The Mandalorian and Grogu (2026)

[fireproof78]

If Helmet Guy and Baby Yoda indeed sells fewer theater tickets than the (R-rated!) Mortal Kombat II, it will be a historic humiliation for the Star Wars franchise, and an absolutely stunning consumer rebuke of Lucasfilm's leadership.

And that's bad...??? And I should care why? Make, did you all get your Disney stock and I didn't?

 

[Gaith]

And that's bad...??? And I should care why?

Why did you even post that reply? Why should I care what you think? See, two can play this game.

 

[fireproof78]

Why did you even post that reply? Why should I care what you think? See, two can play this game.

I'm curious how humiliation of Lucasfilm is something that should be regarded by fans? I don't understand why this is important.

 

[Gaith]

I'm curious how humiliation of Lucasfilm is something that should be regarded by fans? I don't understand why this is important.

If you're genuinely curious, you should lead with a question. When you instead choose to say "I don't care," it sounds as though you're just being pissy to someone who made a comment you don't like. So, I'll be happy to answer your question after you apologize.

 

[fireproof78]

If you're genuinely curious, you should lead with a question. When you instead choose to say "I don't care," it sounds as though you're just being pissy to someone who made a comment you don't like. So, I'll be happy to answer your question after you apologize.

I apologize for sounding pissy about why I should care.

Genuinely, why is this of impact to the fans? I do not understand why this is important.

 

[Gaith]

I apologize for sounding pissy about why I should care.

Thank you.

Genuinely, why is this of impact to the fans? I do not understand why this is important.

I never said it's of impact to all fans, or that all fans should care, because I don't think either of those things. If you or anyone else is happy with Lucasfilm's Star Wars output, or uninterested in any behind-the-scenes drama or machinations, that's great. I'm not telling anyone how to think, or what to like.

Personally, I don't like much of Lucasfilm's recent Star Wars output, and I don't have much interest in the title characters of The Mandalorian and Grogu, so I have an admittedly partly petty interest in seeing the Lucasfilm team get egg on their faces. But there's also the less petty, long-shot hope that if they do fail in undeniable and spectacular ways, they might learn from their mistakes, and tell better stories as an eventual result.

 

[fireproof78]

never said it's of impact to all fans, or that all fans should care, because I don't think either of those things. If you or anyone else is happy with Lucasfilm's Star Wars output, or uninterested in any behind-the-scenes drama or machinations, that's great. I'm not telling anyone how to think, or what to like.

Personally, I don't like much of Lucasfilm's recent Star Wars output, and I don't have much interest in the title characters of The Mandalorian and Grogu, so I have an admittedly partly petty interest in seeing the Lucasfilm team get egg on their faces. But there's also the less petty, long-shot hope that if they do fail in undeniable and spectacular ways, they might learn from their mistakes, and tell better stories as an eventual result.

Then I'm even more confused. How is this a humiliation for Lucasfilm? And, again, I am not understanding why this matters to fans unless they're bringing back locking people in stocks for humiliation?

 

[JD]

The only movies on that list I'm interested in seeing are Spider-Man and The Odyssey (it's Tom Holland's summer, the rest of us just get to enjoy the sun), and I will frankly be much more likely to want to sit through Star Wars in a movie theater than The Odyssey.

ETA - and Supergirl! How did I overlook supergirl? However, like the Superman movie, I'm likely to wait for streaming.

I'd add Toy Story 5 in there, although that might just be a streamer and you cover me as well.
The live action Moana and Minions will probably be streamers for me.
The problem with these kind of lists is these numbers are easy to manipulate, so if you look work hard enough you can make them say whatever you want. I'm sure if you look hard enough you can find similar lists that do include The Mandalorian and Grogu.

 

[Gaith]

Then I'm even more confused. How is this a humiliation for Lucasfilm?

What part of the following is unclear to you?

If Helmet Guy and Baby Yoda indeed sells fewer theater tickets than the (R-rated!) Mortal Kombat II, it will be a historic humiliation for the Star Wars franchise, and an absolutely stunning consumer rebuke of Lucasfilm's leadership.

 

[fireproof78]

What part of the following is unclear to you?

Honestly, the humiliation part. I don't get that. Who is humiliating them? It's the cost of doing business and if Disney shrugged off John Carter then I don't see the humiliation here either.

So, I don't have the vision as you.

 

[JD]

Yeah, sometimes movie just don't hit it off with people the way others do. And to be fair Mortal Kombat II is only the 4th movie in it's franchise vs the 12th Star Wars movie, and only the second in it's series vs 3 prior seasons of the Mandaloria, so yeah, if it does do better, I don't see where it would be that huge of a shock or "humiliation". Personally I don't see it happening, but if it does oh well.

 

[Turtletrekker]

If Mandalorian and Grogu were to fail, I would expect nothing less than Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau to be marched naked through the streets as people throw blood and feces at them while pointing and shouting "shame"!

 

[The Nth Doctor]

If Mandalorian and Grogu were to fail, I would expect nothing less than Dave Filoni and Jon Favreau to be marched naked through the streets as people throw blood and feces at them while pointing and shouting "shame"!

Just like how Kathleen Kennedy was fired for her sins! How many times over? I lost track!

 

[Gaith]

Honestly, the humiliation part. I don't get that. Who is humiliating them?

No offense, but I'm not going to bother explaining something as basic as this. You'll either have to do the cognitive work yourself, find someone to explain it to you, or just move on.

It's the cost of doing business and if Disney shrugged off John Carter

That is a wildly false claim. Disney abso-f***ing-lutely did not "shrug off" that disaster, I assure you. Hit it, Wiki!:

The film's failure led to the resignation of Rich Ross, the head of Walt Disney Studios, even though Ross had arrived there from his earlier success at the Disney Channel with John Carter already in development. Ross theoretically could have stopped production on John Carter as he did with a planned remake of 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea, or minimized the budget as he did to The Lone Ranger starring Johnny Depp. Instead, Stanton was given the production budget requested for John Carter, backed with an estimated $100 million marketing campaign that is typical for a tentpole movie but without significant merchandising or other ancillary tie-ins. It was reported that Ross later sought to blame Pixar for John Carter, which prompted key Pixar executives to turn against Ross, who already had alienated many within the studio.​

​

[...] The night after the premiere, Lynn Collins says she was at another event to promote the movie, when her manager at the time told her "you're just going to have to disappear for a while" due to the mounting perception of the film's failure.​

​

[...] In October 2014, Disney allowed the film rights to the Barsoom novels to revert to the Burroughs estate.​

​

[...] On the 10th anniversary of the film's release, The Hollywood Reporter's Richard Newby considered its longterm impact, observing that it "changed the film landscape, just not in the way anyone intended it to ... [It] was the moment Disney became the servant of sure bets, and Hollywood realized star power was truly gone. That was when we entered the age of name recognition, where familiar characters and concepts—Jedi, superheroes—became worth more than any actor's name".​

Oh, and its director, Andrew Stanton, didn't get the chance to direct another live-action movie (or any movie, with the exception of Finding Dory) for the next 14 years, and even then, it was dumped onto streaming without a theatrical release. That is not a coincidence.

Please consider doing even a modicum of fact-checking next time you make such a sweeping claim.

 

[fireproof78]

No offense, but I'm not going to bother explaining something as basic as this. You'll either have to do the cognitive work yourself, find someone to explain it to you, or just move on.

Then it must not be real.

If it is that simple one would think a simple explanation could follow. Humiliation is a specific thing so a company experience it would be easy to describe, I would think.

Please consider doing even a modicum of fact-checking next time you make such a sweeping claim.

I was not aware Disney suffered humiliation or loss at a company level as your sweeping claim of what Lucasfilm would experience was. We see an adjustment of business decisions, which is the cost of doing business. It's what I would expect. Nowhere is the humiliation aspect present of the company.

The whole description is at the personal level, and business choices of people not being trusted with further responsibilities or resignations and accepting responsibility. That's business.

I will say that my "shrugged off" was incorrect.

 

[Gaith]

Then it must not be real.

If it is that simple one would think a simple explanation could follow. Humiliation is a specific thing so a company experience it would be easy to describe, I would think.

It is easy to describe. Again, no offense, but it's so easy and obvious that I choose not to do so. Take the story of the tortoise and the hare. If you don't understand why the hare is/should be embarrassed when the tortoise wins the race, then I'm not sure a meaningful discussion is possible here. And, if that's the case, my trying to explain how that fable relates to the matter at hand would be a waste of time.

 

[fireproof78]

It is easy to describe. Again, no offense, but it's so easy and obvious that I choose not to do so. Take the story of the tortoise and the hare. If you don't understand why the hare is/should be embarrassed when the tortoise wins the race, then I'm not sure a meaningful discussion is possible here. And, if that's the case, my trying to explain how that fable relates to the matter at hand would be a waste of time.

That's not humiliation is it?


I can be embarrassed without being humiliated to my mind so the humiliation aspect is lost on me.

I guess it's not easy and that's ok. Different points of view.

 

[Tuskin38]

It is easy to describe

Clearly it isn't.

 

[137th Gebirg]

What was the question?

 

[ichab]

I'm curious how humiliation of Lucasfilm is something that should be regarded by fans? I don't understand why this is important.

If its not important to you then there is nothing that can be said that will change your mind. But its certainly a topic worthy of discussion in any thread having to do with a Star Wars film. Disney hasn't exactly set the world on fire with their ownership of the Star Wars brand. This is the first one to hit the big screens in seven years. There is a reason for that. If the film tanks then it's doubtful that there will be more coming in the near future. Thats very important to people who are actually fans of the franchise and the reason behind Gaiths comments