The Mandalorian

gauze said:

I'm not 100% but I do believe directors still can adjust/edit/change the script to fit their narrative. They still have to work under the supervision of Fav, but have a lot of creative freedoms within that bubble, which is probably why it seems so disjointed..

Click to expand...

There's no rule for what directors have control over. Some are simply employees of the production and do what they are told by the executive producer. Others have complete control over everything.

The best way to understand it is that executive producers are the CEO's of the production, and everyone else works under them.

You have cases like the Coen Brothers who produce, write, direct, film, and edit their movies. They do everything; soup to nuts. For TV, Vince Gilligan of Breaking Bad fame was producer, director, and writer, and he was beholden to no one about anything.

OTOH, show runners are often told what to do by the EP/EP's. Ever wonder why the last seasons of Dexter were such a mess? The EP's had their fingers in everything, and the creative types ultimately had no control over the story.

We don't even have to talk about EP's of GoT to know how bad uncreative types are when thrust into a position of creating things.

Short answer is the director's control over a production varies from complete control to no control.

Ossoi said:

Almost definitely not true. They're called "show runners" for a reason. Go back and read how D&D had creative control over Thrones.

Click to expand...

Show runner is a loose term. It can mean EP's who have control over everything top to bottom, or someone who runs the practical side of the production and reports to the EP's.

Ossoi said:

Almost definitely not true. They're called "show runners" for a reason. Go back and read how D&D had creative control over Thrones.

Click to expand...

Maybe I am giving too much credit and making excuses to why the episodes had inconsistencies/disjointedness; simply a theory on the 4 directors having -some- creative freedom within a scope of Favareu linear narrative. Not considering a show by show basis, that's a ball game I can't play because a lot of shows I can barely make it past 5 episodes.

I mean, is it not agree-able that both Chow's episodes feel similar, along with Famuyiwa's two.. Filoni's kinda.. and Howard just felt like a stubbed toe within the series. Maybe its just easier blaming Fav and his writing/editors. Definitely don't mean to sound like what I say is absolute rule, nothing has been said regarding the process.. other than Chow talking about a script and heavy Samurai/Western theme.

and, agreed on the short answer.. I don't mean to make what I say is absolutely how things were done, just a theory. Taika's episode will be a good sign due to him actually having a portfolio of movies to draw back on from the position of producer, director, and writer.

like others have said, what a director has control over is probably different for every production. even different for different episodes of the same show. same season. but ultimately, the director should be the one with the vision for the production. the EP might say "in this episode, we need to show some background for the mando. he's going to hook up with some old buddies and he's going to take a job from them. this episode needs to demonstrate moral growth that the mando is going through/has gone through." then the director looks at what the writers put together. they probably dictate what the story boards should look like and corales everyone into that same vision.

if the director isn't a full time director for the show, the EP probably probably has to give the director some mandates on what SHOULD be in the episode and what SHOULDN'T be in it. and a less experienced director probably has significantly more mandates. that's PROBABLY why howard's episode felt bland. there's A LOT she was probably not allowed to touch.

troy baker (voice actor) on retro replay a bit ago was talking about a star wars game he was a part of that got canned when lucasarts stopped making games. he said there was a goofy line his character had with a soldier that he was struggling with. he basically said he would like to use the soldier's name but he didn't have one. the director was like... "you... you want to name this guy? ... sure... we'll name him..." then the director had to make a bunch of phone calls and they basically had to put production on hold for HOURS just to approve Soldier 4 being named Dave.

I remember JJ directed the very first episode of Lost, nothing else.

Ossoi said:

How many people here can name the directors of LOST? But know Lindelof and Abrams?

Likewise, D&D, or Frank Darabont for the first season of TWD? Or David Simon?

The showrunners of this ilk develop and control the narrative. Directors are brought in to do a job, just like any other crew hire, in case of a season it's executing the vision of the scriptwriters/show runner and keeping a uniform style consistent across all episodes.

In the case of GOT specific directors were hired for the big battle sequence, like season 2 where the director for Blackwater had shown an affinity for small budget action sequences when he directed Dog Soldiers

Basically, the show runner remains consistent and get most of the credit. Directors are inter changeable.

Click to expand...

True, but the quality of the Battle of the Bastards compared to the Hallmark quality level of some of that Dorne garbage is shockingly inconsistent. The directors definitely leave their mark

A great little editing choice I noticed about the last episdoe:

At the end credits, there's a concept art painting of the Scout Troopers chasing and firing their blasters at Kuiil as he's racing toward the ship. Can't say for sure if the made the decision in the editing room or if they possibly didn't even shoot it, but leaving that little detail out worked well. The little moment of thinking he maybe had enough time to make it to the ship, but then having to process what you were seeing as Baby Yoda was laying on the ground made for a nice subtle little touch rather than just laying it all out for the audience. Those moments in a show when you're in your own head for a couple beats rather than just passively watching something play out in front of you is what separates good shows from dull ones.
And the way they shot the scout trooper flying in from the distance to scoop him up was great too. Dynamic, artful shots like that are what a good director brings to the table

Sentagur said:

I enjoyed the episode allot i jsut wish it was a bit longer so they can flesh it out.
My predictions:

Spoiler

Quille is not dead, the speeder trooper shot the mount from under him and he is knocked out from the fall

Click to expand...

Mudcrush Durtfeet said:

Click to expand...

unless they pull a fast one

i cant even remember that many 90s TV shows that i watched, other than say Seinfeld, Simpsons, King Of The Hill or 90210. i still havent watched stuff like Hercules or Xena or Highlander. i think i watched a little Walker Texas Ranger because chuck norris. there really wasnt that much worth watching and i was working evenings most of the decade anyway. whats the typical 90s TV how that is similar to this?

Oblio said:

I hope you never wore a Chuck Norris T-Shirt while watching Walker Texas Ranger because that would result in an immediate Dude Card suspension.

Click to expand...

hell yeah

The one benefit to the middle of the season being a bit crap and disjointed is that it leaves a big opportunity for someone to edit together a really good theatrical length movie.
Episode 1-3 obviously, then 4 unfortunately to introduce Cara Dune, then 7 and 8. I really don't think anything is lost by cutting the other episodes competely.
6 episodes would be over 3 hours, so keep them all in their entirety except for 4, which could be edited down significantly. Who's up for the task?