In reply to Max Battcher.

Well, it's so generic that I'd assumed it was a working title until they put it in italics in the press release. Not necessarily too bad on its own, but it just draws attention to the question of how much of the movie is "organic" vs how much it's designed to fill a business-mandated slot in the schedule opened up by the strikes.

Obviously, anything with Disney involved (or any media company, really) is going to have an element of business and marketing involved, but I think the best projects are the ones that can serve both masters. I don't think The Mandalorian exists to sell baby Yodas, for instance, but I'm also not naive enough to think that making a cute character so prominent in the storyline had NO bearing during preproduction.

That's another of the things that Jon Favreau is so good at: working within the constraints and demands of a franchise but still making it feel like creative decisions took precedence over marketing ones. (I haven't seen the live-action Disney adaptations he's directed, but I've heard good things about The Jungle Book at least). My hope is that they'll spend a year calling it The Mandalorian and Grogu to get it firmly into the public consciousness, and then switch it up to something less generic.