Rank the greatest jedi in a top five

Started by DARTH POWER11 pages

Originally posted by Lord Lucien

LotR is technically and artistically superior to the OT, with better dialogue, writing, story, acting, set design, etc.

Better story, dialogue and acting? Well that's certainly down to opinion.

I simply stated a fact that in terms of impact on cinema and culture the SW OT was much bigger back in it's day. Which one is actually better is down to people's opinion.

In my personal opinion the SW OT is far superior. I actually found LOTR very slow and difficult to sit through. But I wnt deny facts, like it being the biggest trilogy since the SW OT is simply a fact. There's no denying that.

Guys. Be careful what you talk about, we might suddenly be overwhelmed by true Harry Potter fans. sorcerer

Harry Potter's an octology...

L
Stop thinking from outside the film, and consider what the character himself is hearing. In an explicitly sinister and creepy voice, he's ordering Anakin to execute someone. Insisting. That's suspicious.

Your desire to divorce the prequels from the originals notwithstanding, precedent for this has existed since 1983. Luke knew Sidious for all of ten minutes and nearly killed him and Vader at his urging, despite the fact that the Emperor was using the same "explicitly sinister and creepy voice." As Yoda alludes to in The Empire Strikes Back, the dark side relies on passions and is difficult to distinguish when one is in the throes of passion.

Compared to Luke's plight, Palpatine's rationalizations and Anakin's decision are infinitely more logical. Anakin and Dooku have a personal history of mutual dislike that culminated in the former losing a limb at the hands (lol) of the latter. But unlike Luke, there is no compassion at play here: Anakin has no reason to spare Dooku beyond Jedi doctrine. Worse, as Palpatine mentions, a Sith Lord is never truly unarmed.

It is hardly a stretch to see why someone whose judgment is clouded by the dark side commits a crime against a hated foe at the powerful urging of a trusted mentor.

L
Anakin just single handily defeated Count Dooku and you think some security droids that are literally too stupid to pull the trigger are a threat?

While Anakin is protecting or outright carrying two defenseless friends, one enfeebled by age and profession and the other one unconscious? Enemies that could potentially range from the pedestrian (battle droids and their upgrades) to outright dangerous (droidekas and MagnaGuards)?

Absolutely and I'm certain the carcasses of the Jedi Knights and Masters that littered the Geonosian arena would testify to the lethality of Separatist droids.

L
That should not matter, regardless. Once again, Palpatine gives Anakin a very rushed and urgent order to leave his unconscious friend to die without any attempt to help him or even wake him up. That's suspicious.

Not when the reasoning (impending battle droids) is sound and one is an expendable asset while the other is a VIP of unparalleled proportion.

L
What are you talking about? I didn't mention Dooku.

Palpatine is informing Anakin about Sith legends and making unsubtle remarks about death prevention, power and the inability to get ahold of those things as a Jedi. That's suspicious.

Palpatine's knowledge of the Sith is not inherently suspicious nor does it make him a Sith Lord, particularly when Anakin lacks any other evidence of his true allegiance to corroborate it.

L
And the plan they decided on was to send an emotionally troubled young man who looks up to, and admires Palpatine to spy on him?

That's moronic.

No, it was risky and desperate, which Mace openly acknowledges. But again, the reasoning was sound: Obi-Wan believed that Anakin's allegiance to the Jedi transcended his loyalty to Palpatine and Anakin was the only logical choice given his personal and professional closeness to Palpatine. Anakin had already been appointed his "personal representative" which would afford him much greater access to "the Chancellor's dealings", their friendship notwithstanding.

It would have been moronic had Anakin demonstrated that his loyalty to Palpatine outweighed his loyalty to the Jedi, turning risk into certainty. But he didn't. Worse for your argument yet, Anakin's loyalty to the Jedi was greater than his loyalty to Palpatine, hence Mace's subsequent visit to Palpatine's offices.

But his greater still was his devotion to Padme.

L
Glad you agree that their conversation was dripping with manipulative tones.

I was being glib, if that wasn't clear.

L
The real world's politicians are irrelevant in this movie's story.

The point flew over your head in your rush to separate real world politics (the basis by which we study this film's fictional politics) in order to save your argument.

What I am alluding to is real world motivations. The Jedi have no reason to doubt Palpatine's intentions because the film shows conclusively that he delayed the vote for the Military Creation Act to accommodate Padme and he vowed to continue negotiations instead of publicly advocating for militarization to crush the Separatists outright.

Hence my reference to real world politicians. We wouldn't assume that a real world politician had a militant agenda if his legislation geared towards cutting the defense budget, because then his actions work conversely to his aim.

The same applies here. Ostensibly, Palpatine has acted, privately and publicly, rhetorically and politically, as though he opposes the Military Creation Act. Thus they have no reason to suspect him.

L
...

Holy shit.

The Clone Army that was created at around the same time as the Battle of Naboo, before the Separatist crisis, is important. It was ordered long before conflict was on the table. It was done on behalf of a Jedi Master who was then shortly afterward killed. You don't introduce a major mystery like that in to your film and then not explain it. This is shitty writing. It's like if Citizen Kane never brought up what 'Rosebud' was again. Or if The Usual Suspects never bothered to tell us what was up with this Keyser Soze mystery character.

There is no mystery. The film explains that Sifo-Dyas was a Jedi Master who initiated the creation of a clone army and lied about approval from the Senate and the Council. The Kaminoan administrator even explained that Sifo-Dyas intended the army to be for the Republic.

His basis for doing so is not integral to the film, when an explanation already exists. The Battle of Naboo marked aggression from heavily militarized organizations like the Trade Federation and demonstrated Republic incompetence and helplessness to counter it.

L
You know what was great about ANH? They reacted.

They... didn't. Luke stood there, without tears or any visible sign of surprise or anguish. Leia stood there, protested once, and by the time Han and Luke came to rescue her, she was back in full spirits. And no mention of Alderaan was made again, to my knowledge.

Stupid, stupid movie.

L
They did something about what was happening.

So did the Jedi. They used an army built for by a known member of their order in a desperate situation against a well armed and large army of corporate entities that wanted to destroy the Republic. And when the time came that they discovered the truth, they tried to kill the one responsible.

L
You know what the entire Jedi Order did about the fact that one of their own Jedi Master ordered the creation of an army of clones formed from the DNA of a bounty hunter who is likely involved in the attempted assassination of a major political figure who opposes armies? A Jedi Master who was then killed? Ten years before the Military Creation Act?

Absolutely nothing. This is shitty writing.

Not true. Kenobi questioned the Kaminoans, who seemingly answered with full transparency. They ordered him to arrest Fett, who resisted, fled, and was later killed before questions could be answered. They made attempts clearly depicted within the film. The fact that they failed doesn't negate that.

L
To resolve a major mystery the movie introduced. Why else?

But there isn't. Even Sifo-Dyas's motivation is quickly explained away: He built the army for the Republic to defend itself against an increasingly hostile galaxy.

L
Nothing. Which is the problem. The movies gives us nothing else.

You can complain the film erred in not providing a full detailed biography of Sifo-Dyas and vividly recounting his motivations either through dialogue or a flashback sequence, but the consistency of the narrative endures: The Jedi tried to investigate further and all known leads were terminated before any possible revelation was gleaned.

L
I'm not. No one is. The movies never show us anything. Which is the problem.

You can complain the film erred in not depicting the actual investigation. Nevertheless, it was addressed.

L
This one is fairly obvious, but it requires the viewer to have an understanding of manipulative tone.

This speaks directly to my criticism of your entire argument: you possess certain knowledge as a member of the audience and expect the protagonists to share it. As I explained to you vividly with such resounding success that you haven't bothered to refute it, Palpatine's reputation is superb and all of his actions and speech reflect upon that.

Give me something other than "HE WAS SO OBVIOUSLY MANIPULATIVE!" as a basis for why they should have slapped handcuffs on Palpatine then and there. He covered his ass too well.

L
So to recap, it was their blatantly obvious tone of voice more than the words. And it was the fact the Jedi Masters of all people let it sail over their head. This is one is character deficiency.

Perhaps you've considered the notion that your obvious and awe-inspiring expertise in the realm of vocal pedagogy and deception detection isn't shared by the rubes of society? Or perhaps you've contemplated the idea that it might not be an exact science? Or, better yet, perhaps the Jedi simply had no reason to assume deception when the man speaking gives all demonstrable signs of honesty, transparency, and pacificity?

L
Don't apologize, because you're right.

This pleases me in ways you cannot begin to fathom in your Canadian...ness. uhuh

L
That's actually a great reason. But wouldn't it have been a lot more credible if someone in the film said that?

Not really.

I don't need Ric Olié to pop in and explain something that is as "fairly obvious" as Palpatine's manipulation of Jar Jar. excellent

L
Come back and pay Watto to free Shmi, thereby setting the Jedi's highest midichlorian student's mind to rest? Maybe at least try?

This is a character flaw intrinsic to the entirety of the Jedi order with few, if any exceptions. This is what dooms them: their doctrinal divorce of attachment. They underestimate Anakin's ties to his mother, his friends, and so on and pay the price. This is a recurring theme that the Jedi order as a whole attempts to separate itself from the plights of others, from Qui-Gon's initial refusal to fight the Queen's war to Mace's reminder to Palpatine that they're "keepers of the peace, not soldiers" to their passive assistance of Anakin's suffering in ROTS.

What this is not is a flaw in the writing. This is entirely consistent with the stoic, emotionally warped protectors that the Jedi have become.

L
And he had no reason to conclude that his 19 year old, obsessed Padawan wouldn't?

Not when the object of his desires so utterly spurned him and he had his years of a Jedi to draw on. Did he have reason to suspect? Sure, as anyone who properly understands these things would. But that's the problem, the Jedi had become so removed from emotion that their understanding of it was purely academic, a theme resonant in all three films.

L
A major galactic politician has almost been killed twice now. They got a bomb on her ship coming in, and poisonous bugs in her bed. You don't think that after she suddenly disappears the assassin might, just might... think of checking her home world? Either the Jedi Council don't care about Padme enough to try harder, or they're that stupid. Send her to some other, less obvious world. There's thousands of 'em.

It is not uncharacteristic to send a dignitary under security risks back to his or her nation.

L
How about, like all the Jedi on Coruscant?

You mean like how the U.S. mobilized all of its troops against Osama Bin Laden? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Adolf Hitler? Or Nixon?

L
How about getting Yoda back from Kashyyyk for a bit to deal with a Dark Lord? How about just confronting Palpatine in open space, in public? In the middle of the Senate? Let everyone in the galaxy hear your accusation, and let them all watch Palaptine's reaction.

Mace was convinced of the urgency to stop Palpatine immediately, believing he had the manpower and reason to do so. All of your options require waiting, which he had no reason to believe was the right thing to do.

But let's entertain your public hypotheticals. What would the idea that Palpatine is a Sith Lord mean to the public or the Senate? How would it constitute an indictment?

Furthermore, what would happen when the Jedi say to the public or to the Senate by way of explanation, "Well Count Dooku said a Sith Lord is controlling the Senate?"

Let's assume they don't laugh the Jedi away immediately for trusting Dooku and a few say, "To what end?"

"Why, to instigate the Clone Wars!"

"You mean the clone army? The Separatist droid army?"

"Yes, just the same!"

"You mean the clone army that was... ordered into creation by a Jedi Knight?"

"Uh..."

"Or the droid army that is being led by an ex Jedi Knight that you conveniently still trust despite his traitorous and secessionist aims?"

"Well, uh..."

"And you want to depose the democratically elected leader of the Republic and institute martial law based on that?"

"Yes- I mean, no... I mean..."

L
If he unleashes his powers, he's blown. If he runs, he's blown.

He very likely wouldn't do either. He'd have no need to.

L
If he denies, submit him to a midichlorian test.

Which determines only Force sensitivity, and then we're back to square one.

L
Just make it public, don't deal in secrets in the dead of night in isolated chambers.

The hilarity is that it doesn't matter. What you nor RLM seem to realize is that the Jedi were so utterly, thoroughly, and completely screwed the moment Palpatine took office. You can sit and play armchair politician all day and night (I'm a political science/sociology major and it's definitely fun to do), but in the realm of politics and public relations, Palpatine had them by their collective short and curlies.

Isn't it just cool how smart he is and how much better and more dangerous and more powerful and better acted and handsomer and better endowed he is than the Joker? haermm

L
Because that more critical assignment couldn't backfire in any way... *sigh* But I've already talked about that above.

😐

The potential for failure has been acknowledged both by me and Mace. If potential for failure constitutes stupidity, who on Earth with the exception of my glorious self could be considered intelligent?

L
Hey, how about they send Mace with him? Or one of those other guys on the Council who never get any lines? How about just sending more than one Jedi?

Didn't that one Jedi (and his army of clones) get the job done? I don't have a film copy of ROTS on hand and a youtube search has yielded nothing fruitful, but the script does depict Mace mentioning that the Jedi could only afford to send one Jedi per their strapped resources.

That was fun, but time consuming. Can we try to whittle the discussion down a bit by you openly conceding that I awesomely debunked many of the plot holes or inconsistent writing you perceive and swearing allegiance to me publicly and shamelessly?

To quote Megabyte, "I await your unconditional surrender."

excellent

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Isn't it just cool how smart he is and how much better and more dangerous and more powerful and better acted and handsomer and better endowed he is than the Joker? haermm

This isn't really a dig that works on anyone but me to my knowledge. I dunno why you keep bringing it up against LL.

PS, your rationalisations are fantastic btw. Keep it up! 👆

Nay, my child. The Canadian shares your passion for the Clown Prince of Crime.

ok

To be honest your defence of the prequels is kind of wierd considering you see them as flawed enough to attempt to completely rewrite them fixfic style. I mean, I dislike the prequels mainly because of the poor acting and bad directing, neither of which factors into your task. So essentially, Y so serious?

Srs, indeed. I'll get to a response a bit later. But yeah, I'm not understanding all the Joker references. I had a few avatars of him cause I enjoyed the character, but criticizing him doesn't bug me, just as criticizing Qui-Gon doesn't bug you.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Your desire to divorce the prequels from the originals notwithstanding, precedent for this has existed since 1983. Luke knew Sidious for all of ten minutes and nearly killed him and Vader at his urging, despite the fact that the Emperor was using the same "explicitly sinister and creepy voice." As Yoda alludes to in The Empire Strikes Back, the dark side relies on passions and is difficult to distinguish when one is in the throes of passion.

Compared to Luke's plight, Palpatine's rationalizations and Anakin's decision are infinitely more logical. Anakin and Dooku have a personal history of mutual dislike that culminated in the former losing a limb at the hands (lol) of the latter. But unlike Luke, there is no compassion at play here: Anakin has no reason to spare Dooku beyond Jedi doctrine. Worse, as Palpatine mentions, a Sith Lord is never truly unarmed.

It is hardly a stretch to see why someone whose judgment is clouded by the dark side commits a crime against a hated foe at the powerful urging of a trusted mentor.

So wait, you're saying that Luke being urged by the evil Emperor of the galaxy, Vader's master, and champion of the Dark Side... is the same as Anakin being urged by the leader of the good guys, Chancellor of the Republic, lover of democracy, friend to the Jedi? A trusted and valued mentor suddenly donning a overtly sinister and creepy voice and demanding you execute an unarmed man in cold blood (something totally out of left field and against the very beliefs of both the Jedi, a democratic system), something totally against his character, is not suspicious to you?

I honestly don't know if you're just f*cking with me now, or if your level of trusting is that off the chart.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
While Anakin is protecting or outright carrying two defenseless friends, one enfeebled by age and profession and the other one unconscious? Enemies that could potentially range from the pedestrian (battle droids and their upgrades) to outright dangerous (droidekas and MagnaGuards)?

Absolutely and I'm certain the carcasses of the Jedi Knights and Masters that littered the Geonosian arena would testify to the lethality of Separatist droids.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Not when the reasoning (impending battle droids) is sound and one is an expendable asset while the other is a VIP of unparalleled proportion.
Droids that literally were too stupid to pull the trigger, and that Obi-Wan just swatted aside like flies. Yeah, what a threat.

The droids are not the issue, and neither is the degree of sense in sacrificing Obi-Wan (personally, I'd be very tempted). My beef is with Palpatine just flat out urging Anakin to leave him to his death, without any hesitation or hint of remorse or regret. It was literally a "Dude, f*ck him" moment. This was preceded not a minute before by that incredibly suspicious execution order. Suspicious behaviour galore from a man who has not been shown to remotely act like that, and Anakin barely bats an eyelash. If the film gave us just one extra minute to better illustrate the severity of the situation, and show some false remorse from Palpatine--all would be fine.

Again, I'm not sure how you're rationalizing the complete lack of humanity from what is supposed to be a caring and compassionate man, and the complete lack of suspicion from Anakin.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Palpatine's knowledge of the Sith is not inherently suspicious nor does it make him a Sith Lord, particularly when Anakin lacks any other evidence of his true allegiance to corroborate it.
It is suspicious, Herb. Hell, as far as the movies have shown, no one except the Jedi even know of the Sith (an order that's supposed to be millenium-dead). The Chancellor, a normal, non-Jedi guy knowing about a Sith Legend and promises of power should cause any in-the-know Jedi to at least raise an eyebrow, or inquire as to how he came by the information. Honestly I can see Anakin rationalizing any suspicion away due to his situation (wife dieing and all that), but it should be showcased. A facial twitch of surprise or concern, an inquiry of some sort. But we're not given that.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
No, it was risky and desperate, which Mace openly acknowledges. But again, the reasoning was sound: Obi-Wan believed that Anakin's allegiance to the Jedi transcended his loyalty to Palpatine and Anakin was the only logical choice given his personal and professional closeness to Palpatine. Anakin had already been appointed his "personal representative" which would afford him much greater access to "the Chancellor's dealings", their friendship notwithstanding.

It would have been moronic had Anakin demonstrated that his loyalty to Palpatine outweighed his loyalty to the Jedi, turning risk into certainty. But he didn't. Worse for your argument yet, Anakin's loyalty to the Jedi was greater than his loyalty to Palpatine, hence Mace's subsequent visit to Palpatine's offices.

But his greater still was his devotion to Padme.

I know. I know all of this already. This all makes sense from a purely narrative perspective, which is probably how Lucas read it, and thought it would translate smoothly to the screen.

What I don't know is why Obi-Wan trusted Anakin. AotC and RotS have shown him to be impulsive, rash, arrogant, and obsessed with Padme. The character is clearly and openly admitted (by Obi-Wan) to be flawed. He has seen for himself the extent of Anakin's obsession with Padme--he "thought about her every day" for 10 years, he was willing to be kicked out of the Jedi Order (a point Obi-Wan himself brought up) for her. Yoda himself senses the emotional turmoil he was going through. He is an emotionally disturbed man who has also been haunted by dreams of his tortured mother. He is not to be trusted. Especially not with something so delicate and risky as spying on a powerful man that he respects, admires, and looks up to. A man he describes as "a mentor and a friend".

Obi-Wan vouched for this f*cked up boy to deal in espionage against a target the Council suspected of being involved with the Dark Side.

Stupid--retarded character. Not just Obi-Wan, the whole Jedi Council. Mace doesn't trust him, Yoda predicted "grave danger" from the get-go, he sensed his anguish on Geonosis. Yoda even goes on later to dish out some pithy platitudes to Anakin when he is openly and visually distraught about losing someone. Yoda doesn't even f*cking notice he's developed a deep attachment (to who, I could possibly wonder?).

Morons, the lot of them.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
I was being glib, if that wasn't clear.
It's hard to tell with you.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
The point flew over your head in your rush to separate real world politics (the basis by which we study this film's fictional politics) in order to save your argument.

What I am alluding to is real world motivations. The Jedi have no reason to doubt Palpatine's intentions because the film shows conclusively that he delayed the vote for the Military Creation Act to accommodate Padme and he vowed to continue negotiations instead of publicly advocating for militarization to crush the Separatists outright.

Hence my reference to real world politicians. We wouldn't assume that a real world politician had a militant agenda if his legislation geared towards cutting the defense budget, because then his actions work conversely to his aim.

The same applies here. Ostensibly, Palpatine has acted, privately and publicly, rhetorically and politically, as though he opposes the Military Creation Act. Thus they have no reason to suspect him.

That's a great eagle-eye perspective on the story. It's also not what I've been talking about. Plot intentions are nothing compared to character delivery.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
There is no mystery. The film explains that Sifo-Dyas was a Jedi Master who initiated the creation of a clone army and lied about approval from the Senate and the Council. The Kaminoan administrator even explained that Sifo-Dyas intended the army to be for the Republic.

His basis for doing so is not integral to the film, when an explanation already exists. The Battle of Naboo marked aggression from heavily militarized organizations like the Trade Federation and demonstrated Republic incompetence and helplessness to counter it.

That's another great reason.

Find it for me in the film, will you? Cuz as far as I've seen, Lucas is content to bring up a mysterious dead Jedi Master who went behind everybody's back to create an army of clones (which the audience already knows are going to be the Empire's army) and then was subsequently murdered (killed). No revelation, no exposition, no surprise beyond the initial report, no further mention.

If you don't get why that is an absolutely foolish thing to do in your film, then there's nothing more to be said.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
They... didn't. Luke stood there, without tears or any visible sign of surprise or anguish. Leia stood there, protested once, and by the time Han and Luke came to rescue her, she was back in full spirits. And no mention of Alderaan was made again, to my knowledge.

Stupid, stupid movie.

Wait... so you do get it? You actually do understand why that's important? Then what's with the rationalizing when the PT makes the same failure?

Just as a note, Luke did react. Not as much as a real person world, but the solemn look, the race back home, the worry in his voice, the resignation to join Ben for good---those were the reactions. And they were appropriate. The music helped.

Leia's another story. That one was a noticeable goof.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
So did the Jedi. They used an army built for by a known member of their order in a desperate situation against a well armed and large army of corporate entities that wanted to destroy the Republic. And when the time came that they discovered the truth, they tried to kill the one responsible.
What? No. I wasn't talking about reacting to the Separatists. I was talking about reacting to the Sifo-Dyas thing. Big mystery move of a decade-past and nothing ever came of it. As if Lucas just said "Oh well, the fans can think up their own reason later. Not my job to tell the story."

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Not true. Kenobi questioned the Kaminoans, who seemingly answered with full transparency. They ordered him to arrest Fett, who resisted, fled, and was later killed before questions could be answered. They made attempts clearly depicted within the film. The fact that they failed doesn't negate that.
That's very true. What did they do after that? Did they do something in the subsequent three years between movies? Did they ever discover the truth?

You have to get it through your head, it's not about what the characters know, it's about what the audience is given. We're never given an explanation on Sifo-Dyas. Not one thing. The movie may have tried to legitimatize that by killing off Fett, but it doesn't excuse the poor writing that went in to creating that thread for the viewer to follow in the first place. It left a sizable and important subplot totally unresolved. Piss poor writing on Lucas (or whoever's) part.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
But there isn't. Even Sifo-Dyas's motivation is quickly explained away: He built the army for the Republic to defend itself against an increasingly hostile galaxy.

You can complain the film erred in not providing a full detailed biography of Sifo-Dyas and vividly recounting his motivations either through dialogue or a flashback sequence, but the consistency of the narrative endures: The Jedi tried to investigate further and all known leads were terminated before any possible revelation was gleaned.

You can complain the film erred in not depicting the actual investigation. Nevertheless, it was addressed.

I've discussed the Sifo-Dyas mess enough. If you haven't understood by now, you never will.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
This speaks directly to my criticism of your entire argument: you possess certain knowledge as a member of the audience and expect the protagonists to share it. As I explained to you vividly with such resounding success that you haven't bothered to refute it, Palpatine's reputation is superb and all of his actions and speech reflect upon that.

Give me something other than "HE WAS SO OBVIOUSLY MANIPULATIVE!" as a basis for why they should have slapped handcuffs on Palpatine then and there. He covered his ass too well.

Perhaps you've considered the notion that your obvious and awe-inspiring expertise in the realm of vocal pedagogy and deception detection isn't shared by the rubes of society? Or perhaps you've contemplated the idea that it might not be an exact science? Or, better yet, perhaps the Jedi simply had no reason to assume deception when the man speaking gives all demonstrable signs of honesty, transparency, and pacificity?

The same honesty, transparency, and pacificity that was used when Palpatine demanded Anakin execute Dooku? Not an eyebrow was raised, nor a shit given by the Jedi that day.

It seems I was right about the viewer needing the ability to hear deceit and suggestive tones. McDiarmid and David Bowers injected their conversation with so much of it that it screamed at the audience "It's a trick!" Jar Jar falling for it is obvious, but the Jedi Master and fellow politicians (Bail Organa) not catching it is character induced stupidity employed to ensure a smooth transition for the plot. CIS is unfortunately necessary for many films, but when it's being used to cover up for something so overtly deceptive and leading as Palpatine and Amedda's talk, it just stands out like a sore thumb. Again, it's unfortunate that that wasn't just one fluke in the acting that the crew and editors missed. Lol, though it wasn't nearly as bad as Ewan McGregor's and Portman's god-awful "killing Younglings" talk.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Not really.

I don't need Ric Olié to pop in and explain something that is as "fairly obvious" as Palpatine's manipulation of Jar Jar. excellent

Of course not, we know how to rationalize and fill in the holes. But that's not our job, that's the film's. Anakin suddenly being allowed to train despite all the premonitions and danger signs the Council detected is something that requires explanation.

From the movie. They gave us an incredibly clumsy "OK, go ahead" from Yoda. But we never get a reason why. It's not that the audience is a pack of zombies with no brains who can't think of anything. It's that the character in the film doesn't seem to know. As if their personalities and characteristics have been left incomplete, or forgotten about. Yoda shows trepidation and deep concern at the implication of training Anakin, but they suddenly vanish-- literally within seconds. That kind of inconsistency and random behaviour stands out to me. A one or two minutes of extra dialogue between Obi-Wan and Yoda discussing the risks and merits, and ultimate necessity of keeping an eye on Anakin would have done nicely. And as an extra, it would have given their respective characters some much needed depth.

See it's not enough that an explanation can be given by the audience--that's not why we watch films. We're watching these characters go through a story and make choices. So when those same characters suddenly reverse a stance or position, it needs to be explained (preferably by that character). Otherwise, they just seem incomplete and hastily put together for the convenience of getting the plot on the desired bearings. That's exactly what happened to Yoda at the end of TPM, and it was extremely noticeable.

Son of a b*tch, that took up three posts.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
This is a character flaw intrinsic to the entirety of the Jedi order with few, if any exceptions. This is what dooms them: their doctrinal divorce of attachment. They underestimate Anakin's ties to his mother, his friends, and so on and pay the price. This is a recurring theme that the Jedi order as a whole attempts to separate itself from the plights of others, from Qui-Gon's initial refusal to fight the Queen's war to Mace's reminder to Palpatine that they're "keepers of the peace, not soldiers" to their passive assistance of Anakin's suffering in ROTS.

What this is not is a flaw in the writing. This is entirely consistent with the stoic, emotionally warped protectors that the Jedi have become.

Again, this a good reason that makes sense in the larger context. And to give proper credit where it's due, the films do hint at this a few times. It becomes a bit of a contradiction though when the films also make clear that it was attachment and "love" and Anakin's inability to let those things go that leads him to evil. That's another example of the shoddy writing: the messages are mixed-- a tad schizophrenic, even. On one hand we have what you just stated: passivity and detachment from emotion lead the Jedi to ruin by not understanding what Anakin is going through. On the other hand we have the reason for Anakin's ruin: passion, and attachment. Which is it? Which is the message the films are trying to impart? They try to do both and wind up doing neither.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Not when the object of his desires so utterly spurned him and he had his years of a Jedi to draw on. Did he have reason to suspect? Sure, as anyone who properly understands these things would. But that's the problem, the Jedi had become so removed from emotion that their understanding of it was purely academic, a theme resonant in all three films.
I think we're starting to repeat ourselves. See what I said just above, and in my first post somewhere.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
It is not uncharacteristic to send a dignitary under security risks back to his or her nation.
It is uncharacteristically stupid to send a galactic politician who has nearly been killed twice in as many days (in the heart of the Republic) back to the most obvious spot anyone can think of, and surround her with one Jedi Padawan who anyone (but especially his master) can see his obsessed with her. They did this so the audience could connect with a familiar setting (Naboo) and provide a romantic backdrop for the forced and rigid romance. Waterfalls and private paradise islands, anyone?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
You mean like how the U.S. mobilized all of its troops against Osama Bin Laden? Or Saddam Hussein? Or Adolf Hitler? Or Nixon?
That's 4-for-4, all dead. Looks like not sending in one guy to take a notorious slayer known for his cunning and penchant for running and hiding is underkill. Plot convenience to separate Obi-Wan and Anakin. Could have been pulled off smoothly by sending in other Jedi with Obi-Wan, like what Yoda had on Kashyyyk. Which is weird--Master Yoda got more than one Jedi to not fight Grievous, but Obi-Wan got squat? What a gyp.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Mace was convinced of the urgency to stop Palpatine immediately, believing he had the manpower and reason to do so. All of your options require waiting, which he had no reason to believe was the right thing to do.

But let's entertain your public hypotheticals. What would the idea that Palpatine is a Sith Lord mean to the public or the Senate? How would it constitute an indictment?

Furthermore, what would happen when the Jedi say to the public or to the Senate by way of explanation, "Well Count Dooku said a Sith Lord is controlling the Senate?"

I didn't bother with your hypothetical lines that the film didn't say.

Mace was convinced of the urgency? That explained the slow walk-and-talk with Anakin. I guess the urgency was supposed to be conveyed in his placid and bored-sounding voice. Ditto for Anakin.

See, it's great to simply quote what the movie wanted to imply, but if it didn't actually display it, then we've got a problem. Confronting Palpatine should have been very necessary, but when the films gives us characters who move and speak in ways that tell us otherwise, then why should we buy in to your belief that there's a semblance of quality on the screen?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
He very likely wouldn't do either. He'd have no need to.
Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Which determines only Force sensitivity, and then we're back to square one.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
The hilarity is that it doesn't matter. What you nor RLM seem to realize is that the Jedi were so utterly, thoroughly, and completely screwed the moment Palpatine took office. You can sit and play armchair politician all day and night (I'm a political science/sociology major and it's definitely fun to do), but in the realm of politics and public relations, Palpatine had them by their collective short and curlies.

Isn't it just cool how smart he is and how much better and more dangerous and more powerful and better acted and handsomer and better endowed he is than the Joker? haermm

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
😐

The potential for failure has been acknowledged both by me and Mace. If potential for failure constitutes stupidity, who on Earth with the exception of my glorious self could be considered intelligent?

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer
Didn't that one Jedi (and his army of clones) get the job done? I don't have a film copy of ROTS on hand and a youtube search has yielded nothing fruitful, but the script does depict Mace mentioning that the Jedi could only afford to send one Jedi per their strapped resources.

That was fun, but time consuming. Can we try to whittle the discussion down a bit by you openly conceding that I awesomely debunked many of the plot holes or inconsistent writing you perceive and swearing allegiance to me publicly and shamelessly?

To quote Megabyte, "I await your unconditional surrender."

excellent

I'm sorry to lump these lasts points together, but I got the distinct impression from the "Mace Confrontation" point just above that you're not getting it.

I'm okay with some story inconsistencies--those happen in every movie. It's the characters that are the ultimate downfall of the prequels. I really have nothing against a zany, wacky, misconstrued space story. But if the film's characters are just so stupid, so unbelievable, so poorly written and acted, then the film's bad. Characters make and break a movie, and the Star Wars prequels have some of the most unlikeable, unrelatable, un-intelligent, poorly acted, poorly written characters I have ever seen. That's not an exaggeration, I'm not posturing, they are that bad.

You've either chosen to be an antagonist to the typical perception and are rationalizing bad movies into acceptable ones to justify your position, or you're just that mixed up. Either way, the Prequel characters are still horrendous.

Originally posted by DARTH POWER
Better story, dialogue and acting? Well that's certainly down to opinion.

Nah. While LotR having a better story is opinionated, it objectively does have better dialogue and acting.

Totally. Frank Oz excepted.

1. Luke
2. Yoda
3. Anakin
4. Qui-Gon Jinn
5. Obi-Wan Kenobi

Mr. Spencer's eternal victory
[quote]L
I know. I know all of this already. This all makes sense from a purely narrative perspective,
L
That's a great eagle-eye perspective on the story. It's also not what I've been talking about. Plot intentions are nothing compared to character delivery.
L
That's another great reason.
L
That's very true.
L
Of course not, we know how to rationalize and fill in the holes.

L
Again, this a good reason that makes sense in the larger context. And to give proper credit where it's due, the films do hint at this a few times.
[/quote]

excellent

Mission accomplished.

N
PS, your rationalisations are fantastic btw. Keep it up! 👆

You and the Canadian please me with your extended praise of my rhetorical and analytical gifts.

N
To be honest your defence of the prequels is kind of wierd considering you see them as flawed enough to attempt to completely rewrite them fixfic style. I mean, I dislike the prequels mainly because of the poor acting and bad directing, neither of which factors into your task. So essentially, Y so serious?

Haven’t we had this discussion before? The crux of the issue for me is that I absolutely refuse to be shackled to my biases in such a way that I lose all perspective. When I watched TPM in 3D, I was absolutely insanely bored. It was the worst Valentine’s Day present ever. I complained via Facebook and ROK about how it nearly put me to sleep. But just because I wasn’t entertained doesn’t mean that the narrative/plot itself wasn’t consistent, interesting, and realistic—as Lucien mentions, there’s far more to a successful film than the written story and I wholeheartedly agree. Likewise, I watched TDK eight times in the cinema and was initially in absolute awe of it; but it is hardly a perfect film and so when I perceive flaws to exist within it, I don’t hesitate to point it out. It’s the same thing that kept me from giving Plagueis a perfect score, from completely trashing Revan, and so forth.
To borrow the Canadian’s phrase, it’s about “giving credit where it’s due.” I find the prequels to tell a much more ambitious, interesting, and nuanced tale than the originals. But I also believe the originals executed their relatively simplistic story much better.

A
Nah. While LotR having a better story is opinionated, it objectively does have better dialogue and acting.

Do tell.

Originally posted by Herbert Spencer

Do tell.

Um.... Pretty much common sense here.

Star Wars has cheesy dialogue and it's main cast, even Harrison Ford, didn't give any amazing performances. In fact, Mark Hamill's performance was rather painful at times.

Hahaha, I feel sorry for this Herbert Spencer guy. He got his ass kicked so hard he had to cop out. 313

ares834
Um.... Pretty much common sense here.

Common sense and critics are sources of inarguable objectivity? You guys crack me up. 😂

RE: Blaxican
Hahaha, I feel sorry for this Herbert Spencer guy. He got his ass kicked so hard he had to cop out.

Says the guy who said he'd show me the error of my ways pages ago only to flee in complete terror. haermm

LotR is better acted. Its fine if you think that the prequels were evocative masterpieces of acting and all, but you're kind of insane. I mean:

'No, no, you have lost!'

vs

'I might not be able to carry it for you Mr Frodo, but I can carry you!' (shut up i cried ok)