This is the talk page for the article "The Mandalore Plot."

This space is used for discussion relating to changes to the article, not for a discussion about the topic in question. For general questions about the article's topic, please visit the Knowledge Bank. Please remember to stay civil and sign all of your comments with four tildes (~~~~). Click here to start a new topic.


"This point forward, we are entering uncharted territory."

The Mandalore Plot is within the scope of WookieeProject: The Clone Wars, an effort to develop comprehensive and detailed articles with topics originating in or related to the Star Wars: The Clone Wars television series.
If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this notice or visit our project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.

The episodeEdit

Will Satine and that Mandalorian guy appear in this episode? Or is that just speculating for now? Maris Brood 17:10, December 26, 2009 (UTC)

  • Please read the {{Talkheader}} disclaimer first and answer this yourself. CC7567 (talk) 19:34, December 26, 2009 (UTC)
    • Jeez, I was just asking a question. You don't have to be so harsh. And by the way; I would bet that Satine and the other guy are going to appear in this episode. The fact remains that the episode is called: the "Mandalore" plot. Maris Brood 13:47, December 27, 2009 (UTC)
      • Common sense shouldn't be harsh; it's up to you if you want to interpret it that way. Also, there's a solid difference between speculation and fact, which I'm sure you can recognize yourself. CC7567 (talk) 20:49, December 27, 2009 (UTC)

Satine addedEdit

Now that Satine is conformed to appear in this episode, can we add the Unidentified Mandalorian, the Unidentified Mandalorian accomplice and Satine's starship? Or do we have to wait until it's definitly conformed or denied? --Jawaman No, I did NOT steal your droid! 14:55, December 29, 2009 (UTC)

  • We have to wait for official source, I guess. ShaakTi1138 15:21, December 29, 2009 (UTC)
  • Here on Wookieepedia, I read that Dutchess Satine is a Senator that's speaking out against the Republic or something about that. In the famous, 2 minuet long preview,in her throne room, there were other senators like a strange guy, kind of old, tan hood over his face, captures Satine. In a ForceCast Podcast, they were talking with Dave Filoni and when they mentioned Fen Shysha Dave said: Oh, I remember him! Yes...hmmm.Fen Shysha. And Fan Shysha aslo was ina group of mandalorians during the Clone Wars! Wink, wink! Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).
    • Yes, but here, on Wookieepedia, we do not speculate. Please, note the talkheader.ShaakTi1138 21:35, January 3, 2010 (UTC)

Death Watch and Black Lightsaber Edit

The Death Watch Mandalorians make an appearance and is one the Focuses of the Episode. Also, Obi-Wan faces against someone who uses a Black Colored Lightsaber.Altyrell 02:31, January 23, 2010 (UTC)

  • Hey, that sounds cool. Where did you see/read it? Can you post a link please? Thanks! :) 22:59, January 23, 2010 (UTC)
  • At the end of the previous Episode, when they showed the Preview for the next Episode (this one) they showed it, but i will look for it. I will update this post if i find it.Altyrell 00:56, January 24, 2010 (UTC)
    • It's not a lightsaber. It looks more like a sword. Watch the video on this link: [1]. Alexrd 19:34, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
      • Do not use article talk pages for this kind of topics. Talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles. Xd1358 Talk 19:37, January 25, 2010 (UTC)
        • I just watched it; Viszla calls it a lightsaber, claiming it was stolen from the Jedi Temple during the sith wars. It did look like a sword, but it was certainly a lightsaber. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).
          • Originally Dave had the Mando use a vibroblade and GL "said there's no way that can happen; there's no way that a non-lightsaber could block a lightsaber" - Dave (source -IGN TV) GMo >:M:< 02:57, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
            • There is a way, actually. Although he called it a lightsaber (despite the fact that it looked and sounded nothing like one), it could still be some sort of sword forged by Sith alchemy. Those swords can block lightsabers. Algernon'smuffins

Look, he called it a lightsaber and it projected a blade of energy out of an emitter; thus, it's what one would call a "lightsaber". The Clone Wars Episode Guide on the Lucasfilm website confirms this. I have no doubt, however, that it works at least slightly different than a normal lightsaber considering it sounds so unusual. It's also doubtful whether it is of Jedi or Sith origin, though I would personally assume Jedi since the Mandalorian could have just as easily said it was taken from a Sith Temple during the fall of the Old Republic. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

  • Please familiarize yourself with the {{Talkheader}} disclaimer policy before continuing this irrelevant and useless discussion. CC7567 (talk) 18:55, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

Ambiguous Canon? Edit

This episode threw me off. Previous sources have stated that Mandalore was led by the Manda'lor who was Jango Fett. Then this episode states that there is a government. Also, Mandalore looks more like a desert wasteland that stated before. What is the official ruling?--RC 1138Republic EmblemI hate bugs! 02:48, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • There's three groups. Jango's "True Mandalorians," Death Watch, and now the Peaceful Mandalorians. All the info is on the respective Wookieepedia pages. GMo >:M:< 02:55, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

That's what I thought, but the episode made it clear that the New Mandalorians were running all of Mandalore, not just Kevala. I foresee a great conflict of canon... 04:27, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • The Essential Atlas explains the whole New Mandalorian contradiction with canon previously established by Traviss and Open Seasons. It states that the New Mandalorian philosophy is the dominant Mandalorian philosophy by the time of the Clone Wars, but it is not universally accepted. Some Mandalorians reject the New Mandalorian ways and hold true to the traditional Mandalorian ways, and they are not just scattered individuals, but numerous enough to form several groups, albeit small groups. The Mandalorians seen in Traviss' novels and Open Seasons are these type of Mandalorians. The Essential Atlas also stated that it was during the Clone Wars that the New Mandalorian philosophy waned. Spar, Mandalore the Resurrector, would lead the traditionalist Mandalorians in re-establishing the old customs and traditions. Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).


  • In the Q&A audio on the official site, Dave said that the Mando'a heard was actually the Concordian dialect. I'm adding that here until something else comes up. Gratulor - User Page 04:17, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

Mandalore=Kalevala Edit

Per everything we were given in the Essential Atlas and stuff to retcon the New Mandalorians, should Mandalore be linked instead to Kalevala? Concordia and Sundari changed to Kalevala's moon and capital, respectively?--Bella'Mia 04:26, January 30, 2010 (UTC)

  • I was thinking that too BUT i read that Kalevala is a GAS GIANT so it can't be the Mandalore we see in the episode. GMo >:M:< 05:56, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
    • Um...what? Kalevala is a terrestrial planet that's primary terrain is toxic desert, according to the Essential Atlas. Check out it's article.Bella'Mia 06:41, January 30, 2010 (UTC)
  • She's right, but everything that we have so far says that it was Mandalore. Mandalore is not Kalevala. VhettSkirata Mando'ade 04:17, January 31, 2010 (UTC)

What does he mean? Edit

why does the traitor guy (can't remember his name) say that the lightsaber he had was obtained "at the fall of the old republic"? Isnt this placed during the reign of the old republic? Unsigned comment by (talk • contribs).

I took it to mean at the end of the New Sith Wars, during the Hundred Year Darkness. Palpatine's mention of a "Republic which has stood for a thousand years" despite the already established 24,000 year old Republic was retconned in the same way. Unsigned comment by Axinal (talk • contribs).


Considering this episode has caused a huge controversy and a lot of anger among EU and Traviss fans, there needs to be a controversy explaining the issues. And fanon needs to be kept off until some official word (besides the Atlas entry which might need fixing as well) comes forward as to how or IF they're going to be able to fix this mess. 10:09, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

  • Just let Leland Chee handle it. We don't need to trash the retcons any more than they already have been. CC7567 (talk) 17:05, February 1, 2010 (UTC)

Tatooine Edit

What was meant by the anon who added Tatooine as a Human subspecies? Was this meant in reference to Anakin Skywalker? Should it be kept? This is the first time I have ever heard a character refered to as such. If this is a keep, should it be changed to Tatooinian and allow the discussion to continue here? --Darth Shohet 01:01, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

Easter Egg Edit

Check this out: It was on Vizslas office wall. I found this pic over at Swtor forums on a thread about this episode: This is that one Pablo Picasso painting of the barn with mutilated people in it, but with a Mando photoshopped in. Also, a a few of the figures (notable the one in the bottom right) has been slightly edited. Anyone cathc tthis before? --Mr. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 02:05, February 2, 2010 (UTC)

  • Let's be very clear about something: this is not a Picasso painting that has been photoshopped. It was created by the artists at Lucasfilm Animation and no one else. Was it created in the style of Pablo Picasso's art? Possibly. That is the only correlation. The style of this painting is very clearly discussed by Dave Filoni in the Episode Commentary. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 03:14, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Look at the circled areas. These are from the PP painting. Its extremely obvious. - Mr. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 17:25, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • OK, first off, please learn how to properly format image placement so it doesn't screw up the entire section. Once again, Lucasfilm Animation may have modeled and styled the Mandalorian mural after Picasso's art. They did not take a scan of a that Picasso painting and photoshop in a Mandalorian and lightsaber. Is that abundantly clear? Agreed, the art is done in a fashion that is clearly modeled after Picasso, but that does not mean they copying and altered a Picasso painting. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:40, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • I have placed a small note in a "Behind the scenes" section of the Mandalorian mural article. Beyond that, it's not going to get any further mention. So the crusade can end right here. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 18:50, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
    • Photoshopped was the wronf word. But the three circled images are used on the Mandalorian painting, not the Mandalorian on the Picasso painting. The three images are copies to use on the painting for effect, and most likely for Easter Egg reasons. They were not repainted (Well the third one maybe) jus used. Placed under the mandy, all tor apart like before (Brutal Mandalorian, eh?) PS. I cant help but think you are taking this very hard/seriously, and you also seem to have an extreme disliking for anyone who disagrees on something with you. I'm not saying thats true, but it soure does look like in your writing. - Mr. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 21:22, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
      • I don't dislike you. I don't know you. My issue is when newcomers come in and make claims and assertions that are baseless. I'm looking at the two images side by side. They are not copies. They are very similar. Dave Filoni talks very specifically about the Mando mural artwork in the video commentary I posted a link to above. That is all we have to go on. The issue is the continuation of claiming that elements are copied from Picasso to this Mandalorian mural when that is simply not the case, and has been proven to not be the case. It's been acknowledged that they are similar in the behind the scenes section and that's the best it can hope to get. Discussion closed. - JMAS Jolly Trooper Hey, it's me! 23:45, February 2, 2010 (UTC)
        • Alright alright. I see your point. But still nonetheless, since those three images are basically the same, styled or based off the Picasso image, I still belive that it is an Easter egg. And what makes you think i'm new? I'm just not very active, as I somehwat used to be. - Mr. Clonehunter(Report your W.M.D.) 00:14, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Character Appearances Edit

In the list of characters there are some like Zinn Paulness and Dantum Roohd who are listed as appearing in flashbacks. Whilst they do only appear in the opening newsreel and not in the episode proper, their appearances are still connected to the events of the episode because they are seen meeting with Satine. Labelling them as appearing in flashbacks may lead some people to think that they only appear in clips from other episodes - like Bail Organa and Philo do for example.

Maybe there should be a distinction between the two types of flashback - those from previous episodes and those that are new and actually related to the episode they're part of. Personally I would just list such characters as appearing in the episode, even though they were only in the newsreel, since the shots were made for that episode. Unsigned comment by Captain Yossarian (talk • contribs).

  • The only reason they are listed as flashbacks is because their appearances in the actual episode are not confirmed. Their appearances in the scene from "Hostage Crisis" is therefore the only noteworthy mention. CC7567 (talk) 21:55, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
    • A new template should be made: (newsreel only), for those appearences who are not flashbacks. --Tellanroaeg 22:02, February 3, 2010 (UTC)
      • What context they appear in during the newsreel is irrelevant. If they appear in the newsreel, it's a flashback. CC7567 (talk) 22:10, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

The point is that listing everything from the newsreel as 'flashbacks' implies it consists only of clips from previous episodes, not new material. There needs to be a distinction between flashbacks that are from other episodes and ones that are part of the current episode's story.

For example, in The Mandalore Plot, Bail Organa appears in a flashback to Hostage Crisis. Zinn Paulness appears in a flashback but it's a new shot made for The Mandalore Plot. However, if all newsreel appearances are listed simply as 'flashbacks' there is no way of knowing the context in which the characters appeared. People not fully conversant with the episode may assume that all flashbacks are clips from previous episodes and therefore miss the point that certain characters, locations etc, may only appear in the newsreel, but their appearance was actually part of the episode itself.

It's worth mentioning here because this episode demonstrates the problem well. There are characters that appear in both the Hostage Crisis clips and the newly made clips. But since everything that's only in the newsreel is listed as a flashback, it may not be totally clear to everyone what relevance anything has to the episode in question. For example, Bail Organa appeared in a flashback but is not especially relevant to The Mandalore Plot. Dantum Roohd appeared in a flashback but he is relevant to the episode because he was meeting with Satine and others.

Using the blanket term 'flashback' to describe everything that appears in the newsreel is not a good idea because it's devoid of context. If most of the newsreel is made up of clips from previous episodes then anything that is new gets lumped in with it. Anyone who does not know much about the episode will find it difficult to determine how those appearances are relevant to the episode. Captain Yossarian 23:40, February 3, 2010 (UTC)

Community content is available under CC-BY-SA unless otherwise noted.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Stream the best stories.

Fandom may earn an affiliate commission on sales made from links on this page.

Get Disney+