Follow Slashdot stories on Twitter

 


Forgot your password?
Close
typodupeerror
×
Star Wars Prequels Movies Sci-Fi Entertainment

Disney+ Takes First Emmy Win With 'The Mandalorian' For Visual Effects (deadline.com) 99

Posted by BeauHD from the coming-in-hot dept.
At the Creative Arts Emmys on Wednesday night, The Mandalorian not only scored its first Emmy but also won the first Emmy for Disney+. Deadline reports: As a brand new streamer, this year marks the first year of eligibility for Disney+. The Mandalorian has racked up a staggering 15 Emmy nominations with 8 of those trophies being handed out tonight. Outstanding Special Visual Effects is the first win for the sci-fi series that stars Pedro Pascal as the titular masked hero and introduced the world to Baby Yoda -- which won everyone's hearts. This win will likely be the first of many tonight and at Sunday's ceremony. The Mandalorian is also up for Outstanding Drama Series as well as Outstanding Character Voice-Over Performance for Taika Waitti's role as droid IG-11 and Outstanding Guest Actor In A Drama Series for Giancarlo Esposito's performance as Moff Gideon.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Disney+ Takes First Emmy Win With 'The Mandalorian' For Visual Effects More

Disney+ Takes First Emmy Win With 'The Mandalorian' For Visual Effects

Comments Filter:

  • Show us Boba Fett escaping the sarlacc.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      I heard he is likely to make an appearance in The Mandalorian at some point.

      • I give that rumor about as much credence as the rumor about Ashoka showing up.

        Not that either would be unwelcome, but I think it's pretty unlikely.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Ahsoka has been confirmed and cast, she will definitely make an appearance this season.

          • Oh wow, upon googling, it was confirmed all the way back in May. Don't know how I could've possibly missed that.

            Rosario Dawson's a good choice. This'll be interesting.

          • "I don't have anything against strong female characters. What bothers me is when they're clothed." - AmiMoJo

            Stay classy.

  • Mulan? More like MuOops!!

  • Re: (Score:1, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 )
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re:Congratulations, Disney... (Score:4, Informative)

      by gweihir ( 88907 ) on Thursday September 17, 2020 @05:27AM (#60514662)

      Entertainment? This thing is just concentrated stupid.

      • Entertainment pure and simple.

      • It's a good standalone story and a space western.

      • It was a bit, but then it reminded me exaclty of the old children's satiurday morning adventure series. They didn't need intellectual debate over whether a guy's helmet was big enough, just slightly daft fun, recognizable baddies (that looked badass but couldn't shoot straight) and recognizable goodies (who might also look badass but had hearts of gold and aiming skills)

        many things in there that we have forgotten about as we grew up and started to to be critical of things that were never designed to be held

      • Entertainment? This thing is just concentrated stupid.

        It's good because it's so unlike Star Wars.

        I'm betraying my age here, but I grew up watching old westerns with my grandparents, and maybe that's why I liked The Mandalorian. It's essentially a Western with Pew Pew Lasers. You've got the hero/anti-hero with a code, bounty hunters, rough living at the edges of civilization with military troops, criminals, farmers/settlers, and very little law and order. Clint Eastwood could have done this back in his prime. Disney even aped the 1960's style action stills art

    • Re: (Score:1, Flamebait)

      by CohibaVancouver ( 864662 )

      after the SJWs chewed it up and shat it out.

      You little man-boys whining about "SJWs" are pathetic.

      Stop being so damn insecure. Grow a pair, man up, leave your basement, and stop being so frightened of women.

      You're an embarrassment to the rest of us.

      • You'll be shocked to learn some women also share the sentiment that tokenization and quotas have ruined the story telling.

        That possibility was probably lost on someone who can't express disagreement without resorting to gender-based insults.

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Do you have any evidence that there were quotas in those movies? Or is this just a vague feeling that anything with a few women in it must be the result of quotas, there's literally no way anyone would write a female lead character for some other reason.

      • Not afraid of women in the least, afraid of incompetent sociopaths who pull a gender/race/nationality/whatever card every time they don't have a valid reason for defending a view and I might add - irrespective of their gender/fluidity/dayofweekidentity/etc...
        Btw, what's a "SJW"?

        • Re: (Score:1)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          What does any of that have to do with the recent Star Wars movies though? Just having a woman who isn't a damsel or having a black leading actor isn't pulling the gender/race card. As I recall neither gender nor race came up at all in the movies.

          I wish people would watch these things before getting all upset about them.

          • Comment removed based on user account deletion

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I've see that guy, thanks. I think his name may point to some of the flaws in his analysis there. And again, I was asking Pele a specific question which you didn't address.

              It's interesting how they mirrored the original trilogy so much. Obviously the plot of the firm movie was influenced by A New Hope but I mean in terms of the second one being the best and the third one being disappointing. Even the criticisms mirror the originals - people didn't like Luke being a Marty Stu, or that instead of becoming a m

              • You were asking about any of that having anything to do with recent star wars movies and I was answering a postulate that we should "man up" and "stop being afraid of women". Once I answered that, I ignored your quoestion brcause quite frankly I couldn't care less about philosophical implications of whatever the fuck everyone is talking about in ANY movie, series, song, painting, whatever pretending to be art. I need it to be entertaining, otherwise it misses its purpose by a looong mile. Full stop. And WI

                • Comment removed based on user account deletion

                • Re: (Score:2)

                  by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

                  You were asking about any of that having anything to do with recent star wars movies and I was answering a postulate that we should "man up" and "stop being afraid of women". Once I answered that, I ignored your quoestion

                  So... You replied to the wrong post?

                  I couldn't care less about philosophical implications of whatever the fuck everyone is talking about in ANY movie, series, song, painting, whatever pretending to be art. I need it to be entertaining, otherwise it misses its purpose by a looong mile. Full stop.

                  Okay.

                  And WITHOUT SJWs (now that I've been told what the abbreviation refers to).

                  Oh. So not just entertaining, but ideologically pure as well.

        • SjW = Social Justice Warrior

          You know the old joke,
          Q: How do you find a Vegan at a party?
          A: Dont worry, she will find you!

          The implication is that you cant even have fun at a party because some people bible-thump their cause until they make life miserable for everyone around them.

          Thats more or less what a SjW is. They insist on everything represent at least 1 pair of lesbians, and a transgender in every show. If Kindergarten Cop were to be made today, at least 2 kindergarteners would be caught making out in

          • Yup, got the picture.
            Something along the lines of...

            https://youtu.be/NiSxDX5Y4gA [youtu.be]

            My favourite ad ever, bar none!

          • 10% gay?

            Not so, even if you include the "didn't say" the number tops out at 7%. (UK ONS survey: 1.1% said gay, 0.4% bi, 0.3 other and 4.7% didn't answer that optional question)

            However, if you work at the BBC (for example, as I have their stats) then your workforce turns out to be 14% gay (and even there, only 0.1% are transgender and that is probably rounded up), and I guess this skews the responses from organisations like that that assume because they are all gay, everyone else is too.

            • I think my point is still valid. 10% (or less) is still a tiny number and is being over represented dramatically. Statistically your chance of being struck by lightning are so small you should not even concern yourself about it. Imagine if every time you turned on the TV there was dialog about what you could do to help prevent a lightning attack. Go to a symphony but had to deal with a public service announcement before and during intermission. Its going to really be more damaging in the long run. Next time

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              It's a bit more complicated than that: https://www.theguardian.com/so... [theguardian.com]

              TL;DR a government survey is probably not the best source of data on such a sensitive subject, and the question itself is somewhat flawed. For example the National Survey of Sexual Attitudes and Lifestyles found in 2010 that 16% of women had had some kind of lesbian experience, with around half having genital contact. Many of them probably identify as straight but are apparently open to some same-sex contact anyway.

              Even more interesting

        • Not afraid of women in the least, afraid of incompetent sociopaths who pull a gender/race/nationality/whatever card every time they don't have a valid reason for defending a view and I might add - irrespective of their gender/fluidity/dayofweekidentity/etc... Btw, what's a "SJW"?

          For us normal people, Star Wars is a Movie and TV based science fantasy adventure franchise but to some people it is almost a religion. In a Star Wars context Soical Justice Warrior is catch all term for anything a certain sub-group of toxic SW fans who have somehow managed to intertwine Star Wars fandom with alt-right politics don't like for some reason. They are particularly offended by the fact that in a story that happens in a huge galaxy with trillions of sentient life forms there is 'diversity'. A goo

        • > What's a "SJW"?

          Social Justice Warrior or as some call them Stupid Juvenile Whiners -- basically dumb people who like to whine about every stupid thing regardless if it makes sense or not.

          === SJW Rules ===
          1. Turn brain off (Stupid)
          2. Have a tantrum (Juvenile)
          3. Complain about bullshit issues no one gives a fuck about (Whine)
          4. Ad hominem fallacy -- Call everyone else toxic/offensive and scream insults at everyone who disagrees (Bully)
          5. Never take responsibility -- blame others
          6. Always lie
          7. Double dow

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by spitzak ( 4019 )

          SJW = Single Jewish Woman, from dating advertisements. Claims that it stands for something else are false backronyms to try to hide the poster's true opinion.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

      • The to third trilogy is bad for so many reasons that have nothing to do with "social justice".

    • I found the Mandalorian fine and watchable. However I feel having an primary actor whose face is hidden behind a mask and has a stoic personality does make the show a bit more boing.

      Granted the trend is for acting to be town down over time.

      Before acting was loud with exaggerated movements. Because the theater before electronic amplification would need everyone to hear what they are saying, and see what they are doing. This transitioned to radio where the actors needed their voices to explain a lot of the

      • Re: (Score:3)

        by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

        Shatner's genius was that he didn't just speak slowly and precisely, he randomly paused and sped up, emphasising words for no discernible reason. It was so utterly bizarre that people thought he must be a genius because surely nobody would film that deliberately if it wasn't high art!

    • Re: (Score:1)

      by Tablizer ( 95088 )

      the SJWs chewed it up and shat it out.

      Does it really matter if a character is LGBTQ or whatnot? In the Universe there are probably beings with 30 genders, 30 genitals, 30 tentacles, and 30 orifices. How is human sexual/gender fluidity "worse" than that?

      IF the story itself is largely about sex/gender/racial issues, you may have a legitimate complaint. But it's not. You just choose to be distracted by minor things.

  • Comment removed (Score:4, Insightful)

    by account_deleted ( 4530225 ) on Thursday September 17, 2020 @06:56AM (#60514816)
    Comment removed based on user account deletion

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

      Of course, now the rumor is that Pedro Pascal walked off halfway through filming season 2.

      • Dude is messing up. Pedro Pascal needs to be like Ryan Renold's and own this role without a care about his face being shown all the time. Other work is already there for him and he's a good actor. He's a sound a like away from being replaced.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

      Has Peter Jackson ever made a really good movie? Seriously, LOTR wasn't that great and The Hobbit was a disaster.

      The confirmed schedule is for the next movies to be released in 2023, 2025 and 2027. Rian Johnson's trilogy is still on but it's not clear if those are the expected dates for it.

      • Comment removed based on user account deletion

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          They must have learned that his Star Wars movie was the most profitable movie that year and despite review bombing was critically acclaimed. They don't base their decisions on Rotten Tomatoes scores, they do proper research like asking people who just watched it what they thought on their way out of the cinema.

      • Re: (Score:2)

        by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

        Has Peter Jackson ever made a really good movie?

        They Shall Not Grow Old. Although, that's more of a documentary.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          Good point, that was a pretty good documentary. I studied that period at school and he presented it better than the books I read back then.

      • You didnt like LOTR? I thought the symbolism was awesome. There was so much post production video enhancement that went into that movie I dont think its been done quite to that level since. The hobbit did not have even half the post production video enhancement and it looked even worse in 3D HFR.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

          I didn't think it was all that good, a lot of parts were a bit silly like some of the battles and it felt more action oriented than I was hoping for. The books had a great sense of impending doom and the character had more gravitas. It's been a long time since I saw it to be fair, maybe I should watch it again.

          • They visually enhanced frodoâ(TM)s eyes in every scene (other characters too). There was a lot of effort that went into showing -the light- visually. Some of it was just to build up to the scene where Gandalf fell into darkness fighting the Belrog. As they are outside the mountain you can see how the light had left his eyes as he is overcome with grief. Then again at the end of the movie when Frodo finally succumbed to the ring, and his eyes turned very dark.

            The elves and the hobbits always exhibited a

            • Re: (Score:2)

              by AmiMoJo ( 196126 )

              I do remember seeing the VFX lighting at the time, yes. Doesn't make it a good movie though.

        • Re: (Score:2)

          by Nidi62 ( 1525137 )

          You didnt like LOTR? I thought the symbolism was awesome. There was so much post production video enhancement that went into that movie I dont think its been done quite to that level since. The hobbit did not have even half the post production video enhancement and it looked even worse in 3D HFR.

          I did not like ROTK. The Army of the Dead looked like slimer from ghostbusters (ie, way too cartoony), and having them basically wipe out the whole attacking Army of Mordor was too deus ex machina. Remember, in the books they played a very minor role, simply allowed Aragorn to capture the corsairs while the siege of Minas Tirith was broken by people, a lot of whom died. You also then lost the impact of the foray into Mordor itself with a relatively few number of men: felt a lot less hopeless and lost a l

          • I can see the technical points you make. And no one interpretation of a book will match another. Often directors get it wrong, or so we always think. I think Peter did a really good job of listening to the actors. Every one had read the books multiple times and every one of them had an input. They would discuss an upcoming scene and suggest their character really should do something else instead. I really never got the impression other movies collaborated that much. Usually its just the Directors vision

            I do

    • Opie? Yea he totally fucked up one of the most beloved, scruffy-looking, nerf herder, in the damn Star Wars universe. He even made Tallahassee look weak in his role as an outlaw.

      Leave Opie doing movies like Terms of Endearment. Might as well have put Rob Reiner in charge! Hell I would take the Titanic guy over Opie.

      Out of all 9 movies, only 1 ever got nominated a bunch of times for an academy award. Empire. Yet lucas had to meddle like the CCP, screwing up the acting in those prequels.

    • Ewoks happened because Lucas was not sure a second movie was ever going to get made and he really wanted a Wookie in his movie. At least thats Lucas story. He also said he wrote the entire prequels prior to writing 4,5,6. He failed to mention that by -writing- he meant took noted on a cocktail napkin.

    • I long for the days when I thought the Ewoks were the stupidest thing I'd ever see in a Star Wars movie.

      They crossed that bridge a few minutes into the Empire Strikes Back when they introduce their first puppet character.

    • Dude, maybe you need to calm down. You seem way too interested in Star Wars. The number of responses you have to this article is a clear sign that this subject is a bit too important to you.

      There was nothing wrong with Solo. You sound just like my best friend's son. His son is a permanent college student who after years of screwing around finally decided on a film major so he can do film/TV production work. He's currently going to grad school - God forbid that he actually leave school before

  • "Baby Yoda won everyone's hearts" --

    Wait, which three year old wrote this?

    How many Afghans like Baby Yoda? 0
    How many Chinese like Baby Yoda? 0
    How many Nepalese like Baby Yoda? 0
    [add 190 countries]

    Maybe "everyone amongst the simpering fools handing out emmy awards" is the only everyone worth mentioning.
    As usual, TV series and movies earning awards is political. It has nothing to do with talent.

    "Oh look, a baby wookie we call e-wook[i]" -- "let's give it an award."

    How many people think a Yoda is original if

    • You do realize the Mandalorian is in other countries, and translated into other languages, right?

      How very English centric of you to assume no other countries like the Mandalorian...

      And no-one even said anything about originality related to Baby Yoda (the Child as the show calls it). But it is pretty universally admired, they did a great job especially in having a lot of practical puppetry involved.

  • Thread (Score:2)

    by pele ( 151312 )

    finally after 15-20 years a thread on /. with 2-3 sane adults participating. Stupid topic, but nevertheless...

  • I feel truly sorry for people who can't find elements of something they dislike, that they can enjoy.

    That appears to be true in spades for Star Wars reading the comments here.

    The latest sequels were a mixed bag for me, but some parts were great. So I enjoyed those parts even as I passed by others.

    The Mandalorioan though... personally I find that amazing. Very few missteps, a great story, and the people that produce it are really into the minutia of Star Wars and it shows. I would take one season of The M

  • Using the Unreal Engine (Score:3)

    by Ksevio ( 865461 ) on Thursday September 17, 2020 @11:06AM (#60515840) Homepage

    A neat thing about the visual effects is they were made in the Unreal Engine (same one used for popular games like Fortnite). Since it's designed to render in real time, the cameras could show the actors in the scene while filming.

    Haven't watched the series so I don't know how well it worked overall, but the clips I've seen have been really good so it could lead into a different way of filming in virtual environments for future shows/movies.

    • You should watch the making of show (also on Disney+) where an episode goes into more detail. The fantastic thing about "The Volume" as they call it, is the screens wrap totally around the scene so you can have very reflective elements on a costume and it all gets illuminated by the 3D world rendered around the actor, as it would on a real set outdoors.

      The effect is fantastic and ends up working really well, all of the episodes I saw almost always had really believable environments, including outdoors.

      It's

  • Great use of 'virtual sets' instead of green scree (Score:3)

    by schweini ( 607711 ) on Thursday September 17, 2020 @11:12AM (#60515882)
    The Mandalorian is the first mayor production to use 'virtual sets' instead of green screens. I.e. there are gigantic HD screens behind the actors that are synced to the camera's movement. Fascinating stuff.

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?... [youtube.com]

  • I got Disney+ for free with my internet purchase and I'll be honest, it's worth it for the Simpsons episodes alone.

    • Re: (Score:2)

      by seoras ( 147590 )

      I bought a years sub to Disney+ for my 4 kids (ages 4-11) thinking they'd like the traditional Disney stuff + Star Wars.
      Now all they watch is The Simpsons.
      I've since found myself watching D+ more than NetFlix for The Mandalorian and the Marvel films.
      Surprises all round.

  • Oh, is my bias showing?

Slashdot Top Deals

Marvelous! The super-user's going to boot me! What a finely tuned response to the situation!

Close