The Mandalorian SHOW discussion - Spoilers Allowed for all aired episodes

[Edmilson 7,436]

56 minutes ago, mstrox said:

I haven't listened to the album yet, but I remember almost nothing about that part musically (which I guess is condemnation enough, given what was going on).  While I generally think Ludwig's Mando music is great, that part made zero impression upon watching.

 

Yeah, I felt that too. That cue could've been more memorable. Tbh, I liked the cue where Mando says goodbye to Baby Yoda.

[artguy360 1,843]

4 hours ago, Quintus said:

Anyone else find the bizarre strings piece which underscores Luke’s robot army massacre to be useless? Personally, I think it's a crap approach to the scene, it sounds rubbish. 

 

I feel like practically any other score composer could have done a more satisfying job in this instance. 

The music during that scene did not resonate with me either. On first watch, it seemed quite lacking. I've since listened the track on its own. The primary idea it seems to be going for is mystery but it doesn't have the excitement of Vader's Rogue One hallway scene nor the immediate memorability of a JW hype cue like The Spark. 

 

Listening to it more, there is something about it that reminds me of music from Terminator/Terminator 2 but I can't quite place the similarity.

[Jay 37,352]

What was the first in-show reveal that the show takes place five years after ROTJ? 

[crumbs 14,306]

On 12/23/2020 at 12:44 AM, Docteur Qui said:

Ironically it’s also shown just how powerful the portrayal of Luke in TLJ really is. He truly was a legend - the fear in Moff Gideon’s eyes when he realised who’d just shown up, and the ease with which he dispatched the dark troopers just goes to show how far Luke had fallen in TLJ and why his sacrifice at the end was such a crucial turning point for the Resistance.

The problem was never in Luke’s portrayal in TLJ, it was that a lot of people lacked the imagination to understand what he must have achieved - and failed at - to arrive at that point. This episode just helps to fill in those gaps IMO.

 

Yes! Thank you for this. It doesn't contradict or invalidate the ST Luke, it just underlines the tragic events which befell him in years to come.

 

The backstory between ROTJ and TFA is almost worthy of a trilogy in itself, though Kylo's fall would make for a slight retread of the prequels. It's great that Mando is filling in those gaps instead.

 

On 12/23/2020 at 1:29 AM, rough cut said:

Ot has nothing to do with filling in gaps - more to do with burying Rian’s missteps and trying to reinstate Luke as a proper hero, not the loser he was portrayed as in TLJ.

 

Bit harsh to describe Luke as a "loser" given what happened to him. 99% of people in the real world would go into a deep depression if they considered themselves responsible for such death and destruction.

 

I totally understand the criticism about putting the OT characters through such misery and grief between trilogies, but all these story decisions were made by JJ Abrams, NOT Rian Johnson. Per TFA:

"Ever since Luke disappeared, people have been looking for him. He was training a new generation of Jedi. One boy, an apprentice, turned against him, destroyed it all. Luke felt responsible. He just walked away from everything."

 

Abrams painted Johnson into a corner where he needed to explain why Luke Skywalker, hero of the galaxy, would turn his back on family and exile himself. Abrams decided on that approach for Luke; Johnson was tasked with justifying it. He could hardly have Luke turn around 15 minutes into TLJ and say, "oops, I was wrong all these years, let's go fight the First Order!"

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Didn't Rian Johnson rub salt into the wound by making Luke a bum who gets his arse handed to him by a girl and refuses to leave the planet to actually do something for a change rather than do his silly Force projection thing-a-ma-bob with an obvious dye job?

[crumbs 14,306]

On 12/23/2020 at 1:29 AM, rough cut said:

Mind, that nobody seems to have a problem with how Luke behaved in ROTS (but it was certainly tainted by its predecessor).

 

Speak for yourself. The scenes with Luke in TROS looked like a parody. A piss-poor waste of his character, especially when you consider the potential future arc that his final words to Kylo in TLJ offered:

"Strike me down in anger and I'll always be with you. Just like your father."

"See you around, kid."

 

So many tantalizing story options, practically gift-wrapped from Johnson to the director of IX. I believe Trevorrow followed through with that potential, then Abrams threw it all in the bin and decided Luke was better utilized as an exposition-dump in a lazy one-scene cameo.

[Datameister 2,042]

Yeah, for all my issues with TLJ, it does an excellent job of setting up an interesting dynamic for the final chapter: Kylo being beyond redemption, yet still haunted by the memory of Luke. TROS ignored all of that.

[12-Mile Reef 123]

15 hours ago, Quintus said:

 

Meh, Lola FX accomplished a far more convincing effort with a young Michael Douglas in Ant Man. I just think you Star Wars fanboys are in denial about ILM no longer being the FX house they once were. This digital Luke Skywalker work is some of the worst I've seen in recent memory. 

 

No matter, the scene was still terrific despite the crummy CGI. 

FYI, Lola was responsible for the work here on young Luke, not ILM.

[Arpy 4,145]

Either way it was as jarring as it would be to have a polygonal Lara Croft appear in the new Tomb Raider films. Set against a highly polished, photo-realistic world, Luke looks like a sentient dummy. The Uncanny Valley is well and truly something we are still dangling over the edge of.

 

Might've been a better idea for Luke to keep his hood up, we all know what he sounds like to recognise it's him...

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

[Quintus 5,399]

1 hour ago, John Chambers said:

FYI, Lola was responsible for the work here on young Luke, not ILM.

 

Yeah but I just like baiting the ILM groupies because I know there's a couple here, I've always done it. 

 

Anyway, in my eventual bigger post regarding this series, I was planning on touching especially on the VFX on display. The Luke Skywalker humdinger accepted (still a great scene regardless), the effects in this show are some of the finest I've ever seen, in anything. Digital and practical, VFX of this fidelity are normally the forte of James Cameron films. I don't ever recall sitting watching a film though and wondering how a special effect was achieved, but I've done that throughout The Mandalorian, the blurred line between practical and digital being that seamless. ILM are responsible for the brunt of that work. 

 

Game of Thrones was probably held up as the benchmark for outstanding VFX in TV, but The Mandalorian has usurped it. 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

[DarthDementous 1,059]

I'm seeing a lot of over-simplifications of the opposition's perspective in regard to Luke's portrayal in TLJ.

I don't wish to speak for anyone else but I know that the reason I fundamentally despise how Luke was handled has a lot more nuance than is being suggested.

First and foremost, my number one expectation that was practically make or break for me going in was that I buy that this is the same character but older. While it would be satisfying to see Luke at the peak of his power as a catharsis following ROTJ, more important is to preserve the spirit of the character.

And therein lies the biggest failure of TLJ for me - rather deliberately it seems, it completely deconstructs the entire character of Luke. Irresponsibly, because in doing so it creates a complete character assassination and then attempts to turn it around near the end and make you believe that no, he actually is the Luke Skywalker we thought he always was.

 

All of the development that completely transformed this character happened almost entirely off-screen (a running problem throughout the Sequel Trilogy), this is not the audience's fault for a 'lack of imagination', this is the fault of the film-makers for not showing us a believable transition and drawing focus to some very key character and story beats.

I'm happy to elaborate on specifics if people would like to pry, but for now I'll just summarise why I think Luke barely resembles the character that was established by focusing on a few particular traits that defined his character in the Original Trilogy:

Honesty

Perhaps in part due to his modest upbringing as a moisture farmer, Luke is incredibly honest about his motivations and himself. Despite deceiving Jabba about the nature of the 'gifts', he warns him on multiple occasions that his retaliation will lead to his destruction, but Jabba is of course much too prideful to believe him. Even amidst the greatest evil that galaxy has ever known, he sticks to his beliefs and his love for his father, walking straight to him instead of trying to sneak in and assassinate the Emperor. Before that, he lets his sister know where he is going and what he must do, despite it being incredibly difficult to say goodbye for what he believed to be the last time.

 

Flash forward to The Last Jedi and any sense of this honesty is completely gone, instead opting to fabricate a scenario in which all the responsibility was on Kylo for turning. We know later that he is fully aware it is his failure, yet he attempts to save face in a really cheap way. Which brings me to my next point...

Loyalty

As Luke's greatest enemy puts it, his greatest weakness and strength is "his faith in (his) friends". At the risk of the entire galaxy and council of the wisest people Luke has ever known, he goes to rescue his friends because he could never let them die if he had a chance to save them, no matter what personal cost of his own. Same goes with his family, his love for his father nearly kills him yet he holds on even through excruciating torture, never truly losing hope that his father's love remained in some capacity.

Now, I hear these two scenes compared constantly and I'm continuously irritated by how selective the comparisons are. I'm talking of course about Luke wailing on Vader in ROTJ versus Luke igniting the saber in front of Kylo in TLJ.

In the former, Luke is in an incredibly stressful and dangerous situation, the equivalent of the universe's Satan has been goading him the entire exchange, slowly driving Luke to anger and thus the dark side. In this moment, Vader strikes a strong emotional nerve and Luke's greatest weakness - his love for his friends and family. The thought of his sister being put into danger sends him into a murderous rage, one that has been deliberately stoked by the Emperor. Already in the heat of a battle for his life, he draws upon the dark side to send Vader back and stops as he is visually reminded that this is exactly what the Emperor did to his father ("You, like your father, are now mine") with the cut-off hand. He's brought back to his senses and his strength of character shines through as he declares in defiance that the Emperor has failed, and he will never be tempted by the dark side again, and thus he has no power over him.

TLJ on the other hand, there is no sense of urgency. Luke reaches inside Kylo's mind and he sees a very dark future, but as Luke should be aware "always in motion the future is". A lesson he also should've learned from ESB is to not put 100% of his faith in visions, as it nearly killed him when he was lured to Cloud City. There are a number of things Luke could've done here, yes it would be shocking to suddenly realise that your best friend's kid harbours great darkness, but Luke of all people should know that there's a way through! He redeemed Darth Vader for goodness sake. Instead he makes the worst deliberate decision which goes beyond instinct despite what he says, he takes out his lightsaber and ignites it and then holds it there for 3 seconds. These are not reflexive actions. The fact he held it so long is what caused Kylo to wake up and attack him. He had a large array of options, talking to Kylo, talking to Han or Leia, instead he chooses to do something incredibly foolish and out of character - in that moment he ceases to be recognisable as the character he is being written to be. 

TDLR ROTJ and TLJ 'moment of weakness' situations are incredibly different, and the former is built off established character traits whereas the latter bull-dozes through them in favour of forcing a self-fulfilling prophecy.

[Quintus 5,399]

Again, a fan shows a greater understanding of the source than the committee who actually made it. 

[crumbs 14,306]

3 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

He had a large array of options, talking to Kylo, talking to Han or Leia, instead he chooses to do something incredibly foolish and out of character - in that moment he ceases to be recognisable as the character he is being written to be. 

 

I think you're missing the entire point of the film: that Luke isn't some infallible galactic superhero; he's only human and made a terrible mistake with a split-second decision. He saw his students massacred, his temple in flames, his life's work destroyed, at the hands of a corrupted young boy.

 

It's very easy to judge all these things with the benefit of hindsight, or with the luxury of spending hours writing paragraphs of analysis about why that decision was out of character... but throughout history, lots of very good people have made terrible mistakes that seem out of character.

 

On a purely story level, it's simply far more interesting to have a flawed hero reeling from past mistakes than picking up exactly where the character left off 32 years ago. It's the same reason Indy 5 won't work if they pick up with Indy acting like the same character from TLC. Time has passed and characters need to age with that passage of time.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

It's an interpretation by a cynical Gen-Xer trying to appeal to equality cynical Gen-Zs.

[Quintus 5,399]

59 minutes ago, crumbs said:

 

I think you're missing the entire point of the film: that Luke isn't some infallible galactic superhero; he's only human and made a terrible mistake with a split-second decision. He saw his students massacred, his temple in flames, his life's work destroyed, at the hands of a corrupted young boy.

 

It's very easy to judge all these things with the benefit of hindsight, or with the luxury of spending hours writing paragraphs of analysis about why that decision was out of character... but throughout history, lots of very good people have made terrible mistakes that seem out of character.

 

On a purely story level, it's simply far more interesting to have a flawed hero reeling from past mistakes than picking up exactly where the character left off 32 years ago. 

 

On paper this all sounds like it could be deep and satisfying. On paper. 

[A24 4,331]

The Carl Weathers directed episode (4) was the weakest so far. 

 

[GerateWohl 4,357]

3 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

I think you're missing the entire point of the film: that Luke isn't some infallible galactic superhero; he's only human and made a terrible mistake with a split-second decision. He saw his students massacred, his temple in flames, his life's work destroyed, at the hands of a corrupted young boy.

 

It's very easy to judge all these things with the benefit of hindsight, or with the luxury of spending hours writing paragraphs of analysis about why that decision was out of character... but throughout history, lots of very good people have made terrible mistakes that seem out of character.

 

On a purely story level, it's simply far more interesting to have a flawed hero reeling from past mistakes than picking up exactly where the character left off 32 years ago. It's the same reason Indy 5 won't work if they pick up with Indy acting like the same character from TLC. Time has passed and characters need to age with that passage of time.

I think, the simple reason why people like me think, that Luke acts to a certain degree out of character in TLJ is that he was this guy, and for sure at that point in time he was the only person in the whole galaxy, who thought that there is still good in Darth Vader and that he could save his soul, that evil dark lord who was responsible for killing all the Jedi and the rebels, tortured Leia and Han. What a heart must that person have being able to see an good in Darth Vader.

And the same guy has a vision about the future of one of his students, his nephew, who in that point in time hadn't done anything bad. And this person, Luke, might think, even just for a second that the only way to save his nephew is to kill him? No way.

 

Of course there could be experiences that change his character, but these experiences are not shown, they are just explained, with, by the way, very few, very week explanations.

But what is that? A saga spending three whole films showing the development from little Anakin to Darth Vader (no matter how bad that was shown) and that same saga, which in the original trilogy was basically about Luke becoming a Jedi, just spends about three sentences explaining why this character made a 180 degree turn? You may like it. I don't.

[Datameister 2,042]

I will say, as someone who generally likes the way Luke was handled in TLJ, I do have trouble with that fateful moment between him and Kylo. It's really hard to believe Luke would even consider killing his own nephew in his sleep, let alone actually ignite his lightsaber. I get that they were trying to justify his feeling of guilt that was established in TFA, but it's a step too far.

 

So yes...grumpy guilty hermit Luke = good; sleeping-nephew-murdering Luke = bad.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

14 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I think, the simple reason why people like me think, that Luke acts to a certain degree out of character in TLJ is that he was this guy, and for sure at that point in time he was the only person in the whole galaxy, who thought that there is still good in Darth Vader and that he could save his soul, that evil dark lord who was responsible for killing all the Jedi and the rebels, tortured Leia and Han. What a heart must that person have being able to see an good in Darth Vader.

And the same guy has a vision about the future of one of his students, his nephew, who in that point in time hadn't done anything bad. And this person, Luke, might think, even just for a second that the only way to save his nephew is to kill him? No way.

 

Exactly this. The question of what it would take to turn a character like Luke Skywalker into a cynical embittered old man is a great one, but the answers offered in The Last Jedi are weak as hell. Rian gets a lot of praise for "subverting expectations" with this story and in a world full of shitty remakes, I guess this does technically qualify as a "bold" decision. Making that decision is not enough to impress me on its own though. As far as I'm concerned, if you're going to take such a beloved and archetypal character in such an unexpected direction, it had damn well be worth it. I have to find the story believable and I have to be able to feel some of the character's feelings on a visceral level.

[Holko 9,525]

sigh

 

Luke senses good in Vader, tries to turn him, ultimately succeeds.

 

Luke doesn't sense good in Kylo, instead sees everything he worked for in the past decades destroyed, and "for a moment of pure instinct" he almost takes the simple route but as soon as he actually considers what he's doing he regrets it and stops.

[GerateWohl 4,357]

Just now, Holko said:

sigh

 

Luke senses good in Vader, tries to turn him, ultimately succeeds.

 

Luke doesn't sense good in Kylo, instead sees everything he worked for in the past decades destroyed, and "for a moment of pure instinct" he almost takes the simple route but as soon as he actually considers what he's doing he regrets it and stops.

That really makes zero sense. Luke senses no good in Kylo? Even in TFA Ben still struggles with his pull to the light. Kylo Ren was scetched from day one as a character that is not completely dedicated to one side, different than Darth Vader who from day one was introduced as almost soullost evil villain.

[A. A. Ron 1,742]

Exactly, just utterly ridiculous story telling.

[Quintus 5,399]

To most people, yes it is. But Star Wars fandom over the years has taught us that there is breed of fan who'll swallow any old shite and say they enjoyed it. 

[Smaug The Iron 513]

49 minutes ago, Holko said:

and "for a moment of pure instinct" he almost takes the simple route but as soon as he actually considers what he's doing he regrets it and stops.

In a way that is what happend in Return of the Jedi as well. When Vader said he would turn Leia to the Dark side Luke "for a moment of pure instinct" wanted to kill Vader but he regrets it almost Immediately after he cut Vader's hand off and decided not to do it. 

[Holko 9,525]

Nooooooooooooooooo, 8 Year Olds' Wet Dream Perfect Hero, the Favourite Janky Toy would never have done that!

[Bilbo 3,709]

The Last Jedi really is not worth the effort so many people have spent trying to defend the mess of a film.
 

If only Rian Johnson had cared as much! 

[rough cut 1,714]

I know it has its defenders, but none of the arguments to defend TLJ hold up under scrutiny, it just cannot objectively be perceived as a “good” move - not as a stand alone entity (had it been the first in a “new” franchise) and any less as a fitting part of a movie series.
 

Problem is, either way you choose to view it - for all its intended nuances, character development and clever twists - it is poorly executed.

 

In the Star Wars mythology It is as bad a fit as a whore in church on the day of reckoning.

 

I am not dissing personal preference here, but please, sober up and realize that if you’re defending TLJ, you’re in minority.

 

Nothing wrong with that though. Just saying. Like what you like, but take an honest approach to it.

 

I for one like a lot of “bad” movies but at least I have the sense to recognize that there’s a difference between preference and quality, and I have the balls to admit that my preference doesn’t always equal quality.

[Holko 9,525]

k

[GerateWohl 4,357]

29 minutes ago, Holko said:

Nooooooooooooooooo, 8 Year Olds' Wet Dream Perfect Hero, the Favourite Janky Toy would never have done that!

Nobody said that. I would have just liked to see a comprehensible story. Johnson could have turned Luke into a maniac mass murderer. Just do it in a comprehensible way. But maybe we at least could agree that Luke's character development is as comprehensible as Finn's and Rose's romance in TLJ.

[Holko 9,525]

What the hell is so incomprehensible about it?

 

 

What romance? Rose kisses Finn and that's it.

[Jurassic Shark 12,066]

14 minutes ago, rough cut said:

I have the balls to admit that my preference doesn’t always equal quality.

 

Like your approach to the flubs and timing issues on the JW VPO blu?

[rough cut 1,714]

I cannot recall any other approach other than that I agree with the consensus on the Vienna performance - that it is overall a great concert - and that fans saying that any flubs “ruin” the concert are nitpicking.

[GerateWohl 4,357]

1 minute ago, Holko said:

What the hell is so incomprehensible about it?

Running in circles. Explained it above.

4 minutes ago, Holko said:

What romance? Rose kisses Finn and that's it.

Exactly. Of cours with that approach you can justify Luke's behavior. What character conflict? Luke just thought one evening for a second, good idea to kill Ben. That's it.

 

I see, we are making progress. 

[Holko 9,525]

24 minutes ago, GerateWohl said:

I see, we are making progress. 

...nope

 

You'd all have to give me somethig more than "it's bad, all right?" for that.

[Quintus 5,399]

I still can't believe they revolved the entire second half of the plot around a slow crawl spaceship pursuit. I honestly can't think of a less effective suspense device in movies, and yet there's people out there who actually overlook that shite, didn't mind it. 

 

And what a waste of Laura Dern. 

[Nick Parker 3,040]

Luke's robo massacre scene gave me goosebumps, and it started with the music. Great sense of awe and surrealism.

[Quintus 5,399]

I liked the techno parts. 

[Edmilson 7,436]

8 hours ago, crumbs said:

He saw his students massacred, his temple in flames, his life's work destroyed, at the hands of a corrupted young boy.

 

Boy?

 

Correct me if I'm wrong, but Kylo was about 20 when he turned to the Dark Side and slaughtered Luke's students, didn't he? 

[GerateWohl 4,357]

1 hour ago, Quintus said:

I still can't believe they revolved the entire second half of the plot around a slow crawl spaceship pursuit.

I thought immediately, this might have been a sufficient plot idea for a mediocre Clone Wars episode, but not for one of the nine Star Wars movies. 

[DarthDementous 1,059]

11 hours ago, crumbs said:

 

I think you're missing the entire point of the film: that Luke isn't some infallible galactic superhero; he's only human and made a terrible mistake with a split-second decision. He saw his students massacred, his temple in flames, his life's work destroyed, at the hands of a corrupted young boy.

 

It's very easy to judge all these things with the benefit of hindsight, or with the luxury of spending hours writing paragraphs of analysis about why that decision was out of character... but throughout history, lots of very good people have made terrible mistakes that seem out of character.

 

On a purely story level, it's simply far more interesting to have a flawed hero reeling from past mistakes than picking up exactly where the character left off 32 years ago. It's the same reason Indy 5 won't work if they pick up with Indy acting like the same character from TLC. Time has passed and characters need to age with that passage of time.

You don't have to be a super-hero to have control of your ability to not even begin to murder your student and best friend's son.

Especially when you're Luke who has had a strong character forged by the experiences he's gone through. I don't understand why this argument always comes down to such extremes, am I really asking for something unrealistic when I want to see a character deal with a problem in a way that seems reasonable for how that character has been established?

As presented in the movie, the presence of the dark side in Kylo even to a strong degree is not believable enough to be a complete crisis of faith for Luke that he would consider going against his entire principles by activating the lightsaber. There's a difference between a morbid thought that passes in your head and taking a physical action towards achieving it, here Luke took the latter in a way that makes it impossible to be reflexive because of the deliberateness of it. Hell, Luke in TLJ knows that it wasn't really reflexive because he makes an effort to omit this detail entirely when he tells the story to Rey, making it sound like he was just defending himself.

 

Luke is not infallible, as we already know his greatest weakness is his faith in his friends above all else, so there's ways to put him through intense conflict, perhaps even worse than he's faced before. However, he needs to respond to that conflict in a faithful way. When people say it's impossible for Luke to be true to himself and still fallible I immediately think to the Thrawn Trilogy in the EU that I have just started reading - there I see a Luke that still has plenty of room for growth but does not betray himself when the going gets tough - and that's exactly why people love Luke as a character. He's a strong hero, he's the end product of the hero's journey. It is wholly irresponsible and downright callous to attempt to subvert that and then be confused why so many people have turned on the idea that is the foundation of the entire saga - Luke's journey from farmer to Jedi.

 

For a second I also want to comment on the cop-out idea that because downright irrational things have happened through history with great people that it makes this okay - Star Wars is not real life. Neither is science fiction film, to an extent. It is representational, at most it achieves a hyper-realism. Film is one of the few things in life where things can follow a sense of cohesion and logic, and traditionally that is how you establish continuity and thus investment between characters in different instalments. 

This line of thinking is dangerous because it allows you to wave away any strange decision a character makes and has you putting the cart before the horse because you're reaching the conclusion that what the character had done was in-character first, and then working backwards to justify it. Rather than looking at the patterns the character has followed and seeing if they continue or stop short.

 

All this mystical 'hindsight' is, is my brain intuitively recognising something is wrong, and then attempting to work backwards to explain why that is, analysis is naturally going to be more in-depth and extensive because I need to peel away multiple layers of the film-making process as well as look at other elements like context. I would like to be able to say why something didn't work for me, rather than just declaring it. The hope is that if you can see my reasoning you'll be able to understand why I and many others fundamentally disagree with this decision, and that you will stop putting us into a corner of people that 'just didn't get the film'.

[Not Mr. Big 4,639]

2 hours ago, GerateWohl said:

I thought immediately, this might have been a sufficient plot idea for a mediocre Clone Wars episode

So basically any episode of the Clone Wars?

[DarthDementous 1,059]

I also just wanted to throw out there, because this has always seemed extremely odd to me:

Why does Luke put so much stock in visions and prophecies now?

[Nick Parker 3,040]

4 hours ago, DarthDementous said:

Why does Luke put so much stock in visions and prophecies now?

 

Probably for similar reasons why he acted on visions of the future and rushed off to Bespin despite the warnings of his mentors.

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

35 minutes ago, Nick Parker said:

 

Probably for similar reasons why he acted on visions of the future and rushed off to Bespin despite the warnings of his mentors.

 

So he learned nothing.

[A24 4,331]

Episode 5 S2 (Chapter 13) is the best one so far. It's also easily the best looking one and is a nod to one of Lucas' earliest movie influences. Heck, I even liked the trees!

 

 

 

 

 

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Was that the one with the Jedi lady with the weird head? She was cool as a cucumber.

[A24 4,331]

Yes.

 

 

Rosario Dawson. Who knew she had it in her to play a jedi?

[Unlucky Bastard 7,782]

Last flick I saw her in was that one about that ancient army bloke who conquered the world.