How? Well, to Rotta, I guess.
How? Well, to Rotta, I guess.
Remove significant power players, Republic eliminates Imperial hold outs but can't necessarily fill the void, and Jabba's territory is up for grabs.
Grogu grows as well.
Yeah, but — in every previous SW film (but the first, I guess), the setting that you know of is different at the end from how you knew it at the beginning. The things that change in this movie are things that, had this movie not existed, you’d never have heard of; they don’t change the setting for you.
Admittedly, this is true of most/all films that aren’t part of a larger story.
Also admittedly, the one part of the film that I actively liked was Grogu caring for Din.
Well, I liked it. It's a solid adventure story and a pretty good character story, and it's very well-made. I don't understand the comments that it's just a TV movie or whatever; it looked very cinematic to me, and the scenes of the New Republic base under the credits looked gorgeous, more grounded and realistic than anything in the supposedly "gritty" Star Wars universe has ever looked to me before. And I don't get the "It's just three episodes strung together" comments, which seem to be reacting only to superficial changes of setting and overlooking the single narrative throughline unifying the whole thing. And things do change; the movie starts out with Din treating Grogu as a child, not letting him touch the controls and whatnot, and the story is about Grogu proving himself capable of acting on his own.
I find it strange to judge the narrative arc by its effect on other stories rather than by the progression of the story itself. The primary point of a story is what happens within it; how it affects other stories is a secondary matter, since after all there are many stories that are standalone and not part of a larger continuity, or that a casual viewer or reader might only see in isolation even if they are part of a larger series. Within this story, there's a lot of meaningful change. Not only does Din's relationship with Grogu evolve in an important way, but there's also a major change in the New Republic's willingness to compromise its ethics for expediency, thanks to Din's actions exposing the flaws in their realpolitik thinking.
I mean, it's not like viewers in 1977 watched the heroes destroy the Death Star and came out of the theater thinking, "I'll reserve judgment on whether I liked the story until I see how it affects the sequel years from now." No, they liked or disliked the movie based on what happened in the movie itself, period. It finished the story it had to tell, and what happened next was another story. That satisfied audiences enough back then to spawn a whole franchise, so it makes no sense to criticize another entry of that franchise for being equally self-contained.
I find it strange to judge the narrative arc by its effect on other stories rather than by the progression of the story itself. The primary point of a story is what happens within it; how it affects other stories is a secondary matter, since after all there are many stories that are standalone and not part of a larger continuity, or that a casual viewer or reader might only see in isolation even if they are part of a larger series. Within this story, there's a lot of meaningful change. Not only does Din's relationship with Grogu evolve in an important way, but there's also a major change in the New Republic's willingness to compromise its ethics for expediency, thanks to Din's actions exposing the flaws in their realpolitik thinking.
I mean, it's not like viewers in 1977 watched the heroes destroy the Death Star and came out of the theater thinking, "I'll reserve judgment on whether I liked the story until I see how it affects the sequel years from now." No, they liked or disliked the movie based on what happened in the movie itself, period. It finished the story it had to tell, and what happened next was another story. That satisfied audiences enough back then to spawn a whole franchise, so it makes no sense to criticize another entry of that franchise for being equally self-contained.
I've got to disagree here, I thought it felt plenty big and cinematic to me, with some pretty fun and impressive set pieces. It obviously had a smaller budget than some of the other movies, so it wasn't quite at the same scale, but it still felt big enough to be cinematic.
I've got to disagree here, I thought it had plenty of recognizable elements that felt Star Wars, and it felt perfectly in line with the tone of style of other parts of the franchise to me.
I have absolutely no idea what programmer means in this context. I don't remember it having anything to do with computer or any other type of programming.
Not every movie needs to change the galaxy, it's fine for some to just be smaller scale stories that only really have a lasting effect on the characters, which this did.
???
Eight of the other eleven live action movies are longer, with one of the remaining three being the exact same length.
Except they do that with every film, so it should cancel out.
Just seen on Disney+. It was a really fun, sweet and enjoyable double episode, but didn't feel like a movie in the slightest.
What does "feel like a movie" even mean? Is there some finite range of tones that movies are allowed to have? Does, say, Twelve Angry Men feel like The Fellowship of the Ring? Does My Neighbor Totoro feel like Slumber Party Massacre?
It felt very much like a movie to me in the visual style and the scope of the story, and it certainly would've been difficult on even a streaming TV budget to pull off a 2-parter in which most of the major characters are animatronic or CGI aliens. I think we've just gotten spoiled because so much television today is already cinematic in feel and quality.
It may be because The Mandalorian was always sort of cinematic from the start. It operated like it was a movie in terms of quality on screen. The plots were more TV, mission of the week quests with an overall season goal, but using the Volume and Star Wars style cinematography as the baseline is still movie-like to me. This film allows them to do more than normal with the budget increase. Less Volume and more location or full sets are used. More creatures are used. And certainly more spaceships get used, since we get a few dogfights and a ground assault in there.
It is very Lucas style, but with less "faster and more intense". There are more slow moments.
It is very Lucas style, but with less "faster and more intense". There are more slow moments.
The main thing that bugged me was that the CGI aliens didn't look as real as the animatronic/puppet characters. I guess the Martin Scorsese alien worked pretty well, but the Hutts looked very CGI. I had trouble believing creatures that big could move so fast, but also the way their skin and muscles moved didn't look entirely real.
It also bugs me that the life-sized Dejarik match had the same mix of creatures as the holographic one in the original movie. It was a wink to the audience, but I question its in-universe logic. The film seemed to imply that the holographic game was a tabletop version based on the full-size gladiatorial contest, since Mando seemed to recognize right away what "a Dejarik match" would mean and expected Rotta to know too. If so, does that mean there's a standardized mix of species that are always used as Dejarik opponents? Or did the organizers of this fight go out of their way to assemble the same mix of creatures used in the home-game version, as an in-universe Easter egg?
It also bugs me that the life-sized Dejarik match had the same mix of creatures as the holographic one in the original movie. It was a wink to the audience, but I question its in-universe logic. The film seemed to imply that the holographic game was a tabletop version based on the full-size gladiatorial contest, since Mando seemed to recognize right away what "a Dejarik match" would mean and expected Rotta to know too. If so, does that mean there's a standardized mix of species that are always used as Dejarik opponents? Or did the organizers of this fight go out of their way to assemble the same mix of creatures used in the home-game version, as an in-universe Easter egg?
My assumption was that this kind of gladiatorial battle is what the board game was based on, but now I'm wondering if it was like a human chess game, and collecting all these exotic creatures to bring a venerable cultural institution to life was the selling point of the spectacle. I suppose it could go either way.
I figured the game was inspired by the matches, much like many board games that reflect nothing like reality, I.e. Battleship, Risk, etc.
Like said at the end there, the whole "it felt more like a TV show" argument doesn't work as well for me as it used, because at this point most big cable or streaming series are almost indistinguishable from movies. I would put any episode of any of The Rings of Power, and the Marvel, DC, Star Wars, and Star Trek series right up there with the any big summer blockbuster in terms of effects and scale.
Similar threads
