Star Wars: The Mandalorian

[BentonGrey]

Sheesh, they're making an Andor show too?  Ha, they are absolutely going to overdo it.

Spoiler

Thrawn: He was good in Rebels, and definitely one of the better elements of the show, as you say.  Still, it felt like quite the waste of the master strategist to have him as the antagonist in such a small scale story.  I'm sure he could be used well, but I don't know that a TV series is the best setting for him, and there will always be a little part of me that will resent getting anything other than the classic stories.  And indeed, as you say, it shouldn't be hard to find out if there will be anything to catch my interest in his portrayal or any of these other elements.  I imagine it will be the easiest thing in the world to learn as much as I care to, ha.

Ashoka: Oh, I understand the basics of the character, and I'm sure she's a good character in her own context.  I just don't like the context.  With her comes the baggage of the Prequels, and there is almost nothing that kills my interest quicker than being forcefully reminded of that wasted potential.  Of course, in context of this show, they clearly relied way too heavily on fans being familiar with her from the cartoon.  We learn almost nothing about her in her guest spot and are giving no particular reason to care about her, other than the fact that she is carrying lightsabers.  In fact, the Mandalorian seems more interested in saving people than she does.  I'm sure fans like you can bring all of their love for the character from previous stories to bear, but for a lot of folks, this is going to be their first introduction to her (I had already known her from the comics and other stuff), and it's not that impressive of a first meeting, which is a shame if they want to spin her off.

Here's a question for you - would the sequel trilogy and "Old Man Luke" have displeased you as much if it was the first Star Wars material you ever watched, read or played? I would imagine the answer to that is "No."

Of course not, but what's your point?  You could say the same thing about Thor 3 or Ironman 3.  If you see those films in isolation, you don't realize that they are failing at some of the most foundational jobs of sequential storytelling, failing to be true to the narrative trust they carried.  So, your question is really not very illustrative.  After all, if those movies were the first I saw, I wouldn't have known how dramatically and unforgivably they dropped the ball tonally and thematically, how much they squandered the story left to them by their forebearers, or how badly they mishandled extant characters.  But those shortcomings would still exist, nonetheless.  The new movies, aside from their varying quality as movies are terrible additions to a world that already existed, a story that had already been established, and themes that had already been developed.  They can't be properly judged in isolation, any more than you can judge Thor 3 as a Thor story in isolation, however much fun the movie is.  And the new films are (yes) quite discordant when one sees them in context.

Boba: Interesting, which books did you read with him?  About the only code I've seen him display in the old stories was a commitment to a job once he'd taken it, more or less the usual 'honorable but ruthless mercenary' kind of thing.  He was generally kind of honest, but that didn't mean he wouldn't hold to the letter of an agreement while still effectively betraying someone.  In one of the great Fett comics from the '90s, he promises a minor fugitive his freedom if the guy will help him get a bigger bounty.  Then, he does indeed set the guy free, but he does it on the target's pirate ship, surrounded by angry pirates that want to kill him.  Ha.  Anyway, it isn't necessarily a matter of new portrayals contradicting Legends canon, because obviously, that's always on the table these days, and it isn't always a bad thing (I'm looking at you, Kyp Durron and Courtship), but a matter of these things seeming to contradict, or at least, not gelling with his portrayal in the films themselves.

And for the record, I'd be 100% behind just a tour of the SW universe, just following Mando as he wanders the galaxy with a gun, a-la the old Westerns.  In fact, giving up on an overarching story that they don't have the wherewithal to handle properly, and just going full episodic would be fine with me.  I just would want a bit better and more consistent quality out of whatever they would do.

Possibly, but she also got on stage and announced ten new Star Wars projects and the return of Hayden as Anakin/Darth Vader, something that the collective fandom somehow, against all odds, got to the point that they decided they really wanted.

I simply CANNOT believe that is true.  I know people are stupid, but I can't believe that a majority of people could be so profoundly stupid as to be happy about that.

[HarryTrotter]

Rey sucked so bad,that he ended up being vindicated.

[Silver Shocker]

Rey sucked so bad,that he ended up being vindicated.

I personally wouldn't go that far, but for a lot of the fandom, not too far off, really.

The last two posts popped up WHILE I was writing and posting this (the board ate my post - this happens often - I learned to right click and "copy text"). Kommando, I'll check out your post a bit later and reply if there's something there I'd like to add to.

Oh, I see we have a bit to unpack here.

Spoiler

Thrawn: If you squint, you could swap out Moff Gideon with Thrawn and it kinda works. At least I thought so.

It sounds like you think Thrawn would work better in a movie. And if it was a really good movie, that may be so. Not sure I trust the movie division of Disney Lucasfilm to do it though. Thrawn as a shouty brat with a temper tantrum who gets smacked around in every other scene would be just about the most disrespectful thing you could do with the character.

I certainly don't mean to be condescending, but I find it a bit....interesting that you hold Star Wars to such a different standard than Marvel and DC. Both Marvel and DC often try (and sometimes even succeed) at making lemons out of lemonade. I'm not saying it's wrong, we all have our preferences and hangups (I'm certainly guilty of that). Just find it interesting.

Of course not, but what's you're point?  You could say the same thing about Thor 3 or Ironman 3.  If you see those films in isolation, you don't realize that they are failing at some of the most foundational jobs of sequential storytelling, failing to be true to the narrative trust they carried.  So, your question is really not very illustrative.  After all, if those movies were the first I saw, I wouldn't have known how dramatically and unforgivably they dropped the ball tonally and thematically, how much they squandered the story left to them by their forebearers, or how badly they mishandled extant characters.  But those shortcomings would still exist, nonetheless.  The new movies, aside from their varying quality as movies are terrible additions to a world that already existed, a story that had already been established, and themes that had already been developed.  They can't be properly judged in isolation, any more than you can judge Thor 3 as a Thor story in isolation, however much fun the movie is.  And the new films are (yes) quite discordant when one sees them in context.

I'm reminded of when Force Awakens came out, I believe it was you who said TFA cannot be judged as a single isolated film because it was so derivative of the original trilogy. My response back then (and I stand by it) is that Star Wars was always derivative, George was fully upfront about that, admitting his fondness for Flash Gordon and the like.

The distinction, and my point, is that the sequel trilogy is about a new group of characters, arguably aimed at least partially at a new generation without our baggage, meeting older characters they've never met before and forming their opinions of them. If you look at it from that perspective (and I sometimes do - I don't think I consider it a very good defense of Jake Skywalker, because he DID exist before, but I do try to think of it)

Thor 3 and Iron Man don't really fit that description. Though Thor 4 may present an interesting comparison.

If Ahsoka's older appearances didn't appear, she'd simply be one more Jedi who's still out there - which is also functionally Baby Yoda's backstory, now that we had it.

Comics, you say? I didn't realize Ahsoka had much of a presence in the comics. Other than the direct tie-in comics to the animated series. Perhaps those cute cartoon style IDW comics? I may have to take a closer look at those.

Funny thing about that, Dark Horse gave away a freebie of the first issue of said tie-in comic, and I made a point to read it right as it was adapted into an arc late in the Clone Wars cartoon, which was about a Togruta slave ring (that being Ashoka's people) the comic starts with Ashoka talks about how her people, much like the Wookies, are a people of slaves. This did not make it into the cartoon, to which I was like why in the world would you not include that? That's the interesting part of the arc, the character development.

Boba: Interesting, which books did you read with him?  About the only code I've seen him display in the old stories was a commitment to a job once he'd taken it, more or less the usual 'honorable but ruthless mercenary' kind of thing.  He was generally kind of honest, but that didn't mean he wouldn't hold to the letter of an agreement while still effectively betraying someone.  In one of the great Fett comics from the '90s, he promises a minor fugitive his freedom if the guy will help him get a bigger bounty.  Then, he does indeed set the guy free, but he does it on the target's pirate ship, surrounded by angry pirates that want to kill him.  Ha.  Anyway, it isn't necessarily a matter of new portrayals contradicting Legends canon, because obviously, that's always on the table these days, and it isn't always a bad thing (I'm looking at you, Kyp Durron and Courtship), but a matter of these things seeming to contradict, or at least, not gelling with his portrayal in the films themselves.

Tales of The Bounty Hunters and The Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy. I also read Dark Empire, which he popped into for a very gratuitious cameo (as I understand it, the FIRST time he came back - they came up with the whys and hows later). There's a scene in his story in Tales of the Bounty Hunters that's....strangely risque, (there's another similar sequence elsewhere in that book - I was a wee bit too young when I read that) but Boba was...how to say....a proper gentlemen when it came to bedroom-related activities. I'm sure why they felt the need to include that in a SW novel, but I always remembered it.

I simply CANNOT believe that is true.  I know people are stupid, but I can't believe that a majority of people could be so profoundly stupid as to be happy about that.

Oh it be true. For the record, I should state for the record I 100% stand by those "profoundly stupid" fans on this one. I guess I'll have to explain this step by step, because there is quite a bit to unpack with this one topic.

1. There's a debate on how much of the bad acting was Hayden's fault. It's not a huge secret that George wasn't particularly good at getting good performances out of his actors.
2. The Clone Wars. Not sure if you have awareness of this specific thing, but Anakin in that show is a completely different and better character. And now there's a section of the fandom that would really like to see Hayden's Anakin say something to our live action Ahsoka (or acknowledge her existence in any way, since he of course had no opportunity to, even though the two characters made voice-only cameos in Ep 9 without seconds of each other). Mind you, fans also wanted Anakin/Vader (either version, I'd gather) have an interaction with Kylo, and Disney completely dropped the ball on that too. I personally would have liked to have seen the latter, and look forward to the notion of the former.
3. A growing sense of unhappiness with the Disney-era movies contributed to a general softening on George and the Prequels in general. I can honestly say I never in my wildest dreams imagined I'd live to see the day that the Prequels and George himself were vindicated by a large portion of the fandom, but that is now the case. But I also never imagined I'd see Boba Fett in live action clearing out folks like he's John Wick, either.
4. Something you need to understand, is that there is a generation younger than myself (my nephew was in this group) who grew up on those movies, and are now young adults themselves, and, as I understand it, some/many of them loved and still love the Prequels and got more out of them than we do. They bypassed "some ambitious ideas that don't quite pan out" to "genuinely inspired and brilliant" or otherwise "entertaining." Some of it, I'll grant, seems delusional to me, but I'm hardly going to throw stones. I don't agree with a lot of it, but they have every right to feel that way if they enjoyed the movies and they meant something to them.
5. A lot of the fans covered in the earlier numbered entries felt a Hayden cameo would have gone a long way in the Sequel Trilogy, and it recently came out that Rian Johnston nixed it in Ep 8.
6. Ewan coming back to play Obi-Wan has been very warmly received, which I totally get - he is after all, one of the better things in the prequels. And it is in his series that Hayden will be showing up. Granted, these two are not equals, but neither are guilty of the sins of the Prequels - that's George's hand. George got a flat performance out of Samuel L. Jackson. George had James Earl Jones belt out the infamous "NOOOOO!" Expecting one actor to only ever be as good as the prequels when the prequels included Frank Oz, Anthony Daniels, James Earl Jones and the highest concentration of Ian McDiarmid is, I believe the phrase was "profoundly stupid"?

Hayden, like Anakin/Vader himself, deserves his chance to "redeem" himself every bit as much as any other actor who's been involved in this franchise. (I include Daisey Ridley, John Boyega, Oscar Issaacs, Adam Driver, all the way down to Kelly Marie Tran in this category. Any of them are welcome to show up in future projects IMO, not to mention Jar Jar's rumored return) Moreso, in fact, because of how heavily derided his original outing was. If a director can get an actual good performance out of him, that alone would justify the whole enterprise. And I'd argue J.J. already did, in his cameo in Ep 9. Some people noticed his voice sounds different then it did in the prequels.
And yet, even still, I should mention he's coming to back to play Vader IN THE SUIT. As in David Prowse's original role as the physical suit actor. Depending on how they do this, you'd never even know he was in the show unless you heard about it online.

In Rebels, there's a scene where we see part of Vader's face, and it's prequel-Anakin's face, with his Clone Wars voice actor doing the voice. For the sake of continuity during the period this Kenobi show takes place, it's this or a CGI Hayden.

So yeah, I think that about covers it.

[EDIT] Kommando: Yeah, I think you covered it.

This video is a nice, brief primer to how they developed this character from someone her own voice actress once joked was "The next Jar-Jar Binks" into a fan-favorite.

There is a very good reason her lightsabers are white, but I'm not gonna say why.

Huh, those were introduced in the novel. I didn't know that. I really gotta get that sometime. I was under the impression that a lot of that got overwritten by the final arc of The Clone Wars, but I guess I was wrong.

Her entire show could be a poorly-handled mess and if they at least acknowledge that Bariss existed I'll probably come out of the whole thing happy.

[HarryTrotter]

The prequels are not perfect,but at least there was a mapped out story. We are going from point A to B to C...even if we have to sit at a lot of meetings to get there. The sequels however were a round-robin writing session where nobody has a clue what they are doing,but are trying to screw with the guy before them.

[BentonGrey]

Interesting stuff, Kom!

Spoiler

Thrawn: If you squint, you could swap out Moff Gideon with Thrawn and it kinda works. At least I thought so.

It sounds like you think Thrawn would work better in a movie. And if it was a really good movie, that may be so. Not sure I trust the movie division of Disney Lucasfilm to do it though. Thrawn as a shouty brat with a temper tantrum who gets smacked around in every other scene would be just about the most disrespectful thing you could do with the character.

Spoiler

Ha, yeah, Heaven keep us from such a version.  Yeah, I think a movie (series) would be best for the scale of the character.  A TV show could work, but it would need to be much larger scale than this one or even Rebels to make proper use of the character, methinks.  I'm not saying that they couldn't do great stuff with him in a different setting or that it is wrong to use him in such; I'm just saying that Thrawn is all about grand, sweeping plans.  He's about strategy, not tactics, and the only way to see that properly is on a big enough stage.  But as you say, I have zero faith in the powers that be to give us such a movie.

I certainly don't mean to be condescending, but I find it a bit....interesting that you hold Star Wars to such a different standard than Marvel and DC. Both Marvel and DC often try (and sometimes even succeed) at making lemons out of lemonade. I'm not saying it's wrong, we all have our preferences and hangups (I'm certainly guilty of that). Just find it interesting.

Ha, how exactly am I holding them to different standards?  I think I'm pretty consistent in my tastes and judgments, and I try to apply the same standards to all of the things I love.  It just so happens that those standards are pretty high.  It's part of my training, after all.  I dissect and examine art, especially the art I like.  That's part of the fun for me.  When I like a story, I still point out its flaws, as I have with The Mandalorian.  And I've done just that for DC and Marvel films too.

My problem with DC is pretty much exactly the same as my problem with the new Star Wars stuff.  In fact, if anything, I've been much harsher with DC.  There is an objective standard with Star Wars (more on this in response to your other statement below), so there is an easier argument for accountability to more specific and nuanced standards there, but I've also had long practice with compartmentalizing my enjoyment of Star Wars and creating my own personal canon of material.  I've been doing it since walking out of Revenge of the Sith with the dreadful realization that it wasn't all going to be redeemed, hah.  With DC, they created their own context.  It just so happens that their context was awful.  But my reaction has been pretty much the same.  I felt that the new Star Wars movies poisoned the well, creating a universe that was objectively worse than it should have been and certainly one which I had no interest in visiting.  DC did the same thing, though they didn't have as clear a mark to shoot at and are therefore less to blame.  By starting their universe with Man of Steel, BvS, and Justice League, they also poisoned the well to the point that what came after was irrelevant.  As long as they were building on those same toxic foundations, the stories were inherently flawed.  WW was good?  Well and good, but that doesn't make their universe any less flawed in conception, because they staked out their field and poured their foundations elsewhere, on unwholesome ground.  There can be good individual DC movies, but until they start over, there won't be a good cinematic universe.  And individual films will suffer from connection to the whole.

The Marvel films I have generally loved, in large part because they have been objectively better films and been subjectively much more faithful to the spirit of their source material.  But you'll still find me calling jimmies (language filter, leaving it because it's hilarious! )and strikes when I discuss them.  One of the key differences between Marvel on the one hand and DC and SW on the other is that Marvel's significant flaws have, almost universally, lain in the fringes.  They haven't affected the overarching narrative.  They built on extremely solid foundations and, until the very end (Thorbowski), continuing the journey never required you to accept their missteps, nor enshrined them within those foundations.  With both DC and modern SW, the flaws are there from the inception, woven into the warp and weft of the stories themselves, an ever-present, inescapable subtext. 

I'm reminded of when Force Awakens came out, I believe it was you who said TFA cannot be judged as a single isolated film because it was so derivative of the original trilogy. My response back then (and I stand by it) is that Star Wars was always derivative, George was fully upfront about that, admitting his fondness for Flash Gordon and the like.

You miss the point, SS.  And unless I'm misunderstanding you, you're conflating multiple issues here. 

First, the point that I understand you to be talking about here, which is unrelated to the question at hand (i.e. assessment of SW films in context of the original trilogy).  I'm spoilering this so as not to clutter up the thread:

Spoiler

TFA can't be judged as a film, i.e., as a work of art, without considering its derivative nature.  One criterion for such judgment is creativity, though it is not the most significant, and a work can be good even if it is not original.  Yet, the question of originality is still something to be considered in making assessments.  Our culture overrates originality, but just because something isn't' everything doesn't mean it's nothing.  So, thinking about how good that film is, as a film, means we acknowledge how creative (or not) it is, along with its other qualities.  Obviously, in addition to its manifold other sins, many of which are far more significant (poor/nonexistent characterization, lack of internal logic, unsuitability of themes and tone) TFA is not very creative.  That doesn't make it a bad movie, but it doesn't help its case, and it shouldn't simply be ignored when forming a wholistic judgment about it. 

In this particular instance, you're also glossing over a great deal of significance by saying 'the original movies are derivative too.'  The trouble is that you're essentially conflating copying and adaptation.  The distinction between the two is a matter of degree, intention, and skill.  You might think of it this way: a bad student takes someone else's work and just reproduces it, aping without understanding.  A good student will look at a model, or often many models, and create their own work in the style of what came before, digesting the old and creating something new that is greater than the sum of its parts.

TFA, which cribs shamelessly from ANH, taking entire plot points and incidents from the earlier story and presenting them with little to no modification and without a sense of purpose, is an example of copying, like the work of a poor student.  The degree (once again, one of three criteria and not damning by itself) is very high.  We'll be generous and say that the intention is to create nostalgia, to evoke a feeling, but the skill level is exceedingly low.  In fact, both Rogue One and The Mandalorian do that job much more successfully and without simply copying existing material note for note.

The situation is very different with the original films.  Think of Indiana Jones and The Raiders of the Lost Ark, which is derivative in precisely the same ways as the original SW Trilogy.  That film is an original story told in the style and the milieu of older pulp adventure stories, adapting existing elements into new and unique configurations in the service of a unified and original whole.  In terms of degree, the adapted elements are mostly matters of setting and style, with few major and specific elements or incidents cribbed.  The intention is in evoking the spirit of the original stories, to inhabit that kind of world, and the skill level is very high.  The same is true of the Star Wars films.  Lucas drew on Flash Gordon and Buck Rogers, and the opening crawl is even in the style of the old serials.  Nonetheless, those films are full of adapted elements put to original uses and feature much good craftsmanship. 

Of course, there are also examples, as I mentioned above, of films that aren't original but which are still considered good because we judge films on more than one criterion.  Take Oceans 11 as an example, or A Fist Full of Dollars.  Both of those films are essentially remakes, borrowing pretty much their entire plots from previous films (high in degree), but they each make those elements their own and tell engaging, well-crafted stories (arguably improving on the originals in both cases).  They deserve a little less credit than a completely original film, since they stood on the shoulders of giants, but they are still good films, well made and successful at accomplishing their goals.

TFA, though enjoyable and fun, is not a good film by the criteria used to judge such things, including originality.

Of course, I've let myself get sidetracked by this.  None of this actually affects the question at hand:

Second, assessing SW films:

The distinction, and my point, is that the sequel trilogy is about a new group of characters, arguably aimed at least partially at a new generation without our baggage, meeting older characters they've never met before and forming their opinions of them. If you look at it from that perspective (and I sometimes do - I don't think I consider it a very good defense of Jake Skywalker, because he DID exist before, but I do try to think of it)

Thor 3 and Iron Man don't really fit that description. Though Thor 4 may present an interesting comparison.

As C.S. Lewis once said, one of the most important criteria in judging a work of art is understanding what it's trying to do.  If we're judging a screwball comedy as if it's attempting to create a weighty dramatic story, we are both wrong and unfair.  The same is true if we criticize a drama for not being funny.  However, when a work declares its intentions, we must take it at its word.  Thus, if a film tells us it's a comedy by employing musical cues and exaggerated performances, we're right to be hard on it if it isn't funny. 

And this is what you're missing here with Star Wars and with any continued storytelling, like DC or Marvel.  When you release a story titled Star Wars: Episode VI, that is making a claim, staking out a purpose.  That title declares that this story is a continuation of an existing narrative.  It's saying "We are telling a story in the same vein as those that came before."  To say 'it's about a new group of characters' is fine so far as it goes, but that doesn't mean it isn't still a Star Wars story, and in fact, a direct sequel to existing stories.  And let's not forget, that group of characters includes existing characters, characters who will either be in line with their previous portrayals or not.  And more importantly, these stories are still set in the same universe, a universe that will either be 'in character' or not.  It doesn't matter if they are aiming to bring in new viewers.  They are still telling us what they are trying to do, and it is only fair if we take them at their word.

If they show us a X-Wing and call it a Tie Fighter, they are wrong by the rules of the game they've chosen to play, not simply telling their own story.

This argument is much, much easier to make than the one I've made elsewhere for DC films.  What is "right" for the latter is much more open to interpretation.  After all, there have been multiple versions of Batman and Superman.  Who's to say which portrayals are definitive?  With Star Wars, there is no such ambiguity regarding the major elements.  The stories that exist are implicitly connected to the new stories that they tell, by markers both within and without the new films themselves.  In fact, the powers that be went out of their way to establish that some stories were and some stories were not canon. 

In this way, Thor 3 and Ironman 3 are perfect examples.  They declare with their titles and their structure that they are part o the MCU, that what came before, especially in terms of their own characters, is meant to be prologue, and thus they should be judged by whether or not they are faithful to those stories and portrayals.  Those are the limitations of continued storytelling.

Obviously, there is room for adjustment and difference of opinion across the spectrum of elements affected by this logic.  Not every objection I have to the new movies is based on such concrete ground, and the same is true for those two Marvel films.  We can debate whether or not this choice or that one are 'in character'.  But the basic premise is inescapable.  They have established their own rules, and they must play by them or be guilty of breaking them, and the films should be judged, in part, on how well they do so.  To do otherwise is to miss the point of continued narratives and to ignore their context.

Can someone come along and enjoy these films, never having seen the originals?  Of course, but I'm talking about more than just personal preference and viewer response.  And these films are, from conception, meant to be seen in context.  While there is no accounting for taste, we can still judge works of art on more objective grounds.  All the positive opinions in the world aren't going to fix a plot hole, after all, though they will certainly affect how seriously we take it.

Comics, you say? I didn't realize Ahsoka had much of a presence in the comics. Other than the direct tie-in comics to the animated series. Perhaps those cute cartoon style IDW comics? I may have to take a closer look at those.

Maybe I'm conflating different mediums or different characters.  I've read a LOT of Star Wars stuff, ha.  I'm talking about the Dark Horse comics, so perhaps I'm mistaken and I have just picked up the gist of the character from osmosis from nerd culture.

Tales of The Bounty Hunters and The Bounty Hunter Wars trilogy. I also read Dark Empire, which he popped into for a very gratuitious cameo (as I understand it, the FIRST time he came back - they came up with the whys and hows later). There's a scene in his story in Tales of the Bounty Hunters that's....strangely risque, (there's another similar sequence elsewhere in that book - I was a wee bit too young when I read that) but Boba was...how to say....a proper gentlemen when it came to bedroom-related activities. I'm sure why they felt the need to include that in a SW novel, but I always remembered it.

Interesting.  I've read Tales and Dark Empire, but never such characterizations of Boba.  I see that the trilogy you mentioned started at the end of the '90s, so I guess that's why.  I had largely dropped out of SW stuff by that point.  Curious.

Anakin: Yeah, I've encountered the Prequel love in my students.  It boggles my mind, but I suppose it just shows that most folks have terrible taste, especially young people!   After all, I once loved The Inhumanoids...  Well, good luck to 'em, if he does come back.  Honestly, the problems with the Prequels are so much bigger and more profound than his bad acting that I suppose it hardly matters.

Redemption:  Here your attitude and mine part ways dramatically.  I just want to avoid the stuff that reminds me of the low points.  The last thing I want is to see it brought back in, to me, a futile attempt to salvage it.  After all, no matter how good a story you tell going forward, it will still be based on a continuity that maintains its flaws.  And I don't blame any of the cast of the new movies for their films.  In fact, they were all generally doing a great job under very inauspicious circumstances.  That was actually one of the biggest disappointments of the new films.  They introduced characters with tremendous potential and had them portrayed by good actors.  And then they really, really wasted that potential. 

Kenobi too.  Sheesh, I keep forgetting just how ridiculously overboard they're going on the shows! I had heard they were doing a Kenobi show but had forgotten it in the flurry of other ones.  We had no Star Wars shows for decades and decades, and now they're trying to make up for it all at once.....

[BentonGrey]

Haha, DJ, go crawl back in your gin-soaked grave! 

Benton, if you ever do decide to give animated Star Wars ago, you could safely start with Rebels. It's the shorter series. The animation is a bit less wonky than Clone Wars (cough Obi Wan's Groot Beard cough). It is set five years before the original trilogy, and yes 15 year old Leia Organa makes an appearance. There's lots of appearances, including Grand Admiral Thrawn. Vader appears from time to time voiced by James Earl Jones except in one episode where he has an additional voice actor, and episode you really want to see. Oh and the most compelling argument for watching Rebels is that the design aesthetic is heavily influenced by Ralph McQuarrie's designs, including Darth Vader's armor. That in itself justifies the look of animated Star Wars deviating from live action. 

Thanks Kom, I have actually seen most (all?) of Rebels.  I enjoyed it, for the most part; I just wished it was a bit better, ha.  The kiddie-ness got to me at times.  I was actually really excited about it, specifically because of the setting after the disappointment of the new films.  And, on the whole, it was pretty good, and the Prequel stuff wasn't too jarring.  I do have significant problems with more Jedi running around active during the OT, since that borks the themes and the continuity, but that isn't enough to make me write it off by itself.  I know what you mean about the McQuarrie designs.  I'm always delighted to see stuff based on his work show up.

I'm kind of wondering how they are going to explain the aging. Ewan McGregor was 31 or 32 while filming Revenge of the Sith, which takes place 20 years before A New Hope. Sir Alec Guinness was about 62 or 63 while filming the first movie.

This was always a problem with the Prequels anyway, part of the trouble with making the Clone Wars THE instigating event for the rise of the Empire, as opposed to a conflict that led to the destabilization of the Republic, as was originally implied.

In a non-Prequels world, I would be totally interested in stories exploring Kenobi's life before SW, but sadly there's too much baggage for me to be interested.  That's a real shame, because I really like Tatooine as a setting.

[HarryTrotter]

Clone Wars > Rebels. Not even a discussion.

@Benton Watch the Siege of Mandalore as one movie. If that doesn't get you interested in CW,nothing will.

[Silver Shocker]

WELCOME BACK MY FRIENDS TO THE SHOW THAT NEVER ENDS, WE'RE SO GLAD YOU COULD ATTEND, COME INSIDE, COME INSIDE!

So yeah, I'm back. Someone gave me a lot to read and I had a few things going on, and....it took a while to read it all and compile my response.

But in the words of Transformers: Cybertron/Galaxy Force's version of Thundercracker "You really don't think I can take you, do you? I've waited for this moment for so very long. This is the right time to unleash my special attack, Jack!"

So that's a lot to take in, and to respond to. I do have a lot to say about that, but I don't even know if I want to take the plunge. All that for one quick comment I made that I already said in 2015. I'm getting to this late and there's been a lot more discussion here since, so I might get to it later, or not at all.

I'll do this part quickly, because it's real short and easy:

Clone Wars > Rebels. Not even a discussion.

YUP. That's not to say there aren't some high points in it. Resistance is the one to not bother with unless you're currently under 15 years old IMO.

@Benton Watch the Siege of Mandalore as one movie. If that doesn't get you interested in CW,nothing will.

That IS a good suggestion, but it sounds like Benton made it clear he's not watching that stuff no matter what. And you know what? THAT'S FINE. I've got stuff I'll never opt into. Mostly in the realm of comic content. For Star Wars and Marvel and DC shows and movies, I watch basically EVERYTHING. It might take a while, but I do. I can't possibly expect all my peers to do the same because it's completely unreasonable.

Let's all enjoy the stuff we like. Life's too short. It's doubly too short nowadays. 

And if I AM watching or reading something that's got some stupid in it, it's probably because I'm going to riff on it and bust some of that stuff open like a bad clam. Which I do often.

Ha, how exactly am I holding them to different standards?  I think I'm pretty consistent in my tastes and judgments, and I try to apply the same standards to all of the things I love.  It just so happens that those standards are pretty high.  It's part of my training, after all.  I dissect and examine art, especially the art I like.  That's part of the fun for me.  When I like a story, I still point out its flaws, as I have with The Mandalorian.  And I've done just that for DC and Marvel films too.

Since you asked, my answer was "Because I've never seen you make it a habit to mark down new material for the sins of material from 15 years ago" But I just read an issue of Marvel's third attempt at Civil War, and they still haven't learned from the movie, so I retract my original comment. Sorry. 

As for the rest, I'll put it in a spoiler tag myself since it will again be enormous:

Spoiler

There is an objective standard with Star Wars (more on this in response to your other statement below),

Objective....to quote the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Objective quality, in the context of art and literature is a nebulous concept. It functionally doesn't exist. You get 12 angry men in a room and ask them to discuss the concept and agree on stuff and they'll argue and likely none of them will sway each other. You get 12 calm, well mannered, highly educated scholars and/or philosophers to do the same and you may very well get the same result. It's a bad argument. The fact that you and I can disagree about these things prove that it is not objective. And I could PROVE that by picking apart the original trilogy in ways that are pretty hard to deny, but easy to say "Yeah, but that's not a deal breaker for me."

A member of this community back in the day once claimed we all had to acknowledge Samurai Jack was art because.....I don't know. I guess because it's a samurai show with a minimalist style? The original run of the show was a Hanna-Barbarra show. There was an episode called "Jack is Naked" where he had hide behind scenery and steal clothes from a clothesline. I could have shot back by insisting that he concede that the 2003 TMNT was art because Leo talks about the code of Bushido.

You used children's art as a comparison. Well, as they say, I may not know art, but I know what I like, and Jackson Pollock splattered paint all over a canvas and that was considered famous art. A guy once sold a valuable piece of art and all it was was a wall with melted cheese thrown on it. The Caesar Romero Joker once won an art contest with a 100% blank canvas and that's not too far off from the real art scene. I have been informed that Shakesphere was considered LOW BROW in his time. The fact that Banksy has a career....we could do this all day.

And there's a reason a lot of people don't take the Oscars too seriously. I sure don't. And I'm not going to because Jackman deserved an Oscar nomination twice over for Prisoners and Logan as far as I'm concerned. There's a reason Tvtropes has a page called "Oscar Snub". Also James Robinson got a Eisner nomination for Cry for Justice and Rise of Arsenal was recognized for tackling the subject of mental health and trauma. And the artist of Squirrel Girl has TWO Eisners and, I'm sure she's a nice lady, her art makes the sunday funnies look like George Perez with a good inker.

You implied at one point that there are "no good stories" to be found in the prequel-adjacent material (admittedly, we were joking around with Star Wars quotes, but that IS what you said) Which is hilarious because the high points of Clone Wars aren't just good stories, in terms of the stuff you can watch they're arguably the best stories.

Sure, they're dark and gritty, but "Star Wars" wasn't actually hippies and rainbows and incense either. Folks get blown up and burned into charred corpses in that flick. What's important is the characters and themes and whether they connected to people.

For these fundamental flaws you speak of, all you have to do (and this part comes from a wonderful Youtuber called JayExci, one of those younger Prequel-loving fine folks, in the interest of full disclosure) is say "Yes, but I find THE WAY in which X was done was handled better in Y" and the argument goes right out the window. Unfortunately, the argument can't just Mary Poppins its way back in the window.

I've been doing it since walking out of Revenge of the Sith with the dreadful realization that it wasn't all going to be redeemed, hah.

My in the theatre with my two older brothers seeing Sith was one of the last times I ever saw my oldest brother. We all walked out at the end and said "Yeah, it was pretty good." My main concern was Palpatine in the final act. To this day, I ask the question "Why is he LIKE THAT?" I'd call that an acting decision, but at one point they put a demonic effect over his voice. That was ALL George. AGAIN. And to my knowledge, they NEVER did that again.

I can bypass a lot of the stuff you talked about by stressing that I meant Marvel and DC in general, not the movies. That makes things simple and clean. I enjoyed hearing your thoughts (I don't know what you were going on for about with Iron Man 3, since that was the first onscreen appearance of Mandarin, and we ARE getting a mulligan on that, twice over, but I digress) but it's not quite what I meant.

Funny thing, I HAVE watched all of the MCU tv shows and read ALL of the MCU tie-in comics, and they, you may be pleased to know, largely in line with the films themselves. Yes, The Netflix ones are considerably darker, but they still like they could take place in that world. The biggest contradiction I can recall in the tie-in comics is the method by which Black Widow cannot have children (and that may very well come up in the upcoming Black Widow film, since that film, like Guardians, very much has family on the brain)

One of the key differences between Marvel on the one hand and DC and SW on the other is that Marvel's significant flaws have, almost universally, lain in the fringes.  They haven't affected the overarching narrative.  They built on extremely solid foundations and, until the very end (Thorbowski), continuing the journey never required you to accept their missteps, nor enshrined them within those foundations.  With both DC and modern SW, the flaws are there from the inception, woven into the warp and weft of the stories themselves, an ever-present, inescapable subtext.

I'll tackle Bro Thor for a sec. Is he still a drunken buffoon there for yucks, or is he crippled by PTSD? He's both. You can't argue he's not. There's your objectivity. The execution, and whether it worked for you, is where the distinction lies. My unsullied (did not read the comics or watch the cartoons or play the games) fellow viewers of Thor Ragnarok and Endgame enjoyed Thor from top to bottom, while I roasted him and Thor 3 for being a SNL parody of itself, complete with Goldblum standing in for the hypothetical real bad guy. The fact that a phony version of Thor with stunt cast actors is a joke in the actual movie (with Sam Neil claiming he'll get to come back for Thor 4) is a perfect example of "biting the hand humor". And again, that's the main gag in Wandavision, so it should be interesting when you get your claws into it.

It's funny too, because guess what (and again, this marks me as a MASSIVE hypocrite, and I apologized for it) I made sure to call out the two comic writers who had writing credits on the flick, because they did that crap (and killing off folks like it was going out of style) in the comics too, AND in the Thor vs. Wolverine animated movie. A quick google search reveals Thor fans back in the day called them out for "apparently not liking Thor very much" EVEN BACK THEN.

So yeah, I retract my original accusation of double standards on account of blatant hypocrisy.

Here's the real meat and potatoes of the discussion, as I see it. Boil em, mash em, stick em in a stew!

As C.S. Lewis once said, one of the most important criteria in judging a work of art is understanding what it's trying to do.  If we're judging a screwball comedy as if it's attempting to create a weighty dramatic story, we are both wrong and unfair.  The same is true if we criticize a drama for not being funny.  However, when a work declares its intentions, we must take it at its word.  Thus, if a film tells us it's a comedy by employing musical cues and exaggerated performances, we're right to be hard on it if it isn't funny. 

That's a great point! And the fact that you just triggered the proverbial trap card makes it all the more enjoyable! 

In this way, Thor 3 and Ironman 3 are perfect examples.  They declare with their titles and their structure that they are part o the MCU, that what came before, especially in terms of their own characters, is meant to be prologue, and thus they should be judged by whether or not they are faithful to those stories and portrayals.  Those are the limitations of continued storytelling.

Considering the next few Marvel shows and Thor 4, I really am curious how you plan to judge new Marvel shows and movies that are continuations but upgrade supporting characters to the main roles, and in the case of WandaVision, literally warp the movie/show into a completely different genre and style. When you actually watch WV, we're apparently going to have a Civil War of our own based on this shindig. 

Anyway, here's the crab meat, the gotcha question from me:

If you watch a Filoni show and are dismissive of all the Filoni stuff that's in there for the Filoni fans and say you'd rather it not be there, then by your own definition, you are judging it wrong and unfairly. Perhaps you'll disagree with me on that point, but that's sure how it sounded to me. The show's not called "Star Wars: Episode 6.5" It's called "The Mandalorian" a phrase never once uttered in any of the movies. It's not a "bug" it's a "feature."

It's kinda like watching Lord of the Rings and The Hobbit and saying "This is pretty good, but I'd really like less of the action and all that gorgeous New Zealand sceneary." Or if you prefer "This is good, but I'd really like less of this orcs and wizard malarkey and prefer them to shut up for two minutes so I can take in all this gorgeous scenary."

You specifically brought up Episode VI as an example, which is great, because whether that was a typo or not, it gives me an opening to point out that Return of the Jedi (which BTW is my favorite SW film of all time and likely always will be) features Boba Fett portrayed as something he was NEVER, to my knowledge, been portrayed as anywhere else in the official product AFAIK: a wimp, a chump, and a pushover.

Also you brought up plot holes. Not everyone agrees about how important plot holes are, in fact, there was a big debate about that very topic on YT a few years ago among a few content creators. And as I said in 2019, Endgame has plot holes you can fly a spaceship through, and yet it's a triumph of cinema.

Anyway, you know what I consider quite possibly the greatest plot hole in all of Star Wars? "They arrived right before you did." That's bugged me for almost my entire life. I'm sorry, but that is ALL OF THE IMPOSSIBLE. You're going to tell me the way larger, way slower ships and the very noisy smaller ships snuck in ahead of Han without him knowing it when he can, on top of all of that, jam their own transmissions, as seen in the original "Star Wars"? Nope, not buying it.

Oh no....anyway...

Interesting.  I've read Tales and Dark Empire, but never such characterizations of Boba.  I see that the trilogy you mentioned started at the end of the '90s, so I guess that's why.  I had largely dropped out of SW stuff by that point.  Curious.

Boba Fett and Tales of the Bounty Hunters....At first I thought I had a Mandala Effect, but digging out the paperback novel reveals some more truth in them there old "Legends". Also....That cover is just a bunch of photos or screenshots from the OT repurposed isn't it? Also the book is way smaller than I remembered...I guess I got a lot bigger...

Anyway: Pg 294-295. Under a tag for risque content and problematic content and "Why on Earth did you put that in a Star Wars?"

[offtopic]Summery: Two of Jabba's guards bring Leia, clad in the "brief costume that Jabba had allowed her" to Fett's room in Jabba's palace as a "gift from Jabba" to "enjoy." Leia tells Boba she'll defend herself, and Boba simply tells her it would inappropriate to enjoy said gift, which Leia seems glad to know, and that he thinks people should wait until marriage (um, good to know, Boba?) and then he gives her a sheet to cover up and Boba says he'll let her stay here for awhile because he doesn't want to risk Jabba throwing her to the Rancor, and then they talk about the Empire and the spice trade and a few other things. [/offtopic]

So yeah. There you go. That one bizarrely out of place scene did a lot to shape how I viewed ol' Boba the Fett. I wonder if Filoni and co read that.

Anakin: Yeah, I've encountered the Prequel love in my students.  It boggles my mind, but I suppose it just shows that most folks have terrible taste, especially young people!   After all, I once loved The Inhumanoids...

Not helping your case there. Especially since, if we're talking about "objective quality" almost ANY form of art and entertainment is better than American 80's action cartoons. They were all low on quality control, low on plot and character development, and were literally, due to changing regulations at the time, toy commercials. Which is why I don't particularly care for the original G1 Transformers cartoon or Superfriends, except the animated movie and when remixed in later works (Ultimen, ect)

Anakin: You took that better than I thought, mostly in stride, but my issue still remains even after I laid it all out pretty well. What gets my proverbial goat is you went past bashing the material and insulted the fans. To quote Old Man Luke "You went straight to the darkness. You didn't even question it." Insulting the fans....we don't even let the creators and the press do that, and if we do it amongst ourselves, we'll be hearing about "Toxic fandoms" for the rest of our gosh darn lives.

See, me personally, I'll joke around and talk a little smack, but I would NEVER go to where the Reylos go to hang out and enjoy themselves and call them names because they get something out of Star Wars that I don't. I think it would reflect badly on me and I'd rather do something more fun.

I understand you're not ingrained in the fandom nearly as much as me and some of the others in this thread....which is why we extensively explained it all like we're Clarrissa (ladies and gentlemen, the most obscure reference in this entire thread!)

Redemption:  Here your attitude and mine part ways dramatically.  I just want to avoid the stuff that reminds me of the low points.

I believe that would make you the equivalent to those "new viewers" opting into the sequel trilogy, isn't that so? The one's who you said are less important to the project's goals?

So uh, yeah, glad you enjoyed Mandalorian S2. Let me know if you're ever going to opt into any of the new stuff. We can reconvene for Lando or maybe Andor (WHY ARE YOU MAKING THE SHOW DISNEY?). Yes, LANDO is getting his own tv series. They haven't said which actor yet.

[Silver Shocker]

Well, the promised day has arrived. Honest Trailers: The Mandalorian Season 2. Oh, I've waited so long for this! In the immortal words of Baxter Stockman, this is gonna be gud! 

Not sure if I should link to it though. It's a little bit edgy, a little racy and a little bit political.

"[...] A show that's either the greatest thing that we've ever seen....or live action Star Wars has lowered our expectations so much, basic competence seems like seeing the face of god! [shows Pedro Pascal's face while angelic music plays]"

There you go, Benton! Something for everyone to enjoy! 

Now, in case anyone here hasn't actually seen Mando S2 and plans to, keep in mind this is Honest Trailers and they consistently spoil all of the things.

"In a winning mix that keeps things simple, and doesn't overstay its welcome, so you can be sure to Sith they'll launch enough spinoffs to kill the magic for good next year."

No.....that's not true......THAT'S IMPOSSIBLE!

Goldarnit, Mando S3 is gonna be it's equivalent to Doom Patrol S2, Rick and Morty S4, Game of Thrones S8, the entire middle half of Agents of Shield, the entirety of Post-Crisis Flash and Supergirl and the collective movie content of post-Force Awakens Star Wars, isn't it? It's ok, I've been burned before, I can take it.

*Honest Trailers attempts to argue that getting the same thing too often will ruin it, then eventually concedes the point*

GOOOOOOOOOD.

"Unless it's Marvel."

*Raises finger, thinks for a second*

Give it time. One of those Disney + shows is bound to be just ok to pretty bad. Let's be real here, the Marvel Netflix shows were not equal in quality. My money's on Moon Knight! Sorry Poe Dameron, even you can't fly this one to the promised land!

*Or Pixar films [...]"

*SS bites his lip* You know what? I've been contrarian enough lately. Let's just say Toy Story is love, yes, including the 4th one, and at the very least, Incredibles 2 sounded good on paper and had Bob Odenkirk as more or less Saul Goodman.

"Bonding with Baby Yoda over their shared love of murder" It's so true.

And yes, I STILL call him Baby Yoda.

Wow, they really DO talk about making deals a lot in this show. At least they ran it through their thesaurus a few times.

Spoiler

"The most popular characters from the Clone Wars series"

I was going to make a joke about Cad Bane, Hondo and The Son, but give it time. I imagine all three of them will be showing up in the spinoffs. I mean, the Veil of the Force is right there on the logo plate for Ahsoka!

"This season's most meaningful death ..."

WAS THE BANTHA?! 

"[...] Was when they killed off a major merchandizing opportunity [shows the Razor Crest being blow to bits]"

And YES, a lot of fans did scream out when that happened.

"As Favreau and Filoni deliver the second best Star Wars television experience. But you all know what's still #1...

*plays Clone Wars intro*

Me: *Nods at screen*

HT: NO! I'm talking about the intro to the Droids cartoon!

MAH MAN! That intro was dope! 

"Starring [...] *gets to Dark Troopers* DARKNESS! NO PARENTS"

SS: *bursts out laughing* Man, now I want Will Arnett in a Star Wars!

"[...] Stormtroopers giving themselves away"

I KNOW RIGHT? What part of "TAKE COVER, THERE'S A SNIPER SHOOTING YOU" don't those guys understand? That episode was business, but I swear, Stormtroopers have never been more useless than under Disney!

"You're from Alderaan, right? You lose anyone?" HT: *shows footage of Alderaan being destroyed* Yeah, I'm guessing you did.

Joker, you wanna field this one:

IF YOU HAVE TO EXPLAIN THE JOKE, THEN THERE IS NO JOKE!!!

[BentonGrey]

Yeah, the Honest Trailers was once again pretty much spot-on.  Haha, it was excellent.  I didn't get the Dark Trooper thing at first, ha.  That makes sense now.

@Benton Watch the Siege of Mandalore as one movie. If that doesn't get you interested in CW,nothing will.

That IS a good suggestion, but it sounds like Benton made it clear he's not watching that stuff no matter what. And you know what? THAT'S FINE. I've got stuff I'll never opt into. Mostly in the realm of comic content. For Star Wars and Marvel and DC shows and movies, I watch basically EVERYTHING. It might take a while, but I do. I can't possibly expect all my peers to do the same because it's completely unreasonable.

Nope, I never said I would never watch it, though I understand how you could get that impression.  I actually watched the first several episodes of Clone Wars in the last few weeks, before we canceled our Disney+ subscription.  It was okay, though I wasn't wowed, and the Prequel-ness certainly bothered me.  However, I didn't get a chance to watch what HT suggested yet.  I'll keep it in mind, though.

I'll put my response to your main points in spoilers as well, so DJ can ignore it and focus on his drinking....

Spoiler

Objective....to quote the Princess Bride: "You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means."

Objective quality, in the context of art and literature is a nebulous concept. It functionally doesn't exist. You get 12 angry men in a room and ask them to discuss the concept and agree on stuff and they'll argue and likely none of them will sway each other. You get 12 calm, well mannered, highly educated scholars and/or philosophers to do the same and you may very well get the same result. It's a bad argument. The fact that you and I can disagree about these things prove that it is not objective. And I could PROVE that by picking apart the original trilogy in ways that are pretty hard to deny, but easy to say "Yeah, but that's not a deal breaker for me."

A) That isn't actually what I meant, though I can't blame you for being confused, as I didn't define my terms.  I thought the context would provide enough clarity, and it seems I was wrong.  However, you raise a really interesting point that is worth discussing, so I'll come back to my actual argument after addressing what you say here.

B ) Haha...you know, I said the exact same thing to one of my professors nearly twenty years ago...what I didn't realize then is that I thought that, and I imagine you think this, largely because we were born in the 20th century.  The subjectivity of art is not a (post) modern invention, but its dominant fashionability most certainly is.  This is one of the "gods of the marketplace," as C. S. Lewis put it, the current fashions that get mistaken for laws.  Do not mistake the current for the true.

For the overwhelmingly vast majority of human history, the dominant understandings of art were built on the idea that there was an objective standard to which it did or did not adhere, a good that it did or did not accomplish.  We find it in mystical and pure form in Plato (the ideal forms), a much more systematized and practical form in Aristotle, we see it achieving explicitly religious significance with Augustine, and Augustine and Aristotle form the basis for the medieval views of art, which are further refined by Dante and some of the other titans of the period, both religious and secular in a philosophy that saw art as one of our pathways to the divine.  That did not change with the Renaissance either, and in fact, with luminaries like Petrarch, art became even weightier, almost a second religion unto itself.  The Victorian period took on a more socially focused view, but the dominant idea remained that there was an objective standard for art.  It is only in the last 70 or 80 years that a radical subjectivity has become popular, and that view, though dominant, is hardly unchallenged (for example, by the Inklings).  I believe the same pattern holds true in the East, with Confucious playing the foundational role of Plato/Aristotle, though I'm less familiar with the specifics.

In fact, do you believe that there are ways that people should act, things that are always wrong or right, no matter the circumstances?  Chances are you do, if you think hard enough about it.  Most of us have a point at which we say 'this far and no further.'  Well, if you do, you believe in some form of objective moral order, however vague and undefined.  This is, of course, also an obvious consequence of belief in a supreme being, as with the major monotheistic religions.  If you believe in an objective order to the universe, and most people do, whether they realize it or not, it is a completely reasonable argument that an objective standard for art is a necessary minor secondary premise for such a belief.  This is the case for systematic Christian theology, for example, though hardly limited to that tradition.  If there is an objective standard for our conduct, things we should or should not be doing, then the things we make would logically have some capacity to conform (or not) to such a standard. 

You point out that we could have a group of people in a room with different opinions and cite various examples of poor judgment of art.  And?  Why would it necessarily follow that an objective standard would be obviously apparent, or that it should be any more proof against self-deception or confusion than, say, morality or any other metaphysical subject?  Just because people disagree about it doesn't mean it isn't there.  Some people believe the Earth is flat.  Belief is not necessarily a barometer for truth.  We once shared more clearly defined standards for judging art, and it is possible we could do so again.  Fashions and cultures change.

So, no, the question of an objective standard for art is not quite as simple and settled as you might imagine, or as I once imagined.  As it happens, these days I'm a Christian archetypalist, and I see things more or less the same way the Inklings did, in line with the Platonic/Aristotelian tradition, that there is an objective nature to the universe, and that our art is best, in terms of transcendent value as opposed to technical quality, when it most closely approaches that structure.  However, though I find this subject fascinating, this is only tangentially related to what I was talking about.

A1) I was imprecise with my terminology in my post.  I should have said more objective standard in that context.  I was talking about the fact that a continued narrative sets forth requirements and stakes out territory for other stories told in that bailiwick.  That is a more objective standard by which to judge future stories than a story told in isolation has.  As I set out, future stories either conform to those standards or do not.  This is an extension of the measures of technical craftsmanship like internal coherence and logical consistency, measures by which the new films also fail.

To be clear, I think the first of the new films fails, as film, on a technical level, often exhibiting poor craftsmanship.  I think they all fail as Star Wars films on the level of coherence with the stories to which they explicitly link themselves, and at times, in terms of themes (but far from completely, on that score). 

For these fundamental flaws you speak of, all you have to do (and this part comes from a wonderful Youtuber called JayExci, one of those younger Prequel-loving fine folks, in the interest of full disclosure) is say "Yes, but I find THE WAY in which X was done was handled better in Y" and the argument goes right out the window. Unfortunately, the argument can't just Mary Poppins its way back in the window.

I'm not sure what you're saying here.

Funny thing, I HAVE watched all of the MCU tv shows and read ALL of the MCU tie-in comics, and they, you may be pleased to know, largely in line with the films themselves. Yes, The Netflix ones are considerably darker, but they still like they could take place in that world. The biggest contradiction I can recall in the tie-in comics is the method by which Black Widow cannot have children (and that may very well come up in the upcoming Black Widow film, since that film, like Guardians, very much has family on the brain)

I've watched most of this stuff (finally gave up on Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D.), and more or less felt the same way.  Man, was Iron Fist a let-down, though!

I'll tackle Bro Thor for a sec. Is he still a drunken buffoon there for yucks, or is he crippled by PTSD? He's both. You can't argue he's not. There's your objectivity. The execution, and whether it worked for you, is where the distinction lies. My unsullied (did not read the comics or watch the cartoons or play the games) fellow viewers of Thor Ragnarok and Endgame enjoyed Thor from top to bottom, while I roasted him and Thor 3 for being a SNL parody of itself, complete with Goldblum standing in for the hypothetical real bad guy. The fact that a phony version of Thor with stunt cast actors is a joke in the actual movie (with Sam Neil claiming he'll get to come back for Thor 4) is a perfect example of "biting the hand humor". And again, that's the main gag in Wandavision, so it should be interesting when you get your claws into it.

I'm confused.  Execution is no less a valid point of critique than premise, so I'm not sure what you think you're proving here.  I have zero problems with the premise of Thor with PTSD.  It's a fascinating idea and not necessarily incompatible with his established characterization.  In fact, a competent treatment of the 1,000-year-old Thunder God actually dealing with this type of trauma in a self-consistent fashion would be really interesting.  However, in terms of execution, it was done almost as badly as Thor III, with every single moment of emotional weight undercut for a cheap joke.  And that characterization in practice is not consistent with his previous characterization and breaks the rules they chose to play by when they told a story in an established universe.  There's your (greater) objectivity.

That's a great point! And the fact that you just triggered the proverbial trap card makes it all the more enjoyable! 

Considering the next few Marvel shows and Thor 4, I really am curious how you plan to judge new Marvel shows and movies that are continuations but upgrade supporting characters to the main roles, and in the case of WandaVision, literally warp the movie/show into a completely different genre and style. When you actually watch WV, we're apparently going to have a Civil War of our own based on this shindig. 

Assuming that WandaVision actually accounts for the changes in characterization and tone (and by all accounts, it sounds like it will/is), I'll have no problem.  The issue isn't that you can't make changes; it's that you have to justify those changes with good storytelling.  Cap and Tony both end up in very different places than where they start their MCU arcs.  That's fine.  In fact, that's the nature of an arc. It's when characters change drastically with no reason and/or inconsistently, that it becomes a matter of poor craftsmanship. 

Anyway, here's the crab meat, the gotcha question from me:

If you watch a Filoni show and are dismissive of all the Filoni stuff that's in there for the Filoni fans and say you'd rather it not be there, then by your own definition, you are judging it wrong and unfairly. Perhaps you'll disagree with me on that point, but that's sure how it sounded to me. The show's not called "Star Wars: Episode 6.5" It's called "The Mandalorian" a phrase never once uttered in any of the movies. It's not a "bug" it's a "feature."

Come now, this is hair-splitting.  A story doesn't have to be explicitly labeled "continuation #blank" to make its intentions clear and bind it by the rules of its game.  The show is set in the Star Wars universe and is set explicitly after the original Star Wars films.  It is playing by clear rules.  And, as I think I made clear, it mostly follows them.  I can't fault the show on a technical level for bringing in Prequel stuff, since that's part of the toolbox they're working with.  In terms of my distaste for Prequel elements in the show, I think I was pretty clear that it was only a matter of my personal taste.

You specifically brought up Episode VI as an example, which is great, because whether that was a typo or not, it gives me an opening to point out that Return of the Jedi (which BTW is my favorite SW film of all time and likely always will be) features Boba Fett portrayed as something he was NEVER, to my knowledge, been portrayed as anywhere else in the official product AFAIK: a wimp, a chump, and a pushover.

Before that point, he's in...what...four scenes?  Briefly?  There's not much of an established presence to deviate from.  About all that we do get is that he's cold and ruthless.  I'd argue that his appearance in Jedi is far too small and random to justify your description, but even if it were accurate, it's literally the only time we see him fight, so nothing to deviate from.  Most characterization happens outside of the movies in the expanded universe, which is why I don't have strong feelings about his characterization in the show.

Also you brought up plot holes. Not everyone agrees about how important plot holes are, in fact, there was a big debate about that very topic on YT a few years ago among a few content creators. And as I said in 2019, Endgame has plot holes you can fly a spaceship through, and yet it's a triumph of cinema.

That's true, which is why there are holistic standards for measuring quality, and you don't just say, 'plot hole, fail!'  It's just like grading a paper.  Grammar, transitions, argument, evidence, structure, etc.: these are all elements that combine to make a good or bad paper.  But you don't fail someone because they screw up in one category.  Their score is determined by how they perform across all the categories.  This is what I stressed in previous posts.  Plot holes are one element among many, one piece of internal coherence and logical consistency.  The reason Endgame gets praised, despite those flaws, is that it succeeds by a host of other measurements.

Anyway, you know what I consider quite possibly the greatest plot hole in all of Star Wars? "They arrived right before you did." That's bugged me for almost my entire life. I'm sorry, but that is ALL OF THE IMPOSSIBLE. You're going to tell me the way larger, way slower ships and the very noisy smaller ships snuck in ahead of Han without him knowing it when he can, on top of all of that, jam their own transmissions, as seen in the original "Star Wars"? Nope, not buying it.

You're forgetting the context of the scene.  The Falcon had no hyperdrive.  All Boba Fett had to do was follow them for a while, figure out where they were headed (which systems could they reach on sublight?), and then contact Vader and jump over to Bespin.  The bad guys have to do the same reasoning Han does and which we see happen.  It's all there in the scene.

[offtopic]Summery: Two of Jabba's guards bring Leia, clad in the "brief costume that Jabba had allowed her" to Fett's room in Jabba's palace as a "gift from Jabba" to "enjoy." Leia tells Boba she'll defend herself, and Boba simply tells her it would inappropriate to enjoy said gift, which Leia seems glad to know, and that he thinks people should wait until marriage (um, good to know, Boba?) and then he gives her a sheet to cover up and Boba says he'll let her stay here for awhile because he doesn't want to risk Jabba throwing her to the Rancor, and then they talk about the Empire and the spice trade and a few other things. [/offtopic]

So yeah. There you go. That one bizarrely out of place scene did a lot to shape how I viewed ol' Boba the Fett. I wonder if Filoni and co read that.

Ha!  Well, okay then.  That is sure random.  Who would have guessed Boba Fett read True Love Waits...

Not helping your case there. Especially since, if we're talking about "objective quality" almost ANY form of art and entertainment is better than American 80's action cartoons. They were all low on quality control, low on plot and character development, and were literally, due to changing regulations at the time, toy commercials. Which is why I don't particularly care for the original G1 Transformers cartoon or Superfriends, except the animated movie and when remixed in later works (Ultimen, ect)

Yeah, my point was that taste (hopefully) evolves.  As for the quality of 80s cartoons in general, that's a separate, larger conversation.

Anakin: You took that better than I thought, mostly in stride, but my issue still remains even after I laid it all out pretty well. What gets my proverbial goat is you went past bashing the material and insulted the fans. To quote Old Man Luke "You went straight to the darkness. You didn't even question it." Insulting the fans....we don't even let the creators and the press do that, and if we do it amongst ourselves, we'll be hearing about "Toxic fandoms" for the rest of our gosh darn lives.

See, me personally, I'll joke around and talk a little smack, but I would NEVER go to where the Reylos go to hang out and enjoy themselves and call them names because they get something out of Star Wars that I don't. I think it would reflect badly on me and I'd rather do something more fun.

I understand you're not ingrained in the fandom nearly as much as me and some of the others in this thread....which is why we extensively explained it all like we're Clarrissa (ladies and gentlemen, the most obscure reference in this entire thread!)

I guess you're talking about me calling people "stupid" here?  I wasn't being particularly serious in that statement, as should be clear from later statements.

I believe that would make you the equivalent to those "new viewers" opting into the sequel trilogy, isn't that so? The one's who you said are less important to the project's goals?

You seem to enjoy putting words in my mouth, SS.  I didn't say such fans were less important.  In fact, I didn't comment on them one way or the other.  I said that the films contain implicit information on how they should be judged.  And in terms of pop culture, I am less important than folks like you who are buying what they're selling these days, and I've said as much before.  They aren't making stories for me.  That makes me sad, but it isn't exactly surprising. 

So uh, yeah, glad you enjoyed Mandalorian S2. Let me know if you're ever going to opt into any of the new stuff. We can reconvene for Lando or maybe Andor (WHY ARE YOU MAKING THE SHOW DISNEY?). Yes, LANDO is getting his own tv series. They haven't said which actor yet.

Sheesh, it just keeps getting more ridiculous!  I would actually be mildly interested in a well-made story following young Lando's misadventures, but the field is going to be so crowded that I wonder if anything will have room to succeed.

[HarryTrotter]

I actually watched the first several episodes of Clone Wars in the last few weeks, before we canceled our Disney+ subscription.  It was okay, though I wasn't wowed, and the Prequel-ness certainly bothered me.

That would be the expected reaction at first. First season was a bit rough. And the premiere movie is not that great,tbh. But it gets better soon.

And sorry if Im mansplaining here,but the episodes are not in the chronological order,and IMO watching them in the right order is a massive improvement. Since some arcs are not in pieces over 2-3 seasons.
    https://www.starwars.com/news/star-wars-the-clone-wars-chronological-episodeorder   

[BentonGrey]

Ha, that sounds unnecessarily complicated.  And no, I don't think that's mansplaining, HT.  I didn't know that, and I imagine the average new viewer wouldn't either.

I figured there's probably increasing returns as the show finds its feet.  I'm not writing it off after those episodes, by any means.  But it's not at the top of my list of content to see.

[Silver Shocker]

Nope, I never said I would never watch it, though I understand how you could get that impression.  I actually watched the first several episodes of Clone Wars in the last few weeks, before we canceled our Disney+ subscription.  It was okay, though I wasn't wowed, and the Prequel-ness certainly bothered me.  However, I didn't get a chance to watch what HT suggested yet.  I'll keep it in mind, though.

Apparently I've misjudged you. Again. Another apology from me. I like to think one of these days I'm gonna get this right. Or maybe the squeaky wheel gets the grease. That's cool too. Hey, you did check out an episode of TF Cyberverse (which is similar to Clone Wars in a few relevant respects, actually.)

Alright, I've got a few questions:

1) Which episodes?
2) Was this before or after WandaVision came out? *Does the Fry squint*
You win this time, Benton, but we'll meet again! 

I'll get to your tagged response at a later time, I'm afraid....rest I need.....rest...

Ha, that sounds unnecessarily complicated.  And no, I don't think that's mansplaining, HT.  I didn't know that, and I imagine the average new viewer wouldn't either.

Oh snap, I totally forgot about that. Another long overdue rant.

Star Wars does a lot of bizarre things (Darth Maul, anyone?) But one of the most bizarre, for sure, has to be when be The Clone Wars made following the story not only far more confusing than it needed to be, but, in sense, impossible for people like myself who watched it as it aired on tv.

Starting with the pilot movie, which was released in theatres, meaning by the time I had the chance to rent it, I'd had already seen about half the season of so, and Ahsoka was just kinda hanging around like she was always there. Which is pretty bad considering a pretty big part of the plot of the pilot movie is explaining why she's there, and getting her and Anakin to start teaming up and establish something resembling a respect for each other. It's also the debut of Rex, a major recurring TCW character who is meeting Ahsoka for the first time, and their relationship is actually pretty important. Her line "Technically I outrank you", and Rex's initial response to it "In my book, experience is more important every time", featured at the beginning of that video I linked to earlier in the thread, ends up coming up again in a meaningful way in the final arc of the series, Siege of Mandalore) Anakin also gets his ship, The Twilight, which is featured in other episodes of the show (it's a spice freighter, which is, yes, a reference to a single line of dialogue from "Star Wars")

We later have an episode that returns to the events of the pilot movie. Then things really go off the rails when bounty hunter Cad Bane appears in S2. He has a little helper droid, To-Do, voiced by Seth Green, who's appearance in a later episode, Evil Plans, automatically marks it as being before the entire "Holocron Heist" story arc. Not only that, Ziro's appearance in "Hostage Crisis" gets shuffled much later in the timeline, because Bane's springing him out of jail, when they haven't shown how he ended up in jail yet.

And that was just a few of them. I seem to recall there's more.

I figured there's probably increasing returns as the show finds its feet.  I'm not writing it off after those episodes, by any means.  But it's not at the top of my list of content to see.

I may or may not have mentioned this, but even hardcore TCW fans don't even consider Season 1 to be particularly good (myself included). S2 is a bit better right off the bat (but I'm biased because I was a big Cad Bane fan) but the mid-point of S3, starting with The Mortis arc is when it becomes "The Clone Wars" as people know it. Yet, it won't carry quite as much weight if you skip to it, and the Nightsisters arc definately won't.

Alright Benton, this is where it really starts to feel like homework. Get ready to tear your hair out.

I've got good news, bad news and worse news.

The bad news is you've got to watch the first Clone Wars series to fully appreciate the narrative of TCW, if you haven't already. Because what the pilot movie does for Ahsoka, the Gendy Tartokovski series does for Assaj Ventress, bringing her in and establishing her relationship with Dooku (she's his sorta-kinda apprentice), which ends up being important for both the very first episode of the Nightsisters arc and the entire overall story going forward.

It's also required to appreciate General Grievious! Yes, really. In that show Grevious is a Terminator-esque nightmare who has the Jedi running for their lives in terror, and his rapid Boba-Fett-esque villain decay (a result of "Clone Wars" coming out before RotS) is addressed in a meta-way several times over in TCW, culminating in him going to war with the Nightsisters, who, as I mentioned earlier, are actually really important to the plot as the stories featuring them send a ripple effect through the narrative that eventually involves Savage, Maul, Obi-Wan, all of the Mandalorian characters including Bo-Katan, Assaj, Barris, Ahsoka all the way down to the final arc of TCW, Siege of Mandalore.

The good news is that series is really, really good. So much so that the first season of TCW got absolutely raked through the coils (including by myself) for not being nearly as impressive or epic as it. it also features Shaggi from Scooby-Doo as a Jedi. Yes, really. He doesn't have a particularly impressive showing. As the internet meme goes, he must not have been using his full power. 

The bad news is it is not on Disney +, and also whoever did the voice of Anakin in that show is doing a terrible Hayden impression that's arguably worse than Hayden's acting in the prequels. And also the voices for Assaj, Shaak Tii, Luminara, Barriss and Kit Fisto are different in that show, including in some cases having drastically different accents. And that's without even getting into the different art styles.

The good news is it (The CGI "The Clone Wars" or TCW, series) is something of an anthology style, and jumping around and just watching the ones you want is not only an legit option, it may be the best option if you're trying to get into the series late on a tight schedule. And since "Clone Wars" isn't on D+, dismissing it or simply reading a summery online or checking out short clips on YT (it is a series of shorts, though on DVD, which I own, it takes the format of two 1h movies) is probably best.

Oh, and if you want to know what happened to Darth Maul and the Mandalorians between the show's cancellation and the revival season on D+, beyond a single line of dialogue, you have to read a comic book miniseries, and if you want the ending of Assaj's story, you have to read a novel! (and *I* haven't even read that one. Though I did look up what happens, and it's pretty appropriate and hopefully actually plays in novel form)

OH, BUT WAIT! THERE'S MORE!

On at least two occasions, WEBCOMICS were required reading to understand the plot. Yes, really. In the S1 arc when Hondo and his pirates captured Dooku (just roll with it), Anakin and Obi-Wan foil an attempt to be captured via drugged drinks, only to be shown having been drugged and and captured off screen in the next episode. It happened in a webcomic. Then in early S2, Cad Bane has captured Rodian Jedi Bolla Rapal offscreen, and tortures him to gain information relevant to the titular Holocron Heist. This ALSO happened in a webcomic, and we learn how Bane pulled it off. He had a gun that shorts out lightsabers (it is made out of somesuch sci-fi something or other that existed in the lore).

So if something in the first two seasons or so happens and there's a weird disconnect between episodes where something important happened offscreen, know that it either happened in an episode that aired a good season later, or in a now-obscure and harder to find webcomic. Fun stuff! 

[HarryTrotter]

Thing that shorts out lightsabers was probably cortosis. I wonder if thats still a thing in Disney canon.
One thing that the Tartakovsky series had over CW was Durge. Durge was a beast.
Btw,considering he had a vendetta against Mandalorians, maybe he shows up in Mandalorian.

[Silver Shocker]

Thing that shorts out lightsabers was probably cortosis. I wonder if thats still a thing in Disney canon.

It was, and it is. It showed up in Rebels.

Also, based on Wookipedia, both "Clone Wars" AND the webcomics are no longer considered official canon, despite them explaining and setting up stuff that pays off in TCW. So hurray, in official canon, stuff just happens with no explanation! GREAT CONTINUITY! *shakes head*

One thing that the Tartakovsky series had over CW was Durge. Durge was a beast.
Btw,considering he had a vendetta against Mandalorians, maybe he shows up in Mandalorian.

YUP. Since he's not in TCW at all, I tend to forget about him. He was a highlight. I also loved Shaak-Ti's entourage ("Ithorian lungs. Very strong.") Actually that show has one of my favorite versions of Shaak-Ti period. I've always loved the way she looks in that show's art style.
As for Durge appearing in the Mandoverse, possibly, this is Filoni we're talking about here, and with all the stuff being subtracted from Mando for the spinoffs, they're going to have to put something in there.

Diving into the wiki reveals Durge was inspired by Akira (no surprise there) and that he was going to be in TCW and was swapped out for Cad Bane. Hmm, maybe a team-up could be in the works.

Gotta tell ya, I'm getting real tempted to rewatch both Clone Wars and read the comics now.

*Checks wiki* OMG the Ahsoka novel and Dark Disciple have audio books, with the Ahsoka one narrated by her actual voice actress! And Dark Desciple's audio book is done by Marc Thompson, whose audio book work I've heard is excellent!

You know, I haven't actually finished a novel in well over a decade. I've been meaning to look into the comic adaptations of Zahn's books and audio books in general as an practical alternative to reading them. I may have to look into this.

[HarryTrotter]

For the next season we have the Darksaber plot...and depends if its really setting up a new sequel trilogy,we might expect more Imperial/First Order stuff.

Well,if you are getting into audiobooks,get some WH40K books. Im making my way thru Horus Heresy these days.

[Silver Shocker]

Well,if you are getting into audiobooks,get some WH40K books. Im making my way thru Horus Heresy these days.

Sorry, I've got WAY too many properties on my multiple spinning plates these days to get into Warhammer. And I won't troll you by joking about reading the comics. 

Oh, also if you want to know how Ahsoka got her second lightsaber, you have to watch one of the Forces of Destiny animated shorts.

FoD also confirms that 1) Hera was on the Forest Moon of Endor. Makes you wonder if Hera will be showing up in live action and 2) Ewoks were in fact cooking and eating Stormtroopers.

Also I was looking through the wiki and remembered that I've got a bunch of SW novels from the 90's and early 2000's that I never read. I should dig some of those out! I'm kinda getting into this.

[HarryTrotter]

Fair enough. I also drifted away for a few year,but then I read the Space Sharks duology (so far) and things escalated. Greatest fictional universe ever.

[Nyte Dragon]

2) Ewoks were in fact cooking and eating Stormtroopers.

[Silver Shocker]

Star Wars: Forces of Destiny: S1ep16: Imperial Feast

I mean, they did try to cook Han and the others in RotJ, but their "god" didn't approve. (You can even hear the Ewoks using the same chant) The characters should have just told 3P0 to get them to stop that time too.

Watch Filoni and Faveraux have Imperial Remnant Stormtroopers in Mando S3 talk about how they were almost cooked and eaten by Ewoks on the moon of Endor. Wouldn't put it past them.

Leia: Please let them go. We must treat the enemy fairly.

The apple sure fell far from the tree.

Anakin *stabs Separatist Admiral through the chest* Admiral, it was a pleasure *admiral falls over dead*

Also, something I wanted to share for a while but forgot.....Robot Chicken's Star Wars parodies strangely predicted Mandalorian in ways that amused a lot of people, myself included....

We had EV-9D9 as a bartender on Tattooine, and also....

Spoiler

Boba Fett coming "Back from the Dead", beating the stuffing out of a whole buncha people, using his long range missile while joking about whether or not it works properly, and lastly a post-credit scene where he takes over Jabba's Palace alongside one other person he met along the way. He even teases a hypothetical "Episode 7" and tells Solo to watch his a$$... Oh no, Disney, please, not a CGI Harrison Ford. Say it ain't so!

[Silver Shocker]

So two interesting pieces of news concerning the Mandoverse:

1. In a move that surprised pretty much nobody, Gina Carano (Cara Dune) has been fired from all future Star Wars projects, for doing a politics on social media one too many times.

Apparently it was never confirmed that she was going to be in Rangers of the New Republic, but it was expected she was going to be. As with Mando himself (Djin Djarin/Pedro Pascal), the title can apply to other characters, thus you can do Republic Rangers with a brand new cast of characters.

2. Pedro Pascal has been cast as Joel, one of the two main characters of the original Last of Us video game, in the HBO tv series adaptation. This may or may not indicate that Pedro will in fact be written out of Mando S3. Time will tell, but to give one example where the writing was on the wall, Sonequa Martin-Green being cast as the lead in Star Trek Discovery made it none too surprising when her character in The Walking Dead was written out just in time for that show to come out.

On the other hand, Dwayne Johnson starred in the HBO series Ballers, which ran for *checks wiki* 5 seasons and 47 episodes. So time will tell.

[Tomato]

There are reports they planned to announce her getting a show back in November, but quietly iced it when she started going off on twitter. It's been speculated they quietly fired her then, but the recent dust up made them go public with it.

As for Pascal, I sort of doubt it. They might have him around less, but I can't imagine they can't schedule around him. Especially given he's usually in head to toe armor, they can shoot fill in scenes around him, and losing him and the child would be risky, ESPECIALLY with the positive buzz he's had lately.

So yeah, I can see them pivot away and do some din-lite episodes focusing on other Mandalorians, but I think he'll be around.

[Nyte Dragon]

 They could 'Vader' it. Have his stuntman, or someone with similar body type  do the filming, and he just has to supply the vocals.

[Silver Shocker]

There are reports they planned to announce her getting a show back in November, but quietly iced it when she started going off on twitter. It's been speculated they quietly fired her then, but the recent dust up made them go public with it.

One of the sources that came up in the article said exactly that last part, and Disney's statement sounded like that was the case.

As for Pascal, I sort of doubt it. They might have him around less, but I can't imagine they can't schedule around him. Especially given he's usually in head to toe armor, they can shoot fill in scenes around him, and losing him and the child would be risky, ESPECIALLY with the positive buzz he's had lately.

As I said earlier, he already had stunt men in the suit as early as S1, which didn't surprise me. And the rumor is he'll be relegated to an 98% VO role, but that's assuming the rumours about him being a bit of a prima donna on set are true. Which I could believe because pretty much every Mando-related rumor has come true so far, with the one exception I can recall being that Captain Rex would be in the show (though supposedly he'll be in Ahsoka)

So yeah, I can see them pivot away and do some din-lite episodes focusing on other Mandalorians, but I think he'll be around.

Well, I've grumbled several times about them doing a Cassian Andor show with no K2 in S1, which I think is an absolutely asinine idea, but I personally would rather see a prequel series about Donnie Yen's Cherrut, but the problem is they run into him after they get K2, and if you've seen that movie, you know that team up just isn't an option in a series. So I would like to see is something akin to The Clone Wars and Better Call Saul, where it kinda jumps back and forth (I also would enjoy a young Cherrut, not Donnie Yen but a younger actor) and thus I could see them doing something like that for Mando S3.

Again, who knows, I could give examples and go "See, that's proves it" and then go "Oh that's right, Maisie Williams was in almost an entire season of Doctor Who while also in Game of Thrones" so ultimately it's completely arbitrary. As Quint from Resident Evil: Revelations said, I don't want to jump to conclusions, I need more intel.