Great Society

Children of the Sun => TV => Topic started by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 01:20:55 PM

Title: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 01:20:55 PM
Quote
Ron Moore, the man most responsible for the reimagined Battlestar Galactica, is in a reimagining mood—and is reportedly in the early stages of developing a new take on the '60s western adventure The Wild, Wild West.

I loved WIld, Wild West when I was a kid (though it's unwatchable now -- especially after Brisco County stole its thunder).

A reimagining could be fun.  You have the sci-fi/fantasy thing going on (though not as over the top and horrible as the Will Smith movie).  Giving it a gritter, Deadwood flavor would be a wonderful way to go... Here's this super secret government agent operating above the law in the wild west. Give it just a slight turn of gritty realism and you can go down an interesting road (as opposed to the comic path that the movie took).

(Lost in the movie is that West's Moriarty was a maniac dwarf. Now...how would RDM handle that?)

Title: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 06, 2010, 01:36:10 PM
I'm putting on my producer/money man hat here.

Wasn't Firefly a sort of post-modern take on Wild, Wild West? They're certainly apples and oranges in many respects, but at their cores, both shows are sci-fi westerns.

I'm wondering if the audience is there for this? Firefly was nothing but quality, yet couldn't find it's audience. I wonder if even with all the sci-fi trappings, the western is still a viable genre anymore.

The flipside is that adding sci-fi elements seems a great way to keep the western relevant.

Again, though... Firefly was exceptional and barely lasted a season. (I again mention the problem of sci-fi production being cost prohibitive in the long run.)
Title: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 01:46:50 PM
You could argue both ways.  The sci-fi in Wild Wild West was the same as in The Avengers. It's more fantasy than sci-fi, and is hardly a major point of any story, and isn't universal to the series. Most episodes are straight up spy vs. spy stuff.  Ultimately, Wild Wild West is James Bond-inspired with some almost comic-book level supervillains.

The overt sci-fi in the movie is nothing like the show.  Same with Brisco County.

Certainly with those examples, and Firefly, I wouldn't call Wild Wild West a sci-fi western.

However... You could say that Wild Wild West is the grandfather of the sci-fi western.  It paved the way for the genre, but perhaps only in hindsight (and unintentionally).

Firefly suffered from outside influences, no? If it had been given a proper run, in the correct order, I bet it would have survived the first year.
Title: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 06, 2010, 02:59:50 PM
Two unrelated points before I continue:

1.) I fixed all the typos in my previous post, but I want to note that what I meant to say is "Firefly was nothing BUT quality."

2.) I just added Westworld to the top of my Netflix queue because this conversation brought it to mind. Also, I've never seen it and have been meaning to watch it for the past fifteen years. (And not to totally derail this thread, but I have the Cat People remake sitting on my DVD player as we speak. Do we have a thread or should I just post about it in the Inglourious Basterds thread?)

Carrying on . . .

I'm not sure why Firefly failed. Whedon claims the studio sabotaged it (and Dollhouse too) by giving is shitty time slots and not advertising properly. (Firefly was given the Friday night slot which pretty much kills your teenage demographic.) My understanding is that due to Buffy's success, Whedon had a great deal of creative freedom, but he pissed off the head of Fox Studios at the time (Rothman?) who got payback by all but burying Firefly. Whedon's got a reputation for being a bitch to work with.

I love the idea of a great sic-fi/fantasy western, but this seems to me a competitive response to the development of 'The Dark Tower' as a TV series. (I'd be interested in knowing if any company besides Moore's is involved in the 'Wild Wild West' reboot.)

My main point is that Westerns seem to be one of those genres that may for all intents and purposes die out. The romance with the old west isn't what it once was.  I think westerns were popular in the 40s and 50s because they were cheap to shoot. ("Let's just get some costumes and drive out to Death Valley for the day.") Now they're becoming almost an anachronism. The best comparison I can make is Vietnam movies. There was a slew of them for awhile, but now there are very few being made. Generally, people don't care anymore.

I think the idea of making "the final frontier' a western based one is awesome, but I seem to be in the minority. It's a hard sell.
Title: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 03:27:44 PM
(2) OMG -- you've never seen Westworld?  And, of course, the ULTIMATE sci-fi western!  Accept no substitutes.

As for Cat People:  Wow... Is that worth a thread?  Watch it and decide.  I'd keep it separate since nobody appreciates the references in Inglorious Basterds, and they're muddled with The Crow, anyway.

Also remember that Firefly was aired out of order.  So what thin story-arc was there didn't make sense, nor did the carefully crafted character development.

That's what I think killed it, in combination with the time slot/advertising.

The western itself has faded, yes.  Though the themes are the same.  The "journeyman" sci-fi format -- still alive and well, thanks to BSG -- is something westerns created.  (And look at Caprica as the rancher format -- Bonanza, etc.) Sci-fi has aped westerns into the modern day (get ready for that feel with our small town cop hero in Walking Dead).

But as far as the western genre itself dying out...  I think there's still room for a last gasp.  Deadwood, as one example. Though to do it right in the modern day, you do need to combine it with something.  The sci-fi western, the Shakespearean western...

Vietnam movies are a different ball of wax.  Those represent a nation trying to heal.  Notice how claims that the 91 Gulf War (something often said by media, Bush, and others) undid the wounds of Vietnam.  There were lots of claims that the "victory" in 91 reversed our fortunes, etc.  You then see a decline in Vietnam movies.

More obviously, we've been fighting what is soon going to become a generational war since 1991. Our war movies are now focused on that war.  

American war movies, generally, have followed a pattern.  During WWII, you get propaganda movies (Shores of Tripoli, Bataan, Destination Tokyo, etc. etc).  After WWII, you get movies that focus more on personal issues (as far as the 50's and 60's could get away with) such as Attack, Iron Cross, The Caine Mutiny, Young Lions, etc.).

By the 70's, in an attempt to avoid Vietnam, WW2 films sort of reach the end of their thread. We're reduced to comedy and/or action.  Dirty Dozen, Where Eagles Dare, Kelly's Heroes, etc.

Vietnam films were being pitched in the 60's and Hollywood, famously, refused to make them and shut every project down. Until... The later 70's.  They just couldn't hold back the tide.  The healing process begins with Deer Hunter, Taxi Driver, Coming Home, Apocalypse Now... All with a self-defensive fantastical element.  The 80's sees the boom of "authentic" Vietnam movies -- Full Metal Jacket, Platoon, etc.

The Vietnam movie era dwindles in the early 90's (Heaven on Earth the last truly passable film, 1992).  We get a brief resurgence of Spielberg history, and then we shift into our current war -- which is where we stand today. That, also, has seen movement from propaganda to defensive fantasy to social commentary.
Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 03:28:40 PM
I split this off into a new thread...
Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 06, 2010, 03:53:32 PM
I haven't seen Deadwood, but everyone who's seen it gives it glowing reviews. Though is it still airing new episodes?

And I only saw Firefly on DVD, so I never experienced it with the episode reshuffle.

The PA movies/novel have indeed borrowed heavily from that "journeyman" tone you speak off, but I still think that's different too. There, the focus is on merely surviving. With westerns, there's always this aspect of making a way of life and protecting a way of life. (Hence their enormous popularity after WWII. I mean, Jesus, how much more overtly "We must protect the American way from the Reds, oops I mean Redskins," can you get?")

What Firefly did that was brilliant was that post-Civil War/reformation allegory. "The confederacy is dead! What am I going to do in this this new social order? Fuck it. Let's go west and make our own social order." In a way, I guess it is similar to that PA ideal, but without all the depressing death and destruction.

Maybe that's what I'm looking for: the romanticization (Is that a word?) of the old west. That idea of hope, and a new life worth fighting for. I mean, fuck isn't that what made Star Trek so great? "We're boldly going where no man has gone before. WE are the aliens, and while we come in peace, I won't hesitate to give you a Sheriff James T. Kirk ass-whuppin' if you varmints step out of line." Roddenberry got that, he understood that dream of space travel was not all that different from the dreams of the frontiersmen who settled and lived in the old west.

Man, when I think of what Firefly could have been if they'd have kept going. . .
Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 04:18:32 PM
Deadwood ended after three seasons.

And tell me this isn't asking to cancel a series.  The original airing order for Firefly: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Firefly_episodes
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Firefly_episodes#Broadcast

It's like they put them in a hat and drew randomly.

Westerns are not always about that aspect, RC!  The most popular westerns (on TV) are about outcasts fighting against the system.  Have Gun Will Travel has an anti-hero in the lead, a hired killer who only takes pity on women and children.  Maverick and Masterson are criminals.  All the drovers in Rawhide are CSA vets who can't fit in.

For every goodnik western, there's an anti-hero western.

For the films -- what would you say the true classics are?  Yes, you have your anti-communist cavalry vs. indians sub-genre, which were churned out by the truckload... But I bet you can't name a single one.  We walk away from the genre with the Eastwood collection -- a cold, calculating killer, or a vengeful ghost. 

And all those big names -- High Noon, The Man Who Shot Liberty Valance, Once Upon a Time in the West, The Searchers are the deep, dark struggles of bad men, or men tempted to be bad, or weak, or abandoned.

Think of the westerns that stand out in your mind from the era and tell me what you take away:  An anti-communist message, or a deeper social commentary?

But, yes, I also would like to see the romanticization of the west (a la Firefly).  And the Star Trek point (in addition to other "western" style sci-fi shows like both BSGs, Caprica, Buck Rogers, Lost in Space, and even Stargate to a degree) lead to a new (but related) question -- is sci-fi this generation's western?






Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: RottingCorpse on October 06, 2010, 05:00:08 PM
I think sci-fi IS this generation's western. I don't want to beat a dead horse, but that makes Firefly's quick demise all the more depressing. I mean, shit, I can't recall any flaws or missteps that show made. (other than the aforementioned episode reshuffle.) If that can't work, what can?

I understand the whole Anti-hero thing. Even Mal became a guy on the run, right?

Missouri Breaks is one of my favorite westerns, which is about a train robber who falls in love with the daughter of the wrong rancher. It's totally depressing, but awesome too.

While I really want to articulate the difference between the western anti-hero and the PA anti-hero, because I think it's important (Though maybe its only important to me.), I'm having trouble. To me, it's a question of tone. Though I guess Robert Neville and Josie Wales aren't all that different. Zombies or Indians, weird mutant cult leader or corrupt sheriff, nuclear wasteland or Butte, Montana . . . it all fits the mold pretty nicely.

To me though, it has to be fun or audiences tune out, especially on TV.
Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on October 06, 2010, 05:09:35 PM
I actually hadn't drawn parallels with western anti-heroes and PA anti-heroes.

But, now -- of course!

And (as you point out with your examples) -- I don't see differences at all.  Mad Max as the reluctant gunfighter, eh? Forced to avenge his family, then unwillingly giving his services to those in need. Book of Eli is just Kung Fu all over again.
Title: Re: Sci-fi Western Discussion
Post by: nacho on November 22, 2011, 08:32:37 PM
Making this thread now just the generic wstern discussion. I hadn't heard of Hell on Wheels, but I grabbed the first few episodes and it's pretty awesome:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hell_on_Wheels_(TV_series)

It's certainly no Deadwood. But the setting is perfect... 1865, and following the mobile town that crept along the Union Pacific as it plowed across the country. The transcontinental railroad was called for by Congress in 1864 and, when the war ended, there was this four year period of absolute insanity. From the very top where land and bonds and money traded hands, down to the whores, murderers, migrant workers, and general ne'er-do-wells who worked on the construction crews and forcibly cleared out indian tribes and proper, settled towns alike. Just about everyone involved in the rush to cross the continent lived in a lawless, lunatic money-grab that makes the Gold Rush look like child's play.

Against that backdrop is a tried-and-true western trope -- the maverick Confederate unable to properly fit in. In this case, he's looking to avenge the murder of his wife by a gang of Union soldiers.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 08, 2012, 11:17:38 AM
After reading an interview where Glen larson says he was trying to remake the Lone Ranger, except with a car instead of a horse, I'm now fully convinced that Knight Rider can go in the "sci-fi western" category.

Rewatching the titles with the western in mind makes it, of course, obvious... We open with the new lone ranger coming out of the desert, a "man with no name" intro monologue, followed by cowboy action.


Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 18, 2012, 02:43:28 PM
I've been to the movie theater a lot lately, and keep seeing this trailer for the History Channel's first scripted miniseries, Hatfields & McCoys. I'm as excited for this as I am any other movie coming out this summer.. It premieres Memorial Day weekend, which means I have to find somebody with cable to live with for three days.


I won't mention my man crush on Kevin Costner or how much I love Dances with Wolves, Open Range, and Waterworld, because it's too embarrassing. Instead I'll direct your attention to the fact that this story is tailor made for cinema yet I can't think of any previous versions. I know there's an outdoor theatre show in Beckley, WV that tells the story, but I draw a blank on movies.

Anyway, history!!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Hatfield-McCoy_feud)
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2012, 08:16:58 PM
Hatfields and McCoys!

So the opening scene is 20 miles outside of Elkins -- the Confederate retreat from Phillipi. And it's awesome. We need more sideshow Civil War shit shot on a huge budget.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 30, 2012, 08:31:44 PM
Ooo... I want to see...
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2012, 08:38:01 PM
Ooo... I want to see...

Done. At Iron Sky's expense...
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2012, 08:45:18 PM
I'm wrong about the battle... There are so many devil's backbones in my life...
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 30, 2012, 08:45:41 PM
Was it actually shot in WV? I didn't keep up.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2012, 08:54:03 PM
Wait! I did have it right! Droop Mountain is up later.

It was filmed in (are you ready?) Romania! LOL.

This is fun:
http://blogs.wsj.com/speakeasy/2012/05/29/how-realistic-is-hatfields-and-mccoys/?mod=google_news_blog
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 30, 2012, 08:57:37 PM
Paxton being an idiot:

Quote
Most of the six-hour film, which airs over three consecutive nights, was shot in the mountains of Transylvania; then shooting fell back to a studio near Bucharest. The locations, Paxton says, "gave me a feeling of how isolated and cut off people could be and how this (feud) could just keep going on."

Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on May 31, 2012, 07:50:48 AM
So I know that it's the most watched show ever or whatever, but I'm no fan of Hatfields & McCoys. The child actors are terrible, I'm insulted by the Romania thing, and it seems shoddily made. There's that sense I sometimes get where they start the scene a second too soon. Like some old 50's soap opera where you cut to the camera and the actors are set and you hear the director say "action."

It's not that bad, of course. But this feeling gives it an amateurish sense. A non-organic flow...or break in the flow.

There's the added problem that every show of this ilk has to stand up against Deadwood... This one doesn't even stand up against the substandard third-rate Hell on Wheels.  

That's a shame because, if ever there was a chance to indulge in Deadwood-esque Shakespearean storytelling, it would be a wildly complicated, deeply emotional family feud in the hills of WVA. You've got a couple dozen noble-minded redshirts, you've got love, you've got corrupt "kings" both official and family heads...

Also, it's odd that a historical event that is so rooted in place has had that sense of place removed. There's nothing West Virginia about this...no accents, certainly not the countryside or the towns. That whole grim Appalachian mood is gone. It is just a generic western set in hill country.

In fact...I'm quitting after the first episode, I think.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: Reginald McGraw on May 31, 2012, 08:45:22 AM
Why on earth did they choose Romania...
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on May 31, 2012, 09:10:52 AM
Tax credits. Super cheap to shoot there.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: Sirharles on June 01, 2012, 10:46:05 AM
Now, I'll be the first to admit that I know very little of this feud.  Only what I've read on the internet and remember from school.  So I went into it with no preconceptions.

Mrs. Sirharles and I just finished it last night, and greatly enjoyed it.  I thought Paxton actually acted...for once in his career.  Costner was really just playing Wyatt Earp again, but I liked it.  As to the sets and the setting.  I was actually surprised to find it was shot in Romania, because I thought it was shot in WV.  The only thing that stood out to me was the bare rocked mountains.  But as I've never been down to the Kentucky/ WV border I wasn't sure if that's how it looked or not. 
Yes, they skipped over a lot or condensed a lot of the history, but it's a 4 hour movie when you take out all the commercials and such.  They didn't have the long term budget or commitment for a Deadwood series type of thing.  I did feel the ending was a little flat, but that's probably the way it really goes in feuds.  There is just a long fade away.  In the end I enjoyed watching it and even found myself caring about some of the characters, and that's what a TV show is supposed to be.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on October 12, 2012, 12:33:28 PM
Quote
Carlton Cuse hasn't slowed down at all since Lost went off the air in 2010. He went from running that show to running A&E's new Psycho prequel Bates Motel, he's helping Guillermo del Toro bring The Strain to TV, and now he's bringing a supernatural western comic featuring mystical firearms and dark forces to NBC.

Cuse and screenwriter Ryan Condal are set to adapt the Eisner Award-nominated Oni Press comic book series The Sixth Gun for NBC. The show is part of a multi-year deal between Universal Television and Oni's production company Closed on Mondays Entertainment.

Here's the official synopsis of the Sixth Gun comic from Oni's site.

"During the darkest days of the Civil War, wicked cutthroats came into possession of six pistols of otherworldly power. In time, the Sixth Gun, the most dangerous of the weapons, vanished. When the gun surfaces in the hands of an innocent girl, dark forces reawaken. Vile men thought long dead set their sights on retrieving the gun and killing the girl. Only Drake Sinclair, a gunfighter with a shadowy past, stands in their way."
Condal, whose past work includes still-in-development film adaptations of Greg Rucka's Oni comic Queen and Country and a new Hercules project for MGM, will script the pilot and executive-produce with Cuse and producers Eric Gitter (Scott Pilgrim vs. The World) and Closed On Mondays' Andy Bourne.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on September 25, 2013, 11:51:42 AM
Color me intrigued, as well...

Quote
The CW is adding yet another new sci-fi series to its roster, and it sounds quite a bit like Joss Whedon’s beloved Firefly. Hmm.

Dubbed Red, the new Western/sci-fi series is described as a “neo-Western drama about the first human settlement on Mars and life on this new frontier, centering on the relationships between the town’s female sheriff, a doctor and a criminal.”

So, one-part Firefly and one-part Defiance, perhaps? Color us intrigued.

The series is being developed by Bruno Heller (The Mentalist) and Tom Szentgyorgyi (Journeyman, Drive), so that’s admittedly a bit of an untested team as far as straight up sci-fi goes (aside from Szentgyorgyi’s stint on the short-lived Journeyman). But the premise has us intrigued, and we can’t wait to see what they do with it.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on June 20, 2015, 10:44:51 AM
So... Unsurprisingly, I think modern sci-fi has proven that Firefly was simply ahead of its time. SyFy's new power sci-fi Friday night now features three sci-fi western shows.

First we have season three of Defiance -- which is an out and out western, complete with sheriffs and horses and bad guys and the sci-fi version of the Deadwood set.

Then we have Killjoys -- the new show (which is kinda lame) that follows the adventures of two bounty hunters/marshals patrolling the frontier. It's got a Cowboy Bebop vibe going on.

Then we have Dark Matter -- which is excellent so far. Dark Matter follows a group of  pirates with hearts of gold also in the outer rim sort of worlds. The original pitch appears to have been "what if we put the crew of Firefly on the ship from Andromeda and make it like Stargate Universe but set it in the Firefly universe?"

So Fridays are now all about watching westerns with laser guns! And...it's kind of awesome. And not just because not a single episode of Defiance goes by without Jaime Murray getting naked.



Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on June 29, 2015, 10:43:40 AM
Both Killjoys and Dark Matter, each two episodes in, are getting tedious.

Dark Matter is trying to do the same thing SGU did -- it's an ensemble show, but they want to do a sort of gritty "we're not an ensemble yet" broken family approach. Same basic principle, as well -- they're bene forced together, there's a mystery at the heart of everything, and they have to get along but they're not all exactly on the same page and some of them may be evil...or maybe not.

This means we'll spend the whole season having bottle episodes about how they don't get along.

I suppose that would be fine but, unlike SGU, there's no single character who is fleshed out. They're all two dimensional cardboard cut-outs of sci-fi tropes.

Theoretically, there's a larger issue at play... But I don't think we'll care even when they get around to developing that. The only likable and interesting character is the emotionless android, and that's because she's comic relief.

Meanwhile, Killjoys is a meandering mess that already, just two episodes in, feels repetitive and annoying. It's one that will shift to personal cancellation if it doesn't pick up the pace after five episodes.



 
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on January 08, 2016, 10:40:20 AM
So Deadwood is getting a movie. Which seems a bit weird at this point... That's like if they decide to make a movie of Dream On or something. Deadwood feels like it was a million years ago.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on November 14, 2019, 08:01:13 AM
The Mandalorian! Which perfects the sci-fi western. Something we said couldn't happen in this thread.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 14, 2019, 06:12:49 PM
Watching Tonight!
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on November 17, 2019, 08:52:01 PM
I still haven't watched The Mandalorian. Missus RC and I have decided to watch it between RotJ and TFA as part of our chronological saga rematch. (All the epodes should be out by the Rise of Skywalker release, yes?)

I reread our Star Wars thread to put off actual writing. Makes me miss old days GS.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on November 18, 2019, 01:37:49 PM
I still haven't watched The Mandalorian. Missus RC and I have decided to watch it between RotJ and TFA as part of our chronological saga rematch. (All the epodes should be out by the Rise of Skywalker release, yes?)

I reread our Star Wars thread to put off actual writing. Makes me miss old days GS.

They're doing the one a week thing. The series ends on December 27th.

You don't really need to be too plugged into the chronology. Episode one nods to the fall of the empire in the first 10 minutes, and then it's all space cowboy stuff from there on. (Though I think we're coming back around to the larger fallout from RotJ eventually.)

I miss the old days, too.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: RottingCorpse on December 08, 2019, 06:06:51 PM
Episode 5 seems to be setting up the thing that we all thought they'd be setting eventually but it reeks of "Spock in Discovery" to me.
Title: Re: The Modern Western Discussion (was "sci-fi western discussion")
Post by: nacho on December 10, 2019, 10:08:04 AM
Episode 5 seems to be setting up the thing that we all thought they'd be setting eventually but it reeks of "Spock in Discovery" to me.

I'm waiting to watch until I get to see Sirharles on Saturday. But, by comparing it to Discovery, that can only mean that, suddenly, the Mandalorian ended up on the Millennium Falcon and is now an ancillary character as Han and Chewie take them on a journey to visit all of the stars from RotJ and TFA.