Star Wars: The Acolyte official trailer

[Mechalich]

Always hard to pin down actual production budgets...but rumor says Minus One came in around $15M. There are a number of animated films out of Japan that are said to be in the $30M+ range. The point was more one of "you can do it cheaper than you are" rather than "you can do it for the same price as G-1". Instead of $275M for Solo, could you find a way to do it for $175M? TG: Maverick was done for ~$175 and involved a megastar, a few middle stars, and a lot of practical effects.

The point I was making is that Godzilla Minus One is a very bad example of trying to do things cheaper in Hollywood, since it's not a Hollywood production, which all Star Wars productions are. That's why I mentioned a different film, The Creator, as a more appropriate example. Likewise, Solo is a bad example for comparison to other blockbusters. Solo was effectively two films, one of which got broadly scraped. It's more like a $175 million dollar film that had a $100 million dollar write-off added to its budget.

Star Wars production costs are high, space has high costs, that's just the way it is. Cost control could certainly help, but there's not cheap Star Wars live action TV or films. It's just not happening. It's possible to make a 'small' Star Wars film for $100 million, maybe (keep in mind that Oppenheimer, a movie that is primarily composed of shots of people in small rooms talking, cost $100 million), but it's not possible to make a $20 million Star Wars indie.

And it's not likely Disney isn't aware of these costs or that they haven't taken steps to control them. The Volume, the giant screen technology that they've used in place of green screen, is a major cost-saving measure since it allows them to shoot these things on soundstages and have them look like they're in real environments without doing costly location shoots - Ahsoka was filmed pretty much entirely on a sound stage in LA. Unfortunately, this technology also seems to front-load the writing process in certain ways and may have contributed to writing issues in more recent series by imposing certain production inflexibilities. I suspect Disney/Lucasfilm hasn't quite figured out how to organize production using this technology yet, especially with their head creative Dave Filoni being massively overcommitted, and they need to restructure some things.

It's also worth noting that one reason to 'go big' and to use existing, well-recognized elements is that it can cut costs on the marketing side and reduce the work needed to bring in an audience. Obi-Wan, for example, has millions of free marketing attached to it because of the title alone, for better or worse. Meanwhile, no one has any idea what The Acolyte is even about (and the trailer didn't help). Star Wars has a long history of doing this, and its the kind of reason why to bother with pre-existing IP at all. However, this can make it hard to reduce story scope. Characters like Darth Vader or Luke Skywalker show up for big events. Heck, even a character like Bo-Katan Kryze can't be expected to get off her throne for less than the fate of a planet. In order to go small and character-focused, it requires both a character who can reliably go small and one who has an audience they can bring along for the ride.

That's a difficult match up. It can be done, as witnessed by the ongoing comics career of one Dr. Chelli Lona Aphra (80 issues and counting), but it's not easy, and the risks at the TV scale are huge. I mean, Disney absolutely tried this with Book of Boba Fett, and it sure seemed like a good idea at the time. Unfortunately, it didn't work, and Disney seems rather reasonably gun-shy about taking those kind of bets right now.

[Infernally Clay]

Clearly what Lucasfilm needs to do is announce a show called Star Wars: Darth Vader and have the show be about a newly christened Vader going to a planet fiercely resisting Imperial occupation using techniques and strategies Anakin Skywalker taught them just six months prior, during the Clone Wars, to resist Separatist occupation. Think Jaynestown from Firefly but played straight, with Vader having to contend with the fact Anakin Skywalker is a hero to these people but he is under orders to crush them. Maybe this is where Vader creates the lie that he killed Anakin Skywalker, because some part of him wants to preserve the hero Anakin was, and this is his first act of defiance against Palpatine - who sent him to this specific planet to torture him and force him to destroy the legacy of Anakin Skywalker.

[Mordar]

The point I was making is that Godzilla Minus One is a very bad example of trying to do things cheaper in Hollywood, since it's not a Hollywood production, which all Star Wars productions are. That's why I mentioned a different film, The Creator, as a more appropriate example. Likewise, Solo is a bad example for comparison to other blockbusters. Solo was effectively two films, one of which got broadly scraped. It's more like a $175 million dollar film that had a $100 million dollar write-off added to its budget.

The point I was making was that when compared to its peers (produced in the same country with the same constraints), G-1 was a worldwide smash hit with half of the budget, despite significant sets and special effects. Of course, that is exceptional and an unfair standard to hit...so I also compared Solo with its bloated budget *for whatever reasons* that dramatically underperformed with Top Gun Maverick, also made in Hollywood, also requiring significant expense for special and practical effects, and staring an incredibly expensive lead. Feel free to pick any of the other SW movies from the same era for the same comparison. Maverick and SW need about the same level of direct marketing.

The "new" Hollywood Godzilla movies all seem to be in the $150-175M budget range, with the newest being under $140M. I believe if they stop overpaying for bloat, stop overpaying for c-level talent (not so much a main line SW problem), they can be successful.

- M

[KorvinStarmast]

I've never been exactly nuts about Star Wars in the first place.

I was in my late teens when it first came out. We loved it. ESB doubled down for us on the "wow, that is good!" factor. RoJ was OK, it had its moments, but it was less satisfying.

Stranger riding into town and solving a problem is good. Stranger riding into town and solving a problem which is a symptom of a larger plot going on that he's really tracking down.... is much much better.

Have all of the threads come together a few films later, but the protatonists of each film are a different Jedi team ...

Except that if you are tying it into corruption in the Republic or Empiire, then you are tying it into "something bigger".

OK: death of a thousand cuts. Lance boils. And you can do this as a Netfilx/Disney Plus series like they did with Witcher...

[Tyndmyr]

The point I was making is that Godzilla Minus One is a very bad example of trying to do things cheaper in Hollywood, since it's not a Hollywood production, which all Star Wars productions are. That's why I mentioned a different film, The Creator, as a more appropriate example. Likewise, Solo is a bad example for comparison to other blockbusters. Solo was effectively two films, one of which got broadly scraped. It's more like a $175 million dollar film that had a $100 million dollar write-off added to its budget.

If Hollywood production adds that much cost, but is no assurance of quality, it is unclear why a production should be made in Hollywood at all. There are certainly a bunch of ways films can be produced, if Disney is choosing expensive ones that don't earn their production expense, then that reasonably should change.

[Mechalich]

If Hollywood production adds that much cost, but is no assurance of quality, it is unclear why a production should be made in Hollywood at all.

It's not unclear in the slightest, it's just economic and political and therefore cannot be explained on this forum. Suffice it to say that even doing the exact same thing in different countries (or even different states/provinces) can carry wildly different costs.

[Peelee]

There's a nicely turned phrase. +1

https://youtu.be/jKHi__DaplU

A pre review ... take with a grain of salt. His closing point closely mirrors something expressed upthread by warty goblin.

The way that CD put it was "just accept it. The Star Wars you grew up with is never coming back."

Some day I intend to Watch Andor. My problem is that Disney + doesn't appeal to me (I might give it a try for a month?) ... however Andor is apparently worth it.

It absolutely is. Hell, I've already pre-ordered the DVD release, and i never pre-order stuff anymore. First thing in 15, 20 years or so.

[KorvinStarmast]

It absolutely is. Hell, I've already pre-ordered the DVD release, and i never pre-order stuff anymore. First thing in 15, 20 years or so.

I may do the same, thanks for the recommendation.

[Peelee]

I may do the same, thanks for the recommendation.

The downside is you'll probably get Disney Plus to catch season 2 because waiting for that to come out on disc after you caught season 1 will be torture.

For reals, though, season 1 ends perfectly, they don't even need a season 2. But if it's the same level of qualify, then damned if i won't grab it with both hands and never let go.

[Blatant Beast]

By this logic, the Republic and the Empire will both rise and fall continuously, even keeping to the same names, and they will always survive in one form or another and persevere.

I'm sorry, I don't buy it. That's just bad writing.

Your Aesthetic judgment is, of course, your own, but I wish to point out that this seems to be nothing less than the idea of Nietzsche‘s Eternal Recurrence, the dualism of Yin and Yang, and the idea of eternal cycles found in Indian Philosophy.

Many people do consider philosophy to be bad writing..:)

The idea of Eternal Cycles, actually provides Luke with a justification to become a hermit beyond becoming disheartened. At the moment that Luke ignited his lightsaber over the sleeping Ben Solo, Luke experienced satori, and realized that he was re-enacting the cycle of violence. The more Luke strove to fight against the dark, the more he powered the revolution of the wheel, of the cycle of light and dark.

Buddhist Thought, has an additional axis of judgement beyond the axis of Light and Dark, it is Skillful and Not Skillful. A skillful action, is one that does not garner Karma…in otherwords, an action that does add further momentum to the cycle of Light and Dark in the context of Star Wars.

I do not think Rian, was incorrect in trying to return the Force to a more philosophical foundation, in Last Jedi. Rian, unfortunately, just failed to meaningfully represent what his ideas were.

On the other hand, Dave Filoni, loves Star Wars, but that in part is the salient issue.

Filoni can not help, but play with the franchise in the manner of a child playing with their Star Wars figures. I get it, I would probably be the same way.

Dave Filoni, loves what in yester-year, was termed the ‘Star Wars Expanded Universe’, so with childlike zeal and enthusiasm he is adding it into ‘canon’.

The Mandolorian, arguably, would have been better in telling its own story, and not having direct connections to the Skywalker Saga. Yet, how could any child resist playing with a cool new Luke Skywalker toy, so Luke appears in the Mandolorian.

Now, if I had my druthers, when Luke throws down his Lightsaber in Return of the Jedi, that would have been the last time we see Luke brandish a Lightsaber until the Last Jedi. Thematically, I think that is great.

Filoni, of course, could not help resist playing with their digital Luke action figure, so we get some lightsaber action.

“Evil is all around. There are heroes on both sides” as the Prequel Opening Crawl says……

[Peelee]

Your Aesthetic judgment is, of course, your own, but I wish to point out that this seems to be nothing less than the idea of Nietzsche‘s Eternal Recurrence, the dualism of Yin and Yang, and the idea of eternal cycles found in Indian Philosophy.

Many people do consider philosophy to be bad writing..:)

Ideas and execution are not the same thing. Whats that saying? "You can tell a story about a red square in love with a blue triangle and if you know how to tell a story there won't be a dry eye in the house". Saying it's philosophy is meaningless insofar as talking about the quality of the writing. And nothing in any of the arguments of "the Jedi are perpetually inept" was in any way compelling, much less made sense to me for narrative.

[Infernally Clay]

Ideas and execution are not the same thing. Whats that saying? "You can tell a story about a red square in love with a blue triangle and if you know how to tell a story there won't be a dry eye in the house". Saying it's philosophy is meaningless insofar as talking about the quality of the writing. And nothing in any of the arguments of "the Jedi are perpetually inept" was in any way compelling, much less made sense to me for narrative.

Well that's more of a you thing. The idea of the Jedi and the Sith playing tug of war with the galaxy for thousands of years must be pretty compelling to a lot of people because that's how the conflict is portrayed, whereas the idea that the Jedi Order is in some way a flawless organisation that has never made any mistakes and is beyond reproach is evidently not very compelling to anyone because they have never been portrayed that way.

The Jedi Order is simply a very deeply flawed organisation that often proves itself to be too rigid and incapable of change and the detachment they foster clearly diminishes their ability to sympathise with others. We have many examples of the Jedi Order not taking the feelings of others into consideration, which was a major driving force behind Anakin's fall to the dark side.

[Peelee]

Well that's more of a you thing. The idea of the Jedi and the Sith playing tug of war with the galaxy for thousands of years must be pretty compelling to a lot of people because that's how the conflict is portrayed,

I never said that wasn't compelling, oe that wasn't how it was portrayed. I have said, repeatedly and consistently, up to the very post you just quoted, that "the Jedi were always fundamentally broken and incompetent" is not compelling and not how they are portrayed. If you are taking anything away from my argument other than "the idea that the Jedi Order for tens of thousands of years are incompetent is absolutely ludicrous and does not make any sense at all", then there is some form of miscommunication between us that i desire to correct.

[Errorname]

Well that's more of a you thing. The idea of the Jedi and the Sith playing tug of war with the galaxy for thousands of years must be pretty compelling to a lot of people because that's how the conflict is portrayed, whereas the idea that the Jedi Order is in some way a flawless organisation that has never made any mistakes and is beyond reproach is evidently not very compelling to anyone because they have never been portrayed that way.

I mean, they were (arguably) portrayed that way in the Original Trilogy, a lost halcyon age of just and noble knights who kept order in the galaxy. Importantly the reason that worked is that they were all dead.

Easy to be a saint when your role in the story is a memory of better days. When the story is actually about those days a Jedi Order that's good at what it does is a conflict killer, especially once Lucas made the (correct) decision that the Empire sprang out of the Republic and was not some external evil.

[Blatant Beast]

Ideas and execution are not the same thing..

I agree, but failing to execute the writing, is not the same as bad writing to start with. Obi-Wan, no matter how good of a script it had, looks horrible.

I am annoyed that the Newer, New Republic apparently flounders around and then just gets blown up. I don’t like it, it makes Star Wars up to this date feel kinda pointless.

At the same time, one has to acknowledge the indeed, things like that do happen..movements fail.

The timeline establish in the movies, also tie the hands of the other products. The Ashoka show can’t represent the Newer, New Republic as being some model of efficiency, that would not jive with the films.

Star Wars has boxed itself in a corner…until it focuses on a different time period.
The other issue, is do younger audiences even care?

The children I know, at best, seem ambivalent towards Star Wars.

[Mordar]

Well that's more of a you thing. The idea of the Jedi and the Sith playing tug of war with the galaxy for thousands of years must be pretty compelling to a lot of people because that's how the conflict is portrayed, whereas the idea that the Jedi Order is in some way a flawless organisation that has never made any mistakes and is beyond reproach is evidently not very compelling to anyone because they have never been portrayed that way.

The Jedi Order is simply a very deeply flawed organisation that often proves itself to be too rigid and incapable of change and the detachment they foster clearly diminishes their ability to sympathise with others. We have many examples of the Jedi Order not taking the feelings of others into consideration, which was a major driving force behind Anakin's fall to the dark side.

There is space between "flawless" and incompetent. And if the Order is "deeply flawed", to again echo Peelee, how did they do so much good for so long? If I want to make a villain look good, I don't make the heroes they beat chumps. It is lazy at best. The Worf Effect sucks. What works is having Drago beat the life out of someone that was an equal match for the hero. What works is having a villain mastermind actually mastermind something and not just have the hero hold the idiot ball (I actually think the PT did a decent job with Sidious' plan, so not complaining on that one...but it is undercut if the Order is openly mockable for being such puppets). What works is John McClane and Hans Gruber trading wins and losses across a 2-hour movie that pays off the idea of them as opposite but evenly matched. If I want to show a once-potent organization becoming more fallible with age, or even becoming decrepit or corrupt I need to set the stage for that a little better and pay attention to presenting that via a character that is an invested member of that organization.

The perception that the Order was incapable of change played nicely with the hero-turned-arch villain because of the teen angsty rebellion angle, but I think the potential stagnation of the Order is another conversation.

I mean, they were (arguably) portrayed that way in the Original Trilogy, a lost halcyon age of just and noble knights who kept order in the galaxy. Importantly the reason that worked is that they were all dead.

Easy to be a saint when your role in the story is a memory of better days. When the story is actually about those days a Jedi Order that's good at what it does is a conflict killer, especially once Lucas made the (correct) decision that the Empire sprang out of the Republic and was not some external evil.

There are lots of very successful film and book franchises that have organizations that are very, very good at what they do that don't seem to suffer from lack of viable conflict. Instead, they simply have well-written adversaries, clever plans, or believable twists and turns of fate. Lucas' idea for the rise of Sidious is one of the quality elements that I think often gets overlooked because of Jarjars and baby Anakins. The Order wasn't incompetent so much as they were beaten. Sidious was literally seconds from losing and got a lucky break.

- M

[Tyndmyr]

I mean, they were (arguably) portrayed that way in the Original Trilogy, a lost halcyon age of just and noble knights who kept order in the galaxy. Importantly the reason that worked is that they were all dead.

Easy to be a saint when your role in the story is a memory of better days. When the story is actually about those days a Jedi Order that's good at what it does is a conflict killer, especially once Lucas made the (correct) decision that the Empire sprang out of the Republic and was not some external evil.

Eh, it's been done before. LOTR is all about once-noble, and still pretty decent folks banding together to overcome a great evil. Time split them apart, along with the occasional bad ruler, etc.

One can absolutely have great and lasting evil, together with nobility and justice at odds with it, it just requires a world in which that makes sense. I'll grant that the prequels did not do a great job of portraying the Jedi as actually noble or competent. It could have, though. It would have required more exploration of the world, and more time building up the opposition. The Trade Federation would need to actually be fleshed out a bit more, and perhaps a little less idiot ball shenanigans to permit the treachery of the Sith.

While the sequel trilogy certainly is more insufferable than the prequels, it might be that some of the worst problems had their start back then.

[Errorname]

There are lots of very successful film and book franchises that have organizations that are very, very good at what they do that don't seem to suffer from lack of viable conflict. Instead, they simply have well-written adversaries, clever plans, or believable twists and turns of fate. Lucas' idea for the rise of Sidious is one of the quality elements that I think often gets overlooked because of Jarjars and baby Anakins. The Order wasn't incompetent so much as they were beaten. Sidious was literally seconds from losing and got a lucky break.

In practice I think it tends towards either absence or weakness, because generally these organizations are not the main characters (even if the main characters belong to them). There's a reason all Starfleet Admirals are crazy and why spy movies so often have their protagonists go rogue, it lets your heroes drive the narrative instead of being interchangeable agents of an organization's that got it under control.

Eh, it's been done before. LOTR is all about once-noble, and still pretty decent folks banding together to overcome a great evil. Time split them apart, along with the occasional bad ruler, etc.

If you're making a comparison to Star Wars, the Lord of the Rings trilogy is absolutely the original trilogy, down to the third and final chapter being titled "Return of the [X]" and for the most part the Silmarillion is a much grimmer and messier book, at least as I remember it.

[Infernally Clay]

I mean, they were (arguably) portrayed that way in the Original Trilogy, a lost halcyon age of just and noble knights who kept order in the galaxy. Importantly the reason that worked is that they were all dead.

Easy to be a saint when your role in the story is a memory of better days. When the story is actually about those days a Jedi Order that's good at what it does is a conflict killer, especially once Lucas made the (correct) decision that the Empire sprang out of the Republic and was not some external evil.

That was just Obi-Wan's rose tinted glasses, who had proven himself to be an unreliable narrator several times. Of course he'd overlook the flaws of the Order because he was a member of its Council. In the original trilogy he would never admit that the Jedi Order treated Anakin poorly, yet easily the best scene in Kenobi was Obi-Wan apologising to Anakin for everything and Anakin saying it wasn't his fault. Doesn't really gel that well with Obi-Wan telling Luke that he'll never be a Jedi unless he kills his own father, though.

I think it was the right decision to make the Council and the Senate the antagonists. As a whole the Jedi Order was pretty good at what it did, but the Council absolutely sucked and I'd imagine that it was an cautionary tale about giving authority over the many to a small group that was pretty out of touch and definitely too far up their own butts. It says a lot that Qui-Gon embodied the true aspects of a Jedi and yet the Council considered him a renegade.

[warty goblin]

I don't think series generally work well if they (try to) go on forever. Either they mutate into something unrecognizable and lose their original fans, or they don't, and they lose fans through attrition and boredom. Given the virulence of fan outrage, these days it tends much more towards the latter. I get why a business wants a franchise to endure forever, but as an audience member it usually means my last memory of characters and settings I care about is flabby, worn out ideas that should have been put to bed a couple sequels ago. This is far worse, far more deeply disappointing than ending on an enjoyable note and getting to wonder what might have happened next. The best time for a story to end is when it's a satisfying conclusion that leaves you wanting a bit more, but not having that, rather than being run into the dirt.

[Errorname]

That was just Obi-Wan's rose tinted glasses, who had proven himself to be an unreliable narrator several times.

Hence the arguably, but I think it's fair to say that prior to the Prequels making clear how things went down fans mostly took Obi-Wan at his word

[Mechalich]

There is space between "flawless" and incompetent. And if the Order is "deeply flawed", to again echo Peelee, how did they do so much good for so long?

There's something of a disconnect in the franchise. The PT-Era Jedi Order is absolutely the worst iteration of the Jedi Order. It's as flawed, ineffective, and out-of-touch as they ever get. It's also the only one that loses. Jedi vs Sith ends up being something like 10-1 in favor of the Jedi, which would be a great record if the Jedi were a sports team. However, to extend the analogy a little, from the perspective of Star Wars, almost everything we know about the Jedi is based on the game tape of the one loss, not the ten wins. This is especially true because Star Wars exalts the films above other material to the point of official policy, so the worst version of the Jedi Order got held up as the model everyone else was supposed to work from. In later period Legends works this meant that many creators tried to make the Jedi of other eras more like the PT era Jedi instead of trying to make them better than that order, as they ought to have been.

I don't think series generally work well if they (try to) go on forever. Either they mutate into something unrecognizable and lose their original fans, or they don't, and they lose fans through attrition and boredom. Given the virulence of fan outrage, these days it tends much more towards the latter. I get why a business wants a franchise to endure forever, but as an audience member it usually means my last memory of characters and settings I care about is flabby, worn out ideas that should have been put to bed a couple sequels ago. This is far worse, far more deeply disappointing than ending on an enjoyable note and getting to wonder what might have happened next. The best time for a story to end is when it's a satisfying conclusion that leaves you wanting a bit more, but not having that, rather than being run into the dirt.

This depends on story type. Certain kinds of stories that are mostly episodic in structure and feature largely self-contained plots can go on and on and on without any real trouble. Police procedurals which move from one murder to the next, slightly different murder, are a good example. Epic melodrama, by contrast, has it harder. In order for an epic melodrama to work, it is generally necessary to start with the bad guys at a point of massive advantage. Star Wars is nice an obvious about this: Palpatine rules the whole blasted galaxy, but many other cases are similar. In LotR, Sauron already rules like 90% of Middle Earth, which is why having the army he sends to Minas Tirith get smashed is mostly a 'guess I'll try again next week' issue for him. Consequently, if the good guys win and throw down the evil, it is a massive reversal and makes it very difficult for some new evil to arise.

Star Wars Legends, thanks mostly to the insights of Timothy Zhan, understood this. The Empire was defeated at Endor, but was always a threat to maybe, just possibly, rally back in some way and retake the galaxy, with their efforts to do so growing more and more desperate over time. However, when the Empire was finally defeated, that was it for the supply of big galactic threats and while it was possible to go backwards in the timeline and basically generate cover-brand versions of the Galactic Empire and run the whole set over again - which they did, repeatedly - there was a real problem with what to do with the OT characters after they'd finally ground the Empire down past the point of being a viable threat.

That was where things should have stopped. but, of course, there was too much money on the table, so they didn't and the minds at Del Rey simply slammed an outside-context-problem at the franchise. That was all kinds of cheesy and cliche, but in hindsight far from the worst decision they could have made.

[Peelee]

There is space between "flawless" and incompetent.

I missed this earlier, but exactly.

the idea that the Jedi Order is in some way a flawless organisation that has never made any mistakes and is beyond reproach

Infernally Clay, who were you replying to that the Jedi were flawless? Certainly not me. Meanwhile, I've been arguing against your claim that the Jedi, for their entire history, have not been functional.

Do you think that unless an organization is flawless, then it must be non-functional? Because right now it seems that way.

[Errorname]

There's something of a disconnect in the franchise. The PT-Era Jedi Order is absolutely the worst iteration of the Jedi Order. It's as flawed, ineffective, and out-of-touch as they ever get. It's also the only one that loses.

Maybe in current canon, I don't read any of the High Republic stuff, but I'd rank the Prequels a lot higher than the version we see in the KOTOR games, which survives seemingly in spite of it's own failures on the backs of a handful of real heavyweights.

[Infernally Clay]

Hence the arguably, but I think it's fair to say that prior to the Prequels making clear how things went down fans mostly took Obi-Wan at his word

Perhaps, but I think it’s better this way. Obi-Wan truly believed in the Jedi Order but his blind faith in it led to him making some pretty terrible mistakes, not least of all that he wasn’t there for Anakin when he needed him most. In fact you could argue that Obi-Wan was much too passive when it came to the Jedi Council, and there are several situations where he could have put his foot down and avoided a bad outcome he should have seen coming a mile away. He knew about A, he knew Dooku ordered the creation of the clone army, he knew Ahsoka was innocent… yet he would always defer to the “wisdom” of the Council. Which is weird since Qui-Gon taught him to be more independent. In fact the only reason Qui-Gon wasn’t on the Council is because he defied them all the time, kinda like Anakin.

[Keltest]

Perhaps, but I think it’s better this way. Obi-Wan truly believed in the Jedi Order but his blind faith in it led to him making some pretty terrible mistakes, not least of all that he wasn’t there for Anakin when he needed him most. In fact you could argue that Obi-Wan was much too passive when it came to the Jedi Council, and there are several situations where he could have put his foot down and avoided a bad outcome he should have seen coming a mile away. He knew about A, he knew Dooku ordered the creation of the clone army, he knew Ahsoka was innocent… yet he would always defer to the “wisdom” of the Council. Which is weird since Qui-Gon taught him to be more independent. In fact the only reason Qui-Gon wasn’t on the Council is because he defied them all the time, kinda like Anakin.

Obi-wan wasn't there for Anakin because he was literally on another planet trying to end the war they had spent years fighting. Thats not an issue with his faith in the Jedi Council, or indeed an issue with Obi-wan or the Jedi at all.

Indeed, the argument that the Jedi somehow collapsed under their own weight ignores that a madman spent the better part of two decades maneuvering a galaxy-spanning political system towards their destruction.


ETA: more generally, I think theres a tendency to treat the Sith as being more alien and religious than they should. Palpatine is a madman who took over the galaxy because he was an evil demagogue, not because he was a space wizard.

[Infernally Clay]

Obi-wan wasn't there for Anakin because he was literally on another planet trying to end the war they had spent years fighting. Thats not an issue with his faith in the Jedi Council, or indeed an issue with Obi-wan or the Jedi at all.

Indeed, the argument that the Jedi somehow collapsed under their own weight ignores that a madman spent the better part of two decades maneuvering a galaxy-spanning political system towards their destruction.

ETA: more generally, I think theres a tendency to treat the Sith as being more alien and religious than they should. Palpatine is a madman who took over the galaxy because he was an evil demagogue, not because he was a space wizard.

I don't just mean during the events of Revenge of the Sith, although there is something to be said for the fact Obi-Wan did as the Council bade him to and asked him to spy on Palpatine. I mean he wasn't there for him all the other times Anakin needed someone in his corner, keeping an eye out for his needs. Palpatine found it pretty easy to get his claws into Anakin specifically because nobody else was really looking out for Anakin emotionally.

I mentioned, for example, that Obi-Wan knew Ahsoka was innocent. He knew that she didn't blow up the Jedi Temple, yet he stood aside and said nothing even as the Council decided she wasn't their problem any more. The only person that didn't give up on Ahsoka was Anakin and because of that Ahsoka left the Order, which not only deepened Anakin's resentment towards his fellow Jedi but also cost him the one person who would have never left his side.

The same is true during that time Obi-Wan faked his death to infiltrate the mercenary group hired to assassinate Palpatine. What kind of idiot allows Anakin bloody Skywalker to believe his best friend was murdered, then acts surprised when he goes on a rampage to hunt down his best friend's murderer and get revenge?

It's like the Council just never once considers how any of their decisions would make Anakin feel and Obi-Wan never speaks up in his defence.

[Peelee]

I mentioned, for example, that Obi-Wan knew Ahsoka was innocent.

Could he prove it? Imean, i can know something all day long but if i can't prove it then convincing other people is kind of an uphill climb.

Also, again, is your point "anything less than absolute perfection is non-functional"? Because you claimed the Jedi Order was never functional, and all your assertions have amounted to "some things sometimes were not ideal".

[Keltest]

Could he prove it? Imean, i can know something all day long but if i can't prove it then convincing other people is kind of an uphill climb.

Also, again, is your point "anything less than absolute perfection is non-functional"? Because you claimed the Jedi Order was never functional, and all your assertions have amounted to "some things sometimes were not ideal".

Beyond this, of course they aren't making decisions based on how Anakin feels. He's an adult and a Jedi, he's supposed to have a handle on it. If its too much for him, he always had the option of saying "I can't do this anymore" and just leaving the Jedi.

[Infernally Clay]

Could he prove it? Imean, i can know something all day long but if i can't prove it then convincing other people is kind of an uphill climb.

Also, again, is your point "anything less than absolute perfection is non-functional"? Because you claimed the Jedi Order was never functional, and all your assertions have amounted to "some things sometimes were not ideal".

It was never a matter of whether or not it could be proven, considering how easily it was proven - Barris Offee literally kept the incriminating evidence in her room, remember - but that they didn't have Ahsoka's back. There was no reason to suspect Ahsoka of the crime in the first place. I don't even think she was on Coruscant at the time but I could just be remembering it wrong. The Council absolutely could and should have stuck by her and insisted she was innocent until proven guilty, but they didn't. They just handed her over to be executed for a crime she obviously didn't commit and the only reason she didn't die is because Anakin ignored his orders and fought to prove her innocence.

Beyond this, of course they aren't making decisions based on how Anakin feels. He's an adult and a Jedi, he's supposed to have a handle on it. If its too much for him, he always had the option of saying "I can't do this anymore" and just leaving the Jedi.

I'm sorry but that's a terrible argument. Why wouldn't you factor in how your decisions will make someone feel?
Or are you arguing the Jedi Council was right to not tell Anakin "hey it's okay Obi-Wan isn't actually dead he's just going undercover for us so we had to fake his death"?

Besides, Anakin did want to leave the Order. He confessed as much to Ahsoka, who admitted she knew he wanted to. The problem was he felt he owed the Order too much to leave it and let's be real here it's not like the Jedi Order has ever encouraged its members to leave or provided resources to help those that do. When Ahsoka left the Order they didn't exactly give her severance pay or anything like that. She basically had to figure it all out herself. Jedi leaving the Order is practically unheard of anyway. You never hear about former or retired Jedi that went on to do other things. Obi-Wan telling Satine that he would have left it if she asked him to is meant to be a huge deal (and also acts as a foil to Anakin, who could not bring himself to leave the Order even for Padmé).

This is kind of what I'm saying. You assert that Anakin is just "meant to have a handle on it" but this is the same dude that felt such pain and anger when his mother died they could feel it on the other side of the galaxy. Anakin was never just some Jedi. Whether they believed in the prophecies of the Chosen One or not, the way the Jedi Order treated Anakin backfired so badly he turned into a Sith Lord and not only led the attack on the Jedi Temple but would spend the next couple of decades hunting down and killing every Jedi that survived the purge. Maybe if they had tried to be nicer to the guy it wouldn't have been so easy for Palpatine to manipulate him.

You say the Jedi Order fell because they got outplayed by Palpatine but honestly how many times did they score an own goal? Why take someone like Anakin Skywalker, the hero of the Clone Wars that saved billions of lives and practically ended the war itself by killing Count Dooku, and not only accuse him of using his friendship with Palpatine to get a seat on the Jedi Council but also use that accusation as a basis to refuse him the rank of master? It's even worse when you consider Obi-Wan literally tells Anakin the Council is angry with Palpatine because he keeps trying to interfere with their affairs. The Council couldn't put two and two together and figure out that Palpatine wanted Anakin on the Council, that this was his latest scheme, and instead put the blame on Anakin?