PDA

View Full Version : RedLetterMedia's Star Wars Episode III Review Is Now Up



Lord Seth
2011-01-02, 01:31 AM
Yep, it's right here (http://www.redlettermedia.com/sith.html). I'm surprised he didn't upload anything to his YouTube channel announcing it. Anyone else a fan of the "Mr. Plinkett" reviews?

chiasaur11
2011-01-02, 02:08 AM
Saw.

Enjoyed.

Man, that film was abysmal.

Trazoi
2011-01-02, 02:14 AM
It was a decent review, but not as great as the other two. I guess most of the major flaws had already been covered.

The meta-story was toned down completely and what was there wasn't that great, possibly due to complaints about how strong it was in the Ep.II review (personally I loved it) or due to not enough time. A pity since the trailer suggested it was going to be really strong.

warty goblin
2011-01-02, 02:24 AM
Yep, it's Anyone else a fan of the "Mr. Plinkett" reviews?

Can't say that I am. A review with a running time as long or longer than the movie being reviewed seems self-indulgent; even if the analysis is good the presentation fails miserably.

averagejoe
2011-01-02, 02:52 AM
Can't say that I am. A review with a running time as long or longer than the movie being reviewed seems self-indulgent; even if the analysis is good the presentation fails miserably.

That seems like a very arbitrary criteria, based mostly on preconceived notions of what you think an art form should be. Really, they're more formal analyses/entertainment pieces meant for people who've already seen the movies than reviews anyways.

drakir_nosslin
2011-01-02, 09:35 AM
Saw.

Enjoyed.

Man, that film was abysmal.

Saw? I thought this was a Star Wars thread?
...
:smalltongue:

Yora
2011-01-02, 09:54 AM
Man, that film was abysmal.

And it's so much better than Episode 2. :smallannoyed:

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 10:00 AM
And it's so much better than Episode 2. :smallannoyed:

The Episode III book on the other hand, was decidedly better than the movie.

Yora
2011-01-02, 10:09 AM
The entire plot is happening while Obi-Wan is on Camino. The rest is fight scenes or completely pointless. Mostly both.

hamishspence
2011-01-02, 10:13 AM
And in the Episode II novel,

Mace Windu's response to Obi Wan's "200,000 clone units are complete and a million clone units are on the way" is "A million clone warriors?"

(And Obi-Wan says "Yes".)

Probably the source of the whole idea of a small clone army at the start of the war- which continued to be mentioned in later books like Shatterpoint.

So we can blame the Episode II novelization for the "small clone army" issue.

Talkkno
2011-01-02, 11:08 AM
Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:

warty goblin
2011-01-02, 11:14 AM
That seems like a very arbitrary criteria, based mostly on preconceived notions of what you think an art form should be.

Preconceived? Probably, but I hardly think that makes it a poor criteria. Conciseness, clarity and focus are pretty close to universal values in communicating ideas, and I think they are eminantly good standards that should be rigorously maintained. If somebody has something to say, they should show themselves, their idea, and their audience the respect they deserve by not beating around the bush pointlessly and instead develop the arguments to flow logically one into the other while advancing the general thesis of the work in question. That is good writing. Spending three minutes yammering about how you're not impressed by special effects anymore, and then insulting anybody with the brazenness to be so without even attempting to address why somebody might disagree, is not.


Really, they're more formal analyses/entertainment pieces meant for people who've already seen the movies than reviews anyways.

At which they still fail, for basically the reasons listed above.

Dienekes
2011-01-02, 11:23 AM
Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:

Course not. We just call you people crazies and go back to complaining about them.

Really, I didn't like any of them. Jar-Jar was annoying in the first, the kid was a pathetic excuse for an actor as well. In the second the romance dialogue was utter trash (and Star Wars dialogue is not the best to begin with), and again the guy playing Anakin couldn't act worth a hill of beans. Finally the last movie comes around and the dialogue and delivery just shoots straight out the window around halfway through the film. I actually rather enjoyed the beginning, which is more than I can say about the first two, but as they were wrapping up the plot and all emotion seems to drip into over the top Soap Opera acting. I actually started to laugh when I watched the Palpatine verse Windu confrontation, and how Anakin was breaking Padme's heart. So yeah, I don't like them, and I really can't see why anyone would. But if you do, don't let me stop you, I'm just another bitter guy ranting on the internet.

Starscream
2011-01-02, 11:23 AM
Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:

On the entire internet, yes.:smalltongue:

My favorite part was the "kneel before Monster Mash and pledge loyalty to the Graveyard Smash" joke. For some reason that just got me giggling.

LOTRfan
2011-01-02, 11:25 AM
Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:

I liked 'em. Just not as much as the originals. I found it hard to get attached to any clones, because I knew what was going to happen the very second they were introduced while wearing armor. So no real emotional response when they betrayed the Jedi.

RabbitHoleLost
2011-01-02, 11:29 AM
Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:

I loved them. Arguably more than the originals.
But I am a strange creature with strange tastes (as in I seem to love what others frequently hate), so I'm not sure I'm the kinda person you want sharing your rare opinion.

LOTRfan
2011-01-02, 11:34 AM
I loved them. Arguably more than the originals.
But I am a strange creature with strange tastes (as in I seem to love what others frequently hate), so I'm not sure I'm the kinda person you want sharing your rare opinion.

BLASPHEMY! :smallfurious::smallyuk::smallannoyed:



:smalltongue:

Talkkno
2011-01-02, 11:39 AM
I loved them. Arguably more than the originals.


*Hugs*
Often times I feel I'm only person that has that opinion...

Starbuck_II
2011-01-02, 11:51 AM
Course not. We just call you people crazies and go back to complaining about them.

Really, I didn't like any of them. Jar-Jar was annoying in the first, the kid was a pathetic excuse for an actor as well. In the second the romance dialogue was utter trash (and Star Wars dialogue is not the best to begin with), and again the guy playing Anakin couldn't act worth a hill of beans. Finally the last movie comes around and the dialogue and delivery just shoots straight out the window around halfway through the film. I actually rather enjoyed the beginning, which is more than I can say about the first two, but as they were wrapping up the plot and all emotion seems to drip into over the top Soap Opera acting. I actually started to laugh when I watched the Palpatine verse Windu confrontation, and how Anakin was breaking Padme's heart. So yeah, I don't like them, and I really can't see why anyone would. But if you do, don't let me stop you, I'm just another bitter guy ranting on the internet.
I liked Jar Jar. He is my favorite character besides Mace Windu in episodes 1-3.
Edit: how do I watch the review? I get black boxes where you'd watch them (all three parts).

0Megabyte
2011-01-02, 11:55 AM
Preconceived? Probably, but I hardly think that makes it a poor criteria. Conciseness, clarity and focus are pretty close to universal values in communicating ideas, and I think they are eminantly good standards that should be rigorously maintained. If somebody has something to say, they should show themselves, their idea, and their audience the respect they deserve by not beating around the bush pointlessly and instead develop the arguments to flow logically one into the other while advancing the general thesis of the work in question. That is good writing. Spending three minutes yammering about how you're not impressed by special effects anymore, and then insulting anybody with the brazenness to be so without even attempting to address why somebody might disagree, is not.

Conciseness has it's place.

But sometimes a deeper analysis is needed. There are things in the world that are deeper than sound bites. There is a place in this world for taking the time to say more than just "this thing is terrible." Sometimes, it's in the telling, in detail, that the worth actually is.

In other words, good writing, or should I say good pacing is not just being as fast as possible. Good pacing is giving something the time it deserves. No more, no less.

What these Star Wars things are doing isn't some quick "Siskel and Ebert at the movies" review of a film, to give you enough information to know if you'd like it.

As another said, this is closer to a formal critique. And you don't tell my film teachers to keep their critiques of my work short: Oh no, to actually get deep into the actual structure of a film takes more than five minutes.

And the reason these movies deserve such a critique is not just because they're bad movies. There are plenty of bad movies. The reason these movies deserve someone going at length and actually taking it apart piece by piece is because of what they mean.

And what this trilogy means is the spitting in the eye of movies that our generation grew up with and loved. Movies that actually made my generation and the one before me care. These movies take the same name, wrap itself in those movies trappings, and have the gall to play at being their equals.

In other words, there are cases where actually taking the gloves off and going whole hog and making a thorough, convincing case is worth more than being short.

Also, these things are funny in their own right.

But, hey. You didn't like them? You didn't enjoy what was done? That's perfectly fine. But don't confuse disliking them with them doing something fundamentally wrong. Because these particular reviews have their style, and it isn't bad in and of itself.

Talkkno
2011-01-02, 12:00 PM
Then isn't calling it a "review" then misleading?

Yora
2011-01-02, 12:05 PM
Why? It's looking at something after it has been released. :smallbiggrin:

Dienekes
2011-01-02, 12:12 PM
I liked Jar Jar. He is my favorite character besides Mace Windu in episodes 1-3.
Edit: how do I watch the review? I get black boxes where you'd watch them (all three parts).

Somewhere on these boards I wrote my reaction to Jar Jar through the course of the first movie. In short in the beginning I thought he could be an amusing counterpart like C-3P0 was in the original trilogy. By the end of it, I was hoping for him to die while he was running away, toward the droid army.

Anyway, just saw the review. Amusing and entertaining, but not as fun to watch as the first two reviews. Also the Nadine bits were a bit odd in this one. Which is a weird critique when you consider the nature of the Nadine story in general.

warty goblin
2011-01-02, 12:44 PM
Conciseness has it's place.

But sometimes a deeper analysis is needed. There are things in the world that are deeper than sound bites. There is a place in this world for taking the time to say more than just "this thing is terrible." Sometimes, it's in the telling, in detail, that the worth actually is.

In other words, good writing, or should I say good pacing is not just being as fast as possible. Good pacing is giving something the time it deserves. No more, no less.

Concision is not the same thing as rushing, it is moving exactly as fast as the material being presented requires to plainly and logically explained. Nor is it the enemy of depth. It is, in fact, it's ally. Without a concise, clear and logically tracable expression, any meaning runs the risk of getting lost in the noise, and the signal to noise ratio in that review is terrible.


What these Star Wars things are doing isn't some quick "Siskel and Ebert at the movies" review of a film, to give you enough information to know if you'd like it.

As another said, this is closer to a formal critique. And you don't tell my film teachers to keep their critiques of my work short: Oh no, to actually get deep into the actual structure of a film takes more than five minutes.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say that a formal critique also does not involve spending a lot of time spinning a joke out of the fact that 'return' has one less letter than 'revenge.' Going even farther out on the limb, I'd say that if I ever submitted a piece of work containing such a pointless detour to any of my professors, I would have been severely - and rightly - marked down for it.

Length is not my problem. My problem is that the content does not justify the length. The first fifteen minutes for instance could probably be paired down to seven or ten without removing anything of actual substance.



And the reason these movies deserve such a critique is not just because they're bad movies. There are plenty of bad movies. The reason these movies deserve someone going at length and actually taking it apart piece by piece is because of what they mean.

And what this trilogy means is the spitting in the eye of movies that our generation grew up with and loved. Movies that actually made my generation and the one before me care. These movies take the same name, wrap itself in those movies trappings, and have the gall to play at being their equals.

In other words, there are cases where actually taking the gloves off and going whole hog and making a thorough, convincing case is worth more than being short.
I don't recall ever saying the movies did not deserve a thorough critic. I said that the Red Letter Media review/critic/whatever you want to call it is badly done. These statements are in no way equivalent, or even particularly related.


Also, these things are funny in their own right.
Not really, no.


But, hey. You didn't like them? You didn't enjoy what was done? That's perfectly fine. But don't confuse disliking them with them doing something fundamentally wrong. Because these particular reviews have their style, and it isn't bad in and of itself.

By every standard I have ever been taught it's a poor piece of intellectual effort. So yes, I consider that a sufficient condition to say they are bad, in that they fail to live up to basic standards of argument.

averagejoe
2011-01-02, 01:52 PM
*Snipped*

Don't get me wrong, I'm not really interested in arguing the merits of the reviews, I just thought it was a strange sort of thing to say. In fact, that statement and others you've made makes me suspect that to effectively argue the merits of the reviews we'd have to step away from discussing the review and talk about forms of storytelling and entertainment as a whole.

In particular it seems silly to me to say, "These are the objective criteria for this art form, this does not meet those criteria, therefore I don't like it." I mean, if that works for you, fine, I'm just saying that it isn't something I really "get."


Somewhere on these boards I wrote my reaction to Jar Jar through the course of the first movie. In short in the beginning I thought he could be an amusing counterpart like C-3P0 was in the original trilogy. By the end of it, I was hoping for him to die while he was running away, toward the droid army.

I still kinda like him better than most of the characters in those movies, because he had emotions.

Lord Seth
2011-01-02, 01:58 PM
I'm going to take a wild guess here, and say that a formal critique also does not involve spending a lot of time spinning a joke out of the fact that 'return' has one less letter than 'revenge.'He didn't say it was a formal critique, he said it was closer to one than just a "and this is what I thought of the movie" kind of review. And that revenge/return joke was actually pretty funny.


Going even farther out on the limb, I'd say that if I ever submitted a piece of work containing such a pointless detour to any of my professors, I would have been severely - and rightly - marked down for it.So...what's your point? This isn't a formal English paper.


Length is not my problem. My problem is that the content does not justify the length. The first fifteen minutes for instance could probably be paired down to seven or ten without removing anything of actual substance.I will agree that his intros tend to be a bit longer than they need to be, and this was the worst of the three reviews in that regard (actually, I think as a whole this review's beginning was weaker than the beginnings of the Episode I and Episode II reviews), but it did definitely improve afterwards.


I don't recall ever saying the movies did not deserve a thorough critic. I said that the Red Letter Media review/critic/whatever you want to call it is badly done. These statements are in no way equivalent, or even particularly related.But as far as I can see your only problem with it is "he goes off on digressions." I don't get what's wrong with that. If it was a formal paper for a class, I'd get that, but this is a critique for mass audiences that's meant to simultaneously educate and entertain. That's part of the reason he does the reviews through the character of Mr. Plinkett rather than himself.

SmartAlec
2011-01-03, 09:04 PM
Then isn't calling it a "review" then misleading?

I don't think so. It's a review in the same way that Tommy Cooper's magic show was a magic show.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-04, 03:36 PM
You mean the creepy serial killer who always says "What's wrong with your face?" I love that guy. He's not my favorite internet review (that title belongs to the Spoony One), but he's still awesome!

Lord Seth
2011-01-04, 04:14 PM
You mean the creepy serial killer who always says "What's wrong with your face?" I love that guy. He's not my favorite internet review (that title belongs to the Spoony One), but he's still awesome!Yeah, RedLetterMedia isn't my favorite either, but he's still good. My favorite is SF Debris (youtube.com/user/sfdebris).

Dr.Epic
2011-01-04, 04:25 PM
Yeah, RedLetterMedia isn't my favorite either, but he's still good. My favorite is SF Debris (youtube.com/user/sfdebris).

Never heard of him. I'm mostly just familiar with the reviews at TGWTG.

Lord Seth
2011-01-04, 05:08 PM
Never heard of him. I'm mostly just familiar with the reviews at TGWTG.You should check him out, he's great. His Star Trek reviews were actually what inspired Linkara's History of Power Rangers videos.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-04, 05:49 PM
You should check him out, he's great. His Star Trek reviews were actually what inspired Linkara's History of Power Rangers videos.

I actually don't watch that much of Linkara's stuff mostly because he reviews what seems to be mostly comics and the majority of comics I've read are webcomic and Alan Moore's stuff.

averagejoe
2011-01-04, 08:00 PM
I actually don't watch that much of Linkara's stuff mostly because he reviews what seems to be mostly comics and the majority of comics I've read are webcomic and Alan Moore's stuff.

He has his good points, and his history of Power Rangers series is actually pretty good, if you're into that sort of thing, but... well, let me put it like this: when Warty Goblin described RedLetterMedia as, "Self indulgent," upthread, I immediately thought, "I have no way of telling if that's true, because no one looks self indulgent next to Linkara." Plus he comes off as annoyingly smug, and his level of analysis rarely goes beyond the pedestrian sort of stuff that you can read anywhere from annoyed fans.

SF Debris is pretty good, though.

RLM isn't necessarily the best reviewer I've seen, but he's the most impressive to me in terms of the analysis he does and the points he makes, able to effectively nitpick details, but also get to the heart of the matter, and at times put into words things that I wasn't sure how to say. I can't think of any critic, internet or otherwise, who does as well on analysis.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-04, 08:41 PM
Saw the review. Good stuff. Also, I have the exact same TV remote as the guy.

Trazoi
2011-01-04, 09:26 PM
He has his good points, and his history of Power Rangers series is actually pretty good, if you're into that sort of thing, but... well, let me put it like this: when Warty Goblin described RedLetterMedia as, "Self indulgent," upthread, I immediately thought, "I have no way of telling if that's true, because no one looks self indulgent next to Linkara." Plus he comes off as annoyingly smug, and his level of analysis rarely goes beyond the pedestrian sort of stuff that you can read anywhere from annoyed fans.
I liked Linkara's early reviews probably because I'm not much of a comic book fan, as I could learn something about the medium via his snarkfests. But the early reviews were mainly entertaining because they mostly consisted of Linkara reading a bad comic in a variety of appropriate silly voices, inserting some snarky comments, and bookending them with a short snippet of an affectionate parody of comic stories. But in the later reviews the whole comic stories took on a life of its own becoming the main focus the whole thing - which might have been okay if Linkara's acting, writing and editing skills were up to snuff. As it is I found them painful and stopped.

I'll make a note to check up on SF Debris.

Lord Seth
2011-01-04, 09:30 PM
He has his good points, and his history of Power Rangers series is actually pretty good, if you're into that sort of thing, but... well, let me put it like this: when Warty Goblin described RedLetterMedia as, "Self indulgent," upthread, I immediately thought, "I have no way of telling if that's true, because no one looks self indulgent next to Linkara." Plus he comes off as annoyingly smug, and his level of analysis rarely goes beyond the pedestrian sort of stuff that you can read anywhere from annoyed fans.

SF Debris is pretty good, though.Well, the thing is, Linkara isn't out to critique things in the way that RedLetterMedia or SF Debris does. RedLetterMedia is out to explain why things don't work in a a movie or, in a few cases, explain why they did work (e.g. the Star Trek remake). He tosses in a bunch of jokes via the Mr. Plinkett persona to keep things entertaining, but the purpose is to explain how, from a filmmaking perspective, something fails or succeeds (usually how something fails).

SF Debris, meanwhile, is more of a reviewer in the traditional sense. He reviews both good and bad things and gives scores to them. Further, he gives credit where credit is due and praises an episode when it does something good but of course also criticizes it where it does something wrong. He of course adds in a bunch of jokes along the way and at times does more serious analysis, but the primary goal is giving recaps. He's actually fairly comparable to Television Without Pity now that I think about it.

Linkara's goal for his comic reviews is less about examining what they did wrong (RedLetterMedia) or evaluating their merits (SF Debris) than it is about just taking bad comics and making fun of them. It's the same idea that Mystery Science Theater 3000 had, of taking something bad and making it into something good by commenting on it humorously. Saying "his level of analysis rarely goes beyond the pedestrian sort of stuff that you can read anywhere from annoyed fans" seems to be missing the point of his comic reviews; it's like complaining about lack of analysis on MST3K.

Now, History of Power Rangers, on the other hand, is much more like SF Debris in that the primary purpose is to recap things and sometimes analyze them, with jokes being added in when possible or necessary. But the purposes of the comic reviews and History of Power Rangers (or SF Debris's reviews) are quite different.


RLM isn't necessarily the best reviewer I've seen, but he's the most impressive to me in terms of the analysis he does and the points he makes, able to effectively nitpick details, but also get to the heart of the matter, and at times put into words things that I wasn't sure how to say. I can't think of any critic, internet or otherwise, who does as well on analysis.I will agree on this one. A lot of things he pointed out I never even really noticed, such as his analysis in Episode I about how lightsaber duels, his evaluation of the problems caused by overusage of green screens in Episode III as well as just how many scenes have the characters sitting down in the prequel trilogy, and the breaking of the suspension of disbelief in sequences like the conveyer belt sequence or the "flying car chase" sequence in Episode II makes it harder to take seriously.

averagejoe
2011-01-04, 09:57 PM
I liked Linkara's early reviews probably because I'm not much of a comic book fan, as I could learn something about the medium via his snarkfests. But the early reviews were mainly entertaining because they mostly consisted of Linkara reading a bad comic in a variety of appropriate silly voices, inserting some snarky comments, and bookending them with a short snippet of an affectionate parody of comic stories. But in the later reviews the whole comic stories took on a life of its own becoming the main focus the whole thing - which might have been okay if Linkara's acting, writing and editing skills were up to snuff. As it is I found them painful and stopped.

I'll make a note to check up on SF Debris.

Yeah, I feel similarly. If his early stuff wasn't entertaining I wouldn't have kept watching, but his skits and such can only be described as self indulgent, and I tend to think that they went so far as to take away from the rest of his reviews.


Well, the thing is, Linkara isn't out to critique things in the way that RedLetterMedia or SF Debris does. RedLetterMedia is out to explain why things don't work in a a movie or, in a few cases, explain why they did work (e.g. the Star Trek remake). He tosses in a bunch of jokes via the Mr. Plinkett persona to keep things entertaining, but the purpose is to explain how, from a filmmaking perspective, something fails or succeeds (usually how something fails).

SF Debris, meanwhile, is more of a reviewer in the traditional sense. He reviews both good and bad things and gives scores to them. Further, he gives credit where credit is due and praises an episode when it does something good but of course also criticizes it where it does something wrong. He of course adds in a bunch of jokes along the way and at times does more serious analysis, but the primary goal is giving recaps. He's actually fairly comparable to Television Without Pity now that I think about it.

Linkara's goal for his comic reviews is less about examining what they did wrong (RedLetterMedia) or evaluating their merits (SF Debris) than it is about just taking bad comics and making fun of them. It's the same idea that Mystery Science Theater 3000 had, of taking something bad and making it into something good by commenting on it humorously. Saying "his level of analysis rarely goes beyond the pedestrian sort of stuff that you can read anywhere from annoyed fans" seems to be missing the point of his comic reviews; it's like complaining about lack of analysis on MST3K.

Now, History of Power Rangers, on the other hand, is much more like SF Debris in that the primary purpose is to recap things and sometimes analyze them, with jokes being added in when possible or necessary. But the purposes of the comic reviews and History of Power Rangers (or SF Debris's reviews) are quite different.

Yeah, that's fair. It just sometimes annoys me when he does stuff like, for example, use the word, "Fail," in place of well... anything else, as well as some other things. It's not the general content of his reviews that I mind, or what he's trying to do. It's just that he occasionally says things that are superbly uninformed, annoying, or unprofessional, and a lot of these are things that I tend to read a million times on message boards.

To clarify: "Unprofessional," is probably a bad word to use given the general content isn't necessarily meant to be, "professional." I'm mostly thinking of stuff like when he feels the need to make political/cultural digs that are, at best, trolling, and are without exception unfunny and offensive even when I agree with him. He's generally gotten better about that, but occasionally feels the need to slip something in.

I'm probably coming off as disliking him more than I do. I generally like what he does, but a lot of the little things just annoy me to no end.


I will agree on this one. A lot of things he pointed out I never even really noticed, such as his analysis in Episode I about how lightsaber duels, his evaluation of the problems caused by overusage of green screens in Episode III as well as just how many scenes have the characters sitting down in the prequel trilogy, and the breaking of the suspension of disbelief in sequences like the conveyer belt sequence or the "flying car chase" sequence in Episode II makes it harder to take seriously.

For me what makes it special is, sometimes he'll take stuff that I noticed, but had no idea why, and then explain exactly why. For example, from the first time I saw it, my primary reaction to Episode III was, "Boring," and I really didn't have a lot to say besides that, because I didn't really know why it was boring. Then in this review, talking about movement, camera angles, and such, he pretty much hit than nail on the head as far as that went. There's a few other examples of moments where I was like, "That's bugging me, but I don't know why," and then he said exactly why.

Trazoi
2011-01-04, 11:14 PM
Yeah, I feel similarly. If his early stuff wasn't entertaining I wouldn't have kept watching, but his skits and such can only be described as self indulgent, and I tend to think that they went so far as to take away from the rest of his reviews.
The breaking point for me was when Linkara tried a serious Silent Hill themed story based in his apartment living room. It went on and on and simply plain didn't work.


For me what makes it special is, sometimes he'll take stuff that I noticed, but had no idea why, and then explain exactly why. For example, from the first time I saw it, my primary reaction to Episode III was, "Boring," and I really didn't have a lot to say besides that, because I didn't really know why it was boring. Then in this review, talking about movement, camera angles, and such, he pretty much hit than nail on the head as far as that went. There's a few other examples of moments where I was like, "That's bugging me, but I don't know why," and then he said exactly why.
I could have picked out the major flaws with the prequel movies - stuff like an incoherent plot, bad dialogue and the drowning of every scene with special effects - but the reviews put it so much clearer and explicitly point out exactly how they fail in ways I wouldn't have been able to express.

One of my favourite things is how the Ep.I review doesn't spend much time doing the boring thing of spending ages ragging on Jar-Jar Binks and instead focuses more on Qui-Gon Jinn. Simply bashing everyone's favourite punching bag would have been easy but it wouldn't have added anything, plus Jar-Jar was more a symptom of big failings than the main problem. Qui-Gon as the closest thing the movie had to leading protagonist (such as there was) was a far bigger problem structurally than the annoying comic relief.

averagejoe
2011-01-05, 02:18 AM
The breaking point for me was when Linkara tried a serious Silent Hill themed story based in his apartment living room. It went on and on and simply plain didn't work.

See, I saw the Silent Hill reviews proper to be pretty dull, and I just plain couldn't get past them. So I haven't seen that skit.


I could have picked out the major flaws with the prequel movies - stuff like an incoherent plot, bad dialogue and the drowning of every scene with special effects - but the reviews put it so much clearer and explicitly point out exactly how they fail in ways I wouldn't have been able to express.

One of my favourite things is how the Ep.I review doesn't spend much time doing the boring thing of spending ages ragging on Jar-Jar Binks and instead focuses more on Qui-Gon Jinn. Simply bashing everyone's favourite punching bag would have been easy but it wouldn't have added anything, plus Jar-Jar was more a symptom of big failings than the main problem. Qui-Gon as the closest thing the movie had to leading protagonist (such as there was) was a far bigger problem structurally than the annoying comic relief.

I loved the, "Describe this character without referring to what they look like, their job, or their role in the film," bit. It's somewhat funny to me that if you did that for Jar-Jar then you'd actually have things to say.

loopy
2011-01-05, 10:28 AM
Seems like his website is down. This irritates me.

Winterwind
2011-01-05, 11:32 AM
Yep, it's right here (http://www.redlettermedia.com/sith.html). I'm surprised he didn't upload anything to his YouTube channel announcing it. Anyone else a fan of the "Mr. Plinkett" reviews?Oooh! Yet another reviewer I can listen to while painting Warhammer minis! Thanks, Lord Seth! :smallbiggrin:
Will watch this as soon as I'm home. :smallcool:


Am the only one who liked the prequels? :smallfrown:I'm probably fairly alone with that precise opinion, but I actually liked Episode One, and concedes that Episode Three wasn't bad except for one particular flaw (which, unfortunately, was pretty fatal in my eyes), so while I number myself into the camp of the prequel haters, the only part I actually truly loathe was Episode Two. Though it took me a long while to get to this point (from a blind hatred towards the entire prequel trilogy that I now feel rather ashamed of).

Lengthy explanation of my feelings towards the prequels incoming:
Episode One:
I am the kind of person that cares a lot about mood when watching something, and I found Jar-Jar to be extremely harmful in Episode One - not directly because of how annoying he was, but because he totally disrupted the mood of watching something epic going on whenever he was on screen, something I felt drove the original trilogy to a large degree. The first trilogy managed to have its humour be less invasive on the mood. It's as if one added slapstick to the scene from the Lord of the Rings where Arwen ponders what will happen if she chooses to stay with Aragorn, and still expected the scene to work.

I also greatly disliked how clean and shiny everything was; to me, Star Wars always had its particular charm by everything looking moderately primitive and gritty, contrasting wonderfully with the smooth, shiny Star Trek universe. Episode One being so clean and shiny made it feel more like some regular sci-fi movie, not Star Wars, quite effectively undermining the Star Wars mood.
Lastly, the decision to explain the Force with, basically, bacteria, was the best suited move towards disenchanting the universe and removing the magic that made it special from it. The mood and mysticism about it just couldn't recover from that.

For these reasons, I hated Episode One for a long time. Ultimately though, I've grown able to ignore Jar-Jar's exploits, ignore that midichlorian nonsense, and accept the usually offered reasoning that the shinier, cleaner look is deliberate to emphasize the difference between the Empire and the Republic. And with these problems gone, well, I find Episode One becomes close to being as action filled and charming as the original trilogy. So, it gets a pass.

I also heard - and that holds true for the other two prequels as well - that the German dubbing was actually superior to the original, because it got rid of some of the actors' lacking acting abilities. I have no idea whether this is true, I haven't ever heard the prequels in English, but I never noticed anyone's acting to be particularly wooden, yet it's a complaint I see often submitted by English speaking folk. So, that may have improved the entire prequel trilogy for me. Or not. I wouldn't know.


Episode Two:
I still loathe this one. Scenes like one of the battle droids and C3P-O swapping heads went much farther than just breaking the mood - they broke all suspension of disbelief I could muster. I found the romance between Anakin and Amidala to be contrived and badly written to say the least, the dialogue in these scenes on the level of what a ten-year-old might write (and I'm not exaggerating here, I really found it that bad), but the biggest problem was that Episode Two completely cheated us out of what the prequels set out to be about originally: How Anakin Skywalker turned into Darth Vader.

Whether I agree with his reviews or not is extremely hit-and-miss, but in this case, I fully agree with Confused Matthew: (paraphrasing) "What do you mean, he's going to turn to the Dark Side?! This little s*** is already there!".

I found it utterly, utterly unbelievable that the nice kid we see in Episode One could so completely change personalities to become the kind of donkey-hole we see in Episode Two. Not without some events far, far more traumatic than even the ones in Episode One have been. Now, perhaps some events like that did happen - but in that case, why aren't we shown those? Wouldn't these have been far, far, far more relevant to this character arc than the entirety of Episode Two? Showing us the character as a child, and then showing us Darth Vader does not constitute showing us how that child grew to be Darth Vader!

And every single character in the story carrying the idiot ball didn't help making me more sympathetic towards it, either. I'm usually very generous when it comes to movies I see in a theatre - my period of dislike for Episode One didn't start until I'd read a ton of negative opinions about it on the Internet, which basically managed to brainwash me, for instance - but I hated, hated, hated Episode Two right from the start.


Episode Three:
Now, this one I would usually consider the best one by far within the prequel trilogy. It doesn't have the inanity of Jar-Jar or the droids from the other two prequels, the action is superior and more interesting, the romance has been cut down to something far more manageable and better-written, and the story generally worked much better for me.

Unfortunately, they completely dropped the ball on the central scene of not only the movie, but of the entire prequel trilogy. As I said, I think it's fairly clear that the entire prequel trilogy is basically just about one thing: How did Anakin turn into Darth Vader?, and this episode contains the moment where he falls and turns to the Dark Side (officially now, not the part where he's quite obviously Neutral Evil throughout Episode Two already). Allow me to summarize it, without meaningfully distorting what was said and how it was said:

Anakin: *with utter dismay and despair* "Oh my God! What have I done? This is horrible! How will I ever be able to live with myself?!"
*cheerfully, without missing a beat* "Please, be my master, so I can do it again!"
Palpatine: "'Kay. Go and eat some babies."
Anakin: "Wheeee!"...this is what we were waiting for? I can't come up with any way to make this less convincing that doesn't involve time-traveling hippopotami (and even they would have a hard time)! Anakin actually seemed much calmer and wiser in this movie than the previous one; him going from good to evil within one sentence makes no sense at all, especially considering how horrible the things are that are immediately demanded from him. The sad thing is, this could have easily worked with basically the same plot - nothing wrong with accidentally killing Mace Windu and then falling because he cannot find a way out of the situation he has brought himself into - if Palpatine and Anakin actually exchanged some meaningful dialogue here that would have facilitated this change in Anakin. The problem is, he isn't merely uncertain what his future may be, now that he's fallen from the Jedi order in this way - he's obviously genuinely grief-struck. So his conscience still is intact, and he still considers what he did to have been wrong. If Palpatine just built on that and convinced Anakin how what he did was actually the right thing to do - something Anakin would have loved to believe in the situation without way out he found himself in - this could have easily worked. If what he was sent to do next wasn't as obviously evil and irreconcilable with the conscience of the character we were shown until now, and started only fighting actual Jedi and Palpatine's puppets, as he did later, we could have believed he was doing what he thought was right, and he could have slowly descended further and further into fanatically believing in Palpatine's cause and morals, until he was truly ready to do the most unforgivable and evil things he wouldn't ever have dreamed about doing before. But sending him off to kill children right away meant the character was doing evil things he himself considered evil, after turning to evil because of grief over doing something evil. Which makes no sense at all.

So, while the rest of Episode Three was fine in my eyes, this one scene failing as horribly as it did ruined the entire movie for me. Because it deprived the entire prequel trilogy of its raison d'ętre. This scene managed to render the entire trilogy meaningless. So, while a fine movie otherwise, it contains such a major flaw that, even if the rest of the movie is fine, this short scene single-handedly manages to wreck the entire movie for me, with no chance to recover.


You should check [SF Debris] out, he's great.I concur wholeheartedly, he's awesome. And I'm not sure I ever thanked you for linking to him sometime (leading to me learning about him), so I'll take this opportunity to do so now. :smallsmile:

Another reviewer I rather enjoy is Confused Matthew. His reviews tend to be quite... emphatic, and whether I agree with the point he's making or totally, totally disagree with every word he says varies immensely, but I always find his arguments to be well-thought-through and intelligent, at least, and he's quite entertaining, too. :smallcool:

Talkkno
2011-01-05, 11:37 AM
To be fair, the novelesiation of the prequals fix most of the problems.

Dr.Epic
2011-01-05, 11:38 AM
I agree with his comments about Han Solo. Considering all the other characters Lucas crammed in there pointlessly, we could have easily had a 7 year old Han somewhere. That's why Han and Lando are my two favorite characters: not present in the prequels.

Trazoi
2011-01-05, 05:10 PM
Lengthy explanation of my feelings towards the prequels incoming:
*snip*
That's pretty close to my opinions too, although I can't stand Ep. I due to the mish-mash of the plot.

My brief summary of the prequels is:

Ep. I: Terrible plot, bad choices, overload of special effects. Anakin should not have been a little kid. Main flaw is the whole film is superfluous to the trilogy; all it does is set up Palpatine as Chancellor, and they didn't need a whole movie to do that.

Ep. II: Worst of the bunch. Terrible plot, worse dialogue, nothing makes sense. I felt physical pain at the romance scenes. Anakin is way too evil, everyone is an idiot.

Ep. III: Plot still bad and (as Winterwind said) fatally ruined by that one scene where Anakin turns to the Dark Side. The whole trilogy was building to that moment and it being so bad destroys the entire film.

The other thing the whole trilogy was missing (and I don't remember if Plinkett mentioned this) was a Darth Vader equivalent (you would think for a trilogy about the birth of the real Vader that they would have one). Instead they have Darth Maul/Count Dooku/General Grievous and kill them off after one film. It would have been far better to have kept Darth Maul as a running villain in all three, constantly harassing Anakin and building hate, and make Anakin killing Maul part of the fall to the Dark Side. I guess they needed to sell more action figures?

hamishspence
2011-01-05, 05:16 PM
To be fair, the novelesiation of the prequals fix most of the problems.

Except for the "too-small Grand Army" one- the Ep II novelization is the source of the problem rather than the solution-

in the movie, "units" could be "legions"- but in the book, Obi-Wan and Mace seem to interpret it as "single clone warriors".

the Ep III novelization however- is much better- and the Ep I novelization, as I recall, wasn't too bad.

Lord Seth
2011-01-05, 06:43 PM
Another reviewer I rather enjoy is Confused Matthew. His reviews tend to be quite... emphatic, and whether I agree with the point he's making or totally, totally disagree with every word he says varies immensely, but I always find his arguments to be well-thought-through and intelligent, at least, and he's quite entertaining, too. :smallcool:I find Matthew very hit-or-miss. Some reviews were great and seemed quite well thought out. Some reviews, on the other hand, aren't interesting, have him making complaints that are either nonsensical or left me with a "who cares?" feeling, and has an annoying habit of shouting unnecessarily or insulting writers/directors gratuitously, and not even in a funny way. I guess you could still kind of consider me a fan of his, but I'd appreciate it if his quality was more consistent.
The other thing the whole trilogy was missing (and I don't remember if Plinkett mentioned this) was a Darth Vader equivalent (you would think for a trilogy about the birth of the real Vader that they would have one). Instead they have Darth Maul/Count Dooku/General Grievous and kill them off after one film. It would have been far better to have kept Darth Maul as a running villain in all three, constantly harassing Anakin and building hate, and make Anakin killing Maul part of the fall to the Dark Side. I guess they needed to sell more action figures?Meh, Maul was a boring villain; as Confused Matthew pointed out, "Darth Timefiller" might be a better name for him. General Grievous was also rather personality-less (at least in the film) and was also dropped in really suddenly. From what I remember of the 2D Clone Wars series he had an important part in that that carried over to the movie (the series actually ends just before Episode III begins), but unfortunately that means for most moviegoers he's just dropped in out of nowhere. I would've rather had Count Dooku stick around as the Vader-esque character, he at least had some personality.

averagejoe
2011-01-05, 07:01 PM
Allow me to summarize it, without meaningfully distorting what was said and how it was said:

I like how the abridged script (http://www.the-editing-room.com/revengeofthesith.html) put it:


HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN

What have I done?

(pause)

I submit myself to your will, Ian.

IAN MCDIARMID

That was fast. Well, now that you have taken a single, somewhat justifiable step toward the Dark Side, there’s no turning back. Go kill all of the Jedi in the temple, including the children.

HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN

Right, go kill the children. Got it.

IAN MCDIARMID

Well, kill everyone, not just–

HAYDEN CHRISTENSEN

(leaving)

On my way to kill all of the children now! Whee!

He DOES. The CLONE TROOPERS kill most of the adult Jedi, while the challenging task of murdering children can only be undertaken by the DARK LORD OF THE SITH.

I thought episode three was easily the worst of the lot, just because it was so boring and bland, which is something I find much more offensive than a film being merely really bad. The lightsaber fights had become just obvious CGI guys jumping around with the occasional closeup on the actors. Call the duels in episodes 1 and 2 overly-choreographed, but at least they had actors in them. Despite it being a dark tale of fall, revenge, and hate, everything in that movie was so sterile I wanted to hit my head against a wall. Plus there was battle droid slapstick all over the opening scene. And that's terrible.

Trazoi
2011-01-05, 07:35 PM
Meh, Maul was a boring villain; as Confused Matthew pointed out, "Darth Timefiller" might be a better name for him.
Yeah, but that's because Ep.I's plot sucked. :smalltongue:

Out of the three Maul was closest to be an interesting Vader analog. Dooku was a charming old guy - we already had Palpatine to take that role. And Grievous in his movie is a CGI joke. Maul had the unique look and the imposing menace to pull the role off. (Plus he was the one in the first film and has the least stupid name. :smallwink:)

Of course if Maul was to be promoted to Vader analog he'd need to have been given a bigger role in Ep.I. They should have had him always there directing things and only hinted at Palpatine/Sidious.


I thought episode three was easily the worst of the lot, just because it was so boring and bland, which is something I find much more offensive than a film being merely really bad.
This animated GIF summarises the lightsaber fights in Episode III in a nutshell. (http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9323/lightsabercircles.gif) :smallbiggrin:

Dienekes
2011-01-05, 07:35 PM
I find Matthew very hit-or-miss. Some reviews were great and seemed quite well thought out. Some reviews, on the other hand, aren't interesting, have him making complaints that are either nonsensical or left me with a "who cares?" feeling, and has an annoying habit of shouting unnecessarily or insulting writers/directors gratuitously, and not even in a funny way. I guess you could still kind of consider me a fan of his, but I'd appreciate it if his quality was more consistent.

Confused Matthew has always been my shining example that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't think he's a particularly good reviewer. Some of his points he makes about movies I completely disagree with or are downright wrong. Also I dislike his overall presentation, he isn't funny, and it's painful when he tries to be. But every once in awhile he makes an excellent and intelligent point.


Meh, Maul was a boring villain; as Confused Matthew pointed out, "Darth Timefiller" might be a better name for him. General Grievous was also rather personality-less (at least in the film) and was also dropped in really suddenly. From what I remember of the 2D Clone Wars series he had an important part in that that carried over to the movie (the series actually ends just before Episode III begins), but unfortunately that means for most moviegoers he's just dropped in out of nowhere. I would've rather had Count Dooku stick around as the Vader-esque character, he at least had some personality.

The personality-less token villains are kind of a staple of Star Wars (Boba Fett says hello). But this is a case where CM is right, Maul served two purposes, to kill Qui-Gon and look menacing. However it's the looks menacing part that is really of interest. Part of Vader's success as a villain was undoubtedly with his appearance. If Maul was given some personality and was kept as a villain through the trilogy I think he could have actually worked pretty good. Or on the other side of things if they had given Dooku a more villainous appearance he could have filled the Vader role just as well.

As it ended up, we were given three ultimately subpar villains, each of which was killed off too quickly for there to be any real connection with them. Dooku suffers from this the least probably because he had a slightly stronger personality and we had the wait between the two movies to grow in anticipation of his next big villainous act. Even when the payoff was remarkably disappointing.

Renegade Paladin
2011-01-05, 07:38 PM
That voice makes me want to break things.

The Big Dice
2011-01-05, 08:40 PM
As it ended up, we were given three ultimately subpar villains, each of which was killed off too quickly for there to be any real connection with them. Dooku suffers from this the least probably because he had a slightly stronger personality and we had the wait between the two movies to grow in anticipation of his next big villainous act. Even when the payoff was remarkably disappointing.
I've said many times that Darth Maul should have escaped at the end of Episode I. In II he could have taken the Dooku role, with the added emotional impact of him having killed Obi Wan's mentor in the past movie. Give him an apprentice in Episode 2 and you have the Dooku and Greivous roles filled by characters we give a damn about in Episode III. Instead of starting the movie with space battle porn that leads into introducing yet another disposable villain.

Katana_Geldar
2011-01-05, 09:02 PM
I was waiting for a Dooku vs Mace lightsaber fight in Ep III to the point where when I got to ROTS in my Jedi Padme trilogy I had Dooku captured alive just so I could do this!

And the Jedi Padme fic was my response to the abismal role Natalie Portman had in ROTS, all she does is whine, stand by the window in a nightie, cry, have the kids, and die. At least the deleted scenes give her something to do!

thegurullamen
2011-01-06, 02:16 AM
This animated GIF summarises the lightsaber fights in Episode III in a nutshell. (http://img585.imageshack.us/img585/9323/lightsabercircles.gif) :smallbiggrin:

God, that "maneuver" bugged me in the theatre. I see what they were trying to do, but after seeing five other movies with lightsabre fights, it just didn't work for me.

Winterwind
2011-01-06, 06:40 AM
That voice makes me want to break things.I have to admit, it's bothering me a bit, too. "Droning monotone" is not a good choice for a review... >.>

Renegade Paladin
2011-01-06, 06:45 AM
I have to admit, it's bothering me a bit, too. "Droning monotone" is not a good choice for a review... >.>
Everyone says these reviews are really good, but I never get through more than thirty seconds of one, and that's exactly why.

13_CBS
2011-01-06, 06:58 AM
Everyone says these reviews are really good, but I never get through more than thirty seconds of one, and that's exactly why.

Strange, for me the "droning monotone" was one of the strong points. :smallconfused: Probably because it came off more as a "grumpy old geezer" voice instead.

warty goblin
2011-01-06, 10:26 AM
God, that "maneuver" bugged me in the theatre. I see what they were trying to do, but after seeing five other movies with lightsabre fights, it just didn't work for me.

That's good, because I have no idea what the hell is supposed to be going on there. Neither of them is doing anything to take the initiative or attack, the moves don't work defensively since the other guy isn't attacking and each is in front of the other, not behind.

It's like they're both managing to lose the fight simultaneously.

Lord Seth
2011-01-06, 11:48 AM
I was really annoyed by the voice at first also but it did grow on me pretty quickly.

Trazoi
2011-01-06, 05:20 PM
I have to admit, it's bothering me a bit, too. "Droning monotone" is not a good choice for a review... >.>
It's more of a nasally old geezer voice; it varies way too much to call it "monotone". Unfortunately his opener for all reviews is him rambling on about how the movie sucks for a while so if you're not expecting the voice it hits you like a vuvuzela. But it adds to the humour when you get into the whole persona. It's not as if you can make a 90 minutes Star Wars review and keep it completely dry and serious.

DranWork
2011-01-06, 05:27 PM
I'd personally love to know what they are trying to do with that "manoeuvre" because it looks to me if either one of them had half a brain and decided to attack they could have easily killed the other one, even in that short repeated sequence I can see about 5 times that either of them could have killed/disabled the other.

WalkingTarget
2011-01-06, 05:40 PM
I'd personally love to know what they are trying to do with that "manoeuvre" because it looks to me if either one of them had half a brain and decided to attack they could have easily killed the other one, even in that short repeated sequence I can see about 5 times that either of them could have killed/disabled the other.

My assumption on that little part of the fight was that they were meant to be stuck in a brief precog fight where they're continuously positioning themselves to counter what the other was going to do - which then prompts the other to do something different and counter that etc.

Of course, the weakness here is that it is represented by the over-wrought lightsaber equivalent of Flynning (http://tvtropes.org/pmwiki/pmwiki.php/Main/Flynning) so picking it apart by watching it closely over and over hits it at a weak point of the storytelling form.

Just my impression, though.

DranWork
2011-01-06, 05:53 PM
I would happily agree with that assessment if they where changing stance and/or not spinning in the same circles. However if you watch this that are both doing exactly the same motion as the other however one is slightly ahead of the other so as not to clash lightsabers.

WalkingTarget
2011-01-06, 07:02 PM
I would happily agree with that assessment if they where changing stance and/or not spinning in the same circles. However if you watch this that are both doing exactly the same motion as the other however one is slightly ahead of the other so as not to clash lightsabers.

Thus the reference to Flynning. I assume that the scenario I describe is what it's meant to represent.

The choreography is flashy but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

thegurullamen
2011-01-06, 07:10 PM
My assumption on that little part of the fight was that they were meant to be stuck in a brief precog fight where they're continuously positioning themselves to counter what the other was going to do - which then prompts the other to do something different and counter that etc.

Yeah, that's my take on it. Well, that or they're winding up their beam sword lightsabre supersmashes at the same time.

Winterwind
2011-01-07, 07:40 AM
Okay, I've watched the full reviews of Episode I and II so far, and I agree now, one gets used to the voice - took me some 15-20 minutes, but then it really started growing on me.

And the points he raises are awesome. It only makes me sad that George Lucas is never going to watch these reviews... because I really, really wished he did.

I have to say though... I hope I never run into Mr. Plinkett. I am not sure I would have the willpower and determination to survive and escape his basement. :smalleek: :smallbiggrin:

The Big Dice
2011-01-07, 09:08 AM
Thus the reference to Flynning. I assume that the scenario I describe is what it's meant to represent.

The choreography is flashy but doesn't stand up to scrutiny.

Which kind of sums up the prequel movies.

Mikhailangelo
2011-01-07, 09:54 AM
I watched the episode I review the other night, having never even heard of RedLetterMedia before.

The review was good, if a bit overrated, though I found the comparison of Obi-Wan's reaction to Qui-Gon's death in his battle with Maul to Luke's rage against Vader in the Return of the Jedi to be quite insightful.

I'll need to watch the review of II and III now.

warty goblin
2011-01-07, 10:02 AM
Which kind of sums up the prequel movies.

To be fair, it's not like the choreography in the original trilogy is any better.

averagejoe
2011-01-07, 11:19 AM
To be fair, it's not like the choreography in the original trilogy is any better.

Not the choreography itself, but it was framed more effectively. Which is to say, the choreography wasn't the point in the originals, where in the prequels it more or less is.

The Big Dice
2011-01-07, 12:25 PM
Not the choreography itself, but it was framed more effectively. Which is to say, the choreography wasn't the point in the originals, where in the prequels it more or less is.

Right. It was the emotional aspect rather than the choreography that mattered in the original trilogy.

That said, I'm a big fan of kung-fu movies. Especially Golden Harvest ones. And there you don't just get the fight, you get the reason for the fight and the characters express their feelings and mood through the way they fight.

Unfortunately, the fight scenes in the prequel trilogy all kind of missed the point, going with the fancy choreography but not the reason why the choreography was needed.

Style over substance doesn't always work.

warty goblin
2011-01-07, 12:46 PM
Right. It was the emotional aspect rather than the choreography that mattered in the original trilogy.

Being the Star Wars heretic that I am, I wasn't exactly blown away by the kinematic emotion of the fights in the first trilogy either. It was decent, but no House of Flying Daggers by a long shot.


Unfortunately, the fight scenes in the prequel trilogy all kind of missed the point, going with the fancy choreography but not the reason why the choreography was needed.

Style over substance doesn't always work.

I thought that the two major fight scenes (Yoda/Palpatine and Obi-Wan/Anakin) were actually pretty much spot on, except for the moronic lightsaber twirling bits.

averagejoe
2011-01-07, 03:06 PM
Being the Star Wars heretic that I am, I wasn't exactly blown away by the kinematic emotion of the fights in the first trilogy either. It was decent, but no House of Flying Daggers by a long shot.

I wasn't talking about emotion either. But, whatever, you probably didn't like whatever aspect I might name.


I thought that the two major fight scenes (Yoda/Palpatine and Obi-Wan/Anakin) were actually pretty much spot on, except for the moronic lightsaber twirling bits.

They were both so boring. And, in addition, they were long which made them even more boring. The CGI work wasn't even that great. I mean, they weren't even bad enough to be interesting, they just had nothing at all going for them. They were the capstone for a bunch of boring fight scenes in a boring movie. I quite literally would have enjoyed it more if it was a couple of kids with no real training hitting at each other with sticks.

Trazoi
2011-01-07, 06:10 PM
I thought that the two major fight scenes (Yoda/Palpatine and Obi-Wan/Anakin) were actually pretty much spot on, except for the moronic lightsaber twirling bits.
I'm restating points made in the Plinkett reviews and remembering scenes from a movie I've seen once ages ago, but I'd disagree.

Obi-Wan vs. Anakin was ridiculous. The emotions the fight represented were in the discussions preceding and following the fights (all the feelings of betrayal). The fight itself was pure extravagance. As the Plinkett review said the fight didn't need to be more than three minutes long. It certainly didn't need to take place over what seemed to be the surface of the entire planet.

Yoda and Palpatine shouldn't have ever had lightsabers in the first place. Their powers and status were both beyond that. But instead we got a scene of a little CGI puppet and a dude in a black cowled robe doing acrobatic flips. Yay. Although Ian McDiarmid hamming the whole scene up at least made it hilarious to watch.

hamishspence
2011-01-07, 06:17 PM
Yoda and Palpatine shouldn't have ever had lightsabers in the first place. Their powers and status were both beyond that. But instead we got a scene of a little CGI puppet and a dude in a black cowled robe doing acrobatic flips. Yay. Although Ian McDiarmid hamming the whole scene up at least made it hilarious to watch.

yes- Timothy Zahn put the idea of a full scale battle between Force Masters better, in Vision of the Future (a Dark Jedi, and Yoda):

"An odd shiver ran through Car'das's thin body. "I won't try to describe their battle," he said in a low vice. "Even after forty-five years of thinking about it, I'm not sure I can. For nearly a day and a half the swamp blazed with fire and lightning and things I still don't understand. At the end of it the Dark Jedi was dead, disintegrating in a final, massive blaze of blue fire."

A certain amount of Sith sorcery, given Palpatine's skill with it in later sources, could have given the fight a bit more style.

The Big Dice
2011-01-07, 09:03 PM
A certain amount of Sith sorcery, given Palpatine's skill with it in later sources, could have given the fight a bit more style.
Sith sorcery is EU. Lucas ignores the EU, other than to get the royalty checks, obviously.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-07, 09:10 PM
The Episode III book on the other hand, was decidedly better than the movie.

So true! That book made up for the movie in SO many ways! Matthew Stover is hero.

warty goblin
2011-01-08, 12:00 AM
I'm restating points made in the Plinkett reviews and remembering scenes from a movie I've seen once ages ago, but I'd disagree.

Obi-Wan vs. Anakin was ridiculous. The emotions the fight represented were in the discussions preceding and following the fights (all the feelings of betrayal). The fight itself was pure extravagance. As the Plinkett review said the fight didn't need to be more than three minutes long. It certainly didn't need to take place over what seemed to be the surface of the entire planet.

I actually found that fight quite well paced. It was two swordsmen at absolutely the top of their game, and it showed Obi-Wan's highly defensive style of combat at first barely able to hold Anakin off, then slowly yet surely take the initiative and allow him to control the fight. That it ends with a single stupid mistake on Anakin's part is perfect, it shows that he's arrogant to the point of outright stupidity, and so caught up in his need to kill Obi-Wan he doesn't understand how vulnerable this makes him.

That it occupied a large amount of space is pretty reasonable, fighting people move a lot. You can't defend or attack effectively without footwork, and footwork tends to locomote one about.


Yoda and Palpatine shouldn't have ever had lightsabers in the first place. Their powers and status were both beyond that. But instead we got a scene of a little CGI puppet and a dude in a black cowled robe doing acrobatic flips. Yay. Although Ian McDiarmid hamming the whole scene up at least made it hilarious to watch.
The Force does like two things: it lets you push/pull stuff and shoot lightning. As Dooku pointed out in Ep. 2, once the combatants are skilled enough to nullify these abilities, hitting the other party with a lightsaber is really all there is left. Besides Jedi use lightsabers, that's sort of their calling card. Having the fight between the two greatest Force users in the story decided by anything else would be about like having two wizards hash things out by bonking each other with rocks.

cdstephens
2011-01-08, 12:03 AM
Sith sorcery is EU. Lucas ignores the EU, other than to get the royalty checks, obviously.

I thought the whole deal with Palpatine's face was Sith alchemy, which is a form of Sith sorcery. It really is the only explanation for why his face melted off while Luke's didn't.

Also, I agree it would have been better if Yoda fought purely ranged and never had a lightsaber.

Tavar
2011-01-08, 12:26 AM
I actually found that fight quite well paced. It was two swordsmen at absolutely the top of their game, and it showed Obi-Wan's highly defensive style of combat at first barely able to hold Anakin off, then slowly yet surely take the initiative and allow him to control the fight. That it ends with a single stupid mistake on Anakin's part is perfect, it shows that he's arrogant to the point of outright stupidity, and so caught up in his need to kill Obi-Wan he doesn't understand how vulnerable this makes him.

That it occupied a large amount of space is pretty reasonable, fighting people move a lot. You can't defend or attack effectively without footwork, and footwork tends to locomote one about.

I agree with this. Plus, when your two combatants are high level force users, their mobility and situational awareness is greatly enhanced. Allowing them to duel on, say, an unstable platform over lava.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 12:29 AM
I agree with this. Plus, when your two combatants are high level force users, their mobility and situational awareness is greatly enhanced. Allowing them to duel on, say, an unstable platform over lava.

Which brings us back to the choreography attempting to be flashy to make up for a lack of substance.


That it ends with a single stupid mistake on Anakin's part is perfect, it shows that he's arrogant to the point of outright stupidity, and so caught up in his need to kill Obi-Wan he doesn't understand how vulnerable this makes him.

That'd be a fair point if Anakin didn't demonstrate himself to be that suicidally stupid and deranged throughout the entirety of the prequels, believing in his specialness as a kid and then in his super sparkly chosen one destiny as a young adult and leads into the problem with his character having obviously fallen to the dark side in Episode II. Out of three which are supposed to detail how he falls.

Reverent-One
2011-01-08, 12:39 AM
That'd be a fair point if Anakin didn't demonstrate himself to be that suicidally stupid and deranged throughout the entirety of the prequels, believing in his specialness as a kid and then in his super sparkly chosen one destiny as a young adult and leads into the problem with his character having obviously fallen to the dark side in Episode II. Out of three which are supposed to detail how he falls.

If he had already fallen to the Dark Side in episode II, why does he stick around in the Jedi Order for the 3 years of the clone wars and the most of the events of the third movie, trying to save the Republic?

Trazoi
2011-01-08, 12:43 AM
I actually found that fight quite well paced. It was two swordsmen at absolutely the top of their game, and it showed Obi-Wan's highly defensive style of combat at first barely able to hold Anakin off, then slowly yet surely take the initiative and allow him to control the fight. That it ends with a single stupid mistake on Anakin's part is perfect, it shows that he's arrogant to the point of outright stupidity, and so caught up in his need to kill Obi-Wan he doesn't understand how vulnerable this makes him.
The fight ended with Obi Wan and Anakin surfing on lava. It was absolutely ridiculous. Like most things in the prequel trilogy it smacked of the effects team going "Look what we can do!". It looked like an idea ripped straight out of a platformer game - which coincidently is the best way to experience that segment (the Lego Star Wars version of that is hilarious, alternating between Obi Wan and Anakin having to cooperate to survive and then beating the Force out of each other.)


The Force does like two things: it lets you push/pull stuff and shoot lightning.
Well, and increased reflexes, ability to have visions of the future, form a ghost so you can prank call your students... :smallwink:


As Dooku pointed out in Ep. 2, once the combatants are skilled enough to nullify these abilities, hitting the other party with a lightsaber is really all there is left.
And as Plinkett pointed out in his review of Ep. 2, once you establish that two characters are evenly matched in the force then Yoda's size becomes a massive liability. Yoda doesn't have the reach that Dooku has. So he has to buzz around like a drunken housefly in order to have a chance. ...Buuuuut, they're both even in the Force, so Dooku should be able to do the same thing too! But of course he doesn't because if he did, he'd have skewered Yoda like a olive on a toothpick.

But that misses the point that Yoda the wise old pacifist sage of The Empire Strikes Back should never have been given a lightsaber. He's Yoda! "Wars don't make one great!" Yoda! "Your weapons, you will not need them" Yoda. The original trilogy made Yoda mysterious because he was powerful on a different level to the Jedi Knights like Obi Wan.

Same with Palpatine. He wasn't a fallen Jedi Knight like Darth Vader. He was a step above. In the movies it wasn't clear what he was capable of until he blasted out with the lightning. (BTW I think it was a mistake to give Dooku lightning powers too; it turned it into some sort of generic spell power rather than something unique to Palpatine). As they were portrayed, Yoda and Palpatine felt like Lvl. 28 Force Users compared to Obi Wan's Lvl. 17 and Dooku's Lvl. 21. Nothing special, just a slightly higher midiclorian level.


Having the fight between the two greatest Force users in the story decided by anything else would be about like having two wizards hash things out by bonking each other with rocks.
Ummm, how about the two greatest wizards hash things out with magic?! Like the Force? :smallconfused:

Scylfing
2011-01-08, 12:49 AM
This may not have anything to do with the review, but recently I watched the "making of" documentary for American Graffiti, George Lucas' first commercially successful film. I mention this because there's a very insightful segment in it that made me realize why the Star Wars prequels failed so hard.

It was about the method Lucas uses for shooting a film: he does all his directing in the editing room. He shoots lots and lots and lots of tape because film is cheap, but he explicitly doesn't direct actors because he doesn't act so he isn't about to tell them how to do their craft. So he takes the cuts of actors' performances that are closest to what he wants to see in a given scene. For a film like American Graffiti this actually worked, since it was a fairly simple script and the look and feel of the film was documentary, as though it could actually have been footage of kids goofing off in the early '60s, so he could edit it down to cuts that were the most real or spontaneous.

For the Star Wars films, especially the prequels that were shot almost entirely in front of blue screens and assembled off-set, this doesn't work at all. These are epic fantasy tales, polar opposites of documentary: they need to be completely planned out with everyone knowing exactly what they're supposed to do. If a performance is out of place, as it's easy to do if you just let the actors do whatever, it ruins a suspension of disbelief that's already stretched thin in movies about droids and lightsabers.

And Lucas doesn't have any excuse for not realizing that because of Empire Strikes Back, which had strong emotional performances and tension, and that required real direction--and it was a very good movie.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 01:05 AM
If he had already fallen to the Dark Side in episode II, why does he stick around in the Jedi Order for the 3 years of the clone wars and the most of the events of the third movie, trying to save the Republic?

Good question, that. One I had to wonder at when I was watching the film myself. Never quite caught how the writing justified it.

Reverent-One
2011-01-08, 01:06 AM
Good question, that. One I had to wonder at when I was watching the film myself. Never quite caught how the writing justified it.

Simple answer, he didn't fall until the third movie.

warty goblin
2011-01-08, 01:08 AM
Which brings us back to the choreography attempting to be flashy to make up for a lack of substance.

I have no idea what you mean by a fight with substance. And as I said before, except for the lightsaber baton twirling segment - which is all of about five seconds - the choreography is honestly pretty good. Not utterly brilliant, but it does a decent job of portraying the course of the battle and the emotional/physical state of the fighters.


That'd be a fair point if Anakin didn't demonstrate himself to be that suicidally stupid and deranged throughout the entirety of the prequels, believing in his specialness as a kid and then in his super sparkly chosen one destiny as a young adult and leads into the problem with his character having obviously fallen to the dark side in Episode II.

Either there are three ideas in this sentence, or you are conflating very different things. Anakin is arrogant throughout the prequel trilogy yes, but until the end of Ep. III he gets away with it, in no small part because he is immensely talented - just not as good as he thinks he is.

That he kills the Tuskans in Ep. II however has very little to do with arrogance, but really quite understandable rage and poor emotional control. Also note that afterwards he expresses remorse, and is clearly uncomfortable with what he's done. That's more somebody who in a moment of extreme emotional duress makes a mistake, less a serious commitment to doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, morality be damned. Killing children because he thinks it will allow him to save his wife however is exactly that.

cdstephens
2011-01-08, 01:18 AM
This may not have anything to do with the review, but recently I watched the "making of" documentary for American Graffiti, George Lucas' first commercially successful film. I mention this because there's a very insightful segment in it that made me realize why the Star Wars prequels failed so hard.

It was about the method Lucas uses for shooting a film: he does all his directing in the editing room. He shoots lots and lots and lots of tape because film is cheap, but he explicitly doesn't direct actors because he doesn't act so he isn't about to tell them how to do their craft. So he takes the cuts of actors' performances that are closest to what he wants to see in a given scene. For a film like American Graffiti this actually worked, since it was a fairly simple script and the look and feel of the film was documentary, as though it could actually have been footage of kids goofing off in the early '60s, so he could edit it down to cuts that were the most real or spontaneous.

For the Star Wars films, especially the prequels that were shot almost entirely in front of blue screens and assembled off-set, this doesn't work at all. These are epic fantasy tales, polar opposites of documentary: they need to be completely planned out with everyone knowing exactly what they're supposed to do. If a performance is out of place, as it's easy to do if you just let the actors do whatever, it ruins a suspension of disbelief that's already stretched thin in movies about droids and lightsabers.

And Lucas doesn't have any excuse for not realizing that because of Empire Strikes Back, which had strong emotional performances and tension, and that required real direction--and it was a very good movie.

Remember, Kershner directed Empire Strikes Back. And it seems like Lucas is telling the actors exactly what to do it seems in segments of this review. Ultimately, I think it was mostly the fact that no one told him he was wrong or making stupid decisions.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 02:05 AM
Simple answer, he didn't fall until the third movie.

Simpler answer: bad writing leading to that interpretation being possible.


Either there are three ideas in this sentence, or you are conflating very different things. Anakin is arrogant throughout the prequel trilogy yes, but until the end of Ep. III he gets away with it, in no small part because he is immensely talented - just not as good as he thinks he is.

The point was that it evolves. He trusts at first in that he's just naturally superior, from being the only human who can podrace because he's special. Then he's told he's the chosen one and has essentially a divine mandate to live and fix the force. He's basically the epitome of someone who believes he lives a charmed life and cannot truly fail. Dookoo, at least, does teach him that he can be hurt, but he still believes he's infallible, which is a large part of his arrogance.

So, yeah, it was a suicidally stupid move, trusting in fate and destiny to give him one of the thousand timelines out of millions where he makes it somehow, but that's the character that gets established when I take a step back and look at the pieces.


That he kills the Tuskans in Ep. II however has very little to do with arrogance, but really quite understandable rage and poor emotional control. Also note that afterwards he expresses remorse, and is clearly uncomfortable with what he's done. That's more somebody who in a moment of extreme emotional duress makes a mistake, less a serious commitment to doing whatever it takes to get what he wants, morality be damned. Killing children because he thinks it will allow him to save his wife however is exactly that.

That's not what I was referring to specifically about when I mentioned him being obviously dark side in Episode 2. I was talking about his apparent attitudes and judgment (and... choice of wardrobe), not just his act of genocide (which, coincidentally, involves killing children simply for them being Sand People rather than having any kind of weasely moral justification that he could doublethink himself into believing). Being unable to stay one's hand and ruled by emotions is the first phase of being a darksider. Being an entirely self-serving, amoral, ultraviolent sufferer of chronic backstabbing disorder is an advanced case of being on the dark side of the fence.

Though really, that's a bit more indepth than I was really meaning to go, my original bit was that the aesthetics, writing, and what limited acting there was all contributed to say that he's not a good guy in the slightest in episode 2, the first time we see him as a real character rather than an innocent child... which leaves the whole watching someone's slide into villainy in a bit of a lurch if it goes innocent child, ten year time skip without even allusions to traumatic events, obviously evil villain-to-be.

Scylfing
2011-01-08, 02:28 AM
Remember, Kershner directed Empire Strikes Back.

I know. But it was still Lucas' brain child. He had to have seen how well the film worked compared to the first one, and after all he didn't direct Return of the Jedi either. Why couldn't he have kept it that way with the prequels?


And it seems like Lucas is telling the actors exactly what to do it seems in segments of this review. Ultimately, I think it was mostly the fact that no one told him he was wrong or making stupid decisions.

Fair point.

Reverent-One
2011-01-08, 02:28 AM
Simpler answer: bad writing leading to that interpretation being possible.

Not really. You haven't made a good case for him falling in episode II, and it would contradict plenty of material, so the most likely and reasonable possibility is that you're incorrect.

Coidzor
2011-01-08, 02:37 AM
Not really. You haven't made a good case for him falling in episode II, and it would contradict plenty of material, so the most likely and reasonable possibility is that you're incorrect.

Ah, sorry, that's not what I meant to communicate to you at all. My intended literal thought was that he'd already fallen sometime before we actually see him in the movie, and this was meant to end up as a scathing commentary on the writing, costuming, etc. that created his character for the movie.


Ultimately, I think it was mostly the fact that no one told him he was wrong or making stupid decisions.

Being beyond reproach, advice, or counsel... That does seem to be the common consensus about Lucas's issues with the prequels. Certainly the politest consensus.

Trazoi
2011-01-08, 02:42 AM
Though really, that's a bit more indepth than I was really meaning to go, my original bit was that the aesthetics, writing, and what limited acting there was all contributed to say that he's not a good guy in the slightest in episode 2, the first time we see him as a real character rather than an innocent child... which leaves the whole watching someone's slide into villainy in a bit of a lurch if it goes innocent child, ten year time skip without even allusions to traumatic events, obviously evil villain-to-be.
That was a big problem for me too. Ep.2 Anakin was an arrogant, violent jerk who was so obviously falling it's a big strike against the Jedi that they didn't reign him in. They didn't have an episode where adult Anakin was a genuine hero, one that Obi Wan would call a good friend and that Padme could reasonably fall in love with.

averagejoe
2011-01-08, 02:48 AM
That was a big problem for me too. Ep.2 Anakin was an arrogant, violent jerk who was so obviously falling it's a big strike against the Jedi that they didn't reign him in. They didn't have an episode where adult Anakin was a genuine hero, one that Obi Wan would call a good friend and that Padme could reasonably fall in love with.

Or where they had, like, emotions.

Trazoi
2011-01-08, 02:53 AM
Or where they had, like, emotions.
What, "annoying frustrated teenager" for two whole movies doesn't count? :smalltongue:

Dienekes
2011-01-08, 03:51 AM
Not really. You haven't made a good case for him falling in episode II, and it would contradict plenty of material, so the most likely and reasonable possibility is that you're incorrect.

Slaughtering children seems a pretty good case in my humble opinion. Though really "he didn't technically fall," and "the writing was crap" are not mutually exclusive.

averagejoe
2011-01-08, 01:14 PM
Also: wearing black. Dead ringer for an evil guy.

Comet
2011-01-08, 01:18 PM
Also: wearing black. Dead ringer for an evil guy.

You made Luke Skywalker cry :smallfrown:

averagejoe
2011-01-08, 01:22 PM
You made Luke Skywalker cry :smallfrown:

To be fair, he was kinda thinking about it.

Lord of Rapture
2011-01-10, 07:07 AM
Confused Matthew has always been my shining example that even a broken clock is right twice a day. I don't think he's a particularly good reviewer. Some of his points he makes about movies I completely disagree with or are downright wrong. Also I dislike his overall presentation, he isn't funny, and it's painful when he tries to be. But every once in awhile he makes an excellent and intelligent point.


While I wouldn't be quite so harsh, I agree in principle. Matthew is okay as a reviewer. He doesn't do comedy very well, he doesn't do analysis very well, he doesn't do entertainment very well, period. Though some of his reviews are good, anytime he reviews an animated movie I want to reach out and punch him in the face for being so bloody stupid and missing the point.

On Plinkett: I don't really like the reviews for the analysis. I don't care about the Star Wars movies a lot. What I watch the reviews for is the persona. That's actually the entire reason I watch online reviews. Certainly not for the information. You watch internet reviewers because the person they are portraying is funny and entertaining. That's why I like Nostalgia Critic, Spoony, and Linkara, despite not caring in the slightest about their tastes in movies, games, and comics. I watch them for, well, them. Because their pain is funny to me.

Same thing with Plinkett. If you think about it hard enough, he's actually a deconstruction of the entire internet reviewer subculture. Who would actually be nerdy and angry enough to devote 90 minutes of ranting towards a bunch of stupid movies? Not someone right in the head, I can tell you that.

Winterwind
2011-01-10, 09:31 AM
Not really. You haven't made a good case for him falling in episode II, and it would contradict plenty of material, so the most likely and reasonable possibility is that you're incorrect.Killing a single person in anger when having good reasons to do so is enough to get one to fall (according to Episode VI), but killing a whole tribe (including women, children and elders, many of them innocents) is not?
Though I'm inclined to agree with him that he didn't fall at that moment, because he'd done so long before the movie ever started, aye. However, if he had not, this would have been the defining moment past which only atrociously poor writing without even the tiniest bit of thought might have kept him unfallen still.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 10:50 AM
Killing a single person in anger when having good reasons to do so is enough to get one to fall (according to Episode VI), but killing a whole tribe (including women, children and elders, many of them innocents) is not?

Warty goblin said it well.


That he kills the Tuskans in Ep. II however has very little to do with arrogance, but really quite understandable rage and poor emotional control. Also note that afterwards he expresses remorse, and is clearly uncomfortable with what he's done. That's more somebody who in a moment of extreme emotional duress makes a mistake, less a serious commitment to doing whatever it takes to get what he wants , morality be damned. Killing children because he thinks it will allow him to save his wife however is exactly that.

The bolded part is especially important. Falling to the dark side is a full shift in philosophy, one that Anakin doesn't make until episode III.

Winterwind
2011-01-10, 11:05 AM
The bolded part is especially important. Falling to the dark side is a full shift in philosophy, one that Anakin doesn't make until episode III.This sounds like the exact opposite of everything we were ever told about the dark side in the original trilogy to me.

As far as I'm concerned, the original trilogy is perfectly explicit and clear about this, and leaves no doubt at all: Falling to the dark side is accomplished by giving in to one's "darker" emotions, by acting upon anger and hatred. It's not a matter of rationality, it's not a decision of the mind, and it has nothing to do with philosophy - it's purely emotional. You don't fall because you decide you want to do evil, you fall because you let your anger control you.

I.e., precisely what Anakin did in Episode II. "He did what he did because he was in a state of extreme emotional duress" is not an argument against him falling, but one in favour of him doing so. Acting out of affect may be a moral justification, but it's the most condemning thing ever - maybe the only condemning thing there is, even - as far as the Force is concerned.

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 11:09 AM
Indeed, there's a whole bit where giving into one's anger is falling to the dark side.

warty goblin
2011-01-10, 11:12 AM
Except for the bit where giving into one's anger is falling to the dark side.

By that standard pretty much every single Jedi in any of the movies has fallen.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 11:13 AM
This sounds like the exact opposite of everything we were ever told about the dark side in the original trilogy to me.

As far as I'm concerned, the original trilogy is perfectly explicit and clear about this, and leaves no doubt at all: Falling to the dark side is accomplished by giving in to one's "darker" emotions, by acting upon anger and hatred. It's not a matter of rationality, it's not a decision of the mind, and it has nothing to do with philosophy - it's purely emotional. You don't fall because you decide you want to do evil, you fall because you let your anger control you.

I.e., precisely what Anakin did in Episode II. "He did what he did because he was in a state of extreme emotional duress" is not an argument against him falling, but one in favour of him doing so. Acting out of affect may be a moral justification, but it's the most condemning thing ever - maybe the only condemning thing there is, even - as far as the Force is concerned.

So committing one action in anger mind controls you and forces you to continue doing so?

Winterwind
2011-01-10, 11:21 AM
By that standard pretty much every single Jedi in any of the movies has fallen.In the prequels, yes. I mean, just taking a look at Obi-Wan's fight against Darth Maul after Qui-Gon falls is pretty revealing - he is quite clearly fighting for revenge now, not because it is a just fight to fight. If these were the originals, he'd have fallen right then and there.
In the originals - well, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I genuinely cannot come up with even a single instance of any such event. So, if you could help out my memory here...? :smallwink:


So committing one action in anger mind controls you and forces you to continue doing so?Depending on how literally you want to take Yoda's words ("But beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."), this is something between "heavily implied" and "explicitly stated", yes.
Though he may also have meant it in a "after giving in one time, you will keep giving in again and again in the future, because it just becomes easier every time" way. Still, with the mysticism going on in the originals, I am not disinclined to assume he indeed meant the former.

warty goblin
2011-01-10, 11:34 AM
In the prequels, yes. I mean, just taking a look at Obi-Wan's fight against Darth Maul after Qui-Gon falls is pretty revealing - he is quite clearly fighting for revenge now, not because it is a just fight to fight. If these were the originals, he'd have fallen right then and there.
In the originals - well, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I genuinely cannot come up with even a single instance of any such event. So, if you could help out my memory here...? :smallwink:

I seem to remember Luke spending a lot of his various fights with Vader in a state of serious bad temper. He certainly seemed very angry right after Obi-Wan got killed.

And beyond that, he was hardly a model of emotional restraint in IV and V.

Winterwind
2011-01-10, 11:44 AM
I seem to remember Luke spending a lot of his various fights with Vader in a state of serious bad temper. He certainly seemed very angry right after Obi-Wan got killed.

And beyond that, he was hardly a model of emotional restraint in IV and V.Yes, but he never acted upon these emotions. He felt them, yes, but he never actually did something because of them (a few times not so much because he was able to restrain himself as because he happened to not be powerful enough to do anything, admittedly).

Look, all you need to do to know pretty much all you need to know about the dark side is watch the final scene of Episode VI. Luke gets angry, beats Vader into the ground, and the Emperor is laughing, because he knows that if Luke kills Vader now this will cause him to fall to the dark side. Not because the act of killing Vader itself would be so condemning - Jedi kill Sith all the time - but because he would be killing him when driven by anger and hatred. Luke is attacking Vader out of anger and hatred, so he is in danger of falling, but it would be the killing that would seal the act. Then Luke manages to regain control and deactivates his lightsabre, and thus doesn't fall. It couldn't get much clearer than that. Kill in anger = fall. That's the only way how someone could fall that we are explicitly shown in the original trilogy. There may be other ways how one can fall, but this one is confirmed with certainty.

Hence there is no way how Anakin could kill in anger eighty times in Episode II and not fall. It's literally the final scene of Episode VI played eighty times, the scene where Luke's fate is decided between falling and not falling, and the one crucial scene where Luke's greatness shines through and allows him to pass that test, and Anakin makes the wrong choice eighty times over. If you are saying he didn't fall here, then you are saying that Luke could have slaughtered Vader and the Emperor in Episode VI, jumped back through time and repeated that several dozen times, and still would not have fallen. You would nullify the entire message of the original trilogy that way, and rob the ending of Episode VI of any meaning, but, well, that's what this is. Hence my opinion that there are only two ways how Episode II can be interpreted - either Anakin did fall to the dark side right then and there, or Episode II was atrociously written. I see no alternatives to that that would be in any way consistent with everything we ever learnt in the original trilogy.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 11:45 AM
Though he may also have meant it in a "after giving in one time, you will keep giving in again and again in the future, because it just becomes easier every time" way.

This is how I see it, as your interpertation is entirely unrealistic. If the dark side really did effectively mind control you after one action in anger, Vader would not have back to the light in VI. He wouldn't have been able to make that choice.

warty goblin
2011-01-10, 11:51 AM
Yes, but he never acted upon these emotions. He felt them, yes, but he never actually did something because of them (a few times not so much because he was able to restrain himself as because he happened to not be powerful enough to do anything, admittedly).

I'd argue that by any sensible interpretation, failing to complete an action due to lack of talent shouldn't exempt one from falling. Luke was clearly plenty willing to kill out of anger in Empire Strikes Back and was doing his utmost to succeed in the endeavor.


Look, all you need to do to know pretty much all you need to know about the dark side is watch the final scene of Episode VI. Luke gets angry, beats Vader into the ground, and the Emperor is laughing, because he knows that if Luke kills Vader now this will cause him to fall to the dark side. Not because the act of killing Vader itself would be so condemning - Jedi kill Sith all the time - but because he would be killing him when driven by anger and hatred. Luke is attacking Vader out of anger and hatred, so he is in danger of falling, but it would be the killing that would seal the act. Then Luke manages to regain control and deactivates his lightsabre, and thus doesn't fall. It couldn't get much clearer than that. Kill in anger = fall. That's the only way how someone could fall that we are explicitly shown in the original trilogy. There may be other ways how one can fall, but this one is confirmed with certainty.

Hence there is no way how Anakin could kill in anger eighty times in Episode II and not fall. It's literally the final scene of Episode VI played eighty times, the scene where Luke's fate is decided between falling and not falling, and the one crucial scene where Luke's greatness shines through and allows him to pass that test, and Anakin makes the wrong choice eighty times over. If you are saying he didn't fall here, then you are saying that Luke could have slaughtered Vader and the Emperor in Episode VI, jumped back through time and repeated that several dozen times, and still would not have fallen. You would nullify the entire message of the original trilogy that way, and rob the ending of Episode VI of any meaning, but, well, that's what this is.

This is an entirely reasonable interpretation that I actually basically agree with. It doesn't match up with most of the prequel trilogy, but consistency and Star Wars have never exactly seen eye to eye...

Winterwind
2011-01-10, 11:52 AM
This is how I see it, as your interpertation is entirely unrealistic. If the dark side really did effectively mind control you after one action in anger, Vader would not have back to the light in VI. He wouldn't have been able to make that choice.Or he could have found the strength to "break free", so to speak?

Mind, I prefer the other interpretation, too, as it would remove far too much drama to assume Vader wasn't fully responsible for his deeds as Emperor's henchman. Still, Yoda says in no unclear terms that actions undertaken in anger are the way to the dark side, and then there is that whole finale of Episode VI where a single - objectively speaking, quite justified - killing in anger would suffice. At least, that's what we are made to believe, and this is what the Emperor thinks himself (and tells Luke so). I still see no way that would allow for Anakin to do what he did in Episode II and not fall that would be reconcilable with this.

EDIT:

I'd argue that by any sensible interpretation, failing to complete an action due to lack of talent shouldn't exempt one from falling. Luke was clearly plenty willing to kill out of anger in Empire Strikes Back and was doing his utmost to succeed in the endeavor. I concur, actually, logically this should be the case. My personal guess is that actually following through with it would have been so final and traumatic it would have sealed the deal, so to speak.


This is an entirely reasonable interpretation that I actually basically agree with. It doesn't match up with most of the prequel trilogy, but consistency and Star Wars have never exactly seen eye to eye...Alas...

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 12:17 PM
Or he could have found the strength to "break free", so to speak?

Mind, I prefer the other interpretation, too, as it would remove far too much drama to assume Vader wasn't fully responsible for his deeds as Emperor's henchman. Still, Yoda says in no unclear terms that actions undertaken in anger are the way to the dark side, and then there is that whole finale of Episode VI where a single - objectively speaking, quite justified - killing in anger would suffice. At least, that's what we are made to believe, and this is what the Emperor thinks himself (and tells Luke so). I still see no way that would allow for Anakin to do what he did in Episode II and not fall that would be reconcilable with this.


Certainly actions in anger are the path to dark side, but that path should be more than one step long. That said, one should avoid taking ANY steps on that path, as it does attempt to draw you along once you're on it. As for the Emperor, he also thought Luke joining the dark side was unavoidable, that it was as good as done. How much it takes to fall to the dark side is also not the sort of thing one can really quantify, and really should depend on the person, their mentality, and potentially a number of other conditions as well.

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 12:54 PM
^: Killing a village of 80 people is not one step. It's several interconnected ones. :smallwink: At least one per person, though I'd say 1 + 1/X per child, where X = the number of children, to get over that taboo.
consistency and Star Wars have never exactly seen eye to eye

Well, yes, that's boiling it down to the heart of the issue.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 01:34 PM
^: Killing a village of 80 people is not one step. It's several interconnected ones. :smallwink: At least one per person, though I'd say 1 + 1/X per child, where X = the number of children, to get over that taboo.



We were discussing Winterwind's interpertation that it takes just one action in anger to fall to the dark side.

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 02:27 PM
We were discussing Winterwind's interpertation that it takes just one action in anger to fall to the dark side.

So? Even earlier the pair of you were discussing it as one easily dismissible single small thing as if describing it in such terms made it less bad.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 02:35 PM
So? Even earlier the pair of you were discussing it as one easily dismissible single small thing as if describing it in such terms made it less bad.

The point is, if simply one action isn't even to fall to the dark side, how can we tell exactly how many it takes?

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 02:43 PM
It might be a case of the multiple acts being treated as one- "Rampage".

You can move toward the Dark Side without going over completely.

In Saga, by the start of Episode III (according to the Clone Wars Campaign Guide) Anakin already has a quite high Dark Side Score- though not high enough to be equal to his Wisdom.

Once it gets that high- character counts as "a darksider" and cannot atone the conventional way- but must do something big, and cast aside the way of the Dark Side completely, to be redeemed.

Alright- so that's a mechanical way of looking at it. Still- it goes with the idea that falling generally isn't one act- but a series of acts- or a massive change of outlook.

Coidzor
2011-01-10, 02:48 PM
The point is, if simply one action isn't even to fall to the dark side, how can we tell exactly how many it takes?

Well, that isn't really an argument that he couldn't have fallen there if the universe were being consistent. Especially because, as stated, this is a continued series of actions that continued long past the point where he should have been able to realize what he was doing if it was only a bit of emotion rather than giving into the dark side. He hunts down every single one of them even hiding children so that none are left. At first it's going to be emotional sure, but once you're hunting down children the initial ability to say one was stupid from emotion is gone anyway. It was just a bloodyminded hunt of cold hate to support a path he went down while giving into his anger and pain.

In the end, we're shown something very different from what we're told. Any consistency to the universe and killing defenseless sapient children would be crossing the moral event horizon no matter what species they were, but because they're the wrong race and their parents killed his mommy it's ok for him to have done that if he feels bad about it later. Then in the next movie he jumps from feeling remorse to gleefully killing white kids and that's when the moral event horizon is crossed. With a white kid.

Certainly there are ways he could have atoned for it, or rather, been trying to atone for it, given he didn't start glorifying in the ecstasy of the slaughter all the time afterward... or been shown in the next movie to still have been struggling with that dark deed and feeling he had to make up for it somehow rather than dismissing it utterly.

Getting back to the other part of this sub-thread though, atmosphere, tone, acting, dialogue, and critical thinking applied to what is shown are what lead to these interpretations.

And this is without dragging in EU criteria, because by that rubric everything just looks worlds worse.

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 03:05 PM
As to the whole "falling to the Dark side" thing- it tends to be portrayed differently depending on the writer. Sometimes its slow- a series of dubious acts- ending in one major change of outlook- sometimes its quicker.

The novelization of Episode III handled his corruption by Palpatine better- it's slow- but eventually Palpatine convinces him that, in the case of the Jedi order:

"It's them or me. Or, to put it more precisely, it's them or Padme."

He weighs Padme's life against the entire Jedi Order- and makes his decision.

(Why he didn't contemplate the possibility that his visions of Padme's death weren't planted by Palpatine-

or that, after Palpatine revealed he didn't know and that they'd have to work together to solve it, there was no point in trusting anything Palpatine said about "saving Padme"

it's not clear.)

Going on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge, is commonly portrayed in fiction as, while very evil, not an automatic Moral Event Horizon. Maybe this was the reason he didn't become a darksider right away in Episode II- because, for a while, he was not entirely in his right mind- and afterwards- his perspective on helping people in general, and the needs of others, hadn't really changed.

Whereas in Episode III (if you go by the novelization) he'd made a colder, more calculated decision, to sacrifice the entire Jedi Order in the hope of saving Padme- a larger change of outlook.

Reverent-One
2011-01-10, 03:11 PM
Leaving aside the fact that he never crosses a moral event horizon, since in the end in Episode VI he redeems himself, this pretty much covers it. Falling to the dark side would mean he'd undergo a change in attitude, one that doesn't happen until Episode III.


Going on a Roaring Rampage of Revenge, is commonly portrayed in fiction as, while very evil, not an automatic Moral Event Horizon. Maybe this was the reason he didn't become a darksider right away in Episode II- because, for a while, he was not entirely in his right mind- and afterwards- his perspective on helping people in general, and the needs of others, hadn't really changed.

Whereas in Episode III (if you go by the novelization) he'd made a colder, more calculated decision, to sacrifice the entire Jedi Order in the hope of saving Padme- a larger change of outlook.

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 03:16 PM
Leaving aside the fact that he never crosses a moral event horizon, since in the end in Episode VI he redeems himself, this pretty much covers it.

In this case, it's more "Moral Event Horizon for the watchers/readers" rather than "intended Moral Event Horizon by the writer" that seems to be the issue.

The basic theme of "Rage against village for murder of loved one" is pretty common in fiction.

In David Gemmell's The Sword In The Storm (I think written before Episode II) the hero Connevar, on discovering his wife has been murdered- slaughters everyone in the village responsible (which has been at feud with him for several years)- but after looking at the wreckage, and seeing the bodies of the women and children he's killed as well, he's emotionally tormented.

Unlike in Episode II, the person he tells is not as sympathetic- and tells him those faces will haunt him till he dies- as they should. Still- he continues to be portrayed as the hero of the story- albeit one with moral failings.

cdstephens
2011-01-10, 07:15 PM
In the prequels, yes. I mean, just taking a look at Obi-Wan's fight against Darth Maul after Qui-Gon falls is pretty revealing - he is quite clearly fighting for revenge now, not because it is a just fight to fight. If these were the originals, he'd have fallen right then and there.
In the originals - well, I'm not saying you are wrong, but I genuinely cannot come up with even a single instance of any such event. So, if you could help out my memory here...? :smallwink:

Depending on how literally you want to take Yoda's words ("But beware the dark side. Anger, fear, aggression. The dark side of the Force are they. Easily they flow, quick to join you in a fight. If once you start down the dark path, forever will it dominate your destiny. Consume you it will, as it did Obi-Wan's apprentice."), this is something between "heavily implied" and "explicitly stated", yes.
Though he may also have meant it in a "after giving in one time, you will keep giving in again and again in the future, because it just becomes easier every time" way. Still, with the mysticism going on in the originals, I am not disinclined to assume he indeed meant the former.

I think it's important to note that most Jedi are trained since they were toddlers and Anakin was trained since he was 10, whereas Luke practically just started training and is a grown adult. Therefore, since he hasn't been indoctrinated to follow the Jedi code and such, it's much easier to make him fall.

Also, it's hinted that Luke has recently begun doing rather Dark Side acts; hence him wearing black and using Force choke on that Gamorrean. I don't know enough about canon between Episode V or VI, so can anyone clarify this?

hamishspence
2011-01-10, 07:29 PM
In Zahn's Heir to the Empire, its suggested that Luke was "clouding the minds" of the Gamorreans (maybe they only thought they were choking?)- when he does a similar thing to TIE pilots- and notices how unpleasant it is-
and remembers he'd had similar feelings in Jabba's palace- but put it down to worries about the success of the mission.

I don't remember Luke doing anything especially "dark" during Shadows of the Empire- which covers that period between V and VI.

(Did Marvel Star Wars cover it as well?)

SmartAlec
2011-01-10, 07:34 PM
The RPG supplementary materials talk about this, and suggest that actions made in anger don't automatically send you spiralling into the Dark Side. The part that really gets you is when you either delude yourself into thinking it wasn't wrong, or you admit it's wrong and don't care. A Jedi's got to have a very clear self-image.

Anakin went very bad when he started committing those Tusken murders, but he compounded it by what he did next - rather than meditating on what it was that drove him to that rage and confessing to his master, with whom he's supposed to have no secrets, he told none of them because he knew it was wrong. And he tried to justify what he did to himself and rationalise it. Those self-delusions and that guilt likely festered in him all the way up until his joining the Sith.

Same with Luke - killing in anger would have started him down, but holding on to the self-justification that it was a 'justified' killing would have dragged him the rest of the way. Obi-Wan, on the other hand, would likely have been able to admit to himself that he pressed the fight against Maul and that he did it out of anger, and come to understand that part of himself. And, thus, come closer to it not having any control over him.

The Big Dice
2011-01-10, 07:47 PM
In David Gemmell's The Sword In The Storm (I think written before Episode II) the hero Connevar, on discovering his wife has been murdered- slaughters everyone in the village responsible (which has been at feud with him for several years)- but after looking at the wreckage, and seeing the bodies of the women and children he's killed as well, he's emotionally tormented.
The difference being, David Gemmel was a very talented writer with a gif for being able to portray extremely violent characters who commit morally reprehensible acts. The difference being, they do horrible things in the heat of the moment and then they usually undergo a change because of it.

I thought Anakin had completely gone over to the Dark Side when he massacred the village, having been walking on the edge of it for te whole of Episode 2. But instead, Lucas is torn between trying to portray this unsympathetic, boring whiner as a hero.

hamishspence
2011-01-11, 03:49 AM
In one of the Clone Wars comic books, Anakin's hatred of Tusken makes it very hard for him to work with the "Tusken" Jedi Asharad Hett- until finally he attacks him, and Hett reveals he's not Tusken after all, but a human adoptee of the Tuskens.

It's clear in that comic that Anakin still has a heavy dose of hatred for them, even after he calms down, and that he hasn't truly accepted that what he did was wrong (though in Episode II there is an element of him accepting that he's broken the Code by doing it).

Which raises the question of why it was only Hett that picked up on it, and not any other the other Jedi that sensed that element of darkness within Anakin. Maybe after Tatooine, he repressed it?

(Hett also tells Anakin that he'll have to turn himself in if he wants to cure himself of his darkness- Hett won't tell, it must be Anakin's choice to reveal his secret).

EDIT: Previous post said basically "It's pretty amazing Hett did that, considering how badly that sort of thing worked out for Jedi in the past"-

but was deleted. Response was:

Considering how Hett turned out:

He became Darth Krayt.

it makes sense that his judgement on how to deal with Jedi who have been doing dark things, may be more than a little off.

Being raised by Tusken culture (and his Jedi father) rather than the Jedi Order, may have also contributed- Tuskens are pretty vengeful and aggressive. So he may sympathise with Anakin enough to not turn him in but simply suggest Anakin confess all- and let him decide.

pendell
2011-01-11, 10:20 AM
The difference being, David Gemmel was a very talented writer with a gif for being able to portray extremely violent characters who commit morally reprehensible acts. The difference being, they do horrible things in the heat of the moment and then they usually undergo a change because of it.

I thought Anakin had completely gone over to the Dark Side when he massacred the village, having been walking on the edge of it for te whole of Episode 2. But instead, Lucas is torn between trying to portray this unsympathetic, boring whiner as a hero.

I've been trying to avoid this, but there's no denying the speciesist element in Star Wars. I can't come to any other conclusion than that the reason Anakin Skywalker didn't fall for massacring a village but did for killing Mace Windu is because Tusken Raiders aren't people.

In the Star Wars universe, neither the Force nor anyone else seems to care how many tuskens you butcher, how many intelligent droids you memory wipe, how many clones you brainwash and send off to die in a war not their own -- just so long as you don't hurt any PEOPLE, ya know, where "people" are humans like Mace Windu or Count Dooku.

Heck, it might not be just humans, either. Darth Vader redeems himself by saving Luke Skywalker's life. After all, all those disposable extras on Alderaan or his own soldiers don't really count; it's not like they are family or something.

It doesn't make sense. Both the Jedi and the Rebellion give lip service to the idea that all sentient beings are of equal worth and value, but the Force itself undercuts those ideals, which they do not always practice. Very hard to see the difference between them and the humanocentric Palpatine. They really aren't so different, seemingly.

Respectfully,

Brian P.

Reverent-One
2011-01-11, 10:25 AM
I've been trying to avoid this, but there's no denying the speciesist element in Star Wars. I can't come to any other conclusion than that the reason Anakin Skywalker didn't fall for massacring a village but did for killing Mace Windu is because Tusken Raiders aren't people.


He didn't fall for killing Mace, he fell by kneeling before Palpatine and saying "I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Padme's life. I can't live without her. If she dies, I don't know what I will do." and "I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the Sith.".

Winterwind
2011-01-11, 10:27 AM
I've been trying to avoid this, but there's no denying the speciesist element in Star Wars. I can't come to any other conclusion than that the reason Anakin Skywalker didn't fall for massacring a village but did for killing Mace Windu is because Tusken Raiders aren't people. I've been thinking something similar myself, except I think the truth is much more "meta".

I think the reason Anakin Skywalker didn't fall for massacring a village but did for killing Mace Windu is because Tusken Raiders are mooks, not protagonists. It's a case of George Lucas going "Whee, battle! Keeeewl!", rather than thinking through what it actually means morality-wise if one doesn't consider the individuals slaughtered there less important just because they are given no names in the story and appear for 5 seconds, rather than 90 minutes. It's the same principle that allows movie protagonists to kill dozens and dozens and dozens of enemies, but not be traumatized by the incredible loss of life and the tragedy they are causing - mooks do not count as people.

Coidzor
2011-01-11, 06:03 PM
It's the same principle that allows movie protagonists to kill dozens and dozens and dozens of enemies, but not be traumatized by the incredible loss of life and the tragedy they are causing - mooks do not count as people.

That does make more sense, yeah. Sadly, it just seemed to be forgotten that when you're making a movie about someone's fall from nobility into depravity, they're going to be under moral scrutiny by the audience.


He didn't fall for killing Mace, he fell by kneeling before Palpatine and saying "I will do whatever you ask. Just help me save Padme's life. I can't live without her. If she dies, I don't know what I will do." and "I pledge myself to your teachings. To the ways of the Sith.".

I think you're conflating fall with becoming a Sith Lord. because you can fall before you become one.

Then again, with how low he appeared to start, it could be argued that he "did ont so much fall as saunter vaguely downwards."

Reverent-One
2011-01-11, 06:09 PM
I think you're conflating fall with becoming a Sith Lord. because you can fall before you become one.

As that was when he rejected the ideals of the jedi and replaced them with ones along the line of "do whatever it takes to get whatever I want, no matter the cost", I'd say that's about the right time. Certainly one can fall before becoming a Sith Lord, but in this case, the events happened at about the same time.

Trazoi
2011-01-11, 06:20 PM
It's the same principle that allows movie protagonists to kill dozens and dozens and dozens of enemies, but not be traumatized by the incredible loss of life and the tragedy they are causing - mooks do not count as people.
It's the reason why the mooks in Star Wars are droids or faceless clone stormtroopers.

Although killing Mace Windu as the turning point bothers me because Mace was acting very un-Jedi-like at that point. Mace has got Palpatine on the ropes and says he has to kill him right then and there? Why? I could sort of understand if he was still in a life-or-death struggle but Palpatine look beat at that point. It's almost as if Mace wanted Anakin to kill him and fall to the Dark Side while simultaneously giving Palatine an excuse to blame the Jedi for attempting to assassinate him and thus justify him to wipe them all out. :smalltongue:

The Big Dice
2011-01-11, 07:31 PM
In the Star Wars universe, neither the Force nor anyone else seems to care how many tuskens you butcher, how many intelligent droids you memory wipe, how many clones you brainwash and send off to die in a war not their own -- just so long as you don't hurt any PEOPLE, ya know, where "people" are humans like Mace Windu or Count Dooku.
The Force doesn't care how many people you leave in slavery either. And they are human people too. Nor does it care about the trauma of separating a child from his or her parents at an early age.

Basically, the jedi went from mystical guardians of peace into an arrogant elite with no soul. George Lucas should have watched Tsui Hark's Once Upon A Time In China before setting out to make the prequels. That movie is a masterclass in how to make characters that are believable and integrate is with jaw dropping choreography that actually shows the personalities of the characters.

And if I have to read a bunch of books and comics and stuff to understand what's going on in a movie then the movie failed big time.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 11:40 AM
Although killing Mace Windu as the turning point bothers me because Mace was acting very un-Jedi-like at that point. Mace has got Palpatine on the ropes and says he has to kill him right then and there? Why? I could sort of understand if he was still in a life-or-death struggle but Palpatine look beat at that point. It's almost as if Mace wanted Anakin to kill him and fall to the Dark Side while simultaneously giving Palatine an excuse to blame the Jedi for attempting to assassinate him and thus justify him to wipe them all out. :smalltongue:

In the novel, Mace doesn't give a reason for arresting Palpatine other than "you're a Sith Lord" and Palpatine responds with "So what- last I checked there were strict laws against persecuting people for their beliefs"

Now if it had been "You're the de facto head of the Separatists- which means that for the past 3 years you've been committing treason against the Republic- and that's why we're arresting you" it might have made a bit more sense.


The Force doesn't care how many people you leave in slavery either. And they are human people too. Nor does it care about the trauma of separating a child from his or her parents at an early age.

Basically, the jedi went from mystical guardians of peace into an arrogant elite with no soul.

The "must be trained from childhood" thing never did make all that much sense, given the amount of EU material that has people trained as Jedi at adulthood.

The Big Dice
2011-01-12, 12:54 PM
The "must be trained from childhood" thing never did make all that much sense, given the amount of EU material that has people trained as Jedi at adulthood.
The EU has less than nothing to do with anything. If the movies don't give me the information that I need for the story to make sense, then they are nothing more than a cynical big budget commercial for other products.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 03:46 PM
The point I was making was- until the prequel movies started coming out, most writers's interpretation of the Jedi was based on the fairly loose "guardians of truth and justice in the Old Republic" description.


It wasn't till the prequel movies came out- that concepts like "Jedi must never marry" and so on, became set down.

So, in effect, what George Lucas did, was to narrow down what it means to be a Jedi- to make them have a philosophy of "nonattachment" and at the same time, servants of the Republic who were expected to carry out its will, but otherwise remain neutral in disputes.

In The Phantom Menace, Qui-Gon makes it clear that he can't intervene in the fight between the Trade Federation and Naboo- all he can do, is protect the Queen if he's in danger.

Lord Seth
2011-01-12, 04:27 PM
I forgot about this (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hEcjgJSqSRU). Why watch Episode I when you can just see this instead?

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 04:34 PM
The EU has less than nothing to do with anything. If the movies don't give me the information that I need for the story to make sense, then they are nothing more than a cynical big budget commercial for other products.
That's the essence of story-telling, if Lucas is going to ignore the EU, then he should have made sure the movies would be solid on its own. Personally, though, I enjoy the EU-I love it all! And I find that the EU makes the actual movies so much better. But for the original trilogy, the EU simply complemented the movies... And for the prequels, I had to read Matt Stover's novelization of RotS just to feel better again; great book by the way.
The prequels are just... so sloppy.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:39 PM
Personally, though, I enjoy the EU-I love it all! And I find that the EU makes the actual movies so much better. But for the original trilogy, the EU simply complemented the movies... And for the prequels, I had to read Matt Stover's novelization of RotS just to feel better again; great book by the way.
The prequels are just... so sloppy.

Agreed. RotS makes a lot of the less well written parts of the movie make a lot more sense. That said, the implication that the clones have been trained to respond to Order 66 from before they even awake in their clone creche, doesn't fit with other sources.

In The Rise of Darth Vader, we even see clones not obey the order.

The Big Dice
2011-01-12, 04:47 PM
That's the essence of story-telling, if Lucas is going to ignore the EU, then he should have made sure the movies would be solid on its own. Personally, though, I enjoy the EU-I love it all! And I find that the EU makes the actual movies so much better. But for the original trilogy, the EU simply complemented the movies... And for the prequels, I had to read Matt Stover's novelization of RotS just to feel better again; great book by the way.
The prequels are just... so sloppy.

Lucas does ignore the EU. He's made that abundantly clear, both in word and deed. Just look at the nerd rage surrounding Mandalorians in the Clone Wars cartoon. And the way Mandalorians have changed since the character bios from Empire Strikes Back described Boba Fett as a Mandalorian Supercommando.

I understand that the EU is very popular, but to me it's really nothing more than a cynical exercise in parting fans from their cash.And the way it takes people who were literally nothing more than scenery and makes major characters of them just makes me laugh to myself.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 04:52 PM
Lucas does ignore the EU. He's made that abundantly clear, both in word and deed.

"Coruscant" is an EU name. And he's intervened with EU writers, to veto or approve certain things.


I understand that the EU is very popular, but to me it's really nothing more than a cynical exercise in parting fans from their cash.

Writers may have been "cashing in" on Star Wars since it first came out- but often (Timothy Zahn especially, but others as well) their tie-ins are very good.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 04:57 PM
Agreed. RotS makes a lot of the less well written parts of the movie make a lot more sense. That said, the implication that the clones have been trained to respond to Order 66 from before they even awake in their clone creche, doesn't fit with other sources.

In The Rise of Darth Vader, we even see clones not obey the order.
From what i understood, there was actually a manual handed out to EVERYONE, meaning clones AND Jedi, with 150 Executive Orders, that would include how to verify each one. Sounds like a good idea, right? Order 66 just happened to be the one that ordered the army to take out it's generals. I can't remember in what source, but I think a clone said that if the jedi had simply read through it, they would have known this was possible.


I understand that the EU is very popular, but to me it's really nothing more than a cynical exercise in parting fans from their cash.And the way it takes people who were literally nothing more than scenery and makes major characters of them just makes me laugh to myself.
I used to think the EU was Lucas way of sharing the milieu with the fans, and letting them contribute to the story. That's the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek; potentially I could write a story for Star Wars, and it'll become canon. But with Star Trek-it's ONLY the tv show that counts. The EU, in spirit, is a way to let everyone take place in the awesome thing that is Star Wars. I can understand why he barred the Republic area so he could make the prequels. But ignoring the EU content contradicts his generosity. It's just hypocrisy and greed.

The Thrawn Trilogy was EPIC.

chiasaur11
2011-01-12, 05:00 PM
From what i understood, there was actually a manual handed out to EVERYONE, meaning clones AND Jedi, with 150 Executive Orders, that would include how to verify each one. Sounds like a good idea, right? Order 66 just happened to be the one that ordered the army to take out it's generals. I can't remember in what source, but I think a clone said that if the jedi had simply read through it, they would have known this was possible.


So, that confirms it.

The republic only won because of the Deltas. Everyone else was too dumb to live.

Well, okay, maybe some of the other clones contributed. But man. Jedi==Morons.

hamishspence
2011-01-12, 05:02 PM
Sometimes he himself backpedals on something.

I think he once said "in my Star Wars, Boba Fett died in the Sarlacc" but later said- "actually, it's ok for him not to have died".

Sometimes authors can "retcon" material that is inconsistant with other sources, up to a point.

Maybe the Clone Wars series will have its own later retcons,

so "pacifist Mandalorians" might actually just be the inhabitants of one small city- who claim authority over the planet- are negotiated with by the Republic, but average Mandalorians quietly ignore their decrees?

Trazoi
2011-01-12, 05:49 PM
I used to think the EU was Lucas way of sharing the milieu with the fans, and letting them contribute to the story. That's the difference between Star Wars and Star Trek; potentially I could write a story for Star Wars, and it'll become canon.
Wait - does this mean all my mouse droid (http://www.starwars.com/databank/droid/mousedroid/) fan-fiction is technically canon? Sweet!

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 07:44 PM
Wait - does this mean all my mouse droid fan-fiction is technically canon? Sweet!
In a way yeah. I'm not sure about the procedure, but whatever is part of the EU is classified a "C" canon, with only "G" for George Canon being above it.


But man. Jedi==Morons.
I know, when I read it, in the book "Order 66" I stopped feeling sorry for the Jedi. I imagined Obi-Wan and Mace getting a copy, and using it to practice Force-levitation, then leaving it somewhere in the Outer Rim.


The Contingency Orders for the Grand Army of the Republic: Order Initiation, Orders 1 Through 150 was a compilation of contingency orders, that were to be carried out under different circumstances by the Grand Army of the Republic.

Known orders are as follows:

* Order 4: "In the event of the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) being incapacitated, overall GAR command shall fall to the vice chair of the Senate until a successor is appointed or alternative authority identified as outlined in Section 6 (iv)."[1]
* Order 5: "In the event of the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) being declared unfit to issue orders, as defined in Section 6 (ii), the chief of the defense staff shall assume GAR command and form a strategic cell of senior officers (see page 1173, para 4) until a successor is appointed or alternative authority identified."[1]
* Order 37: Capture of a single wanted individual through the mass arrest and threatened execution of a civilian population. Follow-up directives include scenarios for body disposal of civilian casualties and suppression of communications.
* Order 65: "In the event of either (i) a majority in the Senate declaring the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) to be unfit to issue orders, or (ii) the Security Council declaring him to be unfit to issue orders, and an authenticated order being received by the GAR, commanders shall be authorized to detain the Supreme Commander, with lethal force if necessary, and command of the GAR shall fall to the acting Chancellor until a successor is appointed or alternative authority identified as outlined in Section 6 (iv)."[1]
* Order 66: "In the event of Jedi officers acting against the interests of the Republic, and after receiving specific orders verified as coming directly from the Supreme Commander (Chancellor), GAR commanders will remove those officers by lethal force, and command of the GAR will revert to the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) until a new command structure is established."[1]

In addition to the known orders, Darth Vader had suspected there was also a contingency order in place to eliminate him should the need arise, and confirmed his suspicions when upon questioning clone Commander Vill, the trooper hesitated to answer.[2]
Non-Canon
* Order 6: Throwing away communicator as fast as possible.[3]
Source: Wookipedia


so "pacifist Mandalorians" might actually just be the inhabitants of one small city- who claim authority over the planet- are negotiated with by the Republic, but average Mandalorians quietly ignore their decrees?
I thought it made sense that not all of Mandalore would be warriors-their economy would collapse. And it made them more dynamic.

Trazoi
2011-01-12, 08:07 PM
Order 65: "In the event of either (i) a majority in the Senate declaring the Supreme Commander (Chancellor) to be unfit to issue orders, or (ii) the Security Council declaring him to be unfit to issue orders, and an authenticated order being received by the GAR, commanders shall be authorized to detain the Supreme Commander, with lethal force if necessary, and command of the GAR shall fall to the acting Chancellor until a successor is appointed or alternative authority identified as outlined in Section 6 (iv)."
What justification did the book give for the Jedi not trying to go this route?

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 08:28 PM
The Jedi never knew or bothered to take a good look at the Orders. And Palpatine passed this order for two reasons a) if for some reason, someone else became Chancellor and he was on the Security Council instead or b) if he was found out early, knowing exactly who he'd have to manipulate to stay in power or escape. By foreseeing every eventually, Palpatine was playing every side for every eventuality.

Dienekes
2011-01-12, 10:24 PM
Really, the orders being in the manual kind of makes me as disappointed in Palpatine as I am in the Jedi. Ok, not as much, but really that just seems sloppy on his part.

It also makes the Jedi seem beyond ridiculous, so that's going into the ignore section of my personal SW canon filling system.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-12, 10:46 PM
Really, the orders being in the manual kind of makes me as disappointed in Palpatine as I am in the Jedi. Ok, not as much, but really that just seems sloppy on his part.

It's not an ACTUAL manual; paper doesn't exist in the Star Wars universe anyways. The clones new the Orders off by heart. But they would have been available if anybody bothered to look.
Contingency Orders are a good idea-that's why D&D has the Contingency spell; in case anything goes wrong. Barring the influence of a Sith Lord or the Jedi, if the war had strictly been about Separatist against Republic-then the COntingency Orders would be used in a particularly devastating attack or betrayal.
One of my PCs had them for his army. He knew assassins were coming for him, but he also knew if he died, the army would fall apart-so he left orders with his henchmen of when to Resurrect him and how to direct and keep the army...
Turned out well until I reminded him he'd forgotten about the dragon.
Oh his face was a sight to see.

Grumman
2011-01-13, 01:27 AM
Mace has got Palpatine on the ropes and says he has to kill him right then and there? Why? I could sort of understand if he was still in a life-or-death struggle but Palpatine look beat at that point.
Because it was. He's a Sith Lord. He can shoot lightning from his hands. He is not the kind of person you can safely and reliably imprison, no more than you can imprison a sufficiently determined spellcaster in D&D. Underestimating him is just going to get you killed.


I know, when I read it, in the book "Order 66" I stopped feeling sorry for the Jedi. I imagined Obi-Wan and Mace getting a copy, and using it to practice Force-levitation, then leaving it somewhere in the Outer Rim.
Traviss writes anti-Jedi propaganda. Nothing she writes should be read, let alone treated as gospel.

Tavar
2011-01-13, 01:43 AM
Remember, those weren't just random mook jedi that Palpatine killed. Those were masters, including at least one council member.

Also, the fact that there were orders to kill their generals could make sense. Not many Jedi fall, but it does happen, and considering the whole civil war thing it could happen again. The Jedi just didn't expect for their Head of Government to be a Sith, or for it to be used on all the jedi at once.

Coidzor
2011-01-13, 03:05 AM
Remember, those weren't just random mook jedi that Palpatine killed. Those were masters, including at least one council member.

Also, the fact that there were orders to kill their generals could make sense. Not many Jedi fall, but it does happen, and considering the whole civil war thing it could happen again. The Jedi just didn't expect for their Head of Government to be a Sith, or for it to be used on all the jedi at once.

No. Just No.

Friv
2011-01-13, 03:39 AM
No. Just No.

Why not?

I'd actually be willing to believe that the Jedi looked through all of a myriad of orders for exceptional situations, which the Senate voted into existence, and sighed and shook their heads at the paranoia of civilian senators and stopped worrying about it because obviously the Jedi wouldn't turn evil, and the clone soldiers wouldn't act if the Jedi didn't turn evil, so there's no problem.

Having a series of mechanisms for removing people from power in exceptional situations and rules for how that works is sort of important for a military.

Winterwind
2011-01-13, 06:11 AM
I agree - having such orders available in the case of an unforeseen emergency is not an oversight on part of the Jedi, it's just common sense. You would look pretty damn stupid if one of your officers went rogue, and you had no precautions to deal with this situation.

Coidzor
2011-01-13, 06:23 AM
Because the clones are either A. so stupid they'll just follow the jedi if it goes rogue and turns against the rest of the army without having a command code to kill the jedi or B. the high command is capable of knowing that a jedi fell to the dark side and was now against them faster than the people in the theatre and would prefer them dead by clones rather than neutralized by other jedi in order to figure out what caused them to go all frothing at the mouth.

It's the sort of thing that seems more likely to be used by one's enemies using audio splicing and voice recording software than to ever be needed legitimately.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 08:45 AM
Traviss writes anti-Jedi propaganda. Nothing she writes should be read, let alone treated as gospel.
Nonetheless, it's considered part of the EU, and thus is C-level canon. We're not Star Trek fans afterall, we can't ignore whatever we like when we feel like it. =P
Not all the books can be about how awesome the Jedi are.


Because the clones are either A. so stupid they'll just follow the jedi if it goes rogue and turns against the rest of the army without having a command code to kill the jedi or B. the high command is capable of knowing that a jedi fell to the dark side and was now against them faster than the people in the theatre and would prefer them dead by clones rather than neutralized by other jedi in order to figure out what caused them to go all frothing at the mouth.

It's the sort of thing that seems more likely to be used by one's enemies using audio splicing and voice recording software than to ever be needed legitimately.
The clones weren't stupid-they were following orders. That's what good soldiers do. Did you ever play Metal Gear Solid 3? Orders and "The Mission" are all that soldiers needs to worry about-everything else is extra garbage. The friends of today can be the enemies of tomorrow.
And the command code was to kill Jedi who specifically turned against the Republic-Palpatine's genius was accusing ALL Jedi of turning at once. Thus they ALL became targets.
I'm pretty sure every modern-day nation has got them-if the President is killed, there's a list of 49 guys who take over if the previous is killed, all the way down to the Post-master General I believe.

Lord of Rapture
2011-01-13, 09:05 AM
Nonetheless, it's considered part of the EU, and thus is C-level canon. We're not Star Trek fans afterall, we can't ignore whatever we like when we feel like it. =P
Not all the books can be about how awesome the Jedi are.


Though I don't really care about the EU, Traviss is despised by the Star Wars fandom overall for terrible writing and Mandalorian fan-wankery, not simply because she doesn't like Jedi. Therefore, they reject everything Traviss writes as non-canon.

I don't care, just throwing that out.

Grumman
2011-01-13, 09:09 AM
Nonetheless, it's considered part of the EU, and thus is C-level canon. We're not Star Trek fans afterall, we can't ignore whatever we like when we feel like it. =P
Correction: you can't. I can.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 09:16 AM
Correction: you can't. I can.
Fair enough. =P


Traviss is despised by the Star Wars fandom overall for terrible writing and Mandalorian fan-wankery, not simply because she doesn't like Jedi. Therefore, they reject everything Traviss writes as non-canon.
Is it actually bad writing? Because I enjoyed Order 66. There's a difference between bad writing and not liking what she writes. I can understand disliking some of the stuff, but I liked her style...
To be honest, until I took part in this thread, I'd never even knew she had a notorious reputation. I even Googled her and found threads talking about her in not very nice ways. =/

Coidzor
2011-01-13, 09:27 AM
The clones weren't stupid-they were following orders.

They would be if they followed orders to rogue simply because their CO wanted to take on the rest of the galaxy or defect.


That's what good soldiers do. Did you ever play Metal Gear Solid 3? Orders and "The Mission" are all that soldiers needs to worry about-everything else is extra garbage. The friends of today can be the enemies of tomorrow.

Good soldiers that are ostensibly not mercenaries need a "kill your CO" command to ensure their loyalty to their nation? :smallconfused: I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

And then go further and reject the idea simply on the basis that it's from Metal Gear Solid's borked idea of what a soldier is and should be.


And the command code was to kill Jedi who specifically turned against the Republic-Palpatine's genius was accusing ALL Jedi of turning at once.Thus they ALL became targets. Thank you, I did see the movie scenes where it showed the Jedi getting punk'd. That having a "kill your CO based entirely upon a single transmission" order would be common knowledge and not raise any eyebrows is simply ludicrous, especially if it specifically only targets Jedi.

If for no other reason then that the Jedi prefer to take care of their own that go rogue if the blatant security risk didn't register with anyone.


I'm pretty sure every modern-day nation has got them-if the President is killed, there's a list of 49 guys who take over if the previous is killed, all the way down to the Post-master General I believe.

A no-questions or multiple confirmation kill your CO order is very different from the chain of command and the order of succession in the event of the head of government being killed.

In fact, I have no idea how you got to the point where you conflate the two ideas.

Also, you apparently completely ignored the actual points I made.

Dienekes
2011-01-13, 09:31 AM
Is it actually bad writing? Because I enjoyed Order 66. There's a difference between bad writing and not liking what she writes. I can understand disliking some of the stuff, but I liked her style...
To be honest, until I took part in this thread, I'd never even knew she had a notorious reputation. I even Googled her and found threads talking about her in not very nice ways. =/

From what I gather, (only read 1 of her books, wasn't star wars anyway) her ability to write is not in question, she can turn a phrase reasonably well. She's no Shakespeare but she's not Tara Gilesbie either.

Mostly it's the fan wanking of anything related to Mandalorians, none to subtle Jedi hatred, and a personal pigheadedness that has got her hated by many. Since I don't give a half a wit about Boba, like a few Jedi, and find several of her comments extremely distasteful I haven't really gone looking through her novels to back up this claim.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 10:00 AM
They would be if they followed orders to rogue simply because their CO wanted to take on the rest of the galaxy or defect.
Technically, they didn't go rogue. Orders were received in the proper fashion and they carried them out. No more. No less. The clones did what they'd been designed and trained to do. Follow and carry out their orders efficiently. Their loyalty was to their fellow clone brothers, the Republic and their mission. Not the Jedi.


Good soldiers that are ostensibly not mercenaries need a "kill your CO" command to ensure their loyalty to their nation? I'm going to have to disagree with you there.

And then go further and reject the idea simply on the basis that it's from Metal Gear Solid's borked idea of what a soldier is and should be.

The Jedi were not the Supreme Commander. Good soldiers follow orders. And the point of the Orders weren't to ensure the CLONE loyalty-the lotalty of the clones was a given-the Orders were to safeguard against treachery in the higher levels, such as within the Jedi or the Senate.
Disagree how you like, but when a soldier decides that his personal feelings are more important than doing his job, he stops being a professional and becomes another man with a gun and an ego.
And the Metal Gear Solid series has only made ONE significant mistake. ONE. In the entire series. The views of soldiers are based off research and interviews done with a real soldier and military tactician. He's in the game credits.



That having a "kill your CO based entirely upon a single transmission" order would be common knowledge and not raise any eyebrows is simply ludicrous, especially if it specifically only targets Jedi.

If for no other reason then that the Jedi prefer to take care of their own that go rogue if the blatant security risk didn't register with anyone.

What would you rather have? Jedi running around causing havoc while the clones sat around waiting for redundant checks. You have to remember that the Republic saw the Jedi as glorified enforcers and disposable assets. And where did you get the idea that the Jedi prefer to take out their own? Obi-Wan didn't seem to happy to have to finish Anakin. And it wasn't a security risk! It was a Contingency Order for the Republic. The Republic comes first, not the Jedi. The entire Star Wars universe doesn't resolve around the Jedi. If the Republic ignored the possibility that a Jedi would go rogue and didn't have plans, THAT would be stupid.



A no-questions or multiple confirmation kill your CO order is very different from the chain of command and the order of succession in the event of the head of government being killed.

In fact, I have no idea how you got to the point where you conflate the two ideas.

Also, you apparently completely ignored the actual points I made.
Well yeah-that would constitute two different orders, but the would both be Contingency plans. In case of emergency. By your way of thinking, if the post-master general was secretly planning to take over the USA, and successfully killed the 49 guys ahead of him, then having an order of succession would be a stupid idea.
The two ideas can be "conflated" because they're both contingencies.
And as for your "points"...

Because the clones are either A. so stupid they'll just follow the jedi if it goes rogue and turns against the rest of the army without having a command code to kill the jedi or B. the high command is capable of knowing that a jedi fell to the dark side and was now against them faster than the people in the theatre and would prefer them dead by clones rather than neutralized by other jedi in order to figure out what caused them to go all frothing at the mouth.

It's the sort of thing that seems more likely to be used by one's enemies using audio splicing and voice recording software than to ever be needed legitimately.
What point? That post was so disjointed and badly written and marred by a run-on sentence that I feel lucky to have made a concrete point, supported by other sources!

the high command is capable of knowing that a jedi fell to the dark side
"High command" isn't even the right terminology! How do you figure they'd magically know?

and was now against them faster than the
Which them? The "high command"? The Jedi? The clones? The officers? The US Army?

would prefer them dead by clones rather than neutralized by other jedi in order to figure out what caused them to go all frothing at the mouth.
What?
Whatever "points" you made are hidden/lost in your badly written post.


Also, you apparently completely ignored the actual points I made.
Like, which is it? Did I "apparently" miss your "points"? Or did I "completely miss these "points"?

Reverent-One
2011-01-13, 10:09 AM
Though I don't really care about the EU, Traviss is despised by the Star Wars fandom overall for terrible writing and Mandalorian fan-wankery, not simply because she doesn't like Jedi. Therefore, they reject everything Traviss writes as non-canon.

Incorrect, she's despised by some of the Star Wars fandom, as well as being liked by some of the Star Wars fandom. The fandom overall does not have any single attitude towards her.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 10:11 AM
What do you think of her? The fact that she's despised at all is news to me! I thought Order 66 was great!

EDIT: That's a bad question. What do you think of her WORK...

hamishspence
2011-01-13, 11:58 AM
She's best when not writing about Mandalorians- just clones.

And she doesn't so much dislike Jedi, as dislike one particular group of Jedi- the Order as represented in Episode II.

Jedi who don't have a "nonattachment rule" and aren't bound to serve the Republic (and intead make their own choices about what issues to deal with), such as Callista, get portrayed far more sympathetically in The Clone Wars: No Prisoners.

Skirata, his pals, and Boba, never really caught on, for me.

But, the whole "clones are people too" issue, I do agree with. Even outside of Traviss's books, the whole issue of the clone army does have serious moral implications.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 12:03 PM
I think the movies would have made a little more sense if the Seppies had a clone army and the Republic had a droid one-but the droids would be a little more sentient, like 3PO...

Grumman
2011-01-13, 12:46 PM
Jedi who don't have a "nonattachment rule" and aren't bound to serve the Republic (and intead make their own choices about what issues to deal with), such as Callista, get portrayed far more sympathetically in The Clone Wars: No Prisoners.
I think you've identified the wrong cause. In the Legacy of the Force books, she's still pulling the same stunts even though those Jedi don't have a "nonattachment rule" and don't serve the Old Republic. It is only those Jedi that she created or retconned into serving her as propaganda weapons (the Altisian Jedi, Scout, Jusik and Etain) that she treated sympathetically.

The Big Dice
2011-01-13, 01:53 PM
I think the movies would have made a little more sense if...
That's what just about everyone who watches the prequels thinks. The specifics might vary, but mostly things would have made a lot more sense if GL hadn't pulled a draft script out of his proverbial the week after they went into production. And then claimed it was the final shooting script.

EvilSun
2011-01-13, 02:18 PM
Traviss writes anti-Jedi propaganda. Nothing she writes should be read, let alone treated as gospel.

I dont think she does "hate" Jedi. But: She actually wasted a thought on the whole clone situation and introduced a morale side in opposition to the Jedi - Kal and his clan.

I read many SW novels back in my days, and in retroperspective, beside Zahns books, i consider most of them to be really primitve, straightforward writing - jedi good, opposition = bad.

Taking away the focus from Jedis and showing that there is more in the SW universe than good and bad jedi was a gain in my view - and too my surprise, many do not appreciate that. Uh well.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 02:45 PM
That's what I thought initially. Still do.


Things would have made a lot more sense if GL hadn't pulled a draft script out of his proverbial the week after they went into production. And then claimed it was the final shooting script.
REALLY!?!??! I thought Plinkett was exaggerating! And they let him do this THREE times! =/ Now I'm mad at Lucas.

Fawkes
2011-01-13, 02:54 PM
Because the clones are either A. so stupid they'll just follow the jedi if it goes rogue and turns against the rest of the army without having a command code to kill the jedi or B. the high command is capable of knowing that a jedi fell to the dark side and was now against them faster than the people in the theatre and would prefer them dead by clones rather than neutralized by other jedi in order to figure out what caused them to go all frothing at the mouth.

It's the sort of thing that seems more likely to be used by one's enemies using audio splicing and voice recording software than to ever be needed legitimately.

http://img145.imageshack.us/img145/7818/drstrangelove12.jpg
Coidzor, do you recall what Palpatine once said about war?

He said war was too important to be left to the Jedi. When he said that, 50 years ago, he might have been right. But today, war is too important to be left to politicians. They have neither the time, the training, nor the inclination for strategic thought. I can no longer sit back and allow Sith infiltration, Sith indoctrination, Sith subversion and the international Sith conspiracy to sap and impurify all of our precious midichlorians.

hamishspence
2011-01-13, 03:27 PM
I think you've identified the wrong cause. In the Legacy of the Force books, she's still pulling the same stunts even though those Jedi don't have a "nonattachment rule" and don't serve the Old Republic.

In the Dark Nest trilogy, Luke comes out with this "Jedi can't have any responsibility to groups other than the Jedi Order" doctrine- which means Tenel Ka, who is the heir to a planet, ends up having to leave the Jedi Order, in order to fulfil her duty to her own people.

When all's said and done- that's not a good idea. I much preferred Mon Mothma's advice in Ambush at Corellia:


"I believe, and believe strongly, that the Republic needs Jedi that get their hands dirty, that are part of the Republic's daily life. Jedi that live in ivory towers might be more dangerous than no Jedi at all. You need look no further than our very recent history to see that it has been the Dark Jedi that have sought isolation. To be a Jedi of the Light, a Jedi must be one with the people. There must be a Jedi on every planet, a Jedi in every city- not a few planets full of Jedi and nothing else. There must be Jedi doing what ordinary folk do, Jedi who are ordinary folk. There must be Jedi doctors and judges and soldiers and pilots- and politicians."

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 04:40 PM
I'd have to disagree with Mon Mothma to a certain extent.
I think the Jedi have to be apart, yet not above, the Galactic Alliance.
The Jedi are the servants of the Force, first and foremost-they're obligations are to following the Will of the Force. If the Will of the Force and the best thing for the Galaxy happens to be working with the GA, fine. But the Jedi should never allow themselves to become the enforcers of any political regime again.
I do agree with her that the Jedi have to stop being so distant and unapproachable, though.

hamishspence
2011-01-13, 04:52 PM
Problem is, Jedi rarely have any idea of what "the will of the Force" is. In the Revenge of the Sith novelization, Yoda and Mace admit as such.

"Jedi as ordinary people with an extra ability" makes more sense than "Jedi as an Order focused primarily on the will of the Force".

Jedi training- is to ensure that this ability doesn't cause the Force-sensitive person problems, through being untrained.

That said, when a Force-sensitive being goes off the rails, they may be hard to apprehend by anyone except another Force-sensitive being- and that's a good reason for an order like the Jedi to exist. To watch out for Force-sensitive beings that misuse their powers and harm others.

Some Jedi might embark on an ordinary career- some might have families, some might join an arm of government service (and have to abide by the same rules as others).

All these should be possibilities- being Force-sensitive- and being taught by the Jedi to control those powers (Jedi training) shouldn't bar them from being "ordinary citizens".

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-13, 06:05 PM
Ah, that sounds a lot better-like an X-men version of the Jedi.

The Big Dice
2011-01-13, 06:22 PM
REALLY!?!??! I thought Plinkett was exaggerating! And they let him do this THREE times! =/ Now I'm mad at Lucas.
The scripts didn't matter. People were going to go see the movies no matter what, so the studio was going to make it's money back. And GL was going to sell toys by the truck full, so he was going to make the money of his that he'd invested in the movies right back.

But the real tell of the prequels is on Plinkett's first review of them, and also the Episode 1 dvd. Watch Rick McCallum's face when they show the reacitons to the preview screening. If that's not a look of "What have we done?" then nothing is.

Talkkno
2011-01-13, 06:26 PM
That's what just about everyone who watches the prequels thinks. The specifics might vary, but mostly things would have made a lot more sense if GL hadn't pulled a draft script out of his proverbial the week after they went into production. And then claimed it was the final shooting script.

Can I have source for this? :smallconfused:

The Big Dice
2011-01-13, 06:38 PM
Can I have source for this? :smallconfused:

Have a look round here (http://secrethistoryofstarwars.com/thebeginning.html). You might not like some of what you find. Especially George Lucas' U-turn on how movies should be protected from their makers tampering with them and altering America's cultural heritage.

I was exaggerating about pulling the scripts out after they went into production, but only just. The draft script for Episode 2 was finished just a few weeks before beginning principal photography, and the script for Episode 3 wasn't begun until after designers had started working up ideas for locations and vehicles. All that is on the dvd releases, if you get the 2 disk ones.

cdstephens
2011-01-13, 07:58 PM
What justification did the book give for the Jedi not trying to go this route?

You have to get a majority in the Senate. It's made explicit in the Revenge of the Sith novelization and deleted scenes that most of those who do not support Palpatine feel extremely threatened, which is why no one said anything when he declared the Republic to become an Empire, and those who supported corruption wouldn't have given a ****.

As Palpatine put it: "I *am* the senate!"

In any case, the main reason the movies failed is simply no one was brave enough to tell Lucas that some of his ideas were garbage; the actors, producers, animators, and everyone all went along with what he wanted without giving their own input. No one said, "Uh, I think Jar Jar is pretty stupid; you may want to change that Lucas." Christensen never said, "Geez, these lines make me sound like a maniac, but I still get the girl?"

Sure, Lucas came up with bad ideas, but no one on his full team of people called him out for them.

TheOasysMaster
2011-01-14, 07:01 AM
...most of those who do not support Palpatine feel extremely threatened, which is why no one said anything when he declared the Republic to become an Empire, and those who supported corruption wouldn't have given a ****.

...the main reason the movies failed is simply no one was brave enough to tell Lucas that some of his ideas were garbage; the actors, producers, animators, and everyone all went along with what he wanted without giving their own input. No one said, "Uh, I think Jar Jar is pretty stupid; you may want to change that Lucas." Christensen never said, "Geez, these lines make me sound like a maniac, but I still get the girl?"

Sure, Lucas came up with bad ideas, but no one on his full team of people called him out for them.

George Lucas = Palpatine

The Big Dice
2011-01-14, 08:58 AM
George Lucas = Palpatine

On one of the dvd interviews for the prequels, GL talks about how he was part of the rebel alliance early on in his career. The whole American Zoetrope thing with him and Francis Ford Coppola, then him and Spielberg releasing movies in the summer, when traditionally Christmas had been blockbuster season.

But he also says that now he's become the Empire. He has become the corporate monster that he was dead set against when he was in his 20s.

He should have based Palpatine's rise to power on his own, the story would have made much more sense that way. And getting rid of the Yes Men wouldn't have hurt, either.

Coidzor
2011-01-16, 05:49 AM
He should have based Palpatine's rise to power on his own, the story would have made much more sense that way. And getting rid of the Yes Men wouldn't have hurt, either.

Vader does demonstrate the proper attitude to take towards Yes Men in the Original Trilogy quite well, after all.

Trazoi
2011-01-16, 07:38 PM
"Don't be too proud of this Star Wars sequel you've constructed. The income from the box office is insignificant next to the power of the Merch."