The Mandalorian (Star Wars Live Action Series)

[Wor-Gar]

Thing about Favreau is he strikes me as a guy who knows the Hollywood game inside out, and makes exceptional products within that foul machinery. Which means that when the machinery demands something else -- something we really won't like -- he's gonna crank it out and spin it the same way he spins the products we *do* happen to like. He's a politician and they're not to be trusted.

He's what people always wanted JJ to be, but JJ is not.

That said, Favreau is no Spielberg (if you equate primes).

 

[ZE_501]

He's what people always wanted JJ to be, but JJ is not.

That said, Favreau is no Spielberg (if you equate primes).

That's an apt description and an understatement. Spielberg is an artist. Most directors are entertainers.

 

[jye4ever]

Shmii to little annie: don’t be afraid

Mando to grogu: don’t be afraid

Yup grogu going to the dark side lol

 

[hellgrammite00]

He's what people always wanted JJ to be, but JJ is not.

That said, Favreau is no Spielberg (if you equate primes).

RLM has made this point well, but Abrams is a good director, but he is not a good writer. I would say in general Bad Robot does not contain good writers.

If you sign Abrams, he is only going to agree if he can write.

The Mandalorian has pretty much all been written and produced by Favreau, and he has directed some of it as well. His creative control over that project is near absolute.

Abrams had nearly that level of authority in his directed Star Wars films as well, because it wasn't just him but Bad Robot that was producing the movie (you can't just fire the director easily if his company is also producing it.)

Comparing Spielberg to Favreau isnt really fair. Spielberg is a near perfect director, but he also doesn't get too involved in the writing aspect. Favreau on a lot of his projects is the writer/producter/director, so that across the board ability to work is rare nowadays.

I put Favreau in the Nolan tier, with each of them obviously having different creative paths, but overall similar proficiencies.

 

[Khev]

I have the RC bought and paid for and to be honest, once Fett came back (with Slave 1 more bada$$ than ever before) and the 'Crest was destroyed I lost a lot of interest in it. I have the VC Slave 1, which is great and has always been my favorite SW ship (with the Falcon a close second), so I'll probably sell the RC once I get it.

I waited too long on the Black Series Fett helmet because I opted to get the Slave 1 first, so I'm glad that it's up for order again as well. Now I have to decide if I want the classic helmet or repainted one (no price at BBTS yet). I'll most likely opt for the classic one.

I just preordered Slave I through EE and both Fett buckets through BBTS, lol. I'll probably only keep the one with ESB weathering but I am loving the new clean look and since the clean one won't ship until early 2022 I figure I can just order it now and then let The Book of Boba Fett come out to see if that prompts me to keep it.

 

[Khev]

Shmii to little annie: don’t be afraid

Mando to grogu: don’t be afraid

Yup grogu going to the dark side lol

There's no reason for anyone to be freaking out about Grogu possibly being killed by Kylo Ren. If third tier Jedi like Kanan can escape the Jedi Purge then top tier Grogu easily can as well. Hell Grogu himself already escaped Anakin's rampage so what's one more, lol.

 

[a-dev]

Every time the Empire builds a killing machine and places living beings inside it, there's a sacrifice of life that needs to be made one way or the other. If star destroyers (like those in TROS) posed that kind of threat to innocent beings, then blowing those up would still allow a true Jedi to act in the name of defense. There's no real practical way around it.

I think destroying the Death Star is still very much an act of defense to save countless lives, even if Luke *had been* a Jedi when he blew it up. But in ROTJ, he was willing to *be* blown up with DS2, rather than murder bad guys and flee.



Luke can kill living beings, even after his moment of ascendancy in ROTJ. But if he does it, there needs to be a sense that he has no other choice. It shouldn't be just "if you're on the wrong side he'll kill you." Or do you actually believe that Luke post-ROTJ throne room scene would be running around killing everyone on the wrong side?

To me, it would need to be a scenario consistent with Yoda's teaching about "only for defense, never attack," and where he can't use the Force to resolve the threat in a non-lethal way. Otherwise, what was it he learned? What would be the purpose of tossing his saber and not killing Palpatine when he was convinced the Rebels weren't going to succeed?

His moments of violence on DS2 came when his emotions were stoked and he felt desperate to save people (Palpatine taunting "strike me down" and Vader taunting "perhaps she will"). Those examples are the essence of "fear is the path to the dark side." A Jedi will always be tempted to act that way and give in to fear, but a true Jedi can overcome the fear and not give in. That's why Luke only became a true Jedi when he made the choice he made at the end of ROTJ. Don't know how GL's intent there can be anything but clear.

Very good, although, I wasn't disputing any of that. This part in bold makes it sound like you think I was?

What I was getting at was I saw no reason why his ROTJ epiphany should necessarily preclude the future killing of living beings where necessary or otherwise have him displaying the traditional swashbuckling kind of 'badassery' that fans are looking for and which they didn't get in the ST.

Apologies, I'm not going into great depth in my posts, not merely out of my usual laziness but also now because my keyboard is acting up again which makes posting incredibly frustrating.

 

[user 64404]

That's an apt description and an understatement. Spielberg is an artist. Most directors are entertainers.

If we put like that it would be something like that in star wars:

Entertainers:Ron Howard, Favreau, Abrams(who failed in this category)
Artist:Johnson, George Lucas, Gareth Edwards and Irvin Kershner
Filone would be an artist director
Agree?

 

[Wor-Gar]

Comparing Spielberg to Favreau isnt really fair. Spielberg is a near perfect director, but he also doesn't get too involved in the writing aspect. Favreau on a lot of his projects is the writer/producter/director, so that across the board ability to work is rare nowadays.

I agree. But in your assessment of Favreau, if you go back to the Lucas era from Star Wars to Raiders, Lucas was also often writer, director and producer all at once or strongly behind the scenes so equating Favreau to Lucas might be more fair.... though Favreau is dealing with well-known and well-established material while Lucas was creating fresh new ideas and whole new worlds. There is a big difference. One is a talented super fan... the other is an artist.

I think your comparison to Nolan, other than Batman, is unfair on that level too.

 

[hellgrammite00]

If we put like that it would be something like that in star wars:

Entertainers:Ron Howard, Favreau, Abrams(who failed in this category)
Artist:Johnson, George Lucas, Gareth Edwards and Irvin Kershner
Filone would be an artist director
Agree?

Don't agree. I mean fun separation, but to me falls flat. How do you define artist?

I mean Nolan realistically would fall into Entertainer side of this based on his films if we started to add directors (they are generally glossy blockbusters with a little deepness thrown in, a notch above mindless blockbusters.)

 

[Khev]

Very good, although, I wasn't disputing any of that. This part in bold makes it sound like you think I was?

What I was getting at was I saw no reason why his ROTJ epiphany should necessarily preclude the future killing of living beings where necessary or otherwise have him displaying the traditional swashbuckling kind of 'badassery' that fans are looking for and which they didn't get in the ST.

I think that top level Jedi are supposed to do everything they can to find their way around killing. I mean look at Ben Kenobi facing Vader and ROTJ Luke facing the Emperor. If there was ever an excuse to just go down fighting in an attempt to kill the bad guy at all costs it would have to been against *those* two (Vader/Palps) wouldn't you say? I don't think it's any coincidence that neither Old Ben, Yoda, or Luke killed their ultimate opponents in the OT.

We saw Vader kill Palps and Kylo kill Snoke but never a Jedi Master doing the same*. Evil always turns on itself while Good is expected to rise above.

*Yes we saw Mace kill Jango and also both he and Yoda tried to kill Palps but I think the message of the PT was that they were all corrupted to one level or another during that time period.

Qui Gon seemed like he might have been the only proper Jedi during that era and interestingly enough we never saw him kill anyone either.

 

[ZE_501]

If we put like that it would be something like that in star wars:

Entertainers:Ron Howard, Favreau, Abrams(who failed in this category)
Artist:Johnson, George Lucas, Gareth Edwards and Irvin Kershner
Filone would be an artist director
Agree?

None of those are people are on Spielberg's level, IMO. His output and the quality and consistency of that output is unmatched by anyone listed there.

All of the others have produced work ranging from good to outstanding, but none of them have won and then held the territory Spielberg has across genres and eras.

*EDIT: Removing Spielberg from the equation, I'd give the title of Artist to Lucas because he created it, and he made 2 transcendent films. He later lost his touch, though.

Kershner was a vital addition but he didn't create those worlds, and to be honest I still don't know how much of Gareth I've seen.

My opinion of Filoni is low.

 

[hellgrammite00]

I agree. But in your assessment of Favreau, if you go back to the Lucas era from Star Wars to Raiders, Lucas was also often writer, director and producer all at once or strongly behind the scenes so equating Favreau to Lucas might be more fair.... though Favreau is dealing with well-known and well-established material while Lucas was creating fresh new ideas and whole new worlds. There is a big difference. One is a talented super fan... the other is an artist.

I think your comparison to Nolan, other than Batman, is unfair on that level too.

The original Star Wars was kind of a sloppy messy film. The editor is what made it into an artistic gem, turning a half-baked cake into a dessert.

I mean Resident Evil movies are artistic, but that doesn't make them good.

Lucas had control overs ROTJ and the prequels and Indy 4, all of them to me are at best mediocre works of art.

 

[ajp4mgs]

Very good, although, I wasn't disputing any of that. This part in bold makes it sound like you think I was?

What I was getting at was I saw no reason why his ROTJ epiphany should necessarily preclude the future killing of living beings where necessary or otherwise have him displaying the traditional swashbuckling kind of 'badassery' that fans are looking for and which they didn't get in the ST.

Apologies, I'm not going into great depth in my posts, not merely out of my usual laziness but also now because my keyboard is acting up again which makes posting incredibly frustrating.

No, my last sentence there was not meant to suggest that you didn't understand GL's intent. Sorry if I made it seem that way. I included that to make clear that any post-ROTJ Luke who doesn't act according to GL's intent with his OT arc would be a serious problem.

What I was (and am) confused by is whether or not you believe post-ROTJ Luke should be shown dealing with living beings the way he did with the droids in Mando.

If that's the level of "badassery" people want to see, then *that* is where I think it would almost certainly conflict with his character evolution. Lots of fans lately seem to want to ignore what Yoda taught in ESB because they (again, *seemingly*) think the PT Jedi represent how Luke and his Jedi would act. I think that's a faulty way of visualizing post-ROTJ Luke.

Sometimes it seems that what people want is for Luke to contradict what GL had him learn at the end of his saga. That's basically what I'm getting at. I'm not sure we're all on the same page when it comes to what Luke's final ROTJ confrontation with Palpatine was supposed to signify.

I think that top level Jedi are supposed to do everything they can to find their way around killing. I mean look at Ben Kenobi facing Vader and ROTJ Luke facing the Emperor. If there was ever an excuse to just go down fighting in an attempt to kill the bad guy at all costs it would have to been against *those* two (Vader/Palps) wouldn't you say? I don't think it's any coincidence that neither Old Ben, Yoda, or Luke killed their ultimate opponents in the OT.

We saw Vader kill Palps and Kylo kill Snoke but never a Jedi Master doing the same. Evil always turns on itself while Good is expected to rise above.

This!

I really need to learn to just wait and let you post responses in a more efficient and effective way than I can. A great time-saver from now on.

 

[ZE_501]

The original Star Wars was kind of a sloppy messy film. The editor is what made it into an artistic gem, turning a half-baked cake into a dessert.

I mean Resident Evil movies are artistic, but that doesn't make them good.

Lucas was given creative control overs ROTJ and the prequels and Indy 4, all of them to me are at best mediocre works of art.

That's what makes judging films so difficult. They're Massively Multi Player.

Agreed on the editing. You may even argue that editing saved ANH and Kershner saved ESB.

Yet Lucas was the lunatic with the vision. No Lucas, no nothing.

 

[user 64404]

Don't agree. I mean fun separation, but to me falls flat. How do you define artist?

I mean Nolan realistically would fall into Entertainer side of this based on his films if we started to add directors (they are generally glossy blockbusters with a little deepness thrown in, a notch above mindless blockbusters.)

For me an artistic director is one who has a vision on the project that is something unique and exotic like jodorowsky's Dune.
Comparing the work on the DC characters for example, Zack Snyder is an artistic director while Nolan is an Entertainers directors. But Nolan turn into an artistic director when he makes his original movies.
Favreau is an excelent Entertainers director, but he fails when he have to have a creative vision like in the Lion King remake.

IS:Being an artists or Entertainers does not mean good or bad automatically.

 

[Khev]

This!

I really need to learn to just wait and let you post responses in a more efficient and effective way than I can. A great time-saver from now on.

I added a little bit to my last post addressing the PT Jedi as well.

 

[hellgrammite00]

For me an artistic director is one who has a vision on the project that is something unique and exotic like jodorowsky's Dune.
Comparing the work on the DC characters for exemple, Zack Snyder is an artistic director while Nolan is an Entertainers directors. But Nolan turn into an artistic director when he makes his original movies.
Favrou is an excelent Entertainers director, but he fails when he have to have a creative vision like in the Lion King remake.

At the end of the day, I rather have Nolan and Favreau over Snyder and Paul W Anderson, if we are using your definition of artistic.

 

[hellgrammite00]

That's what makes judging films so difficult. They're Massively Multi Player.

Agreed on the editing. You may even argue that editing saved ANH and Kershner saved ESB.

Yet Lucas was the lunatic with the vision. No Lucas, no nothing.

Lucas owned it is what really matters. Somebody helped turn his vision from a mediocre film to a mega hit. Plus Star Wars was 'inspired' by a lot of other films. I mean Lucas deserves some credit for sure, but if that is the case than Favreau deserves to have artistic credit for the Mandalorian.

I just don't get the artist vs entertainer aspect. A director has to take a page of paper, and make it work on the screen.

Spielberg does that well. Abrams does that well. Favreau does that well. Snyder does it....okay. The only difference is that Spielberg is not also writing the paper.

 

[ZE_501]

Lucas owned it is what really matters. Somebody helped turn his vision from a mediocre film to a mega hit. Plus Star Wars was 'inspired' by a lot of other films. I mean Lucas deserves some credit for sure, but if that is the case than Favreau deserves to have artistic credit for the Mandalorian.

Yeah, Star Wars *is* other films shot for shot, in some cases.

You see that lot in film and while it can work wonders, it also makes me uncomfortable sometimes.