by wanting it all to tie into a bigger universe. Lucasfilm/Disney can't say 'yeah, our plan was to have a trainwreck of a trilogy' and nor can they say the films were constrained by being tie-ins to a bigger universe, because the trilogy films were meant to be event films on the level of the Avengers outings.

[Ihavewaffles]

I... poor grogu!!!



Very good episode, omg the boba fett stuff was awsum!!!!!

WHAT A BEAST!

[Lothaeryn]

I... poor grogu!!!



Very good episode, omg the boba fett stuff was awsum!!!!!

Showcases that he does have a code, and isn't a heartless bastard out for credits only.

So... the Razorcrest...