Rank the greatest jedi in a top five

Originally posted by Arhael
No, it wasn't Qui-Gon's "will of the Force" that caused years of suffering, it was fault of the Sith. Galaxy was in crisis long before Qui-Gon.

Originally posted by Arhael
Unfortunately, life is not that simple. There is always good and bad balancing one way or another. The war is part of sentinel life and it is inevitable no matter what. Old republic reigned for 25000 years but nothing can exist infinitely. There are countless possibilities and, unfortunately, Anakin's downfall is what happened.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
For one example, Lucien condemns Anakin for trusting one Sith (Palpatine) and in turn condemns the Council for not trusting another Sith (Dooku), without any explanation as to why each acted stupidly. The fact that Sidious was deceitful and Dooku was not (in this case) doesn't change the basis of the decision. What reason would they have had to trust him? Furthermore, why shouldn't Anakin have trusted Sidious?

I doubt that its a matter of trust. Like Lucien said, they never say that he might be lying, they never bring up any reason not to act on Dooku's words. The reason its dumb is that theres no indication they do anything about it. Even if they disbelieved him thats no excuse to just dismiss this information out of hand. They should have done something. Especially since they know someones manipulating the war behind the scenes.

That is, if I'm understanding the discussion correctly.

You are. The movies suck at exposition. Take AotC, a point that even RLM glosses by:

The Kaminoans tell Obi-Wan that a Jedi Master placed an order for a clone army 10 years ago, right around the same time that Master was killed. Looking past the totally nonchalant attitude Yoda and Mace have towards news of an army of clones, the movie doesn't tell us anything else.

Who was this Sifo Dyas?
Why did he place the order?
What are the circumstances of his death?
Why don't Yoda and Mace show any signs of concern?

No answers are given. That's just one example. It's one thing to hypothesize your own answers, but it's something else entirely when the movie doesn't have any.

Yeah. The prequels might have kind of a nice plot I guess, but they're just presented really badly and don't make a lot of sense.

Also I'm peeved my post was ignored. wtfawe

In closing: Really I think Raynor just missed the point a bit. Raynor primarily attempts to counter-argue the things the RLM review said were unclear or illogical, but he doesn't really engage with how the Phantom Menace just isn't a very good movie, regardless of the logic involved.

Also this: 'One guy says Qui-Gon is "stoic," and then acts as if he's struggling to think of anything else. The girl pretends that she doesn't remember who Qui-Gon is, despite how much of TPM is spent following him. Yeah, right. More of Stoklasa's amateur actors (oops, I mean friends and regular people) put on a show to supposedly support his claim that Qui-Gon is a nothing, a blank slate of a character who can't be described in any way.'

Thats just annoying. Argue his points, don't attack him and accuse him of lying or faking evidence you douche. Especially given the fact that one of the people used in that test is his co-host for Half in the Bag, so it actually was his friends.

Can definitely see the gripes with RLM's videos specifically. But I can't see how his points as a whole don't make sense. Perhaps Raynor and Herbert just don't... I don't know, "feel" the same way about the characters and the flow of the movies, but the plot holes and inconsistencies seem quite clear. There are probably a lot of people who genuinely feel Neeson's performance was great, or that Kenobi and Anakin seemed like really close friend, or that Portman's performance was wonderful.

But I just don't know how they get around the pitfalls in the story.

EDIT: That Raynor quote presumes those actor-friends of Stoklasa were scripted. If he could prove they were...

RE: Blaxican
For one, you're misrepresenting his argument here. I'll address that later, if need be.

Please do.

RE: Blaxican
Most importantly, how does this show his statements to be "disingenuous"? If it's not a valid criticism than it's not, that doesn't make it "disingenuous" though. "disingenuous" implies an ulterior motive. So how do his criticisms imply that he has an ulterior motive?

Disingenuous means to be insincere, pretending to know less about a subject than one really does. This was Lucien's initial criticism:

Lucien
Palpatine: "You will not believe how much I know about the Sith. Now execute that man, and leave your best friend here to die."
Anakin: "God, I trust you."

If Lucien watched the films (and I assume he did), he would know that prior to his confession that he was a Sith Lord, Palpatine never gave Anakin a single reason to mistrust him. Furthermore, Palpatine's knowledge of the Sith in any capacity was never known to Anakin until after Dooku was killed. Lastly, Palpatine's urging of Anakin to leave Obi-Wan was somewhat rational: Kenobi was unconscious and would have been literal dead weight, an impediment to their escape.

[quote]HS
Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
For one example, Lucien condemns Anakin for trusting one Sith (Palpatine) and in turn condemns the Council for not trusting another Sith (Dooku), without any explanation as to why each acted stupidly. The fact that Sidious was deceitful and Dooku was not (in this case) doesn't change the basis of the decision. What reason would they have had to trust him? Furthermore, why shouldn't Anakin have trusted Sidious?

Lucien
It's the complete lack of explanation for any of these decisions. You and I can make sense of them. Easily. I just don't like that the movie never does.

Nephthys
I doubt that its a matter of trust. Like Lucien said, they never say that he might be lying, they never bring up any reason not to act on Dooku's words.

No, the situation is addressed at the end of the film.

YouTube video

At the 13:04 mark, Obi-Wan asks Mace and Yoda about the possible validity to Dooku's claim. Yoda responds that the Count has become an agent of the dark side and that the facilitation of deceit is his primary aim now. This assessment is accurate; Dooku lied to Kenobi about the presence of Jango Fett on Geonosis, withheld information about his own involvement with the Sith, cooperated with Gunray in the assassination attempts on Padme, and concealed his militaristic aims from the Republic and galaxy at large. In short, Dooku lied about who he was the entire film, why should the Jedi have believed him?

Lucien has provided no basis as to why the Jedi should have automatically trusted a traitor and secessionist. The decision wasn't arbitrary.

Nephthys
The reason its dumb is that theres no indication they do anything about it. Even if they disbelieved him thats no excuse to just dismiss this information out of hand. They should have done something. Especially since they know someones manipulating the war behind the scenes.

They don't know that the Sin the films until Revenge of the Sith, whereupon they take active steps to oust Palpatine, which is something else Lucien condemns them for.

Nephthys
Also I'm peeved my post was ignored. wtfawe

Which one?

Nephthys
In closing: Really I think Raynor just missed the point a bit. Raynor primarily attempts to counter-argue the things the RLM review said were unclear or illogical, but he doesn't really engage with how the Phantom Menace just isn't a very good movie, regardless of the logic involved.

Respectfully, I think you missed the point with regards to Raynor. He's not trying to argue that TPM is a good film or that people should like it. He takes umbrage with RLM's criticisms of the plot and narrative. Whether or not something artistic is 'good' (in terms of quality), be it a film or villain, is completely subjective. Neither Raynor nor RLM are authorities in that respect, because there is no objective standard that a piece of art can be held to in order to determine whether or not it's "good" or "entertaining."

No, its pretty damn obvious that someone manipulated them into fighting by creating the clone army for the Jedi beforehand using Jango Fett as a DNA source. Who works for Dooku. Considering this its utterly transparant that the Sith were behind it.

And tbh I had forgotten that scene existed. I still think the Jedi were morons to only agree to 'keep a closer eye on the senate.' I still maintain they should have looked into it more than that, if only to eliminate the posibility.

Nephthys
No, its pretty damn obvious that someone manipulated them into fighting by creating the clone army for the Jedi beforehand using Jango Fett as a DNA source. Who works for Dooku. Considering this its utterly transparant that the Sith were behind it.

Fett is a bounty hunter and apparently one of high repute. He has no allegiance to anyone other than the highest bidder; the fact that he works for Dooku does not point to the Sith at all given his profession as a mercenary. And the fact that the Kaminoans identified the Jedi who placed the order as Sifo-Dyas and not Dooku eliminates any and all direct link between Dooku and the clones as far as the movie is concerned.

Nephthys
And tbh I had forgotten that scene existed. I still think the Jedi were morons to only agree to 'keep a closer eye on the senate.' I still maintain they should have looked into it more than that, if only to eliminate the posibility.

I gather you and Lucien find it stupid that the Jedi didn't do X and I'm not trying to change your mind. That doesn't make them stupid unless they have ample reason to do X and then ignore it, which is what I ask for. When did the Jedi ignore what they had reason not to?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Which one?

The one that is directly after your post to me on the last page. I said Raynor was a dum dum head and you responded and I responded back.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Respectfully, I think you missed the point with regards to Raynor. He's not trying to argue that TPM is a good film or that people should like it. He takes umbrage with RLM's criticisms of the plot and narrative. Whether or not something artistic is 'good' (in terms of quality), be it a film or villain, is completely subjective. Neither Raynor nor RLM are authorities in that respect, because there is no objective standard that a piece of art can be held to in order to determine whether or not it's "good" or "entertaining."

Oh please. Quit hiding behind the subjectivity angle. The Phantom Menace is an awful movie and both Raynor and RLM actually give arguments as to why they agree or disagree with that statement. What we're discussing is whether their arguments had merit or not. If you want to claim that no-one can be right then why are you even talking about this? You claimed that Stoklassa's arguments 'with respect to TPM were largely refuted by Jim_Raynor', well according to you now, you're wrong, because logic is also subjective. So why did you even bring it up in the first place? Whats the point of even having this conversation if you're just going to say that no-one can ever be right anyway?

Originally posted by Nephthys
Oh please. Quit hiding behind the subjectivity angle.

The idea that you or Stoklassa or Lucien or any of us, including myself, is in a position to objectively determine what is or is not a "good" piece of art requires a truly profound level of arrogance that is revolting.

Blaxican and I spoke to you directly on this subject regarding the Joker and Palpatine and it applies here.

Originally posted by Nephthys
The Phantom Menace is an awful movie and both Raynor and RLM actually give arguments as to why they agree or disagree with that statement.

No, Raynor's rebuttal deals strictly with the accusation that the film's plot is nonsensical. His entire response begins with a disclaimer that he is not trying to argue that TPM is an objectively good film, because he knows that's not his call to make.

You could learn something from that humility.

Originally posted by Nephthys
What we're discussing is whether their arguments had merit or not. If you want to claim that no-one can be right then why are you even talking about this?

Because this discussion wasn't about the overall quality of the film, but whether or not the narrative made sense. There is a tremendous distinction between the two.

Originally posted by Nephthys
You claimed that Stoklassa's arguments 'with respect to TPM were largely refuted by Jim_Raynor', well according to you now, you're wrong, because logic is also subjective.

Stoklassa's arguments with respect to the plot were largely refuted, not that Raynor proved TPM was a great film.

Originally posted by Nephthys
So why did you even bring it up in the first place? Whats the point of even having this conversation if you're just going to say that no-one can ever be right anyway?

Because the coherence and stability of the narrative and whether or not the film was good/entertaining/pleasant/enjoyable are two separate issues. One can be objectively discussed and the other cannot. At the end of the day, critics reviled the prequels but each film was a blockbuster success indicating that someone enjoyed it. If the films were objectively bad and without any entertainment value, it would stand to reason they wouldn't have been tremendous successes.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Fett is a bounty hunter and apparently one of high repute. He has no allegiance to anyone other than the highest bidder; the fact that he works for Dooku does not point to the Sith at all given his profession as a mercenary. And the fact that the Kaminoans identified the Jedi who placed the order as Sifo-Dyas and not Dooku eliminates any and all direct link between Dooku and the clones as far as the movie is concerned.

So its just complete co-incidence that as soon as Kenobi shows up Jango tries to kill him and then immediately runs off to Dooku? And that it might not directly point to Dooku doesn't mean that it doesn't point to someone manipulating the war. That the clone army was created in the first place, convieniently by a Jedi whose been dead for 10 years for the Jedi and the Republic without either of their knowledge, is proof of that.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I gather you and Lucien find it stupid that the Jedi didn't do X and I'm not trying to change your mind. That doesn't make them stupid unless they have ample reason to do X and then ignore it, which is what I ask for. When did the Jedi ignore what they had reason not to?

The point we're discussing right now. I maintain that their reasons for not extending any amount of effort into looking into it are weak and stupid, considering the situation they were in.

Nephthys
So its just complete co-incidence that as soon as Kenobi shows up Jango tries to kill him and then immediately runs off to Dooku?

Actually, as soon as Kenobi shows up, Jango tries to flee. It's Kenobi who forces the confrontation. Regardless, Fett's presence on Geonosis doesn't indicate an obvious connection between the Count and clones. If he were a mere cloning technician or someone with questionable allegiances, I'd understand the intense scrutiny and suspicion. But as it stands, he's a mercenary who conducted himself in a mercenary manner: employed first to satisfy the interests of the Republic/Jedi by serving as the clone template and employed second by an enemy agent. That's how mercenaries operate.

Nephthys
And that it might not directly point to Dooku doesn't mean that it doesn't point to someone manipulating the war.

Such assumptions need to be grounded in reality. Why would the Jedi randomly assume that the conflict is being manipulated? What reason would they have?

Nephthys
That the clone army was created in the first place, convieniently by a Jedi whose been dead for 10 years [b]for the Jedi and the Republic without either of their knowledge, is proof of that.[/b]

This proves that the clone army was ordered by a Jedi Master prior to his death without the authorization of the Council. Where is the evidence of manipulation by the Sith?

Nephthys
The point we're discussing right now. I maintain that their reasons for not extending any amount of effort into looking into it are weak and stupid, considering the situation they were in.

They vowed to keep an eye on the Senate, indicating they did look into it. Their mistrust of Palpatine and the Senate in ROTS is further proof.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
The idea that you or Stoklassa or Lucien or any of us, including myself, is in a position to objectively determine what is or is not a "good" piece of art requires a truly profound level of arrogance that is revolting.

Blaxican and I spoke to you directly on this subject regarding the Joker and Palpatine and it applies here.

I don't think so. Its the entire basis behind being a critic. I mean, seriously? You have a problem with anyone thinking they can say whats good or not, no matter how qualified or how knowledgable they are on the subject? Besides I never said it was objective;y bad.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
No, Raynor's rebuttal deals strictly with the accusation that the film's plot is nonsensical. His entire response begins with a disclaimer that he is not trying to argue that TPM is an objectively good film, because he knows that's not his call to make.

You could learn something from that humility.

😐

Ok. I'm just going to write this off as a pet peeve of yours. Because I know that you did not just try to lecture me about humility.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Because this discussion wasn't about the overall quality of the film, but whether or not the narrative made sense. There is a tremendous distinction between the two.

Whether or not the narrative made sense is subjective. How arrogant of Raynor to think he can decide whether it is or not, right?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Stoklassa's arguments with respect to the plot were largely refuted, not that Raynor proved TPM was a great film.

Whether or not Stoklassa's arguments were refuted are subjective.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Because the coherence and stability of the narrative and whether or not the film was good/entertaining/pleasant/enjoyable are two separate issues. One can be objectively discussed and the other cannot. At the end of the day, critics reviled the prequels but each film was a blockbuster success indicating that someone enjoyed it. If the films were objectively bad and without any entertainment value, it would stand to reason they wouldn't have been tremendous successes.

As I said before if monetary success idicated worth then macheal Bay is a brillaint director and Stephanie Meyer is a better writer than Stover and Luceno combined. And if you had responded when I said that I woudn't have had to type it out again.

Nephthys
I don't think so. Its the entire basis behind being a critic.

Anyone can be a critic by virtue of their ability to criticize. Are you telling me if I fetch a bad review of The Dark Knight, then I have objectively determined that it is a bad film?

Nephthys
I mean, seriously? You have a problem with anyone thinking they can say whats good or not, no matter how qualified or how knowledgable they are on the subject?

No, I have no problem with anyone saying whether or not they liked a film, disliked a film, thought it was good, thought it was bad, didn't care either way. As I explained to Lucien exhaustively, I am not in a position to tell you that the prequels were good or bad films, which is why I don't bother discussing that subjective aspect.

What I do have a problem with is people telling other people that 'X' is bad or good, end of discussion, and if you disagree then you're wrong.

Unless, of course, they're being facetious.

Nephthys
😐

Ok. I'm just going to write this off as a pet peeve of yours. Because I know that you did not just try to lecture me about humility.

I did. Assuming that you or anyone else is "qualified" enough to tell you that a piece of art is inarguably, objectively bad is a profoundly arrogant and baseless claim. Unless, again, you're being facetious.

Nephthys
Whether or not the narrative made sense is subjective. How arrogant of Raynor to think he can decide whether it is or not, right?

Raynor provided reasons within the films to explain supposed holes in the narrative and plot, as I have done here. That can be objectively discussed, even if you still dislike the reasons.

Nephthys
Whether or not Stoklassa's arguments were refuted are subjective.

Certainly you can still agree with Stoklassa's thrust that the plotholes remain. Raynor and myself provided reasons within the film, you don't have to accept or like them.

Nephthys
As I said before if monetary success idicated worth then macheal Bay is a brillaint director and Stephanie Meyer is a better writer than Stover and Luceno combined. And if you had responded when I said that I woudn't have had to type it out again.

And as I said before, that monetary success derives from people enjoying the fvcking product.

Well I'm off to play TOR, so I'll reply later or tomorrow. But before I go I'll note that the flaw in that last point is that in regards to movies, you can only tell if you've enjoyed it after you've already bought the ticket. Which in this case alot of people did because it was Star Wars, rather than them actually enjoying it. The level of hate the movie gets from the fandom should clue you in to that.

Nephthys
Well I'm off to play TOR, so I'll reply later or tomorrow.

Let's return this discussion to its original parameters: the narrative and plotholes. Because I'm about as interested in arguing the subjective aspects as I am in trying to convince DS that the Codex is right.

Nephthys
But before I go I'll note that the flaw in that last point is that in regards to movies, you can only tell if you've enjoyed it after you've already bought the ticket. Which in this case alot of people did because it was Star Wars, rather than them actually enjoying it. The level of hate the movie gets from the fandom should clue you in to that.

(I'm referring largely to TPM's 3D release, but noted.)

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
If Lucien watched the films (and I assume he did), he would know that prior to his confession that he was a Sith Lord, Palpatine never gave Anakin a single reason to mistrust him. Furthermore, Palpatine's knowledge of the Sith in any capacity was never known to Anakin until after Dooku was killed. Lastly, Palpatine's urging of Anakin to leave Obi-Wan was somewhat rational: Kenobi was unconscious and would have been literal dead weight, an impediment to their escape.

You do know that the phony exchanges I wrote out were nothing short of glib remarks, right? I'm fully aware of the film's chronology.

And Anakin continuing to not only trust, but believe Palpatine's claims after the man encouraged him to execute someone and urged him to leave his best friend to die, is retarded. "More security droids" is a pretty poor excuse as to why they should leave a stunned Jedi Master (who himself just practically walked through said droids) and Anakin's best friend to die. And then, after those very cold and shocking instances, he starts spouting off Sith legends.

Not a single alarm went off in Anakin's head? Not a klaxon, not a siren, not a shout, not even a mental Clippit notifying him of something odd?

Stupid, stupid character.

^ Lol I think the "Now, Kill him... DO IT!" in a pretty evil, creepy voice would have alerted anyone.

Lets face it, if any of the other Jedi heard the conversations Anakin and Palpatine were having they would have known Palpatine's evil and working for the Sith in some shape or form.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Lucien has provided no basis as to why the Jedi should have automatically trusted a traitor and secessionist. The decision wasn't arbitrary.

They don't know that the Sin the films until Revenge of the Sith, whereupon they take active steps to oust Palpatine, which is something else Lucien condemns them for.

So three years later, when they start to feel, as Mace puts, that "the Dark Side of the Force surrounds the Chancellor", no one thought that maybe they should take some serious steps to getting to the bottom of this? Even if Palpatine wasn't the Sith, and he was just being controlled by it, 'better safe than sorry' doesn't cross their minds? 'He's one we could scratch off the list of subjects' (he should be #1 on the list, frankly if the Dark Side "surrounds him"😉. Keep Dooku's remark on the backburner, and when it comes to figuring out the whole "ever-more-powerful leader of the Republic is surrounded by the Dark Side"... a little midichlorian test wouldn't hurt.

Even on Mas Amedda. Also--and this one is more of a character deficieny than plot hole--remember the cringeworthy scene in AotC when the two of them manipulated Jar Jar in to giving the Chancellor 'emergency powers'? Not one person, not one Jedi noticed the deceptive tones in their exchange? A deception which lead to only the first of many 'emergency powers' being put in to the hands of one man? No alarms went off?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Fett is a bounty hunter and apparently one of high repute. He has no allegiance to anyone other than the highest bidder; the fact that he works for Dooku does not point to the Sith at all given his profession as a mercenary. And the fact that the Kaminoans identified the Jedi who placed the order as Sifo-Dyas and not Dooku eliminates any and all direct link between Dooku and the clones as far as the movie is concerned.

Sifo Dyas is never mentioned again beyond that scene. That's bad writing.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I gather you and Lucien find it stupid that the Jedi didn't do X and I'm not trying to change your mind. That doesn't make them stupid unless they have ample reason to do X and then ignore it, which is what I ask for. When did the Jedi ignore what they had reason not to?

Character deficiencies. Stupid, stupid characters.