STAR WARS Confirms When the Mandalorian Was Orphaned, and It Reveals More About His Past — GeekTyrant
In the series, we learn that Din was orphaned when battle droids wiped out his family, but the exact timing of that tragedy has never been made explicit. The droids were Clone Wars–era models, but that didn't necessarily mean the attack took place during the war itself.
Now, thanks to an excerpt from the upcoming The Mandalorian Visual Guide by Pablo Hidalgo, which was shared by StarWarsTimeline.com, we have a definitive answer. The book states:
'His real name is Din Djarin, and a tragic day during the Clone Wars on his homeworld of Aq Vetina still haunts him. It was the day his parents were killed by battle droid fire; the day he nearly met the same fate; the day Mandalorians came rocketing in to rescue him; the day he became a foundling (an orphan rescued from a warzone).'
That confirmation locks the event firmly within the Clone Wars era. It also allows us to place Din more precisely on the Star Wars timeline.
With the Clone Wars beginning in 22 BBY and The Mandalorian set around 9–11 ABY, Din would likely be in his late 30s to early 40s, depending on his age during the attack.
These details offer and a clearer picture of the man behind the beskar, and as his journey continues, we'll continue to learn more about him and his past.
Din Djarin will next return alongside Din Grogu in The Mandalorian & Grogu , set for release in May 2026. According to footage shown at Star Wars Celebration 2025, the film looks to be an awesome adventure.
Hashtags
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
Yahoo
2 hours ago
- Yahoo
Billie Lourd Looks 'So Much Like' Late Mom Carrie Fisher in New Transformation Photos
Billie Lourd Looks 'So Much Like' Late Mom Carrie Fisher in New Transformation Photos originally appeared on Parade. just keeps looking more and more like her famous mom, . To celebrate turning another year older, the 33-year-old actress shared a series of photos from her recent birthday festivities, where she completely transformed into a glamorous, sparkly green fairy. 🎬SIGN UP for Parade's Daily newsletter to get the latest pop culture news & celebrity interviews delivered right to your inbox🎬 Sporting dramatic hair, makeup and wardrobe for the special occasion, Lourd perfectly embodied the character Tinker Bell, or "Tinker Billie" as she called herself—but tons of her followers on Instagram thought the full-glam ensemble made Lourd look more like her late mom. "U look so much like ur mum in Star Wars here," one person commented on Lourd's Instagram post on Monday, July 21, referring to Fisher's famous Star Wars role as Princess Leia. "Princess Leia vibes!!" someone else added in the comments. Fisher played the iconic character in the original Star Wars trilogy from the '70s and '80s, before later reprising the role in 2015's The Force Awakens and 2017's The Last Jedi, which she filmed before her death in 2016. The legendary actress was 60 years old when she died of cardiac arrest in December 2016. She later appeared in the 2019 film The Rise of Skywalker with the help of digital manipulation, pre-existing footage and body doubles, including Lourd, who stood in for her mother in some scenes. "You are so your mother's daughter. 💕💕💕💕," another fan wrote under Lourd's Instagram pics on Monday, while someone else noted that Lourd was "in her element" while sporting the ethereal birthday look. "GODDESS 🧚♂️," one of her adoring fans gushed in the comments, while some of her celebrity pals also chimed in to commend the look. "Iconic," wrote actress , while called the outfit "SO GOOD." Billie Lourd Looks 'So Much Like' Late Mom Carrie Fisher in New Transformation Photos first appeared on Parade on Jul 22, 2025 This story was originally reported by Parade on Jul 22, 2025, where it first appeared. Solve the daily Crossword
Geek Tyrant
2 hours ago
- Geek Tyrant
Ewan McGregor Confirms George Lucas Slowed Down Obi-Wan's Duel With Darth Maul, "Was Worried That People Wouldn't Believe it" — GeekTyrant
Star Wars fans have debated for years whether Star Wars:The Phantom Menace 's epic lightsaber battle between Ewan McGregor's Obi-Wan Kenobi and Ray Park's Darth Maul was really slowed down in post-production because the actors were just too fast. Now, McGregor himself has set the record straight, and it turns out the legend is true. Speaking at Fan Expo Boston, McGregor revealed that George Lucas actually over-cranked the camera during filming to make the fight slightly slower on screen. 'When me and Ray did that fight… George over-cranked. We used to shoot on film, and you can adjust the speed that the film's going through the camera. If you want it to be slow motion, you make the camera run really fast so when you play it back, it's in slow motion.' McGregor recalled Lucas telling the crew, 'They're going too fast. Slightly over-crank the camera.' He continued: 'So they over-cranked the camera to make it slightly slower because me and Ray were so fast doing this fight. He was worried that people wouldn't believe it.' McGregor played Obi-Wan across all three prequel films and returned to the role in 2022's Obi-Wan Kenobi series, where he reunited with Hayden Christensen for a lightsaber duel in a Clone Wars-era flashback. As for Lucas, his on-set tweaks were just one part of his ambitious approach to Star Wars . At one point, he developed Star Wars: Underworld , a live-action series that Rick McCallum says would have 'blown up the Star Wars universe' — but its budget was simply too big for the time. "The problem was that each episode was bigger than the films, so the lowest I could get it down to with the tech that existed then was $40 million an episode," McCallum revealed on the Young Indy Chronicles podcast. It's a fun bit of Star Wars trivia to know that one of the saga's most famous fights was literally too fast in real life for audiences to believe. I would've loved to see them shoot that scene! Via: Collider
Vox
7 hours ago
- Vox
How The Fellowship of the Ring explains post-9/11 America
When Peter Jackson's epic adaptation of The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring debuted on December 10, 2001, it was considered a likely boondoggle. Hollywood hadn't launched a truly successful fantasy film franchise since the first Star Wars trilogy in the 1970s. If it was going to create one now, the savvy take was that the Harry Potter movies were a better bet, with a more active fan base and a simpler, more movie-friendly plot structure than that boasted by JRR Tolkien's labyrinthine Lord of the Rings trilogy. What's more, Peter Jackson's last major film, 1996's The Frighteners, was a flop. Jackson, Variety wrote at the time, with slight incredulity, 'must have convinced someone that he would do it right.' Vox Culture Culture reflects society. Get our best explainers on everything from money to entertainment to what everyone is talking about online. Email (required) Sign Up By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms and Privacy Notice . This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply. Fellowship and its sequels became a template for what Hollywood success would look like over the next two decades. It showed executives that people were eager to see expensive, high-production value adaptations of intellectual property they already knew and loved, and that they would pay well for the privilege. It showed that audiences were willing to put up with a certain amount of lore — even labyrinthine lore — in exchange for high-stakes battles with a little artful CGI to make them look all the more epic. But Fellowship had a special resonance with its audience because of the moment in which it came out: a mere three months after September 11, 2001. It met an American audience ready and eager to throw themselves into the story of an epic battle between good and evil — one that good was definitely going to win. The parallels felt almost too good to be true. It met an American audience ready and eager to throw themselves into the story of an epic battle between good and evil — one that good was definitely going to win. 'With the world newly obsessed with the clash of good and evil, the time would seem to be ideal for 'The Lord of the Rings,'' mused Variety. 'Tolkien's tale of good people who band together against a Dark Lord and his minions has never been more timely than in our troubled age,' declared the New York Post. The Fellowship of the Ring introduced audiences to the peaceful, prosperous Shire, only to show them how its vulnerable borders left it open to attack by the faceless, subhuman hordes of the forces of evil. Tolkien's The Lord of the Rings, with its pacifist hobbit hero, is frequently read as an antiwar tract. But to an American audience that felt newly vulnerable and desperate for revenge, Jackson's Fellowship felt like a perfect allegory for why a 'war on terror' was not just desirable but in fact necessary. Writing in the New York Times in 2002, film critic Karen Durbin ran through the 'accidental echoes' between the Lord of the Rings films and the war on terror: 'Evil or 'Evildoers?' Sauron or Saddam? And how many towers?' The parallels were real. George W. Bush really did vow to rid the world of evil-doers, and Tolkien's characters really do spend a lot of time pontificating on the forces of evil. Incidentally, Lord of the Rings villain Sauron does sound a bit like former Iraqi President Saddam Hussein, and there is an unfortunate echo between the title of Tolkien's second volume, The Two Towers, and the twin towers of the World Trade Center. Even without those echoes, Durbin went on, there was an uncomfortable blurring between the spectacle of the films' battle sequences and military propaganda. 'Dehumanizing the other guy is the first step in training soldiers and fighting wars,' she wrote, decrying Jackson's plentiful scenes of animalistic and terrifying orcs marching on the small, scrappy fellowship. 'The danger is that this is what makes not just warfare palatable but extermination itself.' The interpretation of the whole Lord of the Rings franchise as an allegory of America's war on terror was so pervasive that when The Two Towers came out in 2002, Viggo Mortensen, the actor playing heroic Aragorn, spent a lot of his press tour trying to shut it down. 'I don't think that The Two Towers or Tolkien's writing or our work has anything to do with the United States' foreign ventures,' he said on Charlie Rose, 'and it upsets me to hear that.' (Tolkien, for the record, insisted that his story was 'neither allegorical nor topical' when the books' first audiences wanted to read it as a World War II narrative.) The message embedded in Fellowship would prove more apt as the war on terror went brutally on. In Tolkien's mythology, the ring's power will be misused by a nation that considers itself good just as surely as it will be misused by a group caricatured in the press as evil. No one can resist the corruptive force of pure power. At the time, The Lord of the Rings parallels felt uncanny. Looking back, they betray how difficult it was for anyone in America to see the world through any lens outside of 9/11 at the time — and how seductive it was to imagine oneself as part of a grand conflict that was both ethical and morally pure. The Lord of the Rings offered Americans a vision in which the forces of good, no matter how corruptible, went to war under a white flag, and the forces of evil, no matter how complicated their backstory, went to war under a black flag. It was more than escapist enough for America's bruised and reeling spirit in 2001. We, too, could be Aragorn, heroic and brave and good — and we could make our nemesis into Sauron, too evil even to have a face.
