Just now, VadersMarchKazoo said:

On a side note: Who wants to see Mandalore the Ultimate/Great and the origins of the Dark Saber on the big screen?😲

MEEEE!!!

I think there's room for all the various iterations of what it is to be a Mandalorian in the galaxy.

If you look at a little similar to Judaism, where there's so many different movements (Conservative, Orthodox, Reform, Reconstructionist, ect.), as well as cultural and ethnic differences (Sephardic, Ashkenazi, ect.), but all are still very much part of the Jewish belief and ethoreligion, then you can see a real world parallel. Especially with the diaspora coming into play - it could very well be that Din's belief system traces itself back even before the most recent divide on Mandalore, before the time of the prequels, even, and there was a diaspora at that point, too.

Perhaps Din's clan/tribe is part of a movement that has a modifier to 'Mandalorian' - such as 'Traditionalist' or 'Orthodox' or even 'Tribal' - but because it doesn't have any real relevance outside of their own culture, they never bother to state it to outsiders. If he meets a Mando that belongs to a different sect in Season 2, perhaps he'd then use the whole term, or expound on his particular belief set.

2 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

prefer to think of them as Mandalorians*, I liked their Legends story (only up to the Clone Wars, I don't care much about where Boba went from there in Legends).
As for Satine saying that they aren't Mandalorian, there are a variety of reasons for her to say that. She isn't even actually Mandalorian. She is a pacifist New Mandalorian, so she doesn't really have any leg to stand on in that debate anyway.

Minor clarification: it was Almec, not Satine, who commented on Jango not being Mandalorian.

It’s possible (even more so now, with the information from this series) to make a reasonable case that Almec had political reasons to denounce Jango, and that he was wrong or lying. But, as I keep telling Tramp whenever he gets on one of his tirades about how Jango *must* be Mandalorian....

Filoni has gone on record as saying the line was included to establish Lucas’ intent that Jango (and by extension, Boba) isn’t Mandalorian. It’s been backed up by the story group. So, for better or for worse, right now the people who get to make those decisions have decided that Jango isn’t Mandalorian.

Might they reverse that decision, using this same sort of logic (“Almec was attempting to distance Mandalore from Jango.”)? Sure. Until and unless they do, though, he’s a non-Mando dude with Mando armor trading on Mando reputation.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

Minor clarification: it was Almec, not Satine, who commented on Jango not being Mandalorian.

Whoops! And they didn't both comment? Hmm... I guess I just got my wires crossed between her denouncing Death Watch and him distancing Mandalore from Jango. My bad.

FWIW, I actually like Jango and Boba not being Mando - it decouples any of their actions with willingly assisting the Empire (indirectly via Jango and directly with Boba) from association with Mandalore, since it's very clear the Mandos have no like of the Empire post-Rebels.

Plus, it allows Din to be the iconic "Mandalorian" in the greater fandom, which is a boon, as Jango and Boba are overdone and filled with... well, the sort of stuff Legends went overboard with.

4 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Whoops! And they didn't both comment? Hmm... I guess I just got my wires crossed between her denouncing Death Watch and him distancing Mandalore from Jango. My bad.

No, I went back and watched the first time Tramp and I did the Jango Tango. Almec’s the one Obi-Wan mentions encountering Jango to, and Almec came back with, “Jango Fett was a common bounty hunter. How he acquired that armor is beyond me.”

So, is there wiggle room? Sure. But we also know with a certainty the creative intent behind the line. It’s entirely possible the wiggle room was even intentional, but The Powers That Be currently say that he isn’t.

Just now, StarkJunior said:

FWIW, I actually like Jango and Boba not being Mando - it decouples any of their actions with willingly assisting the Empire (indirectly via Jango and directly with Boba) from association with Mandalore, since it's very clear the Mandos have no like of the Empire post-Rebels.

Plus, it allows Din to be the iconic "Mandalorian" in the greater fandom, which is a boon, as Jango and Boba are overdone and filled with... well, the sort of stuff Legends went overboard with.

My headcanon is that Jango was a Mandalorian (largely because of the cuy'val dar), but Boba was Dar'Manda.

Just now, Nytwyng said:

No, I went back and watched the first time Tramp and I did the Jango Tango. Almec’s the one Obi-Wan mentions encountering Jango to, and Almec came back with, “Jango Fett was a common bounty hunter. How he acquired that armor is beyond me.”

So, is there wiggle room? Sure. But we also know with a certainty the creative intent behind the line. It’s entirely possible the wiggle room was even intentional, but The Powers That Be currently say that he isn’t.

Further evidence is the complete lack of reference to "Clan Fett" anywhere in the canon, when it was a huge thing in Legends. (Seriously, practically every ****** SW property set in the various time periods had a Fett running around.)

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

With TLJ, they literally said "let the past die. Kill it if you have to" all while character assassinating a beloved character from the OT.

In movies, when the main villain makes his point, it pretty much always is something the writers do not agree with.

1 hour ago, VadersMarchKazoo said:

On a side note: Who wants to see Mandalore the Ultimate/Great and the origins of the Dark Saber on the big screen?😲

I do not. I don't want Star Wars movies about stuff I read 15-20 years ago. I want new stuff.

4 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

In movies, when the main villain makes his point, it pretty much always is something the writers do not agree with.

The Last Jedi felt very meta, and I disagree that the writer always disagrees with stuff he has the villain say. An example of that would be the Incredibles movie.

Aside from that, in the larger context of the aforementioned character assassination of Luke, it feels like that is something the writer is saying.

Plus, if the writer wanted to say that in the movie, do you think he'd have been able to put it in the mouth of a good guy? Within context, he can't really.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

The Last Jedi felt very meta, and I disagree that the writer always disagrees with stuff he has the villain say. An example of that would be the Incredibles movie.

Aside from that, in the larger context of the aforementioned character assassination of Luke, it feels like that is something the writer is saying.

Plus, if the writer wanted to say that in the movie, do you think he'd have been able to put it in the mouth of a good guy? Within context, he can't really.

The Last Jedi is very meta, and so was the Force Awaknes, but that is besides the point.

And you're seriously bending over backwards here trying to make Rian Johnson look like a bad guy.

Also, Luke wasn't character--assassinated.

9 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

And you're seriously bending over backwards here trying to make Rian Johnson look like a bad guy.

I'm not sure what you are referring to here, but I'm not trying to make him look like a bad guy. I just really dislike where he went with the story.

10 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

Also, Luke wasn't character--assassinated.

I could go on on this subject for a while, but I think we're just going to have to agree to disagree here.

Do you think there'll be a time skip for Season 2, and do you think the Child will have some sort of differing costume?

11 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Aside from that, in the larger context of the aforementioned character assassination of Luke, it feels like that is something the writer is saying.

At the risk of thread lock if the discussion continues to meander from The Mandalorian (and given how dialogue about TLJ tends to end up with threads locked)....

We must first accept the premise that Luke’s character was “assassinated” in the movie. I would disagree with this premise.

Why would we say it was? Because he was in a self-imposed exile? Well, that was set up by Abrams and Kasdan in TFA, as were the broadest strokes of why (Ben/Kylo went dark and Luke blamed himself).

Was it because of the details of why he blamed himself? Those details were in line with his character as established in the movies (which were, for all intents and purposes, the only framework to proceed from; with the EU/Legends material off the board, we must unlearn what we had learned about Luke post-RotJ in that continuity). A moment of impulse, that he pulled himself back from, with tragic timing. Then that self-imposed exile being an example imparted by both of his own mentors.

Was it because he then concluded that he was wrong, and literally gave his life for the remains of the Resistance to survive by using the Force for knowledge and defense, rather than attack? For me, that may be the most impressive display of Luke’s being a Jedi, period.

Was it because of his death itself? Given that the originally stated idea for using the OT’s Big Three in this trilogy was to spotlight one of them in each film and pass the proverbial torch, Luke dying probably shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Absolutely none of this is to say that you must like or enjoy the decisions that were made, or that it was remotely what you wanted to see. But “character assassination” implies malicious intent to damage the character, and I don’t think that’s what happened.

1 minute ago, Nytwyng said:

At the risk of thread lock if the discussion continues to meander from The Mandalorian (and given how dialogue about TLJ tends to end up with threads locked)....

We must first accept the premise that Luke’s character was “assassinated” in the movie. I would disagree with this premise.

Why would we say it was? Because he was in a self-imposed exile? Well, that was set up by Abrams and Kasdan in TFA, as were the broadest strokes of why (Ben/Kylo went dark and Luke blamed himself).

Was it because of the details of why he blamed himself? Those details were in line with his character as established in the movies (which were, for all intents and purposes, the only framework to proceed from; with the EU/Legends material off the board, we must unlearn what we had learned about Luke post-RotJ in that continuity). A moment of impulse, that he pulled himself back from, with tragic timing. Then that self-imposed exile being an example imparted by both of his own mentors.

Was it because he then concluded that he was wrong, and literally gave his life for the remains of the Resistance to survive by using the Force for knowledge and defense, rather than attack? For me, that may be the most impressive display of Luke’s being a Jedi, period.

Was it because of his death itself? Given that the originally stated idea for using the OT’s Big Three in this trilogy was to spotlight one of them in each film and pass the proverbial torch, Luke dying probably shouldn’t come as much of a surprise.

Absolutely none of this is to say that you must like or enjoy the decisions that were made, or that it was remotely what you wanted to see. But “character assassination” implies malicious intent to damage the character, and I don’t think that’s what happened.

Okay, character assassination is probably a strong word because of the implied malicious intent. I used it because it gets the general concept across.

Like I said, I can go on about this for a while, but I would rather not. I'm tired of arguing about TLJ. With TRoS out, I'm glad to be largely able to ignore it.

4 minutes ago, StarkJunior said:

Do you think there'll be a time skip for Season 2, and do you think the Child will have some sort of differing costume?

I think that there might be a time jump, but not a significant one. I doubt Baby Yoda will get a costume change, but he might at some point during the season. I don't think there's any traditional garb for Mandalorian kids, but that would be cool!

34 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Aside from that, in the larger context of the aforementioned character assassination of Luke, it feels like that is something the writer is saying.

I think it had less to do with Luke than it did Johnson using Luke as a mechanism to reject what Abram's handed him on a silver platter to work with and to reject fan expectations. Johnson is on record saying he was actively trying to "subvert expectations" and that he had his "own vision" for what the sequel trilogy's message should be. The key word is "subvert." Subversion is the process by which the values and principles of a a thing are contradicted or reversed. That sort of edgy and pretentious artiste's privilege is fine unless your job is making the middle film in a beloved and venerable franchises' third and final trilogy. Its good to surprise people and show off how brilliant and original you can be, but in this case staying on message and delivering on expectations so as to help give the fans a satisfying conclusion was key to his job description. In other words, Luke's character wasn't assassinated so much as it was badly mishandled.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I think that there might be a time jump, but not a significant one. I doubt Baby Yoda will get a costume change, but he might at some point during the season. I don't think there's any traditional garb for Mandalorian kids, but that would be cool!

We saw a few with helmets on running through the covert in Chapter 3, but yeah, they looked like they had your standard SW-esque western clothes on. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Mandos have a sort of 'design' for their non-armor clothes - I think you can see a bit of that in the Armorer's outfit, since she doesn't wear as much armor as some of the others.

Just now, StarkJunior said:

We saw a few with helmets on running through the covert in Chapter 3, but yeah, they looked like they had your standard SW-esque western clothes on. Though, I wouldn't be surprised if Mandos have a sort of 'design' for their non-armor clothes - I think you can see a bit of that in the Armorer's outfit, since she doesn't wear as much armor as some of the others.

I've always been kinda fascinated by the sartorial choices of the background characters or cultures in Star Wars. Star Wars on the whole has a rather pleasant anachronistic feel to it, if you know what I mean.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

I've always been kinda fascinated by the sartorial choices of the background characters or cultures in Star Wars. Star Wars on the whole has a rather pleasant anachronistic feel to it, if you know what I mean.

Yeah, and we know Mandos have something called the "Fighting Pits" that they raised their children/Foundlings in, so they must have some provision for armor for them - even if its just heavily padded clothing. Depending on if that stuff is more readily available than beskar or even non-beskar Mando armor, Din could outfit the Child with that, or something similar.

1 minute ago, StarkJunior said:

Yeah, and we know Mandos have something called the "Fighting Pits" that they raised their children/Foundlings in,

Hmm? What was that from? I don't remember that.

5 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Like I said, I can go on about this for a while, but I would rather not. I'm tired of arguing about TLJ.

That’s fair. It didn’t work for you. It happens. There are elements of TRoS (one big one in particular) that didn’t work for me.

6 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

With TRoS out, I'm glad to be largely able to ignore it.

Considering Abrams and Terrio did, too... 🤣

I try not to ascribe malicious intent for creative choices that just fall flat for me, but it seems like they did go out of their way to ignore, undo, or just plain shoot the finger at TLJ at times. Whether that was malice or capitulation to the loud, toxic grognards, I dunno. Glad you found plenty to like in it. I found enough to enjoy myself, too.

2 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Hmm? What was that from? I don't remember that.

Din says it in Chapter 8 - "I was raised in the fighting pits".

Just now, StarkJunior said:

Din says it in Chapter 8 - "I was raised in the fighting pits".

Huh. Guess I missed that. I wonder what exactly those are? I mean, the name is kinda straight forward, but there is probably more to it than that. Not sure of the context, but I wonder if it was more a matter of where the clan was (i.e. the covert was in a city of gladiatorial arenas for whatever reason) at the time rather than a standard custom... MORE INFO!