Star Wars: The Mandalorian - Discussion Thread

Originally posted by Inhuman
That was my idea (a few posts back) of how to fix/erase the sequels. I see you liked it 👆

Set episodes 10, 11 , 12, 100+ years in the future. So that all the sequel characters would be long dead.
Have Grogu there with a new generation of Jedi, and new (non Sh1t) characters, to make new stories.
The only connection to the old movies would be that Grogu was trained by Luke.

Flawless way to save the main story, and phase out the sequels and all the garbage that came with them.

lol, I don't care who takes credit for it. I just want some good Star Wars. If they keep going with this MCU-esque interconnected universe, and the quality is at least close to the same, I'll be happy.

There's room for improvement, but I think they've already got the most important parts right.

Originally posted by Sheev
How many Dark Troopers were there in total? Trying to figure out how many Luke plowed through.

I counted 28 myself but I could be wrong.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Though I certainly enjoyed the finale, it is sadly indicative of where the fandom is at that they embrace a lifeless deep fake over what was easily Mark Hamill's best performance in a film.

Sadder still that people think the ending a legitimate 'f*ck u' to TLJ. 😬

I'll take a "lifeless deepfake" that respects the character and legacy of Luke Skywalker over a movie that trashes it any day, personally.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'll take a "lifeless deepfake" that respects the character and legacy of Luke Skywalker over a movie that trashes it any day, personally.

This. What we got in TLJ was not Luke. That character is straight up incompatible with the character we saw in RotJ. You can't have a beloved character do a complete heel turn and say the character "development" happened off screen. Well, I guess you can, but that's just awful writing.

Originally posted by -Pr-

I'll take a "lifeless deepfake" that respects the character and legacy of Luke Skywalker over a movie that trashes it any day, personally.

Same.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I'll take souless fan service over a movie that tries to engage creatively with its source material any day, personally.

On a serious note, I'm glad that Faveurea & Filoni are march-to-the-sound-of-their-own-drum-types rather than the TLJ-hating fan appeasers some folks are attempting to make them out to be.

Originally posted by ares834
This. What we got in TLJ was not Luke. That character is straight up incompatible with the character we saw in RotJ. You can't have a beloved character do a complete heel turn and say the character "development" happened off screen. Well, I guess you can, but that's just awful writing.

Having said that, saving the remains of the Resistance (and the Jedi) from certain demise in a powerful act of non-violence is absolutely Luke Skywalker, made all the more weighty by being the capstone of an actual character arc. Sorry, but that's good writing.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Most audiences are capable of understanding that over a 30 year period people change, and that traumatic events can accelerate that change. Most audiences are smart like that and don't need to be hand-held.

Having said that, saving the remains of the Resistance (and the Jedi) from certain demise in a powerful act of non-violence is absolutely Luke Skywalker, made all the more weighty by being the capstone of an actual character arc. Sorry, but that's good writing.

Oh crap no.

I mean Its good it worked for you. People always shat on the prequels, but I loved them. I got the trilogy I wanted, and Star Wars was never shite for me (until the sequels). So to each their own.

But youre talking about such an epic character that people have waited decades to see him GROW. Yes GROW, because thats what Jedi do. Grow into Masters. Deal with loss in a mature way.

Sure everyones human, but a Jedi wont just sulk for years. And how could he decline like that when he never gave up on anyone as a youth.

They basically shat on a Legendary character overnight.

As for his heroic final moment, its kind of made moot by the fact that he sat around sulking whilst his best friend was murdered and the Republic destroyed.

As for audiences having sense.. Well they certainly had the sense to show up less and less as this trilogy went on.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Most audiences are capable of understanding that over a 30 year period people change, and that traumatic events can accelerate that change. Most audiences are smart like that and don't need to be hand-held.

Having said that, saving the remains of the Resistance (and the Jedi) from certain demise in a powerful act of non-violence is absolutely Luke Skywalker, made all the more weighty by being the capstone of an actual character arc. Sorry, but that's good writing.

❌

If you make a character have such a drastic personality change you can not just have that happen off screen and pretends it's good writing.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Oh crap no.

I mean Its good it worked for you. People always shat on the prequels, but I loved them. I got the trilogy I wanted, and Star Wars was never shite for me (until the sequels). So to each their own.

But youre talking about such an epic character that people have waited decades to see him GROW. Yes GROW, because thats what Jedi do. Grow into Masters. Deal with loss in a mature way.

Sure everyones human, but a Jedi wont just sulk for years. And how could he decline like that when he never gave up on anyone as a youth.

They basically shat on a Legendary character overnight.

As for his heroic final moment, its kind of made moot by the fact that he sat around sulking whilst his best friend was murdered and the Republic destroyed.

As for audiences having sense.. Well they certainly had the sense to show up less and less as this trilogy went on.

Luke *did* grow in TLJ, he encountered failure and learnt to overcome it. He learnt the true meaning of a legend, not someone who's perfect, but inspires hope. By the end of that film he is a Master, in every sense. But instead of that arc happening off-screen, we actually get to see it unfold. That's a gift to his character and far from shitting on it, actually elevates his story.

So is it 'growth' that fans really want, or just nostalgic theatrics?

And as a PSA, Luke was not 'sulking', he truly (though wrongly) believed that the galaxy was better off without him, and any further intervention would do more harm than good. But the action he did eventually take led to the eventual downfall of the First Order and restoration of freedom to the galaxy, which seems pretty good to me, as far as legacies go.

Originally posted by ares834
❌

If you make a character have such a drastic personality change you can not just have that happen off screen and pretends it's good writing.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
You can. If you let go of your fixation with Luke as a static 'character', and approach him as a dynamic person, as all good writers intend. 👆

Then either you don't know what the terms "static" and "dynamic character" actually mean or you're attacking a strawman. These terms refer to characters developing throughout the story. My issue isn't that Luke has his own arc and development in TLJ. My issue is that he had such drastic character development off screen.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
And as a PSA, Luke was not 'sulking', he truly (though wrongly) believed that the galaxy was better off without him, and any further intervention would do more harm than good. But the action he did eventually take led to the eventual downfall of the First Order and restoration of freedom to the galaxy, which seems pretty good to me, as far as legacies go.

That sounds like sulking to me. And they did a terrible job of justifying it.

Like I said, the action he took was kind of moot in comparison to all the times he did not intervene, and all the terrible things he allowed to happen.

Heck he didnt even bother turning up in person? Why? Oh because he vowed he would never leave that planet facepalm

Originally posted by ares834
Then either you don't know what the terms "static" and "dynamic character" actually mean or you're attacking a strawman. These terms refer to characters developing throughout the story. My issue isn't that Luke has his own arc and development in TLJ. My issue is that he had such drastic character development off screen.

Now if that change was poorly explained or justified in the film, that would be bad writing. But it is explained quite well, some people just don't like it, because they don't feel its in keeping with an idealised and unrealistically perfect version of his character.

Ironically its exactly this "legend" version of Luke that the film interrogates and unpicks.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
That sounds like sulking to me. And they did a terrible job of justifying it.

Like I said, the action he took was kind of moot in comparison to all the times he did not intervene, and all the terrible things he allowed to happen.

Heck he didnt even bother turning up in person? Why? Oh because he vowed he would never leave that planet facepalm

And of course he didn't, Luke wasn't interested in killing his nephew or obliterating AT-ATs. He's disavowed all of that, he was there to inspire hope. And he did that, and beat them, without firing a single shot. Just like he did in RotJ.

*That* is what it means to be Luke Skywalker.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
I know. 🙁

On a serious note, I'm glad that Faveurea & Filoni are march-to-the-sound-of-their-own-drum-types rather than the TLJ-hating fan appeasers some folks are attempting to make them out to be.

Most audiences are capable of understanding that over a 30 year period people change, and that traumatic events can accelerate that change. Most audiences are smart like that and don't need to be hand-held.

Having said that, saving the remains of the Resistance (and the Jedi) from certain demise in a powerful act of non-violence is absolutely Luke Skywalker, made all the more weighty by being the capstone of an actual character arc. Sorry, but that's good writing.

Really? pr1983

Because I dunno what movie you're talking about. TLJ was a ****ing mess by almost any metric.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
A 'dynamic' character is one who can and would change, even in drastic ways, over a 30-year time skip. Because that's true to life. These characters are supposed to have lives off-screen, or at least good writing should convince us they do.

No. These are literary terms referring to how characters change throughout a story. A character changing over a timeskip does not make them dynamic. I'm not saying Luke wasn't dynamic during TLJ, he was. However, justifying these drastic off screen changes of character because it makes then a "dynamic" character is incorrect.

Originally posted by DarthAloysius
Now if that change was poorly explained or justified in the film, that would be bad writing. But it is explained quite well, some people just don't like it, because they don't feel its in keeping with an idealised and unrealistically perfect version of his character.

But it is poorly explained and justified. That's my whole problem. I'm primarily referring to how Luke contemplated killing his own nephew. This is completely inconsistent with the character we see in RotJ and there is no explanation for that drastic change in character.

Wait, what? Look, if people like TLJ, that's fine, but no way anyone's gonna convince me that the writing is in any way, shape or form good. It isn't. Even for Rian Johnson, it's bad.

Originally posted by -Pr-
I counted 28 myself but I could be wrong.

There was easily over 20 and Grand Moff Fring said a "platoon" iirc, so that's 20-50 troops. You're probably either spot on or extremely close with your count of 28

Originally posted by Robtard
There was easily over 20 and Grand Moff Fring said a "platoon" iirc, so that's 20-50 troops. You're probably either spot on or extremely close with your count of 28

I hope so. There's a shot where he's on camera fighting a bunch of troopers that have surrounded him, then it cuts to him fighting troopers that surrounded him, and I'm not sure if it's meant to be the same fight from two different angles, or separate droids.

Pretty amazing how this show has done more positive for Star Wars than ep 7-9

Really makes you think. This is the power of not viciously assraping established characters and riding the coat-tails of past glory.

I don't even find the series particularly compelling- episode 2 was the last episode I really really liked- but it's definitely a step in the right direction compared to the sequel trilogy.

Rewatching it, one of the things I really like is how Gideon, once he realises who it is that is coming for Grogu, starts to show how ****ing terrified he is. Every previous appearance, he was the coolest, calmest guy in the room, but this time, not so much.

Originally posted by -Pr-
one of the things I really like is how Gideon, once he realises who it is that is coming for Grogu, starts to show how ****ing terrified he is.

Oh yeah that was great.

Originally posted by Lord Stark
I love the universal praise this episode is getting because it shows the 'sexism' argument was wrong all along. This episode had 4 badass strong women solo'ing a light cruiser and not one person is complaining. Why? It was written well.

Originally posted by Darth Thor
Honestly I didnt even think about the fact that it was 4 women fighting their way through the stormtroopers until somebody brought it up.

And thats how it should be.

Lol when I saw these comments. I have to admit all I thought about was how utterly incompetent stormtroopers are and by this point I don't even think one person soloing a cruiser would be considered remotely badass. Hell if a kid beat all the stormtroopers I wouldn't think much of it.

I mean stormtroopers were always bad but they went out of their way in the Mandalorian to show they can't fight, can't shoot straight etc.