1 minute ago, Daeglan said:

It was. But I think it was because they working with both hands behind their back in a dark room...

You don't need the greater knowledge of the surrounding time to put on a good show.

Just now, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You don't need the greater knowledge of the surrounding time to put on a good show.

You do when they demand it not contradict the movies. And then dont tell them the plan.

15 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Nah, just smears, lies, and other nasty BS. He's too good for something so petty as critiquing something. 🙄

It's why I don't bother engaging with him anymore on anything of substance. Can't get an actual discussion.

Eh, there are good practical reasons that they didn't (as detailed in the tweet posted by Nytwyng). However, it still looks really off.

14 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Since it’s been stated publicly that it was done for reasons of practicality in shooting live action, I’d say a conscious decision isn’t a design mistake and doesn’t require fixing.

Based on the lekku we saw in season 1 (which, to me, were rigid to the point of distraction) it would appear that there’s a trade-off to be made when the performer’s going to be in fairly heavy action: light weight for easy movement (which leads to that odd, rigid look to maintain the shape) or natural weight and shape, which impairs the performance.

The obvious go-to response is to say, “Finish them with CGI.” Which is all well and good for a one-off, multimillion dollar expense of a feature film. It’s less feasible for a weekly series, particularly for a guest star, even one with as high production values as The Mandalorian . If we buy into the speculation, for a moment, that this episode is meant to tease the Rebels sequel series/an Ahsoka series, that design is being made with long-term practicality in mind. Which is best for such production: a practical prosthetic that can be used multiple times, or an ongoing CGI expense every time a/the main character is on camera? (It’d be like, since Stephen Amell said he couldn’t grow a good beard, Arrow CG’ed Green Arrow’s classic Van Dyke onto his face every episode. 🤣 )

I agree. If anyone is interested, there is an interesting video about it here:

14 hours ago, Nytwyng said:

Since it’s been stated publicly that it was done for reasons of practicality in shooting live action, I’d say a conscious decision isn’t a design mistake and doesn’t require fixing.

Based on the lekku we saw in season 1 (which, to me, were rigid to the point of distraction) it would appear that there’s a trade-off to be made when the performer’s going to be in fairly heavy action: light weight for easy movement (which leads to that odd, rigid look to maintain the shape) or natural weight and shape, which impairs the performance.

The obvious go-to response is to say, “Finish them with CGI.” Which is all well and good for a one-off, multimillion dollar expense of a feature film. It’s less feasible for a weekly series, particularly for a guest star, even one with as high production values as The Mandalorian . If we buy into the speculation, for a moment, that this episode is meant to tease the Rebels sequel series/an Ahsoka series, that design is being made with long-term practicality in mind. Which is best for such production: a practical prosthetic that can be used multiple times, or an ongoing CGI expense every time a/the main character is on camera? (It’d be like, since Stephen Amell said he couldn’t grow a good beard, Arrow CG’ed Green Arrow’s classic Van Dyke onto his face every episode. 🤣 )

Yeah I get that. I understand costs of CG and all that. So it's fine. Best they could do, and it wasn't terrible, especially for people who have no idea who Ahsoka is (and she'd probably be the most important character that hadn't up till now been in live action) but I still wasn't excited about how they looked. It's fine. Maybe nit picking, but didn't look right. Probably my favorite episode this season though.

3 hours ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

You don't need the greater knowledge of the surrounding time to put on a good show.

I'm afraid I disagree. I suspect that the show was very restricted in what it could explore. If they weren't allowed to look at certain subjects then creative openings might not have been available.

6 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

I loved the episode, but let's be real, writing a great episode for the Mandalorian is basically a question of whether you can come up with (a) cool villains for the Mandalorian to fight, (b) cool allies to fight with him and (c) decent dialogue to set up the fight. I love the show, but it is not a plot-focused show.

I think it's also, and probably to a greater degree, a factor of 'how obsessed are you with spaghetti westerns and samurai movies'?

2 hours ago, Tramp Graphics said:

I agree. If anyone is interested, there is an interesting video about it here:

It's just basically just the guy reading the tweet Nytwyng posted on Saturday, and somehow stretched that into two and a half minutes without adding any extra information.

2 hours ago, micheldebruyn said:

It's just basically just the guy reading the tweet Nytwyng posted on Saturday, and somehow stretched that into two and a half minutes without adding any extra information.

That's the nature of the internet. Would you like me to expound upon it for a few more paragraphs that will in no way add anything to the discussion?

6 hours ago, Dazgrim said:

I'm afraid I disagree. I suspect that the show was very restricted in what it could explore. If they weren't allowed to look at certain subjects then creative openings might not have been available.

To call back to the first season of Agents of SHIELD, they were very much restricted with regards to the twist/reveal in Captain America: Winter Soldier that SHIELD had been heavily infiltrated by HYDRA, leading to a lot of "threat of the week" episodes in the early part of the season since they had to tip-toe around that particular cinematic bombshell.

I'd be surprised if the current story group at Lucasfilm isn't being mindful of the issues that arose from the early days of the EU where authors/creators could just do whatever they wanted, leading to a convoluted mess that involved "tiers of canon" that could themselves be contradictory at points, and are advising the folks that make the decisions at LFL on how to avoid a similar situation and try to keep a fairly unified narrative for the 'verse going forward.

Regarding live action Ahsoka, it frankly felt Rosario Dawson was underwhelming. The lekku/montrals were odd, but I understood on viewing that it was done for practicality as longer head-tails would have made the fight scenes far more difficult for the actress. I know that a portion of the SW fanbase was very vocal about having Rosario be the live-action Ahsoka, but after her performance here I won't be sad if we don't see the character again in this series. Granted, I'm not a big fan of the character (I feel like she got too much character shilling in Rebels), but since she's Filoni's baby then I guess her showing up in any projects he does is probably a given.

As for some earlier comments about Luke showing up later in the season in response to Grogu's outreach, they wouldn't necessarily have to use digital de-aging tech like they had for Carrie Fisher at the end of Rogue One. A while back, there were images going around of comparisons to Sebastian Stan (Bucky/Winter Soldier from MCU) to Luke/Mark circa ESB, and the similarities between their faces is uncanny. So they could very easily use Sebastian as a stand in for a Luke that's only a few years out from RotJ. Plus, if they need a live-action Luke to do any fight scenes, then getting into shape and learning fight choreography should be a snap for Sebastian after what he had to go through for the MCU films.

I am curious to see what shape Tython is in.

11 hours ago, DaverWattra said:

And Resistance was a steaming pile IMO, hopefully that was just a matter of him phoning it in.

I think he was barely involved, just overseeing the team. I don't think he had any influence on the content.

Resistance was torture, but I made myself watch it because, despite the lead and his sidekick being almost completely unwatchable, the secondary and tertiary characters were actually pretty well done, and once you got past the 2D colour scheme, the animation was really top notch and the sets well done.

7 hours ago, Dazgrim said:

I'm afraid I disagree. I suspect that the show was very restricted in what it could explore. If they weren't allowed to look at certain subjects then creative openings might not have been available.

Could it have been better if they had that knowledge? Yes. Was that the cause of Kaz tripping over himself every other step? I don't think so.

59 minutes ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Could it have been better if they had that knowledge? Yes. Was that the cause of Kaz tripping over himself every other step? I don't think so.

That would be the demographic that the show was made for, where enthusiastic/hyperactive, bumbling, a little brash, but kindhearted, good (even noble) young leads are typical. Take a look at most of the Disney Channel/XD live action shows, particularly those that are ostensibly action shows, with a heavy comedy vibe. Resistance fits right in with them. Formulaic, yes, but a formula that seems to work pretty well for what Disney (and the producers of those shows) want to achieve.

Maybe...just maybe...it just wasn’t made for us? Which is fine. And, watching it even if that’s the case is fine, too. I didn’t think it was a masterpiece, and I’ve probably forgotten more episodes than I remember. But it was fine for what it was: possibly the most kid-focused entry in the franchise, at least in recent memory (the challengers for the title being the Star Wars Adventures comics, Jedi Temple Challenge , and Galaxy of Adventures , I’d say), and one that fits a well-proven mold for a show that appeals to that target demographic.

It’s fine to not enjoy it, love it, or be indifferent to it, or any combination thereof. (I found it hit-and-miss, with the more character-driven stories speaking to me more than wacky hijinks episodes. Tam’s second-season arc, in particular was great, and Kaz’s growth as he grasped the enormity of what was really happening after his, “oh boy, I’m a spy on a grand adventure” beginnings hit for me, too. Second season worked a lot better for me, and I would have been fine with another season of the Colossus on the run, and leading more directly into a TRoS connection at the end.) But applying standards and expectations to it in line with broader entries in the property is like sitting down to watch the animated Wolverine and the X-Men and expecting it to be aimed squarely at Logan ’s audience (or vice versa).

4 minutes ago, Nytwyng said:

But applying standards and expectations to it in line with broader entries in the property is like sitting down to watch the animated Wolverine and the X-Men and expecting it to be aimed squarely at Logan ’s audience (or vice versa).

Well, maybe it's just me, but when I was that target audience, I'd have had approximately the same reaction to Kaz. I liked competent characters.

Not saying you're wrong, but that's my paradigm. I've always liked good stories and competent characters.

Sometimes I liked stuff that didn't quite fit into that category, but that's generally when it's something campy like a western (I really liked westerns) or a comedy like Private Eyes (or any of the other Don Knotts stuff, for that matter). And it was pretty much always sacrificing one, not both.

1 minute ago, P-47 Thunderbolt said:

Well, maybe it's just me, but when I was that target audience, I'd have had approximately the same reaction to Kaz. I liked competent characters.

Not saying you're wrong, but that's my paradigm. I've always liked good stories and competent characters.

Sometimes I liked stuff that didn't quite fit into that category, but that's generally when it's something campy like a western (I really liked westerns) or a comedy like Private Eyes (or any of the other Don Knotts stuff, for that matter). And it was pretty much always sacrificing one, not both.

I’m being perfectly honest when I say that I have no idea what my reaction would have been when I was part of that target demographic. Around that time, I’d started reading Asimov’s Foundation Trilogy (yeah...it was still a trilogy then 🤣 ). But I also still dug Super Friends , the Dungeons & Dragons cartoon, and a other dumb stuff. (No, I didn’t recently fall down a rabbit hole looking up information on Kidd Video , and its cast, or videos of the opening theme. Why do you ask?)

Tossing a little devil’s advocate out there, everything Kaz was less competent at was something that was specifically stated as being out of his normal wheelhouse: he wasn’t a spy, but Poe tapped him to be one (just another in a long line of rash decisions by Poe), so he overcompensated; he wasn’t a mechanic, but that’s the cover that was available to him with some friendly oversight. When he was in a cockpit - what he was trained to do - he acquitted himself well. Once he no longer had to hide his reason for being on the Colossus, he was less bumbling (but still did his fair share, as required by the formula mentioned earlier). “Competent” characters can still be presented in a broad, slapstick-y manner, and often are in shows of this kind - a disaster at everything but what they’re best at, but their friends still stand by them. And, if Kaz still doesn’t work for you, no harm, no foul.

The combination really worked for me this week. I haven't been satisfied by a second-season episode 'til now. Part of it was the absence of obvious callbacks -- everything was variations/expansions on the theme rather than 'member moments that take you out of the fiction and into Star Wars trivia. So much more attention paid to little details. Loved the gutteral sounds from the droids, to say nothing of the fact that the Matriarch dressed them up! A non-fan cowatcher said she was "lost" in it. Also, Baby Yogrogu's adorableness was material to the show rather than "cut to Child doing Child thing."

Edit: Oh! Loved Michael Biehn's mumbling, scumbag hired gun. I totally get Dave's issue with light plot, but if TPTB can do pulp right for once -- all for it!

4 hours ago, Donovan Morningfire said:

Regarding live action Ahsoka, it frankly felt Rosario Dawson was underwhelming. The lekku/montrals were odd, but I understood on viewing that it was done for practicality as longer head-tails would have made the fight scenes far more difficult for the actress. I know that a portion of the SW fanbase was very vocal about having Rosario be the live-action Ahsoka, but after her performance here I won't be sad if we don't see the character again in this series. Granted, I'm not a big fan of the character (I feel like she got too much character shilling in Rebels), but since she's Filoni's baby then I guess her showing up in any projects he does is probably a given.

As for some earlier comments about Luke showing up later in the season in response to Grogu's outreach, they wouldn't necessarily have to use digital de-aging tech like they had for Carrie Fisher at the end of Rogue One. A while back, there were images going around of comparisons to Sebastian Stan (Bucky/Winter Soldier from MCU) to Luke/Mark circa ESB, and the similarities between their faces is uncanny. So they could very easily use Sebastian as a stand in for a Luke that's only a few years out from RotJ. Plus, if they need a live-action Luke to do any fight scenes, then getting into shape and learning fight choreography should be a snap for Sebastian after what he had to go through for the MCU films.

I am curious to see what shape Tython is in.

While Sebastian Stan’d name has been thrown around as a potential “younger Luke” because of how similar their faces are, I don’t see it working for one key reason: he’s too tall. Sebastian Stan is 6’ tall, the same height as Harrison Ford. Mark Hammil is only 5’9” tall. He was visibly shorter than Han in the OT.

14 minutes ago, wilsch said:

Edit: Oh! Loved Michael Biehn's mumbling, scumbag hired gun. I totally get Dave's issue with light plot, but if TPTB can do pulp right for once -- all for it!

I so wanted him to live and hear more about his future and back story (I imagined him being an old Stormtrooper squad leader turned merc after the Empire fell). I made a PC connection with this guy. He reminded me of a couple of past characters of mine (the no bull wise older soldier), except that I would have said, "I lay the blaster down and slowly walk away". Followed when appropriate by, "Hey since your buddy killed by employer, need another gunslinger to tag along?" 😁

16 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

While Sebastian Stan’d name has been thrown around as a potential “younger Luke” because of how similar their faces are, I don’t see it working for one key reason: he’s too tall. Sebastian Stan is 6’ tall, the same height as Harrison Ford. Mark Hammil is only 5’9” tall. He was visibly shorter than Han in the OT.

What an insurmountable obstacle! If only the entertainment industry had a century’s worth of experience in fudging performers’ heights on screen. Tom Cruise might just have a career if they did. Three inches. Dank farrik. 🙄

56 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

While Sebastian Stan’d name has been thrown around as a potential “younger Luke” because of how similar their faces are, I don’t see it working for one key reason: he’s too tall. Sebastian Stan is 6’ tall, the same height as Harrison Ford. Mark Hammil is only 5’9” tall. He was visibly shorter than Han in the OT.

When has Tom Cruise ever played a short character? Soapbox tecnology was developed in the silent era and perfected in Middle-Earth.

Edit: next time read entire thread before responding with a near-identitcal reply.

55 minutes ago, Sturn said:

I so wanted him to live and hear more about his future and back story (I imagined him being an old Stormtrooper squad leader turned merc after the Empire fell). I made a PC connection with this guy. He reminded me of a couple of past characters of mine (the no bull wise older soldier), except that I would have said, "I lay the blaster down and slowly walk away". Followed when appropriate by, "Hey since your buddy killed by employer, need another gunslinger to tag along?" 😁

I know, right? But he had that look in his eye...

5 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

When has Tom Cruise ever played a short character? Soapbox tecnology was developed in the silent era and perfected in Middle-Earth.

Edit: next time read entire thread before responding with a near-identitcal reply.

I give you credit for not giving in to the snark urge nearly as much as I did. 😁

31 minutes ago, micheldebruyn said:

When has Tom Cruise ever played a short character? Soapbox tecnology was developed in the silent era and perfected in Middle-Earth.

Edit: next time read entire thread before responding with a near-identitcal reply.

If you’re trying to match an existing actor, especially how said actor measures up to his or her fellow actors, getting the height right is crucial.

As for Tom Cruise, it’s far easier to make a shorter person appear taller than it is to make a tall person short.

42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you’re trying to match an existing actor, especially how said actor measures up to his or her fellow actors, getting the height right is crucial.

Alden Ehrenreich: 5’9; Harrison Ford: 6’1”

Billy Dee Williams: 6’; Donald Glover: 5’9”

Lecy Goranson: 5’5”; Sara Chalke: 5’8”

Terrence Howard: 6’; Don Cheadle: 5’8”

Edward Norton: 6’; Mark Ruffalo: 5’8”

Adam West: 6’2”; Michael Keaton: 5’9”; Val Kilmer: 6’; George Clooney: 5’11”; Christian Bale: 6’; Ben Affleck: 6’4”; Robert Pattinson: 6’1”

George Reeves: 6’2”; Christopher Reeve: 6’4”; Tom Welling: 6’3”; Brandon Routh: 6’2”; Henry Cavill: 6’1”; Tyler Hoechlin: 6’ (and Routh and Hoechlin both played Superman standing next to one another )

I think you’re overestimating how much the average viewer cares about this. Even when a significant trait of the character is his or her height, most people care more about the performance. Otherwise, people would have soundly rejected the 6’3” Hugh Jackman playing the 5’3” Wolverine.

42 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

As for Tom Cruise, it’s far easier to make a shorter person appear taller than it is to make a tall person short.

Good thing nobody told Peter Jackson about this.

(I mean, they certainly couldn’t use techniques to make the other performers around them look taller...that’s crazy talk.)

45 minutes ago, Tramp Graphics said:

If you’re trying to match an existing actor, especially how said actor measures up to his or her fellow actors, getting the height right is crucial.

Unles Stan will be interacting with Harrison Ford of Carrie Fisher, I really doubt that it matters even a tiny little bit.

Quote

As for Tom Cruise, it’s far easier to make a shorter person appear taller than it is to make a tall person short.

It's barely an inconvenience either way. And usually you can do one by doing the other.